Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 8 December 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 8 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES of MEETING of ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Attending: Emma Ledsom, Senior Solicitor (Adviser) Shona Barton, Governance Manager (Observer) Fiona McCallum, Committee Services Officer (Minute) 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND WEST OF HELENSLEA, TIGHNABRUAICH (REF: 25/0009/LRB) The Chair, Councillor Kieron Green, welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that no person present would be entitled to speak other than the Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) and Ms Ledsom, who would provide procedural advice if required. He advised that his first task would be to establish if the Members of the LRB felt that they had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review. Councillor Brown said she had a number of questions regarding the roads issue and about the actual site itself, which used to be a builder’s yard but was no longer there and had not been commissioned for some time. She questioned whether the Applicant had issues now with accessing the site and if there were currently any issues experienced by service vehicles using the road. She said that she was of a mind to support the reason for refusal. Councillor Hardie commented that he thought the paperwork provided was very comprehensive and said that the Objectors’ letters had clarified the roads issue for him. He said he did not require any further information. Councillor Green said he was of a similar mind to Councillor Hardie at this point. He said he was mindful of Councillor Brown looking for more information and before he and Councillor Hardie moved to make a decision on the application without Councillor Brown have the opportunity of obtaining this further information, he asked Councillor Brown if she would want to make any further comment in support of obtaining further information. Councillor Brown said that she had just been looking for further information purely for clarification purposes. She agreed that the paperwork provided was very comprehensive and that she believed the objections were valid. She acknowledged that there were a lot more cars on the roads and that she had just wondered if anyone had difficulty with the Applicant using the road at the moment and if there were issues for service vehicles accessing the road. She advised that apart from that she would be content with
Page 2
supporting the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application if the other Members of the LRB were minded to go ahead on that basis. She said she did not feel she would need a site visit. She advised that she used to live not far away from the site and that she could appreciate the issues in Tighnabruaich with parking. Councillor Green confirmed that he would be content to reach a determination on this case at this point. Councillor Hardie advised that when he considered the Review, he examined the following: 1. The reasons for refusal of the application, 2. What the grounds for the Review were, 3. Whether or not any new evidence had been admitted, and 4. Whether there were any procedural errors in the initial decision. He advised that having considered all of the above he was of the opinion that the Review should be rejected for the reasons outlined in page 71 of the Agenda pack, ie the reason for refusal outlined in the report of handling: 1. The existing public road U035 (Village Brae) in this part of Tighnabruaich currently serves 14 properties and is a single track road measuring less than 5.5 metres in width that has a lack of passing places. On the basis of these limitations, it is considered that the road in its current form does not have the capacity to accommodate the increase in vehicular movements associated with the development of an additional dwellinghouse. Due to the inherent geographical constraints associated with the road, the implementation of commensurate improvements such as increases in width and the provision of additional passing places is unachievable. In addition, the private access that connects the application site and the public road has a width of less than 5.5 metres and provides on-street parking for 8 properties. The parking of vehicles on this access would prevent the safe access and egress of cars in association with the occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse. Although it could be used as a means of addressing the issue referred to in the preceding paragraph, the displacement of the existing parking area in order to keep the access clear for vehicles associated with the occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse is likely to have an adverse effect on the usage of Village Brae on the basis that there would be the potential for cars to be parked in alternative locations that would compromise road safety. Having regard to all of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy 9 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 01, 35, 37 and 66(e) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. Councillor Hardie said he found these arguments comprehensive and his main reason for refusing along with the other evidence before him. Councillor Brown said she supported the view put forward by Councillor Hardie.
Page 3
Councillor Green commented that Councillor Hardie had presented a very thorough argument. He said that he would also like to add the following observations - He said he thought it was notable that there was previous use on the site, however, that was nearly 30 years ago. He commented that a lot had changed since that time with more households now having more than one car and that the size of cars had increased. He also advised that people were more likely to use their cars, which, he said, meant that you could not directly compare that with any situation 30 years ago. He advised that he was also mindful of the differing perspectives on the use of the road put forward by the Applicant and the other parties in terms of whether cars were able to park there. He advised that he saw that primarily as a neighbour dispute and not something the LRB should get involved with in taking sides one way or another. Councillor Green confirmed that he was minded to support Councillor Hardie and the Planning Officer’s reason for refusal which he had read out. Councillor Hardie confirmed that he had nothing further to add. Councillor Brown also confirmed that she had nothing further to add and that she too supported Councillor Hardie. Decision The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de novo, unanimously agreed to uphold the decision of the Planning Officer to refuse this planning permission in principle for the following reason: 1. The existing public road U035 (Village Brae) in this part of Tighnabruaich currently serves 14 properties and is a single track road measuring less than 5.5 metres in width that has a lack of passing places. On the basis of these limitations, it is considered that the road in its current form does not have the capacity to accommodate the increase in vehicular movements associated with the development of an additional dwellinghouse. Due to the inherent geographical constraints associated with the road, the implementation of commensurate improvements such as increases in width and the provision of additional passing places is unachievable. In addition, the private access that connects the application site and the public road has a width of less than 5.5 metres and provides on-street parking for 8 properties. The parking of vehicles on this access would prevent the safe access and egress of cars in association with the occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse. Although it could be used as a means of addressing the issue referred to in the preceding paragraph, the displacement of the existing parking area in order to keep the access clear for vehicles associated with the occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse is likely to have an adverse effect on the usage of Village Brae on the basis that there would be the potential for cars to be parked in alternative locations that would compromise road safety. Having regard to all of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy 9 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 01, 35, 37 and 66(e) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2.
Page 4
(Reference: Notice of Review and Supporting Documents, Comments from Interested Parties, and Comments from Applicant, submitted)