Planning Letter 11.04.23 - Objector
Argyll and Bute Council · 10 May 2023
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 10 May 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Auchnagoul House Inveraray, Argyll & Bute PA32 8XT Argyll & Bute Council Development Management Kilmory Castle, Lochgilphead, Argyll & Bute Date: 11.04.2023 Dear Sirs, Re: Planning application No. 20/01901/PPP I am writing to comment on the notice of review for the above planning at Auchnagoul. My wife and I are the owners of Auchnagoul House and full-time residents. Ours is the dwelling house next to Swallow tale Cottage on the site plans. We have previously documented our objections in our letter dated 08.01.2021 and these objections still stand as there has been no further detail regarding them given. Having read the documentation from Millard Consulting I would like to address a few points which need clearing up. 1. The comment has been made that the council gave SSE’s contractors permission to access the quarry at the top of Auchnagoul. I would like to point out that the bulk of the material, which was blasted and crushed on site, went to make roadways further up Auchnagoul during the project and very little traffic left the site, using the junction of the A83. Since the forestry finished their harvesting operation last year, there have been very few logging lorries using the junction. The problem of the junction could only ever be improved when turning right, by reducing the blind summit or by traffic control in the form of lights. Both of which are not financially practical.
Page 2
2. The comment by Mr. Pirie (Millard Consulting) regarding the decrease in traffic resulting from the removal of the existing buildings use is a very strange one. I would like to point out that the building is not being used for any purpose and there is no Agricultural equipment currently being used anywhere in Auchnagoul. Therefore, the construction of a house would by nature increase the traffic usage by the number of car owners who would occupy the property. However, they would still need to use the junction and be subject to the existing visibility issues. 3. I notice that towards the end of Mr. Pirie comments he makes a statement about the fact that his client would not need to bring the road up to council standard. I have seen no evidence that Argyll Estates / Forestry Commission have been consulted or there has been any feasibly study carried out by any party of who will be paying for this. Mr. Pirie appears to think the imaginary farm traffic reduction will negate any upgrading, other than a few passing places, which could encourage the public to use them as parking areas for walking. 4. I would also like to draw the council’s attention to the fact that Mr. Pirie did not mention the increase in traffic, during any construction which could be up to a year or more depending on the build progress or if the road would get its passing places prior to the construction being started. This brings me to the next issue of parking of site traffic. At no point during the process has this been brought up, the road to the site is a rough surface single track with nowhere to park once you get to the top, which involves crossing two burns. With heavy plant and vehicles bringing in suppliers there is a real danger these will be damaged. Again, these are part of the road owned by the Argyll Estates and there is no evidence that these have been surveyed to identify if these are fit to take heavy and increased construction traffic. Should you require any points in this letter clarifying, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours Sincerely Mr. & Mrs. Knowles