Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence intimated.

There were no declarations of interest intimated.

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 at the previous meeting, held on 13 February 2026, the LRB had agreed to hold an accompanied site inspection to consider the potential impact of the development on the surrounding area and confirmed that the site inspection had taken place in advance of this meeting.

Councillor Green 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 Councillors Howard and Wallace confirmed that they did.  Councillor Green confirmed that he too felt he could come to a decision on the Review. 

Councillor Howard acknowledged that the site presented significant challenges and that any development would require considerable work to achieve a viable outcome.  However, she indicated that she could not identify a reason why Planning Permission in Principle should not be grated. 

Councillor Wallace advised that prior to the site visit, he had not fully appreciated the extent of the constraints affecting the site.  He expressed difficulty in seeing how development could be achieved in a manner compatible with the surrounding area and indicated that he was minded to support the officer’s recommendations. 

In response, Councillor Howard noted that it was not possible to determine what development would fit within the surrounding area until a more detailed proposal was brought forward at the next stage.  She considered that this should not preclude the granting of Planning Permission in Principle. 

Councillor Green stated that he and found the site visit helpful in understanding the topography and constraints of the site, as well as the relationship with neighbouring properties.  He acknowledged the housing emergency and the fact that the submission of an application for such a challenging site demonstrated a shortage of available land and questioned how Planning Permission in Principle could realistically be supported.  He considered the minimum viable form of development and reflected on the likely scale, height, excavation works and need for retaining structures.  He expressed concern regarding impacts on natural light, overlooking neighbouring properties and compatibility with the character of surrounding buildings.  On balance, he concluded that it was difficult to envisage any realistic form of development that would have an acceptable impact, having regard to the policies of National Planning Framework 4 and Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 as set out in the Report of Handling. 

Councillor Howard responded that Tarbert comprised of a variety of building styles developed over time and that she did not consider that an additional development would necessarily cause harm, she accepted that the development would be difficult, but that she did not consider it to be impossible and felt that the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to progress to the next stage. 

Councillor Wallace advised that he would ordinarily seek to identify ways in which development could be accommodated, but that in this case, he shared the concerns expressed regarding the site constraints. 

Councillor Green asked whether Councillor Howard intended to put forward a motion to approve Planning Permission in Principle.  Councillor Howard advised that she did not have a motion at this stage.

The Governance, Risk and Safety Manager provided governance advice, with it being noted that the LRB could either refuse the application or seek additional time to seek advice on a competent motion. 

Councillor Green stated that, similar to the views expressed by Councillor Wallace, he considered it would be unfair to grant Planning Permission in Principle where any subsequent detailed application would likely be unacceptable due to the impacts on neighbouring properties, as highlighted in the Report of Handling. 

Following further discussion, Councillor Wallace moved that the Notice of Review Request be refused for the reasons detailed in the Report of Handling.  This motion was seconded by Councillor Green. 

Councillor Howard indicated that she wished to seek advice with a view to formulating a competent motion but confirmed that she did not have a seconder. 

Decision

The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body agreed to refuse the Notice of Review Request as the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies, 9, 14, 16 and 17 of National Planning Framework 4 and policies 01, 04, 05, 08, 09 and 10 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard to s25 of the Act.

(Councillor Howard, having moved an amendment which failed to find a seconder, required her dissent from the foregoing decision to be recorded.)

(Reference:  Further written information from Planning Officer, submitted)