Agenda item

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Area Team Leader for Oban, Lorn and the Isles brought to the Committee’s attention a series of email submissions received from the Applicant on 18 August 2020.  The emails alleged inconsistences and inaccuracies within the published report of handling and raised complaints regarding the handling of the Application by the Planning Officer, the Roads Engineer and an engineer from the Council’s Structures Team.  He indicated that none of the complaints raised matters fundamental to the Application today.  He advised that the Applicant had alleged deceit in the report and wished it to be known that he had never refused to provide a structural report and that he took exception with the use of the word “refused”.  The Area Team Leader confirmed that Officers have acknowledged that any use of the word “refused” in the published report of handling and in this context may be interpreted as inflammatory and have offered their apologies for any distress caused.  He advised that the required structural survey report had been requested on a number of occasions – 18 March 2020, 23 March 2020, twice on 25 March 2020 – both by the Planning Case Officer and directly to the Applicant from the Roads Engineer, on 7 April 2020 (directly requested by the Roads Engineer), on 28 April 2020, on 12 May 2020, and a detailed response and comprehensive list of requirements and engineering guidance from the Council’s Structures Team on 20 May 2020.  This was followed by an appeal by the Applicant to the Scottish Government against the non-determination of the planning application.  The appeal was declined as out of time.  Finally on 2 June 2020 the Applicant was given a deadline for receipt of the missing information of 1 July 2020.   He advised that while it was accepted that the Applicant had never strictly “refused” to provide the information, the fact remained that he had refused to agree to an extension of time to enable the information to be produced and, ultimately, has not provided the information despite Officers’ best efforts to secure it.  He advised that the Applicant had claimed that the bridge was currently used by heavy vehicles including the Council’s and that he had no intention of using any vehicles heavier than this.  He advised that no evidence was provided to support this claim and the Council’s Network and Standards Manager has confirmed that even if Council vehicles did cross the bridge, the heaviest vehicle likely to do so would be a 26 tonne refuse collection lorry and, at most, one such vehicle movement every 2 weeks.  This contrasts sharply with the requirement that the bridge is demonstrated to be safe for passage by 44 tonne vehicles and at a much greater frequency during the construction of the development.

The Planning Officer then spoke to the terms of the report.  The Applicant is seeking planning permission in principle for two dwellinghouses with no detailed layout, design or infrastructure details having been submitted.  The purpose of this application is to establish the principle of development with the matters beyond layout and design to be addressed by way of future application(s) for approval of matters specified in conditions.  The application provides an indicative layout showing how the proposed dwellinghouses could be accommodated within the site.  The Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposed site has the potential to successfully accommodate two suitably sited and designed dwellinghouses within the defined settlement zone of Oban.  Access to the site forms a critical part of this application and must be resolved at this stage.  The Council’s Roads Officer was consulted and requested the submission of a Safety Audit/Risk Assessment/Traffic Management Plan and a full structural survey of the bridge accessing the site from the A816 public road to demonstrate that the bridge could safely support a 44 tonne vehicle, being the minimum weight necessary to service any construction site relying on this proposed route of access.  The Applicant submitted the Traffic Assessment which has been accepted by the Roads Authority, the Access Officer and Scotways.  However, to date, the structural report has not been submitted and, despite several requests for this vital information, the Applicant has not provided it.  The Planning Authority cannot deal with the requirements of the Roads Authority by way of a suspensive condition as it has to be satisfactorily demonstrated that the bridge is capable of taking the increased load resulting from the current application.  The proposal has elicited 18 objections which are detailed at section F of the report of handling.  Notwithstanding the assessment that the site could, potentially, successfully accommodate two suitably sited and designed dwellinghouses, the structural integrity of the bridge has not been addressed and it was recommended that the planning application be refused for the reason detailed in the report of handling.

Decision

The Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

1.    Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 state that the use of an existing private access will only be accepted if that access is either safe and appropriate in its current form or else is capable of commensurate improvements considered by the Roads Authority to be appropriate and necessary to the scale and nature of the proposed new development, and that it takes into account any current access issues (informed by an assessment of usage).  

The proposed development would result in the intensification in vehicular use of a private access regime where it has not been demonstrated, through lack of structural details of the existing bridge, that the private access track is capable of serving the proposed development, either in its current state or else by any reasonable and necessary commensurate improvements to that access as informed by the submission and assessment of information necessary for the planning authority to properly assess this part of the proposed development.

In this regard, and in the absence of the submission and professional assessment of this necessary information, the proposal is considered contrary to the provisions of SG LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015.

Having moved an Amendment which failed to find a seconder, Councillor Roderick McCuish asked for his dissent from the foregoing decision to be recorded.

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 28 July 2020, submitted)