STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 31 JANUARY 2017 at 10.30 am
Present
Councillor Margaret BRISLEY (in the Chair)
Councillor Scott FARMER
Councillor Danny GIBSON (from item PL495)
Councillor Mike ROBBINS
Councillor Christine SIMPSON
Councillor Jim THOMSON
In Attendance
Stephanie Cameron, Licensing Team Leader, Localities & Infrastructure
Christina Cox, Planning & Building Standards Manager, Localities & Infrastructure
Lindsay Fyfe, Licensing Standards Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Melanie Hamilton, Communication Officer, Chief Executive’s Office
Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Mary Love, Committee Officer, Localities & Infrastructure (Minutes)
Sheila McLean, Governance Officer, Localities & Infrastructure (Clerk)
PL491 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Neil Benny, Councillor
Graham Lambie and Councillor Ian Muirhead, There were no substitutions.
PL492 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
PL493 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
There were no items of urgent business.
PL494 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL – 6 DECEMBER 2016
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the Minutes of Meeting held on 6 December 2016 as an accurate record of proceedings.
Councillor Danny Gibson joined the meeting at this point in the proceedings.
PL495 ERECTION OF FOOTBRIDGE AND ROAD OVER RAIL BRIDGE WITH NEW ROAD AND JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS AT LAND AT AND
SOUTH EAST OF CORNTON RAILWAY CROSSING, CORNTON ROAD, BRIDGE
OF ALLAN - NETWORK RAIL - 16/00802/FUL
A report by the Director of Localities & Infrastructure was submitted to ascertain whether Members of the Planning & Regulation Panel were agreeable to consideration of a Hearing.
No further discussion took place on the application.
Decision
The Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
(Reference: Report by Director of Localities & Infrastructure, dated 25 January 2017, submitted).
PL496 URBAN WOODLAND AND REGENERATION PROPOSALS INCLUDING 4 HOUSE WITH NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED HEARING
The application had been referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Mark Ruskell on the basis of the potential impact of the development proposal on loss of amenity, green space and biodiversity.
At its meeting on 4 October 2016, the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
The Planning and Building Standards Manager introduced and provided information on the background of the application and the recommendations detailed within the report. The report provided information on (a) the site; (b) the proposal; (c) previous history, in particular, para 3.10 which was pertinent to today’s application; (d) Development Plan policy; (e) assessment; and (f) consultations. Nineteen objections were received regarding the application.
The Officer recommendation was to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.
Officers responded to a number of questions from Members.
Agent for Applicant
John MacCallum, JM Planning Services, accompanied by Bobby Halliday, presented the case in support of the application.
Mr MacCallum presented two slides which detailed the condition of the woodland and its transformation as part of regeneration proposals to create an urban woodland, which would provide a much improved and more useable public open space and would meet the Green Corridor zoning objects in the adopted Local Development Plan. The management plan had been costed, based on remedial works to trees in line with the detailed Tree Management Plan; new planting of a multitude of suitable planting species; formation of new paths; and drainage where required, to help with surface water drainage. Future maintenance arrangements for the woodland had also been
fully costed, which would allow the four households to retain control over the woodland, which was no different from any other housing development with common open space being factored to its residents for maintenance responsibility.
Mr MacCallum went on to provide details regarding the long term management plan and added that the commuted sum of £40k had been offered by the applicant, which would be accrued from the profit arising from the four house development and would be used to pay for fourteen years’ worth of tree maintenance costs at £2844/annum, not six years as stated in the Planning report and that by removing these costs from the annual service charge, would reduce the householders’ payments from £1683 to
£972/year.
Mr McCallum added that the debate should be about whether there was a robust woodland management plan, rather than legal opinion, in relation to maintenance costs.
Mr MacCallum highlighted that the application was recommended for approval in October 2016 when it first came before the Panel and was also to have been approved under delegated powers.
Mr MacCallum requested the Panel’s support for planning permission to be granted, subject to a standard Section 75 Agreement and a planning obligation of £40k for long term woodland maintenance, along with an Affordable Housing contribution of
£51,150.
Mr MacCallum responded to a number of questions from Members.
Objectors
Mr Stephen Cranston thanked the Panel for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of Ochiltree in Dunblane, along with the wider community there. Mr Cranston informed the Panel that during his seven year residency in Ochiltree, he had witnessed the landowner incurring considerable expense on trying to achieve a planning gain but highlighted that he had not seen any significant sums being spent on maintenance of the woods.
Mr Cranston went on to detail Scottish Planning Policy – Green Infrastructure, which stated that poor maintenance and neglect should not be used as a justification for development for other purposes. Mr Cranston added that the comments taken from the Draft Local Development Plan, with regard to the site, stated that the site should not be allocated with regard to the loss of landscape, biodiversity and recreational value being unacceptable. Mr Cranston requested that the use of a Compulsory Purchase Order should be considered, as it was felt that the present landowner had no intention of improving the woodland.
Mr Cranston responded to a number of questions from Members.
The Panel then proceeded to consider the application.
Decision
The Panel agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons:
-
In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is contrary to the
Overarching Policy of the Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since the proposals fail to reinforce sense of place and to not provide appropriate measures for the safeguarding of the natural environment. The proposals also fail to comply with the relevant Sustainable Development Criteria as they do not improve the overall quality of the built environment or protect and enhance the natural environment. -
In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is contrary to Primary Policy 1 of the Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, insofar as the design and scale of the proposed houses is out of character with the urban streetscape to which it relates; and the development in its entirety would encroach unsympathetically onto greenfield land, and would fail to safeguard natural heritage.
-
In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is contrary to Policy
1.3 of the Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014 since the
proposals will encroach, unsympathetically, into the green corridor resulting in a net reduction of open space without enhancing the remaining elements of the green network or achieving adequate compensatory measures to mitigate against such loss. -
In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is contrary to Primary Policy 8 and Policy 8.1 of the Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since the proposals will lead to a significant loss of biodiversity without adequate provision being made on or off site to mitigate against such loss.
-
In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is contrary to Primary Policy 10 and Policy 10.1 of the Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014; the Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal, and Scottish Planning Policy (Woodland), since the proposals will result in the removal of woodland without the provision of compensatory planting or achieving significant and clearly defined additional public benefits.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 25 January 2017, submitted).
PL497 CHANGE OF USE OF GRAZING FIELD TO ALLOW THE SITE TO BE USED AS EVENT SPACE INCLUDING CREATION OF AN AREA OF HARDSTANDINGTHE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE FIELD; SURFACING OF VEHICLETRACK TO CONNECT EXISTING EASTERN ACCESS POINT WITH THEACCESS POINT; DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS AND SUBSEQUENTTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AS REQUIRED; CREATION OFCOTTAGE, ROAD WEST, STIRLING - STIRLING COUNCIL -16/00625/FUL
The application had been referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Jim Thomson, in order for the Panel to assess the impact of the development on the Green Belt and the setting of Stirling Castle.
The Planning Officer introduced the report which included details of (a) the site; (b) the proposal; (c) previous history; (d) development plan policy; (e) assessment; and (f) consultations.
There were no objections to the application.
The Officer recommendation was to grant planning permission, subject to Conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report.
Discussion took place regarding the application site and the Planning Officer
responded to a number of questions from Members, in particular, the length of the proposed permission licence sought for the formation of all hardstanding areas, which was for a three year period. In answer to a question regarding whether the licence could be reduced to one year, the Planning Officer replied that he could see no reason why this could not be changed. It was noted that the Planning Service had not sought advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to seek their approval, however, they did consult the Flooding Officer and were informed there were no flooding issues raised.
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons set out in Appendix 1, subject to condition 1 being amended as follows:-
Limited Period for Permission – Hardstanding Areas/tracks: That permission for the formation of all hardstanding areas and access tracks in unbounded aggregate surfacing, as approved, shall be for a limited period of twelve months from the date of this approval. During this timeframe, further details will require to be submitted demonstrating a more sympathetic treatment in “grass concrete” surfacing or similar for the hardstanding areas and access tracks taking account of the historical environment of the location and a timeframe agreed for their implementation. Alternatively, should the option of a more sympathetic treatment not be pursued, then all areas of hard standing shall be removed and the site restored all in accordance with a scheme of restoration which shall be submitted for written approval no less than
three months prior to the cessation of the twelve month period identified in this condition.
(Reference: Report by the Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities &
Infrastructure), dated 25 January 2017, submitted).
ANNUAL CIVIC LICENSING STANDARDS OFFICERS REPORT 2016
The report was submitted for information purposes. The Civic Licensing Standards Officer (CLSO), carried out duties under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
The Licensing Standards Officer introduced the report, which provided details of duties that encompassed elements which ensured conditions imposed were met and ensured public safety.
The Licensing Standards Officer responded to a number of questions from Members. It was noted by Members that it would have been beneficial to have had information detailed in the report regarding actions taken by Police when drivers, charged with offences, were carrying members of the public. The Standards Officer replied that this was the first time this type of report had been created, therefore this additional information could be included in further reports going forward.
Decision
The Panel agreed to note the information contained within the report.
(Reference: Report by Chief Officer – Governance, (Localities & Infrastructure), dated 10 January 2017, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 11.35 am