Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

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.

 

He referred to the site inspection held earlier today (see note of site inspection attached as Appendix A to this Minute) and to the further information requested from the Planning Officer, and 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 confirmed that the had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review.

 

Councillor Wallace advised that his only concern had been the tight corner at the bottom of the hill.  He said that he had noted that there was plenty of parking available for all the houses even if the neighbours had visitors.

 

Councillor Howard advised that she believed that the tight corner and narrow width of the road would encourage road users to drive with care.

 

Councillor Blair advised that the site inspection had been helpful in that respect.  He advised that he was also pleased to see the red squirrel and noted that the Applicant wished to promote biodiversity in the area.

 

Councillor Howard read out the following Motion:

 

Motion

 

The reason for refusal of this application was an objection from the roads department in relation to intensification of use of the private road and road safety issues related to that which means that the application doesn’t comply with Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 of the current LDP and Policy 37 of the proposed LDP2 this application complies with all other relevant policies in the current LDP and the proposed LDP2.

 

I have noted however that the application complied with all relevant planning policies and there was no objection to this application on any other policy grounds from the Planning Department.

 

The Applicant’s agent has confirmed that the applicants could use two rooms within their dwelling house for bed and breakfast accommodation in terms of Class 9 (houses) of the Use Classes Order without need to apply for planning permission and as such the roads department could not raise any objection on the grounds of intensification of use of the road.

 

The Applicants’ agent has raised the issue of precedent in regard to the approval of similar application but I do not consider that there has been a precedent as each application must be considered on its own merits.

 

It is entirely possible that had the LRB’s for Broomhill (22/01001/PP) and Soroba Lodge (20/01542/PP) been made up of different Members then a different decision could have been reached in respect of those and I’ve noted that the minute of the LRB for Broomhill records that it was a majority decision of the LRB as one of the Members confirmed that he agreed with the recommendation from the Roads Department that the application be refused.

 

Turning to the road safety issues identified by the planners/roads department, in relation to the single track access road and potential implications for road users and members of the public.

 

I have noted that the property is fully occupied by the family and there is no likelihood at this point in time of the house being used as bed and breakfast accommodation, nor has it been used as such in the past, so on that basis, I recognise the point that an approval of this application will mean by default that there will be an intensification of the use of the road.

 

It has been confirmed at the site visit that the private road has been used without any issues for a number of years and it has been helpful to have had the opportunity of undertaking the site visit.

 

The impact of the intensification on road safety is a subjective matter and while I understand the concerns of the planners/roads department about the single track road and the junction between Polvinister Road and Glencruitten Road, the road users should be driving to road conditions with appropriate levels of care.

 

Having considered the representations of all the interested parties, including the confirmation by the Applicant’s agent that the pod would only be occupied for periods of not less than 3 days, I do not consider that the small intensification of the use of the road due to the pod will cause an increase in road safety issues, such as to warrant a refusal of this application.

 

I am of the view therefore that this application can be approved and I would therefore move that the application is approved as a minor departure from NPF4 Policy 13 and Policy 37 of LDP2 subject to the conditions and reasons provided by the planners as detailed on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the papers for today’s meeting along with the following additional conditions which in effect restrict (1) the use of the pod for bed and breakfast, if at any point the principal house is being used for bed and breakfast and (2) ensures that the pod is only made available for periods of not less than a 3-day occupancy.

 

Condition - Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 as amended, the new glamping pod hereby approved must not be occupied during any period when any bedrooms within the principal dwellinghouse are operating as [or being occupied as] bed and breakfast or guest house accommodation.

 

Reason - In the interests of road safety

Condition - Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 as amended, the new glamping pod hereby approved must only be made available for periods not less than a 3-day occupancy.

 

Reason - In the interests of road safety.

 

Councillor Peter Wallace advised that he would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.