Agenda and minutes

Having noted that Councillor Marshall had indicated that he was running late, it was agreed to convene and then adjourn the meeting at 9.45 am until Councillor Marshall arrived.

 

The meeting reconvened at 10.05 am.

 

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that his first task would be to establish whether or not the LRB felt they had sufficient information before them to reach a decision on the Review.

 

Councillor Mackay indicated that even although the LRB had received quite a lot of information he felt that it would be beneficial to hold a site inspection in order to establish whether or not there would be an issue of road and pedestrian safety if the driveway access gates were relocated and if visibility for pedestrian’s would be compromised due to the position of the fence and realignment of the footpath.

 

Councillor Mackay also indicated that he would wish to see a copy of the full Area Roads Engineer’s report and, referring to the statement within the Planner’s reasons for refusal - “This footpath is used by a number of local parents and children taking access to the nearby primary school”, he indicated that he would like written clarification from the Transport Manager on whether or not the footpath was designated part of a safe walking route to school.

 

Councillor Marshall agreed that a site inspection would be beneficial to the LRB.

 

The Chair confirmed that he also agreed that a site inspection should take place as he was not familiar with the area.  The Chair also referred to the various pictures of gates provided by the Applicant and indicated that he would wish written confirmation from the Applicant as to the locations of these gates in order to establish how close they were to Drumfork House.  He added that he would also like written clarification from the Planners as to when planning permission for these gates would have been obtained and if this was before or after approval of the Argyll and Bute Local Pan 2009.

 

Finally, the Chair also indicated that he would wish written confirmation from Roads to as whether or not they would have any objection to the proposed gates opening into the property of Drumfork House rather than opening out on to the footpath.

 

Decision

 

The LRB:-

 

1.             Agreed to hold an accompanied site inspection, to which all interested parties would be invited, on Monday 19 September 2011 at 3.00 pm in order to establish whether or not there would be an issue of road and pedestrian safety if the driveway access gates were relocated and if visibility for pedestrians would be compromised due to the position of the fence and realignment of the footpath;

 

2.             To request from Roads a copy of the Area Roads Engineer’s report;

 

3.             To request from the Transport Manager written clarification on whether or not the footpath was designated part of a safe walking route to school;

 

4.             To request from the Applicant’s Agent written confirmation on the locations of the gates which were photographed and submitted with his supporting documentation in order to establish how close they were to Drumfork House;

 

5.             To request from Planning written confirmation on when planning permission would have been granted for the gates referred to at 4 above and whether or not this would have been before or after approval of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009;

 

6.             To request from Roads written clarification on whether or not they would have any objection to the proposed gates opening into the property of Drumfork House rather than opening out on to the footpath; and

 

7.             To adjourn the meeting and reconvene at the conclusion of the site inspection on Monday 19 September 2011.

 

The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body re-convened on Monday 19 September 2011 at 3.45 pm within the Victoria Halls, Helensburgh

 

 

Present:          Councillor Roderick McCuish (Chair)

                        Councillor Neil Mackay

                        Councillor Bruce Marshall

 

Attending:       Iain Jackson, Governance and Law (Adviser)

                        Fiona McCallum, Committee Services (Minute Taker)

 

The Chair welcomed everyone to the reconvened meeting of the ABLRB and advised that parties to the Review were not permitted to address the Local Review Body.  He advised that the only participants entitled to speak would be the Members of the LRB Panel and Mr Jackson who would provide procedural advice if required.

 

Having undertaken an accompanied site inspection prior to this meeting (see Appendix A of this Minute) and having received further information in the form of written submissions as requested at the meeting on 9 August 2011, the Chair advised that his first task would be to establish whether or not the LRB felt they had sufficient information before them to reach a decision on the Review.  The Board agreed unanimously that they had enough information to make a decision on the Notice of Review request and agreed to proceed to determine the case.

 

Councillor Marshall advised that the site inspection had been absolutely necessary and seeing it today had been quite illuminating.  He referred to the position of the fence and did not believe it would restrict pedestrian forward visibility if it was at a height of 1 metre.  He believed the applicant had done the right thing in erecting the fence to prevent children from running out in front of his car as he left the grounds of his house.  He also agreed with the statement in the applicant’s statement of case that the fence and gates would help define the boundary of this curtilage and that it was important that curtilage was defined.  He also agreed with the applicant’s grounds for appeal that the provision of gates at the back of the Beechgrove Place footway would act as a visible deterrent to indiscriminate parking.

 

Councillor Mackay advised that the site inspection had been valuable as it had coincided with the end of the school day.  He agreed with some of the points made by Councillor Marshall but disagreed with his statement regarding the height of the fence.  At the moment the fence blocked the view of pedestrians and if this were reduced to a height of 1 metre it would not make a big enough difference as he believed children of primary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.