STIRLING COUNCIL‌‌‌‌

 

MINUTES of SPECIAL MEETING of the PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL held in the
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, OLD VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 2 OCTOBER 2018 at

1. am

    

   Present

    

   Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON (in the Chair)

   Councillor Alistair BERRILL
   Councillor Douglas DODDS

   Councillor Susan McGill (Substitute)
   Councillor Graham LAMBIE

    

    

   In Attendance

    

   Christina Cox, Service Manager, Planning & Building Standards
   Jay Dawson, Planning Team Leader – Development Management
   Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer

   Mark Laird, Planning Officer

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

   Mary Love, Committee Officer (Minute)

    

   PL169 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    

   Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillor Maureen Bennison, Councillor Neil Benny, Councillor Chris Kane, Councillor Jeremy McDonald and Councillor Evelyn Tweed.

    

   Councillor Susan McGill attended as substitute for Councillor Bennison.

    

   PL170 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    

   There were no declarations of interest.

    

   PL171 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR

    

   There were no items of urgent business brought forward.

    

   PL172 MINUTES – PLANNING & REGULATION PANEL

    

   The following Minutes were submitted for approval.

    

   1. Special Planning & Regulation Panel – 21 August 2018
      Decision

      The Minutes of Meeting of the Special Planning & Regulation Panel held on 21 August 2018 were approved as a correct record of proceedings.

       

   2. Planning & Regulation Panel – 4 September 2018
      Decision

The Minutes of Meeting of the Planning & Regulation Panel held on 4
September 2018 were approved as a correct record of proceedings.

 

PL173 AGENDA

 

The Chair intimated his intention to alter the order of the Agenda. The items were taken in the order minuted below.

 

PL174 ESTATE OFFICE AND PARKING AREA AT LAND 65 METRES SOUTH WEST OF LODGE, GARGUNNOCK - MR DAVID STIRLING - 18/00117/FUL

 

The application sought full planning permission for the erection of an estate office and associated infrastructure at land sixty five metres south west of East Lodge, Gargunnock. This planning application had been referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Graham Lambie, who had highlighted that the community had concerns centred on inappropriate and over development of the site.

 

Due to the date on which this application was validated it required to be considered by the Panel under the procedures relevant at that time: Planning Procedures Prior to 12th June 2018.

 

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.

 

It was noted that Councillor Alistair Berrill and Councillor Graham Lambie, had
requested deferral of this application, in order for the Panel to agree for a site visit and Hearing to take place. The Panel was invited to consider Councillor Berrill’s and Councillor Lambie’s request for deferral.

 

No further discussion took place regarding the application.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Hearing and site visit to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.

 

(Reference: Report by the Senior Manager Infrastructure, dated 21 September 2018, submitted).

PL175 PROPOSED ERECTION OF FOUR GUEST CHALETS AT LAND SOME 200 WEST OF EAST LODGE, GARGUNNOCK - MR DAVID STIRLING

- 18/00118/FUL

 

The application sought full planning permission for the erection of four guest chalets and associated infrastructure on land two hundred metres west of east lodge, Gargunnock. This planning application had been referred to the Planning and Regulation Panel at the request of Councillor Graham Lambie, who had highlighted that the community had concerns centred on the inappropriate and overdevelopment of the site.

 

Due to the date on which this application was validated, it required to be considered by the Panel under the procedures relevant at that time: Planning Procedures Prior to 12th June 2018.

 

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.

 

It was noted that Councillor Alistair Berrill and Councillor Graham Lambie had
requested deferral of this application, in order for the Panel to agree for a site visit and Hearing to take place. The Panel was invited to consider Councillor Berrill’s and Councillor Lambie’s request for deferral.

 

No further discussion took place regarding the application.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a Hearing and site visit to take place at a future meeting of the Panel.

 

(Reference: Report by the Senior Manager Infrastructure, dated 21 September 2018, submitted).

 

PL176 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING WORKS LANDSCAPING AT LAND ADJACENT AND WEST OF DEANSTON COMMUNITYJAMES SMITH ROAD, DEANSTON – GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD

– 18/00275/PPP - HEARING

 

At the Planning and Regulation Panel meeting held on 4 September 2018, the Panel agreed that this planning application be determined following a Hearing.

 

A Hearing for this planning application therefore took place at this meeting, following which, the Panel was asked to determine the planning application.

 

This report included amendments to the appended report, dated 4 September 2018. The amendments related to paragraphs 2.24 and 2.50 of this report. Paragraph 2.24 was amended to include a summary of the consultation response from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Paragraph 2.50 was amended by deletion of a reference to ‘formal paths’ due to the absence of formal footway provision on the sections of Leny Road located immediately south of the junction with Teith Road at both the east and west extents of the village.

 

Appendix 1 of this report set out the Report of Handling for this planning application.

The Chair outlined the Hearing process and addressed the new procedures in place.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the report and noted that the first sentence of
paragraph 2.38 of the report was incorrect, which read ‘the applicant acknowledges in their Planning Statement (paragraph 5.3.1) that the development proposal did not conform to the spatial strategy of the adopted Local Development Plan (as well as to that of the Proposed Local Development Plan)’. The officer explained that the applicant’s conclusions had been misreported in this regard and clarified that the applicant had in fact submitted the development proposal was in accordance with the
Spatial Strategy of both the adopted and proposed Local Development Plan. The officer confirmed that this correction did not affect the officer recommendation as set out in section 1 of the report.

 

Agent for Applicant

 

Simon Dean and Matthew Rose were in attendance in support of the applicant,
GladmanDevelopments.

 

Mr Rose addressed the Panel to provide reasons why the application should be
approved, contrary to officer recommendations. He noted that contrary to the Council’s belief, they were failing to maintain a five year supply of effective housing land required by national policy and that Gladman Developments could help to remedy this shortfall, as well as bring a considerable amount of socio-economic benefits to Deanston.

 

Mr Rose added that the design of the proposed site had been developed with the surrounding landscape at the forefront. He noted that the proposal had addressed concerns raised at a public consultation event regarding drainage and construction traffic and had provided a drainage solution that would alleviate issues experienced by neighbouring residents.

 

It was noted that it would be feasible for construction traffic to use the field entrance off the B032, therefore, during the construction phase, there would be minimal impact on residents of James Smith Road. He added that this could be achieved through a planning condition as well as through a construction traffic management plan.

 

Mr Rose went on to describe the layout of the properties on the proposed site. He noted that while there were concerns raised regarding spatial strategy, it was his view that the proposal would adhere to the spatial strategy and development would help maintain and support local services. The proposed plan did not plan for any residential growth in Deanston and Doune for the next 5 years, which would mean a potential for at last 8 years with no influx of new residents supporting local services, therefore limiting economic growth in Deanston. He added that the availability of affordable housing in Deanston would become restricted without planned growth.

 

The development would generate £100k from annual council tax and bring 59 directly related and 36 indirectly related jobs generated from the proposal.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Rose for his presentation.
Objector

Mr Paul Houghton spoke against the application on behalf of 17 local residents and Community Action from Deanston and was accompanied by Dr Anna Clark, Chairperson of Community Action for Deanston (CAFD).

Mr Houghton addressed highway safety issues, and added that the local community considered the development as being contrary to Policy 3.1 (Addressing the Travel Demands of New Development) Criterion (a). He noted concerns around junctions near the development and highlighted visibility issues and additional vehicles travelling to and from the proposed development particularly at the junction of Cotton Row and
the B8023. Although not recorded, he noted that minor accidents had occurred at this area.

 

Mr Houghton then outlined drainage issues Contrary to Policy 3.2 (Site Drainage) and questioned why this did not appear as a reason for refusal, due to Scottish Water saying there may not be drainage capacity and that Scottish Water had required the applicant to submit a Pre-Application Enquiry to resolve the issue. However, it was felt by the local community that this should be a reason for refusal.

 

Mr Houghton discussed heritage implications Contrary to Policy 7.2 (Development within and outwith Conservation Areas) regarding the proposed development and noted that while the report considered the development would have a wide landscape and visual impact, it must therefore also have an impact upon the conservation area.

 

Mr Houghton highlighted sustainability issues, adding that the site was in a poor location from this perspective, had poor accessibility by foot to Deanston, local school and shops and poor access by similar means to Doune, which had services that Deanston lacked.

 

He concluded by saying that the local community supported the officer
recommendations but wished to see three refusal additional reasons being added to the recommendations, relating to highway safety, drainage and heritage.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Houghton for his presentation.
Local Member

Councillor Martin Earl spoke against the application and highlighted that there had been a significant body of opposition towards the proposal. Councillor Earl thanked officers for addressing concerns within the report and added that it was important that the additional concerns around highway safety, drainage and heritage were highlighted and would like to see those reasons added to the officer recommendations for refusal, as at present Scottish Water had not clarified whether they believed the area had capacity for treatment works. Councillor Earl also acknowledged the exceptional work carried out by individuals, CAFD and Kilmadock Community Council.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Earl for his presentation. At this point, Councillor Earl left the Meeting for the remaining consideration of the item and took no part in the debate.

 

The Planning Officer responded to various questions from the Panel and addressed the earlier issues around heritage, highway safety and drainage.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 80, the Chair moved that the meeting be adjourned at 10.55 am to allow for discussion on additional conditions to the officer recommendation.

 

The meeting re-convened at 11.05 am with all Panel Members present.

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to refuse the application for the reasons set out below:

 

1. The proposal was contrary to Primary Policy 1 (Placemaking) of the Stirling Local Plan 2014 and the Stirling Local Development Plan: Modified Plan 2018, since this development would encroach onto a greenfield site and would not respect the character and amenity of the place.

    

2. The proposal was contrary to Policy 1.1 (a), (b) and (d) of the Stirling Council Local Plan 2014 and the Stirling Local Development Plan: Modified Plan 2018, since this development would not complement and connect with its surroundings; it would not respect site topography; and, did not respect the building line or reinforce areas of open space in its orientation.

    

3. The proposal was contrary to Primary Policy 2 of the Stirling Council Local Plan 2014, and Stirling Local Development Plan: Modified Plan 2018 since it was not consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy and it would not provide significant economic and social support to the rural area.

    

4. The proposal was 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 was beyond that supported by this policy.

    

5. The proposal was contrary to Policy 2.1 of the Stirling Local Development Plan:
   Modified Plan, 2018, since it was not consistent with the Local Development Plan Vision and Spatial Strategy and it did not meet the provisions of the Local Development Plan Overarching Policy, its accompanying Sustainable Development Criteria and all other relevant Local Development Plan policies.

    

6. The proposal was 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 had 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.

    

7. The proposal was contrary to the guiding principles of sustainable development of Scottish Planning Policy since it was considered that the proposal would not provide significant economic benefits to the area; it did not support the six qualities of successful place due to a lack of active travel connections and likely adverse impacts on sense of place; and it would have a negative impact on landscape visual amenity.

    

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

    

   PL177 ERECTION OF 3NO. DETACHED, ONE AND A HALF STOREY DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED COMMUNAL AMENITY SPACES AT LANDAND NORTH EAST OF ARROCHAR, GLEN ROAD, DUNBLANE –BUIDLING SOLUTIONS LIMITED – 18/00134/FUL – HEARING

    

   The Planning and Regulation Panel of 4 September 2018 agreed that this planning application be determined following a Hearing.

   A Hearing for this planning application took place at this meeting, following which the Panel was asked to determine the planning application.

    

   Appendix A of this report set out the Report of Handling for this planning application.

    

   The Chair outlined the Hearing process and addressed the new procedures in place.
   The Development Management Team Leader introduced the report which included details of (a) the site; (b) the proposal and (c) previous history d) consultations and (e) assessment.

    

   There had been some concerns regarding drainage issues and subsequent flooding of the site, however, it was noted today that investigative work had been carried out with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and noted that this matter could be resolved.

    

   The Chair thanked the Development Management Team Leader for his presentation.
   Applicant or Agent

   Richard Phillips, Planning Consultant and Alastair Forbes, Architect, attended the meeting on behalf of the applicant, Bridgewater Building Solutions.

    

   Mr Phillips addressed the Panel and highlighted three issues about the planning application; flood risk, residential amenity and trees.

    

   The applicant appointed a qualified engineer to address the flood risk and drainage issues. A flood risk assessment was prepared and updated to respond to comments made by Council officers and SEPA.

    

   Mr Phillips went on to outline the design of the proposed houses on the site. A daylight, sunlight and privacy assessment was carried out and Council officers had concluded that the levels of overshadowing and overlooking would not exceed those set out within supplementary guidance. Measurements had been taken to highlight that each plot
   ratio was well below the Council’s own guideline of 30%, indicating no
   overdevelopment. .

    

   Two tree reports had been carried out and compensatory tree planting would help to integrate the new development with the nearby woodland. Only four trees out of an existing 18 would be removed. Revisions had also been made to the proposed development to protect existing tree roots.

    

   The Chair thanked Mr Phillips for his presentation.

    

   Mr Phillips, Mr Forbes and the Development Management Team Leader responded to questions from the Panel.

    

   Discussion took place around adding a condition in relation to trees and root protection.

    

   Decision

    

   The Panel agreed to approve the application subject to conditions outlined in Appendix 1 of the Report of Handling and the additional condition that a tree survey was completed and root protection measures regarding trees were to be identified and implemented to the satisfaction of the Council for the following reasons:

   1. The proposal was considered to comply with the provisions of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2014, specifically Primary Policy 1 and Policy 1.1.

 

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

 

In accordance with Standing Order 40, the Panel adjourned at 11.30 am for a comfort break.
The meeting reconvened at 11.35 am with the same Members present.

 

PL178 PROVISION OF ROADSIDE SERVICES, INCLUDING ERECTION OF A PETROL 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

 

Full planning permission was sought by Euro Garages and Stirling Development Agency for a petrol filling station with retail kiosk and separate coffee shop with drive through facility on land 90 metres west of the Highland Gate, Drip Road, Raploch, Stirling.

 

This application was brought to the Planning and Regulation Panel as it related to land in which the Council has a financial interest and the development was contrary (in part) to the 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 Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which included details of (a) the site, (b) the proposal and (c) consultations.

 

It was noted that a late response had been received by the applicant’s transport consultants in relation to road enquiries. The Chair highlighted that under the Council’s revised planning procedures, no new information would usually be permitted to the Panel within 14 days of the Panel meeting. It was also noted that any interested parties had not had the opportunity to view this information.

 

There were also concerns raised by the Scottish National Heritage (SNH) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) around polluted surface water travelling through pipes into the river, which had resulted in them issuing a holding objection on the condition that no work would commence on site until a detailed design for surface and foul water drainage was submitted to the Planning Authority and was approved in writing. The Senior Planning Officer advised that SNH and SEPA had since removed their objection of the condition

 

The Panel went on to discuss the application and the options available to them.

 

Decision

 

The Panel agreed to defer consideration of this application 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.

(Reference: Report by the Senior Manager Infrastructure, dated 24 September 2018, submitted).

 

The Chair declared the Meeting closed at 11.50 am.