STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, THURSDAY 13 APRIL 2017 at 10.30 am
Present
Councillor Margaret BRISLEY (in the Chair)
Councillor Neil BENNY
Councillor Scott FARMER
Councillor Danny GIBSON
Councillor Graham LAMBIE
In Attendance
Councillor Ian MUIRHEAD (from item
PL513)
Councillor Mike ROBBINS
Councillor Christine SIMPSON
Councillor Jim THOMSON
Jim Boyle, Chief Officer – Finance, Localities & Infrastructure
Jane Brooks-Burnett, Senior Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Christina Cox, Planning & Building Standards Manager, Localities & Infrastructure
Jay Dawson, Team Leader – Development Management, Localities & Infrastructure
Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Sian Lower, Communications Officer, Children, Communities & Enterprise
Jim McGregor, Network Management Team Leader, Localities & Infrastructure
Neil Pirie, Senior Control Development Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Iain Strachan, Chief Officer – Governance (Clerk to item PL513)
Sheila McLean, Governance Officer, Localities & Infrastructure (Clerk from item PL514)
Mary Love, Committee Officer, Localities & Infrastructure (Minutes)
Also Present
Councillor Graham Houston
Councillor Alasdair Macpherson
PL508 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
There were no apologies or substitutions.
Agenda
The Chair intimated her intention to alter the order of the Agenda. The items were taken in the order minuted below.
PL509 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
PL510 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
There were no items of urgent business.
PL511 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL – 28 FEBRUARY 2017
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the Minutes of Meeting held on 28 February 2017 as an accurate record of proceedings.
PL512 PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT LAND
SOME 100 METRES NORTH OF DUNBLANE CEMETERY, BARBUSH, DUNBLANE
– GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS – 16/00774/PPP
Gladman Developments Limited were seeking planning permission in principle for residential development at Barbush in Dunblane. A planning permission in principle application meant that details such as layout, housing types, parking, landscaping etc. were confirmed in future application(s). The application was brought to Planning & Regulation Panel as it was a Major planning application under the terms of The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.
The Planning Officer introduced the report 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; (d) Development Plan policy; (e) assessment; and (f) consultations.
The Planning Officer responded to a number of questions from Members.
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and a Section 75 legal agreement to address affordable housing, play and waste contributions.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 April 2017, submitted).
Councillor Ian Muirhead joined the meeting at this point of the proceedings.
PL513 RE-CONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING OVERBRIDGE AT OVERBRIDGE TO NORTH OF KERSE ROAD ROUNDABOUT, KERSE ROAD, STIRLING - NETWORK- 17/00002/FUL – HEARING
The application had been referred to Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Gerry McLaughlan in order to allow the Panel to assess the potential impacts of the application on the Stirling City area as a result of the Kerse Road closure.
Councillor McLaughlan had also made a request for a Hearing.
At its meeting on 28 February 2017, the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application to a hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
The Chair outlined the process for the Hearing.
The Chair informed the Panel that this application would not be taking into
consideration the proposed road closure and that the decision for that matter would come to a future Planning & Regulation Panel Meeting under regulatory items once the transport assessment and traffic management plan had been submitted.
The question arose within the Panel with regard to how they could consider this application without having all the relevant stipulations and guidance available and without considering the effect the road closure would have on traffic, due to no traffic assessment plan and traffic management plan being available at this time.
The Planning & Building Standards Manager advised that how and when the
development was to be constructed was not a material planning consideration. The traffic management plan differed because of the length of time proposed for a potential new traffic management arrangement to be put in place, therefore it was felt that a traffic assessment would look at what the traffic management arrangements would be and it was common in circumstances such as these for applications to be assessed separately and to apply a negative suspensive condition, as with this application. The Planning & Building Standards Manager clarified that a negative suspensive condition
meant enforcement which prohibited development unless conditions had been met, therefore no consent would be given to proceed with the development until this had been accomplished.
Discussion then took place around traffic mitigation and it was noted that around twenty two thousand vehicles were displaced during the temporary road closure in February this year. The Network Management Team Leader advised that officers had been in the community assessing the traffic during the temporary closure and that the main issues were down to local knowledge. Junctions were affected by congestion which caused blockages in the traffic flow. He added that work regarding final mitigation measures was still ongoing.
The Chair highlighted to the Panel that the discussion was veering towards traffic issues, which were not relevant for consideration at this time.
In response to a question from a Member as to what the legal case would be if the Panel considered/agreed today’s application rather than defer until receipt of the traffic assessment, the Planning & Building Standards Manager explained that the Planning Authority had a duty to determine a planning application when it was ready and the view of the Planning Authority was that this particular application was ready to be determined, subject to a negative suspensive condition.
Applicant’s Agent
Nicola Slaven, Town Planner, presented an overview on behalf of Network Rail, in support of the application, which outlined plans for routes to be electrified within the Stirling-Dunblane-Alloa rail line. It was noted that this work was planned to be completed by December 2018. The work was part of a wide range of an extensive programme throughout Scotland and would deliver significant benefits on the Stirling
– Dunblane – Alloa route, which would include improvement in peak capacity and reduced travel times between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Network Rail would now have to comply with new standards of wire heights. A temporary bridge was planned to be used and it was hoped to seek a one way traffic flow during this period. Network Rail were working closely with the Environmental Health Office. Network Rail were requesting approval of this application, which would provide a modern structured bridge that would enhance pedestrian provision and would utilise the existing footprint.
Nicola Slaven then responded to a number of questions from the Panel. In response to a particular question from a Member around the impact caused to the programme, should the Panel refuse the application, Ms Slaven replied that it was difficult to say at this stage and added that Network Rail would have to reflect on this decision and look for a new approach, however, there was an option to appeal to the Scottish Government. She added that this would have an impact on programme delivery.
The design of the proposed bridge was discussed at length and Members questioned whether any thought had been given to produce a more innovative bridge to mirror the £8.4m bridge already provided by Stirling Council. Nicola Slaven responded by informing the Panel that as Kerse Road was a major route, the proposed bridge design had to serve a purpose and meet certain standards such as safety and containment, hence the concrete parapet to protect pedestrians from electrocution. Glass and steel would therefore be inappropriate for this purpose.
Paul Reilly, Programme Manager added that Network Rail would need to reflect on this decision, should it be made, and highlighted that the priority was to deliver in order for new trains to run by December 2018 and if this was not met within this timescale, Network Rail would not be able to proceed with electrifying trains on this route.
Objectors
Andrew Rettie, Managing Director, McCaskie Country Stores, introduced himself to the Panel and added that he was invited last week to attend today’s meeting, however, due to the decision not to discuss the effect of traffic impact today, Mr Rettie remarked that he was now faced with a planning decision and questioned why he was at the meeting. The Chair advised Mr Rettie that he was being given the opportunity to talk about the disruption and impact this work would have on his business.
Andrew Rettie went on to provide an overview of his business, which was long
established and employed 55+ staff. He highlighted that Network Rail knew about these works for 4 years but had only given businesses 4 months to prepare. He went on to discuss the effect the temporary closure in February had on his business, which saw a huge downfall in customers coming into the premises. The potential traffic impact on his business due to the possible long term closure of Kerse Road would result due to: lack of a traffic assessment; road blockages; the increase in commute time and the impact on the local neighbourhood. He outlined the impact to trade and the potential monetary loss, estimated at hundreds of thousands of pounds, future trade and the added cost and stress to his business and other surrounding businesses.
It was also the opinion that twelve months closure was unacceptable. Whilst it was understood the work had to take place, it was thought that a full revision of the construction process to reduce time should be considered.
The Chair thanked Mr Rettie for his presentation.
Braehead Community Council
Chris Kane addressed Members of the Panel on behalf of Braehead Community
Council with regard to their objection to this application. He noted that whilst he could not fault Network Rail’s willingness to engage, he did fault their ability to provide the information necessary for meaningful dialogue and input. He highlighted that the local communities and local businesses would have to bear a cost if this application was approved. The cost was unknown because a complete traffic assessment had not been shared with the local people and information gained arrived the previous week, meaning there was limited time for careful consideration. Over twenty thousand vehicle journeys a day would need to find an alternative route and many of them would drive through Braehead and Broomridge, regardless of where any official diversion
might be due to local knowledge having an effect on diversionary signposts. Safety issues regarding children walking to school and elderly people attending community centres or community shops could also be jeopardised however at present this was unknown due to no information on traffic assessment being available. The length of the proposed closure of twelve months was also highlighted. Members were asked to consider delaying a decision until a later date to allow Network Rail and Stirling Council
time to produce the traffic assessment and work with locals to mitigate any problems.
It was also viewed that a delay would allow Network Rail time to look at the reduction of the proposed closure time. Mr Kane went on to address Members and added that if they were unable to agree with this, Braehead Community Council would ask Members to consider amending condition 1 of the planning permission to say “ in consultation with Transport Development and Braehead Community Council” in order that the community continue to be heard in the road closure process.
The Panel had no questions for Mr Kane.
Local Member
Councillor Gerry McLaughlan addressed the Panel Members and echoed the views and concerns of Braehead Community Council and local businesses. Councillor McLaughlan also expressed concern around pedestrian safety and highlighted that Glasgow Road was the most dangerous road in Stirling and that it was important to carry out a traffic assessment. Councillor McLaughlan addressed para 1.1 in the summary of the application and added that this defied logic for the Panel to grant approval. He also highlighted that although work in the Braehead and Riverside were recognised, large areas of the community had not been consulted, which included residents in Linden Avenue who advised Councillor McLaughlan that they had not received any documents advising of the proposed work to be carried out. Councillor McLaughlan also added that if a transport assessment had been included with the application, comments could have been made on mitigation and if the application went
to recommendation, a transport assessment must go out to the public. Councillor McLaughlan asked Members of the Panel to consider allowing the traffic assessment to be brought to panel and for the design of the bridge to be looked at again.
Following discussion around the length of the closure, the Chair reminded Members that this was not relevant and that discussion should be around the officer recommendations within the planning application. The Planning and Building Standards Manager also reminded Members that this Panel could not agree to a road closure.
The Chair thanked Councillor McLaughlan for his presentation.
Councillor McLaughlan left at this point in the proceedings.
The Chair sought clarification with the Planning and Building Standards Manager should the Panel defer a decision today, would there be any onus on the application to look at further design options. The Planning and Building Standards Manager advised that if the Panel had concerns regarding the design of the bridge, their decision
would be ultimately based on design and going forward, any alternative design within a future application would be down to the Applicant. The Panel were advised that they wouldhave to agree to refuse the application, in order for consideration of a new design to be presented in a future application.
Discussion took place around whether the Applicant could withdraw their application, due to lack of consultation with businesses and the local community and to allow for construction methods to be looked at further. The Planning and Building Standards Manager advised that it was the Applicant’s decision whether or not to withdraw the application, however, this opportunity had now been missed as it had reached Panel.
The Chair outlined the options available to the Panel, which were:-
-
to refuse the application and set out the reasons for this which would be based on the design of the bridge, material consideration, not having the traffic assessment information and economic impact assessment available for consideration.
-
to defer the application for a future meeting of the Panel or its equivalent, which would mean the Panel accepted the current design of the bridge, therefore there would not be any scope to change the design.
A third option was also put forward to agree the recommendations with an alternative condition, which would require to be discharged by the Panel, with the application then coming back to a future Panel to consider all options.
The Chair advised that she did not suggest option 3 as she was under the impression if the Panel were to approve the decision and add conditions, it would weaken the Panel’s position in the event of an appeal. The Planning and Building Standards Manager confirmed that there would not be any area for appeal, as the application would have been approved by the Panel.
The Panel then proceeded to consider the application.
Decision
The Panel agreed to not determine the application but to continue consideration to a future meeting of the Panel or its equivalent, which Panel would again consider the application by way of a Hearing, and that for the reason that the potential traffic impacts arising from the period of construction in respect of the proposed development are unknown, and it is also unknown if appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place without detriment to the functioning of the road network, residential amenity, pedestrian
safety and the local economy, and as such the potential traffic impacts (not yet known) cannot be appropriately dealt with through a planning condition.
It was also agreed to record within the Minute that the Panel requested the Applicant work with the Planning Authority and consult with the local community and businesses on this regard.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 April 2017, submitted).
In terms of Standing Order 39, the Panel adjourned at 12.20 pm for a comfort break. Themeeting reconvened at 12.40 pm with the same Members present.
PL514 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 433 HOMES, 0.7 HECTARES OF LAND, NATURE PARK, ROUNDABOUT AND ASSOCIATEDAT LAND TO SOUTH OF BANNOCKBURN ROAD AND WEST OF BOWLING CLUB, MAIN STREET, COWIE - TAYLOR WIMPEY
UK LTD - 14/00546/PPP
Taylor Wimpey were seeking planning permission in principle for residential
development on a site on the western edge of Cowie. A planning permission in
principle application meant that details such as, housing types etc. were confirmed in future application(s). The application was brought to Planning & Regulation Panel as it was a Major planning application under the terms of The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson had made a request for a Hearing.
The Panel was advised that the Applicant had indicated they would not participate in a Hearing and had requested that the Panel determine the application today.
The Chair advised that Councillor Alasdair MacPherson had asked to address the Panel. The Clerk ruled that in terms of Standing Order 106h, he could only do this at a Hearing to ensure all interested parties were afforded an equal opportunity.
No further discussion took place on the application.
The Panel agreed:-
-
to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit and Hearing to take place at a future Panel meeting;
-
to remit to officers to explore the practicalities of holding the Hearing at a venue within the local community.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 April 2017, submitted).
PL515 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 67 DWELLINGS, EMPLOYMENTROADS, LANDSCAPING, NATURE PARK AND DRAINAGE AT LANDOF BOWLING GREEN, MAIN STREET, COWIE - OMNIVALE LTD -
14/00652/PPP
Omnivale Limited were seeking planning permission in principle for residential
development on a site on the western edge of Cowie. A planning permission in
principle application meant that details of housing types etc. were confirmed in future application(s). The application was brought to Planning & Regulation Panel as it was a Major planning application under the terms of The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson had requested a Hearing.
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 Panel meeting;
-
to remit to officers to explore the practicalities of holding the Hearing at a venue within the local community.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 April 2017, submitted).
PL516 ERECTION OF 185 DWELLING HOUSES, FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ROADS, SUDS, OPEN SPACE AND OTHER ASSOCIATEDOPERATIONS AT LAND ADJACENT TO NORTH OF NEWPARKCOXITHILL ROAD, ST NINIANS, STIRLING - OGILVIE HOMES LTD
Ogilvie Homes were seeking detailed planning permission to build one hundred and eighty five houses on a site at Newpark Farm, St Ninians. The application site, which extends to approximately 20.7 acres (8.38 hectares), was an allocated Housing Site (Policy Ref H058), as identified in Stirling Council’s adopted Local Development Plan.
Established residential areas surround the site to the east and north and typically these areas were characterised by buildings of primarily two storeys in height and display a variety of architectural styles and materials. The application was before the Planning and Regulation Panel, as it was a major planning application under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and the Council has a financial interest in the development.
The Team Leader, Development & Management introduced the report 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; (d) Development Plan policy; (e) assessment; and (f) consultations.
The Team Leader, Development & Management responded to a number of questions from Members.
Decision
The Panel agreed that it was minded to grant approval of the application subject to planning conditions and the provision of a legal agreement to secure the provision of contributions for education, waste and transport. In addition the legal agreement will seek to ensure the provision of affordable housing.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 April 2017, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 1.10 pm