Update on Recent Rowan Road Appeal Decision
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 June 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 18 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
4 Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (18.06.25) UPDATE ON RECENT ROWAN ROAD APPEAL DECISION _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 22/01986/PPP DPEA REFERENCE: PPA-130-2092 CASE DETAIL: Site for the erection of dwellinghouse SITE ADDRESS: Land North of Lynburn, Rowan Road, Oban APPLICANT: Beaton And McMurchy Architects Ltd STATUS: Appeal Allowed by decision dated 23 April 2025 _________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report summarises a recent decision by Scottish Ministers following the above application being appealed. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the content of this report. 3. BACKGROUND – 22/01986/PPP 3.1 This report refers to planning application reference 22/01986/PPP for planning permission in principle for the site for the erection of a dwellinghouse. 3.2 Planning permission in principle was granted at Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee on the 18th September 2024 subject to the nine conditions listed at the end of the decision notice. 3.3 An appeal was subsequently submitted to the Planning Environmental Appeals Division (PEAD). The appellant sought revisions to certain parts of Condition 4 of the permission, relating to the Vehicular Access, Parking and Turning. 4. REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS 4.1 A Reporter, appointed by Scottish Ministers, allowed the appeal, in part, and concluded that the planning permission in principle should be granted subject to nine conditions. 4.2 In summary the key points are as follows:
Page 2
5 Classification: OFFICIAL • Footway – the Reporter noted that there are currently no footways along Rowan Road and noted that the Council’s roads guidance does not state that footway provision on a private access is a necessity for new development; it does however indicate that where there are no footways then verges must be of sufficient quality to provide good, safe step offs. The Reporter agreed that the proposal would increase the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. The Reporter observed that there are locations where the verges and width of the private access are adequate and some points where there is no immediate refuge but pedestrians would not have far to walk to reach one, and that drivers using the access would likely be proceeding with caution given the characteristics of the access. The Reporter concluded that is neither necessary nor reasonable to require a footway along the full length of the access as required by the approved condition however it was agreed that it would be reasonable that improved access for pedestrians is provided and amended the terms of Condition 4 to reflect this. • Carriageway width – the Condition requires that the private access shall have a minimum carriageway width of 3 metres. The appellant sought the deletion of this condition however was willing to accept localised widening. The Reporter advises that the road guidelines normally require carriageway widths of no less than 3.5 metres. The existing access is predominantly of single carriageway width with only limited locations where vehicles can safely pass each other without having to pull into the curtilage of residential properties. The Reporter amends the terms of Condition 4 to revise the requirements in relation to localised widening and pedestrian provision. • Passing places – the Reporter considered it reasonable for the terms of Condition 4 to be amended to vary the requirements in relation to the number, location and specification of the passing places. • Turning head and bin store – the Condition requires the provision of a turning head and bin store where the private road forks in two. The appellant considered that this part of the Condition should be deleted as the existing access arrangements allow for the turning of large refuse collection vehicles. The Reporter considered that the requirement for a turning facility is both necessary and reasonable and did not therefore delete this requirement from Condition 4. The Reporter concluded that it is not necessary or reasonable that additional bin storage facilities be provided outwith the plot and therefore amended the terms of Condition 4 to delete this requirement. • Street lighting and ducting – the Condition requires street lighting ducting be installed from the junction with the public road to the junction of the two spurs on the private road. The appellant is content to install ducting where pavement is to be installed. The roads guidance does not require the installation of street lighting on a private access, however the installation of lighting ducting may be required to allow for future upgrades. The Reporter concludes that this private access is not capable of being brought up to adoptable standards and the lack of street lighting is similar to the circumstances on many rural roads and therefore considered it to be unreasonable and unnecessary to require the installation of lighting ducting, with this part of Condition 4 therefore deleted. • Implementation of road improvement works - the approved Condition requires that all of the improvement works required by Condition 4 are fully completed prior to the
Page 3
6 Classification: OFFICIAL commencement of construction of the dwelling. The Reporter advises that it is normal for works which would be at risk of damage from construction traffic to be initially completed to base course level and then completed to wearing course level prior to the occupation of the development. The Reporter has altered the wording of the Condition to reflect this. • Junction improvements – the Reporter is satisfied that the appellant’s drawings suitably reflect the terms of the roads guidance and that in terms of the upgrading of the junction there is no conflict with the Council’s specification drawing. Consequently, the Reporter does not alter the terms of either Condition 2 or 4 to address these matters. • Parking and turning provision – the Reporter is satisfied that both parties understand that the requirements of the Condition relate to the parking and turning area within the plot and therefore the terms of the Condition are not amended. • Ownership – the Reporter notes the comments made in representations regarding ownership of the land required to implement the access improvement works. The Reporter confirms that the Council was satisfied that the appellant has sufficient control over the land such that a planning obligation or an agreement under Section 75 of the Act was not necessary. The appellant has submitted documentation at the appeal stage showing that he has control over the land required. Irrespective of that, the terms of the road improvement conditions are suspensive, therefore they prohibit work on the development until certain road improvements are carried out and require the completion of the works before the dwelling can be occupied. • Other conditions – the Reporter gave consideration to the other conditions as approved by the Council and was content that they meet the six tests set out in the circular. 4.3 Full details of the appeal documents and decision can be viewed on the PEAD website under the reference PPA-130-2092: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details . 5. IMPLICATIONS Policy: None. Financial: None. Legal: None HR: None Fairer Scotland Duty: None Equalities – Protected Characteristics: None Socio-economic Duty: None Islands: None Climate Change: None Risk: None Customer Service: None The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): None Author: Emma Shaw Date: 04.06.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth