Planning Review Body Minutes

Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held on site at Lieurary, Westfield, By Thurso, and thereafter at the Ross Institute, Halkirk on Thursday 3 November 2011 commencing at 11.30am.

Present:

Mr W Ross
Mrs I Campbell
Mr R Durham
Mr H Wood
Mr K Macleod
Mr D Fallows

In Attendance:

Mrs J Ferguson, Planning Adviser (Items 4.1)
Mr V Hawthorne, Planning Adviser (Items 4.2 and 5.1)
Mr P Adams, Solicitor (Clerk)
Ms A Macrae, Administrator

Also In Attendance.

Mr D Mudie, Team Leader, Planning and Development Service

Mr W Ross in the Chair

Business

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mrs I McCallum, Ms M Smith, and Dr A Sinclair.

2. Declaration of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mrs I Campbell

3. Minutes of Meeting of 29 September 2011

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of 29 September 2011 which were APPROVED, subject to Mr D Fallows being added to the list of apologies.

4. Notices of Review Previously Considered

4.1 Erection of 2 Wind Turbines, 55m High to Hub and 70m Rotor and Associated Access Road at Lieurary, Westfield, By Thurso for Scotrenewables (Wind Power) Ltd 11-00018-Scotrenewables

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 11-00018-Scotrenewables for the erection of 2 wind turbines, 55m high to hub and 70m rotor and associated access road at Lieurary, Westfield, By Thurso for Scotrenewables (Wind Power) Ltd

The Planning Review Body undertook a site inspection departing from the Ross Institute, Halkirk at 11.30am and proceeded to view the site and its surrounds, including the proposed access to the site. The Review Body also viewed the site from a number of vantage points at; (i) Lieurary, (ii) Plocan, (iii) Brackrevach, (iv) Bardnaclaven, (v) Glengolly, (vi) Framside, and (vii) Halkirk.

Note:- Ms G Penwarden and Mr B Johnson, Applicants, were in attendance at the site visit. There were two other interested parties also present.

Prior to the commencement of the site inspection the Chairman emphasised to all present that the purpose of the site inspection was to point out the location of the proposed development and physical features referred to in either the Notice of Review application or in representations lodged in support of/in opposition to the application. He explained that the site inspection was not an opportunity for parties to engage in discussion, with the Review Body, on the merits of the case.

The Review Body proceeded to view the site and its surrounds, including the proposed access to the site. The Review Body also viewed the site from a number of vantage points at; (i) Halkirk (ii) Plocan, (iii) Framside, (iv) Glengolly, (v) Bardnaclaven, (vi) Brackrevach, and (vii) Lieurary.

During the site inspection all parties were afforded the opportunity to point out the location of the development and physical features of the site and its surrounds, including the access, the location of the site in relation to residential properties and other wind farms in the area.

At the conclusion of the site inspection the Planning Review Body adjourned for lunch at 1.15pm and re-convened at the Ross Institute, Halkirk at 2.00pm.

The Chairman asked the Members of the Review Body whether their requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklets A and A1 of the Planning Review Body agenda papers, and by the site visit.

The Clerk advised that Members of the Planning Review Body should consider whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan and, having carried out that assessment, decide if the weight attached to material considerations added to or outweighed their assessment of the application against the development plan.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body (PRB) discussed the Notice of Review. The Planning Adviser circulated a map and summary of the Council’s ‘Highland Wind Farm Activity’ and ‘Cumulative Visualisations’ document which outlined those applications at the scoping; approved or under construction; operational (submitted but not yet determined/approved or under construction); submitted but not yet determined; and refused. She also advised that while Scottish Natural Heritage had lodged an objection to the application they had subsequently stated that they would be prepared to withdraw this objection subject to the imposition of a condition designed to protect specific species within the bird population. In discussion the Members of the PRB indicated that the site visit had proved extremely helpful in their assessment of the application and expressed concern at the cumulative and visual impact of the development on the landscape and residential properties in the area, including noise impact. The PRB therefore indicated their agreement with the appointed officer’s assessment of the proposal. The Planning Adviser indicated that in regard to the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal reference to the Highland Structure Plan Policy remained valid until such time as the Highland wide Development Plan was approved by Scottish Government where the relevant sections relating to policies G2 and E2 would be transferred into the new Plan. The PRB therefore DISMISSED the Notice of Review for the same reasons as contained in the appointed officer’s Decision Notice.

4.2 New House Plot at Land Adjacent to 111 Beech Avenue, Nairn for David Shillabeer 11-00027-Shillabeer

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 11-00027-Shillabeer for a new house plot at land adjacent to 111 Beech Avenue, Nairn for David Shillabeer.

The Clerk advised that the Notice of Review had considered this Notice of Review at its meeting on 25 August 2011 to allow a response from the Planning and Development Service to be submitted with particular reference to clarifying concerns relating to car parking. He reported that this response had now been received together with the applicant’s further response was contained in Booklet B1.

The Clerk also advised that a request had been received from the applicant’s agent that consideration of the Notice of Review be deferred until the next meeting on 8 December 2011 to allow them the opportunity to attend the meeting. In discussion differing views were expressed some Members suggesting that the PRB agree to the request given the travel distance involved in travelling to Halkirk and that fact the meeting was not webcast, while other Members expressing concern that in agreeing to the request this would create a precedent for other Notices of Review.

Mr R Durham seconded by Mrs I Campbell moved that the PRB proceed to determine the Notice of Review.

Mr K Macleod seconded by Mr D Fallows moved as an amendment that consideration of the Notice of Review be deferred until the next meeting of the PRB on 8 December 2011.

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

Motion (3): Mr I Ross, Mrs I Campbell and Mr R Durham.

Amendment (3): Mr K Macleod, Mr D Fallows and Mr H Wood.

On an equality of votes been cast between the motion and amendment the Chairman cast his second and determining vote in favour of the motion.

The motion to proceed to determine the Notice of Review therefore became the finding of the meeting.

Thereafter the Planning Review Body AGREED that their requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklets B and B1 of the Planning Review Body agenda papers.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body (PRB) discussed the Notice of Review. Members of the PRB suggested that the site was too cramped to accommodate a development of the nature proposed, and indicated their agreement with the appointed officer’s overall assessment of the proposal. The PRB therefore DISMISSED the Notice of Review for the reasons set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

5. New Notice of Review

5.1 Erection of Two Houses at Land West of Doelcam, Jamestown, for Mr R Mackenzie 11-00045-Mackenzie

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 11-00045-Mackenzie for the erection of two houses at land West of Doelcam, Jamestown, for Mr R Mackenzie.

The Clerk confirmed that the Notice of Review was competent.

The Clerk also confirmed that all Members of the Planning Review Body had been provided, in advance of the meeting, with copies of the documents received from the applicant lodging the Notice of Review and all interested parties’ responses. The Planning Review Body AGREED that their requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet C of the Planning Review Body agenda papers.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Planning Review Body (PRB) discussed the Notice of Review. It was suggested that Reasons 2 and 3 set out in the decision notice relating to the fact the development would serve in excess of four houses and that it would not reflect the local settlement pattern were not convincing as reasons for refusal and that the critical issue related to the capacity issues and whether the condition of the road was of an adequate standard to accommodate additional traffic. Guidance was sought on policy H8 and the statement contained in regard to the fact that the access road would serve ‘up to’ four houses rather than ‘in excess’ of and it was therefore was not contrary to policy as suggested in Reason 2 of the Decision Notice. The Planning Adviser indicated that the advice given by TECs as set out in the appointed officer’s delegated handling report suggested that it would not be possible for improvements to be made to improve other roads in the area, due to the fact they were bounded and that it may be physically impractical to upgrade these routes. It was suggested that further information be sought on the potential for upgrading routes in the area before the PRB came to a conclusion on the matter.

The PRB therefore AGREED to defer the Notice of Review to seek further information from TEC Services on their plans for future road developments in the area, and information on what was or was not possible given the issues surrounding ownership and control of land under the applicant’s ownership.

The meeting ended at 3.30pm.