Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 17 March 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, 17 March 2020 at 10.30 am.

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

In Attendance:
Mrs 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

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mrs I Campbell and Mr W Mackay.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mr L Fraser (non-financial)
Item 5.2 – Mr G Adam (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 4 February 2020

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 4 February 2020, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

The Clerk confirmed that, for all subsequent items on the agenda, Members had contained in their SharePoint 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 in SharePoint.

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 80M NE of Hillend, Auldearn - Ellands Farm 19/01345/PIP, 20/00002/RBREF (RB-01-20)

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 20/00002/RBREF for the erection of house on Land 80M NE of Hillend, Auldearn for Ellands Farm.

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’ SharePoint, the applicant having made a request for further written submissions and 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 woodland or brownfield land;
if it was considered to be woodland by Members, whether the applicant has demonstrated both a need for this site to be developed as well as clear and significant public benefit and has also provided details of suitable compensatory planting on non-woodland nearby;
if instead it was considered to be brownfield land by Members, whether the return of the land to a natural site is readily achievable and whether the site development is within the bounds of the wider environmental benefit of the area to meet the exception in the hinterland housing policy that the applicant is relying upon; and
whether in the absence of a tree survey it would seem feasible to accommodate a house and servicing on the site without an unacceptable impact on the remaining trees such that the terms of policy 51 of the development plan were satisfied.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further information on the Forestry Officer’s objection to the planning application on the grounds of loss of woodland. He also clarified that part of the site was listed in the Ancient Woodland Inventory (Scotland). In terms of the definition of ancient woodland, a key issue was that there was a long established woodland on the site taking into account that all trees had a certain life span. He confirmed that no evidence had been provided by the applicant of any recent use of a borrow pit on the site, and that the property ‘Hillend’ to the south of the site was not in the ownership or under the control of the applicant. He also provided clarity on the route of the abandoned public road, which the applicant proposed to use as access to the site, and explained his preferred option in terms of road safety and potential tree loss would be to exit from the site onto the minor road to the east of the site.

Thereafter, the Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Members’ SharePoint and the Google Earth/Streetview presentation and were of the view that the request made by the applicant for further written submissions and a site visit were not required.

Debate

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

In discussion, Members expressed concern at the fact the application breached a number of different planning policies and there was a designated area of ancient woodland on the site which had protected status in terms of the policy considerations. Members therefore expressed support for the case officer’s handling of the application and reasons for refusal.

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. Formation of House Plot on Land 50M East of Fyrish, Culbokie, - Mr & Mrs D McCallum 19/00958/PIP, 20/00004/RBREF, RB-02-20

Mr G Adam declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was a local Member for Ward 09: Black Isle, and therefore did not participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs T Robertson left the Chamber at this point and was not present for the determination of this and the following item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00004/RBREF for the formation of house plot on land 50M East of Fyrish, Culbokie, for Mr & Mrs D McCallum

Preliminaries

whether the development was related to an existing well defined housing group of three houses in the vicinity that showed a cohesive character and perceptible relationship with each other;
if so, would the site development represent acceptable infill or rounding off of the group without detriment to its character, natural features and/or landscape; and
if the proposal failed to meet the housing group criteria within the hinterland policy whether it satisfied any other exception category.

Debate

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

In discussion, there was a consensus amongst Members that the proposal failed to demonstrate the rounding off or consolidation of a housing group. The proposal therefore did not meet any of the exceptions in the housing in the countryside supplementary guidance and was contrary to policy. The Notice of Review should therefore be dismissed for the reasons given by the case officer in the decision notice.

Decision

The Review Body the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the case officer in the decision notice.

5.3 Erection of garage/ancillary building (retrospective) at 13 Grant Place, Claggan, Fort William - Mr Peter Faryma 19/00672/FUL,19/00058/RBREF, RB-03-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 19/00058/RBREF for erection of garage/ancillary building (retrospective) at 13 Grant Place, Claggan, Fort William, for Mr Peter Faryma.

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’ Sharedrive, the applicant having made a request for further written submissions and a site visit.

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 and in response to questions clarified that:-

retrospective planning permission had been sought by the applicant following complaints received from the neighbours, which had led to an investigation by planning officials and potential enforcement action being taken;
if the roof height had been restricted to 4 metres then planning permission would not have been required under permitted development rights. In this case, the building was 6.18m high and therefore express planning permission was required;
the planning officer’s recommendation was that the roof height be lowered to 4.5 metres, however the applicant had explained in his statement that the trusses were such that it would be a major undertaking to reduce its height to that level;
the roof pitch angle was 47 degrees which he considered to be relatively steep due to the relative narrowness of the footprint of the building in addition to its height; and
the applicant had advised that based on the footprint of the building he did not realise planning permission would be required. It was only after the trusses had been erected that it had become apparent the development would be over the maximum height allowed under permitted development rights.

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 and a site visit.
.
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 potential for the building to be finished in brown wooden cladding to be more in keeping with the local area and as a possible alternative to reducing the height of the building;
the height of the structure was a clear and substantial breach of the planning regulations and retrospective planning permission should therefore not be granted;
in relation to comparisons with other garages and ancillary buildings in the local area highlighted by the applicant in support of the Notice of Review, the gable end of this development was facing the neighbouring property and this together with the pitch of the roof impinged on the amenity of the neighbours; and
the roof pitch and height of the building was not in keeping with the surrounding area and the planning officer’s recommendation that the roof height be lowered to 4.5 metres was reasonable and permission be issued under delegated powers on that basis.

The Solicitor clarified that the planning officer had advised the applicant that if the height of the building was reduced to 4.5m then planning permission would be granted for the development. However, the applicant had confirmed this was not acceptable to him and had submitted a Notice of Review for that reason. If Members were in agreement with the planning officer that the application as submitted was not acceptable then the Notice of Review should be refused. The applicant would then have an opportunity to submit a fresh application, at no fee, for the building to be reduced to 4.5m in height which could then be granted under delegated powers.

During further discussion there was a consensus amongst Members that the application as submitted be refused and the Notice of Review dismissed for the reasons given by the case officer in the decision notice.

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 12.25pm.

Read the Agenda