STIRLING COUNCIL
MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2018 at 10.00 am
Present
Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON (in the Chair)
Councillor Maureen BENNISON (not present for item PL186)
Councillor Neil BENNY (not present for items PL186, PL187 and PL188)
Councillor Alistair BERRILL
Councillor Douglas DODDS
Councillor Graham LAMBIE
Councillor Jeremy MCDONALD
Councillor Evelyn TWEED (not present for item PL186)
In Attendance
Stephanie Cameron, Licensing Team Leader
Christina Cox, Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards
Jay Dawson, Planning Team Leader – Development Management
Guy Harewood, Sustainable Development Project Worker
Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer
Peter McKechnie, Planning Officer
Neil Pirie, Senior Development Control Officer
Kirsty Street, Governance Intern
Tony Mason, Lead Solicitor (Clerk)
Mary Love, Committee Officer (Minute)
Also in Attendance
Sgt Claire MacKenzie, Police Scotland
PC Sandra Trenchard, Police Scotland
PL179 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Apologies were received on behalf of Councillor Chris Kane.
There were no substitutions.
PL180 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
PL181 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR
There were no items of urgent business brought forward.
PL182 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL
The Minutes of the Planning & Regulation Panel held on 2 October were submitted for approval.
Decision
The Minutes of Meeting of the Planning & Regulation Panel held on 2 October 2018 were approved as a correct record of proceedings.
PL183 AGENDA
The Chair intimated his intention to alter the order of the Agenda. The items were taken in the order minuted below.
The Committee resolved under Section 50A (4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 that the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, namely PL184, on the grounds it involves 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.
The report by the Chief Governance Officer advised that its purpose was to seek a decision from the Planning & Regulation Panel with regards to the Immediate Suspension of the licence holder’s taxi driver’s licence and how the Panel wished this to proceed.
The Licensing Team Leader introduced the report. The Licensing Team Leader and Police Scotland Representative responded to various questions from the Panel.
Discussion then took place around the options available to the Panel.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees to suspend the licence holder’s taxi driver’s licence for the unexpired portion of its duration (31 August 2019) with immediate effect.”
Proposed by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson, seconded by Councillor Graham
Lambie
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees to revoke the licence holder’s taxi driver’s licence with
immediate effect.”
Proposed by Councillor Douglas Dodds, seconded by Councillor Jeremy McDonald.
On the roll being called, the Members present voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (4) Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
Against the Amendment (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
There being an equality of votes, the Chair cast his casting vote against the
Amendment, and the Amendment fell by 5 votes to 4.
The Motion then being put, without amendment, on the roll being called, the Members
present voted as follows:
For the Motion (8) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Neil Benny
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Graham Lambie
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
Decision
The Motion was carried unanimously and accordingly, the Panel agreed to suspend the licence holder’s taxi driver’s licence under Paragraph 12, Schedule 1 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, this being with immediate effect, for the unexpired portion of its duration (31 August 2019). The Panel took this decision because Police Scotland had raised concerns, which related to the said incident, which took place on 22 October 2018 and was reported to Police Scotland on 22 October 2018, which was a material consideration for the Panel. In particular, the Panel felt that the incident demonstrated that the licence holder might be a serious threat to public safety and be unable to conduct himself in a suitable manner in situations a taxi driver might find
themselves in, and as a consequence was not a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver’s licence.
(Reference: Report by the Chief Officer - Governance, dated 23 October 2018,
submitted).
PL185 PROVISION OF ROADSIDE SERVICES, INCLUDING ERECTION OF A PETROL
FILLING STATION WITH RETAIL KIOSK, AND COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVEFACILITY, WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE, VEHICLETHEGATE, DRIP ROAD, RAPLOCH, STIRLING - EURO GARAGES
LIMITED & STIRLING DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 18/00505/FUL
The report by the Senior Manager, Localities and Infrastructure advised that the Planning and Regulation Panel of 2 October 2018 agreed that consideration of this planning application be deferred to a future meeting of the Panel, in order to allow recent information received from the applicant’s transport consultants, responding to Roads enquiries, to be made available for interested parties to view and information around pollution issues to be confirmed.
The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and responded to questions from the Panel. It was noted that further information had been received from the Council’s Roads Department, who had no objection to the application, subject to additional conditions which were incorporated into the officer recommendations. Concerns were noted from Members regarding heavy goods vehicles constantly using this road and the increase in traffic volume. Concern was also raised with regard to the adequacy of the transport assessment and whether the Panel had enough information to make a valid decision. Transport Scotland had raised no objections to the application, therefore it was noted that this was sufficient confirmation that the relevant procedures had been undertaken.
Discussion then took place around the height of the proposed buildings and the Senior Planning Officer explained the elevation views provided in detailed maps, to the Panel.
In terms of Standing Order No 69, Councillor Dodds, having moved that the Panel agree to refuse the application but having failed to find a seconder, requested that his dissent be recorded.
Motion
“That the Panel approve the application subject to conditions outlined in Appendix 1 of the report and the receipt of a developer contribution towards transport improvements’
Proposed by Councillor Neil Benny, seconded by Councillor Graham Lambie
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the application subject to conditions outlined in Appendix 1 of the Report dated 2 October 2018 and the receipt of a developer contribution towards transport improvements.
(Reference: Report by the Senior Manager Infrastructure, dated 23 October 2018, submitted).
PL186 ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSE AT LAND 115M NORTH EAST ROSEHALL, STIRLING – ALASDAIR & MAUREEN MACGREGOR –
18/00189/FUL
The report by the Senior Manager, Localities and Infrastructure advised that at the Planning and Regulation Panel Meeting on 31 July 2018, a Hearing took place for this planning application and the Panel agreed that this application be determined following a Site Visit, and to permit further negotiation and liaison between the Applicant and Planning Officers over the merits of the agricultural case. A site visit took place on 1 November 2018.
Additional information had been added following a submission by the Applicant on 2 August 2018, and an assessment by the Independent Agricultural Consultant provided on 5 September 2018.
Councillors Maureen Bennison, Neil Benny and Evelyn Tweed had not attended the Planning and Regulation Panel Meeting on 31 July 2018, when consideration of this item was first made and the subsequent site visit agreed, therefore left the meeting for the duration of this item. All other Members present had attended the meeting and site visit and could therefore take part in the debate.
The Development Management Team Leader introduced the report and provided a visual design drawings of the site.
It was noted that the opinion of the agricultural consultant remained unchanged with regard to the applicant’s wish to live on site, which was deemed not essential.
Discussion took place regarding the house on the proposed site and it was noted that if the application were to be approved, an occupancy condition could also be included to ensure that the occupancy of the house would be limited to a person solely or mainly employed in agriculture.
It was noted that at the Hearing held on 31 July 2018, the applicant had advised the Panel that he would be willing to look at the design of the house again if necessary.
Motion
In terms of Standing Order No 69, Councillor Berrill, having moved that the Panel agree to refuse the application but having failed to find a seconder, requested that his dissent be recorded.
In terms of Standing Order 80, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10.55 am to allow Members to discuss conditions for inclusion of the application, should it be approved.
The meeting reconvened at 11.00 am with the same Members present.
Decision
The Panel agreed to approve the application as the applicant’s business case was considered on balance to be acceptable but with the caveat that the occupancy of the house shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed in the locality in agriculture or to a widow or widower of such a person and to any dependants.
(Reference: Report by the Senior Manager Infrastructure, dated 18 July 2018,
submitted)
Councillor Bennison and Councillor Tweed re-joined the meeting at this stage.
Councillor Benny, having attended only one of the site visits for the following two items, did not take part in the determination process for both applications.
PL187 ESTATE OFFICE AND PARKING AREA AT LAND 65 METRES SOUTH WEST OF LODGE, GARGUNNOCK - MR DAVID STIRLING - 18/00117/FUL - HEARING
The report by the Senior Manager, Localities and Infrastructure advised that at the Planning and Regulation Panel Meeting held on 2 October, the Panel agreed that this planning application be determined following a Hearing and a Site Visit.
A Hearing for this planning application took place at this meeting, following which the Panel was asked to determine the planning application. The site visit took place on 1 November 2018. The Chair highlighted that only Members who attended the site visit could take part in consideration of the item.
The Chair outlined the Hearing process and addressed the new procedures in place. Documentation regarding the applicant’s business case was tabled at the meeting and circulated to Panel Members.
The Planning Officer introduced the report and outlined the proposed site area and floorplan, the recommendations and access to the site.
The Chair thanked the Planning Officer for his presentation.
Applicant
Mr David Stirling spoke to the Panel in favour of the application. Mr Stirling noted that the report basically covered everything he wished to say. He acknowledged that he had read the Gargunnock Community Council minutes and wished to allay concerns from the residents in Gargunnock. Mr Stirling highlighted that the proposed dwelling would be his home and he intended to stay there for the rest of his lifetime. His wish was to make the business financially viable however, he added that although he currently ran a property development business, it was not his intention to do the same with this application. He also added that he was happy to have conditions of use tying
any permission to the estate.
The Chair thanked Mr Stirling for his presentation.
Objector
Mr Colin Tinto spoke to the Panel against the application. He added that he was presenting the case on behalf of the residents of Gargunnock. The objections were on the grounds of scale, need and traffic impact. Mr Tinto noted that the size of the estate office was such that it could accommodate 48 people and that there were only 5 employees on the estate. He added that there were no available restrictions to prevent the building being leased for other office use and that there was no evidence that the development would economically benefit the local community. It was also noted that paths around the estate would be closed when shooting parties were present and noise
would be carried towards the village.
Mr Tinto added concerns around an office of this size, which could potentially introduce an additional 120 car movements per day based upon the maximum capacity and visibility issues relating to the road. He added that this would also be potentially hazardous to both road and pedestrian users.
The Chair thanked Mr Tinto for his presentation.
In terms of Standing Order 80, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11.13 am to allow Members to read the applicant’s business case.
The meeting reconvened at 11.17 am with the same Members present.
The Planning & Building Standards Service Manager explained some of the detail of the business case and highlighted that as it contained sensitive information and had to be treated as confidential, it could not be made available to members of the public. It was also noted that if the business case were redacted, it would not provide much more than the summary case.
Mr Stirling, Mr Tinto and planning officers responded to various questions from the Panel.
It was noted that any money generated from this business would be reinvested into the estate to improve the condition of the estate, as no work had been carried out in 20 years.
Motion
“That the Panel agrees to approve the application subject to conditions outlined in Appendix 1 of the Report of Handling”.
Proposed by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson, seconded by Councillor Jeremy
McDonald.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees to refuse the application as the proposed building was
disproportionate to the scale of the business and the application was contrary to development plan policy, details of which would be confirmed by officers”.
Proposed by Councillor Alistair Berrill, seconded by Councillor Graham Lambie.
In terms of Standing Order 80, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11.40 am to allow Members to discuss reasons for refusal of the application.
The meeting reconvened at 11.45 am with the same Members present.
On the roll being called, the Members voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Graham Lambie
Against the Amendment (3) Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
Decision
The Amendment was carried by 4 votes to 3 and became the Substantive Motion.
The Panel unanimously agreed the Substantive Motion to refuse the application for the following reasons:-
-
The scale of the proposed building is disproportionate to the scale of the proposed business operating on site; and
-
the application is contrary to Planning Policy 2.9, part (b) as the business is not one based on recreational activity that requires a site specific countryside location
(Reference: Report by the Senior Manager Infrastructure, dated 23 October 2018, submitted).
PL188 PROPOSED ERECTION OF FOUR GUEST CHALETS AT LAND SOME 200 WEST OF EAST LODGE, GARGUNNOCK - MR DAVID STIRLING -- HEARING
The report by the Senior Manager, Localities and Infrastructure advised that at the Planning and Regulation Panel Meeting held on 2 October 2018, the Panel agreed that this planning application be determined following a Hearing and a Site Visit.
A Hearing for this planning application took place at this meeting, following which the Panel was asked to determine the planning application. The site inspection took place on 1 November 2018. The Chair highlighted that only Members who attended the site visit could take part in consideration of the item.
This report included an amendment to the appended report of handling, dated
2 October 2018, which is within Paragraph 2.15 (Appendix A). This was amended to include an additional objection, which was submitted on the eve of the last Panel and to include this Authority’s response to that objection. The objection raised procedural concerns about the processing of this application and its consideration of protected species.
The Planning Officer introduced the report and outlined the proposed site area and floorplan, the recommendations and access to the site.
Applicant
Mr Stirling informed the Panel Members that he had nothing else to add regarding this application, having said everything relevant when presenting the previous application.
Objector
Mr Colin Tinto spoke on behalf of around 50 residents of Gargunnock against the application. He noted that the proposed chalets were 2 storey and no special circumstances had been provided and was of the opinion that they would not comply with Supplementary Guidance. The removal of trees was also a concern, as some had already been removed with more loss sustained during construction.
Mr Tinto also raised concerns about the impact of the proposal on the local landscape and noted that a previous application for housing in 2001 had been rejected. The woodland area was described as being well used by residents and visitors. Mr Tinto raised concerns around threats to red squirrels in the woodland and noted that a red squirrel survey had not been carried out.
Along with the above concerns, Mr Tinto added that further tree loss would have a lasting adverse impact on the environment and local landscape character.
The Chair thanked Mr Tinto for his presentation.
The Planning Officer responded to questions from the Panel around the removal of trees on this site. Tree removal to date had been carried out under license and some of the trees removed, due to health and safety reasons. The applicant had agreed to pay for an onsite specialist to inspect fences regarding tree protection to preserve as many trees as possible. The Forestry Commission had also visited the site and were satisfied with the work done. It was also noted that there were no red squirrels in this area at this time.
The Planning Officer also confirmed that the application for housing on this site in 2001 was for residential houses and not chalets, as was the case with this application.
It was also highlighted that within the report, the proposed chalets were defined as being single storey with roof accommodation with steep pitched roofs, significant areas of glazing and finished using a mixture of timber cladding, stone with roofs finished using a natural slate and were to be used for the purposes of providing holiday letting accommodation for people staying within them for short periods. The Supplementary Guidance was not to be prescriptive but to encourage design in harmony with local context, therefore these proposals were considered to comply with this and would use
traditional materials as encouraged within the Guidance.
In response to a question from the Panel, Mr Stirling confirmed that he was aware of the previous application for housing, however, his application was for rented chalets and he reiterated that he was happy to have a condition added to the application whereby the chalets could not be sold separately from the estate as a whole. It was noted that this was already present within Condition 8 appended to the report (Occupancy Restriction).
Motion
“That the Panel agree to approve the application subject to conditions outlined in Appendix 1 of the Report of Handling.”
Proposed by Councillor Jeremy McDonald, seconded by Councillor Alasdair
MacPherson.
Amendment
“That the Panel agrees to refuse the application, based on the design of the chalets, which do not appear to be single storey in height and the removal of trees within the proposed site.”
Proposed by Councillor Graham Lambie, seconded by Councillor Alistair Berrill.
On the roll being called, Members voted as follows:-
For the Amendment (3) Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Graham Lambie
Against the Amendment (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
The Amendment fell by 4 votes to 3.
The Motion then being put, without amendment, on the roll being called, the Members
present voted as follows:
For the Motion (4) Councillor Maureen Bennison
Councillor Alasdair MacPherson
Councillor Jeremy McDonald
Councillor Evelyn Tweed
Against the Motion (3) Councillor Alistair Berrill
Councillor Douglas Dodds
Councillor Graham Lambie
Decision
The Motion was carried by 4 votes to 3. Accordingly, the Panel agreed to approve the application subject to conditions outlined in Appendix 1 of the Report of Handling.
(Reference: Report by the Senior Manager Infrastructure, dated 23 October 2018, submitted).
The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 12.05 pm