Consider Notice of Review Request: Land South of Kilfinan Community Forest Caravan and West of Hafton House, Tighnabruaich (Ref: 20/01429/Pp)
Argyll and Bute Council · 2 September 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 2 September 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Review Request – Response to Planning Officer and Roads Officer Comments I write in response to the comments made by the Planning Officer and the Argyll and Bute Council (ABC) Roads Officer in relation to my application. 1. Matters for Consideration by the LRB The Planning Officer has stated that there are two issues under consideration by the LRB. The first issue raised is whether it is acceptable to allow a new croft house on land not within a crofting masterplan area. I do not believe this is relevant in this case. The Report of Handling (p.14, first two paragraphs) suggests the proposal fails to comply with Policy 35 of LDP2 (Crofting Townships). Whilst I believe it could comply under Policy 35, the report also states that if access is found to be acceptable, the proposal complies with Policy 17 of the NPF4 and therefore with Policy 16 of the NPF4 and Policy 02 of LDP2 (Outwith Settlement Areas) (see p.14, final paragraph). Accordingly, I am not seeking approval under Policy 35, but under Policy 02 (Outwith Settlement Areas). If the LRB is satisfied that the access is adequate, then the proposal complies with Policy 17, subsection (c)(iii) of the NPF4, and thus with Policy 02 of the LDP2. In that case, the issue of croft location becomes irrelevant. 2. Key Issue for Determination The only relevant issue for the LRB to determine is: • Whether or not the proposed access provides a safe vehicular access/egress to the site in the interests of road safety. 3. Access Considerations The purpose of Policies 35 and 37 is to ensure road and pedestrian safety. While ABC’s Roads Development Guide informs such assessments, each case must be judged on its own merits. This is not a large-scale housing scheme but a single dwelling on a working croft, part of a working forest. As noted in my Statement of Reasons (p.4): “Given the very small scale of the proposed development, the fact that no additional traffic will be generated beyond current use, and the significant improvements that have already been completed in line with the approved masterplan, the proposed access is suitable.” Concerns raised by the Roads Officer have already been addressed in my submission. I believe that this submission addresses any issues around road safety, and allows the LRB to approve this proposal. 4. New Gradient Issue Raised by Roads Officer In their response to my review request, the Roads Officer raises a new concern: that the existing track must not exceed a gradient of 8% (with an absolute maximum of 10% over short sections) [see Comments From Interested Parties, p.147].
Page 2
This issue was not raised previously in either the initial consultation response or the Report of Handling. That report simply restates the policy requirement without identifying any problem with the current access. Moreover, as I noted in my submission: "Improvements were made [to the access] prior to the start of Phase One, including reduced gradients and increased turning circles.” To our knowledge, these improvements bring the road into compliance with the stated gradient requirements. No further site visits by the Roads Officer have occurred since these works to assess the access, and this was not raised as a concern during the planning officer’s site assessment [see Consultee Response – Roads – 2025 – additional comments]. 5. Crofting and Masterplan Clarification The Planning Officer also stated that our claim that “the croft forms part of the masterplan” is incorrect. I accept that the croft lies outside the PDA approved in the masterplan, and therefore the proposal does not comply with Policy 35 of the LDP2. However, my point was that this is not a newly created croft. It is one of the original three crofts that are part of the approved masterplan. As noted in the Planning Officers Comments from Interested Parties (p5) the approved masterplan states that the ‘development of 'croft houses' will be limited to 3 before further improvements to the access road take place.’ The report correctly states that Crofts 1, 2, and 3 were approved by the Crofting Commission in 2017. The additional crofts shown on the map on p.5 of the Planning Officer’s comments were not registered in 2017, as stated, but in 2022 (see: Crofting Register). These newer crofts were not included in the original site masterplan. 6. Request for Site Visit and Hearing I would invite the LRB to conduct a site visit to assess the access arrangements directly. Due to the complexity of this long running application, I would also be happy to attend a hearing, should the LRB consider this helpful. 7. Conclusion I would request that the LRB determine this application based solely on the issue of access. I would reiterate that this proposal fully complies with Policy 17 of the NPF4 (Rural Homes) and Policy 02 of LDP2 as the access is sufficient for the proposal. No overriding material considerations justify refusal, and I am content to accept any reasonable planning conditions. Thank you for your time and consideration.