Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 24 September 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, 24 September 2019 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam
Mr R Balfour (excluding items 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5)
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay (by video-conferencing)
Mrs M Paterson
Mrs T Robertson (excluding item 5.1)

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

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell and Mr L Fraser.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mr R Balfour and Mrs T Robertson (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 18 June 2019

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 13 August 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. New Notices of Review to be Determined

5.1 Land 160 m NW of Grieves Cottage, Flemington, Gollanfield, Inverness – Mr A Matheson 19/00789/PIP, 19/00038/RBREF, RB-26-19

Mrs T Roberston and Mr R Balfour declared non-financial interests in this item on the grounds that they were local Members for Ward 17 – Culloden and Ardersier, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs Robertson left the Chamber for the duration of this item. Mr R Balfour was not present for the determination of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00038/RBREF for the erection of house on land 160 m NW of Grieves Cottage, Flemington, Gollanfield, Inverness for Mr A Matheson.

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 should apply in relation to the application:-

whether the site was brownfield land and if so whether this development for a house would result in a wider net environmental benefit such as the proposal would meet the terms of the relevant exception in the Council’s policy on housing development in hinterland countryside which the applicant was relying upon;

whether the siting of the house as proposed and its physical relationship to the adjacent complex of agricultural buildings and farm yard would result in satisfactory living conditions for its occupant in amenity terms;

whether the use of the proposed access through the farm yard would be hazardous to the residents in any way if travelling by foot, bike car etc and whether it would be unsatisfactory in amenity terms; and

whether the proposed housing site on the north western corner of the farm buildings compound would complement or not the local development pattern.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser advised that in terms of the definition contained in the Highland wide Local Development Plan he considered that, on balance, the application site was located on brownfield land.

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 during which the following main points were raised:-

there was no evidence to support that the erection of a house on this site would result in a net environmental benefit, reference being made to the fact the planning authority could not require the adjacent agricultural buildings to be repaired as they were outwith the application site;

insufficient evidence had been provided that there was an agricultural need for the property to justify an exception to the policy;

it was not considered the proposed siting of the house would result in satisfactory living conditions for its occupant; and

there was no statement from the applicant that the dilapidated farm buildings would be tidied up to provide for safe access to the proposed house, if this was to be the access route.

A contrary view was expressed by Mrs M Paterson that the development would allow an area of brownfield land to be tidied up and thereby result in the significant improvement of the application site and she therefore expressed her support for the proposed development.

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 T Robertson returned to the meeting.

5.2 Removal of existing building and erection of house at Aldersyde, Nethy Bridge - Mr Alan Cameron 18/05655/FUL, 19/00037/RBREF, RB-27-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00037/RBREF for the removal of existing building and erection of house at Aldersyde, Nethy Bridge for Mr Alan Cameron.

Preliminaries

whether on the basis of the applicant’s claim that the existing building was a dwellinghouse, the proposal met the terms of development plan policy regarding replacement houses; and

whether the proposal by virtue of its siting, orientation and design would reinforce and enhance the character of its surroundings, provide adequate private amenity ground for itself and also protect the amenity of the adjacent property.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that the case officer had confirmed a new access would be formed on the eastern side of the site. This access would benefit from good visibility and therefore he did not consider there would be any difficulties with access being taken from this point. The case officer had advised the distance between the rear gable end of the proposed house and the adjacent property was 3 metres. He reported there had been disagreement between the case officer and the applicant as to the status of the structure on the site, which was currently being used for storage, the applicant contending that it was a dwelling house having the facilities for day to day living. The applicant had also confirmed the structure was a non-standard form of construction which he accepted.

In response to further questions, the Clerk advised that in this case the Cairngorms National Park had not called in the planning application for determination, and therefore it was for the Council to determine it according to its scheme of delegation. She advised that an important starting point was for Members to consider whether the building on the site was a house on the basis that, if it was considered to be so, the application was therefore for a replacement house and Policy 1, part 9 of the Caithness National Park Local Development Plan - New Housing Development would apply. This policy supported proposals to replace existing housing stock subject to a number of tests, details of which she provided, including whether the existing house was of non-standard construction.

Debate

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

There was a consensus amongst Members that the building on the site was habitable and they considered it to be an existing house, and therefore the proposal met the terms of the development plan policy regarding replacement houses.

Members then proceeded to give consideration to the siting, design and orientation of the proposed development and how it related to the parent house in terms of the development plan policies.

During discussion Members raised the following main points:-

it was suggested the siting of the house did not reflect the character of the local area and the proposed design did not fit with the character of the adjacent property;

a contrary view was expressed namely that there was a mix of design types of housing and separation distances between properties in the area and that the proposed development would be in character with the surrounding area

the close proximity of proposed development to the adjacent property and the other boundaries on the site meant that the proposed development was considered to be unacceptable;

regret was expressed that there had not been more detailed discussions between the case officer and the applicant on the detailed design, siting and orientation of the house; and

the potential for the Notice of Review to be deferred to allow further discussions to be held on the proposal. The Clerk advised that, as this was a detailed planning application, it would not be appropriate to defer the application on the basis that any changes to the proposal would require the applicant to submit a new planning 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.

5.3 Subdivision of 1 house into 2 houses at Lauchmhor, Nethy Bridge - Mrs Sheila Evans 19/01373/FUL, 19/00036/RBCON, RB-28-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00036/RBCON for the subdivision of 1 house into 2 houses at Lauchmhor, Nethy Bridge for Mrs Sheila Evans.

Preliminaries

Whether in terms of the test that was set out in the relevant circular about the use of conditions in planning permissions, Condition 3 which was the focus of the Notice of Review:-

was clear in terms of which property it applied to and whose privacy was being protected; and

whether that condition was necessary because it involved the removal of permitted development rights for altering the design and disposition of windows and other openings on the property whatever that was and whether that was justified on the basis of the likely effects on privacy.

In response to questions, the Clerk clarified the various disposals which were available to the Review Body. In this case, she advised that Members should consider whether Condition 3 was reasonable and necessary for the purpose it had been added to the permission, which was to safeguard privacy between the now two separate houses, whether it went too far, or should be reduced or be dispensed with. It was important therefore that Members focused on the overlooking elevations as pointed out in the Independent Planning Adviser’s presentation.

In response to further questions, the Independent Planning Adviser explained the circumstances whereby planning permission would not be required if the change to a window or fenestration was assessed to be a non-material change, for example the like for like replacement of windows. Beyond that if alterations were assessed to be material and therefore considered to be development then planning permission would be required. He advised condition 3 sought to remove all permitted development rights which allowed householders the freedom to make alterations to windows and other openings. The applicant’s agent had expressed concern at the wide ranging nature of this condition as it referred to windows and other openings on the property which included doors and door frames.

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 further written submissions was not required.

Debate

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review during which the following main points were raised:-

condition 3 should be removed on the basis it was considered the current planning process would provide sufficient regulation of any alterations to the windows and other fenestrations to the property to safeguard privacy for the residents of the two parts of the now divided property; and

condition 3 be retained on the basis this would provide an additional level of protection in terms of privacy for the residents.

During further discussion the majority of Members expressed the view that condition 3 was unreasonable and unnecessary and that they were minded to uphold the Notice of Review.

Decision

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review and removed condition 3 for the following reason:-

Condition 3 was considered unreasonable and unnecessary to secure the privacy of the residents of the 2 parts of the now divided property.

5.4 Erection of House on Land 10M NORTH of 1 Raglan Terrace, Acre Street, Nairn – Paul Mackintosh, 19/00709/PIP, 19/00031/RBREF, RB-29-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00031/RBREF for the Erection of House on land 10m north of 1 Raglan Terrace, Acre Street, Nairn for Paul Mackintosh.

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 and the character of the local area. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this during which he also provided more up to date photographs which he had taken of the site. The applicant’s agent and case officer had confirmed they were content for these photographs to be shown to the Review Body.

The Independent Planning Adviser advised that the following determining issues should apply in relation to the application:-

whether a new house on the site would be likely to provide satisfactory levels of amenity to its future occupants in terms of internal light, outlook, the size disposition of its own garden ground and the potential overlooking of its windows and garden space by existing neighbouring properties;

whether a new house on the site would be likely to cause unacceptable impacts on the amenity of existing neighbouring properties by the way of reduction of their available garden ground and any possible overshadowing, overbearing and overlooking effects;

whether the development of a new house on the site and loss of open ground would be at odds with the character of the surrounding area; and

whether the site was capable of accommodating off street parking for a new house and if not whether on street parking was likely to cause any detriment to road safety.

Debate

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

The Chair suggested that in relation to the provision of within curtilage parking for the proposed house, it may be possible to overcome this issue by condition if Members were so minded, bearing in mind this was an application in principle.

In discussion, there was a consensus amongst Members that they did not consider sufficient justification for upholding this Notice of Review had been provided. Members therefore expressed their support for the case officer’s handling of and reasons for refusing this application, and indicated they 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.

5.5 Provide eight parking bays for motorhomes, an accessible toilet and motorhome service facilities (a wastewater disposal point and freshwater tap) at Land 60 m NW of 22 Rathad MhicGuaire, Teangue - Sabhal Mor Ostaig 19/00571/FUL, 19/00035/RBREF, RB-30-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00035/RBREF for the provision of eight parking bays for motorhomes, an accessible toilet and motorhome service facilities (a wastewater disposal point and freshwater tap) at Land 60 m NW of 22 Rathad MhicGuaire, Teangue for Sabhal Mor Ostaig.

Preliminaries

whether the siting and design of the development would give rise to unacceptable impacts on the amenity of existing residents to the south east of the site and occupants of planned housing areas to the north and east by virtue of proximity, likely noise, odours and general disturbance activity;

whether the level of proposed on site toilet and shower provision which was one unisex unit was adequate for visitors bearing in mind the Council’s Environmental Health Officer who recommended two, one per sex; and

whether the raised landscape bund that was proposed on the southern part of the site would be an incongruous feature that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality and also provide any screening benefits.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarification in relation to the topography of the site and the extent of earth works that would be required to level the site, confirming the gradients involved were not excessive.

Debate

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review during which the following main points were raised:-

there was significant demand for these types of facilities in the area and potential economic benefits to the local economy which outweighed what was considered to be marginal concerns raised by the case officer;

a compromise could be achieved in accommodating this development adjacent to the existing and proposed housing and it was noted that no objections to the application had been received from neighbouring residents;

this was a commendable application, however concern was expressed at the proposed layout of the site including the parking and proposed toilet provision;

it was not considered the landscape bund would be unsightly and out of character with the local area:

it was not considered the development would give rise to unacceptable noise and disturbance and therefore have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing residents; and

it was suggested an appropriate landscaping condition be attached to any grant of permission in relation to the height of the bund and suitable planting.

Thereafter, Members indicated that they were minded to uphold the Notice of Review and in doing so confirmed that they were agreeing that one unisex toilet be provided on the site.

Decision

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, and granted planning permission subject to conditions to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and agreed by the Chair for the following reasons:-

Members were not persuaded that the concerns raised by the case officer were sufficient to conclude that the development would be significantly detrimental in terms of the Policy 28 criteria and also did not agree that the bund would either be incongruous or unsightly. For these reasons the development was not considered to be contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan.

The meeting ended at 1.25 pm.

Read the Agenda