Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 5 August 2026 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 12 AUGUST 2026 at 10:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND SOUTH OF FERNBANK, RAHANE (REF: 25/0006/LRB) (a) Further Information from Roads Officer (Pages 3 - 10) (b) Further Information from Planning Officer (Pages 11 - 14) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 15 - 24) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ROADS RESPONSE LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 25/0006/LRB PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 24/01389/PP LOCATION: Land Sout Of Fernbank Rahane Roads Response 5 July 2026 Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– July 2026 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document history This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Created by 0 08/07/2026 Roads Response R.Kane Page 4
Page 5
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– July 2026 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Contents 1. Overview 1 2. Roads Response to Appeal Comments 2 Page 5
Page 6
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– July 2026 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL 1. Overview This document provides a detailed Roads response to the AB7 from presented in conjunction with: Planning permission for the erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage, installation of sewage treatment plant and formation of vehicular access, land south of Fernbank, Rahane, Argyll and Bute (LPA Reference 24/01389/PP) Page 6
Page 7
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– July 2026 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL 2. Roads Response Information Required/ Origin: 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; Argyll and But Roads Response The Roads Authority would not support the installation of blind spot mirrors as a means of overcoming visibility constraints associated with a new access, nor would their provision justify a reduction in the required visibility splays. The Roads Authority does not permit mirrors to be installed within the road corridor. Furthermore, roadside mirrors have a number of recognised limitations and potential safety concerns, including: • A mirror does not assist the visibility of vehicles on the carriageway, of vehicles maneuvering/exiting a private access. • In certain lighting a mirror can reflect light and interfere with a passing driver’s visibility and/or create a distraction • During winter conditions, mirrors can become obscured by frost, snow or ice and therefore become ineffective; • It is difficult to accurately judge the distance and approach speed of vehicles using a roadside mirror • If a mirror is not correctly aligned, or where there is a wide angle of approach, approaching vehicles may not be visible until they are relatively close, which can give a misleading impression that the road is clear; • Pedestrians and cyclists may not be readily visible, particularly where they appear only at the edge of the reflected image; • Drivers may place undue reliance on the mirror rather than exercising normal caution when emerging onto the carriageway, creating a false sense of security; and • Mirrors can become dirty, damaged or misaligned over time, reducing their effectiveness. For these reasons, roadside mirrors are not regarded as an acceptable substitute for achieving the appropriate visibility standards. Accordingly, the provision of a blind spot mirror would not alter the Roads Authority's assessment of the proposed access arrangements and would not enable the reduced visibility splay dimensions of 2.0m x 1.05m x 75m to be accepted. The adequacy of the access must be assessed on the basis of the physical visibility available at the point of access and egress, without reliance on visibility aids such as mirrors. Page 7
Page 8
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– July 2026 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Information Required/ Origin: 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 Argyll and But Roads Response With reference to the Scottish Government's national 20 mph initiative and the associated speed limit review being undertaken by Argyll and Bute Council within the Helensburgh and Lomond area, it should be noted that there are currently no permanent changes to the speed limit on the B833 at this location. Any proposed reduction in speed limit on this section of the B833 would initially require to be implemented through a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) and would therefore, by its nature, be temporary. Any subsequent permanent change would be subject to a separate process, including public consultation following an extended trial period, and there is no guarantee that a permanent reduction would ultimately be approved. In these circumstances, the Roads Authority is unable to assess the proposed access arrangement on the basis of a potential future speed limit that has neither been implemented nor confirmed. In the interests of road safety and consistency with established practice, the proposal must be assessed against the current road environment, including the existing speed limit and prevailing operating conditions. Accordingly, the visibility splay requirements for the proposed access have been determined using the current carriageway speed data and existing site conditions, rather than any possible future changes which remain subject to separate assessment and approval processes. Page 8
Page 9
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– July 2026 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Information Required/ Origin: 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. Argyll and But Roads Response With reference to page 22 of the Agenda Pack, and the Applicant's statement that the Planning Officer advised in an email dated 5 December 2023 that the Roads Officer was "amenable to the reduction in visibility splay from 2.4m x 1.05m x 75m to 2.0m x 1.05m x 75m", subsequently reaffirmed by the Planning Officer on 28 February 2024, the Planning Team will be best placed to comment on the content and interpretation of any correspondence exchanged during the processing of the application. Notwithstanding this, the Roads Authority would note that the statement should be considered in its full context. The correspondence in question did not form part of a formal Roads consultation response and related to discussions during the evolution of a separate application, where potential design changes were being explored in an attempt to address concerns identified at the site. The use of the term "amenable" was therefore in the context of ongoing discussions and should not be interpreted as formal acceptance of a reduced visibility splay arrangement. Furthermore, the comments were made in reference to a drawing which illustrated both a footway and a service bay between the edge of the existing carriageway and the proposed site access. The combined width of these features exceeded the reduction currently being sought and therefore the circumstances under discussion were materially different from those now under consideration. No formal assessment had been undertaken at that stage to fully consider and record the road safety implications arising from a reduced visibility splay, and consequently no formal agreement or acceptance was provided by the Roads Authority. The Roads Authority would therefore draw attention to its formal consultation responses and the evidence informing its current assessment, including recent speed survey data collected at the location, which identified overtaking manoeuvres, the application of recognised road safety guidance in relation to visibility splays, and observations made during a recent site visit. The site visit demonstrated first- hand the limitations in available visibility and the extent to which vehicles emerging from the neighbouring property are required to advance into the active carriageway in order to obtain adequate forward visibility. Having regard to the current site conditions, speed environment and road safety considerations, the Roads Authority does not consider the proposed reduced visibility splay of 2.0m x 1.05m x 75m to be acceptable. This is because the reduced setback distance would not provide an appropriate level of visibility for drivers exiting the site and would increase the likelihood of vehicles encroaching into the live carriageway before sufficient visibility can be achieved, to the detriment of road safety for all road users. Page 9
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 11
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 11 Agenda Item 3b
Page 12
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 12
Page 13
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. Page 13
Page 14
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 15
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 15 Agenda Item 3c
Page 16
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 16
Page 17
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 17
Page 18
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 18
Page 19
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 19
Page 20
Page 20
Page 21
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 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
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 Page 23
Page 24
This page is intentionally left blank