Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 12 November 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, 12 November 2019 at 10.30am.

Present:

Mr G Adam (excluding items 5.1 and 5.2)
Mr R Balfour
Mr R Bremner (by video-conferencing)
Mrs I Campbell (by video-conferencing)
Mr L Fraser (excluding items 5.3 and 5.4)
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay (by video-conferencing)
Mrs M Paterson (excluding item 5.1)
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:

Mr I Meredith, 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 – Mr G Adam and Mrs M Paterson (non-financial)
Item 5.2 – Mr G Adam (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 24 September 2019

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 24 September 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 Erection of house on Land 70 m NW of Wellfield, Fortrose – Mr C Barclay 19/01767/PIP, 19/00042/RBREF, RB-31-19

Mr G Adam declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 9 – Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs M Paterson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that the applicant was a relative. Mr G Adam and Mrs M Paterson left the Chamber for the determination of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00042/RBREF for the erection of house on Land 70 m NW of Wellfield, Fortrose for Mr C Barclay.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his 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 issue should apply in relation to the application:-

whether a house on the proposed site would appropriately expand an existing housing group in order to comply in principle with the relevant exception of the housing in hinterland countryside policy that the applicant was relying upon and if not whether there were any special planning circumstances that would support a new house in this location.

In response to the Chair, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further information on the distances from the application site of the surrounding properties, including a previous planning permission cited in the applicant’s submission as a comparison case. He confirmed that the neighbouring property at ‘Wellfield’ was considered to be one residential unit by the case officer while the applicant contested it formed two separate units. He advised that Members should consider whether there was a perceptible relationship between the properties, if they had a cohesive character and whether the development would complement and reinforce the character of the alleged grouping.

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.

It was suggested the proposal did not meet the Council’s criteria for the expansion of a housing group, reference being made to the fact that one of the properties was located approximately 0.5km away from the application site and it was accepted the neighbouring property at ‘Wellfield’ formed one residential unit. There was also no evidence of agricultural need or other special circumstances to support a new house in this location. The application was therefore contrary to policy 35 – Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland Areas).

A contrary view was expressed that the development and surrounding properties had a cohesive character and could be considered as a grouping in terms of the policy. It was suggested there was a need to review the current policy for housing in hinterland areas to allow provide for more flexibility in regard to proposed developments.

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.

5.2 Erection of two houses (amended from three houses) Planning Permission in Principal on Land 45 m NW of 11 Anderson Drive, Fortrose - Mr Maurice Macrae 19/01870/FUL, 19/00043/RBREF, RB-32-19

Mr G Adam declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Member for Ward 9 – Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr G Adam was not present for the determination of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00043/RBREF for the erection of two houses (amended from three houses) on Land 45 m NW of 11 Anderson Drive, Fortrose for Mr Maurice Macrae.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his 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 site was woodland or not for the purposes of applying relevant policies.

If this site was considered to be woodland by Members, the remaining issues were:-

whether the proposal in principle satisfied the terms of policy 52 on development within woodland by demonstrating the need for a wooded site as well as clear and significant public benefit and if not whether there were 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 had planning merit that outweighed any non-compliance; and

whether the design and layout as such represented well planned development which was likely to create a good sense of place and achieved satisfactory levels of privacy and amenity for its residents.

If the site was not considered to be woodland by Members, the remaining issues were:-

whether alongside the surviving trees on site that were to be retained, the layout, scale and nature of the proposed new tree planting was adequate to enhance the setting of the proposed development; and

whether the design and layout as such represented well planned development which was likely to create a good sense of place and achieved satisfactory levels of privacy and amenity for its residents.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed a tree preservation order had not been in place on this site, and he understood that 25 sycamore trees had been felled in the central part of the site. The Forestry Officer had concerns about the proposed species in the planting schedule submitted by the applicant and also the depth of the landscape strips on the southern and eastern boundary of the site, recommending that this should be increased to 10m on both boundaries.

The Clerk clarified that if Members considered the principle of the development accorded with policy but there were matters such as the landscaping of the site that required to be addressed then the application could be upheld subject to further conditions to be drafted. Further, as this was an application in principle, the final design of the proposal would be subject to a detailed planning application.

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, during which the following main points were raised:-

It should be accepted this was not a woodland site and the Notice of rRview be upheld subject to conditions regarding planting more like for like species as compensatory planting;

the trees had been felled legally and consideration should be given to the best option for the development of the site in its current form. There was an opportunity to provide much needed housing while at the same time enhancing the site through compensatory planting;

concern at the felling of a significant number of substantial trees from what had been a dense area of the woodland without there having been a woodland management plan in place and no compensatory planting undertaken;

it had not been demonstrated the proposal offered clear and significant public benefit and the volume and mix of the proposed compensatory planting fell well below the standard of what was required to mitigate for the loss of woodland which had already taken place;

the need for the planting schedule submitted by the applicant to be more reflective of the species which had been removed;

planning permission had been refused relatively recently for development on this site on the grounds of the unacceptable impact on woodland and there was no doubt this was a woodland site; and

it was not considered the depth and length of landscaping and compensatory planting could not be sufficiently accommodated within the site without there being substantial incursion into the house plots which would have a constraining effect in terms of the detailed design at the next stage of the planning process.

Thereafter, it was proposed that no information had been provided which suggested the development complied with Highland Wide Development Plan policies 28, 51 and 52 and therefore the Notice of Review be dismissed for the reasons given by the case officer.

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.

Mr G Adams returned to the meeting.

5.3 Conversion of garage to en-suite bedroom at Ardach, Carrbridge - Mrs Allyson Reid 19/01870/FUL, 19/00033/RBREF, RB-41-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00033/RBREF for the conversion of garage to en-suite bedroom at Ardach, Carrbridge for Mrs Allyson Reid.

Preliminaries

whether vehicles using the new car parking bay required by the development would be able to manoeuvre without causing hazards to other road users and nuisance and disturbance to neighbours through encroachment, obstruction and noise given the parking layout on site and the width of the private access road;

whether the use of the garage as an extra room for family use would adversely affect the amenity of the occupants of adjacent properties through overlooking or other affects; and

whether the proposed design of the front elevation of the converted garage was acceptable in terms of its window fenestration.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed the garage was located 2.6m away from the house and he also outlined the extent of the land in the ownership of the applicant. He considered the only potential for overlooking arose from the insertion of a small window to serve a bathroom on the southern elevation of the garage. Any potential impact could be mitigated by a condition requiring this window to be frosted in obscure glaze.

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. There was a consensus that the application site was extremely constrained and the development would have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties, including road safety. Members therefore expressed their support for the case officer’s handling of and reasons for refusing 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.

5.4 House plot on existing farm/croft land on Land 60 m SW of 2 County Cottages, Gorthleck - Mr Ian Baily 19/01665/PIP, 19/00045/RBREF, RB-34-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00045/RBREF for house plot on existing farm/croft land on Land 60 m SW of 2 County Cottages, Gorthleck for Mr Ian Baily.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his 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 advised that the following determining issues should apply in relation to the application:-

whether the proposal in principle satisfied the terms of policy on development within woodland by demonstrating the need for a wooded site as well as clear and significant public benefit and if not whether there were exceptional circumstances that otherwise supported the proposal;

whether there were proposals for compensatory planting specifically linked to the development project 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 by the landowner had any planning merits that outweighed non-compliance; and

whether the loss of woodland through development would adversely affect the setting and character of the settlement and the contribution the existing trees made to local community amenity.

In response to questions, the Clerk advised that policy 52 Principle of Development in Woodland stated that the Council should maintain a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources. Development proposals should only be supported where they offered clear and significant public benefit. In terms of what constituted public benefit, he explained this would involve for example the development of infrastructure, buildings or provision of services that was needed by or necessary for the community. He advised that there were few circumstances where the development of a single residential unit could be categorised as being for public benefit. He explained that compensatory planting would only be considered if the development passed the test that it offered clear and significant public benefit.

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:-

the site was not of significant woodland importance, being a boggy area of mixed woodland which had self seeded and been neglected. It would be an acceptable compromise to build a house on this otherwise relatively low value area of land. It would not be to the detriment of the immediate landscape for some of the trees to be felled and the application site could be enhanced through compensatory planting; and

it was clear that the application and proposals for mitigating against the loss of woodland did not accord with the Highland Wide Local Development Plan policies in relation to loss of woodland These policies were both specific and restrictive and the presumption was against development. Further, it had not been demonstrated the development offered any public benefit. The development was also clearly contrary to Scottish Government policy in relation to development within woodlands.

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 12.50 pm.

Read the Agenda