Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 at 10.30am.

Present at the site inspection, 13 June 2014 at 11.30 a.m. (Item 5.1 below refers):

Mr T Prag; Mr N Donald; Mr D Fallows; Mr G Farlow; Mrs I McCallum; Mr R Saxon.

In Attendance:

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

Present at the scheduled meeting, 18 June 2014:

Mr T Prag; Dr D Alston; Mrs I Campbell; Mr N Donald; Mr D Fallows; Mr G Farlow; Mrs I McCallum; Mr R Saxon.

In Attendance:

Mr P Adams, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Mr K McCorquodale, Planning Adviser/Principal Planner
Mr S Taylor, Administration Assistant.

Mr T Prag in the Chair

Preliminaries

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

The Chairman welcomed Dr D Alston to his first meeting as a Member of the Planning Review Body.

Business

1. Apology for Absence

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Dr A Sinclair.

2.  Declarations of Interest 

Item 6.1 – Dr D Alston and Mrs I McCallum (non-financial)

3.  Minutes of Meeting of 24 April, 2014

The Minutes of Meeting held on 24 April 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

4.  Criteria for Determination of Notices of Review

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.

The Clerk also confirmed that Google Earth and Streetview could be used during the meeting; Members were reminded of the potential limitations of using these systems in that images may have been captured a number of years ago and may not reflect the current position.

5.  Notices of Review Previously Considered

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 & Ancillary Development including Transformer Housing and Temporary Construction Compound on Land 700m North West of Lower Rumster, Lybster - Ventus Renewables Ltd, 13-00045 (RB-17-14)

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review No. 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 & ancillary development including transformer housing and temporary construction compound, on land 700m North West of Lower Rumster, Lybster, for Ventus Renewables Ltd.

Site Inspection – 13 June 2014

This application had been deferred from 11 March 2014 to allow a site inspection to be undertaken. The Review Body had held an unaccompanied site inspection on Friday, 13 June 2014, at which the Chairman had explained that the purpose of the site inspection was to allow Members to gauge the impact of the turbine on visual receptors, the landscape and on The Corr, a nearby historic building with listed status.  The site inspection had viewed the site from a number of locations around the proposed development site.  At each stop, with reference to the photomontages provided by the applicant, the Independent Planning Adviser had pointed out physical features relevant to the application. 

Prior to concluding the site inspection, the Chairman had ascertained that Members were satisfied that they had gained a sufficient impression of the visual and landscape context of the site, and The Corr.

Scheduled Meeting – 18 June 2014

Preliminaries

Dr D Alston and Mrs I Campbell did not take part in this item as they had not attended the site inspection on 13 June 2014.

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 A of the agenda papers, and by the site inspection.

Debate and Decision

The Chairman summarised that the main issues for Members to consider were: location; visibility; the fact that it was a single large turbine; cumulative/sequential issues; and historical/cultural issues in relation to The Corr.

Prior to discussion, the Independent Planning Adviser provided advice on the relevance to the Review Body’s deliberations, of two recently released documents:  a report by consultants for the Council on Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment of Wind Energy in Caithness, which had been considered at the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee on 14 May 2014, was currently out for consultation and did not have material status; the Scottish Government Policy Paper released on 14 March 2014, entitled “Our Place in Time” and which placed an increased emphasis on protecting Scotland’s cultural heritage, should be borne in mind.

Maps showing the locations of large scale operational, approved and scoped wind energy developments in Caithness were displayed.  The Independent Planning Adviser advised that there were also smaller scale turbines along A99, which were not shown.  In response to a question, the position of housing in the vicinity of the site was also shown.

In discussion, Members gave consideration to a range of issues, including: cumulative impact, - the site was in a relatively turbine-free stretch of countryside but there were other man-made structures, such as the Rumster mast, nearby; landscape and topography, in terms of the general impact of single large turbines on a fairly flat landscape, and of the visual impact of the proposed turbine both from the A9 and generally, the site being in a small glen; the proximity of housing; and the degree to which the turbine would impact on The Corr, there being other man-made structures nearby, and the extent to which the turbine would be seen by visitors to The Corr, should the site be restored in future.

In response to other issues raised, the Chair clarified that the planning history of the application, and hypothetical changes to the application, were not relevant to the Review Body’s determination of the Notice of Review.  He also confirmed that should the Review Body be minded to uphold the Review, the tree planting offered by the applicant would need to be included in conditions attached to the planning permission.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr N Donald, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED, on the grounds as set out in the Appointed Officer’s decision notice. As an amendment, Mr D Fallows, seconded by Mr G Farlow, moved that the Notice of Review be UPHELD, subject  to conditions including in relation to mitigation of tree planting, on the basis that the proposals were not contrary to policies 57 and 67 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and would neither have significantly detrimental visual impacts nor be significantly detrimental to the surrounding landscape in the setting of Category A Listed Building “The Corr” and the Scheduled Monuments; it would also not have a significantly detrimental accumulative visual impact when viewed alongside operational and consented windfarms.

There being no further amendments, the matter was put to the vote with votes being cast as follows:

Motion (3): Mr T Prag, Mr N Donald and Mrs I McCallum

Amendment (3): Mr D Fallows, Mr G Farlow and Mr R Saxon

Abstentions (0)

There being an equality of votes, the Chairman gave the casting vote in favour of the Motion.

The Review Body therefore DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the Appointed Officer’s decision notice.

5.2 Erection of House on land 200m West of Milness Cottage, Corrimony, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit, IV63 3TW – Akeroyd, 13-00036 (RB-18-14)

Dr D Alston and Mrs I Campbell did not take part in this item as they had not been present at the meeting held on 11 March 2014, where initial consideration had been given to this Notice of Review.

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

The application had been deferred from 11 March 2014 to allow the applicant to arrange a traffic counter survey.

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 B of the agenda papers.

Debate and Decision 

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised that the issue for the Review Body to consider was road safety in relation to the speed and volume of traffic, and the access visibility splays.  An email dated 9 June 2014 from the applicant’s agent, expressing the view that sufficient visibility splays were achievable, was tabled.

With reference to the photographs and plans provided, clarification was given that Community Services remained of the view that the access splays were not sufficient.  Average speeds for the road were just below 60mph.  Members were advised that issues such as the history of the application, and the standard of other accesses in the vicinity, were not relevant to the Review Body’s determination of the Notice of Review.

In discussion, some concerns were expressed as to road safety, the road being winding, tree-bounded and because of the number of accesses nearby. Members understood and supported the road safety standards.  However, in this instance, the majority of Members were of the view that as the site lines appeared good and the volume of cars was low, the proposed access in this particular context and place was acceptable. 

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review, subject to conditions to be agreed, on the grounds that, taking the additional information provided by the applicant into account, the application was safe in road safety terms and therefore not contrary to Policy 36 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

5.3 Formation of 2 House Plots (One House per Plot) at Land North East of Myrtle Cottage, Whitebridge, Inverness, IV2 6UR – Mathieson, 13-00049 (RB-19-14)

The Chairman advised that Mr D Polson had previously been involved with this application in his role as planning officer, and was therefore ineligible to provide independent planning advice.  The meeting adjourned for approximately 15 minutes and reconvened with Mr K McCorquodale acting as Independent Planning Adviser to the Review Body for this item. 

Dr D Alston, Mrs I Campbell and Mr N Donald did not take part in this item as they had not been present at the meeting held on 24 April 2014, where initial consideration had been given to this Notice of Review.

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review 13-00049-Mathieson for Planning in Principle to form two house plots (one house per plot) at land North East of Myrtle Cottage, Whitebridge, Inverness, IV2 6UR for Aros Mathieson. Determination of the Notice of Review had been deferred from 24 April 2014 to allow further advice to be sought from the Forestry Officer on the issue of appropriate compensatory tree planting. Matters relating to Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HWLPD) Policy 36 (Development in the Wider Countryside) had been discussed at the April meeting, with the Review Body being of the view that the application was acceptable in this respect.

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 and the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review in relation to compensatory tree planting issues.  The Independent Planning Adviser referred to Highland Council and Scottish Government policies on Compensatory Tree Planting, which aimed to bolster woodland resources.                                                    

In discussion, Members stressed the importance of compensatory tree planting and developing good quality woodlands, and were keen to avoid setting a precedent which would in any way weaken policies which promoted those ends.  Notwithstanding this, the general view was that a common sense approach should be taken in this instance: the Notice could be upheld as long as any permission was carefully worded with practical conditions relating to compensatory tree planting. In this regard, Members were minded that the earlier tree planting carried out by the applicant could count towards the planting required to compensate for trees lost as a result of building the houses.

The Clerk advised that conditions reflecting Members’ views could be drafted in consultation with the relevant officers, and then brought to the Chair to approve or to comment on further. The Independent Planning Adviser summarised the main planning considerations which would need to be taken into account in the conditions, including that the plot size for two houses was restricted, and that trees at the site boundary could be damaged by the houses or by connections to utilities.  Any conditions would require to be proportionate, balanced, reasonable and practical.

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review, subject to conditions, on the grounds that the proposal was not contrary to Policies 36 and 52 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan; with the conditions being drawn up by officers, taking account of Members’ views relating to compensatory tree planting, and scrutinised and approved by the Chairman.

Mr D Polson resumed the role of Independent Planning Adviser to the Review Body

5.4 Erection of 3 No. New Dwellings, Drainage Systems and Associated Works on Land South of Wester Cairnglass Farmhouse, Clephanton – Wilson, 12-00046 (Verbal Update)

Dr D Alston did not take part in this item as he had not been present at the meeting held on 29 August 2013, where initial consideration had been given to this Notice of Review.

The Clerk informed Members that the applicant had submitted robust proposals mitigating potential impact on the Loch Flemington Special Protection Area (SPA).  The proposals had been approved by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and Planning Officers were now in the process of drafting appropriate conditions, following which the Notice of Review would be reported back to the Review Body for final consideration.

The Review Body NOTED the information provided.

6 New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1  Demolition of Office & Garage/Storage Buildings & Erection of Two Dwelling Houses on Land North of Munro’s Nurseries, Bogallan, North Kessock – The Trustees of Realwood Pension and Life Assurance Scheme 1990, 14-00005 (RB-20-14)

Declarations of Interest – Dr D Alston and Mrs I McCallum declared non-financial interests in this item on the grounds that they were local Members for Ward 10, Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Both were absent from the Chamber for this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00005 for the Demolition of Office & Garage/Storage Buildings & Erection of Two Dweeling Houses on Land North of Munro’s Nurseries, Bogallan, North Kessock for The Trustees of Realwood Pension and Life Assurance Scheme 1990.

Preliminaries 

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers), and that it was in order for the Review Body to determine the Notice, matters relating to change of ownership of the site having been resolved.

The Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information relating to the siting of the proposals had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet D of the agenda paper, and were of the view that the hearing and site visit requested by the applicant were not required.  However, the site could not be considered brownfield (and therefore meeting the Council’s criteria for Housing in the Countryside) until the existing office and industrial buildings were knocked down.  As the Council looked to protect employment in rural areas, specific detail was required on the applicant’s proposals for the relocation of the business, to allow Members to consider any impact on jobs resulting from the proposed housing development.  

Debate and Decision 

The merits of the application were not discussed.

The Review Body AGREED to DEFER the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow information to be provided on the applicant’s proposals for relocating the business currently being carried out in the existing office and industrial units.

6.2  Erection of Dwelling House in Garden Ground on Land South West of Tigh Lasgach, Geddes, Nairn – Maclennan, 14-00010 (RB-21-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 14-00010-Maclennan for the erection of dwelling house in garden gorund on land South West of Tigh Lasgach, Geddes, Nairn for Mr I Maclennan.

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 E of the agenda papers.

Debate and Decision 

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised the key issues surrounding the application, including access and road safety.  In response to questions raised, clarification was given with regard to the data provided in the applicant’s traffic survey, and the site access. 

In discussion, Members were generally of the view that although numbers of vehicles and speeds were low, the visibility splays were substantially below the standard sought; to improve the access would require works on land which was not in the control of the applicant.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

6.3  Erection of House at Dunevan, 1 Chattan Gardens, Nairn, IV12 4QP – Donald, 14-00011 (RB-22-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 14-00011-Donald for the erection of house at Dunevan, 1 Chattan Gardens, Nairn, IV12 4QP for Mr R Donald.  The Independent Planning Adviser used Google Earth to show the location of the site in terms of a broad overview.

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 F of the agenda papers, and the Google Earth presentation.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised the key issues surrounding the application, including whether the proposed house was appropriate in the context of the size of the garden plot, the amenity of the parent house and the character of the surrounding area.

In discussion, Members were generally minded that the site was not large enough.  The garden sizes for both the parent house and the new house would be very small, and therefore out of keeping with the character of the area. 

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

The meeting ended at 12.10 p.m.