STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 1 MAY 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
In Attendance
Jane Brooks-Burnett, Senior Planning Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Christina Cox, Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards (Localities & Infrastructure)
Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Gavin Kennedy, Development Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Peter McKechnie, Planning Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Stephen Boyle, Transport Development Control Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Neil Pirie, Senior Development Control Officer (Localities & Infrastructure)
Iain Strachan, Governance Officer (Localities & Infrastructure) (Clerk)
Mary Love, Committee Officer (Localities & Infrastructure) (Minute)
Also Present
Andrew Fyfe, Principal Transport Planner, WSP
AGENDA
The Chair intimated his intention to alter the order of the Agenda. The items were taken in the order minuted below.
PL102 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Apologies were received on behalf of Councillor Evelyn Tweed.
PL103 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Chris Kane and Councillor Neil Benny declared an interest in Agenda item 12 (Item 113) and took no part in consideration of this item.
PL104 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
There were no items of urgent business.
PL105 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL 27 MARCH 2018
The Minutes of the Planning & Regulation Panel held on the 27 March 2017 were submitted for approval.
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the Minutes of Meeting held on 27 March 2018 as an accurate record of proceedings subject to the following amendments:-
-
17/00977/PPP is shown as Item PL98 in minute – should be PL99
-
17/00978/PPP is shown as item PL99 in minute – should be PL98 and;
-
17/00978/PPP - “The Chair proposed that the Panel agree to defer consideration of the application pending a Hearing, as two requests for a Hearing had been made regarding application 17/00978/PPP, which, although was considered as a separate application, had been submitted by the same applicant and landowner on the same development site. No further discussion took place on this item.”
-
Councillor Neil Benny’s name to be removed from attendance list, as he had submitted apologies.
Hearing
It was noted that although items 17/00977/PPP and 17/00978/PPP were related, from the same applicant in the same locality, they would both be determined separately through the hearing procedure.
PL106 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT LAND ADJACENT AND SOUTH OF NOS 1 3, LAMPSON LOAN, KILLEARN – W S GORDON I V TRUST – 17/00977/PPP
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that this was an application for planning permission in principle for a residential development on land adjacent to 1 and 3 Lampson Loan, Killearn.
The application was brought to Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of
Councillor Robert Davies who considered there to be a severe shortage of affordable housing in Killearn.
At its meeting on 27 March 2018, the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Hearing to take place at a future Panel.
The report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
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) assessment and
(f) consultations and responded to questions from the Panel.
The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer for his presentation.
Agent for Applicant
Paul Houghton of Houghton Planning Limited spoke on behalf of the Applicant in support of the application. Mr Houghton outlined the proposed site to the Panel and provided a historical update. He noted that this site would be suitable for affordable housing and had previously been offered to various housing associations and charitable bodies but no offers had been received to date. The proposed site was outside of the village boundary, which Mr Houghton accepted, and thus in the countryside. It was also accepted that the Housing in the Countryside policy did not offer any basis for allowing development on the site, as the policy was more about housing in the wider countryside and not about an expansion on the fringes of a settlement.
Mr Houghton noted the Local Development Plan and policy 2.1: The 5 year Effective Housing Land Supply and calculated that there was an immediate shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the Stirling area. The Reporter had calculated 638 units, however, it was noted that officers were yet to respond and may dispute the findings. He calculated that there was a shortfall and that currently there was a 4.14 year supply rather than the required 5 years supply, which Mr Houghton noted, on that basis, Policy 2.1 would apply in terms of this application, albeit the policy had an arbitrary cut off of 30 units and over. The current proposals would appear in accordance with the Spatial Strategy and it was his view that this layout was the best
solution for the site, which would be slightly outside the village and would have walking routes and opportunity for residents to access the village without using the road.
The Chair thanked Mr Houghton for his presentation and opened up to questions from the Panel. In response to a question from the Panel, Mr Houghton replied that he disagreed with the details in the report regarding the housing in the countryside policy, which stated that it did not specifically provide for edge of settlement rural development that would result in coalescence.
Objector
Mr Duncan McLean spoke against the application. He noted that while he had not spoken directly with everyone who had objected, those who he had spoken with had given him their blessing to make this representation on their behalf. Mr McLean went on to note his concerns regarding the proposals, which he noted were contrary to planning policy, would have an adverse impact on existing properties, as well as the wider built and natural environments and the unjustified need to develop housing on
this proposed site. He noted that the main reasons the site was considered unsuitable was its remoteness from services, amenities and public transport connections and negative impact on landscape setting. He noted that the site assessment also identified that land had been allocated elsewhere in the village to meet housing supply needs primarily through the Blairessan development, which was currently under construction. Mr McLean noted that the proposals should be contrary to primary planning policy in relation to placemaking and site planning, due to the proposal not being in keeping with its surroundings and being over developed.
Mr McLean added that the proposed site did not meet the necessary criteria outlined in the Housing Land Supply Policy, as it was not consistent with the Local Development Plan Spacial Strategy, was not over 30 units in size and therefore would not make a significant contribution to any identified housing shortfall. He also added that the proposed site did not meet the Sustainable Development Criteria because the proposals did not improve the overall quality of the built environment, did not reduce the need to travel and reliance on the private car, did not enhance historic and natural environment, did not support healthy and safer lifestyles and did not involve re-use and/or regeneration of brownfield sites, as this site was greenfield.
The Chair thanked Mr McLean for his presentation and invited questions from the Panel.
Responding to a question from the Panel, The Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards confirmed that the Local Development Plan set out the position with regard to the Housing Land Supply and that the current position was that there was sufficient land supply of 5.3 years and that the shortfall was not relevant to consideration.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees to refuse the application for the reasons set out in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the report”
Proposed by Councillor Graham Lambie, seconded by Alistair Berrill.
Decision
The Panel agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons:
-
The proposal is contrary to Primary Policy 2 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2014, and Stirling Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan 2016 since it is not consistent with the Local Development Plan Vision and Spatial Strategy and it will not provide significant economic and social support to the rural area.
-
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.
(Reference: Report by Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 20 April 2018,
submitted).
PL107 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT LAND ADJACENT TO NOS 1 AND 2, ROAD, KILLEARN – W S GORDON I V TRUST – 17/00978/PPP -
HEARING
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that his was an application for planning permission in principle for a residential development on land adjacent to 1 and 2 Lampson Road, Killearn.
The application was brought to Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of
Councillor Robert Davies who considered there to be a severe shortage of affordable housing in Killearn.
At its meeting on 27 March 2018, the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Hearing to take place at a future Panel.
The report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
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) assessment and
(f) consultations and responded to questions from the Panel. It was noted that 60 objections were received regarding this application. The Senior Planning Officer went on to explain the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) to the Panel. It was noted that the SHIP could potentially allow a scheme of this scale to be brought forward as there were two unidentified rural sites in the latter years of the SHIP.
In response to a question from the Panel as to whether the proposed site was suitable for affordable housing the Senior Planning Officer replied that it was not and went on to explain the proposed housing layout. He advised that the LDP took precedence and mentioned the content of the report which referred to the development of 12 affordable units at Blairessan by Rural Stirling Housing Association and that the applicant had not established whether Rural Stirling Housing Association considered that a further scheme in Killearn merits inclusion in the SHIP, which had not demonstrated that the
development would meet a specific need and demand for affordable housing in the area, particularly social rented, in accordance with the Spatial Strategy. Discussion took place regarding the Council’s waiting list, as mentioned in the report, and the question was raised by the Panel as to how Blairessan would solve the lack of affordable housing alone, and that this proposed development could be an advantageous opportunity to combat this issue. The Senior Planning Officer replied that only a certain portion of units could be reserved for affordable housing and as this application was a Planning in Principle, the planning department could not seek to apply for affordable housing, as this site would take up 4 houses, which was too small an amount.
Discussion then took place regarding a Section 75 agreement and it was noted that both parties could enter into the agreement but any party could in effect, pull out. The Planning & Building Standards Manager explained that there were different models of affordable housing, with some being provided through RSL model as the greatest need for this type of housing but this could go down to mid-market housing. In response to a question from the Panel whether the Council’s waiting list was up to date, the Senior Planning Officer replied that it would not be known for some time yet and would need
to be looked at again. He added that he had not engaged with Rural Stirling and that the information provided was the most current available.
Agent for Applicant
Paul Houghton of Houghton Planning Limited spoke on behalf of the Applicant in support of the application. He explained the layout of the site and added that it was fenced of and not used for agriculture. He advised that the policy position was the same as the previous application but the only difference was the affordable housing aspect. The application had been put forward primarily for affordable housing and the site had been offered to various housing associations who had made encouraging responses but no firm offers had been received. An offer was also made to Stirling Council to purchase the land but no response had been received to date. Mr Houghton went on to discuss the detail on a map of the proposed site which he highlighted, could
be used for sheltered or social housing or could be secured by the Council as
purchased land. In response from the Panel as to whether the applicant would be prepared to enter into a Section 75 agreement for 12 affordable housing units, Mr Houghton replied that it would be for 11 affordable housing units and one private unit and that the applicant had hoped that this would allow for 2 sites to be individually assessed and added that the applicant would be prepared to enter into a Section 75 agreement.
The Chair thanked Mr Houghton for his presentation.
Objector
Mr Duncan Leishman spoke against the application, highlighting that he had concerns aroundthe planning policy and that the prospect of affordable housing was questionable. This was a greenfield site, outwith the settlement boundary of the countryside policy and was not within the adopted plan and was assessed on the Local Development Plan and dismissed as remote. He added that there were sites elsewhere in the area which were more suitable for housing. The Local Development Plan (LDP) review was deemed four to six units would not be suitable for this site and this type of development was more suitable to an urban site and was not in keeping with the surrounding area. and should be considered contrary to the Planning Policy in terms of placemaking. Mr McLean again addressed the impact on properties and
the issue of housing land supply and concluded that he wished to urge the Panel to refuse the application on the reasons provided within the report.
The Chair thanked Mr McLean for his presentation and invited questions from the Panel. It was noted that the school was a 20 to 25 minute walk up a steep hill and around one mile from the local GP practice and shops. In response to another question from the Panel, with regard to general considerations of applications, the Senior Planning Officer noted that it was difficult to answer and that each site was different, therefore consideration came down to each individual characterisation on the site and that material considerations could outlay planning policy. In response to a question from the Panel as to whether a Section 75 agreement had been challenged previously, it was noted that this had happened in 2011 but not tested in this particular scenario, as the site was for private housing.
The Panel then went on to discuss the application and the information provided by the officers and speakers.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees:-
the application is refused based on the reasons contained in the submitted report” Moved by Councillor Alastair Berrill, seconded by Councillor Graham Lambie.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees:-
to approve the application subject to the implementation of a Section 75 Agreement to secure contributions to the provision of affordable housing. Granting of planning permission will accord with the objectives of the development plan in respect of the provision of affordable housing.”
Moved by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson, seconded by Councillor Chris Kane.
On the roll being called, the Members present voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Chris Kane
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Against the Amendment (4) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
There being an equality of votes, the Chair cast his casting vote for the Amendment, and the Amendment was carried by 5 votes to 4 and became the Substantive Motion.
For the Substantive Motion (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Chris Kane
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Against the Substantive Motion (4) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
There being an equality of votes, the Chair cast his casting vote in favour of the Substantive Motion.
Decision
The Substantive Motion was carried by 5 votes to 4 and accordingly the Panel agreed to approve the application subject to the implementation of a Section 75 Agreement to secure contributions to the provision of affordable housing. Granting of planning permission will accord with the objectives of the development plan in respect of the provision of affordable housing.
(Reference: Report Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 20 April 2018, submitted). In terms of Standing Order 39, the Panel adjourned at 11.10am for a comfort break. The meeting reconvened at 11.15am.
PL108 PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DILAPIDATED GARAGE AND OF DWELLING AT LAND AND BUILDING ADJACENT AND NORTHHALLIDAY- 17/00660/FUL
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that full planning permission was sought on land to the north west of 13 Kenilworth Road, Bridge of Allan, for the erection of a single dwelling house on a small narrow section of land, which was once part of 13 Kenilworth Roads garden ground, as evidenced by the small wooden garage that currently occupies the site. The site lies within the Upper Bridge of Allan Conservation Area and is surrounded by a number of listed buildings including the properties either side of the site, which are category C listed. The proposed application site area extends to 157-seven square metres and the proposed drawings showed the erection of a two storey, two-bedroom dwelling house, which was to fill virtually the
whole site. It was to be built hard up to the boundary walls on both sides and the only amenity space left available at the front of the property was taken up by parking and bin storage. The finishing materials include natural slate on the roof, natural stone for the walls and also render and timber cladding.
The application was before the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Douglas Dodds, who had cited the fact the proposals would enhance the area, compared with a garage which was derelict and the fact the proposed house design and finishing materials proposed would be in keeping with the Conservation Area, as the planning reasons for the request.
Councillor Dodds had also requested that the application was determined by means of a Hearing to allow the applicant to present the case for the development.
The report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
No further discussion took place on the application.
Decision
The Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application to allow a site visit and Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
(Reference: Report Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 19 April 2018, submitted).
PL109 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1997 TO REMOVE CONDITIONS 5 AND 6 OF PLANNING15/00843/FUL AT LAND TO WEST AND SOUTH OF KEPPHILL,
STIRLING – MR AND MRS I AND F JOHNSTON - 18/00074/FUL
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that the above application was referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel by Councillor Alistair Berrill on the grounds of road safety.
The report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
The Chair advised the Panel that the applicant had since requested the application be deferred for a Hearing.
Motion
Motion
“That the Panel agrees:-
the application be deferred for a Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.”
Moved by Councillor Alistair Berrill, seconded by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees:-
to determine the application today”.
Moved by Councillor Bennison, seconded by Councillor McDonald
On the roll being called, the Members present voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (3) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Chris Kane
Councillor Jeremy MacDonald
Against the Amendment (4) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Decision
The Amendment fell by 4 votes to 3 and accordingly the Panel agreed to defer
consideration of the application to allow a Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
(Reference: Report Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 20 April 2018, submitted).
PL110 FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS AT LAND TO WEST AND SOUTH OF KEPPHILL, – MR AND MRS I AND F JOHNSTON - 18/00075/FUL
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that the above application was referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel by Councillor Alistair Berrill on the grounds of road safety.
The report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees:-
the application be deferred for a Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.”
Moved by Councillor Alistair Berrill, seconded by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees:-
to determine the application today”.
Moved by Councillor Bennison, seconded by Councillor McDonald
On the roll being called, the Members present voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (3) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Chris Kane
Councillor Jeremy MacDonald
Against the Amendment (4) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Decision
The Amendment fell by 4 votes to 3 and accordingly the Panel agreed to defer
consideration of the application to allow a Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
(Reference: Report Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 20 April 2018, submitted).
PL111 PROPOSED ERECTION OF 2 NO. DETACHED DWELLING HOUSES AT LAND BUILDINGS AT FORMER MINK FARM, SOMMERS’ LANE, OCHTERTYRE, – MRS L HENDERSON & MS K CARNEGIE – 18/00105/FUL
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that full planning permission was being sought on land at a former Mink Farm, Sommers Lane, Ochtertyre, Blairdrummond for the erection of two substantial sized dwelling houses on part of the grounds of the former farm.
The application was before the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of
Councillor Martin Earl, who had cited the work the applicants had carried out, to address the previous reasons for refusal and the fact there appeared to be merit in the redevelopment of the brownfield site in terms of general beneficial appropriate re-use of brownfield land and improvement to the environment, as the planning reasons for the request. Also for the Panel to consider the Council’s rural design guidance that, as currently interpreted, was considered to have limited the scope to create distinctively designed houses that the applicants consider to be appropriate to the site and its setting.
Councillor Martin Earl had also requested that the application was determined by means of a site visit and a Hearing to allow the applicant to present the case for the development.
The report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
The Panel was invited to consider Councillor Earl’s request for deferral.
No further discussion took place regarding the application.
Decision
The Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application to allow a site visit and Hearing to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.
(Reference: Report Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 20 April 2018, submitted).
In terms of Standing Order 39, the Panel adjourned at 11.25am for a comfort break.
The meeting reconvened at 11.35am with all Members present.
PL112 MOTORHOMES SALES AND HOLIDAY SITE INCLUDING A NEW MOTORHOME DISPLAY AND WORKSHOP BUILDING, AMENITY BUILDING FOR THESITE, ACCESS, PARKING, DISPLAY AREAS AND LANDSCAPING ATSITE,– SCOTMOTORHOMES - 17/00871/FUL
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that the application was referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Ross Oxburgh. The grounds for referral were based on the economic considerations arising from the proposals.
The report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013
The Chair noted that the applicant had submitted an email which was tabled at the meeting and provided details of the site. A copy of the said e-mail was made available to those present for reading, and ten minutes given for it to be read.
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) assessment and (f) consultations and responded to questions from the Panel. The consultation replies from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Council’s Flood Officer objected on the grounds of flood risk to buildings and access and that recommendation to refuse was on the grounds of not complying with Local Development Plan policies in relation to tourism and flooding and Scottish Planning policy related to flooding. Panel Members were advised that should the Panel be minded to grant planning permission, contrary to SEPA advice on flood risk, referral to
the Scottish Government would be required in view of the SEPA objection.
E-mail from Applicant
It was noted that the potential site would not cater for caravans as these were
considered much harder to evacuate from the site in the circumstances of a flood event, nor would it be used as a camp site. The application had been the subject of extensive pre-application consultation, which included a meeting with Raploch Community Council, discussions with neighbours, SEPA, Transport Scotland, as well as different departments of Stirling Council. It was noted that local comments were encouraging, with discussion taking place regarding the provision of local jobs which was hoped to be 15 full time equivalent and would be advertised locally. The site had been consented previously for development, therefore the applicant took the decision
to have this application prepared and submitted. The building would be designed for flood with a prepared Flood Evacuation Plan in place and an assurance that noise level would not be an issue.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to questions from the Panel. It was noted that there was no indication as to why the previous application had lapsed. It was acknowledged by the Panel that the site had been identified as business use and was consistent with the development plan. Discussion took place around the 1 in 200 Flood Functional Plan, which the Senior Planning Officer explained.
The Panel went on to determine the application and discuss conditions relevant, should the application be approved.
Decision
The Panel was minded to approve the application, subject to referral to the Scottish Ministers,given the SEPA objection, and, subject to inclusion of the following conditions, which would relate to:-
-
location of surface water outlet;
-
details of external finishing of buildings;
-
landscape planting specification and implementation;
-
make-up and surface finish of access, car park and all hard standings; and
-
flood resilient and resistant design within the building construction.
(Reference: Report Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 19 April 2018, submitted).In terms of the Standing Orders, having declared an interest in agenda item 12 (17/00694/FUL), Councillor Neil Benny and Councillor Chris Kane, left the meeting at this point.
PL113 SHELTERED HOUSING (CLASS 9), 3 NO. UNITS: TWO OF WHICH ARE TO BE AND DRINK (CLASS 3) AND HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY (SUI GENERIS), THEUNIT WILL BE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING USES:- FOOD AND(CLASS 3); HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY (SUI GENERIS); SHOPS (CLASS 1),SERVICES (CLASS 2); CRECHE (CLASS 10) OR GYMNASIUMHILLRAPLOCH, STIRLING – CALEDON/TDL – 17/00694/FUL - HEARING
A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that the report provided details of full planning permission sought by Caledon/TDL, McCarthy & Stone, Raploch Regeneration Company and Scottish Ministers: NHS Forth Valley to develop land at Raploch for sheltered housing on the west of the site and for a mix of commercial uses
to the east.The application was a major planning application under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.
At its meeting on 27 March 2018 the Planning & Regulation Panel agreed that the application be deferred to allow for a Hearing to be held. Since writing the last report, the applicant requested slight modification to Conditions 17 and 10 which had been incorporated within Appendix 1 to the report and a further letter of representation had been received which necessitated alterations within the report.
The report formed the Report of Handling for the planning application in compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
The Chair outlined the process 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) assessment and (f) consultations.
Officers responded to a number of questions from the Panel. Responding to questions from the Panel in relation to information within the assessment of the report, the Senior Planning Officer noted that the site allocation for development was established through the Raploch Design Guide. The development proposed a three metre wide pedestrian
cycle route (running adjacent to Unit 3) connecting the site to the existing footpath at Drip Road. Planting was also proposed and reviewed as appropriate by the tree officer. The majority of the existing wall would remain at the same current height with some break to form vehicle access points with part of the wall being reduced from the
current to previous height. With regard to disruption of views from historic areas, it was noted that a four storey residential building was in situ, which would sit opposite the proposed four storey building.The Principal Transport Planner, WSP explained the travel plan framework and swept path assessment to the Panel and noted that this information was included in the URC masterplan.
The Chair thanked the Officers for their input.
Agents for ApplicantDavid Young, Director of Caledon/TDL accompanied by Russell Stewart, Development Director of McCarthy & Stone, presented the case in support of the application. Mr Young addressed the Panel and explained how his Company became involved with McCarthy & Stone to allow a comprehensive development of the entire site with the exception of an area which would be retained by NHS Forth Valley as part of the wider
Stirling healthcare provision, provide a positive contribution to the urban framework, sit well connected to the existing public transport network. The key points relating to the overall development had been subject to extensive pre-application discussions with Stirling Council Planning Officers, their key environmental and technical advisors and
the local community. It was noted that the development accorded with the aspiration of the original Raploch URC brief and development guidelines in terms of policy and mix of uses and complied with the Local Development Plan.Mr Stewart outlined the key aspects of the proposed development, which would include bespoke sheltered housing, provision of specialist accommodation for a growing age sector, highly accessible location with minimal requirement for car travel, re-use of brownfield land for a high quality development. He discussed the architecture and height of the proposed units, adding that the site was well connected with safer through routes.
Mr Young added that the two main elements of the scheme had been modified directly in response to comments by the Planning Officer, refining the proposal that had come forward.
The Chair thanked Mr Young and Mr Stewart for their presentations. Mr Young and Mr Stewart went on to respond to various questions from the Panel. Discussion took place regarding the view of the development from Stirling Castle and Stirling Bridge. Mr Young replied that this matter was raised early on in the planning process and added that photographic evidence comparing the development size with large buildings such as Tesco and Sainsbury, which demonstrated that the proposed development, which would be smaller buildings, would sit in form with other buildings around the area and would be in keeping with the existing four storey student block. In response to concerns from the Panel around the suitability of this location for sheltered housing and whether any other sites were considered, Mr Russell replied
that potential customers were very particular about their needs with most coming from within five miles of the development site and noted that there were parties keen to sign up for a property. Other sites had been looked at over the years, however, the developers were keen to progress with this site and invest in this area.Objector
Councillor Danny Gibson presented the case against the application. He wished to have on record that he had resigned from the Raploch URC and Cowane’s Trust in order to speak against this application. He expressed surprise that Forth Valley Health Board would be agreeable to having fast food units in this area from a health perspective. He made reference to various paragraphs in the report relating to ownership of land, road safety issues around the Road Safety Audit, which
recommended that the pedestrian connection through the site was designated and signed as a shared use route through the site, but did not include crossings in this area. He highlighted that the Travel Plan Framework noted to lacking some details and questioned whether there was sufficient information for the Panel to base judgement on the view that a planning condition would be appropriate to ensure a Travel Plan was forthcoming.Councillor Gibson also noted concerns around air quality, significant mix of building materials, issues with greenspace, parking issues in relation to access being blocked as this was a historical problem. He also highlighted that there was no information which detailed how many daily/weekly road trips would be brought into this site. He
noted concerns around details in the report which stated that it was considered that since this site represented a development which was part of the wider Raploch Redevelopment Scheme, an affordable housing contribution was not required, however felt that this was a commercial development.The Chair thanked Councillor Gibson for his presentation and in terms of the Standing Orders, Councillor Gibson left the meeting at this point in the proceedings.
Discussion then took place around determination of the application. In response to a question from the Panel regarding traffic and crossings, the Principal Transport Planner, WSP replied that a transport assessment produced had to consider pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle trips. A travel assessment was submitted late 2017 and WSP responded to request a number of updates to ensure everything submitted provided evidence to support the proposals. An access plan in relation to pedestrians
and cyclists was provided, taking into account key current crossing points, which was satisfactory. A travel assessment addendum went through the process to identify new trips, diverted trips and passer-by trips. Seventy five per cent of all traffic would be diverted or passer-by trips. The outcome of the assessment suggested all junctions
could accommodate the level of traffic generated. It was noted that the development could be accommodated in the road network although one approach was shown as being slightly over accommodated. Potential queueing was also investigated and it was noted that this would increase by less than 10 vehicles.Motion
Councillor Bennison, seconded by Councillor MacPherson, moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:-
-
the potential site would create over development, loss of open space, have a detrimental impact on historic views does not offer the option of affordable housing, is an inappropriate location for sheltered housing, and;
-
is contrary to the following policies:-
-
Policy 1.1: Site Planning
-
Policy 2.2: Planning for Mixed Communities and Affordable Housing
-
Primary Policy 1.3: Green Network and Open Space
-
Policy 3.3: Developer Contributions
-
Policy 7: Historic Environment
-
Policy 7.8: Development affecting Battlefields, Gardens and Designed Landscapes
-
Decision
The Panel agreed to refuse the application as the potential site would create over development, loss of open space, have a detrimental impact on historic views, does not offer the option of affordable housing, is an inappropriate location for sheltered housing and is contrary to the following policies:-
-
Policy 1.1: Site Planning
-
Policy 2.2: Planning for Mixed Communities and Affordable Housing
-
Primary Policy 1.3: Green Network and Open Space
-
Policy 3.3: Developer Contributions
-
Policy 7: Historic Environment
-
Policy 7.8: Development affecting Battlefields, Gardens and Designed
Landscapes
(Reference: Report Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 19 April 2018, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 1.25 pm