Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held remotely on Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 10.30 am.  

 

Mr R Balfour (except item 5.4)

Mr R Bremner

Mrs I Campbell (except items 1 to 5.1)

Mr A Henderson 

Mr W Mackay (except item 5.4)

Mrs M Paterson

Mrs T Robertson 

 

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

 

 

 

The Chair confirmed that the meeting would be webcast and gave a short briefing on the Council’s webcasting procedure and protocol.

 

 

 

There were no apologies for absence. 

 

 

Item 5.1: Mr A Henderson (non-financial)

 

 

The Minutes of the previous Meeting held on 4 May 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

 

 

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

 

 

Declarations of Interest:- Mrs I Campbell, would have required to declare a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds she was a local Member for Ward 05: Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, but she was not present for the discussion and determination of this item as she had been unable to connect to the meeting until later in the agenda due to IT difficulties.

 

The Chair declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds of a close family connection with the applicant and left the meeting for the discussion and determination of this item.

 

Mrs T Robertson, Vice Chair, took the Chair for this item.

 

There had been circulated Notice of Review 21/00013/RBCON for the erection of house with air source heat pump, (Planning Reference: 21/00020/FUL) on plot 1, land at 28 Lonemore, Strath, Gairloch.

 

 

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 procedures 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:-

 

• in terms of Circular 4/1998, is the condition’s limitation of the roof colour to grey or black reasonable or necessary in the circumstances; and

• would any planning harm result to the local context and architectural styles, from the use of ‘rusty’ red as a colour for the metal roofing material

 

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarity on the footprint and dimensions of the house, and how this related to the neighbouring property and confirmed the house was to be finished in timber cladding. 

 

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. 

 

 

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

 

Thereafter, the Planning Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review and the amendment of the roofing colour restriction contained in condition 1 to include the colour red.

 

The reason for amending the condition was that Members were of the view that the proposed roof colour – red – would be appropriate in the location and would be sensitive to and compatible with its context and architectural styles. Therefore, the condition as originally imposed was to be amended to include the roof colour red.

 

 

Mrs I Campbell was not present for the entirety of this item due to IT difficulties and therefore not entitled to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs I Campbell took no part in the discussion and determination of this Notice of Review.

 

There had been circulated Notice of Review 21/00014/RBREF for siting of  holiday pod, (Planning Reference: 20/03326/FUL) at 33 Locheil Road, Inverlochy, Fort William.

 

 

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:-

 

• effects on the amenity/character of the local area due to the quantity of (further) development proposed on the site; 

• effects on the residential amenity of neighbours from noise, disturbance and activity including parking;

• adequacy of parking; and

• road safety along the access track and its junction with the public road.

 

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarity on the location of the existing outbuilding, the layout of the proposed holiday pod and parking area, and how this related to the neighbour’s property. He confirmed that there was no proposal to remove the outbuilding, the boundary fence would have to be removed as a result of the development, and details of any boundary treatment was not indicated on the layout plans. He also confirmed the extent of the garden/amenity ground that would be lost as a result of the development.

 

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 commented that the proposal would result in overdevelopment of a constrained and congested site and therefore did not demonstrate sensitive siting and would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity. Members were also concerned at the detrimental impact the access track and its junction with the public road would have on road safety.

 

 

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

 

 

There had been circulated Notice of Review 21/00011/RBREF for conversion of major part of existing hotel to residential flats, (Planning Reference: 17/02845/FUL) at Ossians Hotel, High Street, Fort William for Mr Derek Wallace.

 

 

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:-

 

• appropriateness of design/scale of the proposal and its impact on townscape/ lochside;

• adequacy/acceptability of bicycle parking/storage arrangements;

• adequacy of bin provision measures and acceptability of potential impacts on the street-scene and pavement users’ convenience, safety and amenity;

• whether occupancy of the flats should/can be limited (to over 55s) to avoid educational infrastructure impacts now and in the future;

• whether there is sufficient clarity/information from the Applicant and other parties (e.g. Transport Planning) to enable the following issues to be reasonably addressed through a legal agreement and developer contributions if Members are minded to approve, taking account of other requirements recommended by way of condition;

- Commuted sum payment in lieu of on-site provision of affordable housing;

- Off-site open space provision/enhancement by developer contribution;

- Off-site provision/improvement of community facilities by developer contribution; 

- Details/delivery of the car pool scheme and its long term operation and retention; 

- Contribution to sustainable transport (including active travel) due to on-site car parking provision shortfall.

 

Other Requirements recommended to be dealt with by condition (see Report of Handling):

 

- Public art scheme on or off-site (8.29); and

- Improvements to pedestrian access route between car park and flats especially for disabled persons (8.18) e.g. dropped kerb crossings and altered paving materials.

 

 

 

Following discussion, Mrs T Robertson seconded by Mr A Henderson moved to dismiss the Notice of Review for the reasons stated in the case officer’s report of handling.

 

As an amendment, Mr R Bremner seconded by Mrs M Paterson moved to defer the determination of the Notice of Review for:

 

• parties to submit the missing information referred to by the Independent Planning Adviser to the PRB in his presentation and further clarified through the Members’ questions, namely, details concerning the:

- Commuted sum payments in lieu of on-site provision of affordable housing (Planning Service to provide, applicant to respond);

- Off-site open space provision/enhancement by developer contribution (Planning Service to provide, applicant to respond);

- Off-site provision/improvement of community facilities by developer contribution (Planning Service to provide, applicant to respond);

- Details/delivery of the car pool scheme and its long term operation and retention (Applicant to provide, Planning Service to respond);

- Contribution to sustainable transport (including active travel) due to on-site car parking provision shortfall (Planning Service to provide, applicant to respond);

- Public art scheme on or off-site (Planning Service to provide, applicant to respond);

- Improvements to pedestrian access route between car park and flats particularly if the applicant chooses to locate the bins within the car park (see below) e.g. dropped kerb crossings and altered paving materials (Planning Service to provide, applicant to respond); 

- Delivery of a daily collection of bins to reduce the number of bins requiring to be stored on the pavement and/or siting of bins within the car park, to thereby mitigate adverse visual and other effects (Planning Service to provide, applicant to respond);

- economic benefit of the scheme (applicant);

- observations on a clause in a legal agreement about educational contributions and any change in occupancy by over 55s,  a clause in a legal agreement about a bond in case the car pool/club fails to be provided, the issue of bicycle parking and possible mitigation, the planning history of the site and the handling of the application, particularly in terms of the lack of public comment and the possible reasons for this (Planning Service to provide, applicant to respond); and

 

• a site visit (to follow on from receipt of the missing information). As accompanied site visits/travel in groups are not currently encouraged by Scottish Government, the applicant is asked to provide a video (or equivalent visual information) of the application site and its surroundings.

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

Motion (2): Mrs T Robertson, Mr A Henderson.

 

Amendment (3): Mr R Bremner, Mrs I Campbell, Mrs M Paterson.

 

Abstention (1): Mr W Mackay

 

 

The Planning Review Body AGREED to DEFER the determination of the Notice of Review for the information and purposes referred to in Mr R Bremner’s amendment.

 

 

There had been circulated Notice of Review 21/00011/RBREF for conversion of major part of existing hotel to residential flats, (Planning Reference: 17/02845/FUL) at Glenroy, 2 Mill Crescent, North Kessock, Inverness for Mr Thomas Ferguson.

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.

 

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:-

 

• Residential amenity;

• Road safety

 

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser provided further clarity on the access to the proposed holiday letting unit and confirmed the car parking space was within the curtilage of the application site.

 

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 a site inspection was not required. 

 

 

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

 

• the siting of the proposed holiday letting unit on the corner at the entrance to Mill Crescent would restrict visibility and have a detrimental impact on road safety;

• the proposal represented overdevelopment and its siting to the rear of the original house would be to the detriment of individual and neighbouring residential amenity;

• this was a well thought out proposal and should be supported, reference being made to the demand for holiday accommodation in the area; and

• the need to balance the demand for holiday accommodation against the impact on amenity.

 

 

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 2.05pm.