STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 28 JUNE 2016 at 10.30 am
Present
Councillor Margaret BRISLEY (in the Chair)
Councillor Neil BENNY (to Item PL449)
Councillor Scott FARMER
Councillor Graham LAMBIE (to item PL449)
Councillor Christine SIMPSON
Councillor Jim THOMSON
In Attendance
Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Deborah Kilpatrick, Communications Officer, Chief Executive’s Office
Peter Morgan, Chief Planning Officer
Neil Pirie, Senior Transport Development Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Sheila McLean, Committee Officer, Corporate Operations (Clerk)
Agenda
The Chair intimated her intention to alter the order of the Agenda. The items were taken in the order minuted below.
PL446 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Ian Muirhead and Councillor Mike Robbins. There were no substitutions.
PL447 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Graham Lambie declared an interest in respect of Agenda Item 5 (Minute Paragraph 450 refers), as the Applicant was known to him. Councillor Lambie withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item and took no part in the discussion.
PL448 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
There were no items of urgent business.
PL449 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL – 31 MAY 2016
Decision
The Minutes of Meeting held on 31 May 2016 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.
PL450 CHANGE OF USE FROM RESIDENTIAL (CLASS 9) TO OFFICES (CLASS 2) AT 22 PLACE, RIVERSIDE, STIRLING, FK8 1XD – FORTH VALLEY RAPE
CRISIS CENTRE – 16/00280/FUL
The Principal Planning Officer introduced a report by the Director of Localities & Infrastructure, which advised of an application for a change of use from residential to offices at 22 Millar Place, Riverside, Stirling.
The application had been brought to Panel at the request of Councillor Gerry
McLaughlan on the grounds that it was a change of use to commercial within a
residential area.
The report provided details of (a) the site; (b) the proposal; (c) Development Plan policy; (d) assessment and (e) consultations. Nine letters of comment had been received.
The officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report. The officer drew Members’ attention to Condition 1, which set restrictions on the operator and change of use. He explained that should the current applicant cease operation of the premises, any planning permission would fall and the premises would revert to residential use. No other party would be able to operate the premises for office use without seeking fresh planning permission.
In response to a question, it was confirmed that the Applicant had only requested hours of operation during office hours, Monday to Friday, and this was reflected in Condition 2.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.”
Proposed by Councillor Scott Farmer, seconded by Councillor Neil Benny.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report and an additional condition to restrict approval to a temporary period of one year.”
Proposed by Councillor Danny Gibson, seconded by Councillor Christine Simpson.
For the Amendment (3) Councillor Margaret Brisley
Councillor Danny Gibson
Councillor Christine Simpson
Against the Amendment (4) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Scott Farmer
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Jim Thomson
The Amendment fell by 4 votes to 3.
For the Motion (5) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Margaret Brisley
Councillor Scott Farmer
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Jim Thomson
Against the Motion (1)
Not Voting (1)
Councillor Christine Simpson
Councillor Danny Gibson
Decision
The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 1, with 1 Member not voting, and accordingly the Panel agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.
(Reference: Report by Director of Localities & Infrastructure dated 22 June 2016, submitted).
Councillor Neil Benny and Councillor Graham Lambie left the Meeting at this point.
PL451 ERECTION OF CARBON-NEUTRAL DWELLING USING SUSTAINABLE AND DEVELOPING A SMALL-SCALE FARMING ENTERPRISEOF ABERFOYLE – MR GEORGE DREVER – 15/00638/FUL –
HEARING
A report by the Director of Localities & Infrastructure advised of an application for the erection of a carbon-neutral dwelling at land north east of Park of Auchentroig, Aberfoyle.
The application had been referred to the Planning & Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Alistair Berrill on the grounds that there was an important point of principle regarding the nature of the type and scale of sustainable enterprise that could be considered to be viable in business terms. Questions had been asked as to whether the income that had been projected by the applicant was genuinely achievable from a site of this size.
The application was presented to the Panel on 2 February 2016 and was deferred for a site visit and hearing and for officers to seek an independent assessment of the applicant’s business case. The site visit took place on Thursday 18 February 2016 and a note of the site visit was attached as Appendix 5 to the report.
Members were advised that a consultation on the applicant’s business plan had been issued to a rural consultant appointed on behalf of the Council. The application was further deferred at the Panel meeting on 1 March 2016 to await the consultant’s response, which had now been received and was attached as Appendix 2 to the report.
At its meeting on 29 March 2016, the Panel agreed further deferral of the application to allow planning officers to take into account the further written submission from the applicant’s rural consultant, Laurence Gould and prepare a revised report.
All Members currently present had attended the site visit and could therefore take part in consideration of the item.
The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report which provided details of (a) the site; (b) the proposal; (c) previous history; (d) development plan policy; (e) assessment and (f) consultations. Four objections and 31 representations in support had been received.
The officer explained that the application was for the erection of a carbon-neutral dwelling using sustainable materials and development of a small-scale farming enterprise.
Supplementary Guidance: Housing in the Countryside (SG10) could support proposals for single houses for specific purposes under the Sustainable Living Scheme where the applicant was able to demonstrate that the proposal complied with a number of criteria in relation to siting, design, intention to embrace a sustainable lifestyle and that the intended associated land management activity would be capable of supporting the occupiers as their main source of income.
Officers had no objection to the location and design of the proposed house, but access improvements would be required.
The business case was integral to the whole justification of the planning application and was a material consideration. The Panel had requested consultation with an independent rural business consultant and the response was attached as Appendix 2 to the report. Following receipt of this response, the officer recommendation to the Panel meeting on 29 March 2016 was to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposal did not comply with housing in the countryside policy and related supplementary guidance as the size of the holding was too small to justify a full time labour unit, the stocking capacity was too low, and therefore the application did not demonstrate that the sustainable living scheme was viable as a main source of income.
The Panel had further deferred the application to allow the applicant to respond the Council’s independent consultant. The applicant’s response was attached as Appendix 3 to the report and suggested that the application should be tested on the financial viability and not the labour requirement. A further letter from the applicant’s agent was attached as Appendix 4.
After taking into account the documents submitted and the wording in the Council’s Supplementary Policy Guidance on a sustainable living scheme that required the applicant to demonstrate that the intended associated land management activity would be capable of supporting the occupiers as their main source of income, the previous recommendation for refusal had been reviewed and it was now accepted that the application complied with Policy 2.10 for housing in the countryside and the supplementary guidance SG10. The officer recommendation, therefore, was now to approve the application subject to conditions.
Applicant
George Drever presented his case for approval of the application, with support from his partner Lynn Smithwhite and his legal representative Alastair McKie.
Mr Drever advised that the proposal was the first under Stirling’s Sustainable Living Scheme. They had been searching for some time for a suitable site and this one was considered to be the best available. It was modest in size, manageable and had the support of Planning Officers. The proposal complied with Policy 2.10 and Supplementary Guidance SG10. The proposed house was at the heart of the scheme.
Mr Drever and his partner were keen to embrace a sustainable lifestyle and would use solar power and stored rainwater, and process their waste, with no bills for fuel. High quality food would be produced both for their own use and to sell for profit. They had previous experience of both business and of raising livestock.
The house would be self-built and the costs met from savings. The applicant was confident that the development could provide sufficient income to support them as the day to day cost of living would be low.
30 letters of support had been submitted from potential customers.
The applicant and his representatives responded to a number of questions from members of the Panel.
The Applicant considered that the proposed removal of a passing place would not cause any issues as there were others available and existing use as a commercial stables had not presented any problems.
In response to concerns about smell, it was advised that numbers of livestock would be small and that pigs would be kept well away from residential properties, including their own.
Technology in relation to solar panels and uv filters was advanced and both systems wouldrequire little maintenance.
The applicant and his legal representative confirmed that Mr Drever owned the land in question.
Objector
Andrew Ewing presented the case to refuse the proposal. He advised the Panel that hisproperty was adjacent to the application site and that he was speaking on behalf of a number of other neighbours.
Mr Ewing stated that the applicant had made no attempt to engage with neighbours and that there had already been an issue with an illegally parked caravan on the site.
He suggested that the proposed development would be much larger than suggested, with greater numbers of livestock.
With regard to costs, it was considered that the applicant had made no provision for transport, pension and broadband costs.
The report made reference to Balfron Community Council and their support for the application, but the relevant Community Council was Drymen who had indicated they were not in support. Other letters of support were from potential customers outwith the area; their custom would incur transport costs.
Mr Ewing was concerned about the proximity of livestock to his property, particularly in relation to pigs which would require to be rotated. He was also concerned about proposals to address access, which were vague and open to interpretation. Distances between passing places were too long.
Objectors were concerned that the officer recommendation had been changed to approve, based on a submission paid for by the applicant, when the submissions sought by the Council had led to a recommendation to refuse. The idea behind the development was a good one, but this was the wrong site.
The Panel sought clarification from the Applicant on where livestock would be sited. It was advised that the site comprised 3.5 acres for pigs and cattle. Four sows would be kept, together with their offspring for short periods. There would not be a large number of mature pigs as had been suggested. Pigs would be kept in woodland. The Applicant noted that the Objector’s property was already surrounded by fields of livestock and the proposed development would be nothing new. Animals would be kept approximately 150m away from Mr Ewing’s house.
In response to further questions, Mr Drever advised that the business plan was based on a 3-year financial breakdown and the site would be developed and upscaled over that period, with an expectation to be reaching full income status by the end of the third year.
Councillor Margaret Brisley, seconded by Councillor Christine Simpson, moved that the Panel approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.
In terms of Standing Order No 66, Councillor Danny Gibson, having moved to refuse the application but having failed to find a seconder, requested that his dissent be recorded.
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.
(Reference: Report by Director of Localities & Infrastructure dated 22 June 2016, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 11.50 am