STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 6 SEPTEMBER 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 Ian MUIRHEAD
Councillor Mike ROBBINS
Councillor Christine SIMPSON
Councillor Jim THOMSON
In Attendance
Richard Barron, Senior Access Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Jay Dawson, Team Leader – Development Management, Localities & Infrastructure Stephen Easton, Traffic Management Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Deborah Kilpatrick, Communications Officer, Chief Executive’s Office
Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Sheila McLean, Committee Officer, Localities & Infrastructure (Clerk)
PL459 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
There were no apologies or substitutions.
PL460 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
PL461 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
In terms of Standing Order 35, the Chair advised of an issue which she wished to bring to the Panel as Urgent Business, due to the timescales involved.
Continuation of Quarrying, New Access Road and Public Car Park including Restoration Proposals at Murrayshall Quarry, Polmaise Road to Carron Reservoir, Stirling – Patersons Quarries Ltd – 14/00742/FUL
At its meeting on 2 August 2016, the Panel had considered a report on a planning application for the continuation of quarrying and associated works at Murrayshall Quarry, Polmaise Road to Carron Reservoir, Stirling.
The purpose of that report had been to seek the Panel’s decision on the position to be adopted by Council officials in respect of an appeal by the applicant to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) of the Scottish Government as the Council had not reached a decision within a set timescale.
At the meeting on 2 August 2016, the Panel had agreed to oppose the application, that a full assessment be submitted addressing key points, noted the input of Community Councils and to request that the most appropriate procedure for the handling of the appeal should be by holding one or more formal inquiry sessions on specific matters.
The Clerk advised that only those Members who had been present at the meeting on 2 August should take part in the debate and accordingly Councillor Ian Muirhead withdrew from discussion for the duration of the item.
The Team Leader – Development Management advised Members of a communication from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) requesting clarity from the Council on what matters it considered ought to be the subject of an inquiry session. A response was required by the deadline of 15 September 2016. In response to questions around whether consultation with the community should be undertaken, the Officer confirmed that the request was a technical matter which sought reiteration of the Panel’s views.
In response to questions, the Team Leader provided information on the processes followed by the DPEA when considering appeals.
Members reaffirmed their view that it was of key importance that an Inquiry take place. It was also important that Cambusbarron Community Council be kept informed of events and that previous Council decisions in relation to this site were noted.
Decision
The Panel agreed:-
-
to note the communication from the Planning and Environmental Appeals
Division(DPEA) requesting clarity from the Council on what matters it
considers ought to be the subject of an inquiry session; -
that, subject to (3) below, the key matters should be:-
-
Traffic matters
-
Environmental health matters
-
Environmental issues
-
Demonstration of need for further extraction at the site
-
-
to instruct officers to provide Members of the Panel with a copy of a draft
response to the DPEA, inviting Members to submit any comments by Tuesday 13 September 2016; -
to instruct officers to send the agreed response to DPEA by the deadline of 16 September 2016, such response to reiterate the Council’s request that the most appropriate procedure for the handling of this appeal should be by holding one or more formal inquiry sessions on specific matters;
-
to instruct officers to advise Cambusbarron Community Council of the
correspondence from DPEA, the Panel’s discussions today and the agreed
response to DPEA.
PL462 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL - 2 AUGUST 2016
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the Minutes of Meeting held on 2 August 2016 as an accurate record of proceedings, subject to the deletion of the words ‘Kings Park’ at the seventh bullet point in paragraph PL458 and noting that Members had raised concerns regarding the extraction of 600,000 tonnes (paragraph PL458 refers).
PL463 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING, ALTERATIONS TO AND ERECTION OF 6 STUDENT FLATS (CLASSIFIED AS-
16/00266/FUL
A report by the Senior Manager – Infrastructure advised of an application for proposed works to create student flats at land to the rear of 21 Dumbarton Road East, Stirling.
The application had been referred to the Panel at the request of Councillor Christine Simpson on the grounds that the proposed flats would block out daylight and sunlight to the adjoining flats and compromise the privacy of existing residents. A Hearing had been requested.
It was proposed that a site visit also take place.
The officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.
No further discussion took place on the application.
Decision
The Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit and Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 30 August 2016, submitted).
As they had not attended the site visit, Councillors Neil Benny, Scott Farmer and Graham Lambie left the Meeting at this point and took no part in consideration of the following item.
PL464 ERECTION OF A DWELLING, DETACHED GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED ACCESSPRINCIPLE AT LAND ADJACENT TO EAST OF HOGWOOD HOUSE, - MRS ELIZABETH K CLARK - 16/00235/PPP - HEARING
A report by the Senior Manager – Infrastructure advised of an application for the erection of a dwelling, detached garage and associated access in principle at land adjacent to the east of Hogwood House, Thornhill.
The application had been referred to the Panel at the request of Councillor Martin Earl on grounds of the current policy relating to new housing development in the countryside.
At its meeting on 2 August 2016, the Panel had agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit and Hearing. The site visit had taken place on 1 September 2016. A note of the site visit had been made available to Members and is attached as an Appendix to these Minutes.
The Chair outlined the process for the Hearing.
The Planning Officer introduced the report, which provided information on (a) the site;
(b) the proposal; (c) previous history; (d) development plan policy; (e) assessment; and
(f) consultations. There had been no objections to the application.
The Officer advised that the determining factors in respect of this application were contained within Policy 2.10 of the Local Development Plan and the associated Supplementary Guidance SG10. It was accepted that the proposed site complied with the spatial requirements of Policy 2.10, but as the proposal represented a linear extension of a building group, it must comply with policy provisions requiring a ‘topographical stop’. It was considered that the proposal did not meet this requirement.
It was also considered that the proposed rear access made the proposal contrary to Primary Policy 1, as the development would not contribute to ‘sense of place’ and Policy 1.1 as it would not respect the topography of the site or the predominant patter of frontages within the group.
Further, granting of the proposal could act as a catalyst for further development in the field where the site was located.
The Council’s Transport Development had offered no objections provided a number of conditions were applied and these were detailed in paragraph 4.7 of the submitted report.
The officer responded to a number of questions from Members.
Applicant
The Panel then heard from the Applicant, Elizabeth Clark, and her Agent, Paul
Houghton, with graphics shown in support of their presentation.
Mr Houghton advised the Panel that the applicant owned the site and the remainder of the field, and lived locally at Shandon Wood, past which the access for the plot would be taken. It was the applicant’s intention to build the house herself and rent it out as part of diversifying the family’s farming and stonework business.
The two main issues were the acceptability of the plot in relation to the Housing in the Countryside Policy and the acceptability of the access solution.
The speed limit on the A873 at Ruskie had recently been reduced and the Council’s Roads Service had advised that no new accesses would be allowed on to it. The Applicant had the right to use a closer access, but this was shared, with poor visibility. The proposed access at Shandon had been designed with appropriate visibility splays and could be upgraded. The downside of this was that it would create a long route, but upgrading would also benefit a neighbouring property. The proposed track would
not be greatly visible and need not be lit, so would have little landscape impact, and little impact on other neighbours.
Ruskie was generally accepted as being a settlement, although it was not defined as such in terms of Stirling’s Local Development Plan.
Mr Houghton referred to the Housing in the Countryside policy approach to building groups and clusters. The term ‘topographical stop’ had been considered broadly by the Council and dwellings had been accepted where none existed, but could be created. A graphic showed consented and pending applications in the vicinity. It was considered that the application plot related well to the western cluster.
There was no obvious topographical stop to the south and east, but this could be created and an appropriate condition set. As regards suggestions that approval might lead to further houses in the field, access arrangements would be likely to limit this and, in any event, the applicant had control of the field and only intended to build on the one plot within it.
It was intended to maintain the highway hedgerow, but this could be removed and replaced by a stone dyke if required. The level of the house could also be raised if this was considered necessary.
The Applicant, Mrs Clark, then addressed the Panel. She advised that building of the house would strengthen her business and create employment. The house would ideally take the form of a 1.5 storey stone and slate design and be used as a holiday let, to rent locally or to accommodate staff. Neighbours had not raised any concerns.
The Applicant and her Agent responded to a number of questions from Members.
The Planning Officer explained the current position around each of the consented and pending applications shown on the graphic presented by the Applicant’s Agent.
Discussion took place around the suggestion by the Applicant that the property might be used as a holiday let. Officers confirmed that the application was for a dwellinghouse and it would not be appropriate to set a condition against a particular use unless this had been applied for. Further, any future applications in the area would be considered on their own merits.
Motion
“The Panel agrees to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.”
Proposed by Councillor Margaret Brisley, seconded by Councillor Danny Gibson.
Amendment
“The Panel agrees to approve the application subject to an appropriate condition requiring the creation of a topographical stop and further conditions as set out in paragraph 4.7 of the submitted report in relation to visibility sightlines, access, parking and waste collection.”
Proposed by Councillor Ian Muirhead, seconded by Councillor Mike Robbins.
On the roll being called, the Members present voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (3) Councillor Ian Muirhead
CouncillorMike Robbins
Councillor Jim Thomson
Against the Amendment (3) Councillor Margaret Brisley
Councillor Danny Gibson
Councillor Christine Simpson
There being an equality of votes, the Chair cast her casting vote against the
amendment and the Amendment fell by 4 votes to 3.
For the Motion (3) Councillor Margaret Brisley
Councillor Danny Gibson
Councillor Christine Simpson
Against the Motion (3) Councillor Ian Muirhead
CouncillorMike Robbins
Councillor Jim Thomson
Decision
There being an equality of votes, the Chair cast her casting vote for the Motion and the Motion was carried by 4 votes to 3. Accordingly, the Panel agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons:-
-
In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is contrary to Stirling Council’s Local Development Plan Primary Policy 1 and Policy 1.1 since it is considered that the proposal would not satisfy the Council’s ‘Placemaking’ objectives as the development would not respect the topography of the existing building group or the established pattern of frontages to the public road.
-
In the opinion of the Planning Authority the application is contrary to Stirling Council’sLocal Development Plan Policy 2.10 and Supplementary Guidance SG10, since it is considered that the proposed house plot represents a unsympathetic extension of a building group given the absence of an appropriate ‘topographic stop’.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 17 August 2016, submitted).
In terms of Standing Order 77, the Panel adjourned at 11.50 am and reconvened at 12 Noon. Councillors Neil Benny, Scott Farmer and Graham Lambie rejoined the Meeting at this point.
PL465 STIRLING COUNCIL (VARIOUS STREETS, CAMBUSBARRON) (PROHIBITIONRESTRICTION ON WAITING) (CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT NO. 3)2015
At its meeting on 2 August 2016, the Panel had considered a report by the Director of Localities & Infrastructure which advised of a proposal to introduce “no waiting at any time” parking restrictions along part of Douglas Terrace, Cambusbarron.
At that meeting, the Panel had agreed to instruct officers to investigate alternative options which could accommodate the needs of disabled residents and to bring a report back to this meeting.
The Traffic Management Officer introduced a report by the Senior Manager –
Environment & Place, which reported the outcome of these further investigations. He advised that Officers had looked at a number of options, but had concluded that there were no alternative options available other than the making of a disabled bay close to the property of the disabled resident and based on a successful application for a disabled bay being presented to the Council.
Appendix 7 to the report illustrated the location of the proposed restrictions and a suggested location for a disabled bay.
It was noted that, since the previous meeting, both supporters and objectors had made further communication with officers and opinions within the community remained divided.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees to make the Stirling Council (Various Streets, Cambusbarron) (Prohibition and Restriction on Waiting) (Consolidation and Amendment No.3) Order 2015 with revisions as shown on in Appendix 7 to the submitted report.”
Proposed by Councillor Jim Thomson, seconded by Councillor Mike Robbins.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees:-
-
to refuse to make the Stirling Council (Various Streets, Cambusbarron)
(Prohibition and Restriction on Waiting) (Consolidation and Amendment No.3) Order 2015; -
that a report be brought back to the Panel or its equivalent after a period of eight months to review the situation.”
Proposed by Councillor Christine Simpson, seconded by Councillor Scott Farmer.
For the Amendment (7) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Margaret Brisley
Councillor Scott Farmer
Councillor Danny Gibson
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Ian Muirhead
Councillor Christine Simpson
Against the Amendment (2) Councillor Mike Robbins
Councillor Jim Thomson
The Amendment was carried by 7 votes to 2 and became the Substantive Motion.
For the Substantive Motion (7) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Margaret Brisley
Councillor Scott Farmer
Councillor Danny Gibson
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Ian Muirhead
Councillor Christine Simpson
Against the Substantive Motion (2) Councillor Mike Robbins
Councillor Jim Thomson
Decision
The Substantive Motion was carried by 7 votes to 2 and accordingly, the Panel
agreed:-
-
to refuse to make the Stirling Council (Various Streets, Cambusbarron)
(Prohibition and Restriction on Waiting) (Consolidation and Amendment No.3) Order 2015; -
that a report be brought back to the Panel or its equivalent after a period of eight months to review the situation.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Environment and Place (Localities and Infrastructure) dated 24 August 2016, submitted).
PL466 LAND REFORM (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 APPLICATION TO DIVERT CORE PATH
- LEGAL NO. 00019 (ENTRANCE TO SAUCHIEBURN ESTATE CORE PATH NO.
9078BB/63)
The Senior Access Officer introduced a report by the Senior Manager – Infrastructure, which advised of an application to divert a core path at the entrance to Sauchieburn Estate to the south west of Stirling close to Chartershall.
Members were advised that the landowners, Spectrum Properties, had applied to remove the core path designation from 470m (approx.) of the driveway to Sauchieburn House and replace it with an alternative path to run through the woodland and grass to the side of the drive equalling a distance of 510m (approx).
The landowner had already partially built the proposed diversion and put in two seats, a picnic bench and signs diverting people off the existing core path and on to the proposed diversion. They had also installed electric gates that would block the existing core path alignment for all users when the gates were fully operational and closed.
The landowner had requested the diversion following a risk assessment carried out by a consultant who had identified that there was a high risk of accident to people using the driveway. Although the proposed diversion was 510m long, the landowner had indicated that there were obvious points along the proposed diversion where access takers could, if they so desired, walk back on to the main driveway.
Consultation with the Stirling Area Local Access Forum (SALAF) members and Carron ValleyCommunity Council resulted in eleven responses, eight of which objected to the proposal.
The objections could be summed up in two groups:
-
The proposed diversion was less robust than the existing path, potentially hazardous and not suitable for some existing users such as those with wheelchairs, buggies, prams and bicycles.
-
That the rationale used to demonstrate that the diversion was necessary on safety grounds was flawed. The diversion would not fully mitigate the safety issues and might increase some at its egress points.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 set out two tests for any proposed diversion. Members were advised that the application met one of those tests, but not the other.
The proposal was discussed by the SALAF at its meeting of 18 August 2016. They unanimously agreed to recommend that the Council reject the request to divert the core path.
The Officer provided clarification on a legal issue which had been raised by a member of the public in a consultation response as set out in Appendix 3 to the report. He confirmed that the Council could review its core path plan when it considered that to be appropriate, or when directed to do so by Scottish Ministers. The Panel could therefore take a decision on the matter before it. Members of the Panel confirmed that they did not wish to review the plan at this time and the officer confirmed that no direction had been received by Ministers. It was noted that there would be a change to legislation later in the year to allow single core paths to be diverted without the need to review the whole core path plan.
The Officer confirmed that, in the event of refusal, the Council had the necessary powers to ensure that the decision was enforced.
Decision
The Panel, having agreed that they did not wish to review the core paths plan at this time, agreed to refuse the application to approve the proposed diversion of the core path and instruct officers to use all their available powers to ensure that the current core path is not obstructed or any deterrents to its use are present.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 29 August 2016, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 12.25 pm
Appendix
PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL SITE VISIT
THURSDAY 1 SEPTEMBER 2016
Present:
Councillor Margaret Brisley (Chair)
Councillor Danny Gibson
Councillor Ian Muirhead
Councillor Mike Robbins
Councillor Christine Simpson
Councillor Jim Thomson
Apologies
Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Scott Farmer
Councillor Graham Lambie
In Attendance:
Jay Dawson, Team Leader – Development Management, Localities & Infrastructure Mary Love, Committee Support Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
ERECTION OF A DWELLING, DETACHED GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS IN
PRINCIPLE AT LAND ADJACENT TO EAST OF HOGWOOD HOUSE, THORNHILL -
MRS ELIZABETH K CLARK - 16/00235/PPP
This application had been referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Martin Earl, on grounds of the current policy relating to new housing development in the countryside. Councillor Earl had further suggested that a site meeting was important to inform the Panel and requested that the Panel defer their decision for a Hearing so that the
applicants could address the Panel.
The group gathered on the main road to discuss the proposed development, however, due to the overgrown hedging, it was not possible to view the site from this point. The Team Leader for Development Management addressed Members of the Planning & Regulation Panel and briefly outlined the detail on the map, discussing the proposed access point, which would be from an access track from a western garden boundary. He advised the group that the agent for the applicant would provide a map at the Planning & Regulation Panel meeting scheduled for 6 September, which would highlight the areas with planning consent.
The question was raised as to whether there would be direct access to the proposed site from the main road. The Development Manager Team Leader explained that this was not sought as Roads Development would recommend refusal in the interests of road safety.
The group then viewed the proposed development from an area further east, at the bottom of the field within the proposed site. The main issue was that the proposed development would not respect the topography of the existing building group as it would not be a natural extension to the existing area.
The site visit concluded at 10.05 am.