Agenda and minutes

Councillor Robin Currie

Councillor Vivien Dance

Councillor Mary-Jean Devon

Councillor David Kinniburgh

Councillor Bruce Marshall

There were no declarations of interest

Reports by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited the Committee to introduce themselves to those present.  Mr Iain Jackson, Governance & Law, outlined the procedures that would be followed during the hearing.  He then established who would be addressing the meeting. in respect of the Planning Authority, Applicant, Consultees, Supporters and Objectors.

The Chairman agreed that Mr Liversedge, having submitted a late letter of objection, be allowed to address the meeting at the appropriate time.

Planning Authority

Mrs Fiona Scott presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, advising the Committee that the application had been presented to the PPSL Committee on 15^th February 2011 and was continued to a hearing due to the number of representations received in the context of a small community.  She advised that the application is for an agricultural building sited within an area of countryside around settlement and that there is a justifiable locational need for the development.  Area Roads Manager was consulted on the application and raised no concerns.  Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council were also consulted and raised issues which have been detailed and commented on in the main report.  She concluded that this application is for suitable development which will support agricultural enterprise and the local economy and recommended that the application be granted, subject to the conditions and reasons appended to the planning report.

Applicant

Mr Reynolds, Agent for the applicants, gave an overview of the application, advising that the building was in a key location of the farm, away from the steading; the traditional farm building would not be spoiled; studies have been carried out to ensure there will be no negative impact; and the building will be a modern building, softened to enhance visual impact from the road.

Ms Young, joint owner of Kames Farm, asked that the Committee support the application, adding that this is now her full time residence, having sold her previous farm.  She advised that there is a new borehole for the water supply.  Consideration was given to the siting of the shed to enable access to grazing and shelter for her Alpacas.  Stock has to be kept indoors in inclement weather as the wool is harvested.  Pregnant alpacas are to be kept in this new building, along with any who need special attention, i.e. young which need bottle fed two-hourly for their first two months, the separate building will avoid disturbance to other stock.  A major issue is that males are also required to be kept apart.  The building will assist with valid welfare and economic reasons and she asked the Committee to support the application.

Consultees

Kilninver & Kilmelford community Council: Mrs Mitchell said she was speaking for Kames residents who had raised very real concerns over their water supply, adding that the report had not sufficiently covered all the concerns.  The application form had not identified that water would be required, or whether the polytunnels were to be removed.  They felt the Agent had not submitted a full application.  Mr Reid and Ms Young had been invited to Community Council meetings to discuss their application but had declined to attend.  Residents are happy with the farm shop, but have a genuine concern about the water supply which has dried up previously.  She added that comments were not threatening in any way but residents felt that certain issues still have to be addressed.

Roads: Mr Heron had no comment at this stage.

Objectors

Mr Christopher Liversedge, Objector, introduced himself as a retired architect.  He raised concerns in regard to the borehole, asking how long it would take for the water level to recover in periods of drought.  He asked whether an analysis of the soil had been taken as there may be soil migration from clay.  He added that when the water level is lowered it has an effect on the land above therefore affecting other people’s water supply.  A reservation tank should be included to assist extraction during drought. 

Mr Loughray, Objector, said he shared concerns with other residents that water had not been taken into account on the application.  He objected because according to the application form no water was required for this building.  He recognises that farms have to diversify and has no objection to this as it helps rural areas and tourism.  He objected to the water supply issue as it will have a devastating effect on others, stating that to ensure sustainable development, the planning office have a duty to assess the cumulative impact on others.   He added that Kames Farm has previously had a lack of water.  This is drawn from the same catchment area and is a limited resource.   The farm and development will have first call on available water therefore others will be adversely affected.  Polytunnels, farm shop, café and holiday cottages are an increased burden on resources.  He raised concerns that residents have no further legal right to amend their current rights, and that the landowners could refuse to provide others with water.  Mr Loughray said there has been no Hydro---- survey carried out and no proper assessment by Planning in advance of the application and he therefore requested that the Committee overturn the report and refuse the application, or, if Members are not minded to refuse, could defer their decision to allow findings of such a report to be made available.

Mrs Rentoul stated that the polytunnels had been sited as temporary and asked whether a shed would hide the polytunnels from the road.   She queried how the stated hours of operation would fit with the animals, and added that there should be water provision included for animals.

Questions from Members

Councillor McCuish asked about the amount of water to be used for the shed for husbandry and was advised by the applicant that the amount of water stated was only used when washing out the building or washing out the yard and was not a daily amount., it was the maximum amount which could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.