Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 1 October 2015 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Dr A Sinclair
Mr D Fallows
Mr B Lobban
Mrs I McCallum
Mr T Prag
Mr M Reiss
Mr R Saxon

In Attendance:

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

Dr A Sinclair in the Chair (Items 1 - 6.6)
Mr M Reiss in the Chair (Item 6.7)

Preliminaries

The Chair 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 Mrs I Campbell and Mr G Farlow.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mr M Reiss (non-financial)
Item 6.2 – Mrs I McCallum and Mr M Reiss (both non-financial)
Item 6.4 – Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban (both non-financial)
Item 6.7 – Dr A Sinclair (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 12 August 2015

The Minutes of Meeting held on 12 August 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, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway on Land 150M West of Castlehill Croft, Dunbeath – Hutt, 15/00835/PIP, 15/00030/RBREF (RB-25-15)

Mr M Reiss declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 4, Landward Caithness, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mr Reiss left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been re-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.

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 A of the agenda papers, and were of the view that the site visit requested by the applicant was not required.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. The Chairman summarised that the main issue surrounding the application was that the visibility splay from the existing site access was 120 metres northbound and therefore did not comply with the 215 metre minimum requirement.

Following a request by Members, the Independent Planning Adviser provided additional views of the site access on Google Earth and Streetview.

In discussion, consideration was given to the acceptability or otherwise of the northbound visibility splay. Points raised included:-

• Whilst the applicant was of the view that the site entrance was not “in the vicinity” of where previous accidents on this stretch of road had occurred, the difference between Transport Scotland’s recommended visibility splay distance and the current site entrance was too much to mitigate through signage.
• It was acknowledged that the view southbound was adequate.
• The applicant had cited previous applications on the same stretch of road with greater blind spots which had been approved subject to landscaping.
• This was an existing junction with large and slow traffic movements.
• There was already an access on the blind bend which caused drivers to naturally slow down.
• The application would create an additional risk to what was already a dangerous road.
• Conversely, the addition of a house could potentially reduce the number of slow moving vehicles using the site entrance as heavy agricultural vehicles could instead be sited at the new residence.
• It would be excessive to tie the application to a series of conditions requiring the site to be used solely as a house.

The Chairman advised that if the Committee was minded to approve the Notice of Review, the planning application would be required to be referred to Scottish Ministers due to Transport Scotland’s objection.

With reference to the Member view that traffic might be reduced by granting permission for the house, the Clerk drew attention to the applicant’s request for a review and advised that, whilst the applicant had indicated their intention to sell the house site along with a considerable area of agriculture land, there would be nothing to ensure that the house site and the land would be sold together. If the two were sold separately, there would be no guarantee that traffic movements at the access would be reduced.

In response to views expressed by some Members that, whilst visibility was important, they were willing to make an exception to the standards required by Transport Scotland in this instance, the Clerk expressed the view that the case for a potential reduction in traffic movements had not been made and that if Members were minded to approve the Review, this should be on the basis of accepting a reduction in the sight line.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, seconded by Mr T Prag, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED. As an amendment, Mr R Saxon, seconded by Mr D Fallows, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED, on the basis that, whilst visibility standards had not been met, Members were willing to agree an exception, given the circumstances of this case.

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

Motion (4): Mr B Lobban, Mrs I McCallum, Mr T Prag and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (2): Mr D Fallows and Mr R Saxon

Abstentions (0)

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

Mr M Reiss returned to the meeting.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

In accordance with Standing Order 18, the Review Body AGREED that item 6.2 on the agenda (Notice of Review 15-00037, erection of 5 no. wind turbines with a total MW of 4.5, a height to tip of 67m. height to hub of 45m and a rotor diameter of 44m with associated infrastructure including access tracks, crane hard-standings and sub-station building on Land 790M South Of Farm House, Buckies, Halkirk), be taken at the end of the meeting.

6.1

Erection of new housing development (3 Units) and associated works on Development Site West of Torwood, Nairn – Bardon, 15/00625/FUL, 15/00035/RBREF (RB-28-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00035-Bardon for erection of a new housing development (3 Units) and associated works on Development Site West of Torwood, Nairn, for Mr A Bardon.

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 B of the agenda papers, and were of the view that the site visit requested by the applicant was not required. Prior to discussion, the Clerk advised the Review Body that subsequent to both the determination of the application by the case officer and the submission of the Notice of Review, the Nairnshire Local Plan referred to in the Notice of Refusal had now been superseded by the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan. Therefore, as the Review Body was required to undertake a fresh assessment of the application, it was confirmed that its assessment of the application should be made against the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan and the policies contained within it.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the application site now fell within the Hinterland and had to be considered against the Housing in the Countryside Policy 35.

Debate and Decision

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

In discussion, Members were of the view that the application did not meet the criteria in the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan and that the design and external appearance of the proposed development would not be in keeping with the surrounding area.

The Clerk advised the Review Body that, if Members were minded to dismiss the appeal, the first reason for refusal in the Decision Notice should be amended to reflect the adoption of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice, subject to the deletion of the following wording in the first reason for refusal “While the site is not located in the equivalent Hinterland in the Nairnshire Local Plan 2000, the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan, when adopted later this year, will place it in Hinterland to which Policy 35 applies, following the recommendations of the report into the Examination on the Draft Local Development Plan. The Examination report is considered to carry the greater weight in terms of housing policies.”

6.3

Demolition of existing toilet block, construction of a new single storey house, extension of existing access road and installation of new septic tank and soakaway on Land 60M NE of Bridgeside, Dalchalm, Brora – Sutherland, 15/00334/FUL, 15/00041/RBREF (RB-30-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00041-Sutherland for demolition of existing toilet block, construction of a new single storey house, extension of existing access road and installation of new septic tank and soakaway on Land 60M NE of Bridgeside, Dalchalm, Brora, for Mrs M Sutherland.

Preliminaries

The Independent Planning Adviser explained that contained within the papers was a report to Sutherland County Committee in 2005 which he had signed off. He emphasised that, in his role as independent planning adviser, he would not give any direction to Members on how to decide the application and advised that if Members were content, he would remain in the meeting to provide clarification, if required, on what policies applied to the application. The Review Body AGREED that the Independent Planning Adviser should remain in the meeting.

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 discussed whether its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet D of the agenda papers, and requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview. The Independent Planning Advisor provided this.

Thereafter, 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, as supplemented by Google Earth and Streetview.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth and Streetview presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. In discussion, Members were generally of the view that the proposed development would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the existing individual properties and would not represent an over-development of the location.

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review on the grounds that:-

• the conclusion contained in the planning officer’s report of handling was not justified given the comments of the officer in paragraph 8.3.5;
• the planning history related to a different site and therefore should not influence their decision making on this particular notice of review; and
• this application was not within the Hinterland and the development was considered to be in the right place in relation to existing houses.

subject to conditions being delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair.

6.4

Removal and replacement of existing windows at 2 Market Road, Grantown-on-Spey – Stewart, 15/02066/FUL, 15/00042/RBREF (RB-31-15)

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

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00042-Stewart for removal and replacement of existing windows at 2 Market Road, Grantown-on-Spey, for Mrs M Stewart.

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 E 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 impact the proposed design of the windows would have in what was a conservation area.

In discussion, Members expressed sympathy with the applicant; however, whilst it was acknowledged that a number of properties in the surrounding location had a similar style of windows, these had been installed before the introduction of tighter planning controls within conservation areas and were of the view that the proposed window design would not be in keeping with the building.

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

Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban returned to the meeting.

6.5

Renew planning application 08/00681/FULIN for conversion of steading at Wester Cairnglass Farmhouse, Clephanton, Inverness – Wilson, 14/00482/FUL, 15/00053/RBREF (RB-32-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00053-Wilson for renewal of planning application 08/00681/FULIN for conversion of steading at Wester Cairnglass Farmhouse, Clephanton, Inverness, for Mr I Wilson.

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 discussed whether its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet F of the agenda papers.

Following a request from the applicant for further written submissions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided Members with an overview of Section 32 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan - “Affordable housing”.

Thereafter, 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 Section 32 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. In discussion, consideration was given to the requirement for affordable housing under Policy 32 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided a briefing on the application history of the site and advised Members that an application for renewal of a previous planning permission would result in a fresh planning permission and would require assessment against current planning policies. Following further questions, the Clerk advised that the Review Body’s previous approval of an application to erect three dwelling houses had not triggered the requirement for affordable housing contribution. The application now before the Review Body would, if approved, bring the total number of houses up to nine and therefore would trigger the affordable housing policy.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, seconded by Mr B Lobban, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED. As an amendment, Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mr R Saxon, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED, on the basis that it would be unreasonable to ask for an affordable housing contribution given this was a renewal application.

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

Motion (5): Mr D Fallows, Mr B Lobban, Mr T Prag, Mr M Reiss and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (2): Mrs I McCallum and Mr R Saxon

Abstentions (0)

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

6.6

Steading Conversion to form 3 dwellings at Wester Cairnglass Farmhouse, Clephanton, Inverness – Wilson, 14/03057/FUL, 15/00054/RBREF (RB-33-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00054-Wilson for Steading Conversion to form 3 dwellings at Wester Cairnglass Farmhouse, Clephanton, Inverness, for Mr I Wilson.

The Clerk advised that, in distribution of the papers for this Notice of Review, the Statement of Appeal for the previous item on the agenda had erroneously been included within Booklet G. She confirmed that the correct Statement of Appeal had been distributed to Members and the meeting adjourned for approximately ten 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 G of the agenda papers and the correct Statement of Appeal tabled.

Debate and Decision

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

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser informed Members that:

• if the Review Body was minded to approve the Review, an appropriate assessment in relation to satisfactory drainage arrangements would be required prior to granting planning permission;
• whilst the applicant had indicated that pre-application discussion had taken place, the detail of this had not been provided;
• whilst it was unfortunate that the applicant had not been made aware of the affordable housing policy, this did not affect the fact that the policy was in place; and
• suspensive conditions in relation to sewage and drainage could not be applied to the application as nearby Loch Flemington was classified as a Special Protection Area under European legislation.

In discussion, consideration was given to the requirement of affordable housing under Policy 32 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and waste water drainage arrangements. Members were of the view that, whilst expressing sympathy with the applicant that he had not been made aware of the need in this instance for an affordable housing contribution at an earlier stage of the submission process, previous planning permission for the erection of three dwellings had been granted after the Highland-wide Local Development Plan had come into effect and this development proposal would trigger an affordable housing contribution under the current Policy.

The Chair highlighted that it was regrettable that the applicant was not made fully aware of the implications of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and the affordable housing contribution requirements at an earlier stage and gave an undertaking to ensure that the issue would be highlighted to applicants at the earliest opportunity through the planning system.

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

6.7

EIA application for installation of 2 MW hydroelectric scheme comprising intake, pipe bridge, buried pipeline, powerhouse, outfall and formation/upgrading of access tracks on Land East Of Allt Airdeasaidh Ardessie Dundonnell – DHG Hydro, 15/00258/FUL, 15/00055/RBREF (RB-34-15)

Dr A Sinclair 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. Dr Sinclair left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

Mr M Reiss took the chair for this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00055-DHG Hydro for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) application for installation of a 2 MW hydroelectric scheme comprising intake, pipe bridge, buried pipeline, powerhouse, outfall and formation/upgrading of access tracks on Land East Of Allt Airdeasaidh Ardessie Dundonnell, for DHG Hydro.

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 H of the agenda papers.

The Review Body agreed to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review for an unaccompanied site visit prior to the next meeting on 26 November 2015.

The merits of the application were not discussed.

Dr A Sinclair returned to the meeting.

6.2

Erection of 5 no. wind turbines with a total MW of 4.5, a height to tip of 67m. height to hub of 45m and a rotor diameter of 44m with associated infrastructure including access tracks, crane hard-standings and sub-station building on Land 790M South Of Farm House, Buckies, Halkirk – Sleigh, 14/03913/FUL, 15/00037/RBREF (RB-29-15)

Mr M Reiss declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 4, Landward Caithness, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mr Reiss left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

Mrs I McCallum declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that the applicant was related to her sister through marriage. Mrs McCallum left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00037-Sleigh for erection of 5 no. wind turbines with a total MW of 4.5, a height to tip of 67m. height to hub of 45m and a rotor diameter of 44m with associated infrastructure including access tracks, crane hard-standings and sub-station building on Land 790M South Of Farm House, Buckies, Halkirk for Mr J Sleigh.

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 C of the agenda papers, and the paper copies of the visualisations.

In response to a question, the Clerk advised that, as the application was of a local scale, it had been determined under delegated powers as a delegated refusal. Whilst the relevant ward Members would have been notified of the refusal and given the option to refer it to the North Planning Applications Committee, it appeared that the majority of Members had not requested this.

Debate and Decision

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

In discussion, Members were generally of the view that the proposed development would have a significantly detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area due to its size and the cumulative effect from nearby large scale wind farms.

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 pm