STIRLING COUNCIL

MINUTES of SPECIAL MEETING of the PLANNING PANEL held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, VIEWFORTH, on THURSDAY 26 JUNE 2008 at 10.00 a.m.

Present:-

Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON (in the Chair)

Councillor Margaret BRISLEY Councillor John HENDRY (Substitute) Councillor Tony FFINCH Councillor Graham REED Councillor Scott FARMER Councillor Jim THOMSON Councillor David GOSS

In Attendance:

Jane Brooks-Burnett, Planning Officer, Environment Services Peter Dow, Solicitor, Corporate Services Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Environment Services Liz Duncan, Solicitor to the Council, Corporate Services Gavin Forrest, Planning Officer, Environment Services Fiona Fulton, Communications Officer, Chief Executive’s Office Bob Jack, Director of Corporate Services Iain Jeffrey, Planning Officer, Environment Services Claire Milne, Principal Planning Officer, Environment Services Jim McGregor, Development Control Manager, Environment Services Peter McKechnie, Planning Officer, Environment Services Mick Stewart, Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services Ann Dromgoole Committee Officer, Corporate Services (Clerk)

Also Present:-

Councillor Colin O’Brien (part-only) Councillor Gerard O’Brien (part-only) Councillor Graham Lambie (part-only) Councillor Andrew Simpson (part-only)

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Andrew Simpson.

PP100 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

In terms of Standing Order No 32 (c) Councillor John Hendry declared an interest in the report referred to at Item 3 on the agenda “Proposed Mix-Use Development – Kildean Auction Market – City of Stirling Business Park Ltd and Elphistone Land Limited – Application 07/00680/OUT” as a co-terminus neighbour of United Auction land at Kildean Market having received Neighbourhood notification in respect of the proposed development.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC PP101 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHAIR

In terms of Standing Order No 30 the Chair advised that the report referred to at Item 3 on the agenda - “Proposed Mix-Use Development – Kildean Auction Market – City of Stirling Business Park Ltd and Elphistone Land Limited – 07/00680/OUT” would not be brought forward to this meeting.

The Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services confirmed that Planning Services was continuing to meet with the Applicants and that a report would be submitted to the Panel meeting scheduled for either 26 July 2008 or to a future meeting.

Decision

The Panel noted the position.

PP102 MINUTES – 20 MAY 2008

The Panel considered the Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Panel held on 20 May 2008.

Decision

The Panel approved the Minutes of Meeting of the Panel held on 20 May 2008 as a correct record of the proceedings.

PP103 DALNAIR FARM, DRYMEN, G63 ONJ - MR & MRS ALAN MUNRO - HEARING

(a) CONVERSION AND ALTERATIONS TO STEADING BUILDINGS TO FORM 6 DWELLINGS AND EXTENSION TO FARM HOUSE AT DALNAIR FARM, DRYMEN, G63 0NJ - APPLICATION 07/00851/LBC

(b) CONVERSION AND ALTERATIONS TO STEADING BUILDINGS TO FORM 6 DWELLINGS, EXTENSION TO FARM HOUSE AND ALTERATIONS TO ACCESS AT DALNAIR FARM - APPLICATION 07/00850/DET

The Chair reminded Members that only those who had attended the Site Inspection on 12 May 2008 i.e. (Councillors Margaret Brisley, Tony Ffinch, David Goss, Alasdair MacPherson, Graham Reed, and Jim Thomson) could take part in the discussions and subsequent determinations on the undernoted Applications – 07/00851/LBC and 07/00850/DET.

Councillor Scott Farmer and Councillor John Hendry took no part in any of the discussions.

On 24 April 2008 the Panel had agreed to defer a decision on the above two Applications pending a Site Inspection.

The Site Inspection had taken place on 12 May 2008 and also included visits to 4 separate sites (all within a rural setting) where a variety of barn conversions were viewed i.e. Tombrake, , Croy Cunningham, , Drum Farm, and Angus Stepp, Kippen.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC Since the Panel meeting on 24 April 2008 the Applicants had requested a Hearing and both Applications were considered collectively under the procedure for allowing Interested Parties to be heard.

The reports submitted to the Panel on 24 April 2008 regarding the Applications were re-circulated and appended as Appendix 1 to the relevant submitted reports by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services. Both of these reports were dated 18 June 2008.

The Note of the Site Inspection held on 12 May 2008 was also appended as Appendix 2 to both the submitted reports of 18 June 2008.

The Planning Officer spoke to the submitted reports.

(a) Application 07/00851/LBC – This Application sought Listed Building Consent to alter a previous historic extension on the Farmhouse (Category B Listed Building) and undertake internal alterations, convert the steading to form 3 new residential units and the erection of 2 new residential units that were physically attached to historic cartilage buildings.

The Applicants had since revised some aspects of the proposal to take account of the previous Recommendation of 24 April 2008. The main changes to the proposal were set out within Paragraphs 3.2 – 3.4 of the submitted report of 18 June 2008. It was confirmed that, as a result of the revisions elements of the proposal listed within Paragraph 3.12 of the report, the proposal was now more acceptable.

Reference was made to a new draft Policy for the Redevelopment of Rural Buildings that had been produced for consultation. This draft Policy proposed a more flexible approach to the conversion and re-development of rural buildings, including the potential for new build in certain circumstances, including on the footprint of existing agri-industrial buildings. The Panel was advised that regarding the Application under discussion that parts of the proposed new build houses were not on the footprint of any existing buildings and that the proposals affected the character and setting of a Listed Building.

There were no Third Party objections to the Application.

Historic had advised that the proposed additions to the house would result in a considerable change to its character, having a detrimental impact on the east and south elevations, and should be resisted.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse the Application for the reasons set out in Paragraphs 2 (a) – (d) of the submitted report.

(b) Application 07/00850/DET - This Application sought approval to alter a previous historic extension on the farmhouse, convert the steading to form 3 new residential units, change the use of agricultural land to garden ground and the provision of a revised access to the farmhouse, erect 2 new residential units, and erect 5 double and 2 single garages.

The Applicants had revised some aspects of the proposal to take account of the previous Recommendation referred to in Paragraphs 3.2 – 3.5 of the report of 18 June 2008.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC The Development Plan Policies relevant to the Application were set out in Paragraph 3.7 and 3.8 of Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

There were no Third Party objections to the Application.

The Panel was advised that elements of the proposal were now more acceptable as a result of the revisions proposed by the Applicants, in particular to the Listed Farmhouse itself. However the main elements of the scheme, such as the new build houses and aspects of the conversion of the traditional buildings, remained contrary to current Policy and Guidance.

The new Draft Policy for the redevelopment of rural buildings, previously referred to above, included the potential for new build in certain circumstances. It was noted that whilst the final details and accompanying Design Guidance still had to be approved, in the context of this Draft Policy, the proposal for new houses to be built on the footprint of existing agri- industrial buildings and elements of the design of the traditional steadings, would be acceptable in principle.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse the Application for the reasons set out in Paragraphs 2 (a) – (h) of the submitted report.

Ms Caroline Meikle, McEachern MacDuff, Architects, Stirling speaking on behalf of the Applicants advised that substantial changes had been made to the proposals presented to the Panel in April 2008. The Applicants believed that the amended scheme accorded wholly with the terms of the Historic Scotland consultation response, as well as concerns raised by the Panel.

The critical changes that had been implemented were reported as follows:-

• The two extensions to the main house had been omitted; • The link between the house and the steading had now been retained, with alterations that were now acceptable to Planning Services; • The relationship between the Main House and the Steading had been reinstated, the stone wall removed and a clear vista formed between house and steading courtyard; • Existing wall heads and ridge lines had been retained to the steading adjoining to the Listed Building; • 19th century outbuildings, previously identified for demolition, the shed and cart shed, had been incorporated into the proposals.

Prior to the drawings being resubmitted, Ms Meikle, the Applicant and the Applicants’ Planning Consultant had met with the Head of Planning and Regulation and Planning Officer to discuss the amendments.

Ms Meikle advised that the Head of Planning and Regulation had been very positive towards the revised scheme, and had suggested that further minor amendments be made. The meeting had concluded on a positive note and the drawings had been amended further to incorporate all the feedback from Planning Services prior to the final re-submission.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC In the opinion of the Planning Officer, the proposals were still contrary to Policy E34, E43, E45 and Memorandum for Guidance of Listed Building. Ms Meikle advised that the crux of the matter centred on the perception that the proposed development adversely affected the setting of the Listed Building.

The Panel was reminded that in their consultation response Historic Scotland had not intimated that they were adverse to the new development

The Panel was referred to the closing paragraph of Historic Scotland’s response viz:- “We would ask that the scale and form of any proposed new build respect the scale and form of the farmhouse and steading.” It was pointed out that Historic Scotland’s response made no reference to the setting of the Listed Building.

The Panel was also advised that the existing steading and the listed building did not offer much to the countryside in their current state and were clearly in a state of disrepair. Reference was made to Memorandum for Guidance of Listed building that stated:-

“New uses for old buildings may often be the key to their continued survival. It may be justifiable for planning authorities to relax control where this would enable a historic building to be given a new lease of life.

Planning authorities should be flexible in dealing with applications for changes of use of buildings of historic interest. Consent for change of use should not be refused except for specific and major difficulties which cannot be overcome.”

Ms Meikle explained that the proposal to convert the steading buildings would greatly enhance the traditional buildings without eroding their character. The house stood on the high ground and at three storeys would clearly dominate the site.

The setting would also be greatly enhanced by the removal of the modern buildings. The new garage block and home offices would be located on the foot print of the modern building, but the proposed new build would be narrower in width than the existing to respect the scale, and ridge heights of the 19th century steading. The two new dwellings would be positioned upon the disused sheep mustering area. The proposal had always promoted the use of traditional building materials. The detailing would be traditional and would in no way erode or adversely affect the setting of the listed building.

The Panel was referred to Paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 of the Report by the Head of Planning and Regulation that emphasised that the ongoing controversial elements are considered contrary to “Existing” Policy and Guidance, but did concede that these elements would accord with the terms of the emerging amended Guidance.

The current wording of the emerging Policy stated that:-

“New development in the countryside will normally be acceptable where: the proposal involves redevelopment of a building complex including the conversion of redundant buildings. – this calls for the redevelopment of Brownfield sites together with redevelopment of unsightly modern buildings, such that a coherent design concept is realised.

Ms Meikle pointed out that the emerging Guidance was now much more in accord with Government Guidance set out in both SPP’s 3 and 15.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC SPP15 clearly recognised the potential for farm steadings and other existing buildings to accommodate new development for residential use. This was reflected in the Emerging Policy and Development Advice Note which stated that any new elements of a development should sit comfortably alongside the re-used building and should be suited to their rural setting”. In the opinion of the Architects the Applications for Dalnair Farm achieved both these criteria.

Ms Meikle took the view that the present scheme, as amended, accorded with current Government advice, emerging Stirling Council Guidance and the Consultation response from Historic Scotland. It offered an opportunity to secure, and restore, the Category ‘B’ Listed Building and the traditional steading complex, and removed the incongruous non-traditional elements. Whilst the primary objective had been to secure the future of the steading complex, this could only be achieved if the project was economically viable. In the opinion of the Architects the proposal before the Panel achieved both of these objectives.

The Panel was urged to support the development and approve the Applications.

There were no objections from Third Parties to be heard at the Hearing.

Councillor Colin O’Brien, as a Local Member, spoke in support of the Applications that supported the Council’s Developing Policy in the Countryside. Councillor O’Brien had attended the Site Inspection and advised that the Applicants had done all that had been asked of them. The existing steading was in a state of disrepair and the proposals before the Panel would enhance a traditional building without detriment to it. Councillor O’Brien was keen to see a redundant building being brought back into use. The developments fitted within existing footprints.

Councillor O’Brien was pleased that Historic Scotland had offered no objection to the Applications. The proposed development was in keeping with other developments in the surrounding area; the Council would not need to provide new Services for the development. The Application was worthy of serious consideration. The Applicants had gone a long way to meet the changes requested of them.

During discussion Members asked questions and the following views were expressed:-

Clarity of where the Council’s Emerging Guidelines on Policies in the Countryside stood as a material consideration when determining the Applications given that the draft Policy was out for consultation and had not been approved by Council; confirmation that as Decision Makers the Panel could give as much weight to this Emerging Policy as it considered appropriate in the determination of the Applications. Queries were also raised concerning rendering; sustainability; glazing and the height of the boundary wall around the site to ensure that the build was aesthetically pleasing and in no way unsightly.

The Panel noted the progress which had been made with the Applicants on the Applications.

Decision

The Panel agreed:-

1 to approve Planning Application 07/00851/LBC;

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC 2 to approve Planning Application 07/00850/DET;

3 to note the requirement for Historic Scotland to be advised of the determination taken on Planning Application 07/00851/LBC;

4 to remit to Planning Officers to discuss with the Applicants/Architects issues on rendering; sustainability; glazing and the height of the boundary wall around the site to ensure that the build was aesthetically pleasing and in no way unsightly;

5 that the Planning Conditions attached to Planning Applications 07/00851/LBC and 07/00850/DET are reported on the Council’s Weekly Planning Schedule.

(Reference – Paragraphs PP89 (a) and (b) of 24 April 2008; Reports by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

PP104 PROPOSED USE OF STRUCTURE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS A SINGLE STOREY DWELLING HOUSE AT LAND WEST OF SOUTHLAND FARM, – MRS BRADA O’BRIEN – 07/01051/DET

At this juncture Councillor Gerard O’Brien left the Meeting Chamber.

All the Members of the Panel had attended the Site Inspection on 10 June 2008 i.e. (Councillors Margaret Brisley, Tony Ffinch, David Goss, Scott Farmer, John Hendry, Alasdair MacPherson, Graham Reed, and Jim Thomson) and were eligible to take part in the discussions and subsequent determination on the undernoted Application – 07/01051/DET.

This Application had been submitted by the spouse of Councillor Gerard O’Brien and related to the proposed residential use of an incomplete building, for which Approval had already been grated for the erection and use of as a stable. The site was in the countryside and the Application raised issues of:-

(a) New houses in the countryside; (b) Reuse of redundant rural buildings

The Application had been recommended for Refusal on the Weekly Planning Schedule of 7 May 2008.

Councillor Fegus Wood had referred the Application to the Panel.

On 20 May 2008 the Panel agreed to defer consideration of the Application pending a Site Inspection and submission of a detailed report setting out full Site Proposal; Description; Previous History; Objections; Applicant’s Supporting Statement; Policy/Resources and Consultations.

The Site Inspection had taken place on 10 June 2008 and the full report on the Application had been available for the Site Inspection.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Development Plan; (e) Applicant’s Case; (f) Objections; (g) Assessment and (h) Policy Resource Implications and Consultations.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC The report tabled at the meeting on 20 May 2008 was appended as Appendix 1 to the submitted report dated 18 June 2008. The Note of the Site Inspection held on 10 June 2008 was appended as Appendix 2 to the submitted report. A Supporting Statement from Warren Consultants, Milngavie, had been circulated at the Site Inspection.

The Panel was advised that the structure was situated on land for which planning permission had been granted for a stable block. This was considered an acceptable use and building within the countryside. It was noted that the structure currently on site did not comply with the approved details for the stable building, particularly in relation to the position and size of openings, and the overall internal floor area, which had increased slightly. Additionally the roof was covered in concrete tiles, whereas slate had been proposed and approved.

One letter of objection had been received in relation to the Application and the issues arising from this objection were listed (a) - (c) within Paragraph 3.14 of the submitted report.

The Development Plan Policies relevant to the Application were set out in Paragraphs 3.5 – 3.9 of the submitted report.

The Panel was advised that the current Development Plan Policies only support new housing in the countryside where the proposal either is required in relation to a primary rural activity, or where it involves the conversion of a redundant building, which is traditional in appearance and contributes to the character of the countryside. In this instance there was no such justification in relation to a primary rural activity and it was not considered that a modern, partially completed, breeze block structure constituted a traditional vernacular building, nor one which contributed to the character of the countryside. It was therefore considered that the Application ran contrary to the above, established Development Plan Policies.

The Panel was reminded that whilst in appropriate circumstances SPP15: Planning for Rural Development did advocate a certain relaxation of Policy approach to housing in the countryside, it also clearly stated that each individual Planning Authority had the discretion in interpreting and applying the guidance at a local level. Additionally it stated that any Policy change, if desirable, was best achieved by the normal consultative process, whereby Policy was tested in draft and refined according to the response before approval and implementation.

In this regard Policy H7 of the Draft Consultation Structure Plan Alteration 3, which the Applicant had referred to, was contained within a draft document, which Stirling Council may or may not approve. As such it was not considered best practice to base decisions on current Planning Applications on Policies contained within this draft document.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse the Application for the reasons set out within Paragraph 2.1 (a) – (f) of the submitted report.

Additionally, since the Application was being recommended for Refusal authorisation was also sought to allow Officers to initiate enforcement action to ensure that the structure of the incomplete building was either completed and used in accordance with the previous Approval (S/07/00018/DET) or if no longer required that it be removed from the site on the basis of Recommendation 2.2 of the submitted report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC During discussion the following points were raised:-

Clarification was sought on the additional traffic on C34 likely as a result of any Approval given; access to the site was for agricultural purposes only; That the existing building on the site had not been used and that this building was not in accordance with the plans for which previous Approval had been granted; That the erection of a dwelling house could enhance the overall mix of buildings in the vicinity and the landscape; and the argument made that the Application fell within Policy Guidelines; That it was totally unacceptable to permit a change of use of a building, within a few years of Approval having been granted, when the building for which the Approval had been given had not in effect been built; It was not competent to Approve an Application for a change of use for a development that had not been completed; The Panel had not had the opportunity to consider the Policy Guidelines on development in the countryside and therefore any relaxation of the Guidelines at this stage was premature; It was not competent for the Panel to approve the Application under discussion subject to the proviso that the Applicant removed the shell of the structure for which previous Approval had been granted (S/07/00018/DET).

Motion

“1. To Refuse the Application for the reasons set out within Paragraph 2.1 (a); (b); (c);(d); (e) and (f) of the submitted report;

2 to take enforcement action to have the site cleared and reinstated or the building completed, and used in accordance with the original Approval.“

Moved by Councillor Graham Reed, seconded by Councillor David Goss.

Amendment

“To Approve the Application subject to the Conditions to be attached to the Approval being reported on the Council’s Weekly Planning Schedule.”

Moved by Councillor Jim Thomson, seconded by Councillor Scott Farmer.

The vote on the Amendment was as follows:-

For (3) Councillor Scott Farmer Councillor Alasdair MacPherson Councillor Jim Thomson

Against (5) Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Tony Ffinch Councillor David Goss Councillor John Hendry Councillor Graham Reed

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC The vote on the Motion was as follows:-

For (5) Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Tony Ffinch Councillor David Goss Councillor John Hendry Councillor Graham Reed

Against (3) Councillor Scott Farmer Councillor Alasdair MacPherson Councillor Jim Thomson

Decision

The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 3 votes and accordingly the Panel agreed:-

1 To Refuse the Application for the following reasons:-

(a) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal to alter and use the partially completed structure within the countryside as a dwelling house is contrary to Policy H6 (2) of the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan, March 2002, which only supports new housing development within the countryside where the proposal involves conversion of a traditional redundant building.

(b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal to alter and use the partially completed structure within the countryside as a dwelling house is contrary to Policy H6 (1) of the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan, March 2002, which only supports new housing development in the countryside where it is essential in association with an enterprise or activity which requires a countryside location.

(c) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal to alter and use the partially completed structure within the countryside as a dwelling house is contrary to Policy E2 (b) of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 which supports the sensitive re-use of redundant vernacular-style rural buildings only where the building is worthy of retention due to its traditional appearance and contribution to the environment.

(d) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposal to alter and use the partially completed structure within the countryside as a dwelling house is contrary to Policy E7 of the Stirling Council Local Plan (as altered) August 2007 which only supports new development within the countryside where it is essential to the proper functioning of a primary rural activity or one which has an overriding need for a countryside location.

(e) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal to alter and use the partially completed structure within the countryside as a dwelling house is contrary to Policy H10 (1) of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 which supports development of single dwelling houses in the countryside only where it can be demonstrated that the occupant has a genuine need to be housed to manage land in relation to a primary rural activity.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC (f) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal to alter and use the partially completed structure within the countryside as a dwelling house is contrary to Policy H10 (4) of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 which only supports housing development in the countryside where it involves the re-use, conversion or rehabilitation of redundant, vernacular rural buildings where they make a contribution to the quality of the built environment.

2. To take enforcement action to have the site cleared and reinstated, or the building completed, and used in accordance with the original Approval.

(Reference – Paragraph PP98 of 20 May 2008; Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

PP105 AMENDMENT OF CONDITION 9 OF PERMISSION 98/00685/DET TO REDUCE PARKING PROVISION FROM 4 SPACES TO 2 SPACES ON FORECOURT AND FORMATION OF NEW CAR PARK AT 121 ROAD, ST NINIANS, STIRLING, FK7 0PF - ARNOLD CLARK AUTOMOBILES - 08/00312/DET

This Application had been referred to the Panel due to concerns raised by and Borestone Community Councils, on a request for a reduction in parking provision at the above site.

The Panel was requested to determine the request for an Amendment to Condition 9 of Planning Application 98/00685/DET, approved in 1999 for a Change of use to form Used Car Sales Centre with Associated Customer Parking which largely related to the site on the west side of Glasgow Road, under the ownership of Arnold Clark, at 90 Glasgow Road. The Application did include some alterations to the former Ian Grieve Garage at 117 – 125 Glasgow Road in terms of formation of a Transporter- loading Bay and Visitor Parking.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services provided details of (a) The Site; (b) History; (c) Objections; (d) Assessment and Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

Three letters of objection had been received in respect of the Amendment details of which were set out in Paragraph 3.4 of the submitted report.

Broomridge and Borestone Community Councils objected to the Application for the reasons stated in Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of the submitted report.

The Panel was advised that since the issue of the agenda for this meeting a letter of objection had been received from an adjacent occupier seeking clarification on an issue about notification.

The Chair recommended that the Panel continue determination of the Application to the meeting on 24 July 2008 to enable further consultation to take place.

Decision

The Panel agreed to continue consideration of the Application to the meeting of the Panel scheduled for 24 July 2008 pending consultation with the resident.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC (Reference - Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

PP106 ERECTION OF DWELLING HOUSE AT GARDEN GROUND TO REAR OF 62 GLASGOW ROAD, – MR AND MRS R PETTICREW - 08/00221/REM

The above Application had been recommended for Approval on the Weekly Planning Schedule of 7 May 2008 and referred to the Panel at the request of Councillor Colin O’Brien who wished further consideration to be given to the design and location of the proposed dwelling house, particularly its relationship to an existing dwelling house.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Objections; (e) Development Plan; (f) Assessment and (g) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

Outline Planning permission for the erection of a dwelling house within the garden grounds of 62 Glasgow Road, Blanefield was granted on 5 July 2007.

The proposal before the Panel sought approval of the Matters Reserved by the grant of this Outline Planning permission, namely the siting, design and layout of the proposed dwelling house. The proposal also sought to utilise the fall in the site towards the west, by the inclusion of a single car garage at a basement level.

Four letters of representation had been received in respect of the Application. The concerns raised and responses to these concerns were set out within Paragraph 3.4 of the submitted report.

Strathblane Community Council had considered the Application and neither supported nor opposed it.

The Panel was advised that no Policy Implications would arise from granting approval of these Reserved Matters.

The Panel was recommended to Approve the Application subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the submitted report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services dated 18 June 2008.

Councillor O’Brien, as a Local Member, advised that whilst not opposing the house in principle, the location of the house on a slope affected the privacy of the surrounding houses and consequently more screening around the build was required to protect the privacy of these neighbouring householders. There was also a query concerning access to the site by all householders.

Decision

The Panel agreed to Approve the Application subject to:-

1 the Conditions attached as Appendix 1 to the submitted report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services dated 18 June 2008;

2 an additional Condition which requires the provision of a stonewall boundary between the proposed house and neighbour’s house to ensure privacy.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC

(Reference – Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

The Panel adjourned at 11.30 a.m and reconvened at 11.40 a.m. with the following Members and Officers present:-

Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON (in the Chair)

Councillor Margaret BRISLEY Councillor John HENDRY (Substitute) Councillor Tony FFINCH Councillor Graham REED Councillor Scott FARMER Councillor Jim THOMSON Councillor David GOSS

In Attendance:

Jane Brooks-Burnett, Planning Officer, Environment Services Peter Dow, Solicitor, Corporate Services Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Environment Services Liz Duncan, Solicitor to the Council, Corporate Services Gavin Forrest, Planning Officer, Environment Services Fiona Fulton, Communications Officer, Chief Executive’s Office Iain Jeffrey, Planning Officer, Environment Services Claire Milne, Principal Planning Officer, Environment Services Jim McGregor, Development Control Manager, Environment Services Mick Stewart, Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services Ann Dromgoole Committee Officer, Corporate Services (Clerk)

Also Present:-

Councillor Graham Lambie Councillor Andrew Simpson

PP107 ERECTION OF DWELLING HOUSE AT LAND TO REAR OF 9 BROOMRIDGE ROAD, ST NINIANS, STIRLING – MR BRIAN MASTERSON - 08/00201/DET

This Application sought approval for the erection of a detached dwelling house located within a backland area of 265 sq metres approximately which was surrounded by houses and gardens at McLaren Terrace, Broomridge and Hill Street, St Ninians.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services dated 18 June 2008 requested that due to the history of a previous Planning Application, for the site, (considered on two occasions by a Planning Panel), (Reference – S/01/00161/DET) the current Application should also be determined by the Panel.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC The report of 18 June 2008 provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Objections, (e) Policy; (f) Assessment; (g) Applicant’s Case; Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

A Supporting Statement from Warren Consultants, Milngavie of March 2008 was appended as Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

The Extracts from Minutes of Meetings of the Planning Panel held on 31 July 2001 and 17 June 2004, together with the relevant reports, on the two previous Applications for the site (Reference – S/01/00161/DET) were appended as Appendix 2 to the submitted report.

The Panel was advised that the site area referred to in Application S/01/00161/DET considered on 31 July 2001, and subsequently Refused, was for the same area of ground as indicated on the current Application (08/00201/DET) for which Approval was now being sought.

It was noted that the Application considered by the Panel on 17 June 2004 had been for an enlarged site that included two adjacent 2 timber lock-up garages. (This Application was subsequently Approved subject to the Conditions contained within Appendix 2 to the report by the Head of Planning and Regulation of 7 June 2004 and also referred to in Appendix 2 to the report dated 18 June 2008).

Paragraph 3.4 of the report dated 18 June 2008 made reference to a letter dated 20 July 2004 addressed to Mr B Masterson confirming that the Planning Approval granted on 17 June 2004 was not considered to be valid and was incapable of being implemented, because the decision had been based on incorrect information concerning the ownership of the land on which the two garages were sited. The Applicant was challenging this statement.

Two letters containing objections/comments on the Application had been received; one letter from the occupier of 11 Broomridge Road (located to the north-west of the site) and the other from SP Energy Networks. Details of these comments/objections were contained within Paragraph 3.5 of the submitted report.

Environment Services – Transport Development Services recommended against the granting of Consent for the reasons highlighted in Paragraph 4.3. of the submitted report viz:-

The application site was located off Broomridge Road via a privately maintained road, a single width (approx. 3.5m) and had no footway or road drainage facilities. It was adopted practice to resist residential development comprising more than 4 dwellings for a private road. The private road off Broomridge Road presently provided vehicular access to the rear of five dwellings and two additional lock-up garages. The site’s restricted frontage to Broomridge Road and the adjoining properties boundaries and vegetation resulted in limited visibility from the access. Visibility from the north was restricted by a bush and to the south-west by a hedge. Each of these issues were outwith the Applicant’s control. In view of the above, Transport Development Services recommend against granting Consent for the proposal.

Broomridge Community Council also had concerns as to the suitability of the access to the site from Broomridge Road. These concerns were set out in Paragraph 4.4 of the submitted report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC The proposal was contrary to the Development Plan.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse the Application for the reasons set out in Paragraph 2.1 (a);(b) (i); (ii) and (iii) and (c) of the submitted report.

Decision

The Panel agreed:-

1 to continue determination of the Application pending a Site Inspection;

2 that the Site Inspection take place on Thursday 24 July 2008 at 9.30 a.m prior to the Special Meeting of the Panel set for 24 July 2008; and that the time of the Panel meeting be re-scheduled to 11.00 a.m.

(Reference – Paragraphs PP123 of 31 July 2001 and PP38 of 17 June 2004 respectively; Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

PP108 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SHROUD WITH NEW AND INSTALLATION OF TWO ADDITIONAL CABINETS AT LAND ADJACENT AND WEST OF 65 GLASGOW ROAD, ST NINIANS, STIRLING - T- MOBILE (UK) LTD - 08/00258/TCD

This Application concerned the upgrading of existing facilities on the site to enable the introduction of T-mobile 3G network coverage to the area.

The Application had been referred to the Panel at the request of Councillor Scott Farmer on the grounds that the development would pose unacceptable risks in terms of road safety and would seriously impede pedestrian movement especially with regard to individuals with disabilities, and that the cumulative impact of the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the quality of the streetscape.

The issues raised by the Application were (a) roads/pavement safety and (b) cumulative visual impact of the existing equipment and proposed Cabinets/Shroud.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services provided details of (a) The Site; (b) Site History; (c) Planning Policy; (d) Applicant’s Case; (e) Assessment and (f) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

On 21 September 2006 the Council’s former Development Control Panel had granted Detailed planning permission for the erection of 11.7 metre monopole telecoms mast and associated equipment at the site (Reference 06/00583/TCD).

The Reports on Application 06/00583/TCD, considered by the Development Control Panel on 17 August and 21 September 2006 respectively, plus relevant Minute Extracts were appended as Appendix 2 to the submitted report of 18 June 2008.

Borestone and Broomridge Community Councils objected to the Application for the reasons set out in Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.5 of the submitted report.

Environment Services Transport Development Service had no objections to the proposal providing the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.4 of the submitted report was added to any Consent granted.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC

The proposal complied with Policy E26 of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) 2007 concerning Telecommunication Developments.

It was confirmed that for technical reasons it was not possible to T Mobile UK Ltd to share the mast mounted in Maitland Avenue.

The Panel was recommended to approve the Application subject to the Conditions attached as Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

Concerns were expressed about the proposal to extend the length of the existing Cabinets; the heavy volume of fast moving traffic on Glasgow Road and the practicality for pedestrians negotiating around the Cabinets and the dangers posed to pedestrians, wheelchair uses and people with prams etc using this part of the pavement. In addition the pavement on the opposite side of the road was too narrow for pedestrians to use as an alternative route.

Motion

“To Refuse the Application on the grounds of concerns over road safety and the impact on pedestrians on the amenity of the pavement, with the actual wording of the Reasons for Refusal to be reported on the Council’s Weekly Planning Schedule.”

Moved by Councillor David Goss, seconded by Councillor Scott Farmer.

Amendment

“To approve the Application subject to the Conditions attached as Appendix 1 to the submitted report.”

Moved by Councillor Tony Ffinch, seconded by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson.

The vote on the Amendment was as follows:-

For (3) Councillor Tony Ffinch Councillor Alasdair MacPherson Councillor Graham Reed

Against (5) Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Scott Farmer Councillor David Goss Councillor John Hendry Councillor Jim Thomson

The vote on the Motion was as follows:-

For (5 ) Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Scott Farmer Councillor David Goss Councillor John Hendry Councillor Jim Thomson

Against (3) Councillor Tony Ffinch Councillor Alasdair MacPherson Councillor Graham Reed

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC

Decision

The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 3 votes and accordingly the Panel agreed to Refuse the Application on the grounds of concerns over road safety and the impact on pedestrians on the amenity of the pavement, with the actual wording of the Reasons for Refusal to be reported on the Council’s Weekly Planning Schedule.

(Reference – Paragraphs DC6 and DC13 of 17 August and 21 September, 2006 respectively; Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

PP109 ERECTION OF 42 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT LAND AT DRYPOW PARK TO EAST OF MOSS ROAD, STIRLING ROAD, FALLIN - FORTH HOUSING ASSOCIATION - 07/01029/DET

This Application sought approval for the erection of 42 residential units comprising 18 cottage flats, 25 houses and a bungalow with wheelchair access.

The Application had been brought to the Panel, by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson, due to concerns raised by Polmaise Community Council during the processing of the Application, and the location of the proposed housing site, which differed from the location of housing in the Local Plan 1999.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) History; (d) Objections; (e) Assessment and (f) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations. No individual letters of objections to the Application had been submitted.

Environment Services Transport Development Service had no objection to the Application provided that the Conditions referred to in Paragraph 4.5 of the report were attached to any Consent granted. These Conditions had been incorporated into the recommended Conditions contained within Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

Polmaise Community Council had raised a number of issues on the proposal that were listed within Paragraph 4.8 of the submitted report.

There was no planning history on the Appliction site. However the ground immediately to the north of the site on the former Drypow Playing Field was the subject of a Planning Application for the erection of a Community Hall etc (Reference 02/0101428/OUT) Outline, approval for which had expired on 17 June 2007. The Panel was advised that approval of the current Application for 42 residential units would not preclude the development of the Community Facility etc should the Council, as Planning Authority, be minded to support any future Application for the Community Facility etc on the same site.

The request for upgrading of the existing changing facilities at Drypow Park was not part of the Application before the Panel. It was noted that the existing play facilities at Drypow Park were to be re-located within the existing Drypow Park to take account of the Community Council’s concerns and the consultation advice received from Play Services, referred to in Paragraph 4.11 of the report.

The Panel was recommended to Approve the Application subject to the Conditions and Reasons as set out within Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC

Decision

The Panel unanimously agreed to Approve the Application subject to the Conditions and Reasons as set out within Appendix 1 to the submitted report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services dated 18 June 2008.

(Reference - Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

PP110 ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING HOUSE AT LAND AT GARDEN GROUND OF 11 ALLANWOOD COURT, BRIDGE OF ALLAN - MR & MRS G GARDINER - 07/01040/OUT

This Application concerned the proposal to erect a new dwelling house, with two levels of accommodation, within the garden ground of 11 Allanwood Court, a property located within the Bridge of Allan Conservation Area.

The Application has been referred to the Panel at the request of Councillor Callum Campbell, as a Local Member.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Development Plan; (e) The Applicant’s Case; (f) Objections; (g) Assessment; and (h) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

Fourteen letters of objection had been received in relation to the Application the details of which were set out within Paragraph 3.14 of the submitted report.

Bridge of Allan Community Council had concerns regarding the proposal the details of which were listed within Paragraph 4.4 of the submitted report.

The Policies of relevance in relation to the Application were listed within Paragraph 3.4 – 3.11 of the submitted report.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse the Application for the reasons set out within Paragraph 2 (a) – (h) of the submitted report.

Decision

The Panel agreed to Refuse the Application subject to the following reasons:-

a) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed housing plot, situated within the Bridge of Allan Conservation Area, would not adequately reflect the size, shape or amenity of existing plots and houses. Nor is it considered to adequately reflect the pattern of development, in terms of street frontage and access, prevalent in the surrounding area. Consequently it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy H6 (d) of the Stirling Council Local Plan (as altered) August 2007 which supports housing development in towns and villages only where the character and amenity of existing residential areas will not be unacceptably damaged or the character of the Conservation Area adversely affected.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed housing plot, situated within the Bridge of Allan Conservation Area, would not adequately reflect the size, shape or amenity of existing plots and houses. Nor is it considered to adequately reflect the pattern of development, in terms of street frontage and access, prevalent in the surrounding area. Consequently it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy H6 (g)(i) of the Stirling Council Local Plan (as altered) August 2007 which supports development of housing on smaller sites only where the established pattern of frontages, individual vehicular accesses and plot sizes and shapes is broadly maintained.

c) The proposal will involve the demolition of a substantial stone wall, considered to make a positive contribution to this part of the Conservation Area. Consequently in the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposal is considered contrary to Policy H6 (g)(i) of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 which supports development of housing on smaller sites only where existing features, such as walls which contribute to the character of the area will be retained and not adversely affected by the development.

d) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed housing plot, situated within the Bridge of Allan Conservation Area, would not adequately reflect the size, shape or amenity of existing plots and houses. Nor is it considered to adequately reflect the pattern of development, in terms of street frontage and access, prevalent in the surrounding area. Consequently it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy E35 (a) of the Stirling Council Local Plan which requires development within the Conservation Area to have particular regard to pattern of existing development means of access and boundary treatment.

e) The proposal will involve the demolition of a substantial stone wall, considered to make a positive contribution to this part of the Conservation Area. Consequently, in the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposal is considered contrary to Policy E35 (b) of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 which requires all development in the Conservation Area to retain existing natural and built features which contribute to the character of the Conservation Area.

f) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed housing plot, situated within the Bridge of Allan Conservation Area, would not adequately reflect the size, shape or amenity of existing plots and houses. Nor is it considered to adequately reflect the pattern of development, in terms of street frontage and access, prevalent in the surrounding area. Consequently it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy E34 (a) of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 which in seeking to preserve and enhance the architectural and landscape qualities of the Conservation Area will not generally permit new development in the gardens and grounds of existing buildings.

g) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed housing plot, situated within the Bridge of Allan Conservation Area, would not adequately reflect the size, shape or amenity of existing plots and houses. Nor is it considered to adequately reflect the pattern of development, in terms of street frontage and access, prevalent in the surrounding area. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy H6 (g)(ii) which only supports new houses in the grounds of existing dwellings where the proposed house would enjoy a

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC degree of privacy and amenity comparable with that afforded to surrounding houses.

h) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, due to the presence of high stone boundary walls adequate visibility splays cannot be achieved and as such it is considered that the proposed access would represent a hazard to road safety. Consequently the proposal is considered contrary to Policy H6 (b) of the Stirling Council Local Plan, (As Altered) August 2007 which only supports new housing development where adequate vehicular access can be achieved.

(Reference - Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

PP111 PROPOSED ERECTION OF DWELLING HOUSE AT LAND SOME 230M WEST OF FREW TOLL COTTAGE, THORNHILL – MRS LAURA HADLEY-STOVE – 08/00158/OUT

This Application had been recommended for Approval on the Council’s Weekly Planning Schedule. Councillor Fergus Wood, as a Local Member, on behalf of Thornhill & Blairdrummond Community Council, had brought the Application to the Planning Panel for the following main reasons:-

• There was no previous history of building on this site;

• There was no history of this type of development in the Carse area of Stirling and the Community Council questioned its viability;

• The Applicant did not work in agriculture;

• The development would set a precedent;

• There were questions over the need for the property when the Applicant lived 1.5 miles away;

• There would be an increase in traffic due to selling from the site, and the road was often the scene of accidents.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Objections; (e) Assessment; (f) The Development Plan and (g) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

Two letters of objection to the Application had been received. The objections and the planning responses to these objections were listed within Paragraph 3.5 of the submitted report.

The grounds of objection received from Thornhill and Blairdrummond Community Council were set out within Paragraph 4.4 of the submitted report.

Environment Services Transport Development Service had no objection to the Application provided that the Condition, set out within Paragraph 4.3 of the submitted report, was attached to any Consent granted.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC An Agricultural Justification Document had been submitted to support the Application.

The Application met with the 3 criteria set out in the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan (Development in the Countryside), which, had to be met for development to be looked upon favourably by the Planning Authority.

The Panel was advised that granting Approval of the Application would accord with Policy and there were no elements of the Application that were deemed contrary to relevant Policies.

The Panel was recommended to indicate to the Applicant that the Council was minded to Approve the Application subject to the Conditions set out in Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the submitted report.

In response to a question on whether consultation with SEPA on the proposal had taken place it was confirmed that this was not required since less than 3 developments would be located on the site. Consultation on flooding had taken place with Council Services in accordance with the normal practice.

It was recommended that Condition 7 Drainage - of Appendix 1 - be expanded to take into account any flood risk.

The Chair also recommended that if Approved the Reserved Matters Application be subject to strict design proposals.

Decision

The Panel agreed to indicate to the Applicant that the Council was minded to approve the Application, subject to:-

1 the satisfactory negotiation of a Section 75 Agreement and the following Conditions. The Section 75 is required to tie the property to the land. This will detail that the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, or a dependant of such a person residing with him or her, or a widow or widower of such a person. This is in line with Policy H5 (B) of the Stirling Council Local Plan 1999;

2 the Conditions appended as Appendix 1 to the submitted report, subject to:-

(a) an Amendment to Condition 7 – Drainage – this Condition to include a reference to any flood risk;

(b) inclusion in the Conditions of a Condition relating to the use of traditional architectural design in the build;

3 the conclusion of the Section 75 Agreement with any revisions to the Conditions reported for approval on the Council’s Weekly Planning Schedule.

(Reference – Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 18 June 2008 submitted.)

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC PP112 CONSTRUCTION OF 10 NEW CLASS 4/CLASS 6 UNITS; CONVERSION OF STEADING BUILDING TO CLASS 4, CHANGE OF USE OF FARMHOUSE TO FORM CHILDREN’S DAY NURSERY AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE AND UPGRADING OF EXISTING ACCESS ROAD AT MANOR FARM, MANOR LOAN, , FK9 5QA - MR T COX - 07/00635/DET

Prior to discussion on the Application the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services advised that the Applicant had changed his Agent and his former Agent had requested to be heard by the Panel at this meeting. It was confirmed that it was not appropriate for the Panel to hear from the Applicant's former Agent since the dispute between the Applicant and his former Agent did not involve Planning issues.

It was further reported that Jim Prentice, Prentice Kennedy, Architects had been appointed to act on behalf of the Applicant and that the planning fee might need to be re-calculated and taken up with the Applicant and his Agent. (The fee was based on the Outline Application). This issue would be clarified prior to the conclusion of any Section 75 Consent.

On 24 January 2008 the Panel had agreed to Approve Application 07/00635/DET by Mr T Cox for the Construction of 10 New Class 4/Class 6 Units; Conversion of Steading Building to Class 4, Demolition of Farmhouse and Use of Site for Class 4 and Construction of New House and Upgrading of Existing Access Road at Manor Farm, Manor Loan, Blairlogie, FK9 5QA - subject to a Section 75 Legal Agreement. The decision on the Application had not been issued since it was subject to a Section 75 Legal Agreement.

A report by the Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services advised that the Applicant had altered the proposal to retain the farmhouse building, which he had previously proposed to demolish, and now change its use to that of a Children’s Day Nursery.

The item had been referred back to the Panel for their approval to continue the Application with this Amendment.

The report considered by the Panel on 24 January 2008 together with the relevant Extract from the Panel Minutes of 24 January 2008 were appended as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively to the submitted report.

The Panel was advised that Officers had no objections to this alteration but recommended that the Section 75 Legal Agreement be amended to ensure that the residential use of the farmhouse is extinguished in perpetuity on occupation of the new dwelling house. The Applicant had indicated his willingness to accept this alteration to the Section 75 Legal Agreement.

Agreeing the Amendment would not be contrary to the Development Plan and the Panel was recommended to approve the incorporation of the proposed Amendment.

Environment Services Transport Development Services and Environmental Health had been consulted on the Amendment. Since the issue of the agenda for this Panel meeting both Services had responded that they had no objection to the Amendment. However approval from Transport Development Services was subject to a Condition ensuring that the visibility splays for the existing Application were appropriate.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC During discussion it was indicated that the Application, approved on 24 January 2008 was on the basis that the site of the house was to be used for office accommodation; and this Application would have been considered in a different light had the proposal been for a Children’s Day Nursery. The Application before the Panel in January 2008 had also indicated that the farmhouse was not fit for purpose as Office accommodation, yet the incorporation of the Amendment sought approval to use the farmhouse as a Children’s Day Nursery.

Concern was also raised on the variation proposed to the Approved Application; the movement of vehicles and the number of vehicles on the road likely to be carrying children. Information was requested on the proposed opening times of the Day Nursery and the suitability of the farmhouse for use as a Children’s Day Nursery. It was also pointed out that there would be a new use on Manor Loan not associated with the Business Case as set out in Planning Application 07/00635/DET.

Blairlogie Community Council had been consulted on the Amendment.

The Chair recommended that consideration of the proposal on incorporation of the Amendment be deferred pending receipt of responses to the concerns raised by Panel Members.

Decision

The Panel agreed to continue determination of the incorporation of the Amendment pending information on a traffic assessment, operation times of the proposed Children’s Day Nursery and suitability of the building for use as a Children’s Day Nursery.

(Reference – Paragraph PP65 of 24 January 2008; Report by Head of Planning and Regulation, Environment Services of 19 June 2008 submitted.)

The Chair declared the meeting closed at 12.45 p.m.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\PP20080626.DOC