Service updates

Special Meeting of the Planning and Regulation Panel - Thursday 18th January 2018

Last updated

09 Mar 2023

 

STIRLING COUNCIL‌‌‌

 

MINUTES of SPECIAL MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the

BANNOCKBURN COMMUNITY CENTRE ON THURSDAY 18 JANUARY 2018 at 10.00 am

 

Present

 

Councillor Alasdair MacPherson (in the Chair)

Councillor Maureen BENNISON
Councillor Neil BENNY
Councillor Douglas DODDS
Councillor Chris KANE

Councillor Graham LAMBIE
Councillor Jeremy McDONALD
Councillor Evelyn TWEED

 

In Attendance

 

Shona Campbell, Licensing Paralegal (Localities & Infrastructure)
Helena Dewar, Environmental Health Officer (Environment & Place)
Barbara Docherty, Cemeteries Officer, (Environment & Place)
Lindsay Fyfe, Licensing Standards Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer, (Localities & Infrastructure)

Mary Love, Committee Officer (Localities & Infrastructure) (Minute)

Iain Strachan, Chief Officer – Governance (Localities & Infrastructure) (Clerk)

 

Also Present

 

Councillor Margaret Brisley

Steve Bucknall, Development Director, Westerleigh Group
John Fowler, Bannockburn Community Council

Andrew Fyfe, WSP

 

PL74 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS

 

Apologies were received on behalf of Councillor Alistair Berrill. There were no substitutions.

 

PL75 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

PL76 CREMATORIUM AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING LANDSCAPED OF REMEMBRANCE AND AREAS FOR THE INTERMENT OFREMAINS, CAR PARKING AND ACCESS AT LAND AT FORMERHOSPITAL, BANNOCKBURN HOSPITAL ACCESS,
BANNOCKBURN - CREMATORIA MANAGEMENT LTD & SCOTTISH MINISTERS
PER FORTH VALLEY HEALTH BOARD - 17/00676/FUL - HEARING

 

A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure, advised of an application, which was referred to the Planning and 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.

 

At its meeting on Tuesday 5 December 2017, the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Site Visit and Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel. The Site Visit was held on Thursday 11 January 2018.

 

All Members of the Panel present at this point had attended the site visit and could therefore take part in consideration of the application.

 

The Chair outlined the procedure for the Hearing.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report, which provided details of (a) the site; (b) the proposal; (c) previous history; (d) Development Plan policy; (e) material considerations; (f) assessment; and (g) consultations. It was noted that additional representation had been received.

 

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that the Applicant had agreed to pay a financial contributionto a Traffic Order for the introduction of double yellow line road markings over the site’s frontage with the A9 Falkirk Road.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then responded to questions from the Panel. In response to a question from the Panel in relation to consideration of and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that submission of an EIA was not required due to the small scale of the development, as the proposed physical building on the crematorium site was of an urban type, however he clarified that various
reports were requested in relation to noise, road impact etc.

 

In response to another question from the Panel as to why it was deemed that the proposed site should be in the south of Stirling, the Officers from Environmental Health and Cemeteries replied that a number of sites were taken into consideration and the conclusion in the report stated that this proposed site was the only feasible site to the south of Stirling, in order to make it economically viable. Officers also confirmed that smoke from the site would not be an issue and the Applicant would require to apply for
authority from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to monitor the omissions. The Environmental Health Officer went on to explain in detail to the Panel the type of matters SEPA would be looking to regulate, however, in response to a question from a Panel Member in relation to details of the inspection and penalties given by SEPA, the Environmental Health Officer replied that she did not know the full detail, however, the applicant may be able to advise the Panel.

 

In response to a Panel Member about concerns around the impact of a large cortege in the proposed ghost lane, Andrew Fyfe, WSP provided a detailed explanation of the transport assessment submission, explaining worst case scenario details should a large cortege be in attendance. It was noted that the Cremation Act 1902 was being repealed and therefore was not taken into consideration regarding this application.

 

Applicant

 

Steve Bucknall, Development Director, Westerleigh Group presented the case in support of the application. He responded to questions addressed to the Panel earlier in the meeting, as follows:-

 

  1. Omissions – there would be no smoke or odours coming out of the cremator flue.

  2. SEPA – there was a process of continuing monitoring within the cremator flue and periodically, reports were sent to SEPA. There was also a strong penal process in place should organisations not adhere to SEPA guidelines. SEPA only used the most advanced technology.

     

  3. 1100 figures per annum – Mr Bucknell explained how this figure was reached, which was calculated by the number of people who lived closest to the site and the number of deaths from this area, along with the number of cremations.

     

  4. Large funerals would not usually come to a crematorium but would be held in a cathedral. With a committal, only the coffin and immediate family would be in attendance, with the bulk of the mourners going to the wake.

     

  5. Two funerals back to back – the applicant explained that they are looking to hold 6 funerals per day and the crematorium manager would build a
    relationship with the funeral directors, so that if there was an occasion where a large funeral would be taking place, additional staff would be prepared to deal with this and no further large funerals would be booked back to back.

     

  6. Access off an A road – Mr Bucknall explained that he had 25 years’
    experience and currently there were six crematoriums who used this road access method and that there had never been an issue with parking on an A road.

 

Mr Bucknall concluded by urging the Panel to consent to this application, and allow delivery of the high quality crematorium the residents deserved.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Bucknell for his presentation.

 

In terms of Standing Order 39, the Panel adjourned at 11.05 am for a comfort break. The meeting reconvened at 11.10 am, with the same Members present.

Mr Bucknall then responded to further questions from the Panel. Discussion took place around the annual amount of funerals, larger funerals and the types of services offered. The Senor Planning Officer suggested that conditions within the report could be amended to include: explicit reference to operating hours of all services offered, which would exclude office administrative work, visits to the remembrance garden, and the carrying out of cremations; a limit to the total number of funeral services per year, that funeral services shall be spaced to a maximum of one per hour and parking within the site was managed efficiently.

 

Objector

John Fowler presented the views of Bannockburn Community Council. He highlighted the negative impact the development would have on the traffic on the A9, risk to illegal parking, the visibility of the development, which would affect neighbouring houses and farming households and air and noise pollution from two roads with constant heavy truck movements. It was also felt that this potential development would devalue property in the area.

Mr Fowler advised the Panel of observations from the majority of Crematoria operators on the subject. It was noted that a poll for the FBCA of 1009 adults in Scotland in November 2015 found that 77% wanted to retain the proximity rules of the Cremation Act 1902; 9% disagreed.

The Chair thanked Mr Fowler for his presentation.

Mr Fowler then responded to a number of questions from the Panel.
Local Member

Councillor Margaret Brisley spoke as an objector to the application. It was noted that there were grave concerns from local residents with regard to the proposed development, with a large number having signed a petition against the application. It was the opinion that the traffic assessment carried out by the local community was far more relevant than the Traffic Impact Assessment submitted within the application.

Councillor Brisley noted that the Panel had a duty to look at the impact this
development would have on traffic impact. She added that she used the A91 every day and this development would challenge traffic at peak times and noted that on a number of occasions, the traffic was backed up mid-afternoon. Concern around environmental impact and air quality was noted as was the site of the proposed development, which would be sited on top of a hill in full view, which was not considered appropriate by local residents, as it would not protect the dignity of the bereaved. Councillor Brisley concluded by saying that she hoped the Panel would reject this application for the reasons given.

The Chair thanked Councillor Brisley and in terms of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, Councillor Brisley left the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

 

Further discussion took place in relation to road matters. Andrew Fyfe, WSP explained that Stirling Council had used automatic traffic counters for a period of one month to record data on the number of vehicles on various affected routes.

 

The Panel then proceeded to consider the application.

 

Motion

 

“That the Panel agrees:-

 

  1. to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in Appendix 1 attached to the report but subject to the following amendments:

     

    1. an amendment to Condition 4 within Appendix 1 of the report to read: - ‘Crematorium Services: The days/hours of operation of services for funerals, committal only cremations, and Funeral Directors only, (this does not include office administrative work, visits to the remembrance garden, and the carrying
      out of cremations) shall be restricted to 0930 hours to 1730 hours from Monday- Friday and 0930 hours to 1300 hours on a Saturday with no Sunday working. The number of funeral services shall not exceed 1100 per year. Funeral services shall be spaced to a maximum of one per hour’.

       

    2. an amendment to Reason 4 within Appendix 1 to the report to read: - ‘To protect the amenity of adjacent residential properties at 147 and 149 Falkirk Road, to ensure that Services do not conflict with morning peak travel and result in the back up of vehicles towards the Greencornhills Roundabout, in the interest of road safety and to ensure the efficient management of parking within the site.

       

  2. the Financial contributions to a Traffic Order and City Transport Plan, to be secured through an invoice.”

 

Proposed by Councillor Douglas Dodds, seconded by Councillor Neil Benny.

Amendment

 

“That the Panel agrees:-

 

to refuse the application on the grounds that there are concerns around traffic impact not being fully addressed and mitigated and visual impact on the surrounding countryside.”

 

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

 

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 12.20 pm to enable discussion by those Members around detailed reasons for refusal.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.25 pm with the same Members present.

 

Councillor Maureen Bennison, seconded by Councillor Chris Kane, moved that “The Panel agrees to refuse the application on the grounds of concerns on traffic moving in and out of the proposed site, disagreement in relation to the Traffic Officer’s assessment of landscape and visual impact, as the visual impact is detrimental to the area and the site should be in a discreet location, and that an Environmental Impact Assessment should have been undertaken when considering the application.”

On the roll being called, the Members present voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (2) Councillor Maureen Bennison

Councillor Chris Kane

 

Against the Amendment (6) Councillor Neil Benny

Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed

 

The Amendment fell by 6 votes to 2.

 

For the Motion (6) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed

 

Against the Motion (2) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Chris Kane

 

Decision

 

The Motion was carried by 6 votes to 2 and accordingly the Panel agreed:-

 

  1. to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in Appendix 1 attached to the report but subject to the following amendments:

     

    1. an amendment to Condition 4 within Appendix 1 of the report to read: - ‘Crematorium Services: The days/hours of operation of services for funerals,committal only cremations, and Funeral Directors only, (this does not include office administrative work, visits to the remembrance garden, and the carrying
      out of cremations) shall be restricted to 0930 hours to 1730 hours from Monday- Friday and 0930 hours to 1300 hours on a Saturday with no Sunday working. The number of funeral services shall not exceed 1100 per year. Funeral services shall be spaced to a maximum of one per hour’.

       

    2. an amendment to Reason 4 within Appendix 1 to the report to read: - ‘To protect the amenity of adjacent residential properties at 147 and 149 Falkirk Road, to ensure that Services do not conflict with morning peak travel and result in the back up of vehicles towards the Greencornhills Roundabout, in the interest of road safety and to ensure the efficient management of parking within
      the site’.

       

  2. The Financial contributions to a Traffic Order and City Transport Plan, to be secured through an invoice.”

 

The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 12.35 pm