Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 14 October 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 14 October 2024 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, 14 OCTOBER 2024 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager (Adviser) Fiona McCallum, Committee Services Officer (Minutes) 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 WEST OF STRATHHOLM, CLACHAN, TARBERT (REF: 24/0009/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. Before proceeding further he invited Mr Jackson to provide an update on the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment (FSA) by the Applicant. Mr Jackson referred to the first meeting of the LRB held on 20 June 2024 when Members agreed to request from the Applicant a Flood Risk Assessment that could be assessed by SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Adviser. Appropriate conditions and reasons to attach to any consent in the event the Members of the LRB were minded to approve the application, taking account of the assessment by SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Adviser, were also requested from the Planning Officer. Mr Jackson advised that confirmation had been received from the Applicant’s Agent the day before the deadline for submission of this FSA that the Applicant had made the decision not to proceed with the FSA as it was deemed to be too expensive and costly for him to proceed. It had therefore not been possible for SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor to submit an assessment of a FSA, nor the Planning Officer to submit the further information the LRB requested from them either. Mr Jackson invited the Members of the LRB to consider how they wished to proceed with this case. Councillor Blair commented that all the Members agreed at the last meeting that this Flood Risk Assessment should be requested from the Applicant. He advised that as this has not been, and will not be, provided, he felt the LRB had no option but to uphold the Planning Officer’s decision to refuse this application. Councillor Irvine agreed with this statement.
Page 2
Councillor Kain also agreed but wanted it to be noted that there appeared to be a lot of confusion in the process between SEPA and the Planning Service. Councillor Blair advised that he thought that Officers had been quite clear and that the LRB had also made it quite clear at the previous meeting that the Applicant should arrange for the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment. He acknowledged that there had been a delay during the planning application process and said he felt that the Members of the LRB had done as much as they could do in respect of this case. Decision The Argyll and Bute LRB, having considered the merits of the case de novo, agreed to uphold the Planning Officer’s decision to refuse planning permission for the following reason: 1. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the provisions NPF4 Policy 22; LDP2 policies 55 and 57 on grounds that, in the absence of substantive evidence, it would lead to a greater risk of flooding than currently exists for future occupants of the proposed development, and for others in the area. Specifically, the applicant has failed to provide a flood risk assessment to allow further consideration of these matters. Given that the Council's Flood Risk Advisor and SEPA (a statutory consultee on flooding) have both objected and the applicant has not provided any evidence in response to demonstrate that the development will not be subject to flood risk nor exacerbate flood risk elsewhere, then the development can only be considered to conflict with the aforementioned relevant policies of NPF4 and LDP2 as they relate to flood risk.