Minutes of meeting
Renfrewshire Council · 24 March 2026
Back to Local Review Body. — 24 March 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Minute of Meeting Local Review Body. Date Time Venue Tuesday, 24 March 2026 14:00 Council Chambers (Renfrewshire), Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1AN Present: Councillor Anne Hannigan, Councillor Bruce MacFarlane, Councillor Marie McGurk, Councillor Iain Nicolson, Councillor Jim Paterson Chair Councillor Paterson, Convener, presided. In Attendance K Dalrymple, Development Plans & Housing Strategy Team Leader (Independent Planning Adviser to the Local Review Body) (Chief Executive’s); and R Graham, Lead Solicitor (Litigation & Regulatory Services) (Independent Legal Adviser to the Local Review Body) and R Devine, Senior Committee Services Officer (Clerk to the Local Review Body) (both Finance & Resources). Declarations of Interest and Transparency Statements There were no declarations of interest or transparency statements intimated prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Page 2
1 Procedure Note The Convener summarised the procedure to be followed at the meeting of the Local Review Body (LRB), a copy of which had been circulated to members prior to the meeting. 2 LRB01.26 Under reference to item 1 of the Minute of the Local Review Body held on 27 January 2026 consideration was given to a Notice of Review submitted in respect of the Planning Authority's decision to refuse planning permission for the change of use from former Class 1A (beauty salon) to Sui Generis (short-term let serviced accommodation) with associated external works including formation of garden and parking area and erection of fencing at 5 Glenburn Road, Paisley, PA2 8TA (25/0207/PP). The following materials were before members in relation to the Notice of Review: (i) the Local Development Plan, National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and New Development Supplementary Guidance; (ii) the Planning Authority’s submission, which included the report of handling, accompanying documents and decision notice; (iii) the Notice of Review, together with supporting statement and productions submitted by the applicant; and (iv) the supporting statement document, setting out how the short-term let accommodation would operate, referred to in the Planning Authority’s submission but which had not been included within the paperwork circulated to members of the Board prior to the previous meeting and which could be considered a material consideration in determining the application. The Convener confirmed that the LRB required to decide whether it had sufficient information before it to make a decision on the matter or whether further procedure was required to allow the LRB to determine LRB01.26/Planning Application 25/0207/PP. It was agreed that the LRB had sufficient information before it to reach a decision. The Convener also advised that the LRB required to determine the application in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, including any supplementary guidance, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. In terms of Standing Order 59 Councillor Paterson moved that the application be refused for the following reasons: (a) The proposed development was contrary to Policy P1 of the Local Development Plan, the New Development Supplementary on Creating Places and Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4 in that the proposal would not be compatible with surrounding uses or conductive to the creation of a healthy, pleasant or well- connected place;
Page 3
(b) The proposed development was contrary to Policy 13 of National Planning Framework 4, Policy I1 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Connecting Places in that the proposal would not benefit from good accessibility and connectivity to walking, cycling and public transport networks; and (c) The proposed development was contrary to Policy E4 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Tourism in that it would not strengthen the appeal of Renfrewshire to visitors, and the accommodation was not of an appropriate design and quality for the location. This was agreed unanimously. DECIDED: That LRB01.26 (Planning Application 25/02027/PP) be refused for the following reasons: (a) The proposed development was contrary to Policy P1 of the Local Development Plan, the New Development Supplementary on Creating Places and Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4 in that the proposal would not be compatible with surrounding uses or conductive to the creation of a healthy, pleasant or well- connected place; (b) The proposed development was contrary to Policy 13 of National Planning Framework 4, Policy I1 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Connecting Places in that the proposal would not benefit from good accessibility and connectivity to walking, cycling and public transport networks; and (c) The proposed development was contrary to Policy E4 of the Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Tourism in that it would not strengthen the appeal of Renfrewshire to visitors and the accommodation was not of an appropriate design and quality for the location.