Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness, on Tuesday, 11 March 2014 at 10.35 am.

Present:

Mr T Prag, Mr G Farlow, Mr N Donald, Mr D Fallows, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Saxon

In Attendance:

Mr P Adams, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Mr T Prag in the Chair

1. Preliminaries

1.1 Webcasting

The Chairman confirmed that the meeting would be webcast, and gave a short briefing on the Council’s webcasting procedure and protocol.

1.2 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair.

1.3 Order of Items

In accordance with Standing Order 18, with the consent of the meeting, the Review Body AGREED to re-order the sequence of items, as set out in the minutes.  For ease of reference, in view of the number of changes made, these minutes also record at each item the original item number as used in the agenda.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 4.2 – Mr R Saxon (non-financial)
Item 4.3 – Mrs I McCallum (non-financial)
Item 4.4 – Mr N Donald (non-financial)
Item 6.1 – Mr D Fallows (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 16 January, 2014

The Minutes of Meeting held on 16 January, 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

4. (Agenda Item 5)
New Notices of Review to be Determined

The Clerk confirmed that, for all items on the agenda, Members had contained in their Booklets all information as supplied by all parties to the Notice of Review. Members needed to assess each application against the development plan and all relevant material considerations, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, and to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan.  Having carried out that assessment, Members needed to decide if the weight attached to material considerations added to or outweighed their assessment of the application against the development plan.

4.1 (Agenda Item 5.1)
Erection of 1 No. 1mw Wind Turbine with a Height to Tip of 80m, rotor Diameter of 60m, Height to Hub of 50m, Associated Access Track and Ancillary Development including Transformer Housing and Temporary Construction Compound on Land 700m NW of Lower Rumster, Lybster – Ventus Renewables Ltd, 13-00045 (RB-6-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00045-Ventus Renewables Ltd for the erection of a single Wind Turbine with a height to tip of 80m, rotor diameter of 60m and height to hub of 50m, associated access track and ancillary development including transformer housing and temporary construction compound, on land 700m North West of Lower Rumster, Lybster, for Ventus Renewables Ltd.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers), the Review Body discussed whether its requirement for information had  been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet B of the agenda papers.

Members were of the view that the visual information provided was not sufficient for the Review Body’s needs - it was difficult to tell from the information provided whether a site inspection was required.  Although there had been recent site inspections for wind turbine applications in Caithness, the site of the application contained a historical landmark and was in an area the Review Body had not previously visited.  In general, Members were minded that a site inspection would be required, and that this should take place as soon as practicable.

Further to Member comment relating to the importance of good quality visuals when determining applications for wind turbines, the Clerk advised that it was open to the Review Body to agree that, for future notices relating to wind turbines, a complete set of visuals (photographs, photomontages, graphics etc.) would be required as a set standard.  This could then be made clear to applicants and agents at the outset.

Decision

The merits of the application having not been discussed, the Review Body AGREED:

i.  to DEFER the Notice of Review pending an unaccompanied site inspection,
   this to be arranged to feed into the soonest possible meeting of the Review
   Body; and
ii. that, for all future notices relating to wind turbines, applicants and agents be
   requested to provide a complete set of visuals.

4.2 (Agenda Item 5.2)
Formation of Three House Plots at Merryton, Merryton Gardens, Nairn – Bochel, 13-00047 (RB7/14)

Declaration of Interest – Mr R Saxon declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he knew one of the objectors.  Having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, he concluded that his interest precluded his participation in this item.  Mr Saxon left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00047-Bochel for the formation of three house plots at Merryton, Merryton Gardens, Nairn, for Mr Bochel.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers), the Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet C of the agenda papers.  

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised that, for this item, Members were being asked to consider the necessity and reasonableness of the conditions imposed by the Planning Officer for widening and improving the road access.

In discussion, Members were of the view that the requirement to knock the wall down in order to widen the road and provide a pavement was excessive, given that there was not a lot of traffic on the road.  Whilst the condition requiring the road surface to be improved should remain, the widening could be achieved without knocking down the wall, by providing a shared vehicle/pedestrian surface, as happened in residential developments elsewhere in Highland.  Should any part of the wall need to be demolished, Members would prefer to see the stone re-used, but this would not be a requirement.  

The Review Body AGREED that, all other conditions remaining unchanged, conditions (2iii), (2iv) and (4) be revised as follows:

i.   condition (2iii) to be amended to take account of the Review Body’s views
    that the condition of the road should be improved to a good standard, the
    detail of this to be determined by TECS and Planning Officers in consultation
    with the Chair; and that, rather than increasing the road width by
    demolition of the stone wall, a shared surface be provided which would
    accommodate vehicles and pedestrians, with a clearly marked out
    pedestrian area;
ii.  condition (2iv) to be amended to accord with the new terms of condition
    (2iii), including reflecting that the stone walls on the site should be retained
    as far as practicable; and that, if any part of a stone wall had to be
    demolished, the stone should be re-used if reasonably practicable; and
iii. condition (4) to be amended to accord with the new terms of condition
    (2iii) as above, with occupation of the houses on plots 1 & 2 not permitted
    until the revised road improvements were in place.   

4.3 (Agenda Item 5.3)
Erection of Croft House at Deer Park, Woodland Croft, Knockmuir, Avoch – Munro Harvesting, 13-00050 (RB-8-14)

Declaration of Interest - Mrs I McCallum declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was a local Member for Ward 10, Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mrs McCallum left the Chamber for this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00050-Munro Harvesting for the erection of a croft house at Deer Park Woodland Croft, Knockmuir, Avoch, for Munro Harvesting.

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers).

Decision

At the suggestion of the Chairman, and having heard the Independent Planning Adviser explain that a number of Council Policies and Supplementary Guidance were relevant to the application but were not contained in the documentation, the Review Body AGREED to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow further information on Policies and Supplementary Guidance to be provided.  The merits of the application were not discussed.

4.4 (Agenda Item 5.4)
Erection of New Dwellinghouse and Associated Works at Loch Earn, 165 Culduthel Road, Inverness – Mrs Uzonoglu, 13-00051 (RB-9-14)

Declaration of Interest – Mr N Donald declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was a local Member for Ward 16, Inverness Ness-Side, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mr Donald left the Chamber for this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00051-Uzonoglu for the erection of a new dwelling house and associated works at Loch Earn, 165 Culduthel Road, Inverness, for Mrs Uzonoglu.  

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers), the Review Body discussed whether its requirement for information had  been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet E of the agenda papers.

Decision  

Members were of the view that the information contained within the documentation did not provide a clear view of the house in the context of the surrounding area.  Concerns were also raised as to the currency of the visuals, there being some question as to whether there had been changes to the trees. As Google Earth might not show such recent changes, the Review Body AGREED:

i.  to DEFER the Notice of Review pending a site inspection, this to be
   arranged to feed into the soonest possible meeting of the Review Body; and
ii. to delegate to officers the decision as to whether the site inspection should
   be accompanied or unaccompanied.

The merits of the application were not discussed.

5. (Agenda Item 4)
Notices of Review Previously Considered

5.1 (Agenda Item 4.1)
Erection of House on land 200m West of Milness Cottage, Corrimony, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit, IV63 3TW – Akeroyd, 13-00036 (RB-5-14)

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00036-Wilson for the erection of House on land 200m West of Milness Cottage, Corrimony, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit IV63 3TW, for Mr Akeroyd.

Preliminaries

The Clerk confirmed that, at its meeting on 28 November 2013, the Planning Review Body had agreed to defer consideration of this Notice of Review to its next appropriate meeting to allow the following additional information to be sought and provided:

i.   clearer information from Transport Environmental and Community Services
    (TECS) as to the existing visibility splays and the positions of the entrance
    and barrier referred to in the papers;
ii.  whether there were any rules as to how close a new access could be to
    existing accesses;
iii. clarification as to how the plans related to the photographs; and
iv. use of Streetview.

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers), the Review Body discussed whether its requirement for information had  been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet A of the agenda papers.

With reference to (i) above, the Clerk advised that a response from TECS had not been received until after the publication of Booklet A.  Members were advised that, should the Review Body decide to consider the TECS response as part of the documentation, the Notice of Review would need to be deferred to allow the applicant to respond to the comments made by TECS.  Confirmation having been given that the applicant had provided annotations to the photographs as requested, the Review Body AGREED to consider the review without reference to the TECS response.  

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised that previous planning permission for the housing site had lapsed and the standards for access to new developments had subsequently changed: the proposed access no longer met the required visibility standards.  As various alternative access arrangements suggested by both TECS and the applicant had proved not workable, Members were asked to consider only the proposed access as set out in the planning application and to evaluate this in relation to current visibility standards and associated legislation.

The Independent Planning Adviser provided a detailed explanation of the visibility standards and the conditions under which the standards could be relaxed: an applicant could demonstrate the normal speed of traffic by carrying out a practical drive-past assessment, but, should there be disagreement between the applicant and officers over figures, a professional traffic speed survey was required.

Points raised in discussion included that:

• notwithstanding that there were many existing accesses that did not meet the new standards, and accidents had not occurred, the Review Body must nonetheless apply the current standards in the interests of road safety
• it was difficult for motorists to judge the speed of oncoming vehicles, especially around corners – road safety was of paramount importance 
• standards must be applied uniformly – there was some question as to whether the new industrial access highlighted within the papers met the required criteria 
• the access fell a good way short of the required visibility splays for a 60mph road; the Review Body must therefore refuse the appeal unless it could be shown that the speed of  traffic at that location was generally nearer 40mph – in fairness, the applicant should be given the chance to carry out an appropriate traffic survey, this to be conducted in the busier summer months 
• it was important that any requirement to carry out a traffic survey be reasonable and not too costly
  

The Review Body AGREED to DEFER the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow the applicant to arrange a traffic counter survey, the specifics and technical advice to be delegated to officers prior to making the request to the applicant.

The Review Body NOTED that the Chairman would raise with the Service Director the issue of the delay in receiving the information requested from TECS.

6 (Agenda Item 5)
New Notices of Review to be Determined (continued)

6.1 (Agenda Item 5.5)
Replacement of Windows and Shop Header at Monadliath, Main Street, Newtonmore, PH20 1DD – Harris Tweed Shop, 14-000002 (RB-10-14)

Declaration of Interest – Mr D Fallows declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was a local Member for Ward 21, Badenoch and Strathspey, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mr Fallows left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00002-Harris Tweed Shop for replacement windows and shop header at Monadliath, Main Street, Newtonmore PH20 1DD, for the Harris Tweed Shop.

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers).

Decision

Members were of the view that they did not have sufficient information to determine the Review. The merits of the application having not been discussed, the Review Body AGREED to DEFER the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow a statement to be sought from the applicant as to the reasons why he believed the application was not contrary to Council policy.

The meeting ended at 11.45 a.m.