Agendas, reports and minutes

 

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 16 January 2014 at 10.30 am.

Present:

Mr T Prag
Mrs I Campbell
Mr N Donald
Mr G Farlow
Dr A Sinclair

In Attendance:

Mr P Adams, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Mr S Taylor, Administration Assistant

Mr T Prag in the Chair

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 D Fallows, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Rattray and Mr R Saxon.

2.  Declarations of Interest

None.

3.  Minutes of Site Inspection of 26 November and Scheduled Meeting of 28 November, 2013

The Minutes of the Site Inspection held on 26 November and the Scheduled Meeting held on 28 November, 2013, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

4.  New Notices of Review to be Determined

The Clerk confirmed that, for all items on the agenda, Members had contained in their Booklets all information as supplied by all parties to the Notice of Review. Members needed to assess each application against the development plan and all relevant material considerations, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, and to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan.  Having carried out that assessment, Members needed to decide if the weight attached to material considerations added to or outweighed their assessment of the application against the development plan.

4.1 Proposed New Croft House, Croft 12C Glencoe, PH49 4HS – Hall, 13-00040 (RB-1-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00040-Hall for a proposed new croft house, at Croft 12C, Glencoe, PH49 4HS, for Mr and Mrs Hall.  A copy of the comments received during the public consultation period was tabled.  The Independent Planning Adviser used Google Earth and Streetview to show the location of the site both in terms of a broad overview, and as seen from the adjacent road.  The Chairman reminded Members that the information on Google Earth and Streetview could not be guaranteed to be up to date – a degree of caution was required when using this source of information.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his 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 A of the agenda papers, the tabled paper, and the Google Earth and Streetview presentation.

Debate and Decision

The Chairman summarised the key issues surrounding the application, which included whether it was acceptable to site a house adjacent to but outwith the settlement boundary in the given circumstances, and the visual impact from the A82.  The Independent Planning Adviser having provided clarification with regard to an area marked to the west of the site, Members discussed the Notice of Review, taking account of the supporting paperwork and the presentation.

Issues taken into consideration included: the significant number of objections from the community; that the site was in an important scenic area and would be visible from  the A87; that crofting needs were not being adduced as justification for the house; the likelihood of the land being worked as a croft in the future; whether the house was in keeping with the settlement pattern, notwithstanding that it was outside the settlement boundary; whether the settlement boundary was reasonable; the potential for precedent to be set;  the importance of promoting economic growth and retaining people in rural areas,  and the likelihood of this being achievable elsewhere within the settlement boundary.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Dr A Sinclair, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the Notice of Review be UPHELD as the development was not considered contrary to Policies 28, 36, 47 and 58 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, (i.e. it integrated with the settlement pattern, would not be detrimental to the character of the settlement and landscape quality of the Ben Nevis and Glencoe National Scenic Area, and would not give rise to the loss of important croft land), subject to conditions being delegated to the appropriate officers in consultation with the Chair.

As an amendment, Mr T Prag, seconded by Mr N Donald, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED, for the reasons given in the Appointed Officer’s decision notice.

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

Motion (3): Mrs I Campbell, Mr G Farlow and Dr A Sinclair
Amendment (2): Mr N Donald and Mr T Prag
Abstentions (0)

The Review Body therefore UPHELD the Notice of Review on the grounds that the proposal would not be contrary to Policies 28, 36, 47 and 57 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as set out above; and AGREED that powers be delegated to Planning Officers, in consultation with the Chairman, to impose planning conditions and reasons as appropriate.

4.2 Full, Permanent Planning Permission for Mobile Home; As a Croft House, at “Ebeneezer”, 5 Upper Breakish, Isle of Skye, IV42 8PY – Tallach, 13-00041 (RB-2-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00041-Tallach for full, permanent planning permission for a mobile home, as a croft house, at “Ebeneezer”, 5 Upper Breakish, Isle of Skye, IV42 8PY, for Mr Tallach.  A copy of the comments received during the public consultation period was tabled.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his 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 B of the agenda papers and the tabled comments.

Debate and Decision

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

In discussion, Members were generally of the view that a mobile home would be inappropriate for the location as it was likely to impact on visual amenity, given its close proximity to the A87, which was an important tourist route.

The Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice, but recommended that, given the circumstances surrounding the application, a sensitive approach be taken with regard to timescales in implementing the Review Body’s decision.

4.3 Erection of House on Land 75m South of Dal Ghorm, Ardtoe, Acharacle, PH36 4LD – Johnston, 13-00042 (RB-3-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00042-Johnston for erection of a house on land 75m South of Dal Ghorm, Ardtoe, Acharacle, PH36 4LD, for Mr and Mrs J Johnston.  The Independent Planning Adviser used Google Earth and Streetview to show the location of the site both in terms of a broad overview, and as seen from the adjacent road.

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his 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 C of the agenda papers.  Prior to discussion, the Review Body was advised that an E-mail representation had been received Acharacle Community Council; however this had been received after the deadline for submissions and therefore, should the Review Body chose to accept the representation, the item would have to be deferred to allow the applicant to respond.  The Review Board unanimously AGREED to proceed into discussion without the late E-mailed representation.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth and Streetview presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised that the main issues for initial consideration were: whether the location of the house was in keeping with the character of the settlement, and, if it was not, to what extent the settlement character would be compromised.  Having considered the visual aspects of the site, should Members be minded to uphold the Notice of Review, issues relating to trees would then also need to be taken account of.

In initial discussion, Members looked at: whether the elevated position of the house would be in keeping with the character and the residential pattern of the area; whether there were any material considerations pertaining to the development of the site; whether there were other more appropriate sites within the settlement; and the importance of retaining people in rural areas.

In response to questions, Members were given assurances that it was possible from a technical perspective to construct the house, and that   issues relating to access to a nearby beach were not relevant to this particular application, and in any case, the access could be safeguarded.

Members having shown some support for upholding the Notice of Review, consideration was then given to the position of the house within the site and, in particular, the potential impact on surrounding trees.  The Independent Planning Adviser advised that the Council’s Forestry Officer’s response to the consultation highlighted that, although the woodland appeared scrubby, it was nonetheless a native woodland and therefore protected by Council policy.  The Forestry Officer had therefore recommended a survey be undertaken to establish where the more important trees were, so that these could be safeguarded - it was not only the footprint of the house that could damage the woodland but also the access and turning area, the garden ground and the installation of the drainage system.  However, the applicant had not done this.  The Chairman advised that as the application was for consent in principle, the siting of the house within the plot, and therefore the impact on trees, was not yet known.  If the Review Body decided to uphold the Notice of Review, it would not be possible to attach conditions to a full application to protect the trees, which then made it impossible to build the house, although the Council could work with the applicant to minimise the impact on the woodland.

During further discussion, concern was expressed at the potential for an increase in construction traffic around the site and it was suggested that, were the Notice of Review to be upheld, a condition be placed on improving the passing places to either side of the site entrance.  The Chairman suggested that such a condition could be delegated to Transport Environmental and Community Services Officers, but observed that such a condition could be considered onerous.

Following a short adjournment and no consensus having been reached between the Members, Mr T Prag, seconded by Dr A Sinclair, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED for the reasons given in the Appointed Officer’s decision notice.  As an amendment, Mr G Farlow, seconded by Mr N Donald, moved that the Notice of Review be UPHELD, as on balance the proposal would fit sympathetically into location, would not intrude on the coastal landscape, and would not erode the character of the national scenic area.  The proposal was therefore not considered to be contrary to policies 28, 36, 49, 51, 57 and 61 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

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

Motion (2): Mr T Prag and Dr A Sinclair
Amendment (3): Mrs I Campbell, Mr N Donald and Mr G Farlow
Abstentions (0)

The Review Body therefore UPHELD the Notice of Review on the grounds that, on balance, the proposal would fit sympathetically into the location, would not intrude on the coastal landscape, and would not erode the character of the national scenic area; it was therefore not considered to be contrary to policies 28, 36, 49, 51, 57 and 61 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, and AGREED that powers be delegated to Planning Officers, in consultation with the Chairman, to impose planning conditions and reasons as appropriate; and that powers also be delegated to Transport, Environmental and Community Service Officers to impose conditions on improvements to the passing places either side of the entrance/exit to the site.

4.4 Installation of Roller Shutters and Velux Windows at 10 Loch Avenue, Nairn, IV12 4TF – Church of God (Nairn), 13-00044 (RB-4-14)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00044-Church of God (Nairn) Installation of Roller Shutters and Velux Windows at 10 Loch Avenue, Nairn IV12 4TF, for the Church of God (Nairn).

Preliminaries

Having NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his 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.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised that the main issue for Members to consider was the installation of the roller shutters, as the applicant and planners had reached a compromise regarding the Velux windows.  It had been suggested by planners that open mesh shutters would be an appropriate alternative and the Chairman concurred with this view.

In discussion, Members were generally of the view that covering the recessed windows with the proposed roller shutters would be detrimental to the character of the building and surrounding area.

The Chairman drew attention to the Decision Notice and advised that, whilst the handling report had made specific reference to the policies under which the application had been rejected, these polices had not been set out in the Decision Notice.  Should the Notice of Review be dismissed, specific reference to the relevant policies would be included in the Review Body’s decision letter.

Thereafter the Review Body unanimously DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the handling report.

The meeting ended at 11.55 a.m.