Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Thursday, 27 November 2014

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 27 November 2014 at 10.30 am.

Present:
Mr T Prag; Mr G Farlow; Dr D Alston; Mrs I Campbell; Mr N Donald; Mr D Fallows; Mr R Saxon; Dr A Sinclair

In Attendance:
Mr P Adams, 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.

Members NOTED that:

i.     the title of Item 6.1 should read, Erection of 1 no. 20kw Wind Turbine, Height to tip – 27m; height to hub
       of 21m; and a rotor diameter of 13m rather than Erection of house; and that the title of Item 6.2 should
       read, should read Erection of house and garage rather than Erection of one and a half storey garage; and

ii. item 6.4 on the agenda (Land to NW of Parkhead Croft, Skye of Curr Road, Dulnain Bridge;
14/00037/RBREF) had been withdrawn.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence
Liesgeulan

An apology for absence was received from Mrs I McCallum.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.2 – Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair (non-financial)
Item 6.8 – Mr T Prag and Mr G Farlow (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 2 October, 2014

The Minutes of Meeting held on 2 October, 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

4. Notices of Review for Single Wind Turbines in Caithness (Fine Energy, 14/00029/RBREF; Wind
Harvest, PRB ref: 14/00030/ RBREF; Fine Energy (Halkirk), 14/00034/RBREF

The Clerk explained that three separate applications for single wind turbines in Caithness had been received. The earliest of these had been brought to the meeting on 2 October 2014, and had been deferred for a site inspection. Efforts had been made to arrange that site inspection, and to combine it with site inspections for the two further wind turbine applications. However, due to inclement weather, short daylight hours, and restricted Member availability, it had not proved possible to hold the site inspections prior to the meeting.

Given the foregoing, Officers had looked at alternative means of presenting visual information which could allow the Review Body’s requirements for further information to be met without necessarily having to visit the locality itself. The feasibility of making a video recording of the site and its setting from a variety of key viewpoints, including those used for the photomontages, and showing panoramic views, was being investigated - a local company had indicated that they would be able to do this. The video presentation could also be supplemented by Google Earth. Should Members still feel that they had insufficient information a site visit would be arranged.

In answer to questions raised, Members were advised that:

the video presentation would be shown during a formal meeting of the Review Body, the information and discussion would be in the public domain
the feasibility of including the wire-frame visuals within the presentation could be explored, although this might need to be using stills rather than video – new information could not be introduced
whilst there was the potential to make savings by holding fewer site inspections, the only issue Members should consider in coming to a decision was whether their requirement for further information had been met.

In discussion, Members were keen to find ways to reduce the length of time taken to determine Notices of Review, and supported trialling the use of alternative means of presenting visual information. Winter site inspections always ran the risk of postponement due to inclement weather. If successful, there might also be potential to use this method at Planning Applications Committees. However, a final decision would not be taken until the trial material had been viewed. The applications were of great importance and Members had to be satisfied they had sufficient information.

The Review Body AGREED that:

i.    the proposal to look at alternative means of presenting visual information for the three applications for
      single wind turbines in Caithness be trialled, with the presentation made to the next meeting of the
      Review Body; and
ii.    in the event that this did not meet the Review Body’s requirements for further information, a site
       inspection be arranged.

4. Criteria for Determination of Notices of Review

The Clerk confirmed that, for all subsequent 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 house, shared use of access, and installation of private foul drainage system on land
65m North East of Lomas Lindas, Daviot, Inverness – Simpson, 14-00023 (RB-36-14)

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review No. 14-00023-Simpson 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

The Clerk confirmed that, at its meeting on 2 October 2014, 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:

(a) 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

(b) 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 information received from the applicant and the planning officer was circulated along with the original paperwork relating to this Notice of Review. 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 AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet A (Parts 1 and 2) 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 or not the proposed house formed part of a group, and whether it impacted unreasonably on neighbouring properties. Members were minded that a site inspection was not required.

Factors considered by the Review Body included:

whether the existing housing comprised a group
whether the compensatory planting offered by the applicant was sufficient to mitigate for the loss of existing trees
the extent to which the land met the definition of garden ground as given in the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy
the impact on neighbouring properties.

Following discussion, 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 G Farlow, seconded by Mr D Fallows, moved that the Notice of Review be upheld, on the basis that it was not contrary to policies 51 and 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, and that it did comply with the exceptions to the Policy set out in the Interim Supplementary Guidance on Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design and it did form part of a housing group; subject to conditions to be delegated to the Officers in consultation with the Chair, but to include landscaping and/or compensatory planting, and removal of the decking.

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

Motion (5): Mr T Prag, Mr N Donald, Dr D Alston, Mr R Saxon and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (3): Mr G Farlow, Mr D Fallows, and Mrs I Campbell

Abstentions (0)

The Chair having thanked the applicants and the officers for the additional information, which had been helpful, the Review Body 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 to the West of 2 South Erradale, Gairloch, IV21 2AU – Gilmartin,
14/00024/RBREF (RB-37-14)

Declarations of Interest – Dr A Sinclair and Mrs I Campbell each declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that they were 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. Both were absent from the Chamber for this item.

There had been re-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

(a) the correspondence from TECS referred to in the applicant’s supporting statement; and

(b) clarification from TECS as to their position on the planning application.

The information received from TECS/Community Services (CS) was circulated along with the original paperwork relating to this Notice of Review. 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). Clarification having been given that the site was towards the end of the cul-de-sac, the Review body AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet B (Parts 1 and 2) 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 related to the access from the site onto the main road, where visibility splays did not meet the Council’s standards. Planning permission had previously been granted against Officers’ recommendations but this had now lapsed.

Factors considered by the Review Body included:

whether the proposed access arrangements met the Council’s visibility requirements
given that there were a number of houses already using this access, whether it was acceptable to allow a further house to use it
whether it was reasonable in light of the low volume and speed of traffic, to disregard Community Services’ advice.

Following discussion, the Review Body unanimously DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1   Erection of 1 no. 20kw Wind Turbine, Height to tip – 27m; height to hub of 21m; and a rotor
        diameter of 13m on land 200m South West of Drumancroy, Portmahomack, Tain – Munro, 14/00031
       (RB-38-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00031-Munro for the erection of 1 no. 20kw wind turbine, height to tip 27m, height to hub of 21m, and a rotor diameter of 13m on land 200m SW of Drumancroy, Portmahomack, Tain, for Mr D Munro.

Site Inspection – 3 November 2014

Following consultation with the Chair, arrangements had been made to hold a site inspection for this Notice of Review prior to its being brought to the November meeting. The Review Body had held an unaccompanied site inspection on Monday, 3 November 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 and the landscape. 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.

Scheduled Meeting – 27 November 2014

Dr D Alston, Mrs I Campbell, Mr G Farlow, Mrs I McCallum and Dr A Sinclair did not take part in this item as they had not attended the site inspection on 3 November 2014.

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 and the site inspection.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application related to conservation designations and to the cumulative impact of the turbine.

The Independent Planning Adviser explained that the Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet Special Protection Area (SPA), where wintering of wildfowl was a prime concern, was around half a kilometre distant from the turbine site. Where there were Natura interests, the Council was legally responsible for deciding whether an Appropriate Assessment was required – the Review Body was required to take account of the SPA in coming to a decision. However, the applicant had not provided enough information to enable Members to make this decision. The site inspection had shown that there were many birds in the vicinity – there was a foreseeable risk of collision with the turbine; this should be assessed. The Chairman advised that if Members were minded to uphold the Notice of Review, a decision would need to be deferred pending the applicant producing sufficient information for the Review Body to fully consider the impact of the proposal on the SPA.

Factors considered by the Review Body included:

the location of the SPA and the Council’s responsibilities
the proximity of housing to the turbine site
the likelihood of noise nuisance
the fit of the turbine with the landscape
how the proposed turbine compared with a previously-approved turbine some 2km distant (cumulative impact).

Points raised in discussion also included that the information provided by the applicant to allow the Review Body to assess the issues was not sufficient in terms of visuals, information as to how noise would impact on nearby residents, and with regard to the SPA.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice and on additional grounds that the information and detail supplied with the application were inadequate and failed to demonstrate that the proposed development accorded with planning policy and/or other applicable material considerations; specifically, there was no information to allow the Council to appropriately assess the effect on the integrity of the SPA, no cumulative visual assessment, an adequate assessment had not been carried out with regard to noise issues, and the standard of visualisations were such that it was difficult to properly judge the landscape and visual impact.

6.2 Erection of house and garage on land 35m North West of Eilona, Roy Bridge – Dobson, 14-00033
(RB-39-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 14-00033-Dobson for the erection of a house and garage on land 35m North West of Eilona, Roy Bridge, for Major D Dobson.

Preliminaries

AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet D 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 the key issues surrounding the application were the impact on trees and the housing settlement pattern.

In discussion, Members were minded that the main issue was that the site could not accommodate the proposed buildings and also allow a 10m buffer between the development and the mature trees. The applicant had not addressed this issue in his Notice of Review. Members also requested that consideration be given to a Tree Preservation Order.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice and NOTED that comments relating to a Tree Protection Order (TPO) would be brought to the attention of the appropriate officer.

6.3 Partial Steading Conversion to form No. 1 Dwelling at Park Farm Nairn, IV12 5RZ – MacIntosh,
14-00036/8WKNA (RB-40-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00036-MacIntosh for partial steading conversion to form No. 1 dwelling at Park Farm, Nairn, IV12 5RZ, for Mr D MacIntosh.

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.

The Notice of Review had been lodged on the grounds of non-determination within eight weeks. Members were advised that the Planning Officer’s assessment of the application had been near completion, but could not be added to the e-planning website once the Notice of Review had been lodged. It was the applicant’s right to lodge a Notice of Review, but in this instance it was likely that the time taken to issue a decision would be longer than if he had just waited.

The Review Body agreed to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow the following information to be provided:

(a) the Officer’s handling report; and

(b) information from Community Services on visibility splays

The Review Body also AGREED that, should these circumstances arise in future, as a matter of course, the Planning Officer’s draft report be provided to the Review Body.

The merits of the application were not discussed.

6.4 Change of Use from Store to Photography Studio – Viewfirth, Main Street, Castletown, KW14 7DT –
Fraser, 14-00038 (RB-42-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00038-Fraser for change of use of store to photography studio at Firthview, Main Street, Castletown, KW14 7DT for Ms J Fraser.

Preliminaries

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).

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman summarised that the key issue surrounding the application was the conditions attached to the permission which restricted opening times.

In response to questions Members were advised that it appeared that these conditions had been drawn from the original planning application.

In discussion, Members were of the view that use of the building as a photography studio was unlikely to be detrimental to amenity as access by the public was by appointment only, and the application was for a benign use.

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review, and AGREED that the condition relating to opening times be removed in its entirety.

6.5 Erection of Two Houses and Associated Roads and Services on Land North of Laga House, Laga,
Acharacle – Ross, 14-00039 (RB-43-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00039-Ross for the erection of two houses and associated roads and services on land North of Laga House, Laga, Acharacle for Ms M Ross.

Preliminaries

AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet H of the agenda papers.

In response to questions, the Chairman explained that the application was for two houses; whilst one of the houses was acceptable to Planning Officers, the other was not. As the application was for both houses, it had to been refused – it was not possible to split the application into two. Clarification was also given as to which photographs had been provided by the applicant and which by the Planning Officer, and that one of the photographs was a photomontage.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman summarised that the key issues related to the house sited higher up the hill, in terms of whether it disrupted the line of housing and if so whether this would be sufficiently mitigated by landscaping.

Factors considered by the Review Body included:

whether the upper house fitted into the landscape and settlement pattern, in particular with reference to its elevation
whether the modern design of the building was congruous with other housing nearby
whether the proposed materials were acceptable, including the potential of the roof and windows to reflect light and so be visible from a distance or from roads
the extent to which the house would be visible from the road
landscaping.

Points raised in discussion included that it would be useful if a model could be provided where a modern design was being proposed, to give Members a fuller appreciation of what the building would look like.

Following discussion, the Review Body on balance UPHELD the Notice of Review, subject to conditions, on the grounds that it was not contrary to Policy Numbers 28, 39, 56, 57 and 61 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan; was not contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing in the Countryside Siting and Design; and was not contrary to Scottish Planning Policy; subject to conditions to be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, but to include landscaping and materials to be used.

6.6 Proposed Replacement of 5 No. Windows at Flat 5, Old Bakery, May Court, Inverness, IV3 5TB –
Kalogeris, 14-00040 (RB-43-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00038-Kalogeris for the proposed replacement of 5 no. windows at Flat 5, the Old Bakery, May Court, Inverness, IV3 5TB for Ms H Kalogeris.

Preliminaries

AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet I 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 the key issue surrounding the application was whether replacement windows should be in keeping with the character of the area, given that the house was in a conservation area, notwithstanding that windows in some other houses did not meet the criteria being sought. The Independent Planning Advisor reminded Members of the Council’s statutory duty to consider the extent to which proposals preserved or enhanced the character or appearance of conservation areas.

Factors considered by the Review Body included:

whether a house not being visible from the main road was a relevant consideration in relation to the character of a conservation area
the validity of precedent as an argument to permit modern windows, particularly when the existing windows of the property were not sash and case
the reasonableness of requiring replacement windows to conserve the character of the area, in view of likely costs and May Court being an area of affordable housing
that there was little of the old city of Inverness remaining.

In discussion, Members commented that the applicant had not made the case as to why ordinary windows, inappropriate to conservation areas in terms of design and use of materials, should be accepted.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Dr D Alston, seconded by the Chair, moved that the Notice of Review be dismissed on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice. As an amendment, Dr A Sinclair, seconded by Mrs I Campbell moved that the Notice of Review be upheld, on the basis that it was not contrary to Policies 29 and 57 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, and was not contrary to the aims of the Scottish Planning Policy and Guidance; and the proposal would not fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, subject to any conditions to be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair.

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 G Farlow and Mr R Saxon

Amendment (4): Dr A Sinclair, Mrs I Campbell, Mr N Donald and Mr D Fallows

Abstentions (0)

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

Whilst expressing sympathy for the applicant, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

6.7   Proposed Dwelling House and Garage, Rural Access, Siting of Oil Tank and Associated Drainage on
         Land 195m North East of Wester Leanach, Culloden Road, Inverness – MacKay, 14-00041 (RB-45-
        14)

Declaration of Interest:

Mr T Prag declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was a local Member for Ward 20, Inverness South, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. He was absent from the Chamber for this item.

As a Member of the National Trust for Scotland, Mr G Farlow also declared a non-financial interest in this item, 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.

The Chair and Vice-Chair both being absent, the Review Body unanimously AGREED that Dr A Sinclair take the Chair for the remainder of the meeting. The meeting adjourned for approximately ten minutes and Dr A Sinclair took the chair for this item.

Dr A Sinclair in the Chair

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00041-MacKay for the erection of a dwelling house and garage, rural access, siting of oil tank and associated drainage on land 195m NE of Wester Leanach, Culloden Road, Inverness for Mr A Mackay.

Preliminaries

Additional maps were tabled showing the boundary of Culloden Battlefield (Inventory) and the site of scheduled ancient monuments. 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 J of the agenda papers and the additional maps.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were that whilst an agricultural need had been adduced for the housing to manage the land, and the application was therefore not contrary to Policy, the site lay just outwith the battlefield conservation area but that the conservation area boundary was under review.

Points raised in discussion included that:

it was recognised that an agricultural need had been adduced
the application would need to go to Scottish ministers if approved
Members were reluctant for a building to be sited in the inventory area, notwithstanding that there would be an archaeological investigation
Historic Scotland had not objected
there were other sites that could be chosen – the house would have less impact on amenity if it were sited in a grouping.

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.

Read the Agenda