Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair, Councillor Kieron Green, 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 and it was established that all Members had sufficient information before them.

 

Councillor Hardie advised that when he considered the Review, he examined the following:

 

1.    The reasons for refusal of the application,

2.    What the grounds for the Review were,

3.    Whether or not any new evidence had been admitted, and

4.    Whether there were any procedural errors in the initial decision.

 

He said that while he saw and understood the reasoning behind the initial decision to refuse the application, he had noted that new evidence had been submitted to this Review regarding the health and wellbeing of the Applicant’s son which was supported by letters from both his GP and Social Worker.

 

He advised that on that basis, he had concluded that in the interests of the safety of the Applicant’s son, and the public, this was a material consideration, and that the application should be granted.  He confirmed that he would put forward a Motion to that effect at the appropriate time.

 

Councillor Hampsey advised that while understanding what Councillor Hardie had said, he had concerns.  He referred to Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which required that all decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  He advised that despite the case being made here, he thought the Local Review Body should comply with the Act, but he would like to hear the views of the other Members in respect of any material consideration.

 

Councillor Green advised that, in the first instance, he would like to hear Councillor Hardie’s Motion.

 

Councillor Hardie read out the following Motion:

 

Motion

 

Having considered all the information available in the Agenda pack, I have noted the following:

 

The application has been refused on the basis that it has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and street scene contrary to NPF4 Policies 14 and 16(g)I and LDP2 policies 05, 08, 09 and 10, and I can understand the reasons why the Planners came to this decision.

 

That said, the Planners have suggested that Members may wish to seek further details in relation to the Applicant’s son by way of confirmation from a medical practitioner that the proposed development would help address his safety and I note we now have supporting information from the Applicant’s son’s GP and also from his Social Worker.

 

The Planners have also advised that NPF4 Policy 16(h) would be of relevance in relation to development proposals that provide adaptations to people with health conditions that lead to particular accommodation needs.

 

While I see and understand the reasoning behind the initial decision to refuse the application, on balance, I am of the view that the evidence provided by the GP and the Social Worker confirming that it will address the safety needs of the Applicant’s son, allows the LRB to approve this application and I move that this application be approved subject to the following condition and reason:

 

Within three months from the date of this permission, the fence hereby approved shall be painted grey to match the colour of the stone boundary wall, unless an alternative timescale is agreed in writing in advance with the Planning Authority. Thereafter the fence shall be maintained with a grey finish to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.                

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to maintain the character of the locale.

 

Councillor Green advised that he had reviewed the photographs submitted and had also used Google Street View to take a wider look at the area.  He commented that there had been similar cases nearby in the past where visual amenity had come up to some extent.  He said that while hearing Councillor Hardie’s Motion he was still considering whether there remained a visual impact.  He said that he had noted there have been different fences here in the past and, while some may have had less of a visual impact, it was his view that the condition proposed by Councillor Hardie in respect of painting the fence, would help considerably with that visual impact.  He referred to other industrial units in the nearby vicinity and commented that this was not a Conservation Area with uniform building styles.  He advised on that basis, he thought having a degree of flexibility here to meet the needs of the Applicant, would be appropriate.

 

Councillor Hampsey said that Councillor Hardie’s Motion was very comprehensive and compelling, and he agreed that the proposed condition would be important.  He advised that, given the circumstances and with the addition of this condition, he felt, on balance, that he could support this Motion.

 

Mr Jackson confirmed that the Motion put forward by Councillor Hardie was competent and the Members of the LRB unanimously agreed to support it.

 

Decision

 

The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de novo, unanimously agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following condition:

 

1.    Within three months from the date of this permission, the fence hereby approved shall be painted grey to match the colour of the stone boundary wall, unless an alternative timescale is agreed in writing in advance with the planning authority. Thereafter the fence shall be maintained with a grey finish to the satisfaction of the planning authority.                 

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to maintain the character of the locale.

 

(Reference: Notice of Review and supporting documents; comments from interested parties; and comments from Applicant, submitted)