STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING ON TUESDAY 30 JANUARY 2018 at 10.00 am
Present
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson (in the Chair)
Councillor Maureen BENNISON
Councillor Neil BENNY
Councillor Alistair BERRILL
Councillor Douglas DODDS
Councillor Chris KANE
Councillor Graham LAMBIE
Councillor Jeremy McDONALD
Councillor Evelyn TWEED
In Attendance
Stephen Boyle, Transport Development Control Officer, Housing & Environment
Jane Brooks-Burnett, Senior Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Shona Campbell, Licensing Paralegal, Localities & Infrastructure
Christina Cox, Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards, Localities & Infrastructure
Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Lindsay Fyfe, Licensing Standards Officer, Localities & Infrastructure
Caroline Todd, Licensing Paralegal, Localities & Infrastructure
Joyce Allen – Democratic Support (Clerk)
Mary Love, Committee Officer (Minute)
Also Present
Andrew Fyfe, Principal Transport Planner, WSP
Gordon Johnston, Senior Land Manager, Persimmon Homes, East Scotland
David Jinks, Development Planner, Persimmon Homes, East Scotland
PL77 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
There were no apologies or substitutions.
PL78 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
PL79 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
There were no items of urgent business brought forward by the Chair.
PL80 MINUTES OF PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 December 2017 and 12 December 2017
were submitted for approval.
Decision
The Committee approved the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2017 as an accurate record of proceedings subject to Councillor Alistair Berrill being included as an attendee at this meeting.
The Committee approved the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2017 as an accurate record of proceedings.
PL80 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 500 UNITS, ERECTION OF PRIMARY FORMATION OF ACCESS, LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE, SUDSCUSHENQUARTERPLEAN - PERSIMMON HOMES EAST SCOTLAND/STORY HOMESLTD - 17/00440/PPP – HEARING
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure, advised that Persimmon Homes were seeking planning permission in principle for residential development on land north of Cushenquarter Farm and William Simpson’s Home to the south east of Plean. A planning permission in principle application meant that details such as housing types and designs were confirmed in future application(s).
The application was brought to the 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.
A request for this item to be the subject of a site visit and a Hearing was approved at the Planning & Regulation Panel meeting held on 5 December 2017.
The Chair outlined the Hearing process.
Councillor Alistair Berrill had not attended the site visit, and took no part in the decision.
The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report, which provided details of (a) the site; (b) the proposal; (c) previous history; (d) Development Plan Policy and other material considerations; and (e) assessment. The Panel were shown detailed maps of the proposed site and it was noted that whilst the Transport Assessment proposed a priority junction and secondary access, the information supporting these proposals was not sufficient, since no associated drawings were submitted for the priority junction nor any details of traffic calming measures. No information was provided to demonstrate that the secondary access could be achieved. It was also noted that the
red line site boundary did not include the secondary access.
The Panel asked the Principal Transport Officer if the officers would still have
recommended refusal if the secondary access had been within the red boundary line. The Principal Transport Officer replied that refusal to recommend would still be applicable to some extent, based on the information at the time. There were concerns around the primary access junction in terms of visibility and safety and the speed of traffic on the main street was outlined in the Traffic Assessment. It was noted that no final plan that demonstrated visibility and traffic calming at the front of the site had been
received by officers. A request for consistency that an independent safety audit was provided had not been delivered and therefore safety was potentially a concern, based on the information received.
Officers had been involved in discussions with colleagues from Education Services and NHS Forth Valley regarding a suitable solution around costs associated with this proposed site and to ascertain what requirements they would need from an educational and healthcare perspective.
The Senior Planning Officer went on to discuss the officers’ recommendations for refusing the application, based on Policy 3.1 and 3.3 and it was noted that the Supplementary Guidance (SG15:Education) was no longer being applied and was currently under review. The Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards added that the guidance had been withdrawn as it became apparent some terms were inaccurate and it would be prudent to withdraw the guidance. In the meantime the base decision was made using Policy 3.3 and seeking details from each consultation department e.g. Education.
Applicant
Gordon Johnson, Senior Land Manager, Persimmon Homes, East Scotland,
addressed the Panel in support of the Application. Mr Johnson thanked the Panel for the opportunity to set out the views of the developer and advised that he would use this opportunity to focus on the reasons given by officers for recommending refusal.
In relation to officer recommendation 2.1 of the report, Mr Johnson advised that representatives from Persimmon did not feel that this was a true reflection of the detailed dialogue which took place between them and transport and planning officers. Persimmon were of the belief that the principle of a priority junction as the primary access for the proposed site was accepted by transport officers and did not dispute that they would be subject to detailed designs being submitted and agreed. He highlighted that this application was for planning permission in principle, which meant that details such as housing types and designs would be confirmed in future applications and that the priority junction design would also form part of any future
Road Construction Consent application, which was another mechanism available to the Council to ensure the design was fit for purpose.
Mr Johnson advised the Panel that the secondary access issue was an oversight on Persimmon’s behalf and that the additional area of land required to deliver this access was not included within the application red line boundary. Mr Johnson added that thethird party land required for delivery of the secondary access was owned by Stirling Council and therefore was in the gift of the authority to work with Persimmon to deliver this access if it was so inclined.
Mr Johnson then referred to officer recommendation 2.2 of the report. He added that as long as the contributions being sought met the 5 tests of Scottish Government circular 3/2012, the Company recognised their responsibilities and that the reason there remained contributions which had not been agreed from Persimmons’ perspective was a reflection of the complex nature of delivering a site of this scale and trying to understand the cumulative impact of contributions over a development which would take more than 10 years to construct. He confirmed that the site would deliver
25% of the total units as affordable housing and would provide significant new public open spaces as well as contributing financially towards both primary and secondary education facilities and healthcare provision and that these combined contributions could equate to several million pounds. He highlighted that whilst Persimmon had always been prepared to provide land for an on-site solution, the total cost of this solution and Persimmon’s contribution towards that cost had not been agreed. Mr Johnston went on to discuss the Supplementary Guidance (SG15: Education) which, he said, was in place when the application was submitted but was advised 10 weeks later that the Supplementary Guidance had been withdrawn and that Persimmon had
been asked to fund a campus at the cost of £5 million pounds, which would more than double the contributions to primary education from around £4k per house to £10k per house, which was felt to be unfair and unreasonable. An initial response had been received from NHS Forth Valley in July 2017, which was discussed with officers and the advice received was that because the response was vague and did not seek specific contributions, the authority would not request them from Persimmon.
Persimmon highlighted their concerns that this issue had been highlighted to them as sensitive with both local residents and elected members, yet no contribution was sought. Mr Johnson added that Persimmon were informed in January 2018 that an email had been received from NHS Forth Valley seeking commitment from Persimmon to a contribution of £1,737 per unit which reflected the figure stated in the supplementary guidance, although the date on the email sent was November 2017.
Mr Johnson added that Persimmon was prepared to meet the requested contribution per unit and allocate land within the development for healthcare facilities if this had been the will of the Council and that Persimmon would have confirmed this before now had it been clear this was being sought.
Mr Johnson concluded that having summarised the rationale behind the disagreement with the reasons for refusal cited in the report, he would simply request that the Panel consider the alternative solutions provided by Persimmon, and with the correct use of planning conditions and a S75 agreement, ask that the Panel were minded to grant approval of this application.
The Chair thanked Mr Johnson for his presentation and Mr Johnson answered various questions from the Panel in relation to the proposed site.
In response to a question from the Panel as to whether officers could see a resolution to this application, the Senior Planning Officer explained that this would depend on whether the Council would change the level of contribution required. Education Services stated that if the development exceeded 198 units, they could not be accommodated within East Plean Primary School and would require a solution, however if the developer was unwilling to pay the costs, and both retained a stance, there would be no short term solution.
The Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards highlighted that whilst officers may have different views on different proposals, she reminded the Panel that today they had to consider this particular application for 500 units. The Senior Planning Officer concluded that this particular application would not proceed to a positive solution as there was no red line boundary around the secondary access, but if this could be achieved, along with road and safety issues and if the developer and Stirling Council could agree on contributions, it may be that a future application would be acceptable.
Decision
The Panel agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons:-
-
in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal was contrary to Policy
3.1 (Addressing the Travel Demands of New Development) since the
development cannot be suitably and safely accessed by vehicles; and -
in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal was contrary to Policy
3.3 (Developer Contributions) since the developer had not confirmed that they
would provide developer contributions for new, extended or improved public
infrastructure, facilities or services. Moreover, the developer had not
confirmed their commitment to provide a fair and reasonable contribution
relative to the provision of primary education and new or expanded local
health service infrastructure.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure, dated 19 January 2018, submitted).
PL81 ERECTION OF 198 DWELLING HOUSES, FORMATION OF ACCESS, OPEN LANDSCAPING, SUDS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AT LAND
AT CUSHENQUARTER FARM, PLEAN – PERSIMMON HOMES EAST SCOTLAND
A report by the Service Manager, Infrastructure advised that full planning permission was sought by Persimmon Homes East Scotland for a development comprising 198 residential units, access, open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure on land south east of Plean.
The application was brought to 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.
A request for a Hearing regarding this application was made the day before the meeting by the Applicant.
The Chair advised the Panel that it was their decision as to whether the application would be deferred for a Hearing or whether the Panel agreed to proceed today and consider the planning application.
The Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards advised the Panel that if the decision today was to defer the application pending a Hearing, the same report and recommendations would be presented, although it would require officers to undertake further negotiations on the developer’s contributions regarding the funding element. The Panel were also advised that consideration of each application should be given separately from others on the agenda.
Councillor Alistair Berrill had not attended the site visit, and took no part in the decision.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees to refuse the request for a Hearing and proceed to determine the application at today’s meeting”.
Moved by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson, seconded by Councillor Chris Kane.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees to defer consideration of the application for further negotiations with the developer regarding contributions”.
Moved by Councillor Douglas Dodds, seconded by Councillor Neil Benny.
On the roll being called, the Members present voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (4) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
Against the Amendment (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Chris Kane
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
There being an equality of votes, the Chair cast his casting vote against the
Amendment, and the Amendment fell by 5 votes to 4.
For the Motion (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Chris Kane
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Against the Motion (4) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
There being an equality of votes, the Chair cast his casting vote in favour of the Motion. The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 4 and accordingly the Panel agreed to proceed to consider the planning application at today’s meeting.
The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report, which provided details of (a) the site; (b) the proposal; (c) previous history; (d) Development Plan Policy and other material considerations; and (e) assessment. In response to a question from the Panel with regard to the red line boundary issue, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that although this was still an issue within the application, the issue was to do with the arbitrary nature of the boundary within larger landscape and the lack of acceptable
boundary between countryside and the boundary. She also confirmed that it was not indicated within the plans where the social housing would be located.
Discussion took place around insufficient information being submitted for the Planning Authority to conclude that the development could be safely accessed by motor vehicles. The Principal Transport Planner, WSP explained that there were concerns that the current access proposal detailed in the masterplan differed from the transport assessment and that the access issue was not supported by an independent road safety audit, despite repeated requests for the developer to provide supporting information around how traffic calming would be alleviated. Visibility was also a concern.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to a number of questions from the Panel.
Decision
The Panel agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons:
-
in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal was contrary to Primary Policy 1 (Placemaking) since it was considered that the proposed
development was not designed and sited in relation to the character and
amenity of the place where it is located; -
in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal was contrary to Policy
1.1 (Site Planning) since it was considered that the proposed development would not contribute in a positive manner to the quality of the surrounding environment;
-
in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal was contrary to Policy
-
(Addressing the Travel Demands of New Development) since insufficient information had been submitted for the Planning Authority to conclude that the development could be safely accessed by motor vehicles; and
-
-
in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal was contrary to Policy
3.3 (Developer Contributions) since no land had been made available on site
for the provision of education facilities, and it had not been demonstrated that
the developer contribution required for this proposal would not adversely
impact on the deliverability of the remainder of the 500 unit site. Also, the
developer had not confirmed that they would provide developer contributions
for new, extended or improved public infrastructure, facilities or services or
that they would provide a fair and reasonable contribution relative to new or
expanded local health service infrastructure.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure, dated 30 January 2018, submitted).
In terms of Standing Order 39, the Panel adjourned at 11.40 am for a comfort break. Themeeting reconvened at 11.55 am, with the same Members present.
PL82 ANNUAL CIVIC LICENSING STANDARDS OFFICERS REPORT 2017
A report by the Chief Officer – Governance advised that The Civic Licensing Standards Officer (CLSO), carried out duties under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. This report provided details of the CLSO’s work during 2017 and was submitted for information purposes only.
The Licensing Officer introduced the report and responded to questions from the Panel. It was noted that drivers were very efficient at reporting back to inform officers that any issues raised following warning letters had been resolved. It was also noted that taxi marshals were placed at taxi ranks over the festive period, and feedback received noted that there were not many issues involving police.
Discussion took place around safety guidelines for drivers and officers undertook to look into mechanisms for providing safety guidelines for taxi drivers and feedback on the Safer Taxi Scheme monitored by Stirling University.
Decision
The Panel was asked to note the information contained within the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Chief Officer - Governance, dated 10 January 2018, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 12.05 pm