►
From YouTube: Planning and Regulation Panel 01-03-2022
Description
A meeting of the Planning and Regulation Panel broadcast live on Microsoft Teams.
To view the agenda, follow this link: https://minutes.stirling.gov.uk/PDFs/Planning&Regulation/Agendas/PlanRegAgenda.pdf
Items for discussion include:
08:37 – Meeting start (Protocol, Roll call, Apologies and Substitutions, Declarations of Interest, Urgent Business)
10:37 – Items 5-7 (Exempt)
11:07 – Adjournment
40:38 – Item 8
1:09:30 – Item 6 (Exempt)
1:27:58 – Meeting End
A
Okay
thanks
a
lot
mark.
Okay,
thanks
everyone
for
attending
today's
meeting.
I've
got
this
a
brief
statement
to
make
on
the
protocols
to
be
forwarded
for
doing
this
remote
meeting.
Please
note
this
meeting
is
denied
being
recording
but
maybe
available
for
public
review
and
following
anything,
and
it's
also
been
subject
to
a
live
broadcast.
A
Remember
please
make
their
microphones
during
the
meeting
and
not
speaking.
This
is
important,
since
it
helps
ensure
the
quality
of
order
for
all
present.
The
microphone
should
be
switched
on
when
invited
to
speak
and
switched
off
when
you're
finished
sleeping.
Please
use
the
raised
hand
button
to
indicate
your
risky
speed
at
any
point.
A
If
any
members
lose
connection
of
any
technologies
during
the
meeting,
please
alert
the
class
as
soon
as
possible,
either
when
using
the
chat
function
within
the
meeting
or
my
email
update.
I
will
now
ask
the
client
to
carry
a
roll
call
for
all
members
and
officer
participating
in
today's
meeting
david.
B
B
A
A
C
A
B
B
D
Can
you
see
it
now
yeah,
okay,
great
thanks
the
planning
application
sites
located
to
the
south
of
plain,
and
you
can
see
the
red
outline
there
of
the
application
site
and
the
village
of
plane
a
to
the
north?
A
of
that
a
the
boundaries
of
the
villager
plane
is
a
aligned
in
the
black
chain
dotted
line
the
site
comprises
of
a
former.
D
Okay,
I'll
start
again,
the
planning
application
site
is
located
to
the
south
of
plain,
and
it's
outlined
in
red
there
to
the
north
is
the
it's
plain
village
and
it's
the
village.
Boundaries
are
delineated
by
the
black
broken
line.
The
area
outlined
in
blue
there's
the
adjacent
plane
industrial
estate
to
the
west.
You
have
clean
country
park
to
the
south,
you
have
areas
of
countryside,
the
site
is
within
the
countryside,
policy,
boundary,
meaning
it's
located
out
with
the
village
and
in
the
countryside.
D
D
This
is
the
proposed
plot
layout
of
nine
new
houses,
plus
a
restoration
extension
of
the
house.
That's
already
there
it's
arranged
in
a
bungalow.
Sorry
in
our
cul-de-sac
arrangement
with
access
from
the
a9
a
through
plane
leading
down
the
glen
road
quickly
go
through
the
elevations
and
floor
plans.
You'll
see
that
they're
in
a
sort
of
cottage
style.
D
The
house
takes
they're
all
very
similar,
and
these
are
3d
model
images
that
are
probably
easier
to
to
get
a
hold
of
visually
and
that's
what
they
all
look
like.
That's
the
three
houses
that
I've
just
showed
you
in
the
planning
elevation
form
gives
you
a
bit
of
a
handle
on
what
the
you
know
what's
proposed
within
within
that
cul-de-sac
arrangement.
D
D
This
is
the
glenn
road.
There
leads
down
the
way
from
the
a9
to
the
site,
and
you
can
see
that
it's
of
you
know
the
sites
at
a
lower
level
here
from
from
the
main
road
a9.
Further
up,
that's
the
site
there,
looking
down
from
the
the
west
looking
eastwards
along
the
side
of
the
site,
beside
the
a9
you've
got
mature
screening
and
you've
got
a
flat
level
site.
This
is
the
site
of
the
former
coal
yard
and,
to
the
the
right
hand,
side
to
the
rear
of
the
site.
D
A
F
A
F
Firstly,
there
are
no
technical
constraints
preventing
development.
This
has
been
accepted
by
the
case
officer
through
the
application
process
and
is
confirmed
within
the
report
of
handling.
Secondly,
there
are
also
no
public
or
statutory
council.
T
objections
to
the
proposals
is
therefore
apparent
that
the
sole
reasons
for
the
officer's
recommendation
noted
within
the
report
of
handling
in
front
of
you
are
that
the
site
has
been
deemed
not
allocated
for
development
within
the
current
local
development
plan
and
that
the
proposals
have
been
deemed
contrary
to
ldp
policy.
F
210
housing
in
the
countryside
dealing
with
each
of
these
points.
In
turn,
the
site
is
located
between
the
existing
industrial
premises
and
housing
within
the
plane
settlement
boundary
with
the
site.
Being
identified
within
the
current
local
development
plan
as
an
employment
safeguarding
area,
it
is
therefore
our
view
that
the
site
cannot
be
classed
as
countryside,
given
its
contrary
definition
within
the
ldp,
which
allows
to
the
site
already
being
allocated
for
employment.
F
It
is
equally
clear
that
the
site
is
and
should
be
viewed
as
being
within
the
village,
which
suggests
an
anomaly
in
the
local
development
plan,
where
this
site
and
the
adjoining
industrial
estate
lie
immediately
out
with
the
existing
settlement
boundary
but
regards
to
housing
in
the
countryside.
The
proposals
and
existing
development
within
the
village
and
industrial
estate
create
a
cluster
that
has
more
than
three
dwellings
with
dwellings
that
all
visually
relate
to
each
other.
The
proposed
development
sits
within
this
wider
group
on
an
easy
definable
site
with
defensible
boundaries
to
all
sides.
F
Alternatively,
the
site
can
be
looked
at
as
a
form
of
infill
development
between
the
village
and
the
industrial
estate.
It
is
appreciated
that
the
guidance
seeks
to
avoid
such
situations
where
housing
in
the
countryside
leads
to
an
extension
of
a
settlement
boundary
other
than
an
exceptional
circumstances.
F
However,
there
are
exceptional
circumstances
in
this
instance
relating
to
economic
benefits
that
will
accrue
from
the
development
being
undertaken
by
a
local
company.
Finally,
the
site
is
a
brownfield
site
on
previously
developed
land.
The
case
officer
accepts
it
was
a
cool
yard.
In
paragraph
2.1
of
the
report
of
handling
with
the
site
investigation
report
confirming
its
previous
use,
resulting
in
the
requirement
for
site
remediation.
F
The
site,
therefore
cannot
be
assessed
as
anything
other
than
brownfield
and
as
such
does
in
fact,
fully
accord
with
the
requirements
of
policy
210
housing
in
the
countryside,
as
for
this
reason,
together
with
the
lack
of
technical
constraint
or
third-party
objections,
that
we
hope
to
find
you
in
agreement
that
planning
approval
should
be
granted
for
this
modest
residential
development.
I'd
like
to
thank
you
all
for
your
time
this
morning
and
take
this
opportunity
to
pass
you
over
to
the
applicant
mr
gavin.
Hepburn
of
hesco
engineering,
who
would
like
to
say
a
few
words
thank
you.
C
Thank
you
hey
good
morning.
The
reason
I
asked
for
a
word
at
the
end
of
the
five
minutes
was
to
quickly
introduce
myself
a
company
and
explain
the
connection
we
have
with
the
city
of
glenview.
Our
company
hesco
engineering
began
34
years
ago
in
cadbury
industrial
state
next
door
to
glenview.
We
grew
the
workshop
moved
to
larp,
but
three
of
the
four
directors,
including
mustel,
still
see
opposite
the
industrial
estate
on
cardron
road
with
the
fourth
director.
C
We
aren't
property
developers,
we
fabricate
and
direct
structural
steel
with
wall
aside,
the
new
cottonville
president
clean
primary
school
itself,
a
few
of
our
local
stunning
projects
we
employ
between
50
and
60
staff,
of
whom
80
are
all
from
the
still
in
the
falkirk
area.
And
this
is
the
same
approach.
We
would
bring
to
the
development
of
glenview
using
local
suppliers
and
local
tradespersons
to
create
local
jobs
with
2022
and
23,
which
invest
in
terms,
we
believe
will
be
circa
2.3
million.
C
My
own
personal
involvement
with
the
project
goes
deeper
than
this,
so
the
houses
have
been
designed
to
allow
ease
of
movement
for
anybody
with
mobility
issues,
and
my
hope
is
for
my
wife,
mom
and
dad
and
grant
to
move
from
upstairs
bedroom
house
in
vanuatu,
one
of
our
new
homes,
my
family,
I've
stayed
in
queen
for
over
60
years,
my
dad
born
and
bred
in
the
village.
My
father-in-law,
born
and
bred
in
the
village
and
I've
stayed
in
between
for
43
years
myself.
C
I
know
the
history
of
glenview
I
played
in
a
courtyard
as
a
kid.
I
played
football
and
as
a
team
when
it
was
a
garden,
and
I
walked
my
dogs
there.
Now
when
the
country
park's
too
muddy
for
them.
I
know
plane's
got
his
fair
share
of
problems,
but
I
went
to
school
there
and
my
kids
went
to
school
there
and
you
won't
beat
it
for
community
spirit
and
hope
this
development
goes
ahead
and
the
new
families
will
enjoy
playing
as
much
as
I
have
hey
thanks
for
your
time.
That's
all.
A
A
Yeah,
just
that's
not
this
other
one.
It's
yeah
that
one
there
now.
Obviously,
the
site
is
showing
a
hatch
and
around
here,
which
is
obviously
the
red
line
boundary,
but
looking
at
page
201
of
the
local
development
plan,
the
dorothy's
lane
actually
goes
right
up.
I
think
I'm
correct
in
saying
that
so
the
satan's
opened.
D
Employment,
a
safeguarding
area
covers
the
both
the
industrial
state
and
the
site.
Okay,
again
I
mean
the
the
the
map
that
you're
looking
at
now
was
only
to
give
you
an
indication,
a
helpful
indication
of
where
the
site
is
in
industrial
and
states
and
stuff
like
you
know,
but
it
wasn't
in
any
way
he
you
know
referring
to
the
employment
safeguarding
area,
but
we
confirm
the
safeguarding
area
covers
this
plain
estate
and
the
site
itself.
Yes,.
A
Well,
that's,
that's
fine!
So
I'm
just
thinking!
Presumably
if
there
was
a
planning
application
came
up
next
week
for
a
business
within
that
era,
you
would
find
it
very
difficult
to
refuse.
So
if
there
was
an
industrial
say,
came
forward,
an
application
for
that.
That
same
say,
given
us
already
within
the
safeguard
near
the
reason
why
he
couldn't
defuse
it.
D
A
I
think
that's,
I
think,
that's
a
lot
farther
than
you
know.
That's
the
issue.
Normally,
you
know
it's
okay
for
industrial
use,
but
it's
not
okay
for
for
housing
that
that
thing
is
a
bit
anomaly
in
relation
to
the
argument,
a
bit
brown
field
right,
I
I'm
not
I'm
interested
to
read.
Obviously
the
2.14
grp
report,
which
says
the
site
is
well
maintained,
garden
and
so
is
not,
and
so
it's
not
significantly
degraded
visually
and
environment
butcher
can
be
defined
as
brownfield.
A
However,
2.17
of
your
report
reports,
it
states
that
the
southern
part
of
the
site
is
the
highland
degraded
state.
So,
as
I
clearly
say,
the
brownfield
states
come
bound
to
being
highly
degraded
or
significantly
degraded.
Does
don't
explain
that
to
me,
because
that
part
is
but
the
whole
thing
isn't
so?
Is
it
just
part
of
it?
It's
highly
degrading,
that's
not
enough
to
make
it
significantly.
A
D
Yeah
yeah,
I
should
counsel,
I
think
it's
really.
I
would
just
break
it
down
to
say
that
it's
accepted
that
it's
been
previously
developed
a
and
so
that
fits
with
the
definition
of
brownfield
a
affects
that
the
site
has
a
has
contaminated
a
and
as
much
as
there's
been
a
ground
investigation
report
that
environmental
health
they
have
looked
at
and
they
have
recommended
that
you
know
the
remediation
measures
are
carried
out
so
there's
you
know
the
degradation
from
contamination
is
there
and
that
that's
accepted.
I
think
the
the
only
kind
of
difference.
D
I
think
we've
got
a
as
a
visual
aspect
and
if
it's
not
visually
degraded,
I
think
that's
really
the
knob
of
it.
You
know
it's
it's
it's.
It
has
previously
been
developed.
It's
been,
it
has
contaminated
a
part
of
its
contact,
the
site's
contaminated.
You
know
in
terms
of
the
ground
investigation,
but
visually
it's
not.
So
it's
that
that's
really.
What
the
only
difference
is,
I
would
say,
is
that
it's
definitely
a
site
which
is
has
degradation
in
terms
of
of
contaminated
land
yeah.
I.
A
G
G
They
might
fall
into
that,
but
it's
hard
to
for
me
to
accept
that
this
is
countryside
when
it's
squashed
between
an
industrial
estate
and
an
existing
village.
So
I
appreciate
them.
The
left
of
the
law
might
be
calling
it
countryside,
but
in
reality
it
seems
to
me
it's
it's
really
sort
of
sort
of
semi-industrial
semi-urban
already.
That's
just
really
an
observation.
D
Yeah,
it's
about
the
the
the
nature
of
the
site
is:
has
a
sort
of
semi
semi-rural
setting.
You
know
it's
it.
You
know
definitely
from
a
visual
point
of
view,
a
it's.
It
does
relate
a
visually
to
to
plane
as
a
village.
You
know
it's
not
sort
of
some
isolated,
say
a
wide
open
country,
and
so
it
certainly
reads
as
linking
to
the
village
in
my
report,
I
think
makes
that
clear.
So
there's
no
question
of
that.
H
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
ask
about
the
trees
you,
you
meant.
You
showed
some
trees
for
removal
yeah,
and
I
see
in
the
report
that
this
a
proposed
to
replace
these
trees
with
you
in
new
planting
yeah.
So
these
trees
are
obviously
quite
mature
and
I'm
just
wondering
how
many
trees
are
going
to
replace
them
are
going
to
be
one
for
one
or
because,
obviously
the
mature
trees
are
going
to
do
more
for
the
environment
than
immature
trees.
D
Yeah
the
well,
there
are
no
proposals
yet
for
a
new
planting
that
that,
if,
if
the
applications
accepted
and
approved,
it
would
be
subject
of
a
planning
condition
where
they
would.
The
architect
would
prepare
detailed
landscape,
new
planting
proposals
for
trees
and-
and
you
know-
include
hedgerows
and
and
garden
associated
garden,
so
that
that
could
be
done.
D
I
think,
to
be
honest
with,
I
think,
there's
approximately
60
to
70
trees,
a
aligned
along
there
we'd
be
unlikely
to
have
that
number
of
trees
within
nine
nine.
Ten
plots
a
you
know
as
proposed,
so
I'd
probably
be
struggling
to
get
that
number
of
trees
councillor,
but
I
think
it
would
certainly
be
fair
to
say
we
could
ask
for
a
good
quality
landscape
scheme.
I
don't
in
terms
of
the
loss
of
the
trees.
D
D
A
you
know,
all
these
things
from
a
sort
of
a
technical
point
of
view,
which
includes
the
tree.
Removal
is
a
quite
a
good
idea.
You
know,
I
mean
in
terms
of
environment
improvement,
there's
a
whole
set
of
things
that
all
combined
together
and
but
in
terms
of
light
for
light
tree
planting.
We
probably
couldn't
equate
70
odd
trees,
but
we
could
have
a
quality
landscape
scheme
if
approved.
H
A
A
This
one
here,
but
there's
so
many
poster
comments.
I
don't
think
I've
ever
saw
an
application
or
a
report
like
this
for
a
long
long
time
and
I'll
read
that
it
says
that
the
2.12
says
the
application
does
not
significantly
deviate
from
ntf4
2.15,
so
would
visually
integrate
vigilant
is
not
considered
the
proposal
with
harm
in
the
countryside,
so
basically
presumably
rochester
recommendation
for
refusal.
Is
it
because
it's
not
included
in
ldp
is
that
this
kind
of
sole
reason
for
it?
I
Good
morning
panel
and
thank
you
chairs,
chris
cox,
planning
and
building
standards
manager.
Yes,
so
the
the
site
is
not
allocated
for
housing
purposes
in
the
ldp,
and
the
report
has
assessed
that
the
site
can't
meet
the
criteria
2.10,
which
relates
to
sites
for
housing
where
they're
not
allocated
in
the
ldp.
I
So
really
the
the
number
of
the
refusal
comes
down
to
the
the
proposals
not
being
able
to
satisfy
2.10
and
the
ldp
is
the
legal
basis
upon
which-
and
we
are
to
make
planning
decisions
unless
there's
other
material
considerations
that
it
would
indicate
otherwise.
So
the
the
report
is
well
balanced
in
in
in,
in
my
opinion,
in
in
terms
of
how
it
has
outlined
the
relevant
material
considerations
and
the
assessment.
So
yes,
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that,
and
the
report
has
reflected
positively
on
the
merits
of
the
site.
A
A
A
The
redevelopment
of
a
blindfold
say
a
cause
with
local
and
national
planning
policy.
The
proposed
site
board
was
the
current
residential
settlement
boundary
of
the
village
and
would
be
a
logical
extension
to
based
on
its
current
use.
It
will
provide
an
actual
rounding
off
of
the
settlement
between
that
brings
the
industrial
space
and
beyond
the
existence
of
industrial
estate
and
the
existing
landscaping
features
provide
a
defensible.
Boundaries
are
an
actual
stop
to
public
development.
A
The
site
is
allocated
for
employment
development
in
the
ldp,
and
this
use
for
housing
would
be
acceptable
for
the
reason
I've
said.
Albion
does
not
accord
with
planner
policy,
I'm
not
going
to
mention
the
economic
benefits
of
it,
because
it's
not
a
material
consideration,
but
you
have
mr
hepburn
saying
that
about
two
to
three
million
pounds
of
development.
I
knew
there
was
a
lot
of
deprivation
when
we
parked
that
I'm
looking
for
somebody
to
second,
my
motion
to
approve.