Minute of Meeting of the Ross and Cromarty Planning Committee commencing on Site at Glascairn, Culbokie on Friday 13th April, 2007 at 10.15 am.
Present:-
Dr D Alston (Items 1-4)
Mr A Anderson
Mr B Barclay
Mr D W Briggs
Mr D Chisholm
Mr J Connell
Mr R MacIntyre (Item 5 Only)
Mrs V MacIver (Items 1-4)
Mr E C Mackinnon
Mrs A MacLean (Items 1-4)
Mr M Macmillan (Items 1-4)
Mrs I McCallum (Items 1-4)
Mr A Rhind
Officers in attendance:
Dorothy Stott, Principal Planner (Items 2-4 Only)
Sally Morton, Planner (Item 5 Only)
Jim Yuill, Principal Engineer
Mr Brian Mackenzie, Planner (Items 2-4 Only)
Susan Blease, Solicitor/Clerk
Alison MacArthur, Acting Administrative Assistant
Business
Mrs V MacIver in the Chair – Items 1-4 only
Mr R MacIntyre in the Chair – Item 5 only
1. Apologies
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr R Durham, Mrs M E Paterson, Mr A Torrance, Mrs J Urquhart and Mrs C A Wilson.
Development Control
2. Hearings
Item withdrawn.
3.0 Application – Formation of Nine Serviced House Plots (Detail) at Land Behind Glascairn, (Formerly Wester View) Culbokie by Mr and Mrs D Kennedy, Per Reynolds Architecture Ltd, Pavilion Court, Dingwall
(Application Ref No: 05/01143/FULRC)
The Committee inspected the site at 10.15 am on 13th April 2007, the inspection being led by Dorothy Stott, Principal Planner. The Principal Engineer, the Solicitor/Clerk and the Acting Administrative Assistant were also present.
The objector Mrs Hume was present. The applicant’s agent, Mr George Reynolds also attended the site inspection.
The application was heard at 11.15 am in the Findon Hall, Culbokie.
There was circulated Report No RP-063-07 (736kb pdf) by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager.
The Report recommended that the application be approved, subject to the following conditions:-
1. In respect of the individual houses, Standard Outline Condition and
reason.
2. There shall be prepared by the developer a design brief for the house
designs and layout of the individual plots. This shall specifically take into
account the Councils Policy Designing for Sustainability and each
application will be accompanied by an SDS (Sustainable design statement)
that will identify compliance with policy objectives. This design brief shall
form the basis for the submission of reserved matters applications for the
further approval of the Council.
Reason: In the interest of satisfying Council sustainability objectives for new development.
3. The design and layout of roads is not hereby approved. There shall be
further discussion with TECS and Planning in order to secure a design and
specification that embraces home zones principles.
Reason: In the interests of amenity.
4. The requirements of Condition 3 above include the assessment of
securing a novel lighting scheme that will reflect the Council’s principles of
saving energy whilst seeking to secure safe developments by design.
Reason: In the interests of satisfying Councils sustainability policies for new development.
5. The phasing of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with
the Council shall be as follows:
- Occupation of the houses on Plots 1,2,3 and 6 and the service road including the road frontage footpath –during period 2007 -08;
- Occupation of the houses on Plots 4 and 7 during 2008 – 09;
- Occupation of the houses on Plot 8 and conversion of 9 during 2009 – 2010;
- Occupation of the houses on plot 5 semi-detached block to be built and occupied when support from a Housing provider becomes available.
Reason: In the interest of limiting rate of growth consistent with Council Policy.
6. There shall be no construction works on the site servicing or the
development of any of the houses outwith the hours of 0800 – 1800 hrs
weekdays; 0800 – 1300 hrs Saturday and not at all on Sundays.
Reason: In the interests of amenity.
7. There shall be no commencement of any development on this site until
the following matters are submitted and approved in writing by the
Planning Authority.
Reason: To retain effective control.
8. Application shall be made for road construction consent - to include
provision of a roadside (B9169) footway and a road bond which shall be
lodged before commencement of any house construction within the
development site.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
9. Written Agreement shall be made between the developer and the
Council as to the provision of developer contributions to secure a
proportionate share of recreational/leisure uses provision for the
Community and public transport enhancements as identified in the Local
Plan.
Reason: In order to secure improvements to community facilities in line with Council policy.
10. The existing permission ref 04-01166/FULRC is formally revoked under the
terms of S65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1972.
Reason: As such development has not commenced and is hereby superseded by this approval
The Principal Planner introduced the application and outlined the policies and material considerations applicable to the site. The Principal Planner also altered the conditions from condition 7 as follows:
7. There shall be no commencement of any development on this site until
the following matters are submitted and approved in writing by the
Planning Authority:
(i) Application shall be made for road construction consent - to include
provision of a roadside (B9169) footway and a road bond which shall be
lodged before commencement of any house construction within the
development site.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
(ii) Written Agreement shall be made between the developer and the
Council as to the provision of developer contributions to secure a
proportionate share of recreational/leisure uses provision for the
Community and public transport enhancements as identified in the Local
Plan.
Reason: In order to secure improvements to community facilities in line with Council Policy.
(iii) The existing permission ref 04-01166/FULRC has been formally revoked
under the terms of s65 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act
1997.
Reason: As such development has not commenced and is to be superseded by this proposal.
Dr Alston supported the development but wished any consent to be subject to an additional condition requiring that a written agreement regarding the affordable housing element be in place before commencement of development.
With regard to the design and layout of roads, he wished a firm requirement that the specification incorporated Home Zone principles.
He also wished a requirement that the required junction improvements be coordinated with Safer Routes to Schools.
The Principal Planner advised that the form of affordable housing to be incorporated in the development and the mechanism for its delivery would be dictated by the outcome of discussions between the Council’s Housing Development team, the developer and Housing Associations.
Mr Macmillan asked whether is the current access to Plot 2 should be removed so that all the houses used the same access. The Principal Engineer advised that access arrangements would be looked at in detail in the process of approving the specifications for the road layout.
Mrs McCallum asked for clarification of the “recreational/leisure uses provision” referred to in condition 7 (ii). The Principal Planner advised that these could be works such as upgrading of footpaths, supply of play areas or any community facility - whatever the community would most like to see.
The Committee agreed to APPROVE the recommendation, with the additional conditions requested by Dr Alston and the conditions set out in the report, as amended by the Principal Planner.
4.0 Housing Development (Outline) and Associated Special (Community) Uses (Outline)_ at South of Glascairn Road, Culbokie by Mrs Beryl Ferguson’s Executry, per Keppie Architecture, Dochgarroch, Inverness (Application Ref No 02/00779/OUTRC and 02/00780/OUTRC)
In light of the fact that notification of the date for this site inspection and hearing had been sent to objectors immediately before the Easter public holidays when some of the objectors were away from home for the school holiday and when the Council’s planning office had been closed, it was agreed that objectors had not been given a fair opportunity to prepare for or, in some cases, attend the hearing.
In the interest of ensuring that all parties had a fair opportunity to prepare and to be heard, the Committee accordingly agreed to DEFER this application for arrangements to be made for a site inspection and hearing at a later date. The Chairman apologised to the applicant’s agents, Gordon McCallum, Lindsay Allen and Jim Robb, who had attended in anticipation of the hearing proceeding that day and assured the applicants that a new date would be advised by the Planning Department as soon as possible.
5.0 Hearing
5.1 Erection of House (Detail) at Land to West of West Milton, Strathconon by Mr M Fleming and Miss M MacKenzie (Application Ref No: 06/01060/FULRC)
The Committee inspected the site at 2.30 pm, the inspection being led by Sally Morton, Planner. The Principal Engineer, the Solicitor/Clerk and the Acting Administrative Assistant were also present.
The objector, Kirkbi Estates Ltd was represented at the site inspection and hearing by Sir Edward Mountain. The applicants, Mr Fleming and Miss MacKenzie also attended the site inspection and hearing.
The hearing commenced at 2.45 pm in the Strathconon Hall, Strathconon.
There was circulated Report No RP-065-07 (555kb pdf) by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager.
The Report recommended that the application be refused, for the following reasons:-
- The proposed siting of this house is located within an extensive birch woodland which is considered to be the natural physical boundary of the settlement of Milton. The siting of a dwelling in this location will involve a substantial removal of trees, which if removed would erode the natural boundary and further extend the village westwards, extending the urban appearance of the settlement, in what otherwise is a rural area. It is considered that this siting is inappropriate and would result in a detrimental development and thus be contrary to Policy G2 and H3 in the approved Structure Plan and the related objectives in the adopted Local Plan 3.5, 4.14, Landward Area 2, that seeks to ensure appropriate siting of new developments.
- The design of the proposed house is considered inappropriate in terms of its form, in a rural location. The proposed development is therefore considered to be out of place and out of keeping within this rural location and would therefore be detrimental to the amenity of the area. It is considered that the development is therefore contrary to PAN 72 National Guidance, and Policy G2 and H3 of the approved Structure Plan and the related objectives in the adopted Local Plan GSP1, Landward Area General, that seeks to ensure high quality good design.
- The removal of part of the woodland is considered to have an adverse impact on the settlement and setting of West Milton. The proposed development would result in pressure for removal of a significant number of trees to allow daylight and provide garden ground. Contrary to Structure Plan Policy G2 and objectives, 2.10.11, and the Local Plan Policy BP2, Landward Area 2 and 3.16.
The Planner introduced the application and outlined the policies and material considerations applicable to the site.
Mr Fleming, the applicant, then addressed the Committee.
Mr Fleming highlighted the main location concerns from the objector were of the view of the house from the main road. The house would in fact only be viewable from the main road for seconds as cars passed. The road on the other side of the glen was a private road which was not used very often. The site was set back from the main road and the proposed development should have little impact. There were a number of prominent new houses in the area and this one was no different from the rest.
The gables were wider than traditional houses in the area but there were a number of properties in the area with wider than traditional gables including the one near to the site approved by Committee recently which was wider than the one proposed. The wider gable was not in view as it faced the woodland and the appearance of the other gable would be broken up by the proposed extension and would only be viewed from the track coming down the hill.
With regard to the objector’s concerns that there would be a large level of earthworks, Mr Fleming advised that much of the footprint had already been excavated for the existing shed so the remaining earthworks would not be large.
He believed the site would not be obvious from the road when looking at the waterfall as it would be obscured by trees which he would try to maintain.
Finally, he submitted that he and his partner had a young family and his own family had been crofting in the area for over 60 years. This was his only opportunity to stay in Strathconon, if he was not given consent for the proposed house he and his family would be forced out of the area.
The Chairman asked the applicant to elaborate on the excavations as the existing mound would have to be excavated and he wanted to know where the excavated materials would be moved to.
The applicant indicated that the extra earth would be used to form a bund on the left hand side and the rest would be pushed to the edge of the site.
Sir Edward Mountain then addressed the Committee on behalf of the objector.
He advised that the estate had been owned by Kirkbi Estates since 1995 and since then the Estate had encouraged new housing where appropriate. They had so far only objected to two applications for new houses: the current application and an application considered (and approved) by Committee the previous month. It was their usual practice to promote development in the glen but subject to appropriate siting and design. The estate had five reasons for objection.
- Prominent location - next to the falls. Paragraph 72 of the Local Plan stressed the importance of the road through Strathconon and its scenic views. The estate was in discussion with SNH regarding conversion of the nearby Old Mill into an interpretative centre for the glen and this also would attract visitors. Quite a few visitors stopped at the falls as they were a spectacular site particularly when there had been more rain.
- The development would alter the land form considerably. The applicants would need to knock the top of the mound. Pushing the removed soil forward would accentuate the significance of the house site and could affect trees.
- The development would lead to significant removal of trees including birch and conifer.
- The application was contrary to Structure Plan Policy H3.
- The house would be outwith the natural settlement boundary which was the road leading up past the site.
He advised that there had already been considerable clearance of the site prior to the application.
Although the estate was opposed to the development on this site, they were encouraging of housing in the glen in principle. Consequently, they had offered to work with the applicants to identify an appropriate alternative site which the estate would convey to the applicants at no cost in exchange for conveyance of the current application site to the estate so that the estate could protect it from development in future. The estate would bear all conveyancing costs.
The applicant replied that the application site was not his to exchange. In any event, he wanted to build on family land which had sentimental value. He could not afford to build anywhere else. If they could not build on this site they would not be able to build.
There being no further questions by members, the Chairman asked the parties whether they were satisfied with the way in which the hearing had been conducted and they confirmed that they were so satisfied.
The Planner then presented her report and recommendation.
Mr Mackinnon asked to see cross sections of the site to clarify the excavation works proposed. The Planner advised that no cross sections had been submitted. The Chairman suggested that should members be minded to approve the application, it should be a condition of approval that there be no commencement of development until cross sections showing how the earthworks could be accommodated to minimize impact on surrounding area had been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.
Mr Briggs advised that the Community Council were generally very concerned about the rate of development in the glen and they therefore tended to look at applications very closely before giving their consultation response to the Planning Authority. However, in this case, they found the plans entirely acceptable and were pleased to see local people wanting to build in the area and send children to the local school.
Mr Briggs likewise considered the application acceptable. The natural settlement boundary could easily be considered to be the river rather than the track, in which case, the site would be within that natural boundary. The design of the house could be improved but it was not grossly dissimilar to existing houses in the area which fitted in with the landscape. He would wish, however, for a requirement for a s75 agreement to preclude further development on the land in the applicants’ family’s ownership around the site and to secure a long term woodland management plan on the land.
He considered departure from the Planner’s recommendation justified on the basis that (a) the siting was not inappropriate and would not result in detrimental development, (b) the design of the proposed house was not inappropriate in this location, and (c) the development would not result in unacceptable loss of trees.
The Committee then APPROVED the application for the reasons stated by Mr Briggs, subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by the Planner in consultation with the Chairman and the local member, including a suspensive condition precluding commencement of development until cross sections and details of proposed earthworks had been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and subject to the prior conclusion of a s75 agreement precluding further development (except permitted development) on the applicants’ family’s landholding in the vicinity of the site and securing a long term woodland management plan.
The meeting ended at 3.40 pm.