Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 10.30am.

Present:

Mr T Prag, Mrs I Campbell, Mrs I McCallum, 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.

Business

1.  Apologies for Absence
Liesgeulan

Apologies for absence were received from Mr G Farlow, Dr D Alston, Mr N Donald and Mr D Fallows.

2.  Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 4.1 – Mrs I McCallum (non-financial)
Item 5.3 – Mr T Prag (non-financial)

3.  Appointment of Chair

The Review Body NOTED that, as one of the local Members for the relevant Ward, Ward 20, Inverness South, Mr T Prag would not be permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review at item 5.3.  Both the Chair and Vice-Chair would therefore be absent for this item.  In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 11, the Members were asked to choose one of their number to preside for item 5.3.

The Review Body unanimously AGREED that Dr A Sinclair take the chair for item 5.3.

4.  Minutes of Meeting of 27 November, 2014

The Minutes of Meeting held on 27 November, 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

5.  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.

6.  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) – Additional Visual Information

At its meeting on 27 November 2014 the Review Body had agreed that an alternative means of presenting visual information for single wind turbines in Caithness be trialled.  Whilst a video had been considered initially, this had been pursued beyond initial trials as the film was felt to be less accurate than photographs, and open to interpretation.  Instead, additional photographs and photomontages, prepared with input from the Independent Planning Advisor, were provided, to be used alongside those submitted by the applicants.  It would be for Members to decide, after viewing all the visuals provided, whether they had sufficient information to allow them to determine the Notices of Review.

A3 copies of all the visualisations were tabled.  Members’ attention was drawn to factors that could affect interpretation of the images, including that poor light made the skyline and distant objects indistinct, and that the presence of structures in the foreground often affected the perceived size of the turbine.  For the majority of the view points, three montages were shown using different focal lengths which illustrated (a) landscape setting and broad context; (b) the field of view; and (c) how the proposed turbine would appear to a person standing at the viewing point.  Due to the weather, it had not been possible to obtain additional visuals for the proposed turbine at Sibster Burn Farm, Halkirk (14-00034).

For each of the three applications in turn, the Planning Advisor presented maps indicating the viewing points that photographs had been taken from, and the respective visualisations.  He drew attention to various features of the landscape, including dwellings, and other windfarms and turbines in existence/approved/under construction; and responded to Members’ questions relating to the interpretation of the visual information, some geographical features, and classification of turbine sizes. 

The Review Body AGREED that their requirement for information in respect of the three wind turbine applications under consideration had, on this occasion, been met by a combination of the material provided in the circulated booklets, the presentation of visualisations, and their existing knowledge having attended previous site inspections in Caithness. Should it be the case in future that a Member was not familiar with the Caithness landscape, a site inspection might be required - factors such as wind and atmosphere were part of the character of the landscape.  

7.  Notices of Review Previously Considered
Cuspairean a' Leantain

7.1      Erection of a 500kw wind turbine with height to tip of 74m, height to hub of 49.85m, rotor diameter of 48m and associated infrastructure on land at Clyth Mains, Occumster, Lybster, KW3 6AK – Wind Harvest, 14-00030 (RB-1-15)

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 re-circulated Notice of Review No. 13/00030-Wind Harvest for the erection of a 500kw turbine and associated infra-structure on land at Clyth Mains, Occumster, Lybster, KW3 6AK for Wind Harvest.  The application had been deferred from 2 October 2014 to allow for an unaccompanied site inspection to be arranged, to provide Members with sufficient understanding as to the likely impact of the turbine on the landscape.

Preliminaries

In place of the site inspection, and as agreed at the meeting on 27 November 2014, additional visual information had been presented to the Review Body by the Independent Planning Advisor (item 6 above refers).  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 5 above refers), the Review Body confirmed that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet A of the agenda papers, the information provided in the presentation and their own existing knowledge of the area.  They were of the view that a site inspection was not required.

Debate and Decision 

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the additional visual information, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. 

The Chairman summarised that the key issue surrounding the application was the visual impact of turbine on the landscape. Given the Council’s broad support for renewable energy, the Review Body should consider whether or not the intrusion caused by the development was proportionate to the benefit.

In discussion, Members gave consideration to a number of factors, including:

• the size of the turbine relative to other individual turbines in the vicinity
• the openness of the landscape and the extent to which the turbine could be screened
• the extent to which the turbine would impact on “respite gaps.”

The Chair expressed thanks to the applicant and Architech for the good standard of visuals.  Members having emphasised that their coming to a quick decision did not reflect the time they had spent preparing for the meeting nor the seriousness with which they undertook their role, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

7.2  Partial Steading Conversion to form 1 No. Dwelling at Park Farm, Nairn – Macintosh, 14-00036/8WKNA (RB-2-15)

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review No. 13/00036-Macintosh for a partial steading conversion to form 1 No. Dwelling at Park Farm Nairn, for Mr D Macintosh.

Preliminaries

The Clerk confirmed that, at its meeting on 27 November 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) the Officer’s draft handling report; and

(b) information from Community Services on visibility splays.

The Officer’s draft handling report, together with copies of correspondence between the Planning Officer and the applicant relating to visibility splays had been 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 5 above refers), and 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.  The Review Body also used Streetview to look at the access, the road and the position of houses near to the junction of the access with the road. 

Debate and Decision

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

The applicant had included information in his appeal which adduced an agricultural need for the dwelling, meeting the terms of the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy. This information had not been available to the Planning Officer at the time the application was determined.

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were the additional information provided by the applicant relating to agricultural need, and the visibility splays at the proposed access.

In discussion, Members having accepted that the agricultural need was valid, gave consideration to a number of factors, including:

• road safety:
• the shortfall in meeting the visibility splay requirements
• the level of risk, given that the blind corner was to the left (south) of the access
• mitigating factors: there being houses close to the junction of the access with the road, which should alert drivers to the potential for emerging vehicles; and the possibility of installing warning signs
• the significant environmental gain in re-using the buildings, which were attractive and would otherwise be unused
• whether it was competent, fair, reasonable and necessary to add a condition to any permission given, requiring that the conversion be linked to having an agricultural worker on site.

The Review Body was generally minded that notwithstanding that the visibility requirements could not be met, on balance the proposals would be acceptable on condition that the entranceway be improved as far as possible, and that signage alerting drivers to the access be provided at the applicant’s expense.

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review as it was considered that the Notice and the application were not contrary to Policies 28 and 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, subject to conditions delegated to the Officers in consultation with the Chair.

8.  New Notices of Review to be Determined

8.1  Erection of a Single 50kw Turbine height to tip 34.2m, height to hub of 24m, rotor diameter 19.2m with associated infrastructure, temporary access track and sub control electrical cabinets on lnad 340m NW of Eriska Achow, Lybster -  Fine Energy, 14-00029 (RB-3-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00029-Fine Energy for a Single 50kw wind turbine with associated infrastructure, temporary access track and sub control electrical cabinets on land 340m NW of Eriska Achow, Lybster, for Fine Energy.

Preliminaries

Additional visual information had been presented to the Review Body by the Independent Planning Advisor (item 6 above refers).  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 5 above refers), the Review Body confirmed that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet C (Parts 1-3) of the agenda papers, the information provided in the presentation and their own existing knowledge of the area.  They were of the view that a site inspection was not required.

Debate and Decision 

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the additional visual information, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

The Chairman summarised that the key issue surrounding the application was the visual impact of turbine on the landscape, including cumulative effects/respite gaps.  Given the Council’s broad support for renewable energy, the Review Body should consider whether or not the intrusion caused by the development was proportionate to the benefit.

In discussion, Members gave consideration to a number of factors, including:

• the size of the turbine
• the proximity of the turbine to housing
• the impact of a single turbine on an open landscape, in comparison with the impact of a cluster of turbines
• the general openness of the landscape and the extent to which the turbine could be screened
• that there were other mast-like features already in the vicinity
• cumulative impact and the need for respite gaps, in particular with regard to the A99 tourist route
• the relevance of the applicants’ arguments regarding the viability of the croft.

In response to questions raised, the Planning Advisor clarified that the Council’s policy on cumulative impact of wind turbines was under review but not yet finalised.  The Review Body would therefore need to take a view on the basis of the information before it.

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

8.2  Erection of a Single 50km Turbine, Height to blade tip of 34.4m, height to hub of 24m, and electrical cabinet and access track on land 540m North of Sibster Burn Farm, Halkirk – Fine Energy, 14-00034 (RB-4-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 14-00034-Fine Energy for the erection of a single 50kw turbine, electrical cabinet and access track on land 540m North of Sibster Burn Farm, Halkier, for Fine Energy.

Preliminaries

Additional visual information had been presented to the Review Body by the Independent Planning Advisor (item 6 above refers).  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 5 above refers), the Review Body confirmed that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet D of the agenda papers and the accompanying CD, the information provided in the presentation and their own existing knowledge of the area.  They were of the view that a site inspection was not required.

The Review Body AGREED that in future, background information for Notices of Review for wind turbines be circulated on CD, with material such as the Notice itself, the applicant’s statement, the Planning Officer’s report etc. being circulated as at present, as printed documents.

Debate and Decision 

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the enhanced visual information, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. 

The Chairman summarised that the key issue surrounding the application was the visual impact of turbine on the landscape, including cumulative effects/respite gaps.  The applicant’s business plan should be noted but was not a key consideration.  Given the Council’s broad support for renewable energy, the Review Body should consider whether or not the intrusion caused by the development was proportionate to the benefit.

In discussion, Members gave consideration to a number of factors, including:

• the proximity of the turbine to housing, and the number of houses nearby
• the proximity of the turbine to the A9, and issues relating to flickering
• that there were other similar structures/masts nearby
• the openness of the landscape and the extent to which the turbine could be screened
• the need for respite gaps
• the weight that should be given to the applicant’s business plans
• the size of the turbine.

The Chair having expressed thanks to the applicant and Architech for the good standard of visuals, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

8.3  Erection of House on Land North of Gatehouse, Blackpark Farm, Westhill, Inverness, IV2 5BP – Alexander, 14-00047 (RB-5-15)

Declaration of Interest:

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

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 14-00047-Alexander for erection of a house on land to the North of Gatehouse, Blackpark Farm, Westhill, Inverness for J and DI Alexander.

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 5 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 applicant had included information in his appeal which adduced an agricultural need for the dwelling, meeting the terms of the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy. This information had not been available to the Planning Officer at the time the application was determined.

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were the extent to which the proposals accorded with the Council’s Housing in the Countryside (HIC) Policy, in relation to infill and rounding off a group; and the additional information provided by the applicant.

In response to questions raised, the Clerk advised that as the application was for Planning in Principle (PIP), more specific details relating to house type, boundaries and access would be matters for the full application, should Members decide to uphold the Notice of Review.

In discussion, Members accepted that the agricultural need was valid, and gave consideration to a number of factors, including:

• the weight to be given to various Council policies, including Housing in the Countryside in relation to agricultural need and rounding off a group/avoiding sporadic development; and the safeguarding of good agricultural land
• the Planning Officer’s views as to whether the proposed house rounded off a group, and what constituted a separation between houses
• existing housing in the vicinity and nearby, and new housing under construction
• that a group of houses normally had a single access.

The Review Body on balance UPHELD the Notice of Review subject to conditions delegated to the Officers in consultation with the Chair.

The meeting ended at 12.15 p.m.