Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held remotely on Tuesday, 2 February 2021 at 10.30 am.

Present:
Mr R Balfour
Mr R Bremner
Mrs I Campbell
Mr L Fraser
Mr A Henderson
Mr W Mackay (except items 5.1, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3)
Mrs M Paterson (except item 5.1)
Mrs T Robertson

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

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

There were no declarations of interest.

Following discussion, the Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 17 November 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 Part change of use of house (class 9) to tutoring business (retrospective), (Planning Reference: 19/02848/FUL) at Ashaig, Knockmuir, Avoch for Mr And Mrs Steven Brindle 20/00033/RBREF (RB-19-20)

Mrs M Paterson stated that, following the meeting of the Planning Review Body on 6 October 2020 at which this Notice of Review was discussed, she was made aware that her participation in the determination of this Notice of Review had been questioned by a member of the public. She wished to make it clear that she has and had no interest to declare in this Notice of Review, but reluctantly she had taken the decision not to take part in the determination of this item to avoid the possibility of the decision, whatever it might be, being challenged. Mrs M Paterson left the meeting for the duration of this item.

There had been re-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.

The Independent Planning Adviser advised that the Planning Review Body at its meeting on 6 October 2020, had deferred consideration of this Notice of Review for receipt of further written submissions from Transport Planning on:-

• efficacy of road signage as possible mitigation for reduced junction visibility;
• costs of a road signage scheme;
• local road traffic accident data.

Thereafter, he provided a summary of the information received from Transport Planning in response to the Planning Review Body’s procedure notice request as follows:-

• Transport Planning was unable to accept a roadside signage scheme as an alternative to the full and proper provision of the appropriate visibility splay as this was not consistent with acceptable road design/road safety approach and would pass the burden/liability of risk and ongoing maintenance from the applicant to the Roads Authority/Council;
• It was critical that the applicant resolved the necessary visibility splay required for the development. It was not for the Roads Authority to identify a mitigation scheme that transfers the risks and ongoing maintenance to the Roads Authority/Council. The applicant had the option to negotiate land for the identified visibility splay arising from the retrospective planning application. The success or breakdown of negotiations would determine the guarantee of control of the visibility splay; and
• the Crashmap site has been used to quickly identify accident data back to 2009. No accidents were recorded on the C1035. A lack of recorded accidents on an existing stretch of road is a historic review and does not cover the situation where new/additional traffic would be visiting the proposed development.

Following on from the above, the Independent Planning Adviser provided a summary of the comments received from parties in response to Transport Planning’s further written submission.

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, a site inspection and hearing sessions having been requested by the applicant. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

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 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.

Members considered that the information provided by Transport Scotland was clear and categoric and therefore that the Notice of Review should be dismissed for the reasons given by the case officer. It was clear that responsibility for any mitigation scheme to achieve the required visibility splay rested with the applicant and the objector and not with the Council.

Decision

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

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1 Erection of house (Planning Reference: 20/01562/PIP) on land 40M SW Of Morven, Station Road, Evanton for Mr Alpin Macdonald 20/00045/RBREF (RB-01-21)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00045/RBREF for erection of house, 20/01562/PIP on land 40M SW Of Morven, Station Road, Evanton

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, a site inspection, written submissions 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:-

• potential loss of/adverse effect on trees within and adjacent to site; and
• impact of development on character and amenity of the area.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser advised that the site was not considered to be garden ground and was intended to be landscaped area. He outlined the access and parking arrangements and confirmed the site was not allocated for housing in the local development plan .

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

Members commented that this was a constrained site, intended to be a landscaped area and was unsuitable for a house. The development would have an adverse impact on the balance of the amenity and character of the surrounding area and on trees within and adjacent to the site.

Decision

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

6.2. Erection of house (Planning Reference: 20/02239/PIP) on land 50M NE of Shenavall, Knockbain, Munlochy for Mr Peter Logan 20/00048/RBREF (RB-02-21)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00048/RBREF for the erection of house, 20/02239/PIP on land 50M NE of Shenavall, Knockbain, Munlochy.

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 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.

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 proposal would not round-off an existing housing group and instead would create a linear development in open countryside and was clearly contrary to policy. The development would also result in the loss of good agricultural land.

Decision

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

6.3 Erection of house (Planning Reference: 20/02240/PIP) on land 100M NE Of Shenavall, Knockbain, Munlochy for Mr Peter Logan 20/00049/RBREF (RB-03-21)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00049/RBREF for the erection of house, 20/02240/PIP on land 100M NE Of Shenavall, Knockbain, Munlochy

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 response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser advised that no information had been submitted in relation to the agriculture land use classification of the site.

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 proposal would not round-off an existing housing group and was clearly contrary to policy. The development would also result in the loss of good agricultural land.

Decision

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

6.4 Erection of garage/workshop and siting of three pods for holiday letting accommodation (Planning Reference: 19/05493/FUL) at Kensaleyre House, Kensaleyre, Portree for Mr Chris Hornig 20/00052/RBREF (RB-04-21)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 20/00049/RBREF for the erection of garage/workshop and siting of three pods for holiday letting accommodation, at Kensaleyre House, Kensaleyre, Portree

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 having been requested by the applicant.

• increased use of the substandard junction with the A87 due to pod-related traffic (road safety); and
• effect of the proposals on the setting of the Grade C listed property, Kensaleyre House.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that Transport Scotland had advised the applicant that the use of the access to the south of the development was more likely to be acceptable. He explained there was no documentation to support the statement in the applicant’s planning application information that he had existing ‘grandfather rights’ for the North access that would override the Transport Scotland’s objection. The Clerk explained that grandfather rights could be a reference to a prescriptive right which was a right to use something that had been acquired over a period of time.

Debate

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

Members commented that the proposed access to the north would result in the increased use of a substandard junction. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the immediate setting of Kensaleyre House and detract from its wider landscape setting and the character of the area. The applicant had been given the opportunity by the planning officials and Transport Scotland to amend the application to overcome these issues but had chosen not to follow this course of action.

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 1.05pm.

Read the Agenda