Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 10 October 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 10 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 THURSDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Fiona Howard Attending: Emma Ledsom, Senior Solicitor (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: ROSEBANK, BREADALBANE STREET, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL, PA75 6PD (REF: 24/0012/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 Ms Ledsom, who would provide procedural advice if required. He referred to the further information requested at the previous meeting and to the new information that was agreed to be taken into the process, which was now contained within the Agenda pack for today’s meeting. 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 of the LRB all agreed that they had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review and they proceeded to determine the merits of the case. Councillor Howard said that she had nothing to add to what had been discussed at the previous meeting. She said she would still like to see this proposal approved but would support what everyone else decided. Councillor Armour advised that as he had intimated at the previous meeting, he would have liked to have found a way to approve this proposal. He referred to the additional evidence that had been provided, and advised that he found it difficulty to find a way of going against the view of the Planning Officer. He indicated that he would be happy if the other Members could find a way to approve this as, he said, he did feel that this was something he could support. He said, however, that he did not feel he had received any information that would allow him to prepare a competent Motion to approve the proposal. Councillor Green said that he had studied the information received for this meeting along with the information provided for the previous meeting, and advised that he had come to the same conclusion. He advised that on the basis of the information provided, he could
Page 2
not identify any reasons that would enable the LRB to grant planning permission in this case. He pointed out that the development site was in a Conservation Area and said that the further information sought and received from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer had been helpful in describing what some of the terminology meant. He commented that it did seem to suggest that the proposal would be out of keeping with the area. Councillor Howard said she agreed with everything that Councillor Green had said. She commented that unless it had been just adding, for example, an additional bedroom, she could not find a way of justifying the changes proposed. Councillor Armour said he found this case very difficult. He said he could not find anything wrong with the proposal from a layman’s point of view. He referred to there being no local objection to it and to a couple of letters of support, which, he said, suggested there was local support for it. He advised that he found it really difficult to be refusing this. He commented that the LRB had to take on board the views of the Planning Officer and that they would have to find a really good reason for going against their recommendation, which, he said, he could not. He referred to sitting on other LRB panels before, and commented that they had been fairly straightforward, but this one had not. He said that had Councillors Green or Howard found a way to approve this he would have supported them. Councillor Green said that for him, it came to the size and scale of what was proposed. He said that if it had been on a smaller scale, it might have been easier to justify a departure from the Development Plan. However, he said that due to the scale of the proposal, he found that difficult. On that basis, he said he would move that the decision of the LRB be in line with the advice from Officers in terms of a refusal. Councillor Green moved that planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of handling. Councillor Howard seconded this Motion and no one was otherwise minded. 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 reason stated in the report of handling as detailed below: 1. It is considered that the proposed development by virtue of its size, scale, massing, height and design, would have an adverse visual impact on the immediate and wider surroundings and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the original dwelling. The proposal would be materially harmful to the character, appearance and qualities of the area, the importance of which is acknowledged by the designation of the site as part of the wider Tobermory Conservation Area. Consequently, the proposed development would be in direct conflict with National Planning Policy 4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15 and 17. (Reference: Further written information from the Applicant, the Design and Conservation Officer and the Planning Officer; letter of support from Councillor Kain and comments on this from the Planning Officer, submitted)