Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 30 May 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 30 May 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 FRIDAY, 30 MAY 2025 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager Hazel MacInnes, Senior Committee Officer Mr and Mrs Mack, on behalf of the Applicant Mr Duncan Hope, Interested Party 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: FORMER COASTGUARD STATION, SOUTHEND (REF: 24/0018/LRB) The Chair, Councillor 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 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. Both Councillor Howard and Councillor Kain confirmed they felt they had enough information to come to a decision on the review. The Chair asked Members if they were content with the revised plans submitted by the Applicant to which they confirmed that they were. The Chair asked if there was a general agreement from Members that this building was not to be used as a permanent residence or a holiday let but would be used as a family holiday home only. This was agreed by Members. Mr Jackson advised that it would be appropriate for Members to confirm why they thought this application was something they could approve in relation to the policies by which it had been refused. Councillor Kain advised that he was content with it being approved. He referred to some of the comments on page 15 of the agenda pack around the suitability of the plot in relation to its size. He advised that the size of the plot was larger than the standard size of a housing plot and that he was minded to approve the application. Councillor Howard agreed with Councillor Kain advising that the proposed building was more attractive than an empty coastguard shed and would therefore enhance the area
Page 2
rather than detract from it. She advised that she could not see any reason to refuse the application. Councillor Blair sought further confirmation that both Members were happy with the revised plans that had been submitted and for a condition to be imposed on the restriction of use of the building as a family holiday home. Both Members advised that they were in agreement with this. Councillor Blair asked if it would be competent to adjourn the meeting to allow time to prepare a competent motion to approve the application. Mr Jackson advised that this would be competent but that it would be important to get a date agreed at this meeting. He advised that discussion could take place around the preparation of a competent Motion, making reference to the views of Members from both meetings and ensuring that the Motion addressed the policies by which the application had been refused. He advised that Condition 1 would require to be amended to refer to the revised plans, and a further condition would require to be added to address that the building would be used as a family holiday home only. Councillor Blair advised that he would be happy to prepare a Motion on behalf of Members. It was agreed to adjourn the meeting at this point and to reconvene on Wednesday 11 June 2025 at 11am by MS Teams, and that Committee Services would issue an invite to all relevant parties. The meeting reconvened on Wednesday 11 June 2025 at 10.45am by Microsoft Teams. Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager Hazel MacInnes, Senior Committee Officer Mr and Mrs Mack, on behalf of the Applicant The Chair, Councillor Gordon Blair, welcomed those present to the re-convened meeting of the Local Review Body in relation to the Former Coastguard Station, Southend, advising that that on Friday 30 May 2025 Members had agreed that they were minded to approve the application and had adjourned the meeting to allow discussion in regard to a competent motion to approve it. The Chair asked Members if they had any further comments they wanted to make on the proposed development and why they considered it appropriate to approve it. Both Councillor Howard and Councillor Kain confirmed that they had no further comments to make. The Chair, Councillor Blair, then advised that he had prepared a Motion which he read out as follows – Having considered all the information provided to the LRB in the agenda packs for the meetings on 28 January and 30 May 2025, I note the reason for refusal is that the plot ratio, design and scale of the proposed development would not provide a suitable residential living environment, nor provide an adequate private open space for future
Page 3
occupant(s). Therefore the proposed development is contrary to policies 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 10, 11 and 66 of the Argyll and Bute Council Local Development Plan 2024. I would firstly note that policy 9(d) of NPF4 supports development proposals which reuse existing building, taking into account there suitability for conversion to other uses and within LDP2 there is policy support for the redevelopment of brownfield sites located within a defined settlement area. It has been accepted by the planners in the report of handling that the broad principle of redevelopment at this site is supported by policy, subject to compliance with other policies within the development plan. Policy 16(f) of NPF4 requires developments to be supported by an agreed timescale for built-out, requires the proposal to otherwise be consistent with the plan spatial strategy including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods and requires the proposal to be for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary and it has been accepted by the planners that this proposal accords with this policy and LDP2 Policy 01. The report of handling confirms that the requirements of all the other policies that were considered in terms of this application are either met or can be met by condition. The planning officer has confirmed at paragraph 5 on page 30 of the agenda pack for the meeting on 28 January that the plan provided by the applicant referenced appendix C on page 16 of the pack for that meeting overcomes concerns regarding outdoor amenity space as it adequately demonstrates the plot can accommodate private garden area, parking and drying facilities. It appears therefore that the only real point of concern is whether the scale and design of the proposal internally provides a suitable residential living environment for future occupants. There are no set dimensions/size requirements in policies 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 or Policies 10, 11 and 66 of the Argyll and Bute Council Local Development Plan 2024 for what is a suitable living space for residential accommodation and consideration of that is therefore subjective. I’ve noted the planners’ concerns based on their full assessment of the proposal and I would likely agree with them if the proposal for the building was that it was to be used as a full time permanent residence. The applicants have confirmed that they propose using the property as a holiday/second home for them and their family, not as a full time residence and not as a holiday let and a condition can be attached to the approval to restrict the occupation of the property in that way. As such, I am of the view that the internal size and internal layout of the property are suitable for its part-time use as a second/holiday home. On the basis of the above, I am of the view that this application can be approved subject to the conditions and reasons contained on pages 11 to 13 of the agenda pack for the meeting on 30 May subject
Page 4
1. to an amendment to condition 1 where it references plan section and elevations proposed plan ref No 1303/P/3-A to include with the amendments to the internal layout shown in plan reference MACK-25/100-02 Rev A on page 5 of the agenda pack for the meeting of this LRB on 30 May and 2. to include a new condition, namely, notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the residential accommodation hereby approved shall be used for short term holiday occupancy for use by the property owner and/or their immediate family only and not as a main residence and shall not be occupied by any family, group or individual for a cumulative period of more than three calendar months in any one year. A register showing dates of arrivals and departures shall be maintained at the premises and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy having regard to the fact that the premises are unsuitable for occupation as a permanent dwelling due to the limited size of the accommodation and lack of space standards identified ; having regard to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. 3. Note to Applicant: For the avoidance of doubt this permission only provides for the occupation of the premises on a short term basis on the grounds that the development is unsuited to full time residential occupation. Specifically the occupation of the premises as a dwelling shall require the benefit of a separate planning permission. Mr Jackson confirmed that the proposed Motion was competent. Councillors Howard and Kain agreed the terms of the Motion. Decision The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de novo, unanimously agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons as outlined in the Motion by Councillor Blair. (Reference: Further written submissions from Applicant, further written submissions from Planning; and comments by Applicant, submitted)