Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 9 August 2017 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr A Henderson, Mrs T Robertson, Mr R Balfour, Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser, Mr W MacKay, Mr S Mackie, 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

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mr G Adam.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mr S Mackie (non-financial)
Items 6.1 and 6.2 – Mrs M Paterson (non-financial)
Item 6.3 – Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 22 June 2017

The Minutes of Meeting held on 22 June 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. Notice of Review Previously Considered

5.1 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)

Declaration of Interest – Mr S Mackie declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 2, Thurso and North West Caithness, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr Mackie left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been re-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. The application had been deferred from 22 June 2017 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 existing extension to the front of the dwelling house.

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.

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 impact on sunlight/daylight to the kitchen window of the neighbouring property and the revised sunlight/daylight report, which had indicated that an appropriate amount of light could be achieved;
the design, size and scale of the proposed garage and whether it could be considered disproportionate in comparison to the existing house and neighbouring buildings; and
whether the extension would appear dominant within the site given the size of the plot and remaining garden ground.

It was noted that there had been no objections to the proposed development.

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

Members were not convinced that the scale, massing and horizontal emphasis of the garage was inappropriate in comparison to the existing buildings and neighbouring buildings;
Members did not consider that the extension would appear dominant within the site given the size of the plot and remaining garden ground; and
Members were satisfied with the daylight report and that the proposal would therefore not be detrimental to visual and residential amenity.

Mr S Mackie returned to the meeting.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1 Erection of House on Land 90M East of Croc Na Boull Cottage, Muir of Ord - Mr & Mrs R Constanduros, 17/01340/PIP, 17/00031/RBREF (RB-28-17)

Declaration of Interest – Mrs M Paterson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 8, Dingwall and Seaforth, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs Paterson left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00031/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 90M East of Croc Na Boull Cottage, Muir of Ord for Mr and Mrs R Constanduros.

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 clarified that the site was formerly an area of undulating woodland which had recently been felled under an approved felling licence from the Forestry Commission and that a condition of the licence was for the area to be restocked. He confirmed that some replanting had already taken place and that the remainder of restocking would be through a combination of further replanting and natural regeneration.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chair drew attention to Policies 35, 52 and 58 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) and summarised that there were a number of key issues for consideration, including:-

the location of the proposed development and whether it was considered to be within an area of woodland;
whether the proposed house could be considered to meet the criteria to form part of a housing group;
a presumption against housing in the countryside, unless it could be evidenced that the proposed development met any of the exceptions; and
the applicant had failed to establish the presence or absence of any protected species as no protected species surveys had been carried out.

The Chair also drew attention to the applicant’s circumstances, during which he empathised with the applicant’s medical requirements; however, he reminded Members that this was not a material planning consideration in the Review Body’s determination of the Notice of Review.

In discussion, consideration was given by Members to the issues raised by the Chair, during which the Clerk and Independent Planning Adviser confirmed the following:-

Policy 52 of the HwLDP gave a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources and development could only be permitted where there was a clear public benefit;
In the case officer’s view, the proposed development did not fall within any of the exceptions to Policies 35 and 52 of the HwLDP and therefore, unless the Review Body in its determination of the Notice of Review could evidence an exception to these policies, it would be contrary to Policies 35 and 52;
Whilst it had been suggested by the applicant that precedent had been set by the granting of permission for housing within the vicinity of the proposed development along Corrie Road, in each of those cases an exception to the policy had been identified and therefore no precedent, to allow housing that was contrary to Policy 35, had been set;
It was confirmed that family health issues were not a material planning consideration and there was no scope to consider these as exceptions to Policies 35 and 52 of the HwLDP;
Whilst reference had been made to health, moral and political considerations, the Clerk reminded Members that these were not matters that could influence their determination of the Notice of Review and that they had to only consider the planning merits of the application;
When the application was initially refused there was an opportunity for Members within Ward 8 to call in the application for comment; however, this had not been taken up by a majority of the Members; and
Following a suggestion that if the applicant was prepared to offer additional land for replanting then permission could be granted, the Review Body was advised that it was the merits of the application before them that had to be considered and that if an alternative arrangement could be identified then this would have to be submitted as a new application.

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

6.2 Erection of Three Flats at Former Stable Building Site, Robertson House, Greenhill Street, Dingwall - Mr Stuart Reedie, 16/04340/FUL, 17/00033/RBREF (RB-29-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00033/RBREF for the erection of three flats at Former Stable Building Site, Robertson House, Greenhill Street, Dingwall for Mr Stuart Reedie.

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 drew attention to the planning history of the application and highlighted that, whilst planning permission had previously been granted in 2012 for the conversion of the former stable building within the curtilage of Robertson House and the erection of two flats (planning application references: 08/00598/FULRC & 08/00599/LBCRC), the Notice of Review was for the erection of three flats and did not involve the conversion of the stable building. He summarised that the key issues for consideration were the impact the proposed development could have on the visual amenity of the surrounding area, in particular the adjacent ‘B’ Listed Robertson House, and the removal of the turning head on Park Street.

The Clerk provided information on Historic Environment Scotland (HES) Policy 2016, during which she explained that the applicant’s agent had highlighted that within the decision notice, one of the reasons for refusal had stated that the proposal was contrary to HES Policy without making reference to the particular section it was contrary to. The applicant’s agent was of the view that, without specific reference to which section of HES Policy the proposed development was contrary to, it was therefore unreasonable for the applicant to address the concern in this regard. Members were advised that there was a special duty contained within the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 to consider the extent to which proposals either preserved or enhanced the setting of listed buildings and that for the purposes of its determination, the Review Body had to consider this duty along with other relevant Development Plan policy or other material planning considerations.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that there had previously been a turning head located at the end of Park Street; however, this was no longer suited to larger vehicles and was currently being used for parking and to provide access to an existing garage. He highlighted that an informal turning area had been provided for a number of years at the access gate from Park Street into the application site and that this arrangement was subsequently formalised and a standard turning head formed as a condition of the consent for the conversion of Robertson House to offices in 2006. It was highlighted that the previously granted planning permission (08/00598/FULRC & 08/00599/LBCRC), which had subsequently lapsed, enabled the retention of the turning head area and had demonstrated a previous willingness from the applicant to continue this.

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

safety concerns regarding the loss of the turning head on Park Street as larger vehicles, such as refuse lorries, would be forced to reverse down the street;
the removal of the curved curtilage wall leading up to the frontage of Robertson House and the impact the proposed new wall could have as it would remove the turning head;
the impact the proposed development could have on the visual amenity of Robertson House and the existing properties on Park Street and whether it was in keeping with the local character; and
the proximity of the new building to the pavement on Park Street as the building line would not reflect that of other houses on the street.

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

Mrs M Paterson returned to the meeting.

6.3 Erection of House on Land 60M East of Lismore House, Kinellan, Strathpeffer - Caroline Rham, 17/00988/PIP, 17/00034/RBREF (RB-30-17)

Declaration of Interest – Mrs I Campbell declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 5, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs Campbell left the Chamber for the rest of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00034/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 60M East of Lismore House, Kinellan, Strathpeffer for Caroline Rham.

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 confirmed the following:-

the standard requirement for visibility splay purposes was, from a set-back distance of 2.4 metres from the edge of the junction, visibility of 90 metres without any obstruction;
the visibility splay to the south from the junction of the U3070 (Kinellan Road) with the A834 was 18 metres;
there had been no record of accidents at the U3070/A834 junction during the previous 25 years; and
Transport Planning had emphasised their concerns regarding the access onto the U3070/A834 junction in their consultation response which also included photographs taken in both directions from the required set-back distance showing what the visibility splay looked like from the ground.

In response to further questions, the Independent Planning Adviser emphasised to Members the importance of taking into consideration Transport Planning’s concern regarding the impact the proposed development could have on public safety at the U3070/A834 junction in their determination of the Notice of Review.

Decision

Members were of the view that in order to gain a better understanding of the layout of the site and the access onto the U3070/A834 junction, a site visit should be arranged.

The merits of the application having not been discussed, the Review Body AGREED to DEFER the Notice of Review pending an accompanied site inspection, this to be arranged to feed into the next meeting of the Review Body on 20 September 2017.

The meeting ended at 12.45 p.m.

Read the Agenda