Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 10.30 am.

Present:

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

In Attendance:

Miss C McArthur, Solicitor/Clerk
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

None

2. Declarations of Interest

None

3. Minutes of Meeting of 15 June 2016

The Minutes of Meeting held on 15 June 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   Erection of 5 Dwellings on Land East of Firview Grange, Muir of Balnagowan, Ardersier, Inverness – Mr Norman Jones, 15/04355/FUL, 16/00034/RBREF (RB-21-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00034/RBREF for the erection of 5 Dwellings on Land East of Firview Grange, Muir of Balnagowan, Ardersier, Inverness for Mr Norman Jones.

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

Prior to discussion, the Independent Planning Advisor informed Members that the applicant’s agent had suggested that the Review Body should ignore the planning history and that the application should be considered under the new Development Plan.  He explained that the planning history was a material consideration and that it was for the Review Body to decide what weight should be attached to it.  He also explained that whilst the Highland-wide Local Development Plan was currently under review, there was no proposed plan available yet and there had not been any changes to policy.  Therefore, the application should be considered under the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) approved in 2012 and the Supplementary Guidance on Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design.

In response to a question from a Member regarding the circumstances in which an applicant would be as persistent in seeking planning permission, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that the opportunity was available to an applicant to apply as often as they deemed necessary.  He highlighted that pre-application advice had been provided to the applicant and explained that it was likely the advice given was that the best way forward with the application would have been to submit it as a potential site for inclusion during the review of the Development Plan which applied to the site.

Debate and Decision  

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

In response to questions asked by Members, the Independent Planning Adviser informed the Review Body that the key policy in determining the application was Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan “Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland areas)” whereby there was an overall presumption against housing unless the specific exclusions set out in the Housing Supplementary Guidance were met.  He explained that the Guidance was based on the potential for small scale development incrementally over the Plan period and that if Members were of the view that the proposed application site constituted a group then development should be no greater than 100% based on the capacity of housing within that group in 2011.  He advised that it was for Members to decide the extent to which they considered the application site to be infill or rounding off of a group and whether the capacity of that group was acceptable development.  With regard to whether the land constituted agricultural land or not, the Review Body was informed that whilst the land might be capable of being used for agriculture, it had been certified as not being part of an agricultural holding.

In response to a further question regarding the size and scale of the proposed development, the Independent Planning Adviser expressed the view that, given Policy 35 of the HwLDP was designed to allow small scale incremental growth, the scale of the proposed development would be excessive in that context and that the wider grouping of housing identified by the applicant did not meet the definition of a group as set out in the Guidance.

During discussion, the Review Body was generally of the view that the proposed development did not represent an infill or a rounding off of an existing housing group as the existing group of houses adjacent to the application site were already rounded off and this would therefore create a new settlement.  It was highlighted that the construction of a new access road emphasised the idea that this was a new housing development and that the development would create a new pattern to an existing settlement.  Contrary to the view of the appointed officer in their second reason for refusal, it was felt that the density of the proposed development would be in keeping with the surrounding area; however, the importance of maintaining the Council’s policy on quality design within its decision making was emphasised.  The view was expressed that the applicant could present the site as having potential for inclusion within the Local Development Plan during the consultation phase of its next review.

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

5.2   Formation of Housing Site on Land 30M North East of Appin, Kirkhill – Mr Kevin MacColl, 16/02296/PIP, 16/00040/RBREF (RB-22-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00040/RBREF for the formation of a housing site on Land 30M North East of Appin, Kirkhill for Mr Kevin MacColl.

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 requested a site visit.

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

The Independent Planning Adviser drew attention to a representation received from the owner of the neighbouring property, advising that, whilst they were generally supportive of the application, the sceptic tank for their property was currently located within the application site and would require repositioning.

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. 

During discussion, Members expressed the view that, contrary to the opinion of the appointed officer in their Report of Handling, the size of the plot was acceptable as there were already a number of similarly sized housing plots along this stretch of road.  Members were also of the view that the proposed development demonstrated sensitive siting and would not have an impact on individual, community and residential amenity.  It was commented that detail on the disposal of foulwater and surface water drainage could be a matter for condition.  In response, the Independent Planning Adviser advised that, in addition to the provision of a house, the Review Body had to take into consideration the associated infrastructure, including a drainage system.  It was highlighted that, due to building standards required in relation to drainage, this could be restrictive in terms of providing a degree of amenity around the house and it would have been preferable if the applicant had included measurements in the submitted drawings.

During further discussion, the following points were raised:-

• The application was clear in terms of the proposed arrangements for foul water and drainage in that the new development would use the existing facilities associated with the applicant’s present house and that the soakaway currently used by the neighbouring house would be relocated;
• The application could provide an opportunity to build a house on what was currently infill;
• The appointed officer had considered the appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed development within the density of other houses in the surrounding area in the decision to refuse planning permission;
• Whilst the plot size could be considered appropriate in the context of the housing sites further along the road from the application site, the applicant might find it difficult to build a house in keeping with the surrounding area; and
• Following concern expressed regarding the difficulty with positioning a house within the boundary distance and the potential for additional extensions to be made, it was suggested that, if the Review Body was minded to approve the Notice of Review, permitted development rights should be restricted.

Following further questions from Members, the Independent Planning Adviser informed the Review Body that the provision of detail regarding the disposal of foulwater and surface water drainage was a relevant planning consideration.  He explained that SEPA was not keen on shared systems as it could be difficult to monitor the source of any potential problems.  He also emphasised that the Review Body should be absolutely clear on what was being proposed in terms of drainage.  With regard to permitted development rights, Members were informed that conditions could be included requiring the applicant to submit an application for planning permission to extend the property.  Following comment that permitted development rights could be discussed during detailed planning permission, the Independent Planning Adviser advised that it was more appropriate flagging up any concerns regarding this to the applicant at the Planning in Principle stage.

Following a short adjournment to seek officers’ advice, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to conditions to be delegated to the Independent Planning Advisor and the Clerk in consultation with the Chair, on the grounds that:-

 

• the proposed house site was considered to be an infill site of sufficient size to accommodate a house in conformity with the existing scale and pattern of development
• Members did not share the concerns expressed by the planning officer in reasons for refusal 1 and 2.  Specifically, the proposals did demonstrate sensitive siting in keeping with existing development, and could not be said to impact detrimentally on individual and community residential amenity given compatibility with the type and scale of adjacent development. Moreover, the size of the site at some 0.28 acres (over a quarter of an acre) would reflect plot ratios found throughout the countryside, and did relate satisfactorily with the pattern of existing development in the surrounding area;
• the application was not considered to be contrary to Policies 28 and 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan but rather would accord with these Policies and be in general compliance with the Supplementary Guidance: Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design sufficient to warrant a grant of Planning Permission in Principle subject to conditions; and
• Members were of the view that there was sufficient detail provided on proposed drainage arrangements, including dealing with the existing septic tank servicing the neighbouring property, which in any event could be resolved at the matters specified in conditions stage, and that reason for Refusal 3 could not therefore be justified.

Members also commented that the size of the house needs to be appropriate to the size of the plot.

5.3   Erection of House on Land 15M West of 5 Gilchrist Square, Dornoch – Mr R Mackenzie, 16/00704/FUL, 16/00041/RBREF (RB-23-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00041/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 15M West of 5 Gilchrist Square, Dornoch, for Mr R Mackenzie.

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 provide written submissions, a hearing session, a site visit and to submit additional information.

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 request to provide written submissions, a hearing session, a site visit and to submit additional information by the applicant were not required.

Debate and Decision

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

The Independent Planning Adviser drew the Review Body’s attention to the duties required under Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, in the exercise of planning functions within Conservation Areas, and advised that the Review Body in its determination of the application, had a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

During discussion, the Review Body was generally of the view that, whilst the site may be capable of development and could benefit from the formation of a suitably designed and scaled building, the proposed design of the house by way of its height and finish would have a detrimental impact on the streetscape of the conservation area and should therefore be refused.  It was highlighted that the applicant had not provided detailed visual supporting information clearly demonstrating how the proposed house in its context, would preserve or enhance the conservation area, It was also highlighted that the applicant had not established the impact the development could have on the local road network and that the means of access and parking had not been demonstrated to work, as had been requested by Transport Planning.

Following discussion regarding the reasons for refusal in the appointed officer’s Report of Handling, the Independent Planning Adviser suggested that a covering letter be included with the Review Body’s decision notice to advise the applicant that a smaller scaled house which was more in keeping with surrounding properties could be appropriate on the application site.

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice and AGREED that a covering letter be sent to the applicant to offer encouragement for a smaller scaled house which was more in keeping with surrounding properties.

5.4   Erection of House and Change of Use of Agricultural Building to Recording Studio/Rehearsal Facility at Leidchruich, Heights of Dochcarty, Dingwall – Mr Andy Gunn, 16/00663/FUL, 16/00042/RBREF (RB-24-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00042/RBREF for the erection of a house and change of use of agricultural building to recording studio/rehearsal facility, for Mr Andy Gunn.

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, 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.

In response to questions regarding the ownership of the application site and the Crofting Commission’s response, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed the following:-

• the applicant was the sole owner of the application site;
• the original croft had been subdivided a number of times, however, the Crofting Commission’s records had not been updated to reflect this; and
• the application site was currently agricultural land and should therefore be considered under crofting tenure.

During discussion, whilst expressing some sympathy with the applicant as to their idea and vision, Members were of the view that the proposed small scale sheep enterprise would be unsustainable and therefore there was no justification for building a house on this site.  Concern was also expressed regarding the siting of the proposed house given its elevated positon and the detrimental impact it would have on the surrounding landscape.

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 11.50 a.m.