STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 31 MAY 2016 at 10.30 am
Present
Councillor Margaret BRISLEY (in the Chair)
Councillor Neil BENNY
Councillor Scott FARMER
Councillor Danny GIBSON
Councillor Graham LAMBIE
Councillor Mike ROBBINS
Councillor Christine SIMPSON
Councillor Jim THOMSON
In Attendance
Jane Brooks-Burnett, Senior Planning Officer, Corporate Operations
StephanieCameron, Licensing Team Leader, Corporate Operations
Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Corporate Operations
Sian Lower, Communications Officer, Chief Executive’s Service
Peter Morgan, Chief Planning Officer
Neil Pirie, Senior Transport Development Officer, Corporate Operations
Nichola Walker, Private Rented Housing Enforcement Officer, Housing & Environment
Gregor Wightman, Property & Private Sector Housing Manager, Housing & Environment
Sheila McLean, Committee Officer, Corporate Operations (Clerk)
PL437 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Ian Muirhead. There were no substitutions.
PL438 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
PL439 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
There were no items of urgent business.
PL440 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL – 3 MAY 2016
Decision
The Minutes of Meeting held on 3 May 2016 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.
PL441 CONTINUATION OF QUARRYING, NEW ACCESS ROAD AND PUBLIC CAR PARK RESTORATION PROPOSALS AT MURRAYSHALL QUARRY,PATERSONSLTD – 14/00742/FUL
A report by the Director of Corporate Operations advised of an application for the continuation of quarrying and associated works at Murrayshall Quarry, Stirling.
Members were invited to consider whether the application be the subject of a Hearing at a future meeting of the Panel, due to the level of interest that had been generated by the proposal.
No further discussion took place on the application.
Decision
The Panel agreed to defer consideration of this application pending a Hearing at a future meeting of the Panel.
(Reference: Report by Director of Corporate Operations dated 24 May 2016,
submitted).
PL442 ERECTION OF MANAGED STUDENT ACCOMMODATION WITH ASSOCIATED AND LANDSCAPING AT LAND ADJACENT TO CHANDLERS COURT,FORTHSIDE)(STIRLING) LTD – 15/00790/FUL – HEARING
A report by the Director of Corporate Operations advised of an application for the erection of managed student accommodation with associated works at land adjacent to Chandlers Court, Shore Road, Riverside, Stirling.
The application had been brought to the Planning & Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Gerry McLaughlan, who wished issues of lack of parking, scale of development and being not in accordance with the masterplan to be assessed.
At its meeting on 29 March 2016, the Panel had agreed to defer consideration of the application to allow a hearing to take place.
The Senior 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. Thirteen letters of objection had been received.
The proposal was for two buildings providing student accommodation of mixed units and communal facilities.
The first building would be six storeys on the west side, but would achieve two storeys as it progressed down the site towards the river, resulting in an eight storey building when viewed from the north. The greater mass of the building was the pitched roof element. The second building was a two storey structure located to the north of the site.
The report detailed proposals for landscaping, parking, cycle parking and bin storage. Six parking spaces were proposed to the front of the building, together with a total of 176 cycle parking spaces. Arrangements for site security and management were detailed.
The site had extant consent granted planning permission for a riverbank block as part of a wider residential development within the Forthside area.
Policy considerations were detailed within the report. Primary Policy 3.1 along with Policy 3.1 sought to ensure that new development was located to provide safe and convenient access by walking, cycling and public transport as well as by motor vehicles. The proposal complied with most of Policy 3.1, however it was noted that the developer sought a car free development and would put in place barriers to car use within the tenancy agreement. The Council’s Roads Service had recommended that the application be refused since the site did not lie within a Controlled Parking Zone and did not meet the guidance set out in SG14. The applicant had submitted a Transport Statement providing support for the lack of parking within the proposal and outlining proposals for 176 cycle parking spaces along with very limited car parking spaces for staff and disabled users within the 165 unit development.
It was acknowledged that the proposal failed to fully satisfy Policy 3.1 and SG14, however it was a city centre site and the applicant would seek to ensure that car ownership was restricted.
In summary, it was considered that this purpose-built development provided an alternative to numerous Houses in Multiple Occupation, something which the Council had sought to control through SG05 (Houses in Multiple Occupation, Revised Supplementary Guidance SG05 & Overprovision Policy).
The officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to a number of questions from Members.
It was confirmed that, although the developer proposed to include a no-car clause in the tenancy agreement, this was not something that could be controlled by Planning.
Members had concerns in relation to accessibility for the disabled and the level of disabled parking proposed. It was advised that internal arrangements in respect of accessibility would be a matter for Building Standards and not Planning.
Further concerns were raised over whether the accommodation could be used for holiday lets during the summer. It was confirmed that the application was for student accommodation and that any change of use would require the relevant permissions.
Applicant
Martyn Roe of Empiric Student Property, together with their Agent, Gordon Beaton, presented the case in support of the development.
Mr Roe outlined the firm’s experience in providing modern, premium student
accommodation in top university towns and cities across the country. He lived locally and considered that Stirling should also have the opportunity to get the economic benefits that the accommodation would provide.
The firm catered primarily for international students, postgraduates and later year undergraduates. The University was supportive of the proposals.
The proposed development would reduce the burden on House in Multiple Occupation properties within the city centre. Mr Roe stated that the Community Council were generally welcoming of the proposals, but that Empiric would attend local meetings to address any issues that might arise around parking or anti-social behaviour.
A clause would be included within the tenancy agreement to restrict car ownership and the use of cycling, walking and public transport would be promoted.
The proposed layout had evolved through consultation with the Planning Service and in response to issues raised during the consultation process. The lowest floor had been positioned at a level above the established flood level. Further information was given on the design and materials to be used.
Mr Roe and Mr Beaton responded to a number of questions from Members.
Members repeated their concerns over accessibility for disabled students. In response to questions around the use of the development during the summer, Mr Roe advised that they would provide 51-week tenancies and there would therefore be no provision for additional use in the summer.
Mr Roe confirmed that the car-free development was not enforceable in law, but that in Empiric’s experience, the relevant clause in tenancy agreements discouraged car ownership. In response to a suggestion that Stirling University had a high car ownership due to its location and the types of courses offered, Mr Roe advised that Stirling specific research had not been undertaken in this regard, but the firm had large sample sizes of student behaviour on which to base their proposal.
The number of proposed disabled parking spaces had been based on the normal numbers across the firm’s accommodation portfolio. It was noted that no more than two staff members would be present and using the spaces at any given time.
Objectors
Isabel Gorska spoke on behalf of Riverside Community Council and Stirling Area Access Panel against the proposal.
Mrs Gorska began by disputing the Developer’s claim that the Community Council had indicated its general support for the development.
It was considered that the proposal did not comply with the Local Development Plan and would impact negatively on the surrounding area and buildings. Riverside was already over-subscribed with Houses in Multiple Occupation and this type of development would be better suited at the University. The proposal was a gross over-development of the site with no footprint left for car parking. Existing parking problems in the area would be compounded and the proposals would lead to further traffic congestion and create problems for service and emergency vehicles entering or leaving the site.
There was a lack of adequate parking for both cars and cycles. Car use at Stirling Universitywas high and it was evident that the developer had not undertaken the necessary research. The lack of disabled parking made the proposal non-compliant with the Equality 2010 Act. Mrs Gorska set out the number of parking and cycle spaces which the Community Council considered to be required.
There were concerns over flood risk and erosion of the riverbank and full risk
assessments must be undertaken.
The building was considered to be unsuitable for disabled students and infringed the Equality 2010 Act. The Chief Planning Officer advised Members that this was a matter for Building Standards and not a planning consideration.
Mrs Gorska suggested that Section 75 monies from the development should be used in the Riverside area. The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that no Section 75 monies were payable in respect of this development.
Mrs Gorska responded to a number of questions from Members of the Panel.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees to approve the application subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.”
Proposed by Councillor Jim Thomson, seconded by Councillor Neil Benny.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees to refuse the application for the following reasons:-
-
the application is not in accordance with supplementary guidance SG14 as there is a lack of car parking in general and insufficient disabled parking;
-
the scale of the development is unsuitable for the site.”
Proposed by Councillor Scott Farmer, seconded by Councillor Margaret Brisley.
For the Amendment (6) Councillor Margaret Brisley
Councillor Scott Farmer
Councillor Danny Gibson
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Mike Robbins
Councillor Christine Simpson
Against the Amendment (2) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Jim Thomson
The Amendment was carried by 6 votes to 2 and became the Substantive Motion. For the Substantive Motion (6) Councillor Margaret Brisley
Councillor Scott Farmer
Councillor Danny Gibson
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Mike Robbins
Councillor Christine Simpson
Against the Substantive Motion (2) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Jim Thomson
Decision
The Substantive Motion was carried by 6 votes to 2, and accordingly the Panel agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons:-
-
the application was not in accordance with supplementary guidance SG14 as there was a lack of car parking in general and insufficient disabled parking;
-
the scale of the development was unsuitable for the site.
(Reference: Report by Director of Corporate Operations dated 24 May 2016,
submitted).
PL443 DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION – FIRST TIME APPLICATION – 20 BLENHEIM COURT,STIRLING, FK9 5EA
The Property & Private Sector Housing Manager introduced a report by the Director of Housing & Environment, which advised of an application for a house in multiple occupation licence at 20 Blenheim Court, Causewayhead, Stirling.
The licence application was for a licence in the name of the sole owner and managing agent.
Planning permission was not required for a ‘change of use’ as the property was a house and the applicant was proposing an occupancy level of up to four occupants.
The property fell within the combined boundary of the Castle, Stirling East, Stirling West and Dunblane & Bridge of Allan electoral wards. In terms of the Council’s Revised Supplementary Guidance SG05 and Overprovision Policy for Houses in Multiple Occupation, new first time applications would not be supported in this area, as the current concentration level was 1.18%.
The applicant was notified that the application was being refused as it breached policy, and had lodged an appeal in accordance with the determination process set out in the policy.
The Panel was invited to consider the grounds of appeal and to determine the
application.
The officer recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the submitted report.
The applicant and his agent were present. In the interest of fairness and as there were no objections to the application, the Panel agreed to a request by the applicant’s Agent to address the Panel.
Officers confirmed that the 1% threshold was currently exceeded and that the terms of the policy had been correctly interpreted.
Decision
The Panel agreed to refuse the application on the following grounds:-
-
the application would breach the concentration threshold set out in the Revised Supplementary Guidance SG05 & Overprovision Policy that came in to force on 29 October 2015 as set out in Appendix 1 of the policy document;
-
the applicant had not set out any exceptional circumstances as required in Appendix 1 of the policy in the applicant’s letter of appeal dated 12 April 2016.
(Reference: Report by Director of Housing & Environment dated 25 April 2016,
submitted).
PL444 TAXI UNMET DEMAND SURVEY
At its meeting on 11 September 2012, the Panel had agreed to continue to limit the number of taxi vehicles to 69. The decision was reached following a Taxi Vehicle Unmet Demand Survey which found that, at that time, there was no significant unmet demand for taxis within the Stirling Council area.
It was further agreed that this survey be carried out every three years.
The Licensing Team Leader introduced a report by the Director of Corporate
Operations, which submitted an updated Taxi Vehicle Unmet Demand Survey and invited Members to consider a number of proposals on the way forward.
Discussion took place on the case for and against setting a limit on the number of taxi vehicle licences and it was agreed that this be investigated further before the Panel took a decision on whether or not to continue the existing limit of 69.
Decision
The Panel agreed:-
-
to note the findings of the Taxi Vehicle Unmet Demand Survey, that there was no significant unmet demand for taxis within the Stirling Council Area:
-
that officers bring a report back to a future meeting of the Panel providing information on how neighbouring authorities address the number of taxi vehicle licences and setting out options and the consequences if Stirling Council was minded to continue or remove the limit on the number taxi vehicle licences.
-
to issue restricted plates for rural areas as per paragraph 3.10 of the submitted report;
-
to note the findings in relation to accessible vehicles and rank issues and for officers to liaise with relevant stakeholders and bring a review of accessible vehicles back to a future meeting;
-
to note the finding that the number of private hire vehicles continued to be unrestricted and acknowledge the need for greater publicising of private hire vehicles for night time peak demand.
-
that officers investigate the setting up of a Taxi & Private Hire Forum.
-
to note the finding of improving customer and quality standards and for officers to gather information on training and report back to a future meeting of the Planning & Regulation Panel with proposals on this regard.
(Reference: Report by Director of Corporate Operations dated 19 May 2016,
submitted).
The Panel resolved that under Section 50A (4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public be excluded from the Meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local
Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
PL445 DISABLED PERSON’S PARKING BADGE (BLUE BADGE)
The Public Transport Co-ordination Team Leader introduced a report by the Director of Communities & Partnerships, which advised of an appeal against the refusal of a disabled person’s parking badge.
Copies of the application form, desk based assessment and independent mobility assessment report were attached as appendices to the report.
The report included details of the guidance set out in The Blue Badge Scheme
(Scotland): Code of Practice for Local Authorities and the relevant Regulations.
Decision
The Panel agreed to uphold the decision not to award a Blue Badge to the applicant at this time, based on the information submitted by the applicant and the subsequent Independent Mobility Assessment of the application carried out by a Senior Occupational Therapist in accordance with the national scheme.
(Reference: Report by Director of Communities & Partnerships dated 29 April 2016, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 12.55 pm