Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Thursday, 19 January 2017

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mrs I Campbell, 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

Apologies for absence were received from Mr D Fallows and Mr G Farlow.

2. Declarations of Interest

None.

3. Minutes of Meeting of 17 November 2016

The Minutes of Meeting held on 17 November 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 Holiday Cottage on Land South of 1 Beaufort Farm Cottages, Kiltarlity – Mrs Ann Gloag, 15/03293/FUL, 16/00054/RBREF (RB-01-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00054/RBREF for the erection of of a holiday cottage on Land South of 1 Beaufort Farm Cottages, Kiltarlity for Mrs Ann Gloag.

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 applicant having requested a hearing.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. It was agreed that Google Earth was not beneficial for determination of this Notice of Review due to the location of the site being set back from the public road.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser informed the Review Body that:-

• The proposed cottage could be considered a rounding off of an existing group of houses as there were currently four houses located within the site; and
• Whilst the existing cottages were not specifically listed in their own right, they had been included within the curtilage B listing of Home Farm and therefore Members should take into consideration any potential impact the proposed development could have on the setting of these buildings.

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

• Contrary to the planning officer’s view, the proposed development had the potential to enhance the existing business;
• As the proprietor of the business, Members considered that the applicant was in a better position than the planning officer to determine whether the proposed cottage would be a good addition to the business;
• The information used by the planning officer to assess the business’ merits of the proposed development was considered to be out of date;
• It was highlighted that tourists and visitors wanted modern facilities to stay in;
• The definition of “essential” with regard to the requirement for the holiday cottage under Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) was queried;
• The proposed design, a modern chalet-type building, was considered to be out of keeping with the existing traditional-style cottages;
• Whilst there was an assertion that there had been a decline in the use of self-catering accommodation, this should not be considered as a reason for refusing the application as there was currently high demand for self-catering within the tourism sector in Scotland and the applicant had demonstrated that there was a demand for this type of facility;
• The applicant had provided valid reasons as to why the existing accommodation within the site could not be used for the purposes of holiday letting and that the proposed cottage was essential for the business;
• Developments that encouraged tourism should be supported;
• The essential need for the cottage had not been proven and that whilst 2016 had been a good year for tourism, there was existing capacity within the business to meet demand;
• Whilst it could be argued that the business could continue without the proposed cottage, the success and profitability of the business was a consideration;

The Clerk addressed the points raised regarding whether the proposed development was essential to the business, during which she informed the Review Body that the applicant had submitted supporting information containing a business plan for the proposals which post-dated the planning officer’s decision to refuse the application. She advised that it was for Members to decide whether to defer this Notice of Review to seek comments from the planning officer on the business plan submitted. The Members considered that this was not necessary.

Following a further question, the Independent Planning Adviser informed the Review Body that it was for Members to determine whether the proposed cottage could be considered as part of a group and that this could be evaluated against Policy 35 “Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland areas)” of the HwLDP. In response to comment that the proposal was for business purposes rather than for housing and therefore should not be assessed under housing policy, the Independent Planning Adviser informed Members that as the application was for a house, notwithstanding its intended use as a holiday let, the application had to be assessed on the basis that the building was a house. He advised that it was for Members to determine whether the application was an exception to Policy 35 of the HwLDP and to assess this against Policy 36 “Development in the Wider Countryside” and the Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design Supplementary Guidance

The Review Body was also advised that the proposed cottage was located within an area subject to a Tree Preservation Order and that it was for Members to consider this in terms of amenity and the concerns raised by neighbours.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mr R Saxon, seconded by the Chair, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice and on the basis that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the existing properties. As an amendment, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr B Lobban, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED on the basis that:

• The proposed development was considered to be essential to an existing rural business and Members were mindful of increased market demand for tourist accommodation within the area. The proposed development was also considered to round off the linear group of existing houses; and
• The proposed development therefore comprised an exception to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and accorded with the Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design Supplementary Guidance.

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

Motion (2): Mr R Saxon and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (5): Mrs I Campbell, Mr B Lobban, Mrs I McCallum, Mr T Prag and Mr M Reiss

Abstentions (0)

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, including the circumstances around the Tree Preservation Order and that any concerns regarding this were taken into consideration prior to commencement of development.

5.2 Erection of private dwelling and formation of new access on Land 45M SE of Wilalimar, 14 Rowan Avenue, Dornoch - Mr John McMurray, 16/03164/FUL, 16/00057/RBREF (RB-02-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00057/RBREF for the erection of a private dwelling and formation of new access on Land 45M SE of Wilalimar, 14 Rowan Avenue, Dornoch for Mr John McMurray.

Preliminaries

Prior to determination of the application, the Clerk confirmed that a copy of the planning officer’s response to new information lodged by the applicant as part of the Notice of Review had been circulated to Members and that it was for the Planning Review Body to determine whether or not to accept this response prior to determining the Notice of Review. The Review Body unanimously AGREED to accept the planning officer’s response.

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

As a matter of clarification, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that his name had been mentioned within the Notice of Review documentation by one of the objectors to the application as he had previously provided planning advice in 2001; however, it was considered that this was not directly relevant in terms of whether or not the site was suitable for the proposed development.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the land was owned by the applicant; however, this was not a material consideration. The Review Body was advised that the planning status of the land as open space and its amenity value should be taken into consideration during determination of the application. The Independent Planning Adviser also confirmed that, whilst the applicant could apply to enclose the area off, any proposal to incorporate the land within the garden of the proposed development would require planning permission for a change of use.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. Members were of the view that, in addition to the land’s current use as public open space, the proposed site was of insufficient size to accommodate a house that would be in keeping with the surrounding settlement area. Attention was also drawn to the concerns raised by the Forestry Officer that the proposed development could have a detrimental impact on the trees within neighbouring properties.

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

5.3 Erection of new self-catering unit, septic tank and soakaway, access and parking on Land 65M North of New House 12 Lower Milovaig, Glendale – Rural Design Ltd., 16/00300/FUL, 16/00061/RBREF (RB-03-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00061/RBREF for the erection of a new self-catering unit, septic tank and soakaway, access and parking on Land 65M North of New House 12 Lower Milovaig, Glendale for Rural Design 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.

Members requested sight of Google Earth 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 were similarly designed buildings within the area, concern was expressed regarding the positioning of the proposed unit and that there was no natural plateau for it to sit in;
• Conversely, the view was expressed that whilst the unit would sit on a fairly steep slope, it could be considered to be within a natural plateau;
• The scattered built landscape environment was highlighted and that in this context, the design of the proposed unit was preferable to residential caravan style units;
• Whilst concern was expressed regarding the use of the layby as parking for the unit, the design of the unit was innovative and would not significantly impact on the surrounding landscape;
• With reference to the visualisations contained within the Notice of Review documentation, concern was expressed that the access to the unit from the lower road was steep;
• Whilst the design of the building was acceptable, the location was not appropriate due to the slope;
• The design was incongruous in the context of the surrounding buildings which were of more traditional design;
• In acknowledging concerns regarding parking, it was highlighted that the applicant had offered to widen the passing place and make a separate space available for a car; and
• Comparable designed buildings had become a feature in similar rural areas.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, 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. As an amendment, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr R Saxon, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED on the basis that:

• The proposed development on its small scale was not considered to have the impact suggested in the reasons for refusal; and
• The design of the building was considered to be acceptable and would make a positive visual contribution to its surroundings, therefore in accordance with the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

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

Motion (4): Mr B Lobban, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Reiss and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (3): Mrs I Campbell, Mr T Prag and Mr R Saxon

Abstentions (0)

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

5.4 Alterations and erection of extension East Lodge, Roshven, Glenuig, Lochailort – Mr & Mrs Peter Fitzgerald, 16/02251/FUL, 16/00062/RBREF (RB-04-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00062/RBREF for alterations and the erection of an extension at East Lodge, Roshven, Glenuig, Lochailort for Mr and Mrs Peter Fitzgerald.

Preliminaries

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. Whilst acknowledging concerns regarding the scale and height of the proposed development, Members were of the view that the proposed extension would enhance living conditions and was an improvement visually on the existing building. It was highlighted that whilst the application was for an extension, the proposals could be considered as a conversion of the existing building.

• Due to the existing extension of the property, Members did not consider it appropriate to consider the proposed extension relative only to the original lodge; and
• Members did not share the planning officer’s concerns as to the scale, height, roof design, dominance and balance of the design and considered it to be an improvement on the existing extension.

5.5 Erection of house on Land to North West of Clunes Cottage, Cameron Road, Fort William – Mr Joseph Sweeney, 16/02497/FUL, 16/00063/RBREF (RB-05-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00063/RBREF for the erection of a house Plot 1 on Land to North West of Clunes Cottage, Cameron Road, Fort William for Mr Joseph Sweeney.

Revised copies of the Ground Floor Plans showing the capacity of the driveway to fit two car parking spaces alongside the proposed house were circulated to Members.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

During discussion, Members were of the view that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring houses due to its size in relation to its curtilage and that it would not be in keeping with the established pattern as it would introduce a third tier of residential development.

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

5.6 Change of Use from Warehouse to Blacksmith at Warehouse, Croy, Inverness, IV2 5PG – R. Sleigh Landscapes, 16/01675/FUL, 16/00067/RBREF (RB-06-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00067/RBREF for the change of use from a warehouse to blacksmith at Warehouse, Croy, Inverness, IV2 5PG for R. Sleigh Landscapes.

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.

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

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that the speed limit on the road outside the proposed development was 60 mph. He highlighted a limitation in the Streetview presentation in that the images did not accurately show the visibility splay from the access as they had been taken from a camera mounted on a vehicle travelling on the opposite side of the road.

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:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the 60 mph speed limit and that access to the site was from a fairly fast and straight section of road;
• Whilst acknowledging the dangers presented on this section of road, in particular the sub-standard accesses and cross-road junctions, the application was for a change of use of an existing industrial building and could potentially reduce the volume and type of traffic accessing the site;
• It was suggested that a condition could be included under the terms of the change of use preventing the site from being used as a lorry depot or similar transport hub for a haulage firm given the potential problems from heavy vehicle movements accessing the site;
• In acknowledging the previous use of the site and its history, the impact on traffic from the change of use would be minimal; and
• Whilst improvements had been made to the visibility splay, the maximum set-back achievable from the existing access of 82 metres was well short of Council standards.

In response to Members’ concern regarding the potential for the site to be used by heavy haulage traffic through the change of use, the Independent Planning Adviser informed that Review Body that it would be possible to restrict the use of the site as a blacksmiths and that any future change to its use would require a fresh planning application in order that the potential traffic impacts could be assessed.

Following further discussion, 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:-

• Although the Change of Use failed to demonstrate compliance with Transport Planning’s guidelines, consideration must be given to the fact that it is an existing premises with an existing access.
• Members were content to approve the application subject to a condition being added to restrict the use of the premises to a blacksmith only based on the traffic information submitted in support of the application.

5.8 Erection of house on Land 110M SW of Shanhaiguan, Culbokie – Mr & Mrs Richards, 16/03017/PIP, 16/00060/RBREF (RB-08-17)

In terms of Standing Order 18, the Review Body AGREED that agenda item 5.8 be considered at this juncture.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00060/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 110M SW of Shanhaiguan, Culbokie for Mr and Mrs Richards.

Preliminaries

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 were of the view that the application site did not form part of the garden ground at “Shanhaiguan” and expressed concern at the potential loss of woodland. Concern was also expressed at the proximity of the proposed development to the adjacent road and that the case had not been made as to why the house was essential in the context of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design.

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

5.7 Erection of 3 no 900kw wind turbines with a height to tip 62m, height to hub of 35m, rotor diameter of 54m, associated access track & ancillary development including transformer housing on Land 190M NW of Seater Farm, Bower – Ventus Land Ltd., 15/02818/FUL, 16/00055/RBREF (RB-07-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00055/RBREF for the erection of 3 no 900kw wind turbines with a height to tip 62m, height to hub of 35m, rotor diameter of 54m, associated access track & ancillary development including transformer housing on Land 190M NW of Seater Farm, Bower for Ventus Land 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 provide written submissions.

Decision

The merits of the application having not been discussed, the Review Body AGREED:-

i. that the request to provide written submissions by the applicant was not required; and
ii. to DEFER the Notice of Review pending a site inspection, this to be arranged to co-ordinate with the next meeting of the Review Body if possible.

The meeting ended at 12.20 p.m.

Read the Agenda