Planning Application 18/01568/APP – Erect Dwellinghouse at Plot 1, Innesmhor, Findhorn, Forres, Moray, IV36 3YL
Under reference to paragraph 4 of the Minute of the Moray Local Review Body (MLRB) dated 29 August 2019, the MLRB continued to consider a request from the Applicant seeking a review of the decision of the Appointed Officer, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse an application on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to policies H3 and IMP1 of the Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP) 2015 for the following reasons:
The proposal falls below the minimum site area criteria of 400sqm (excluding access) as required by policy H3 for new house plots formed through subdivision, and is considered to be too small to adequately accommodate the proposed development in this location without adversely impacting the character and amenity of the surrounding area. Although the current proposed house is modest, the limited size of the plot would mean that it would lead to cramped development that would fail to reflect the density of development in the immediate vicinity, which is characterised by larger dwellings in more spacious plots. This deviation from the density of development in this part of Findhorn would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the surrounding area and contrary to policies H3 and IMP1, and on this basis the application is recommended for refusal.
A Summary of Information Report set out the reasons for refusal, together with documents considered or prepared by the Appointed Officer in respect of the planning application, in addition to the Notice of Review, Grounds for Review and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant.
The Chair stated that Case LR225 was deferred at the meeting of the MLRB on 29 August 2019 as it was agreed that the Applicant had raised new matters within their Notice of Review and supporting documentation which were not before the Appointed Officer at the time of the application which constituted new evidence in terms of Regulation 17 of the Regulations. In accordance with the Regulations, the Appointed Officer was given the opportunity to make representations on the new evidence as set out in Appendix 5 of the report.
With regard to the unaccompanied site inspection carried out on 23 August 2019, the Chair stated that all present members of the MLRB, with the exception of Councillor Bremner, were shown the site where the proposed development would take place and had before them papers which set out both the reasons for refusal and the Applicant's Grounds for Review. Councillor Bremner further stated that he had visited the site on his own in order to familiarise himself with the location.
In response to a question from the Chair as to whether the Legal and Planning Advisers had any preliminary matters to raise, the Legal Adviser advised that he had nothing to raise at this time. The Planning Adviser advised that the Developer Obligations Officer had confirmed that the Applicant was willing to pay the developer obligations for the proposed development to comply with policy IMP3 (Developer Obligations) of the MLDP 2015, should the MLRB decide to grant planning permission.
Having been provided with a response from the Appointed Officer in terms of the new evidence, the Chair asked the MLRB if it had sufficient information to determine the request for review. In response, the MLRB unanimously agreed that it had sufficient information.
Councillor Alexander, having visited the site and considered the Applicant's grounds for review was of the view that the plot size was too small for the development in terms of policy H3 of the MLDP 2015 and moved that the MLRB refuse the appeal and uphold the original decision of the Appointed Officer to refuse Planning Application 18/01568/APP as it is contrary to policies H3 (Sub-division for House Plots) and IMP1 (Developer Requirements) of the MLDP 2015.
There being no-one otherwise minded the MLRB agreed to dismiss Case LR225 and uphold the original decision of the Appointed Officer to refuse Planning Application 18/01568/APP as the proposal is contrary to policies H3 (Sub-division for House Plots) and IMP1 (Developer Requirements) of the MLDP 2015.