STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, TUESDAY 5 DECEMBER 2017 at 10.00 am
Present
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson (in the Chair)
Councillor Maureen BENNISON
Councillor Alistair BERRILL
Councillor Neil BENNY
Councillor Douglas DODDS
Councillor Graham LAMBIE
Councillor Chris KANE
Councillor Jeremy McDONALD
Councillor Evelyn TWEED
In Attendance
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)
Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Mark Laird, Planning Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Scott Mason, Fisheries Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Alison Smith, Licensing Paralegal (Localities & Infrastructure)
Iain Strachan, Chief Officer – Governance (Clerk)
Gail McLaughlin, Committee Officer (Minute)
Also in Attendance
Claire MacKenzie, Police Scotland
Gordon Hutchinson, Police Scotland
PL62 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
There were no apologies or substitutions.
PL63 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Chris Kane and Councillor Jeremy McDonald declared an interest in
Agenda Item 8 (PL67) and would therefore take no part in consideration of this item.
PL64 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
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson requested that the application was determined at the Planning and Regulation Panel by means of a Hearing since he had concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the local roads network and the adequacy of the local health centre to accommodate the residents from this development. The purpose of the report was to ascertain whether Members of the Panel were agreeable to considering 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 a Hearing to take place at a future Panel meeting.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 December 2017, submitted).
PL65 CREMATORIUM AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING LANDSCAPED OF REMEMBRANCE AND AREAS FOR THE INTERMENT
OF CREMATED REMAINS, CAR PARKING AND ACCESS AT LAND AT BANNOCKBURN HOSPITAL, BANNOCKBURN HOSPITALBANNOCKBURN - CREMATORIA MANAGEMENT LTD &
SCOTTISH MINISTERS PER FORTH VALLEY HEALTH BOARD - 17/00676/FUL
The application was referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel by the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Manager since the application proposes a ‘Major’ development as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. A petition received objecting to the application indicated a wish to speak at the Planning and Regulation Panel. This required the agreement of Members of the Panel to a Hearing, which would take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
No further discussion took place on the application.
Decision
The Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit and a Hearing to take place at a future Panel meeting.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 December 2017, submitted).
PL66 ERECTION OF NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND ERECTION OF TWO STOREY TO REAR AND SIDE OF DWELLING HOUSE AT 16 HUME
CRESCENT, BRIDGE OF ALLAN, FK9 4SN - MISS KATY MACKIE AND MR
LEIGHTON BROWN - 17/00754/FUL
The application had been referred to Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Douglas Dodds on the grounds that the design and massing in the local environment.
Planning permission was sought for the erection of a new detached garage and the erection of two storey extension to rear and side of dwelling house. The proposed extension was primarily to the rear of the existing property, with a small addition to the side. As a result there would be a limited impact on the front elevation and view from the street. The proposed two-storey extension was designed with a pitched roof form. The ridgeline would run perpendicular to the ridgeline of the original house, but be a lower height of approx. 6.6m (0.7 metres lower than the ridge of the existing dwelling house) whilst a small section of the extension, closest to the boundary of the neighbouring property, would be of single storey height.
Concerns had been expressed that the development proposal represented an over- development of the plot. The Council’s guidance set out that the ground area of the house (including garage and outhouses) plus any new development should not be greater than 30% of the total plot area. The existing buildings represent 24.8% of the total plot area. The development proposal represents an increase in the overall developed area to 27.6 % of the total plot area. Therefore, the proposal was still within the parameters set out within the supplementary guidance. The proposed detached garage replaced an existing detached garage, which was also smaller than the existing
garage, and was of a suitable design and used an appropriate palette of materials for the area.
The Principal Planning Officer presented photos of the site and pointed out where the work would take place, he assured the Members that objections received had been taken into account whilst considering the application. He responded to questions from the Members and explained that although to Members it seemed a large plot it was within the parameters of the policy and there was still a substantial garden and space for off street parking along with the detached garage which was situated at the back of the property.
Motion:
That the Panel agreed to approve the application.
Moved by Councillor Evelyn Tweed, seconded by Councillor Jeremy McDonald.
In terms of Standing Order No 66 Councillor Douglas Dodds, having moved that theapplication be refused but having failed to find a seconder, requested that his dissent be recorded.
Decision
The Motion was approved without the need for a roll call vote and accordingly the Panel agreed to approve the planning application with no additional conditions.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 December 2017, submitted).
Councillor Chris Kane and Councillor Jeremy McDonald left the room at this point in the proceedings.
PL67 PROPOSED VARIATION TO CONDITION 7 TO PERMISSION 17/00002/FUL, TO NORTHWEST OF KERSE ROAD ROUNDABOUT, KERSE
ROAD, STIRLING – NETWORK RAIL – 17/00744/FUL
This application was referred to the Planning & Regulation Panel by the Planning & Building Standards Manager, as the planning permission to which the Condition relates (17/00002/FUL) was determined by the Planning and Regulation Panel.
At the Special Planning & Regulation Meeting on 7 November 2017, the Panel agreed to withdraw the application from the agenda to allow for consideration of a new report to be presented at the Planning & Regulation Panel Meeting on 5 December 2017, to ensure that all parties would have sight of the proposed new conditions.
The Chief Officer – Governance explained that in terms of Standing Order 78, no less than two-thirds of Members present and entitled to vote must agree to reconsider the original decision taken on 8 November 2016, as this was taken within the last six months.
Councillor MacPherson proposed that the Panel agree to reconsider the original
decision, and the officer report, seconded by Cllr Benny. All members of the Planning Panel agreed without the need for a vote.
The Planning Officer explained that the applicants were seeking planning permission to develop the land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted, namely Condition 7 of the planning permissions. The granted application related to the complete replacement of the rail overbridge at Kerse Road, Stirling. Condition 7 which was subject of the application which read:
“Construction Phase - Noise: Unless otherwise agreed under the provisions of
a Good Neighbour Agreement between the developer and a community body
representing the residents of Nelson Place, construction works which are
audible outwith the site boundary shall only be undertaken during normal
working hours, viz: - 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, and 0900 to 1800
hours on Saturdays. No noisy works audible outwith the site boundary are
permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays.”
The applicant had returned saying that the current Condition 7 made it impossible to undertake the works that were necessary to complete the construction of the replacement bridge as they were restricted to undertaking construction works during day time periods when trains are in operation. The applicant (Network Rail) proposed the following Condition in order to address their concerns.
"Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the
construction works hereby permitted shall only operate between 07:00 and
19:00 with the exception of works which comprise start-up and close down
activities, laying foundations, works involved with lifting in the proposed
temporary bridge, piling works and other works which require the possession
of the railway. In the case of these exceptions, works are not to be carried out
for more than 60 hours within any 100 hour period."
This condition was not accepted by officers as it would allow for the majority of the construction works to be carried out during night-time periods and certain works would generate levels of noise that would give rise to significant adverse effects.
Members were concerned that the work would cause problems for people living nearby and they commented that this was not the first time they had been asked to amend the conditions that were originally set out. The Planning Officer replied that it was necessary for the applicant to comply with the recommended conditions in order to enable the work to be carried out.
The Members queried if it could be guaranteed that the current work would be finished in six months. The Planning Officer said that unfortunately there were no guarantees due to the complexity and nature of the development.
The Planning Officer referred to the programme of works to inform Members of the extent of ‘dayshift’ and ‘nightshift’ working periods dating from January 2018 to January 2019, and to make Members aware of the potential impact of the construction works on neighbouring properties.
The Members advised the Council officers to ensure all the conditions were adhered to and to keep up to speed on the progress of Network Rail’s schedule. They also commented that Network Rail should speak to the communities and keep them on side, as people need assurance of what was happening and would be much happier if kept updated.
Decision
The Panel agreed to grant planning permission for the variation of Condition 7 as part planning permission 17/00002/FUL subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 6 December 2017, submitted).
Councillor Chris Kane and Councillor Jeremy McDonald returned to the room at this point in the proceedings.
PL68 STIRLING COUNCIL – FISHERIES ANNUAL REVIEW OF CHARGES AND POLICY
2017/2018
It was proposed for the 2018 fishing season, which runs from 1 February to 31 October, that a new pricing structure was introduced (Appendix 1). The divide between resident and visitor was removed and the fishery becomes competitive again.
Day permits would be reintroduced in September and October. The reduction of carcass tags had seen fewer salmon killed in 2016 and 2017. Maintaining a lower number of carcass tags issued each season, along with catch and release for day permits, would help Stirling Council’s Fisheries to maintain the conservation status and create a sustainable Fishery.
The Fisheries Officer stated that the steady decline in angler numbers went back several years and it was likely this trend would continue, particularly if there was a significant price rise. There were a number of factors for the decline such as the age and health of some anglers, the cost, and the decrease in young people coming into the sport. These factors were not exclusive to Stirling Council’s Fishery and were evident across the country. It was hoped that the reduction in permit prices, the introduction of day permits and the introduction of the three monthly permits would see
an increase in angler numbers on the rivers. These changes would bring Stirling Council Fisheries on a competitive level with other rivers of the same nature around Scotland. To maintain conservation status the Council would need to reduce the number of carcass tags per angler and day permits would need to continue to be catch and release. To encourage anglers to purchase season permits, 3 monthly permits would be on a catch and release basis. The new pricing structure would come in line with neighbouring fisheries.
The increase in levies, staffing costs and general running costs along with pressure on permit income had made it difficult for the Fishery to achieve full cost recovery. Currently, the Fishery was failing to meet full cost recovery targets. By allowing one permit to cover both rivers and removing the divide between visitor and resident would reduce admin time for both Stirling Council and the agencies selling the permits. The permit income had declined from 2010 to 2015 with a small increase in 2016.
Decision
The Panel agreed:
-
to the new pricing structure (Appendix 1);
-
to the reintroduction of day permits in September and October;
-
to renaming the current juvenile permit “Youth” permit and extend the age limit to 21;
-
to reduce carcass tags on adults’ permits at 2 (21+);
-
to issuing only one carcass tag on Youth permits (12 - 21);
-
to continuing to prohibit day permit anglers to retain fish;
-
to introducing 3 monthly permits (Appendix 1). These will be introduced on a Catch & Release basis;
-
to continuing to sell corporate permits at the price of £296.00; and
-
to make it full catch and release for sea trout.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager Environment & Place (Localities &
Infrastructure) dated 24 November 2017, submitted).
The Panel resolved under Section 50A (4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act
1973 that the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business
on the grounds they involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in
Paragraphs 6 and 13, of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act
1973.
PL69 GRANT OF A TAXI DRIVER’S LICENCE
The Chief Officer – Governance explained the process on how the meeting would be conducted. Both Police Scotland and the applicant/their representatives would be given an opportunity to address members of the Panel with the Panel being able to ask questions. All parties confirmed they understood the process, and had no questions.
The application was to grant a new taxi driver’s licence was received on 11 September 2017 from the applicant. Police Scotland lodged an objection in terms of Section 3(1) of Schedule 1 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, to the application received by email on 5 October 2017, on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person and raised issues with regards to his suitability to hold a taxi driver’s licence.
The Panel heard from the representatives of Police Scotland, who lodged an objection on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person and raised issues with regards to his suitability to hold a taxi driver’s licence.
The applicant was in attendance with a representative for support and was heard in support of his application.
The Panel put a number of questions to Police Scotland, and the applicant.
In response to a question from the Chair, the applicant and representative confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.
Motion
That the Panel agreed to refuse the application for taxi driver’s licence
Moved by Councillor Neil Benny and seconded by Councillor Maureen Bennison.
Decision
The Panel agreed to refuse the application for a taxi driver’s licence under Section 3(1) of Schedule 1 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The Panel took this decision because Police Scotland had raised concerns following the disclosure of a conviction the applicant had and the circumstances relating to the same, which were a material consideration for the Panel. In particular, the Panel felt that this demonstrated that the applicant would be a serious threat to public safety and public order and unable to conduct himself in a suitable manner in situations a taxi driver
might find himself in, and as a consequence was not a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver’s licence.
(Reference: Report by Chief Governance Officer (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 24 November 2017, submitted).
PL70 GRANT OF A TAXI DRIVER’S LICENCE
The Chief Officer – Governance explained the process on how the meeting would be conducted. Both Police Scotland and the applicant/their representatives would be given an opportunity to address members of the Panel with the Panel being able to ask questions. All parties confirmed they understood the process, and had no questions.
The application was to grant a new taxi driver’s licence was received on 15 September 2017 from the applicant. Police Scotland lodged an objection in terms of Section 3(1) of Schedule 1 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, to the application received by email on 6 October 2017. Details of convictions were detailed, on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person and her suitability to hold a taxi driver’s licence.
The Panel heard from the representatives of Police Scotland, who lodged an objection on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person and raised issues with regards to their suitability to hold a taxi driver’s licence.
The applicant was in attendance with a representative for support in the role as a taxi driver the applicant was heard in support of the application.
The Panel put a number of questions to Police Scotland, and the applicant.
In response to a question from the Chair, the applicant and representative confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.
Motion
That the Panel agrees to refuse the application for taxi driver’s licence
Moved by Councillor Douglas Dodds and seconded by Councillor Alistair Berrill.
Amendment
That the Panel agrees to grant the application for a taxi driver’s licence, under
Section 3(1) of Schedule 1 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, for a period of 6 months this being with immediate effect, with an added condition that the licence holder demonstrates good behaviour in their holding a taxi driver’s licence. The Panel took this decision because, even though Police Scotland had raised concerns, following the disclosure of convictions the applicant had, which were a material consideration for the Panel, the Panel felt that there were mitigating circumstances in respect of these convictions and their vintage which, on balance, meant that the applicant had not demonstrated to be a serious threat to public safety in their role as a taxi driver, and as a consequence was a fit and proper person to
hold a taxi driver’s licence subject to the stipulated duration of the licence and the good behaviour condition.
Moved by Councillor Chris Kane, seconded by Councillor Maureen Bennison.
On the roll being called, the Members present voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (7) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Chris Kane
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
Against the Amendment (2) Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Alistair Berrill
The Amendment was carried by 7 votes to 2 and became the Substantive Motion.
For the Substantive Motion (7) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Chris Kane
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
Against the Substantive Motion (2) Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Decision
The Panel agreed to grant the application for a taxi driver’s licence, under Section 3(1) of Schedule 1 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, for a period of 6 months this being with immediate effect, with an added condition that the licence holder demonstrates good behaviour in their holding a taxi driver’s licence. The Panel took this decision because, even though Police Scotland had raised concerns, following the disclosure of convictions the applicant had, which were a material consideration for the Panel, the Panel felt that there were mitigating circumstances in respect of these convictions and their vintage which, on balance, meant that the applicant had not demonstrated to be a serious threat to public safety in their role as
a taxi driver, and as a consequence was a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver’s licence subject to the stipulated duration of the licence and the good behaviour condition.
(Reference: Report by Chief Governance Officer (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 24 November 2017, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 11:55 am