Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 4 February 2020

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 10.30 am.

Present:
Mr G Adam
Mr R Balfour
Mr R Bremner (by video-conferencing)
Mrs I Campbell
Mr L Fraser (excluding item 5.4)
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay (by video-conferencing)
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:
Mrs K Lyons, Principal 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

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mrs M Paterson.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.4 – Mr L Fraser (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 12 November 2019

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 12 November 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

In accordance with Standing Order 9, the Planning Review Body AGREED to take items 5.4 and 5.3 first and then Items 5.1 and 5.2.

5.4 Erection of house and garage Land 75 m SE of Hardmuir Steading, Hardmuir of Boath, Nairn - Ms Elizabeth Hogg, 19/02307/PIP, 19/00052/RBREF, RB-38-19

Mr L Fraser declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was a local Member for Ward 18: Nairn and Cawdor, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review and he left the Chamber for the determination of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00052/RBREF for the erection of house and garage Land 75 m SE of Hardmuir Steading, Hardmuir of Boath, Nairn for Ms Elizabeth Hogg.

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 issue should apply in relation to the application:-

whether the proposal demonstrably satisfied any of the exceptions in the Council’s housing in the hinterland countryside policy including those specifically mentioned by the applicant, those being essential land management, rural business need, farming succession and adding to a housing group and if not whether there were any other exceptional circumstances which supported the proposal;
given the nature of the site a new house would be capable of being sensitively integrated into the setting without unacceptable adverse impacts on the local landscape, noting that this was an application for planning permission in principle and the information which had been provided in relation to design was of an indicative nature.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further information on the distances from the application site to the surrounding properties.

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:-

the application fulfilled the requirements for rounding off an existing housing group in this particular area as there was a definable relationship between the planned house and the existing three houses to the north. The siting of the house could be adjusted to more clearly reflect that relationship at the detailed planning stage;
a contrary view that while sympathetic to the applicant there was no perceptible relationship between the houses and sufficient justification for upholding the Notice of Review in this case had not been provided;
the proposal did not demonstrate sensitive siting in terms of policy 28 (sustainable design) and policy 29 (design quality and place-making); and
the proposal demonstrated sensitive design taking into account the topography of the site, and would be subject to further approval at the detailed planning stage.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mr G Adam, seconded by Mr W Mackay, moved that the Notice of Review be UPHELD on the grounds it was considered the application fulfilled the requirements for the rounding off of an existing housing group and that in the context of housing in this particular area there was a definable relationship between the planned house and the existing three houses to the north.

As an amendment, the Chair, seconded by Mrs T Robertson, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED for the reasons given by the case officer in the decision notice

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

Motion (2): Mr G Adam and Mr W Mackay

Amendment (5): Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser, Mr A Henderson

Abstentions (0)

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 Erect 6 holiday apartments on Land 25 m NE of Druid View, Old Edinburgh Road South, Inverness - Druid Developments Ltd 19/02234/FUL, 19/00059/RBREF, RB-37-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00059/RBREF to erect 6 holiday apartments on Land 25 m NE of Druid View, Old Edinburgh Road South, Inverness for Druid Developments Ltd

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 siting, design, scale and use of the proposed development would be in keeping with the character and setting of this edge of city site including the local pattern of development and landscape; and
whether, despite the comments of Transport planning, the level of car parking proposed which was six spaces was adequate for the development given the normal requirement for 10 spaces set out in the Council’s standards.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further information on the distances from the application site to the surrounding properties. In terms of the potential to re-orientate the development, this was a full planning application, and any such alteration would represent a substantial change to the application, and therefore he would not be comfortable for this to be imposed as a condition. He also clarified that the proposal was for 6 car parking spaces to be provided in respect of the development. The Council’s standard for this type of development was for the provision of 10 car parking spaces. The Planning Review Body could impose a condition requiring an additional plan to be submitted to increase car parking provision, there being sufficient space for this to be accommodated. Transport Planning could also be asked for their comments on this specific issue.

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:-

the development did not fit in with the rural character of the area and would result in overdevelopment of the site which was outwith the main settlement area and would impact on the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring residents,
concern at the adverse impact the development would have on the narrow single track road in the locality;
sufficient assurance had been provided that the traffic matters raised in objection could be mitigated;
in view of the intensive and dense housing development both existing and proposed around the site, the proposal could not be considered to be overdevelopment on this site or to have a significant adverse impact on the rural character of the area or a detrimental impact on community or residential amenity;
consideration of the Notice of Review be deferred to allow a resolution to be found in respect of the proposed number of car parking spaces on the basis that 6 spaces would be sufficient to meet demand;
further information be provided by the applicant on the site levels of the existing housing development opposite the proposed development on the other side of Old Edinburgh Road to allow comparison with the levels/height of the proposed development; and
concern that it in terms of policy 65 (waste water treatment) the applicant had not demonstrated that connection to the public sewer was unviable.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mr A Henderson, seconded by Mr W Mackay, moved that the Notice of Review be DEFERRED until a future meeting of the Planning Review Body in order to receive the following information:-

From the Applicant -

1. Confirmation of the site levels (ground, finished floor and roof height) of the existing housing development opposite the proposed development on the other side of Old Edinburgh Road to allow comparison with the levels/height of the proposed development; and
2. A plan showing how up to 10 parking spaces to service the proposed development could be accommodated within the Application Site, as members were not satisfied that 6 spaces would be sufficient to meet demand.
From the Council’s Transport Planning Team –
A consultation response on the proposed development.

As an amendment, Mrs T Robertson seconded by Mr R Balfour moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED for the reasons given by the case officer in the decision notice.

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

Motion (6): Mr G Adam, Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser, Mr A Henderson, and Mr W Mackay

Amendment (2): Mrs T Robertson and Mr R Balfour

Abstentions (0)

Decision

The Review Body AGREED to DEFER the Notice of Review until a future meeting of the Planning Review Body in order to receive the following information from the Applicant and the Council’s Transport Planning Team:

From the Applicant -

1. Confirmation of the site levels (ground, finished floor and roof height) of the existing housing development opposite the proposed development on the other side of Old Edinburgh Road to allow comparison with the levels/height of the proposed development; and
2. A plan showing how up to 10 parking spaces to service the proposed development could be accommodated within the Application Site, as members were not satisfied that 6 spaces would be sufficient to meet demand.

From the Council’s Transport Planning Team –
A consultation response on the proposed development.
(Only Cllrs Adam, Balfour, Bremner, Campbell, Fraser, Henderson, Mackay and Robertson to participate in continued item.)

5.1 Erection of house on Land 25 m SE of Craigerne House Hotel, Golf Course Road, Newtonmore - Mr Douglas Jeffries 19/03740/PIP 19/00051/RBREF, RB-35-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00051/RBREF for the erection of house on Land 25 m SE of Craigerne House Hotel, Golf Course Road, Newtonmore for Mr Douglas Jeffries.

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 site has the physical dimensions, configuration and capacity to satisfactorily accommodate a house without the possibility of overdevelopment;
whether the development of a house within the site would complement and reinforce the character of the local housing pattern; and
whether the development would be a good neighbour in amenity terms.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that while the applicant had provided statistics in relation to the footprint and curtilage of the house to the north of the site for comparison purposes, he had not provided the same information for the other adjacent developments to the east and south west and therefore a complete picture had not been provided in terms of plot ratios and density of development. He indicated that a large proportion of the application site was taken up by the access in the indicative layout. The case officer had observed that while technically the amount of garden ground complied with the relevant standard, it was not considered this space would be particularly useable due to the shape of the plot.

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 discussion, it was suggested that due to its shape the plot did not appear to be amenable to the erection of a house of any proportions. Regardless of the willingness of the applicant to work with the planning authority to amend the house design, the proposal would constitute overdevelopment on this site and would not reflect the local pattern of housing and the character of 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.

5.2 Erection of house on Land 40 m NE of Sealladh Shewglie, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit - Mr Paul Gibson 19/02178/PIP, 19/00050/RBREF, RB-36-19

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00050/RBREF for erection of house on Land 40 m NE of Sealladh Shewglie, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit for Mr Paul Gibson

Preliminaries

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 site constituted woodland and if so whether the proposal, in principle, satisfied the terms of policy on development in 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 support the proposal;
whether in the absence of a tree survey it would seem feasible to accommodate a house and all servicing on the site without unacceptable loss of and harm to existing trees such as the terms of policy 51 of the Development Plan can be satisfied;
whether the development of a house within the site would complement and reinforce the character of the local development pattern and landscape; and
whether the development would be a good neighbour in amenity terms.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser and Clerk provided clarification on the definition of a woodland as contained in the supplementary guidance and confirmed that:-

a tree survey had not been undertaken in relation to the site. This issue had been raised in correspondence in respect of a previous application which had been refused but had not been undertaken;
pre-emptive felling on the site had been undertaken before the submission of the previous planning application;
the site was identified as a woodland site in the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland map.
while the case officer had made reference to the fact a tree survey should be undertaken once the principle of development on the site had been approved, it was important that a tree survey was undertaken before any design work was carried out in order to understand the likely impact of the proposed development on existing trees. The supplementary planning guidance set out for applicants a recommended series of steps in relation to informing themselves as to what trees were on site, their root protection areas and what the safe development zone therefore was on a site;
the case officer had given an indication that the principle of development on the site was not at issue, however she had not addressed the question of whether this was a woodland site and therefore whether the other relevant policies should apply in this case; and
clarifying that the second refusal was on the grounds the proposal was contrary to Policy 51 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, since it failed to take account of the trees within and adjoining the site, and thus failed to afford adequate protection to these trees.

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 hearing sessions 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:-

this was a woodland site, supported by the fact it had been included on a Native Woodland Survey of Scotland map and it was not considered the development satisfied the terms of policy on development in woodland and that it would achieve clear and significant public benefit;
the trees within the site constrained any development on the plot and it was surprising the forestry officer had not been consulted on the application;
the proposed development was close to but outwith the woodland and this view was supported by the fact there were a number of other established edge of woodland developments in the surrounding area;
the applicant had been influenced by the views of the previous case officer who had advised a tree survey not required for an application for planning permission in principle;
concern the applicant had had ample opportunity to undertake a tree survey and this could have possibly enhanced their case;
there was a presumption against the removal of trees and the trees which had already been felled these should have been replaced; and
the Notice of Review be deferred to the next meeting allow the applicant to submit a tree survey on the impact of the proposed development on the trees located within and immediately adjacent to, the application site by a qualified arboriculturalist to identify the impact of the proposed development on the trees located within and immediately adjacent to, the Application Site.

Decision

The Review Body AGREED to DEFER the Notice of Review until the March meeting of the Planning Review Body in order to allow the Applicant to submit to the Planning Review Body a tree survey undertaken by a qualified arboriculturalist to identify the impact of the proposed development – based on the indicative position of the house and services shown on the site layout plan drawing number 1157-00-00S-B – on the trees (and related root protection areas) located within and immediately adjacent to, the Application Site.

(Only Cllrs Adam, Bremner, Campbell, Fraser, Henderson, Mackay and Robertson to participate in continued item.)

The meeting ended at 1.30pm.

Read the Agenda