Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2018

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam
Mr R Balfour
Mrs I Campbell
Mr L Fraser (excluding Item 5.5)
Mr A Henderson (excluding Item 5.5)
Mr W MacKay (excluding Item 5.4)
Mr S Mackie
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 (Items 1 – 5.4)
Mrs T Robertson in the Chair (Item 5.5)

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 Mrs M Paterson.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.4 – Mr W MacKay (non-financial)
Item 5.5 – Mr A Henderson (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Special Meeting of 10 January 2018

The Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 10 January 2018, 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 1 block of Semi-Detached Houses on Garden Ground to NW of Glenisle, 66 Telford Road, Inverness – Mr Richard Rankin, 17/02994/FUL, 17/00054/RBNON (RB-05-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00054/RBNON for the erection of 1 block of Semi-Detached Houses on garden ground to NW of Glenisle, 66 Telford Road, Inverness for Mr Richard Rankin.

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.

The Clerk confirmed that whilst the Notice of Review was submitted on the grounds of non-determination by the appointed officer within the prescribed period, the case officer had now prepared a Report of Handling which had been lodged in response to the Notice of Review.

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/Streetview presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that permission had previously been granted for 2 flatted detached properties in 2007.

During discussion, Members highlighted the following:-

reducing the height of the boundary fencing was not fully in control of the applicant as it involved third party ownership;
whilst the Report of Handling had considered the proposal to be over-development, there were already a number of houses on Carse Road and Telford Road with large rear gardens which benefitted from large curtilages;
the proposed development would leave very little in the way of amenity space for future occupants;
there was very limited amenity space within the rear garden of the existing main house; and
it was suggested that a smaller design of house could be considered acceptable within the site.

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

5.2 Conversion of steading to dwelling at Rosevean House, Dalrachney Beag, Carrbridge, PH23 3AX – Mr Ronald Stuart Dickson, 17/02646/FUL, 17/00058/RBREF (RB-06-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00052/RBREF for the conversion of steading to dwelling at Rosevean House, Dalrachney Beag, Carrbridge, PH23 3AX for Mr Ronald Stuart Dickson.

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 and to provide further written submissions.

The Clerk confirmed that as the application was within the Cairngorms National Park Authority Area, the Notice of Review was to be determined using the Cairngorms National Park - Local Development Plan 2015 (LDP), extracts of which were circulated to Members and the meeting adjourned for approximately five minutes to allow Members to peruse.

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 further written submissions were 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 Clerk advised that a separate appeal against the planning enforcement notice served by the Council in relation to the works which had already taken place on the site had been submitted by the applicant to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division and that it would be determined by a Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers. It was confirmed that the Notice of Review submitted for determining by the Review Body was the application for retrospective planning permission to convert the steading into a dwelling.

The Chair drew attention to the applicant’s statement of review and summarised the reasons given by the planning officer for refusing the proposed development and the applicant’s subsequent response.

In response to questions raised during discussion, the following was clarified:-

The appeal against the planning enforcement notice served by the Council, which had been lodged with the Scottish Government – Planning and Environmental Appeals Division , was a separate issue and was not a consideration in the Review Body’s determining of the Notice of Review;
It was for the Review Body to determine the planning merit of the proposed development and whether allowing the development to proceed could be considered acceptable;
The Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) had not raised an objection to the proposed development as the proposal fell below its call-in threshold; however, following discussion with the CNPA, it had been confirmed that they were of the view that the site would not be a suitable location for a new property;
The applicant’s agent had certified that the application site was part of an agricultural holding; however, it had not differentiated between the different types of agriculture use for planning purposes;
The applicant had been in discussion with Scottish Natural Heritage regarding an Agri-Environment & Climate Scheme (AECS), therefore it could be assumed that other public bodies were of the view that it was an agricultural holding;
Whilst the application site was located within an area identified as open space within the Carrbridge Settlement Envelope, CNPA policy supported proposals which reinforced the existing pattern of development and improved the economic viability of a business; and
Whilst there was an encouragement within the CNPA LDP to convert or replace vernacular buildings, it was for Members to determine whether they viewed the steading as a traditional vernacular building.

During discussion, Members expressed contrasting views, including that whilst the site was located within the Carrbridge settlement boundary, the site could also be considered to form part of an agricultural holding. It was also suggested that whilst the proposal could be considered acceptable in terms of Policy 3 (Sustainable Design), it was not an appropriate conversion of a traditional building. The view was also expressed that the applicant had not provided sufficient supporting information to show compliance with Policy 2 (Supporting Economic Growth).

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

5.3 Extinguish footpath and change use of land to private gardens (House numbers 22 and 23 Woodside Farm Drive) on Land 10M NW of 16 Woodside Court, Westhill, Inverness - Owners of Woodside of Culloden, 17/02649/FUL, 17/00063/RBREF (RB-07-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00063/RBREF to extinguish footpath and change use of land to private gardens (House numbers 22 and 23 Woodside Farm Drive) on Land 10M NW of 16 Woodside Court, Westhill, Inverness for the owners of Woodside of Culloden.

The Committee NOTED that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request and DEFERRED until a future meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide a full response to the interested party comment and for interested parties to be notified of a further late submission from the applicant.

5.4 Erection of 3 no wind turbines with a height to tip of 99.5m, height to hub of 64m, rotor diameter of 71m, indicative capacity of 6.9MW, and associated infrastructure to include 1.7km of new access track, crane pads, cabling and a small substation on Land 760M SE of Tresdale Farm, Canisbay - Tresdale Wind Farm Ltd, 15/01261/FUL, 17/00061/RBREF (RB-08-18)

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 17/00061/RBREF for the erection of 3 no wind turbines with a height to tip of 99.5m, height to hub of 64m, rotor diameter of 71m, indicative capacity of 6.9MW, and associated infrastructure to include 1.7km of new access track, crane pads, cabling and a small substation on Land 760M SE of Tresdale Farm, Canisbay for Tresdale Wind Farm Ltd.

The Chair advised that papers copies of the visualisations supplied on Members’ USB Flash Drives were available for Members to view and the meeting adjourned for approximately fifteen minutes to allow Members to peruse.

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 and the paper copies of the visualisations, the applicant having made a request to provide further written submissions.

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, the paper copies of the visualisations and the Google Earth/Streetview presentation, and were of the view that the request made by the applicant to provide further written submissions was not required.

Debate and Decision

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

The Planning Adviser highlighted a number of factors for Members to be aware of during their determination of the Notice of Review, including the following:-

During the period between the initial formulation of the application in 2012 and the final decision in 2017, Council guidelines in terms of wind farm development had been revised and that it was for Members to determine the application against the current guidance;
The Landscape and Visual impact assessment undertaken by professional architects on behalf of the applicant had been based on the Council’s visualisation standards produced in 2013; however, there has subsequently been two further refinements of the guidance with the current version produced in July 2016;
The Council Supplementary Guidance for Onshore Wind Energy (OWESG) had been in the process of being formulated over a number of years and was officially adopted by the Council in November 2016 and subsequently became part of the development plan;
The methodology used to assess landscape capacity for wind farm developments in Caithness was adopted in December 2017 and concluded that there was no strategic capacity remaining in Caithness;
The capacity study had recognised that within the settled communities along the Pentland Firth, there was a high sensitivity to wind farm development and that there was no potential whatsoever for any turbine higher than 20m to blade tip;
The capacity study had also recognised that there was a transition into the upper moorland landscape which had been assessed as being less sensitive to large scale wind developments but only having limited capacity; therefore, given the transition when viewed from the lower level towards the sky, the front edge could be particularly sensitive;
Whilst there could be some limited potential for large scale wind farms within the sweeping moorland character, this would comprise of a consolidation of the existing wind farm at Stroupster; however there were significant issues in terms of the potential cumulative and cumulative sequential landscape impacts; and
Within the OWESG, there was acknowledgement of sensitive locations in relation to wind farm developments and that previous draft guidance had recommended that there should be no wind farm developments within 2 kilometres of settlements identified within the local development plan. It was confirmed that the now adopted OWESG had been amended to recommend that there should be no wind farm developments within 2 kilometres of any residential development, including individual residential properties unless mitigation measures have been identified and can be applied.

During discussion, it was highlighted that whilst the application had been refused prior to the adoption of the OWESG, both the applicant and agent would have been aware of the guidance in its draft form. With reference to the impact on tourism, it was highlighted that the proposed development could have a significant visual impact on the two entry points into Caithness at John O Groats and Gills Bay.

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice, subject to some re-wording of the reasons to take into account the subsequent changes in policy.

Mr W Mackay returned to the meeting.

5.5 Construction of a hydropower scheme on Land 4390M NW of Kingie Lodge, Invergarry - Strathdee Properties Ltd, 16/04506/FUL, 17/00060/RBREF (RB-09-18)

Declaration of Interest – Mr A Henderson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 11, Caol and Mallaig, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr Henderson left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

Mrs T Robertson took the chair for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00060/RBREF for the construction of a hydropower scheme on Land 4390M NW of Kingie Lodge, Invergarry for Strathdee Properties Ltd.

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 further written submissions.

Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this, during which he showed the locations of the previously consented hydro schemes within the surrounding area and informed Members that whilst some minor works could have been undertaken to construct intakes at nearby burns, this would not have involved the damming of a loch.

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 to provide further written submissions was not required.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chair drew attention to the applicant’s statement of review and highlighted the reasons given by the applicant for submitting the Notice of Review, during which, Members were informed of the following:-

The dam had been designed as earthfill and would not be constructed in concrete;
The construction machinery figures were misleading and the generation figures had been wrongly stated;
It was proposed to turf the slopes of the access track during construction;
Pre-application advice was sought in January 2016 from the Planning Department and SNH and was subsequently followed through with SNH;
Whilst concerns had been raised regarding the visual impact of an access track, an alternative route was subsequently selected following consultation with SNH;
There would be no visual impact from the borrow pit as it would be reinstated with original turf and soil not used in the dam and would therefore not require excavation of rock;
The report had highlighted a number of concerns regarding the construction methods proposed; however the applicant had provided reassurance that construction standards could be met;
The cable route would be backfilled and would not impact on any trees of importance;
There were no outstanding objections from SNH, SEPA, the Community Council, Transport Planning Team or the Forestry Commission; and
The visual impact would not be significant and the mitigation measures would further reduce any minor impact.

The Chair then outlined the reasons given by the planning officer for refusing the application, during which, Members were informed that:-

Concerns had been raised that the tracks constructed for adjacent hydro schemes were wider than consented, and had not been satisfactorily restored;
A number of objections had been received, including from the John Muir Trust; and
Whilst Policy 67 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan was supportive of proposals for renewable energy developments where they can be located, sited and designed such that they would not be significantly detrimental overall, the proposals needed to accord with the other general policies within the Development Plan;
The proposal would have a significant adverse and long term impact on the Wild Land Area, in particular its qualities of naturalness and remoteness;
The proposal and associated engineering and construction works would diminish the prevailing sense of solitude and remoteness in what was a Special Landscape Area (SLA) and would not reflect or respect the landscape characteristics and special qualities of an SLA;
The cumulative impact of this development together with the 6 run of river schemes granted permission in 2012 and 2015 within 6km of this site, would significantly detract from the landscape and Wild Land qualities of naturalness and remoteness; and
The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse impact on trees, woodland and protected mammals as a result of the installation of the buried power cable linking the powerhouse to the Allt Mheil powerhouse.

During discussion, Members concurred with reasons 1, 2 and 3 of the case officer’s report of handling and were minded to dismiss the Notice of Review. In relation to reason 4, Members were of the view the installation of the buried power cables would not have a significant impact on the surrounding trees, woodland or any protected mammals and that any damage occurred could be manageable.

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review for reasons 1, 2 and 3, but not reason 4, given by the case officer in the decision notice.

The meeting ended at 1.35 p.m.

Read the Agenda