Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 25 August 2020

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held remotely on Tuesday, 25 August 2020 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr G Adam (excluding item 5.3)
Mr R Balfour
Mr R Bremner
Mrs I Campbell (excluding item 5.1)
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson (excluding item 5.3)
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

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mr W Mackay.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.3: Mr G Adam and Mr A Henderson (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 30 June 2020

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 30 June 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

5.1 Conversion of agricultural steading to house on Land 70M SE Of Carsaig, Dularich, Kiltarlity, for Mr Paul Beck 20/01094/FUL, 20/00022/RBREF (RB-13-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00022/RBREF for conversion of agricultural steading to house on Land 70M SE Of Carsaig, Dularich, Kiltarlity, for Mr Paul Beck

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 issues should apply in relation to the application:-

whether the development accorded with traditional building conversion/reuse;
if not, whether it met any other Hinterland policy exception e.g. brownfield land redevelopment with environmental gain;
potential adverse impact on trees; and
suitability of access.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarity on the access arrangements, including the proposed visibility splays, the extent of the tree loss on the site as a result of the development, the construction of the building and the definitions which supported the policies in relation to traditional buildings and brownfield sites occupied by redundant and unused buildings. He confirmed that Transport Planning had not been consulted on the application, but had been content with the access opposite the site which mirrored the proposal. The issue was therefore whether it was desirable to have a new access formed opposite the access approved under a previous application. He also confirmed that no information had been provided on the extent of the current foundations of the building in terms of whether the structure was capable of a conversion, observing that it was not floored. There was currently no public water supply on the site, however a connection was available from the road adjacent to the site.

Debate

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

the proposed access mirrored the access opposite the site approved under a previous permission and demonstrated compatibility with public road servicing provision;
the impact of the loss of trees as a result of the development could be mitigated by condition;
whether the existing building could be considered to be a redundant traditional building was a subjective matter and the proposed conversion would enhance and complement the area;
it would have been helpful to have comments from Transport Planning so there was further information in relation to the access;
the existing structure on the site was essentially a field shelter and was not considered to be redundant or traditional and therefore was not suitable for conversion to a house;
the proposal did not meet any of the other policy exceptions; and
concern at the impact of the development on existing trees on and around the site.

Thereafter, Mr A Henderson seconded by Mrs T Robertson moved that the Notice of Review be dismissed and planning permission refused for the reasons given in the Report on Handling. On there being no amendment, the motion became the finding of the meeting.

Decision

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

5.2. Erection of four houses on Land to the NE of Inverallan Church, Grant Road, Grantown-On-Spey, for Reidhaven Estate 19/00598/FUL, 20/00025/RBREF (RB-14-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00025/RBREF for the erection of four houses on Land to the NE of Inverallan Church, Grant Road, Grantown-On-Spey, for Reidhaven Estate

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.

whether the site was woodland, the removal of which was protected by national policy;
whether the loss of trees through development would preserve or not the setting of the Listed Church;
whether the loss of trees through development would enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;
whether the layout of the housing development would enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;
whether the layout of the development was satisfactory in other respects – amenity space, road safety;
whether the potential funding from development of the 4 houses toward the Inverallan 2020 Project was capable of constituting a material planning consideration that could help outweigh any material harm to built heritage interests as well as any non-compliance with national woodland removal control policy; and
whether there were other planning factors that could help outweigh any planning harm or non-compliance with national woodland removal control policy.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed:-

the proposed houses were of relatively low design relative to the surrounding area;
there were two car parking spaces per house plot, which met the relevant technical standards for properties with up to four bedrooms;
it was for the Council as Planning Authority to consider the weight that should be given to the Cairngorm National Park’s non-statutory guidance in relation to garden space;
the extent of the tree loss as a result of the development;
the applicant had indicated they controlled the ground on which the compensatory planting was to be undertaken;
the Church was a Grade B listed building; and
the Conservation Officer had confirmed he had no issue with a contemporary design in the Conservation Area;

Debate

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

Members expressed the view that the loss of trees through the development was unacceptable and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the Church. The proposal represented overdevelopment on what was a constrained site and would have an adverse impact on the character of the settlement. It was also commented that in relation to community benefit, there was no formal documentation or agreement in place in terms of the potential funding to be secured for the Inverallan 2020 Project for it to constitute a material planning consideration. Members therefore expressed support for the case officer’s handling of the application and reasons for refusal.

Decision

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

5.3 Erection of retail unit, associated accesses and car parking on Land 55M NE of Ness Lodge, Ness Road, Fortrose for Northquest Ltd C/o Canonbury Estates Ltd 18/04060/FUL, 20/00027/RBREF(RB-15-20)

Mr G Adam declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds he was a local Member for Ward 09: Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr A Henderson declared a non- financial interest in this item on the grounds of the involvement of a relative in the Notice of Review documentation. Mr G Adam and Mr A Henderson both left the meeting for the determination of this item.

Mrs T Robertson took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00027/RBREF for the erection of retail unit, associated accesses and car parking on Land 55M NE of Ness Lodge, Ness Road, Fortrose for Northquest Ltd C/o Canonbury Estates Ltd.

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, a site visit and hearing sessions having been requested by the applicant.

whether the development would adversely encroach onto open countryside and undermine the separate identities of Fortrose and Rosemarkie;
whether the design/layout of the development was poor and likely to damage the local character/the landscape setting of Fortrose;
whether the development was satisfactory in terms of pedestrian links/crossings;
whether the development was satisfactory in terms of possible traffic impact on Fortrose High Street;
whether the development was likely to adversely affect the vitality and viability of Fortrose Town Centre;
whether any identified harm to the above planning interests was outweighed by the need for improved/larger retail facilities to serve a growing population and a lack of suitable alternative sites; and
whether a need for the development also provided justification for the loss of prime farmland.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser clarified that the applicant had given no indication there would be possible future development on the site. Any reference to potential further development on the site during his presentation had sought to clarify points raised in the Report of Handling and did not form part of the planning application which had been submitted.

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 a site visit and 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 Members raised the following issues:-

concern that further development was intended in the future, indicated by the proposed level of car parking, and at the adverse effect this would have on Fortrose Town Centre;
it was suggested that alternative suitable premises for a retail facility could be found in the Town Centre;
concern at the use of prime farmland which was not planned for development, and further encroachment onto open countryside contrary to the aims and objectives of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan which sought to protect and maintain the distinct identities of Fortrose and Rosemarkie;
sympathy for the applicant on the basis that the development could be an asset to the area and pedestrian links would be improved, however concern at the adverse traffic impact on Fortrose High Street and on the amenity of the residents of Ness Lodge
the need for the applicant to consult further with Fortrose and Rosemarkie Community Council who had objected to the application; and
it would be difficult to mitigate the assessed non-compliance with the range of policies referred to in the reasons for refusal set out in the Report of Handling.

Thereafter, Mr R Bremner seconded by Mrs T Robertson moved that the Notice of Review be dismissed and planning permission refused for the reasons given in the Report on Handling. On there being no amendment, the motion became the finding of the meeting.

Decision

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

The meeting ended at 2.45pm.

Read the Agenda