Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 25 September 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, 25 September 2018 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr R Balfour
Mr R Bremner (by video-conference and excluding Item 5.8)
Mrs I Campbell (excluding Item 5.6)
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay (excluding Item 5.8)
Mrs M Paterson (excluding Item 5.7)
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:

Mrs K Lyons, Solicitor/Clerk
Miss C McArthur, 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 not be filmed and webcast due to a technical fault.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mr G Adam.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.6 – Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)
Item 5.7 – Mrs M Paterson (non-financial)
Item 5.8 – Mr R Bremner and Mr W Mackay (both non-financial)

During her declaration, Mrs Paterson asked whether there was potential to appoint a Substitute Member in the event that a Substantive Member of the Planning Review Body was unavailable. In response, the Chair advised that the potential of appointing Substitute Members could be investigated.

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 14 August 2018

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 14 August 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 Removal of part of boundary wall to enable off street parking at Elrig Villa, 23 Lovat Road, Inverness, IV2 3NS – Mr Alistair Strachan, 18/01481/FUL, 18/00045/RBREF, (RB-31-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00045/RBREF for the removal of part of boundary wall to enable off street parking at Elrig Villa, 23 Lovat Road, Inverness, IV2 3NS for Mr Alistair Strachan.

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 Report of Handling and highlighted that one of the reasons given by the planning officer for refusing the application was that the removal of part of the boundary wall would take away the symmetry between Number 23 and 25 Lovat Road.

During discussion, Members highlighted the potential benefit of removing the boundary wall to provide off-street parking as it would take cars off Lovat Road which were currently parked on the opposite side of the street to the property. Members expressed the view that the removal of part of the boundary wall would not damage the historic environment in the Inverness (Crown) Conservation Area nor be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as there were a number of properties within the surrounding area which no longer had boundary walls. Members also considered that the removal of a section of the boundary wall would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It was suggested that, should permission be granted, a dropped kerb access to the property be created in compliance with roads legislation.

In response to comments made during discussion, the Independent Planning Adviser provided clarification on the change in status which had been afforded to heritage and the historic environment following changes to planning legislation in 1997. He explained that the legislation recognised the changing status of conservation in the environment and that policies had since evolved to provide greater emphasis on safeguarding the historic environment.

During further discussion, it was highlighted that the applicant was attempting to create a better environment by creating off-street parking and it was considered that the proposal would not disrupt the symmetry with the adjoining house given the already varying heights of the applicant’s wall and other adjacent boundary walls within Lovat Road.

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

Members did not view that the removal of part of the boundary wall at this development would damage the historic environment in the Inverness (Crown) Conservation Area nor be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area given that (1) a number of properties within the surrounding area no longer have boundary walls and (2) that it is only a partial removal of the wall. Members, therefore, did not view this as unacceptable impact on the natural environment, amenity and heritage resource or to be contrary to Policy 57 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan;
Members were also not convinced that the removal of a section of the boundary wall would disrupt the symmetry with the adjoining house given the already varying heights of the applicant’s wall and other adjacent boundary walls within Lovat Road; and
Members viewed, on balance, that the benefit of getting cars off the road outweighed the disbenefit to the historic environment.

Arising from discussion, Members requested that an informative be added to the decision notice confirming that the applicant must comply with roads legislation and apply for the creation of a dropped kerb access to the property and all costs associated with this shall be borne by the applicant.

5.2 Erection of house on Land 60M NE of Lynchurn Farmhouse, Boat of Garten - Mr Michael Collee, 18/02086/PIP, 18/00047/RBCON (RB-32-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00047/RBCON for the erection of a house on Land 60M NE of Lynchurn Farmhouse, Boat of Garten for Mr Michael Collee.

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 the applicant was seeking to remove Condition 4 of the granted planning permission which required the upgrading of the access track from the public road to the proposed site access and the provision of one passing place.

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

the access track was not currently surfaced to the Council’s adopted standards and highlighted that the applicant had estimated the cost of bringing the track up to standard as being between £80,000 to £100,000;
Council policy previously required the upgrading of an access track serving four properties to an adoptable standard when a fifth house was constructed; however, this was no longer planning policy and was included as non-statutory guidance in relation to access into single houses and small housing developments;
the access track would only serve four houses once construction had been completed; and
in their assessment of the Notice of Review, Members had to consider Planning Circular 4/1998: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions and whether Condition 4 of the planning permission could be deemed necessary and/or reasonable.

During discussion, Members expressed the view that it was an unreasonable expectation for the applicant to tarmac the whole of the access track when they only had access rights and it was suggested that only the first 10 metres of the access track from the bell mouth junction with the public road be finished with bituminous macadam. It was also suggested that a passing place be provided but this did not need to be finished with bituminous macadam. It was emphasised that any future application for a fifth house within this settlement could require an upgrading of the access track.

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to the following amendments to Condition 4:-

only the first 10 metres of the access track from the bell mouth junction with the public road is to be finished with bituminous macadam rather than the full access track from the public road to the proposed site access; and
a passing place is provided but this does not need to be finished with bituminous macadam.

as Members did not view the upgrading of the access track from the public road to the proposed site access in its entirety as reasonable as the costs associated with this are disproportionate for one house. Members also did not view this as necessary given that the existing track did not serve over 4 properties. Therefore, Members did not view that Condition 4 as it stands as meeting the tests set out in the Planning Circular 4/1998: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.

5.3 Erection of house on Land 60M NE of Ruisdeal, Muir of Ord - Dr Carrie Forbes, 18/01081/PIP, 18/00049/RBREF (RB-33-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00049/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 60M NE of Ruisdeal, Muir of Ord for Dr Carrie Forbes.

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 the application site fell within a Hinterland Area. He also highlighted that the visibility splay distances from the proposed access junction onto the main road were 20 metres in both directions and fell considerably short of the standards required.

In response to comment that there were existing houses in the surrounding area, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) “Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland areas)” sought to restrict development in the open countryside of the hinterlands around towns due to the amount of previous development within these areas. He explained that the strategy of this policy was to direct potential developers to settlement areas where services were available and to avoid pressured areas in the countryside. He stated there could be high demand for housing development in these areas which could result in a change in the character of that countryside.

During discussion, concern was expressed that there was a particularly large amount of road traffic activity around “The Cairns” and that the proposed development could further increase the risk to safety. It was emphasised that current adopted standards for visibility splays on 60 mph roads were ten times the amount proposed by the applicant.

In response to comment suggesting that people should have the option to live outwith settlements, the Clerk reminded Members that the personal circumstances of applicants was not a material planning consideration and that the application was being determined against Policy 35 of the HwLDP where there was a general presumption against further housing in the countryside unless any of the listed exceptions applied.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the case officer in reason 1 of the decision notice.

5.4 Erection of 48 no. affordable houses and associated works on Land 85M South of Raigmore Tower, Culloden Road, Inverness - Springfield Properties PLC, 18/01049/FUL, 18/00043/RBREF (RB-34-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00043/RBREF for the erection of 48 no. affordable houses and associated works on Land 85M South of Raigmore Tower, Culloden Road, Inverness for Springfield Properties PLC.

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 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.

The Clerk advised that a further letter of support which had been sent to Members by e-mail from the applicant should not be taken into consideration as it didn’t form part of this Notice of Review. The Clerk referred to the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 which set out the timescales for responses for both the applicant and interested parties and confirmed that the applicant has 14 days to respond to any comments from interested parties starting from their receipt of the comments and that date had well passed.

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 and for 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 Chair drew attention to the Report of Handling and highlighted that the proposed development was within a Hinterland area. He also highlighted that no pre-consultation advice had been sought by the applicant and that it was for Members to determine whether the proposed development could be considered reasonable in the context of the amount of existing planning permission currently within the Inverness City boundary which was better served by public transport and connections.

During discussion, Members raised the following concerns:-

the proposed development was within an area of Hinterland where there was a presumption against development;
the applications site had not been allocated for housing within the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan;
access into the proposed development from the B9006 would be unsuitable in its current condition due to the speed of traffic on the B9006 and would better served from the road heading to “Nairnside”;
the B9006 served as a major access road for tourists to Culloden Battlefield;
Transport Planning had expressed a need for the creation of a masterplan to improve access into the site;
the area was poorly served by public transport;
whilst the potential creation of affordable housing was welcomed; there were already a number of affordable houses available within the area and should not be at the expense of green spaces;
the lack of a crossing onto Tower Road to enable pedestrian safe access to bus services had not been taken into consideration by the applicant;
capacities at the local primary and secondary schools were already under severe pressure and any further housing development within this area could further impact on school roll; and
whilst support for the application had considered the proposed development a natural extension of settlement boundary, there had been no indication provided by the applicant as to the infrastructure which would be required for education, transport, travel, open spaces and community.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the case officer in the decision notice.

5.5 Installation of rear doors and dormers to house and erection of garden room at 52 Henrietta Street, Avoch, IV9 8QT - Mr and Mrs M Robison-Murphy, 18/02025/FUL, 18/00039/RBCON (RB-35-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00039/RBCON for the installation of rear doors and dormers to house and erection of garden room at 52 Henrietta Street, Avoch, IV9 8QT for Mr and Mrs M Robison-Murphy.

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 expressed the view that whilst neighbouring houses already had a similar type of dormer window, Condition 1 of the planning permission seemed reasonable in order to protect the privacy of the neighbouring properties.

Thereafter, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and therefore retained Condition 1 of the planning permission as it was deemed reasonable and necessary for safeguarding the amenity/privacy of neighbouring properties and occupants and was therefore in line with the tests set out in Circular 4/1998: Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.

5.6 Retrospective application for static caravan at Tigh Na Ceol, The Glen, Achmore, Strome Ferry - Mr Kenneth James MacDonald, 17/02442/FUL, 18/00042/RBCON (RB-36-18)

Declaration of Interest – Mrs I Campbell declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she 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 18/00042/RBCON for the retrospective application for static caravan at Tigh Na Ceol, The Glen, Achmore, Strome Ferry for Mr Kenneth James MacDonald.

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.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that a report had been submitted on the suitability of the private water supply in terms of its capacity which had advised that there were more than adequate supplies. He explained that the drainage was shared with the existing house and it was feasible that there would be sufficient capacity as the existing house would have been required to meet current standards in terms of drainage. In relation to a potential lack of private amenity space, he advised that the applicant had provided photographs to show the separation distances between the relevant buildings and that the nearest house could be considered a reasonable distance away. Whilst the planning officer might have taken a contrary view to this, there had been the option to refuse the proposed development initially and allow the continued use of the siting of the caravan.

Following discussion, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and granted the amendment of Condition 1 by deleting the wording ‘or for holiday letting purposes’ for the following reasons:

Members were not satisfied there was insufficient private amenity space nor infrastructure capacities at the development to prohibit holiday letting; and
Members did not view the restriction on holiday letting within 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.

Mrs I Campbell returned to the meeting.

5.7 Erection of a dwelling house on Land 95M North of Nampara, Heights of Dochcarty, Dingwall - Mr Iain Peddie, 18/01044/PIP, 18/00048/RBREF (RB-37-18)

Declaration of Interest – Mrs M Patertson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 8 – Dingwall and Seaforth, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs Paterson left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00048/RBREF for the erection of a dwelling house on Land 95M North of Nampara, Heights of Dochcarty, Dingwall for Mr Iain Peddie.

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 the site was located within an area of Hinterland; therefore, the application had been assessed by the planning officer against Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. The Chair then outlined the reasons given by the planning officer for refusing the application and advised the Review Body that it was for Members to determine whether there was an operational need for a house to be located within the site in order to manage the business.

During discussion, comments included the following:-

The proposed development was considered contrary to policy as the management of the Christmas tree plantation did not require a house to be located on site;
The breeding of ewes would only be contained to a small time frame within the agricultural year and therefore did not justify a house being built to manage the site;
The use of the land for forestry purposes did not necessitate the need for someone to be present on site at all times; and
The applicant had presented a very good business case and the proposals showed great potential.

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.

Mrs M Paterson returned to the meeting.

5.8 Siting of 2 static caravans (retrospective) at Inver Caravan Park, Dunbeath, KW6 6EH - Inver Caravan Park, 18/02383/FUL, 18/00046/RBCON (RB-38-18)

Declarations of Interest – Mr R Bremner and Mr W MacKay both declared non-financial interests in this item on the grounds that they were local Members for Ward 3 – Wick and East Caithness, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr R Bremner left the video-conference and Mr W MacKay left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00046/RBCON for the siting of 2 static caravans (retrospective) at Inver Caravan Park, Dunbeath, KW6 6EH for Inver Caravan Park.

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 site’s established use as a caravan park by the applicant’s and expressed the view that there had potentially been a misunderstanding between the planning officer in their assessment of the application and what the applicant was actually seeking permission for.

Following discussion, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and granted the removal of Condition 1 and Condition 2 of the planning permission on the basis that Members did not view Condition 1 and Condition 2 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.

The meeting ended at 1.05 pm.

Read the Agenda