Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair, Councillor Blair, 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.

 

Both Councillor Howard and Councillor Kain confirmed they felt they had enough information to come to a decision on the review.

 

The Chair asked Members if they were content with the revised plans submitted by the Applicant to which they confirmed that they were.

 

The Chair asked if there was a general agreement from Members that this building was not to be used as a permanent residence or a holiday let but would be used as a family holiday home only. This was agreed by Members.

 

Mr Jackson advised that it would be appropriate for Members to confirm why they thought this application was something they could approve in relation to the policies by which it had been refused.

 

Councillor Kain advised that he was content with it being approved. He referred to some of the comments on page 15 of the agenda pack around the suitability of the plot in relation to its size. He advised that the size of the plot was larger than the standard size of a housing plot and that he was minded to approve the application.

 

Councillor Howard agreed with Councillor Kain advising that the proposed building was more attractive than an empty coastguard shed and would therefore enhance the area rather than detract from it. She advised that she could not see any reason to refuse the application.

Councillor Blair sought further confirmation that both Members were happy with the revised plans that had been submitted and for a condition to be imposed on the restriction of use of the building as a family holiday home.

 

Both Members advised that they were in agreement with this.

 

Councillor Blair asked if it would be competent to adjourn the meeting to allow time to prepare a competent motion to approve the application.

 

Mr Jackson advised that this would be competent but that it would be important to get a date agreed at this meeting. He advised that discussion could take place around the preparation of a competent Motion, making reference to the views of Members from both meetings and ensuring that the Motion addressed the policies by which the application had been refused. He advised that Condition 1 would require to be amended to refer to the revised plans, and a further condition would require to be added to address that the building would be used as a family holiday home only.

 

Councillor Blair advised that he would be happy to prepare a Motion on behalf of Members.

It was agreed to adjourn the meeting at this point and to reconvene on Wednesday 11 June 2025 at 11am by MS Teams, and that Committee Services would issue an invite to all relevant parties.

 

The meeting reconvened on Wednesday 11 June 2025 at 10.45am by Microsoft Teams.

 

Present:	Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair)
	Councillor Fiona Howard	Councillor Andrew Kain
Attending:	Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager Hazel MacInnes, Senior Committee Officer Mr and Mrs Mack, on behalf of the Applicant

The Chair, Councillor Gordon Blair, welcomed those present to the re-convened meeting of the Local Review Body in relation to the Former Coastguard Station, Southend, advising that that on Friday 30 May 2025 Members had agreed that they were minded to approve the application and had adjourned the meeting to allow discussion in regard to a competent motion to approve it.

 

The Chair asked Members if they had any further comments they wanted to make on the proposed development and why they considered it appropriate to approve it. Both Councillor Howard and Councillor Kain confirmed that they had no further comments to make.

 

The Chair, Councillor Blair, then advised that he had prepared a Motion which he read out as follows –

 

Having considered all the information provided to the LRB in the agenda packs for the meetings on 28 January and 30 May 2025, I note the reason for refusal is that the plot ratio, design and scale of the proposed development would not provide a suitable residential living environment, nor provide an adequate private open space for future occupant(s). Therefore the proposed development is contrary to policies 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 10, 11 and 66 of the Argyll and Bute Council Local Development Plan 2024.

 

I would firstly note that policy 9(d) of NPF4 supports development proposals which reuse existing building, taking into account there suitability for conversion to other uses and within LDP2 there is policy support for the redevelopment of brownfield sites located within a defined settlement area.

 

It has been accepted by the planners in the report of handling that the broad principle of redevelopment at this site is supported by policy, subject to compliance with other policies within the development plan.

 

Policy 16(f) of NPF4 requires developments to be supported by an agreed timescale for built-out, requires the proposal to otherwise be consistent with the plan spatial strategy including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods and requires the proposal to be for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary and it has been accepted by the planners that this proposal accords with this policy and LDP2 Policy 01.

 

The report of handling confirms that the requirements of all the other policies that were considered in terms of this application are either met or can be met by condition.

The planning officer has confirmed at paragraph 5 on page 30 of the agenda pack for the meeting on 28 January that the plan provided by the applicant referenced appendix C on page 16 of the pack for that meeting overcomes concerns regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.