A bid to vary planning conditions on the building of a house in Rhu is to be delayed – against the recommendation of council officials.
Graham Wylie’s proposal, to change four conditions and remove two more, relate to access arrangements for the building of a house at Rhu Lodge on Ferry Road.
Rhu and Shandon Community Council and Argyll and Bute’s own roads department objected to the plans, but there were more than 100 comments in favour from residents in Rhu and Helensburgh.
An Argyll and Bute Council planning official recommended that the conditions, including the provision of a 3.5 metre road between the A814 and the entrance to the property, were retained – but only four councillors voted in agreement.
Six members of the authority’s planning, protective services and licensing committee – one of whom branded it ‘cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer’ – voted yesterday to continue the application.
All four members who voted for the recommendation were members of the council’s ruling Argyll, Lomond and Islands Group (TALIG) – Amanda Hampsey, Andrew Kain, Liz McCabe and Peter Wallace.
But a fifth TALIG councillor, Helensburgh Liberal Democrat Graham Hardie voted in favour of an amendment moved by Cllr Mark Irvine to continue the application.
Another Helensburgh and Lomondouncillor, Fiona Howard took the same view, along with John Armour, Jan Brown and Luna Martin.
Cllr Irvine said: “The two entrances are in regular use already, and the road has been as it is for umpteen years.
“I am confused as to why there is such significant re-engineering of road conditions required when there are no more access points than there were previously.”
Council planning officer Howard Young responded: “There is lots of access around Argyll and Bute dating back 100 years or more which does not meet current standards in a lot of cases.
“But when you get a new development, you have to judge it on its merits, and see whether access can be improved and whether it will improve road safety.
“It was considered that an extra house was an extra generator of traffic and deserved additional improvements.
“It is up to members to consider whether the level of change is proportionate.”
Cllr Irvine replied: “What we are talking about is traffic visibility and passing places. What I am worried about is that this is a conservation area and we are talking about two additional cars at the end of a cul-de-sac.
“This is a massive undertaking, to upgrade a road from which there does not seem to be a significant need. I am concerned we are cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer here.”
After Cllr Howard voiced her agreement, Cllr Hardie added: “I share the views of Cllrs Howard and Irvine. I feel the road conditions are slightly excessive.”
But Cllr McCabe said: “I have read all the papers several times. The regulations say we should go with this and I am happy to do so.”
After a roll call vote among councillors, the decision to continue the application was made.
The winning amendment also included the possibility of a formal or informal site visit by the committee.
Guess the councillors did not notice that the 100 or so letters of support were preforma letters. I wonder who supplied them?
That road is used by visitors and fishermen who ark at the bottom, That has far more impact than a couple of cars at a house..
Site visits, ammendments more paperwork. This council know how to stretch things out and waste even more tax payers money.