Agendas, reports and minutes

Committee Members Present:

Mrs I Campbell (excluding item 5.1), Mr D Bremner, Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr M Finlayson, Mr D MacKay, Mrs A MacLean (excluding items 1 – 5.1, Mrs I McCallum, Mr D Millar (excluding Items 5.1 and 7.1), Mrs M Paterson, Mr G Phillips (excluding items 5.1 and 6.6 – 7.1), Mr I Renwick, Mr A Rhind (excluding items 5.1, 6.4, 6.5 and 7.1), Mrs A Sinclair,  Mrs G Coghill (substitute).

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Mackenzie, Legal Manager (Regulatory Services) and Clerk
Mr D Jones, Area Planning Manager North
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader, Development Management
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr C Kemp, Area Roads and Community Works Manager
Mr C Stewart, Area Roads and Community Works Manager
Mr S Grant, Principal Technician
Mr J Bromham, Aquaculture Development Officer
Mr S Turnbull, Coastal Planning Officer
Mr R Fraser, Environmental Health Officer
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

Business

Mrs Isobel McCallum in the Chair

The Chairman confirmed that the meeting would be filmed and broadcast over the
Internet on the Highland Council website and would be archived and available for
viewing for 12 months. 

1. Apologies
Leisgeulan

Apologies were intimated on behalf of Mr C Fraser and Ms M Smith.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 6.1 – Ms G Coghill (non-financial interest due to having signed a petition before being elected as a Councillor).
Item 6.2 – Mr G Farlow (non-financial interest as he is a Director of the Isle Martin Trust and of Wester Ross Fisheries).

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 9 and 17 September 2013 which were APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLN-089-13 (117kb pdf) by the Head of Planning and Building Standards providing a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination. 

The Committee NOTED the Report.

5. Continued Items
Cuspairean a' Leantain

5.1  Applicant:  Whirlwind Renewables (13/01190/FUL) (PLN-090-13 Part 1 (1735kb pdf) | PLN-090-13 Part 2 (473kb pdf))
Location:  West of Mybster Farm, Spittal, Watten, Caithness (Achlachan Wind Farm) (Ward 4)
Nature of Development:  Wind farm (5 wind turbines) with potential capacity of 10 mw. 
Recommendation:  Grant

Mrs I Campbell, Mr D Millar, Mr G Philips, and Mr A Rhind did not take part as they had not attended either the site inspection on the 9 September 2013 or the meeting of 17 September 2013 and left the room.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/090/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application. 

Mr K McCorquodale confirmed that the hub height had been amended from 115 metres to 110 metres and the use of internal transformers had been agreed with the applicant.   Additional conditions relating to construction and environmental process and making clear that road construction consent was required had been added to the Report.  The applicant had confirmed the financial interest relevant to the closest 10 properties. Agreement had been reached between them and the developer and they were content for the project to progress. 

Members had the following questions:

• With reference to the Habitat Management Plan over the burn, was there a possibility of filtration of water and who would undertake the sampling and testing.
• What would happen if there was a noise issue or shadow flicker with the cumulative effect of the turbines, who made the decision on which turbines to switch off?
• In the assessment of these applications how much weight should members give to renewable energy targets?  A sizeable wind farm had recently been paid compensation to shut off their turbines either due to lack of demand or because the grid couldn’t cope. 
• Could clarification be given with regard to the definition of a Stage 2 “area of constraint”?
• There had been a lot of complaints regarding noise at the existing Causewaymire wind farm; wind farms should be further away from houses.
• Tree cover as most trees had a lifespan of 25 years and the existing tree cover would change;
• Condition 5 was unclear; could it be reworded to state that the Committee would prefer internal transformers.

Mr McCorquodale stated that the water sampling and testing would be monitored and managed by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH, SEPA and the local Fishery Boards.  The construction and environmental document detailed exactly how the construction works would be carried out and the authorities used this to look at possible pollution.  If these agencies are content the application progresses if not the application would be amended and the developer would be asked to amend their processes.  The development would not be working near to the burn and the developer was required to employ an Ecological Clerk of Works to look at any special interests in and around the site. thus, the burden was on the developer.   In relation to the noise and shadow flicker for adjacent properties, the two relevant properties were both uninhabited.   In terms of noise the application was complicated to assess but it worked on a first come first serve basis.   If the turbines were making undue noise then the systems were failing and it was in the best interests of the developer to avoid this.  In the case of shadow flicker on the road, no issues of concern have been highlighted by the roads department.  There had been considerable growth in windfarms both off and on shore and the existing grid network had been under strain but there was a huge programme to improve over the next few decades.   On the issue of targets, the Scottish Government had strong ambitions for renewable energy in the Highlands.  The targets are there to promote development but they are not to be seen as a cap on development proposals within the area. 

Category one areas have been highlighted where it would be very difficult to achieve approval due to, for example, National Parks and Scenic areas status.  Area 2 relates to possible issues within 2 km of a community and these would need to be addressed fully and this developer has done this.  The Environmental Health Officer was content that noise could be kept at an acceptable level.  There had been no formal complaints about Causewaymire wind farm in regard to noise.  The proximity to nearby houses had been listed in the papers.  With regard to tree cover, yes the area around the development would change in time as trees were cropped.   The developer had stated that they would use internal transformers and the condition would be amended by deletion of the second paragraph. 

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mr G Farlow moved approval of the recommendation.

Mr D Bremner, seconded by Mr D MacKay moved as an amendment that the application be refused for the following reason:

The application has significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Spittal, Mybster and Westerdale area this in particular regard to the cumulative impact along with Causewaymire and the consented Halsary application in the more immediate locality and along with Causewaymire, Camster, Achairn, Watagar 1 and 2, Lexhill and consented Halsary application in the wider area.  This also in regard to the impact on views of the Caithness hills and the visual amenity of the Caithness flows SPA.

On a vote being taken using the electronic voting system, votes were cast as follows:-

For the Motion (5)

Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mrs I McCallum, Mr I Renwick and Dr A Sinclair.

For the Amendment (5)

Mr D Bremner, Mrs G Coghill, Mr M Finlayson, Mr D MacKay and Mrs M Paterson.

There being an equality of votes, the Chair had the casting vote and voted with the motion.  The motion therefore became the finding of the meeting and the Committee AGREED to approve the application subject to the conditions as recommended with condition 5 amended by deleting the second sentence.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

Mrs G Coghill declared a non-financial interest in the following item 6.1 as she had signed a Petition opposing the application before she had been elected as a Councillor and left the meeting while the application was determined.

6.1  Applicant:  Infinergy Limited – Limekiln Wind Farm (12/04781/S36) (PLN-091-13 (1470kb pdf))
Location:  Land 1137 m South of Creag Leathern, Limekilns Estate, Reay, Caithness (Ward 4)
Nature of Development:  Wind farm (24 turbines) with a potential capacity of 75 mw.  A mix of turbine sizes is proposed with maximum tip heights of 139 m (11 turbines) and 126 m (9 turbines) together with associated infrastructure
Recommendation:  Raise no Objection.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/091/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the Committee raise no objection to the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Members debated whether to hold a site visit for this application.

Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mr B Fernie moved that the application be determined with no site visit.

Mr D MacKay, seconded by Mr D Bremner moved as an amendment that the application be determined following a site visit.

On a vote being taken using the electronic voting system, votes were cast as follows:-

For the Motion (7)

Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mrs A MacLean, Mrs I McCallum, Mr I Renwick, Mr A Rhind and Dr A Sinclair.

For the Amendment (6)

Mr D Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr M Finlayson, Mr D MacKay, Mrs M Paterson and Mr G Phillips.

The Committee AGREED to determine the application without a site visit. 

Mr K McCorquodale advised that the Report should read 15 turbines at 126 m and not 11 as stated.  Mr McCorquodale pointed out that there was to be compensatory tree planting of 52 hectares which would be done locally or in the vicinity.  This was in the Report but unfortunately had not been followed through with a condition.

Members had the following concerns and points:

• If approved can there be a compensatory planting condition?
• In relation to viewpoint 17 is there a set distance that the turbines would need in relation to the height of the turbine for clearance?
• Although this application was a good example of wind and biomass energy working together it was a shocking application visually.    The turbines would be too close to the villages.
• This application appeared to have been shoehorned between restricted sites and it was of such a vast scale that the landscape did not have the capacity to accommodate this application.
• Caithness was noted for its flat and featureless landscape and this should be what you see when you enter Caithness.  This was located next to a well-planned beautiful village where the wind farm would become the prominent feature dominating the landscape and giving no respite on the A836 road from wind turbines. 
• The detrimental impact on the landscape due to the sheer size of the turbines was unacceptable. 
• The concerns from SNH relating to the Caithness Lochs SPA with the effects on geese especially;
• The detrimental impact on people living in the area with the run-down of Dounreay and the loss of jobs in the area.

Mr McCorquodale confirmed that there was to be compensatory planting and a condition would be added to reflect this.  The distance between the turbines was a key issue and the Construction Plan would determine the distance and the height required above the tree canopy.

Mr D Bremner, seconded by Mr G Phillips moved that the committee raise an objection to this application for the following reasons:

“The application is contrary to the Highland wide Local Development Plan (Policy 67) in that there would be a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity and landscape character of the area. This is due to:

• the size of the turbines and the effect upon the village of Reay and the wider area;
• the cumulative impact on the area when considered along with Forss I and II and Baillie wind farms;
• the impact on the A836 tourist route between Thurso and Tongue;
• the effect on the Caithness Lochs SPA.”

There being no amendment, the motion became the finding of the meeting that an objection be raised to the application.

Mr G Farlow declared a non-financial interest in item 6.2 following as he was a Director of the Isle Martin Trust and of Wester Ross Fisheries and left the meeting while the application was determined.

6.2  Applicant:  Wester Ross Fisheries Limited (13/01494/FUL) (PLN-092-13 (1322kb pdf))
Location:  Loch Kanaird, Eastern side of Isle Martin (Ward 6)
Nature of Development:  Marine Fish Farm – Atlantic Salmon – Alterations to existing site to create single group of 46 square steel pens each 15 m x 15 m and allow for the installation of an automated feed barge  
Recommendation:  Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/092/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

Members had the following concerns:

• the location and proximity of Kanaird to a Special Area of Conservation;
• the bad record of husbandry and sea lice in this sheltered inland loch was much worse than at other sites;
• the reason for the change from round cages to square cages;
• the noise level associated with the automatic feed barges. 
• the agreed method of site management which had not been detailed in the conditions.
• that ten years was considered too long a period between monitoring of the sea lice.

Mr J Bromham agreed to add an additional condition on the method of site management.  The ram cages are now the industry standard and allow for empty cages to be air dried and for the fish to swim from one cage to another, this is not possible with round cages.   The site would be monitored regularly during the ten years of the approval, the applicant would have to monitor and report on sea lice regularly during that time.  Planning permission for ten years gives the Council a chance to reconsider the potential risk of sea lice.  A Reporter on appeal had deemed four years to be too short a period for the applicant to operate.  Mr Bromham also agreed to the additional condition on noise. 

The Committee AGREED to grant the application, subject to the conditions as recommended including a additional conditions relating to noise and improved site management to be agreed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards in consultation with the local members present and, if necessary, the Chair.

6.3  Applicant:  Major J Whitelaw (13/01882/FUL) (PLN-093-13 (673kb pdf))
Location:  Land to South of Cul mor, Jamestown, Strathpeffer (Ward 6)
Nature of Development:  Formation of two serviced house plots  
Recommendation:  Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/093/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

Members had the following concerns:

• flooding issues, although the increase in size of the culvert had already alleviated some problems;
• road safety in relation to the lack of pathway from the church to the main road;
• Jamestown had been said to have reached saturation point, other applications had been turned down because of the access road;
• Was the land for the footpath in the ownership of the applicant?
• there was an existing Section 50 Agreement on this area and the building was protected, would the Section 50 have to be removed;
• was the path to be constructed over the culvert?
• Should a passing place be considered for the increased traffic?

Mr D Jones advised that condition 5 covered the requirement  to accommodate pedestrians and this would enable a degree of refuge on the road.  The road would be delineated from the Old Manse up to the junction with the main road.  The capacity of Jamestown had been noted and further infill would be limited.  A recommendation had been made that the culvert be increased from 300 mm to 600 mm and the applicant had accepted the advice. The land for the footpath was in the applicant’s control.  The terms of the Section 50 had been a common practice at the time but were now considered to be inappropriate with all applications being considered on their merits.  If the application was approved the applicant would require to have the Section 50 Agreement discharged.  TECS had not requested a passing place as the shared access with service bay would double as a passing place.

Mr S Grant confirmed that the path would be built above the culvert.

The Committee AGREED the recommendation.

6.4  Applicant:  Kishorn Port Limited (13/02272/FUL) (PLN-094-13 Part 1 (1902kb pdf) | PLN-094-13 Part 2 (1547kb pdf) | PLN-094-13 Part 3 (1619kb pdf) | PLN-094-13 Part 4 (1803kb pdf) | PLN-094-13 Part 5 (1860kb pdf) | PLN-094-13 Part 6 (1610kb pdf) | PLN-094-13 Part 7 (1636kb pdf) | PLN-094-13 Part 8 (1607kb pdf) | PLN-094-13 Part 9 (809kb pdf))
Location:  Land at Kishorn Base, Kishorn (Ward 6)
Nature of Development:  Extension of existing construction/fabrication yard, including construction of concrete gravity bases, for energy sector, extension of existing quarry, site engineering works, siting of concrete batching plants and erection of industrial buildings
Recommendation:  Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/094/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

Member had the following points:

• this development had been part of a Master Plan that had been submitted in the Spring of 2012.  Two public events had been held, an Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out and extensive discussions had taken place between Highland Council, Marine Scotland and the relevant consultees.  The existing dry dock was still utilised.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees;
• in the Local Plan it was noted that access by sea would be preferable;
• measures had been undertaken to avoid water pollution;
• the development would provide capital investment for our roads and much needed employment in the area and reference was also made to the Stromeferry bypass which was currently in the planning stage;
• the development was unlikely to affect the tourist trade, the natural beauty of the area would remain;
• there was a robust Environmental Survey and members were pleased to see a local Liaison Group which would work through any issues as they arose;
• the Traffic Assessment and Management Plan which would work towards minimisation of traffic concerns at peak times;

Mr G Phillip noted that the traffic would be substantial and this development equated to the traffic for a similar amount of people at Nigg which was not yet at full capacity.  Mr Phillip outlined the three possible options for the Stromeferry bypass.  It would be advantageous for the Council to liaise with the applicants to find the best route forward for the Stromeferry bypass from Garve to Kyle with reference to this development at Kishorn if it was to be approved.  Mr Phillip noted that there was to be a traffic assessment prior to the commencement of the development and this would assist with the development of the road network.  He stated that this assessment was required now to feed into the STAG assessment and asked if conditions could be amended to accommodate this. 

Mr D Jones noted the reference to the Stromeferry bypass but stated that it could be a year or 18 months before the traffic assessment was known.  The applicant might be happy to assist, although it could be some considerable time before this was fully available, they might be able to give an indication.

The Committee AGREED:

1. To grant subject to the conditions as recommended with the following changes:

• identification of work zones to be clarified in condition 2;
• refer to work zones in condition 10;
• in condition 23 insert “operational” before “noise”;
• an additional condition (24) prohibiting the use of high pitched tonal reversing alarms;
• in condition 27 (now 28) refer to the 15 year time limit;

all to be drafted by the Area Planning Manager in consultation with the local members present and, if necessary, the Chair.

2. To request that the applicant volunteer information regarding traffic assessment and traffic management now.

6.5  Applicant:  Kishorn Port Limited (13/02273/PIP) (PLN-095-13 (1923kb pdf))
Location:  Land at Kishorn Base, Kishorn (Ward 6)
Nature of Development:  Erection of workforce accommodation, associated welfare facilities and formation of vehicle parking area 
Recommendation:  Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/095/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

The Committee AGREED to grant subject to the conditions as recommended with identification of work zones to be clarified in condition 2.

6.6  Applicant:  Caledonian Forestry (13/02308/PIP) (PLN-096-13 (516kb pdf))
Location:  Land 200 m West of Heatherview, Fearn (Ward 8)
Nature of Development:  Erection of house
Recommendation:  Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/096/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

The Committee AGREED the recommendation.

6.7  Applicant:  Wildlife Sealife and Countryside Trust (13/02352/FUL) (PLN-097-13 (437kb pdf))
Location:  Land 40 m North of 19 Chanonry Point, Ness Road, Fortrose (Ward 10)
Nature of Development:  Retention of research unit building and weather surveillance pole  
Recommendation:  Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/097/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. 

The Committee AGREED the recommendation.

6.8  Applicant:  Dunnet Bay Distillers Limited (13/03091/FUL) (PLN-098-13 (437kb pdf))
Location:  Land 70 m North of Northern Sands Hotel, Dunnet (Ward 4)
Nature of Development:  Erection of micro distillery and office  
Recommendation:  Grant.

There had been circulated Report No PLN/098/13 by the Area Planning Manager recommending the grant of the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

The Committee AGREED the recommendation.

7. Decisions of Appeals to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas na h-Alba airson Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh agus Àrainneachd

7.1  Applicant:  Mr Matheson (13/02526/FUL and 13/02527/LBC)
Location:  Sydney House, 12 High Street, Cromarty 
Nature of Development:  Erection of conservatory extension to house (Planning Permission) (Listed Building Consent)

Members NOTED that a Notice for Review and an Appeal had been lodged against the refusal of planning permission and listed building consent for the erection of a UPVC conservatory for this listed building.

7.2  Applicant:  Mr Alpin MacDonald (13/00624/FUL) (PLN/057/13)
Location: Land 50 m SE of 4 Swordale Cottages, Evanton
Nature of Development: Erection of 3 houses and 3 garages

Mr D Jones further commented that an appeal had been submitted by Mr Alpin MacDonald for Swordale against the conditions that had been imposed at Committee. 

There being no further business the meeting closed at 3.35 pm.