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 June 2019 at 10.30 am. 

Present:

Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner (excluding items 1 - 5.1) (by video-conferencing), Mrs I Campbell (excluding item 6.2), Mr L Fraser (excluding item 5.1), Mr A Henderson (excluding items 6.1 and 6.3), 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

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mr W Mackay.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 6.1 – Mr A Henderson (non-financial)
Item 6.2 – Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)
Item 6.3 – Mr A Henderson (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 7 May 2019

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 7 May 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

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 Renewables.

The Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that, at its meeting on 7 May 2019, the Planning Review Body had agreed to uphold the Notice of Review, subject to undertaking an Appropriate Assessment on the potential impact of the proposed development on the Special Protection Area (SPA) located approximately 8 kilometres to the South/South East of the application site.  The Review Body was advised that it was required to consider the findings of the Appropriate Assessment in its determination of the Notice of Review and whether or not the proposed development could have an adverse impact on the SPA.  Members were informed that the Appropriate Assessment had concluded that there would be no adverse impact on the SPA from the proposed turbine as the data analysis had considered that the collision risk to whooper swans and Greenland white-fronted geese was low and whilst there was a higher collision risk to greylag geese, the predicted collision rate was low relative to the SPA population size.  In light of the findings of the Appropriate Assessment, the Independent Planning Adviser advised the Review Body that it could therefore ratify the decision it had taken at its meeting on 7 May 2019.

Decision

Following consideration of the Appropriate Assessment undertaken in respect of the development, the Planning Review Body agreed to UPHOLD the Notice of Review and GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body and approved by the Chair, for the following reasons:-

1. Members did not agree with the officer’s subjective assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development;
2. 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
3. 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.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1          Installation of permanent retractable canopy on Land at Cameron Square, Fort William - Fort William Town Team, 17/05713/FUL, 19/00019/RBREF, RB-18-19

Declaration of Interest – Mr A Henderson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he undertook volunteer work with the applicant and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.  Mrs T Robertson in the Chair.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00019/RBREF for the installation of a permanent retractable canopy on Land at Cameron Square, Fort William for Fort William Town Team.

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

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

The Chair drew attention to the report of handling and highlighted that whilst the principle of a retractable canopy in Cameron Square was supported by the Fort William Town Centre Action Plan, the determining factor for Members to consider was whether the proposed design would complement the visual amenity of the square.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that photomontages of the proposed canopy within Cameron Square had not been included within the supporting information; however, the applicant had provided images of similar designed canopies which had been taken from the manufacturer’s brochure and an elevated drawing containing the proposed dimensions of the canopy.  With regard to the concerns raised in the report of handling regarding potential obstruction of CCTV, ongoing maintenance and public liability, Members were advised that mitigation measures would be required to be discussed with and approved by the Council should permission be granted.  The Independent Planning Adviser also confirmed that the applicant had offered to use stabilisations boxes as an alternative to using bolts fixed into a concrete footing to support the structure.

During discussion, Members considered that whilst the proposed development might have a minor impact on the frontage of the West Highland Museum building, the canopy would not be a highly intrusive structure and therefore would not impact on the amenity of Cameron Square.  In expressing support for the Notice of Review, Members requested that the submission of further details regarding how the canopy supports would be affixed to the Square be included as a condition as the proposal by the applicant to use stabilisation boxes was the preferred option supported by Members.

Decision

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and granted planning permission, subject to conditions including a condition regarding further approval of how the supports will be affixed to the Square, on the basis that the application of an awning sat well within the surroundings of Cameron Square and whilst it may partially obstruct public views of neighbouring premises it was not thought that the design would detract from the character of the area and complied with policies 28 and 29 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan, 2012 and Creating Places 2013.

Mr A Henderson returned to the meeting and Chair

6.2          Erection of a House and self-contained residential unit/garage on Land 70M NE of Kinloch, Strathpeffer - Mr and Mrs J Eaglesham, 18/03311/FUL, 19/00016/RBREF, RB-19-19

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 duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00016/RBREF for the erection of a house and self-contained residential unit/garage on Land 70M NE of Kinloch, Strathpeffer for Mr and Mrs J Eaglesham.

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, during which, he advised that the following determining issues in relation should apply to the application:-

• Whether, on the basis of normal agricultural labour requirement calculations, there was a proven essential operational need on the holding for a house to serve the farming enterprise in what was a Hinterland countryside location, and, if not, whether the proposed development fitted with another Hinterland housing policy exception category or whether there were any additional special personal and site circumstances that supported the case for a house in this location which might reasonably be taken into account;
• Whether the siting of the proposed development was sensitive to the characteristics of the holding and the surrounding landscape, including the local development pattern;
• Whether the design and scale of the proposed development, including the letting unit, was also sensitive to its setting; and
• Whether traffic from the new development using the unclassified road and the A834 junction, would be detrimental to road safety, taking into account trips that were currently being made to and from the site by the applicant.

The Chair opened discussion by highlighting the need to look at the basis of the normal agricultural labour requirement calculations and whether the case had been made by the applicant that there was a proven need that a new house was required to serve the farming enterprise in the Hinterland area.

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

• He was unaware of what the agricultural holding number was as this information had not been provided within the documentation submitted by the applicant;
• It was unclear from the submitted documentation as to whether the land had previously been de-crofted;
• One full time labour unit (equivalent to full-time occupation) was considered to be 1900 labour hours per annum;
• The original operational needs assessment submitted with the application proposed a labour requirement of between 70-75% of one full time labour unit;
• The Council’s agricultural adviser’s assessment of the enterprise identified a lower labour requirement figure as the amount of time being allocated to the management of grassland was high for a holding of the scale originally proposed and considered that the vegetables growing under a polytunnel to be on such a small scale that it could not be considered as agricultural;
• The revised operational needs assessment submitted with the Notice of Review had identified an additional 2.83 hectares of adjacent grassland to the west of Kinloch which would be capable of being used to increase the proposed alpaca herd from 20 – 32 and would require more management than previously estimated;
• Due to the proposed increase in grassland and alpaca herd, and taking into account the polytunnel vegetable growing, the revised operational needs assessment had estimated that the labour unit calculation required to operate the enterprise would be over 1900 hours;
• The Council’s agricultural adviser had looked at the stocking rate of alpacas and concluded that the land holding was at its maximum capacity; however, it was not clear if the same rate had been applied by the applicant’s agricultural advisor in their assessment and whether it formed the basis of the revised operational needs assessment;
• The Council’s agricultural adviser has also commented that the stocking rate was also at maximum capacity in terms of the quality of the ground and that this was reflected in the effort which had been made to replenish the soil and vegetation;
• The case officer would not have had the benefit of the revised operational needs assessment being scrutinised independently by Council’s agricultural adviser even if they had responded to the Notice of Review; and
• The revised operational needs assessment was underpinned by a letter contained within the Notice of Review documentation which confirmed the availability of additional ground under agreement with the land owner until November 2023.

The Chair suggested that, whilst the applicants had provided an explanation as to why, in their view, the labour unit was now at a level that could justify the requirement for a house, further information was required as to whether the expanded landholding was of sufficient size and grazing quality to accommodate the proposed increase in stock numbers; therefore, he recommended to the Review Body that the Notice of Review be deferred to allow this additional information submitted by the applicant to be reviewed by the case officer in consultation with the Council agricultural adviser

Decision

The Review Body AGREED to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review to allow the case officer in consultation with the Council agricultural adviser to review the additional information submitted by the applicant in support of the Notice of Review.

Mrs I Campbell returned to the meeting.

6.3          Alterations to existing garage to form self-contained holiday letting unit at Ryvoan, Achdalieu Road, Banavie, Fort William - Mr & Mrs Sandison, 18/05669/FUL, 19/00023/RBREF, RB-20-19

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 in the Chair

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00023/RBREF for alterations to existing garage to form self-contained holiday letting unit at Ryvoan, Achdalieu Road, Banavie, Fort William for Mr & Mrs Sandison.

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.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that both the decked area and gravel parking area to the front of the house were within the curtilage of the property.

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.

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

• the supporting information submitted by the applicant contained a plan which highlighted a number of neighbouring properties which offered rental accommodation; however, as the case officer had not commented on the plan in their response to the Notice of Review, it was for Members to determine whether the information contained within the plan could be considered in good faith;
• the implementation of the management agreement for all three properties within the cul-de-sac to maintain the shared private access road onto the public road was not a material consideration; however, the current condition of the shared private access road and the potential for further deterioration of it due to increased traffic use from the proposed holiday let was a material consideration; and
• the report of handling had highlighted that car parking arrangements could be problematic as it might not be possible for vehicles to manoeuvre within the site and leave the site in forward gear, thereby having to reverse all the way down to Wilson Way.

During discussion, Members expressed concern at the proposed car parking arrangements within the site and the lack of turning provision for vehicles to manoeuvre in and out safely.  Members also considered that, without the implementation of a management agreement, the increase in traffic arising from vehicles using the proposed holiday let was likely to cause further deterioration to the shared private access road.  It was suggested that, for future applications, planning officials should take into consideration how they photographed neighbouring fences and the screening of properties in 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.

The meeting ended at 12.20 pm.