Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 at 10.30 am.

Present:
Mr T Prag; Mrs I Campbell; Mr D Fallows; , Mr R Saxon; Dr A Sinclair

In Attendance:
Mr P Adams, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Ms L Lee, Committee Administrator

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
Liesgeulan

Apologies for absence were received from Mr G Farlow (Vice Chair), Dr D Alston and Mrs I McCallum.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

Item 8 – Mr T Prag (non-financial) (declared during the meeting)

Item 9.1 – Mr T Prag (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 27 January, 2015

The Minutes of Meeting held on 27 January 2015, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

4. Appointment of Chair and Order of Business – Agenda Item 5

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 Agenda Item 5 (erection of a house on land at Blackpark Farm, Westhill, Inverness, 14-00047). Both the Chair and Vice-Chair would therefore be absent for this item. In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 11, the Review Body unanimously AGREEDthat Dr A Sinclair take the chair in Mr Prag’s absence.

In accordance with Standing Order 18, the Review Body further AGREED that Agenda Item 5 be taken as the final item on the agenda.

5. Site Inspection – Single Wind Turbine at Daviot, Inverness

The Chair reminded Members that they had recently been informed by email that a Notice of Review for a single wind turbine at Daviot, Inverness was due to be considered at the meeting on 23 April 2015, and that Member views as to whether a site inspection was required would be sought at the March Review Body meeting.

The Review Body AGREED that this matter be discussed at the end of the meeting, immediately prior to Notice of Review 14-00047, as referred to in Item 4 above.

6. Criteria for Determination of Notices of Review

The Clerk confirmed that, for all subsequent 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.

The Clerk also confirmed that Google Earth and Streetview could be used during the meeting; 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.

Terminology

At the Clerk’s suggestion, there having been some reported confusion regarding the terminology used in decisions, the Review Body AGREED that in future, where Members agreed with an appellant, this would be recorded as the Notice of Review having been approved (rather than “upheld”); where Members agreed with the Planning Officer, this would continue to be recorded as the Notice of Review having been dismissed.

7. New Notices of Review to be Determined

7.1 Erection of House in Garden Ground at 2 Woodlands Road, Dingwall – Morton, 14-00046 (RB-7-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 14-00046-Morton for the erection of a house in garden ground at 2 Woodlands Road, Dingwall for Mr G Morton.

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 6 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, and requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview. The Independent Planning Advisor provided this, cautioning that Streetview had been filmed in 2008 and might no longer be accurate.

Thereafter, 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, as supplemented by Google Earth and Streetview.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were: that the proposed house was in garden ground; whether the site was large enough to accommodate a house; and, whether the proposed building would be out of character with the area, particularly in view of its position on an elevated corner.

During discussion, Members gave consideration to points including:

• the restricted size of the plot
• the existing building lines
• the predominant building style in the area, including typical garden size and proximity of housing to roads
• the prominence of the plot.

In response to questions, clarification was given regarding the scale of the plans and the dimensions of the proposals. Members were also advised that whilst it would be possible for a planning condition to be imposed removing permitted development rights for a garage, given the restricted plot size, the reasonableness of this would need to be considered.

Members were broadly of the view that the proposal would be acceptable as long as the style of the house reflected the character of the area. In this regard, the Independent Planning Advisor highlighted that the Notice of Review was for a “Planning in Principle”application - the style of the proposed building might differ from that shown in the photomontages. Should Members be minded to approve the Notice of Review, it would, however, be possible to include reasonable conditions, such as to require the building to be sited behind existing building lines, and to encourage the applicant to take account of the predominant housing style. These matters could be controlled when the full application was received.

The Chair having summarised that this was an on-balance decision, and Members having thanked the applicant for the quality of the statement of review and supporting material, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review on the grounds that the proposal would not be contrary to Policies 28 and 34 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan as the site was of sufficient size to accommodate a suitably proportioned house and there would be no detriment to the established local amenity; subject to conditions being delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, these to include reference to the building line and the style of the property.

7.2 Formation of Plot for 1 or 1½ Storey House in Garden Ground at 11 Moss-side Road, Nairn, IV12 5NQ – Grant, 14-00054 (RB-8-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 14-00054-Grant for the formation of a plot for a 1 or 1½ storey house in garden ground at 11 Moss-side Road, Nairn, IV12 5NQ for Ms A Grant.

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 6 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 requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview. The Independent Planning Advisor provided this, cautioning that Streetview had been filmed in 2011 and might no longer be accurate.

Thereafter, 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, as supplemented by Google Earth and Streetview.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were: that the proposed house was in garden ground; whether the site was large enough to accommodate a house; access issues; whether the proposed house was in keeping with the character of the area; and loss of trees.

In response to questions, Members were provided with information on matters relating to the boundaries of the plot, and neighbour notifications, and were advised that the site was garden ground rather than brownfield.

During discussion, Members gave consideration to points including:

• the restricted size and irregular shape of the plot
• the difficulty of accommodating a second house within the site without compromising the balanced layout of the existing house and garden
• tree loss
• that the character of the entrance would be changed.

Having thanked the applicant for the high standard of information provided, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

7.3 Erection of a Fence Panel at 3 Cairn Avenue, Nairn IV12 4TG – Grant, 15-000001 (RB-9-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00001-Grant for erection of a fence panel 2m high by 3.5m wide, part retrospective, at 3 Cain Avenue, Nairn, IV12 4TG for Mr and Mrs Grant.

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 6 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 clarified that a determination was required solely for the 3.5m fence already erected; the further 4m referred to in the papers should be disregarded.

In considering the Notice of Review, Members took into account the general pattern for street frontage to be unobstructed, and the height of neighbouring fencing. The fence in question was judged from the pictorial evidence to be around 1.8m, rather than the 2m stated. Members were generally minded to approve the fence as erected; any further fencing, however, would require a planning application to be submitted.

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, on the grounds that the fence was not contrary to Policy 28 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, subject to conditions being delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, these to include a stipulation that any additional fencing would require planning permission.

7.4 Replacement of 6 Windows at 1 Lochiel Place, St Ninian Road, Nairn, IV12 4EH – Castelo, 15-00002 (RB-10-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00002-Castelo for replacement of six windows at 1 Lochiel Place, St Ninian Road, Nairn, IV12 4EH for Mrs R Castelo.

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 6 above refers), the Review Body discussed whether its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet E of the agenda papers, and requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview. The Independent Planning Advisor provided this.

Thereafter, the Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet E of the agenda papers, as supplemented by Google Earth and Streetview.

Debate and Decision

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

The Chairman summarised that the key issues surrounding the application were that the building was in a conservation area and therefore subject to policies relating to window replacement, and its prominence on the A96.

In response to observations that other flats within the block had UPVC or aluminium windows, the Independent Planning Advisor informed Members that the law had changed in 2011, introducing a requirement for planning permission for replacement of windows in conservation areas. The non-traditional windows were likely to have been installed prior to the change in legislation.

In discussion, Members gave consideration to:

• the variety of window styles in the building;
• the importance of preserving materials and character: traditional windows that had survived were precious - the flat in question and the one below it both retained traditional windows
• the prominence of the building
• the clear discouragement in national and Highland Council policies, of UPVC windows in conservation areas.

Members were of the view that whilst there might be an argument to review policy in future, perhaps to allow energy efficient/UPVC windows that were appropriately styled for conservation areas, the current policy should be upheld in this instance.

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

7.5 Replacement of Single Glazed Windows at 34A Reay Street, Inverness, IV2 3AL – Malcolm, 15-00003 (RB-11-15)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 15-00003-Malcolm for replacement of single glazed windows at 34a Reay Street for Mr F Malcolm.

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 6 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 that the key issues surrounding the application were similar to those for item 7.4 above; however, the windows were less prominent, and the existing windows were not the originals. Nonetheless, Council Policy was that developments in conservation areas would only be allowed if it could be satisfactorily demonstrated that they would not have an unacceptable impact on the heritage resource.

Points raised in discussion included that:

• most of the other windows in the house were already UPVC
• the windows which the applicant was seeking to replace were not the originals
• the proposal was at the rear of the house.

Members were of the view that, on balance, the proposed windows would not have an unacceptable impact on the heritage resource.

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to conditions delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, on the grounds that the proposal was not contrary to Policies 29 and 57 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

8. Site Inspection – Single Wind Turbine at Daviot, Inverness (Ward 20)

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 this item.

The meeting adjourned for approximately five minutes.

Dr A Sinclair in the Chair

Following discussion, the Review Body AGREED that an unaccompanied site inspection be arranged for the above Notice of Review, to take place on 23 April 2015, prior to the Review Body meeting; and that details be finalised by officers.

The merits of the Notice of Review were not discussed.

9. Notice of Review Previously Considered

9.1 Erection of House on Land North of Gatehouse, Blackpark Farm, Westhill, Inverness IV2 5BP – Alexander, 14-00047 (RB-6-15) (Agenda Item 5)

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 remainder of the meeting.

Mr D Fallows also left the Chamber as he had not been present at the meeting held on 27 January 2015, where initial consideration had been given to this Notice of Review.

Members were reminded that Notice of Review 14-00047 had been upheld by the Review Body on 27 January 2015. The respective draft Decision Notice had been circulated as Booklet A. Members were asked to consider whether a s.75 agreement, mirroring the terms of Condition 1 of the draft Decision Notice (tying the house to occupancy by the retiring farmer and his spouse) was required.

In discussion, Members commented that one of their main reasons for upholding the appeal had been the provision of a dwelling for a retiring farmer and/or his spouse. Having been informed that the s.75 could be revoked should the occupants in future find themselves unable to reside in the house, the Review Body AGREED that a s.75 agreement be concluded, at the applicants’ expense, requiring that the occupancy of the development be limited to a retiring farmer and/or their spouse(s) or for land management or family purposes related to the management of the land. This would be prior to the decision notice being issued, as was the norm.

The meeting ended at 11.45 a.m.