Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 22 April 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 22 April 2026 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 PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Malachi Leiper, Applicant Sergeant Ben Rusden, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A METAL DEALERS LICENCE (M LEIPER, LOCHGILPHEAD) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Mr Leiper joined the meeting by telephone. Sergeant Ben Rusden from Police Scotland also opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Council’s Solicitor referred to a preliminary matter and advised that Police Scotland had requested the Committee take account of a number of matters which were considered “spent” in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It was noted that the Committee may take into consideration evidence relating to “spent” matters where they were satisfied that justice could not be done except by admitting such evidence. The procedure that would be followed in this respect was outlined by the Council’s Solicitor and the Chair invited Sergeant Rusden to address the relevancy of the “spent” matters. Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden referred to the dates and the number of these spent convictions and said that he felt it was important that the Committee were fully appraised of these. The Chair then invited the Applicant to ask Police Scotland questions and to address the relevancy of the “spent” matters to his application.
Page 2
Applicant Mr Leiper said he had no questions and confirmed that he was content for the convictions to be disclosed. The Chair invited Police Scotland to comment on the Applicant’s submission. Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden advised that he had nothing further to add at this time. The Chair then invited Members to ask questions and determine the relevancy of the “spent” convictions. Members’ Question and Debate Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from Mr Leiper that he was comfortable with the Committee having oversight of his spent convictions. The Committee agreed that justice could not be done without admitting the “spent” convictions into the process due to the number of them spanning a number of years. A letter dated 24 March 2026 from Police Scotland outlining the detail of the “spent” convictions was circulated. After a brief adjournment the Committee reconvened at 4.00 pm. The Chair outlined the hearing procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr Leiper said this was his first time applying for a Metal Dealer’s Licence. He advised that he was currently employed delivering fruit and vegetables. He said that his dad and granddad had worked for many years in the scrap metal business and that was something he wanted to do for himself. He said that he had bought premises to run his business from and that he had applied for relevant licences and permissions from SEPA and the Council’s Planning Service. He said that he had experience of working with scrap cars for around 20 years and that he was going through the correct channels to make everything legal. He referred to a couple of previous convictions from his earlier years and explained the circumstances of each of these. He advised that his most recent conviction was in relation to being stopped while driving his work van and the vehicle was found to have bald tyres. He said he attended Court on 20 April 2026 and received 3 penalty points and a fine. He also advised of other previous convictions and explained the circumstances of each of these. QUESTIONS FROM POLICE Sergeant Rusden advised that he had no questions.
Page 3
POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant referred to a letter dated 24 March 2026 which advised that the Chief Constable objected to this application on the grounds that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to be the holder of the licence by virtue of an incident which took place on 22 April 2025. He noted that this issue had now been resolved at Court as intimated by Mr Leiper. Sergeant Rusden also referred to a separate letter dated 24 March 2026 which advised of a number of convictions the Applicant had which were considered “spent” in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. These related to incidents which took place on 1 March 2008, 9 February 2008, 10 February 2008, 20 April 2010, 15 August 2013, various dates between January 2010 and December 2016, and on various dates in July 2023 and he explained the details of each of these. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr Leiper advised that he had no questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Blair referred to the number of convictions Mr Leiper had and asked if he had ever undertaken an anger management course in view of his conduct. Mr Leiper advised that along with a prosecution in respect of one his offences he also had to attend an anger management course. Councillor Blair asked Mr Leiper if he felt attending this course had worked. Mr Leiper referred to being hot headed at the time of the incident. He said that having undertaken the anger management course he realised it was better to walk away and that it was not worth the results of his actions that followed. He said that since then he always walked away from any potential altercations. Councillor Green referred to an incident from April 2010 which involved the theft of alcohol and cash. He asked Mr Leiper if that was all that had been taken. Mr Leiper explained that he had been with 2 people and that he had not entered the premises but the stolen goods had been brought back to his flat where there was a party going on. He said it was a stupid and reckless thing to do and confirmed that it was just cash and alcohol that had been taken. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr Leiper that this was the only time he had been involved in an acquisitive crime. Mr Leiper advised that since then he had tried to keep on the right side of the law. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that he was only aware of one record of acquisitive crime linked to Mr Leiper. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle referred to Mr Leiper currently working full time delivering fruit and vegetables. She asked Mr Leiper what his motivation was for changing careers and moving to this area of business. Mr Leiper said that he has been in his current employment, working for the same company for 8 years. He said that he has been involved with scrap cars for 20 years since he was young with his dad and granddad. He advised that he has always enjoyed working with engines and that when he was younger he wanted to own his own garage and scrap yard as this was the way he was brought up.
Page 4
He said it would not be a career change as it has always been something he has been involved with. He advised that he would continue to work in his current employment as this job was always finished by lunch time. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle referred to the important industry Mr Leiper wished to be part of on a part time basis and commented that there were a lot of serious obligations in respect of health and safety, the environment etc in this line of work. She noted that Mr Leiper had mentioned that he had engaged with SEPA and Planning regarding the premises he had secured. She asked Mr Leiper if he could outline what his understanding was of the obligations he would have as a metal dealer. Mr Leiper advised that he had done research on the internet to find out what was required. He said that he had approached SEPA about what the rules and regulations were in terms of keeping good records in respect of waste management, goods coming in and going out, and protecting the environment. He said he wanted to keep on the right side of the law and had approached all the relevant agencies to assist him with opening up a metal dealer’s business. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought confirmation from Mr Leiper that although he had been involved and been around dealing with scrap metal for some time on an informal basis, he had no experience of meeting the legal obligations, the health and safety obligations, and environmental obligations connected to this industry, but he was engaging with various agencies in the hope that he would be able to achieve that on a more formal basis. Mr Leiper replied yes and no. He said that he had a SEPA licence to carry waste metals but needed a different licence to meet the regulations for opening a yard. Councillor Philand referred to Mr Leiper’s multiple convictions and asked Mr Leiper what he had learnt as a person about his behaviour over the last few years. Mr Leiper said his previous convictions went back to 2008 when he was 17 years old. He said he had a car and at that time he thought he was invincible. He also did not have any children then and he got in with the wrong crowd. He advised that he did not get on well at school and left at 16 years and was always a worker. He advised that he was 36 years old now and that he was ashamed of his past offences which, he said, were mainly assaults and breaches of the peace. He said that looking back he had been hindered by these moving forward and that they had not been worth it. He said he wanted to look to the future now and set a good example to his children and to work hard to get to where he wanted to be in life. Mr Leiper acknowledged that the convictions did not look good. He said they were all from earlier in his life and that he was trying to get past these and move on. He said he could not change the past but wanted to do everything for his children and be a better role model for them. He said that he had always wanted to own a scrap yard and work with his children like he did with his dad when he was young. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Leiper that he believed he was in a better place now. Mr Leiper said that his mum and dad worked hard when he was young and he could remember them working in all weathers. He said that roles had reversed now and the lorries were newer and that he had progressed from having one lorry to 4 lorries. He advised that going forward he was in a better place now than where he was 5 years ago. Councillor Armour referred to the conviction in 2023 in relation to incidents which took place between January 2010 and December 2016. He asked Sergeant Rusden why it had taken so long to bring these offences to Court. Sergeant Rusden explained that these were domestic abuse offences. He advised it could take years for these types of offences
Page 5
to surface as a victim may not have been able to reach out until they had reached a crisis point or separated from their partner. He advised that he was not saying that was the case here but this was in general terms. He advised that once an offence of this nature was made known to them it could take years to carry out investigations and make enquiries. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that the offences Mr Leiper committed between 2010 and 2016 related to an ex-partner that he had two children with and were initially reported in 2019. SUMMING UP Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden provided a brief summary of each of the offences which ranged from, non-compliance, dangerous driving, loss of self-control, dishonesty, and domestic abuse. He advised it was for the Committee to decide what had changed in terms of Mr Leiper’s behaviour since these offences. Applicant Mr Leiper advised that some of these convictions had happened 13 years ago. He advised that the most recent one was in relation to swearing at children and he said he was not aggressive. He explained that his current partner had two children that were always bickering and fighting and that he had shouted out at them. He referred to his driving conviction which, he said was many years ago and that he had got in with the wrong crowd. He advised that he was trying to move on with his life. He said he felt he had matured. He advised that he had a fiancée, a house, his children were getting older, and that he was trying to achieve his goals in life. He said he personally felt he had matured as he had gotten older and compared to when he was 18 years old, he was in a better place. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that if there was a breach of any of the conditions for this type of licence it could be reported to the licensing team and this would be investigated and brought to the Committee’s attention as soon as possible for review. The Council’s Solicitor also confirmed that if the application was refused today, Mr Leiper would not be able to reapply for 12 months. Councillor Green said he had not reached a final view at the moment. He commented that this was an application for a Metal Dealer’s licence and he was not sure if any of the offences fully related to this type of work. He noted that many had taken place some time ago and on only one occasion was this linked to acquisitive crime. He said that gave him some confidence in the suitability of the Applicant. He advised that the record did speak clearly for itself and that the Applicant did have a history but he was not sure how relevant this would be to running a metal business. He said he would be interested to hear what other Members thought. Councillor Blair advised that looking at Mr Leiper’s criminal record, he had taken some comfort from the comments and frankness from Mr Leiper who had made clear his
Page 6
position, stating that he was wiser now with a better outlook on life. He said he was concerned about whether the planning and environmental health side of things would be complied with. He noted the number of times Mr Leiper had broken the rules before and he said he would be concerned about providing a licence to someone who may break the rules again. He commented that it was quite an important role in the community in respect of recycling materials. On balance he said he would be happy to give his support to this new business with the warning that Council Officers and other professionals would be able to check if all the rules and regulations where being complied with and that it would be up to Mr Leiper to comply with the rules and regulations stipulated. He advised that he was tempted to support the application knowing full well that if the licence was approved it could be taken away very quickly. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle said she would wait to hear from all Members. She advised that she did have concerns regarding non-compliant behaviour and understanding and following the serious obligations which would be required under the Metal Dealer’s licence. She said that the impact in terms of not following those obligations, particularly around health and safety, would be very dangerous and the impact would not be great for people in and around the area if things were not followed correctly. She advised that in the event obligations were not followed then there could be very serious consequences for people and the environment. She noted that Mr Leiper had been very candid in setting out ways he was trying to change his behaviour but, she advised, she still had concerns about granting the licence. Councillor Philand said this was classic case of the past catching up with a person. He questioned whether Mr Leiper should be penalised for at least attempting to do something to better himself. He said he understood the worries about the regulations, but noted that there were Officers employed to keep an eye on that. He said he was reassured by the Council’s Solicitor advising that if there were any issues then it could be brought back to the Committee very quickly. He said he was a great believer in giving someone a chance, particularly a young person with a young family that hoped to take on a business he had experience of. He said he could not condone the past behaviour but he advised that Mr Leiper had given enough reassurance that these were silly and stupid things he had done as a young boy. Councillor Philand said he would be willing to support the application with the safeguards outlined by the Council’s Solicitor. Councillor Blair said he would propose accepting this application. He said he was content there were safeguards in place that if there were any issues it could come back to the Committee to be dealt with promptly. He said he had no reason to doubt Mr Leiper. Councillor Philand said he would second this proposal. Councillor Armour said he would also be happy to support the application. He noted that a lot of points had been made and commented that Councillor Green had summed up what went on in the past in respect of whether any of these offences would preclude someone from this type of business. Councillor Hardie also confirmed he would be happy to support the application. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle said she would not be looking to put up an amendment but was assured that her comments would have been noted. Councillor Green advised that on balance he thought the Committee should be supporting this and that he was happy to go with Councillor Blair’s suggestion.
Page 7
DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a Metal Dealer’s Licence to Mr Leiper and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted and Letter from Police Scotland dated 24 March 2026, tabled)