►
From YouTube: Local Review Body Panel (Part 2) - 10-12-2021
Description
Second part of the meeting of the Local Review Body Panel broadcast live on Microsoft Teams held on 10th December 2021.
Full agenda can be read at: https://minutes.stirling.gov.uk/PDFs/LocalReview/Agendas/LocalReviewAgenda.pdf
B
B
B
We
have
excuse
me:
ewan,
grant
who's
a
legal
advisor
and
richard
calendar,
who
will
be
advising
us
on
planning
matters.
Also
at
the
meeting
is
sheila
mclean,
who
will
be
clarking.
The
meeting
on
our
behalf
and
owen
o'donnell
will
be
keeping
it
right
in
regard
to
the
youtube
video.
I've
got
a
statement
to
read
out.
B
B
Can
members,
please
mute
your
microphones
throughout
the
meeting
when
not
speaking,
this
is
important,
since
it
helps
to
ensure
the
quality
of
the
audio
for
all
present.
Your
microphone
should
be
switched
on
when
invited
to
speak
and
switched
off.
When
you
have
finished
speaking,
please
use
the
raise
hand
button
to
indicate
that
you
wish
to
speak.
At
any
point,
I
do
appreciate
there
are
people
on
the
telephone
and
won't
be
able
to
do
that.
B
So,
if
you
could
just
let
me
know
if
any
members
lose
connection
or
have
any
technical
issues
during
the
meeting,
please
elect
the
quark
as
soon
as
possible,
either
using
the
chat
function
within
the
meeting
or
by
email
or
phone
I'll.
Now
ask
the
clerk
to
carry
a
roll
call
of
the
elected
members
participating
in
today's
meeting.
C
B
B
On
that
basis,
we
will
be
inviting
richard
calendar
to
make
a
presentation
followed
by
the
applicant
and
a
stephen
spears,
who,
I
believe,
is
the
development
control
officer
for
sterling
council.
Mr
houghton,
you
have
five
minutes
for
the
presentation
when
it
reaches
that
point.
So
if
you
could
decide
amongst
yourselves
whether
you
want
to
spread
that
five
minutes
over
over
the
three
representatives
that
you
have
here
today
or
it's
one
individual
I'll,
also
let
you
know
at
the
time.
E
E
Excuse
me,
the
selection
of
five
holiday
accommodation
units
offers
caffeine,
toilets
retrospective
application
reference
number:
twenty
zero
zero
six,
eight
five
film
drum
ray
farm
pinewood,
road
birds
of
refused
on
our
delegate,
repairs,
28th
of
july
2021,
reference
to
agenda
papers,
the
application
for
review
and
review
statement,
supporting
documents,
pages,
125-131
plan,
application,
form
decision
notice
and
reporter
handling
pages.
132-146
reasons
for
refusal
are
that,
in
the
opinion
of
the
planning
authority,
the
development
has
been
unable
to
ensure
a
safe
means
of
access
scale.
E
E
An
access
appraisal
prepared
in
response
to
the
road
service,
consultation,
response
to
the
planet,
applications
periods,
147-156
application
plans
and
supporting
landscaping,
visual
appraisal
pages,
one
five,
seven
to
one.
Eighty,
eight
I'll
just
share
the
presentation.
The
powerpoint
presentation.
E
E
E
And
so
sits
above
bridge
of
ireland
and
northern
bridge
of
allen,
access
is
taken
from
pendery
growth,
which
leads
both
to
pembroke
farm
and
also
at
the
sheriff
new
york.
This
is
the
junction
to
the
left.
You
take
road
rises
up
and
you
reach
lumbery
farm,
and
the
parking
area
is
referred
to
in
some
of
the
submissions.
This
is
our
car
park
that
serves
a
path
network
in
the
forest
area
here
and
also
obviously,
facilities
access
further
to
the
north
as
well.
E
The
actual
development
itself,
which
is
a
retrospective
application,
comprises
the
pods
and
all
the
units,
a
strike
bar
soft
plane
ceiling
or
office
and
toilet
block,
as
laid
out
in
this
area
here,
and
the
pods
shown
near
to
the
south
position
of
the
access
is
shown
here.
This
is
the
public
road
itself
and
access
to
the
farm
steering
and
associated
development,
including
the
quality
development
that
is
just
coming
off
this
site.
E
This
is
the
view
of
the
public
road
and
some
of
the
parts
come
into
view
here,
slightly
longer
view
showing
access
and
the
cottage
and
a
lot
of
you
looking
to
say
the
societies,
as
we
say,
with
the
access
road
returning
to
the
available
presentation,
broadcast
consultation,
response
to
the
plan
application
and
ensuring
correspondence
pages.
One.
E
Access
to
several
additional
vehicle
movements
generated
by
the
holiday
accommodation,
development,
application,
submissions,
page
227-14,
with
submissions
from
stephen
spears,
development
control
officer.
Still
in
council
pages,
241-244
applicants
responds
to
the
written
submission
pages
245
to
250..
The
controls
responds
to
these
fundamental
submissions.
Page
two,
five
one:
two:
two:
five:
two
hearing
statements
from
the
applicant
page
253,
a
hearing
statement
from
the
development
control
officer,
page
two,
five,
five,
two:
three:
five
six
end:
the
presentation.
Thank
you.
E
B
E
H
B
I
F
J
Yeah,
I
don't
really
have
much
more
to
say.
We
are,
I
suppose,
in
quite
disagreement
with
the
the
view
of
what
pendress
road
is.
It's
a
three
metre
wide
new
class
rural
road
there's
a
lot
of
debate
about
the
standards
applied
to
that
road.
We
don't
think
applicable
that
people
are
applied
to
the
the
road
or
the
trunks,
and
that's
where
the
the
difference
comes
with
ourselves.
J
B
G
G
Is
it
been
looked
at
through
two
different
prisms
there's
one
as
one
set
of
professionals
looking
at
it
as
a
road
and
another
set
of
professionals?
Looking
at
us
as
a
streets
up,
I'm
I'm
confused
as
to
why
there
is
this
difference
of
of
of
opinions.
I
I
I'm
the
counsellor
for
the
for
the
area
for
bridgevale
and
the
blind,
so
I
know
the
area
I
know
the
road
I
I'm
actually,
when
I
looked
at
the
traffic
results
and
speeds,
I'm
surprised
they
were
as
high.
G
It's
not
my
in
my
experience
when
you're
on
that
road
you
want
to
go
at
any
kind
of
speed
at
all
and
speed
is
not.
I
know
an
issue
about
visibility
displays,
but
how
do
we
get
our
way
through
the
understanding
of
the
opinions
of
two
professionals
on
on
this?
As
I
say,
I'd
like
to
know
whether
or
not
they
are
looking
at
two
different
sets
of
criteria
and
hence
the
difference
of
opinions.
B
E
Yeah,
sorry,
it's
just
to
make
sure
that
there's
still
a
hearing
statement
from
the
roads
officer
that
really
covers
up
these
points
as
well.
So
it's
whether
the
debate
could
take
place
after
you've
heard
from
the
roads
officers,
where
the
two
cases
have
been
sort
of
explained
from
a
professional
viewpoint,
and
then
you
can
look
at
it
from
from
your
own
perspective,
to
try
and
get
an
answer
to
the
questions.
You're.
Looking
for.
B
J
K
J
K
Yeah,
I
I
I
will
just
road-
is
a
three
meter
wide
at
best
c-class
road,
but
morality,
a
u-class
road,
it's
a
road,
but
what
I've
tried
to
demonstrate
in
my
documentation
is
that
dmrb
is
not
applicable.
For
a
word
of
this
nature,
dmrb
is
meant
for
two-way
traffic
roads.
It's
meant
for
a
standard
road,
as
we
would
all
consider
it.
Not
a
rural
road,
as
dependence
rule
is,
which
is
why
we've
looked
at
designing
streets
because
it
looks
at
roads
that
have
lower
speed
limits.
K
Dmrb
only
goes
down
to
a
road
that
has
a
30
mile,
an
hour,
design,
speed
and
we've
demonstrated
that
we're
we're
well
under
that
and,
as
the
council
just
said,
potentially
in
the
speed
limits
that
we've
had
undertake.
So
that's
why
we've
looked
at
designing
streets
because
we
don't
feel
that
dmrb
is
applicable.
There
isn't
another
documentation
for
for
a
road
of
this
nature.
It
is
you
know
this.
The
sight
lines
around
bends.
The
ability
to
pass
another
vehicle
are
all
restricted.
K
Therefore,
speeds
are
very
low,
which
is
part
of
saying
that
the
the
visibility
space
should
be
in
that
context
as
well,
which
is
why
we've
suggested
they're
more
akin
to
designing
streets.
So
there
isn't.
I
don't
think,
there's
really
a
document
that
embraces
a
road
of
this
nature,
but
that's
what
so?
That's
where
the
disagreement
comes
with
the
council,
the
roads
office.
B
L
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much
cheer
good
morning,
I'm
stephen
spears,
the
development
control
officer
with
sterling
council
members
of
the
local
review
body.
Thank
you
for
the
invitation
to
provide
a
brief
statement
with
regards
to
the
view
of
the
transport
development
team
in
relation
to
the
current
plan.
Application
as
you'll
be
aware
from
an
initial
consultation
response,
alongside
the
further
written
submission
prepared
and
submitted
at
your
request.
L
For
the
reasons
set
out
within
a
further
written
supplement,
a
statement.
I
would
advise
members
that
the
provision
of
sufficient
visibility
displays
should
be
fully
considered
that
the
relevant
guidance
identified
by
our
service
in
this
instance
to
be
contained
within
the
design
manual
for
roads
and
bridges
should
be
followed
to
ensure
there
is
no
detrimental
impact
to
roads
or
safety.
L
As
a
result
of
the
proposed
development,
it
remains
the
opinion
of
the
transport
development
team
that
sufficient
visibility
is
placed
which
should
be
provided
commensurate
with
the
aforementioned
guidance
cannot
be
provided
at
this
junction
and
therefore
the
proposed
development
represents
an
impact
on
road
safety.
Thank
you.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
F
B
L
Yeah,
I
think,
in
a
so
one
of
the
documents
we
submitted
was
a
response
to
the
applicants
for
the
written
statement.
I
think
that's
section
4h
within
the
hearing
documentation
within
that
we
sort
of
look
or
I
have
looked
at
what
designing
streets
states
as
the
context
in
which
it
should
be
applied
and
what
constitutes
a
street.
I
think,
as
the
applicant's
agent
is
highlighted,
there
is
no
applicable
guidance
that
that
is
explicitly
stated.
L
Yeah
and
so
firstly,
the
the
lining
of
the
roads,
the
road
is
currently
unlined
and
there's
no
intentions
to
line
that
road.
It's
typical
of
rural
roads
of
this
nature
that
that
lining
isn't
isn't
considered
appropriate.
It
can
narrow
the
the
existing
road
with
down
and
that
can
be
detrimental
and
in
terms
of
lining,
specifically
the
the
junction
itself's,
no
implementing
a
giveaway
lying
across
that
that
may
be
something
that
the
applicant
wished
to
promote
as
part
of
their
application.
L
I
think
this
was
a
consideration
we
discussed
with
the
planning
officer
when
we
initially
reviewed
the
application,
the
understanding
that
the
the
the
horse
riding
and
the
library
behind
that
have
ceased
to
operate,
but
that
there's
no
planning
control
measures
that
can
be
put
in
place
to
ensure
that
that
traffic
doesn't
then
come
back
with
the
a
resuming
of
those
operations
and
therefore
we
viewed
the
sucker
20
daily
trips
that
this
facility
would
generate
as
being
a
significant
change
to
the
use
of
this
access.
Junction.
B
G
Kesley
houston,
do
you
very
much
support
that,
as
I
say,
knowing
the
area
and
knowing
the
previous
business
and
the
traffic?
That's
that's
been
generated
by
that
without
to
my
knowledge
incident,
and
certainly
not
an
issue,
that's
of
any
concern
in
the
locality
of
of
residents
et
cetera,
around
bridge
of
island.
There's
no
issues
about
this
being
a
dangerous
site
in
in
any
way,
and
I
don't
think
we
can
legislate
for
what
might
happen
in
the
future
and
and
therefore
prevent
a
business
going
forward.
G
G
F
H
H
B
E
E
I
don't
think
in
terms
of
the
actual
day-to-day
use
of
the
premises
that
seems
to
be
accepted,
as
has
been
accepted
as
being
acceptable
from
a
planning
point
of
view
from
from
the
case
office
perspective.
So
it's
really
just
the
access
situation,
so
I
mean
they
give
away
signage.
We
would
have
to
comply
with
any
public
standards
because
he
may
be
referred
to
these,
but
it
would
be
within
the
cartilage
of
the
property
and
whatever
the
the
the
sort
of
adopted
road
ends.
E
G
Just
for
clarity,
who
are
we
asking
to
put
the
white
lining
in
and
where
is
this
at
at
the
access
and
and
point
and
in
the
land
ownership
or
because
I
don't
think
we
as
a
local
roadblock,
could
put
a
condition
on
an
application
for
the
council
to
carry
out
some
work.
So
just
want
clarification
so
that
everyone
knows
what
we're
expecting.