Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 7 May 2019

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 7 May 2019 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner (by video-conferencing), Mrs I Campbell (excluding items 6.4 and 6.5), Mr L Fraser (excluding items 5.1 and 6.3-6.5), Mr A Henderson, Mr W Mackay (excluding item 5.1), 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

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

Item 5.1 – Mr W MacKay (non-financial)

Item 6.4 – Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)

Item 6.5 – Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 19 March 2019

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 19 March 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 a Wind Turbine with a tip height of 99.5m and a maximum rotor diameter of 70m, associated crane hardstanding, site access road & electrical control building on Land 200M North of 3 Lybster Road, Forss, Thurso - Whirlwind Renewables, 17/04934/FUL, 18/00064/RBREF, RB-02-19

Declaration of Interest – Mr W MacKay declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he knew the landowner and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

Mr L Fraser did not take part in this item as he had not been present at the meeting on 5 February 2019 when the substance of this item was discussed.

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review 18/00064/RBREF for the erection of a wind turbine with a tip height of 99.5m and a maximum rotor diameter of 70m, associated crane hardstanding, site access road and electrical control building on Land 200M North of 3 Lybster Road, Forss, Thurso for Whirlwind Renewable.

Preliminaries

The Independent Planning Adviser 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 request further information from the applicant, namely visualisations including a photo montage and wireframe/wireline image from the curtilage from the closest dwelling (3 Lybster Road, Forss, Thurso) in order that Members could establish if there would be an overwhelming visual impact from the development. Interested parties and the case officer had been given the opportunity to respond to the information lodged by the applicant.

The requested visualisations 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.

Debate

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

The Chair summarised the Notice of Review, during which he explained that permission had been granted for the installation of a wind turbine in this location and that the application was an increase in the total tip height of the turbine to 99.5m.

During discussion, Members gave consideration to the proposed increase in height of the previously consented turbine and whether it could be deemed acceptable in terms of the visual impact on the established residential amenity of No.3 Lybster Holdings. Members also gave consideration to the potential increase in output a larger turbine could produce and whether the increased height of the proposed turbine could be considered significant in comparison with the previously approved turbine.

Decision

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to an appropriate assessment first being carried out and reported back to the PRB and conditions to be agreed with the Chair for the following reasons:-

Members indicated that they did not agree with the officer’s subjective assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development;
Members were satisfied that the increased height of the proposed development (when compared to the previously approved turbine) was not significant particularly when account was taken of the increased output that a larger turbine would produce; and
Members were satisfied that the visuals produced by the applicant indicated that there would not be a significant detrimental impact on the established residential amenity of No 3 Lybster Holdings.

For these reasons the application was not considered to be contrary to Policy 67 of the HwLDP and related On-shore Wind Energy Supplementary Guidance.

Mr L Fraser and Mr W MacKay returned to the meeting.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1
Erection of a House on Land 40M South of Spring Cottage, Old Town, North Ballachulish, Onich - Mr Allan Dykes, 18/03548/PIP, 19/00006/RBREF, RB-13-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00006/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 40M South of Spring Cottage, Old Town, North Ballachulish, Onich for Mr Allan Dykes.

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.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that whilst the Transport Planning Team was of the view that appropriate visibility splays could be achieved at the junction, the main issue raised by the case officer was the uncertainty over the ownership of the land which was required for the visibility splays and how this could be maintained in the long term. Following further questions, Members were informed that the applicant had provided information within the Notice of Review to demonstrate that they access to a substantial area of common grazing; however, the main issues for Members to consider were in relation to the access into the site, the impact the siting of the plot could have on the landscape, character of the settlement pattern, residential amenity and whether it would establish a second tier of development.

In relation to the applicant’s request for a site visit, the Chair considered that the Review Body had enough information to proceed to determine the Notice of Review and, having been seconded by the Vice-Chair, moved that the Review Body proceed to determine the Notice of Review without a site inspection.

As an amendment, Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the Notice of Review be deferred pending a site inspection.

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

Motion (4): Mr G Adam, Mr L Fraser, Mr A Henderson and Mrs T Robertson

Amendment (4): Mr R Balfour, Mrs I Campbell, Mr W MacKay and Mrs M Paterson

Abstentions (1): Mr R Bremner

There being an equality of votes, the Chair gave the casting vote in favour of the Motion. Therefore, 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

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

During discussion, Members expressed concern that the proposed development could introduce a second tier of development and therefore set a precedent for further developments within the township. The view was also expressed that, whilst a house could be justified if it was going to be used for crofting purposes, the proposed siting of the house would have a negative impact on the residential amenity of Spring Cottage.

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 90M NW of Alltan, Strontian, Acharacle, PH36 4JA - Mr & Mrs Shaw, 18/04353/FUL, 19/00012/RBREF, RB-14-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00012/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 90M NW of Alltan, Strontian, Acharacle, PH36 4JA for Mr and Mrs Shaw.

Preliminaries

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

Thereafter, the Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Members’ USB Flash Drives and the Google Earth/Streetview presentation, and were of the view that the request made by the applicant for a site visit was not required.

Debate

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

In response to questions regarding the relationship of the Drimnatorran Farmhouse and Steading, which were category C and category B listed buildings, to the setting of the proposed house, it was confirmed that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affected a listed building or its setting, the Review Body should have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, as per Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. In this context, it was also confirmed that all categories of listed building should be taken into account when determining the potential impact of a proposed development.

During discussion, Members gave consideration to the application site’s location within a wooded site of high biodiversity and amenity value which contributed to the adjacent Green Network river corridor and whether any unacceptable harm to trees in the short and long term could occur as a result of the proposed development. Consideration was also given to the setting of the two listed buildings and whether the proposed development was in keeping with the local settlement pattern.

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
Erection of a House and Garage on Land 40M SW of 8 Teavarron, Kiltarlity - Ms Chloe Mackenzie, 18/00323/FUL, 19/00011/RBREF, RB-15-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00011/RBREF for the erection of a house and garage on land 40M SW of 8 Teavarron, Kiltarlity for Ms Chloe 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.

Debate

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

During discussion, Members expressed concern that the proposed house would have an adverse impact on individual and community residential amenity due to its size and scaling in the context of the plot ratio and its proximity to the existing access track and public road. It was suggested that whilst there was potential for a house to be located within the plot, this would require any future development to share the existing access track and issues in relation to siting and design being appropriately addressed.

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
Formation of two House Plots on Land 110M SE of Lochcarron Water Treatment Works, Lochcarron - Locharron Estate, 18/04499/PIP, 19/00014/RBREF, RB-16-19

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 remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00014/RBREF for the formation of two house plots on Land 110M SE of Lochcarron Water Treatment Works, Lochcarron for Locharron Estate.

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

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 location of the application site in the context of the nearby settlement and its relationship to the existing pattern of development and landscape in the locality. Members also gave consideration to the siting of the house plots and their impact on the character of the surrounding area and landscape.

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 R Balfour, seconded by Mr G Adam, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED for the following reasons:-

whilst the siting may be considered to be isolated, the proposed development did not detract from the overall character of the surrounding area and landscape;
the proposal was not in an area of no development given the nearby buildings for water treatment and therefore did not detract from the landscape character of the area; and
the proposed development was sensitively sited and had considerable merit in respect of policies 28, 29, 36 and 61 of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan.

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

Motion (2): Mr A Henderson and Mrs T Robertson

Amendment (5): Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner, Mr W MacKay and Mrs M Paterson

Abstentions (0)

Decision

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

6.5
Application under Section 42 to develop land without complying with Condition 1 of Planning Permission 13/02996/S42 at Former Church, Jamestown, Strathpeffer - Major J Whitelaw, 18/04184/S42, 19/00007/RBREF, RB-17-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00007/RBREF for an application under Section 42 to develop land without complying with Condition 1 of Planning Permission 13/02996/S42 at Former Church, Jamestown, Strathpeffer for Major J Whitelaw.

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

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

The Chair summarised that the application was for the removal of Condition 1 of planning permission 13/02996/S42 which required the applicant to upgrade the junction of the A834 with the Jamestown eastern access road (U3066). It was explained that under the terms of the planning permission, no development of the house approved at the former church was permitted until the improvements to the junction up to Council standards had been completed in full.

In response to a question regarding the former church’s listed building status and whether this should have any bearing on the Review Body’s determination of the application, the Independent Planning Adviser informed Members that the applicant was of the view that the Notice of Review could be approved without creating a precedent as the former church was a listed building; however, as there were a number of existing live planning permissions within the surrounding area that were also required by condition to undertake improvement works to the junction, removal of the condition could impact on the development costs borne by the other developers.

During discussion, Members emphasised the need for road safety at the junction and expressed concern that the removal of the condition could create a precedent for other existing planning permissions to also have it removed. It was suggested that the best way forward was for all developers to share the cost of undertaking the improvement works to the junction.

Decision

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused the application under section 42 to develop land without complying with condition 1 for the reasons given by the case officer in the decision notice.

The meeting ended at 1.40 pm.

Read the Agenda