383

THE COUNCIL

MINUTE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

20 AUGUST 2002

COUNCIL HEADQUARTERS, ELGIN

PRESENT

Councillors A Bisset, G D Gormley, L Gorn, J Hamilton, J C Hogg, T A Howe, A Keith, J A Leslie, S D I Longmore, R Sim, W P Watt, A R Wilson and I Young.

APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors E Aldridge (Chairman), T M Bothwell, A R Burgess, A E Coutts (Vice Chairman), J A Divers, M L Ettles, W Jappy, R F McIntosh (Vice Chairman), P B Paul, J M Shaw, R H Shepherd, G G Towns, and A Urquhart.

The Meeting also noted declarations of interest from Councillors Aldridge and McIntosh in respect of applications 02/00412/OUT and 02/00758/FUL and Councillors Towns and Jappy in respect of application 02/00412/OUT.

ALSO PRESENT BY INVITATION

The applicants and their representatives.

In respect of item 1(a)

Mr Alastair MacKenzie and his representative Ian Kelly.

In respect of item 1(b)

Mr S Russell, Law and Dunbar Nasmith, representing the applicant Mr W B Whiteford.

In respect of item 1(c)

Mr & Mrs J A D Young.

IN ATTENDANCE

The Director of Environmental Services, the Head of Development Services, the Development Control Manager, A Burnie, Principal Planning Officer, the Planning and Development Manager, the Principal Technician (Planning), the Principal Solicitor (Commercial and Conveyancing), E Farquharson, Planning Officer (in respect of items 1b & c) and the Senior Committee Services Officer, Clerk to the Meeting.

1. CHAIR

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairmen the Clerk sought nominations from the Meeting for the appointment of a Chairman .

Councillor Leslie seconded by Councillor Sim nominated Councillor Keith to Chair the meeting. There being no-one otherwise minded Councillor Keith was invited to take the Chair.

M:\XN20020820M0.doc 384

2. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Prior to the commencement of the Meeting the Chairman welcomed the applicants and their representatives to the meeting and reminded those present that the Special Meeting had been arranged in respect of three planning hearings, as set out in the agenda, in order to afford the respective applicants and objectors the opportunity of being heard by the Committee before it reaches decisions on the individual applications. He also advised those present that submissions must be restricted to those already submitted and be by way of explanation, clarification or amplification only and that the hearings would be confined to examining the planning merits of the applications and therefore discussion on irrelevant non-planning related issues would not be considered. Thereafter it was agreed to proceed with the hearings as set out in the agenda.

(i) PLANNING APPLICATION 02/00412/OUT – OUTLINE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON LAND ADJACENT TO AND TO THE NORTH OF THE RED CRAIG HOTEL, , FOR MR ALASTAIR MACKENZIE

Under reference to paragraph 7(b) of the Minute of this Committee dated 29 May 2002 there were submitted reports by the Chief Legal Officer and the Director of Environmental Services regarding an outline application for residential development on land adjacent to and to the north of the Red Craig, Hotel, Burghead for Mr Alastair MacKenzie.

The report by the Chief Legal Officer advised that at the meeting on 29 May 2002 it had been agreed that, without any consideration being given to the application, the application be referred to a Hearing, on a date to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman, to which the applicant and objectors to the application be invited to attend and be afforded the opportunity of being heard. The report also set out the proposed procedure for the hearing.

The report by the Director of Environmental Services gave details of the application and the consultations which had been undertaken regarding it and the relevant planning criteria in terms of the Moray Development Plan. The report also recommended that, for reasons detailed in the report, planning consent be refused.

The Meeting also noted that Members of the Committee had visited the site of the application on Monday 19 August 2002.

There was also tabled at the meeting a copy of a letter dated 11 June 2002 from the Secretary of Burghead, and Roseisle Community Council expressing their concern regarding the lack of future private housing developments within the community and the view that the available housing land supply in Burghead should no longer be used as justification for the continued refusal of the Red Craig site which lies within the Burghead boundary. The Development Control Manager advised the meeting that in their previous letter of 5 April 2002 the Community Council confirmed that the applicant, Mr MacKenzie, had declared an interest when the application was discussed at the Community Council's meeting on 4 April 2002, and clarification had been sought as to whether or not the applicant had been present when the terms of the letter of 11 June 2002 were decided. The meeting noted that, despite several requests, clarification was still awaited and that Members should take this into consideration when considering the terms of the correspondence.

In regard to those submitting objections/representations to the application the meeting noted that Mr P McCann had declined the invitation to be heard as he was moving house. The other objector to the application, Janet Trythall, had intimated she would be unable to attend the hearing due to work commitments and had requested that a statement, amplifying her objections, be read out to the meeting and it was agreed that the statement be read out at the appropriate juncture in the proceedings.

Thereafter the Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed at the hearing which was accepted by the Committee and the applicant.

On the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Kelly, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the meeting. He advised the meeting in regard to the background to the outline application to develop an area of ground of approximately 1.2 hectares which is capable of accommodating 20 detached houses with no access or service issues. He then went on to address the reasons for refusal, set out in the Director's report. He expressed the view that there was no environmental evidence to support the environmental designation of the site, part of which had already been developed, and questioned what changed at the boundary with the two adjacent sites on the western boundary of the Red Craig, one of which was nearing completion and the other shortly to be developed by Moray Housing

M:\XN20020820M0.doc 385

Partnership (MHP). He also expressed the view that a precedent had been set given that developments in similar sites had been permitted in other communities throughout Moray and if the site is considered unacceptable for housing development, he questioned why is it located within the settlement boundary of Burghead.

In regard to the supply of housing land he was of the opinion that contrary to the indication in the Director's report, there was a lack of available land in Burghead to meet the demand. In this regard he referred to sites R1, R2, R3 and R4 which were either being developed, completed, likely to be completed or in the case of R2 remain undeveloped as it has done for some 30 years. He also referred to the possibility of his client applying to extend the existing caravan park into the site were permission for housing to be refused and sought clarification as to whether or not that this would be permissible.

In regard to the stated objection he advised the meeting that one of the objectors had since left the area and the other objector, who had submitted a written submission, was an interested member of the public who did not reside in the vicinity of the site. Whilst accepting that there was a need to protect the coastline he reminded the meeting that the site lay within the settlement boundary and was not located within the AGLV (Area of Great Landscape Value) or the CPZ (Coastal Protection Zone). For the reasons stated in his submission and given also that the local community supported the application and there were no local objections to the proposed development he urged the Committee to approve the application.

The Clerk then read out the statement submitted by Janet Trythall which expanded on the objections summarised in the Director of Environmental Services's report. The statement concluded, by way of reference to the Council's Development Plan, that "Burghead benefits from a dramatic coastal setting with coastal views north, east and west. An objective of the Plan for Burghead is to protect and enhance it's setting and to effect environmental safeguards and improvements" and that by upholding the status of area ENV6 will, as intended, continue to contribute to the environment and amenity of the town and she urged the Committee to approve the recommendation to refuse that application.

Thereafter the applicant's representative responded to Members questions. On the invitation of the Chairman the applicant's representative summarised the case for the applicant and thereafter, in response to a question from the Chair, intimated that he was satisfied with the conduct of the proceedings of the hearing.

The Development Control Manager was then afforded the opportunity to clarify points which had arisen out of the submissions. He advised the meeting in regard to the terms of the analysis and conclusions of the Reporter's findings relating to the designation of Burghead ENV6 following the Public Inquiry into the Moray Local Plan 2000, which were accepted by the Council. The meeting noted that the designation of the site at the time was considered justified, the site being regarded as a public visual amenity standing in the landscape as a largely green space at the entrance to Burghead and open to the adjacent Area of Great Landscape Value. The Planning and Development Manager advised the meeting that approximately 145 sites were available within Burghead, with an average of only 8 new houses being built each year. Therefore there is currently a housing land supply which is above what is required for the town and no need to designate additional housing land in Burghead. He also advised the meeting that the appropriate time to consider the matter of designating additional housing land would be when the Local Plan is reviewed in about 2 years time. At this time members of the public, house builders and land owners would be consulted and the Council would, at that time, assess which sites in Burghead, if any, should be added to the existing supply. Thereafter Officers responded to questions from Members.

Following consideration Councillor Keith, seconded by Councillor Hogg, moved refusal of the application as recommended, particularly having regard to the long history of applications, refusals and consideration as part of Local Plan Inquiries.

As an amendment Councillor Bisset expressed the opinion that a precedent had already been set given that part of the site had already been developed and similar developments to that being proposed could be seen on the outskirts of and Cummingston. He also expressed the view that one of the largest sites available in the town was still undeveloped despite being zoned for private housing many years ago whereas development of the proposed site, which lay within the settlement boundary, could proceed in the immediate future and there were no local objections to the proposed development which was supported by the local Community Council. He considered that these were material considerations to justify departing from Local Plan Policy and moved approval of the application. The amendment was seconded by Councillor Wilson.

M:\XN20020820M0.doc 386

Prior to moving to a vote the Chairman asked the Development Control Manager whether or not he would wish to recommend any conditions other than the standard conditions to apply to the application in the event of the amendment becoming the finding of the Meeting.

The Development Control Manager recommended that in the event of the application being approved the following conditions should be applied to the consent:-

1. Standard outline condition ie details to be submitted within 3 years of outline consent. 2. Development to be submitted/approved in accordance with details including:

· Elevations of buildings · Site layout, including access · Means of enclosure · Finished levels · Landscaping

3. Landscaping to be carried out not later than the end of the first planting season following occupation of the houses or completion of building works whichever is sooner plus replacement planting within the first five years. 4. No development to commence until detailed SUDs proposals submitted/approved in conjunction with all relevant drainage consultees 5. Parking at the rate of 2 spaces for 3-bed or less and 3 spaces for 4-bed or more and all located outwith visibility splays, etc 6. Driveway length to be 6m minimum for second vehicle, driveway not to include public road and over service verges, to be finished in bitmac 7. Access radii to be 7.6m and kerbed. 8. Visibility splay of 4.5 x 125m 9. 90m braking site line to north of site around the corner of Fraser Road 10. An external footpath on boundary of site with direct footpath link to connect into existing footpaths into Burghead 11. Development not to exceed 20 houses and to be of single storey construction although accommodation within the roofspace may be permissible 12. Play area to be provided.

Thereafter with the agreement of his seconder, Councillor Bisset, amended his motion to the effect that approval be subject to the conditions as recommended by the Development Control Manager.

Thereafter, on a division there voted:-

For the Motion (6) - Councillors Keith, Hogg, Leslie, Sim, Watt and Young

For the Amendment (7) - Councillors Bisset, Wilson, Gormley, Gorn, Hamilton, Howe and Longmore

Abstentions (0)

Accordingly the Amendment became the finding of the meeting and it was agreed that the application be approved as an acceptable departure from Local Plan Policy, subject to the conditions recommended by the Development Control Manager, as referred to above.

(ii) PLANNING APPLICATION 02/00681/OUT – OUTLINE TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING CROFT AND ERECT DWELLINGHOUSE AT LOCHINVER CROFT, MOSSTOWIE, ELGIN FOR MR WILLIAM D WHITEFORD

Councillor Hogg declared an interest in this application and left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or decision.

M:\XN20020820M0.doc 387

Under reference to paragraph 3(e) of the Minute of this Committee dated 26 June 2002 there was submitted reports by the Chief Legal Officer and the Director of Environmental Services regarding an outline application to demolish the existing croft and erect a dwellinghouse at Lochinver Croft, Mosstowie for Mr William B Whiteford.

The report by the Chief Legal Officer advised that at the meeting on 26 June 2002 it had been agreed that the Committee was "minded to approve" the application subject to a hearing on a date to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman to which the applicant and objector be invited to attend and be afforded the opportunity of being heard prior to the Committee determining the application. The report also set out the proposed procedure for the Hearing.

The report by the Director of Environmental Services gave details of the application and the consultations which had been undertaken regarding it and the relevant planning criteria in terms of the Moray Development Plan. The meeting noted that, due to work commitments, the objector to the application had intimated he was unable to attend the Hearing and had submitted a statement amplifying his objections to the application to be read out at the Hearing and it was agreed that this would be read out at the appropriate juncture in the proceedings.

On the invitation of the Chairman the applicant's representative, Mr S Russell, addressed the Meeting. He advised the meeting in regard to the background to the application, which at this stage was in outline only, and would be replacing an existing building with a maximum one and a half storey in accordance with Local Plan Policy. The proposed development would be in keeping with the scale of the existing adjoining dwelling and would utilise the existing access. In regard to the stated objections which related to issues of privacy he advised the meeting that the proposed site already contains a barn building and the land has always been occupied by the applicant and therefore he did not consider that these were legitimate grounds for objection.

Thereafter the Clerk read out the statement from the objector, Mr Reid, who intimated that whilst he did not object to the development, in principle, his main concern was to protect his privacy and retain the character of Ivy Cottage. The meeting noted that he was of the view that, as the proposal currently stands, the new house would be built outside the original boundary looking directly onto his property which is magnified by the fact that the new site is elevated by approximately 12 feet. He put forward a number of conditions, which if applied to the consent would be acceptable, which would see any future development taking place within the original boundaries of the site. A copy of page 29 of the "Housing in the Countryside" Policy relating to "replacements" was tabled at the Meeting at the request of the objector who made reference to this in his statement.

Thereafter the applicant's representative responded to questions from Members. On the invitation of the Chairman, applicant's representative summarised the case for the applicant and, in response to a question from the Chair, intimated that he was satisfied with the conduct of the proceedings of the Hearing.

Following consideration Councillor Young seconded by Councillor Bisset moved approval of the application subject to the following conditions:-

(a) the site shall be wholly contained to the south of the fence line which lies some 30 metres back from the road; and

(b) the area of agricultural land to the north of the said fence line shall be wholly excluded from this consent.

There being no-one otherwise minded the motion became the finding of the Meeting.

On the determination of this application Councillor Hogg rejoined the Meeting.

(iii) PLANNING APPLICATION 02/00785/FUL – ERECT DWELLINGHOUSE AND PARTLY DEMOLISH OLD MOD OPERATIONS ROOMS AT DALLACHY AIRFIELD AT SITE ADJACENT TO GREENACRES, UPPER DALLACHY, FOR MR AND MRS J A D YOUNG

Under reference to para 5(h) of the Minute of this Committee dated 26 June, 2002, there were submitted reports by the Chief Legal Officer and the Director of Environmental Services regarding an application to erect a dwellinghouse and partly demolish the old MOD operations rooms for Dallachy Airfield at a site adjacent to Greenacres, Upper Dallachy, Fochabers, for Mr & Mrs J A D Young.

M:\XN20020820M0.doc 388

The report by the Chief Legal Officer advised that at the meeting on 26 June 2002 it was agreed that the application be advertised as a Departure from Policy and in the event of an objection(s) being received the application be referred to a Hearing to which the objector(s) and the applicant be invited to attend and be afforded the opportunity of being heard. The report also advised that as an objection to the application had already been submitted on 21 May 2002, arrangements were made for the Hearing.

The Report by the Director of Environmental Services gave details of the application and the consultations which had been undertaken regarding it and the relevant planning criteria in terms of the Moray Development Plan. The report also recommended that for reasons as detailed in the report, planning consent be refused.

The Clerk advised the meeting that given the application had been advertised as a Departure to which no further objections had been received and that the objector who had submitted an objection to the application on 21 May 2002 had declined the invitation to be heard and therefore, in this instance, the Hearing was not required and the meeting was requested to proceed to determine the application.

On the invitation of the Chairman the Development Control Manager intimated that he had nothing further to add to the report which recommended refusal of the application.

Following consideration Councillor Keith, seconded by Councillor Leslie, moved that given the application had been advertised as a Departure to which no objections have been received and the original objector has declined the invitation to be heard, the application be approved as an acceptable Departure for the reasons previously stipulated in the motion to the Committee on 26 June 2002, subject to standard conditions.

There being no-one otherwise minded the motion became the finding of the Meeting.

M:\XN20020820M0.doc