Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glen Urquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 13 August 2019 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam
Mr R Balfour
Mr R Bremner (excluding items 1 and 6.5) (by video-conferencing)
Mrs I Campbell (excluding items 5.1 and 6.1)
Mr L Fraser (excluding items 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5)
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay (excluding item 6.5) (by video-conferencing)
Mrs M Paterson (excluding item 6.4)
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:

Mrs K Lyons, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr M McLoughlin, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Ms A Macrae, Committee Administrator

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

There were no apologies for absence.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mrs I Campbell and Mrs T Robertson (non-financial)
Item 6.1 – Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)
Item 6.4 – Mrs M Paterson (non-financial)
Item 6.5 – Mr R Bremner and Mr W Mackay (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 18 June 2019

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 18 June 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 Street view 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 and self-contained residential unit/garage at Land 70M NE of Kinloch, Strathpeffer - Mr & Mrs J Eaglesham, 18/03311/FUL, 19/00016/RBREF, RB-19-19

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 T Robertson also declared a non-financial interest in this item. Mrs Campbell and Mrs Robertson left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

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

The Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that, at its meeting on 18 June 2019, the Planning Review Body had agreed to defer consideration of this Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting to allow the case officer in consultation with the Council’s agricultural adviser to review the additional information submitted by the applicant, namely a revised Operational Needs Assessment 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 Council’s agricultural adviser and case officer had accepted on the basis of the additional information provided that there was a proven essential operational need on the site for a house to serve the farming enterprise in a Hinterland countryside location.

The responses to the revised Operational Needs Assessment and the applicant’s comments thereon 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 during which, he advised that the following determining issues in relation should apply to the application:-

whether the agreement for the extra grazing land that had been produced by the applicant could be regarded as sufficiently robust in legal terms;
if the extra grazing land couldn’t be secured whether there are any additional, special, personal and site circumstances which justified a house in this location;
whether the siting and design of the development as proposed was sensitive to the characteristics of the holding and the surrounding landscape including the local development pattern; and
whether traffic from the new house and the letting units using the unclassified road junction with the A834 junction would be detrimental to road safety bearing in mind current trips are being made to and from the site by the applicant.

Debate

During discussion, Members gave consideration to a number of issues including the following:-

the proposal was reasonable and would allow the applicant to develop a viable sustainable business in the area through diversification and should therefore be encouraged,
the proposal to provide en-suite visitor accommodation be welcomed, reference being made to the lack of tourist accommodation in the area;
there were already a number of large houses of varying designs in the local area and the proposed house was not considered to be intrusive;
there was no known accident history at the junction and the applicants already had to make a number of journeys to and from the site, which would be reduced if permission for a house was granted;
the additional traffic which would be generated by the development would not be significant and did not justify refusal of the application. This was a popular tourist spot and the junction was already well used;
a contrary view that the U3070/A834 junction was already oversubscribed. The development would generate additional traffic, and it was not in the gift of the applicant to secure a safer bellmouth; and
the agreement with the landowner for the extra grazing land that had been produced should be regarded as sufficient evidence. If Members considered that a legal document should be produced then consideration to the competency of this being attached as a condition of any planning permission.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chair, seconded by Mr R Balfour, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s Reason for Refusal No. 2 in the decision notice.

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

The Planning Review Body was satisfied that the revised operational needs assessment submitted in support of the Notice of Review provided an agricultural justification for the proposed house and therefore the proposed house was justified as an exception to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan; the Planning Review Body was not persuaded that the traffic that would be generated by the development would have a significant adverse impact on the U3070/A834 junction and did not consider the proposed development was contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan; The Planning Review Body was also satisfied with the design of the proposed buildings.

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

Motion (3): Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner and Mr A Henderson

Amendment (4): Mr G Adam, Mr L Fraser, Mrs M Paterson, Mr W Mackay

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.

Mrs T Robertson returned to the meeting.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1 Erection of garage with self-contained residential unit at Tigh Na H'Eas, 4 Allt An Dubh, Shieldaig - Mr William Westhead 18/01108/FUL, 19/00024/RBREF, RB-21-19

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 19/00024/RBREF for the erection of 2 houses and recreation of semi-natural woodland at Tigh Na H'Eas, 4 Allt An Dubh, Shieldaig for Mr William Westhead.

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

whether the proposal, in principle, satisfied the terms of Policy 52 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan on development within woodlands by demonstrating a need for a wooded site as well as clear and significant public benefit, and if not whether there were exceptional circumstances that supported the proposal;
whether the footprint of the proposed structure was of a size that could reasonably be considered to be ancillary to the dwelling such that the amount of overall development on the plot as a whole would not be adversely affected in terms of the balance of woodland to buildings and as a result would change the essential character of the plot; and
as a result of these considerations whether there would be any demonstrable harm to the immediate and wider landscape, including the ancient woodland and national scenic area resulting from the proposal.

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.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarification in regard to the location and length of the proposed new access road and the impact on the surrounding woodland, and on the relationship between the existing site, proposed site and the actual size of the woodland.

Debate

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

During discussion, Members indicated they were not persuaded sufficient justification had been provided for development on this site and support was expressed for the case officer’s handling and reasons for refusing this application. The case officer had sought to reach a reasonable compromise with the applicant, and it was unfortunate the applicant had subsequently decided this was not acceptable to him. In addition, Members expressed concern at the design of the proposed development and the fact that seven objections had been received from five neighbouring households in response to the application.

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.

Mrs I Campbell returned to the meeting.

6.2 Erection of 2 houses and recreation of semi-natural woodland on Land 260M South of Tuimbhig, Tomatin - Mr Richard Tinsley, 18/05563/FUL, 19/00026, RBREF, RB-22-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00026/RBREF for the Erection of 2 houses and recreation of semi-natural woodland on Land 260M South of Tuimbhig, Tomatin for Mr Richard Tinsley.

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 the proposal, in principle, satisfied the terms of Policy 52 (Principle of Development in Woodland) of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan by demonstrating a need for a wooded site as well as clear and significant public benefit, and if not whether there are exceptional circumstances that otherwise supported the proposal;
whether there were proposals for compensatory planting that complied with the policy on development within woodland by creating new woodland nearby the site outwith existing woodland, and if not whether other proposed planting and woodland management measures had planning merit that outweighed any non-compliance;
whether the siting and layout of the proposed layout of the proposed development would cause unacceptable impact on the existing woodland;
whether the detailed design of the houses was appropriate to the setting; and
whether the new two plot development could be reasonably considered separate from the three plots to the south for the purposes of assessing the appropriate level of developer contributions should planning permission be forthcoming.

In response to a question, the Clerk confirmed that the original planning permissions for the three house plots to the south had originally been granted under a previous planning policy. She acknowledged the Council’s current Housing in the Countryside policy had been introduced in 2012 and the renewal of the above permissions had been granted in 2014. While it was important to strive to ensure there was consistency of decision making to ensure there was confidence in the system, it was important this application be correctly assessed against the Council’s current policy.

In response to further questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarification in regard to the case officer and forestry officer’s consideration in the handling report and assessment of the application against the relevant policies and the methodology used in the Tree Survey report which had been carried out. He advised that the Tree Survey based on the British standard enabled the root protection area of key trees to be defined and the applicant’s agent had highlighted there was no mention of reasons of separation for other purposes contained within this standard. He also provided clarification on the number of key trees that had been surveyed and recorded as part of the Tree Survey report and the Forestry Officer’s view that the report underestimated the loss of woodland if the development was granted planning permission. In addition, the Forestry Officer had confirmed there was no justification for granting planning permission for development to facilitate woodland management, on the basis this should be carried out as a matter of course by the landowner.

The Independent Planning Adviser then confirmed that in relation to the design style and materials to be used, the applicant’s agent had pointed out the proposal was no different to that which had been granted planning permission in respect of the three house plots to the south of the site.

Debate

During discussion, Members indicated that they were not persuaded sufficient justification had been provided for development on this site and support was expressed for the Forestry Officer’s consideration of the application and the case officer’s handling and reasons for refusing this application

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 House on Land 75M NW of Schoolhouse, Tomacharrich, Torlundy, Fort William - Mr Ewen Carabine 18/05784/PIP, 19/00032/RBREF, RB-23-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00032/RBREF for the Erection of House on Land 75M NW of Schoolhouse, Tomacharrich, Torlundy, Fort William for Mr Ewen Carabine.

Preliminaries

whether a house in this location met any of the exceptions for the development of housing in hinterland countryside and if not whether there were exceptional circumstances that would otherwise support the proposal;
whether a house on the plot was likely to complement or not the character of the local development pattern;
whether a house on the plot would in any way adversely affect the amenities of the Schoolhouse property to the south; and
whether safe vehicular access could be achieved out of the site onto the public road and whether the immediate public road network could cope with the new traffic without causing any hazards.

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:-

there was no clear justification that the development met any of the policy exceptions for the development of housing in this location;
the application did not demonstrate sensitive siting and would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the whole area;
the proposal increase traffic usage on the public road would have a detrimental impact on road safety, reference being made to the fact the access road was narrow and was lacking in sufficient passing places and the required inter-visibility;
the siting of the proposal was no more or less sensitive than the surrounding properties;
the local development pattern was varied and the development would not be out of keeping with the character of the area;
the development would not generate significant additional traffic onto the public road network and therefore would not impact on road safety; and
it had been demonstrated the proposed house was essential in association with an existing business and would allow the applicant’s holiday letting business to expand..

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mr R Balfour, 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 I Campbell, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED for the following reasons:-

The Planning Review Body was satisfied that the proposed house was essential in association with an existing rural business (joinery and holiday let) and would allow the holiday letting business to expand, therefore the proposed house was justified as an exception to Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan; the Planning Review Body was not persuaded that the traffic that would be generated by the development would have a significant adverse impact on the single track road and therefore did not consider the proposed development to be contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. The Planning Review Body was also satisfied with the design of the proposed house and that it would be in accordance with the local settlement pattern.

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

Motion (3): Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner and Mrs T Robertson

Amendment (5): Mr G Adam, Mrs I Campbell, Mr A Henderson, Mrs M Paterson, Mr W Mackay

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.

6.4 Erection of House on Land 410M SE of Old Knockbain Farmhouse, Knockbain Road, Dingwall - R & S Lockett, 18/03481/FUL, 19/00029/RBREF, RB-24-19

Declaration of Interest – Mrs M Paterson 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.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00029/RBREF for the Erection of House on Land 410M SE of Old Knockbain Farmhouse, Knockbain Road, Dingwall for R & S Lockett

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.

whether the proposal to develop a new farmhouse in association with a new farming entrance tenancy met the terms of the essential land management exception within the Council’s policy for Housing in the Countryside – Hinterland areas, bearing in the mind the actual tenant was unknown and the eventual agricultural building operations were not certain;
if the proposal did not meet the policy exception, whether there were exceptional circumstances that supported the development of a house in this particular case; and
whether the risks to delivery of this novel opportunity outweighed its apparent planning benefits.

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 at the uncertainty around the operational needs assessment, specifically in relation to the unknown agricultural building operations and the fact a tenancy/occupancy agreement with a named individual was not yet in place.

Thereafter Members queried whether the application could be approved subject to a condition that a suitable tenancy agreement must be in in place, failing which planning permission would not be granted. It was suggested this would provide potential tenants who wished to take advantage of this opportunity the chance to come forward.

The Clerk advised that it would not be appropriate for this matter to be secured by condition on the basis this was a legal matter rather than a planning matter. In addition, it would not be an appropriate way in which to grant permission when it was not known when a tenant would come forward in the future. Such a planning condition could also be challengeable and if found to be so then there would be no requirement for the house to be tied to the management of the land.

Following on from the above, Members concurred with reasons for refusal set out in the case officer’s report of handling and were minded to dismiss the Notice of Review.

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.

Mrs M Paterson returned to the meeting.

6.5 Alterations and installation of dormer windows at 6 Smith Terrace, Wick for Mr Brett Thomson, 19/00469/FUL, 19/00028/RBREF, RB-25-19

Declaration of Interest – Mr R Bremner and Mr W Mackay declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that they were local Members for Ward 3 – Thurso and Northwest Caithness, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00028/RBREF for alterations and installation of dormer windows at 6 Smith Terrace, Wick for Mr Brett Thomson.

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 opened the discussion by highlighting the need to consider whether the siting, design and external appearance of the dormer windows would harm the character and appearance of the principal elevation of the property. The Independent Planning Adviser advised that Members should also consider whether the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding locality, including the Pultneytown Conservation Area which was located 28m to the south east of the property

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarification in regard to the design and proposed elevation of the dormer windows.

During discussion, Members expressed concern at the proposed use of white upvc windows/side claddings and it was suggested the application may be looked at more sympathetically if a different material and colour more appropriate to the design of the property was brought forward in a separate application.

Thereafter, Members concurred with reasons for refusal set out in the case officer’s report of handling and were minded to dismiss the Notice of Review.

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 2.20 pm.

Read the Agenda