Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Wednesday, 12 August 2015

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Dr A Sinclair , Mr G Farlow, Mrs I Campbell, Mr B Lobban, Mr R Saxon, Mr T Prag

In Attendance:

Mrs K Lyons, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Dr A Sinclair 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

Apologies for absence were received from Dr D Alston, Mr D Fallows and Mrs I McCallum.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1– Mr T Prag (non-financial)
Item 6.1– Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair (non-financial)
Item 6.2– Mr T Prag (non-financial)
Item 6.5– Mr B Lobban (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 17 June 2015

The Minutes of Meeting held on 17 June 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. All the Notices of Review were competent.

5. Notices of Review Previously Considered

5.1 Erection of House on Land North of Gatehouse, Blackpark Farm, Westhill, Inverness, IV2 5BP – Alexander, 14/02176/PIP, 14/00047/RBREF (RB-6-15)

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 and Mr B Lobban did not take part in this item as they had not been present when it had been discussed by the Review Body on previous occasions.

The Clerk confirmed that, at its meeting on 17 June 2015, the Planning Review Body had agreed to dismiss the Notice of Review as the application no longer met the terms of the Council’s Planning Policies. The Review Body had also agreed that the reasons for this decision be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, and brought to this Committee for approval. A copy of the draft proposed Decision Notice containing the reasons for refusal was circulated and Members were given time to peruse.

The Decision Notice outlined the reasons for Members taking their decision and gave the particular reasons for refusing the application, which were that the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan Policy 35 – Housing in the Countryside and associated Supplementary Guidance, as the site did not infill or round off an existing housing group; was an unacceptable intrusion into a previously undeveloped field; and did not meet the terms of any of the other exceptions to the policy as set out in the Supplementary Guidance.

In response to a question, clarification was given that the Decision Notice taken as a whole made reference to difficulties in finalising a Section 75 obligation with the applicant and therefore formed part of the reason for dismissing the application. The applicant could reapply for planning permission provided the criteria of the Section 75 were met.

The Review Body AGREED the Decision Notice in respect of the Review Body’s determination of the Notice of Review.

Mr G Farlow, Mr B Lobban and Mr T Prag returned to the meeting.

Appointment of Chair

The Review Body NOTED that, as one of the local Members for the relevant Ward, Ward 6, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, Dr A Sinclair would not be permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review at item 6.1. 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 6.1.

The Review Body unanimously AGREED that Mr T Prag take the chair for item 6.1.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1 Erection of Garage with Disabled Access at The Smiddy, Main Street, Contin, IV14 9ES – Munro, 15/00744/FUL, 15/00022/RBREF (RB-23-15)

Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair each declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 6, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair both left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

The meeting adjourned for approximately ten minutes and Mr T Prag took the Chair for this item.

Mr T Prag in the Chair

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 15-00022-Munro for erection of a garage with disabled access at The Smiddy, Main Street, Contin, IV14 9ES, for Mr R Munro.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. The Chairman summarised that the main issue surrounding the application was whether sufficient information on the proposed use of the building had been received.

In discussion, the Independent Planning Adviser concurred with Members’ views that it was unusual for the applicant to seek planning permission for a building without specifying what it was going to be used for. He summarised the current planning status of the site, during which he advised that the area of land required for the application would be subject to a change of use should planning permission be given; therefore, clarification on the proposed use of the building was required.

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

Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair returned to the meeting.

6.2 Extension to Property at 18 Towerhill Drive, Inverness, IV2 5FD– Cross, 15/00277/FUL, 15/00028/RBREF (RB-24-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00028-Cross for extension to a property at 18 Towerhill Drive, Inverness, IV2 5FD, for Mr A Cross.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review, which related to whether the proposed extension complied with Policies 28 and 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and whether it retained adequate limits of off-street parking.

In response to questions raised, the Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body advised Members that Council guidance on housing extensions did not consider the erection of a garage as a means of retaining adequate off street parking.

In discussion, Members were generally of the view that the application did not comply with guidelines for extensions due to the size and scale of the building and the lack of adequate off-street parking.

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

Mr T Prag returned to the meeting.

6.3 Erection of House, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway on Land 150M West of Castlehill Croft, Dunbeath – Hutt, 15/00835/PIP, 15/00030/RBREF (RB-25-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00030-Hutt for erection of a House, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway on Land 150M West of Castlehill Croft, Dunbeath, for Miss A Hutt.

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and her advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers).

The Clerk advised that, due to an administrative error, Transport Scotland, which had previously submitted a representation, had not been notified of the notice of review within the allocated timescale. A response was subsequently received from Transport Scotland; however, this had not been received within the deadline for submission of representations to the meeting. It was for the Review Body to decide whether to receive the response from Transport Scotland, which would therefore require the applicant an opportunity to respond.

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 applicant to respond to Transport Scotland’s response to the Notice of Review.

The merits of the application were not discussed.

6.4 Erection of a Single 400kW Wind Turbine and Associated Works on Land 315M SE of Sibmister Farm, Murkle, Thurso – Sutherland, 13/02540/FUL, 15/00031/RBREF (RB-26-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00031-Sutherland for erection of a single 400kW wind turbine and associated works on land 315M south east of Sibmister Farm, Murkle, Thurso, for Mr S Sutherland. The Chairman advised that papers copies of the visualisations supplied on disc were available for Members to view and the meeting adjourned for approximately fifteen minutes to allow Members to peruse.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and her 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 D of the agenda papers, and the paper copies of the visualisations, and were of the view that the site visit requested by the applicant was not required. Prior to discussion, the Independent Planning Adviser advised the Review Body that the visualisations submitted by the applicant did not meet the standards required under current Council guidance as the original application had been submitted in 2013 and that this should be taken into consideration during determination of the application. He also advised that the applicant had not provided an assessment of the potential visual receptors, such as the A836 tourist corridor and the national cycle route N1, and that this should be taken into consideration given the application had previously been refused due to the potential impact on landscape and visual amenity.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the briefing by the Independent Planning Adviser, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

Issues taken into consideration during discussion included:

the potential cumulative effect as there were several other individual wind turbines in the area and that the proposed turbine would provide a linkage between them;
the turbine would be visible from a number of receptors and would be the largest structure on the hillside;
at 46 metres to the tip, the turbine would not appear too intrusive when compared to other structures in the background;
most of the turbines in the area were around 19 metres in height;
the Council’s Interactive Wind Turbine Map indicated there were 8 turbines of varying scale within a 2 mile radius of this site;
to the north of the site the ground sloped away quite steeply, therefore the turbine would not be intrusive;
the applicant had previously withdrawn a proposal for a 67m high turbine due to concerns raised by the Planning Officer over size and this application represented a considerable decrease in height to tip; and
the turbine would contribute to “filling in the gaps” along the stretch of road, therefore, there would be no relief along the road and would be against Council policy.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, seconded by Mr T Prag, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMSSED. As an amendment, Mr G Farlow, seconded by Mr R Saxon, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED, on the basis that the proposal would not be contrary to Policies 29, 57, 61 and 67 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan for the following reasons:

it was not of inappropriate scale for this location;
it would not be obtrusive; and
it would not be detrimental to individual or community amenity of the area.

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

Motion (3): Dr A Sinclair, Mr T Prag and Mr B Lobban

Amendment (3): Mr G Farlow, Mr R Saxon and Mrs I Campbell

Abstentions (0)

There being an equality of votes, the Chair exercised her casting vote in favour of the MOTION, which was therefore carried and the Review Body DISMISSEDthe Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

6.5 Erection of disabled access extension at 29 Craigie Avenue, Boat of Garten, PH24 3BL – Smith, 15/00693/FUL, 15/00034/RBREF (RB-27-15)

Mr B Lobban declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he 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. Mr Lobban left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 15-00034-Munro for erection of disabled access extension at 29 Craigie Avenue, Boat of Garten, PH24 3BL, for Mrs D Smith. A copy of Policy 3 of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan 2015, which was referred to in the original Decision Notice, was tabled.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review, which related to whether the proposed extension was acceptable in terms of Planning Policy.

In response to questions raised, the Independent Planning Adviser advised that the personal circumstances of an applicant should only be taken as a material consideration in the most exceptional of cases, such as a medical matter; however, it was for the Members to decide what weight to give a personal circumstance in relation to other material considerations.

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

The significant impact the proposed access extension would have on the neighbouring property, in particular the shading effect;
Whether the lack of objection from the neighbour and the special circumstances of the applicant allowed the Review Body to over-rule normal guidance on this type of extension;
Trees would not be a critical factor in determining the application; however, it was appropriate for the Tree Officer to highlight the effect construction work would have on them;
Whilst no objections had been raised by the neighbour, the proposal would have an amenity effect on them and any future occupant;
Whether the support from social services for the application outweighed normal planning consideration;
Turning the extension 90% so that it would sit alongside the applicant’s house would create an issue with vehicular access for the occupant;
The extension would create a 4 metre high wall along the length of the garden and was considered to be too much of an intrusion on the neighbouring garden.

In response to a question, the Clerk advised that any alternative proposal would have to be submitted by the applicant as a new application and that feedback from Members regarding the applicant’s circumstances would be included in the Decision Notice.

Whilst expressing sympathy with the applicant’s circumstances, 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 12.20 p.m.

Read the Agenda