Agenda and minutes

It was noted that sadly Councillor Al Reay has passed away the previous weekend and that Councillor Colville had filled his place on the Panel.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that parties to the Review were not permitted to address the Local Review Body.  He advised that the only participants entitled to speak would be the Members of the Local Review Body panel and Mr Reppke, who would provide procedural advice if required.

 

The Chair advised that his first tasks would be to establish whether or not the panel felt they had sufficient information in front of them to come to a decision on the Review and if they felt there was a need for a site visit.

 

Councillor Colville expressed concern over the conflict between the applicant and the planning authority regarding the amount of amenity space available surrounding the site.  He also advised that the applicant had stated that the application, if approved, would not lead to further development in the surrounding area and the planning authority was of the opinion that it would.  Councillor Colville advised that he felt a site visit would allow him to assess the situation for himself.

 

Councillor Currie agreed with Councillor Colville but asked if photographs could be provided on a PowerPoint presentation in future to prevent the need for a site visit.

 

Mr Reppke advised that the regulations did not allow for this at a first calling but if Members wished, they could ask for photographs to be provided which would mean requesting this from the Planning Authority as a further submission.

 

Councillor Colville added that there would be a lot of amenity space left over after development and quoted that the applicant had calculated 128m² where as the Planning department had advised that the proposed site did not meet the 100m²  minimum as set down in the Local Plan.  He advised that he felt it would be better if he could see the site.

 

Councillor Kelly then confirmed with the panel that they wished a site visit to take place and then asked the panel if they felt there was sufficient written information contained within the pack or if members felt they needed further information.

 

Mr Reppke asked for confirmation that the Panel would like all interested parties invited to the site visit to which Members confirmed that they did.  He then asked for confirmation that the Panel wished to hold the site visit to assess the impact of development on the surrounding area and to assess the density/correlation of the site with the existing house to which they confirmed that this was correct.

 

Councillor Colville asked if ownership of the access road had been taken into account and advised that he would like confirmation from the Roads department that the access road was of adoptive standard.

 

Councillor Currie advised that he was aware of the upcoming election; and with a view to completing the Review before this; asked if the timescale for the process would be reduced should members not ask for written submissions.

 

Mr Reppke advised him that this would reduce the timescale of the Review but warned him that if he chose to do this it may prolong the process should a further matter be raised at the site visit.

 

Councillor Colville commented that the election could not be taken into consideration and that the Review should be looked at properly without trying to reduce timescales and Councillor Kelly agreed.

 

Decision

 

The panel agreed –

 

1. To hold an accompanied site visit to assess the impact of development on the existing house and surrounding development pattern should the application be approved.

 

2. To request from the Roads Authority; a further written submission containing clarification on if the access road to the property is of adoptive standard.

 

 

 

RECONVENED MEETING OF ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY HELD ON 5 APRIL 2012 IN THE KERRERA SUITE, CORRAN HALLS, OBAN

 

Present:          Councillor Daniel Kelly (Chair)

                        Councillor Rory Colville

                        Councillor Robin Currie

                        Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law (Adviser)

                        Iain Jackson, Governance and Law

                        David Love, Planning Authority

                        Bill Weston, Roads Authority

                        Applicants

Shauna Cameron, Applicants Agent

Allan Macaskill, Objectors Agent

David Hodge, Objector

John Hyde, Objector

 

 

The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body reconvened on 5 April 2012 in the Kerrera Suite, Corran Halls, Oban after an accompanied site visit (a note of which is attached at Appendix A).

 

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that parties to the Review were not permitted to address the Local Review Body.  He advised that the only participants entitled to speak would be the Members of the Local Review Body panel and Mr Reppke, who would provide procedural advice if required.

 

The Chair asked the Panel if they considered that they now had enough information to come to a decision on the Review.  Members agreed that they did have sufficient information to reach a decision on the matter. 

 

The chair advised that having looked at the site he was of the view that it was too small for the proposed development and would raise issues around privacy amenity and precedent given the existing pattern of development in this area.

 

Councillor Colville was of the view that there were many modern developments with less space and less amenity than was proposed here and he felt that it would be possible to fit perhaps a slightly smaller house onto the site. He asked Mr Reppke if he could impose a condition requiring the Planners to agree a smaller house and was advised that it would not be possible to do that.  It would be more appropriate to refuse the application and the applicants could reapply on that basis if so advised.

 

Councillor Currie said that his initial view of the plans had been that a house might be possible on the site but the visit had made it clear that the other issues highlighted by planning did have some merit and he therefore was minded to otherwise agree with the second and third reasons for refusal advanced by the Planning Department .

 

Further discussion then took place and the Chair then moved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.