Roderick Mackay Interested Party
Argyll and Bute Council · 12 November 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 12 November 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
‘Caorach Dubh’ Portincaple Garelochhead Argyll & Bute G84 0ET 15th October, 2024 Dear Sir/Madam, Reference: Planning Application 21/01589/PP, Local Review Process Land North of Rockmount, Portincaple, Argyll and Bute As a resident of Portincaple for some 16 years, and with little or no professional experience on Planning and Road Construction issues, I none the less wish to air my comments as a local resident likely to be affected by the outcome of this local review process. I believe the decision to refuse the planning application 21/01589/PP was the correct decision for the local community. There are no objections to the style and location of the proposed new build. All my objections relate to the track, access issues and necessary passing places and I am therefore in complete agreement with the comments provided by the Traffic and Development Officer and Planners. The latest proposals, as per the appeal, do not sufficiently address the safety concerns of the vertical geometry of the track and if adopted, these proposed cosmetic proposals would only cause considerable difficulty to the residents during implementation as it is the only way traffic can get in and out. I recall a few years ago, a heavy Calor Gas lorry endeavouring to delivering Calor Gas to my home. The driver got lost and proceeded down the steep part of the track. The lorry came off the track at the bottom, and began to sink into the verge which broke away. The vehicle quickly became embedded at an angle of 45 degrees in the local peat which extended downwards for many metres. A local resident kindly tried to help with his digger but with little success. Eventually a heavy-duty crane lorry was called in from Glasgow to pull the Calor Gas lorry out and up the steep part of the track. To this day a large boulder can be seen as a warning sign at the junction where the road splits at the bottom of the track. The topography and room for manoeuvre where the track splits are difficult, and these latest proposals to alleviate the vertical gradient problem, I suggest, are of little benefit. During the winter months when we have to contend with snow and ice, the steep gradient can become a problem and all users have to be careful, especially at the steep part of the track. I refuse to tackle the gradient with my motor home (or Discovery) in these conditions. Of course, the local authority sand gritter doesn’t appear on the private track and thankfully so, as more chaos could ensue. With regard to drawing number 0100-23_02 and the new proposals by the applicant, I agree that the current situation with passing places is currently inadequate and improvements are necessary. However, it seems that these new proposals by the applicant, cannot in some cases realistically meet the details of the SD08/003A geometric standard. For example, passing place 1 is out-with the ownership boundary but this ownership boundary issue may be
Page 2
resolvable in this case as the required land is of little use for other purposes. However, an issue of concern may be the topography and quickness the land falls away from passing place 1. Although trees offer some safety protection, a barrier may need to be installed as an aid to improved safety. Passing place 2 is an existing passing place. However considerable materials and drainage work is required to bring it up to an acceptable standard. A safety barrier may be necessary due to the surrounding terrain. Again, this passing place is likely to be outside the ownership boundary. I and others have on occasion, pulled a vehicle out of trouble at this passing place. Passing place 3. This morning, I had a brief meeting with the owners of the two properties in question (‘Birchbank’ and ‘Cedar Cottage’) where passing place 3 is proposed at their access points. They had just recently heard about this newly proposed passing place and were far from amenable to the proposal. One resident has a holiday accommodation rental business and was vehemently opposed to the proposal and the other resident was equally opposed but for a different reason. They confirmed that they would not offer any land for sale or assist with regard to a passing place at their access points. Passing places 4 and 5 are within the ownership boundary. Although it provides adequate space for two cars passing, I am surprised that it could be acceptable on safety grounds as both passing places are at the difficult gradient portion of the track. Surely during difficult winter conditions (with snow and frost) it is a location waiting on an accident to happen. A relocation of the telegraph pole is necessary. There are nine property owners that use the existing access track on a regular basis and not seven property owners as said on the proposal document. These include ‘Caorach Dubh’ and my neighbour’s property ‘Fernhill’ who possess ownership of the track from the track divide at the bottom of the gradient to the end of the track on their side. On a personal note, I am concerned about the difficulties that Mr I Hall has encountered with his planning application over the past three years. I and others who have spoken to me are perfectly happy about the construction of a new build at the Rockmount site. The difficulties revolve around the vertical geometry issue of the track, suitability of passing places and associated drainage. I have heard it said on a number of occasions, that Mr Hall has been badly advised from the start of his application and that is certainly my feeling on the matter. My neighbour Mr Colin Smith appears to be a self-appointed advisor in all things to do with planning and road construction and appears to consider himself more knowledgeable than those who are professionally trained in such matters. Mr Smith and family have a family plot a short distance from Rockmount and I was informed by Colin that he had gained planning permission for a house build many years ago, and after appeal. I sometimes wonder though if there is a conflict of interest here with his advisory role and his family plot. Enough said for the moment, regards, Roderick Mackay Dr. R. M. Mackay, Physicist (retired)