Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2020

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held by Skype on Tuesday, 5 May 2020 at 10.30 am.

Present:
Mr G Adam
Mrs I Campbell
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay
Mrs M Paterson (excluding items 5.1 and 5.2)
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor/Clerk
Mr M McLoughlin, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Ms L Johnstone, ICT Service and Performance Manager
Mr I Street, ICT Officer (Communications)
Ms A Macrae, Committee Administrator

Mr A Henderson in the Chair

Preliminaries

The Chair confirmed that the meeting, held during the COVID19 emergency period, would not be webcast.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr R Balfour and Mr R Bremner.

2. Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 17 March 2020

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 17 March 2020, 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 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. Notice of Review Previously Considered

5.1 Erection of house on land 40M NE of Sealladh Shewglie, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit for Mr Paul Gibson 19/02178/PIP, 9/00050/RBREF, RB-36-19

The substance of this item had been discussed at meeting of the Planning Review Body on 4 February 2020. Only those Members present during this item at that meeting (Mr G Adam, Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser, Mr A Henderson, Mr W Mackay and Mrs T Robertson) participated in the determination of this item.

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review 9/00050/RBREF for the erection of house on land 40M NE of Sealladh Shewglie, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit for Mr Paul Gibson

The Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that, at its meeting on 4 February 2020, the Planning Review Body had agreed to defer consideration of this Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting 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 on the trees, and related root protection areas, located within and immediately adjacent to, the Application Site. The tree survey report and plans submitted by the applicant had been circulated to the Review Body along with the original documentation relating to the Notice of Review. The Independent Planning Adviser advised that the applicant’s qualified arboriculturalist had accepted that the site was included in the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland carried out between 2006 and 2013, and the survey confirmed the extent of the trees on the site. In response to a question, he provided clarification on the definition of woodland as set out in the supplementary planning guidance and the other material factors that should be taken into account in the definition, including the felling undertaken on the northern part of the site approximately 18 months previously.

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.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given in the Report on Handling. In addition, Members were of the view that Highland Wide Local Development Plan Policy 52 – Principle of Development in Woodlands, applied to the proposal because the documents lodged in response to the Procedure Notice confirmed that the application site was within woodland. As the applicant had not demonstrated the need to develop a wooded site, the proposal was also contrary to this policy.

5.2 Erection of 6 no. holiday apartments on land 25M NE Of Druid View, Old Edinburgh Road South, Inverness for Druid Developments Ltd 19/02234/FUL, 19/00059/RBREF, RB-37-19

The substance of this item was discussed at PRB on 4 February 2020. Only those Members present during this item at that meeting (Mr G Adam, Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser, Mr A Henderson, Mr W Mackay and Mrs T Robertson) participated in the determination of this item.

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review 9/00059/RBREF for the erection of 6 no. holiday apartments on land 25M NE of Druid View, Old Edinburgh Road South, Inverness for Druid Developments Ltd.

The Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that, at its meeting on 4 February 2020, the Planning Review Body had agreed to defer consideration of this Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting in order to receive information on relationship of proposal to neighbouring development (height) and car parking from the Applicant, and the comments of Transport Planning on the development.

The information received from the applicant had been circulated to the Review Body along with the original documentation relating to the Notice of Review. In response to the Procedure Notice, Transport Planning had provided a Memorandum dated 19 March 2020 making recommendations which the Applicant had largely taken on board. 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.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, Mr G Adam seconded by Mr L Fraser, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED and planning permission granted subject to (i) conditions (including suspensive conditions re cycle parking and approval of a new passing place on Old Edinburgh Road) to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and agreed by the Chair; and (ii) the prior conclusion of a Section 75 planning obligation to secure the developer contributions referred to in Table 1 contained in paragraph 8.14 of the Report on Handling. The reasons given for approving the Notice of Review were as follows:-

1. The proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the rural character of the area and would not negatively impact on community residential amenity, as it does demonstrate sensitive siting and design and would be in keeping with local character and make a positive contribution to the visual quality of the place in which it would be located. Therefore, it does accord with Policies 28 (Sustainable Design) and 29 (Design Quality and Place-Making) of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan 2012;

2. The proposal would not result in an overdevelopment of the site and would not have a detrimental impact on individual and community residential amenity, and therefore does demonstrate sensitive siting in keeping with local character as required by Policy 28 (Sustainable Design) of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan 2012;

3. The proposal is considered to be compatible with the established settlement pattern and private residential land use, therefore the proposal does accord with Policy 34 (Settlement Development Areas) of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan 2012.
Mrs T Robertson indicated that she agreed with the planning officer and put forward an amendment dismissing the Notice of Review for the reasons for refusal 1-3 in the Report of Handling (reason for refusal 4 now having been addressed by the applicant) but on failing to find a seconder the amendment fell.

Accordingly, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and granted planning permission for the reasons stated subject to (i) conditions (including suspensive conditions re cycle parking and approval of a new passing place on Old Edinburgh Road) to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and agreed by the Chair; and (ii) the prior conclusion of a Section 75 planning obligation to secure the developer contributions referred to in Table 1 contained in para 8.14 of the Report on Handling.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1 New scout base building with access, parking and drainage on land 380M SE Of Oldtown Cottage No 2, Gordonbush, Brora, for Gordonbush Estates 19/04596/FUL, 20/00006/RBCON, RB-04-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00006/RBCON for new scout base building with access, parking and drainage on land 380m SE Of Oldtown Cottage No 2, Gordonbush, Brora, for Gordonbush Estates.

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’ SharePoint, 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 should apply in relation to the application:-

• in terms Circular 4/1998, was the restriction of the building’s use to scouting group purposes reasonable/necessary bearing in mind the reason given for the Condition’s imposition; and
• would any planning harm result from the use of the hut building for Estate-related activities? e.g. increased noise/disturbance to nearby residents, a greater parking requirement, greater flood risk vulnerability.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser clarified the terms of the planning application which he confirmed had been submitted by Gordonbush Estates. In hindsight, the applicant had considered that condition 2 attached to the grant of planning permission in relation to the use of the building was unnecessarily restrictive. His interpretation of the condition attached by the case officer was to prevent the long-term occupation of the building as permanent residential accommodation but not to exclude it being used for scouts for an overnight stay.

In response to a further question, the Clerk advised that it would not be appropriate to prohibit the commercial letting of the building on the basis there was the potential for money to be exchanged for any bookings made between the scouts and the Estate. The focus should be on ensuring the appropriate use of the building rather than the arrangements by which this was secured.

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 indicated they wished to see the building used and therefore were supportive of opening up the scope of the condition. Members were of the view that limited-duration overnight stays by visiting scout groups and would be acceptable and in accordance with the original condition which included “used for purposes related to the Scout Group”. However, Members considered the use of the hall as tourist accommodation or for residential purposes was out with the scope of the use approved under application ref: 19/04596/FUL and therefore the amended condition should make clear these uses were prohibited.
Decision

The Planning Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and the amendment of condition 2 attached to the grant of planning permission, the amended condition to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and agreed by the Chair and Vice Chair.

6.2. Erection of 3 huts Land 300M SE Of Water Filter Station, Backies, Golspie for Mr Alastair Cunningham 19/03189/FUL, 20/00001/RBCON, RB-05-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00001/RBCON for the erection of 3 huts on land 300M SE Of Water Filter Station, Backies, Golspie for Mr Alastair Cunningham.

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’ SharePoint, the applicant having made a request for further written submissions.

• in terms of Circular 4/1998, was Condition 1 reasonable in terms of the length of time it permitted the use of the huts annually, noting that Scottish Planning Policy did not sanction the use of such structures as principal residences.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that in response to the Notice of Review, the planning officer had indicated that a 6 to 9 months maximum stay would be acceptable.

Debate

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

In discussion, Members were satisfied that the condition could be relaxed to meet the applicant’s request for longer stay occupation without allowing the development approved under application ref 19/03189/FUL to be used for permanent residential occupation thereby avoiding the case officer’s concerns regarding lack of private amenity space. However, no consensus was reached between the Members in relation to the occupancy limit to be applied annually,

Mr A Henderson, seconded by Mrs M Paterson moved that Condition 1 be amended to allow for 6 months occupancy in any one year

As an amendment, Mr L Fraser seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that Condition 1 be amended to allow for 9 months occupancy in any one year

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

Motion (3): Mr A Henderson, Mrs M Paterson and Mrs T Robertson

Amendment (4): Mr G Adam, Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser and Mr W Mackay

Abstentions (0)

Decision

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and the amendment of condition 1 attached to the grant planning permission, the amended condition to allow for 9 months occupancy in any one year and to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and agreed by the Chair.

6.3 Erection of house on land 30M NE Of, 2 Balnakyle Road, Inverness for Ms Ellen Falconer 19/04012/FUL, 20/00010/RBREF, RB-06-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00010/RBREF for erection of house on land 30M NE Of, 2 Balnakyle Road, Inverness for Ms Ellen Falconer.

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’ SharePoint, the applicant having made a request for a site visit.

• whether the sub-division proposal would respect the character of the local area in terms of siting/layout, and;
• whether it would be a good neighbour as far as residential amenity was concerned, in relation to both host dwelling and adjacent properties.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed the Forestry Officer had not objected to the application and that no response had been received from the applicant’s in relation to the Forestry Officer’s comment that consideration be given to how the access was formed without damaging the roots of the neighbouring hedge.

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.

In discussion, concern was expressed around the proposal to have a substantial housing development to the rear of the host property on this plot and the impact on the amenity and privacy of the neighbours. The development was not in keeping with the established settlement pattern and local character of the area and the grant of planning permission may set a precedent for further sub division of plots in this locality.

A contrary view was expressed that the proposal was not contrary to Policy 28 (Sustainable Design) of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as, although the proposed dwelling was substantial, it would be located in a large plot and was appropriately sited to avoid unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity and privacy of neighbouring residents.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mr G Adam moved that the Notice of review be APPROVED and planning permission granted subject to (i) conditions (including a condition securing the raising of the Velux windows to 1.7m above floor level) to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and agreed by the Chair; and (ii) the prior conclusion of a Section 75 planning obligation to secure the developer contributions referred to in Table 1 contained in paragraph 8.17 of the Report on Handling.

As an amendment, Mr L Fraser seconded by Mr A Henderson, 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 (5): Mr G Adam, Mrs I Campbell, Mr W Mackay, Mrs M Paterson and Mrs T Robertson

Amendment (2): Mr L Fraser and Mr A Henderson

Abstentions (0)

Decision

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and granted planning permission subject to (i) conditions (including a condition securing the raising of the Velux windows to 1.7m above first floor level – to avoid overlooking neighbouring properties) to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and agreed by the Chair; and (ii) the prior conclusion of a Section 75 planning obligation to secure the developer contributions referred to in Table 1 contained in paragraph 8.17 of the Report on Handling.

The meeting ended at 2.00pm.

Read the Agenda