Consider Notice of Review Request: Kellan, Glenmore Road, Oban, Pa34 4Nb (Ref: 24/0010/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 20 January 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 20 January 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Good afternoon Fiona Thank you for allowing additional time for our response, in light of the Roads Authority input of November 13th not being issued to the appellant at all and not reaching us as agent due to a typo in the email address. Following the site visit the LRB sought views on one option versus the other, relative to commensurate improvements - either the widening of the existing pinch point on the public road OR the provision of a footpath along the site frontage. The Roads Authority appear to be seeking both. In so doing, they would be ignoring the explicit request from the LRB for a comment on one option versus the other. During the site visit Stuart Watson indicated - when asked about providing a footpath at the site - that the Roads Authority need to be careful not to make disproportionate requests, in order to avoid going beyond what could be considered commensurate. Requiring both road widening and footpath provision would go beyond what would be considered commensurate to the scale of development that is proposed, (one additional house on a public road loop which already serves 239 properties). The effect of both road improvements in combination would be to eat into the site to such a degree that it would compromise the site. Seeking both sets of improvements would be disproportionate & unreasonable. As highlighted during our earlier statement of case, a 5 house development has recently been approved around the corner on the same public road loop, with just 300mm of road widening works required in that case - with support from the Roads Authority. Policy requires 'commensurate' improvements where a deficiency is identified in the public road network. Commensurate is defined as 'corresponding in size or degree, in proportion'. We ask that the required degree of balance is applied by LRB Members when deciding which commensurate improvements should apply in this case, giving consideration to the following points in their deliberations: Pavement provision: • Whilst understanding that footpath networks are ideal for pedestrian safety, we question whether a pavement along this short site frontage would offer the best road safety improvement in this instance. • There are no pavements in the road network in this area of the town and the pedestrian route to Pulpit Hill diverts to the steps before this site is reached. • Any formal pavement at this site would be isolated from any other pavement and would appear out of place. • The new house access would cross the line of the pavement, meaning that it would be a short section with dropped kerbs and be set back from the alignment of the adjacent shared surface road both uphill and downhill of the site - creating a practical risk that a pavement here might not be used. • A 1.5m or 2.0m wide pavement along the site frontage would eat into the application site area, constraining the available space for the proposed house and garden. • Providing a pavement would not address the pinch point that exists alongside the streetlamp, so the bus service would still need to pause at the driveway entrance of Kellan (when coming uphill) until any other traffic coming downhill has passed, and vice versa. If a pavement with dropped kerbs existed, the bus may even run onto the pavement at times to overcome the pinch point in the road. • We are concerned that a footpath would not provide the greatest benefit to road users, might not be fully utilised, and could itself stray beyond what is commensurate to the
Page 2
small scale of development that is proposed in this case - having regard to comments of Stuart Watson during the site visit. Road widening: • Mr MacLean would be happy to widen the public road to 5.5m wide along his landholding frontage and to pay for this improvement to be made. • The widened strip would require sub-base and tar depths to the correct adoptive standard of construction, in order that the widened road surface would be adopted by the council. • The physical works would involve straightening out the kerb line along the property frontage between the northern and southern extremities, to remove the existing pinch point near the existing streetlamp. • Mr MacLean would retain ownership and management of the land up to the back edge of the new kerb line, with finer details controlled via the Road Opening Permit process. • The streetlamp could be positioned to align with the boundary between Kellan and the new plot by the council's street lighting personnel when the road widening is being undertaken. • These works could be completed before construction commences on the house. • The new access, plus the existing access to Kellan, would provide two good sized pedestrian refuges clear of the carriageway. • This would achieve a welcome road safety improvement for all traffic using the road, creating a stretch where two vehicles can pass easily and distinct locations where pedestrians can readily step off the road as need be, with good forward visibility in both directions. • We believe this improvement would provide the broadest benefits and would remain commensurate to the scale of the single house proposal. The above matters can be adequately controlled via the relevant version of draft planning conditions provided by Planning Officers. In the event that the road widening is to be applied, we note that standard drawing SD 08 002 REV B is the required access standard, but this switches to standard drawing SD 08 005 REV B if a footpath is to be provided, as per the current Roads Technical Guidelines. Kind regards Stephen Fair