Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 2 September 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 2 September 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 TUESDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Andrew Kain Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager (Adviser) Fiona McCallum, Committee Services Officer (Minutes) Emma Ledsom, Solicitor Ed Pybus, Applicant Iain MacPherson, Objector 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 SOUTH OF KILFINAN COMMUNITY FOREST CARAVAN AND WEST OF HAFTON HOUSE, TIGHNABRUAICH (REF: 20/01429/PP) 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 Mr Jackson, who would provide procedural advice if required. Before proceeding further the Chair invited Mr Jackson to advise of a representation received from a supporter that arrived too late for the Applicant to be given the opportunity to comment on its contents. Mr Jackson advised that one of the supporters of this proposal had submitted a late representation and that she had requested that this be shared with the LRB. He further advised that as part of the formal process all representations received on Notice of Reviews should be forwarded to the Applicant to comment on before bringing it to the attention of the LRB. As this representation was submitted late, he confirmed that there had not been the opportunity to seek comment from the Applicant. Mr Jackson said that if the Members wished to take this late representation into the process an opportunity had to be given to the Applicant in the first instance to comment if they wished. This could be done at the conclusion of this meeting and the late representation and any comment from the Applicant could be presented to the LRB at a future meeting. The Chair then 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 Hardie advised that he would be interested to find out whether it was the Council or Kilfinan Community Forest Company that owned the access road as from reading the paperwork within the pack, he was not clear on the ownership.
Page 2
Councillor Kain advised that he did not require any further information. Councillor Green advised that it was his point of view that ownership of the road was not relevant in terms of deciding on this application. Councillor Hardie agreed that it would not have a considerable amount of bearing on a decision and that this was just a general interest he had for himself. Councillor Hardie confirmed that he had enough information before him to come to a decision today. Councillor Green advised that he was likeminded and felt that the LRB had a comprehensive amount of information contained within the agenda pack. The Chair invited the Members to comment on the case before them. 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. Furthermore the key considerations in this review which he examined were: 1) Alignment with Community Goals Does the proposed development align with the goals and values of Kilfinan Community Forest Company, such as supporting local businesses and community engagement? 2) Environmental impact What potential environmental impacts could the development have on the surrounding area, including the community forest and nearby waterways? 3) Local Housing Need Is there a demonstrated need for housing in the area, and would this development contribute to meeting that need? 4) Design and Sitting Is the proposed design and sitting of the dwelling house and artist studio compatible with the surrounding landscape and community character? Councillor Hardie advised that having examined these key considerations, he had come to the conclusion that it seemed evident that the issue of the road, and the main reason for the initial rejection, was intractable in his opinion. He said he would agree with the Planning Officer's reason for refusal as stated in the report of handling: - that the development would be detrimental to traffic safety as the existing private access road has design constraints so it does not have the capacity for the development of an additional dwelling house without commensurate improvements to the access road. In this case the improvements required are unachievable due to the applicant being unable to
Page 3
demonstrate that an appropriate agreement has been concluded with the existing owner for required commensurate improvements to be made. He advised that irrespective of the Road issue, the site was out with the croft master plan and community plan area, thus he did not think that a site visit would be worthwhile and that he would reject this application. Councillor Kain advised that he had nothing additional to add. Councillor Green said that looking through the information provided he had noted that there was a phased approach to development within the forest. He said he was concerned about the potential here, if the LRB approved this application, for nothing to stop other parts of the site being developed which could lead to an inappropriate level of traffic on the road. He said he was also aware that in determining this application, it would not be possible for the LRB to put constraints on any other applications or plans. He felt, that the LRB were in a position where they had to refuse planning permission for this site. He advised that he could not see anything intrinsically wrong with the development apart from its conflicts with existing development elsewhere on the site and the access provided to it. He advised that if there was a will to see this location developed there could be more coordination with interested parties in the forest to amend the plans so that this site could be developed and perhaps further phases of development could go ahead after road improvements. He said that this was out with the LRB’s scope to determine, and he felt they had no choice at this stage but to refuse planning permission. 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 planning permission for the following reason: The proposed development is contrary to NPF4 Policies 16 and 17 and Policies 02, 35, 37 and 53 of LDP 2 in that the proposal is not acceptable in principle as it is not within a crofting masterplan or community plan area and it would be detrimental to traffic safety as the existing private access road has design constraints so it does not have the capacity for the development of an additional dwelling house without commensurate improvements to the access road. In this case the improvements required are deemed unachievable due to the applicant being unable to demonstrate that an appropriate agreement has been concluded with the existing owner for required commensurate improvements to be made. (Reference: Notice of Review and Supporting Documents, Comments from Interested Parties and Applicant, submitted)