Service updates

Planning and Regulation Panel - Tuesday 7th November 2017

Last updated

09 Mar 2023

 

STIRLING COUNCIL

 

MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, TUESDAY 7 NOVEMBER 2017 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

 

In Attendance

 

Shona Campbell, Licensing Paralegal, Localities & Infrastructure

Christina Cox, Planning & Building Standards Manager, Localities & Infrastructure
Lindsay Fyfe, Licensing Standards Officer, Localities & Infrastructure

Rebecca Jardine, Communication Officer, Chief Executive’s Office (from item PL55)
Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Localities & Infrastructure

Mary Love, Committee Officer (Minutes)

Iain Strachan, Chief Officer – Governance (Item PL56)
David McDougall, Governance Officer (Clerk)

 

PL51 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS

 

Apologies were received on behalf of Councillor Jeremy McDonald and Councillor Evelyn Tweed.

 

PL52 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

PL53 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to approve the Minutes of Meetings held on 29 August 2017,

22 September 2017, 26 September 2017 and 3 October 2017 as accurate records of proceedings, subject to the following amendments made to the Minutes of 26 September 2017:-

 

  1. Agenda item PL041 – additional wording to be appended to this item in the minutes as follows: –

    “The Secretary of Carron Valley & District Community Council spoke on behalf of the Community Council, which had objected to the application. She reiterated their points of objection to this application, those being:-

     

    • The main access to and past the site of the application was along a Core Path. There was already an issue regarding an obstruction to this Core Path which the Community Council claimed was illegal under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. This issue had not been resolved and it was felt by the Community Council that the application should not proceed until a resolution had been found and the obstruction removed;

       

    • The application had access to the site along a road which the Community Council claimed was not currently adequately maintained;

       

    • The Lime Kilns were of local importance and a sense of place and heritage was important;

       

    • A previous application for 2 chalets on the same site was refused the previous year, and the Community Council questioned why an application for 12 on the same site was being proposed for approval;

       

    • The current location for residential refuse collection was too small and was inappropriate for a commercial collection site;

       

    • The Community Council claimed that there had been extensive work carried out on the site for a number of years to provide the levelled groundworks for the proposed chalets which they felt was “pre-application work”; and

       

    • Should the application be approved, a precedent could then be set for any future developer to prepare the ground for a building and questioned the need for Planning legislation.

       

  2. Agenda item PL044 – to record that Councillor Bennison and Councillor McDonald voted against the Officer recommendation.

Panel Members also commented that not enough content had been included within the agenda items in this Minute, and that the content recorded did not fully reflect discussion by the Panel.

 

PL54 PROPOSED VARIATION TO CONDITION 7 TO PERMISSION 17/00002/FUL,
OVERBRIDGE TO NORTHWEST OF KERSE ROAD ROUNDABOUT,

KERSE ROAD, STIRLING – NETWORK RAIL – 17/00744/FUL

 

The application had been referred to the Planning & Regulation Panel by the Planning & Building Standards Manager, as the planning permission to which the Condition related (17/00002/FUL) was determined by the Planning and Regulation Panel.

 

The Chair advised the Panel that following discussions with Network Rail, a request from the Planning & Building Standards Manager had been made today, for the Panel to agree to withdraw this application from the Agenda and present the application at the Planning & Regulation Panel Meeting in December.

The Planning & Building Standards Manager confirmed this decision and added that following ongoing consultations with Network Rail around conditions that balance their construction needs with environmental health issues, Network Rail had contacted the Planning Department to advise that on reflection, the conditions agreed could not work for them. As the conditions now being worked on differed so much from those recommended in the report, it was agreed between Network Rail and the Planning
Department that the application would continue to be worked on and be presented for consideration at the Planning & Regulation Panel Meeting on 5 December 2017, subject to agreement from the Panel.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to withdraw the application from today’s 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.

 

(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 31 October 2017, submitted).

 

PL55 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CEMETERY WITH ENGINEERING WORKS AND LANDSCAPING AT LAND 160
METRES SOUTH OF BROADGATE HOUSE, CAMPSIE ROAD, STRATHBLANE –
GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD – 17/00434/PPP

 

The application had been referred to the Planning & Regulation Panel by the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Manager since the application proposed a ‘Major’ development as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the report, which provided details of the site; the proposal; previous history and development policy.

 

The Planning Officer advised the Panel that Environment Scotland had raised
objections and the historical revision was with Historic Scotland for review and that removal or refusal would affect paragraphs within the officer recommendations of the report, however, it would not affect the officer recommendation to refuse.

 

The Planning Officer also advised the Panel that since the application had been
composed, the Housing Land Audit had been published and it had been confirmed that Stirling Council had a 5.3 year supply of land for housing.

 

The Planning Officer responded to a number of questions from the Panel.

 

Responding to a request from the Chair, the Planning Officer explained Primary Policy 2 in detail. In response to a question from the Panel regarding the education capacity, the Planning Officer advised that there would be an issue with the primary school capacity and that any development would need to be phased to ensure capacity levels were met. It was also noted that there had been no consultation with the NHS regarding this application.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to refuse the planning application for the following reasons:

  1. The proposal is contrary to Primary Policy 1 (Placemaking) of the Stirling Local Plan 2014 and the Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan 2016, since this development will encroach onto a green field site, and will not respect the Green Belt within which it is situated.

     

  2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1.1 (b) (Site Planning) of the Stirling Council Local Plan 2014 and the Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan 2016, since this development will not complement its surroundings and the application has failed to demonstrate that the development will successfully integrate the Scheduled Monument (Broadgate Mound).

     

  3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1.5 (Green Belts) of the Stirling Council Local Plan 2014, the Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan 2016, and SG03 (Green Belts), since this development will not preserve the openness of the Green Belt and will undermine its core role and function. Moreover, the scale of residential development is beyond that supported by this policy.

     

  4. The proposal is contrary to Primary Policy 2 of the Stirling Council Local Plan 2014, and Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan 2016 since it is not consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy and it will not provide significant economic and social support to the rural area.

     

  5. The proposal is contrary to Policy 2.1 of the Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan, 2016, since it is not consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy and it does not meet the provisions of the LDP Overarching Policy, its accompanying Sustainable Development Criteria and all other relevant LDP policies.

     

  6. The proposal is contrary to Policy 2.10 (Housing in the Countryside) of the Stirling Council Local Plan 2014, the Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan 2016 and SG10 (Housing in the Countryside), since this development is beyond that supported by this policy.

     

  7. The proposal is contrary to Primary Policy 7 (Historic Environment) and Policy 7.1 of the Stirling Council Local Plan 2014 and the Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan 2016, since this development will not safeguard, preserve or enhance the historic environment and the setting of its component features, namely the Scheduled Monument (Broadgate Mound). It is considered that the proposal will have a negative impact on the historic environment.

     

  8. The proposal is contrary to Primary Policy 9 (Managing Landscape Change) of the Stirling Council Local Plan 2014 and the Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan 2016, since it has not been demonstrated that the local landscape has capacity to accommodate the scale of development envisaged, and it would result in adverse cumulative impacts on landscape character and visual amenity
    when viewed in associated with the adjacent, Braidgate development.

     

  9. The proposal is contrary to the guiding principles of sustainable development of Scottish Planning Policy since it is considered that the proposal will result in over-development of the settlement edge; and it will not protect or enhance the historic environment which are listed as guiding sustainable development principles (paragraph 29).

(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 30 October 2017, submitted).‌‌‌‌‌

 

PL56 TAXI FARE REVIEW

 

It was the duty of the licensing authority, under Section 17(2) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, to review the scales and charges for taxi fares at intervals not exceeding 18 months from the date when the scales came into effect.

 

The Licensing Officer introduced the report and responded to questions from the Panel.

 

It was noted by a Member that under the current legislation, responses were received from taxi companies alone and not consumers. The Licensing Officer confirmed that this review procedure was a legal requirement, bound by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, to ensure there were no overcharges in fares and that if the Panel approved the recommendations, they would then be made available to the public. If any objections were received from the public, a report would then be brought back to the Panel for further consultation.

 

It was noted by a Member that there had been confusion previously with regard to how the legislation was interpreted and whether any tariff had to be imposed at all. Officers confirmed their understanding that the Council was required to impose a tariff.

 

Following discussion, it was noted that one of the officer recommendations within the report contradicted the information relating to tariff 2 detailed within Appendix 2 to the report. The Panel agreed to a short adjournment to allow officers to clarify their recommendations to the Panel.

 

In terms of Standing Order No. 77, the meeting adjourned at 10.40 am for a temporary period, in order for officers to clarify the relevant information.

 

The meeting reconvened at 10.55 am with the Chief Governance Officer joining the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

 

The Chief Governance Officer clarified that an error had been made within the report and proposed that tariff 2 of the proposed schedule (Appendix 2) should apply as stated in Appendix 1 to the report, to reflect the recommendation within the report, which was that tariff 2 will apply to hires starting between 23:00 and 07:00 throughout the year and between 07:00 on 25 December and 23:00 on 27 December and between 07:00 on 1 January and 23:00 on 3 January.

 

Further discussion took place around the details within the proposed schedule and it was noted that if the recommendations were approved, the schedule would be advertised to the public via social media, the Council public website and the Press.

 

The Chair highlighted that while it was important to have a detailed consultation in order to look at the impact increased fares would have on the consumer, it was equally important to note that the taxi drivers struggled to make a living and wanted to have tariff 2, as reflected in Appendix 1 to the report. It was also highlighted that there had been no increases to fares since 2014.

Motion

 

“That the Panel agrees:-

 

  1. to impose the taxi fare increase as detailed in paragraph 3.6 of the report;

  2. that taxi tariff 2 remains as stated in Appendix 1 to the report; and

  3. that the Panel’s decision be publicly advertised prior to implementation, in accordance with legislative requirements, and delegates authority to the Chief Governance Officer to take all steps required to effect the decision of the Planning and Regulation Panel.”

 

Proposed by Councillor Chris Kane, seconded by Councillor Maureen Bennison.

 

Amendment

 

“That the Panel agrees:-

 

  1. to impose the taxi fare increase as detailed in paragraph 3.6 of the report;

  2. that taxi tariff 2 applies on Sunday and Bank Holidays as detailed in paragraph 3.7 of the report; and

  3. that the Panel’s decision be publicly advertised prior to implementation, in accordance with legislative requirements, and delegates authority to the Chief Governance Officer to take all steps required to effect the decision of the Planning and Regulation Panel.”

 

Proposed by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson, seconded by Councillor Graham
Lambie.

 

For the Amendment (3) Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson

 

Against the Amendment (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Chris Kane

 

The Amendment fell by 4 votes to 3.

 

For the Motion (5) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councilor Chris Kane
Councillor Graham Lambie

 

Against The Motion (2)

Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson

Decision

 

The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 2 and accordingly the Panel agreed:-

 

  1. to impose the taxi fare increase as detailed in paragraph 3.6 of the report;

  2. that taxi tariff 2 remains as stated in Appendix 1 to the report; and

  3. that the Panel’s decision be publicly advertised prior to implementation, in accordance with legislative requirements, and delegates authority to the Chief Governance Officer to take all steps required to effect the decision of the Planning and Regulation Panel.

 

(Reference: Report by Senior Manager – Infrastructure (Localities & Infrastructure) dated 27 October 2017, submitted).

 

The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 11.10 am