Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Thursday, 23 April 2015

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Chamber, the Town House Chamber, High Street, Inverness on Thursday, 23 April 2015 at 11.15 am.

Present:

Mr T Prag (Chairman), Mr G Farlow (Vice-Chairman), Dr D Alston, Mrs I Campbell, Mr D Fallows, Mr B Lobban, Mrs I McCallum, Mr R Saxon, Dr A Sinclair

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. He also welcomed Mr Lobban to his first meeting of the Review Body.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence
Liesgeulan

There were no apologies for absence.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 5.2 – Mr T Prag (non-financial)

Item 5.3 – Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban (non-financial)

Item 5.8 – Dr D Alston and Mrs I McCallum (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 10 March, 2015

The Minutes of Meeting held on 10 March 2015, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

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. New Notices of Review to be Determined

In accordance with Standing Order 18, the Review Body AGREED that item 5.3 on the agenda (Notice of Review 15-00007, erection of 2 houses on land at Culbokie), be taken at the end of the meeting.

5.1 Erection of House, Land 120m South of Whingrove, Ardnastang, Strontian – Morris, 15-00004 (RB-12-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00004-Morris for the erection of a house on land 120m south of Whingrove, Ardnastang, Strontian, for Mr and Mrs Morris.

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 A 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 height and siting of the proposed building. He questioned whether the land should be considered as a croft, this having not been stated in the application. He also advised that whilst Members should be aware of the history of the planning applications at the site, it was the application in their papers that was the subject of the Notice of Review.

In discussion, consideration was given to a range of issues, including the position, scale and orientation of the proposed house, and the settlement pattern. Members also commented that whilst non-traditional designs could be supported, such buildings needed to be in the right location; and that the onus lay with the applicant to make the agricultural/crofting need if this argument was to be used in supporting their application.

Members being minded that, overall, the size of the proposed house was not appropriate for the location, 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 a Single 800kw Wind Turbine at Craggie Farm, Daviot, Inverness, IV2 5XQ – Craggie Renewables LLP, 15-00005 (RB-13-15)

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.

Mr G Farlow in the Chair

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 15-00005-Craggie Renewables LLP for a single 800kw wind turbine at Craggie Farm, Daviot, Inverness, IV2 5XQ for Craggie Renewables LLP.

An unaccompanied site inspection, chaired by the Vice-Chairman, had been held earlier in the day, at which the Independent Planning Adviser 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. He had also explained how focal length and the composition of pictures (e.g. material in the foreground) could affect the appearance of the turbine in the montages.

Prior to concluding the site inspection, the Vice-Chairman had ascertained that Members did not wish to view the site from any further locations, and were satisfied that they had gained a sufficient impression of the visual and landscape context in order to determine the Notice of Review.

Preliminaries

The Independent Planning Adviser clarified that the actual number of objections and letters of support differed slightly to the numbers indicated in the Handling Report, namely there had been 22 objections and 29 representations in support of the planning application.

Debate and Decision

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

In response to questions, Members were advised that notwithstanding that the objection from Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd (HIAL) had been withdrawn (and therefore the third reason for refusal was no longer valid) the view was that, the recommendation of the Planning Officer with regard to the first two reasons would remain unchanged.

Members commented that the site inspection had been very useful. Points raised in discussion included that:

single turbines were generally difficult to site without a significant impact on the landscape and the amenity of nearby properties
the turbine was extremely prominent, being against the skyline from all the view-points visited; it was particularly visible from the southbound A9, a tourist route, particularly when dropping down at Daviot which could have an adverse impact on tourism.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on grounds 1 and 2 as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

Mr T Prag in the Chair

5.3 Proposed Erection of a Dwelling-house and Detached Garage on quarry at Cromdale View, Balmeanach Road, Cromdale, Grantown on Spey – Strathdee, 15-00008 (RB15-15)

Declarations of Interest:

Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban both declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that each was one of the local Members for Ward 21, Badenoch and Strathspey, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Both left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00008-Strathdee for erection of a dwelling-house and detached garage on a quarry at Cromdale View, Balmeanach Road, Cromdale, Grantown on Spey, for Mr G Strathdee.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

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

The Independent Planning Adviser explained that as the application was within the Cairngorms National Park Authority Area, the Notice of Review was to be determined using the Park’s Development Plan criteria , extracts of which were contained in the papers.

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were: whether the site was brownfield; whether the quarry was operational, and, if it was not, whether the proposals accorded with works required under any reinstatement conditions. Questions as to whether planning permission was in place for the current use for storing roads materials in the quarry were outwith the Review Body’s remit.

In the course of discussion, Members came to the view that in order to reach a decision to approve the Review they needed information as to whether or not the quarry was operational – if still in use it could not be considered brownfield; also, under the Park’s policies, if it was not exhausted it should remain as a quarry. If closed, information was needed as to the reinstatement conditions, so that the application could be assessed in terms both of how it met those conditions, and against other Park policies, such as whether it fitted the housing pattern. Information on the planning history of the site would also be useful.

In response to questions raised, the Clerk advised that the Notice of Review was to be determined on the basis of the information provided, although the Review Body was able to defer the item to allow further information if it considered the information essential to the determination of the Notice of Review. She also confirmed that it would be in order for the Review Body to alter the Planning Officer’s reasons for refusal if not all reasons were agreed by the Review Body.

Members being of the view that it was the applicant’s responsibility to justify the proposed use of the site, and to ensure that all supporting information was provided, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice subject to amendment of Reason 3 to read: “The proposal, if implemented, would be contrary to the provisions of Policy 13 of the adopted Cairngorms National Park Local Plan in that it would demonstrate an inappropriate restoration and reinstatement of a mineral/soil extraction site.”

Cllr Alston left the meeting at this point and Cllrs Fallows and Lobban returned.

5.4 Extension to Dwelling-house at 2 Lindley Bank, Alness, Ross-shire, IV17 0TN – Owen, 15-00009 (RB17-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00009-Owen for an extension to a dwelling-house at 2 Lindley Bank, Alness, Ross-shire, IV17 0TN for Andrew and Claire Owen.

Preliminaries

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 height of the ridge, the impact on the streetscape, and whether the extension was proportionate to the rest of the building.

In discussion, consideration was given to a range of issues, including: the rooflines of nearby dwellings; the size and prominence of the extension; the space available for the extension; impact on adjacent buildings; visual impact; and that innovative architecture should be encouraged.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Dr A Sinclair, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED subject to conditions to be delegated to the Independent Planning Adviser and the Clerk in consultation with the Chairman. As an amendment, the Chairman, seconded by Mr R Saxon moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED, for the reasons set out in the appointed officer’s handling report which had been prepared subsequent to the lodging of the Notice of Review given that the Review was submitted on the grounds that the planning application had not been determined within the period allowed for determination.

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

Motion (3): Dr A Sinclair, Mrs I Campbell, Mr B Lobban

Amendment (5): Mr T Prag, Mr R Saxon, Mr D Fallows, Mr G Farlow 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 handling report.

5.5 Erection of 500kw Wind Turbine (60m to tip), hard standing, sub station, and upgrade of existing track at Reaster Farm, Lyth, Caithness – Sinclair, 15-00011 (RB-18-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00011-Sinclair for erection of a 500kn wind turbine (60m to tip), hard standing, substation and upgrade of existing track at Reaster Farm, Lyth, Caithness for Mr T Sinclair.

Preliminaries

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s 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 F of the agenda papers, NOTING that should it become apparent through the course of discussion that additional information was required, the item could be deferred.

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: visual impact; the height of the turbine; the design of the turbine (being twin-bladed it would rotate faster); and the siting (it would be visible against the skyline from all surrounding viewpoints).

In discussion, the Independent Planning Adviser concurred with Members’ views that the standard of the visualisations provided by the applicant was poor and fell well short of the Council’s visualisation standards as they applied at the time of application. In addition, there had been no pre-application meeting or discussion about the choice of viewpoints; in his view, the application was significantly deficient. In response to questions raised, Members were provided with information on the validation process for Planning Applications, and given reasons why poor visualisations were not always challenged at an early stage - in instances when it was clear that an application was likely to be refused, for example, it would not be reasonable to ask for new visualisations which accorded with the Council’s visualisation standards.

In response to Member suggestions that a site inspection might be required, the Clerk advised that whilst the Review Body was within their rights to seek additional information, the Review Body only had 2 months within which to determine the Notice of Review and there was a risk of the applicant appealing against a double deemed refusal. She highlighted that the Handling Report (which had been prepared subsequent to the lodging of the Notice of Review given that the Review was submitted on the grounds that the planning application had not been determined within the period allowed for determination) set out the reasons that the Planning Officer had deemed the application to be not acceptable.

Members confirmed that, even though the visualisations were of a poor standard, they had sufficient information for them to come to a decision, most Members being familiar with the landscape through attendance at previous site inspections in Caithness.

In general, the Review Body was minded that the turbine would be unacceptably prominent in the landscape.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s handling report, and for the additional reason that the visualisations submitted in support of the application were not in accordance with the Council’s standards.

5.6 Erection of 2 No. Dwellings on Land 75m West of Green Easter, Cothill, Nairn – Whittle, 15-00012 (RB-19-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00012-Whittle for erection of 2 No. dwellings on land 75m west of Green Easter, Cothill, Nairn for Moira and Jamie Whittle.

Preliminaries

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 whether the proposed dwellings rounded off a group; and issues relating to compensatory planting.

In discussion, consideration was given to both these issues, with the Independent Planning Adviser providing additional information on the sequential approach to be taken (for example, did the proposal accord with other Policies which applied?) before considering the acceptability or otherwise of compensatory planting. Overall, Members were of the view that the main consideration was the settlement pattern, which in this case was linear, and therefore the proposed development did not constitute an acceptable rounding off or infill of a group.

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

5.7 Erection new House and Associate Works at Loch Earn, 165 Culduthel Road, Inverness, IV2 4BH – Uzunoglu, 15-00019 (RB-20-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00019-Uzunoglu for erection of a new house and associated works at Loch Earn, 165 Culduthel Road, Inverness, IV2 4BH for Mrs Uzunoglu.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman reminded Members that the Review Body had previously considered a Notice of Review for a house at this site and had held a site inspection. At that time, Members had been minded to approve the proposed development on condition that a particular tree was safeguarded and the access improved. The applicants had since submitted a new planning application, and were concerned that planning permission had again been refused. However, the Forestry Officer and the Roads Officer both still held concerns with regard to the protection of the tree, and the safety of the proposed access.

In discussion, consideration was given to a range of issues, including: officer concerns regarding the protection of the tree and the access visibility splays; and the size of the house relative to the site. In this latter regard, the Chairman recalled that the previous site inspection had shown that the surrounding housing pattern included a number of small houses on small plots. Members were generally of the view that the proposed house was too large for the available site.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice, subject to the wording of the reasons being reviewed and finalised by the Independent Planning Adviser and the Clerk in consultation with the Chairman.

5.8 Erection of 2 Houses on Land 130m South West of Braefindon Cottage, Culbo, Culbokie – Pirritt, 15-00007 (RB-14-15)

Dr D Alston and Mrs I McCallum both declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that each was one of the 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 15-00007-Pirrit for erection of two houses on land 130m South West of Braefindon Cottage, Culbo, Culbokie for Mr N Pirritt.

Preliminaries

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 whether the existing housing comprised a group; whether the site was garden ground; and the access arrangements. Whilst the applicant was understood to have offered to alter the access proposals, details of this had not been received and were not part of the application under review.

In discussion, Members were generally of the view that the proposed housing was too distant from the parent house to be considered housing in garden ground, and that the existing housing pattern did not comprise a group.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice, noting that a minor typographical error would be corrected when the decision notice was issued.

The meeting ended at 1.10 p.m.

Read the Agenda