Service updates

Planning and Regulation Panel - Tuesday 26th September 2017

Last updated

09 Mar 2023

 

STIRLING COUNCIL

 

MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, TUESDAY 26 SEPTEMBER 2017 at 10.00 am

 

Present

 

Councillor Alasdair MACPHERSON (in the Chair)

Councillor Maureen BENNISON
Councillor Chris KANE
Councillor Jeremy McDONALD

Councillor Alistair BERRILL
Councillor Graham LAMBIE
Councillor Evelyn TWEED

 

In Attendance

 

Christina Cox, Christina Cox, Planning & Building Standards Manager, Localities & Infrastructure

Jay Dawson, Team Leader – Development Management, Localities & Infrastructure
Gavin Forrest, Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure

Rebecca Jardine, Communications Officer – Children, Committees & Enterprise
Iain Jeffrey, Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure

Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure

Neil Pirie, Senior Development Control Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Iain Strachan, Chief Officer – Governance, (Clerk)

Gail McLaughlin, Committee Officer, Localities & Infrastructure (Minutes)

 

Also in Attendance

 

Mr Brown Applicant

Andrew Bennie, Andrew Bennie Planning Ltd

Dorothy Breckenbridge, Carron Valley Community Council

Peter Buchannan, Historic Environment Scotland
Mr Cowie, Applicant

Councillor Danny Gibson

Isabella Gorska, Local Access Forum

Anne Graham, Riverside Community Council

Paul Haughton, Haughton Planning

Colin Innes, Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
Angus McNab, Objector

Prof David S Mitchel, Historic Environment Scotland
Amanda Tevit, Applicant

 

PL037 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS

 

Apologies were received on behalf of Councillor Douglas Dodds.

PL038 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST‌‌

 

There were no declaration of interest.

 

PL039 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR

 

There were no items of urgent business.

 

PL040 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL – 5 SEPTEMBER 2017

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to approve the Minutes of Meeting held on 5 September 2017 as an accurate record of proceedings.

 

PL041 ERECTION OF 12 NO. HOLIDAY CHALETS AND PROVISION OF ASSOCIATED INFRASTRCTURE AT LAND 190 METRES NORTH OF BARNS-
HEARING

 

A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure, advised of the erection of 12 holiday chalets and associated infrastructure. The planning application had previously been referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel, as it was a ‘Major’ development.

 

At its meeting on 5 September 2017, the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Site Visit and Hearing, the Site Visit had been scheduled for Thursday 21 September 2017.

 

The officer recommendation was to approve the planning application subject to the satisfactory conclusion of a legal mechanism for the payment of a road bond to secure the repair of the private road within the control of the applicant and the condition and reasons set out in the appendix attached to the submitted report.

 

The Chair outlined the Hearing process.

 

Members of the Panel were concerned that the waste was to be dumped in the
adjacent woodland the Officers replied that although this was not part of the planning process it was acceptable. The Lime Kilns were of archaeological interest and Members were concerned that this would be lost, but officers confirmed that the site was to be investigated before any development could take place.

 

Agent for Applicant

 

Mr Andrew Bennie of Andrew Bennie Planning Limited spoke on behalf of his client. He said the report concluded that the proposed location, siting and design of the proposed chalets would comply with the relevant Local Development Plan Policies, holiday letting accommodation and Local Landscape Areas and also Supplementary Guidance on chalet development which included holiday chalets. Mr Bennie said there had been a small number of objections lodged in respect of the application which covered a range of issues. In respect of the potential landscape impact of the proposed development, he advised that the nature of the topography within the Site
was such that it allowed for the chalets to be sited at varying levels, with the distribution and orientation of the chalets across the Site, also the proposed development could only be seen within the context of the rising wooded ground to the west which formed a natural backdrop to the development. With regards to impact on woodland, no trees on the Site required to be felled and would be retained as part of the proposed development.

 

With regards to the potential impact of the existing right of way that runs along the east side of the Site, visitors to the chalets would require to have unrestricted access, it would also not be in the applicant’s interest to do anything that would restrict access to the Site. It was considered that the proposed development would lead to a significant improvement to public access within this general area. Mr Bennie also reminded everyone that the Council had not raised any objection to the proposed development regarding access.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Bennie.
Objector

Dorothy Breckenbridge of Cannon Community Council spoke as an objector to the application she said that access solutions needed to be found, as the site was on a public right of way. She also had concerns regarding the road and the maintenance of the road. The Lime Kilns were a local archaeological site, which they did not want to lose, in the event of the application being approved.

 

Ms Breckenbridge also raised concerns, due to the destruction of trees and questioned the effect any future development could bring.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Breckenbridge.

 

In response to a question from Members on the previous application, the Officers replied that the site had then been an eyesore but had now been greatly improved, with the replanting of trees and the wider landscape being changed.

 

The Panel then proceeded to consider the application. Councillor Kane having moved that the Review be refused but having failed to find a seconder, requested that his dissent be recorded.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed:

 

    1. to approve the planning application subject to the satisfactory conclusion of a legal mechanism for the payment of a road bond to secure the repair of the private road within the control of the applicant;

    2. the conditions and reasons as set out in Appendix 1 attached to the report subject to

      1. Programme of Archaeological work being changed to a negative suspensive condition so that permission could not be implemented until it was satisfactorily discharged; and

      2. the inclusion of an additional Condition that the access road have suitable passing places.

(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 15 September 2017, submitted).

PL042 ERECTION OF 1 NO. SINGLE STOREY DETACHED DWELLING AT LAND AND NORTH OF 23 SAUCHENFORD HOLDING, SNABHEAD
ROAD EAST, PLEAN – RUSTIC ECO PROPERTIES – 16/00645/FUL - HEARING

 

The Senior Manager, Infrastructure, advised the Panel of the application for the erection of a single storey detached dwelling house. The application had been referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Bennison on the basis of allowing the Panel to fully assess the Housing in the Countryside Policy and its related supplementary guidance.

 

At its meeting on 5 September 2017, the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Site Visit and Hearing, the Site Visit had been scheduled for Thursday 21 September 2017. The officer recommendation was to refuse Planning Permission

 

Officers had attended the site visit and commented on how busy the road had been, although the site visit had taken place during the day. The junction was a concern and it was noted that this would need to be improved, in order to assure the safety of road users.

 

Agent for Applicant

 

Mr Paul Houghton of Houghton Planning Limited spoke on behalf of the Applicant, who was accompanied by Mr Cowie. Mr Houghton advised that not all the houses in the proposed area faced the same direction and that the building was set back from the road, therefore there was no reason that the building would cause any problems with regard to traffic. Any accidents which had occurred on the road were not related to the road or the junction but were mainly due to driver error and road safety in general should not be a reason to refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Houghton
Objector

Mr Colin Innes of Shepherd + Wedderburn spoke on behalf of his client Mr Goodman, who had objected to the application. He said that the property was not suitable to the plot and area as the building was too near the road, the road had a steep curve at this point and it made it impossible to see oncoming traffic. He also thought that there had been a break in the policy with this application as there were already quite a few houses in this area. There had been quite a few accidents on the road which had caused the roads to be closed for lengthy periods and additional traffic at this junction.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Innes.

 

The Panel then proceeded to consider the application.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to refuse Planning Permission for the following reasons:

 

    1. In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal was contrary to Local Development Plan Supplementary Guidance SG10, Housing in the Countryside. The proposal was not considered to be visually related to the existing building group as it was proposed to front a northbound road leading to the junction of the A9 which was free of development. The proposal does not conform to the established pattern of linear development at Sauchenford which was characterised by an east-west formation and therefore was not in accordance with paragraph 2.7 of the Guidance which required proposals to respect the character, layout and building pattern of the existing group;

       

    2. In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal does not comply with Section 2.9 of SG10. This section stated that if a group outwith a Green Belt consists simply of frontage houses along a road, infill or additions will be permitted where gaps exist. This has been exhausted by previous developments. This section also stated that extension by no more than 2 plots in either direction may be permitted if there is an appropriate topographical
      stop. The area has already been developed by 2 or more dwellings in an easterly direction. Visually, albeit not topographically, the road was a physical stop and the proposed change of development pattern does not relate to the area; and

       

    3. In the opinion of the Planning Authority, following consultation with the Roads and Transportation Service, any further increased turning manoeuvres at the Sauchenford Cottages junction would be detrimental to road safety and set a dangerous precedent for further similar applications in the future.

       

      (Reference: Report by Senior Manager, Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 15 September 2017, submitted).

       

      PL043 CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF EXISTING GARAGE INTO SELF- ANCILLARY ANNEX AND TWO STORY EXTENSION TO THE MAIN9 ST THOMAS WELL, STIRLING, FK7 9PR – MISS AMANDA TERVIT

      – 17/00387/FUL - HEARING

       

      The Senior Manager, Infrastructure, advised the Panel of an application for the conversion and extension of an existing garage into a self-contained ancillary annex and two storey extension to the main dwelling.

       

      The application had been referred to Planning & Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Scott Farmer on the following grounds:

       

      1. The development was out of character with the setting of the area;

         

      2. The development was detrimental to the amenity of the area and amounted to potential over-development given the enclosed nature of the street; and

         

      3. The development would result in potentially an unacceptable increase of traffic in the enclosed setting.

 

At its meeting on 5 September 2017, the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Site Visit and Hearing, the Site Visit had been scheduled for Thursday 21 September 2017.

 

The Officer recommendation was to grant the approval of the planning application subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

 

Applicant

 

Ms Tervit addressed the Panel and assured them that the proposed extension was to provide additional living space within their family home to enable them to continue to provide care to her partner’s elderly mother without the need to move to larger premises. The proposed extension would provide extra rooms for their family, and would enable her partner’s elderly mother who was a widow, to have her own self- contained accommodation, giving her independence in her later years, and still enabling her to be close to her family. Although they would be losing their garage, the driveway was large enough to park the family vehicles.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Tervit
Objectors

Mr Angus McNab spoke on behalf of the neighbours in the street who were objecting to the application. Mr McNab said that there were concerns around the materials to be used in the proposed extension, along with the size and appearance of the extension.There was also concern around the potential impact of additional parking on the street due to the garage being used for dwelling purposes within the conversion.

 

The Chair thanked Mr McNab

 

Members queried the size of the proposed extension and were assured by the Officer that as most of the conversion would take place at the rear of the current building, there would not be much change to the front visual aspect It was noted that there was no similar extension in the street.

 

The Panel then proceeded to discuss the application.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed:

 

    1. to grant the approval of the planning application subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report; and

       

    2. To approve the planning application subject to the satisfactory conclusion of Condition 1.

 

(Reference: Report by Senior Manager, Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 15 September 2017, submitted).

 

In terms of Standing Order 39 the Panel adjourned for a comfort break at 11:50 and reconvened at 12:00

 

PL044 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1997 TO NOT COMPLY WITH CONDITION 5 OF PLANNING14/00498/FUL IN REGARDS TO DISABLED PARKING PROVISIONHISTORIC SCOTLAND – 17/00531/FUL - HEARING

The Senior Manager, Infrastructure, advised the Panel of the application under Section 42 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in regards to disabled parking provisions at The Engine Shed, Forthside Way, Stirling, FK8 1QZ.

 

The application had been referred to Planning and Regulation Panel due to Stirling Council having an interest in the site as land owner of the immediately adjacent surrounding land, which was part of a Masterplan for the Forthside regeneration area, within which the ‘Engine Shed’ site is located.

 

The Officer Recommendation was to remove Condition 5 of 14/00498/FUL as this could not be enforced even if the decision was to refuse the recommendation.

Members were concerned over this as disabled parking was part of the access plans. Officers said that this had been a Condition made in error by an Officer. Although this was made in good faith the Planning Authority could not enforce it.

 

Applicants

 

David Mitchell and Peter Buchannan addressed the Panel and Mr Mitchell said that since the opening of the Engine Shed, there had been around 8,000 visitors with a wide range of high profile organisations visiting Stirling for the first time. Since the issue of disabled parking had arisen, they had chosen not discuss it. The presentation of their position through the media had prompted them to attend the hearing today to make the panel aware of the facts.

 

During early development of the Engine Shed project, from site acquisition discussions with the Stirling Development Agency (SDA) and pre-planning discussions with the Council in 2014, it was apparent that the restricted site footprint available to Historic Scotland to accommodate the design scope of works would not be sufficient to also incorporate provision for visitor or disabled parking. It was agreed that this would need to be considered as part of the wider master planning exercise for the Forthside Area
and this was reflected in the ‘Transport and Access’ section of the Design Statement submitted to Stirling Council as part of the planning application.

 

On receipt of planning consent in November 2014 with the conditions attached, the Applicants had noticed the inclusion of disabled parking and had assumed the condition to provide disabled parking on site was a clerical error. They contacted Council officials in early 2015 and had continued to raise this matter over the last three years. They had been advised by officials at a site meeting in June 2016 that disabled spaces would be provided as part of the master planning strategy and this would incorporate disabled parking for the Engine Shed in close proximity to the site.

 

In the Spring of 2017 the Council had advised them of their intention to provide interim disabled parking on the West side of the square. Access was across the level tarmac surface of the square at a distance of 55m from the main public entrance to the Engine Shed. This was 5m over the preferred 50m distance noted in the guidance to BS 8300.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Mitchell.
Objectors

Isabella Gorska was speaking on behalf Riverside Community Council and Stirling Area Access Panel who were objectors to the application. Ms Gorska said that there were 4 points she wanted to make to the Panel.

 

  1. The Community Council had raised the lack of disabled parking with the original application in 2014 and it was made a Condition of the build. The applicant had failed to submit this in writing to the Council before the build began. Over £11m of public money was used for this build with no provision for disabled parking in the knowledge this would not comply with the Equality 2010 Act. As an employer they have a duty to
    provide a disabled parking space for an employee and for the public. It raises the question are Historic Environment Scotland and Stirling Council beyond the law of the land?

     

  2. The condition quite clearly stated that disabled parking should be “on site”. The Council have placed a disabled parking bay on the road opposite, but this did not comply with BSI Recommendations, as it was in excess of 50 meters as the crow flies on the submitted application. Unfortunately disabled individuals do not travel as the
    crow flies but by level footpaths and this well extends the 50 meters.

     

  3. In the original application in 2014 the applicant had stated on the support statement “Mobility impaired visitors will be accommodated with a designated drop off point.” The project manager had clearly decided just to ignore this statement, as there was no designated drop off point. To wish to have a car free zone may be admirable but disabled individuals had human rights too and ignoring them was not an option.

     

  4. One option that could be considered was for Stirling Council to allow the Engine Shed to create disabled parking and a drop off site on ground adjacent the Engine Shed. The cost of all this, including road works, would be borne by the applicant in order to comply with Condition 5 of the original application.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Gorska.
Member

Councillor Danny Gibson addressed the Panel, and advised that the Officers and Applicant had been aware of this since 2014 and there had been ample time for the Officers to find a solution. He had requested further information from Officers in August 2017 but had not yet received a substantive response from them. He said that the Officers should have made sure that this had been resolved before the development had started and urged the Panel to refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Gibson for his views and Councillor Gibson left the meeting.

 

The Panel then proceeded to discuss the application. It was noted that even if the Panel were to refuse the application they could not enforce Condition 5.

 

The Chief Governance officer also advised that as attained in the report there was no legally robust reason to refuse the application.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to remove Condition 5 of 14/00498/FUL for the following reasons:

 

    1. Condition 5 of 14/00498/FUL related to a defined redline site. There was physically no capacity within the redline site to provide car parking. The imposition of condition (5) therefore did not satisfy legal requirements related to planning conditions as the applicant was not apply to satisfy the condition.

       

    2. The Condition served no useful purpose as the applicant could not comply with it. If this application were to be refused the Planning Authority could not enforce the Condition.

 

The Panel expressed an expectation that Historic Environmental Scotland would work with the Council and the Local Access Forum to pursue and agree a satisfactory solution for the provision of additional disabled parking.

 

(Reference: Report by Senior Manager, Infrastructure, (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 15 September 2017, submitted.)

 

The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 12:50 pm