Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee which commenced at 9.15 am with a site visit to 4 Barclay Road, Aviemore (Item 6.1) and reconvened at 11.35 am in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 8 August 2017.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mr B Boyd, Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mrs M Davidson (excluding item 6.1), Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Ms P Hadley, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Jarvie, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban (excluding item 6.1), Mr R MacWilliam, Mr B Thompson

Officials in attendance:

Ms N Drummond, Area Planning Manager South/Major Developments
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Mrs S Hadfield, Planner
Mr J Kelly, Planner
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor (Clerk)
Miss C McArthur, Solicitor (Regulatory Services)
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Mr J Gray in the Chair

Preliminaries

The Chair confirmed that the meeting would be filmed and broadcast over the internet on the Highland Council website and would be archived and available for viewing for 12 months.

In terms of Standing Order 18, the Committee AGREED that item 6.1 be deferred to the end of the agenda in order for information requested during the site visit which had taken place earlier that morning to be received from the applicant’s agent.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence
Leisgeulan

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Mr A Baxter.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minute of the Committee meeting held on 20 June 2017 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Development Update
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/042/17 by the Head of Planning and Environment which provided a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.

During discussion the following comments were made:-

• it was requested that the ward numbers be updated to correspond with boundary changes following the local government elections in May.
• a site visit would be requested by the local Member should an application be brought forward by Springfield Properties PLC for the residential development and associated infrastructure at land 123M SE of Rosebank, Kingsteps, Lochloy Road, Nairn.

The Committee NOTED the current position.

5. Major Developments – Pre-application Consultation
Leasachaidhean Mòra – Co-chomhairle Ro-iarrtais

5.1
Description: Continued development and extraction to an existing quarry (Dalwhinnie Quarry) (17/03314/PAN) (PLS/043/17)
Ward: 20 – Badenoch and Strathspey
Applicant: Leiths (Scotland) Ltd
Site Address: Carn Dhomhnuill Bhain, Dalwhinnie, Highland

There had been circulated Report No PLS/043/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments on the submission of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN), describing the site and setting out likely relevant policies and potential material planning considerations.

The Committee NOTED the submission of the PAN and highlighted the following material planning considerations they wished brought to the applicant’s attention:-

• the impact on traffic and consideration of the possible routes for lorries through Dalwhinnie requires to be addressed in the transport assessment.
• the potential impact on the water source for the distillery requires to be addressed.

together with the other material considerations identified in the report.

7. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

7.1
Applicant: Mr H Jack (16/05671/FUL) (PLS/044/17)
Location: Land 40m North of An Teallach, Nethy Bridge. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/044/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation, during which he advised of a correction to the report to read that the site was accessed from the B970 public road and not the B851.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• As the application was located within the Cairngorms National Park, and, therefore, had been assessed against the Cairngorms National Park Local Development, a developer contribution towards affordable housing was required to be paid prior to the release of any planning permission.
• Whilst the applicant had previously sought to discharge the Section 75 legal agreement on a number of occasions, it was recommended that, should planning permission be granted, the Section 75 be kept in place to prevent any future development within the site under permitted development rights.
• It was considered that an additional existing Section 50 legal agreement might be disapplied as there were currently adequate controls in place under planning regulations to prevent new housing being built on the site in the future.
• The mere existence of a Section 75 legal agreement was not a material ground for refusing the application and if Members, having assessed the application on its own planning merits, determined it to be acceptable, the Section 75 could be modified to accommodate the proposed development.
• The most recent house built in 1997 established the requirement for having the original Section 75 legal agreement following concern raised by Scottish Natural Heritage regarding the piecemeal continued development of this area.
• Following comment that nine previous applications to develop within the site had been refused, the Committee was reminded that in its determination of the application, Members had to consider the merits of the proposed development against current development plan policies and not any previous refusal of planning permission.

No consensus having been reached between the members, the Chair, seconded by Mrs C Caddick, then moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by Mrs P Hadley, then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that the development would be contrary to:-

• Policy 4:3 (Natural Heritage - Other important natural and heritage sites and interests) and Policy 4:4 (Natural Heritage - Protected species) of the Cairngorm National Park Local Development Plan 2015 in terms of impact on ancient woodland and protected species.
• The Scottish Government’s Policy on the Control of Woodland Removal as referred to in paragraph 218 of Scottish Planning Policy as it failed to demonstrate that it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefit.

On a vote being taken, six votes were cast in favour of the motion and eight votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr B Boyd
Mrs C Caddick
Mr J Gray
Mr A Jarvie
Mr R Laird
Mr R MacWilliam

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mr G Cruickshank
Mrs M Davidson
Mr L Fraser
Ms P Hadley
Mr T Heggie
Mr B Lobban
Mr B Thompson

The amendment to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons stated accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

7.2
Applicants: Mr Brian Bowers (17/00356/PIP) (PLS/045/17)
Location: Land 80M SE of Holly Cottage, Balnain, Drumnadrochit. (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erect house and garage.
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/045/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Whilst no specific estimate had been made as to the cost of providing a footway along the roadside verge, the potential requirement for a roadside drain to be culverted underneath the footway could make this a relatively significant expenditure for what would be a single house development.
• There were a number of houses located on the private access track following decades of growth and, as the road was a private access, there was no requirement for a road maintenance agreement.
• Supplementary guidance on developer contributions was currently under review and a draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance would be submitted to the Places Committee for approval.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Whilst concern had been raised regarding the condition of the private access track, the view was expressed that the expense to the applicant of upgrading the footpath along the roadside verge from the existing access track westwards was disproportionate to the scale of the proposed development and it was suggested that Condition 12 in the recommendation be removed.
• Unease was expressed regarding picking and choosing the developer contribution required from the applicant. 
• It was highlighted that a section of footway had been developed under the Safer Routes to School programme. However, this had not been planned with enough local knowledge.
• A request was made for discussion to take place locally to determine whether funding from a range of means including the Safer Routes to School programme, developer contributions from both the applicant and local wind farm developments and the ward discretionary budget could be utilised to upgrade the private access track.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report, with the exception of Condition 12 which is to be removed

7.3
Applicants: Prestige Properties Highland LTD (17/01277/FUL) (PLS/046/17)
Location: Land 60M North of Drumarran, Blackpark, Inverness. (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of house with garage.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/046/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report, together with additional conditions addressing the following:-

• To create a proper turning point at the foot of the brae for bin lorries.
• Withdrawing permitted development rights from the area to be identified on the approved drawings and generally in line with the south boundary.
• The repair of passing places on Leachkin Brae.

7.4
Applicant: Mr G MacBeath (17/02617/PIP) (PLS/047/17)
Location: Land 15m West of 8 Dalneigh Road, Inverness. (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of dwelling.
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/047/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the refusal of the application on the grounds as detailed in the report.

Mrs S Hadfield presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The distances between the applicant’s house and the boundary of the neighbouring properties were 1.4 metres from 8 Dalneigh Road and 4.9 metres from 79 Columbia Road.
• The size of the proposed turning area was insufficient for the use of two vehicles.
• Council policy required houses with three or fewer bedrooms to have off-street parking provision for two cars.
• The surrounding area was a former council housing estate.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• The proposed development was located within a small patch of land in close proximity to neighbouring houses and would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding residential amenity.
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the surrounding neighbouring properties when built had not been designed with provision for car parking, the proposed development was considered too big a scale within the context of the application site and the surrounding area.

The Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds as recommended in the report.

6. Continued Item
Cuspairean a' Leantainn

6.1
Applicant: Mr Stuart Webster (17/00549/FUL) (PLS/034/17)
Location: 4 Barclay Road, Aviemore. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Revised positioning of proposed 1½ storey dwelling house and revision to windows to front gable.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/034/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

A site visit had taken place earlier that morning, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mr B Boyd, Ms C Caddick, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Ms P Hadley, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Jarvie, Mr R Laird, Mr R MacWilliam and Mr B Thompson.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mr J Kelly presented the report and recommendation, during which he advised that, following a request at the site visit for a revised virtual sky component (VSC) measurement, an independent consultant had carried out an assessment which concluded that the impact the house, in terms of daylight on the neighbouring property to the rear, met current guidelines.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The VSC measurement, which had been calculated against the neighbouring property to rear of the application site, was 27.1% and therefore met the minimum acceptable standard of 27%.
• Confirmation could be sought in writing from the applicant as to the margin of difference in the updated VSC measurements provided by the applicant’s agent and the independent consultant following the site visit when the revised floor level calculation (which differed by 50mm from the calculation previously used) was applied.  However, the margin of difference would be so negligible (0.0%) this would still result in the VSC measurement meeting the 27% minimum acceptable standard.
• Regarding the height of the finished floor level, the difference between the 350mm indicated in the plans and the actual 400mm measurement made during the site visit was so minimal it would not have an effect on daylight onto the neighbouring property.
• The plans submitted with the application for the house under construction had not changed and were design accurate in terms of measurements and the elevation and ridge heights.
• The roof design had no bearing on the assessment of the daylight provision to the ground floor as the position of the window and door positions had not changed.
• Whilst the roof design could have impacted on the measurements for the bathroom and bedrooms on the upper floor, the calculations were found to be well within the minimum standards required and therefore did not require further assessment.
• Whilst the applicant’s agent had provided plans for a house design based on the original proposal for the overall estate, the roof constructed on site was built with a lower roof pitch.
• As the position of the house was angled, there would be no direct overlooking of the neighbouring property.
• Velux windows were designed to let light in and were not considered a feature for looking out from; therefore, the proximity of the house with the neighbouring property was considered acceptable and there would be no element of overlooking that could warrant material consideration.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed regarding the position of the first floor velux windows on the rear elevation of the house as these would in the line of view of the velux windows on the rear elevation of the neighbouring property.
• Whilst the 50mm difference in height of the finished floor level might be considered small, the times of day that the dining room and separate kitchen of the neighbouring property were used, primarily morning and evening, could impact on the amount of light being made available into these rooms.
• The change in the position of the house from the original proposed development was significant.
• Whilst there were a myriad of house designs within the surrounding local area, none were in as close proximity to a neighbouring property as the proposed house.
• Consent for the roof layout had previously been granted.
• The neighbouring property was not going to be as visible when viewed from the velux windows due to the nature of their design.
• With regard to the effect on daylight on the neighbouring property, the VSC assessment had indicated that, even when taking account the changes in floor level, this would not drop below the 27% threshold.
• Concern was expressed that the whole house had been moved north west by over one metre when compared to the original plans and that this had resulted in the gable ends of both the house and the neighbouring property facing each other.
• The roof height was significantly higher at one end of the property than the other.
• The two rooms on the south side of the neighbouring property benefited from receiving the most light and were therefore the most habitable.
• In expressing sympathy with the applicant and objectors, disappointment was expressed that the Committee was dealing with issues which had been inherited from the Cairngorms National Park Authority.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions recommended in the report and an additional condition requiring that details are submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority of the repositioning of the first floor velux windows on the rear elevation of the dwelling house to ensure that they are offset from the velux windows on the rear elevation of the dwelling house at 9 Johnstone Road and the velux windows will thereafter be positioned only in accordance with those approved details.

The Committee further AGREED to delegate authority to the planning officer to agree the repositioning of the velux windows, if the details were satisfactory, in consultation with the local members.

The meeting ended at 1.45 pm