Agenda reports pack
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 Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 5 November 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2024 at 2:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND NORTH OF ROCKMOUNT, PORTINCAPLE (REF: 24/0016/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 10) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 11 - 42) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 43 - 44) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Graham Hardie Contact: Katie McKenzie, Committee Services Officer Tel: 01546 604465 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
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 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
(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 4
Page 5
(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 5
Page 6
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 6
Page 7
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 7
Page 8
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 8
Page 9
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 9
Page 10
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. Page 10
Page 11
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK TREATMENT SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED OUTFALL AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AT; LAND NORTH OF ROCKMOUNT, PORTINCAPLE PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 21/01589/PP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0016/LRB 17th OCTOBER 2024 Page 11 Agenda Item 3b
Page 12
The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Iain Hall (“the appellant”). The agent is Mr Alastair Cassell / Dualchas Architects (“the agent”). Planning permission 21/01589/PP for the erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage, installation of septic tank treatment system and associated outfall and formation of vehicular access at; land north of rockmount, portincaple (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on the 19th Jul 2024. This decision is the subject of referral to the Local Review Body DESCRIPTION OF SITE The appeal site is located within the settlement area of Portincaple as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2). The site also lies within a designated local landscape area. The site measures approximately 5,400 square metres and is bounded to the West by the shores of Loch Long, to the South by the boundary of neighbouring property Rockmount which is delineated by a timber fence and a steep rocky escarpment / vegetation, to the East by existing vegetation, and to the North by existing vegetation including trees and sections of post and wire fencing. The site has historically been cleared of the majority of trees and vegetation which would not have required consent. The site slopes steeply from the East down to the shore of Loch Long to the West. The proposed house is to be sited to the West of the site towards the shoreline on a flatter section of ground, the footprint of the proposed house is approximately 155sqm. A double detached garage is proposed to the East of the site adjacent to the proposed access which is to be located at the South / East corner, the footprint of the proposed garage is approximately 50sqm. A parking and turning area is proposed directly in front of the garage, the proposed driveway will transverse through the site terminating at another parking and turning area to the rear of the proposed house. Access is to the proposed development is to be via an existing private road which serves a large number of private properties. This private road is a ‘dead end’ road which commences at the nearest adopted road ‘Feuins Road’. This proposal seeks to utilise this private road and from another access onto it for the formation of the proposed dwellinghouse access and driveway. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard is to be had to the development plan, and all other material planning considerations and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is the test for this application. Page 12
Page 13
REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. The issues raised were assessed in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix A. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above it is not considered that a Hearing is required. STATEMENT OF CASE This Review rests on the issue of whether or not the planning authority were correct to refuse planning permission. The Report of Handling (ROH) is attached as Appendix A to this Statement as background information. The planning officer submits that, in her opinion, the ROH accurately summarises the material planning issues raised by the development proposed, this being informed by the application as submitted, by the additional supporting documents received from the appellant’s agent, the third party representations received and the consultation responses. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The appellant wishes to appeal the decision to refuse application on the grounds that 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. In response to this the council’s local roads area manager was initially consulted on the proposals and requested demonstration that certain commensurate improvement works to the existing access could be achieved. These improvement works included demonstration of the required; gradients along the access not exceeding 12.5% (1 in 8), details of how existing driveway access align with the required gradients, widths of the access, widths and lengths of the passing places, intervisibility of the passing places, details of the required surface water drainage along the access and details of the required turning point to accommodate service / emergency vehicles. The commensurate improvement works are considered by the Roads Authority to be appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed new development. The appellant latterly 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. This additional supporting information was considered by the roads officer and they provided an updated consultation response recommending refusal. Page 13
Page 14
The ROH addresses the additional information as submitted by the appellant and notes; ‘the additional information fails to show the required inter-visible passing places along the access road and that 3 of the indicated passing places are not within the applicant’s ownership and are in fact existing access to other dwellinghouses. It is also noted that the additional information fails to demonstrate that the maximum gradient of 12.5% can be achieved along the length of the access with the proposals showing sections of 15.11% and 16.97%. While it is noted that the applicants have shown 2 proposed inter-visible passing places on land within their ownership, a proposed turning head and that sections of the road fall below the maximum permitted gradient of 12.5%, they have not shown that all commensurate improvements can be achieved.’ The ROH then goes onto to note; ‘the area roads manager is recommended refusal of the application as the required commensurate improvements cannot be achieved due to; the existing topography of the access road / site and the ability to deliver the required passing places and widths within land in the applicant’s control. Roads have further noted that while the applicants have submitted information to demonstrate what could be achievable within land in their ownership it is not considered that this is sufficient to justify further intensification of an already unsuitable access road. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not comply with LDP2 policy 37 and also LDP2 polices 01 & 66 as adequate access cannot be provided.’ The appellant also notes within their submission; ‘The refusal also states, without any further explanation, that the application is contrary to LDP2 policy 66 and LDP2 policy 01.’ 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’. For clarity the proposals would not comply with LDP2 policy 01 as an appropriate access cannot be provided. 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;' For clarity the proposals would not comply with LDP2 policy 66 as an appropriate standard of access cannot be provided. Lastly the appellant notes their aggrievement with the time taken to determine the application. This is noted by officers, however, this is not a material planning consideration, and does not outweigh the road safety concerns. Page 14
Page 15
CONCLUSION Members are respectfully urged to dismiss this Notice of Review for the reasons stated above. Page 15
Page 16
APPENDIX A Report of Handling Relative to 21/01589/PP Page 16
Page 17
Page 17
Page 18
Page 18
Page 19
Page 19
Page 20
Page 20
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
Page 23
Page 24
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
Page 26
Page 27
Page 27
Page 28
Page 28
Page 29
Page 29
Page 30
Page 30
Page 31
Page 31
Page 32
Page 32
Page 33
Page 33
Page 34
Page 34
Page 35
Ministry of Defence Safeguarding Department St George's House DIO Headquarters DMS Whittington Lichfield Staffordshire WS14 9PY Your Ref. 24/0016/LRB DIO Ref. DIO10053007 Telephone [MOD]: E-mail: 07970170934 Teena.oulaghan100@mod.gov. uk Katie McKenzie Argyll & Bute Council Legal and Regulatory Support Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RT 17 October 2024 Dear Katie, Council Planning Review Body reference – 24/0016/LRB Planning Application reference – 21/01589/PP Erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage, installation of septic tank treatment system and associated outfall and formation of vehicular access Location: Land North of Rockmount, Portincaple, Argyll and Bute. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has received notification from Argyll and Bute Council stating that the above planning application will be reviewed by the Council’s Planning Review Body. The MOD submitted a response dated 04 November 2021 to Argyll and Bute Council raising no objection to the proposal but advising that given the location of the house in relation to the explosive safeguarding zone for Defence Munitions Glen Douglas and Coulport RNAD, the MOD would highly recommend the developer considers incorporating at least 6.8mm thick laminated glass with a PVB interlayer to the innermost pane of the windows. The MOD has reviewed this response in light of the review, and I can confirm that the MOD position set out in my letter dated 04 November 2021 is unchanged. The MOD raises no objection to the proposal. The MOD recommend the developer considers incorporating at least 6.8mm thick laminated glass with a PVB interlayer to the innermost pane of the windows. I trust that the above will be taken into account during the Review consideration. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Teena Oulaghan Safeguarding Manager Page 35
Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 37
From: G&J Macfarlane <fernhill@hotmail.co.uk> Sent: 05 October 2024 12:48 To: localreviewprocess Subject: Notice of Review - Reference 24/0016/LRB - Land North of Rockmount, Portincaple (Planning Ref: 21/01589/PP) [OFFICIAL] Hello Thanks for the email informing us of the review of this application. Our original comments on the proposed development still stand and we also have some additional comments on the appeal document itself: The 'detailed road survey report' provided by the applicant did not and could not meet the council requirements and it proposed utilising areas of land that are owned by others. The document also states the following: 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. The applicant may be willing to carry out minor works on land owned by others but there is no evidence of approval from the other landowners concerned. Indeed, as mentioned above, drawings have been submitted showing improvements on areas of land where no permission had been sought at all. The document states the following: 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. The statement is incorrect, there are more than 7 property owners that use the existing access road and not all of them have been highlighted on their attached map. We are one such property owner. We use the track daily to access our property. We find that the steep section can be challenging at times and additional traffic would simply exacerbate this. We often see traffic on this route which is incommensurate with the number of properties accessing it, including vehicles that are totally inappropriate for the conditions. The document also states: 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. This is also inaccurate. There are several parcels of land in the vicinity that could potentially be candidates for future planning applications. Should this application be allowed with an exception made on the conditions, it would set a precedent for future applications which would further overwhelm the area. All planning applications that have been granted in this locality have been replacement dwellings where one Page 37
Page 38
already existed previously, thus not adding to the number of houses. We believe this is a common sense approach. We feel sure that the correct decision has been made already and that this should be allowed to stand. Regards Graham and Janine Macfarlane Page 38
Page 39
From: Iain Smith <iain.c.smith@btinternet.com> Sent: 03 October 2024 12:14 To: McKenzie, Katie Subject: RE: Intimation of Receipt of Notice of Review - Reference 24/0016/LRB -Land North of Rockmount, Portincaple (Planning Ref: 21/01589/PP) [OFFICIAL] Good Morning, As a neighbour to this proposed development can I confirm that I have used the mentioned track for many years as has my father before me without experiencing any problems. The local postman delivers daily as do grocery and other delivery vehicles. All material for my new build “Dhunan” was delivered without problem as it was for “Springwell“and “Rockmount” and without disturbing the track users in the immediate area. The track is regularly maintained by local users as a community and transverse water drains have been installed across the track to catch and divert any rainwater to the side and eventual drainage to sea. Even in the most heavy downpours flood water has never been a problem to the local track or house owners property and no part of the track experiences lying flood pools. The track is quiet enough to seldom meet opposite traffic though there are sufficient side tracks to allow passing without to much disruption. We do not see any adverse effect in allowing the proposed building and maintaining the road as it is and therefore support this appeal. Best Regards Iain Smith Dhunan Sent from Mail for Windows Page 39
Page 40
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 41
‘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 41
Page 42
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) Page 42
Page 43
From: Alastair Cassell <alastairc@dualchas.com> Sent: 30 October 2024 16:32 To: localreviewprocess <localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Cc: Sophie Rowland <sophie@dualchas.com>; ... iain HALL <iain.hall@live.com> Subject: D_926_Hall_Portincaple_Comment on representations for Appeal 24/0016/LRB To Whom it May Concern, D_926_Hall_Portincaple_Comment on representations for Appeal 24/0016/LRB Per the above, we would like to make the below comment: We would note that the planning application in question (ref: 21/01589/PP) presents the only demonstrably feasible/practical way to upgrade the road within the topographic limitations of the site/surrounding area. By upholding the refusal on the application, Argyll & Bute will be ensuring the access road remains, in their own words, “unsuitable” and with “significant road safety issues”. Kind regards, Alastair Cassell Architect Skye Glasgow Ailtireachd Gàidhealach Fàs Building, Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, Sleat, Isle of Skye IV44 8RQ 01471 833300 1.06 McLellan Works, 274 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow G2 3EH 0141 5501401 www.dualchas.com info@dualchas.com Dualchas is a trading name of Dualchas Architects Ltd SC498946 Page 43 Agenda Item 3c
Page 44
This page is intentionally left blank