There was submitted a joint revenue and capital budget monitoring report by the Chief Executive and Director of Finance & Resources for the period 1 April to 27 June 2025. The report intimated that the projected revenue outturn at 31 March 2026 for those services reporting to this Policy Board was an underspend position of £0.022 million (2.8%) against the revised budget for the year. The projected capital outturn at 31 March 2026 for projects reporting to the Board was a break even position.  Section 6 of the report detailed a budget adjustment relative to the establishment of the centralised Sustainability Team.

DECIDED:

(a) That the projected revenue outturn underspend position of £0.022m be noted; 

(b) That the projected capital outturn break even position be noted; and 

(c) That the budget adjustment detailed at section 6 of the report be noted. 

There was submitted a report by the Chief Executive relative requests to apply a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) designation to a tree at Braids Road, Paisley and trees at a site at Inchinnan Industrial Estate. The requests had been considered in line with the relevant legislation and details of TEMPO assessments, undertaken by an independent arboriculturist in respect of the trees at both locations, were provided within the report.  The report highlighted that the criteria for a tree preservation order had not been met in respect of the trees at Inchinnan Business Park however it was recommended that a tree preservation order was made in relation to the tree at Braids Road, Paisley.

Following consideration, the Policy Board confirmed that it approved the recommendation detailed in the report in relation to the application for a TPO designation for the tree at Braids Road, Paisley.

Councillor Nicolson, seconded by Councillor Paterson, moved that consideration of the request to apply a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) designation to the trees at the site at Inchinnan Business Park be continued to enable clarification to be provided in relation to information contained in the TEMPO assessment and the assessment provided by the applicant seeking the planning permission.  This was agreed unanimously. 

DECIDED:

(a) That a Tree Preservation Order be approved in respect of a tree at Braids Road, Paisley and that it be agreed that officers prepare the relevant order, serve it on relevant parties, make the order available to the public and seek representations; and 

(b) That consideration of the request to apply a Tree Preservation Order designation to the trees at the site at Inchinnan Business Park be continued to enable clarification to be provided in relation to information contained in the TEMPO assessment and the assessment provided by the applicant seeking the planning permission.

C Murray, Planner, delivered a presentation relative to the proposal.

Councillor Andy Doig indicated that he was of the view that the application should be refused, outlining the main reasons for adopting this position. 

ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 2.00 pm and reconvened at 2.10 pm.

Councillor McNaughtan, seconded by Councillor Smith, moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed within the report and the developer entering into an appropriate legal agreement to secure planning obligations. 

Councillor Andy Doig, seconded by Councillor Ann-Dowling moved as an amendment  that the application be refused as the development was considered to represent over-development of the site and would have a detrimental impact on local services, community amenities, infrastructure and the wider Houston conservation area.

On the roll being called, the following members voted for the motion: Councillors McNaughtan, Nicolson and Smith. 

The following members voted for the amendment: Councillors Adam, Ann-Dowling, Andy Doig, Gilmour, N Graham, Hannigan, MacFarlane, K MacLaren, McGurk, Paterson and Shaw.

3 members having voted for motion and 11 members having voted for the amendment, the amendment was accordingly declared carried.

DECIDED: That the application be refused as the development was considered to represent over-development of the site and would have a detrimental impact on local services, community amenities, infrastructure and the wider Houston conservation area.

F Knighton, Senior Planner, delivered a presentation relative to the proposal.

In terms of Standing Order 59 Councillor Paterson moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed within the report and a variation of the existing unilateral undertaking. This was agreed unanimously.

DECIDED: That the application be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed within the report and a variation of the existing unilateral undertaking.