Planning 01389 3rd RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
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.
Page 1
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR: ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE, INSTALLATION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AT: LAND SOUTH OF FERNBANK, RAHANE, ARGYLL AND BUTE PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 24/01389/PP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 25/0006/LRB 14th July 2026
Page 2
Further Information Required: a) to confirm whether it would be acceptable to install blind spot mirrors to aid road safety and careful driving when exiting the proposed driveway onto the carriageway and whether this would allow the reduced visibility splay dimensions proposed by the Applicant of 2 x 1.05 x 75m to be accepted by the Roads Officer and the Planning Officer; b) with reference to the 20 is Plenty National Government Initiative and the reduction in speed limits on Argyll and Bute roads, to confirm if there were plans to reduce the speed limit of the B833 at this location and, if so, whether that would affect the calculations in relation to visibility splay measurements required when exiting the proposed driveway onto the carriageway; and c) with reference to page 22 of the Agenda pack in which the Applicant states that the Planning Officer had advised in an email dated 5 December 2023 that the Roads Officer was “amenable to the reduction in visibility splay from 2.4 x 1.05 x 75m to 2 x 1.05m x 75m” and that this had been reaffirmed by the Planning Officer on 28 February 2024, to confirm if this statement is correct and clarify whether the reduced visibility splay is still acceptable. If the reduction in visibility splay is not acceptable, the reason for this should be explained. Planning Officers Response: a) In response to point a) as noted in full above; With regards to the acceptability of installing blind spot mirrors to aid road safety and whether or not this would allow the reduced visibility splay dimensions proposed by the Applicant to be accepted. The forgoing is a technical matter for the Area Roads Manager to provide advice on. b) In response to point b) as noted in full above; With regards to the ‘20 is Plenty’ National Government Initiative and if there are plans to reduce the speed limit of the B833 at this location and, if so, whether that would affect the visibility splay requirements. As per the above the forgoing is a technical matter for the Area Roads Manager to provide advice on. c) In response to point c) as noted in full above; With regards to page 22 of the agenda pack in which the Applicant states that the Planning Officer had advised in an email dated 5 December 2023 that the Roads Officer
Page 3
was “amenable to the reduction in visibility splay from 2.4 x 1.05 x 75m to 2 x 1.05m x 75m” and that this had been reaffirmed by the Planning Officer on 28 February 2024. The planning officer confirms that this was the case and the noted correspondence occurred. It is however noted that this correspondence formed part of ongoing discussions with the Roads Area Manger on a previously withdrawn application (reference; 23/01538/PP) and was in regard to previous design iterations involving the proposed visibility splays. It is also noted that these discussions did not from part of a formal consultation response from the Area Roads Manager. In regard to why the reduction of the ‘set back’ distance from 2.4 metres to 2 metres is not acceptable; this is because the reduced ‘set back’ distance would not provide an acceptable level of visibility for drivers exiting the application site. As per the advice from the Roads Area Manager, the minimum visibility requirements for a 40mph road are; 75 metres in each direction measured from a point 2.4 metres back from the edge of the B833 road (measured from the centre of the proposed access) and with no impediment to visibility in either direction greater than 1.05 metres in height above the level of the existing public road. Any reduction of this would be to the detriment of road safety.