Service updates

Planning and Regulation Panel - Tuesday 6th December 2016

Last updated

09 Mar 2023

 

STIRLING COUNCIL‌‌‌

 

MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 6 DECEMBER 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, Localities & Infrastructure

Christina Cox, Planning & Building Standards Manager, Localities & Infrastructure
Jay Dawson, Team Leader – Development Management, Localities & Infrastructure
Mary Love, Committee Officer, Localities & Infrastructure (Minutes)

Sheila McLean, Governance Officer, Localities & Infrastructure (Clerk)

 

PL486 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS

 

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Ian Muirhead. There were no substitutions.

 

PL487 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

PL488 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR

 

There were no items of urgent business.

 

PL489 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL – 8 NOVEMBER 2016

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to approve the Minutes of Meeting held on 8 November 2016 as an accurate record of proceedings.

PL490 ERECTION OF 129 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AT ADJACENT AND WEST OF HILLSIDE FARM STEADING, DUNBLANE - DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED & DANDARA LTD - 16/00251/FUL

 

A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised of an application for full planning permission for the erection of 129 dwellings on a site to the south of Dunblane with access via a new road taken from the B8033.

 

The application had been brought before the Planning & Regulation Panel since the applicant had appealed to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) of the Scottish Government, as the Council did not reach a decision within a set timescale. This type of appeal was known as a ‘deemed refusal’. The purpose of the report was to seek an approved position to be adopted by Council officials with respect to the appeal.

 

The officer recommendation was to oppose the appeal proposals for the reasons set out in the submitted report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report, which provided further information on (a) the site; (b) the proposal; (c) Development Plan policy; (d) assessment; and (e) consultations. 55 letters of comment had been received.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to a number of questions from Members.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to oppose the appeal proposals for the following reasons:
Stirling Local Development Plan, Sept 2014:

  1. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Primary Policy 1 (Placemaking) of the Stirling Council: Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since the proposal has not been designed and sited in relation to the character and amenity of the place, it is not of quality with regard to landscape character guidance, it is not located so as to reduce the need to encroach onto greenfield sites whilst maximising sustainability benefits and it does not enhance the natural heritage and respect the Green Belt.

     

  2. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 1.1 (Site Planning) of the Stirling Council: Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since it has not been demonstrated that the proposal respects, complements and connects with its surroundings whilst respecting the site’s topography and surrounding important landmarks, views or skylines. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the design is appropriate to the wider surroundings in terms of appearance, position, height, scale and
    massing. Moreover, existing natural features that contribute to local townscape and biodiversity will not be retained and sensitively integrated into the proposed development whilst the proposed open space has not been designed in a manner so as to create a safe, accessible and inclusive place for people.

     

  3. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 1.5 (Green Belts) of the Stirling Council: Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since residential development would undermine the core role and function of the Dunblane Green Belt.

  4. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Primary Policy 2 (Supporting the Vision and Spatial Strategy) of the Stirling Council: Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since the preferred location for new build development on unallocated sites is within the Core Area and this site lies within the Countryside where development is more constrained.

     

  5. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 2.1 (Housing Land Requirement) of the Stirling Council: Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since this land has not been allocated for housing purposes.

     

  6. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 2.10 (Housing in the Countryside) of the Stirling Council: Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since the proposal relates to housing development in the Countryside but fails to meet any of the criteria set out within this Policy which would enable the proposal to be supported by the Council.

     

  7. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Primary Policy 3 (Provision of Infrastructure) of the Stirling Council: Stirling Local Development Plan, September 2014, since this proposal runs contrary to the Spatial Strategy and will increase the demand for new infrastructure (School Capacity Constraints).

     

  8. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Primary Policy 3 since this proposal could not be accommodated within the existing infrastructure and would prevent the development of the Council’s proposed sites.

     

  9. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Primary Policy 9 (Managing Landscape Change) since the proposal will not protect the integrity, character and special quality of this locally valued landscape. Furthermore, the proposal does not take account of guidance as to the types and scales of development that may be acceptable nor does the proposal include provision for landscape and planting works to maintain or enhance landscape quality and contribute to enhancing the Green Network.

     

  10. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 9.1 (Protecting Special Landscapes) since it has not been demonstrated that the landscape character, scenic interest and qualities for which the area has been designated will not be adversely affected. Moreover, there is not a specific nationally recognised need for the development at this location which could not be satisfied in a less sensitive area.

     

  11. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 9.2 (Landscaping and Planting in Association with Development) since it has not been demonstrated that there are suitable arrangements for the establishment and long-term maintenance of new landscape and planting.

     

    Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan, June 2016:

     

  12. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Primary Policy 2 (Supporting the Vision and Spatial Strategy) since this proposal is not identified in the Proposed Plan for housing. Furthermore, as the site is in the Countryside and within an area designated as Green Belt, it is not consistent with the Vision or Spatial Strategy and would not be a site where development would be allocated.

     

  13. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 2.1 of the Proposed Plan since it is not consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy. The proposal fails to meet the provision of the LDP Overarching Policy, its accompanying Sustainable Development Criteria and other relevant LDP policies. Moreover, it is considered that this proposal will jeopardise the delivery of sites allocated for residential development in the Proposed Plan.

     

    Scottish Planning Policy:

     

  14. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to SPP, specifically but not exclusively, paragraph 29 of SPP since it is not considered that this development supports good design and the six qualities of successful places, contributes to sustainable development specifically making efficient use of existing capacities of land and infrastructure including; supporting delivery of accessible housing; supporting the delivery of infrastructure; protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage. Furthermore, it is considered that granting permission for 129 units at Hillside would undermine the plan-making process by pre-determining decisions about the location of new development within Dunblane and that such decisions are
    central to the emerging plan. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 34 of SPP.

     

  15. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to SPP since this development would result in unsustainable growth in car- based commuting and the suburbanisation of the countryside.

     

  16. In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to SPP (paragraph 194) since the development will not enhance the distinctive landscape character.

 

(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 29 November 2016, submitted).

 

The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 10.50 am