Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2016

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Farlow, Mr D Fallows, Mr B Lobban, Mrs I McCallum, Mr T Prag, Mr M Reiss

In Attendance:

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

Mr M Reiss 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 Mrs I Campbell, Mr R Saxon and Dr A Sinclair.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mr D Fallows and Mr B Lobban (both non-financial)

Item 5.7 – Mr G Farlow (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 21 April 2016

The Minutes of Meeting held on 21 April 2016, 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 Proposed 4 No. Two Storey Terrace Houses on Amenity Woodland, East of The Knoll, Kincraig – Allan Munro Construction Ltd, 16/00011/RBREF (RB-14-16)

Declarations of Interest – 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 D Fallows and Mr B Lobban both left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00011/RBREF for a proposed 4 No. Two Storey Terrace Houses on Amenity Woodland, East of The Knoll, Kincraig, for Allan Munro Construction 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 discussed whether its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Members’ USB Flash Drives, the applicant having made a request to submit further documentation.

The Clerk explained that, following the decision of the case handling officer to refuse planning permission, the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant contained revised plans which sought to address the officer’s concerns. She advised that it was for the Review Body to determine the application based on the original documentation submitted with the application and that if Members were minded to consider the newly submitted plans, the Notice of Review should be deferred to allow all interested parties to make representations and for the case handling officer to review the new plans.

During discussion, the Review Body expressed the view that, whilst the revised plans presented a reconfigured design on the same plot of land, the principle of the original application, to build four houses, had not changed and that concerns which had been raised locally regarding the loss of amenity space were still valid.

In response to a question regarding concerns raised by Kincraig Community Council in relation to the potential loss of amenity space, the Clerk explained that, whilst the site was not formally designated as amenity woodland, the Cairngorm National Park Local Plan offered a clear indication that amenity of woodland and other open areas were of importance to the Kincraig community and therefore could be considered as a material consideration in the Review Body’s determination of the Notice of Review.

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 request to submit further documentation by the applicant was not required.

Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, the Review Body, whilst acknowledging that the application site was privately owned land, expressed concern at the loss of community amenity space and highlighted that the proposed development would be contrary to the aims of the Cairngorms National Park Local Plan to preserve amenity woodland.

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.

5.2 Erection of House on Land 120M West of Tigh Litrichean, Dalchreichart, Glenmoriston – D & C Turnbull, 16/00014/RBREF (RB-15-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00014/RBREF for erection of a house on land 120M West of Tigh Litrichean, Dalchreichart, Glenmoriston for D & C Turnbull.

Preliminaries

Prior to discussion, the Independent Planning Adviser drew attention to a letter from the agent acting on behalf of the applicant highlighting a discrepancy in the report on handling whereby the landscape character assessment area had made reference to the site as lying within “narrow wooded glen”. He explained that the description of the site should read as lying within “wooded glen”. He also highlighted that the Inverness Local Plan, which had been referred to in the original application, had now been superseded by the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan. The Committee was also informed that the Settlement Development Area for Dalchreichart had not been carried forward to the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan.

Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. 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 the Google Earth/Streetview presentation, 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.

Points raised in discussion included that:-

Precedent in favour of development had been set by the granting of permission for other houses to the south of the road; however, applications were to be considered on their individual merits and any subsequent future development in the area would be assessed against, policies within the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan;
Officers from the Flood Team and SEPA were of the view that, contrary to representations, the application site was out with the 1 in 200 year flood map;
Given the existing planning consents and houses currently on the south side of the road, the proposed development was deemed acceptable;
The site was lower down the slope than the existing houses, therefore on balance, it was considered that the proposed development would not significantly affect visual amenity from the properties on the north side of the road; and
A request was made for repairs to be made to the Stone Dyke wall if approval was granted.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed the following:-

There were currently no Tree Preservation Orders within the local area and that reference to this within the reasons for refusal was inaccurate;
A Road Opening Permit would be required prior to commencement of development; and
In relation to the proposed floor level of the house, SEPA’s assessment had been based on the 1 in 200 year flood risk. If the Review Body was minded to grant permission for the development, the floor level recommended by SEPA could be secured by condition.

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review on the grounds that the proposed house site:-

demonstrated sensitive siting;
would not be visually intrusive;
would not impact on individual/community residential amenity; and
would not be contrary to the settlement pattern as there were already houses on the south side of the road.

As a consequence the application was considered to accord with Highland-wide Local Development Plan policies 28, 29 and 36. There being no objection from either the Flood Team or SEPA, the flood risks raised by interested parties were therefore not considered sufficient to exclude building on the application site. Approval was subject to conditions to be delegated to the Independent Planning Advisor and the Clerk in consultation with the Chair to include conditions restricting the proposed house to single storey height; the stone dyke within the application site to be repaired; and a restriction on construction working hours.

5.3 Erection of 4 Holiday Houses and Access Road (removal of condition 10) on Land 400M East Of, Achlaschoille House, Farr, Inverness – Mrs Audrey MacFarlane, 16/00022/RBREF (RB-16-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00022/RBREF for the erection of 4 Holiday Houses and Access Road (removal of condition 10) on land 400M East Of, Achlaschoille House, Farr, Inverness, for Mrs Audrey MacFarlane.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, the Review Body was of the view that, as the planning permission previously granted had been specifically for the proposed development to be used for holiday houses, a change to allow the properties to be occupied at any time as the sole or main place of residence of any occupant would be contrary to Policy 44 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

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 250M South of Tigh Na Dubh, Achvraid, Flichty – Mr Elliot Anderson-Carroll, 16/00026/RBREF (RB-17-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00026/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 250M South of Tigh Na Dubh, Achvraid, Flichty, for Mr Elliot Anderson-Carroll.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, Members expressed the view that, whilst the design of the proposed house could be made acceptable (the conflicting plans submitted meant there was doubt about what design permission was being applied for), the key issue was access to the site from the public road. Following comments regarding visibility and whether improvements to the access could be agreed by condition, the Independent Planning Adviser informed the Review Body that permission had previously been granted for a new property on this stretch of the road. He explained that the applicant had applied under s42 to relax the conditions relating to improvements to the access required by Transport Planning and that application was granted. Therefore, precedent had been set of not wholly agreeing with the advice of Transport Planning in the particular circumstances of the now existing junction arrangement.

During further discussion, the following comments were made:-

In relation to refuse lorries, drivers would be likely to slow down on approach towards a large stationary vehicle;
On other fast stretches of road in the Highlands, there was no alternative for refuse lorries other than to stop for a short period of time on the road;
Concern was expressed regarding drivers exiting the site but it was acknowledged that the junction had been improved (from that shown on the Street View presentation) and the junction was on the outside of the bend rather than on the apex. The latter would have been more worrying as it would be hard to see in both directions;
Whilst there was a risk associated with junctions such as this, this should not get in the way of development which otherwise presented good local reasons for approval; and
Given the precedent for non-compliance of conditions relating to road access on this stretch of road, it would be unreasonable to impose conditions on the applicant.

Following a brief adjournment to seek advice, the Clerk informed the Review Body that an issue had arisen concerning a number of contradictions which had been identified within the submitted plans. The Chairman made the suggestion that the Review Body could either dismiss the Notice of Review, but encourage the applicant to submit a fresh application containing accurate and non-contradictory plans for consideration by the planning case officer; or, defer the Notice of Review to allow the applicant to lodge accurate and non-contradictory plans to enable interested parties to respond to the newly submitted plans.

The Clerk reminded Members that one of the reasons provided by the case handling officer for refusing permission was that the plans submitted did not meet with his approval and suggested that, if Members were minded to dismiss the Notice of Review and the applicant was minded to resubmit their application, the case handling officer could consider the new plans. The Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that no planning fee for resubmission of the application would be incurred by the applicant if submitted within a year of refusal.

The Chairman recommended that, if the Review Body was minded to dismiss the notice of review, the applicant would be advised of the opportunity to resubmit the application with amended plans in the covering letter. The Clerk informed Members that if a new application with revised plans was submitted, statutory consultees would again be invited to comment and the application would only return to the Review Body if the applicant requested a notice of review arising from the decision of the case officer.

Thereafter the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in Reason 3 only in the appointed officer’s decision notice, with the inclusion of the following comments:-

Members were clear that relaxation of the standards at the access to the B851 (Reason 1) would be acceptable;
Members were satisfied that a modest house of the type shown on the plans would not have the effects indicated in Reason 2; and
the applicant would be advised of the opportunity to resubmit the application with amended plans.

5.5 Amended design to Application Reference No. 13/04372/FUL on Land at Drummournie, Cawdor – Mr Scott McGougan, 16/00021/RBREF (RB-18-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00021/RBREF to amend design to Application Reference No. 13/04372/FUL on Land at Drummournie, Cawdor, for Mr Scott McGougan.

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, no further procedure having been requested by the applicant. Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman summarised that the key issue surrounding the application was the proposed log house design of the property and whether this would have an adverse effect on the character of the surrounding group of houses

During discussion the Review Body was of the view that, whilst the proposed design was not consistent with the appearance of other surrounding dwellings, but that the contrast with existing housing did not detract from the character of the area and was an appropriate design for a house. It was highlighted that different styles of housing were prevalent in the surrounding area and that the distance of the property from nearby housing was sufficient enough not to cause concern.

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review on the grounds that the surrounding houses were sufficiently diverse for the property not to adversely affect the character of the area, subject to conditions to be delegated to the Planning Advisor and the Clerk in consultation with the Chair.

5.6 Alteration and Extension at The Stables, Marine Road, Nairn, IV12 4EA – Mr Noel Cowan, 16/00029/RBREF (RB-19-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00029/RBREF for proposed alteration and extension at The Stables, Marine Road, Nairn, IV12 4EA, for Mr Noel Cowan.

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, no further procedure having been requested by the applicant. Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, Members expressed the following views:-

The proposed alterations would be less intrusive when compared to the previously consented design;
Whilst the previously consented alterations to the building were of a larger scale, they were more in keeping with the design of the existing building than the proposed alterations;
No objections to the application had been received;
The proposed design would have a smaller footprint than the previously submitted proposals;
The site was in a secluded area and did not appear to impact on the surrounding area; and
There were already a number of similar designed extensions to properties within Nairn.

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review on the grounds that the application accorded with Policy 28 and 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as the proposed extension was considered to make a positive impact on the building and would not impact on community residential amenity given that it would be hidden from view. Conditions, if appropriate, to be delegated to the Planning Advisor and the Clerk in consultation with the Chair.

5.7 Erection of House on Land 85M SE of Scourie Village Hall, Scourie – Mr Campbell Moffat, 16/00027/RBREF (RB-20-16)

Declaration of Interest - Mr G Farlow declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 1, North, West and Central Sutherland, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr G Farlow left the Chamber for the rest of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00027/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 85M SE of Scourie Village Hall, Scourie, for Mr Campbell Moffat.

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, no further procedure having been requested by the applicant. Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, Members expressed the view that, whilst permission for two housing sites had already been granted, the addition of a third housing site would be excessive in the context of the setting and character of the surrounding area and could set a precedent for further housing applications in this location.

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 12.30 p.m.

Read the Agenda