Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Special Meeting of the Planning Review Body held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 at 10.30 am.

Present:

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

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

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

None.

2. Declarations of Interest

Item 5.5 – Mrs M Paterson (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 16 November 2017

The Minutes of Meeting held on 16 November 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.

At this point in the meeting, Mrs Paterson expressed her disappointment that as one of the local Members for Ward 8, she was not permitted to participate in the determination of Item 5.5 on the agenda.

5. New Notices of Review to be Determined

5.1   Erection of House, Access Road, Septic Tank and Soakaway on Land 50M NW of Errachail, 108 Loth, Helmsdale – Ms L Cole, 17/02040/FUL, 17/00048/RBREF (RB-37-17)

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review 17/00048/RBREF for the erection of house, access road, septic tank and soakaway on Land 50M NW of Errachail, 108 Loth, Helmsdale for Ms L Cole.

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.

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, and were of the view that the request made by the applicant for a site visit was not required.

Debate and Decision

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

During discussion, Members highlighted the concerns raised by Transport Scotland and the Trunk Road Network Manager and expressed concern that the existing trunk road junction onto the A9, in particular the visibility splays, was of substandard condition. Therefore, the increased traffic generated by the proposed development could have a detrimental impact on road safety.  It was further highlighted that whilst the applicant had suggested in their supporting statement they would be willing to make upgrades to the junction and provide a passing place on the access road leading to the site, they had not submitted any details as to how they could undertake these improvements.

During further discussion, Members expressed contrasting views on the proposed building design, including that it could be considered in keeping with the character of the surrounding area as there were already a number of modern neighbouring dwellings in close proximity; however, it was also considered that the proposed house did not demonstrate sensitive siting due to its size and scale.  In response to comment that an application for the erection of a garage on a site adjacent to the north of the application site was currently the subject of an appeal to Scottish Ministers, the Clerk confirmed that the appeal had been dismissed by Scottish Ministers.

Following discussion, it was confirmed by the Independent Planning Adviser that the applicant did not control the land required to undertake improvement works to the junction onto the A9.  Therefore, it was suggested that if the Review Body was minded to dismiss the notice of review that an advisory note be included within the decision note recommending that, prior to any further applications, the applicant engages with Transport Scotland to discuss the upgrades required to the A9 junction to overcome the safety aspects highlighted in their consultation response.

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

5.2   Erection of Croft House at 12 Englishton Muir, Bunchrew, Inverness, IV3 8RQ – Mr Charles Leakey, 17/02558/FUL, 17/00052/RBREF (RB-01-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00052/RBREF for the erection of a croft house at 12 Englishton Muir, Bunchrew, Inverness, IV3 8RQ for Mr Charles Leakey.

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.

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, and were of the view that the request made by the applicant for a site visit was not required.

Debate and Decision  

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

During discussion, Members highlighted the unique operation of the croft as much of the work undertaken on site by the applicant was by traditional labour intensive methods which did not rely on the use of modern agricultural machinery and could be considered as a heritage development.  Therefore, it was considered that the Labour Unit calculations required to justify the operation of a croft could potentially be interpreted differently due to the way in which the land management plan for this croft had been carried out.  However, it was deemed that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed croft house could be considered essential for the operation of the croft given he was currently operating it from his existing house.  It was highlighted that the financial viability and sustainability of the croft had not been demonstrated to justify the requirement for a croft house on the site.

Following a brief adjournment to seek officer advice, the Review Body AGREED to DEFER the Notice of Review to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide a comprehensive supporting statement incorporating detailed evidence on how the crofting operation would be financially viable and sustainable and why it was necessary to the business that the accommodation was actually needed on site as per the croft land management guidelines stated in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Guidance – Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design.

The Review Body NOTED that, as some discussion of the Notice of Review had taken place, only those Members present during this item would be able to participate when the Notice of Review was brought back to the Committee.

5.3   Erection of House at 21 Mamore Road, Kinlochmore, Kinlochleven, PH50 4QP - Mr John Trew, 17/00162/FUL, 17/00053/RBREF (RB-02-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00053/RBREF for the erection of a house at 21 Mamore Road, Kinlochmore, Kinlochleven, PH50 4QP for Mr John Trew.

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.

During discussion, it was highlighted that whilst the images provided during the presentation showed a number of cars parking on the street, the use of on-street parking to mitigate the lack of adequate parking provision required for both the existing and proposed house could create additional traffic problems on this road.  Concern was expressed that the proposal to incorporate parking in the front garden could adversely impact on the character of the street and that the potential increase in the number of cars reversing across the pavement would be an increased road safety risk for pedestrians.  Concern was also expressed that whilst the proposed development was of a slightly smaller size to the original house, the extension by way of its encroachment towards the shared boundary could result in a loss of daylight on the neighbouring property.

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

5.4   Erection of House on Land to South of Cnoc Fearna, Dalchreichart, Glenmoriston - D & C Turnbull, 17/00993/PIP, 17/00057/RBREF (RB-03-18)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00057/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land to South of Cnoc Fearna, Dalchreichart, Glenmoriston for D & C Turnbull.

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, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the adoption of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan in July 2015 had deleted a previous Settlement Development Area at Dalchreichart which had encouraged development but restricted this to the up-slope side of the road in this locality.  It was also highlighted that in the case officer’s assessment of the application, the wrong landscape character type (narrow wooded glen) had been referenced.  The Review Body was advised that the actual landscape character type (wooded glen) to be considered was of a less sensitive nature than the one the application had been assessed against

During discussion, Members considered the merits of the application and the reasons for refusal by the appointed officer against Policies 28, 29 and 36 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) together with the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing in the Countryside and Siting and Design.

Thereafter, the Review Body APPROVED the Notice of Review, subject to conditions to be drafted by the Independent Planning Adviser and approved by the Chair, for the following reasons:-

• Members were of the view that the proposal did demonstrate sensitive siting and as such did not have a detrimental impact on individual and community residential amenity on the basis that the proposed siting and location of the proposed development was on the lower slope of the road and therefore complied with Policy 28 of the HwLDP;
• Members, having assessed the application against Policy 36 of the HwLDP, were of the view that it met the criteria contained in that policy and it did conform with the existing and adjacent land uses, particularly taking into account the previous approvals of housing development on the lower side of the road; and
• Members were of the view that, although the development was to be sited on the lower side of the road, it would not be considered contrary to the settlement pattern on this stretch of open land beside the river Moriston and it would not be visually intrusive in the landscape because of siting the proposed development lower down the slope.

5.5   Erection of House on Land 90M East of Croc Na Boull Cottage, Muir of Ord - Mr & Mrs R Constanduros, 17/04019/PIP, 17/00055/RBREF (RB-04-18)

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 remainder of the meeting. 

There had been circulated Notice of Review 17/00055/RBREF for the erection of a house on Land 90M East of Croc Na Boull Cottage, Muir of Ord for Mr & Mrs R Constanduros.

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.

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, and were of the view that the request made by the applicant for a site visit was not required.

Debate and Decision

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

In response to questions, clarification was provided on the following:-

• The Notice of Review was a resubmission of a previously determined application which had been dismissed by the Review Body at its meeting on 9 August 2017;
• The proposals included within the submitted application were identical to the Notice of Review which the Review Body had previously refused at its meeting on 9 August 2017;
• Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) gave a presumption against housing development in the open countryside of the hinterlands around towns unless at least one of the listed exemptions applied;
• Policy 52 of the HwLDP gave a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources, unless the proposal demonstrated a clear and significant public benefit;
• Policy 52 of the HwLDP was still applicable even if a wooded site had already been felled;
• The applicant’s personal circumstances were not a material planning consideration in the Review Body’s determination of the Notice of Review;
• The application had not been called in for determination by the North Planning Applications Committee by Members within Ward 8;
• Due to the significant distance between the application site and the Tullochs residential development to the north east of the site, the proposed development could not be considered to form part of that housing group;
• In its determination of the previously submitted Notice of Review, the Review Body had considered that the proposed development did not fulfil the criteria for a housing group as there were only two houses which were deemed to have a perceptible relationship with each other.

During discussion, it was emphasised that whilst the woodland in which the proposed development was located had recently been felled, this did not necessarily mean that the area could no longer be considered woodland and it was highlighted that restocking would take place as a condition of the approved felling license.  It was also emphasised that there were alternative options available to the applicant to consider such as an adjoining annex or “granny flat” to their existing property and the application had not presented any material changes in circumstances.

In response to comment made during discussion that the applicant had not been afforded the opportunity to discuss the submission of a new application with the case officer, it was confirmed that at the Review Body’s meeting on 9 August 2017, it had been suggested by the Chair that the case officer could discuss with the alternative options available to the applicants through the submission of a new application, taking into consideration the concerns raised in the report of handling.  It was confirmed that due to the prompt resubmission of the previously refused application, the case officer had not been in contact with the applicants to facilitate a meeting to discuss the submission of a new application.  Furthermore, it was emphasised that the Notice of Review was identical to that which had been determined at the meeting on 9 August 2017 and had not taken into consideration the suggestion at the meeting that alternatives to development within the woodland be explored.

Thereafter, 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 1.15 p.m.