Issue - meetings

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.  He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and the Head of Governance identified those who wished to speak.  It was later established that two people who had asked to speak had not made a written representation as required by the Council’s procedures.

PLANNING

Stephen Fair presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.  He advised that the application submitted was first presented to the Committee in June 2014 where it was agreed to hold a pre determination hearing.  He confirmed that Members had attended a site visit this morning in order to understand the context and to enable them to adjudicate on the Applicant’s, Objectors’ and Supporters’ points.  He advised that the site lay on land adjacent to a car park within the settlement zone of Ellenabeich which was also a Conservation Area.  The application was submitted by Mr Hill of Seafari who operated boats from Ellenabeich providing tours of the local marine and coastal environment.  He stated that physical works to the site beside the public car park would involve a shed (3 x 2.4 x 2.8 m high), a petrol tank (2.9 x 1.95 x 1.15m high), a stone wall (1.5m high to 3 sides), a fence (1.8m high wire fence) and track/hardstanding (3m wide).  Referring to a series of slides he pointed out the location of The Old Coachhouse, dwellings at 61 – 64 Ellenabeich, Caoles Cottages, the public road to narrow point, and the car park which was also publicly owned.  He advised that 11 objections to the proposal were received from 8 households, along with 2 letters of support.  Concerns raised by the objectors included: policy context; road safety; pedestrian safety; HGV impact on character of property; traffic, fuel spills, odour, pollution and fire risk; intentions of Applicant; method of fuel transfer; public safety; flood risk; noise; loss of amenity; industrial appearance; request for walled enclosure; impact on Conservation Area; precedent; surface water drainage; health impacts; Health and Safety Regulations; and Fire Authority input.  He advised that the supporters highlighted that it was essential that this successful tourism business received support.  They also referred to employment opportunities and visitor attraction.  He referred to a late objection which raised civil issues which were set out in supplementary report number 1.  He then referred to the business case submitted by the Applicant which stated that 70,000 litres of fuel were used last year and that currently 300 litre loads were transported from Oban involving 2 hour round trips (210 times per year).  It had been advised that a 3,000 litre tank would free up staff time and would adhere with fuel storage regulations.  He advised that assuming 2,500 litres per delivery this would equate to 28 deliveries.  He pointed out that the Applicant had looked at alternative sites but these were discounted in response to local opposition or planning concerns.  He referred to the withdrawal of an earlier proposal this year in response to planning and community concerns.  This resulted in the replacement of a storage container proposal with a timber shed.  He referred to consultee inputs from Roads, Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Conservation Officer and SEPA and confirmed that they had no objections to the proposal subject to conditions.  He advised that Seil and Easdale Community Council had highlighted that the concerns of the public had to be satisfied and that the business merited support in a balanced way.  They had also requested that the Council take a second look at the visual impacts and road pinch points.  He stated that in response to concerns raised screening of the tank had been enhanced by a 1.8m high stone wall, the Roads authority remained content, the fuel delivery vehicle already used the route to serve Caoles Cottages and current use level would be less than 30 deliveries per year.  He advised that this was a discreet site on the western fringe of the Conservation Area where development was less visually intrusive and surrounding development already included wire fencing and timber outbuildings.  He advised that it was considered that by careful siting and adequate screening, this successful business could be supported without undue impacts on neighbours or the Conservation area.  He added that restricted hours of operation were also proposed to protect amenity.  He stated that many of the issues such as fire, public safety and health were already separately regulated and were not therefore appropriate for Planning to consider.  He also stated that civil matters also remained outwith the Planning remit.  He advised that if land rights could not be secured the development would not be implemented.  He recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.

APPLICANT

Tony Hill advised that along with his wife and son they were Seafari.  He stated that he was not a planning expert and that the Council’s professional planners had gathered information, consulted with appropriate bodies and recommend approval of this Planning application. He said that Seafari attempted to run its businesses within the legal and legislative framework to the best of his ability. This included developing the business to increase employment security and safeguard those who loyally worked and supported Safari.   He advised that they wished to develop and expand the businesses with a consequential increase in employment opportunities.   He said that as government legislation changed these changes had to be embraced whilst also mitigating risk to both the general public and staff.   He stated that this was one aspect of development and, in this instance the development included an application for planning from Argyll and Bute Council.  He advised that Seafari adventure introduced the Rigid Hulled Inflatable Boat (commonly referred to as RIBs) to Scotland as a dedicated wildlife tour vessel in 1999.  He stated that they have been described by objectors as an active company.  He indicated that they operated 5 commercial RIBs successfully from the rural coastal community Easdale.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3