Venue: By Skype
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: There were no apologies for absence. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that no person present would be
entitled to speak other than the Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) and Mr
Jackson who would provide procedural advice if required. He advised that his first task would be to establish if the
Members of the LRB felt that they had sufficient information before them to
come to a decision on the Review. He
indicated that it was his view that there was not enough information before the
LRB to enable them to come to a decision on the Review. Councillor Redman said that personally he thought he had
enough information. Councillor Devon agreed with Councillor Colville. She said she would like clarity from the
Design and Conservation Officer on what her view of the proposal would be in
respect of the reduced amount of panels. Councillor Colville gave his reasons why he thought the LRB
still did not have sufficient information before them to come to a decision on
the Review. He referred to page 18 of
the agenda pack circulated for the first calling of the LRB, which detailed the
reason for refusal. He pointed out that
the reason for refusal referred to the installation of 108 solar photovoltaic
roof mounted panels covering an area of 176.m², each panel measuring 1698mm by
1004mm and pitched at a 10 degree angle facing with a specific design. He then referred to the further information
submitted by the Applicant’s Agent in answer to the LRB’s request (page 7 of
Agenda pack for 2nd calling).
The Agent indicates that they had proposed 108 panels as part of the
pre-application process but when it got to the full application stage they had
revised that down to 94 panels which reduced the area of 155.8m² with an
alternative design. Councillor Colville advised that he had noted on page 12 of
the Agenda pack for the 1st calling, it showed a plan marked as
refused but it looked to him like the plan for the 94 plan proposal. Councillor Colville advised that it was his
opinion that clarity from Planning needed to be sought on which proposal has
been refused. He said that if the
proposal was refused on the basis of 108 panels, he would like to ask Planning
to review the 94 panel proposal to see if their determination would be any
different. Councillor Colville asked the other Members of the LRB if
they were in agreement to requesting this further information. Councillor Devon confirmed that she would agree that this
further information was required. Councillor Redman advised that personally he would like to
determine the case today but noted that he would not be supported in this
respect. Councillor Colville stressed
that clarity needed to be sought. He
commented that he noted and shared Councillor Redman’s frustration, but said it
was important that the correct process was followed to get that clarity. Mr Jackson commented that he had noted Councillor Devon had
indicated that she would like further information from the Design and
Conservation Officer and he asked if this was still the case. Councillor Devon advised that since the
submission by the Design and Conservation Officer was based on the 108
proposal, she would like clarity on whether or not 94 panel proposal with
alternative design would still be contrary to policy LDP ENV 16 of the Local
Development Plan. Mr Jackson commented that the plan showing the 94 panel
proposal presented at the 1st calling was marked as refused which
was confusing in terms of the overall refusal for 108 panels. He agreed that it would be worth getting
clarity on that. Councillor Colville said that normally at this stage he
would have expected the Planning Officer to have come back with comments on the
Applicant’s further information, which, for whatever reason, had not happened
this time. He said he would like comment
from Planning on the further information submitted by the Applicant. Mr Jackson referred to the 94 panel proposal including an
alternative design and agreed that it was important to receive comment from
Planning on that. Decision 1. With
reference to page 18 of the agenda pack circulated for the first calling of the
LRB, which detailed the reason for refusal, the LRB noted that the reason for
refusal referred to the installation of 108 solar photovoltaic roof mounted
panels covering an area of 176.m², each panel measuring 1698mm by 1004mm and
pitched at a 10 degree angle facing with a specific design. 2. The
LRB further noted the information submitted by the Applicant’s Agent in answer
to the LRB’s request (page 7 of Agenda pack for 2nd calling). The Agent indicates that they had proposed
108 panels as part of the pre-application process but when it got to the full
application stage they had revised that down to 94 panels which reduced the
area of 155.8m² with an alternative design.
3. The
LRB also noted that on page 12 of the Agenda pack for the 1st
calling, it showed a plan marked as refused but it looked like the plan for the
94 plan proposal. 4. With
reference to points 1 – 3 above, the Argyll and Bute LRB agreed to request the
following further written information from the Planning Officer: a) Clarity
on whether the decision to refuse the application was based on the 108 panel
proposal discussed at the pre-application stage, or based on the revised 94
panel proposal with alternative design submitted by the Applicant at full
application stage; b) If
the proposal was refused on the basis of 108 panels, the LRB requested the
Planning Officer review the 94 panel proposal including the alternative design
to see if their determination would be any different to that of the 108
proposal; c) To ask the Planning Officer to seek clarity from the Design and Conservation Officer on whether or not the 94 panel proposal would be contrary to policy LDP ENV 16 ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |