Agendas, reports and minutes

Planning Review Body

Date: Thursday, 29 August 2013

Minutes: Planning Review Body Minutes - 27 and 29 August 2013

Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Site Inspections of the Planning Review Body held on Tuesday 27 August 2013, and the Scheduled Meeting held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 29 August 2013 at 10.30 am

Present at the site inspection, 27 August 2013 at 10.10 a.m. (Item 5.2 refers)

Mr T Prag, Mr G Farlow, Mrs I Campbell, Mr R Saxon

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

Also in Attendance:
For the Applicant: Mr P MacKenzie, Mr R MacKenzie
Objectors: Mrs B Cotton, Ms A Johnstone, Mr I Johnstone, Ms J Munro, Mrs M Semmence, Mr C Semmence

Present at the site inspection, 27 August 2013 at 2.30 p.m. (Item 4.3 refers)

Mr T Prag, Mr G Farlow, Mrs I Campbell, Mrs I McCallum, Mr R Saxon

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

Also in Attendance:
For the Applicant: Mr R MacKay
Objectors: Mr H Lyall, Mr S Young, Ms B Herrick

Present at the scheduled meeting, 29 August 2013

Mr T Prag (excluding item 4.4), Mrs I Campbell, Mr N Donald (excluding items 4.2, 4.3 ), Mr D Fallows (excluding items 4.3, 5.2 and 5.4), , Mr G Farlow, Mrs I McCallum (excluding items 5.1 and 5.2), Mr R Saxon.

Officials 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 (excluding Item 4.4)
Mr G Farlow in the Chair (Item 4.4)

1. Preliminaries

1.1 Webcasting

The Chairman confirmed that the meeting would be webcast, and gave a short briefing on the Council’s webcasting procedure and protocol.

1.2 Apologies for Absence
Leisgeulan

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr M Rattray and Dr A Sinclair.

1.3 Order of Items

In accordance with Standing Order 18, with the consent of the meeting, the Committee agreed to re-order the sequence of items, as set out in the minutes. For ease of reference, in view of the number of changes made, these minutes also record at each item the original item number as used in the agenda.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

The Committee NOTED the following declarations of interest:-

Item 4.4 – Mr T Prag (non-financial)
Item 5.1 – Mrs I McCallum (non-financial)
Item 5.4 – Mr D Fallows (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 26 June 2013

The Minutes of Meeting of 26 June 2013, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were APPROVED.

4. Notices of Review Previously Considered

4.1 (Agenda item 4.1)
Erection of 3 No. New Dwellings, Drainage Systems and Associated Works on Land South of Wester Cairnglass Farmhouse, Clephanton – Wilson, 12-00046 (RB-29-13)

There had been re-circulated Notice of Review No. 12-00046-Wilson for the erection of three new Dwelling Houses on land south of Wester Cairnglass Farmhouse, Clephanton, for Mr and Mrs Wilson.

Preliminaries

The Clerk confirmed that, at its meeting on 25 April 2013, the Planning Review Body had agreed to defer consideration of this Notice of Review to its next appropriate meeting to allow the following additional information to be sought and provided:

a) additional papers, including:

copy of the Planning Officer’s Handling Report;
more information as to the reasons for the refusal given in the Decision Notice, and clarification as to whether all the reasons were still competent;
Draft Conditions compiled by the Planning Officer; and

b) use of Google Earth and Streetview.

The Clerk having confirmed that this was a competent Notice of Review, the Planning Review Body AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet A of the agenda papers, which contained the additional information previously requested. Google Earth and Streetview were available if required. The Clerk explained that, for this application, Members, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, needed to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan, and, thereafter, to decide whether the weight attached to relevant material considerations added to or outweighed the Review Body’s assessment of the application against the development plan.

The Independent Planning Adviser explained that the proposed site would impact on the Loch Flemington Special Protection Area (SPA). Development which affected SPAs was subject to stringent legislation designed to protect the environment. In such cases, the Council had to be satisfied on two counts: as with any application, it must assess the application in terms of National and Council Policy; but, because of the potential impact on the SPA, it must also be satisfied that the application complied with the environmental legislation. In this latter regard, the Council had a legal responsibility under the Habitats Regulations, that before it granted planning permission, it had to be sure that all the environmental implications had been fully assessed and, where necessary, appropriate conditions drawn up to protect the conservation interest of the site. To achieve this, the Council had to be able to sign off an Appropriate Assessment (AA), a lengthy and expensive process, requiring the developer to carry out the investigatory work relating to foul drainage put forward by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). It was a legal requirement that the Council work through the AA procedure and be fully satisfied that there would be no adverse impact on the qualifying interests of the site. A suspensive condition on planning consent would not be sufficient as the final consequences of the development would not be known without the AA.

Whilst it was noted that both Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and SEPA had not objected to the proposed development as long as this particular suspensive condition was imposed, so as to protect Loch Flemington, it was the Council’s view that a full Appropriate Assessment (AA) was nonetheless required. It was the Council’s responsibility as Competent Authority, and final decision maker, to ensure the legislation had been complied with.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. There was further discussion of the legal position surrounding the SPA, with comments including that:

the preparation of an AA would be disproportionate in relation to the size of the proposed development
a Habitats Regulation Appraisal would be carried out by the Council and partners in due course as part of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan preparation and public consultation; however, until that time, the legal requirements would likely prevent development at Loch Flemington
normal practice was for the Review Body to be guided by the advice of SEPA and SNH; however, in this instance, the Council did not agree with their interpretation of the legal position.

The meeting adjourned for five minutes for the Chair to receive advice from the Clerk and the Independent Planning Adviser on the above points. The Clerk stated that legal precedent made it clear that the Council had to be aware of the full implications of development affecting an SPA before taking any decision, and that the information required could only be confirmed through an AA.

The Review Body then considered whether the proposal fitted with Council policy in terms of being “infill” in a housing group, and of reasonable proportion. Clarification was given that the existing properties at the site had been granted permission under land management justification, although a s.75 agreement had not been put in place.

The Independent Planning Adviser used Google Earth and Streetview to show the location of the site both in terms of a broad overview, and as seen from the adjacent road. In discussion, differing views were expressed; on the one hand that the proposals did not form a natural group; an additional three houses would mean a significant increase to the size of the group; the original houses had been approved on the basis of there being an agricultural need – this should be acknowledged, even if a s.75 agreement was not in place; and, on the other hand, that the adjacent trees made the site seem less open and the development therefore more acceptable; the additional houses would round off the group; and the existing houses were not subject to a s.75 agreement tying them to agricultural use.

During further discussion, it was noted that, should the application not comply with policy relating to infill and proportion, questions relating to the SPA legal position would be immaterial. Arising from this, a Member suggestion was put forward that the Council approach SEPA and SNH for their views on the SPA position, and that the outcome then be discussed with the applicant. It would be in the public interest to defer the decision until the legal position had been clarified. The meeting adjourned for a further two minutes for the Chair to receive advice from the Clerk and the Independent Planning Adviser.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr G Farlow, moved that the Notice of Review be deferred in order that the Council could meet with SEPA and SNH to discuss the legal position in relation to SPAs, and that the applicant then be informed of the outcome of the discussions. As an amendment, Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mrs I Campbell, moved that the Notice of Review be upheld, on the basis that the proposal was an acceptable expansion of the housing group; that SEPA and SNH did not object to the proposal as long as suspensive conditions were in place to protect the Loch Flemington SPA, and that the siting and landscaping would not be to the detriment of the character of the area.

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

Motion (4): Mr T Prag, Mr G Farlow, Mr N Donald and Mr R Saxon

Amendment (3): Mrs I McCallum, Mrs I Campbell and Mr D Fallows

Abstentions (0)

The Review Body AGREED to DEFER the Notice of Review in order that the Council could meet with SEPA and SNH to discuss the legal position in relation to SPAs, and that the applicant then be informed of the outcome of the discussions.

4.2 (Agenda item 4.2)
Change of Use from Class 5 Industrial to Waste Transfer Station Class 5/6 and Erection of Portacabin at 12 Lotland Street, Inverness – HRL Scrap and Waste Solutions Ltd., 13-00015 (RB-30-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00015-HRL for change of use from Class 5 Industrial to Waste Transfer Station Class 5/6 and Erection of Portacabin at 12 Lotland Street, Inverness, for HRL Scrap and Waste Solutions Ltd.

Preliminaries

Mr N Donald did not take part in this item as he had not been present at the meeting held on 26 June, where initial consideration had been given to this Notice of Review.

The Clerk confirmed that, at its meeting on 26 June 2013, the Planning Review Body had agreed to defer consideration of this Notice of Review to its next appropriate meeting to allow the following additional information to be sought and provided:

a) how many people worked at the current business, and for how many hours
    per day;
b) how many people would work at the proposed business, and for how many
   hours per day; and
c) whether the new business would be able to comply with the Health and
   Safety Executive’s suggested conditions that no more than 3 people be on
   site at any one time, and that the total time which people were present on
   site did not exceed 2 hours in any 24 hour period.

The Clerk having confirmed that this was a competent Notice of Review, the Planning 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, which contained the additional information previously requested. The Clerk explained that, for this application, Members, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, needed to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan, and, thereafter, to decide whether the weight attached to relevant material considerations added to or outweighed the Review Body’s assessment of the application against the development plan.

Debate and Decision

The Clerk reported that the additional information from the applicant had been forwarded to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), whose response thereto was circulated within the papers. HSE had maintained its objection to the proposals. He reminded Members that if they were minded to uphold the appeal, the application would be referred to Scottish Ministers to determine, given the HSE objection.

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. In response to concerns raised regarding potential planning blight should the Review Body dismiss the appeal, the Chair explained that the HSE regulations had been brought in following the Buncefield explosion, and would apply to all change of use proposals for properties adjacent to oil installations.

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

4.3 (Agenda Item 4.3)
Erection of Single Wind Turbine up to 78 meters to blade tip and ancillary equipment on Land 950m West of Windmill Cottage, Stansill Bower, Thura Mains Farm, Thura Mains, Bower, Wick – MacKay, 13-00016 (RB-31-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00016-MacKay for the erection of a single wind turbine up to 78 meters to blade tip and ancillary equipment on land 950m west of Windmill Cottage, Stansill Bower, Thura Mains Farm, Thura Mains, Bower, Wick for Mr R MacKay.

Site Inspection – 27 August 2013

The Review Body had held a site inspection on Tuesday 27 August 2013 in relation to this item. Prior to the inspection, the Chairman and the Independent Planning Adviser had explained to all present: the role of the Review Body; the purpose of the site inspection and the way it would be conducted; and that a decision would be made at the Review Body meeting on Thursday 29 August, which would be webcast. The Independent Planning Adviser summarised the main features of the proposed development and advised Members that the salient considerations were those relating to visual impact and impact on the landscape. Applicants and objectors were invited to draw Members’ attention to points relating to these issues; comments relating to the merits of the application were not permitted.

The site inspection viewed the site from a number of locations around the proposed development site. At each stop, with reference to the photomontages contained in the circulated papers, the Independent Planning Adviser pointed out physical features relevant to the application, and those representing the Applicant and Objectors were given the opportunity to do likewise. Members’ attention was drawn in particular to the distance of neighbouring properties from the proposed site, to existing windfarms in the vicinity, the generally flat and sweeping character of the landscape and the visibility of a water tower from various locations. Prior to concluding the site inspection, the Chairman ascertained that Members were satisfied that they had gained a sufficient impression of the visual and landscape context of the site.

Scheduled Meeting – 29 August 2013

Preliminaries

Mr N Donald and Mr D Fallows did not take part in this item as they had not attended the site inspection on 27 August 2013.

The Clerk having confirmed that this was a competent Notice of Review, the Planning 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, and by the site inspection. The Clerk explained that, for this application, Members, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, needed to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan, and, thereafter, to decide whether the weight attached to relevant material considerations added to or outweighed the Review Body’s assessment of the application against the development plan.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and taking account of the site inspection, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. The Chairman summarised that the reasons for refusal of the application all related to visual and landscape impact. Little weight could be attached to matters relating to meeting national renewables targets in the determination of the review which should be determined on its merits. Members commented that the site inspection had been useful as they had been able to get a clear appreciation of the landscape character, which was sweeping, fairly flat and with a different pattern of agriculture than the more intensively farmed lands further south. Members were generally of the view that a 78m turbine would be intrusive, notwithstanding the presence of the Subsea fabrication buildings and that the land undulated.

In view of the apparent brevity of the discussion, the Chairman gave an assurance that Members all had studied and given careful consideration to the application papers prior to discussion at the meeting.

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

5. New Notices of Review to be Determined

5.1 (Agenda item 5.3)
Erection of House on Land North West of Rosedale, Balvaird Road, Muir of Ord – Tait, 13-00019 (RB-35-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00019-Tait for the erection of a house on land North West of Rosedale, Balvaird Road, Muir of Ord for Ms A Tait.

Preliminaries

Debate and Decision

The Independent Planning Adviser reminded Members that planning conditions should not be imposed unless they passed the following “tests”: conditions must be: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. It was for the Review Body to decide if the conditions imposed by the Planning Officer met these tests.

In discussion, Members commented that the road had good visibility and was not busy. There were two 30mph signs - no evidence had been provided that “speeds tended to be greater”. The provision of the service bay was not achievable as the applicant did not own the land, and was not a reasonable requirement given that there were only six houses in the vicinity. Members were unanimously of the view that the conditions relating to the provision of a service layby, a skid panel and roundel should be removed, but that the entranceway should nonetheless be improved and widened as much as possible.

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review on the grounds that condition (1.i) relating to the provision of a service layby, and (2) provision of a skid panel and roundel were variously not achievable, reasonable nor necessary. The Review Body AGREED that powers be delegated to the Planning Adviser, in consultation with the Chairman, and relevant Roads and Planning Officers, to revise the conditions accordingly.

6. Notices of Review Previously Considered (Continued)

6.1 (Agenda item 4.4)
Erection of 2.5 Storey Extension to side and rear of Existing House at 38 Cedarwood Drive, Milton of Leys, Inverness – Richmond, 13-00017 (RB-32-13)

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.

Mr G Farlow took the chair for this item. The meeting adjourned for approximately five minutes to allow the Clerk to brief Mr Farlow as to the material considerations relating to this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00017-Richmond for the erection of a 2.5 storey extension to the side and rear of the existing house at 38 Cedarwood Drive, Milton of Leys, Inverness for Mr and Mrs Richmond.

Preliminaries

The Clerk confirmed that, at its meeting on 26 June, 2013, the Review Body had agreed to defer consideration of the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow the following to be sought and provided:

a) by the applicant and the Planning Officer: photographs of the site showing
   how it related to the surrounding area, adjacent properties, the Distributor
   Road to the A9 and illustrating the size of the garden ground; and
b) by the Planning Officer: clarification as to whether the application was for a
   house or an extension, and whether the property was detached or semi-
    detached.

The Planning 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, which contained the additional information previously requested. The Planning Adviser explained that for this application the main factors to consider were whether the design was appropriate in terms of the massing and scale of the extensions, and how the application related to Planning Policy 28.

Debate and Decision

In discussion a variety of views was expressed, including, on the one hand, that the scale and mass of the extension were not out of keeping with the character of the area, dominant or incongruous in this setting, the house being located at the edge of the development and largely screened from the roadway; and that there would be little impact on other houses as there was reasonable distance between the proposed development and houses which might be overlooked. On the other hand, concerns were raised at the large size of the extension, and that nearby properties might be overlooked. Clarification was given that the use to which the rooms were to be put was not a planning issue, and that Members should not place weight on there having been no objections received.

Mr D Fallows, seconded by Mrs I Campbell moved that the Notice of Review be upheld, with standard conditions being imposed. Mr R Saxon failed to find a seconder for his amendment that the Notice of Review be refused.

The Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review on the grounds that the proposal, if implemented, would not be contrary to the Highland-wide Local Development Plan Policy 28, as the scale and mass of the extension were not out of keeping with the character of the area and would not result in a visually dominant, incongruous design. As such, there would be no detriment to amenity. The Review Body AGREED to delegate powers to the Planning Adviser in consultation with the Vice-Chair to impose planning conditions and reasons as appropriate.

7. New Notices of Review to be Determined (continued)

Mr T Prag in the Chair

7.1 (Agenda item 5.1)
Erection of House at, Burnside, Braefindon Road, Muir of Ord – Robertson, 13-00014 (RB-33-13)

Mrs I McCallum declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that she was one of the local Members for Ward 10, Black Isle, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mrs McCallum left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00014-Robertson for erection of a house at Burnside, Braefindon Road, Muir of Ord for Mr Robertson.

Preliminaries

The Clerk confirmed that this was a competent Notice of Review and 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. The Clerk explained that, for this application, Members, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, needed to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan, and, thereafter, to decide whether the weight attached to relevant material considerations added to or outweighed the Review Body’s assessment of the application against the development plan.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. The Chairman summarised that the main issues for Members to consider were whether the existing settlement was a housing group; whether the application complied with Policy; and whether the proposed building would be in character. Members gave consideration to the relative size of existing houses and plots, and in response to a question were given an assurance that the site was clearly in an area defined as countryside and hinterland. The general view was that the proposed house was not in keeping with the rest of the houses and would not form a “group”, and was contrary to the Council’s Policies on housing in the countryside and hinterland.

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

7.2 (Agenda item 5.4)
Subdivision of Garden Ground and Erection of New House and Associated Works at Keeper’s Cottage, Dalnavert, Feshiebridge, Kingussie – Hamilton, 13-00020 (RB-36-13)

Mr D Fallows declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds that he was one of the local Members for Ward 21, Badenoch and Strathspey, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review. Mr Fallows left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00020-Hamilton for the subdivision of garden ground and erection of a new house and associated works at Keeper’s Cottage, Dalnavert, Feshiebridge, Kingussie, for Mrs P Hamilton.

Preliminaries

The Review Body, by a sizeable majority, AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet H of the agenda papers. The Clerk explained that, for this application, Members, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, needed to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan, and, thereafter, to decide whether the weight attached to relevant material considerations added to or outweighed the Review Body’s assessment of the application against the development plan.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork the Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. The general view was that the site was cramped; Members also concurred with the concerns raised by the Council’s TECS Services in relation to parking and access. The view was expressed that the proposals also did not fit with the style of existing buildings in the area. In response to a question, the Planning Adviser clarified that as the proposal was within the Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) area, in general, CNPA policies took precedence over the Council’s, but technical advice with regard to roads was provided by the Council. The application had not been called in by the CNPA so was for the Review Body to determine.

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

7.3 (Agenda item 5.2)
Installation of a 50kW Wind Turbine, 24.76m to hub and 34.38m to blade tip, at North Tarrel, Portmahomack, Tain – MacKenzie and Co, 13-00018 (RB-34-13)

Site Inspection – 27 August 2013

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00018-MacKenzie and Co for the installation of a 50kW Wind Turbine, 24.76m to hub and 34.48m to blade tip, at North Tarrel, Portmahomack, for RWM and KM MacKenzie and Co.

Site Inspection 27 August 2013

The site inspection viewed the site from a number of points around the proposed development site. At the request of objectors, the site was viewed from an additional location at Wester Seafield. At each stop, with reference to the photomontages contained in the circulated papers, the Independent Planning Adviser pointed out physical features relevant to the application, and those representing the Applicant and Objectors were given the opportunity to do likewise. Members’ attention was drawn in particular to the distance of neighbouring properties from the proposed site and the impact on visual amenity, and to existing agricultural buildings. In response to objector questions, the Planning Adviser explained that impact on views was one of the factors taken into consideration by the Review Body, and that neighbour notification procedures were set out in statute by the Scottish Government – the Council advertised proposals as widely as it could and Community Councils were consulted.

Scheduled Meeting – 29 August 2013

Preliminaries

Mr N Donald, Mr D Fallows, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Rattray and Dr A Sinclair did not take part in this item as they had not attended the site inspection on 27 August 2013.

The Clerk confirmed that this was a competent Notice of Review and 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 and the site inspection. The Clerk explained that, for this application, Members, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, needed to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan, and, thereafter, to decide whether the weight attached to relevant material considerations added to or outweighed the Review Body’s assessment of the application against the development plan. Unredacted copies of pp. 154-6 of Booklet F were tabled.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, and taking account of the site inspection, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review. Members welcomed having viewed the site. The surrounding landscape was sloping – there were a number of viewpoints from which the turbine would not be seen. The turbine was situated across a field from housing, and was in proximity to a silo, other agricultural buildings and trees. Whilst recognising that such judgements were subjective, the general view was that the turbine would not be unduly visually intrusive and would not impact adversely on the landscape. The Chairman drew attention to there being a lot of properties significantly affected by the proposals, and that the photomontages were very pale - in reality the turbine was likely to be be more visible, particularly as it was a moving structure.

There being no seconder to the Chair’s motion that the Notice of Review be dismissed on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice, the Review Body UPHELD the Notice of Review on the grounds that the proposal was not contrary to the Highland-wide Local Development Plan Policies 28 and 67, as it did not result in significant or unacceptable visual impact to the detriment of individual and community amenity; and the proposal would not be out of scale and character with the landscape; subject to powers being delegated to the Planning Adviser in consultation with the Chairman to impose planning conditions and reasons as appropriate.

The meeting ended at 12.50 p.m.

Planning Review Body Agenda - 29 August 2013