Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence intimated.

There were no declarations of interest intimated.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.  He explained that no person present would be entitled to speak other than the Members of the Local Review Body and Mr Reppke 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.

Councillor Trail advised that he did not feel he had sufficient information to determine the review and that he would like a site visit to see the extent of the line of sight from the access road onto the public road and where that cuts across the existing stone wall with a view to seeing of a proportion of the wall could be amended rather than remove the whole wall.

Councillor Forrest advised that she felt she had sufficient information to come to a decision on the review.

Councillor Colville advised that he felt he had sufficient information to make a decision.  He advised that he had sympathy for the case made by the applicant but he was required to set those personal issues aside as they were not material planning considerations.  He advised that the issue before them was road safety and if the wall had been existing there would have been no question around relocating it.  He made reference to the photographs submitted by the applicants agent, advising that they had been very helpful and whilst he did have sympathy for the applicant he advised that he supported the recommendation to set back the existing wall by 2 metres as stated within condition 2.

Councillor Trail questioned whether there was a requirement for the whole wall to be repositioned or whether a small portion of the existing wall to be repositioned to allow for the required sight lines.  Councillor Colville quoted SG LDP TRANS4 advising that it would only be in the case that there was street furniture that could not been removed then the roads authority would consider amending the minimum requirements for an access.  Councillor Forrest advised that she was happy to support Councillor Trail if he felt there was a need for a site visit.

Councillor Colville made reference to the requirement for a service bay and noted that the roads authority had accepted that this could be achieved across the road from the access.  He advised that he would like confirmation from planning on their view of the service bay being positioned across the road from the access.

Decision

The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body agreed –

1.    To request a further written submission from the planning authority confirming their opinion on siting the service bay across the road from the access to the site.

2.    To invite the applicant, planning authority and roads authority to attend an accompanied site visit at the earliest opportunity to assess the relationship between the boundary wall and the access and to determine if sight lines could be achieved by repositioning a small portion of the wall rather than the whole wall.

3.    To reconvene the meeting of the Local Review Body at a suitable venue at the conclusion of the site visit.