►
From YouTube: 10-12-21 Local Review Body Panel (Part 1)
Description
Part 1 of the meeting of the Local Body Review Panel held on 10th December 2021.
Full agenda can be viewed at: https://minutes.stirling.gov.uk/PDFs/LocalReview/Agendas/LocalReviewAgenda.pdf
B
B
First,
just
a
brief
statement
on
the
protocols
to
be
followed
during
this
remote
meeting.
Please
note
that
this
meeting
has
been
broadcast
and
the
recording
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
following
the
meeting
can
members
please
mute
their
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.
B
At
any
point,
I
do
appreciate
some
people
are
on
by
telephone,
so
you'll
just
have
to
make
me
aware
of
that
or
through
audio
if
any
member
lose
connection
or
have
any
technical
issues.
During
the
meeting,
please
alert
the
clerk
as
soon
as
possible,
either
using
the
chat
function
within
the
meeting
or
by
email
telephone
I'll.
Now
ask
the
clerk
to
carry
a
roll
call
of
the
elected
members
participating
in
today's
meeting.
C
B
B
B
B
Stuart
mcgarvey
acting
as
agent
is
that
correct
stewart,
correct
and
there's
nobody
else
attending
on
your
your
behalf.
Now,
no
okay!
Thank
you!
Okay,
the
the
hearing
process.
It's
a
presentation
by
the
planning
advisor
richard
calendar,
then
a
presentation
by
yourself,
mr
mcgarvey,
presentation
by
the
senior
development
control
officer
each
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes.
B
D
Hi
good
morning,
everybody,
the
planning
advisor
to
the
local
review
body,
just
a
presentation
comprising
just
a
verbal
presentation,
summarizes
the
agenda
papers
for
this
case,
and
that
includes
our
powerpoint
presentation,
which
will
show
the
application
plans
and
site
photographs,
and
the
background
too.
The
review
is
mr
stuart
mcgarvey
planning
consultant
on
behalf
of
mr
derrick
kilgoin,
like
camera
homes,
limited
seeking
review
and
delegated
decision
to
defuse
planning
permission.
D
The
direction
of
four
numbered
mailing
houses
at
the
former
stockholm
gun
site,
plainfield
refused
under
delegated
powers,
12th
of
may
2021,
reference
to
agenda
papers,
application
for
review,
review,
statement,
supporting
documents,
pages
1-82,
supporting
documents
are
listed
in
page
12
and
include
design
and
access
statement,
access
observation
stage.
One
road
safety
report,
report
of
handling
and
decision
notice
reasons
for
refusal
where
an
opinion
of
the
planning
authority
proposal
fails
to
comply
with
policy.
D
One
one
of
the
local
development
plan,
specifically
criteria
a
since
the
proposal
cannot
be
accessed
safely
due
to
an
increase
in
turning
maneuvers
on
the
a
809
public
load,
which
would
result
an
acceptable
impact
on
road
safety.
You
can
just
move
to
the
powerpoint
presentation
just
to
provide
a
bit
of
background
to.
E
D
D
D
So
that
says
from
from
stockholmer
road
and
the
four
existing
current
placements
outlined
there,
the
red
line
of
the
application
site,
there's
an
additional
existing
yard
space
and
two
properties,
residential
properties
called
wayside
cottage
and
queensview.
The
whole
of
the
existing
site,
plus
the
two
cottages
is
accessed
from.
D
If
you
follow
the
cursor
there
from
the
access
it
says,
wayside
cottage
and
queensview
proposed
development
involves
a
new
access
which
is
taken
from
stockholmer
mode
again
just
to
provide
members
with
a
bit
of
context
from
the
vocational
side
either
of
the
main
stock
email
road
runs
between
outskirts
of
milgai
through
to
german.
What
established
can
a
country
road
and
this
site
is
like
a
high
point
of
the
road
past?
D
D
Just
to
finish,
the
presentation
and
reference
back
to
the
agenda
papers,
internal
external
consultation
responses
and
representations
from
neighbours
at
wayside,
cottages
and
family
community
council
pages
850
to
100
further
comments
from
the
planner
application
case
officer
and
response
to
the
application
for
use
pages
101
to
102
for
our
comments
from
historic
volume
of
scotland
103-108,
and
that
also
includes
neighbors.
That
we
say
cottage
have
also
commented
in
response
to
the
view
proposed
conditions
at
109
to
110..
D
D
B
B
I
think
we're
we're
understanding
of
the
process,
hence
the
the
reason
for
the
hearing.
Mr
mcgarvey,
you
you
don't
have
a
access
to
the
document.
Sorry,
the
screen
that
we're
seeing
so
the
information
that
we've
been
given
is
all
contained
in
the
document.
I'll
pass
it
over
to
to
you
now.
You've
got
five
minutes
I'll.
Let
you
know
when
we're
at
the
fourth
minute,
if
you
are
approaching
that
so,
if
you'd
like
to
make
your
presentation.
G
G
If
you
look
at
the
bottom
of
page
92
and
the
top
of
93,
there's
memos
back
and
forth
from
planning
to
roads,
which
makes
a
point
and
I'd
like
you
to
have
a
look
at
those
and
form
your
own
opinion,
the
history
of
the
planning
application.
As
I
say,
the
four
houses
are
not
in
question.
The
original
application
showed
access
via
queen's
view
and
wayside.
Cottage
rhodes,
probably
quite
rightly,
came
back
and
said
access
was
unsafe
and
my
client
worked
closely
with
planning
and
roads
and
secured
the
principle
for
brand
new
access.
B
H
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
That's
a
new
curry,
a
senior
development
control
officer
for
the
transport
development
team
at
sterling
council
and
thank
you
for
allowing
the
opportunity
to
provide
a
brief
summary
of
the
concerns
raised
by
the
transport
development
team
with
regards
to
this
application-
and
this
is
hopefully
clear
from
the
consultation
responses
provided
today
in
the
further
written
submission
prepared
in
advance
of
this
meeting.
H
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
service
that
the
proposed
development
represents.
An
impact
in
road
safety
due
to
the
proposed
formation
of
a
new
junction
in
close
proximity
to
an
established
junction
should
be
clear
from
the
the
transport
development
team's
submissions
or
concerns
of
the
proposed
development
is
not
the
formation
of
new
access
in
isolation.
H
B
F
H
Yeah
the
the
definition,
the
design
manual
for
roads
and
bridges.
I
should
probably
point
out
that
that's
that's
a
guidance
document
that
we
use,
but
it's
primarily
focused
on
the
trunk
road
network,
but
it
is
the
best
guidance
available
for
the
rural
roads,
such
as
the
a
a
clash
royale
day,
809
that
we're
considering
today,
and
so
the
definition
within
the
design
manual
for
roads
and
bridges
suggests
that
a
an
access
point,
a
priority
junction,
is
in
a
junction
that
serves
more
than
more
than
a
one
dwelling.
H
F
H
C
H
The
design
manual
for
roads
and
bridges
is
a
guidance
document.
It's
not
a
it's,
not
a
legal
document,
so
we
we
take
our
interpretation
of
that
document
and
apply
it
to
to
the
the
planning
application
before
us,
and
obviously
any
decrease
in
movements
at
the
existing
substandard
junction
are
welcomed.
B
H
Again,
it
sets
out
in
the
design
manual
for
roads
and
bridges
that
priority
junction
shouldn't
be
cited,
who
have
encroached
onto
the
visibility
of
adjacent
priority
junctions,
and
I
don't
know
we're
gonna
potentially
tied
to
the
definition
of
privacy.
Junction
or
access
is
there,
but
that
that's
that's
just
kind
of
quoting
for
the
design
manual
manufacturing,
bridges,
states
and
at
the
time
where
that
was
written.
And
there
was
no
drawings
showing
the
visibility
displays
of
the
existing
junction.
But
I
believe
and
and
the
applicant's
statement
they
suggested,
that
there
isn't
an
issue
with
regard.
C
C
I
I
appreciate
the
the
the
concerns
that
the
rhodes
people,
the
roads
teams
and
experts
have,
but
one
can
see
that
this
is
a
long
stretch
of
road
with
good
visibility
on
either
side
and
although
it's
a
main
road
with
a
60
mile,
an
hour
limit
on
it.
I
I
feel
that
the
the
display
that
the
visibilities
play
is
sufficient
to
make
sure
that
that
access
from
the
point
is
is
sufficiently
safe.
F
B
I
I
take
a
different
view.
I
I
look
as
a
long
straight
road
which
will
encourage
overtaking,
and
so
it's
entirely
down
to
road
markings,
etc.
However,
it's
two
to
one
in
favor
of
accepting
it,
but
can
I
ask
our
legal
officer
yoon
can?
Can
we
put
a
condition
that
this
can
only
be
allowed
in
the
event
of
one
of
the
applicants
agreeing
to
use
this
access
road.
E
G
D
So
the
two
issues
can
be
kind
of
wrapped
up
into
one
agreement
as
it
were
otherwise
there's
a
situation.
You
might
have
to
actually
have
a
decision
subject
of
section
75
you
can
even
relate
to
photovoice
and
which
would
then
have
a
condition
which
would
be
our
father's
expensive
conditions
as
described,
and
it
may
be
procedurally
more
appropriate
just
to
have
the
two
processes
wrapped
up
in
the
one
agreement
so
that
the
we
have
a
safeguard
that
the
access
will
only
be
used
by
wayside.
D
B
B
H
Yes,
it's
possible.
We
need
to
do
a
bit
of
work
just
to
fully
understand
the
precise
detail
of
what
what
was
required-
and
I
I
don't
know
if
you
know
a
condition
can
be
open-ended
enough
to
allow
us
to
then
do
that
kind
of
study.
An
investigation
to
you
know,
carry
out
the
assessment
and
get
the
detail
of
that.
But
it's
certainly
you
know,
given
that's
within
the
public
road
boundary,
that
a
condition
I
understand
would
be
reasonable.
Okay,.
C
Can
that
be?
I
can
can
that
condition
be
placed
on
this,
because
that
surely
is
a
matter
of
road
safety
for
our
experts
within
the
council
to
determine
if
there
is
a
development
of
that
that
nature
along
the
road,
whether
or
not
double,
yellow
lines
are
required
to
ensure
no
overtaking
and
appropriate.
Signage
is
made.
I'm
not
sure,
if
that's
a
condition
that
you
could
attach
to
an
application
in
the
granting
of
an
application,
because
the
onus
is
on
the
on
the
traffic
team
to
determine
the
road
safety.
B
Before
I
bring
in
mr
candle
yeah,
I
I
I
accept
that
that's
the
case,
but
that
that
would
normally
be
the
condition,
but
this
this
application
was
refused
or
rejected
by
the
rhodes
authority.
So
I
just
want
to
ensure
that
we
we
can-
and
it
seems
from
the
reply
we
can
it's
whether
it's
a
condition
is
maybe
the
the
issue
we
need
to
resolve.
But
mr
calendar.
E
F
F
E
E
B
H
D
D
So,
yes,
I
I
would
think
we
can
incorporate
something
based
on
the
road
safety
order
that
allows
the
signage
to
be
installed
to
the
appropriate
public
kind
of
standards
as
determined
by
the
roads
department.
So
I
guess
going
back
to
your
inquiry.
Council
brisley
again,
it's
perfectly
possible
to
condition
any
consent
to
ensure
safe
access
during
the
construction
phase
and
a
condition
could
be
added
to
that.
I
think
any
any
issue.
D
Yes,
you
can
condition
the
requirement
that
the
access
the
new
iss
should
be
completed,
or
you
are
completed
a
usable
standard.
Usually,
what
leave
what's
called
a
wearing
course
to
the
last
stages
of
the
development
enemy
that
you
can
ensure
that
a
new
access
is
formed
there,
which
would
have
to
be
used
by
construction
traffic
for
this
site?
Okay,
thank
you.
C
Thank
you.
I
wonder
if
we
could
hear
from
mr
mcgarvey
about
the
proposed
conditions.
I
note
that
in
his
submission
he
was
happy
to
accept
conditions,
one
to
eight
that
were
set
out
in
the
papers
and
I'd
just
like
to
hear
his
views
about
about.
What's
been
discussed
about
the
access
and
the
provision
of
the
access,
et
cetera
and
whether
that's
acceptable
to
to
the
applicant.
G
I
feel
that
can
be
conditioned,
but
more
appropriately,
as
as
mr
calendar
has
advised,
we
are
content
for
that
to
be
in
a
legal
section.
75
agreement,
the
timing
of
which
the
permanent
structure
can
be
built
is,
is
is
up
to
the
council,
but
I
certainly
in
the
developer,
certainly
envisage
construction
traffic.
Indeed,
all
traffic
into
the
proposed
use
site
from
the
new
access
and
all
other
conditions
attached.
C
G
All
I
can
advise
is
that
the
applicant
has
approached
wayside
cottage,
who
have
a
legal
right
of
access
over
the
existing
access,
and
they
have,
at
this
juncture,
refused
to
to
look
at
using
the
internal
new
access,
the
the
suggestion
or
offer
of
of
a
permanent
closure.
I
mean
that
can
take
a
number
of
forms.
G
You
know
a
locked
gate
or
a
more
permanent
structure,
we're
happy
to
work
with
mr
calendar's
team
and
rules
to
to
design
something
which
is
in
which
which
solves
this
issue,
but
also,
maybe
in
the
future.
If
wayside
cottage
want
to
change
their
mind
and
utilize
the
new
access
internally,
then
you
know
we're
happy
for
them
to
do
that.
D
Then
it
seems
fairly
straightforward
for
that
to
be
designed,
as
mr
mcgowan
said,
to
facilitate
at
some
point
in
the
future,
access
also
from
wayside
cottage,
if
they
so
choose
to
come
on
board
from
that
point
of
view,
and
we
could
get
away
a
part
of
the
agreement
or
the
condition
depending
on
which
way
you
want
to
go
on
this,
to
sort
of
indicate
that
that
preference,
okay.
Thank
you.