Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Friday, 10 March 2017

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Friday, 10 March 2017 at 10.30 am.

Present:

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

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 – 6.6)

Mr M Reiss in the Chair (Items 6.7 – 6.8)

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

An apology for absence was received from Mr D Fallows.

2. Declarations of Interest

Items 5.1 and 6.1 – Mr M Reiss (both non-financial)

Items 6.5 and 6.6 – Mr B Lobban (both non-financial)

Items 6.7 and 6.8 – Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair (both non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 19 January 2017

The Minutes of Meeting held on 19 January 2017, 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.

Following a question, the Clerk confirmed that any Member of the Review Body currently serving outwith a Ward in which a Notice of Review had been submitted but which would be subject to changes to its boundary during the Local Government Elections was entitled to participate in the discussion and determination of that Notice of Review provided it was not at present within their Ward.

5. Notice of Review Previously Considered

5.1 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)

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 re-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.

The Review Body had held an unaccompanied site inspection on Monday, 6 March 2017, attended by Mrs I Campbell, Mr G Farlow, Mr B Lobban, Mrs I McCallum, Mr T Prag, Mr R Saxon and Dr A Sinclair. Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

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 by the site inspection.

Prior to discussion, the Independent Planning Adviser advised Members that in its determining of the Notice of Review, the Review Body had to take into account current development plan policy and that the policy used to assess the application when it was originally submitted in 2015 had been superseded in some significant respects.

He explained that the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment made reference to the Council’s Visualisations Standards for applications which had been prepared in 2010 but which were subsequently revised in both May 2013 and in March 2015 with the finalised guidance being adopted by the Council in July 2016. Each revision to the draft guidance applied increasingly rigorous standards to the quality of visualisations expected to ensure that these reflected as accurately as possible how the development would look to receptors when completed. The visualisations submitted by the applicant fell well short of all the revised standards expected and could understate the assessed landscape and visual impacts.

In terms of the Onshore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance, it was explained that this guidance was in draft form when the application was originally submitted but following its adoption in November 2016 it now had Development Plan status. The Review Body was advised that there were some aspects of the proposed development which could potentially conflict with the recommendations contained within the guidance, including: the scale of the development; safety and amenity considerations to be aware of at sensitive locations and criteria and methodology for advising Highland Strategic Capacity within specific geographical areas.

A Draft Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal: Caithness, November 2016 was available following public consultation. The Review Body was advised that this was a material consideration and it was for Members to decide what weight should be attached to the findings contained within it.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that in the development of a spatial context, consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of proposed developments when travelling through an area and not just in one specific location. He advised Members that the Review Body was looking at the application afresh and that it was for Members to decide what relevant factors should be taken into account during determination of the application. He further advised that the Guidance and development of a means of handling strategic capacity issues did consider the potential difficulties arising from the effect of cumulative development. With regard to the application site’s location within a Group 2 area of significant protection, it was explained that this was in relation to the site’s proximity to a safeguarding area around the Seater Landfill Site; however, it had been confirmed by the Development Plan Team that the location of the application site should be considered to be within a Group 3 area with potential for wind farm development as its proximity to Seater Landfill Site on its own, would not be considered to conflict with Policy. It was also highlighted that the application site was also located within close proximity to a Group 2 area associated with deep peat.

Following a question regarding Highland and Islands Airports’ (HIAL) response to the proposed development, it was explained that HIAL would object to the proposed development until it could be assessed against a Global Navigation Satellite System instrument approach procedures and whether any potential issues regarding the height of planes flying from Wick Airport could be resolved.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the advice provided by the Independent Planning Adviser, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

During discussion, Members gave consideration to a number of issues, including:

The cumulative impact of the proposed development within an area which already had a significant number of wind turbines; the Highlands had already made a significant contribution towards renewable energy targets; whilst in some parts of the area wind turbines had contributed to the character of the area, respite was required from wind farm development as there were a number of smaller turbines which had filled gaps in the landscape; concern was expressed regarding the potential impact the movement of the blades could have on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. Conversely, the view was expressed that the turbines would not cause a significantly detrimental impact given their height in comparison to larger turbines within nearby commercial wind farms and would not impact on the surrounding landscape. The Chair highlighted that the classification of wind turbines had changed following the adoption of the new supplementary guidance whereby turbines were now defined as smaller or larger, and that as larger was now generally above 30m to blade tip, the applicant had failed to comply with supplementary guidance, including the requirement to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development on residential properties.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, seconded by Mr R Saxon, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice and for the following additional reasons:-

the need for respite from existing wind farm development;
failure to comply with supplementary guidance, including the requirement to mitigate potential impacts on residential properties; and
the visualisations did not meet Council standards resulting in the impacts being under-estimated.

As an amendment, Mr G Farlow, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED on the basis that:

the application was not considered contrary to Policies 28 and 67 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) as the visual impact of the proposed development was not considered to be significantly detrimental given the height of the turbines, these being 62m to tip and not the larger turbines found within nearby commercial wind farms; and
it was not considered contrary to Policy 61 of the HwLDP as the application was not considered to be overly prominent and dominant in the surrounding landscape.

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

Motion (5): Mr B Lobban, Mrs I McCallum, Mr T Prag, Mr R Saxon and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (2): Mr G Farlow and Mrs I Campbell

Abstentions (0)

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and AGREED to include the additional reasons for refusal set out above

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1 Formation of autocross track on Land 360M NE of Achalone Cottage, Achalone, Halkirk - Mr Mark Foubister, 16/04753/FUL, 17/00013/RBCON (RB-09-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00013/RBCON for the formation of autocross track on Land 360M NE of Achalone Cottage, Achalone, Halkirk for Mr Mark Foubister.

Preliminaries

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 questions, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that if the planning officer had felt during their determination of the original application that there was potential for nuisance to be caused by allowing the proposed development, then it might be considered reasonable to impose a time limit on the permission. In response to a further question, he explained that a cessation date was required within the permission to enable the applicant to know when to stop and reinstate the ground in the event that the permission was not renewed.

Debate and Decision

During discussion, Members were of the view that whilst the applicant had not provided evidence that funding had been an issue due to the time limit imposed within the permission, it was felt that limiting the permission to three years was unreasonable and that there were already other controls and legislation that could deal with any concerns regarding noise.

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to conditions to be delegated to the Independent Planning Adviser and the Clerk in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, and subject to removal of reference to “temporary consent” and the inclusion of a noise limit condition on the grounds that:-

the development had been operational without complaint, the condition was considered to be disproportionate and therefore unreasonable and other regulatory regimes were in place under which action may be taken if a statutory nuisance was caused by the development.

Mr M Reiss returned to the meeting.

6.2 House Plot on Land at Birklea, Torbreck, Inverness, IV2 6DJ – Mrs Brenda Smith, 16/01779/PIP, 17/00001/RBREF (RB-10-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00001/RBREF for a house plot on Land at Birklea, Torbreck, Inverness, IV2 6DJ for Mrs Brenda Smith.

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 as the application site was located within a Settlement Development Area, the proposed development represented overdevelopment within the existing pattern and landscape. Concern was also expressed regarding the lack of visibility splay required at junction of the access track with the public road and the detrimental impact the proposed development could have on surrounding trees.

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

6.3 Change of use of land for siting of caravan for holiday use and associated ground works on Land 100M SW of River Coe Lodge, Glencoe – Mr Paul Moores, 16/02704/FUL, 17/00002/RBREF (RB-11-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00002/RBREF for a change of use of land for siting of caravan for holiday use and associated ground works on Land 100M SW of River Coe Lodge, Glencoe for Mr Paul Moores.

Preliminaries

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 questions, the Review Body was advised that whilst Transport Scotland currently recommended refusal of the Notice of Review, they could be prepared to consider removing their objection subject to conditions including a requirement to provide a new access with visibility splays of 2.4m by 215m; however, if the Review Body was minded to approve the Notice of Review, removal of the objection would have to be confirmed by Transport Scotland together with the exact requirements, otherwise approval would have to be notified to Scottish Ministers. The Clerk confirmed that it was for the Review Body to determine the full application before them, including the access shown within the plans, and not any potential alternative access to the site.

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 endorsed the concerns raised by Scottish Natural Heritage regarding the potential removal of trees on what was a Site of Specific Scientific Interest and were of the view that the visibility splay from the access was not of sufficient length. Concern was also expressed regarding the detrimental impact the proposed development could have on the surrounding landscape given its location as a primary tourist route and that the character of this area of Glencoe should be protected.

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

6.4 Change of use from vacant land to form an extension to a Holiday Park involving the siting of 3 additional Holiday Lodges on Land 30M NE of Fort Augustus Caravan Park, Fort Augustus – Loch Ness Highland Lodges, 16/02988/FUL, 17/00005/RBREF (RB-12-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00005/RBREF for a change of use from vacant land to form an extension to a Holiday Park involving the siting of 3 additional Holiday Lodges on Land 30M NE of Fort Augustus Caravan Park, Fort Augustus for Loch Ness Highland Lodges.

Preliminaries

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 comment regarding the retrospective nature of the application, the Clerk informed Members that pre-application advice provided to the applicant had incorrectly advised that the boundary of the existing holiday park site included the application site and therefore would not require planning consent. She confirmed that it was thereafter established that this was not the case and that planning consent was required. It was also explained that the applicant was keen to emphasise that, had they been aware of the need for planning permission, they would have sought this prior to proceeding with the development.

Debate and Decision

During discussion, Members, whilst sympathetic towards the applicant for having received the incorrect planning advice, were of the view that the proposed development did not represent sensitive siting and expressed concern regarding the adverse impact of the development on visual amenity given the site’s location on an important tourist route through Fort Augustus.

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

6.5 Formation of House Plot on Development Site at Auchgourish, Street of Kincardine, Boat of Garten – Mr P MacMillan, 16/02097/PIP, 16/00065/RBREF (RB-13-17)

Declaration of Interest – Mr B Lobban declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 21, Badenoch and Strathspey, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr B Lobban left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 16/00065/RBREF for the formation of house plot on development site at Auchgourish, Street of Kincardine, Boat of Garten for Mr P MacMillan.

Preliminaries

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

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. The Independent Planning Adviser gave an explanation as to what the definition of a Brownfield site was under the Cairngorms National Park’s Local Development Plan.

In response to a number of questions, the Independent Planning Adviser informed Members that the application was for Planning in Principle and that the majority of the information provided by the applicant presented a potential way to develop the site rather than a definitive proposal for a house. He explained that the application site included an existing track network which had been installed when the site was previously used as an arboretum and that the applicant was of the view that the proposed development could help to restore the track network to its original natural habitat.

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:-

It was highlighted that the majority of the remainder of the site to the south and south west was Scots (Caledonian) Pine woodland and that this had a significant bearing on the determination of the application given its location within the Cairngorms National Park.
Whilst not all of the site could be considered Brownfield, it was very secluded and the proposed development would not appear to cause any detrimental damage to the settlement pattern.
As the application was for Permission in Principle, any proposed building would be carefully considered against its location within the surrounding woodland area.
Whilst the Cairngorms National Park Authority did not object to the application, as it fell below its call-in threshold, the Authority was of the view that the site could not be considered Brownfield and therefore was not a suitable location for a housing development.
The track network could potentially restore itself.
Other forestry developments had required the installation of tracks to deal with maintenance of the forest and these were not considered to be Brownfield sites.
The removal of the track network could improve the existing landscape.
There was no clear pattern of development around the site.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, seconded by Mrs I McCallum, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED on the basis that the application site was considered to be Brownfield and a proposed development of the type suggested would fit the existing settlement pattern.

As an amendment, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr G Farlow, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

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

Motion (3): Mrs B Campbell, Mrs I McCallum and Dr A Sinclair

Amendment (4): Mr G Farlow, Mr T Prag, Mr M Reiss 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.

6.6 Change of use of land for the siting of 8 timber pods to provide accommodation primarily for walkers and cyclists at Tigh An Each, Balgowan, Newtonmore, PH20 1BS – Mr Stephen Chalmers, 16/04433/FUL, 17/00008/RBCON (RB-14-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00008/RBCON for a change of use of land for the siting of 8 timber pods to provide accommodation primarily for walkers and cyclists at Tigh An Each, Balgowan, Newtonmore, PH20 1BS for Mr Stephen Chalmers.

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 time limit of three years which had been imposed by the planning officer within Condition 2 was disproportionate given the investment required for the development and should therefore be removed from the planning permission.

Condition 2 was considered to be disproportionate given the investment required for the development and therefore unreasonable.

Mr B Lobban returned to the meeting.

6.7 Erection of House on Land 90M SW of Acarsaid, Kishorn – Mr & Mrs R Matheson, 16/05120/PIP, 17/00010/RBREF (RB-15-17)

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 duration of this item.

Mr M Reiss took the chair for this and the remaining items.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00010/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 90M SW of Acarsaid, Kishorn for Mr & Mrs R Matheson.

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, no further procedure having been requested by the applicants.

Decision

The merits of the application having not been discussed, the Review Body AGREED to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow the following information to be provided by the applicant:-

additional visualisations identifying the sites with planning permission in relation to the application site; and
a map showing the contours of the site and surrounding area.

6.8 Erection of House on Land 40M West of Acarsaid, Kishorn – Mr & Mrs R Matheson, 16/05121/PIP, 17/00011/RBREF (RB-16-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00011/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 40M West of Acarsaid, Kishorn for Mr & Mrs R Matheson.

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 applicants.

Decision

additional visualisations identifying the sites with planning permission in relation to the application site; and
a map showing the contours of the site and surrounding area.

The meeting ended at 1.15 p.m.

Read the Agenda