• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Site Inspection of the Planning Review Body held on Tuesday 26 November 2013, and the Scheduled Meeting held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness, on Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 10.30 am.

Present at the site inspection, 26 November 2013 at 11.30 a.m. (item 5.2 below refers):

Mr T Prag, Mr N Donald, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Rattray, Dr A Sinclair, 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:

Mrs E Watson, Mr B Watson, Mrs K Blackwood, Mr P Blackwood

Objectors:

Mrs C Campbell, Mr D Campbell

Present at the scheduled meeting, 28 November 2013

Mr T Prag, Mr G Farlow, Mrs I Campbell, Mr N Donald, Mr D Fallows, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Rattray, Dr A Sinclair, 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

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

There were no apologies for absence.

1.3 Order of Items

In accordance with Standing Order 18, with the consent of the meeting, the Review Body 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

The Committee NOTED the following declarations of interest:

Item 4.1 – Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair (non-financial)

3. Minutes of Meeting of 31 October 2013

The Minutes of Meeting of 31 October 2013, copies of which had been circulated with the agenda, were APPROVED.

Arising from the Minutes, the Review Body was informed that a Notice of Review had recently been received in respect of a wind turbine application, and that the papers for this could run to perhaps 2,000 pages. In order to reduce print and postage costs, the Chairman proposed that those sections of the application which were unlikely to be the main focus of the Review Body’s deliberations be provided to Members in the form of a CD, rather than in hard copy, with only the sections which were likely to be pertinent to the issues the Review Body would consider being provided as circulated papers.  An assurance was given that all the information would be available on the Council’s website, so would be available to the public, and could be shown on the Chamber screen, if required, during the meeting.

Following discussion, the Review Body AGREED:

i. to pilot the approach outlined above for the next meeting; and
ii. that the decision as to which papers be circulated and which provided on CD be taken by officers in consultation with the Chair.

Arising from Member comment, the Review Body NOTED that:

i. officers would check that print size for all parts of reports was sufficiently large; and would advise Members by email as soon as papers were available, so that Members could collect these if they wished; and
ii. if the above pilot proved to be unsuccessful, consideration of the Notice of Review could be deferred to the following meeting.

4. New Notices of Review to be Determined

The Clerk confirmed that, for all items on the agenda, Members had contained in their Booklets all information as supplied by all parties to the Notice of Review. Members needed to assess each application against the development plan and all relevant material considerations, taking account of the documents lodged by the applicant and interested parties, and to decide whether the application accorded with or was contrary to the development plan.  Having carried out that assessment, Members needed to decide if the weight attached to material considerations added to or outweighed their assessment of the application against the development plan.

4.1 (Agenda Item 5.1)
Erection of House on Land 90m East of Zenka, 14 Port Henderson, Badachro, Gairloch – Tallach, 13-0028 (RB-46-13)

Mrs I Campbell and Dr A Sinclair declared non-financial interests in this item on the grounds that they were local Members for Ward 6, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, and therefore not permitted to participate in the determination of the Notice of Review.  Both left the Chamber for this item.

There had been circulated Notice of Review 13-00028-Tallach for the erection of a house on land 90m East of Zenka, 14 Port Henderson, Badachro, Gairloch, for Mr K Tallach.

Preliminaries

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers); and AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet C of the agenda papers.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised the key issues surrounding the application.

A variety of views were expressed, including as to: how prominent the house would be; whether the Settlement Development Area boundaries were hard and fast or indicative only, and the potential for precedent to be set; and as to how the house related to the settlement pattern, the style of nearby properties and the landscape.  Members also considered: the importance of retaining people in rural areas; the need to protect the landscape in a tourist area; crofting and agricultural considerations; and that other, less prominent sites were available nearby and had been offered.

No consensus having been reached between the Members, Mrs I McCallum, seconded by Mr R Saxon, moved that the Notice of Review be DISMISSED for the reasons given in the Appointed Officer’s decision notice.  As an amendment, Mr G Farlow, seconded by Mr D Fallows, moved that the Notice of Review be UPHELD, as the siting and design of the development did not have an unacceptable impact on the visual and landscape character of the natural environment and working environment and was therefore not contrary to Policies 28 and 36 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, and did not set a precedent; subject to conditions being delegated to the appropriate officers in consultation with the Chair.

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

Motion (5): Mr T Prag, Mr N Donald, Mrs I McCallum, Mr M Rattray and Mr R Saxon

Amendment (2): Mr G Farlow and Mr D Fallows

Abstentions (0)

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

4.2 (Agenda Item 5.2)
Erection of House on land 200m West of Millness Cottage, Corrimony, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit – Akeroyd, 13-00036 (RB-47-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00036-Akeroyd for erection of a house on land 200m West of Millness Cottage, Corrimony, Glenurquhart, Drumnadrochit, for Mr N Akeroyd.

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers).

Decision

Following preliminary discussion relating to the Review Body’s requirements for information, the Review Body AGREED to DEFER consideration of the Notice of Review to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Review Body to allow the following information to be sought and provided:

i. clearer information from Transport, Environmental and Community Services (TECS) as to the existing visibility splays and the positions of the entrance and barrier referred to in the papers;
ii. whether there were any rules as to how close a new access could be to existing accesses;
iii. clarification as to how the plans related to the photographs; and
iv. use of Streetview.

Officers would also contact the applicant with regard to the above as necessary.  The substance of the Notice of Review was not discussed.

4.3 (Agenda Item 5.3)
Erection of House at Blaven, Bunchrew, Inverness – Khan, 13-00039 (RB-48-13)

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00039-Khan for erection of a house at Blaven, Bunchrew, Inverness, for Mr R Khan.

Preliminaries

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers).  Confirmation having been given that the property called “Kinlea” on p.8 of the papers was the same property as “Blaven” on p.24, 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.

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 site was appropriate.  Drainage issues were secondary.  He reminded Members that the application was for planning in principle.

In discussion, Members were generally of the view that the site was not big enough to accommodate a house and safe vehicle access/egress.  Comments related to road safety concerns given the limited turning circle, and that it would not be possible to site the house far enough away from the road and railway.

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

5. Notices of Review Previously Considered

5.1 (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)

Mr M Rattray and Dr A Sinclair did not take part in this item as they had not been present at the meeting held on 29 August 2013, where initial consideration had been given to this Notice of Review.

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 Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers); and AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet A, Parts 1 and 2, of the agenda papers.

The Independent Planning Adviser confirmed that discussions had taken place with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and the applicant, as agreed by the Review Body at its August 2013 meeting.  Members were today being asked to consider two issues: firstly, the position with regard to legal requirements to protect Loch Flemington Special Protection Area (SPA); and secondly, should Members be of the view that the legal issues could be satisfactorily resolved, to consider the application against planning policy.

He gave a detailed explanation of the legal position.  In essence, the Council had to be satisfied, prior to awarding planning permission, that the development would not adversely affect Loch Flemington.  An “Appropriate Assessment” of the applicant’s proposals to deal with potential phosphorus contamination was therefore required.  Following a similar situation at Loch Leven, Perth & Kinross Council had drawn up Supplementary Guidance setting out phosphorus mitigation measures, which it had been accepted met the legal requirements.

For the development to progress, the applicant would need to draw up plans in line with the Perth & Kinross Supplementary Guidance, and these proposals would need to be independently assessed – this would meet the “Appropriate Assessment” requirements.  Given the expense involved in carrying out this preparatory work, Members were being asked, at this stage, to consider the application against Policy, to determine whether they would be minded in principle to uphold the Notice of Review in terms of Policy.  If so, the applicant could be so advised and undertake the preparatory work.  The Notice of Review, together with the findings of the independent assessment, would be brought back to the Review Body for final consideration.

Debate and Decision

Having considered the supporting paperwork and heard the Planning Adviser’s advice, the Planning Review Body discussed the Notice of Review.  The Chairman summarised that Members were being asked to determine whether they would be minded in principle to uphold the Notice of Review.

In response to questions raised, Members were provided with information as to what the applicant would have to do in terms of phosphorus stripping and improvements to drainage; and advised that they would need to understand the applicant’s proposals and be confident that the solution would work - they would need to rely on SEPA’s assessment in this regard.  Any planning permission granted would incorporate the applicant’s phosphorus mitigation measures, either via conditions or by a Section 75.  Confirmation was given that the applicant would be able to carry out works to an existing house’s septic tank for each new house and drainage system proposed, as part of the mitigation solution.

In discussion, Members were generally of the view that the houses formed a group and would be visually acceptable.  Housing in the Countryside policies were strict, and where an opportunity arose, it should be taken up.  There were no planning conditions relating to agricultural need attached to the existing houses - planning history was therefore of small relevance.  Concerns were raised, however, that planning policy had not been drawn up to deal with the current situation, where the existing houses were all modern.  The development would double the number of properties and could be seen to be more than the “rounding off” of a settlement.  There might therefore be a need to revisit planning policies to cover this kind of situation, and instances where houses had been approved on the basis of agricultural need and this had then led to further applications.

Having been informed that the Council, in the course of developing the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan, would be introducing its own Supplementary Guidance along the lines of Perth & Kinross Council’s, the Review Body AGREED:

i. to follow the principles as set out in Perth & Kinross Council’s Supplementary Guidance relating to Loch Leven;
ii. that the applicant be informed that the Review Body was minded to approve planning permission, should the relevant environmental legislative requirements be met; and
iii. that the Notice of Review and the findings of the independent assessment, together with a full set of draft conditions, including in relation to landscaping, be brought back to the Review Body for final consideration.

5.2 (Agenda Item 4.2)
Erection of 850kw Wind Turbine and Associated Infrastructure on Land 320m North East of Torranshandal, Harpsdale, Halkirk – Wind Harvest Ltd., 13-00027 (RB-45-13)

Mrs I Campbell, Mr D Fallows and Mr G Farlow did not take part in this item as they had not attended the site inspection on 26 November 2013.

There had been circulated Notice of Review No. 13-00027-Wind Harvest Ltd for the erection of an 850kw wind turbine and associated infrastructure on land 320m North East of Torranshandal, Harpsdale, Halkirk, for Wind Harvest Ltd.

Site Inspection – 26 November 2013

The Review Body had held a site inspection on Tuesday, 26 November 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, 28 November, which would be webcast.  The purpose of the site visit was to allow Members to gauge the impact of the turbine on the landscape.  Reference would be made to the photo-montages provided by the applicant, but Members should also consider the impact of the turbine from other points en route.

Applicants and objectors had been invited to draw Members’ attention to points relating to these issues; comments relating to the merits of the application had not been permitted.

The site inspection had 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 had pointed out physical features relevant to the application, and Supporters and Objectors had been given the opportunity to do likewise.  Members’ attention had been drawn to features including: the businesses along the road leading from Halkirk, supporters having commented that this was not a tourist area; recent tree planting, supporters having commented that this was likely to obscure the site from the road in a few years’ time; existing windfarms in the vicinity; the proximity of various houses to the proposed site; and the concerns raised by Scottish Natural Heritage at viewpoints 2 (Achies) and 6 (the A9 at Sordale).

Prior to concluding the site inspection, the Chairman had ascertained that Members were satisfied that they had gained a sufficient impression of the visual and landscape context of the site.

In response to Member comment, the Independent Planning Adviser had undertaken to look into what might be possible with regard to future montages, in terms of providing the distances from viewing points to houses, pylons etc., to assist Members in determining where the turbine sat relative to landscape features.

Scheduled Meeting – 28 November 2013

Preliminaries

The Review Body NOTED the Clerk’s confirmation that this was a valid and competent Notice of Review, and his advice with regard to the way the Review should be determined (item 4 above refers); and AGREED that its requirement for information had been satisfied by the Notice of Review documentation contained in Booklet B (Parts 1 and 2) of the agenda papers, and by the site inspection.

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 Review Body having recently visited this part of Caithness in relation to another wind turbine application, the Chairman reminded Members that the application before them must be considered on its own merits.

In discussion, Members gave consideration to: the number of turbines in the area – both industrial scale wind farms and small, single turbines; the character of the landscape; and the effectiveness of the trees in screening the turbine from nearby and from further away.  Whilst a view was expressed that the proposals would not be unduly intrusive, given the number of other turbines in the area, Members were generally of the view that, whilst smaller turbines were acceptable, the proposed turbine was of industrial proportion, would be visible from many places and was out of character with the landscape which was flat, open and exposed.  Tree planting would not mask the turbine except in close proximity to it.  The concerns raised by SNH were significant and should be taken on board; it was also important for the Review Body’s decision-making to be consistent, so that developers understood the approach being taken.

The Chairman, seconded by Dr A Sinclair, moved that the Notice of Review be dismissed on the grounds as set out in the appointed officer’s decision notice.  Given that different views had been expressed in discussion, the Chairman highlighted that an amendment would formally record that there had not been unanimity of views; however, no amendment was moved.

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

The meeting ended at 12 noon.