Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr L Fraser, Mr A Henderson, Mrs T Robertson

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

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 Mrs I Campbell, Mr W MacKay, Mr S Mackie and Mrs M Paterson.

2. Declarations of Interest

None

3. Minutes of Meeting of 20 September 2017

The Minutes of Meeting held on 20 September 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

5.1   Erection of a Dwelling on Land 30M SW of South Gatehouse, Farr – Mr Rory Dobson, 16/03868/PIP, 17/00047/RBREF (RB-36-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00047/RBREF for the erection of a Dwelling on Land 30M SW of South Gatehouse, Farr for Mr Rory Dobson.

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 applicant.

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.

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, Members were of the view that whilst improvements had been made to the B851 road from which the access to the site would be taken, improvements to the site access itself had not been made.  It was considered that the double tracking of the B851 had increased the speed of traffic on this stretch of road and therefore improvements to the site access were required.

Concern was also expressed that the proposed design of the building was not in keeping with the existing Artists Cottage and North and South Houses which, whilst being of modern build, had been built to an original Charles Rennie Mackintosh design.  In response, the Independent Planning Adviser reminded the Review Body that the application was for planning permission in principle only and that the architect’s impression of the proposed building provided within the Notice of Review was indicative only and may not be the final proposed design.

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

5.2   Erection of House, Access Road, Septic Tank and Soakaway on Land 50M NW of Errachail, 108 Loth, Helmsdale – Ms L Cole, 17/02040/FUL, 17/00048/RBREF (RB-37-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00048/RBREF for the erection of house, access road, septic tank and soakaway on Land 50M NW of Errachail, 108 Loth, Helmsdale for Ms L Cole.

Preliminaries

 

Prior to discussion, the Clerk advised the Review Body that information had been received from an interested party to which the applicant had not been provided with the opportunity to respond; therefore it was recommended that the application be deferred to allow the applicant the opportunity to respond.

Decision  

The merits of the application having not been discussed, the Review Body AGREED to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review until the next meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide a full response to the interested party comments and also to respond to the planning officer’s comments relative to an appeal decision for prior approval for an agricultural shed on land within the applicant’s ownership.

5.3   Erection of Self-contained Annex at Golden Acre, Glen Road, Newtonmore, PH20 1BH - Mr Ewan Smith, 15/04284/FUL, 17/00051/RBREF (RB-38-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00051/RBREF for the erection of a self-contained annex at Golden Acre, Glen Road, Newtonmore, PH20 1BH for Mr Ewan Smith.

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 hearing session on specific matters.

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 hearing requested by the applicant was not required.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chair drew attention to the applicant’s statement of case which provided an explanation that, whilst the application was for a self-contained annex, the proposed development was intended to be the main house to the adjoining annex which had already been built.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Advisor clarified the following:-

• The description within the planning history had not clarified that the previously approved permission had been for the Granny annex only and that approval had not been granted for the replacement house;
• The plans submitted by the agent had  erroneously referred to the previous application (05/00096/FULBS) as being approved; however, whilst the proposed development had previously been deemed acceptable, the applicant had not proceeded with a related Section 75 agreement and the application was subsequently deemed to have been withdrawn; and
• Whilst the current application had been considered by the case officer as an extension to an existing house and should therefore be subservient to the existing house, it was evident from the planning history that the applicant’s intention was to build a replacement main house built onto the existing Granny annex.

During further discussion, the view was expressed that the proposed development was situated within a fairly secluded location and would not impact on the character of the surrounding area.  It was also emphasised that the existing building would act as the annex to the proposed development and it was unfortunate that the description within the application had not made this clear.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that if Members were minded to approve the proposed development, a condition could be included that any proposal to separately sell each residential unit would require the submission of a further planning application for approval by the planning authority.

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 a condition requiring that that any proposal to separately sell each residential unit would require the submission of a further planning application for approval by the planning authority, for the following reasons:-

• Members did not agree with the planning officer’s view that the application adversely affected the appearance and character of the existing house;
• Members viewed the description of the application as unfortunately confusing as it was clear from the supporting information, the designs originally and currently submitted, and in the context of the phasing difficulties as explained, that this proposed dwelling house was always intended to have been the replacement main or principal house albeit the subsidiary house – the Granny Annex – had been built first.
• Members therefore viewed the size of the extension as justified and were content that the proportions and appearance relative to the existing property would be appropriate, the more so given the secluded location and existing tree cover.

5.4   Erection of Extensions to House at 1 Castle Terrace, Ullapool, IV26 2XD - Dr & Mrs A Lintern, 17/02723/FUL, 17/00045/RBREF (RB-39-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00045/RBREF for the erection of extensions to a house at 1 Castle Terrace, Ullapool, IV26 2XD for Dr & Mrs A Lintern.

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 for a site visit after the submission of additional photographs of the site by the case officer.

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 request made by the applicant for a site visit was not required.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

During discussion, comments included the following:-

• It was acknowledged that extensions should reflect the existing character of an area; however, the house’s Dorran construction had little architectural value and the proposed alterations could enhance the character of the surrounding area;
• Whilst it was acknowledged that the house was set forward from the building line of adjacent houses, this was not considered an issue as curvature was an expectation in good design;
• The proposed ridge height of 800mm above the existing roof was not considered a major increase and the design of the proposed extensions were sympathetic to the adjacent houses; and
• Whilst the proposed increase in height could give the impression of a lack of symmetry, this was not considered inappropriate as other houses in the surrounding area were of differing heights.

In response to a question regarding the scale of development and whether it could be considered over-development, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that the Council’s Planning Guidance “House Extensions and Other Residential Alterations” was non-statutory and that it was for Members in their determination of the application to decide whether the proposed development could be considered acceptable overall and an improvement to the existing house.

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 and massing of the extension was inappropriate in comparison with the existing building and neighbouring buildings;
• Members did not consider that this two-storey extension would appear overly dominant in size, scale or proportion and due to proximity to the adjacent property; and
• Members viewed the renovations and extensions as representing a high quality design given its context and   setting, and therefore provided a positive contribution to the visual quality of the place.

6. Dates of Meetings in 2018

The Review Body NOTED the following dates for meetings in 2018, as agreed at The Highland Council on 7 September 2017:-

7 February
20 March
1 May
19 June
14 August
25 September
13 November

In addition to the above meetings, it was further AGREED that a special meeting of the Review Body be organised to take place in January 2018.

The meeting ended at 11.40 a.m.