Roads - 25-0006-LRB - Response
Argyll and Bute Council · 25 August 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 25 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
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 South Of Fernbank Rahane June 2025
Page 2
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document history This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Created by 0 02/06/2025 Roads Response R.Kane
Page 3
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Contents 1. Overview 1 2. Roads Response to Appeal Comments 1
Page 4
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL 1. Overview This document provides a detailed Roads response to the “GROUNDS FOR REVIEW” paper 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) 2. Roads Response to Appeal Comments The applicants/ agents ground for review, and associated Road’s response have been detailed below: Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.3: With respect to the review application site, in August 2010, planning permission in principle for the “erection of 2 dwellinghouses with single Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant garages and the installation of shared septic tank” was granted Argyll and But Roads Response It should be recognised that the planning application referenced was made and assessed on the road’s guidance and roads behaviours of August 2010, some 15 years prior to the current application. During which time we can acknowledge that both roads guidance and roads behaviours have evolved and changed significantly. Within Roads guidance we have seen the creation and evolution of such Roads guidance as: SCOTS National Roads Development Guide 2017, Scottish Government Designing Streets 2010, Transport Scotland Roads for All 2013 and, the Argyll and Bute Roads Technical Guidance 2024 to name but a few. Additionally, it is recognised that both urban and rural communities have seen a significant increase in both vehicle ownership and use of the carriageway since 2010. A review of Transport Scotland statistics outlines that the number of motor vehicles licensed in Scotland in 2010 was 2.7 million. In contrast, there were 3.13 million vehicles licensed for use on the roads in Scotland in 2023 (the highest number on record) and a 16% increase since the planning application referenced above. However, is must similarly be documented that Road Safety Statistics detail that between 2014 and 2023 the recorded number of roads related casualties has reduced from 194,477 in 2014 to 132,977in 2023, some 32%. It is therefore acknowledged that whilst improvements in vehicles will be a contributing factor in the reduction of recorded casualties, so too is the interpretation and delivery of road guidance and the associated roads infrastructure improvement that consider and target the health and safety of all road users. The aim of Arygll and Bute Roads is to continue to improve the existing network, not reapprove that which has previously been approved, without due consideration for current standards and progress.
Page 5
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.4: This condition could not have been complied with without the agreement of the multiple adjoining owners over whose land the required 2.4 x 95 metre visibility splays crossed. Nevertheless, the permission was granted. The applicants purchased the land on this basis, and did not foresee any reason why planning permission would not be able to be granted again. This was not however to be the case. Argyll and But Roads Response As above, parallels are being drawn between an application assessed by a different Roads Officer in 2010 and the current application. As per previous response… The planning application referenced was made and assessed on the road’s guidance and roads behaviours of August 2010, some 15 years prior to the current application. During which time we can acknowledge that both roads guidance and roads behaviours have evolved and changed significantly. Within Roads guidance we have seen the creation and evolution of such Roads guidance as: SCOTS National Roads Development Guide 2017, Scottish Government Designing Streets 2010, Transport Scotland Roads for All 2013 and, the Argyll and Bute Roads Technical Guidance 2024 to name but a few. Additionally, it is recognised that both urban and rural communities have seen a significant increase in both vehicle ownership and use of the carriageway since 2010. A review of Transport Scotland statistics outlines that the number of motor vehicles licensed in Scotland in 2010 was 2.7 million. In contrast, there were 3.13 million vehicles licensed for use on the roads in Scotland in 2023 (the highest number on record) and a 16% increase since the planning application referenced above. However, is must similarly be documented that Road Safety Statistics detail that between 2014 and 2023 the recorded number of roads related casualties has reduced from 194,477 in 2014 to 132,977in 2023, some 32%. It is therefore acknowledged that whilst improvements in vehicles will be a contributing factor in the reduction of recorded casualties, so too is the interpretation and delivery of road guidance and the associated roads infrastructure improvement that consider and target the health and safety of all road users. The aim of Arygll and Bute Roads is to continue to improve the existing network, not reapprove that which has previously been approved, without due consideration for current standards and progress.
Page 6
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.5: The single reason for refusal of the review application relates to the reduced length of the required visibility to the north that can be achieved over land that is either within the ownership of the applicant, or within the boundary of the public road. The Roads Officer states that the proposed access to the development does not achieve the minimum visibility splay requirements of 75m unimpeded, for the adjoining road speed of 40mph, and refusal was thus recommended. Argyll and But Roads Response It must be noted that the Roads Scotland Act 1984, section 151 details a “road” as: subject to subsection (3), any way (other than a waterway) over which there is a public right of passage (by whatever means [F17and whether subject to a toll or not]) and includes the road’s verge, and any bridge (whether permanent or temporary) over which, or tunnel through which, the road passes; and any reference to a road includes a part thereof; And a “public road” as: a road which a roads authority has a duty to maintain. In this instance, in this location the adjoining public/ adopted road in question, the B833 Rosneath Road, does not possess a verge or pedestrian ‘step-off’. As such, the road is abutted by ‘frontages’ of properties or lands that are neither owned by the local authority, maintained by the local authority or form part of the adopted carriageway. Road’s refusal was therefore concluded on the following rational and reasoning that the proposed access does not achieve, in its entirety, the minimum visibility splay requirements for a road of this speed (40mph), in perpetuity. The proposed visibility splay projects through a neighbouring property boundary wall that structurally supports a raised parking area for the property. In addition to the obstruction of the wall, there is vegetation on top of and immediately behind the wall that obstruct the visibility splay required from the proposed. At present there is no agreement between the applicants and the neighbouring property to remove the obstructions that limit the available visibility to the proposed point of access. Whilst the applicant details 40m unimpeded visibility, the requirement for the adjoining 40mph road is 75m unimpeded. With this in mind, Roads are additionally concerned are that the road adjacent to the proposed site, the B833, is both flat and offers good forward visibility at the location of the proposed site. Vehicle behaviours show that his section of the B833 is therefore recognised as a location that invites vehicle overtaking at speeds potentially in excess of the defined carriageway limit. With this in mind, Roads recognise the importance and the available significance of the forward visibility. It should be noted that the applicant/ agent drew comparison between the impediments present on their site (a boundary wall and vegetation), with a lighting column or telephone pole. I would note that a pole is a vertical impediment of x-width, the visibility splay exists either side of this width. In this instance, the impediment is horizontal, therefore there is no means of looking around the impediment.
Page 7
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.6: This recommendation does not however take into account in any way the significant highway safety benefits that would accrue should planning permission be granted. Argyll and But Roads Response Whilst carriageway alterations were noted within this application, the conclusion of the ‘improvements’ in contrast with the creation of an access/ dwelling that proposed both intensification of this section of the carriageway, and more significantly an access that did not achieve the minimum visibility splay requirements did not represent a net gain, with the due consideration for the health and safety of all road users. Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.7: Prior to the refusal of permission, the applicants produced, and submitted for the consideration of the Roads Officer, a document that detailed the reasoning and arguments for approving the visibility splays that are practically achievable on site, taking into consideration the small incursion into the northern visibility splay caused by a part of the neighbour’s boundary wall (Document 3). This notes that a significant overall improvement in highway safety and visibility, compared to the existing situation, could be achieved along this stretch of the B833 should planning permission be granted with a slightly reduced visibility splay to the north at the new access/egress. Argyll and But Roads Response As above… Whilst carriageway alterations were noted within this application, the conclusion of the ‘improvements’ in contrast with the creation of an access/ dwelling that proposed both intensification of this section of the carriageway, and more significantly an access that did not achieve the minimum visibility splay requirements did not represent a net gain, with the due consideration for the health and safety of all road users. Roads counsel that due to the rural setting of the authority, applicants and agents must regularly overcome visibility issues to pursue safe access and improvements to the existing roads network. Furthermore, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development.
Page 8
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.8: The document fully assesses the highway safety risks and concludes that the minor incursion into the northern visibility splay is likely to have a minimal effect on risk/safety. Additionally, the visual incursion is potentially allowable according to the guidance contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Vol.6 Section 1 Part 1 TD9/93 Point 2.7) that states: “... footbridge supports of width 550mm or under can be ignored. Similarly, the effect of short intermittent obstructions, such as bridge parapets of minor roads under, can be ignored.” Argyll and But Roads Response The applicant chooses to reference the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges regarding the design and construction of assets required to facilitate and support roads or rail infrastructure. For the avoidance of any confusion, this application is not for the creation of a bridge, nor is the obstruction referenced within the application a bridge or a supporting element of a bridge, the proposed is for a development and associated access within a rural setting. This guidance therefore has no relevance to this case. Furthermore, as above… Whilst carriageway alterations were noted within this application, the conclusion of the ‘improvements’ in contrast with the creation of an access/ dwelling that proposed both intensification of this section of the carriageway, and more significantly an access that did not achieve the minimum visibility splay requirements did not represent a net gain, with the due consideration for the health and safety of all road users. Roads counsel that due to the rural setting of the authority, applicants and agents must regularly overcome visibility issues to pursue safe access and improvements to the existing roads network. Furthermore, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development. Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.9: Alternatively, the visual incursion could be permitted as a minor departure from standard by considering the significant net improvement in safety afforded by the proposed development and not focussing solely on the one small area of non-compliance. Argyll and But Roads Response Furthermore, as above… Whilst carriageway alterations were noted within this application, the conclusion of the ‘improvements’ in contrast with the creation of an access/ dwelling that proposed both intensification of this section of the carriageway, and more significantly an access that did not achieve the minimum visibility splay requirements did not represent a net gain, with the due consideration for the health and safety of all road users. Roads counsel that due to the rural setting of the authority, applicants and agents must regularly overcome visibility issues to pursue safe access and improvements to the existing roads network. Furthermore, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development.
Page 9
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL
Page 10
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.10: The benefits of approving the new access being proposed, which thoroughly outweigh the effect of the concession in both number and magnitude, include: • The access to Mambeg Farm to the south will gain near full visibility in both directions, where there currently is none • The access to Ach-Na-Cloich Cottage to the south will gain near full visibility to the north, where there currently is none • The access to the electricity sub-station to the south will also gain near full visibility to the north, where there currently is none • A lay-by will be provided enabling safer access for delivery vehicles and those attending the electricity sub station • The entire frontage (> 45 m) of the plot to the south of Fernbank will be cleared of visual obstructions • Pedestrian access to the plot to the south of Fernbank will be made safe; currently it is not Argyll and But Roads Response It is understood that the access referred to is a field access and not a dwelling access. Furthermore, following site visits, recognition of the condition of the access gate, and a review of digital imagery, this access is infrequently used, if used at all. Trading the improved access visibility of an infrequently used agricultural field against a below standard access to a new development does not represent a net improvement in health and safety but in fact a net worsening through the creation of a below standard access. The existing access visibility available from Ach-Na-Cloich Cottage has neither been measures, presented or assessed as part of this application. The net improvement that the proposed would have on the existing access/ egress to Ach-Na-Cloich Cottage can therefore not be determined in a manner that Roads can evaluate in contrast to the below standard access proposed. As outlined above, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issues at the proposed through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Should such an agreement be obtained then Argyll and Bute Roads would achieve an access to the proposed that achieves the minimum visibility standard, in addition to the suggested near full visibility in both directions from Ach-Na-Cloich Cottage. Access to the electrical sub-station is understood to be infrequent and as required. Trading the improved access visibility or the provision of a lay-by for an infrequently accessed electrical asset, against a below standard access to a new development does not represent a net improvement in health and safety but in fact a net worsening through the creation of a below standard access. Whilst it is pleasing to hear that the entire frontage (> 45 m) of the plot to the south of Fernbank will be cleared of visual obstructions, this does not mitigate that the proposed demands the creation of a below standard access within a rural setting. Offering 40 m unobstructed visibility, which equates to only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements in a northerly direction for a vehicle speed of 40mph, at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking. Whilst pedestrian access provisions a gain, they do not mitigate the creation of a substandard access that offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements in a northerly direction for a vehicle speed of 40mph, at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking. As stated above, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. A failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development.
Page 11
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.11: In addition to these benefits, it is also relevant to consider the planning history of Ach-Na-Cloich and Ach-Na-Cloich Lodge, which are both to the immediate south of Ach-Na-Cloich Cottage. Argyll and But Roads Response Roads must consider the application presented and the associated roads implications. In this instance, irrespective of neighbouring applications, at the time of assessment, Roads do not support the creation of a substandard access that offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements in a northerly direction for a vehicle speed of 40mph, at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking. Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.12 & 5.13: Planning permission was granted for the erection of what is now Ach-Na Cloich Lodge in August 2011. This new dwelling shares an access with Ach-Na-Cloich and the approval was subject to the imposition of the following condition: “The proposed access shall have visibility splays of 75 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres in both directions formed from the centre line of the proposed joint vehicle access serving the existing dwellinghouse, Ach-na-Cloich, and the dwellinghouse hereby approved. Prior to work commencing on site further details showing the provision of a 2 metre wide footway along the full frontage of the application site and the existing property, Ach-na-Cloich, including access details and boundary treatment to the B833, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the new footway should be provided to adoptable standard prior to occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby approved.” The Council failed to ensure compliance with this condition and now cannot do so. Approval of the proposed new access will rectify this via the agreements already secured with the intervening neighbours. Full visibility of 75 m for both of these properties will consequently be achieved Argyll and But Roads Response Roads cannot comment on the rational or reasoning associated with the failure to ensure compliance of a planning condition attached to a neighbouring development, some 14 years previous, in 2011. As detailed above… The existing access visibility available from Ach-Na-Cloich has neither been measures, presented or assessed as part of this application. The net improvement that the proposed would have on the existing access/ egress to Ach-Na-Cloich can therefore not be determined in a manner that Roads can evaluate in contrast to the below standard access proposed. Furthermore, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issues at the proposed through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Should such an agreement be obtained then Argyll and Bute Roads would achieve an access to the proposed that achieves the minimum visibility standard, in addition to the suggested full visibility of 75 m for both of these properties.
Page 12
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.14: As noted in 5.10, there are two existing accesses to the south of the review application site that currently have 0 m visibility in one or both directions. The proposed development would upgrade these accesses and increase overall visibility from 25% to at least 84% of the standard requirement along the affected stretch of the B833 (Table 1). This vast improvement in visibility/road safety even accounts for the effect of the minor incursion. Argyll and But Roads Response The two accesses referenced here are detailed within table 1 to be the electrical substation and the farm access. As detail in point 5.10 The ‘farm access’ is understood to be a field access and not a dwelling access. Furthermore, following site visits, recognition of the condition of the access gate, and a review of digital imagery, this access is infrequently used, if used at all. Additionally, access to the electrical sub-station is understood to be infrequent and as required. Trading the improved access visibility of these infrequently accessed provisions, against a below standard access to a new development does not represent a net improvement in health and safety but in fact a net worsening through the creation of a below standard access. Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.15: There is no logical argument for refusing the proposed development on the grounds of road safety, given that road safety will be vastly improved. These improvements will otherwise not be made and cannot be enforced. Therefore, refusing the application is a deliberate choice of poorer overall road safety and puts all road users at higher risk than could be achieved Argyll and But Roads Response Roads consider the “logical argument” to be the failure to achieve the minimum visibility access requirements for a new access and, do not support the creation of a substandard access that offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements in a northerly direction for a vehicle speed of 40mph, at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking. As noted above… Whilst carriageway alterations were noted within this application, the conclusion of the ‘improvements’ in contrast with the creation of an access/ dwelling that proposed both intensification of this section of the carriageway, and more significantly an access that did not achieve the minimum visibility splay requirements did not represent a net gain, with the due consideration for the health and safety of all road users. Roads counsel that due to the rural setting of the authority, applicants and agents must regularly overcome visibility issues to pursue safe access and improvements to the existing roads network. Furthermore, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development.
Page 13
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.16: The visual obstruction on which the refusal for planning was based also impedes the visibility for the existing access to Fernbank. Furthermore, any negative effect is much greater for Fernbank as the obstruction is closer to their access and affects visibility of oncoming traffic (i.e. significantly more frequent). Despite this, there have been no recorded incidents around this access over the last 25 years. It is therefore clear that reduced visibility caused by the visual obstruction is entirely inconsequential. Argyll and But Roads Response As previously noted… Roads must consider the application presented and the associated roads implications. In this instance, irrespective of neighbouring applications, at the time of assessment, Roads do not support the creation of a substandard access that offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements in a northerly direction for a vehicle speed of 40mph, at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking. Whilst ‘improvements’ to neighbouring accesses were noted, in contrast with the creation of an access/ dwelling that proposed both intensification of this section of the carriageway, access that offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements in a northerly direction for a vehicle speed of 40mph, at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking did not represent a net gain. Roads counsel that due to the rural setting of the authority, applicants and agents must regularly overcome visibility issues to pursue safe access and improvements to the existing roads network. Furthermore, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development. Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.17: There are six existing accesses along the stretch of B833 either side of the proposed new access that all have 0 m visibility in one of both directions (Figure 2). However, there have been no recorded incidents around these accesses in the last 25 years. Standards are, by definition, one-size fits-all generalisations that cannot account for every individual situation. In this case, the contention that 40 m visibility is theoretically unsafe (based on a standard) is completely disproven by 25 years of actual data Argyll and But Roads Response As previously noted… This is incorrect, within the last five years there is one recorded incident within the immediate vicinity of this application. Between Garelochhead and Clynder, there are a further 9 recorder incidents over the last 10 years, one of which was fatal. Whilst this data is duly noted, a Roads assessment must consider the design presented and the, as previously described net gain to the existing road network. In this instance, the accident data supports Roads concerns to ensure the minimum design standards are achieved and as such, Roads do not support the creation of a substandard access that offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking.
Page 14
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.18: Furthermore, 40 m unobstructed visibility is 11% more than the stopping distance of 36 m for vehicles travelling at 40 mph, providing an additional margin of safety. Argyll and But Roads Response As per Argyll & Bute Roads Technical design guidance (2024), for both light and strategic routes, the visibility requirements for a 40mph road are 75m. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TD 9/93: Highway Link Design’ guidance states that for roads that operate an 85th percentile vehicle speed of 40mph, the stopping sight distance is 80m. The application proposes 40m of unobstructed visibility splay, this equates to only 53% of the minimum Argyll and Bute standard, and 50% of minimum national design standards. The proposed therefore equates to a below standard provision, not “an additional margin of safety” Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.19: This application for review is accompanied by a submission prepared by Stewart Paton Associates, Consulting Engineers and Forensic Investigation Specialists, which seeks directly to address the reason for refusal (Document 4). This notes that the applicant’s detailed submission (Document 3) is one of the most detailed reviews of visibility that the author, who is an experienced road safety practitioner, has seen in relation to a single dwelling direct access. It states further that the document is more than adequate in terms of describing the issues involved, the manner of traffic movements in this area and available distances for inter-visibility between the direct access and southbound traffic Argyll and But Roads Response As stated above, the application proposes 40m of unobstructed visibility splay, this equates to only 53% of the minimum Argyll and Bute standard, and 50% of minimum national design standards. Furthermore, I would note that Stewart Paton Associates, Consulting Engineers have been appointed by the applicant/ agent to help facilitate their development. They are not liable for the operational use, nor the operational development of the Argyll and Bute Roads Network. As such, on review of the proposed and with due consideration for the health and safety of all road users, Roads do not support the creation of a substandard access that offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking.
Page 15
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.20: The submission concludes by saying that, whilst it is appreciated that Roads Authorities will seek to apply current design standards, the application of these should also take cognisance of a range of issues, as discussed above, when dealing with a section of road where there are historical road and junction layouts, and existing accesses that have zero or restricted visibility, all of which will be able to be improved. Argyll and But Roads Response As previously noted… Roads must consider the application presented and the associated roads implications. In this instance, irrespective of neighbouring applications, at the time of assessment, Roads do not support the creation of a substandard access that offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements in a northerly direction for a vehicle speed of 40mph, at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking. Whilst ‘improvements’ to neighbouring accesses were noted, in contrast with the creation of an access/ dwelling that proposed intensification of this section of carriageway, access and offers only 53% of the minimum unimpeded visibility requirements in a northerly direction for a vehicle speed of 40mph, at a location that is recognised for vehicle overtaking did not represent a net gain. Roads counsel that due to the rural setting of the authority, applicants and agents must regularly overcome visibility issues to pursue safe access and improvements to the existing roads network. Furthermore, Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development.
Page 16
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.21, 5.22 & 5.23: Planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse, and the formation of a new vehicular access, on land south of High Oaks, Artaman Road, Rhu was granted in April 2020 subject to conditions (LPA reference 20/00267/PP). One of the conditions (Condition 7) imposed stated: “Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1; In accordance with ‘Roads Guidance For Developers’ a sightline visibility splay of 2.4 x 42 x 1.05 metres at the new driveway access with Artarman Road shall be provided. Prior to work starting on site this visibility splay shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.” The reason for imposing this condition was in the interest of road safety and in accordance with the Councils 'Roads Guidance for Developers'. A subsequent application submitted for the variation of Condition 7 relative to planning permission reference 20/00267/PP, to reduce the conditioned visibility splay from 2.4 x 42 x 1.05m to 2.4 x 17 x 1.05m, was refused by Officers for the following reasons (LPA reference 21/01603/PP): “Policies LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4; LDP 11 require that an appropriate standard of access is delivered to serve new developments. SG LDP TRAN 4 further notes that; Private Access shall be constructed to incorporate minimum standards to function safely and effectively as set out in the Council's Road Development Guide, in particular in relation to adequate visibility splays, access gradients, geometry, passing places, boundary definition, turning capacities, integrated provision for waste management and recycling. A new private access will only be accepted if the access is capable of achieving the minimum required visibility splays as considered by the Roads Authority to be appropriate - in this instance a minimum visibility splay of 2.4 x 25 x 1.05m is required due to the proposed access being in close proximity to the bend in Artarman Road. The minimum required visibility splay cannot be achieved as the provision of the required splays entails the need for controls to extend over third-party land and consequently the necessary off-site measures cannot be secured by way of planning conditions. Therefore, a legal agreement is required to ensure the clearance and maintenance of the full extent of the required visibility splays in perpetuity. In the absence of a Section 75 Legal Agreement to secure the clearance and maintenance of visibility splays on third party land there would remain a road safety issue at this location arising from deficient visibility for drivers using the site access onto Artarman Road. Based on the above the proposal to reduce the visibility splay to 2.4 x 17 x 1.05m is contrary to the requirements of Policies LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan'.” The Council’s Local Review Body overturned this refusal and granted planning permission for the reduced visibility splays measuring 2.4 x 17 x 1.05m (a 60% reduction in the length of the visibility splay originally required). Argyll and But Roads Response Roads cannot comment on a previous LRB decision regarding a different development. Roads similarly cannot comment on the reasoning or rationale of a previous Roads consultation assessment, undertaken by a Roads Officer that is no longer in post or with the Authority.
Page 17
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.24: In another similar situation planning permission for the erection of dwellinghouse on land at Rhu Lodge Ferry Road Rhu Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 8NF, was granted in November 2020 subject to conditions (LPA reference 20/01150/PP). Of the 9 conditions imposed 6 of these were recommended by the Roads Officer “in the interest of road safety and in accordance with the Councils 'Roads Guidance for Developers'”. Argyll and But Roads Response Roads must consider the application presented, the location, the function of the adjoining road and the characteristics of the site/ area of the proposed connection. It should be noted however, for the avoidance of doubt that the application referred to is not a through road, nor is it a ‘B’ road serving multiple communities. Roads therefore conclude that no parallel can be drawn between these two applications. Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.25: A subsequent application submitted for the variation of condition numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 and removal of conditions 7 and 8 relative to planning permission 20/01150/PP (Erection of dwellinghouse) was approved, however subject to essentially the same 6 road safety related conditions, all of which the applicant considered to be both unnecessary and unreasonable. Argyll and But Roads Response As above… Roads must consider the application presented, the location, the function of the adjoining road and the characteristics of the site/ area of the proposed connection. It should be noted however, for the avoidance of doubt that the application referred to is not a through road, nor is it a ‘B’ road serving multiple communities. Roads therefore conclude that no parallel can be drawn between these two applications. Whilst “the applicant may consider the conditions unreasonable”, it should be noted that the applicant is not liable for the health and safety of all road users that occupy the adopted road network within Argyll and Bute. Furthermore, it should be noted Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development.
Page 18
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.26: An appeal against the imposition of these 6 conditions was submitted to the Scottish Ministers (DPEA reference PPA-130-2086). The appeal was successful. All 6 of the conditions recommend by the Roads Officer were removed from the planning permission. They were replaced with just 3 conditions, all of which were much more appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed development. Argyll and But Roads Response Reference again is being drawn against an application of no similarity or comparison. As above… Roads must consider the application presented, the location, the function of the adjoining road and the characteristics of the site/ area of the proposed connection. For the avoidance of doubt, the application referred to is not a through road, nor is it a ‘B’ road that operate a 40mph speed limit, serving as a primary distribution road to multiple coastal communities around the peninsula. Roads therefore conclude that no parallel can be drawn between these two applications. It should be noted Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development.
Page 19
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.27: In paragraph 16 of the Reporter’s decision (Document 5) letter it states: “In this case, despite the context described above, the road improvements sought by the council are a ‘standard’ response to the predicted effects of the proposed development, based on guidance set out in the National Roads Development Guide (2017) and the council’s Roads Guidance for Developers (small housing developments) (2008). There is no acknowledgement in the roads officer’s consultation responses, nor the report of handling, to the scope that exists within the guidance to reduce or seek improvements commensurate to the nature, scale and location of the proposed development.” Argyll and But Roads Response The roads response consultation response in constructed in combination with a site-specific assessment, and a firm knowledge and understanding of the associated local and national design guidance. As detailed previously… Argyll & Bute Roads Technical design guidance (2024), Section 4.0 sets out the minimum visibility splay requirements for a new access onto/ off of the adopted carriageway for small housing developments between 1 to 5 dwellings. Within which it details the visibility requirements for a 40mph road is 75m. Furthermore, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TD 9/93: Highway Link Design’ guidance states that for roads that operate an 85th percentile vehicle speed of 40mph, the stopping sight distance is 80m. The application proposes 40m of unobstructed visibility splay, this equates to only 53% of the minimum Argyll and Bute standard, and 50% of minimum national design standards. The Roads consultation response therefore does take account of the size of the development, one dwelling, and applied the MINIMUM visibility splay requirements for both vehicles exiting the proposed development and for vehicles traveling along the adopted carriageway, as visibility applies to both those on and those joining the adopted carriageway.
Page 20
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.28: The appointed Reporter concluded by saying: “The appellant has demonstrated to my satisfaction that it is neither necessary nor reasonable to require Ferry Road to be improved to an adoptable standard given the location, nature and scale of the development proposed; it is a lightly-trafficked private road within a conservation area. There is no evidence to suggest that the council has undertaken an assessment of use to justify the package of improvement measures to Ferry Road that it seeks. In the absence of such, I consider the improvements proposed by the appellant are proportionate and would ensure that Ferry Road continues to function safely and effectively.” Argyll and But Roads Response Reference again is being drawn against an application of no similarity or comparison. As previously stated… The adjoining road, is a ‘B’ road that operate a 40mph speed limit, serving as a primary distribution road to multiple coastal communities around the peninsula. It is not “a lightly trafficked private road”. Roads therefore conclude that no parallel can be drawn between these two applications. It should be noted Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development. Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.29: The appointed Reporter concluded by saying: “The appellant has demonstrated to my satisfaction that it is neither necessary nor reasonable to require Ferry Road to be improved to an adoptable standard given the location, nature and scale of the development proposed; it is a lightly-trafficked private road within a conservation area. There is no evidence to suggest that the council has undertaken an assessment of use to justify the package of improvement measures to Ferry Road that it seeks. In the absence of such, I consider the improvements proposed by the appellant are proportionate and would ensure that Ferry Road continues to function safely and effectively.” Argyll and But Roads Response Reference again is being drawn against an application of no similarity or comparison. As previously stated… The adjoining road, is a ‘B’ road that operate a 40mph speed limit, serving as a primary distribution road to multiple coastal communities around the peninsula. It is not “a lightly trafficked private road”. Roads therefore conclude that no parallel can be drawn between these two applications. It should be noted Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. Furthermore, a failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the entire roads network to facilitate a single development.
Page 21
Roads Review – 25/0006/LRB – Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage– June 2025 (rev 0) Classification: OFFICIAL Document - Grounds for Review, Point 5.30: Additionally, the ‘standard’ values have been quoted in the refusal, despite the Roads Officer having agreed to visibility splays of 2 x 1.05 x 75 metres on 5th December 2023, further demonstrating the cut- and-paste approach to this case. With respect to the current application, Officers have again taken an over-simplistic, standardised approach to the requirement for visibility splays at the entrance to the proposed house plot. In doing so they have therefore not taken any account of local circumstances or the proposed (and otherwise unachievable) road safety improvements. Argyll and But Roads Response As previously stated…Roads must consider the application presented, the location, the function of the adjoining road and the characteristics of the site/ area of the proposed connection. In this instance, Roads issued a consultation response in January 2025 following numerous site visits and details conversations with the appointed Planning Officer. During which the Officer advised that the applicant/ agent could not guarantee that an agreement with the neighbouring property could be achieved, and the minimum visibility splay maintained in perpetuity. With this in mind, and with the due regard towards the health and safety of all road users, the minimum visibility splay requirements, detailed within Argyll & Bute Roads Technical design guidance (2024), Section 4.0, and the proposal to achieve only 53% of the minimum standard, the application was recommended for refusal. Roads refute the allegation that they have “again taken an over-simplistic, standardised approach to the requirement for visibility splays at the entrance to the proposed house plot” and direct that a consistent approach towards Road Safety, and a failure to obtain the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the roads network, to facilitate a single development, should not mandate an almost 50% reduction in Argyll and Bute Roads safety standards. Furthermore, it should be noted… Roads have suggested on numerous occasions that the applicant/ agent seek to resolve the visibility impediment issue through a legal agreement with the neighbouring property. A failure to obtain such an agreement by the applicant/ agent should not result in Argyll and Bute Roads lessening the minimum Health and Safety requirements of the roads network to facilitate a single development.