Agendas, reports and minutes

    Agenda

Minute of the meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee commenced at 10.30am in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 28 May, 2013

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford, Mr A Duffy, Mr J Ford, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird (Except Item 6), Mr B Lobban, Mr C Macaulay, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag, Ms J Slater, Mr H Wood

Officials in attendance:

Mr A Todd, Area Planning Manager South, Ms N Drummond, Team Leader, Mr A McCracken, Team Leader, Mr D Mudie, Team Leader, Mr J Danby, Principal Engineer, Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor, Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk),
Mrs P Bangor-Jones, Administrative Assistant, Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

Business

1.  Apologies
Leisgeulan

Apologies were received from Mrs M Davidson and Mr D Fallows.

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman then proposed, and members agreed, to take Items 6 and 7 first.

6.  Decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session

There had been circulated Report No. PLS-31-13 (28kb pdf) by Head of Planning and Building Standards and Head of Legal and Democratic Services, which provided a summary of the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session: Paul Bova and Carole Christie (Petitioners and Reclaimers) v The Highland Council (Respondents) and BDW East Scotland Limited (Interested Party).

Mrs Lyons, in response to questions, confirmed that no notification had been received of any further appeal to the Supreme Court and that the petitioners had six weeks from the date of the Inner House decision within which to do so.

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session to refuse the Petitioners’ Reclaiming Motion.

7.  Decisions on 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: Monument Leisure Ltd (Decision of the Reporter (258kb pdf))
Location: Drumossie Hotel, Inshes, Inverness IV2 5BE
Nature of Development: Extension and alteration of hotel to provide spa and leisure facility, additional bedrooms, conference centre, restaurant extension, conservatory, ancillary office and (in retrospect) retention of UPVC-coated steel windows on front elevation.

Mrs K Lyons invited members to note that these appeals against refusal of planning permission and listed building consent had been upheld.

By way of background, Mrs Lyons advised that in 2003, when the windows were installed without permission, Government guidance on enforcement was significantly different to the enforcement guidance available today. Although an Enforcement Notice was served on the owners, the emphasis was on negotiating a solution to the breach of planning control that had occurred. A solution was negotiated for the Drumossie windows (removing the windows from the front façade into a rear extension) albeit this was no implemented by the owners.

In the intervening period the economic climate had altered and Government enforcement policy had changed. The Government had since indicated that negotiations between the planning authority and the owner of land or property where a breach of planning control has occurred “should not be allowed to hamper or delay whatever formal enforcement action may be required to make the development acceptable on planning grounds, or compel it to stop”.  In addition, the enforcement armoury had been strengthened to assist planning authorities take effective enforcement action.

In relation to these appeals, Mrs Lyons advised that the Reporter’s conclusions were sound.  As was often the case with development there had been competing considerations to be weighed up.  In this case the competing considerations were conservation and economics. In his assessment of the applications under appeal the Reporter had taken into account these considerations, just as the Committee had done when it determined the applications.  However the Reporter had attributed greater weight to the economic arguments in support of retaining the windows in situ. The Reporter made clear in his conclusions that this was an on-balance decision.

Mrs Lyons asked members to note that these decisions had been issued just as the Council was investing in planning enforcement with 2 new posts being created.  To maximise successful enforcement, the emphasis would be on establishing clear objectives as to what the planning authority wished to achieve through enforcement action.

Finally, Mrs Lyons reminded members that while the planning authority could take enforcement action, it was often not the final decision maker on enforcement matters. For example enforcement notices could be appealed with appeals being determined by Scottish Government Reporters and, although non-compliance of breach of condition notices was a criminal offence, the decision whether or not to prosecute rested with the Procurator Fiscal. However, with the resources to produce a co-ordinated response, the planning authority would in future be in a much better position to achieve successful outcomes when breaches of planning control did occur.

During discussion Members made the following comments:-

    in light of the content of the report it would be advantageous to have an increased Enforcement Budget;
    the two additional enforcement posts were to be welcomed;
    the need for on-going discussion with the Procurator Fiscal’s Office should be recognised;
    there was a requirement to recognise the importance of economics in the decision making process; and
    an awareness that enforcement is a difficult area.

Thereafter, Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to allow both appeals.

3.  Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 23 April 2013 which were APPROVED.

4.  Major Applications

There had been circulated Report No.PLS-28-13 (135kb pdf) by the Head of Planning and Building Standards which provided a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category, currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.

The Committee agreed to NOTE the current position.

5.  Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

5.1
Applicant: Roslyn Oakes and Gary Fowler (13/01031/PIP) (PLS-29-13 (125kb pdf))
Location: Land 60 metres west of Lynvoan, Old Spey Bridge Road, Grantown-on-Spey (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Erection of house
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/029/13 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be refused for the reasons recommended in the report.

Mr A McCracken presented the report and recommendation.

During discussion Members commented that the proposed site was a suitable plot as it was located within a row of houses and therefore made a reasonable housing group.

In response to questions it was confirmed that the Planning Policy Guidance referred to was the Cairngorms National Park Supplementary Planning Policy Guidance.  It was also confirmed that there were special provisions in the Councillors’  Code of Conduct which enabled members of the Cairngorm National Park Authority to participate in a decision within the South Planning Applications Committee provided  they had taken no part in the deliberations within the Park Authority.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that planning permission be granted contrary to recommendation on the grounds that the application met the requirements of the Cairngorm National Park Local Plan Policy 21 because it was a site within a housing group.

Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr C Macaulay, moved as an amendment that planning permission be refused for the reasons recommended in the report.

On a vote being taken, twelve votes were cast in favour of the motion, four votes in favour of the amendment and one abstention as follows:-

For the Motion
Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Crawford, Mr A Duffy, Mr J Ford, Mr M Green, Mr D Kerr, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag

For the Amendment
Mr J Gray, Mr R Laird, Mr C Macaulay, Mrs J Slater

Abstention
Mr H Wood

The motion to GRANT planning permission accordingly became the finding of the meeting.  It was further agreed that delegated authority be given to the Area Planning Manager to impose appropriate conditions following consultation with local members.

5.2
Applicant: Ms Hazel Passmore (13/01362/FUL) (PLS-30-13 (528kb pdf))
Location: Land at Unit 3b 1, Smithton Industrial Estate, Smithton, Inverness, IV2 7WL (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Erection of industrial unit
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/030/13 by the Area Planning Manager South recommending that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Ms N Drummond presented the report and the recommendation.

During debate Members raised the following:-

    concern over the limited parking available within the industrial site;
    to alleviate parking problems would it be possible to utilise the land to the rear of the existing units;
    possible difficulties in finding a suitable bin and recycle storage area;
    the loss of the turning head to create further parking spaces would cause traffic management problems at a future date, and
    the need to ensure that the trees within the Culloden House designed landscape were not damaged in any construction work.

In response to questions Ms Drummond confirmed that:-

    it was not possible to create additional parking spaces to the rear of the existing units due to the gas tank sited there;
    the road had not been adopted by the Council and therefore TEC Services had had no input, and
    additional conditions could be included to meet concerns over the siting of the lamp post (if repositioning became necessary), parking spaces and fencing around the root protection area of the trees.

Following debate, Mr A Duffy, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the Committee refuse the application on the grounds that it would not be possible to accommodate sufficient parking and bin storage areas.

Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr T Prag, moved as an amendment that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report and three additional conditions to cover the following matters:

i. Root Protection Zone to be fenced off to ensure no damage to the trees
   prior to the commencement of construction or thereafter;
ii. location details to be provided prior to the removal and re-siting of lamp-
   post, and
iii.details of parking provision for the new unit to be submitted for approval
   prior to commencement of development.

On a vote being taken, four votes were cast in favour of the motion and thirteen votes in favour of the amendment as follows:-

For the Motion
Mr J Crawford, Mr A Duffy, Mr K Kerr, Mr R Laird

For the Amendment
Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Clark, Mr J Ford, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr B Lobban, Mr C Macaulay, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr T Prag, Mrs J Slater, Mr H Wood

The amendment to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and three additional conditions to cover the matters set out in the amendment accordingly became the finding of the meeting.