Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 18 March 2019 at 10.30 am. 

Present:

Mr G Adam
Mr R Balfour (excluding items 1 – 6.4)
Mr R Bremner (excluding item 6.3) (by video-conferencing)
Mrs I Campbell (excluding item 5.1)
Mr L Fraser (excluding items 5.1 and 6.1)
Mr A Henderson (excluding items 5.1 and 6.6)
Mr W Mackay (excluding item 6.3) (by video-conferencing)
Mrs M Paterson
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:

Mrs K Lyons, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr M McLoughlin, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Mr A Henderson in the Chair (items 1 – 4 and 6.1 – 6.5)

Mrs T Robertson in the Chair (items 5.1 and 6.6)

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

None

2. Declarations of Interest

None

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 5 February 2019

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 5 February 2019, 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 house on Land 35M SE of MacEachen and Carr Boat Builders, Toigal, Morar - Mr and Mrs G Shepherd, 17/05866/PIP, 18/00059/RBREF (RB-06-19)

Declaration of Interest – Mr A Henderson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 11 – Caol and Mallaig, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mr Henderson left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

Mrs T Robertson took the chair for this item.

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review 18/00059/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 35M SE of MacEachen and Carr Boat Builders, Toigal, Morar for Mr and Mrs G Shepherd.

Preliminaries

The Clerk confirmed that, at its meeting on 5 February 2019, the Planning Review Body had agreed to defer consideration of this Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting to allow interested parties, in particular Scottish Natural Heritage, to respond to new information, namely a Bat report submitted by the applicant as part of the Notice of Review and for the applicant to be given the opportunity to comment once interested parties had responded.

The responses to the Bat report and the applicant’s comments were circulated along with the original documentation relating to this Notice of Review.  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 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 presentation, Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mr R Balfour, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED for the following reasons:-

• The applicant had demonstrated that the indicative footprint of the proposed house could be set back from the public road;
• Development of this site would fit into the settlement pattern and would help maintain a fragile community and its services. As a result the proposed development would not be contrary to policies 36, 49, 57 and 61 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) and Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Planning Guidance;
• Although development of the site would lead to the loss of trees, the tree report had indicated that these were of poor-moderate quality and the loss of these trees could be addressed by replanting secured by a condition;
• The pedestrian access to the application site was acceptable both in terms of materials proposed and the length of the access proposed; and
• The applicant’s bat report had been circulated to interested parties, including Scottish Natural Heritage, following the last meeting of the Planning Review Body and no concerns had been raised.

There being no amendment, 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 Vice-Chair.

Mr A Henderson returned to the meeting and the chair.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1 Erection of a House on Land 250M North of West Blackpark Farm, Blackpark, Inverness - Prestige Properties Highland LTD, 18/02042/PIP, 18/00068/RBREF (RB-07-19)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00068/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 250M North of West Blackpark Farm, Blackpark, Inverness for Prestige Properties Highland 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, 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.

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

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

The Chair summarised the application, during which he highlighted that whilst there were a number of existing properties in the vicinity of the application site, this was not considered to constitute a housing group for the purposes of Policy 35 of HwLDP.  He also considered that the proposed development was obtrusive in the context of the existing settlement pattern and that no other policy exceptions to the presumption against housing development in the hinterland had been cited.

Following comment during discussion that housing groups should be defined within the context of where they were placed and that the existing settlement pattern could be considered to be dispersed, the Clerk reminded Members that, in order to constitute a housing group, the existing houses must have a perceptible relation to each other and that Members should not cite examples of housing apparently out with of housing groups elsewhere as the reasons for approving these houses were not known.

During further discussion, Members expressed the view that the proposed development would constitute an intrusion into an open field and that in the context of the existing settlement pattern it would not round off an existing housing group as the surrounding existing housing was not considered to constitute a defined housing group.

Decision

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

6.2 Erection of a House on Land to Rear of 92 Glenurquhart Road, Maxwell Drive, Inverness - Mr G MacDonald, 18/04063/FUL, 18/00070/RBREF (RB-08-19)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 18/00070/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land to Rear of 92 Glenurquhart Road, Maxwell Drive, Inverness for Mr G MacDonald.

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.

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

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

During discussion, Members gave consideration to the following issues:-

• The existing pattern of development and whether the proposed house could be considered sensitively sited within the context of the surrounding residential area;
• The potential impact on road safety as the proposed development did not provide sufficient off-road parking and would also result in the loss of the only available off- road parking for the upper flat on Glenurquhart Road; thereby adding to the existing demand for on-road parking in close proximity to the junction with Glenurquhart Road;
• There was a similar, albeit smaller plot of land on the opposite side of Maxwell Drive which was maintained and utilised as garden ground;
• It could be considered that the proposed development would make good use of vacant land;
• The proposed development could have a negative impact on residential amenity due to the minimal amount of garden ground to be allocated to the proposed house and retained by the existing flat on Glenurquhart Road; and
• Due to its location within an existing purposely designed housing estate, the design of the proposed house would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area and would give the impression of cramming and overdevelopment.

Decision

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

6.3 Demolition of existing flat roofed building and construction of new infill apartment block comprising eight serviced apartments (as amended) at Ross House, 14 Ardross Street, Inverness, IV3 5NS - B & L Properties Ltd, 18/03108/FUL, 19/00004/RBREF (RB-09-19)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00004/RBREF for the demolition of an existing flat roofed building and construction of new infill apartment block comprising eight serviced apartments (as amended) at Ross House, 14 Ardross Street, Inverness, IV3 5NS for B & L Properties Ltd.

Preliminaries

The Clerk confirmed that in addition to the documentation contained in Members’ USB Flash Drives, the applicant had provided further visualisations and a 3D model of the proposed apartment block which could only be viewed within the Chamber.  Therefore, as the Members on video-conference were unable to view the visualisations and 3D model, only those Members within the Chamber could participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.

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

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 AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Members’ USB Flash Drives, the Google Earth/Streetview presentation and the additional visualisations and 3D model of the proposed apartment block, no further procedure having been requested by the applicant.

Debate

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

Members gave consideration as to whether the proposed development could be considered appropriate in the context of its proximity to important historic buildings and the surrounding Riverside Conservation Area.  During discussion, concern was expressed that whilst the design of the building could be considered high quality, it was in conflict with the surrounding buildings and it was therefore not an appropriate design for the location.  Members expressed concern that the height of the proposed building would have a negative impact on the privacy and amenity of residents of properties in Ardross Place due to its scale/massing and that its design was out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

Decision

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

6.4 Erection of a House on Land 10M NE of Ratagan, Victoria Lane, Inverness - Mrs J Mackenzie, 18/03960/PIP, 19/00003/RBREF (RB-10-19)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00003/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 10M NE of Ratagan, Victoria Lane, Inverness for Mrs J Mackenzie.

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.

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

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

During discussion, Members gave consideration to the following issues:-

• The proposed development could have a negative impact on noble fir and Scots pine trees located in a neighbouring garden;
• The existing trees could already be impinging on the amenity of existing residents due to overshadowing;
• The proposed house could result in a loss of amenity to existing residents due to overlooking of and loss of light to the neighbouring houses;
• The house plot was smaller than the adjacent plot belonging to Ratagan and could potentially contain archaeological features of interest;
• The proposed development could be considered acceptable as it would not result in cramming and overdevelopment in the context of the surrounding existing  properties;
• The Historic Environment Team required the submission of a full planning application prior to being able to make a proper assessment of the proposed development; and
• Concern was expressed that the boundary of the proposed house was too close in proximity to ‘Ratagan’.

Decision

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

6.5 Installation of camping pod at 1 Lundy Road, Inverlochy, Fort William, PH33 6NX - Miss C Burns, 18/04686/FUL, 19/00009/RBREF (RB-11-19)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00009/RBREF for the installation of a camping pod at 1 Lundy Road, Inverlochy, Fort William, PH33 6NX for Miss C Burns.

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.

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 

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

During discussion, contrasting views were expressed, including that

• The proposed development as tourist accommodation would not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
• The size of the garden restricted the ability to build tourist accommodation and it was not considered in keeping with the character of the surrounding area;
• The existing house was already used as an Airbnb property and there was sufficient demand for this type of tourist accommodation in the area; and
• The design of the camping pod was similar to a wooden shed and would not be out of keeping with the local character.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, 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.

As an amendment, Mr G Adam, seconded by Mrs M Paterson, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED for the following reason:-

• Members were not persuaded that this accommodation would have significant detrimental impact as Members believed that the proposed development would be within the policies of sustainable development and that it would be accommodated within HwLDP Policy 44 – Tourist Accommodation because it was felt that there would be insufficient adverse impacts on neighbouring uses to refuse the Notice of Review.

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

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

Amendment (6): Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr W MacKay and Mrs M Paterson

Abstentions (0)

Decision

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.

6.6 Erection of a House on Land 35M East of Mountain View, Murlaggan, Roy Bridge - Mr Wayne Evans, 18/01562/FUL, 19/00001/RBREF (RB-12-19)

Declaration of Interest – Mr A Henderson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 11 – Caol and Mallaig, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mr Henderson left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

Mrs T Robertson took the chair for this item and the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00001/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 35M East of Mountain View, Murlaggan, Roy Bridge for Mr Wayne Evans.

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.

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

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

During discussion, Members comments included the following:-

• Whilst revisions had been made to the original scheme, the proposed development had not taken into consideration the advice provided during pre-application consultation;
• It was considered that the design of the proposed house would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding natural landscape and the existing housing group;
• It was acknowledged that a number of revisions had been made to the design of the proposed house to try and accommodate the case officer’s suggestions;
• The case officer had accepted that a timber building could be deemed acceptable in this location; and
• The orientation of the gable end of the house was not in keeping with the existing and approved housing group and landscape setting.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Vice-Chair, seconded by Mr L Fraser, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

As an amendment, Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED for the following reason:-

• The applicant had taken into consideration the amendments suggested by the case officer in relation to the design of the proposed house and it was considered that these changes were sufficient to support development of the proposed house in this location.

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, Mr R Bremner, Mr L Fraser and Mrs T Robertson

Amendment (3): Mrs I Campbell, Mr W MacKay and Mrs M Paterson

Abstentions (0)

Decision

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

The meeting ended at 3.50 pm.