Consider Notice of Review Request: Land South of Fernbank, Rahane (Ref: 25/0006/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 12 August 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 12 August 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
25/0006/LRB Comments on Further Info 28th July 2026 Introduction & Summary This document contains comments and evidence relating to information provided by the Argyll and Bute Local Planning Authority in respect of the Local Review Board case 25/0006/LRB. The planning officer has acknowledged the correspondence regarding the 2 m visibility splay x-distance. At no point since those discussions have the LPA informed the applicants or their agent that the 2 m x-distance was no longer acceptable, or that they intended to renege on this agreement. The applicants have only ever had one case with the Argyll & Bute planning department. Therefore, the claims made by the planning officer and the roads officer that any of their correspondence with the applicants is unrelated or separate to this application are categorically false and a clear breach of legitimate expectation. An initial version of the application was withdrawn in order to address issues regarding visibility, and a revised application submitted and validated under the ‘free-go’ process. The planning officer was well aware of this as it was the LPA that suggested this course of action. The only stated reason for refusal, according to the LPA’s statement of case, has now been addressed. The 2 m x- distance agreement has been acknowledged and evidence is attached below in the LPA’s official emails. Application History It is important to understand the history of this application in order to correctly assess the various claims being made by the planing officer, the roads officer and the applicants. M.H. Planning submitted a planning application for the Land South of Fernbank, Rahane on 03/08/2023 on behalf of Matt Aitchison and Lisa Bradbury. On 19/10/2023 the LPA informed the applicants’ agent that this application would be refused on the grounds of visibility splay requirements, but suggested the application could be withdrawn in order to find potential solutions and a revised application submitted within a year at no additional cost. The applicants followed this advice in good faith. The following timeline details the progression of this case and the information provided to the applicants by the LPA. 03/08/2023 Application submitted for: LAND ADJACENT TO FERNBANK, RAHANE, G84 0QP. This was validated and given application number 23/01538/PP. 19/10/2023 The LPA informed the applicants’ agent that the application would be refused, but suggested that it could instead be withdrawn, so as to address the LPAs requirements, and resubmitted within a year under the ‘free-go’ scheme. 23/10/2023 Application number 23/01538/PP was consequently withdrawn by the applicants’ agent.
Page 2
23/10/2023 From this point on, discussions with the applicants or their agent, or statements made by the LPA cannot, procedurally, be attributed to the withdrawn application number 23/01538/PP, irrespective of whether the LPA continued to reference that number in subsequent emails. 05/12/2023 The planning officer emailed the applicants’ agent stating: ‘I have had a chat with Raymond about this, he is amenable to the reduction in visibility splay from 2.4 x 1.05 x 75m to 2 x 1.05m x 75m.’ The roads officer was included in this email. [See emails below] 28/02/2024 The planning officer emailed the applicants, clearly stating: ‘The application reference 23/01538/PP was withdrawn by your agent.’, then reiterating the statement (above) regarding the 2 m x-distance. This proves the planning officer was aware that application number 23/01538/PP was no longer active and, therefore, the 2 m x-distance statement cannot now be claimed to only apply to that specific reference number. The officer also states: ‘we are not requesting a foot way in this instance and have agreed to reduce the splay requirements’ [See emails below] 02-07/2024 To address the requirements of the LPA, the proposed development was revised to move the access to the south. This enabled the longest possible visibility splay y-distance to the north and also a large, mature oak tree to be preserved. 07/07/2024 With the ‘free-go’ resubmission deadline approaching, the applicants emailed the planning officer seeking advice as, at that time, agreements were in place with the affected neighbours to the south, but Fernbank (to the north) had still not responded. 08/07/2024 The planning officer responded stating: ‘I would think re-submitting would be the best course of action, so you can get your ‘free –go’, then we can get roads re-consulted etc. and have an application on the system.’ 13/08/2024 The updated application was validated by the central validation team and acknowledged as a ‘revised application’ with a ‘planning fee of £0.00’, in accordance with the well defined rules of the ‘free-go’ process. [See evidence section below]. 16/08/2024 The applicants emailed the planning officer to draw attention to the new reference number and earlier conversations under the previous application reference number. 20/08/2024 The planning officer replied to the above email using the new application reference in the subject line. 08/10/2024 The planning officer emailed the applicant/agent suggesting a Grampian style strategy to avoid Section 75 agreements, stating that: ‘I have been pushing for the confirmation from the neighbouring parties in order for us to approve the application with roads conditions that we feel are achievable. If we had the neighbour confirmation, I would attach the roads conditions and phase them in a way that the access and vis splays need to be in place prior to the construction of the dwellinghouse.’ 20/10/2024 The applicants emailed the planning officer stating: ‘Given the reluctance of Fernbank's new owners to engage, we are continuing to research potential solutions that don't require an agreement of some form with them.’ A small section of Fernbank’s wall slightly impinged the northern visibility splay and, technically, reduced the achievable y-distance to 40 m, though the incursion was just 0.19 m. 28/01/2025 The planning officer emailed the applicants’ agent stating: ‘unfortunately we would be planning to refuse the application and then you could appeal to the LRB.’ 02/04/2025 The Decision Notice was presented. 20/05/2025 A Request for Review was submitted.
Page 3
Information Provided by the Planning Officer With regard to points a and b, the applicants have no comments. The planning officer acknowledges in point c that the ‘noted correspondence occurred’ and that the roads officer was ‘amenable to the reduction in visibility splay’. The relevant emails are also included below in this document. The planning officer’s 2nd statement in point c is logically and procedurally inconsistent. The officer states that the application had been withdrawn, yet once an application has been withdrawn it can no longer be worked on. The only reason for continuing discussions is to revise the application as part of the ‘free-go’ scheme. The planning officer knew this to be the case, as it was the LPA that suggested this course of action. It is procedurally incorrect to claim that ongoing discussions relate solely to a withdrawn application and not to the subsequently revised application. The updated application was validated by the central validation team as a ‘revised application’ in accordance with the rules of the ‘free-go’ process. [See evidence section below]. The planning officer should be well aware of the ‘free-go’ process and that the revised application is given a different number to the withdrawn version. Simply quoting the standard visibility splay dimensions does not explain why the roads officer and LPA stated that 2 m x-distance was acceptable, or why they have now changed their minds. If the LPA are claiming that the documented information they provided is now not valid, then they have knowingly wasted nearly 3 years of the applicants time, thousands of pounds of the applicants savings, and caused many months of unnecessary stress and anxiety. Additionally, the applicants stand to lose £100,000 and the opportunity to build a new home as a direct consequence of the LPA’s changing demands that will likely render their plot undevelopable. Information Provided by the Roads Officer The applicants have no comments relating to the use of mirrors or the 20 is Plenty scheme. The planning officer has confirmed that the conversations regarding 2 m x-distance occurred. The roads officer was included in the email of 05/12/2023 [See emails below]. If the roads officer had concerns that the information was in any way ambiguous, he made no attempt to say so until 19/05/2026, over a year into the review process. The roads officer is correct that the conversations ‘related to discussions during the evolution of [an] application, where potential design changes were being explored in an attempt to address concerns identified at the site’. This application being reviewed by the LRB is the result of those conversions. It was NOT a separate or unrelated application (as explained in the above section and proven by the validation evidence below). Whether or not statements made by the roads officer were part of a formal roads consultation does not change the fact that: the roads officer acknowledges that the statements were made as part of ongoing discussions, the planning officer documented these statements in official emails to the applicants/agent (some of which the roads officer was cc’d into), and the applicants used that information in good faith to revise their application accordingly. Attempting to claim these statements now don’t count is a further breach of legitimate expectation. Regardless of the roads officer’s interpretation of ‘amenable’, on 28/02/2024 the planning officer stated ‘we … have agreed to reduce the splay requirements’. [See emails below]
Page 4
It is true that many neighbouring accesses have poor visibility, however, these accesses (mostly having ~0 m visibility) are in no way representative of the proposed new access (75 m visibility). Furthermore, the roads officer states that the ‘The site visit demonstrated first-hand the limitations in available visibility’ i.e. that the neighbouring accesses are a safety concern. The proposed development would vastly improve visibility for two of these existing accesses: Ach-Na- Cloich Cottage and Mambeg Farm. This would therefore be an undeniable safety improvement, based on the roads officer’s own observations at the site visit. Material Differences There are no material differences between applications 23/01538/PP and 24/01389/PP other than those changes made in response to the information provided by the LPA and roads officer, and in accordance with the ‘free-go’ procedure. On 10/10/2023 the planning officer stated in an email to the applicants’ agent: ’I have chatted this over with Raymond, he agrees that the footway is not required. He agrees that the visibility splay should be taken from the edge of the carriageway’. The above proves the roads officer knows that visibility x-distance is taken from the edge of the carriageway. As such, the roads officer will also be well aware that the footway and service bay on site drawing 2023_0005-02 Rev-A have absolutely no effect on visibility splay x-distance [as can be seen clearly in Figure 1]. Therefore, the comments regarding the footway are knowingly misleading and a clear attempt to use an unrelated minor technical detail to claim a material difference where there is none. As the service bay is on both submitted versions of the site plan drawings, it cannot be claimed to be a material change. It should also be noted that the roads officer agreed that ‘the footway is not required’ in the planning officer’s email of 10/10/2023 [see above], and reiterated by the planning officer on 28/02/2024 [see emails below]. The roads officer clearly stated that a footway is not needed, but is now attempting to claim that the lack of a footway is a material change and the reason for back-tracking on the 2 m x-distance relaxation. However, in the interests of bringing this review to a close, the claimed material difference could be easily reversed by adding a footway to the current version of the site plan drawing 2023_0005-02 Rev-F. Changes In Criteria Since the LPA presented their statement of case, the following criteria have changed or been added: • The LPA have suggested a 7-way Section 75 agreement, including with an additional neighbouring property that is not affected by the proposed development. • The roads officer has insisted a traffic survey be commissioned. • The previously agreed 2 m visibility splay x-distance has been changed to 2.4 m. • The roads officer is claiming the lack of a footway on site plan drawing 2023_0005-02 Rev-F is a material change from 2023_0005-02 Rev-A that justifies reneging on the 2 m x-distance agreement, despite the footway only being removed in response to his statements and having absolutely no effect on visibility x-distance. • Attempts are being made to change/dismiss/evade documented statements in official emails, on which the applicants acted in good faith.
Page 5
At the site visit, the applicants attempted to draw attention to the existing accesses with 0 m visibility that would be vastly improved by the proposed development. The roads officer stated that these were ‘not an issue’, but is now claiming that visibility at neighbouring accesses is a safety issue, despite having persistently ignored the applicants’ attempts to make the very same point in regard to their safety improvements. This is entirely contradictory. The LPA and roads officer had numerous opportunities to query or contest the 2 m x-distance, yet did not do so. Visibility splays with 2 m x-distance were clearly labelled on both submitted versions of the site plan drawing. It was only prior to the 5th LRB meeting, when the applicants had achieved everything that had previously been asked of them, that the 2 m visibility x-distance was introduced by the LPA and roads officer as a new issue. If the LPA now require both visibility splays with 2.4 m x-distance and the retention of the large, mature tree on the north-east corner of the plot, then they are making the site undevelopable. Conclusion The only reason stated for refusing planning application 24/01389/PP was ‘obstructions within the northern visibility splay’. This can now be remedied by the removal of the one small obstruction to visibility. A 2 m x-distance is a recognised relaxation and balances road safety with the council’s own environmental policies to preserve the rural landscape. Indeed, Manual for Streets explicitly supports 2 m x-distance in low-flow situations. The B833 has been proven by the recent traffic survey to be ‘low-flow’, and a single residential dwelling has the lowest minor arm flow possible. The significant road safety improvements that this development offers remain: vastly improving visibility for existing accesses and removing up to 93 recorded overtaking manoeuvres per week involving stationary vehicles by providing a lay-by / service bay. The LPA statement of case for the LRB confirmed Section 75 agreements are not needed and there have been no changes in this case or planning guidance since that time. Planning approval could be granted on the basis of a Grampian condition, as per the LPA’s original strategy, with visibility splays of 2 x 1.05 x 75 m. Please note that draft conditions and reasons have already been prepared by the planning officer in response to the 2nd LRB meeting request for further information. Simply updating the northern visibility splay y-distance would avoid the need to request additional further information as these conditions already state the 2 m x-distance. The applicants very much hope that the members of the LRB choose to enable the small, self-build, family home being proposed, on the basis of the criteria of the LPA’s statement of case, and the exhaustive evidence presented herein.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.
Page 7
2 m x-Distance Emails From: Jane, Emma <Emma.Jane@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 4:14 PM To: Michael Hyde Cc: Sweeney, Kirsty <Kirsty.Sweeney@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Kane, Raymond <Raymond.Kane@argyll- bute.gov.uk> Subject: RE: 23/01538/PP - Land Adjacent to Fernbank, Rahane [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Good Afternoon Mike, I have had a chat with Raymond about this, he is amenable to the reduction in visibility splay from 2.4 x 1.05 x 75m to 2 x 1.05m x 75m. However, we would still require a section 75 notice to cover both neighbouring properties as, it still appears that to the North the neighbouring properties large hedge would impede on the splay. Thanks Emma From: "Jane, Emma" <Emma.Jane@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: RE: 23/01538/PP - Land Adjacent to Fernbank, Rahane [OFFICIAL] Date: 28 February 2024 at 15:31:30 GMT To: Matt Aitchison Classification: OFFICIAL Hi Matt, The application reference 23/01538/PP was withdrawn by your agent. Point 1 – within the new application from you would need to serve notice on all parties which own land within the site boundary aside from yourselves (this site boundary includes the required visibility splays). We would also then require a section 75 notice to cover land out with your control (the visibility splays). The section 75 notice is undertaken by the council’s legal team who would contact your solicitors and the other land owners solicitors. This is done as part of the determination process, and once we have a section 75 in place if we are recommending approval you would then get your approval decision notice. It is not something than can be conditioned. Point 2 – (image was not attached) however, yes as this does not give you control over these areas, to maintain the splays. Example is that there are bushes there at present that impede the splays. Point 3 – this was some time ago and polices have changed, furthermore, each application is accessed on its own merits. I have had a quick look at this application and note that the required visibility splays for this where 2.4 x 1.05 x 75m and that a 2m wide foot way was required along the full frontage. (we are not requesting a foot way in this instance and have agreed to reduce the splay requirements) I can also see that this application was for a house within the garden grounds of an existing property and the shared driveway was to be installed centrally within the overall frontage of the two plots. I would think that the splays would therefore have been within the one ownership and not on third party land. Please note that the actual carriageway is controlled by the council and therefore its only when the splays go onto third party land that triggers the potential need for a section 75. I would also add that I had corresponded to your agent that the roads officer noted that they are amenable to the reduction in visibility splay from 2.4 x 1.05 x 75m to 2 x 1.05m x 75m in this case and this is taken 2m back from the edge of the carriageway. Thanks Emma Please note this was prior to discussions regarding the need for Section 75 agreements Also note this was 6 weeks after application 23/01538/PP had been withdrawn
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
Validation of Revised Application 38 East Clyde Street Helensburgh G84 7PG Your Ref: Our Ref: 24/01389/PP Date: 13 August 2024 Lisa Bradbury And Matt Aitchison MH Planning Associates 63 West Princes Street Helensburgh Scotland G84 8BN Dear Sir/ Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) APPLICANT: Lisa Bradbury And Matt Aitchison PROPOSAL: Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage, installation of sewage treatment plant and formation of vehicular access SITE ADDRESS: Land South Of Fernbank Rahane Argyll And Bute I acknowledge receipt of your revised application together with the planning fee of £0.00 and advertisement fee of £235. Further to checking the revised details your application has been found to be valid on 9th August 2024 and has now been registered. Your application reference number is 24/01389/PP which should be quoted in all communications with the Council. Please note that for the purpose of the planning decision notice, the description of your application will be as described in the “proposal” above. If you disagree with this description in any way, please do not hesitate to contact the Area Office in order for any changes to be made. Contact should be made within 5 working days of this letter to allow for any changes to be made, or it will be assumed that you accept the application description. If you have not received a formal decision within 2 months of the valid date noted above and would wish a review into the non determination of your application you should contact Mr David Logan, Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT. Please note that regulations prescribe that any such review request must be lodged within three months of the above date. If this situation does arise, I would suggest that you get in touch with the relevant area planning office to discuss the application as a review may not be necessary. If you wish to discuss the application while it is with the Council, please contact us on 01546 605518. If you wish to view the progress of this or any other application you can do so by visiting the Council’s Website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. In addition to this facility the public can submit an application electronically by visiting the Scottish Government Website at www.eplanning.scotland.gov.uk Your application will then be electronically forwarded to Argyll and Bute Council for processing. A ‘Live’ update on the status of the Development Management Service, including information on current average determination times is available at Planning Service Status. Yours faithfully Central Validation Team Development and Economic Growth 01546 605518