Notice of Review and Supporting Papers_Redacted
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
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL WWW.ARGYLL-BUTE.GOV.UK/** NOTICE OF REVIEW Notice of Request for Review under Section 43(a)8 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Important – Please read the notes on how to complete this form and use Block Capitals. Further information is available on the Council’s Website. You should, if you wish, seek advice from a Professional Advisor on how to complete this form. (3) Do you wish correspondence to be sent to you or your agent (4) (a) Reference Number of Planning Application (b) Date of Submission (c) Date of Decision Notice (if applicable) (5) Address of Appeal Property (1) APPLICANT FOR REVIEW Name Address Postcode Tel. No. Email (2) AGENT (if any) Name Address Postcode Tel. No. Email Iain Hall 87 Melrose Street Nottingham NG5 2JQ 077 92747256 iain.hall@live.com Alastair Cassell 1.06 McLellan Works, 274 Sauchiehall Street Glasgow G2 3EH 0141 486 7006 alastairc@dualchas.com OFFICIAL USE Date Received Ref: AB1 X 21/01589/PP Monday 2nd Aug 2021 Friday 19th Jul 2024 Land North Of Rockmount Portincaple Argyll And Bute 30/10/24 K McKenzie
Page 2
(6) Description of Proposal (7) Erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage, installation of septic tank treatment system and associated outfall and formation of vehicular access Please set out the detailed reasons for requesting the review:- Refer to attached appeal document. If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this is attached? (Please tick to confirm) X
Page 3
(8) If the Local Review Body determines that it requires further information on “specified matters” please indicate which of the following procedure you would prefer to provide such information :- (a) Dealt with by written submission (b) Dealt with by Local Hearing (c) Dealt with by written submission and site inspection (d) Dealt with by local hearing and site inspection NB It is a matter solely for the Local Review Body to determine if further information is required and, if so, how it should be obtained. (9) Please list in the schedule all documentation submitted as part of the application for review ensuring that each document corresponds to the numbering in the sections below:- Schedule of documents submitted with Notice of Review (Note: 3 paper copies of each of the documents referred to in the schedule below must be attached): No. Detail 1 21-01589-PP Refusal Decision Notice 2 21-01589-PP Refused Plans 3 21-01589-PP Roads Response Sept. 22 4 21-01589-PP Roads Rev A Response Dec. 23 5 21-01589-PP Road Survey Report 0100-23-01 6 21-01589-PP Road Survey Report 0100-23-02 7 21-01589-PP Road Survey Report 0100-23-03 8 21-01589-PP Email chain 1 - No determination & roads guidance (2022) 9 21-01589-PP Email chain 2 - No determination & roads guidance (2023) 10 21-01589-PP Email chain 3 - Explanation of road survey report (2023) If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this is attached? (Please tick to confirm) X
Page 4
Submitted by (Please Sign) Dated Important Notes for Guidance 1. All matters which the applicant intends to raise in the review must be set out in or accompany this Notice of Review 2. All documents, materials and evidence which the applicant intends to rely on in the Review must accompany the Notice of Review UNLESS further information is required under Regulation 15 or by authority of the Hearing Session Rules. 3. Guidance on the procedures can be found on the Council’s website – www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/ 4. If in doubt how to proceed please contact 01546 604392/604269 or email localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk 5. Once completed this form can be either emailed to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk or returned by post to Committee Services (Local Review Board), Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT 6. You will receive an acknowledgement of this form, usually by electronic mail (if applicable), within 14 days of the receipt of your form and supporting documentation. If you have any queries relating to the completion of this form please contact Committee Services on 01546 604392/604269 or email localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk For official use only Date form issued Issued by (please sign) Alastair Cassell (Agent) 27/09/2024
Page 5
Reason for appeal The applicant wishes to appeal the decision to refuse application 21/01589/PP on the grounds that: 1. The reason given for refusal is based on unjustifiably onerous conditions put forward by the Traffic & Development Officer which are neither commensurate nor appropriate to the scale of the proposed development. Context & details of appeal The proposed development was rejected for one reason: ‘The required commensurate improvements as requested by the Traffic & Development Officer cannot be achieved’ The commensurate improvements required by the Traffic & Development Officer were as follows: ‘…in the interest of road safety, further information is required to certify improvement works can be delivered in accordance with the Councils design guidance, these include: 1. Vertical geometry, along the length of the existing vehicle access, illustrating the existing and proposed gradients, in accordance with design guidance of 12.5% (1 in 8) 2. Plan and cross section drawings that evidence how necessary widths and lengths of proposed vehicle passing places will be achieved. These should include details of measures required to ensure existing driveway access alignment with vertical alignment/ gradient improvements. 3. Details of surface water drainage ditches that are required along the length of the cut or fill embankments, including details of any drainage pipes required to cross under the access to facilitate new or existing surface water ditches.’ The applicant provided a detailed road survey report and study on how the existing road could be upgraded to meet these requirements in so far as reasonably practicable given the topographic constraints of the road and the surrounding site. In its current state, the road is a single track with a loose gravel surface and a number of formal and informal (e.g. driveways, verges) passing places. There is one steep section (discussed in more detail below) which currently does not have any passing places and has concrete surfacing to aid vehicle grip.
Page 6
The road survey report sets out how the current state of the road could be greatly improved. It addresses point 1 on vertical geometry by demonstrating that it is not possible to regrade the road to meet the Council standard of 12.5% due to the physical limitations of the topography and the multiple access/junctions to/from the road. However, it shows that the track could be re-graded to an even gradient over its length to mitigate the steeper gradients insofar as possible. The survey report addresses points 2 and 3 by demonstrating that the following improvements could be made to the road: • Provide intervisible passing places at the top and bottom of the slope. These overlap so that 2 cars can pass each other over most of the length of the steepest part of the track. • Improve the road construction as per the detail attached on drawing number 0100-23_02 with a bituminous surface. • Install drainage channels at intervals to ensure that water is conveyed to the drainage ditch on the south side of the track. The refusal goes on to state: ‘…it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to LDP2 policy 37 which states that “Further development that utilises an existing private access or existing private road will only be accepted where: a) The access is capable of commensurate improvements considered by the Roads Authority to be appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed new development and that takes into account the current access issues (informed by an assessment of usage);’ This appeal argues that the demands put forward by the Roads Authority are neither commensurate nor appropriate in scale with the proposed development of a single dwelling house and that the proposals put forward by the applicant in the aforementioned road survey / study would constitute commensurate and appropriate improvements to the access road. Further to this, the refusal notes that the applicant must either be able to: ‘b) Secure ownership of the private road or access to allow for commensurate improvements to be made to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority; OR, c) Demonstrate that an appropriate agreement has been concluded with the existing owner to allow for commensurate improvements to be made to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.' The private road in question falls within the land ownership of the applicant. Some of the proposed improvements outlined in the aforementioned road survey / study would require minor works carried out on land owned by others which the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to do.
Page 7
The refusal also states, without any further explanation, that the application is contrary to LDP2 policy 66 and LDP2 policy 01. LDP2 policy 66 states: 'New buildings will only be permitted where: e) an appropriate standard of access to and parking for vehicles associated with the development is provided, it does not result in the loss of any existing parking spaces, and that traffic generated as a result of the development is capable of being accommodated within the capacity of the existing road network surrounding the development;' The planning authority do not make it clear how the application is contrary to above statement; the site is currently readily accessible for vehicles as evidenced by the many developments that gain access from the existing road, including the property located at the end of the access road adjacent to the development site (‘Rockmount’), a new property currently under construction at the bottom of and adjacent to the steep incline (‘Springwell’), and an extension of an existing property adjacent to the development site (‘Corran Bhan’) – highlighted in green on the map below. In fact, there are seven property owners that use the existing access road daily and no concerns have been raised by them concerning the short steep section of the road.
Page 8
Furthermore, the proposals do not result in any loss of existing parking spaces (2no. spaces and turning area are proposed within the curtilage of the proposed dwellinghouse per planning & building standards guidance). The proposal is for 1no. dwellinghouse which would result in a minimal/insignificant increase in traffic on the access road. LDP2 policy 01 states: 'Within the Settlement Areas as defined on the proposals maps development will normally be acceptable where: It is compatible with surrounding uses including but not exclusively; providing access, service areas, infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development'. The planning authority do not make it clear how the application is contrary to above statement. As per the above statement, in its current state the road is clearly providing adequate access for the existing dwellings located along its length. This appeal asserts that the proposed addition of one dwellinghouse does not constitute a significant increase in traffic on the road. Furthermore, the proposed site is the last remaining plot of land within the settlement area where a dwelling could be built along this stretch of road, thus there is little to no chance of there being any future development. Conclusion In conclusion, this appeal asserts that: 1. The reason given for refusal is based on unjustifiably onerous conditions put forward by the Traffic & Development Officer which are neither commensurate nor appropriate to the scale of the proposed development; 2. The applicant, at their own expense, put forward feasible proposals to improve the existing road which were summarily dismissed by the Traffic & Development Officer due to their insistence that the applicant meet the Council’s guidance on road gradient which are not possible to achieve; 3. The steadfast refusal by both the Planning Officer and Traffic and Development Officer has resulted in a situation whereby the existing road will remain in its current condition with no improvements made. Addendum: a final note on the process of this application The application was submitted on 2nd August 2021, validated on 15th September 2021 and refused, nearly three years later, on 19th July 2024. The amount of time it has taken to reach this point is completely unjustifiable and has led to the applicant wasting a significant amount of time and money. The planning officer(s) responsible for the processing of this application had to be repeatedly chased for answers to emails and phone calls, often with weeks or months going by between responses. Whilst it is accepted that there were issues raised relating to a possible public right of way across the site and the matter of the road which required review, there is no reason why the determination of this application should have taken so long. Indeed when the duration was questioned by the applicant and a determination was requested, they were informed that this was not possible as ‘the statutory period [had] lapsed along with the appeal window for non-determination’ and that ‘in hindsight [the Planning Officer] should have requested an extended determination period’ which only serves to underline the mishandling of this application and the reason for this appeal.