There was submitted a report by the Chief Executive seeking approval to validate Local Place Plans prepared by a number of communities across Renfrewshire, outlining the statutory validation process under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and associated regulations, and proposing the use of the remaining balance of the Local Place Plan Fund to support wider community engagement in the Local Development Plan process.

DECIDED:

(a) That the validation of the Local Place Plans for Paisley West and Central, Inchinnan, Renfrew, Langbank, Lochwinnoch and Ralston be approved; and

(b) That the use of the remaining £20,000 within the Local Place Plan Fund to support input to the Local Development Plan process from communities that had not prepared a Local Place Plan be agreed.

There was submitted a report by the Chief Executive providing an annual update on the operation of developer contributions, including income, expenditure and the use of contributions to support infrastructure and services required to mitigate the impact of development.

DECIDED: 

(a) That it be noted that this report represented the annual report to the Policy Board in respect of developer contributions; and

(b) That the developer contributions which were currently held by the Council be noted.

There was submitted a report by the Chief Executive providing an update on the submission and consideration of Tree Preservation Order requests, including the assessment process and outcomes.

DECIDED:

(a) That a tree preservation order in respect of a tree at Braids Road, Paisley be confirmed and it be agreed that officers make the orders public and register them with the Land Registry for Scotland;

(b) That a tree preservation order in respect of a tree at Paisley Grammar School be confirmed and it be agreed that officers make the orders public and register them with the Land Registry for Scotland; and

(c) That a tree preservation order in respect of a woodland known as Hollybush, Dykebar be confirmed and that it be agreed that officers make the orders public and register them with the Land Registry for Scotland.

There was submitted a report by the Chief Executive presenting the updated Planning Enforcement Charter 2026, setting out the Council’s approach to investigating and resolving breaches of planning control, prioritisation criteria and the use of formal enforcement powers.

DECIDED: That the Renfrewshire Planning Enforcement Charter 2026 be approved.

Under reference to item 6(b) of the Minute of the meeting of this Policy Board held on 17 March 2026 the Policy Board considered the above application.  

Councillor Nicolson, seconded by Councillor Andy Doig, moved that the application be refused as it was considered that the development was incongruous with the existing surrounding uses and landscape in that the site was in an elevated position, the design and layout does not reflect or is in keeping with the surrounding residential buildings.  In the addition the site was considered to have a detrimental impact on the Ranfurly Conservation Area, biodiversity within the local area and is against the ambitions of the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan.  This was agreed unanimously.

DECIDED: That the application be refused as it was considered that the development was incongruous with the existing surrounding uses and landscape in that the site was in an elevated position, the design and layout does not reflect or is in keeping with the surrounding residential buildings.  In the addition the site was considered to have a detrimental impact on the Ranfurly Conservation Area, biodiversity within the local area and is against the ambitions of the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan. 

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

In terms of Standing Order 59 Councillor Paterson moved that the planning application be refused for the reasons detailed within the report. This was agreed unanimously.

DECIDED: That the planning application be refused for the reasons detailed within the report. 

J McCafferty, Planning Officer, delivered a presentation relative to the proposal.

Councillor Paterson, seconded by Councillor Nicolson, moved that the planning application be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed within the report.

Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Councillor MacFarlane, moved as an amendment:

"That the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed building height is excessive and results in an overbearing and dominant impact on neighbouring properties. Under NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), new development must respect the scale and character of its surroundings and avoid overbearing massing. The proposed height is significantly out of scale with nearby buildings, resulting in loss of daylight, reduced residential amenity, and visual dominance. The proposal therefore fails to comply with NPF4."

On the roll being called the following members voted for the amendment: Councillors Gilmour, Grady, MacFarlane and K MacLaren.

The following members voted for the motion: Councillors Adam, Ann-Dowling, Andy Doig, Hannigan, McGurk, McNaughtan, Nicolson, Paterson, Shaw and Smith.

4 members having voted for the amendment and 10 members having voted for the motion, the motion was accordingly declared carried.

DECIDED: That the planning application be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed within the report.

A McGlone, Assistant Planning Officer, delivered a presentation relative to the proposal.

Councillor Ann-Dowling, seconded by Councillor Smith moved:

"That the Planning and Climate Board refuse the application for planning permission 26/0121/PP change of use from business to residential for the following reasons:

1. Loss of Essential Village Infrastructure (NPF4 Policy 15 & Renfrewshire LDP2 Policy Communities 1)

The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of a replacement essential localized healthcare asset and pharmacist within the village of Langbank. These services are critical to ensuring local resilience, health equity, and daily independence, particularly for vulnerable rural residents, elderly populations, and young families who rely on walking-distance access. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that equivalent healthcare facilities are safely and sustainably accessible within a 20-minute walk (800m). The proposal directly conflicts with the principles of local living, forces unnecessary car dependency for basic health needs, and violates Policy 15 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Policy Communities 1 (Creating Successful Places) of the Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (LDP2).

 2. Failure to Justify Loss of a Community Facility (Renfrewshire LDP2 & NPF4)

The applicant has failed to provide robust, long-term marketing evidence to prove that the premises at 2 Station Road are structurally or financially redundant for continued healthcare, community, or alternative local service provision. In a village community like Langbank, the retention of community infrastructure is vital to social cohesion. In the absence of evidence showing the property has been actively marketed at a reasonable rate without interest, the permanent loss of this asset is premature and contrary to the sustainable development objectives of both NPF4 and the Renfrewshire LDP2 Spatial Strategy."

In terms of Standing Order 27, Councillors Ann-Dowling and Smith then agreed to withdraw their motion.

Councillor Paterson, seconded by Councillor Ann-Dowling, then moved that consideration of the planning application be continued to a future meeting of the Policy Board to allow further information to be sought on the position of the Health Board and Integration Joint Board in terms of potential future utilisation of the site and the alternative solution for the residents of Langbank should the application be granted. This was agreed unanimously.

DECIDED: That consideration of the planning application be continued to a future meeting of the Policy Board to allow further information to be sought on the position of the Health Board and Integration Joint Board in terms of potential future utilisation of the site and the alternative solution for the residents of Langbank should the application be granted.

J Weir, Senior Planning Officer, delivered a presentation relative to the formal consultation from the Energy Consents Unit. It was noted that Scottish Ministers were responsible, under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, for the authorisation of any new, or extensions to existing, electricity generation schemes with a generation capacity in excess of 50 Megawatts and that the Council was a formal consultee in this process and not the determining or consenting authority.

In terms of Standing Order 59 Councillor Paterson moved that the Council submit an objection to the application on the grounds and reasons detailed within the report. This was agreed unanimously.

DECIDED: That the Council submit an objection to the application on the grounds and reasons detailed within the report.