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. Over 15 years two part time employees for
Seafari Adventures have grown to 19; a mixture of full and part time
employees. He said that tourism was a
key component underpinning both Easdale’s and Argyll’s economies. Wildlife tourism was a developing sector and
that by developing the infrastructure Seafari Adventures tourism could further
flourish to create more jobs. He
indicated that Seafari employed locally with five skippers living on Seil or
Easdale, and a sixth who has worked with them for 4 seasons actively seeking to
move to the area. He stated that their
crew and wildlife guides were all recent graduates in associated fields and
that their manager was a multi-linguist with considerable experience particularly
within the wildlife sector. He advised
that some were employed almost 9 months a year and that they brought young
energetic people to these island communities.
He said that Seafari had employed 4 local university and school students
this year. As a people business, he
advised that they recognised the importance of high quality dedicated staff and
that they wished to acknowledge in public the loyalty and high standards of
local staff all of whom have been with them for many years. He stated that these local people were the
backbone of their business and that Seafari had a duty to develop and offer
them sustainable employment. He advised
that they suggested Easdale was the most important name to promote this area
and that Seafari promoted Easdale by coordinating and distributing around
30,000 Easdale leaflets annually along with their own brochures. He advised that Seafari offered a first class
wildlife experience and that reviews on social media such as Trip Advisor
acknowledged this. He stated that every
customer who enjoyed his experience with Seafari must be considered an
ambassador for Argyll. He pointed out
that indirectly their customers supported other local tourism attractions,
local restaurants, pubs, shops and accommodation providers. He advised that Easdale was a tourist
destination and that it has always been their philosophy that all tourism
business must work together towards the mutual benefit of the Easdale tourism
sector. He advised that this year they
adopted and embraced e-ticketing and that that this had the potential to
increase ticket sales considerably particularly with the younger mobile
generation and foreign customers. Online
sales were expected to increase significantly over the next few years. He confirmed that Seafari were approached,
and have subsequently been endorsed, by Bentley Motors for their UK recommended
travel route. Turnberry Hotel and Golf
Resort, Laphroaig Distillery, Loch Fyne Oysters and Seafari Adventures Easdale
were the four exclusive Scottish recommendations. He advised that Seafari tours were now listed
and promoted by Buro Scanbrit – a Fred Olsen company. Buro Scanbrit sold Seafari tickets at source
throughout Scandinavia. He stated that it was their intention to
develop similar links with other companies throughout Europe. Markets in Germany
and France
offered greater opportunities for the company.
He said that in March 2014 Seafari advertised a new 12 month post
specifically to investigate and develop this avenue. However they did not appoint to this post as
their initial planning application for a storage facility stalled. He advised that they would not subject the
business to expansion without first ensuring appropriate infrastructure was in
place to cope with the projected increase in customer numbers. He explained that an increase in boat
operations required a team of people not an individual so Seafari would have to
appoint an additional boat team. He stated
that good business practice included addressing legislative changes and requirements
as a business grew. As in this case, he
stated that planning permission was required for the development to
proceed. He advised that Seafari
Adventures had reached a point where, due to the volume of fuel used,
particularly in the summer months and during local commercial contract work,
they had to as a company develop and hence invest in better
infrastructure. He stated that fuel and
its supply for their boats was an essential component to their business. He explained that his son Iain joined the
family business in 2009 with the proviso he start his own company. He selected Seafari Marine Services (SMS)
which has ISO 9001 accreditation, and was FPAL (oil Industry) listed. He advised that SMS provided boat charter
services to commercial operators and that the main target market was
renewables. He advised that SMS has
worked away from home in order to gain significant commercial experience in
respective fields. He referred to wind
turbines in Norfolk, wave technologies in Orkney, the development and recovery
of the world’s largest test tidal turbine off Paimpol and stated that this was
the experience SMS brought to Argyll’s marine renewables sector. He indicated that SMS had won contracts
because it had developed, built and had available the required vessels for
charter along with the underlying skills, experience and infrastructure to
support vessels in the field. He
advised that local infrastructure and experience would be crucial if Argyll
companies were to win contracts in the Argyll Marine Renewables sector and that
fuel supply was a key element. He stated
that if Argyll companies had neither experience nor infrastructure large
renewable companies would not hesitate to source services from outwith
Argyll. He added that SMS supplied boat
services to northern Lighthouse Board and that this contract was recently
re-awarded to SMS. He said that next
year Northern Lighthouse Board, along with Trinity House would share a single
helicopter for maintenance work and it was predicted that the NLB would
increase their use of contracted Boat Service Suppliers. He advised that within the next fortnight SMS
would supply boat services supporting the laying of the new Jura undersea cable
to be installed by Briggs Marine. This followed successful support to the
laying of the new Coll to Tiree cable.
He advised that tomorrow SMS would commence boat services for drifter
work in Northern Ireland and
that SMS had recently completed an evaluation with Marine Scotland for the
supply of boat services for Fisheries Protection to much of Scotland’s West Coast and, if successful, SMS
would provide boat cover for the area south of Islay
to the north of Skye. He stated that
SMS offered work to, and was supported, by local skippers and crew with
increased opportunity for close or low season work and that boats for these
contracts would work from Easdale. He
advised that to service this increase in local work SMS required additional
infrastructure. This included fuel supply.
He pointed out that SMS was a young vibrant company actively seeking
work and that Argyll needed such companies to provide services and employment
opportunities. He added that Iain also
provided succession to the businesses.
He explained that legislation for petrol continued to alter. The transport of fuel in small loads was
legal under UK
law. He stated that the Dangerous Goods
and Explosive Atmosphere’s Act clearly set their standards. He advised that living in a remote rural
coastal community did not preclude compliance.
Insurance companies placed increasing pressure on businesses to invest
in modern products to reduce risks to both staff and the general public. He stated that the proposed storage tanks
had been developed by industry to help businesses meet these requirements. He said that they invested in infrastructure
to ensure compliance and that this assisted development and offered greater
safety and amenity to staff and public.
He indicated that the site available for the petrol storage facility was
to the east side of a 93 space car park and that the car park was at the fringe
of the settlement. He stated that there
were 11 objectors to the application.
He said that some of the objectors had visited all the properties in
Ellenabeich requesting total village support against Seafari’s planning
application. He stated that Seafari
specifically requested individuals who may be sympathetic and supportive to
their application not to be become directly involved. He advised that the result of this campaign
was apparent in the number and location of the objectors. He advised that the majority of the objectors
listed lived in close proximity to the car park. He said that they accepted that people were entitled
to their own views and opinions however he advised that they would challenge
statements made which they believed to be incorrect particularly when raised as
an objection in relation to this planning application. He stated that they refuted the statement
that Seafari turned away vessels from the harbour. He said that they believed they actively
encouraged use of the harbour and mooring facilities and that the annual
Easdale RIB Rendezvous was their best example. He explained that over 40 boats
gathered at Easdale for a weekend in the low season. Pubs, restaurants and local accommodation all
benefited. He stated that Seafari
covered all administration costs, staff to organise and a safety boat to
accompany this popular two day event. He
advised that Seafari’s boats did not block the pier ramp. The RIB’s rarely lay alongside the ramp. He explained that due to the levels of staff
supporting Seafari their boats were able to dock, unload and, if necessary,
reload passengers in less time than it took the Easdale Ferry to cross to the
island and return. He advised that Vicki
Mackenzie of Argyll and Bute Ferries confirmed there were no issues. He advised that Seafari operated boats
subject to business demand and rarely operated boats out with the operating
times of the Easdale Ferry. He advised
that occasionally this happened but noise was at a minimum and stated that they
were happy to be monitored for noise levels.
He advised that Seafari should use diesel engines. He stated that the comparison with petrol
engine operators in Scotland
was obvious 22 against 5. He advised
that Seafari was the largest operator in Scotland and by choice were based
here at Easdale. Referring to a slide he
advised that from the list displayed Seafari was the operator who had to travel
the furthest by road to obtain fuel. He
stated that claims by objectors that their RIB’s ran up to 20 tours daily were
grossly exaggerated. He advised that
they have years of records to substantiate this statement. He stated that despite this significant drop
on perceived passenger numbers their company brought considerable economic
benefit to the area. He advised that
their customers were sometimes categorised as cash rich tourists who would
spend additional money on refreshments and entrance fees to other local attractions. He advised that their experience suggested a
greater percentage of tourists visited the area because there was something to
do and that this went beyond the boat trips offered by Seafari. History and Heritage ranked high in
attracting tourists. He stated that
Easdale was for the enjoyment of all, not just a section of the tourist
industry requesting peace and tranquillity.
He advised that their aim was to have two tours operating daily during
low season. He said that Seafari had to
ensure it did everything to provide a proper monthly wage packet for
staff. He advised that other local
businesses would consequently benefit.
He stated that the objectors did not have a current understanding of
either the local tourist or the RIB industry.
He advised that the planning process included consultation with Area
Roads, Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Conservation Officer, and SEPA
and that no objections to the planning application were raised but conditions
were to apply. He stated that Seafari
accepted these conditions. He advised
that the objectors raised issues with regards to access, traffic management,
increased traffic volume, damage to houses by increased traffic and pedestrian
safety. He stated that Argyll’s Roads
Authority disagreed. He advised that
the public car park had 93 spaces when all were available for use. He stated that since July 2014 Seafari,
through no fault of its own, has had to revert to the parking of its vehicles
in the public car park as it did prior to 2005. He advised that Seafari accepted vehicles
movements between the car park and the jetty increased considerably when there
was limited space at Ellenabeich pier but wished to clarify that its vehicles
were fully road legal and that this entitled them to park at a public car park. He advised that the size of the delivery
tanker had been questioned and stated that Gleaner oils confirmed it was the
same vehicle which delivered fuel oil to two properties to the rear of the car
park. He indicated that the bin lorry
entered the car park weekly and a local business, JCN Engineering, had a
significantly larger lorry delivering metals to Caolas Cottages and the
fabrication garage at the rear of the car park. He advised that there was a difference of
opinion between SEPA and local residents with regard to surface flooding in the
car park. He stated that Seafari
accepted that a corner of the car park suffered from a drainage issue. He advised that at a recent Seil Community
Council meeting Mr David Nathan, an objector, acknowledged that a drain which
ran across the car park had in the past required clearing and perhaps that this
should receive attention by Argyll Roads Department. He stated that a significant quantity of
water was perhaps retained on the car park surface as access levels to the main
drainage ditch had been raised and blocked by earth and shrubbery. He said they could be cleared. He confirmed that Seafari was aware of land
within Easdale being sold to more than person but they would like to present
the following information to the panel.
He stated that Ms Caroline Sheen of Argyll and Bute Estates had
confirmed the land for the car park adjacent to the proposed site was sold to
Argyll and Bute Council in 1971 by one Mr Iain MacFarlane. Referring to a slide he advised that the original
plans of the car park as registered with Argyll and Bute Council were as
shown. At the last time of communication
with Ms Sheen he advised that Argyll and Bute Estates had not managed to obtain
records of any of the land purchased for the car park shown as indicated by
this drawing having being subsequently sold to a third party. He asked the Committee to note the position
of the drainage ditch in relation to the fence line. He advised that since 25 February 2010 Mr
David Nathan had erected a new boundary fence to his land and that he wrote
stating that he owned the land included within the new fence. Referring to a further slide he advised that
this was a diagrammatic indication of the position of Mr Nathan’s new
fence. He asked the Committee to note
the position of the drainage ditch in relation to the fence line. He stated
that the discrepancy between claimed ownership was the drainage ditch and
embankment which if maintained would, apart from solving the surface water
issue of the car park, ensure the full allocated car parking spaces along the
front edge of the car park were available for use. He referred to a photograph taken by local
agents on 25 February 2010 which showed the fence line as per the original 1971
plans. He stated that Seafari requested
that Argyll and Bute Council and Mr Nathan confer, consult and resolve the land
ownership issue to facilitate the clearing of the ditch which in turn would
facilitate the drainage of surface water from the car park. He advised that access to the proposed site
was shown on a deed of servitude. He
confirmed that this had been presented to Mr John MacFarlane, the current owner
of adjacent land. He stated that there
was no agreement as yet as to exactly where the access road was positioned and
that this too required resolution. He
advised that the newly erected fence and lines on the road had not been
substantiated as yet by Mr MacFarlane.
He advised that land ownership and access was a civil matter and that
decisions would be made by third parties and that Seafari would state its
case. He advised that the decision to be
made today by this panel should be based exclusively on planning issues and not
civil matters. He advised that the
suggestion by objectors that approval of the application would set a precedent
for other industrial proposals was incorrect.
He stated that planning permission if sought would be limited to
appropriate development. He added that there
were businesses which currently operated on the fringes of the car park as they
similarly wished to do. He advised that
Chris Odling was a well respected motorbike engineer specialising in vintage
sunbeam motorbikes. A skilled engineer, he had also made specialist parts or
undertaken specialist engineering repairs for local fishing boats. He advised that Mr Odling operated from a
well equipped shed at 61 Ellenabeich with direct access to the car park. He also advised that JCN engineering operated
as a mobile welding and fabrication business.
Materials for use in association with the business were delivered to 2
Caolas Cottages by a large lorry and that components were fabricated within the
garage at Caolas Cottages. He confirmed
that hand and guardrails for Easdale Ferries were fabricated at JCN’s
garage/shed and that all components for the RIB shown were fabricated at JCN
garage/shed. He stated that JCN
engineering was paid in excess of £7,700 by Seafari for welding only work in a
single financial year. He advised that
Seafari suggested that there was already a precedent for small scale businesses
from the car park and advised that 6 of the 11 objectors were directly related
to these businesses. He advised that
Seafari requested that the panel consider the statement precedent for other
industrial development in light of what already occurred on the fringes of the
car park and not on what was perceived as an exclusively residential area. He stated that with JCN Engineering and C
Odling motorbikes working commercially at home with direct access onto the car
park they strongly challenged the objectors to claim this was a purely
residential area as it clearly was not.
He advised that there was concern that Seafari as a business operated
below the planning radar and that 14 concerned residents of Ellenabeich and
Easdale had raised matters with Argyll and Bute Planning Department. He stated that due to the nature of the
correspondence matters were presented at the full Argyll PPSL Committee for
decision and that all but one issue was dismissed. He confirmed that their shop windows required
replacement and that Seafari had accepted the breach of planning but requested
an update to a statement on the notice namely.
He stated that in the interest of fairness and consistency of approach
the planning authority also intended to initiate action to seek the removal of
other unauthorised UPVC windows on listed buildings within Ellenabeich. He advised that they were aware of many
adjacent listed buildings with UPVC window frames and that Seafari’s only
request was for a level playing field.
He stated that issues regarding safety of the proposal, fuel spillage,
operating procedures, public safety and the monitoring of Seafari for
compliance were all raised. He advised
that much was dealt with by legislation but multiple complaints to agencies and
bodies were that Seafari was not a responsible company particularly with regard
to the safe handling of petrol and the refuelling of vessels. He stated that to this effect Seafari was
reported by one or more objectors to many government agencies and council
departments on more than one occasion.
He confirmed that Seafari had been audited by all agencies and had met
fully with regulations. He stated that
they challenged the objectors to highlight breaches to regulations stated by
these agencies. He said that the Audits
had been at considerable cost to the public purse. He advised that it was not in Seafari’s
interest to jeopardise its business by breaking regulations. He confirmed that Seafari recognised that
legislation would update and change. He
confirmed that this specialist storage tank facility met today’s regulations
and in proper use would safeguard both Seafari staff and the general
public. He advised that the tank would
be placed on the ground and confirmed that there would be no public access to
the storage tank site. He stated that
separation distances were determined by legislation and that this included a
designated height for the vapour to vent pipe at 4.2m. He advised that the boundary fence was to be
a stone wall and by legislation it was to be 1.8m in height. He said that little activity inside the area
would be noticed. He advised that the
wall was a similar height to the wall currently surrounding the property 61
Ellenabeich which shared a boundary with the car park. He confirmed that there would be no signage
to the outside face of the walls. He
advised that objectors had independently consulted with Scottish Fire and
Rescue and that Seafari recently met with two officers. He stated that verbally they were told that
the site seemed eminently suitable for the storage tank however at this
juncture they did not have any written report due to the 20 days taken for FOI
requests to be addressed. He requested
that the objectors share the response received from Scottish Fire and Rescue to
the potential fire risk and suitability of the site. He advised that Seafari’s current method for
supply of fuel was overstretched and particularly in the summer for tourism and
during commercial contract work. He
stated that it would remain overstretched should tourism generate further
customers. He advised that Seafari
Marine Services was developing a market for commercial work locally based from
Easdale and that its refuelling was also overstretched. He stated that boats must either be
refuelled at the start of a working day or at the end of a working day and that
there were no garages in the sea. He
confirmed that Seafari currently used in excess of 70,000 litres of fuel a year
which equated to approximately 26 tanker deliveries in a 12 month period. He advised that during July and August
Seafari estimated that it would require a tanker delivery between 8 and 10
times per month. He advised that tanker
deliveries could only be Monday, Wednesday and Friday. He advised that work capacity during July and
August was at a maximum. He stated that
further tanker deliveries would take place over the remaining 10 month
period. He advised that increasing
their fringe season and winter work would see the number of tanker deliveries
rise across this 10 month period but not substantially. He stated that if Seafari tourism or renewals
was to develop it had to improve its supply of fuel whilst taking into
consideration the associated risks to the general road user. He advised that transporting petrol from Oban
to Easdale by vehicle in loads of no more than 333 litres up to 4 times per day
particularly in the summer months when the roads were increasingly busy had to
be considered. He stated that manual
handling of jerry cans by staff must also be considered. He stated that
delivery by a small tanker to a specialist above ground storage facility on
private ground behind a stone wall considerably reduced these risks. He advised that it was neater, tidier, and
more efficient and significantly lessened the annual handling risk to their
staff along with the associated risk to the general public. He stated that the site was at the fringe of
the settlement and screened by a wall.
He advised that the proposed tank was 2.9m in length, 1.2m in width and
1m in height and that it was double bonded and fully fire proofed with a high
security system to prevent unauthorised access.
Manufactured in the UK,
he stated that it met all current standards and legislative requirements for
the storage of petrol. He advised that
whilst they believed this would be the first tank of its kind in Argyll, over
250 tanks had been supplied throughout the UK and he gave examples of where
these were located and stated that the tanks had a proven track record. He advised that a piece of rough unkempt
ground would be surrounded by a stone wall with a single 2” vent pipe protruding above the level of the wall for a
further height of 2.4m. He explained
that for every 9 journeys by the Seafari vehicle to Oban along the whole of Seil Island
this would be replaced by a single tanker delivery. He advised that journeys of 300 miles by the
Seafari Land Rover would be replaced by a single 32 mile journey by the
tanker. He confirmed that the operating
hours for use of the facility would be restricted to between 0800 and 1800
addressing complaints of some objectors to Argyll and Bute Roads of Seafari’s
use of the public car park early in the morning. He stated that Seafari would take fuel
directly from the tank area to the jetty and that there would be no requirement
for multiple vehicle movements between the car park and the jetty to deliver a
single load of fuel and then recover cans.
He confirmed that vehicle movements would be time managed to meet boats
and that it was estimated that this would reduce Seafari’s vehicle movements
locally by up to 40%. He advised that
all Seafari boats had fuel monitoring equipment which gave specific quantities
of fuel used. He stated that exact
quantities of fuel could now be moved from tank to vessel and that estimates
and guesswork prior to travel to Oban would be eliminated reducing risk to
vehicles travelling on the road and the general public at large. He said that time spent on the pier by
Safari vehicles would also be reduced easing congestion particularly at the
area adjacent to the shed used by Easdale Island foot passengers. He stated that if Seafari could increase the
length of the season be it for tourism or commercial work there would be a
requirement to employ young energetic people who also contributed so much to
the area and Easdale
Island in
particular. He advised that an increase
in Seafari tourism customers particularly in the shoulder season would benefit
local tourism related businesses allowing increased length in employment for
seasonal work. He stated that further
local work for SMS would improve Easdale’s economy. He said that Seafari as a company employed a
culture of continuous improvement throughout the business and that was a
proposal which would improve and not diminish public safety and amenity. He advised that whenever there was
development there would be alteration to amenity. He stated that their investment offered
significant gain in amenity to the community.
He advised that despite consistent reporting, their current operational
methods had stood up to both legal and operational scrutiny. He stated that as a responsible company at
the forefront of the RIB industry the provision of this fuel storage facility
would help consolidate Seafari’s future development. He pointed out that around Scotland there
were examples where the balance between local heritage, industrial development
and tourism had won awards. He said
that nowhere within Argyll’s local planning statement did it state conservation
was incompatible and a restriction on sustainable economic growth. He stated that Seafari had demonstrated it
offered employment opportunities in a remote coastal location but to be
sustainable they too like many businesses had to extend their working year. He advised that Seafari welcomed the
recommendation of Argyll’s planners to proposal 14/00914 and accepted the
imposed conditions and restrictions to the facility. He confirmed that Seafari also accepted it
had to legally comply with legislation to operate the facility in a safe and
proper manner. He advised that the
recommendation for approval by Argyll and Bute’s
Planning Department was an indication to Seafari that Argyll planners were open
for, and positive towards, business development and sustainable economic
growth. He stated that they hoped the
PPSL Committee representatives present today would support the decision of its
Planners.
CONSULTEES
Seil and Easdale
Community Council
Seamus Anderson advised that this was a small business
trying to survive and expand within a much visited Conservation area which
demanded extra scrutiny of the planning application. He referred to the representation made by the
Community Council which was detailed in the report of handling and advised that
he hoped the Members had read it. He
referred to the comments by Planning in respect of the Community Council’s
representation and advised that the Community Council felt these were slightly
dismissive particularly about the request for the visual aspects and pinch
points to be revisited. He stated that
Seil and Easdale Community Council urged the Committee to be robust with their
questioning and that all be involved at every opportunity.
SUPPORTERS
Jan Fraser
Jan Fraser advised that she was a full time resident on Easdale Island and ran a small business
there. She said that she was speaking in
support of the application and in doing so was representing 2 groups, Eilean
Eisdeal, the Easdale Island Community Development Group, and the small businesses
on the island. She advised that Eilean
Eisdeal was a charity which owned and managed the hall on the island, the
museum and the harbour for the benefit of the community. She said that the hall
had a popular arts programme and was also used for many community events. She stated that the museum had been running
for over 30 years and was bought for the community 6 years ago. She advised that the harbour had moorings for
small and medium sized boats and a pontoon, and in managing these facilities,
Eilean Eisdeal provided part time employment for 5 people and opportunities to
volunteers. She advised that the hall,
the harbour, and especially the museum, relied on visitors to the island to be
viable and that without tourists and holiday visitors in sufficient numbers the
fragile economy that had been built there would be threatened. She stated that in the last 10 years Seafari
had brought increasing numbers of visitors to the area, people with money in
their pockets and chose to spend it which was of huge benefit to the island and
the whole area. She advised that Seafari
distributed the Easdale leaflet publicising the area with their own flyers, and
they knew that many people were initially attracted to Easdale by this
information. She stated that Seafari
provided employment for local people and in addition brought new blood to the
area every year, from mid-March to mid-November, many of whom retained links to
the island, and some had even put down roots.
She advised that this annual influx of young graduates to the area has
had a very positive effect on the island. She stated that Seafari had gained a
national and international reputation and has made Easdale an increasingly
popular destination for a day out or an even longer stay. She added that Eilean Eisdeal also benefited
from the contribution made to the community by Seafari and their staff as they
regularly cut the grass in communal areas on the island and cleared the
paths. She pointed out that recent
community projects to clean up the harbour area and resurface the paths were
led by Seafari and that they relied on Seafari to tackle many small jobs around
the harbour. She advised that Seafari
leased a pontoon in the harbour which enabled the business to operate during
the winter months, and that their mooring in the sound provided additional
security for visiting boats with the revenue going to the community. She explained that Seafari boats were often
first to help out visiting boats when they ran into problems, an essential
safety net RIB rendezvous. She advised
that for this business to continue to thrive and in doing so support the local
community, it needed easier access to fuel which this application
provided. She confirmed that the
directors of Eilean Eisdeal appreciated the benefit brought to the community by
this business and that they unanimously supported this application. She advised that she was also speaking on
behalf of the other businesses on the island and stated that the most
significant of these was the Puffer Bar and Restaurant, whose proprietor, Karen
Cafferty was unable to be here today but had asked her to speak on her
behalf. She advised that the Puffer was
another of the businesses crucial to the island economy and in combination with
Seafari, made Easdale a welcoming destination.
She stated that Seafari passengers frequently ate at the Puffer and that
it also provided a focal point for the Seafari crew during the season. She added that the Puffer employed 7 local
people and in addition served food produced by local fisherman and farmers, all
making a vital contribution to maintaining the infrastructure of this rural
community. She advised that other local
businesses that benefited from Seafari’s activities included Don Gillies’
garden furniture, Dave Munro boat repair and her own picture framing
business. She stated that they all
supported this application. She advised
that this application for a fuel store would allow Seafari’s business to
continue to develop and to enrich the local community in many positive ways and
on behalf of Eilean Eisdale and local businesses they hoped the Committee would
agree to grant this application.
OBJECTORS
Brien Dickey
Brien Dickey thanked the Committee for the opportunity to
present the objections of their small settlement to this application. He advised that his role was to introduce the
presentation and to introduce Graeme Bruce who would provide the detail. He also advised that he would summarise at
the end and invite the Committee to draft a competent Motion for refusal of
this application. He pointed out that
the objectors were a cross section of residents including 4 retirees, 5 school
children, 5 self employed (business owners and directors) and 3 employed
locally. He advised that together they
had between 10 and 50+ years of association with the area. He stated that the aim of the presentation
was to persuade the Committee to agree to a competent Motion to refuse planning
permission for the following reasons:- contrary to Local Plan in respect of
Conservation areas; inadequate consideration of the context as a material
consideration; concerns about the approach to safety issues; fears about the
quality of enforcement of conditions; and concerns about the detail of the
application form.
Graeme Bruce
Graeme Bruce advised that he lived in Ellenabeich. He referred to the list of all Development
Plan policy considerations which were taken into account in the assessment of
the application. He advised that the
Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002 stated that it provided a strategic land
use plan for the 10 year period up to 2012.
He advised that as it was now 2014 this Plan was out of date. He also referred to the Argyll and Bute Local
Plan adopted on 6 August 2009. He
referred to this having a 5 year plan period replacing all previous local plans
in Argyll and Bute. He stated that this Plan was also out of date
by 19 days. He advised that it was
possibly in date when the report of handling was produced. He then referred to the list of all other
material planning considerations which were taken into account in the
assessment of the application. He drew
Members’ attention to the Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance (2006)
and advised that this development was not a housing development but a Flammable
Liquid Storage Facility. He stated that a far more suitable guidance document
was the HSG 176 The Storage of Flammable Liquids in Tanks published by the
Health and Safety Executive. He then
referred to Scottish Planning Policy 2010 and advised that this policy document
was also out of date and had been replaced by Scottish Planning Policy
2014. He referred to the Argyll and Bute
Council Proposed Local Development Plan 2013 and stated that it had been
approved by the Council in January 2014.
He confirmed that advice he had received from Argyll and Bute Council’s
Development Policy Team was that the policy documents that should be used were
the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009, Argyll and Bute Council’s Proposed Local
Development Plan 2013 and Scottish Planning Policy 2014. He suggested, for the sake of completeness
and in the absence of any other construction guidance that the construction
guidance recommended by the petrol tank manufacturer, published by the Health
and Safety Executive HSG 176 The Storage of Flammable Liquids in Tanks be
used. He then referred to this document
during his presentation (a copy of which was tabled to Members) and highlighted
instances where he believed the proposal did not meet the requirements of this
document in respect of fencing, separation distances and ventilation. He stated
that Scottish Planning Policy 2014 said “Planning should direct the right
development to the right place” and “The aim is to achieve the right
development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any
cost”. He then referred to the
application for planning permission and stated that it was generally a
comprehensive document. He referred to
the site area being 340m² and that one parking space was allocated. He then referred to the 2009 Policy LP TRAN 6
and stated that this policy standard outlined 1 space per 50m², and that 340m²
would indicate a requirement for 7 parking spaces. He also referred to the 2013 Policy Document
“Car Parking Standards” Storage or Distribution and stated that this outlined 4
spaces per 100m², and that 340m² would indicate a requirement for 14
spaces. He stated that he could find no
account of the parking standards being applied.
He referred to water supply and draining arrangements and advised that
this application outlined no new water supply or drainage would be
required. He also referred to trees and
advised that in response to the question “Are there any trees on or adjacent to
the application site” the answer was no.
With the aid of slides he pointed out trees 2m and 3m from the site
boundary. He stated that the proposed
industrial petrol storage facility would have a 4.5m high vent pipe which would
directly vent into these trees where birds nested. He referred to 2009 Local Plan Policy LP ENV
7 and 2013 Policy SG ENV 6 which were both in respect of the impact of trees
and woodlands. He asked how the
Applicant and Planners had not seen the trees and stated that no account had
been taken as to the potential damage to the local trees. He drew Members’ attention to Local Plan
Policy ENV 14 – Development in Conservation Areas and Special Building
Environment area which stated that outline planning applications would not
normally be considered appropriate for proposed development in Conservation
areas. He stated that the application
before Members was actually an outline planning application and that the form
was inaccurate and misleading. He
further stated that the submitted drawings were not appropriate to the
development and that recommendations made by Council Officers assumed the
accuracy of the drawings and made judgements based on inaccurate/misleading
information. He pointed out to Members
that there was another more appropriate site.
He advised that the Applicant had been using this site for more than 10
years and that it was nearer to the pier.
He pointed out that the land area was large enough and the journey route
to it passed no houses. He asked what
was wrong with this site. He then went
on to refer to the responses submitted by Statutory Consultees and tabled to
Members a copy of the responses received from Roads, Environmental Health, SEPA
and the Conservation Officer and raised concerns regarding the consultee
responses in respect of traffic impact analysis, access, traffic movements
within Conservation area, tanker deliveries, flooding and drainage and the
impact on the Conservation area. He
advised that Planners had stated that the proposal was considered to be
acceptable under Policy LP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development. He questioned whether or not an amenity
assessment had been carried out and what the base line amenity level was. He stated that the proposal would result in
an increase in traffic, more noise from activities, that the petrol tank would
have vent pipe to vent fumes, that the development would not fit on the site
and that the site would have a 1.8m change link fence where there were no chain
link fences in the surrounding area. He
stated that the Planners assessment in respect of Policy LP BAD 1 was clearly
incorrect. He referred to the
recommended boundary treatment to the site and asked what would happen if the
recommended wall was not allowed under HSE regulations which advised that the
use of welded mesh or chain link fencing which would not obstruct ventilation
was preferred.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Trail asked the Applicant how many customers he
had during a year. Mr Hill advised that
he would rather not say as this was sensitive business information. He indicated that it was somewhere in the
thousands and that during July and August 3 ribs usually operated on a daily
basis weather permitting.
Councillor McNaughton sought and received clarification from
Planning that the height of the proposed tank would be 1.15m high. He also sought and received clarification
from the Applicant that the tank came as a complete unit and would be placed at
floor level to facilitate a gravity feed.
Mr Hill indicated that boats would be fuelled from the tank using either
a 12v electrical pump or hand pump.
Councillor McCuish asked why Mr Hill had chosen this
location and was it not more feasible to have a site as far away as possible
from properties. He also asked if the
proposed tank could be buried. Mr Hill
advised that at the pre application stage 3 sites were looked at. This included the current application site,
the site Mr Bruce referred to plus another one and that Planning guided them to
opting for the current application site.
He advised that the requirements of the site referred to by Mr Bruce
were totally different. He stated that
this site would have required an electricity supply which would have had cost
implications. He advised that the
current site was fully compliant with Health and Safety regulations and was of
a modern standard. He confirmed that the
tank could be capable of being buried but not the type proposed.
Councillor Colville referred to hearing of the economic
benefits of the proposal and recognised the pressures of protecting
Conservation areas. He asked how the
proposed development would enhance or preserve the Conservation area, he asked
how a breach of condition would be policed and what condition was there that
could shut a business down. He also
sought guidance on fencing versus a wall in respect of ventilation. Mr Fair answered each question in turn. Firstly he referred to preservation of
Conservation areas and stated that the requirements of the Local Plan policy
did not state that there was a presumption against development in a
Conservation area. He stated that it was
Planning’s position that the proposed development would preserve the
Conservation area as the development was on the fringe of the Conservation
area, was well contained and already had similar developments nearby in terms
of scale and finishes. He stated that
this area was not of top quality compared to elsewhere. In response to the second question he
confirmed that the Council had a dedicated Enforcement Officer who carried out
monitoring exercises and took action if required. He stated that some of the conditions
recommended for this proposal required works to be done before the development
started and if these were not complied with the development would be deemed
unlawful. He added that if it was
suspected that there was a breach of planning monitoring of the situation would
be undertaken in the first instance.
Thirdly Mr Fair advised that a boundary wall was recommended to give
better containment of the site. He
advised that the Applicant had also applied for 1.8m high post and wire
fence.
Councillor Colville referred to the recommendation for
approval being based on a 2m high wall.
He stated that he had concerns that the Health and Safety Executive
would not allow that and that he could not accept that a post and wire fence
would enhance or preserve the Conservation area. Mr Fair referred to the existing boundary
which included stock and wire fencing and an increase of this fence to 1.8m was
acceptable. He advised that the wall
was also recommended in order to restrict the public’s views to the site. He stated that ventilation of the site was
controlled by the HSE and therefore fell out with the Planning remit to
consider this issue.
Councillor Colville asked what would happen if planning
permission was granted with the inclusion of the wall and then HSE prevented
the wall from being built. He asked
would this mean the planning permission was null and void. He asked what would be the point of granting
planning permission if a development did not meet regulations out with the
Council’s control. Mr Fair advised that
there were two options open to the Applicant if this situation occurred. He advised that the Applicant could appeal
against the planning condition or submit a fresh application with alternative
finishes.
Councillor Taylor sought and received clarification from the
Environmental Health Officer that the HSE document referred to by Mr Bruce was
the correct one to refer to for this development.
Councillor Trail sought and received confirmation from Mr
Fair that the role of Planning was to assess and advise on a proposed
development in land use planning terms.
He indicated that there were other legal controls not regulated by
Planning. He confirmed that if planning
permission was granted this would not be the end of the matter as the
development would have to comply with other regulations and controls out with
the Planning remit.
Councillor McCuish sought and received clarification from Mr
Weston that the maximum tonnage of the fuel delivery vehicle would be 26
tonnes. He also sought and received
clarification from Mr Weston that the weight restriction on the car park of 7.5
tonnes related to parked vehicles and not for access.
Councillor McCuish referred to the sign in the car park that
prohibited the discharge of goods from the car park. Mr Weston advised that in this case the
delivery vehicle would be driving through the car park in order to discharge
fuel to the tank. He advised that the
sign in the car park placed restrictions on trading from the car park.
Councillor McCuish asked Planning why they were not keen on
the metal storage container. Mr Fair
advised that this would have been an alien and visually intrusive addition to
the area which would have been industrial in appearance.
Councillor MacIntyre referred to the other possible sites
and sought and received clarification from Planning on why the current
application site had been identified.
Councillor MacIntyre referred to the possibility of
requiring more fuel deliveries if Seafari became more successful and asked if the
road would be capable of sustaining these extra vehicle movements. Mr Weston advised that he thought it would be
but admitted that a structural survey of the road had not been done. When Councillor MacIntyre asked why not, Mr
Weston advised that up until today he was not aware of the possibility of an
increase in the deliveries.
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received clarification from
Mr Hill on how the fuel lorry would service the site.
Councillor Kinniburgh asked Mr Weston if this would accord
with Local Plan Policy TRAN 4. Mr Weston
advised that it was a unique situation in the car park and that there was
turning space available in the car park.
He advised that generally this policy was in respect of dead ends.
Councillor McCuish referred to the possibility of the
business expanding and asked Mr Hill to comment in respect of the number of
expected fuel deliveries. Mr Hill
advised that during July and August he would expect 8 to 10 deliveries per
month and that over the whole year approximately 26 deliveries.
Councillor McCuish asked Mr Weston if he thought the road
would be capable of accommodating these deliveries and Mr Weston confirmed that
he would like to have another look at the road.
Councillor McCuish asked if the Community Council received
comfort that the concerns of the residents had been look at. Mr Anderson confirmed that he was happy with
the robustness of questions asked today.
Councillor Colville asked why this area was a Conservation
area. Mr Fair referred to this being a
slate island village which had been allocated Conservation status due to the
historical importance of the slate mining community. When asked he confirmed that the village had
a mix of architecture and industrial historical importance.
Councillor Colville expressed his concerns in respect of the
information presented about separation distances and the presence of trees and
asked Planning to comment. Mr Fair
confirmed that there was no impact on trees and that the objector was mistaken
as the trees were out with the site. He
confirmed that the site area which was within the red line boundary did measure
340m² and included the area of access.
He referred to Mr Bruce’s statement that the tank required a separation
distance of 6m from the boundary and advised that this related to tank volume
and confirmed that the separation distance should be 4m. He stated that it was not Planning’s
responsibility to regulate this. He
confirmed that if the proposal failed to adhere to other regulations the
development would not go ahead. Mr Hill
advised that the storage capacity of the tank was 3,000 litres not 5,000 litres
as suggested by Mr Bruce and that this required a separation distance of 4m and
that this had been confirmed by HSE to be the case in this instance.
Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Mr
Fair that the nearest dwelling to the site was Caolas Cottage which was 36m
away.
Councillor MacIntyre sought and received clarification on
the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of a pre application enquiry
regarding siting a tank on the jetty.
Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from
Mr Hill that he did not intend widening the access road.
Councillor McCuish referred to the Conservation area and
asked for comment on the proposed 5m high vent pipe. Mr Fair advised that the vent pipe was a
single 2 inch discreet pipe and would be a very small scale feature compared to
other vertical elements in the area and that it would not be incongruous.
Councillor MacIntyre asked what the impact of a 26 tonne
lorry would be going through the road.
Mr Weston referred to ground conditions and advised that he did not
anticipate a great impact. He confirmed
that no assessment had been done.
The Chair ruled and the Committee agreed to adjourn the
meeting at 12.55 pm for lunch.
The Committee reconvened at 1.30 pm.
SUMMING UP
Planning
Stephen Fair responded to the concerns raised. He advised that Roads were content with the proposal
and that the fuel delivery vehicle already used this route. He advised that he noted that the Community
Council agreed that the application had been robustly scrutinised by questions. In terms of the Policy framework, he
confirmed that the Structure Plan 2002 and the adopted Local Plan 2009 were
relevant and still in force. He
confirmed that the Council’s Design Guide was also material to this application
as the principles applied to buildings/structures in respect of siting, design
and finishes. He confirmed that the HSE
guidance document was administered by the HSE and was separate from
Planning. He stated that the required
number of car parking spaces related to floor area not site area. He advised that the site was in a discreet
location on the fringes of the Conservation area and would not be visually
obtrusive. He advised that the proposed
development would allow an excellent tourism business to continue to operate
and flourish and would not impact on the amenity. He referred to conditions in respect of
construction and opening hours. He
referred to Health and Safety issues being out with planning control. He recommended approval of the planning
application subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of
handling.
Applicant
Tony Hill referred to the points raised by the
Objectors. He confirmed that the
proposal complied with current regulations.
He confirmed that the separations distances were complied with and
ventilation regulations were also complied with. He referred to the tank being a secure system
and complied with the separation distances from the public. He referred to the site being a windy
site. He referred to the access and tank
deliveries and stated that the site was previously occupied by a bus company. He advised that the delivery vehicle would
visit 2 other locations on route to the site and would therefore not weigh 26
tonnes by the time it reached the site.
He stated that the planning application followed due process. He advised that business use already occurred
at the car park. He stated that Seafari
employed local people and attracted tourists.
He asked the Members to support the Planning recommendation.
Consultees
Seil and Easdale Community Council
Seamus Anderson advised that he had asked for robust
questioning and that they had got that today.
He advised that this was by far the best Hearing he had attended and
thanked the Committee for that. He
advised that the decision was now up to the Members.
Roads
Bill Weston advised that he had looked at the entrance to
the site at lunch time and confirmed that he was satisfied that it would be
able to accommodate the fuel delivery lorry without any adverse impact. He advised that the pot holes were due to
wear and tear.
Supporters
Jan Fraser advised that she had nothing further to add. On behalf of Eilean Eisdeal and the small
businesses on the island, she asked the Committee to support the application.
Objectors
Brien Dickey advised that he did not believe the tank could
go underground. He stated that the Roads
assessment did not appear complete. He
advised that the trees had not been taken into consideration and that be
believed they should have been. He
stated that the Health and Safety construction guidance document did relate to
land use. He referred to Mr Fair
mentioning the edge of the Conservation area and stated that the edge of a
Conservation area was just as important as the centre of a Conservation area
and that the proposal should be assessed as to how it would affect the
Conservation area as a whole including listed buildings in its vicinity. He referred to the Single Outcome Agreement
and asked the Committee if they were content that this proposal would make
Argyll and Bute a good place to live. He said that Planning should direct the right
development in the right place. He
advised that in this case there were too many maybes still unresolved and that
he believed this was an outline planning application rather than full planning
application and therefore not appropriate for a Conservation area. He stated that the application should be
refused.
The Chair asked all parties present to confirm if they had
received a fair Hearing and they all confirmed this to be the case.
A member of the public raised a query in respect of
advertisement of the Hearing and requirement for only those who had submitted a
representation being allowed to speak.
He stated that a number of local residents had not been aware of the
need to make a representation and that they had not been notified of the
Hearing taking place. The Head of
Governance and Law confirmed that the Local Government (Scotland) Act
1972 required publication of the notice of a meeting. He confirmed that a notice was placed at
Kilmory and on the website and that the paperwork accompanying the notice
detailed the requirement for representations to be made in writing if
supporters or objectors wished to speak at the Hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor Trail advised that he thought this was a very
pretty village and commended the community for looking after it. He referred to the site being located at not
one of the more attractive spots and advised that he did not think it would
detract from the beauty of the village.
He stated that the business Seafari was a tremendous asset to the area
with around 1,000 visitors to the area that spent their money and brought
prosperity to it. He referred to the
employment of people and in particular young people and advised that this could
mean them moving to the area and starting families which would in turn support
the local businesses and school. He
advised that he was minded to support the Planning recommendation.
Councillor McCuish stated that it had been a very good
debate however he felt there were too many unanswered questions. He stated that he was 100% supportive of
Seafari but unfortunately he could not support this application as he believed
it would have a detrimental effect on the Conservation area. He stated that Mr Weston’s look at the road
during the lunch break was not sufficient.
He stated that the planning system operated in the long term public
interest and did not exist to protect the interests of one person or business
against the activities of another. He
advised that he could not support the application as he did not feel he had
been given enough information to allow him to assess the merits of it properly.
Councillor Colville advised that a lot had been said about
economic development and stated that this was important. He advised that the views of the Community
Council mirrored his concerns. He
referred to the site visit and that the surroundings of the site gave him some
reassurance in respect of the visual impact.
He referred to the 2m high wall and the nearby house 36m away. He referred to the possible increase in fuel
deliveries and hoped that the business would increase. He stated that if need be the condition of
the public road would need to be addressed.
He advised that he was minded to support the Planners.
Councillor McNaughton advised that having visited the site
he felt that any concerns he had when he read the paperwork had been addressed
and that he was quite happy with the site.
He noted that any conditions had to be adhered to. He stated that he felt all the concerns of
the objectors had been addressed and that he was minded to support the Planning
recommendation.
Councillor Taylor advised that he had been impressed with
the quality of the presentations given.
He advised that it was the Committee’s job to determine the merits of
the application before them and that he supported the application.
Councillor MacDougall advised that he had heard a lot about
the delivery tank and referred to the tank deliveries in Oban and Mull where
there did not seem to be any bother. He
stated that if the Applicant’s business moved to another part of the country
this would be a loss to Argyll. He
advised of the need to get more people to work in Argyll and stated that he
supported the application.
Councillor MacIntyre advised that like Councillor McCuish he
believed there were more questions than answers and that the application should
be continued for further assessment. He
advised that alternative sites needed to be explored further. He recommended that the application be
continued until other sites were explored.
Councillor MacMillan advised that Councillor Trail had
summed it up completely. He stated that
this was a difficult one and noted that the Community Council supported it.
Councillor Kinniburgh advised that his concerns were similar
to Councillor Colville’s and agreed that there was a need to consider the
application before them. He said he was
satisfied that the other sites had been looked at by Planning and that they had
come up with the most suitable site. He
referred to the presentation made by Mr Bruce and advised that the Health and
Safety matters he had raised were out with Planning control. He stated that like his colleague Councillor
Colville he would not like to see an industrial fence.
Motion
To agree to grant planning permission subject to the
conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.
Moved by Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded by Councillor
Alex McNaughton
Amendment
To agree to continue consideration of the application and
request a more robust report from the Roads Officer and a more in depth report
from the Conservation Officer.
Moved by Councillor Roderick McCuish, seconded by Councillor
Robert MacIntyre.
The Motion was carried by 7 votes to 2 and the Committee
resolved accordingly.
DECISION
Agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following
conditions and reasons:-
1.
The development shall be implemented in
accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 04/04/14
and the approved drawing reference numbers:
Plan 1 of 2 (Drawing Number 13-2111-P-01 D)
Plan 2 of 2 (Supporting Statement)
other than where provided for by
the terms of the conditions below, unless the prior written approval of the
planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to
the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning
(Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).
Reason: For
the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
2.
The access at the junction with the car park
access road shall be constructed in accordance with the Council’s Roads
Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/002a; and visibility splays of 25 metres to point
X by 2.4 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The
access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated
Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby
approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility
splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt
visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6
metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface
on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought
into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all
obstructions thereafter.
Reason: In
the interests of road safety.
3.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1,
no development shall commence until full details of the layout and surfacing of
the internal access track and parking area to serve the proposed development
within the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Planning Authority. The duly
approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the development first
coming into use and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the
parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.
Reason: In
the interests of road safety.
4.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the construction period for the development hereby permitted
shall be restricted to the specified hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday,
09:00 to 14:00 on Saturdays with no working on Sunday or Bank Holidays. Emergency operations/works outwith these
times must have prior agreement with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area.
5.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development hereby permitted shall be restricted to the
specified operational hours of 08:00 to 18:00, 7 days a week. The Planning Authority must be notified if
emergency operations/works are to occur outwith these times.
Reason: In
order to protect the amenity of the area.
6.
No development shall commence on site, or is
hereby authorised, until a detailed report on the
control measures to be installed and built into the equipment on the site to
minimise ground contamination and vapour release into the environment has been
submitted and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the
Council’s Environmental Health Unit.
The development
shall not be brought into use until the approved details have been implemented
in full. Thereafter the development shall only be operated in accordance with
the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning
Authority.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area.
7.
No development shall commence on site, or is
hereby authorised, until an Emergency Action Plan to
be used in the event of an uncontrolled spillage of liquid or vapour fumes into
the environment has been submitted and approved by the Planning Authority in
consultation with the Council’s Environmental Health Unit.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area.
8.
No development shall commence until full details of any external lighting to be used within the
site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Such details shall include the location, type, angle of direction and wattage
of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or
light spillage outwith the site boundary.
No external lighting shall be installed except in
accordance with the duly approved scheme.
Reason: In order to avoid light pollution in the
interest of amenity.
9.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1,
the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is
consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS)
compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C697. The requisite
surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being
brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: To
ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to
prevent flooding.
10.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1,
no development shall commence on site, or is hereby authorised, until full
details in plan form showing the location, extent and materials of a 1.8 metre
high stone wall to the site boundary, sufficient to restrict views of the
interior of the compound from public locations, has been submitted and approved
in writing by the Planning Authority.
The petrol
storage tank shall not be brought into use until the required screen wall has
been constructed in accordance with the duly approved details and the wall
shall remain in place in accordance with these requirements thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of
visual amenity.
11.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1,
no development shall commence on site, or is hereby authorised, until full
details of the proposed solar panel proposed to the shed roof, in the form of a
plan/specification, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning
Authority.
Thereafter the
development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of
visual amenity.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory
Services dated 10 June 2014 and Supplementary Report Number 1 dated 21 August
2014, submitted)
PDF 67 KB