Agendas, reports and minutes

 

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 11.30am.

Present:

Dr A Sinclair, Mr G Farlow, Mrs I Campbell, Mr B Lobban, Mr T Prag, Mr M Reiss (by video-conference), Mr R Saxon (by video-conference)

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 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 Mr D Fallows and Mrs I McCallum.

2.       Declarations of Interest

Item 5.4 – Mr M Reiss and Mr R Saxon (both non-financial)
Items 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 – Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair (all non-financial)

3.       Minutes of Meeting of 26 November 2015

The Minutes of Meeting held on 26 November 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 USB Flash Drives all of the information 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.       New Notices of Review to be Determined

5.1   Erection of house, shared use of access, and installation of private foul drainage system on Land 65M NE of Lomas Lindas, Daviot, Inverness – Simpson, 15/01361/FUL, 15/00052/RBREF (RB-36-15)

Mr M Reiss and Mr R Saxon did not take part in this item as they had not attended the unaccompanied site inspection held earlier in the day.

Mr G Farlow did not take part in this item as he had not been present at the meeting held on 26 November 2015, where initial consideration had been given to this Notice of Review and therefore had not attended the site inspection.

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review No. 15-00052-Simpson for the erection of house, shared use of access, and installation of private foul drainage system on Land 65M NE of Lomas Lindas, Daviot, Inverness, for Mrs Simpson.

Preliminaries

This application had been deferred from the meeting of the Planning Review Body held on 26 November 2015 to allow a site inspection to be undertaken.  The Review Body had held an unaccompanied site inspection earlier that morning.

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 Members’ USB Flash Drives and by the site inspection.

Debate and Decision 

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

The Chair summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were whether the application site formed part of the garden ground of “Lomas Lindas” and whether the application site could be considered to form part of a housing group.

During discussion, differing views were expressed, including that the application site did not fit with Council policy on use as garden ground as the site had only recently been adapted for this purpose; the site could not be considered as a housing group as the surrounding houses did not have a perceptible relationship and would not be visible together due to the surrounding trees; the proposed house did not fit with the character of the area; whilst there had been a couple of man-made additions to the land, there had been no evidence that it had been used as garden ground; when viewed from certain areas, the surrounding houses could be considered as a group; the height of the proposed house in the context of the topography of the surrounding area would not be overlooking; if the proposed house was considered to be within a group, it was a requirement that it make a positive contribution to that group in that instance.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed house would form an acceptable expansion of a housing group and therefore could be supported as an exception to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.  As an amendment, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr B Lobban, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

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

Motion (2): Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (2): Mr B Lobban and Mr T Prag

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 APPROVED the Notice of Review on the grounds that the proposed house would form an acceptable expansion of a housing group and therefore could be supported as an exception to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

At this point in the meeting, the connection with the video-conferencing to Members in Wick failed and the Chair adjourned the meeting to determine whether the link could be re-established.  Following unsuccessful attempts to re-establish the video-conferencing link during the adjournment, the Review Body debated whether to proceed with the remainder of the business on the agenda.  With regard to Item 5.4 on the agenda, it was explained that, as both Members participating via video-conferencing had declared non-financial interests which would preclude their involvement in discussion of this item, the Members of the Review Body present in the Chamber could discuss this item and defer the remainder of the agenda to a future meeting.  Following further discussion, the Review Body AGREED that under Standing Order 18, the remainder of the business on the agenda be deferred to a special meeting of the Planning Review Body, with the exception of Item 5.4.

5.4   Erection of 1 MW wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of 80m, maximum height to hub of 50m, maximum rotor diameter 60m, associated access track and ancillary development including transformer housing and temporary construction compound (resubmission of 13/01201/FUL) on Land 700M North West of Lower Rumster, Lybster – Ventus Renewables Ltd, 15/02386/FUL, 15/00073/RBNON (RB-02-16)

Declarations of Interest:

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 R Saxon declared a non-financial interest in this item as a Member of Rumster Outdoor Centre Management Group and had chosen not to participate in discussion of this item.

As the video-conferencing link to Wick from which Mr Reiss and Mr Saxon were participating from had failed, both Members had already left the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00073-Ventus Renewables Ltd for erection of 1 MW wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of 80m, maximum height to hub of 50m, maximum rotor diameter 60m, associated access track and ancillary development including transformer housing and temporary construction compound (resubmission of 13/01201/FUL) on Land 700M North West of Lower Rumster, Lybster, for Ventus Renewables Ltd.

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 Members’ USB Flash Drives.

Debate and Decision 

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

The Chair summarised that an earlier application had previously been considered by the Review Body at its meeting on 18 June 2014.  The applicant was of the view that there had been sufficient changes in Scottish Planning Policy to merit submission of a new planning application and had highlighted in their statement of case that the previous notice of refusal had not specified the policy numbers involved in the decision.  Whilst the Notice of Review was resubmitted on the grounds of non-determination by the appointed officer within the prescribed period, the Report on handling had been in the process of being prepared prior to submission to the Review Body and had been lodged in response to the Notice of Review.

The Review Body was advised that, whilst the applicant was seeking planning permission for a turbine 80 m to tip in height, the application had been worded so as to seek permission for a smaller turbine by condition if Members were of the view that the proposed turbine was unsuitable.  The Independent Planning Adviser highlighted to Members that it was for the Review Body to look at the application for a turbine 80 m to tip in height in these circumstances and that it was not for them to suggest conditions for an alternative proposal.

The Independent Planning Adviser explained that a new point of information had been received from Scottish Natural Heritage regarding the potential of wildcat in the area and that under European Protected Species legislation, the applicant would be required to conduct an up to date survey to determine whether or not there could be an impact on this protected species from the proposed development.  Therefore, if the Review Body was minded to grant planning permission, it could not do this until after the applicant had undertaken a fresh survey.  The Clerk advised that this information had only been received at the end of the previous week and that whilst the applicant had been able to produce a species protection plan, this had been drafted so as to undertake surveys prior to the construction stage. This would not comply with the Council’s duties under the European Protected Species legislation to establish what the likely impacts would be prior to determination of the application.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser informed Members that the applicant was of the view that there had been significant changes to the Scottish Government’s approach to wind farms following publication of Scottish Planning Policy in 2014; however, he explained that the main thrust of the policy had not changed significantly and that the government had made it clear to planning authorities that they should produce onshore wind spacial strategies for dealing with applications.  In this regard, the Council was in the process of changing its onshore wind guidance and that whilst the applicant had made reference to earlier versions of the draft consultation document, it was for Members to look at the policy as it currently applied and not an earlier version.  He highlighted that some of the policy changes related to the suitability or otherwise of some areas in Caithness for large scale wind farm developments and that it was possible this particular turbine would be in an area where wind farm developments could be looked at favourably.  However, given its proximity to the boundary area for suitable developments and its location with the A99 corridor, it was for Members to decide whether the proposed development could have an impact on what was a main tourist route.  He reminded Members that two previous applications for smaller wind turbines had been dismissed in Mid Clyth and Eriska Achow and that these decisions could be considered a material consideration.

During discussion, Members were of the view that there had been no significant changes to planning policy and that the reasons for rejecting the previously submitted application - its proximity to “The Corr” and the visual impact thereon, remained valid.

In response to a further question regarding the non-determination of the application by the appointed officer, the Clerk advised that the Report on Handling was in the process of being issued; however, as the applicant had decided to submit the Notice of Review, the responsibility for determining the application was with the Review Body.

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

The meeting ended at 1.20 p.m.