Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 1 May 2018

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 1 May 2018 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam (excluding Items 5.3 and 5.4)
Mrs I Campbell
Mr L Fraser (excluding Items 5.3 and 5.4)
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay
Mrs M Paterson
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:

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 filmed but would not be webcast live due to a technical fault.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mr R Balfour.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.3 – Mr G Adam (non-financial)
Item 5.4 – Mr G Adam (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 20 March 2018

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 20 March 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. It was confirmed that, due to technical issues, Streetview would not be available for all the Notices of Review. All the Notices of Review were competent.

5. New Notices of Review to be Determined

5.1 Erection of house, formation of access, installation of septic tank and soakaway on Land 55M East of Hill House, Dalchreichart, Glenmoriston – D & C Turnbull, 17/04963/PIP, 18/00016/RBREF (RB-17-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00016/RBREF for the erection of a house, formation of access, installation of septic tank and soakaway on Land 55M East of Hill House, Dalchreichart, Glenmoriston for D & C Turnbull.

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

During discussion Members expressed the following views:-

Concern was expressed at the quality of the access track leading to the application site, in particular: the junction onto the public road, a lack of passing places and the provision of communal bin storage facilities at the road end;
Four Notices of Review previously considered by the Review Body had been approved nearby within the community on sites on the down-slope side of the public road up the glen;
The lack of public service provision including public transport links near the application site was not considered a valid reason for refusing the proposed development;
Prior to the adoption of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan in July 2015, development restricted to the up-slope side of the road in this locality had previously been encouraged as part of a previous Settlement Development Area;
It was considered that a one and a half storey house on the site could fit with the pattern of development in the community and would not have a significantly detrimental impact on community and residential amenity.

Following discussion, Members were of the view that the Notice of Review should be approved for the following reasons:-

The adoption of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan in July 2015 had deleted a previous Settlement Development Area although it had specifically encouraged development restricted to the up-slope side of the road in this locality;
Details submitted in support of the Review indicated that a house on the site could fit with the pattern of development in the community, and would not be significantly exposed or visually prominent nor unacceptably overlook existing properties below given the separation distance, the ability to attach a condition restricting the height of the new house to a one and a half storey maximum only and landscaping conditions could be attached to help integrate development into the landscape. For these reasons, the proposal could not be assessed to have a significantly detrimental impact on community and residential amenity. Moreover, details of traditional houses in the area could be used to influence the future design of a house on this Review site;
Concerns about the use and condition of the access track could also be addressed by requiring improvements to the access with the public road; some gain could be achievable by this improvement together with a condition to provide appropriate communal bin storage facilities at the road end and additional passing places along the length of the track to the public road.
There were four previous Notices of Review considered by the Planning Review Body which, while on sites on the down-slope side of the public road up the glen, had been approved nearby within the community. Applications fell to be considered on their individual merits against the Development Plan. Any future applications would be judged in a similar way and the development under consideration could not be taken to set a precedent and would depend on merit and the circumstances prevailing at the time; and
Other concerns raised in representation could either be addressed by attaching other appropriate conditions, were not material planning considerations, or did not carry sufficient weight to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review for the reasons stated above and subject to conditions to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and agreed by the Chair to secure the following:-

i. improvements to the junction of the access track to the application site with the road through Dalchreichart to allow a vehicle turning in to the track to pull off the track if a vehicle is coming down the track towards the junction;

ii. the creation of passing places along the access track between the junction and the application site in accordance with the standards required by the Council’s Transport Planning Team;

iii. the creation of a bin store/enclosure at the junction of the access track with the public road through Dalchreichart; and

iv. a restriction on the height of the proposed house of up to 1.5 storeys.

During determination of the following application, a technical fault occurred with the webcast recording equipment in the Chamber and the remainder of the meeting was not filmed.

5.2 Installation of an Orenda 49kw wind turbine, 23.4m to hub, 33.471m to tip with an 18.9m diameter rotor at Quarryedge, Weydale, Thurso, KW14 8YN - Orenda Energy Solutions, 17/00196/FUL, 18/00009/RBREF (RB-18-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00009/RBREF for the installation of an Orenda 49kw wind turbine, 23.4m to hub, 33.471m to tip with an 18.9m diameter rotor at Quarryedge, Weydale, Thurso, KW14 8YN for Orenda Energy Solutions.

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 Clark confirmed that the application had been refused under delegated powers and had not been called in by the Ward Members.

Members requested sight of Google Earth 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.

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:-

Council guidelines in terms of wind farm development had been revised during the period between the initial formulation of the application and the final decision of the planning officer in 2018 and that it was for Members to determine the application against the current guidance.
The visualisations provided by the applicant did not comply with the Council’s visualisation standards for a wind turbine development of this scale.
The Council’s On-shore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance (OWESG) set out the spatial framework for onshore wind energy development to be applied to all onshore wind energy development proposals that met one of the following:
- Individual turbines with a height of 50 metres and above to blade tip;
- More than one turbine with a height of 30 metres and above to blade tip.
Larger-scale wind energy development had been identified within the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as turbines of 30m or above to blade tip; therefore, the proposed wind turbine could be considered to be of a larger scale development.
Within the OWESG, there was acknowledgement of sensitive locations in relation to wind farm developments and 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.
Impacts to community amenities should be assessed at a range of receptor locations including residential properties, work places and recognised visitor sites and should include consideration of receptors outwith any defined settlement boundary.
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.

During discussion, Members highlighted the following:-

The height and movement of the blades would have a detrimental visual impact on the amenity of the surrounding area due to the location of the proposed wind turbine on an elevated site.
The proposal was only slightly over the 30m threshold for what could be defined as a small-scale wind turbine and was considered a small-scale development in comparison to other wind turbines developments in Caithness.
The visualisations provided by the applicant did not enable an accurate assessment of the potential visual impact arising from the proposed development on the surrounding buildings and landscape to be undertaken.
Whilst the proposed wind turbine could be considered acceptable if it was adding to an existing wind farm, the proposal was contrary to policy as there was currently limited capacity for larger-scale wind turbine development within Caithness.

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.

5.3 Erection of New Dwelling on Land 25M NE of Garlyle, 10 Ness Way, Fortrose - Mr Kevin Keith, 17/03318/FUL, 18/00011/RBREF (RB-19-18)

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 Adam left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00011/RBREF for the erection of a new dwelling on Land 25M NE of Garlyle, 10 Ness Way, Fortrose for Mr Kevin Keith.

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 to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chair drew attention to the “buffer zone” strip to the south-east of the existing properties at 9 – 11 Ness Way which had been secured by a section 75 legal agreement to protect the occupants of these properties from stray golf balls hit from the nearby golf course. He emphasised that that the garden ground of the proposed development would encroach into this “buffer zone” and it was for Members to determine whether the location of the proposed development could be considered suitable for a house.

In response to suggestions from Members that safety features could be installed such as a safety fence or netting, the Chair emphasised that these could impact on the views from the neighbouring properties and could also be considered an onerous requirement of the applicant.

In response to further comment from Members, it was highlighted that the case officer in their report on handling had considered that the proposed development would give the appearance of being “shoe-horned” into the site and would negatively impact on the amenity of 10 Ness Way.

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.

5.4 Erection of House on Land 60M SE of Shellcroft, Munlochy - Mrs Robyn Myers, 17/05270/PIP, 18/00019/RBREF (RB-20-18)

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 Adam left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00019/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 60M SE of Shellcroft, Munlochy for Mrs Robyn Myers.

Preliminaries

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 confirmed that the application had been refused by the planning officer on the grounds that the proposal was considered to be contrary to Policy 35 (Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland Areas)) of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as the site did not meet any of the listed exceptions to the policy. It had been considered by the planning officer that the site was not located within or adjacent to an existing housing group and therefore the proposal did not represent the rounding off of an existing housing group. It was also considered that the applicant would have difficulty in satisfying the conditions required to bring the visibility splays standards up to the required condition.

In response to questions, the Clerk strongly emphasised to Members that the Policy stated that a housing group was considered to form of at least 3 houses physically detached from one another and that it was not for Members to turn the existing development into a housing group by granting planning permission. She further emphasised that, whilst the proposal could be considered by Members to be an improvement on the existing land, the site was currently used for agricultural purposes and was not considered brownfield land; therefore, it did not meet the exception to policy. It was confirmed that the two existing houses within close proximity to the proposed development had been constructed at least 30 years previously and therefore current planning policy would not have been a consideration when these had been built.

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 12.40 pm.

Read the Agenda