Venue: By Microsoft Teams
Contact: Lynsey Innis, Senior Committee Assistant Tel: 01546 604338
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: There were no apologies for absence intimated. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were no declarations of interest intimated. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: 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) |