Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Thursday, 17 November 2016

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 17 November 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 22 September 2016

The Minutes of Meeting held on 22 September 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 building for agricultural repairs, servicing and sales with associated access, parking, external display area and landscaping on Land 90M SW of The White House, Pitglassie, Dingwall – H R N Tractors Ltd, 15/04651/FUL, 16/00043/RBREF (RB-25-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00043/RBREF for the erection of building for agricultural repairs, servicing and sales with associated access, parking, external display area and landscaping on Land 90M SW of The White House, Pitglassie, Dingwall for H R N Tractors 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, no further procedure having been requested by the applicant.

In response to a question from a Member, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that permitted development rights were available to provide agricultural buildings in subscribed circumstances. He provided an explanation of the notification procedure and highlighted the circumstances in which the planning authority could intervene and demand submission of a planning application for large agricultural buildings. It was also confirmed that the outstanding objection by SEPA did not require submission to the Scottish Government if the application was to be approved but would require discussion during Members’ determination of the application.

It was highlighted that a letter identifying a clause preventing the use of the access road for further development on the Dingwall to Maryburgh road was a separate legal matter for the applicant to address and would not impact on determining the planning application.

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 and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

During discussion, Members expressed a range of views in relation to the issues raised in the report on handling, including:-

Whilst there had previously been issues raised regarding vehicle and pedestrian access, these had now been resolved;
The proposed building would be set back from the adjacent road and would be in keeping with the surrounding landscape as there were a number of prominent agricultural buildings and associated infrastructure in the area, including Dingwall Auction Mart, a number of houses opposite the site entrance, two wind turbines and the Old Distillery Warehouses;
The applicant’s reasons for proposing the location for development were acknowledged, in particular its potential use for storing agricultural machinery and its proximity to the Auction Mart; however, the lack of a suitable alternative site within the area for the proposed development was disputed;
The importance of the visual gap looking towards the Cromarty Firth and the Black Isle and the potential visual intrusion arising from the proposed development was empathised;
Whilst acknowledging the issues which had been raised regarding mains drainage sewerage, the view was expressed that it would be disproportionate to spend the amount of money suggested on a drainage system which was likely to have limited use. It was also suggested that installation of a reed bed system, similar to that used by private houses, could be suggested as an alternative;

In response to a further question regarding the connection of the proposed development, which was out with the settlement area, to the sewage system, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that SEPA policy specified that any development within a reasonable distance of a settlement, over a certain size, with a sewage treatment works should be made to connect into those works and that this policy had been translated into the Council’s Highland-wide Local Development Plan. He advised that it was for the Council as planning authority to decide whether or not it was reasonable to expect a developer to connect to a system and that if permission was granted, the developer would then have to seek the necessary consent from SEPA.

The Independent Planning Adviser also highlighted that a representation was received highlighting that foul drainage should not be mixed with sustainable drainage system and that these systems should be separate; however, he explained that there was potential for this to be resolved at the technical stage and the layout of the drainage system could be amended.

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 and Local Members, on the grounds that:-

The new development complied with Policy 36, which although was not referred to in the report on handling was particularly relevant to the assessment of the application;
The new development, in terms of Policy 36, involved acceptable siting and design and was sympathetic to existing patterns of development in the area especially since it be set down and away from the road and therefore would not be prominent and visually dominating;
The new development could be considered compatible with the landscape character and capacity given that the design reflected the common feature of agricultural buildings in the open countryside;
The applicant had taken reasonable steps to look at alternative sites as required under Policy 41; and
There was sufficient evidence that there were both technical and economic reasons for not connecting to the public sewer as allowed for under Policy 65.

5.2 Erection of a dwelling in garden ground at 16 Groam Crescent, Kirkhill - Mr Allan Boa, 16/01668/PIP, 16/00044/RBREF (RB-26-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00044/RBREF for the erection of a dwelling in garden ground at 16 Groam Crescent, Kirkhill for Mr Allan Boa.

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.

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.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

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

the trees to the rear of the garden were not of high amenity value; however, the Forestry Officer was of the view the applicant would have to take appropriate measures to protect them during construction;
in drawing attention to the site layout plan and the footprint of the proposed house, he advised that, whilst the appointed officer was of the view that the proposed house was unacceptable due to its size and the orientation, it was for Members to decide whether the application represented over-development of the site; and
in relation to access and parking policy, the current standard was for parking and turning within the curtilage for two cars; however, it was highlighted that the existing adjacent house currently had a system of two cars parked behind each other.

During discussion, Members expressed the view that the proposed development did not represent overdevelopment of the site on the basis that it was an infill site of sufficient size to accommodate a house in conformity with the existing scale and pattern of development. Members were also of the view that the proposed development was in keeping with the existing development and would not impact on individual and community residential amenity. As the application was for planning in principle, any concerns regarding the size and orientation of the proposed house could be ratified at a later stage by planning officers.

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 and Vice-Chair, on the grounds that:-

The proposed development did not represent overdevelopment of the site on the basis that it was an infill site of sufficient size to accommodate a house in conformity with the existing scale and pattern of development; and
The proposed development was in keeping with the existing development and did not impact on individual and community residential amenity.

5.3 House site and enlargement of access at Glenconvinth House, Kiltarlity, Beauly – Mr G Norrie, 16/02674/PIP, 16/00047/RBREF (RB-27-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00047/RBREF for a house site and enlargement of access at Glenconvinth House, Kiltarlity, Beauly for Mr G Norrie.

Preliminaries

Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this, during which he advised that the Streetview presentation was captured in July 2011 and therefore did not reflect the current position. He confirmed that there was now a house across the road from the old school house.

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, Members were generally of the view that the application site was considered to be garden ground and would therefore not form part of a housing group.

The proposed site could be considered garden ground and therefore met the exception to Policy 35 in that it would result in an acceptable development within garden ground.

5.4 Erection of house – Plot 1 on Land 70M SW of Ashfield, Drumguish, Kingussie – Mr M Bell, 16/00217/PIP, 16/00045/RBREF (RB-28-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00045/RBREF for the erection of a house Plot 1 on Land 70M SW of Ashfield, Drumguish, Kingussie for Mr M Bell.

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 hearing.

The Chair confirmed that as the application was within the Cairngorms National Park Authority Area, the Notice of Review was to be determined using the Park’s Local Development Plan criteria, extracts of which were contained in the papers.

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 Chair summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were whether the proposed development reinforced or enhanced the character of the existing group of houses and whether the position of the proposed house fitted in with the existing settlement pattern.

During discussion, contrasting views were expressed, including that the proposed development did not fit the settlement pattern as the land was very open at the back of the site and the proposed house would not be as close to the road as those on the opposite side. It was highlighted that the location of the ancient woodland had forced the positioning of the house to be further back from the road. Conversely, the view was expressed that the proposed development rounded off the settlement as there was evenness to the size of the application site and would not have a significant effect on the landscape character.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, seconded by Mr T Prag, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice. As an amendment, Mr R Saxon, seconded by Mr G Farlow, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED on the basis that:

The new housing development was connected to the character of the existing rural group of houses, integrating it with the existing pattern of development;
The presumption against development contained in Policy 5 of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan did not apply as there would not be any significant adverse effect on the landscape character; and
The provision of a private treatment system would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area as technical solutions should be available and under subject of control by the appointed agencies at the next stage.

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

Motion (3): Mr T Prag, Mr M Reiss and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (4): Mrs I Campbell, Mr G Farlow, Mrs I McCallum and Mr R Saxon

Abstentions (0)

The new housing development was connected to the character of the existing rural group of houses, integrating it with the existing pattern of development in compliance with Policy 1;
The presumption against development contained in Policy 5 of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan did not apply as there would not be any significant adverse effect on the landscape character arising as a result of the development; and
The provision of a private treatment system would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area as technical solutions would likely be available and in any event would fall under the control of the relevant drainage agencies at the detailed stage. As such, the development would comply with Policy 10.

5.5 Erection of house – Plot 2 on Land 50M SW of Ashfield, Drumguish, Kingussie – Mr M Bell, 16/00218/PIP, 16/00046/RBREF (RB-29-16)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00046/RBREF for the erection of a house Plot 1 on Land 70M SW of Ashfield, Drumguish, Kingussie for Mr M Bell.

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, the Google Earth/Streetview presentation provided during Item 5.4 on the agenda, and were of the view that the hearing 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, the Independent Planning Adviser, in highlighting the change in settlement pattern following approval of planning in principle for the house on Plot 1 at item 5.4 on the agenda, confirmed that, in the event of approval of the application, the applicant would have the option to either submit an application for approval of matters specified conditions (MSC) to form the planning permission or submit a separate planning application. It was also confirmed that conditions could be applied to both this application and the previous application, to take into consideration discussion regarding the location of the plots and that the applicant be encouraged to build the proposed houses closer to the road.

The new housing development was connected to the character of the existing rural group of houses, integrating it with the existing pattern of development in compliance with Policy 1;
The presumption against development contained in Policy 5 of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan did not apply as there would not be any significant adverse effect on the landscape character arising as a result of the development; and
The provision of a private treatment system would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area as technical solutions would likely be available and in any event would fall under the control of the relevant drainage agencies at the detailed stage. As such, the development would comply with Policy 10.

The meeting ended at 12.40 p.m.

Read the Agenda