Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 17 November 2020

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held remotely on Tuesday, 17 November 2020 at 10.30 am.

Present:
Mr R Balfour
Mr R Bremner (excluding item 5.3)
Mrs I Campbell (excluding item 5.5)
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson (excluding item 5.1)
Mrs M Paterson
Mrs T Robertson

In Attendance:
Mrs K Lyons Principal Solicitor/Clerk
Mr M McLoughlin, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Mrs A MacArthur, Administrative Assistant

Mr A Henderson in the Chair, Mrs T Robertson took the Chair for item 5.1

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 Willie MacKay.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.3: Mr R Bremner (non-financial)
Item 5.5: Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting of 6 October 2020

Following discussion, the Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 6 October 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 Erection of house (resubmission of planning application 17/05915/FUL) (planning reference: 18/04979/FUL) at The Log Cabin, Agneshill, North Balblair, Dingwall for Mr Nathanael Jackson 20/00032/RBREF (RB-22-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00032/RBREF for erection of house at The Log Cabin, Agneshill North, Balblair, Dingwall.

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:-

• whether there was a proven essential need for a house on the site to manage the agricultural land holding known as Black Isle Produce; and
• if not, whether the proposal was acceptable under any other exception in Hinterland housing policy, or because of other material planning factors.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarity on the ad hoc nature of the use of the three sites indicating there was no formal agreement just a grace and favour agreement between the three brothers. The extent of the applicant’s land was 6 hectares.

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 and found no reason to overturn the decision of 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.

5.2. Erection of 4 ‘glamping’ pods for use as short term housing accommodation with associated infrastructure (planning reference: 20/00012/PIP) at land 250 m North of West Blackpark Farm, Blackpark, Inverness for Mr Robert Mathieson 20/00040/RBREF (RB-23-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00040/RBREF for the erection of 4 ‘glamping’ pods for use as short term housing accommodation with associated infrastructure at land 250 m North of West Blackpark Farm, Blackpark, Inverness.

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 there would be an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent property Brenham, from noise, traffic, external lighting etc;
• whether vehicular traffic likely to be generated by the scale/type of development (4 pods etc) would cause significant problems on the local public road network;
• whether the indicative proposals show that it is feasible to access the proposed development site in an acceptable manner; and
• whether the indicative proposals show that it is feasible to drain the proposed development site in an acceptable manner.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser advised that as the application was for planning permission in principle, if approved, conditions would be imposed to control the detail of the design. Associated infrastructure was a broad term and could include road parking, shower units and similar facilities etc to serve the development. As the application had stated four glamping pods they would be held to four glamping pods.

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review, during which Members commented that:-

• this was good agricultural ground; and
• four glamping pods would generate more traffic than a single house (a single house having been refused permission and dismissed on review) and this application did not address the issue of increased traffic.

Decision

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

5.3 Construction of a Fabrication/Storage Building (planning reference 20/01974/FUL) at Charity Farm, Rockhill, Wick, KW1 5TP for Lochshell Engineering 20/00041/RBREF (RB-24-20)

Mr R Bremner declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was the local Member for Ward 03: Wick and East Caithness 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 20/00041/RBREF for the construction of a fabrication/storage building at Charity Farm, Rockhill, Wick.

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 inspection, written representations and hearing sessions 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:-

• is the location one where this type of development would be acceptable in principle?
• if not, are there any special reasons for allowing it here?
• would the development be harmful to the local landscape due to the siting/scale of the proposal? And
• is it likely that acceptable foul drainage arrangements could be secured to serve the development?

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser showed Members the current map from the Council’s website of wind farms and turbines in the nearby area, noting there were only single turbines and no wind farms in the immediate area.

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 inspection, written submissions 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 discussion, Members commented that the existing building, built without permission and under enforcement action, was very large and this proposal was for an even larger building with the possibility of further development in the future. It was considered by Members that they wished to encourage this type of development but that this was the wrong place for it.

Decision

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

5.4 Erection of house and garage (Planning Reference: 20/02070/FUL) at land 60 m NW of Hedgeside, Swordale Farm, Swordale, Evanton at Mr Andrew McLeod 20/00043/RBREF (RB-25-20)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00043/RBREF for erection of house and garage at land 60 m NW of Hedgeside, Swordale Farm, Swordale, Evanton.

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.

• whether the proposed house would form appropriate infill in or rounding-off development to expand a housing group, under hinterland policy; and
• if not, whether the proposal meets any other exception in the policy or can be justified on other grounds.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser clarified the annotated diagram in relation to the rounding off of a group of houses had been supplied by the applicant’s agent.

• this did demonstrate the rounding off of a group of houses and demonstrated sensitive siting; and
• the house was a tasteful design and would enhance the area.

Decision

Following discussion, the Planning Review Body AGREED to UPHOLD the Notice of Review and grant planning permission subject to conditions (including approval of roof materials) for the following reason:

Contrary to the view of the appointed officer, Members were of the view that the development proposed by the application would round off an existing housing group and therefore accords with the Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance and accords with Policy 35 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan.

5.5 Erection of house and studio (re-submission of 20/00530/FUL to correct site address) (planning reference: 20/03043/FUL) at Land 40 m West of Aspen Cottage, Strathpeffer for Mr Douglas Murray 20/00044/RBREF (RB-26-20)

Mrs I Campbell declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds she was a local Member for Ward 5: Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs Campbell left for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00044/RBREF for erection of house and studio (re-submission of 20/00530/FUL to correct site address) (planning reference: 20/03043/FUL) at land 40 m West of Aspen Cottage, Strathpeffer.

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.

• whether the proposed house would form inappropriate infill or rounding-off of a development to expand a housing group, under hinterland policy;
• if not, whether the proposal meets any other exception in the policy or can be justified on other grounds;
• whether traffic from the development would create unacceptable road safety problems at the U3070 and A834 junction, in light of current substandard sightlines to the south and the width of the bellmouth; and
• if so, whether in the longer term the site might be realistically accessed in an alternative manner to remove its traffic movements from this junction and help mitigate matters.

Debate

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

Members expressed concerns in relation to the junction with the U3070 and A834 and the narrow aspect of the road leading from the development to the junction. The Community Council had supported the application although they also had concerns relating to the junction. This was another house and with each extra house came an increase in traffic, and increased concerns with the junction. Members were of the view that this house completed a grouping of houses and that the applicant had mitigated many of the concerns raised with the addition of a layby and traffic calming.

Mr R Bremner, seconded by Mrs M Paterson that the Notice of Review be upheld and planning permission granted subject to conditions and payment of a developer contribution towards secondary school provision (per section 10.42 of the Report of Handling) for the following reasons:

Contrary to the view of the appointed officer, the development proposed by the application would round off an existing housing group and therefore accords with the Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance and accords with Policy 35 of the Highland wide Local Development Plan. The concerns of the Transport Planning Team were acknowledged but these were not considered sufficient to outweigh policy support for the development.

As an amendment, Mr A Henderson, seconded by Mrs T Robertson moved that the Notice of Review be dismissed and planning permission be refused for the reasons given in the appointed officer’s report of handling.

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

Motion (3): Mr R Balfour, Mr R Bremner and Mrs M Paterson.

Amendment (2): Mr A Henderson and Mrs T Robertson.

Decision

The Planning Review Body AGREED to UPHOLD the Notice of Review and grant planning permission subject to conditions and payment of a developer contribution towards secondary school provision (per section 10.42 of the Report of Handling) for the reasons stated in Mr R Bremner’s motion.

The meeting ended at 2.40 pm.

Read the Agenda