Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 30 June 2020

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held remotely on Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 10.30 am.

Present:
Mr G Adam
Mr R Balfour
Mr R Bremner
Mrs I Campbell
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson (excluding item 5.4)
Mr W Mackay
Mrs M Paterson
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 5.4: Mr A Henderson (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 5 May 2020

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 5 May 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. New Notices of Review to be Determined

In accordance with Standing Order 9, the Planning Review Body AGREED to take item 5.4 as the last item on the agenda.

5.1 Siting of chalet on Land 490M NW Of Druimnacoille, Dalnavert, Feshiebridge for Mr John Christie 19/04897/FUL, 20/00011/RBCON, RB-07-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00011/RBCON for siting of chalet on land 490M NW Of Druimnacoille, Dalnavert,Feshiebridge for Mr John Christie.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation 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, 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 issue should apply in relation to the application:-

• In terms of circular 4/1998, was Condition 1 necessary and reasonable given the circumstances.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that it was not clear from the Report of Handling as to the reason why Condition 1 had been attached to the planning permission, the case officer’s only comment being that the chalet was regarded as being akin to a caravan. The Scottish Government’s advice was that temporary planning permissions should only be used exceptionally and because of that there was a presumption against the constant renewal of temporary permissions.

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.

Debate

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

Members accepted that the applicant was moving his permanent residence which had been inhabited for a number of years and accordingly the condition was neither necessary nor reasonable and should be removed.

Decision

The Planning Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and the removal of Condition 1 attached to the grant of planning permission reference 19/04897/FUL. The reason for the decision was that Members accepted that the applicant was moving his place of residence which had been inhabited for a number of years and accordingly the condition was neither necessary nor reasonable.

5.2. Siting of 5 polytunnels and two sheds for soft fruit production, on land 550M NW Of Druimnacoille, Dalnavert, Feshiebridge for Mr John Christie 19/04894/FUL, 20/00012/RBCON, RB-08-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00012/RBCON for the siting of 5 polytunnels and two sheds for soft fruit production, on land 550M NW Of Druimnacoille, Dalnavert, Feshiebridge for Mr John Christie

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, no further procedure having been requested by the applicant.

• In terms of circular 4/1998, was Condition 1 necessary and reasonable given the circumstances.

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 applicant was continuing an established business connected to a permanent residence, and accordingly the condition was neither necessary nor reasonable.

Decision

The Planning Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and removal of condition 1 attached to the grant of planning permission reference 19/04894/FUL. The reason for the decision was that Members accepted that the applicant was moving his place of residence which had been inhabited for a number of years and accordingly the condition was neither necessary nor reasonable.

5.3 Change of use of care home to 32 bedroom hotel/guest house for Fairfield Nursing Home, 68-70 Fairfield Road, Inverness for Inverness Property Management 19/05347/FUL, 20/00016/RBREF, RB-09-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00016/RBREF for change of use of care home to 32 bedroom hotel/guest house for Fairfield Nursing Home, 68-70 Fairfield Road, Inverness for Inverness Property Management.

Preliminaries

• whether the level of off-site parking and other activities associated with the proposed development would give rise to unacceptable levels of disruption from comings and goings etc. such that the character and amenities of the surrounding predominately residential area would be adversely affected.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided a summary of the information that had been presented by the applicant and objectors in terms of car parking capacity in the area and the justification provided by the applicant for the removal of unclassified trees. He provided clarity on the proposed layout for parking on the site and the comments in the report of handling in terms of the design of the parking spaces. He further clarified that:-

• Transport Planning were content with the proposal subject to the proposed mitigation as detailed, on the basis of the techncal surveys undertaken in regard to on-street parking availability, the opportunities for traffic management gains in the area and the fact the applicant was encouraging travel by sustainable modes;
• the case officer was more concerned with the amenity effects of the on-street parking, and the fact the level of comings and goings and travel to the site would result in disturbance to local residents;
• the applicant’s agent had submitted that the proposed hotel would give rise to no more disturbance than a nursing home; and
• If Members were minded to approve the application a condition could be attached requiring more disabled parking on the site, and he did not consider the impact of this would be detrimental to the overall parking provision.

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 the professional advice from Transport Planning was that there was sufficient on and off-street parking to accommodate the development. It was not clear the additional traffic movements would impact on local residential amenity and the development would enable some of the traffic management problems in this area to be improved through the proposed mitigation. The impact on the amenity of a potentially redundant building should also be taken into account. On balance, the notice of review should therefore be upheld.

A contrary view was expressed by a majority of Members that there was insufficient off-street parking for staff and guests and the additional on street parking which would be generated by the development was undesirable in a predominately residential area. The comings and goings of the proposed hotel operation in this location would give rise to more disturbance than a nursing home, and the objections from the local community council and neighbouring residents received in response to the application had also to be taken into account. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the established residential character of the area and the amenity of local residents.

Decision

The Planning Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given in Report on Handling.

5.5 Erection of semi-detached house (re submission of 17/01665/FUL) on land 50M East of Rossville, Lentran, Inverness for Claymore Developments 18/01779/FUL, 20/00021/RBREF, RB-11-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00021/RBREF for change of use of care home to 32 bedroom hotel/guest house for erection of semi-detached house (re submission of 17/01665/FUL) on land 50M East Of Rossville, Lentran, Inverness for Claymore Developments.

Preliminaries

• appropriateness of the design to the context; and
• potential adverse impact on trees.

Thereafter, the Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Members’ Members’ SharePoint 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, Members indicated that they were content with the reasons for refusal of the application given in the Report of Handing. Members further indicated that the scale, proportion, and massing of the building differed considerably from the adjacent and nearby properties which were single storey. The proposal therefore did not demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with the local character and did not accord with the Highland-wide Local Development Plan policy 28 Sustainable Design.

Decision

The Planning Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for (i) the reasons given in the Report on Handling, and (ii) on the grounds that as the scale, proportion, and massing of the building differed considerably from the adjacent and nearby properties which were single storey, that it did not demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping with the local character and did not therefore accord with the Highland-wide Local Development Plan policy 28 Sustainable Design.

5.6 Erection of house and garage/shed on land 50M East of Bruichnain Farmhouse, Delmore, Inverness for Mr Scott McLean 19/04994/PIP, 20/00024/RBREF, RB-12-20

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00024/RBREF for erection of house and garage/shed on land 50M East of Bruichnain Farmhouse, Delmore, Inverness for Mr Scott McLean.

Preliminaries

• whether the development accorded with Hinterland policy on development to infill/round-off existing housing groups (including possible adverse impact on the landscape due to proposed access); and
• if not, whether the proposal met any other Hinterland policy exception.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed there was no explanation within the Notice of Review and supporting paperwork as to why the applicant proposed to take access through the site from the public road rather than from the unadopted private road. In terms of planning history, an outline planning permission had been granted for a house to the east of the site, the Review Body had refused an application for planning in principle in the vicinity and most recently an application for a camping pod development had been refused. He had no further information in relation to the planning history of the application site.

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 the proposal did not provide for acceptable linear development or infill and would not round off a housing group and therefore would interrupt the well-established cohesive character of the settlement. In addition, concern was expressed at proposed access route to be taken from the public road through the site and the fact was not in keeping with other access routes in the area.

A contrary view was expressed that if the applicant was to farm the land he had a right to construct the access route as proposed. The main issue related to what constituted a housing group which it was suggested was a highly subjective matter. It was suggested there was a perceptible relationship with the three neighbouring properties and the development was in keeping with the local character of the area.

A further point related to the fact no evidence or farm business plan had been supplied in relation to any proposed farming operation on the site.

No consensus having being reached between the Members, Mr G Adam seconded by Mrs M Paterson moved that the Notice of Review be upheld and planning permission granted on the basis that the site has a perceptible relationship with the three neighbouring properties and accordingly complied with the Highland-wide Local Development Plan policy 25.

As an amendment, Mr R Bremner seconded by Mrs T Robertson, moved that the Notice of Review be dismissed and planning permission refused for reasons 1 and 2 given in the Report on Handling

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

Motion (2): Mr G Adam, Mrs M Paterson

Amendment (7): Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr L Fraser, Mr A Henderson, Mr W MacKay, Mrs T Robertson

Abstentions (0)

Decision

The Planning Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review for reasons 1 and 2 in the Report on Handling.

5.4 Alterations to existing garage to form self contained holiday letting unit (amended design to 18/05669/FUL) at Ryvoan, Achdalieu Road, Banavie, Fort William for Mr John Sandison 19/04555/FUL, 20/00018/RBREF, RB-10-20

Mr A Henderson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was a local Member for Ward 11: Caol and Mallaig, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review and he left the meeting for the determination of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00018/RBREF alterations to existing garage to form self contained holiday letting unit (amended design to 18/05669/FUL) at Ryvoan, Achdalieu Road, Banavie, Fort William for Mr John Sandison.

Preliminaries

• overlooking of Thistle Bank’s rear garden;
• impact of extra vehicular traffic on amenity of neighbours, especially Thistle Bank; and
• whether the arrangements for parking on the site was satisfactory particularly in terms of their possible effects on the residential amenities of neighbours.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser suggested that the case officer being mindful of the Planning Review Body’s decision on a previous notice of review, had considered it prudent to consult with Transport Planning in respect of this application.

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, concern was expressed at the disturbance arising from increased vehicular access on neighbouring properties and lack of space for vehicles to manoeuvre on what was considered to be an overcrowded site. The proposal did not demonstrate sensitive siting would have an adverse impact on residential amenity given the potential for overlooking.

A contrary view was expressed that any concerns in relation to traffic movements had been mitigated by the proposed parking layout and removal of the decking, which provided for a satisfactory level of manoeuvrability. The perimeter fence sufficiently mitigated overlooking concerns and the design was sympathetic to the area.

No consensus having being reached between the Members, Mrs T Robertson seconded by Mr G Adam moved that the Notice of Review be dismissed for the reasons given in the Report on Handling.

As an amendment, by Mr R Bremner seconded by Mr W MacKay moved that the Notice of Review be upheld on the grounds that the perimeter fence sufficiently mitigated overlooking concerns, the design was sympathetic to the area, and any disruption that would be caused by traffic movements had been addressed by the parking layout, and so the application complied with policies 28 and 44 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

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

Motion (5): Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr L Fraser, Mrs M Paterson, Mrs T Robertson

Amendment (3): Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mr W MacKay

Abstentions (0):

Decision

The Planning Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review for the reasons given in the Report on Handling.

The meeting ended at 2.20pm.

Read the Agenda