• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr T Prag, Mr N Donald, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Saxon, Dr A Sinclair

In Attendance:

Mrs K Lyons, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Ms L Lee, Committee Administrator

Mr T Prag in the Chair (excluding Item 4.2)
Mrs I McCallum in the Chair (Item 4.2)

Preliminaries

The Chairman 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

Apologies for absence were received from Mr G Farlow, Mrs I Campbell and Mr D Fallows.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 4.2 – Mr T Prag (non-financial)
Items 4.4 and 4.7 – Mrs I McCallum (non-financial)

Appointment of Chair for Item 4.2

The Review Body NOTED that, as one of the local Members for the relevant Ward, Ward 20, Inverness South, Mr T Prag would not be permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review at item 4.2.  Both the Chair and Vice-Chair would therefore be absent for this item.  In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 11, the Members were asked to choose one of their number to preside for item 4.2.

The Review Body unanimously AGREED that Mrs I McCallum take the chair for item 4.2.

3. Minutes of Meetings of 27 and 29 August 2013

The Minutes of Meetings of 27 and 29 August 2013, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were APPROVED.

4. New Notices of Review to be Determined

The Clerk confirmed that all the Notices of Review in the agenda were valid and competent, and reminded Members that, when determining the Notices of Review, they must assess each application against the applicable policies of the Development Plan to establish whether the application accorded with it or not.  Applications that were considered to accord (or to comply) with the Development Plan should be approved, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  Applications that were not considered to accord (or to comply) with the Development Plan should be refused, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  Any questions arising in the course of consideration of the Notices of Review could be directed to herself or to the Independent Planning Adviser. 

4.1 Erection of 3 Bedroom, 1½ Storey Dwelling house at Viewhill, Leachkin Brae, Inverness, IV3 8PN – Brown, 13-00024 (RB-37-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00024-Brown for erection of a 3 bedroom 1½ storey dwelling house at Viewhill, Leachkin Brae, Inverness, IV3 8PN, for Mr J Brown.

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 Booklet A of the agenda papers. 

Concerns were raised that information responding to Transport, Environmental and Community Services (TECS) comments had not been provided.  However, as this was only one of the reasons the Planning Officer had refused the application, the Review Body nonetheless AGREED to discuss the Notice of Review, on the understanding that, should it become apparent that the TECS information was critical to their coming to a decision, the item be deferred to a future meeting to allow the information to be provided.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. 

The Chairman summarised the key issues surrounding the application.  In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser gave clarification as to the location of neighbouring properties, and that “backdrop” referred to what would be seen to the rear of a building, e.g. trees, or the horizon; he also provided a summary of the Council’s Green Wedge policy.

Points raised in discussion included that it was a prominent site, that nearby planning consents should not be used as precedent, and that it was important to adhere to the Council’s policy of there being 90m between a junction and a new access, since even 5m could make a difference in terms of road safety.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

4.2 Proposed New House and Associated Works on Land North of Drumoak, Inshes, Inverness – SPA (Scottish Planning and Architecture) Ltd, 13-00025 (BR-39-13)

Declaration of Interest:

Mr T Prag declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 20, Inverness South, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mr Prag left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

The meeting adjourned for approximately five minutes and Mrs I McCallum took the chair for this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00025-SPALtd for a proposed house on land North of Drumoak, Inshes, Inverness, for SPA Ltd.

Preliminaries

The Clerk explained that the Notice of Review was before the Review Body on the grounds of the appointed officer’s “deemed refusal”.  This was because the Planning Officer had not reached a decision within two months of the application having been lodged.  The circulated papers therefore did not contain the Planning Officer’s report on handling or decision notice.  Should a decision not be reached within three months of the date the Notice of Review had been lodged, this would constitute a “double deemed refusal” and the applicant would be able to appeal to the Scottish Government.

Having NOTED the above, together with the Clerk’s earlier 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 Booklet B of the agenda papers. 

It was noted that the Council’s Flood Team had requested that a flood risk assessment be carried out by the applicant, but that this had not been done.  In response to questions, the Clerk and the Independent Planning Adviser advised that, without the flood risk assessment, it was not possible to establish whether the risk of flooding was material to the determination of the application.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review, and, taking account of the advice given above, Members concurred that, in the absence of a flood risk assessment, the application would be contrary to Policy 64 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. 

The Review Body DISMISSED the application on the grounds that it was contrary to Policy 64 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, as there was no flood risk assessment.

Mr T Prag in the Chair

4.3 Erection of 850kW Wind Turbine and Associated Infrastructure on Land 320m NE of Torranshandall, Harpsdale, Halkirk, KW12 6UL – Wind Harvest Ltd, 13-00027 (RB-40-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00027-Wind Harvest Ltd for erection of 850Kw wind turbine and associated infrastructure on land 320m NE of Torranshandall, Harpsdale, Halkirk, KW12 6UL, for Wind Harvest Ltd.

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 Booklet C of the agenda papers and in particular whether a site inspection should take place.

Points raised included that, although there had been recent site inspections for wind turbines in Caithness, not all Review Body Members had attended these and a site inspection would be useful.  However, it should not be assumed that a site inspection would take place for all wind turbine Notices of Review as a matter of course.  Consideration should be given to whether better quality visuals, as were available at Planning Application Committees, and including the use of the projector, Google Street View, etc., might be sufficient to meet the Review Body’s requirements.

Debate and Decision

The merits of the application having not been discussed, the Review Body AGREED:

i.  to DEFER the Notice of Review pending a site inspection; this to be
   arranged to feed into the soonest possible meeting of the Review Body; and
ii. that the Chair discuss with officers the ways visuals could be enhanced, with
   a view to reducing the need to hold site inspections in some circumstances.

Following further discussion, the Review Body also AGREED that in future, where applications were large, the information be sent to Members on a CD rather than in printed format, in the interests of sustainability.

4.4 Conversion of Former Steading to House, 40m West of the Old Manse, Rosemarkie – Duffy, 13-00029 (RB-41-13)

Declaration of Interest:

Mrs I McCallum declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 10, Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mrs McCallum left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00029-Duffy for conversion of a former steading to a house 40m west of the Old Manse, Rosemarkie, for Mr and Mrs M Duffy.

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 AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet D of the agenda papers.

The Independent Planning Adviser clarified that, whilst the points for consideration by the Review Body related solely to access issues, the property was a Listed Building and as such, should the Review Body be minded to uphold the Notice, Members would then also need to consider whether the Listed Building interest was sufficiently addressed.  He then read out Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, which set out the general duties of a Planning Authority in relation to Listed Buildings: in essence that the Authority must have regard to the fact that a building was listed, and seek to preserve special architectural and historic features, and retain a building’s character.  It was for the Review Body to consider the Notice of Review from a planning perspective; the applicant would need to apply separately for Listed Building consent.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and NOTED the information given by the Independent Planning Adviser, as regards the planning authority’s duties contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

In response to questions, Members were advised that, whilst there were two possible access points, they should only consider the one indicated in the application.

Points raised in discussion included that the re-use of a farm building was to be encouraged, and that many older buildings did not meet current access standards.  However, access had to be sufficient and the visibility in this case was very poor.

The Review Body DISMISSED the application on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

4.5 Alter and Extend Existing House at Foynesfield Cottage, Foynesfield, Nairn, IV12 5SA – Thompson, 13-00030 (RB-42-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00030-Thompson for an application to alter and extend the existing house at Foynesfield Cottage, Foynesfield, Nairn, IV12 5SA, for Mr S Thompson.

Preliminaries

The Review Body 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).  In discussion, the Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information had on balance been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet E of the agenda papers. 

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  A variety of views were expressed about how successfully the existing building and streetscape could accommodate the proposed extension.

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review on the grounds that the application was in accordance with Policies 28 and 29 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, given the rural location, the previous extension to the neighbouring property, the aesthetics of the building to absorb the proposed dormer, and that the proposals would not impose unduly on the streetscape; with powers to be delegated to the Planning Adviser in consultation with the Chairman, to impose planning conditions and informatives as appropriate.

The Chair having advised that it was open to the Review Body to stipulate that the external cladding be of slate rather than wood, the Review Body AGREED that wood cladding was acceptable.

4.6 Erection of dwelling, Paddock View, Cantray, Croy, IV2 5PW – Cameron, 13-00032 (RB-43-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00032-Cameron for erection of a dwelling at Paddock View, Cantray, Croy IV2 5PW, for Mr C Cameron.

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 AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet F of the agenda papers. 

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised the key points for consideration.

Points raised in discussion included, on the one hand, that it was a large site and that there were likely to be solutions to the issues relating to trees and drainage; and on the other, that approval had been granted for one house only on the site – there needed to be a good reason to change this; that the handling report raised concerns in relation to trees and drainage - the proposed access might not require any trees to be felled but there was a likelihood that roots would be damaged; and that the site could not be considered as garden ground as there was currently no house there.

Following discussion as to whether reference should be made to precedent in the reasons for refusal, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds 1 – 4 as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

4.7 Conservatory Extension to the Rear of Property at 12 High Street, Cromarty, Ross-shire IV11 8 UZ – Matheson, 13-00033 (RB-44-13)

Declaration of Interest:

Mrs I McCallum declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 10, Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Mrs McCallum left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00033-Matheson for a conservatory extension to the rear of 12 High Street, Cromarty, Ross-shire, IV11 8UZ for Mr and Mrs Matheson.

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 AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet G of the agenda papers.

Debate and Decision

The property in question being a Listed Building and located in a conservation area, the Planning Adviser referred Members to Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (as expounded at item 4.4.), and to Section 64 of the Act, which dealt with planning authority duties in a conservation area.  It was for the Review Body to consider the Notice of Review; the applicant would need to apply separately for Listed Building consent if the Notice of Review was upheld.

Having considered the supporting paperwork, and an explanation of the differing categories of Listed Buildings having been provided, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  Points raised included that, on the one hand, the conservatory would not be seen, and the rear of the property had already been extended; and on the other that the use of PVCu would be out of keeping with the listed building and the character of the conservation area and traditional materials would be more acceptable; and that whilst there was support for extending a business, the proposals were not sufficiently sympathetic to the area.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

The meeting ended at 11.50 a.m.