Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed the participants and members of the public to the first Local Review Body Hearing since the new planning system had come into force in August 2009.  He set out the background to the application for Review advising that the Local Review Body (LRB) had initially met back in January and at this time had requested further information.  Due to processes set out within the Regulations this had resulted in a lengthy delay in getting to this stage.

 

The Chairman then introduced the Members of the LRB and advised the participants that Mr Reppke would be adviser to the Committee and that Melissa Stewart would record proceedings.  He then handed over to Mr Reppke to explain the process that would be followed.

 

Mr Reppke invited the interested parties present to introduce themselves.   He detailed the process which had been followed to date from the submission of the review.  The first stage was the formation of the LRB panel.  This panel met on 20 January 2010 and the decision reached at this time was that three processes required to be undertaken in order to obtain further information which Members were seeking in order to determine the Review.  The processes were 1. a request for written information, 2.  an accompanied site inspection and 3. the hearing which was now taking place.  He explained that the Hearing was convened to deal with specified matters only which were as follows:-

 

 

1.	Details of the parking provision within the site;
2.	Why must the ambulance station be in this position;
3.	The justification for the need to be on the particular site and the reasons why the ambulance station must be located in Helensburgh; and
4.	Details of the proposed materials to be used in construction of ambulance station.

 

Mr Reppke advised that it was the intention of the LRB to hear from all parties in relation to the information contained within their Hearing Statements and that the order for this would be the Development Manager presenting his case, the Applicants and their agent, Helensburgh Community Council and lastly Councillor Freeman.   Once each of these parties had spoken, questions from the Panel only relating to the specified matters would be taken, in turn, and that following this period of questioning there would be opportunity for each party to sum up with the order for the summing up being the Development Manager, Helensburgh Community Council, Councillor Freeman and the final submission by the applicant and agent.

 

He further advised that at conclusion of this process the LRB would be required to confirm whether they had sufficient information to proceed to determine the Review.  He explained that the LRB were keen to hear from all parties and, as outlined by the Chairman, the process had begun some time ago and therefore if any member of the public considered an issue had not been covered at the day’s meeting, the most likely position was that it had been dealt with as part of a previous process.   He then finally added that once the Hearing had concluded it would be for the LRB to determine how best to proceed.

 

Mr Reppke asked the Development Manager to put forward a summary of his Hearing Statement. 

 

PLANNING AUTHORITY

 

Mr McLaughlin spoke to the terms of his Hearing Statement advising much of the information submitted in respect of the Review is new information submitted post decision making.  With regard to the specified matters he advised that he considered these were mainly for the applicant to respond to although he had submitted comments in relation to each of the four matters raised.

 

Mr McLaughlin advised that there was some common ground between parties in that they all fully endorsed the benefits of the ambulance station and infection control measures.

 

Mr McLaughlin commented on the Statement by the appellants in which they had advised that there was no ideal site within the Victoria Infirmary site and that proposals for the ambulance station had been made in the least worst option.  He considered this to be poor project planning and stated that Helensburgh deserved better.

 

Mr McLaughlin then spoke to the reasons for refusal of the application stating that the proposal was contrary to policies STRAT DC1 and STRAT DC9 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan, policies LP ENV1, LP ENv13a and LP ENV19 and Appendix A of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan and the Council’s Design Guide.

 

Mr McLaughlin further advised (in response to Councillor Freeman’s statement) that the Council’s Conservation Officer had indeed visited the site and that these visits took place on 2 and 29 July 2009.  

 

Mr McLaughlin then moved on to discuss each of the specified matters commencing with:-

 

Specified Matter 1. – In regard to this matter he advised that NHS Highland were in the best place to advise the LRB although it had been clear from a site inspection, which had been attended by all parties, on 17 February 2010 that pinch points had been identified. He reported that this proposal sought to retain the existing access which, given these pinch points, was not suitable and regretted that this had not been examined further by the applicant/agent.  He referred the LRB to the Roads Officer’s comments on pages 37 to 40 of the agenda pack which offered some alternatives in terms of access. 

 

Specified Matter 2 – Mr McLaughlin advised this was primarily for the applicant to deal with and that he did not dispute the needs and relevance of the SAS being here. He was keen to discuss future plans, parking and the best alternative for the site. 

 

Specified Matter 3 – Mr McLaughlin advised that he was in no way disputing the merits of the ambulance station being located in Helensburgh. 

 

Specified Matter 4 -  Mr McLaughlin referred members of LRB to his written submission to address this point.

 

ATKINS LTD AND SCOTTISH AMBULANCE SERVICE (AGENT AND APPLICANT)

 

Miss MacDougall advised the Local Review Body that the Scottish Ambulance Service was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.