Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Thursday, 22 June 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, 22 June 2017 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr A Henderson, Mrs T Robertson, Mr R Balfour, Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser, Mr W MacKay, Mrs M Paterson

In Attendance:

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

Mr A Henderson 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 intimated on behalf of Mr G Adam and Mr S Mackie.

2. Declaration of Interest

Item 5.5 – Mr W Mackay (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 12 April 2017

The Minutes of Meeting held on 12 April 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 – namely everything submitted at the planning application stage and the Notice of Review stage from the applicant and interested parties together with the case officer’s report on handling and the decision notice that had been issued. When new information had been identified and responded to by the case officer, that information had also been included on the USB stick.

Members were reminded that when determining each planning application subject to a Notice of Review, they were to give full consideration of the planning application afresh (also known as the “de novo” approach) in accordance with the advice contained in the letter from the Chief Planner dated 29 July 2011. The Clerk confirmed that this meant that, in each Notice of Review case, the Review Body needed to assess the planning application against the development plan and decide whether it accorded with or was contrary to the development plan. Following this assessment, the Review Body then required to consider all material considerations relevant to the application and decide whether these added to or outweighed their assessment of the application against the development plan. In carrying out this assessment, all documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties needed to be considered by the Review Body – all material planning considerations required to be taken into account; considerations that were not material planning considerations must not be taken into account.

The Clerk also confirmed that Google Earth and Streetview could be used during the meeting in order to inform Members of the site location; 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 on the ground. All the Notices of Review were competent.

5. New Notices of Review to be Determined

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

5.8 Erection of house and detached garage on Land 50M West of Dun Ela, Teangue - Mr Peter Roberts, 16/05010/FUL, 17/00023/RBREF (RB-27-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00023/RBREF for the erection of a house and detached garage on Land 50M West of Dun Ela, Teangue for Mr Peter Roberts.

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.

In response to questions regarding woodland removal, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that in relation to the existing dwelling house 65m North East of the proposed house, this could not be considered as having set a precedent as the polices on woodland removal which had been applied to that particular development were not known and that in any case Members required to measure the proposals against current guidance. He explained that national policy on woodland removal applied where an area in excess of 0.1 hectare of woodland was involved and that it had been suggested by the applicant’s agent that the removal of only a small number of ash trees within this area could facilitate construction of the proposed garage. Members were advised to consider whether removal of woodland should be allowed in this particular circumstance and also where it would achieve, “significant and clearly defined additional public benefits”, in line with policy. Should Members be content that this could be achieved, consideration of compensatory planting would also be required.

In response to questions regarding the bat survey accompanying the proposed development, the Clerk emphasised the importance of understanding what the impact of any potential development could have on European Protected Species currently on the site, such as bats, prior to taking a decision. She advised that any mitigation measures regarding European Protected Species could be covered by condition and that a license from Scottish Natural Heritage would be required.

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

In discussion, consideration was given to a range of issues, including:-

The result of the bat survey which had confirmed that there was significant activity within the woodland;
Significant replanting could be required to mitigate for the loss of ash and beech trees;
Enforcement of a woodland management plan and a legal obligation by the applicant, including additional tree planting to off-set those trees which could be lost;
The potential benefit a long-term woodland management plan could have on the woodland by introducing fresh growth in the area;
Whether the proposed development could restrict public access to the ancient monument and conversely, whether it could improve public access.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mrs I Campbell, seconded by Mrs M Paterson, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED on the basis that the proposals would accord with Policies 52, 57 and 58 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan for the following reasons:-

while control of woodland removal remained an important issue, some trees had been removed already (following windfall damage and other forestry operations the applicant considered permissible under non-planning legislation, and not brought about simply to allow development to proceed), and any further tree loss would be negligible given the house and ancillary development was to be sited within an existing clearing;
the proposal, if implemented, would bring about clearly defined public benefit which could be considered significant by virtue of introducing positive management for a largely neglected Long Established Woodland, together with an additional house to help bolster the population;
moreover, the opportunity to enhance access within the woodland, and particularly to the sea and recorded archaeological site, Dun Ela, would be a further benefit, and both the positive woodland management, including compensatory planting, and access enhancement could be secured by condition on a grant of planning permission; and
a bat survey had already been undertaken and this demonstrated that there would be no direct threat to this protected species or its habitat. A further pre-commencement survey could be secured by condition to once again ensure appropriate protection to bats at the relevant time.

As an amendment, Mr R Balfour, 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.

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

Motion (4): Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser, Mr W MacKay and Mrs M Paterson

Amendment (3): Mr R Balfour, Mr A Henderson and Mrs T Robertson

Abstentions (0)

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to conditions to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and approved by the Chair, including:-

the introduction of woodland management to the area;
bat mitigation measures, including an additional survey to be undertaken before development commences; and
the upgrading of the access track with the public road.

5.1 Erection of house at Dalveallan, Farr, Inverness, IV2 6XG - Mrs Susan Rennie, 16/02592/PIP, 17/00021/RBREF (RB-20-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00021/RBREF for the erection of a house at Dalveallan, Farr, Inverness for Mrs Susan Rennie.

Preliminaries

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

Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

5.2 Approval of conditions 1(b), 2(a), 4, 11, 14 and 17 of Planning Application 09/00303/OUTIN, Land 110M NW of Craigdarroch House Hotel, Foyers - Simpson Builders, 15/02717/MSC, 17/00025/RBREF (RB-21-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00025/RBREF for the approval of conditions 1(b), 2(a), 4, 11, 14 and 17 of Planning Application 09/00303/OUTIN for Simpson Builders.

Preliminaries

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 requests by the applicant for a site visit and to provide written submission were not required.

Debate and Decision

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

Following comment regarding the multiple applications which had been submitted in relation to what was a complicated development site, the Clerk explained that it was for the applicant to decide how they wished to lodge applications for approval of matters specified in conditions; however, if the Review Body was minded to dismiss the appeal, the applicant could be notified of the Members’ view that a single application would be more appropriate for determining the matters specified in condition.

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

5.3 Approval of conditions 1 (a), 1 (c), 3, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 15 of Planning Application 09/00303/OUTIN, Land 110M NW of Craigdarroch House Hotel, Foyers - Simpson Builders, 15/03818/MSC, 17/00026/RBREF (RB-22-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00026/RBREF for the approval of conditions 1 (a), 1 (c), 3, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 15 of Planning Application 09/00303/OUTIN for Simpson Builders.

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 the Google Earth/Streetview presentation provided during Item 5.2 on the agenda, the applicant having made a request for a site visit and to provide written submissions.

Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, and having taken on board the comments made in respect of item 5.2, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

5.4 Approval of condition 2b of Planning Application 09/00303/OUTIN, Land 110M NW of Craigdarroch House Hotel, Foyers - Simpson Builders, 15/03818/MSC, 17/00024/RBREF (RB-23-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00024/RBREF for the approval of condition 2b of Planning Application 09/00303/OUTIN for Simpson Builders.

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 the Google Earth/Streetview presentation provided during Item 5.2 on the agenda, the applicant having made a request for a site visit and to provide written submissions.

Decision

5.5 Erection of Shed at 30 Argyle Square, Wick, KW1 5AL (Retrospective) - Mr Arthur Bruce, 16/03651/FUL, 17/00020/RBREF (RB-24-17)

Declaration of Interest – Mr W MacKay declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 3, Wick and East Caithness, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr MacKay left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00020/RBREF for the erection of a shed at 30 Argyle Square, Wick, KW1 5AL (Retrospective) for Mr Arthur Bruce.

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.

The Chair explained that Members needed to take into consideration the location of the proposed development within the curtilage of a B-listed building, and within an A-listed group and in a Conservation Area. It was highlighted that the shed as currently built had not been constructed in accordance with the drawings originally submitted and that this was a material consideration for the Review Body in its determination of the Notice of Review.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that the applicant had been advised of the requirement to apply for planning permission but had proceeded to commence construction at his own risk. The Clerk also confirmed that the proposed use of the shed was to provide a private gym for the occupants of the property and to provide storage for household items and garden equipment. With regard to the proposed developments’ location within the curtilage of a B-listed building, and within an A-listed group and in a Conservation Area, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that in its consideration of the application, the Review Body had a duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 to take into account whether or not the development preserved or enhanced the listed building and its curtilage, and the conservation area. He emphasised that this was a higher duty over and above determining the Notice of Review against the development plan. He also explained trees within conservation areas were subject to control and that whilst the application was for retrospective permission, the loss of tress should be considered under the criteria for conservation areas.

The Chair emphasised that existing examples of bad building structure and changes to windows within conservation areas should not be considered as having set a precedent. He expressed the view that the proposed development did not comply with policy given its design and location within a conservation area and within the curtilage of a listed building of the highest grading.

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

Mr W MacKay returned to the meeting.

5.6 Erection of dwelling, detached garage and associated works, including replacement of mobile home on Land 40M NE of Sonachan, Rootfield, Muir of Ord - Mr Ian Macdonald, 17/00598/FUL, 17/00022/RBNON (RB-25-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00022/RBNON for the erection of a dwelling, detached garage and associated works, including replacement of mobile home on land 40m North East of Sonachan, Rootfield, Muir of Ord for Mr Ian Macdonald.

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.

The Chair explained that in the report of handling, the case officer was of the view that none of the exceptions to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and the statutory supplementary guidance Housing in the Countryside, Siting and Design applied to the application.

During discussion, clarity was sought as to whether the applicant would qualify to build the proposed development as a retiring farmer and also whether the proposed development represented a rounding off of a housing group.

The Clerk explained that, as the application was within Hinterland, the Housing in the Countryside policy applied. Whilst the Notice of Review had been submitted on the basis of a non-determination, the case officer had subsequently prepared a report containing her recommendations and was of the view that the proposed development represented an extension into an agricultural field and could not be considered a rounding off of an existing housing group. With regard to the applicant’s intention to retire, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that whilst policy in particular circumstances allowed for a retiring farmer to build and occupy a new house, the applicant had not sought independent verification from an agricultural consultant or an accountant to clearly demonstrate this. He also explained that it was also the applicant’s intention to sell on the proposed house to raise capital and the policy did not allow for this situation.

During further discussion, Members were of the view that the applicant had not clearly demonstrated his intensions to retire as a farmer and that the proposed development represented an extension of an existing housing group into an agricultural field.

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 garage and alteration of existing driveway at 27 Stroma Road, Mountpleasant, Thurso, KW14 8JA - Mr Mark Mclean, 17/00013/FUL, 17/00028/RBREF (RB-26-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00013/FUL for the erection of a garage and alteration of existing driveway at 27 Stroma Road, Mountpleasant, Thurso, KW14 8JA for Mr Mark Mclean.

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

Following discussion, the Review Body agreed to DEFER determination of the Notice of Review to allow the appointed officer to comment on the additional photos submitted by the applicant and to receive from the appointed officer additional photos of the front of the dwelling house.

The merits of the application were not discussed.

The meeting ended at 12.05 p.m.

Read the Agenda