Agendas, reports and minutes

inutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 2 October 2014 at 10.30 am.

Present:
Mr T Prag; Dr D Alston (Item 6.1 onwards only); Mr N Donald; Mr D Fallows; (except Item 6.6); Mrs I McCallum (except Items 5.3 and 6.7); Mr R Saxon; Dr A Sinclair (except Items 5.1, 6.3 and 6.8)

In Attendance:
Mrs K Lyons, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Ms L Lee, Committee Administrator

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.

Business

1.  Apologies for Absence
Liesgeulan  

Apologies for absence were received from Mr G Farlow and Mrs I Campbell.

2.   Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.3 – Mrs I McCallum and Dr D Alston (non-financial)
Item 6.3 – Dr A Sinclair (non-financial)
Item 6.6 – Mr D Fallows (non-financial)
Item 6.7 – Mrs I McCallum (non-financial)

3.   Minutes of Meeting of 13 August, 2014

The Minutes of Meeting held on 13 August, 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

4.    Preliminaries

4.1  Procedural Matters – Notices of Review arising from Deemed Refusal of Planning Permission due to Non-Determination of Applications.                            

The Clerk explained that where Notices of Review were requested by applicants arising from deemed refusal due to non-determination of a planning application, it would usually be the case that the Planning Officer’s report would not yet have been written.

As the Review Body required the Planning Officer’s report in order to properly consider Notices of Review, the Review Body AGREED that in all such instances, the delegated report from the Planning Officer be automatically requested by review body officers.

4.2  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 
Cuspairean a' Leantain

5.1    Erection of 3 No. New Dwellings, Drainage Systems and Associated Works on Land South of Wester Cairnglass Farmhouse, Clephanton – Wilson, 12/00046/RBREF (RB-44-13)

The substance of this item had been discussed at the Review Body’s meeting on 25 August 2013.  As Dr Sinclair had not been present at that meeting, she left the Chamber for this item. 

Members had been reminded that, following initial discussion on 25 August 2013, the Review Body on 28 November 2013 had been minded to uphold this application, subject to the relevant environmental legislative requirements being met.  Robust proposals mitigating potential impact on the Loch Flemington Special Protection Area (SPA) having since been submitted by the applicant, and approved by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the Independent Planning Adviser had drafted appropriate conditions which were circulated in Booklet A.  The Independent Planning Adviser gave a verbal summary of the position, emphasising that the environmental legislation placed responsibility on the Council to sign off an Appropriate Assessment, ensuring that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the SPA. 

Following brief discussion, the Review Body APPROVED the conditions as set out in Booklet A and thereby UPHELD the Notice of Review; and AGREED that powers be delegated to Officers and the Independent Planning Adviser in consultation with the Chair to agree other standard conditions as required.

5.2   Erection of New Dwellinghouse and Associated Works at “Loch Earn”, 165 Culduthel Road Inverness – Uzonoglu, 13/00051/RBREF (RB-13-14)

Further to the Review Body’s decision, at its meeting on 24 April 2014, to uphold this Notice of Review, subject to conditions, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that in drafting conditions required in relation to the protection of a tree and improvements to access it had become apparent that the proposal as submitted was unworkable. It had been pointed out to the applicant that the Review Body would not be in a position to consider an amended proposal, and that the best course would be to submit an amended planning application for consideration in the normal way. After a delay, the applicant had indicated that the intention was to lodge a fresh application in early course. That being the case, the Notice of Review would not be progressed further and could be closed off.

The Review Body NOTED the position.

5.3    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/RBREF (RB-20-14)

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.  She was absent from the Chamber for this item.

Members were reminded that this Notice of Review had been deferred from the meeting held on 18 June 2014 in order to request clarification of the current operational status of the existing office and garage/storage buildings and of the remaining area of land now in the ownership of OCS Group Limited together with clarification of their ongoing operational use and needs. The information received from the applicant had been circulated along with the original paperwork relating to this Notice of Review.

Debate and Decision

The Chair summarised that the main issues for consideration were firstly, whether the existing housing comprised a group; and secondly, whether the development would impact on local employment. 

Points made in discussion included:

• the additional information provided by the applicant stated that the existing office (and therefore jobs) would be retained, but the plans showed that the office building would be demolished – this was confusing
• the site could only be considered brownfield (and development therefore permitted) if it complied with the definition contained within the Council’s policies – it would not qualify as brownfield unless the office building became redundant
• it was important to retain rural jobs.

An explanation having been given that pages 52 and 53 contained in Booklet B had been included in error and should therefore be disregarded, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in Reason 1 (only) of the appointed officer’s decision notice.

6.  New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1   Erection of House and Detached Garage, 60m SE of Badachonacher, Newmore, Invergordon – Ross, 14/00021/RBREF (RB-28-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14/00021/RBREF for the erection of a house and detached garage on land 60m SE of Badachonacher, Newmore, Invergordon, for Mr A Ross.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s 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 Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were: whether the existing housing comprised a group in terms of the Council’s Policies; and the road safety concerns raised by Community Services.  Should Members be minded that the application was acceptable, the design of the building would then also need to be considered.  Members used Google Earth and Street View to gain additional understanding of the lie of the land, the housing pattern and the characteristics of the road.  The definition of a housing group as set out in Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HWLDP) was read out to Members.

In discussion, Members gave consideration to:

• the extent to which the road, being a single track rural road, formed a boundary to the housing group south of the road
• housing to the north of the road, and the extent to which this was relevant to consideration of Badachonacher as a housing group
• the recommendation from Community Services that the road was already at capacity
• the characteristics of the road (straight and flat)
• whether concerns regarding the potential for the house to lead to further development, should a housing group be established, were valid, particularly given Community Services’ concerns.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chairman, seconded by Dr D Alston, 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 Dr A Sinclair, moved that the Notice of Review be UPHELD, on the basis that the existing houses constituted a group and the application was therefore not contrary to HWLDP Policy 35; the road access was adequate; and the design was acceptable therefore the application was in accordance with HWLDP Policy 28.

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

Motion (4): Mr T Prag, Dr D Alston, Mr N Donald and Mr R Saxon.

Amendment (3): Mr D Fallows, Dr A Sinclair and Mrs I McCallum.

Abstentions (0)

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.  The Chairman expressed his appreciation for the high standard of submission of the Notice of Review.

6.2   Erection of House, Shared Use of Access, and Installation of Private Foul Drainage System, on land 65m NE of Lomas Lindas, Daviot, Inverness – Simpson, 14-00023 (RB-29-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 14/00023/RBREF for the erection of a house, shared use of access and installation of private foul drainage system, on land 65m NE of Lomas Lindas, Daviot, Inverness for Mrs J Simpson.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s 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 D of the agenda papers. 

Given that a key factor to be considered was the ground levels of the application site in relation to neighbouring properties, and that this was not clearly illustrated in the circulated papers, the Review Body agreed to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Review Body for further information namely: (1) photos from the applicant and the interested parties to show the difference in ground levels referred to in the paperwork; the relationship of the application site to the existing properties; and to demonstrate an interested party’s concern about the impact of the proposed development on their property; and (2) planning history of “Lomas Lindas” from the planning officer (in particular to establish whether the application site formed part of the garden ground/curtilage of that property).

The merits of the application were not discussed.                  

6.3   Erection of House on Land to the West of 2 South Erradale, Gairloch, IV21 2AU – Gilmartin, 14/00024/RBREF (RB-30-14)

Declaration of Interest – Dr A Sinclair declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was a local Member for Ward 6, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  She was absent from the Chamber for this item. 

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14/00024/RBREF for erection of a house on land to the West of 2 South Erradale, Gairloch, IV21 2AU, for Mr I Gilmartin.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s 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.   

The Review Body agreed to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Review Body for further information namely: (1) from the applicant, the correspondence from TECS referred to in the applicant’s supporting statement; and (2) from TECS, clarification as to their position on the planning application.

The merits of the application were not discussed.

6.4   Alterations and Extension to Castle Sparrow, High Street, Auldearn, Nairn – Altman, 14/00025/REFNA (RB-31-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14/00025/REFNA for alterations and extension to Castle Sparrow, High Street, Auldearn, Nairn, for Mr T Altman.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s 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. 

Debate and Decision  

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. 

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were whether the size of the proposed extension was proportionate to the house, and shading issues. 

In discussion, Members gave consideration to: the pattern of extensions in settlements of similar character; the size of the proposals; the importance of light to a house; the need to take a long-term view; and the fact that the reasons the neighbour had not objected were not known.  On balance, Members were generally minded that the size of the extension was disproportionate and would cause unacceptable shading to the neighbouring property. 

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

6.5   Erection of Timber Holiday Chalet at 3 Bohuntin, Roy Bridge, PH31 4AH – Toal, 14/00026/RBREF (RB-32-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14/00026/RBREF, for the erection of a Timber Holiday Chalet at 3 Bohuntin, Roy Bridge, PH31 4AH for Ms E Toal.

Preliminaries

 Having NOTED the Clerk’s 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 G 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 key issue to consider was the suitability of the site.  The history of the processing of the planning application should not be taken into account.  Should Members be minded to uphold the Notice of Review, appropriate conditions would need to be considered. 

Points raised in discussion included that the chalet fitted well into the landscape; there were other houses further up the hill; the chalet was not detrimental to the main house and was an improvement on what had been there previously.  The Review Body being minded to uphold the Notice of Review, Members gave consideration to the conditions which should be imposed on the planning permission, including that there should be a requirement that the chalet be used for holiday lets only, and that there should be a time limit on the planning permission to ensure the chalet was maintained.

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review on the grounds that the proposed development was not considered to be contrary to the policies identified by the appointed officer in the decision notice and was considered to accord with Policy 44 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan; subject to conditions to be delegated to the Independent Planning Adviser in consultation with the Chairman and to include (1) the use of the chalet to be restricted to holiday let (not principal residence) and; (2) planning permission to be time limited to 10 years.

6.6   Change of Use of land to Class 5 (General Industrial) and Class 1 (Retail) at Quarry, 300m SW of Lentach Cottage, Dulnain Bridge – Mitenbergs, 14/00027/RBCON (RB-33-14)

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.  He was absent from the Chamber for this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14/00027/RBCON for change of use of land to Class 5 (General Industrial) and Class 1 (Retail) at Quarry, 300m SW of Lentach Cottage, Dulnain Bridge for Mr S Mitenbergs.  

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s 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 H of the agenda papers.  Members used Google Earth and Street View to gain additional understanding of the character of the surrounding land and the topography of the site.

Debate and Decision  

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. 

The Chairman summarised the key issue to consider was the reasonableness of the appointed officer’s condition that the retrospective planning permission granted in respect of the development be for one year only.

In response to questions, Members were advised that, if upheld, a further one year period could commence from such time as the Review Body stipulated, but it was expected it would run from the date of the decision notice issued by the Review Body.

Varying views were expressed during discussion, including on the one hand that: Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) planning policy was to restrict development which intruded on the countryside, except in exceptional circumstances; the surrounding countryside was open and undeveloped; the office and display area would be visible from the road; and that the appointed officer did not think that the location was suitable in the long term for a business.  Opposing views included that: the nature of the business accorded with the kind of activity that the CNPA was keen to encourage; the design of the office was acceptable; and that this was an appropriate rural business and should be supported.

Members being generally minded that the development was not acceptable in the long term, discussion took place as to whether the length of the temporary permission was appropriate.  Views expressed included that retaining the permission at one year would encourage the applicant to focus on developing long-term plans, and that there would be benefits in reviewing the situation after a year.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.  The Chair undertook to ensure that Business Gateway was apprised of the situation.

6.7   Erection of a 500kw Wind Turbine and Associated Infrastructure at Clyth Mains, Occumster, Lybster, Caithness – Wind Harvest, 14/00030/RBREF (RB-34-14)

Declaration of Interest – Mrs I McCallum declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds of having a relative who was the owner of the site, and, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, left the room for this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14/00030/RBREF for the erection of a 500kw wind turbine and associated infrastructure at Clyth Mains, Occumster, Lybster, Caithness for Wind Harvest.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s 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 I of the agenda papers.  The meeting adjourned for five minutes to allow Members to look at the original visualisation documents submitted by the applicant.  

Notwithstanding that the Review Body had previously visited the locality in connection with separate, earlier Notices of Review, Members were of the view that, in relation to single wind turbine applications, it was generally only by inspecting the site first hand that sufficient understanding could be gained as to the likely impact on the landscape. Also, there had been no opportunity to fully consider the visualisation documents which were designed to be used on site following specified instructions. The Clerk advised that although there were other applications in the area which might also benefit from a site inspection, which could perhaps take place on the same day, the Review Body’s decision to visit the site must be taken solely in relation to the Notice of Review before them.

The Review Body agreed to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review for an unaccompanied site visit prior to the next meeting on 27 November 2014 and to accommodate site visits for such other Notices of Review relating to wind turbines that would be ready for determination at the November meeting.

The merits of the application were not discussed.

6.8    Replacement Windows, 33 Charles Street, Inverness – Preest, 14/00032/RBREF (RB-35-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14/00032/RBREF for replacement windows at 33 Charles Street, Inverness for Miss Preest.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s 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 J 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 key issue surrounding the application was the reasonableness of the appointed officer’s requirement that the windows reflect the window style characteristic of the conservation area, given the agent’s contention that there was a mix of window styles in the area, and that the windows were at the rear of the house.  The Independent Planning Adviser reminded Members that under the relevant legislation, the Council had a duty to take into account whether or not a proposal sought to preserve or enhance a conservation area.

In discussion, Members took into consideration the diversity of window styles in the locality, that the proposed windows were to the rear of the building and that they would be an improvement on the aluminium windows currently in place and the statutory requirement to protect or enhance conservation areas.  The appointed officer had not insisted on a return to sash windows but had offered a compromise; slim profile windows more in keeping with the character of the area. No reasons had been brought forward by the applicant’s agent for the applicant’s choice of windows, or explaining why the slim profile windows identified by the appointed officer were not acceptable.

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 12.50 p.m.