Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.  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.   Everyone agreed that although the site inspection had been extremely helpful it had raised further issues that would need clarified before a final decision could be taken on this Review (note of Site Inspection attached at Appendix A of this Minute).

 

Councillor Colville raised the following points:

 

Notwithstanding the Planning Officer has provided a plan regarding the use of Pier Road (page 51 of the Agenda pack for the first calling of the LRB), the Roads Officer confirmed at the site inspection that she could not support the use of Pier Road as an exit from the development, which, Councillor Colville advised, would mean he would be unable to support the Applicant’s suggestion that there could be a one way in (Gareloch Road) and one way out (Pier Road) system.

 

Councillor Colville advised that he had also noted the Planning Officer had suggested an alternative set of conditions (detailed on page 32 of the Agenda Pack for the first calling of the LRB), in the event that a one way in and one way out system was agreed by the LRB.  These alternative conditions varied from those applied to the original consent (detailed on pages 13 and 38 of the Agenda Pack for the first calling of the LRB).

 

He said that the revised conditions included an additional condition 2 restricting the number of delegates to 14 which has been agreed to by the Applicant’s Agent both at page 5 of the Agenda Pack for the second calling of the LRB and at the site inspection.

 

He pointed out that there was no mention of the following in the alternative conditions, which were included within the original conditions:

 

·         condition 2iii – parking shall be provided for 1no. vehicle per staff member and onsite turning provision will be required within the boundary;

 

·         condition 2iv – parking for 1no. vehicle per course participant and onsite turning provision will be required; and

 

·         condition 2v – delivery drop off and onsite turning provision shall be within the boundary.

 

Councillor Colville also pointed out that alternative condition 3 stated that car parking provision shall be in accordance with SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision.  He said he was not sure if this was the same as what was in the original consent as the Roads Officer confirmed at the site inspection that there would be a requirement for 1 space for each attendee and 1 space per 3 employees.

 

Councillor Colville also advised that the alternative conditions did not include the requirement for the primary mode of transport by attendees to and from the training centre to be via shuttle bus provided by the Applicant.  This requirement was detailed in condition 3 of the original consent.

 

Councillor Colville advised that at this point he was minded to refuse the application for Review but to ensure clarity for himself and all parties, and on the basis of all the information available to him, he would wish the Planning Officer to submit a new and appropriate set of conditions, in consultation with the Roads Officer, that the LRB could apply to the consent as there appeared to be a contradiction between those applied to the original approval and the alternatives submitted in the event the LRB were minded to agree to a one way in (from Gareloch Road), one way out (from Pier Road) system.

 

He also requested clarity on whether or not a further planning application would be required to make the necessary alterations to the front gate as he felt these could be dealt with by planning conditions.

 

Councillor McCuish said that Councillor Colville had covered the majority of his concerns.  He advised that it would assist him in coming to a final decision if there were any Police stats regarding Pier Road and whether or not there was a record of any accidents on this road.

 

Councillor McCuish also referred to hearing at the site inspection that the property had originally been operated as a Care Home.  He sought clarification on whether or not the Pier Road access was used for coming in and out of the property at that time.

 

Councillor Blair referred to the various issues raised and different parts viewed at the site inspection.  He said that clarity was required as to whether or not, if the Gareloch Road was just to be used for entering the site, there would still be a requirement to widen the gates and cut down the foliage to enable vehicles to turn right safely from the A814 into the site.

 

Councillor Blair agreed that clarity on parking provision was required.

 

Councillor Blair referred to the possibility of exiting the site onto the Pier Road, and asked if this was agreed to, would this require the lowering of the wall and cutting back excess foliage.  He also requested that roads stats and accident statistics for Pier Road be provided.

 

Councillor Colville asked Mr Jackson to comment on the further information that was being requested.  Mr Jackson summarised the various issues which the LRB sought clarity on.  He pointed out that clarity was required as to whether or not exiting onto the Pier Road could be agreed to as the Roads Officer had made it clear at the site inspection she would not support the Pier Road access being used to exit the site.

 

Councillor Blair said that if it was the case that Pier Road could not be used if the property was changed from residential to commercial use, he would like the technical detail and stats  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.