STIRLING COUNCIL

MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 4 SEPTEMBER 2018 at

1. am

    

   Present

    

   Councillor Chris KANE (in the Chair)

   Councillor Maureen BENNISON
   Councillor Neil BENNY
   Councillor Alistair BERRILL
   Councillor Douglas DODDS‌‌

   Councillor Graham LAMBIE
   Councillor Jeremy McDONALD
   Councillor Evelyn TWEED

    

   In Attendance

    

   Kevin Argue, Transport Development Team Leader
   Jane Brooks-Burnett, Senior Planning Officer
   Christina Cox, Service Manager

   Jay Dawson, Planning Team Leader – Development Management
   Mark Laird, Assistant Planning Officer

   Neil Pirie, Senior Development Control Officer
   Tony Mason, Lead Solicitor (Clerk)

   Graham Gibson, Committee Officer (Minute)

    

   PL156 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    

   Apologies were received from Councillor Alasdair MacPherson

    

   PL157 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    

   There were no declarations of interest.

    

   PL158 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR

    

   There were no items of urgent business brought forward.

   PL159 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL 26 JUNE 2018 & 31 JULY 2018‌‌

    

   The Minutes of the Planning & Regulation Panel held on 26 June 2018 & 31 July 2018 were submitted for approval.

    

   Decision

    

   The Panel agreed to approve the Minutes of Meetings held on 26 June 2018 & 31 July 2018 as an accurate record of proceedings.

    

   PL160 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING WORKS LANDSCAPING AT LAND ADJACENT AND WEST OF DEANSTON COMMUNITYJAMES SMITH ROAD, DEANSTON – GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD

   – 18/00275/PPP

    

   A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that planning permission in principle was being sought by Gladman Developments Ltd for the development of the above named site for residential development.

    

   The application was a major planning application under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

    

   Due to the date on which this application was validated, it was required to be considered by the Panel under the procedures relevant at that time.

    

   Councillor Martin Earl had requested that the application was determined by means of a Hearing and a site visit on the basis that the application was contrary to the agreed Local Development Plan.

    

   This 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. Members agreed to defer consideration of the application for a Hearing, but agreed that a site visit was not required.

    

   No further discussion took place regarding the application.

    

   Decision

    

   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 24 August 2018, submitted).

    

   PL161 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1997 TO VARY CONDITION 3 OF PLANNING PERMISSION TO ALLOW MOTORCYCLE ACTIVITIES TO TAKE PLACE ONEHOLIDAYS10.30AM – 5PM) AT FORMER ARGATY QUARRY, DOUNE – DOUNE & OFF ROAD M/C CLUB – 18/00360/FUL

   This item was removed from the agenda and no discussion took place regarding the application.

    

   (Reference: Report Senior Manager, Infrastructure, dated 24 August 2018, submitted).

    

   PL162 ERECTION OF 3NO. DETACHED, ONE AND A HALF STOREY DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED COMMUNAL AMENITY SPACES AT LANDAND NORTH EAST OF ARROCHAR, GLEN ROAD, DUNBLANE –BUILDING SOLUTIONS LIMITED – 18/00134/FUL

    

   A report by the Senior Manager, Infrastructure advised that full planning permission was being sought for the erection of 3 detached, one and a half storey dwelling houses.

    

   The application 18/00134/FUL was called to the Planning & Regulation Panel by Councillor Alasdair Tollemache on the basis of the potential drainage issues at the site.

    

   Due to the date on which this application was validated, it was required to be considered by the Panel under the procedures relevant at that time.

    

   Councillor Alistair Majury had requested that the application was determined by means of a Hearing and a site visit.

    

   This 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 Majury’s request for deferral. Members agreed to defer consideration of the application for a Hearing, but agreed that a site visit was not required.

    

   No further discussion took place regarding the application.

    

   Decision

    

   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 24 August 2018, submitted).

    

   PL163 PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (52 UNITS) WITH ASSOCIATED ROADS, BOUNDARY TREATMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE AT SITE
   OF FORMER MFI FURNITURE STORE, 1 MAITLAND CRESCENT, ST

   NINIANS, STIRLING – ALLANWATER DEVELOPMENTS LTD – 18/00446/FUL

    

   A report by the Senior Manager – Infrastructure advised that full planning permission was being sought from the Planning and Regulation Panel by Allanwater Developments Limited for a residential development (52 units) on land to the east of
   Glasgow Road and north of Maitland Crescent.

    

   The application was a major planning application under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

   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

    

   The site extended to just under 1 hectare in area, was irregular in shape and was bounded by Maitland Crescent to the south, Glasgow Road to the west, the rear gardens of houses on Robertson Place to the east and housing at Polmaise Court to
   the north.

    

   The site had a principal frontage along Glasgow Road, with a second along Maitland Crescent. Vehicular and pedestrian access were available from both. Additionally, a minor access existed off Polmaise Avenue.

    

   The topography of the site was such that the western edge of the site, adjacent to Glasgow Road, sat higher than the majority of the site and there was also a level change between Maitland Crescent and the site (south-eastern corner).

    

   The proposal sought full planning permission to redevelop land where formerly a MFI commercial unit had existed at Maitland Crescent and a two storey commercial unit at Glasgow Road.

    

   The Senior Planning Officer informed the panel that while a number of reasons for refusal were set out in the paper, officers were hoping to work with the applicant to produce a successful development on this site. The officer added that the applicant
   had submitted their application without a number of the necessary information. Asked them to withdraw, they did not want to withdraw.

    

   The Panel noted that the report made no mention of the applicant consulting with the NHS, or of the applicant making developer contributions.

    

   The Senior Planning Officer advised that the applicant did not include information on developer contributions, and that was why one of the reasons outlined for refusal was
   that the proposed development was contrary to Policy 3.3 (Developer Contributions)
   of the adopted Local Development Plan and SG16 (Developer Contributions). As the
   applicant progress, these would come to fore.

    

   The Senior Planning Officer also advised that no consultation had taken place with the
   NHS relating to this application.

    

   The Chair raised the issue that the report stated that no response had been received
   from the Council’s roads department regarding Roads Development Control.

    

   The Team leader – Development Management advised that the application offered
   very little for the roads department to comment on as it was submitted without roads
   information.

    

   The Panel queried whether, if the application was refused, that officers had any
   knowledge of when a new application would be submitted.

    

   The Senior Planning Officer advised that the applicant had submitted further
   information to e-file. However, the submission still required further details and further
   discussions were needed to be had with the developer.

   In response to a question from the Panel, the Senior Planning Officer stated that
   officers would ensure that, if the application was refused, that consultation would take
   place with the NHS before the application comes back to the Panel.

    

   Decision

    

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

    

   1. The proposed development is contrary to the Overarching Policy of the adopted
      Local Development Plan since the development does not demonstrate a design-led
      approach which includes high standards of design, reinforcement of a sense of place
      nor integration with neighbouring areas and the wider community.

       

   2. The proposed development is contrary to Primary Policy 1 (Placemaking) of
      the adopted Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance SG01
      (Placemaking) since it has not been designed and sited in relation to the character of
      the urban area nor does the proposed development enhance the built environment.
      Furthermore, the application was not supported by a Design and Access Statement of
      an adequate standard.

       

   3. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 1.1 (Site Planning) of the
      adopted Local Development Plan since it will not contribute in a positive manner to the
      quality of the built environment by virtue of the design being inappropriate to the site’s
      wider surroundings in terms of height, scale, massing and does not utilise materials
      and finishes which complement those prevalent.

       

   4. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 1.2 (Design Process) of the
      adopted Local Development Plan since it is not supported by a Design and Access
      Statement of an adequate standard.

       

   5. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 1.3 (Green Network and Open
      Space) of the adopted Local Development Plan since the submission does not include
      proposals for a multifunctional open space nor a commitment to provide any off-site
      improvements.

       

   6. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 2.2 (Planning for Mixed
      Communities and Affordable Housing) of the adopted Local Development Plan since
      no details have been included within the application demonstrating how the 25%
      affordable housing requirement will be achieved.

       

   7. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 3.1 (Addressing the Travel
      Demands of New Development) of the adopted Local Development Plan and
      Supplementary Guidance SG14 (Ensuring a Choice of Access for New Developments)
      since no details have been included within the application demonstrating how the
      development aims to reduce its travel demands and ensures that residual demands
      are met in a manner which ensures a safe and realistic choice of access by walking,
      cycling, public transport and motor vehicles.

       

   8. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 3.3 (Developer Contributions)
      of the adopted Local Development Plan and SG16 (Developer Contributions) since no
      details have been submitted outlining the developer’s commitment to make a fair and
      reasonable contribution to critical and necessary infrastructure such as delivering
      affordable housing on-site, ensuring that there is a safe and realistic choice of access,
      provision of new or improved open space and the provision of new or expanded on
      and off-site facilities for the provision, storage, collection and recycling of household
      waste.

   9. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 9.2 (Landscaping and Planting
      in Association with Development) of the adopted Local Development Plan since the
      development proposal does not include any details to achieve high quality proposals
      for new landscape and planting works nor suitable arrangements for the establishment
      and long-term maintenance of any new landscape and planting.

(Reference: Report Senior Manager - Infrastructure, dated 24 August 2018,
submitted).

PL164 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1997 TO REMOVE CONDITION 14 OF PLANNINGAREACOWIEHALL QUARRY AT COWIEHALL QUARRY, COWIE, FK7 7DN - OF GREENOAKHILL LTD - 18/00190/FUL

A report by the Chief Officer – Governance related to a planning application under
Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, to develop land
without compliance with a condition (Condition 14) attached to the previous permission
granted in 1998.

The proposal was classified as a ‘major’ development and was required to be
determined at the Planning and Regulation Panel in accordance with the Scheme of
Delegation.

Due to the date on which this application was validated, it was required to be
considered by the Panel under the procedures relevant at that time.

Councillor Alasdair MacPherson had requested that the application was determined
by means of a Hearing in order to ensure that robust environmental protection
conditions were attached to this application, if the Panel decided to approve it.

This report forms 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 MacPherson’s request for deferral.
Members agreed to defer consideration of the application for a Hearing.

No further discussion took place regarding the application.

Decision

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 Chief Officer - Governance, dated 24 August 2018, submitted).

The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 10.40am.