Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 14 August 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, 14 August 2018 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam
Mr R Balfour
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay (excluding Item 5.5)
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

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 Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell and Mrs M Paterson

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.5 – Mr W Mackay (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 19 June 2018

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 19 June 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 House, Formation of Access, Installation of Treatment Plant and Soakaway at Rowans, Inverarnie, Farr, Inverness – Mrs Heather Henderson, 17/05344/PIP, 18/00027/RBREF (RB-26-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00027/RBREF for the erection of a house, formation of access, installation of treatment plant and soakaway at Rowans, Inverarnie, Farr, Inverness for Mrs Heather Henderson.

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

In response to a question as to whether the proposed development formed a “backland development”, the Chair drew attention to the history of the site and emphasised that, whilst the garden ground had previously been sub-divided, the woodland was outwith the garden ground and had been retained as a shelter belt. He expressed the view that the proposed development did not represent a further sub-division of the existing garden ground and that it was for Members to determine whether they considered the development necessary in the context of the number of trees being proposed for removal without mitigation for replanting. He acknowledged that the applicant had suggested that there was potential for replanting; however, no confirmation had been provided as to whether this would be natural regeneration or man-made planting and it was highlighted that an arboricultural plan would normally be submitted in this instance.

In response to questions, the Planning Adviser confirmed the following:-

Whilst the applicant had suggested that the actual amount of land that would be involved in tree removal was less than 0.1 hectares, the Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal specified that the whole of the woodland block must be taken into account when identifying the size of woodland that would be proposed for removal;
A tree survey had been undertaken and included within the application; however, this was not to the required British standards and the forestry officer was of the view that it did not provide sufficient information as it did not take into account the consequences of building a house set in woodland and had underestimated the amount of trees that would be lost;
There was an expectation that the owner of the woodland would be required to manage the area of woodland and that this would include replanting and removal of trees damaged by wind blow;
The Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal required that the applicant demonstrate that the removal of trees would offer significant public benefit;
Should a significant public benefit be demonstrated by the removal of trees, an area would be required to be identified for replacement planting elsewhere and this could potentially be geographically removed from the actual woodland area;
In response to a suggestion that the proposed development could be considered an extension to a housing group, it was highlighted that the Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design Supplementary Guidance tended to discourage ribbon development along roadsides and considered woodland as a natural edge to a housing group;
In terms of whether the proposed development could be considered to have a public benefit, it was highlighted that each small area of woodland removed eventually added up to a larger area being removed and the Scottish Government was trying to reverse the loss of significant areas of woodland;
Whilst acknowledging the applicant’s intention to downsize and the potential to release a house onto the open market, it was for Members to determine how significant a factor this was in its consideration of the public benefit of the proposed development; and
Any view taken regarding public benefit would be expected to apply to other applications in general; however, it was emphasised that this could become difficult to look at in terms of the overall policy.

The Chair highlighted that there was clearly a problem with trees being damaged due to wind blow within the woodland and therefore it was likely that more trees would need removing. He also highlighted that the area of woodland was mature and that the Forestry Officer was of the view that Geotextile was not adequate to protect tree roots; therefore, it was for Members to determine whether the site should be valued as woodland or should the proposed development be considered as a rounding off the edge of the site.

During discussion, it was highlighted that there was a difference of opinion between the applicant’s Planning Consultant and the Council’s Forestry Officer and it was questioned as to whether the problem could be resolved by the submission of a further survey of the woodland area proposing some remedial action to address the loss of woodland. The view was expressed that this may help to identify if there was any potential public benefit arising from the proposed development and satisfy the Planning Officer’s concerns with this application.

The Clerk reminded Members that the provision of a further survey would only address the concerns surrounding woodland and Members would still have to consider all the other relevant policies applicable to this application and decide whether they were satisfied that these policies could be overcome and, if so, provide reasoning for this.

During further discussion by Members, it was pointed out that it would be unfair practice to keep requesting surveys until a satisfactory outcome was received and the view expressed was that they had to accept the information they had before them.

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.

5.2 Change of Use of Garage to Dwelling on Land 15M East of West Heather Road, Inverness - Mrs Lynne Cordiner, 18/00200/FUL, 18/00037/RBREF (RB-27-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00037/RBREF for a change of use of garage to dwelling on land 15M East of West Heather Road, Inverness for Mrs Lynne Cordiner.

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.

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 size of the houses and the number of inhabitants within this cul-de-sac and expressed the view that having a garage was an important amenity for residents. He also expressed concern that, whilst there might be a need in the area for the type of accommodation proposed, the development was lacking in architectural quality and could be considered a diminution of placemaking in the context of the neighbouring houses and care home.

During discussion, the lack of sensitivity towards the architectural quality and also the negative impact on the surrounding houses was highlighted. It was also queried as to whether the property would be used for commercial letting; however, the Clerk confirmed that this was only speculative and that the applicant had applied for the change of use for a dwelling.

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 Conversion of a Guest House into six Self-contained Units at Guest Accomodation, Craigerne House Hotel, Golf Course Road, Newtonmore - Craigerne Guest House, 17/04245/FUL, 18/00038/RBCON (RB-28-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00038/RBCON for the conversion of a guest house into six self-contained units at Guest Accomodation, Craigerne House Hotel, Golf Course Road, Newtonmore for Craigerne Guest House.

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.

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 and highlighted that it was for the Review Body to determine whether Condition 1 of the planning permission, which restricted use of the guest house to holiday letting, should remain in place or whether this condition should be removed to enable the guest house to be converted for residential use.

In response to questions, the Planning Adviser confirmed the following:-

Buildings that were considered as only being suitable for holiday letting purposes would be expected to have this type of condition imposed in order to keep control over its use;
The applicant did not specifically apply for the guest house to be used for holiday letting and that the application was for a change of use to provide residential accommodation; and
In drawing attention to a similar application for a change of use which had previously been determined by the Review Body, it was highlighted that the consensus taken at that time was that the sort of residential use the building was put to was not a matter for the planning authority and that, unless Members felt that a degree of control was required, it should be left to the market and the owners to decide.

During discussion, the Chair highlighted the planning officer had included Condition 1 in the planning permission in the interest of the area's visual amenity and in recognition of the lack of private amenity space; however, Members did not share the concerns raised regarding the visual impact of the development.

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. Furthermore, Members did not view Condition 1 as being reasonable or necessary and therefore it failed to meet two of the tests set out in Circular 4/1998: Use of conditions in planning permissions and as a result should not be imposed as part of the planning permission.

5.4 Erection of Boundary Wall and Entrance Gates at Viewhill, Station Road, Kyle, IV40 8AH - Mr Iain Macleod, 18/00197/FUL, 18/00033/RBREF (RB-29-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00033/RBREF for the erection of a boundary wall and entrance gates at Viewhill, Station Road, Kyle, IV40 8AH for Mr Iain Macleod.

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.

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 concern that, whilst the proposed wall could be considered acceptable in terms of road safety, the development would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding visual amenity due to its height and the finish of the materials proposed to be used in its construction. It was highlighted that the planning officer had suggested that a reduction in the height of the wall to 2.4m could be considered acceptable; however, this had been turned down by the applicant.

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, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway on Land 280M NW of Achalone, Halkirk - Mr and Mrs B Budge, 17/05697/FUL, 18/00034/RBREF (RB-30-18)

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 remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00034/RBREF for the erection of a house, installation of septic tank and soakaway on land 280M NW of Achalone, Halkirk for Mr and Mrs B Budge.

Preliminaries

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 of Handling and highlighted that whilst the house itself was considered to meet the minimum requirements of Highland Council policies and guidance, the case officer had raised concerns regarding the length of the access route from the public road and the agricultural land-use of the area. The Chair highlighted that it was the intention of the applicant’s parents to continue living in the old farmhouse and that the proposed house would be used by the applicant to run the farm. It was also highlighted that whilst the access route was not an adopted road, it was considered a permanent access to the proposed development.

During discussion, Members expressed the view that the pattern of settlement in Caithness was varied and not all houses in the area were located close to public roads. It was highlighted that the applicant was a farmer and had chosen this particular plot to locate the house as there was an existing road of good quality leading to it. Members considered the siting and layout of the proposed development as appropriate to the surrounding area and that the length of the access route from the public road to the plot was acceptable.

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

Members were not convinced that the siting and layout of the proposed house would appear incongruous and at odds with the prevailing pattern of development given the scattered development pattern within the surrounding area and was therefore not contrary to Policy 36 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan;
Members were not convinced that the access to the proposed house had any adverse impact on the landscape given that it is an existing and permanent access and therefore complied with Policy 28 and Policy 36 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan; and
Members considered that any issues regarding refuse collection could be addressed by way of condition.

The Review Body also AGREED that a condition be included as part of the planning permission for a dummy chimney to be added to the house design to reinforce the traditional palette of the house and add visual amenity to the overall composition of the development.

The meeting ended at 12.15 pm

Read the Agenda