Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 26 February 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 26 February 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 WEDNESDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Daniel Hampsey Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager (Adviser) Fiona McCallum, Committee Services Officer (Minute) Emma Ledsom, Solicitor (Observing) 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: FLAT 2, 3 SHORE ROAD, PORT BANNATYNE, ISLE OF BUTE, PA20 0LQ (REF: 25/0001/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 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. The Members all agreed that they had sufficient information to come to a decision on the Review. Councillor Hampsey advised that having read all the paperwork, he would firstly say that it was always disappointing when planning applications had to be refused. He commented that the Planning Officer had provided extensive information to support the reasons for refusing this application. He advised that he had taken on board the supporting information provided by the Applicant in their Appeal but said that he did not think it had sufficiently addressed the reasons for refusal. He advised that fundamentally for him, the application was contrary to 3 NPF4 policies and 5 LDP2 policies and that he would be minded to refuse the Appeal. Councillor Armour said that there was not much more he could add to what had been said by Councillor Hampsey. He said that he did have sympathy for the Applicant and commented that from a layman’s point of view he could not see much wrong with the fence. He noted that an extensive explanation had been provided by the Planning Officer in regard to why it had been refused, and he confirmed that he could see no reason for going against that decision. Councillor Green said he did not think there were any reasons to approve this planning application. He referred to the photographs provided of a variety of fences in the vicinity of the Applicant’s garden, and said he would treat these with caution in terms of the advice
Page 2
provided by the Planning Officer that they had no relevance to the determination of this application. He commented that the photographs showed a variety of fence heights, with some, he suggested, possibly not requiring planning permission. He referred to the photographs of the fence erected by the Applicant and advised that he could not see it being sympathetic to the Conservation area. He commented that some fixtures appeared to be slightly ornate, but it was his view that they did not come across as being particularly authentic or in keeping with the Conservation area and that he was not minded to approve this application. Decision The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de novo, unanimously agreed to refuse the Appeal and uphold the Planning decision to refuse the application for the following reason: 1. The application is recommended for refusal on the grounds the height and design of the fencing is inappropriate for the setting, forming an imposing structure that is likely to harm the amenity of those using the adjoining land, and detracting from the sensitive setting. The development fails to preserve and enhance the historic built environment, contrary to NPF4 Policy 7(d) (Historic Assets and Places), NPF4 Policy 16 (g) (Quality Homes), LDP2 Policy 16 (Listed Buildings), LDP2 Policy 17 (Conservation Areas), and LDP2 Policy 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment). The proposed fencing is considered to be of an inappropriate design, scale, and siting contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), NPF4 Policy 16 (g), LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking); and Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting). (Reference: Notice of Review and Supporting Documents, Comments from Interested Parties, submitted)