Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 6 October 2020

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held remotely on Tuesday, 6 October 2020 at 10.30am.

Present:

Mr R Balfour (excluding items 5.5 and 5.6)
Mr R Bremner (excluding item 5.3)
Mrs I Campbell
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay (excluding item 5.3)
Mrs M Paterson
Mrs T Robertson (excluding item 5.5)

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

There were no apologies for absence.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.3: Mr R Bremner and Mr W Mackay (non-financial)
Item 5.5: Mr R Balfour and Mrs T Robertson (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 25 August 2020

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 25 August 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 Siting of caravan (retrospective) at Helmsdale Youth Hostel, Stafford Street, Helmsdale for Helmsdale Hostel 19/05011/FUL, 20/00026/RBCON (RB-16-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00026/RBCON for siting of caravan (retrospective) at Helmsdale Youth Hostel, Stafford Street, Helmsdale for Helmsdale Hostel

Preliminaries

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

In terms of Circular 4/1998 (The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions), was Condition 1 reasonable or necessary given the circumstances.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarity on the distance of the caravan to the site boundary and neighbouring properties. He confirmed the potential for planting/landscaping to be undertaken within the application site to soften the impact of the development did not form part of the applicant’s proposal. He explained that the new unit was essentially located in the same position as the previous unit and provided information on its structure and design, and on the statutory definition of a caravan.

The Clerk advised that for the avoidance of doubt the unit was a caravan in terms of the legal definition. The caravan had been granted planning permission and Members were being asked to consider whether Condition 1 attached to that permission should remain, be removed or replaced.

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 Condition 1 should be replaced with an amended condition to allow the caravan to remain on site for a period of 10 years for ancillary use to the hostel subject to a review at the end of that period to determine whether, based on the condition and/or appearance of the caravan, the caravan should remain on site for a further extended period or be removed. This was on the basis that Members were mindful that caravans had a limited lifespan and wished to prevent the caravan having an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring proprietors and/or from public viewpoints.

In addition, Members wished to encourage some planting/landscaping within the application site to soften the impact of the caravan on neighbouring proprietors and agreed this be covered by an advisory note rather than by imposing an additional condition.

Decision

The Planning Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and replaced Condition 1 with an amended condition that allows the caravan to remain on site for a period of 10 years for ancillary use to the hostel from the date of the decision letter subject to a review at the end of that period to determine whether, based on the condition and/or appearance of the caravan, the caravan should remain on site for a further extended period or be removed. The reason for imposing an amended condition is that Members were mindful that caravans have a limited lifespan and wish to prevent the caravan having an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring proprietors and/or from public viewpoints.

The Planning Review Body wished to encourage some planting/landscaping within the application site to soften the impact of the caravan on neighbouring proprietors and AGREED this be covered by an advisory note rather than by imposing an additional condition.

5.2. Erection of extension to house to form garage, office and self-contained annexe above at Bruadarach View, Culloden Moor, Inverness for Mr Graham Hopper 19/02411/FUL, 20/00028/RBREF (RB-17-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00028/RBREF for the erection of extension to house to form garage, office and self-contained annexe above at Bruadarach View, Culloden Moor, Inverness for Mr Graham Hopper.

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, further written submissions having been requested by the applicant.

Whether the extension, by virtue of its siting and design, would be:-

in scale/proportion and character with the host dwelling; and
likely to adversely affect the residential amenities of the neighbouring property to the north-east in terms of overlooking.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that the occupiers of the neighbouring property to the north-east had not commented on the application. He confirmed that the ground floor element of the proposed extension was linked to the main house, while the upper floor of the extension could only be accessed by an external staircase. He advised that the nature of the privacy screening on the rear balcony element of the extension had not been detailed on the drawings submitted, however it appeared to be of transparent material. He confirmed the proposed height of the privacy screen on the side of the elevation nearest to the neighbouring property was one metre and on the elevation nearest the main house nearly two metres.

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 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 commented that:-

the comparison made by the applicant with the immediate neighbour’s extension to the south-west was not considered relevant on the basis it was not attached to the main house and did not have a balcony;
concern that the proposed extension and balcony together with privacy screens would be overbearing and adversely affect the residential amenity of occupiers of the dwellinghouse located to the north-east, in terms of proximity and overlooking;
the proposed extension would not be subservient to the host property in terms of its scale and massing and could have been more sensitively sited within the site; and
the application should therefore not be upheld for the reasons given by the case officer

Decision

The Planning Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the case officer.

5.3 Erection of two houses on Land 30m North of Meadowbank, Janetstown, Wick for Mr George Connor 20/00030/RBREF (RB-18-20)

Mr R Bremner and Mr W Mackay declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds they were local Members for Ward 03: Wick and East Caithness and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review and they left the meeting for the determination of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00030/RBREF for the erection of two houses on Land 30m North of Meadowbank, Janetstown, Wick for Mr George Connor.

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:-

whether the development would respect:

the form and character of the local settlement pattern; and
the landscape setting of Wick in views from the West;

whether the house on the northern plot (2) due to its scale and upper floor windows and balcony would adversely affect the amenities of the house on plot 1 and the existing properties of Meadowbank and Killara, through potential overlooking; and
whether there are any other planning factors that would otherwise outweigh harm.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarity on what was considered to be a reasonable definition of ribbon development, noting there was no recognised definition.

Debate

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

During discussion, Members commented that the proposed development was not in character with the established local settlement pattern which was characterised by a single tier of development lying adjacent to the roadside. A number of Members, while expressing sympathy for the applicant, specifically commented on the adverse impact of the proposed house on Plot 2 in terms of its scale and height. There was a consensus amongst Members that the notice of review be refused for the reasons given by the case officer.

Decision

The Planning Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the case officer.

5.4 Part change of use of house (class 9) to tutoring business (retrospective) Ashaig, Knockmuir, Avoch for Mr and Mrs Steven Brindle 19/02848/FUL 20/00033/RBREF (RB-19-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00033/RBREF for Part change of use of house (class 9) to tutoring business (retrospective) Ashaig, Knockmuir, Avoch for Mr and Mrs Steven Brindle

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

whether there was safe visibility northwards at the junction of the private track and the C1035 for tutee-related exiting by car.

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

the Planning Authority had accepted the land required to achieve the required visibility splay was under the control of the occupiers of the neighbouring property who had objected to the application;
Transport Planning’s latest position was that a visibility splay of 2.4m by 70m was required to the north;
the nature of the business was a material consideration in relation to Members determination of the application;
to his knowledge there was no formal passing places on the private road to the applicant’s house, albeit the driveways of private residences may be used as informal passing places;
the proposal to move 30mph sign on the public road in the vicinity of the development was at an early stage, however this would not impact on the visibility splays required for this development;
no information was available in relation to the accident history in the vicinity of the junction of the private access road with the public road (C1035).

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.

Decision

Following discussion, the Planning Review Body AGREED to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review to a future meeting of the Planning Review Body for receipt of further written submissions as follows:

From Transport Planning:

1 - Would roadside signage offer effective mitigation to the reduced sightline available?

2 - How much would roadside signage cost (if there are alternative schemes, provide cost for each alternative)? This is in order to consider whether any decision to grant planning permission with a condition that the applicant pay for signage would meet the tests in circular 4/1998; and

3 - Accident statistics involving road users in the vicinity of the junction of the private access road with the public road (C1035).

5.5 Section 42 application to remove condition 1 (19/03427/FUL) for siting of cabin for car rental (retrospective) on Land 75 m SW of MacFarlane Packaging Unit 17, Dalcross Industrial Estate, Dalcross, Ardersier for Sutherland Holdings 20/01459/S42 20/00035/RBREF (RB-20-20)

Mr R Balfour and Mrs T Robertson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds they were local Members for Ward 17: Culloden and Ardersier, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs Robertson left the meeting for the determination of this item and Mr Balfour left for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00035/RBREF for Section 42 application to remove condition 1 (19/03427/FUL) for siting of cabin for car rental (retrospective) on Land 75 m SW of MacFarlane Packaging Unit 17, Dalcross Industrial Estate, Dalcross, Ardersier for Sutherland Holdings

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.

in terms of Circular 4/1998 (The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions), was Condition 1 relevant to the development, necessary, reasonable, precise and enforceable

Debate

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

Members expressed their dissatisfaction that the applicant was seeking to have Condition 1 removed and stated the requirement for the trees that had been felled on the site to be replanted was entirely reasonable and in accordance with policy. The application for Condition 1 to be removed from planning permission 19/03427/FUL should therefore be refused for the reasons given by the case officer.

Decision

The Planning Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the case officer.

5.6 Erection of garage on Land 20 m NW of Morven View, Kilchoan for Ardnamurchan Estates Limited 19/03113/FUL 20/00038/RBREF (RB-21-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00038/RBREF for erection of garage on Land 20 m NW of Morven View, Kilchoan for Ardnamurchan Estates Limited

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, a site visit having been requested by the applicant.

whether there was safe visibility eastwards from the proposed access.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided clarity on the guidance used by the applicant’s Transport Consultant and on the Council’s standards used by Transport Planning, and advised was unaware when a transport survey had been last undertaken on the B8007 public road.

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 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 raised the following issues:-

the potential to defer the application to consider how the issues with visibility onto the public road could be mitigated including the potential for a transport survey to be undertaken as part of this to provide data on the frequency and speed of traffic; and
the potential for the applicant to purse a shared access with the adjacent access on the basis this may be a more viable option.

During further discussion and on hearing from the Clerk, Members indicated that notice of review should be refused for the reasons given by the case officer and the applicant encouraged to explore the option for a shared access and come back with a revised application.

Decision

The Planning Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review and refused planning permission for the reasons given by the case officer.

The meeting ended at 3.45pm.

Read the Agenda