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.

Before proceeding further he invited Mr Jackson to summarise the case before the LRB Members.

Mr Jackson advised that this appeal related to the non-determination of an application seeking amendment to condition 2 of planning permission reference 23/00391/PP.  Following receipt of comments from the Roads Officer which were received on time, and contained within the Agenda pack for today’s meeting, the Roads Officer submitted further comments after the deadline for receipt of comments from interested parties.  As part of the formal process all representations received from interested parties on Notice of Reviews should be forwarded to the Applicant for comment, if they wish, before bringing these to the attention of the Local Review Body.

Mr Jackson advised that if the Members of the LRB wished to take this late representation into the process an opportunity must be given to the Applicant in the first instance to comment if they wish. 

Mr Jackson pointed out to the Members that the late representation from the Roads Officer referred to a meeting held between Roads Officers and the Applicant on 10 June 2026 and as a result of that meeting a proposed a change to the wording of condition 2 was made.

Mr Jackson recommended to the Members that if they agreed to bring this late representation into the process that they should ask the Applicant to confirm if he would be content with this change to condition 2 and also seek confirmation from Planning if this change to condition 2 would be supported by them as it was not clear if they were represented at the meeting held on 10 June 2026.

Mr Jackson then advised that he had noted that the Planning Officer in their submission, which was received on time and contained within the Agenda pack for today’s meeting, recommended amendments to the original conditions attached to planning permission reference 23/00391/PP ie, a minor amendment to condition 4, a reworded condition 6, the removal of condition 7, a minor amendment to original condition 8 which would now become condition, 7 and original condition 9 becoming condition 8.  Although the Applicant had been made aware of these proposed amendments he had not commented on them and it may be prudent to ask the Applicant to comment on the proposed amendments to these conditions (detailed at pages 34 – 36 of the Agenda pack).

The Chair sought and received confirmation from the Members of the LRB that they would agree with the suggestions made by Mr Jackson.

The Chair also advised that he would like specific information from the Roads Officer on the substantive reasons why a tarred surface rather than concrete surface was required as the Applicant had indicated there was no good reason for the surface to be tar rather than concrete. 

He also advised that if the tarred surface was required, he would like to ask the Roads Officer to confirm if the tar could be overlayed onto the existing concrete rather than the concrete being removed.

Decision

The Argyll and Bute LRB agreed:

1.    to take the late representation from the Roads Officer into the process and seek confirmation from the Applicant and Planning Officer that they were in agreement with the proposed amendment to condition 2 of planning permission reference 23/00391/PP;

2.    to ask the Applicant to comment on the proposed minor amendment to condition 4, rewording of condition 6, removal of condition 7, minor amendment to original condition 8 which would now become condition 7, and original condition 9 becoming condition 8, of planning permission reference: 23/00391/PP (detailed at pages 34 – 36 of the Agenda pack).

3.    to ask the Roads Officer to provide specific information on the substantive reasons why a tarred surface rather than concrete surface was required as the Applicant had indicated there was no good reason for the surface to be tar rather than concrete; and

4.    if the tarred surface was required, to ask the Roads Officer to confirm if the tar could be overlayed onto the existing concrete rather than the concrete being removed.

(Reference: Notice of Review and Supporting Documents and comments from Interested Parties, submitted)