Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 2 June 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 2 June 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, 2 JUNE 2025 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Andrew Kain Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager (Adviser) 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 EAST OF TALIESIN WEST, GARELOCHHEAD (REF: 24/0008/LRB) The Chair, Councillor Gordon Blair, 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. He referred to the previous meeting held on 22 November 2024 when it was agreed to defer the case for a period up to 26 weeks to allow a relevant planning obligation to be progressed. At this meeting it was also agreed to introduce into the process a Protected Species Walkover Report which had been submitted by the Applicant. A copy of this was contained within the Agenda pack for today’s meeting along with comment from the Local Biodiversity Officer. The Planning Officer was also given the opportunity to review this report and to also review the conditions and reasons which may be attached to any approval of this application. The Planning response was also contained within the Agenda pack for today’s meeting. Before proceeding further the Chair invited Mr Jackson to provide an update in relation to the planning obligation. Mr Jackson advised that the Planners, Legal Services and the Applicant’s Agent began discussions on securing a Section 75 agreement based on the heads of terms agreed by Members at the meeting on 22 November 2024. Issues were identified in terms of progressing with the Section 75, which in effect would be placing a burden on the Applicant’s title before the Members had come to a final decision on whether they were going to approve the application or not and it was agreed that it would not be appropriate to progress such a burden on the title until such time as the Local Review Body were in a position to issue a statement of their intent to either grant planning permission, or to determine the Local Review otherwise. The position today, therefore, was that Members had all the information they requested available to them to make a decision on whether they were minded to uphold the initial
Page 2
decision to refuse planning permission or alternatively to grant planning permission subject to conditions and reasons, and/or additionally subject to a Section 75 planning obligation being agreed. Noting the information provided by Mr Jackson, 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. All the Members agreed that they had sufficient information before them. Councillor Blair advised that he thought that they’d had a very constructive site visit. He commented that in general he was very keen on Open Space Protection Areas (OSPAs) but acknowledged that they were not set in tablets of stone. He advised that for him, as a member of this regulatory authority, the protective role of an OSPA was important and, indeed, essential. However, he pointed out that through the Local Development Plans, changes to areas designated as OSPAs could be made through normal planning consultation processes and that if communities wished to change OSPAs in their areas there were opportunities to do this. Councillor Blair advised that by taking the time to seek further clarification over the last 26 weeks and receiving the comprehensive reports enclosed with the Agenda pack today, he was content that he was in a position to make a decision today. He said that the location of the proposed house at the top of the site was in such a prominent position and, in his opinion, would be detrimental to, and not appropriate within an OSPA. Consequently, he confirmed that he would be supporting the Planning Officer’s recommendation to reject this application. Councillor Brown agreed that the site visit had been very good. She said that like Councillor Blair, she was very keen to protect the area and supported the Planning decision to refuse the application on this occasion. She acknowledged that OSPAs were important and that there was a mechanism in which they could be taken out of a Development Plan. She confirmed that she would support a motion to refuse the application on this occasion. Councillor Kain advised that he was conflicted and would reluctantly go along with the proposal to refuse. He commented that the implications of OSPAs were onerous in many respects, but he would leave that for another day. Decision The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de novo, agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: 1. The indicative siting would occupy greenfield land within the settlement boundary, and create a net loss and fragmentation of green space and identified open space, with consequential harmful impacts on character and amenity within Garelochhead. This would be unacceptable and contrary to Policies of 01, 09, 14, 16, 20 and 21 of NPF4, and Policies 04, 05, 06, 26 and 81 of LDP2. There would be modest benefits to the community arising from proposed enhancements, but there would not be a clear mechanism for their delivery and maintenance and in any regard it is considered that the benefits would not outweigh the harmful impacts identified. The benefit of the provision of one additional family home would not be sufficient to outweigh the identified harm.
Page 3
2. By reason of its isolated position, the development would be starkly and incongruously situated, and thus poorly integrated into the established settlement pattern. The harmful effect of this would be magnified by the prominence of the siting at the top of a slope and its proposed site area which cuts across the open space. For these reasons the siting would be unacceptable and contrary to NPF4 Policy 14, and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08 and 10. These concerns could not be reasonably overcome through reserved matters considerations or details to be secured through conditions, and the benefits of the proposal would not be sufficient to overcome the harmful impacts identified. (Reference: Protected Species Walkover Report dated 31 October 2024, comment from Local Biodiversity Officer, and further information and comment from Planning Officer, submitted)