Â鶹Ãâ·Ñ°æ

There were no apologies for absence intimated.

There were no declarations of interest intimated.

The Chair, Councillor Kieron Green, welcomed everyone to the meeting.Ìý 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.

Referring to the decision at the previous meeting of the Local Review Body, to continue consideration of the Notice of Review Request to allow for the Roads response to be considered, the Chair advised that his first task would be to establish if the Members of the LRB felt that they now had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review.

Both Councillor’s Irvine and McCabe confirmed that they did have sufficient information to come to a decision on the Review.

Referring to discussions at previous meetings, the Chair, asked whether it had been possible to bring forward a competent motion for consideration.Ìý

Councillor Irvine advised that having considered the information provided by the Road’s authority he no longer considered it necessary to bring forward a competent motion.

Councillor Green advised that in his opinion the argument had been finely balanced, however on consideration of the information provided by the Roads authority, he was no longer in any doubt and as such had no option but to go with the initial Planning Officer recommendations and refuse the application.Ìý

Both Councillors Irvine and McCabe advised that they too were of the same opinion.

With no one being otherwise minded this became the decision of the LRB.Ìý Ìý

Decision

The Â鶹Ãâ·Ñ°æ and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de novo, unanimously agreed to uphold the decision of the Planning authority to refuse planning permission for the following reason(s):-

1.    The proposal does not accord with the Development Plan policies namely LDP 11 Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure and SG LDP TRAN 4 which sets out the construction standards to be applied in relation to a private driveway on to a public road, given the widening of the driveway is unnecessary and even though it is not proposed to be used for parking, it will encourage vehicles to park here and they will have to reverse on to the street near a bend where there is poor visibility. It would also be contrary to the Proposed LDP Policy 35 for the same reasons.

2.    In addition the displacement of pedestrians from the grass verge on to the road, due to parking on the widened driveway would present a potential conflict with vehicles. The current pedestrian access to no 50 is adequate and meets Roads Authority guidelines and requirements.

3.    The widening of the driveway would encourage parking on the grass verge, which would be out of character with the Conservation Area, where the grass verge is a dominant feature and a crucial element of the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 7 Historic Assets and Places part d which states that proposals in or affecting conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation is preserved or enhanced. The proposal is also contrary to the relevant Local Development Plan policies LDP3 and SG LDP ENV 17 and the proposed Local Development Plan policy 15.

4.    In addition, the proposal is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 alongside Local Development Plan design policy 9, SG LDP Sustainable siting and design principles and the proposed LDP policies 05 and 10 given the proposal does not achieve a good quality place and erodes the quality of the place.

(Reference:Ìý Further written submissions from the Roads Authority and Comments from the Applicant, submitted)