Agenda and minutes

Reports by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions took place.

Mr Iain Jackson, Customer Services, established who would be speaking for the Planning Authority, Applicant, Consultees and Objectors (noting that the Community Council were not represented and that there were no supporters present).

PLANNING AUTHORITY

Mr David Love presented the case on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.  He advised that the Committee had agreed to hold this hearing on the basis of the large number of representations from a small community.  He explained that the area was within a PDA (Potential Development Area), within a APQ (Area of Panoramic Quality) which was deemed suitable for low density development.

Mr Love then discussed the history of the site from 2009 onwards and the access arrangements which could be achieved by condition.  He also discussed surface water discharge and a habitat survey which had been submitted by the applicant and that indicated the site was not within an ecologically sensitive site.

Mr Love advised that the water source for the site was a private supply which would come from Kames Farm and, for the benefit of those Members who were not in attendance at the site visit, showed slides of the site.  He stated that there were no objections from statutory consultees, 12 objections from individuals, 5 late representations and a letter from Councillor Robertson.  He apologised for an error within the original report which wrongly attributed comments to the Council’s advisors and advised that this was picked up in supplementary report number 1 and was covered by condition 7.

Mr Love stated that the application had been assessed on the basis that it was an established PDA within the Local Plan, the reduction from 6 to 2 dwellings provided better separation from the Fish Farm (that could have given rise to a bad neighbour in reverse situation) and less demand on the private water supply.  The Local Plan is in favour of small scale development and there was an intention that the remainder of the PDA would remain undeveloped, this development having exhausted any further potential for development.  He stated that there was no other material circumstances to warrant anything other than approval and requested that the Committee approve the application.

APPLICANT

Mr McCardle spoke to the application, expanding on the history as given by Mr Love.  He advised that there had been many staff changes in the Planning Department but that he had been with this application since the beginning, 10 years ago.  At this point he had sought advice about the chances of developing the site.  He was advised that there was no chance at this time but as time went on the area was put forward as a potential area for development within the local plan.  In May 2007 he entered into discussions with planners with a view that the application submitted could be used as a model application for PDAs.  In October 2008 6 houses were applied for with a new access to serve the properties (as recommended by the Roads Authority).  At this point there were many objections and therefore, in consultation with Planning, the application was withdrawn and re-submitted using the existing access in September 2009.  At this time there was a habitat survey required and as a result of this the layout of the scheme was amended.  Twelve months after this, intimation was received from Planning that they could not support the application as, in consultation with Environmental Health, they had determined that it would constitute a bad neighbour in reverse development.  They did however suggested that plots 1 and 2 could be supported.  Accordingly the application was withdrawn given it was obviously going to fail.  The current application was re-submitted on 2 November 2010.

Mr McCardle advised that architects referred to the Local Plan in the first instance for guidance so they needed to be confident in it.  He then commented about the water supplying the Committee with a plan which showed the existing supply and the catchment for the proposed supply.  He explained that there was unlikely to be any contamination between the two as there was a river running between supplies.

CONSULTEES

Mr Heron, on behalf of the Roads Authority, advised that he had attended numerous site meetings.  He had checked that the site lines were achievable and that the ground was within the applicants control in order that growth could be cut back.  As the first 2 metres was an integral part of the highway, he advised that the Roads Authority would take control of this.  He explained that he had requested improvements to the junction to allow traffic in and out of the site to prevent cars waiting on the main road. 

Ms Stefek, Environmental Health Officer, had no comment at this stage.

Ms Curran-Colthart, Local Biodiversity Officer, had no comment at this stage.

OBJECTORS

Mrs Rentoul

Mrs Rentoul advised that she would discuss the history of the site.  She explained that in June 1991 there had been an application for a dwellinghouse, workshop and store which was refused in August 1991 with the comment from the Planning Authority that the application should be “strongly resisted with respect to the setting of an undesirable precedent for further uncoordinated prominent development which in itself and incrementally will erode the landscape character of this area of Regional Scenic Value”.

In February 1992, a second application was submitted with an amended layout which sited the house behind a rocky knoll.  The applicant had put forward a special needs case given the need to operate a special water testing business and the application was grated in June 1991 with the comment “the applicant’s special needs case (taking account of the site size requirements and bad neighbour elements) was felt to totally undermine and negate against any undesirable precedent for further ribbon development eastward.”

Mrs Rentoul advised that from these conflicting statements there was some comfort in the repeated statements in official reports that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.