Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Wednesday, 20 September 2017

Minutes: Read the Minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 at 11.00 am.

Present:

Mr A Henderson
Mrs T Robertson
Mr G Adam
Mr R Balfour
Mrs I Campbell
Mr W MacKay
Mrs M Paterson

In Attendance:

Miss C McArthur, Solicitor/Clerk
Mrs K Lyons, Solicitor/Clerk
Mr D Polson, Independent Planning Adviser to the Planning Review Body
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Also in Attendance:

Mr S Hammerstrom, Observer

Mr A Henderson in the Chair

Preliminaries

The Chair 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 intimated on behalf of Mr L Fraser and Mr S Mackie.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.1 – Mrs I Campbell (non-financial)
Item 6.2 – Mr G Adam (non-financial)
Item 6.3 – Mrs M Paterson (non-financial)

During their declarations, Mrs Campbell, Mr Adam and Mrs Paterson voiced their discontent at the criteria used for determining Notices of Review which prohibited Members from participating in discussion of applications which fell within their own respective wards.

In response, the Clerk confirmed that the criteria for determining applications by the Review Body had previously been agreed by the former Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, now the Places Committee. The Clerk confirmed that the procedure in place for Members determining applications was an established Council approach and any proposed changes to this would need to be agreed by the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee.

3. Minutes of Meeting of 9 August 2017

The Minutes of Meeting held on 9 August 2017, copies of which had been circulated, were APPROVED.

4. Criteria for Determination of Notices of Review

The Clerk confirmed that, for all subsequent items on the agenda, Members had contained in their USB Flash Drives all of the information supplied by all parties to the Notice of Review – namely everything submitted at the planning application stage and the Notice of Review stage from the applicant and interested parties together with the case officer’s report on handling and the decision notice that had been issued. When new information had been identified and responded to by the case officer, that information had also been included on the USB stick.

Members were reminded that when determining each planning application subject to a Notice of Review, they were to give full consideration of the planning application afresh (also known as the “de novo” approach) in accordance with the advice contained in the letter from the Chief Planner dated 29 July 2011. The Clerk confirmed that this meant that, in each Notice of Review case, the Review Body needed to assess the planning application against the development plan and decide whether it accorded with or was contrary to the development plan. Following this assessment, the Review Body then required to consider all material considerations relevant to the application and decide whether these added to or outweighed their assessment of the application against the development plan. In carrying out this assessment, all documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties needed to be considered by the Review Body – all material planning considerations required to be taken into account; considerations that were not material planning considerations must not be taken into account.

The Clerk also confirmed that Google Earth and Streetview could be used during the meeting in order to inform Members of the site location; 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 on the ground. All the Notices of Review were competent.

5. Notice of Review Previously Considered

5.1 Erection of House on Land 60M East of Lismore House, Kinellan, Strathpeffer - Caroline Rham, 17/00988/PIP, 17/00034/RBREF (RB-30-17)

Declaration of Interest – Mrs I Campbell declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 5, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs Campbell left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review 17/00034/RBREF for the erection of a house on land 60m East of Lismore House, Kinellan, Strathpeffer for Caroline Rham.

A site visit had taken place earlier that morning, attended by Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr A Henderson, Mr W MacKay, Mrs M Paterson and Mrs T Robertson. Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

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 Members’ USB Flash Drives and by the site inspection.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the site visit undertaken, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

In response to questions, the following was confirmed that:-

In relation to the visitor related developments at Loch Kinellan, there were a wide range of permitted development rights set out within statute and it was possible that these developments were permitted development i.e. did not require planning permission;
In relation to previous planning applications approved within the area, these applications would have been assessed against the policies in force at the time and there must have been sufficient grounds to allow these developments to be supported. It was for the Review Body to consider the application before them on its own individual merits and to decide whether or not it complied with the development plan and supplementary guidance;
Whilst previous planning decisions and developments could be a consideration in their determination, it was for Members to decide what weight to give to these as Council policies could have changed in the intervening period;
The definition of land as garden ground as contained within the current Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design Supplementary Guidance was summarised to Members;
Recent mapping of the site contained within the Notice of Review documentation defined it as part of a field and did not show it as part of garden ground. This suggested that, if there had been a change in this circumstance, it would have been a fairly recent development;
Whilst improvements to the road layout at the access into the site off the public road could be considered as planning gain, the main issue raised by Transport Planning was in relation to the junction of the U3070 (Kinellan Road) with the A834 as visibility splays could not be improved to the standard required. Therefore, it was for Members to decide whether they agreed with the view of Transport Planning; The Review Body was advised to take account of public safety during its determination.

In discussion, consideration was given to a range of issues regarding the proposed development, including:-

Whether the proposal constituted rounding off of an existing housing group;
The location of the application site and whether it could be considered to be located within the formal garden grounds associated with Kinellan Farm House; and
Safety concerns raised by Transport Planning regarding the existing visibility splay to the south of the junction of the U3070 (Kinellan Road) with the A834 and the increased traffic use arising from the proposed development.

Whilst the Review Body was satisfied that the proposed development could be considered as rounding off of an existing housing group as defined in Policy 35 of the HWLDP (Housing in the Countryside (Hinterland areas)), Members expressed contrasting views regarding the application site and the potential increase in traffic using the junction. During further discussion, the following views were expressed:-

Whilst it was acknowledged that the existing visibility splay to the south of the junction was not of current appropriate standards, there had been an increase in traffic use over the past fifteen years following the development of housing along the road and the car park at Loch Kinellan. It was therefore considered disproportionate to penalise the applicant when there was already an unrestricted amount of public usage at the junction;
Concern was expressed that, whilst there had been no reported accidents at the junction during the previous 25 years, the proposed development could create additional traffic and have a negative impact on road safety;
Having viewed the application site earlier that morning on the site visit and taking into consideration its condition, it was felt that the site could be considered as garden ground and that it had not previously been used as a field; and
Conversely, the view was also expressed that the ground was too rough to be considered as garden ground as it had not been maintained to the standards expected of a formal garden as defined in the current Guidance.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mrs M Paterson, seconded by Mr G Adam, moved that the Notice of Review be APPROVED for the following reasons:-

Members were satisfied that the development would round off an existing housing group and therefore meet one of the exceptions to Policy 35 – presumption against housing in the open countryside of the hinterlands around towns. Members were satisfied that there was a perceptible relationship between the application site and the surrounding houses and they shared a well-designed and cohesive character;
Members were satisfied that the proposed development was not contrary to Policies 28 and 29 as the land available was sufficient to sensitively site a proposed dwelling house; and
Members took the advice of Transport Planning on board but did not accept that the traffic for one extra house would have a significant detrimental impact on the use of the junction of the A834 with the U3070.

As an amendment, the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED on the grounds as set out 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 (4): Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr W MacKay and Mrs M Paterson

Amendment (2): Mr A Henderson and Mrs T Robertson

Abstentions (0)

The Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to conditions to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and approved by the Chair.

Mrs I Campbell returned to the meeting.

6. New Notices of Review to be Determined

6.1 Erection of a Garden Room at Old Farm, Glenmoriston Lodge Estate, Invermoriston, Inverness - Mr & Mrs D Grant, 17/00607/FUL, 17/00038/RBREF (RB-31-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00038/RBREF for the erection of a garden room at Old Farm, Glenmoriston Lodge Estate, Invermoriston, Inverness for Mr and Mrs D Grant.

Prior to determination of the Notice of Review, the Clerk informed Members that the original application had also included an application for Listed Building Consent which ran parallel to the application. She confirmed that whilst the Review Body dealt with the planning aspect of the application, the Listed Building Consent had been subject to an appeal to Scottish Government Ministers which was subsequently dismissed by the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers. Following refusal of the Listed Building Consent, the applicant’s agent had been written to and provided with the opportunity to withdraw the Notice of Review given the outcome of the appeal; however, it was confirmed that the Review Body had not received any response from the agent to date. Copies of the Reporter’s decision were circulated to Members.

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 Members’ USB Flash Drives, no further procedure having been requested by the applicant.

Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Thereafter, the Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Members’ USB Flash Drives and the Google Earth/Streetview presentation.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth/Streetview presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

In response to questions regarding the refusal of Listed Building Consent and how this affected the Review Body’s determination of the Notice of Review, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers, having assessed the application under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) (Scotland) Act 1997, had refused Listed Building Consent on the basis that the positioning of the proposed development would significantly impact on the existing listed building and its setting. The Review Body was advised that in its determination of the application for planning, it also had a duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) (Scotland) Act 1997 to assess the impact the proposed development would have on the setting of the existing listed building. He advised Members that the Review Body could take a contrary view to that of the Reporter; however, as the building was Category A Listed, the Review Body did not have full delegated authority to grant planning permission and therefore would have to notify Scottish Ministers of their view should they be of the view that planning permission should be granted.

During discussion, it was noted that whilst the design of the proposed building was excellent, its impact on the immediate setting of the listed building and wall was of concern.

In response to a question, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that whilst Historic Environment Scotland (HES) had not objected to the application, their response had indicated that this did not necessarily mean they would support it. He further explained that HES generally left minor developments for the planning authority to consider under the relevant legislation and guidance produced by HES in order to reduce the amount of consultations it had to deal with.

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

6.2 Change of use and conversion of agricultural building to form house on Land 50M NW of Pitchfork, Culbokie - Mr John Kerrison, 17/00690/FUL, 17/00039/RBREF (RB-32-17)

Declaration of Interest – Mr G Adam declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 9, Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr Adam left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00039/RBREF for the change of use and conversion of an agricultural building to form a house on land 50m North West of Pitchfork, Culbokie for Mr John Kerrison.

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 Members’ USB Flash Drives, the applicant having requested a site visit.

Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth/Streetview presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

In response to questions, the Independent Planning Adviser explained that the principal policy of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) for Members to consider was in relation to Policy 35 (Housing in the Countryside – Hinterland Areas) which made a general presumption against housing development, including a brownfield site, unless it met one of the exception criteria. He also made reference to Policy 42 (Previously Used Land) which could also be applied to determination of brownfield sites and provided a definition of brownfield sites for the purposes of housing policy as defined in the Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design Guidance. He advised that it was for the Review Body to decide in its determination of the application whether the site could be considered to be unused and redundant.

During discussion, the view was expressed that erecting a shed for agricultural purposes under permitted development rights and leaving it to deteriorate did not constitute a valid reason to seek permission to change the use of the site for a house.

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

Mr G Adam returned to the meeting.

6.3 Demolition of Double Garage and Erection of House at 2 Ord Wood, Muir of Ord, IV6 7XS - Mr Douglas Boyle, 17/01612/FUL, 17/00041/RBREF (RB-33-17)

Declaration of Interest – Mrs M Paterson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 8, Dingwall and Seaforth, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs Paterson left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00041/RBREF for the demolition of a double garage and the erection of a house at 2 Ord Wood, Muir of Ord, IV6 7XS for Mr Douglas Boyle.

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 Members’ USB Flash Drives, the applicant having requested a site visit.

Members requested sight of Google Earth and Streetview to inform their understanding of the application site. The Independent Planning Adviser provided this.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and the Google Earth/Streetview presentation, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

The Chair drew attention to Policies 28, 29 and 34 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and expressed the view that the proposed house was of a substantial size when compared against the existing housing and would be an inappropriate development within the context of the surrounding woodland setting. He also expressed disappointment at the pre-emptive felling of the trees to the front of the house which had been undertaken prior to the submission of the application.

With no other Member expressing a contrary view, the Review Body DISMISSED the Notice of Review on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.

Mrs M Paterson returned to the meeting.

6.4 Change of Use from General Purpose Shed to Permanent Residential Unit on Land at Croft 4, 250M East of Monument Park, Strontian - Mr John Galvin, 16/05450/FUL, 17/00042/RBREF (RB-34-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00042/RBREF for a change of use from a general purpose shed to a permanent residential unit on land at Croft 4, 250M East of Monument Park, Strontian for Mr John Galvin.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

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

The Chair drew attention to Policies 28, 29 and 36 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and summarised that there were a number of key issues for consideration, including:-

The location of the War Memorial provided a natural break in the landscape and marked the limit to residential development on the approach to Strontian;
The planning history of the application had provided a strong indication that the previous grant of permission for an agricultural shed was restricted for sole use by a family member to keep a horse; and
The proposed development was located within a site intended for tourism use only under the emerging West Highlands and Islands Local Development Plan (WHILDP). At Proposed Plan stage, it demonstrated the settled view of the Council regarding acceptable uses.

During discussion, the view was expressed that the change of use from what was currently an agricultural building into a house was outwith the established limits of residential development in Strontian. It was highlighted that there were already other housing sites located within the village for residential development. The view was also expressed that the proposed development would be inappropriate given its location within a site identified for tourism uses specifically excluding housing under the emerging WHILDP.

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

6.5 Erection of Timber Clad Holiday Cottage at Clan Alpine, Glen Road, Newtonmore, PH20 1EA - Mr Norman MacArthur, 17/01448/FUL, 17/00043/RBREF (RB-35-17)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00043/RBREF for the erection of a timber clad Holiday Cottage at Clan Alpine, Glen Road, Newtonmore, PH20 1EA for Mr Norman MacArthur.

Preliminaries

Prior to discussion, the Clerk informed Members that an e-mail had been received from the applicant’s agent highlighting an error within the application form submitted with the Notice of Review which made reference to the proposed development being a one and half storey dwelling. She confirmed that the proposed development was for a single storey building, as referred to within the design statement.

It was also confirmed that as the application was within the Cairngorms National Park Authority Area, the Notice of Review was to be determined using the Cairngorms National Park - Local Development Plan 2015 (LDP), extracts of which were circulated to Members and the meeting adjourned for approximately five minutes to allow Members to peruse.

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, it was highlighted that whilst the proposed design of the holiday cottage was excellent, consideration should be given to the location of the application site. It was also highlighted that Policy 2 (Supporting Economic Growth) of the LDP required housing developments of the type proposed to demonstrate that they would have no adverse environmental impacts on neighbouring areas.

The Independent Planning Adviser explained that whilst Policy 2 generally supported the provision of accommodation for tourism purposes, this should be compatible with adjacent uses. It was highlighted that the proposed development was in very close proximity to an area of residential use; however, it might be considered that some of these residential properties were being used on a holiday let basis. He also explained that Policy 3 (Sustainable Design) of the LDP required any proposed development to be compatible with the character of the surrounding 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 12.55 p.m.

Read the Agenda