Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 27 August 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 27 August 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 20 August 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 27 AUGUST 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: 50 CHARLOTTE STREET, HELENSBURGH, G84 7SR (REF: 24/0005/LRB) (a) Comments from Interested Parties (Roads Authority) (Pages 3 - 12) (b) Comments from Applicant (Pages 13 - 28) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Liz McCabe Contact: Lynsey Innis, Senior Committee Assistant Tel: 01546 604338 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ROADS REVIEW LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0005/LRB PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 23/01046/PP LOCATION: 50 CHARLOTTE ST, HELENSBURGH, G84 7SR PROPOSED: ALTERATIONS TO WIDEN DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE JUNE 2024 Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) Document history This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Created by 0 04/06/2024 Roads Review + Roads Appeal Response R.Kane Page 4
Page 5
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) Contents 1. Project Description 1 2. History 2 3. Roads Comment 3 4. Roads Response to Appeal Comments 4 5. Summary 6 Page 5
Page 6
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 1. Project Description Brief: Evaluate the proposed access alterations at 50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh. Location/ Route: 50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh, located at the junction/ bend between Charlotte Street & East Rossdhu Drive. The route (Charlotte Street & East Rossdhu Drive) operates as a main rural secondary distributor road, connecting the A818 of Sinclair Street with East Abercromby Street and the wider residential area. Beyond this, the route serves as one of only two vehicle connections over the lower Helensburgh railway, providing a connection between the A818 of Sinclair Street and the A814 of East Clyde Street. Design Considerations: ➢ All Roads related issues must give due consideration for the health, safety and wellbeing of all road users. ➢ All Roads related issues must recognise the Highway Code and the hierarchy of road users, within. This identifies that those in charge of vehicles can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision and thus bear the greatest responsibility. The code therefore recognises the most vulnerable at the top of the hierarchy as pedestrians. ➢ The existing pedestrian provision. ➢ The existing vehicle access provision. ➢ The vehicle access requirements. ➢ All relevant design standards and guidance. Page 6
Page 7
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 2. History (Road’s responses to 50 Charlotte Street between 2022& 2024) Date Applicant Application for Roads Response 16 June 2022 Mrs Dawn Anderson formation of additional parking Refuse: • The visibility splay of 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres for a 30mph is not achievable. • Due to the close proximity with a corner and insufficient visibility splay, vehicle parking and turning should be achieved within the curtilage of the dwelling with adequate manoeuvring space within the site for a vehicle to enter and leave in a forward gear. • The removal of carriage illumination assets, to increase private parking provision, will not be supported. 1 August 2022 Mrs Dawn Anderson formation of additional parking Refuse: • The visibility splay of 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres for a 30mph is not achievable. • Due to the close proximity with a corner and insufficient visibility splay, vehicle parking and turning should be achieved within the curtilage of the dwelling with adequate manoeuvring space within the site for a vehicle to enter and leave in a forward gear. 29 August 2022 Mrs Dawn Anderson formation of additional parking No Objections subject to Conditions: • The application has been reduced to remove any applications/ requests for additional parking. 2 August 2023 Refuse: • Roads refuse the proposed as the widening works do not support a widened access route within the existing wall and, therefore consider the proposed widening works may be considered as an approved provision for vehicle parking within the verge. Page 7
Page 8
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 3. Roads Comments In response to 23/01046/PP, proposed alterations to widen driveway, Roads note the following comments/ concerns: • Visibility splays protect all road users, where a vehicle is required to reverse the operator does not achieve the unimpeded visibility as that of a vehicle travelling in a forward gear. The driveway in question is located on a main rural secondary distributor road, connecting the A818 of Sinclair Street with East Abercromby Street. The visibility splay requirements for Charlotte Street are 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres for a 30mph. At the access to 50 Charlotte Street this is not achievable in the improved operator position of forward gear. Parking in this location or manoeuvring in this location therefore represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. • All new, and alterations to existing accesses must give cognisance to the hierarchy of road users, and that those in charge of vehicles represent the greatest cause of harm in the event of a collision and thus bear the greatest responsibility. Where alterations to an existing vehicle access do not improve the intervisibility of manoeuvring vehicles this represents a significant Health and Safety concern to all road users, but more specifically the most vulnerable of the hierarchy, pedestrians. • As detailed with Argyll and Bute standard detail drawing, SD08/005 Rev B driveway access, the minimum width of access is 3.6m. This dimension is formed from the width of a vehicle, between 2.0 - 2.4m, and the passing width required for a ‘vulnerable pedestrian such as a pushchair or pram of 1.2m. The application proposes to increase the overall width of the existing vehicle access to 6.0m. It should be noted that the minimum width of a standard bi- directional carriageway is 5.5m. • Within the applicant’s submission, the pedestrian access gate is located to the south of the vehicle access gate, yet the application proposes surface widening both north and south of the existing access surface, increasing the overall width of the vehicle access to 6.0m. Again, it is reiterated that the It should be noted that the minimum width of a standard bi-directional carriageway is 5.5m. • The Argyll and Bute standard detail drawing, SD08/005 Rev B driveway access, details that the minimum width of access required, to facilitate a stationary vehicle and a vulnerable pedestrian, is 3.6m. The existing driveway surface varies in width between 3.5m and 4.0m. The applicant is proposing a widened access of 6.0m, some 40% larger than the minimum width required of new build developments. At 6.0m width, the surface could accommodate 2 vehicles and the passing of ‘vulnerable’ pedestrians, and therefore could be misused. • On two previous occasions, Roads have been asked to provide consultation response on the “formation of additional parking”. The most recent application for the widening of the existing access, to 6.0m, represents an excessive width for the access of 1x vehicle and pedestrian passage. A width of 6.0m therefore represents a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location that does not achieve minimum visibility requirements or offer vehicle turning to facilitate vehicles enter and leave in a forward gear. Any potential intensification of this existing provision therefore represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. Page 8
Page 9
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 4. Roads Response to Appeal Comments Appeal comment: 3.6. This reason for refusal represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the proposed alterations to the driveway. As noted at section 2 above, the widening of the driveway is not to accommodate further vehicles but rather to accommodate a more direct route for pedestrian access to/egress from the Property. Roads Response: Roads determine the width of the proposed widening (6.0m) excessive for the proposed use, as this represents the width of a bi-directional carriageway. At the proposed width, Roads conclude the ability for intensification of the provision, for the parking of vehicles, is greatly increased and thus represents an increased potential roads hazard. Roads consider the proposed widening of 6.0m without any hard segregation for pedestrians to represent a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. Appeal comment: 3.11 The Council could also introduce signage regarding the bend if considered appropriate, or a convex traffic mirror. Roads Response: Road hazards should be managed at source through effective design and not signage. Whilst mirrors placed alongside the carriageway are not supported, the use of signage would be considered a last option in managing a hazard. Roads do not support the management of new or altered access arrangements, that represent of a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users, through the use of signage. Appeal comment: 3.12 It is not new development in that sense. The Proposed Development is largely a cosmetic exercise. We therefore do not consider that such a technical assessment is appropriate since what is proposed is, in effect, a like for like replacement of the existing driveway. Roads Response: The existing driveway surface varies in width between 3.5m and 4.0m. The applicant is proposing a widened access of 6.0m, some 40% larger than the minimum width required of new build developments. At 6.0m width, the surface could accommodate 2 vehicles and the passing of ‘vulnerable’ pedestrians, and therefore is not “like for like replacement” but in fact an intensification of this existing provision that therefore represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. If should be further noted that this location was never approved for the parking of vehicles and merely vehicle access to the property. Appeal comment: 3.25. Further, in the unlikely event of a car being parked on the driveway area then pedestrians are not being forced to deviate from their walking line on to the road. Roads Response: Historically the applicant has previously and repeatedly applied for the formation of additional parking. On various site visits, Roads have witnessed more than one vehicle parked within this verge location at any one time. Finally, within picture evidence recorded on the Planning Portal, a vehicle is parked on the driveway access to the property. Roads would therefore consider the possibility of a vehicle parking on the access drive area to be likely. Furthermore, at the proposed width of 6.0m, Roads conclude the ability for intensification of the provision, for the parking of vehicles, is greatly increased. This therefore represents an increased potential roads hazard. Roads consider the proposed widening of 6.0m without any hard segregation for pedestrians to represent a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. Page 9
Page 10
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) Appeal comment: 3.26. Again, should the Council wish to restrain parking at this location then the Council could introduce a Traffic Regulation Order doing so. Roads Response: Road design that represents a hazard should be managed at source through effective design and not through the presence of a Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) that require Council resources to create and maintain. Appeal comment: 5.2. Disability is a protected characteristic. Section 149 then continues: (3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to— (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low Roads Response: Argyll and Bute Roads recognise and support access for all. With that, Roads identify that the proposed width of 6.0m represents a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location that does not achieve minimum visibility and that any potential intensification of this existing provision therefore represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. With due regard for the access of all, Roads counsel that any proposed widening be limited in width to no greater than 4.0m and controlled through hard segregation between vehicle and pedestrian access. In doing so, reducing the potential for intensification of use and controlling the associated Health and Safety concern identified by road. Appeal comment: 5.3. In our submission, the appointed officer has failed to take into account that the Proposed Development will remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by disabled persons. Set against this backdrop, the Appellant’s planning application aligns with these commitments and should be positively encouraged by the LRB. The Property’s existing pedestrian access is, in effect, a narrow mud slope that restricts unimpeded access to the Property and disproportionately affects disabled path users. Roads Response: Roads recognise that the proposed represents a widening of an existing access, up to the width of a bi-directional carriageway (6.0m). The proposed in its current form does not “remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by disabled persons” but in fact represents a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location that does not achieve minimum visibility and thus, a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users, not just those with disabilities. Roads reiterate that the proposed is a point of access and not a parking provision. As the appellant states in 3.25.” in the unlikely event of a car being parked on the driveway area” the access width will be reduced however, as highlighted by the appellant, this is “unlikely” Roads would highlight the applicant has previously, and repeatedly applied for the formation of additional parking in this location and been refused. Roads therefore counsel that any proposed widening be limited to a width of 4.0m, permitting vehicle passage and also a pedestrian access for all. Furthermore, Roads would condition that of the 4.0m, 1.2m of pedestrian access be retained through hard segregation between vehicle and pedestrian access. In doing so, reducing the potential for intensification of use and controlling the associated Health and Safety concern identified and ensuring access for all. Page 10
Page 11
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 5. Summary • The visibility splay requirements for Charlotte Street are 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres for a 30mph. In its existing form, the access of 50 Charlotte Street does not achievable this. • Widening of the existing access to the proposed width of 6.0m represents a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location. A location that does not achieve minimum visibility requirements. Therefore, any potential intensification of this existing provision represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. • The applicant has previously, and repeatedly applied for the formation of additional parking in this location and been refused. The proposed must therefore be consider a point of access and into the property and not a parking provision. • Roads recognise the Argyll and Bute standard detail drawing, SD08/005 Rev B driveway access, the minimum width of access is 3.6m. This dimension is formed from the width of a vehicle, between 2.0 - 2.4m, and the passing width required for a ‘vulnerable pedestrian such as a pushchair or pram of 1.2m. Roads recommend that any proposed widening be limited to a width of 4.0m, permitting vehicle passage and also a pedestrian access for all. Furthermore, Roads would condition that of the 4.0m, 1.2m of pedestrian access be retained through hard segregation between vehicle and pedestrian access. In doing so, reducing the potential for intensification minimising the associated Health and Safety concern identified through insufficient visibility at this location, potential intensification of use and ensuring access for all. Page 11
Page 12
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 13
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ROADS REVIEW LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0005/LRB PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 23/01046/PP LOCATION: 50 CHARLOTTE ST, HELENSBURGH, G84 7SR PROPOSED: ALTERATIONS TO WIDEN DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE JUNE 2024 Page 13 Agenda Item 3b
Page 14
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) Document history This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Created by 0 04/06/2024 Roads Review + Roads Appeal Response R.Kane Page 14
Page 15
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) Contents 1. Project Description 1 2. History 2 3. Roads Comment 3 4. Roads Response to Appeal Comments 4 5. Summary 6 Page 15
Page 16
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 1. Project Description Before continuing to provide comments on this submission by the Roads Authority we wish to take this opportunity to restate to Members that, in simple terms, and as the appellant has put it in correspondence with us, “we’re just changing the cobbles and filling in a bit of mud to make a path into the house.” We urge Members to undertake a site visit to contextualise this for themselves. Brief: Evaluate the proposed access alterations at 50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh. Location/ Route: 50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh, located at the junction/ bend between Charlotte Street & East Rossdhu Drive. The route (Charlotte Street & East Rossdhu Drive) operates as a main rural secondary distributor road, connecting the A818 of Sinclair Street with East Abercromby Street and the wider residential area. Beyond this, the route serves as one of only two vehicle connections over the lower Helensburgh railway, providing a connection between the A818 of Sinclair Street and the A814 of East Clyde Street. Design Considerations: ➢ All Roads related issues must give due consideration for the health, safety and wellbeing of all road users. ➢ All Roads related issues must recognise the Highway Code and the hierarchy of road users, within. This identifies that those in charge of vehicles can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision and thus bear the greatest responsibility. The code therefore recognises the most vulnerable at the top of the hierarchy as pedestrians. ➢ The existing pedestrian provision. ➢ The existing vehicle access provision. ➢ The vehicle access requirements. ➢ All relevant design standards and guidance. Page 16
Page 17
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 2. History (Road’s responses to 50 Charlotte Street between 2022& 2024) Date Applicant Application for Roads Response 16 June 2022 Mrs Dawn Anderson formation of additional parking Refuse: • The visibility splay of 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres for a 30mph is not achievable. • Due to the close proximity with a corner and insufficient visibility splay, vehicle parking and turning should be achieved within the curtilage of the dwelling with adequate manoeuvring space within the site for a vehicle to enter and leave in a forward gear. • The removal of carriage illumination assets to increase private parking provision, will not be supported. 1 August 2022 Mrs Dawn Anderson formation of additional parking Refuse: • The visibility splay of 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres for a 30mph is not achievable. • Due to the close proximity with a corner and insufficient visibility splay, vehicle parking and turning should be achieved within the curtilage of the dwelling with adequate manoeuvring space within the site for a vehicle to enter and leave in a forward gear. 29 August 2022 Mrs Dawn Anderson formation of additional parking No Objections subject to Conditions: • The application has been reduced to remove any applications/ requests for additional parking. 2 August 2023 Refuse: • Roads refuse the proposed as the widening works do not support a widened access route within the existing wall and, therefore consider the proposed widening works may be considered as an approved provision for vehicle parking within the verge. Page 17
Page 18
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 3. Roads Comments In response to 23/01046/PP, proposed alterations to widen driveway, Roads note the following comments/ concerns: • Visibility splays protect all road users, where a vehicle is required to reverse the operator does not achieve the unimpeded visibility as that of a vehicle travelling in a forward gear. The driveway in question is located on a main rural secondary distributor road, connecting the A818 of Sinclair Street with East Abercromby Street. The visibility splay requirements for Charlotte Street are 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres for a 30mph. At the access to 50 Charlotte Street this is not achievable in the improved operator position of forward gear. Parking in this location or manoeuvring in this location therefore represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. As noted in the response of Modus Transport Solutions, and as noted per the recent submissions made in planning application 22/00017/PP, the 85th % speeds at this location are 17-18mph and therefore the application of such a visibility splay is demonstrably not appropriate. • All new, and alterations to existing accesses must give cognisance to the hierarchy of road users, and that those in charge of vehicles represent the greatest cause of harm in the event of a collision and thus bear the greatest responsibility. Where alterations to an existing vehicle access do not improve the intervisibility of manoeuvring vehicles this represents a significant Health and Safety concern to all road users, but more specifically the most vulnerable of the hierarchy, pedestrians. The alterations provide for a neutral position as to the driveway. As has been explained in previous submissions, insofar as vehicular access is concerned, the alterations do not change the position because the alterations are, in essence, to resurface the existing driveway. To be clear, this is not the installation of a new driveway that was not there before. The driveway already exists and is merely being squared off with the existing bricks replaced with cobbles more in-keeping with the appearance of the area. The squaring off of the driveway will also allow for a dedicated pedestrian route to the entrance to the property. As the appellant has put it in correspondence with us, “we’re just changing the cobbles and filling in a bit of mud to make a path into the house.” • As detailed with Argyll and Bute standard detail drawing, SD08/005 Rev B driveway access, the minimum width of access is 3.6m. This dimension is formed from the width of a vehicle, between 2.0 - 2.4m, and the passing width required for a ‘vulnerable pedestrian such as a pushchair or pram of 1.2m. The application proposes to increase the overall width of the existing vehicle access to 6.0m. It should be noted that the minimum width of a standard bi- directional carriageway is 5.5m. As the Roads Authority explains, 3.6m is the minimum width, not the maximum. There is no rule of which we are aware that precludes a width exceeding 3.6m and the Roads Authority does not provide any argument to that effect. Page 18
Page 19
• Within the applicant’s submission, the pedestrian access gate is located to the south of the vehicle access gate, yet the application proposes surface widening both north and south of the existing access surface, increasing the overall width of the vehicle access to 6.0m. Again, it is reiterated that the It should be noted that the minimum width of a standard bi- directional carriageway is 5.5m. Simply, the existing driveway, previously constructed around a lamppost that has now been removed, is being squared off. The existing construction around the (now removed) lamppost is shown on the plan to the right. Further, as has been explained over several submissions, the proposed development is also to provide for a more direct access/egress to the pedestrian entrance to the property. At present, pedestrian access/egress must be taken at an angle because the existing driveway had to be constructed to curve around the lamppost (shown on the above plan) which has now been removed. The proposed development will enable a more direct access for pedestrians (as well as repair damage which the appellant indicates was caused by the Council during its works to remove the lamppost). • The Argyll and Bute standard detail drawing, SD08/005 Rev B driveway access, details that the minimum width of access required, to facilitate a stationary vehicle and a vulnerable pedestrian, is 3.6m. The existing driveway surface varies in width between 3.5m and 4.0m. The applicant is proposing a widened access of 6.0m, some 40% larger than the minimum width required of new build developments. At 6.0m width, the surface could accommodate 2 vehicles and the passing of ‘vulnerable’ pedestrians, and therefore could be misused. Once again, the minimum width is just that – a minimum width. • On two previous occasions, Roads have been asked to provide consultation response on the “formation of additional parking”. The most recent application for the widening of the existing access, to 6.0m, represents an excessive width for the access of 1x vehicle and pedestrian passage. A width of 6.0m therefore represents a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location that does not achieve minimum visibility requirements or offer vehicle turning to facilitate vehicles enter and leave in a forward gear. Any potential intensification of this existing provision therefore represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. Please see submission of Modus Transport Solutions in this regard. Page 19
Page 20
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 4. Roads Response to Appeal Comments Appeal comment: 3.6. This reason for refusal represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the proposed alterations to the driveway. As noted at section 2 above, the widening of the driveway is not to accommodate further vehicles but rather to accommodate a more direct route for pedestrian access to/egress from the Property. Roads Response: Roads determine the width of the proposed widening (6.0m) excessive for the proposed use, as this represents the width of a bi-directional carriageway. At the proposed width, Roads conclude the ability for intensification of the provision, for the parking of vehicles, is greatly increased and thus represents an increased potential roads hazard. Roads consider the proposed widening of 6.0m without any hard segregation for pedestrians to represent a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. The additional hard surfacing is principally to accommodate a more direct pedestrian access/egress from the property. Appeal comment: 3.11 The Council could also introduce signage regarding the bend if considered appropriate, or a convex traffic mirror. Roads Response: Road hazards should be managed at source through effective design and not signage. Whilst mirrors placed alongside the carriageway are not supported, the use of signage would be considered a last option in managing a hazard. Roads do not support the management of new or altered access arrangements, that represent of a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users, through the use of signage. It is disputed that the proposed development generates any form of road hazard given the nature of the development that is proposed. Appeal comment: 3.12 It is not new development in that sense. The Proposed Development is largely a cosmetic exercise. We therefore do not consider that such a technical assessment is appropriate since what is proposed is, in effect, a like for like replacement of the existing driveway. Roads Response: The existing driveway surface varies in width between 3.5m and 4.0m. The applicant is proposing a widened access of 6.0m, some 40% larger than the minimum width required of new build developments. At 6.0m width, the surface could accommodate 2 vehicles and the passing of ‘vulnerable’ pedestrians, and therefore is not “like for like replacement” but in fact an intensification of this existing provision that therefore represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. If should be further noted that this location was never approved for the parking of vehicles and merely vehicle access to the property. It is disputed that the proposed development represents an intensification of the existing provision because the proposed alterations are also to accommodate a more direct pedestrian access/egress. Page 20
Page 21
Appeal comment: 3.25. Further, in the unlikely event of a car being parked on the driveway area then pedestrians are not being forced to deviate from their walking line on to the road. Roads Response: Historically the applicant has previously and repeatedly applied for the formation of additional parking. On various site visits, Roads have witnessed more than one vehicle parked within this verge location at any one time. Finally, within picture evidence recorded on the Planning Portal, a vehicle is parked on the driveway access to the property. Roads would therefore consider the possibility of a vehicle parking on the access drive area to be likely. Furthermore, at the proposed width of 6.0m, Roads conclude the ability for intensification of the provision, for the parking of vehicles, is greatly increased. This therefore represents an increased potential roads hazard. Roads consider the proposed widening of 6.0m without any hard segregation for pedestrians to represent a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. The appellant would be content to accept a planning condition requiring the existing plans that have been submitted to be updated to show a segregated path within the overall cobbled width of 6.0m. Amendments to applications cannot be made once the application has been determined by the appointed officer but a non-material change, such as the introduction of a line in a different colour of cobble stone to delineate the path, comparable to the plan below, could competently be conditioned to include wording that the path (and only the path) remains free of obstruction. Page 21
Page 22
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) Appeal comment: 3.26. Again, should the Council wish to restrain parking at this location then the Council could introduce a Traffic Regulation Order doing so. Roads Response: Road design that represents a hazard should be managed at source through effective design and not through the presence of a Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) that require Council resources to create and maintain. The competence of a TRO is not disputed by the Roads Authority. Appeal comment: 5.2. Disability is a protected characteristic. Section 149 then continues: (3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to— (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low Roads Response: Argyll and Bute Roads recognise and support access for all. With that, Roads identify that the proposed width of 6.0m represents a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location that does not achieve minimum visibility and that any potential intensification of this existing provision therefore represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. With due regard for the access of all, Roads counsel that any proposed widening be limited in width to no greater than 4.0m and controlled through hard segregation between vehicle and pedestrian access. In doing so, reducing the potential for intensification of use and controlling the associated Health and Safety concern identified by road. The additional hard surfacing proposed is principally to accommodate improved pedestrian access/egress from the property, including vulnerable persons. Appeal comment: 5.3. In our submission, the appointed officer has failed to take into account that the Proposed Development will remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by disabled persons. Set against this backdrop, the Appellant’s planning application aligns with these commitments and should be positively encouraged by the LRB. The Property’s existing pedestrian access is, in effect, a narrow mud slope that restricts unimpeded access to the Property and disproportionately affects disabled path users. Roads Response: Roads recognise that the proposed represents a widening of an existing access, up to the width of a bi-directional carriageway (6.0m). The proposed in its current form does not “remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by disabled persons” but in fact represents a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location that does not achieve minimum visibility and thus, a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users, not just those with disabilities. Roads reiterate that the proposed is a point of access and not a parking provision. As the appellant states in 3.25.” in the unlikely event of a car being parked on the driveway area” the access width will be reduced however, as highlighted by the appellant, this is “unlikely” Roads would highlight the applicant has previously, and repeatedly applied for the formation of additional parking in this location and been refused. Roads therefore counsel that any proposed widening be limited to a width of 4.0m, permitting vehicle passage and also a pedestrian access for all. Furthermore, Roads would condition that of the 4.0m, 1.2m of pedestrian access be retained through hard segregation between vehicle and pedestrian access. In doing so, reducing the potential Page 22
Page 23
for intensification of use and controlling the associated Health and Safety concern identified and ensuring access for all. The appellant noted in discussions on this aspect of the appeal that should a person in a wheelchair wish to gain access to the property, in the absence of the widening of the driveway to install a more direct and dedicated pedestrian path, such access would be exceedingly difficult. The appellant urges the members of the LRB to undertake a site visit where they can see for themselves the relationship of the proposed development to the property, the fact that the proposed alterations are so incredibly modest, and the basic common sense behind the appellant’s proposed development. Page 23
Page 24
Roads Review – 24/0005/LRB – Alterations to Widen Driveway Entrance – June 2024 (rev 0) 5. Summary For the reasons noted above and in the submission of Modus Transport Solutions, the conclusions below are disputed. • The visibility splay requirements for Charlotte Street are 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres for a 30mph. In its existing form, the access of 50 Charlotte Street does not achievable this. • Widening of the existing access to the proposed width of 6.0m represents a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location. A location that does not achieve minimum visibility requirements. Therefore, any potential intensification of this existing provision represents a significant Health and Safety concern to the road safety of all road users. • The applicant has previously, and repeatedly applied for the formation of additional parking in this location and been refused. The proposed must therefore be consider a point of access and into the property and not a parking provision. • Roads recognise the Argyll and Bute standard detail drawing, SD08/005 Rev B driveway access, the minimum width of access is 3.6m. This dimension is formed from the width of a vehicle, between 2.0 - 2.4m, and the passing width required for a ‘vulnerable pedestrian such as a pushchair or pram of 1.2m. Roads recommend that any proposed widening be limited to a width of 4.0m, permitting vehicle passage and also a pedestrian access for all. Furthermore, Roads would condition that of the 4.0m, 1.2m of pedestrian access be retained through hard segregation between vehicle and pedestrian access. In doing so, reducing the potential for intensification minimising the associated Health and Safety concern identified through insufficient visibility at this location, potential intensification of use and ensuring access for all. Page 24
Page 25
Registered address: 5 South Gyle Crescent Lane Edinburgh EH12 9EG T: 07816902730 E: duncan@modustransportsolutions.co.uk W :www.modustransportsolutions.co.uk Modus Response - 50 Charlotte Street Helensburgh(37214213.2) Page | 1 Argyll and Bute Council Development Management Kilmory Castle Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RT 8th July 2024 F.A.O - Kirsty Sweeney 50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh Modus Transport Solutions Ltd has been appointed by Dawn Anderson to review the Roads response provided by Argyll and Bute Council in relation to the proposed alterations to widen the driveway entrance at 50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh. We have reviewed the Roads response provided and would question the validity of the points set out in the response. In my 33 years of working in the traffic and transport planning industry, I have never come across the Highway Code being used, or suggested to be used, as a Design Standard for highway design projects. I, therefore, find it very unusual that this is referenced within the response on several occasions. All road users are considered within the recognised Design Standards such as the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Designing Streets, the National Roads Development Guide and indeed Argyll and Bute Council’s - Roads and Infrastructure Services Roads Development Technical Guidance. The Roads Department has classified Charlotte Street as a “main rural secondary distributor road”. This is not a recognised classification within DMRB, Designing Street, National Roads Development Guide or Argyll and Bute Council’s - Roads and Infrastructure Services Roads Development Technical Guidance. I would question this classification for a number of reasons. Charlotte Street is located in the eastern residential area of Helensburgh. Its location is not rural and, in fact, its location is purely residential. Charlotte Steet is a residential road with direct frontage access to driveways, parking areas and on-street parking along its length, it is not a distributor road. There is no road signage, advance direction signage or otherwise, to Charlotte Street from either the A818 or the A814 suggesting it is a distributor road. The Council have suggested visibility splay requirements of 42m x 2.4m for a 30mph speed limit. I would question whether the 85th % speeds on Charlotte Street are at a level of 30mph and would respectfully Page 25
Page 26
50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh Proposed Dirveway Alterations Modus Response - 50 Charlotte Street Helensburgh(37214213.2) Page | 2 suggest that they are more likely to be in the region of 20mph or less given the geometry of the road. Indeed, I understand that this has already been demonstrated to the Council utilising very recent speed survey findings commissioned for planning application 22/00017/PP at East Rossdhu Drive, located only metres from Ms Anderson’s property, which evidenced that 85th % speeds at the corner of East Rossdhu Drive/Charlotte Street are 17-18mph. This would equate to sightlines of 25m x 2.4m. This could be determined by a further speed survey if required. A vehicle exiting the proposed driveway area can clearly see a vehicle approaching from either the right or the left when doing so in a forward gear. To suggest that there is a significant Health and Safety concern for such a manoeuvre is frankly ridiculous. One only needs to drive along the full length of Charlotte Street from the A818 to the A814 to observe similar driveways and parking areas. It is recommended that the LRB should attend a site visit to clarify this situation for themselves. Argyll and Bute make continued reference to vulnerable road users and the significant Health and Safety issues on Charlotte Street. There have been no reported injury accidents on this section of Charlotte Street in the past 24 years (reference CrashMap UK data) and therefore I find it hard to believe that resurfacing of this driveway to include a modest extension for pedestrian access/egress will cause some sort of dramatic road safety issue. A standard double garage driveway is typically 5-6m in width. While a bi-directional carriageway may indeed be 5.5m wide, as stated by the Council, this does not take into account car doors requiring to be opened. Indeed, two standard car parking spaces side by side would be 5m wide. The applicant is simply allowing for an additional area for pedestrians, hence the 6m. The Council’s 3.6m is a minimum standard, not a maximum, and the Applicant wants to apply for more than the minimum standard. The Council suggest that a width of 6.0m would represent a potential for the intensification of vehicle parking at a location that does not achieve minimum visibility requirements or offer vehicle turning to facilitate vehicles entering and leaving in a forward gear. Once again this claim makes no sense. Are the Council now suggesting that all vehicles accessing a driveway have to leave in a forward gear? Is it now being suggested by the Council that all residents are required to reverse onto their driveway from the road to enable them to leave in a forward gear? This can easily be achieved from the proposed driveway if this is indeed a requirement. The proposals are for an improved driveway access with additional space for pedestrians with very low levels of vehicle activity over the course of a day and at low speeds at this location. This will certainly not create the dramatic road safety issues the Council is alluding to. Page 26
Page 27
50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh Proposed Dirveway Alterations Modus Response - 50 Charlotte Street Helensburgh(37214213.2) Page | 3 It is the professional opinion of Modus Transport Solutions Ltd that the proposals at 50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh meet the appropriate design standards and do not create a significant health and safety concern. Yours sincerely, On behalf of Modus Transport Solutions Duncan Birrell Director Page 27
Page 28
This page is intentionally left blank