Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 19 June 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, 19 June 2018 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam (excluding Item 5.6)
Mr R Balfour
Mrs I Campbell
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay
Mrs M Paterson
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:

Miss C McArthur, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant
Mrs C MacIver, Committee and Elections Officer

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 S Mackie.

The Chair confirmed that Mr Mackie had resigned from his position as a Member of the Review Body and advised that a replacement for Mr Mackie would be sought in due course.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.6 – Mr G Adam (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 1 May 2018

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 1 May 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 House Plot on Land 25M West of Wester Speybank, Alvie Estate, Kincraig – Mr and Mrs Kennedy, 17/01392/PIP, 18/00022/RBREF (RB-21-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00022/RBREF for a house plot at land 25m west of Wester Speybank, Alvie Estate, Kincraig for Mr and Mrs Kennedy.

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 and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. The Chair 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). He drew attention to the reasons for refusal given in the report on handling and emphasised that there was a presumption against the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland unless there was a clear public benefit.

In response to a question, the Planning Adviser summarised that the Scottish Government's Policy on Control of Woodland Removal and Scottish Planning Policy took into account the overall area of woodland within the proposed development and that the applicant was of the contrary view that the policy should only apply to the area of woodland that would be required to be removed. In response to a further question, the Review Body was informed that the policy identified all woodland as a resource and that ancient and semi-natural woodland was recognised as a particularly special resource in the context of the ecology of the surrounding area. Whilst compensatory planting could mitigate the loss of trees, the case officer in the report on handling did not view this as being of the same quality as the current semi-natural woodland.

During discussion, Members expressed contrasting views, including that:-

The site was within an area listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory as ancient semi-natural woodland;
The southern part of the site contained two stands of aspen which was a priority tree species for protection in the Cairngorms National Park and the aspen stands within Strathspey were of national significance;
Of the twelve trees proposed for removal, ten had been identified as being in poor condition and it was considered that aspen was fast growing;
An area of woodland had already been “unwittingly” felled by the applicant;
The proposed development was located between two existing properties and a third development which had recently been granted planning permission;
There was ample space between the location of the proposed house and the existing group of houses;
The Policy took into consideration the flora and fauna around the base of the trees and not just the trees themselves;
The tree species identified within the tree planting specification did not include aspen;
Both the Forestry Commission and the Woodland Trust had objected to the proposed development;
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) was of the view that the proposed development was unlikely to have an adverse impact on protected species;
The proposed house would create an accessible housing group and could therefore be considered to be of public benefit; and
The Forestry Officer had accepted the applicant’s proposal of compensatory tree planting.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mr G Adam, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED for the following reasons:-

Members did not agree that the development would detract or weaken the character of the existing group nor that it would fail to integrate with the existing built form or pattern of development due to its location and siting in comparison with the adjacent houses. Members did not view the development to be overcrowding within the site and therefore viewed the development to accord with Policy 1 of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan;
Whilst Members accepted that there would be a loss of semi-natural ancient woodland, they did not view this to have an adverse impact on the natural heritage qualities of the site or affect the overall integrity of this woodland resource within the Cairngorms National Park as the loss of semi natural ancient woodland would be minimal in comparison with the woodland area as a whole and was therefore not contrary to Policy 4 and 5 of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan;
Members were not convinced that the test of additional public benefit, as required under circumstances set out in National and Development Plan Policy on woodland removal, was justified in this instance and would not serve the intended purpose given the disturbance already caused to the woodland area by the surrounding previously consented houses; 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.

As an amendment, the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

There being no further amendments, the matter was put to the vote with votes being cast as follows:

Motion (5): Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mrs I Campbell, Mr W MacKay and Mrs M Paterson

Amendment (3): Mr L Fraser, Mr A Henderson and Mrs T Robertson

Abstentions (0)

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

5.2 Erect Extension at 14 Holm Avenue, Inverness, IV2 4QZ - Mr John Buchan, 18/00029/RBREF (RB-22-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00029/RBREF to erect an extension at 14 Holm Avenue, Inverness, IV2 4QZ for Mr John Buchan.

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

The Chair drew attention to the Report on Handling and expressed concern that pedestrians could find it difficult to see approaching vehicles from the driveway due to the proximity of the proposed extension to the road edge and that whilst the driveway was currently shared by vehicles and pedestrians, driver visibility of pedestrians would be significantly reduced if the extension was permitted.

Thereafter, and having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth/Streetview presentation, the Planning 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 Change of Use of Land for Siting of Caravan for Holiday Use, Relocation of Access and Associated Ground Works on Land 100M SW of River Coe Lodge, Glencoe - Mr Paul Moores, 18/00031/RBREF (RB-23-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00031/RBREF for a change of use of land for siting of a caravan for holiday use, relocation of access and associated ground works on land 100m south west of River Coe Lodge, Glencoe for Mr Paul Moores.

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.

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 questions, the Planning Adviser confirmed the following:-

It was the intention of the applicant to form an access into the site at the end of the existing layby; however, vehicles parked in the layby could obstruct visibility;
The existing structure complied with the definition of a caravan under current legislation;
Confirmation would be required as to whether there was any remaining contaminated land; however, this could be secured by condition; and
In order for the Review Body to fully gauge the impact the development could have on road traffic and the surrounding landscape, it would have been desirable to have information on the visibility splays required for vehicular access.

During discussion, Members expressed concern that vehicular visibility splays onto the A82 at the proposed access to the site could be significantly reduced by vehicles parked in the layby. Concern was also expressed that the proposed development was outwith the Settlement Development Area boundary for Glencoe and that the building was not considered traditional in the context of the surrounding scenic area.

In response to a suggestion that any future planning application by the applicant should take into consideration the site’s potential designation as a brownfield site, the Review Body was reminded that the site had not previously been viewed as a suitable location for development due to it being located outwith the defined settlement boundary and therefore little encouragement could be offered that any future planning application would be looked at favourably.

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 Proposed 3 no. Terraced Houses on Amenity Woodland East of The Knoll, Kincraig - Allan Munro Construction Ltd, 18/00032/RBREF (RB-24-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00032/RBREF for proposed 3 no. terraced houses on amenity woodland east of the Knoll, Kincraig for Allan Munro Construction 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 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.

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 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).

During discussion, Members expressed the view that, whilst the proposed design and layout was commendable, the location of the proposed houses on the Knoll was inappropriate as it would have a negative effect on the surrounding amenity woodland which was well used by the community.

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.

5.5 Erection of House on Land 60M West of Rionnag, Brough - C Sutherland Joinery and Construction, 18/00025/RBREF (RB-25-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00025/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 60m west of Rionnag, Brough for C Sutherland Joinery and Construction.

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.

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 Report on Handling and highlighted the concerns raised in the report, including that the applicant had failed to provide a supporting statement to justify the need for a house to be located within the site; visibility splays did not meet current standards and the site was considered to be very wet.

During discussion, Members highlighted that whilst concerns had been raised regarding flooding and drainage, these could be addressed by conditions, as had been recommended by the Council’s Flood Team. The view was expressed that the development site was not considered to be backland and therefore the design of the proposed house could be considered to be in keeping with the existing houses. Members also expressed the view that whilst visibility splays at the shared access were not of the required standards set out by Transport Planning, the shared access was already in use by the existing houses.

Following discussion, Mr W Mackay, seconded by Mrs M Paterson, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED for the following reason:-

The siting of a house in this location was sympathetic to the existing pattern of development since it would be visually connected to the existing houses. Therefore, Members did not agree that the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on individual residential amenity subject to appropriate conditions and would not be contrary to Policy 36 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.
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.

There being no Amendment to the Motion, the Chair declared it to be the finding of the Meeting and the Notice of Review was APPROVED for the reasons stated subject to conditions to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and approved by the Chair.

5.6 Erection of House on Land 80M NE of Beechfield, Newton of Kinkell, Conon Bridge - Messrs D and N Mackenzie, 18/00021/RBNON (RB-26-18)

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 18/00021/RBNON for the erection of a house on land 80m north east of Beechfield, Newton of Kinkell, Conon Bridge for Messrs D and N Mackenzie.

Preliminaries

Members requested sight of Google Earth/Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

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 on Handling which had been lodged in response to the Notice of Review. Members were issued with a copy of the response received from the applicant’s agent to the Report on Handling at the meeting, (which had also been circulated to Members by email prior to the meeting), having been received following issue of the agenda, and were given time to read 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 Google Earth presentation and the agent’s response to the Planning Officers Report on Handling.

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 Report on Handling and highlighted the concerns raised in the report, including that the visibility splays fell considerably short of the required 120 metre standard. In terms of the siting of the proposed house, he considered the site to currently be in a “horseshoe” shape and that the proposed development could create an estate. He also drew attention to the limited location within the site to position the house due to overhead electricity wires.

During discussion, it was highlighted that the applicant was of the view that a precedent had been set in terms of the existing access which was shared by a number of previously built houses; however, whilst it was acknowledged that previous developments currently shared an access which did not meet the required standards, it was necessary for the correct visibility splays to be provided for the proposed new development. The Council’s assessment of the visibility splays required on a road where vehicles could travel at speeds up to 40 mph was considered to be fair as it was also conceivable that vehicles could be driven up to 60 mph.

During further discussion, Members expressed concern that the proposed house was not sympathetic to the existing pattern of development within the area and highlighted the concerns raised regarding potential flooding and the lack of adequate vehicular visibility splays at the proposed access. Concern was also expressed regarding a lack of privacy as the proposed house would overlook into the gardens of two existing houses.

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

The meeting ended at 12.40 pm.

Read the Agenda