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 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 Local Review Body felt that they had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review.

 

Both Councillor Kennedy-Boyle and Councillor Armour confirmed they felt they had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review.

 

The Chair advised that he was minded to suggest a site visit, acknowledging that there were practical difficulties associated with arranging this. He noted that it was interesting that no objections had been raised by consultees, particularly Roads, despite the proposal appearing to go against Policy. He felt that a site visit could be advantageous, particularly as it would allow Members the opportunity to speak with the applicant and planning officers.

 

Councillor Armour advised that he held an opposing view. He stated that it was clear what the application was for and that sufficient photographs had been provided. He noted that the key issue was that the proposal was contrary to LDP4 and therefore went against Policy. While he sympathised with the applicants, he advised that if the proposal fell out with what could be supported and was finding it difficult to justify approval unless a clear reasoning could be identified.

 

Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised in relation to the first reason for refusal that she felt the distances in relation to local living requirements were excessive for a rural area. She then referred to the visual impact, noting that although the proposed house could be seen in photographs, other houses within the settlement could also be seen. She advised that there were potential conditions which could be applied to address some of the issues and mitigate against certain reasons for refusal and that the applicant was open to amending the proposal.

 

Councillor Armour advised that he did not disagree with Councillor Kennedy-Boyle in relation to the first reason for refusal but reiterated that his primary concern was that the proposal was contrary to the Local Development Plan.

 

The Chair advised that the applicant’s statement had suggested a traditional design; however, he considered that the proposal appeared to be modern in nature and he was uncertain how it would fit within the surrounding area.

 

Councillor Kennedy-Boyle noted that the Ministry of Defence had requested further specification of the glazing, which was referenced as part of the building fabric, along with the use of natural stone.

 

The Chair acknowledged that there were positive aspects to the proposal, including tree planting and landscaping, which could contribute to the visual impact.

 

Councillor Kennedy-Boyle further advised that there had been a change in designation relating to the site, which in some respects supported the proposal.

 

The Chair referred to the intimation that there may have been a misinterpretation of Policy 17, noting that the proposal did not necessarily require to meet every aspect of that policy.

 

Mr Jackson advised that clarification from planning officers would be required on that matter.

 

Councillor Armour advised that the points made in relation to the local living requirement were acceptable and reiterated that his concern related to the second reason for refusal.

 

Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised that she felt there were mitigating factors in relation to the second reason for refusal which could be addressed through the use of conditions.

 

The Chair asked whether it would be possible to seek advice from planning officers in relation to potential conditions.

 

Mr Jackson advised that a site visit can be beneficial in providing perspective, particularly where a proposal may appear incongruous in its setting. He further advised that if Members were minded to approve the application, conditions and reasons would require to be sought from the planners, and the applicant would be given an opportunity to comment, with the application then returning to a future meeting for determination.

 

The Chair asked if Members would be content to seek advice on conditions and reasons to accompany a potential approval.

 

Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised that she would support a site visit if the Chair considered it useful.

 

The Chair advised that he, along with Councillor Armour, was already familiar with the area, having visited it recently.

 

Councillor Armour advised that he did not consider that a site visit would provide any additional benefit.

 

Councillor Armour further advised that if there was a way to address the concerns, he would be willing to explore that.

 

The Chair welcomed the applicant’s indication that they would be willing to take on board any improvements, advising that this was a positive factor.

 

Mr Jackson advised that seeking conditions and reasons would not commit Members to approving the application. He suggested that Members request model conditions and reasons from the planning officer, and to seek advice on framing a competent motion, and that the application be continued to a future meeting to allow further consideration.

 

Decision

 

The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body unanimously agreed –

 

1. to request, from the Planning Department, model conditions and reasons which could accompany an approval of the application should the Local Review Body be so minded; and

 

2. to seek advice on the preparation of a competent Motion prior to a second calling of the Local Review Body.

 

(Reference: Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation; comments from interested parties; and comments from applicant; submitted)