26.0005.LRB Stornoway review case statement
Argyll and Bute Council · 7 October 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 7 October 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND GARAGE AND INSTALLATION OF PRIVATE DRAINAGE SYSTEM LAND AT LOCH STORNOWAY HILL KILBERRY ARGYLL AND BUTE PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 25/01506/PP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 26/0005/LRB 24th July 2026
Page 2
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. This Statement of Case is submitted on behalf of Argyll and Bute Council (“the Planning Authority”) in response to the applicant’s Notice of Review seeking the reversal of the delegated refusal of planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated private drainage system at land at Loch Stornoway Hill, Kilberry. 1.2. The Planning Authority maintains that planning permission was correctly refused for the reasons set out within the Decision Notice dated 23 April 2026. The decision followed a full assessment of the proposal against the statutory Development Plan and all material planning considerations and represented an appropriate exercise of professional planning judgement. 1.3. The appellant’s Statement of Case advances a number of criticisms of the Planning Authority’s assessment, principally relating to: - the interpretation of National Planning Framework 4 (“NPF4”); - the interpretation of Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (“LDP2”); - the assessment of the principle of development; - the assessment of landscape impacts; - the weight afforded to the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (“LVIA”); - the treatment of ecological information; and - reliance upon previous planning decisions elsewhere within Argyll and Bute. 1.4. Whilst these matters have been carefully considered by the Planning Authority, we remain satisfied that the proposal conflicts with the Development Plan when read as a whole and that no material considerations exist which would justify granting planning permission contrary to that Plan. 1.5. The Appellant’s Statement frequently seeks to isolate individual policy provisions which are considered favourable to the proposal whilst giving considerably less weight to those policies concerned with landscape protection, settlement pattern, biodiversity and sustainable development. The Planning Authority respectfully submits that such an approach is inconsistent with the statutory requirement to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan as a whole. 1.6. The Local Review Body is therefore invited to consider the proposal against the complete framework of national and local planning policy rather than against individual policy extracts viewed in isolation. 2. PLANNING APPLICATION BACKGROUND
Page 3
2.1. Planning application reference 25/01506/PP sought full planning permission for the erection of a single dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated private drainage infrastructure on land at Loch Stornoway Hill, Kilberry. It is noted that no pre-application planning advice was sought prior to the submission of the application. 2.2. The application was accompanied by a range of supporting information, including: - Design Statement; - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (“LVIA”); - Ecological Survey; - Site Plans; - Drainage information; and - Supporting technical drawings. 2.3. These documents were taken into account by the Planning Authority throughout its assessment of the proposal. 2.4. Following consultation and assessment, the application was refused under delegated powers for two principal reasons: 2.5. Firstly, the Planning Authority concluded that the proposal represented an unacceptable form of isolated residential development within the open countryside which failed to comply with the Development Plan strategy for sustainable development. In particular, the proposal was considered to: - introduce an isolated domestic use into an undeveloped rural landscape; - erode the existing settlement pattern; - adversely affect the character and appearance of the Knapdale and Melfort Local Landscape Area; - fail to constitute an appropriate redevelopment opportunity; and - conflict with relevant provisions of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) (“NPF4”) and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (2024) (“LDP2”). 2.6. Secondly, the Planning Authority concluded that insufficient ecological information had been submitted to enable a robust assessment of impacts upon protected species, with particular regard to the age of the ecological survey and the absence of up-to- date baseline information. 2.7. The appellant now seeks to challenge both reasons for refusal. The Planning Authority respectfully maintains that both refusal reasons remain well founded and continue to provide sound planning grounds upon which planning permission should be refused.
Page 4
3. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 3.1. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 establishes the statutory basis upon which planning decisions must be made. It provides that: “Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination is to be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” 3.2. Accordingly, neither individual policies nor isolated material considerations are determinative in themselves. The statutory exercise requires the decision-maker to consider the Development Plan in its entirety before determining whether any material considerations justify an alternative outcome. 3.3. The statutory Development Plan applicable to this proposal comprises: - National Planning Framework 4 (2023); and - Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (2024). 3.4. Both documents carry full statutory status. The Planning Authority accepts that, in circumstances where an irreconcilable conflict exists between provisions of NPF4 and LDP2, the later adopted document will prevail in accordance with the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Chief Planner’s guidance. However, the Appellant’s Statement substantially overstates the significance of this principle. The statutory hierarchy does not permit one document simply to replace the other. Nor does it justify selective reliance upon those provisions considered favourable to development whilst disregarding the remainder of the Development Plan. Rather, the Development Plan must continue to be read as an integrated whole. 3.5. The Planning Authority considers that no direct incompatibility exists between the relevant provisions of NPF4 and LDP2 in this case. Both documents seek to support sustainable rural development where proposals are appropriately located and where important landscape, biodiversity and environmental interests are safeguarded. Accordingly, the principal issue before the Local Review Body is not whether one policy document should prevail over another, but whether this proposal satisfies the collective objectives of the Development Plan. The Planning Authority concluded that it does not. 4. THE ROLE OF PLANNING JUDGEMENT 4.1. A recurring theme throughout the Appellant’s Statement of Case is the suggestion that the Planning Authority should have accepted the conclusions of the applicant’s supporting technical assessments, particularly the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The Planning Authority respectfully disagrees with this proposition.
Page 5
Whilst technical reports provide valuable evidence to inform decision- making, they do not determine planning applications. Planning decisions involve the exercise of professional planning judgement in balancing competing policy objectives, assessing the weight to be afforded to technical evidence and considering whether proposals accord with the Development Plan when viewed as a whole. That statutory responsibility rests solely with the Planning Authority and, upon review, with the Local Review Body. 4.2. The existence of a professionally prepared technical report does not remove or diminish the Planning Authority’s responsibility to reach its own conclusions. Indeed, it is entirely common within the planning system for planning authorities to reach a different judgement from that expressed by consultants acting on behalf of applicants. Such disagreement does not invalidate the consultant’s work. Equally, it does not render the Planning Authority’s conclusions irrational or procedurally flawed. Rather, it reflects the exercise of independent planning judgement which lies at the heart of the statutory planning process. 4.3. The Planning Authority therefore considered all submitted supporting information, including the LVIA, ecological information and design statement, before reaching its decision. The refusal was not based upon any rejection of those documents as inadmissible or irrelevant. Instead, it reflected the Planning Authority’s reasoned conclusion that, when considered alongside the Development Plan and the wider site context, the proposal remained unacceptable in planning terms. 5. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND POLICY CONTEXT 5.1. The Appellant’s Statement of Case devotes considerable attention to the interpretation of national and local planning policy and contends that the Planning Authority has misapplied the Development Plan. The Planning Authority respectfully disagrees. 5.2. Whilst the appellant identifies a number of policy provisions which support appropriately located rural housing, insufficient weight is afforded to the equally important policy objectives relating to sustainable development, landscape character, settlement pattern, biodiversity and environmental protection. Planning policy is not intended to be applied selectively. The Development Plan must instead be read as an integrated whole, recognising that support for development under one policy does not negate the requirements of others. 5.3. The Planning Authority therefore assessed the proposal against the collective aims and objectives of the Development Plan and concluded that the proposal fails to achieve an appropriate balance between rural development and environmental protection.
Page 6
6. NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK 4 6.1. The Appellant correctly identifies that NPF4 supports rural revitalisation and recognises the need to sustain rural communities. However, the Planning Authority considers that the Appellant’s interpretation of these objectives is incomplete. NPF4 does not establish a presumption that new housing should be permitted throughout the rural area. Rather, it seeks to support sustainable rural development whilst ensuring that Scotland’s landscapes, biodiversity, natural assets and settlement patterns are protected. The Development Plan therefore requires decision-makers to balance competing objectives. Support for rural housing is not unconditional. Policy 17 – Rural Homes 6.2. The appellant places considerable reliance upon Policy 17(c) of NPF4. Whilst the Planning Authority accepts that this policy supports appropriately located housing within remote rural areas, such support is expressly qualified. Policy 17 requires proposals to be: - suitably located; - compatible with environmental objectives; - appropriate to their landscape setting; - consistent with local settlement patterns; and - acceptable having regard to all other relevant policies within NPF4. 6.3. The policy cannot properly be interpreted as support for any new dwelling located within a remote rural area simply because rural population decline is recognised as a national issue. Rather, the policy requires planning judgement to determine whether individual proposals achieve an acceptable balance between rural housing delivery and environmental protection. The Planning Authority concluded that this proposal does not. Sustainable Development 6.4. The appellant repeatedly characterises the proposal as sustainable development. The Planning Authority respectfully disagrees. Sustainability within the planning system extends beyond the provision of an additional dwelling. It requires consideration of environmental, social and economic objectives collectively. Whilst the proposal may contribute modestly towards rural housing provision, this benefit must be balanced against: - the introduction of new built development into an undeveloped landscape; - the erosion of landscape character; - impacts upon the established settlement pattern; - insufficient ecological information; and - conflict with locally designated landscape policies.
Page 7
6.5. The Planning Authority concluded that the proposal does not represent sustainable development when these considerations are assessed collectively. 7. ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 Policy 02- Outwith Settlement Areas 7.1. The appellant submits that Policy 02 establishes a presumption in favour of rural housing within Countryside Areas. The Planning Authority considers that this interpretation materially overstates the scope of the policy. Policy 02 does not create an automatic entitlement to residential development throughout the countryside. Instead, it establishes a positive framework for considering development only where proposals satisfy the wider provisions of the Development Plan. The opening paragraph of Policy 02 expressly requires development to be: - sustainable; - appropriately scaled; - appropriately sited; - appropriately designed; and - compatible with the relevant subject policies. 7.2. The policy therefore requires more than simply identifying that land lies within a Countryside Area. It requires demonstration that development is appropriate in all respects. That assessment necessarily includes landscape, biodiversity, settlement pattern and environmental protection. 7.3. The Planning Authority considers that the appellant has focused upon those parts of Policy 02 which identify opportunities for rural development whilst giving significantly less attention to the qualifying wording contained throughout the policy. In particular, Policy 02 does not displace or weaken: - Policy 08 (Siting and Design); - Policy 71 (Local Landscape Areas); - Policy 73 (Biodiversity); or - other environmental safeguards contained within the Development Plan. 7.4. Accordingly, compliance with the broad objectives of Policy 02 does not establish compliance with the Development Plan. All relevant policies continue to apply. 8. REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 8.1. The appellant suggests that the historic remains present within the wider landholding amount to a redevelopment opportunity supported by Policy 02. The Planning Authority respectfully disagrees. The proposal before the Local Review Body is for an entirely new dwellinghouse and garage. It is not:
Page 8
- the restoration of a traditional building; - the conversion of an existing structure; - the replacement of an existing lawful dwellinghouse; or - the redevelopment of previously developed land. 8.2. Whilst historic remains may contribute to an understanding of the site’s past use, they do not, in themselves, establish that the proposal constitutes redevelopment within the meaning of Policy 02. Nor do they justify the introduction of a new domestic planning unit into an otherwise undeveloped landscape. The Planning Authority therefore remains satisfied that the proposal represents new residential development in the open countryside. 9. PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT Existing Settlement Pattern 9.1. A fundamental consideration in the Planning Authority’s assessment relates to settlement pattern. The appellant identifies approximately 150 existing dwellings distributed across the Kilberry peninsula and submits that the proposal would simply represent one further house within that wider community. The Planning Authority considers that this approach examines settlement pattern at far too broad a geographic scale. The relevant question is not whether houses exist elsewhere within the peninsula. Rather, it is whether this particular site forms part of the established pattern of development. It does not. The appeal site occupies an isolated position removed from the principal clusters and ribbons of development associated with the public road network. Approval would therefore introduce a new domestic planning unit into an area presently characterised by open countryside. Incremental Erosion 9.2. One of the principal purposes of countryside policy is to resist incremental erosion of undeveloped landscapes through sporadic residential development. Individual dwellings frequently appear modest when considered in isolation. However, cumulative change occurs incrementally. Each additional dwelling extends the domestic influence into previously undeveloped areas through: - buildings; - access improvements; - domestic lighting; - parked vehicles; - garden ground; - boundary treatments; - ancillary domestic structures; and - associated activity. 9.3. It is this gradual urbanisation of the countryside which planning policy seeks to avoid. The Planning Authority concluded that the proposal
Page 9
would contribute to precisely this form of cumulative landscape change. Isolated Countryside Development 9.4. The appellant disputes the description of the proposal as isolated development. The Planning Authority remains satisfied that the characterisation is accurate. Although individual dwellings exist elsewhere throughout the wider locality, the appeal proposal is not physically related to an existing group of development such that it could reasonably be regarded as infill, rounding off or logical consolidation. Instead, it projects new built development into an area where the prevailing character remains open and undeveloped. The proposal therefore conflicts with the spatial strategy of the Development Plan. Rural Population Decline 9.5. The Planning Authority recognises the importance of supporting rural communities and accepts that both NPF4 and LDP2 seek to encourage appropriately located housing within remote rural areas. However, neither document establishes that every proposal for a rural dwelling should be approved. If that were the intended outcome, there would be little purpose in retaining detailed policies concerning landscape, biodiversity, settlement pattern and design. 9.6. Instead, the Development Plan requires these objectives to be balanced. In this instance, whilst the proposal may provide one additional dwelling, the Planning Authority concluded that this limited public benefit is outweighed by conflict with the wider environmental objectives of the Development Plan. The proposal therefore fails to achieve the balanced approach to sustainable rural development envisaged by both NPF4 and LDP2. 10. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND THE LOCAL LANDSCAPE AREA 10.1. The appellant contends that the planning authority failed to give appropriate weight to the submitted landscape and visual impact assessment (“LVIA”) and suggests that the conclusions of that assessment ought to have been accepted unless contradicted by an equally qualified landscape architect. The planning authority respectfully disagrees. 10.2. The planning authority fully considered the submitted LVIA during the assessment of the application and acknowledges that it represents a professionally prepared technical document. However, it is one material consideration amongst many. It does not determine the planning application and cannot replace the statutory responsibility placed upon the planning authority to exercise its own independent planning judgement.
Page 10
10.3. The local review body is therefore invited to distinguish between the technical findings contained within the LVIA and the wider planning judgement required under the Development Plan. Policy 71 – Local Landscape Areas 10.4. The appeal site lies within the Knapdale and Melfort Local Landscape Area (LLA). The purpose of the designation is not to prevent all forms of development. Rather, it seeks to ensure that development conserves and, where possible, enhances the qualities for which the landscape has been identified as locally important. Policy 71 therefore requires proposals to demonstrate that they can be accommodated without unacceptable adverse effects upon: - landscape character; - scenic quality; - settlement pattern; - sense of place; - important views; - and the defining characteristics of the designated landscape. 10.5. This assessment necessarily involves planning judgement. It is not a purely technical exercise. 10.6. A recurring theme throughout the appellant’s Statement is the suggestion that the proposal should be regarded as acceptable because the submitted LVIA concludes that visual impacts would be “low to negligible”. The Planning Authority respectfully considers that this significantly narrows the scope of Policy 71. Landscape character extends well beyond visual prominence. It encompasses: - the pattern of development; - the relationship between buildings and landform; - openness; - remoteness; - tranquillity; - historic land use; - landscape experience; - and cumulative change over time. 10.7. A proposal may therefore generate relatively limited visual effects from selected viewpoints whilst nevertheless resulting in an unacceptable alteration to landscape character. The Planning Authority concluded that this is precisely the circumstance in the present case. 11. THE ROLE OF THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Status of the LVIA
Page 11
11.1. The Planning Authority accepts that the submitted LVIA has been prepared by suitably qualified professionals and that it provides useful technical information regarding the likely visibility of the proposed development. However, the appellant’s suggestion that the findings of the LVIA can only legitimately be challenged by another Landscape Architect is not accepted. There is no requirement in planning legislation, national policy or professional guidance that a Planning Authority must commission an alternative LVIA before reaching a different planning judgement. Planning Authorities routinely assess: - Environmental Impact Assessments; - Flood Risk Assessments; - Transport Assessments; - Landscape Assessments; - Ecological Reports; - Noise Assessments; - and numerous other technical submissions before determining the weight to be afforded to each document in light of the Development Plan and all other material considerations. 11.2. The Planning Authority therefore rejects the assertion that disagreement with the conclusions of the submitted LVIA is procedurally improper or professionally inappropriate. Planning Judgement 11.3. It is important to distinguish between technical evidence and planning judgement. The LVIA assists the decision-maker. It does not determine the planning outcome. Ultimately, the Planning Authority must decide whether the proposal complies with the Development Plan. That statutory judgement cannot be delegated to consultants acting on behalf of applicants. Nor can the Local Review Body simply substitute the conclusions of the applicant’s consultant for its own planning judgement. The issue before Members is therefore not whether the LVIA is competently prepared. Rather, it is whether the proposal accords with the Development Plan when all material considerations are assessed together. 12. RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANT’S LANDSCAPE CASE Existing development within the wider peninsular 12.1. The appellant identifies numerous existing dwellings throughout the Kilberry peninsular and argues that the proposal would simply represent another modest dwelling within an already settled landscape. The Planning Authority considers that this approach oversimplifies the assessment. The relevant question is not whether houses exist elsewhere, it is whether the appeal site forms part of the established settlement pattern. The Planning Authority concludes that it does not. The proposal introduces a new domestic planning
Page 12
unit into an area presently characterised by undeveloped countryside. That change in land use forms part of the landscape assessment. 12.2. The landscape effects of a dwelling extend considerably beyond the physical footprint of the building itself. Residential development introduces a range of associated domestic features including vehicle movements, external lighting, domestic storage, residential activity, and long-term domestic management. Collectively, these elements alter the character of rural landscapes. Whilst each may appear individually modest, their cumulative effect contributes to the gradual urbanisation of the countryside. It is this process which LPD2 Policy 71 seeks to manage. Cumulative effects 12.3. The Planning Authority also considers cumulative effects to be an important consideration. The Appellant’s Statement focuses upon the impact of a single dwelling. Planning policy, however, must consider the implications of repeated decisions over time. If isolated dwellings were routinely permitted throughout designated landscapes on the basis that each individual proposal generated only limited visual effects, the cumulative consequence would be the progressive erosion of landscape character. The Planning Authority therefore considered not only the immediate impact of the proposal but also its contribution to the gradual expansion of domestic development into undeveloped countryside. The Existing Ruins 12.4. The Appellant places significant reliance upon the existence of historic ruins within the wider site and suggests that these support the principle of redevelopment. The Planning Authority respectfully disagrees. The presence of archaeological or historic remains does not alter the planning status of the appeal proposal. The application is not for: restoration, reconstruction, conversion, or replacement of an existing dwelling. The historic remains therefore do not establish an existing residential planning unit nor create an automatic redevelopment opportunity under LDP2 Policy 02. Indeed, the historic remains form part of the historic landscape character which contributes to the area’s distinctiveness. Their presence does not necessarily indicate that the introduction of modern domestic development would preserve or enhance that character. The Planning Authority therefore afforded only limited weight to this aspect of the Appellant’s case. Landscape Conclusions 12.5. Having regard to the submitted details, landscape designation, and the Development Plan policies, the Planning Authority remains satisfied that the proposal would introduce an unacceptable domestic incursion into an undeveloped part of the Knapdale and Melfort Local Landscape Area. Whilst visual prominence may be relatively limited
Page 13
from certain viewpoints, this does not negate the wider effects upon landscape character arising from the introduction of a new residential planning unit. Accordingly, the Planning Authority considers that the proposal remains contrary to Policy 71 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 and Policy 4 of National Planning Framework 4. 13. RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANT’S RELIANCE ON PREVIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS 13.1. The Appellant identifies a number of planning permissions granted elsewhere within Argyll and Bute which are said to demonstrate that the Planning Authority has acted inconsistently in refusing the present proposal. The Planning Authority respectfully submits that these decisions carry only limited weight in the determination of this review. Whilst previous decisions may provide useful context regarding the interpretation of planning policy, they do not establish binding precedents requiring subsequent applications to be determined in the same manner. 13.2. Each planning application must be assessed on its own merits having regarding to the specific characteristics of the site, the surrounding landscape, the pattern of existing development, the evidence submitted in support of the proposal, consultation responses, the applicable Development Plan, and all other material considerations. Accordingly, comparisons between unrelated sites should be approached with caution and the Planning Authority therefore considers that the cited examples provide limited assistance to the Local Review Body. 14. ECOLOGY 14.1. The appellant argues that the ecological reason for refusal could readily have been addressed through the imposition of planning conditions requiring updated ecological surveys prior to the commencement of development. The Planning Authority respectfully disagrees. The refusal reason was not based upon a failure to provide mitigation measures. Rather, it reflected the absence of sufficiently robust and current ecological information to enable the Planning Authority to lawfully determine the application. 14.2. National Planning Framework 4 places significant emphasis upon the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. Policy 3 requires planning authorities to understand the likely environmental consequences of development proposals before granting planning permission. This necessarily requires adequate baseline ecological information. 14.3. The ecological survey submitted in support of the application had been undertaken several years before the planning application was submitted and determined and did not provide an adequately current assessment of ecological conditions for the application site. Whilst the Appellant suggests that no changes were known to have
Page 14
occurred, the absence of known changes is not equivalent to demonstrating that no changes have occurred. Protect species are mobile, habitats evolve over time and ecological conditions can change significantly within relatively short periods. The Planning Authority was therefore entitled to conclude that the information available did not provide a sufficiently reliable basis upon which to determine the application. 14.4. The Planning Authority acknowledges that planning conditions frequently require ecological surveys immediately prior to construction. However, such conditions are generally appropriate only where the Planning Authority has first established, through adequate baseline information, that planning permission can properly be granted. Planning conditions should not be used to postpone the assessment of whether the development is acceptable in principle. To do so would effectively defer an essential element of the decision- making process until after planning permission had already been granted. That approach would be inconsistent with the precautionary approach embodied within NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policy 73. Accordingly, the Planning Authority remains satisfied that refusal represented the appropriate response to the absence of sufficiently current ecological information. 14.5. A recurring theme throughout the appellant’s Statement of Case is the suggestion that the Planning Authority should have accepted the conclusions of the applicant’s supporting technical assessments, particularly the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. 15. CONCLUSION 15.1. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Whilsts aspects of the proposal may align with the broad aspiration to support rural communities, this does not outweigh the proposal’s conflict with policies relating to landscape protection, settlement pattern, biodiversity and sustainable development. 15.2. The Planning Authority has carefully considered the Appellant’s Statement of Case together with all supporting information submitted as part of the Notice of Review. Whilst acknowledging the Appellant’s desire to provide a dwelling within their landholding, the Planning Authority remains satisfied that the proposal conflicts with the Development Plan when read as a whole. 15.3. The Planning Authority respectfully submits that the Appellant has not demonstrated any material error in either the interpretation or application of planning policy.
Page 15
15.4. The Planning Authority therefore remains satisfied that the delegated decision correctly interpreted the Development Plan and appropriately exercised professional planning judgement. The proposal is contrary to the statutory Development Plan and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify granting planning permission contrary to that Plan. 15.5. For these reasons, the Planning Authority respectfully invites the Local Review Body to dismiss the Notice of Review and uphold the refusal of planning permission. Appended documents: Appendix A – Report of Handling Appendix B – 25/01506/PP Decision Notice Appendix C - Refused Plans attached to 25/01506/PP Decision Notice