Venue: By MS Teams
Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel: 01546 604269
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: There were no apologies for absence. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: SOROBA LODGE, OBAN PA34 4SB PDF 142 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair, Councillor David
Kinniburgh, 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. Councillor Forrest advised she felt she did not
have enough information to come to a decision.
Councillor Redman agreed with Councillor Forrest. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he felt he
did have enough information to come to a decision but was open to hearing the
views of the other Members. Councillor Forrest advised that she would like
further information from planning with a view to exploring the possibility of a
competent motion to grant the application. She advised that she would like
further information around the possibility of conditions which sought a
construction method statement in relation to the issues raised around the state
of the bridge and the possibility of a Section 75 Agreement to regularise the
use of the existing B&B rooms within the house. Councillor Alistair Redman advised that he seconded
what Councillor Forrest had said. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he felt the
issue was the bridge and referred to the approval of the neighbouring
application in which the Reporter had been satisfied with a condition which
required a report on the bridge; stating that the difference with that
application was that the applicant had owned the private access road and
bridge. Mr Jackson asked the Members of the LRB if they
required any information from the applicant to which they confirmed they did
not. He explained, as the applicant and
his agent were present, that members of the LRB were seeking further
information to explore the possibility of a competent motion; and that
exploring the possibility of a competent motion did not mean that the
application would be approved. He asked the members of the LRB if they wanted
to ask planning to prepare conditions and reasons that could accompany an
approval should the LRB be so minded, or if they would like to wait until the
further information had been received. Councillor Forrest confirmed that she would like
conditions and reasons prepared so as not to delay the process. Councillor Kinniburgh asked if conditions could be
prepared in advance of a competent motion being prepared. Mr Jackson confirmed that the further
information Councillor Forrest has asked the Planners for related to whether it
was possible to have a condition or a Section 75 Agreement to regularise the
use of the main house for B&B and the pods and whether a condition
requiring a construction method statement would be possible and it may be best
to wait for that information before asking for them to provide a full set of
conditions to go with an approval should Councillor Forrest manage to form
competent motion. Councillor Kinniburgh and Councillor Forrest agreed not to
ask the Planners for a full set of conditions at this stage. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that it would be
useful to obtain clarification from planning around their reasons for stating
that the development would result in the intensification of use of the
access. He asked if it was because the
bedrooms in the house could still be used by friends and family members even if
there was a condition in place that prevented their use as a B&B. Mr Jackson summarised the LRBs request for further
information as being a request to the planning department to provide a view on
whether there could be a planning condition that required the completion of a
construction method statement to mitigate the issues that have been raised in
regard to the access; to provide a view in relation to the two pods being used
instead of the two rooms in the house as B&B and whether there could be a
condition or Section 75 Agreement to manage that. Councillor Kinniburgh advised
that it would also be helpful to obtain information on whether a condition
could be placed on any approval around the weight of any vehicle used during
construction and if a condition could be placed on the bridge if it is not
owned by the applicant. Mr Jackson advised that the information about the
bridge could likely be included as part of the construction method statement
but it could be clarified by planning.
He confirmed that planning would have 14 days to provide further
information and thereafter interested parties would have a further 14 days to
comment on this. Decision The Argyll and Bute LRB – 1. Agreed to request the
following further written information from the Planning Officer –
2. Agreed to adjourn the meeting
and to reconvene once this further information had been received and interested
parties had been given the opportunity to comment on it. (Reference: Notice of Review and Supporting Papers, Comments from Interested Parties, and Comments from Applicant, submitted) |