Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 20 March 2018 at 10.30 am. 

Present:

Mr G Adam (excluding Item 6.4)
Mr R Balfour
Mrs I Campbell (excluding Item 6.7)
Mr L Fraser (excluding Item 1 – 3 and 5.1)
Mr A Henderson
Mrs M Paterson
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
Mrs A MacArthur, 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 W MacKay.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 6.4 – Mr G Adam (non-financial)
Item 6.7 – Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 7 February 2018

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 7 February 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. Notice of Review Previously Considered

5.1  Erection of Croft House at 12 Englishton Muir, Bunchrew, Inverness, IV3 8RQ – Mr Charles Leakey, 17/02558/FUL, 17/00052/RBREF (RB-01-18)

Mr L Fraser, having not taken part in this item at the meeting on 10 January 2018, left the room during determination of this item.

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review 17/00052/RBREF for the erection of a croft house at 12 Englishton Muir, Bunchrew, Inverness, IV3 8RQ for Mr Charles Leakey.  The application had been deferred from 10 January 2018 to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide a comprehensive supporting statement incorporating detailed evidence on how the crofting operation would be financially viable and sustainable and why it was necessary to the business that the accommodation was actually needed on site as per the croft land management guidelines stated in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Guidance – Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design.

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.

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 highlighted the unique operation of the croft as the majority of the work undertaken on site was by traditional, labour intensive methods and did not rely on modern agricultural machinery.  Therefore it was considered that the Labour Unit calculations required to justify the operation of a croft could potentially be interpreted differently due to the way in which the land management of this croft is being carried out.  Following the supporting evidence requested and thereafter provided by the applicant’s agent, the financial viability and sustainability of the croft land had now been demonstrated and therefore a croft house on the site could be justified. 

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to conditions to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and approved by the Chair, and granted planning permission for the following reasons:

• Members were satisfied that the additional information submitted by the applicant provided sufficient land management justification for the proposed development as it demonstrated that the croft is financially viable and sustainable.
• Members felt that it was necessary to the business that accommodation was provided on site due to the fact that the land management methods used are more traditional and therefore require more on-site supervision.

Mr L Fraser returned to the meeting.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1   Erection of 1 no Wind Turbine with a height to tip of 100 m, Height to hub of 59 m and a rotor diameter of 82 m with associated infrastructure including access track, crane hardstanding and sub-station building on Land 1090 M South of Hoy Farm House, Castletown – Mr John Sleigh, 16/04678/FUL, 17/00062/RBREF (RB-10-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00062/RBREF for the erection of 1 no Wind Turbine with a height to tip of 100 m, height to hub of 59m and a rotor diameter of 82 m with associated infrastructure including access track, crane hardstanding and sub-station building on Land 1090 m South of Hoy Farm House, Castletown for Mr John Sleigh.

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.

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 clarified that if the height of the turbine to blade tip had been 20m or less the appointed officer may have taken a different view. 

The Independent Planning Adviser highlighted that the Council’s guidelines in terms of wind farm development had been revised since this application had been submitted and that it was for Members to determine this Notice of Review against the current guidance.  He also advised that the methodology used to assess landscape capacity for wind farm developments in Caithness concluded that there was no strategic capacity remaining in Caithness for large scale wind turbines, with this area being viewed as a respite area between two major windfarms.

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the appointed officer in the decision notice, subject to some re-wording of the reasons, to take into account the subsequent changes in policy, the re-wording to be agreed by the Chair.

6.2   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.

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, further written submissions and one or more hearing sessions.

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, further written submissions and one or more hearing sessions 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 Chair drew attention to the title deeds and highlighted that it was quite clear that this area was originally designated as an open plan area with no trees, fences or hedges.  He also stated that if there was nuisance or anti-social behaviour occurring as a result of use of the path for these houses, this would be a police matter and not a matter for the Planning Review Body. 

During discussion, Members expressed concern at whether this was a public right of way and whether there was sufficient room between the path and house boundaries.  However, Members stated that it was important to retain this type of footpath, in line with the comments from the Access Officer. 

The Clerk advised that this was a recognised path but did not have the legal status of a public right of way as it had not benefited from 20 years of uninterrupted use. 

The Chair thanked the applicants for the submission of the drone presentation which had been very helpful in considering the Notice of Review and had assisted Members in debating the Notice of Review. 

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the appointed officer in the decision notice.

6.3 Erection of house and garage, formation of vehicular access, installation of reed bed and soakaway on Development Site to the East of Harden Farm, March Road, Wick - Mr John Grant, 16/03571/FUL, 18/00001/RBREF (RB-11-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00001/RBREF for the erection of a house and garage, formation of vehicular access, installation of reed bed and soakaway on Development Site to the East of Harden Farm, March Road, Wick for Mr John Grant.

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

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.

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:-

• there was an outstanding objection from SEPA due to the site lying within a fluvial flood plain while no flood risk assessment had been carried out. The incorporation of flood resilience measures promoted by the applicant did not sufficiently address SEPA policy of avoidance of risk, and the outstanding objection would result in a referral to Scottish Ministers if Members were minded to grant permission. Ministers would be unlikely.to take a different view from SEPA in the absence of a flood risk assessment.  Concern had also been expressed on the flood risk in this area by the Council’s own Flood Team; and
• an outstanding objection from the Transport Planning Manager on the access road.

During discussion, it was highlighted that the house design was acceptable but the applicant would need to come back with a new application addressing flood risk mitigation together with proposals for some necessary upgrading of the access road, particularly provision of passing places 

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the appointed officer in the decision notice.  An informative to be added to letter 6 to encourage the applicant to address both the flooding issue and some upgrading of the access road prior to any further applications being submitted.

6.4 Erection of House on Land 50M NW of Redlands, Croftnacreich, North Kessock - Mr Alan Gordon, 17/04783/FUL, 18/00002/RBREF (RB-12-18)

Declaration of Interest – Mr G Adam declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 9, Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mr G Adam left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00002/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 50M NW of Redlands, Croftnacreich, North Kessock for Mr Alan Gordon.

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.

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.

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.

The Chair then outlined the reasons given by the planning officer for refusing the application.

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the appointed officer in the decision notice.

Mr G Adam returned to the meeting.

6.5 Convert 16 Hotel Bedrooms to 5 Self Catering Letting Units at Braeriach Hotel, Main Street, Newtonmore, PH20 1DA - Mr Dereck Villes, 17/04123/FUL, 18/00004/RBCON (RB-13-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00004/RBCON for the conversion of 16 Hotel Bedrooms to 5 Self Catering Letting Units at Braeriach Hotel, Main Street, Newtonmore, PH20 1DA for Mr Dereck Villes.

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.

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, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

In answer to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser considered that the reasoning for condition 1, although not specifically stated in the report of handling, could be that the officer assessed there to be a lack of amenity space at the hotel for permanent occupants.  He went on to specify six tests to be considered by decision makers when applying conditions to planning permissions and Members had to assess this planning condition against these six tests.  It was clarified that the proposal had six parking spaces and a further small area with drying greens and space for bicycles. 

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 indicating the application had not specifically stated that the flats would be used for holiday letting.

During discussion, Members commented on the fact that the applicant had lived in the hotel prior to this change and should be permitted to continue living in the hotel if he wished to do so.  There appeared to be sufficient private amenity space in the area of the hotel relative to other similar existing developments in settlements across the Highlands.  The letting units would primarily be for holiday letting but they should also be capable of long term letting to sustain the business of the hotel.

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and granted the removal of Condition 1 of the planning permission on the basis that Members viewed the restriction to holiday letting and the three month occupation timescale as too onerous and restrictive.  Members were also not satisfied that the removal of Condition 1 would have an impact on the area’s visual amenity nor that there was a lack of private amenity space.

6.6 Proposed Dwelling within garden ground at Mile-End Cottage, 122 Culduthel Road, Inverness, IV2 4EE - Mrs L Urquhart, 17/03312/FUL, 18/00007/RBREF (RB-14-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00007/RBREF for the erection of a dwelling within garden ground at Mile-End Cottage, 122 Culduthel Road, Inverness, IV2 4EE for Mrs L Urquhart.

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.

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, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

During discussion, Members considered that due to the widening of the entrance and removal of the boundary wall there would be adequate visibility splays to the road.  The flood risk from the burn had been mitigated by the applicant.  This was a large site that could easily accommodate this back-land development. 

The Independent Planning Adviser advised that permitted development rights should be restricted to avoid the erection of buildings in the area used for flood risk mitigation of the burn and a suitable condition should be added if Members approved the Notice of Review.  

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and granted planning permission for the following reasons:

• Members were of the view that the proposed house demonstrated sensitive siting and given its location would not affect the established settlement pattern;
• Members did not view the proposed house as being crammed and felt there was adequate space to the frontage for garden ground; and
• Members did not agree that there would be any more excessive noise and disturbance than any other development and therefore it would not have an adverse impact on individual and community residential amenity.

Members therefore were satisfied that the proposed house met the requirements of Policies 28, 29 and 34 of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP).  An additional condition in relation to restricting permitted development on the site to be worded by the Independent Planning Adviser in consultation with the Chair to protect the area reserved for flood mitigation.

6.7 Siting of portable building for medical practice annexe at Ferguson Medical Centre, Church Street, Lochcarron, Strathcarron - Lochcarron Medical Partnership, 17/04770/FUL, 18/00010/RBCON (RB-15-18)

Declaration of Interest – Mrs I Campbell declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he 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 duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00010/RBCON for the siting of portable building for medical practice annexe at Ferguson Medical Centre, Church Street, Lochcarron, Strathcarron for Lochcarron Medical Partnership.

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.

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

Debate and Decision 

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

During discussion Members considered that a ten year period was too restrictive and that the proposed building was fit for purpose. 

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and granted the removal of Condition 2 of the planning permission on the basis that the ten year period for consent is too restrictive and the proposed building fits its purpose.

Mrs I Campbell returned to the meeting.

6.8 Erection of house with integral garage, formation of access, installation of treatment plant on Land 700M East of Culnaha Farmhouse, Nigg, Tain - Mr Kyle Burnett, 17/03674/FUL, 17/00064/RBREF (RB-16-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00064/RBREF for the erection of a house with integral garage, formation of access, installation of treatment plant on Land 700M East of Culnaha Farmhouse, Nigg, Tain for Mr Kyle Burnett.

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.

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.

Debate and Decision 

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

The Chair referred to the documentation and noted that the application site lies on the 100m contour, which wasn’t necessarily visible from Google Streetview as it doesn’t accurately reflect the topography of the area.  He confirmed that the application was being determined against Policies 28, 29 and 36 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan.  He also noted that works had already been carried out on the site but reminded Members that this was a separate enforcement issue and their role was to consider the merits of this application only.  He reminded Members that this was not hinterland and that the trees surrounding the site, currently providing a shelter belt, were not in the ownership of the applicant and could be felled in the future when matured.

During discussion, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that no operational need had been provided by the applicant for developing the land.  Members noted that there were some scattered houses within this area and also considered whether the development would be significantly detrimental in line with the wording of Policy 28.

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the appointed officer in the decision notice.

The meeting ended at 1.25 pm.