Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2016

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 10.30am.

Present:

Dr A Sinclair
Mrs I Campbell
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, Administrative Assistant

Dr A Sinclair in the Chair (Items 1 – 5.4)
Mr M Reiss in the Chair (Item 5.5)

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

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mr G Farlow.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mr M Reiss (non-financial)
Item 5.5 – Mrs I Campbell, Mr R Saxon and Dr A Sinclair (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meetings

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minutes of meetings held on 26 January and 11 February 2016 which were APPROVED, subject to an amendment to reflect that Councillor R Saxon’s declaration of interest at Item 2 of the 26 January meeting was non-financial.

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 500kw wind turbine with a height to tip of 50m, height to hub of 31m and a rotor diameter of 38m on Land 423M East of Burnthill, Thrumster, Wick – Mr P Stewart, 16-00003/RBREF (RB-07-16)

Declaration 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 M Reiss left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16-00003/RBREF for the erection of a 500kw wind turbine with a height to tip of 50m, height to hub of 31m and a rotor diameter of 38m on land 423M East of Burnthill, Thrumster, Wick, for Mr P 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 discussed whether its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Members’ USB Flash Drives. Following a question regarding the visuals provided by the applicant, the Clerk advised that the paper copies of the visuals did not correspond with the Council’s current visualisation standards and therefore did not represent a true reflection of the impacts of the proposed development.

Thereafter, 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 were of the view that the requests from the applicant for a site visit, to submit further written information and to arrange a hearing were not required.

Debate and Decision

Prior to discussion, the Chair summarised that whilst the Notice of Review documentation made reference to a previous application on this site, the Review Body were to determine the application in front of them.

Thereafter, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review, during which the following comments were made:-

It was difficult to site a single turbine in this particular area as there were already a number of significant turbine developments along the A99 corridor;
The proposed turbine would have a significant visual impact on the surrounding landscape and would provide a linkage between existing wind turbine developments in the area;
A number of submissions made by the applicant, in particular the cumulative impact assessment and visualisations, were not up to the required Council standard;
The Council should support farmers and crofters looking to diversify their business through projects such as this, particularly as it supported national policy of contributing to renewable energy; however, caution should be heeded as the proposed turbine would be prominent within the context of the surrounding coastal strip;
Due to its size and position, the visibility of the moving rotors when viewed from the road over an area would be noticeable, particularly during high wind;
It was highlighted that the decibel levels generated by the proposed turbine would be less than that experienced in a library and only slightly louder than a quiet rural area;
Whilst the photomontages were mostly taken from the road, by turning 180 degrees it would be possible to see Wathgar, Burn of Whilk, Camster and Bilbster wind farms, with the Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm to follow shortly once constructed; and
Whilst the Council should support small scale and individual turbine applications, this view could not be shared in cases where a proposal was deemed to be sited in an inappropriate location.

Following a request by Members, the Independent Planning Adviser provided an overview of wind turbines in the Caithness area on the Council’s Interactive Wind Farm Map, during which he highlighted that whilst there were a number of turbines within the locality of the proposed development, these were classed as either small or “micro turbines” in the Council’s Supplementary Guidance.

Thereafter, 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.

5.2 Erection of House at Fiunary Farm, Lochaline, Morvern, Oban – Mr M Newton, 16-00005/RBREF (RB-08-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16-00005/RBREF for the erection of a house at Fiunary Farm, Lochaline, Morvern, Oban, for Mr M Newton.

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 Members’ USB Flash Drives, and requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Thereafter, 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 were of the view that the site visit requested by the applicant was not required.

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, Members were of the view that the proposed house would be contrary to Policies 28, 29 and 36 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan due to its isolation within the context of the surrounding landscape and its significant visual prominence, particularly when viewed from the B849, and should therefore be refused.

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

5.3 Remove Condition 3 of Planning Permission (07/01180/REMIN) at Mains of Fingask Steading, Kirkhill – Fingask Properties Ltd, 16-00006/RBREF (RB-09-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16-00006/RBREF for the removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission (07/01180/REMIN) at Mains of Fingask Steading, Kirkhill for Fingask Properties Ltd.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

Prior to discussion, the Clerk provided the Review Body with background information to the case, during which she advised that the applicant had lodged a Section 42 application to develop land without compliance with Condition 3 of planning permission 07/01180/REMIN. She explained that the case officer had refused the application as removal of Condition 3 would be contrary to supplementary guidance on developer contributions as current policy required a developer contribution towards affordable housing. Therefore, it was for the Review Body to consider whether it would be reasonable to grant a fresh planning permission without a requirement to provide a percentage of affordable housing.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that the affordable housing policy facilitated the mix of housing tenures to ensure that the housing itself was indiscernible from the private housing associated with the building and that there would be opportunities within the submitted design to create affordable housing.

During discussion, Members expressed concern that granting permission could set a precedent in which the Council’s affordable housing policy would be threatened and that there had been no justification by the applicant for the removal of the developer contribution towards affordable housing.

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

5.4 Erection of House on Land 150M SE of Old Millers Cottage, Auldearn – Mr R Grant, 16-00007/RBREF (RB-10-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16-0000/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 150M SE of Old Millers Cottage, Auldearn for Mr R Grant.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

Prior to discussion, and following a request by Members, the Independent Planning Adviser provided additional views of the application site on Google Earth and Streetview and gave an explanation as to what the definition of a Brownfield site was under the Council’s Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design Supplementary Guidance.

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Google Earth and Streetview presentation and the definition of brownfield sites, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review, during which the following comments were made:-

The proposed development represented a house in the countryside within the hinterland and therefore a reason for allowing planning permission was required;
The site was no longer brownfield in terms of the supplementary guidance and there would be no benefit to the area if a house was built on it;
Whilst the site was within hinterland and could have a small environmental benefit, it did not serve much purpose and was not of huge importance to the countryside;
Compensatory tree planting offered by the applicant could be an improvement on what was already on the site;
Whilst the proposed house would not form part of a group, there were houses nearby on the approach to Auldearn;
The removal of the trees would create a visibility splay for the proposed house;
The site could not return to agricultural use as its previous use as a quarry had removed the top soil and that whilst it was within hinterland, there would be no environmental gain from regeneration; and
Whilst the site could have been defined as brownfield immediately after the closure of the quarry, the growth of vegetation over the years had made this less clear.

Following a comment regarding the policies listed by the planning officer in the decision notice, the Clerk reminded the Review Body of the criteria for an exception to Policy 35 included where a return to natural state was not readily achievable and where a wider environmental benefit could be achieved through development.

During further discussion, the following comments were made:-

This was effectively a derelict site and that whilst it could return to a natural state in the future, the length of time required for this to occur was uncertain;
Whilst the motte was of historical interest, it was damaged to the extent that it was no longer of use;
The site was big enough to retain a good number of trees and if permission was granted there could be greater control on undergrowth;
The site was considered to be brownfield due to the extended timescale required for regeneration of a former quarry site; and
Provided sufficiently strong conditions ensuring an appropriate level of regeneration and tree planting were included, there would be a net benefit from allowing a house to be built.

Following discussion, the Clerk advised that if the Review Body was minded to approve the application, all conditions would be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and approved by the Chair, and that any proposed landscaping scheme would also deal with the treatment of what was required to be brought on site in order to allow that landscaping scheme to thrive.

In reviewing the discussion, the Clerk summarised that the view expressed by the majority of members of the Review Body was the following:-

that the proposed development was on a brownfield site and was an exception to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) as the development was considered to result in a wider environmental benefit. Planning consent could be conditional on a landscaping scheme being submitted for approval by the planning authority and implemented by the applicant and with all other conditions that were considered to be appropriate to development of this type;
Policy 28 of the HwLDP was accorded with as the proposed development demonstrated sensitive siting and that there was nothing to indicate that it was contrary to Policy 42 of the HwLDP;
on balance the proposal accorded with Policy 51 of the HwLDP and Policy 52 would have limited applicability given that this was considered to be an informal woodland area where trees had naturally regenerated; and
the proposed development accorded with Policy 57 of the HwLDP as archaeological work already undertaken by the applicant could be supplemented to record the motte local to the development site.

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review on the grounds as stated by the Clerk, subject to conditions to be delegated to the Independent Planning Adviser and the Clerk in consultation with the Chair.

5.5 Erection of Storage Building at The Smiddy, Contin, Strathpeffer – Mr R Munro, 16-00008/RBREF (RB-11-16)

Declarations of Interest

Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair each declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that they were 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 remainder of the meeting.

Mr R Saxon declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he had responded to contact from the applicant following the Review Body’s determination of the applicant’s previous notice of review and left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

Mr M Reiss took the chair for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16-00008/RBREF for the erection of a storage building at The Smiddy, Contin, Strathpeffer for Mr R Munro.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

Prior to discussion, and following a request by Members, the Independent Planning Adviser provided additional views of the application site on Google Earth and Streetview.

The Independent Planning Adviser provided background information on the application, during which he advised that a previous Notice of Review for the erection of a garage on the site had been submitted by the applicant and was determined by the Review Body at its meeting on 12 August 2015 where it was dismissed. He reminded Members that the Notice of Review had been dismissed as the intended use of the garage was unknown, therefore the Review Body could not measure the application against the relevant applicable policies.

The Review Body was advised that the proposed building would take away car parking space currently available for the vacant Smiddy building; therefore the existing planning unit would become fragmented if permission was granted. Whilst the applicant had now indicated that there was an intention to demolish the Smiddy building, this was not covered in the application and the planning authority would want to look at these proposals in the context of the planning unit as a whole.

During discussion, Members were of the view that the request for more information had not been observed and that there were no grounds to uphold the appeal.

Thereafter, 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 12.05 a.m.

Read the Agenda