Transcript

That's area committee on the 11th of June for the 4th. Before I go through the house committee I'm going to move on to the agenda. I'm going to pass to the Vice Chair, Councillor Carr, who's going to say a few words about Jim Stewart, who was the Chair of the Burns Community Council and this afternoon's speaker. Thank you Chair and thank you for the opportunity just to allow me to thank the members and also to the others passing with Jim Stewart. Mr Stewart is the Chairman of the Burns Community Council for many years and I'd like to welcome you to everyone throughout the Burns, through his participation in so many different forums, the Council forum and within Lawrence Kirk, he was instrumental within Billingship and Control and also the Lawrence Kirk Development Trust. He was involved in basins and also a part of the self-developed initiative within the Council which has been part of our global government plan and Jim was always one who was one of the few ideas to respond to community needs and he was very much a larger than like Chair of the Council. His family was always very, very important to Jim and I was very excited when he lost his son, Ian, in that helicopter crash in Norway. But the usual German, he had very much extended family around him and we all thank very much for Jim, today's wife Audrey and his extended family, so thank you. That's what our condolences to his family and friends. So we'll move on to the bus keeping for the meeting this morning, so please note that the public section of the meeting will be recorded and available to anyone after the meeting in Spanish. I ask members to activate their cameras when possible. We will take some breaks throughout the morning. Make that clear. So, we descend. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Present. Thank you. We'll move on to the declaration of members' interests. So I'm going to ask councillors to use their hands up function in which to indicate either a transparency statement or their interests. So we will continue with legislation and inequalities. So in line for the council's legal duty under section 149 of the Equality Act, I will agree that in making decisions that we shall have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimization, advance equality of opportunity between those who share the protected characteristics and persons who do not share it, and foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. and foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it, and where an integrated impact assessment was provided to consider its contents and take these into account when making a decision. I will agree. I will agree. Thank you very much. So we'll move on to the meeting on the 21st May 2024. So we're looking to confirm that this is a correct record. We'll move on to Item 4, which is a statement about standing business. And can I hand over to the area manager for this? We'll be looking to note the recommendation on this. Thank you chair. There are three answers to the outstanding business update. The first is due to be uploaded in September, which relates to the environment and infrastructure services with a clear end of plan. The second that I believe is kind of discharged is committee members have had information after the last meeting. And the third item relates to back and not be forthcoming in August, relating to tactical poverty and any policies having over the course. So just to conclude, there are three answers of which one is discharged and who are coming in due course. Thank you. Are there any questions for the area manager? Seeing no hands. Thank you very much. So we'll move on to Item 5. Now this is the world planning committee and the changing needs of agricultural buildings to class six storage and distribution for long term whiskey storage. This event is on security events in the population department at Milan, Constance and Osiris at 2023/1E3 only. Now we have three requests to speak, one from the applicant and then we have two objectors as well. Can I ask if Katie is willing to hear the request to speak? Can you read? Can you read? Excuse me, we're finding it difficult to hear you, but why don't you read? I will project more, is that a bit better? Please, thank you. Thank you. My apologies. So we are going to hear the request to speak and which means that in due course I will indicate when you're to come and sit at the table and we will read from you. The first thing that's going to happen is that Mr Spence, who's the planning officer, this morning will take us through, his councillors, through the report. We'll then have an opportunity to ask any questions. We'll then give them the application first and then we'll ask questions of the applicant and we'll be able to hear from each of the objectors in terms of the opportunity to ask questions of the objectors. And then there will be an opportunity after that to go back to the planning officer for any further clarification that we may need as a result of that input. And when we feel we've got all the information we need to move on, we'll move into debate and look to each other. So right now I'll pass over to Greg Spence, who's planning officer for the report. Thank you Chair, good morning. I'm going to double check that all members can see the slides that I'm sharing. So the first planning application on the agenda today is essentially to change the use of agricultural buildings to a class six storage and distribution. That's what use collectors and use class, that's what class six relates to the storage and distribution. And in this case that is indicated that that used to be for long term storage of whisky. And officials also includes installation of security fencing and coordination of parking. This is all on site at Coniston, just the south of St Cyrus, the two kilometres south of St Cyrus, 250 metres west of the A92 coast roads. Site and treasure encompasses three agricultural sheds that are large scale agricultural sheds, modern construction and are currently used for storing, or have most recently been used for storing grain and agricultural related machinery associated with the farming enterprise. And the understanding is that the farming enterprise is actually controlled from a vast area. This is a cycloid aspect of the farm. There are four residential properties close proximity to the site. The first two properties, these are pointed screens, the first two properties are located in seven metres of two of the sheds that are proposed as part of the change of use in this instance. And they are out with the ownership of the applicants. And there is another property to the east of these that is under the ownership of the applicants. And there's also further properties, further fields. And the closest additional property is probably about 44 metres away from the, actually it's within eight metres of the site. It's actually located further to the east. But essentially the closest properties here are the two properties located south of the Red Line site area. And they really are separated by an existing access track, if you like, coming from the farm hull. So as I mentioned, the post site plan is located in red. This includes obviously access to public roads. In this case, which is shown both to the west and then maybe to the north and to the east to set back accesses back towards the public roads. And this is just a further view of the primary access to the west back towards the public roads. We have a slight view of the existing buildings on site, as mentioned, the agricultural nature of fairly modern farm sheds. Although there is a long history of the farm on this site, the farm has not been adapted in various forms over the years. And again, we have the sheds one and two with the roundhouse feature. And that's to the end, this is to be used as staff facilities related to the development. We have Unit 3, which is the shed that's located slightly further to the northeast, somewhat detached from the two main buildings, if you like. This is the modern cultural shed. And we can run through the slides and give a view of the site for the farm at Coniston. This is a view from the site taken from the farm access track. Looking back across the site, you get an idea that the site is actually quite well contained in the landscape. There's actually quite a lot of woodland or individual mature trees surrounding the site. And it's hard to pick out from this view what is agricultural buildings, but water dwelling is adjacent. There is a close knit nature to the development at Coniston. Again, it's just a zoomed in view that shows the nature of the residential properties here located to the south of the site at Coniston. And again, looking back along the park again towards one more modern agricultural buildings located here at Coniston. And we've always moved, and this is a panoramic view of the site and the advocates that are located here to the left-hand side of the slide. And again, as we just move around the agricultural units here, we get an idea for the nature of the open nature. All the well-self-contained, common set of buildings, the roundhouse feature, which we picked out earlier, which is to be used as part of the development of the internal units and staff facilities on-site. And we get an idea of the relationship of that with the agricultural storage buildings. And this gives us a view and a better and nicer exercise of the relationship between agricultural buildings on-site and adjacent dwelling houses at Coniston. You get an idea, this is the access track I mentioned previously, and again, you get an idea of the close-knit nature of the relationship of this type of adjacent dwelling houses. They are not part of the planned application of the site area. We just like to leave this on for you, and it gives us a sort of all-encompassing overview of the site. And perhaps it's important to leave on this view for the moment again, which just shows the relationship between adjacent dwelling houses and agricultural buildings. So turning to the report, essentially, as mentioned, the application is for a change of use of the buildings on-site, storage and distribution use. The understanding is that the farmyards is not being used to its full extent at present, and operations are somewhat the satellite of the wider agricultural enterprise, which is run from the vast area. And ultimately, these buildings are becoming redundant for agricultural purposes and don't meet the needs of the current site user. And therefore, it has been proposed an alternative use for this site, which is essentially ground-field in nature with the modern storage of the ski casks, long-term storage, to be brought on the site and left to mature for a number of years. And essentially, there would be very limited activities or movement on-site related to this. It's indicated that initially, there would be two HTTP movements being passed on to the site, but after the initial phases of bringing casks on the site, it's reduced to a couple of movements per month. Sorry, in terms of staffing, we'd be looking at members, two or three members, two or three members of staff on the site. You'll note from the drawings, and so if I go back to a few of those slides together, if I go back to the drawings, you'll note that there's parking space on site for 34 vehicles, and this relates more to the potential for storage and distribution use of parking located to the north of the west of the site. However, this is because of what the use class is and not necessarily because of what the intended number of employees or site visitors would be in this instance. So essentially, the need to retain parking provision, as you'll just have an understanding that a bit of this will be used to any extent based on the type of use being proposed on the site. Again, we'd be looking at our operations, indicating the support information, the site would operate between 8.30 in the morning, 4.30 on Monday through Thursday, if you like, a half day on Friday, 8.30 to 2.30, and there'd be no working in the weekends. And essentially, that sums up the operations that have been proposed on site. To look at the reports, notice of protection 3 of the report is that there have been 9 values of representation received, and these are all objections to the proposal, and the due date is valid from sterums. Several matters were raised in relation to health and welfare. This includes issues of black fungi, ethanol, ethanol papers, and also fire risk from the storage of whisky on the site. And the concerns were also raised in relation to accessing the road safely. And these comments are, if you like, similar to what's been raised through the Council's National Security Council, also objecting the proposal in these similar matters of health risks associated with the development, and also increased HIV traffic on the 892. It's noted from section 4 of the report that all technical responsibilities are satisfied with the proposals. This includes both development and environmental health. I think it's important to go on to discuss the matters surrounding health and safety, as this is obviously a key aspect of all players' objections that have been raised, and it's a key consideration in relation to the development. I think it's important to hear that I try and give some clarity to members on how this is assessed in terms of planning an application. So essentially, what is being proposed here is a land use application for a change of use from a farm yard to a plastic storage and distribution. What is that stored on site would be subject to other legislation. And we consulted with HXE on two or three occasions to engage on the matter. They informed us that they weren't seeking a formal consultation, but they have informed us that we would seek set of hazardous substances sent based on the indicated storage of 8,000 cask of whisky. And this would be to ensure that that level of whisky storage is adequately assessed in terms of the nature, the hazardous nature of the whisky in this location. A separate application would be required for that storage level of whisky, and it would be assessed in its own right. So whilst we can't ignore amenity impacts of any development, I would like to give clarity to members on what is actually being proposed to be stored will be assessed individually through hazardous substances consent. And therefore, when looking at the materiality advice in relation to this application, what we're looking at is a change of use application to storage and distribution. And we've got many storage and distribution sites across Aberdeenshire and where the operators propose to store hazardous substances. They also require to submit development applications, which are assessed by HXE in terms of hazardous substances. And that's assessed on its own merits. So whilst the advocate has been upfront about what the proposal is here, I think we have to be careful to separate the land use planning application that we're looking at and the assessment of the potentially hazardous substance that is being proposed. We'll go through a certain set of considerations related to separate legislation controlled to help us see the executive overseas, essentially. And therefore, that brings me on to a summary of the report in terms of the proposal and in planning policy terms. The planning service is satisfied and is becoming redundant for its purpose in terms of the site operator. And that does give an opportunity for the site to be equalised as a brownfield site. And storage and distribution has been demonstrated to be a satisfactory solution on the site. It can be accommodated within both the road network and in terms of amenity. And essentially, the planning service has no concerns in that regard. And the content of the proposal will meet building the local development plan and the national planning framework for policies. The key ones in this instance being policy R2 related to the local development plan and policy 29, which was released in September of 2004. And we have considered all other aspects related to hazardous substances site safety and we're content that this will be controlled to set the legislation. And ultimately, the recommendation is there for the grant planning application that's in front of you today, subject to the planning conditions outlined in section 10 of the report. And I'm happy to answer any inquiries. I appreciate there may be specific questions that the members may want to raise in relation to this proposal. Thank you very much for the introduction. Can I ask if there are any questions at this point? Councillor Edson. Thank you, Gregor. That was very helpful. Thank you, Chair. What you're telling us then is that the hazardous bit of it will come under separate health and safety ruling at a later date, should this be passed. And what we're actually looking at now is a change of use from agricultural to storage and distribution. But looking at the paper and what we have in front of us, the majority of the paper is focusing on answering those queries that were raised by the objectors and the community council in relation to the health and safety. And it's kind of been taken for read that what is here we have in front of us is an application to change to the whisky storage. If it is a general change of use to storage and distribution, have we had our consultees, our roads department and so on, looked more generally at what could become of this site if it's changed to storage and distribution in terms of access, size of road? Because what you were talking about was there's only expected to be two cars on site, there'll be limited vehicle movements. But if it's a general change of use, that could all end up legitimately, I suppose, being far, far heavier. And has that been considered? Yeah, road colleagues, I assure you of many on all of this with storage and distribution type change of use applications. And it's something that is often a hurdle for developments where there's quite a broad spectrum for what storage and distribution could pertain to. In this instance, what we're looking at is at the lower end in terms of whisky storage where there's minimal movements, essentially day to day, not the high vehicular movements associated with the development, but without trying to put fear into members, people who have significant vehicular movements that we see. The site wouldn't lend itself to that purpose, but parking and roads and access provision is always assessed on, if you like, the potential worst case scenario. And that's why we see a provision on our own spaces that significantly exceeds the likely site use based on the use being proposed. And likewise, the road junctions and the road network has also been assessed in that regard. And to demonstrate that the site can accommodate storage and distribution use in the broader sense, and not just specifically in relation to the development being proposed. Yes, we do look at it in taking into account a broader range of possibilities than just that being proposed. OK, thank you. That's so turning. Yes, thank you, Chair. In 2.10, you talk about two firefighting ponds are proposed with thin site and would be topped off by private water supply to maintain food capacity all year round. Where are they? Just out of curiosity. So. My understanding is this is one of the ponds here. There's an existing pond in this area. Second point, I can't point to it. Sorry, I can't point to that. I'll try and get information for you and come back to you. Thank you. Councillor Cartlidge. Just a general fire risk in general. Yes. So again, fire risk has come across this before on other planning applications. Fire risk is not in itself a material planning consideration. However, amenity, et cetera, and increased risk is. As mentioned, I think you draw a good comparison there from the own knowledge of agricultural storage. It's actually very fire risk associated with grain storage and grain dust. And some really significant events in relation to that. And whiskey would probably also introduce its own unique risk in terms of that specific substance. And again, that would be considered as part of the substance application. And that is the nature of what the hazard is, if you like. One of the hazards, sorry, there's obviously been several, through the application knowledge of representation. And we consider it through that process. Councillor Cartlidge. I have a question as well. So just for my clarity as chair, when we come later on to taking a decision. I'm looking at 'oh man, emission for change in use of agricultural buildings, classic storage, classic storage and distribution'. We will no longer be considering long-term whiskey storage. Is that correct? Sorry, could you see that please? So in terms of the title of this paper, long-term whiskey storage is inherent to it. But what I'm hearing you say is that will no longer be the consideration before us. We'll be simply considering plastic storage and distribution, is that correct? So essentially, the application title is specific in that it relates to long-term whiskey storage. But essentially what we are granting in relation to that is a classic storage and distribution use. So within the used class, which permitted development to change. So technically speaking, what is stored on site unless it was to be specifically controlled through planning condition. To say that you only need storage of whiskey, essentially there could be the opportunity to change use to storage of something else. So we are sticking with what's here. There's an amendment to that. But we will be understanding that HSE will be required for their hazardous substances consent. You have to clarify that. Just for clarity. Yes. So the land use thing for storage and distribution is very upfront. It's in the title of the application and it forms part of the justification of the long-term storage of whiskey. Anyone who is supposed to store materials or a volume of materials is considered to meet the terms of how the substance is therefore required to submit a hazardous substance application or consideration. So if that's what active disposal is going to do, then we can see that purchase. Are there any further questions for the planning officer at this point? Seeing no hands. OK. Thank you very much, Gregor, for now. So I invite Mr. Ross Foster, please, to come and sit at the table. [inaudible] And then after that, we'll ask you to be seated and we'll ask you questions if you have them. And then when you've included that, I'd ask you to return to us and to not contribute. Just push the talks, sorry. Yes, absolutely. And I'd like you to come on. Good morning, Councillor Strange, thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'd like to be able to clarify and expand on some of the questions you have. I realize there's various concerns. My name is Ross Foster. I'm also a resident and I'm surrounded by the sheds on both sides and by the access points as well. I would just like to say we've been going through this process for over a year now. There's been a lot of work, a lot of expert involved and a lot of work done with the head of our historic bombing and all the consultees. I wouldn't be sat here today unless we have full support of all your colleagues within the council. And we've also engaged outside experts from the risk industry, the health and safety industry. And I think it might help you understand. I'm more than happy to have a condition attached to this that is just for whisky storage and not for any other distribution. And currently, and in the past, it's been used as a grain store. At the moment, you've got 800 tractor trips, traveling ten miles. Well, if we could build a kettle over it fast. That's where the main grain storage is. Us subject to planning, purchasing this site enables them to develop their new grain storage to help planning permission for. And they've already submitted their roads to build. So, at the moment, you've got 800 tractors across the main, the A90 with great grain. And they're using the, what's the road, the morphe road from Meerica to the back end of the site. And I know from the community council's comments, that road is getting destroyed. Because of that. So, one, a major part of it, a benefit in terms of this. It's a huge improvement in the environment, losing all those tractor trips. And living there, I know for a fact, it can be 24/7 border with floodlights going on, high grain dust going around. Now, it's well documented, the risks associated with grain. And there is a higher risk of fire, COPD, farmer's lung, frog grain, grain dust, which is currently being raised. And I live there. So, I certainly wouldn't be increasing the risk for myself or anyone else living there. Not only that, it's important, our whisky company has currently got their items stored in about 34 locations in Scotland. They're restricted by growth, they cannot visit their whisky, they cannot service their whisky. And that's restricting their business. Not only that, we own our snowdrop developments. This also enables future dunnage. We've got another plan application for the site, which the council allocated in 2010 for massive plan approval. There's three acres of commercial land there that will eventually hold the lower level of dunnage, the nice looking buildings for the village. And that application is live with our research council in Jusan. So, this also, it's supporting various businesses in a big way by doing this. There's far higher risk. The other thing that must be highlighted is since we've received the report where the council are supporting our application, we've now invested with the HMRC bond application. That is where by our HSE become very focused on what we're doing. They will tell us what changes we need to do on the site, the actual site of bonds, the separation of any apartments within the buildings. We've also looked at the ethanol picture from this. There's talk of black mold and black fungus. It must be highlighted, it's two very separate things. Black mold within houses is caused by basically mold, moisture, I think. And that's documented as not being used for health. There's reports done by the Scottish Government and the health executives and respiratory experts on what is basically a black stain by ethanol. It goes into the air and meets with moisture that can cause black staining. One minute. Sorry. That's what I documented by the respiratory experts that there's not one single body of evidence that suggests that's harmful to units and it can be cleaned off. That was based on a study of three million gas fees stored in close vicinity of all residents. We're less than 0.1% of that. Any storage in the old shed close to residents is going to be the oldest whisky, a whole number of whisky because that will be damaged. The new shed that you see behind my house is the only shed that will be used for news for it. And that's where ethanol can give off vapour. I'm more than comfortable living there and I'm more than comfortable that this is a much less risk than what I'm currently living with. I'd just like to highlight that and I'd like to ask if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your introduction, can I ask? Sorry Ross, can you press the button just to knock your mic? Is it two points? I noticed that in the paper you're talking about three employees, would you be looking at increasing or would that just be the standard number of employees for the shed? And the second question would be, why St. Cyrus? Just a broader picture because probably you'll associate quickly with St. Cyrus with a more highland location exposed to St. Cyrus. So maybe just a wee bit back down to that in relation to the site. Thank you. First of all, the parking, we've actually challenged the parking that's showing on site. We want the attraction of the site is that it is rural, it is clean air, it's traditional. This is old, old whisky, and there's news for it going to the new shed, but the old part of the site, some of these whisky are nearly 50 years old. Some of these whiskies are lower and more above the cask. It's desirable that it's rural, the roundhouse is desirable as a small area where a customer can come and view his whisky or her whisky. The planner will confirm, we have challenged the number of spaces and we've said we only need a maximum of five spaces. The space allocation comes because there's a standard number of spaces required per square metre of commercial or shed building. We are vastly reducing the activity that happens on site, vastly reducing the number of traffic on the roads with this proposal. In terms of St. Cyrus wide, the whiskies aren't involved, they love the history, they love the location, they love the fact that we've got a commercial site nearby where we can overflow bullet signage and perhaps in the future have a small wisdom centre within St. Cyrus. They're going to consolidate all their casts that are currently covered all over Scotland where they can't access, they can't service, they can't provide customer services and they're getting pushed out. They can get asked to leave within one month and they've got nowhere to go. This will be an independent HMRC bond with full legislation and we're also the custodian for a huge number of millions of vats due to the government when these casts are released. So, nothing with that. HMRC is going to be on the rise in terms of health and safety, fire rise, we've got several insurance companies from the individual casting shooter, our own insurance, the wishy comeys insurance, they're all looking at us now. What we need to do is nobody wants any incidents at this site. St. Cyrus, there's a distillery we can almost see from this, the old hillside distillery in Dunwich, there's the beach, there's the river, it's a very desirable place for the people from all over the world. The companies we're dealing with, they have companies New York, Shanghai, Singapore, Barcelona, Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, they're the biggest independent whisky pincher broker with 8,500 caps on them, I think. And they're also the first independent whisky broker to be able to offer America investment to investment whisky pincher. This is why they can't do it on their own, they have to have an independent do this for them because of their setup in America. It will bring visitors to the area and I hope it does grow into our site that's currently on ownership of St. Cyrus and it's no surprise to anyone that the housing market, this business also supports my own business, which is no longer available to continue. I'm going to ask the same question, where are the ponds for your firefighting? I'm just wondering, are they new? And if so, will they have a risk assessment or something on how you arrived at the need for that? Currently, if you look at the application site, so it's on your screen just now, if we see the, yeah, exactly where that red section is just now, I had to put a pond in for my own property there. It must be highlighted, I own that field down to day 92 and the main, it stated it was going to be topped up by private supply, which it can be, but it used to be a dairy farm that used to provide private supply to the sheds already. However, I have control of the main that runs up to day 92, it's within my land, and my property, and I also connected one of the existing properties to the mains when I built my house. So there's one existing pond there, and there's one path further up in the yard, and we also have rights with the farm to do anything underground, but underground, so other ways of stuff. We don't yet know because we just started doing HMRC bond application with the fire people, and they come to visit the site next week, and that's when they'll tell us the size of the pond, how much energy it takes to buy a pond like. But realistically, we could also run a main, it's purely for topping up any fire engine should there be a fire. But again, if everything's looking to reduce that, there's probably a bigger fire risk with grain storage there, and the same farm had a fire recently elsewhere, and that's why they want modern facility as well, and this development enables their problem. So everything's going to be done, it has to be done properly, or we'll be losing business. Okay, thank you. Thank you Councillor Turner. Any further questions for Mr. Foster? Seeing no hands, so thank you very much Mr. Foster. We're going to take our food projections separately. Mr. Ellery, please. I'll turn my microphone off, Mr. Ellery, you'll be able to turn yours on. You've got five minutes, and I can give you a warning at the moment. Please proceed, thank you. Good morning, my name's Michael Ellery, I live at Herriman's Cottage, which is slightly just seven metres from one of these warehouse houses. First of all, I'd like to bring your attention to the inactresses in the application. The states of Darwin Valley is the sole owner of the land and assets associated with this application, not true. Snowdrop, his agent, has signed the application to say, if this is granted, that he owns the site and access, as indicated on his site plan, which shows, it's owned by me, which incorporates my right, my right, he does not own the property. Photos, he has produced a series of photos, which are very professionally done. Our properties are not shown on those photos. I submitted pictures, which clearly show our properties and how close we are to the farms, which is seven metres. This gives us real concerns to our health, safety and wellbeing. Potential fire and exposure risk, risk is highly inflammable. Ethanol given off by the maturation process is highly flammable, explosive and toxic. If a fire explosion occurs, the roof will be blown off. It may contain asbestos. It is concrete sheeting. As people have told us who live on the farm, that the asbestos may be in the roof itself. Fire will spread rapidly. A lack of water and the time taken for the fire appliances to arrive will mean that our farming properties will be completely destroyed. Learest burn fire station, one chose, retain firemen, will take them at least 20 minutes to arrive. Basically then, our properties will completely be destroyed, along with anyone who is in those properties at the time. We are only seven metres from this potential disaster. These barns are not fit for purpose. The other third of the barn number one is open wooden slatting. The electrical supplies do not conform with the power supply in an explosive atmosphere. Infrastructure, the security fence that has been designed, or that was built around the three properties, will basically deny me access to the private barn at Ireland. This will completely shut off. I have double doors at the back of my barn. I will not be allowed to enter from a news day. Access to the derivative of my barn has been in these for over 20 years. The previous owner of the farm maintained access to that. He used to keep farming improvements in the barn itself. Public access. The statement designates the road circled orange as an alternative access for the residents. Basically, this road is a private road, which is not mentioned in the statement, which is owned by me. There are four properties who have legal access. It's in their title periods. No unauthorised vehicles are allowed up that road. Barn vehicles don't travel up here. Therefore, the only vehicles allowed are the postmen, the living novice, people like that. A local development plan. This application, as far as we're concerned, may comply with a local and other deanship development plan. But it does not take into consideration the proximity of our properties to these barns, which it granted will seriously put our health, safety and wellbeing at risk. Planning the decision, which is more important. Company profits for the health, safety and wellbeing of the residents who will be at risk. This planning application should be denied. The 36 page statement by the applicant contains inaccuracies and misinformation, which has been accepted by the police officer. A reliable source from the planning, economy, environment and infrastructure services stated that the applicant's statement is accepted at face value. No checks are done. Therefore, this application is flawed. Our concerns have been noted in our letters of objection, which I hope you have all read. We have been in contact with Andrew Bowie, Marie Gougeon, Tesfaye and the Society's Community Council. They have added their support to our concerns and we are carrying out our research. We hope you carry out a site visit and see for yourselves our concerns. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr Elway. Can I just ask before we take questions to you, whether the planning officer wants to say anything about the survey? [inaudible] It's a civil matter. So we've seen some other applications again. [inaudible] Thank you very much. Can I ask if there are any questions for Mr Elway? [inaudible] Thank you very much, Mr Elway. [inaudible] Thank you for allowing us to put our thoughts and concerns at the power of the day. We have looked at [inaudible] for 13 years in a single storage cottage. In all of those 13 years, we have never had farming 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And the risks that were previously outlined. There was three weeks harvesting across that farm. And I think the inaccuracies in the submission need to be looked at and checked. Because we can absolutely say that we have never felt at risk or at harm from how the work has been done on the farm. And we have ample, ample evidence about it. We have invested in our homes. We have spent money and time to create homes that we can safely live in. All this has changed significantly if this application is granted. We have done a lot of research this last October. I've spoken to many medics. I checked this out thoroughly. And the impact on us from ethanol vapors is significant and cannot be easily dismissed. All research is needed on these issues, as a lot of the research universities who have looked at this also stayed. Public health, England, Scotland, America, all stayed very clearly. Because you are living so close to that site, your exposure is significant to continued inhalation of ethanol vapors. We will not be able to open our windows again. These vapors cause skin irritation, damage to eyes, respiratory shortness of breath, headache, sickness, vomiting, may lead to cancer condition. Ethanol vapors go directly into the bloodstream and travel to the brain. That's how serious the impact of these could be. They are airborne. If you're there for about an hour, it may not be significant. If you're there, you live 400 metres away, 100 metres away, it may not be significant. We live seven metres, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we'll be inhaling these vapors. Fact, proven fact. The conditions are not yet proven, but certainly some people and some medics have said there will be respiratory issues and problems getting that close. This is not voluntary. This is being imposed on us if it has passed. So the duration of exposure, the risk to our health. Well, I've got compromised immunity system, Michael's got respiratory problems, both of which are in damage caused by inhalation of ethanol vapors. I want to talk to the whiskey black and the whiskey fungus that we've called. Homes 350 metres away are covered in whiskey black in Volkerth, proven fact. Homes all across Scotland, near to these warehouses, are covered in black fungus. It's ethanol vapors causes this. The black fungus attaches to buildings, cars, gardens, garden furniture, children's swings, facts. It causes extensive aesthetic and property damage. So what happens to us? What happens to us as residents who've had no rights in this planning application, who've been ignored by the planning application when we've asked for meetings, who've never responded properly to our letters? We feel that we are just being pushed to one side to this. We're not against these buildings. We're not against these businesses. But seven metres, continually, 24 hours a day, that is unacceptable. Public health are very clear. If you attempt to clean the black of your buildings, you need to wear personal and protective equipment. You need to wear face masks, they're the high standard. You need to wear goggles. You need to wear gloves. But it keeps coming back. The cleaning only lasts a few months. It keeps coming back. We've invested in our garden, our plants, the trees are covered in. We don't have garages. Our cars will be covered in it. So what I want to talk about now is we just don't have any rights here. We have no rights. But the risks that were placed on us, fear of damage to our homes and our lives, fear for our health because of continuous inhalation of the vapors. We can't open our windows because the vapors will come through. Check. Bat. Spire. No doubt at all. The ponds have been referred to from the applicant. His pond was dried up when he built his house. It's never had water in it. Can you wrap up, please? Sorry? Can you please wrap up? I just want to say we've done extensive research. We're not stupid. We're not overreacting. We're trying to protect our lives and our homes and I really urge you to consider all the information we've provided today. And finally, sorry, the panel, if you lived there with your children and grandchildren, seven metres, what would you be thinking? Please take that into account. Just take a moment. We'll see if there are any questions for you. Chancellor Cott. Thanks for your presentation to the committee today. I'm just wondering if you've got any research relating to these issues, which has been peer reviewed, I think is the expression. Sorry, can't hear very well. Which is robust. The health and safety implications of those vapors and the problems we're having now. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Yeah, we've spoken, I've spoken to medics, I've spoken to architects, I've spoken to people who've been in this business in England. And this is what they are saying about the Whiskey Black, absolutely confirmed. There was a legal court case that finished in January 24 for a couple in Falkirk who won their case against the damage caused to their homes. They tried for about 18, eight years or nine years to get listened to and eventually succeeded in getting compensation for the damage to their homes. We did submit in our objections a list of appendices with the information. We have referred to research documents in the letters we sent to the planners that we're unsure if you've received because it's a very one sided activity in favour of the applicant continually. So, yeah, I'd be confident that we could provide this information. We're honest people. We want businesses to survive, but we don't bother and so we at our homes that put us at risk. There will be accountability as well for that. Are there any further questions? I'm seeing no hands, so just thank you very much for your contribution this morning. Before you invite me, I ask the Planning Officer if he has anything you'd like to say about the contributions from the speakers. Thank you. Just for clarity, just for members, in some of the aspects that have been released, the first speaker spoke to the accuracy of the report and a comment was made that the planning set for state information puts us at face value. And that is largely correct. Ultimately, we cannot suitably investigate every descriptive piece of information that is put to us. So we do take that as read in relation to the use of the farm enterprise. I think it's clear that the farm is used at a fairly low level in relation to this kind of development and that's partially why this application has come forward. I think what's important to note is there's no restriction on the level of use of a farm enterprise like this. And therefore, without any planning consent required, there could be a higher level of use in terms of farming activities on the site. And so whether that information is actually well disputed, I think what's more important is to actually look at what is actually potentially possible on the site in terms of level of use for consideration. And I think also it's fair to say and it's fair for members to consider in terms of the change in the environment. It is a barnyard, a farm and farming enterprise, and that's what the existing residents have to come across from you. And there will be a magnitude change moving away from that use as a storage facility for whisky as being proposed. I think it's an important measure to keep that in mind when making any decision to consider the impacts and the change of use being proposed. I think it's fair just to highlight that. I think that's essentially the crux of some of the comments that will be made here. In terms of health and safety aspects, these are not directly considered in the planning application. At the end of the day, what we are considering is the land use change. And ultimately, like many uses, when operated appropriately and in compliance with relevant legislation requirements for such a use, there shouldn't be a significant risk of fire or explosion or any other type of safety measure. Not to dumb this down to a point of insignificance by any means, but essentially you have a boiler in your house that essentially sits there and has it incorrectly installed or utilised. But when done appropriately and in compliance with relevant legislation, then safety risks are minimised. And that's the same kind of use on the site. It's inherent that there's a risk with any activity. And while that risk is on a sliding scale, when introducing hazardous materials may increase that risk, that is assessed. It falls under the remit of the Health and Safety Executive and the site is operated in a compliant manner when the risk is mitigated and minimised. So only that provides some clarity on that aspect for the purpose. I have had some more detailed comments from Environmental Health as part of the planning application in terms of some of the risks and impacts associated with ethanol vapours. It's currently in the way of quality standards in relation to ethanol in the UK, based on currently available evidence to help us from inhalation of ethanol compared to direct ingestion or swallowing of ethanol are considered to be limited. And that is the comments from Environmental Health in relation to ethanol. Likewise, in relation to black fungus associated with whisky, which you'll have to excuse my lack of pronunciation. You'll notice the dominochromopoeia incentives to the fungus. It's also present in the environment and then it fries and has lots of high concentrations of ethanol. And this is what can cause a black staining on buildings. And it's not currently associated with health risks, so either short or long term exposure. And as such, the Environmental Health Committee considered this aspect because there is no confirmed risks associated with it. There is a paper done by the Scottish Government in the Review of Human Health and Environmental Impacts for non-humidating volatile organic compound emissions for non-whiskey maturation in Scotland. And the conclusions of this report are that health and environmental impacts are likely to be minor. However, further investigation into the magnitude of long term exposure is considered to be necessary. Environmental Health will continue to monitor this development and regulation if that occurs, and also the ability to control if there would be identified health risks in terms of environmental protection and also in terms of health and safety. But at this time, that is the commentary that we're acting under. And that's what we've been talking about. Thank you very much for that further input. Councillor Cardion, you have a question for Gregor? Yeah, thank you. Three more questions for the applicant. We're actually talking about a very old whiskey here and a rather than newly asked whiskey. So I suspect there might be less, well, what we call the angels here. Anyway, from the barrows compared to newly cast whiskey. I know it's a bit more technical. Yes. I think it's something to comment on that, because it's not really an expertise for me. I think the assumption you're making, I think there is an understanding that if you can all papers do reduce over time, is my understanding. But I'm afraid I will be held to that comment. So I think it's fair that we just consider this as whiskey slaves in the round and there will be even all papers associated. However, from the destination, college, university, department of health, the risk of not being able to receive anything. Thank you, Councillor Clark. Councillor Victor. Yeah, question for Gregor. I just wonder, is there any research going on or anything about being able to control the ethanol that's getting into the area? Is there any research of it now? I'm afraid I couldn't answer that appropriately. I'm sure there is. I'm not an expert in that area, so it's not fair for me to comment. It takes all of the information to be given by a consultees expert in the area and assess it based on the regulations. Councillor Anderson. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thanks, Gregor. Gregor, you've obviously stressed to us about the health and safety being considered elsewhere. But when we look at policy R2 and the residential amenity, does the impact of the black spores on the properties themselves come into consideration, that kind of consideration when you are looking at assessing impact on residents living nearby? The impacts of any use on site are clear, essentially, when you're considering amenity. However, the information that we have received and the guidance that we have on environmental health, is that, essentially, there are limited health risks associated with this, and that gives the advice and the status of the simulation. So I can't really give you any more than that. I think it's clear for members to get to the aspects they feel are material to the planning application. And ultimately, any amenity impacts are there for material to certainly lead. I try to give you an outline of the processes and other considerations that happen separate to the planning process in terms of health and safety. But it will be for members to weigh up that balance. Thank you. I'm looking at policy P4, which is included in the report. And if I'm reading it right, the report was based on the comments of HSE and environmental health. And that's what's satisfying policy P4. That would be correct. Specifically in relation to health. Yes, essentially, the assessment has been carried out with the environmental health. OK, because I read your HSE comments, it's in relation to the snow pipelines. They're difficult, especially when HSE has gone through a fairly standard assessment process and we engage with HSE in the most common, reasonable engagement of this area. We have then gone back and clarified to them what this specific land use proposal is in this instance. And we have received update information that doesn't object to planning applications. And it highlights where a certain level is breached in terms of storage of whiskey. So come back to there, HSE will actually determine with the applicant the volume of the whiskey they would allow stored on site. Again, in terms of the volume, the practices for storage, essentially, we will assess that aspect. And then we should get through that process. OK, thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Turner. So just two follow up questions, which kind of go to the last three reading. So one, when it comes to considering amenity impact. Set aside the essential impact from ethanol on health, you know that the lack of fungus on buildings can require cleaning. So that would be considered, that cleaning impact would be considered. That's one question. The other one relates to the comments regarding asbestos and potential asbestos. I'm sorry about things. So I was just asking about whether or not cleaning can be considered an amenity impact. I presume it can, but I'm just going to have that clarified. And with respect to potential for asbestos and roof, I presume again, that's something that we can safely pick up if we have concerns about where these buildings are constructed in the context of any storage. Yes. So in terms of asbestos, there's no proposals to intervene with the asbestos to any degree. They say because that application is mentioned previously, which slots on top of one of the buildings. And there are proposals to amend the nature of the buildings and to remove that flooding and to introduce a very involved work, essentially. So the buildings will cover more substantial in that regard. But it's not my understanding of asbestos. To any extent we can reach a site to get a separate legislation to cover where we've been interacting with asbestos and ensure that that is done in a capable manner and plan for legislation that the asbestos has been removed. There are procedures for the removal and the disposal of asbestos also. So it's a separate legislation that covers that, but there's no significant impacts in that regard and there's not a lot being proposed here. In terms of the scaling of the black fungus again, it's hard to attribute a level to that. There are many uses that will result in impacts on the surrounding of the Isles breakers, the quarry, the sand or anything. But ultimately, you're right that anything that could result in an impact could be considered through amenity and that amenity is therefore an impact on the character or the appearance of property. So you could attach weight to that as long as it was a problem in order to be implemented in the very much way you wish to attach that aspect. Are there any further questions for the planning officer? Seeing no hands. So before we proceed to delivery, can I ask if you feel you have enough information to proceed this morning? Seeing no hands, I'm going to take that as we do have enough information to proceed. So I'll open the debate. Councillor Carr. Thank you very much. This whole subject and this application in relation to some of the concerns raised by Mr Elway and Mr Bailey. And I think I certainly have been born and bred in a farm and adjacent to an industrial shed, which probably has had cattle from time to time and laterally pigs. And probably quite a lot of them, noxious. And, you know, we would have been subject to stay in next year. So I think any building in the countryside, you know, we can all accept that we can have issues with the consequences of those activities. We have asked the questions about safety and health implications of the building adjacent to the storage. I think for me, as I did raise the point on reflection about the age of those casks. I think that would mean that there would be less emissions, in this instance, from the age of the casks that's currently being stored. I'm not seeing much else in the application that we can refuse on, like that bigger anti scheme for the report, which is fairly comprehensive. And there is an economic development aspect to this as well. And I'm sure something has been proposed that there will be a grant worth conditions as in the report. Thank you. So you will be proposing that we grant? Thank you. Can I ask if you have a seconder, if anybody would like to make a comment? Yeah, this is actually a very difficult one, but the questions have been asked and we have been assured that the health and safety aspects need to go through a further forum, further discussion to be clarified and an outcome there. So on that basis, I think that what Councillor Carr has said is correct, and I will be prepared to second him on this one, knowing that the health and safety aspects, this is not the end of that story, that they will be considered by the health and safety executive. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Edison. So we have a seconder there. Councillor Sullivan. Morning. I just wanted to clarify that the health aspects will be assessed by the HSE, but the actual impacts of this black mould on surrounding buildings, that wouldn't be material to their considerations, but it is material to ours in relation to amenities, is that right? If I could bring you in to answer that question, please. Apologies for not asking it earlier. Sorry, I just have a bit of clarity on the question. Are you again asking just whether this black steering is material to the planning application but not, are you suggesting it wouldn't be material to assessment of the hazardous substances? Sorry, I'm slightly confused. Yes, that sounds about right, yes. We consider it, they don't consider it? Or do we both consider it? Are we going to comment on exactly what they consider in terms of the hazardous nature of the materials? Certainly the advice that we have from environmental health is that this aspect isn't considered to be a significant health risk. And so I think essentially for the chair that touched on earlier was actually the amenity impacts of the black steering itself and the visual impacts and the nuisance impact. I was, sorry, it was a bit worse in your mouth, chair, and it was certainly what you were alluding towards as opposed to the health impact. And from a planning perspective, my advice was, yes, those impacts could be given some weight. And from them to decide how much weight you need to give to that, I would clarify that it's somewhat of an unknown element. We don't know what the level of impact, if any, would be. The speakers have spoken and they've made the case that they feel that this is entirely likely and could look somewhat from a high level of impact. Again, we don't have a clear assessment of that, so it would be for members to, I'm afraid, try and make sense of that and consider how much weight they wish to give. Sorry, I can't be any more clear. No, no, that's fine. That's made it clear my mind. Thank you. Before I bring you in, Councillor Turner, I am going to bring you in. OK. Was it a follow up question? No, it was a point of clarity on the motion. Well, we're just going to talk about the delegated grant aspect of this. I'm bringing in, is that the issue for you as well? Yeah. I'll see what you can say. I'm afraid you can't contribute again, I'm very sorry. I'm so embarrassed about some evidence. I've got some data. Thank you. I'm very sorry, you're not allowed to contribute further now. Well, I'll accept that, but he asked another question and I can answer that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. If I could comment. The report outlines, or the report comes to this committee asking for its permission to give so there is no aspect of delegation. It was just full committee decision that's been requested. I appreciate that. That might not be what you meant, Councillor Carr, but when you go over that. Yeah. That's a genuine follow up. Yes. OK, the way I take motion is what we've got down in the tables and tabs of the grant recommendations. Councillor Carr, you talked about the age of the whisky being stored, and I don't believe that's within our remit of the term. It's just that the storage is the whisky and that's up to the applicant for the other appropriate authorities to determine. Yeah, and yeah, that was obviously quite clear. I see the same as what my colleagues have done. We've talked about the HSE, we've talked about what a civil bus is what we can do. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll bring in Councillor Victor. Could we put a condition on the asking having to keep the nobody's money? No, I wouldn't suggest a reasonable condition that would meet the six tests for the appropriate condition, because it might be difficult to attribute where the dirt build up has gone from. And also, we're not sure of the level of the impact. So I think those are a competent planning condition, I'm afraid. Just to clarify, a planning condition would have to be one of the six tests to be precise in nature. And if you put the responsibility of somebody to keep a prime individual's property clean, there's no preciseness to that element. There's no preciseness to what clean is, there's no preciseness to where the trigger would be for cleaning requirements. And it certainly just wouldn't be in a appropriate planning condition. But it's definitely a really common problem. And basically, there would be no appropriate planning condition to ensure that we could make that happen. Thank you. Councillor Cohen. Yes, it's just in response to Councillor Turner's comment. I think as Councillors, it's one of the most difficult jobs that we have to do. And everything is a balance and it's not the exact science we deal with. On this, we are dealing with scientific matters. I do come from a scientific background. And my comment about the age is it's only put into the mix, but it's not necessarily based on any fact either. But that's where we come from as Councillors. That's what we need to take into account from each decision. And particularly when we have evidence that in the papers that we have the virus, and that's really what we must determine an application. So just to say, yes, and those conditions. And your microphone, please. So, again, for that clarity, you would be proposing a full plan for the meeting subject to the commissions that are laid out in the report. OK, thank you very much. Councillor Sullivan. Do we have the option to grant temporary planning permission for, I don't know, seven years or something? And then it could be reassessed after that, because any effects of the whisky storage would then be evident. Is that possible or not? So I think ultimately we have to be careful. What has been proposed is not for a temporary period. I think it's quite clear this inherent is for the long term storage of whisky. So to grant temporary consent would likely have assumed business impacts for the applicant in terms of obtaining the ability to store this whisky. I think he's mentioned previously when he spoke about the actual logistics of how this operates. I would be reluctant to pose a temporary consent for this type of application, especially without discussion with the applicant on how that may impact the business. So I think we're better at assessing the proposal that's in front of us, which is ultimately our duty and that is for a full planning consent, not for a temporary period. Councillor Sullivan. But I could propose it as a compromise. Ultimately, it's within the members gifts to propose it and you have to be careful that we're not going down the route of making an unreasonable recommendation. And that's why I'm suggesting to go out against here without any discussion to go down that route. It could be challengeable by the applicant both through appeal and in terms of expenses. You know, unnecessary restriction on what has been solved in this instance. Thank you, Chair. Just to jump on back to what Gregor's just highlighted about being potentially open. Our challenge of being unreasonable just looks also to scale back to the point that Gregor made earlier about the distinction between environmental health matters and planning matters. So if you were to be looking within your remit to look at a temporary grant, but if you were to be doing that, your reasoning for it would need to be sound and clear. And again, just stating what Gregor said earlier about that distinction between matters that will be dealt with by environmental health and matters that are clear planning matters this morning. And if that assists. Thank you, Mr Stevenson. Just for the clarity of our guests this morning, Mr Stevenson is an illegal monitoring officer. He has come in to provide support guidance. So can I ask if there is any amendment or any further comments to be made? At the moment, you just have a seconded motion before us. And see no plans. So with only a motion before us, can I ask if we are agreed to grant full planning permission subject to the conditions laid out to 10.1 for the planning. Change of use for agricultural buildings to classless storage and distribution in the long term for ski storage. The installation of security fencing and formation of parking at land in Constance, St. Cyrus, as detailed in Application 2023-18. Are we agreed? Thank you very much for your attendance. I'm going to suggest we take a break now. It's just content to you so well, we can leave the meeting at the House to welcome you.

Transcript

Welcome back to the meeting. We'll move on to Item 6. Now this is the full planning commission, this is building consent for the installation of replacement doors at 33A and the Evernote Street. And Greg is going to introduce this, as you know, we'll leave the four applications together and I'm sure we won't get into the room for our audience. Thank you chair. Yeah, so apologies if this report comes across as slightly confusing and convoluted. It was done in an effort just to minimise the number of common reports. How would the committee help to be assessed individually? That's not to say that we're not looking at separate applications here, but four applications are comprised in this report, two for full planning commission and two for listed building consent. And it pertains to the properties 33A and 33B Evernote Street. To boil it all down, what really applies to you is a replacement of two doors, or two separate properties that are adjacent to each other and affect the part of the city building. So the four applications are reasonable to consider in tandem in that the impacts are pretty much entirely the same. And I imagine the outcome members will likely be consistent in their assessment, but in every day we are making four different recommendations here and I would highlight that to members and each application has to be assessed on its own merits. And I'll be presenting it because the matters and considerations are very, very similar. And essentially, technically behind the Evernote Street, the building itself is highlighted and I should double check if members can actually see the slides or the terminals. The site area just takes you out of the building here and we'll definitely be adjacent to each other. And again, 33A site plan for the Evernote plan for the listed building consent. In the top corner here where my pointer works, we have a small image of the existing door and it includes a replacement door. And likewise for 33B, we have the existing door, which is the UKBC unit and the replacement door. And the property, the building and the doors located are actually below ground level and accessed by stone steps and the section here shows the steps which are from the street level almost. And here's the next slide. We're essentially, to the left of the slide, you can see the top of the doors. They have a minimal visual impact from the street scene, but they are visible because of the nature of the building and it goes below ground level there. The visual impact is somewhat minimised. In this instance, we have slides that show the doors being proposed, the current outside and inside views of the properties and what's there at the moment. And our 33A proposal is for a white door, white with green effect on both sides. For 33B, this is the current doors, the UKBC door and the proposal is for a sort of white and cream colour or a white with green effect externally and white with green internally. So they will be slightly different, consistent in their style and overall aesthetic. And if you look at the slides here, it just shows, if you look at the slides here, it actually shows the location of the doors under the frontage, how they do sit below ground level and therefore they're actually pretty hard to see. They don't draw your attention from the street scene, and it's definitely a difficult thing to do, going back to the moment as well, getting an idea of block 78 today on the street, how this sits below ground level and this is probably a fairly unclear representative view of how these doors will be perceived from the street level. As mentioned, four applications here given to the nature of the listed building and both 33A and 33B are listed and therefore requires listed building consent. The crux of the proposal is that my understanding is these doors are flood regulated as a result of an inundation of active iron sewer and this results in the backing up of flood water and sewage. And it's causing continual damage to both the doors and the properties and therefore the proposal is to provide a robust storm door replacement where both the doors are currently in situ to assist with mitigating from this damage. I believe there has been other works that have been carried out, including non-deterrent valves, et cetera, on some of the drainage infrastructure, but it's a continual issue. Unfortunately, it's just a second time with the extra information at the main levels that would be seen more recently, and this is to be an appropriate measure to address that and to the best of the ability, not still maintaining the integrity of the listed building to the best extent. So, ultimately, UPBC has been born in terms of the suitability of UPBC on listed buildings and ultimately the planning service will always try and guide developmentally from UPBC towards more traditional materials. But we do accept them as being circumstantial in this instance, and the fact that UPBC is probably a more appropriate material to serve this purpose, and given the limited visual impact of the doors sitting at some ground level, it's deemed to be a pragmatic recommendation that the application be granted subject to Section 10 of the report. We need to pay back all four applications. I should state that's the two applications for a full plan for a ship and the two for a listed building at the same time. And there would be a minor departure from the local development plan as a result of the use of UPBC as opposed to a more traditional material on a listed building. But there are particular circumstances that are going on, and that is a recommendation for us today, but I'm happy to answer any questions here. Thank you for the report and introduction. Can I ask if there are any questions? Yes. Thank you chair and thank you Gregor. Can I just clarify the avoidance of all doubt that the question is the doors proposed are actual flood doors? Or the circumstances that you've outlined, and that the current door was about to be replaced are not the original doors? Also understanding that the door of the F3A is actually related to the replacement, so it's not an original fabric of the building. In terms of the doors, they're promoted as being robust for flood circumstances. What is a flood door? That's open to date, but my understanding is that the doors are being proposed because of the robustness of circumstances and have been tested elsewhere, supporting information is being put forward for a similar scheme in an arid city. Where these doors were used to accept as a solution also elicited knowledge from our understanding, so there is some test in there in terms of the use of these doors for this purpose. Councillor, have you had any questions? Yes, well just to confirm what Gregor said, we used to have an opposite river at the bottom, and the F3B and I can confirm that when I see that was not the original door, the wheels would be right there. Thank you Councillor, I knew. I'm not seeing any further hands. So, can I ask if members feel they have enough information to proceed? Yes. Yes, thank you very much. Open at three. I'm seeing no hands, so I'll go first here. So, I'm happy to propose that we go with the recommendations on this on the basis of the reasons given for the departure from the Local Development Plan. So, I will be proposing that we go with the recommendations to come up with planning information subject to the condition outlined at some time. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Turner. Yes, I'll second you. Councillor Blanford. Have you still agreed? I've put my hand up to seven, thank you. Councillor, are you seven? Yes, I agree. [inaudible] Thank you very much. Is there anything you could add to my list? [inaudible] So, just to clarify, I'm going to go through each one and if we could just confirm our agreements. My proposal was 404. So, it's application 2024 02888, to the listed film you can send for the installation and replacement door at 33A, Fenton Street, Stormhaven. Are we agreed? We are agreed. And for your application, thank you, online. Application 2024 0289, for a poll planning commission for installation and replacement door at 33A, Fenton Street, Stormhaven. Are we agreed? Agreed. Great. Thank you. And then application 2024 029, for the listed film you can send for installation and replacement door at 33B, Fenton Street. Are we agreed? Agreed. Thank you. And finally, application 2024 0291, full planning commission for installation and replacement door at 33B, Fenton Street. Agreed. So, those four planning applications are agreed, subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to item 7, which is full planning commission for the erection of a log-in house and an acoustic fence at land adjacent to Kirk House, across the walls of Marykirk. Application 2024 0422. Greg. Yeah, thank you, Chair. So this application report is an under-reolved objection from the council team and the City Security Council. And essentially, the application went in front of us is to consider an alternative dwelling house type on this site from that it was previously approved. The dwelling we proposed in terms of its overall mass, it's slightly reduced, sits lower than six metres in height, as opposed to 7.25 metres in the dwelling. But ultimately, it's slightly smaller than both the area and the collection of approximately 10 square metres. And ultimately, the proposed dwelling house is, I'm just going to flip forward here through the slides. So the site is adjacent to the Southside, which pretty much offset the access to public roads along the Muir bus with the Walker Memorial. And this is the site itself, the biggest planning mystery. There's a workshop located on the site, the Sery Attach workshop. And it was granted against planning recommendation for a dwelling house on this site, based on the fact it was said to be a brown queen site at the time. And this is the proposed dwelling house, essentially the site access taken from the east, essentially towards the dwelling here. And this is the dwelling's proposition. It's a fairly modern bungalow with rendered walls and ultimately an emphasis on glazing, but still utilising traditional proportions for people with a roof convention set up. And so in terms of the design of the property, the planning service actually has mainly developed concerns in relation to this proposal. We do have site sections, also showing the site is fairly flat and how the proposed dwelling house will set in relation to existing dwellings across the area. You can see the proposed dwelling house and the existing dwelling house is located to the east. There's also the converted Kirkhurst to the west, also to the A&E 2. The planning application also includes an acoustic fence in relation to noise from the evening view. This would have been higher than the previous planning condition for the original dwelling site. So what has been proposed is consistent with the previous consent in that regard. We have some sites here that show the site area, especially a panoramic view. The site will be distorted, but essentially the site area is here directly in front of us by this view to the view of the site of the existing workshop area. And the dwelling house will be located centrally within the site here, with access taken from the access room to proceed to the right of the site. And basically making access to the existing parking/turning area. And again, sites on the right-hand side of the site. You can see the former Kirkhurst here. Kirkhurst is pretty close adjacent to the A92 to the west of the proposed location site. Again, a view back across the site area. And again, an idea for the box 17 to near the right of the east, that they're served by the same access road. In terms of the report, there are two layers of projection that we receive. They raise issues related to the road leading up to the public road. So essentially the site access being included in the application stated that the site normally includes the road leading up to the public road with the boundaries of the property. So I think the assumption that's being made from that comment is that the site boundary alludes to that being under ownership or control. And likewise, the Community Council made similar comments in that regard. I would clarify, with all planning applications these days, we made a move towards ensuring that access to the site is taken back to the public region. The purpose for this is to satisfy requirements for granting consent and may require upgrades or disabilities for these to be provided to surely be appropriately conditioned. Again, any planning application can be made on any grounds, whether you own it or not. The right of access is not really considered. If you're proposing an access and it's required to be delivered to certain developments, then it's up to you to ensure that can happen. If it can't happen, you'll have to come up with alternative means. But just because it's within advanced site line area doesn't assume ownership of that. So just to clarify that, I think that's where we're going to be living in confusion with some of the comments that we put forward through this objection and the Community Council in that regard. All concerns have also been raised through this objection in relation to surface water drainage for the application. It's outlined in the report. We have a drainage certificate that has been submitted by an appropriate qualified engineer and tested to. That would be conditioned that that is implemented on site. If there are any problems in the future pertaining to the specific drainage proposals that they have not implemented correctly, like the proposals that have been put forward, then that can be investigated and any action required undertaken within the scope of that. So actually, the overall applications to the appropriate, this is a slight amendment for previously graphing on site and the planning service is satisfied with the recommendation that has been put forward here. And it's the dwelling house and essentially the recommendation in section 7 of the report is to support the planning application based on the planning and planning assistance for the regional developers. I'm happy to answer any questions, Jim. Thank you very much. Can I ask if there are any questions? I see no hands, so before we move on, I confirm that we feel we have enough information to proceed to the decision. I see no hands saying otherwise. So can I ask what opened the debate with the economy? Sure, I don't see the committee expanding matters related to this application. The main point, you've got the presentation from the committee council, there is a right of way in that vicinity, which is for it to be important and just to ensure that that is not impinged in any way. As a result of this application, that's the only point that I expect. So other than that, I would recommend that you hold the recommendation to grant. As far as in every instance, the issues surrounding the right of way, which actually seems to go back through the site along the access road and back towards the A92 and it probably has an historic association with the magic. As part of the previous plan, there was an uncondition for an historic application that required the right of way as you exit A92 towards the access road at the services site to be of a certain width and time. The planning condition didn't quite tie up with the approved details of the drawings, and my understanding is the right of way exists, but moving on to the standard and starting local residents would wish it was. They wish for it to be wider and perhaps more obvious. There's no planning scope to alter this at this stage and the right of way will continue to exist in that area and down the access track. That's my understanding. We're aware of the right of way. It has been investigated in the past by the planning service and our access officer. So I know it's an ongoing contention locally in terms of the form of the right of way, but there's no doubt that you've proposed that it would indicate that being impinged in any way or an object could be impacted. I hope that's helpful to everybody. Councillor Edison, Alison? Yeah, with that confirmation, the right of way will be maintained. I will happily second Councillor Carr. Thank you very much. Anybody otherwise minded or any further comments? What's the term? Just the clarity. It's the condition that's detailed in the report. We're talking about there's no additional conditions or less conditions. I'm not forgetting the additional change to the conditions, just as laid out under week 10, something like that. On the basis that I'm seeing no hands or anybody who's otherwise minded, can I confirm therefore that we are a three-month grant? Full planning commission subject to the conditions laid out at week 10 for erection of dwelling house and acoustic fence and land adjacent to Kirk House, Crossfields, Marykirk, application 2024/04/22. And you agree? I agree. Thank you very much. And thank you very much to Brendan and Simon for all your input and contribution. OK, we'll move on to item 8. This is the environmental and construction services report for the third and fourth quarter of the 2024 year. I believe the minister is with us. Good morning, Alan. I'll hand over to you to introduce the report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning committee. Yeah, very happy to do that. Apologies I can't be with you in person today, but I'm still very happy to present the K&M report in terms of performance of my directorate for the last couple of quarters of the financial year. Now, just a little bit of detail around the performance indicators. There are 13 indicators that are reported here to demonstrate the delivery of some of the activities of my director against council plan. Six of these are currently showing as green and they include the non household or planning applications, both building warrant applications, trading standards complaints, current tenantary years, and also the void rent loss as a percentage of rent due. I've seen some positive moves in the last couple of quarters, particularly around two indicators have moved from alert status in Q3 and to green in Q4. The percentage of non household or planning applications and also building warrant amendment applications. They both changed into green, which is positive. One of the indicators is showing is amber at the moment and that's regarding the time taken to resolve homelessness. I do have some further information on homelessness and I've got a couple of colleagues Ali and Hannah with me online if there are further questions around that chair. What I was going to go on just to talk through a little bit in more detail is the three indicators that are showing as red at present. They are the percentage household planning applications, street lighting faults in terms of those completed within seven days, and also the total number of planning applications. I would say that last time I spoke to you with four red, we now have three red. That's an improvement. I'd like zero red, but I would say three is slightly better than four. If I talk about the percentage household planning applications and total planning applications first, I would caveat that by saying I do recognize that it would have been more helpful if all planning application indicators have been captured together. We will certainly look at that in the future rather than spreading them out through the appendix. I think it's fair to say the service have been through a significant period of staffing turnover over the last probably couple of years, I would say. And that's across planning, environmental health, and also the roads development team, so really across Paul's service. Particularly on planning, this has impacted performance as the vacancies were filled and they were advertised, filled, and that took some time to do. And then also the service was reshaping and looking at some process improvements as well, and these have now been implemented. However, I would say there is an overall improvement in the planning performance over the last financial year, and on average, if I look at the last four quarters, the K&M percentages are sitting around 84%, and in terms of time scale, about 7.7 weeks in terms of the overall performance there. Now, we're not far away from achieving the council's targets. However, these targets are being reviewed, and I would say it's important, but we are reviewing these in line just now with national targets. Processing targets, we're looking to set these in time, weeks, rather than just percentages, and at the moment I'm reporting on both just now. And we do think that the time period of weeks is more meaningful and in line with national targets, so we will continue to review those and report hopefully in a more meaningful way in the future. The other red, two together there in terms of planning, the other red is street lighting faults, and certainly when I've been going around other area committees, this is the one indicator that varies most significantly. Now, in terms of K&M, this indicator has been read in each of the four quarters this year. To put a bit of context in, across Aberdeenshire, there's around about 48,000 street lights, and the vast majority of these are working. I'm quoting 99%. The vast majority of these are working. However, the targets are not being met. If we look at the last four quarters, it varies significantly from Q1, and this is in terms of faults fixed within seven days, 12%, Q2, 56%, Q3, 46%, and now Q4, just under 37%. So, significant variances there. Three out of four under 50%, so clearly the performance there is not where I would like it to be. Numbers and repairs, 75 were actioned within seven days in Q3 and 52 in Q4. So, a lot of numbers and statistics there, and just to keep with the numbers, if I may chair, we currently have two charge hand electricians and two electricians. That should be two charge hands and four electricians. One third down, the statistics are there. We are looking at ways to prioritize the work across the areas, and that's really around the type of work, the location, the frequency that we come out, the number of lamps that can be out before we come down. There's a range of things that we're looking at there, and we do prioritize, for example, in winter when there's longer periods of darkness across a longer period of time, so we do adjust seasonally as well. And we're also looking at and engaging with external contractors to come in and supplement what's a small team, but also when there's one or two vacancies that obviously impacts in the team. Chair, there are other statistics and information further on streetlights, but rather than me just rattling through that, I think I'll pause there. I'm very happy to take any questions you have on the overall report, Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much, Alan, for the introduction there. I'll bring in Councillor Clavich, please. Thanks, Chair. Thanks very much, Alan, for your presentation. On the streetlights, again, it might be useful to get a breakdown of what is actually Council infrastructure, what maybe is this, what is the power, because I'm aware sometimes of issues with streetlights which are not actually necessarily within the Council. Remit, the power they gather, it's from the pole up to the supply. That's fine, but sometimes it's an enabling issue which is sometimes out of power. So that may be spewing figures slightly, and the set point would be about LEDs. I would imagine they'll get better year by year, but that's partly a narrative that there are maybe one or two issues with LEDs. Would these be older LEDs, and are the newer ones a lot more reliable? Thank you. If I may come back. Yes, very, very happy to look at the statistics that we've got, particularly around direct responsible issues or any other issues, can look at that. Regarding LEDs, as you quite rightly say, Councillor Carr, I'm starting to report this now as an issue. What we are finding is some of the initial LEDs, the older stock, if you like, and these are now requiring replacement. We were not an early adopter of LED as a Council. We waited our time to see both in terms of reliability and in terms of cost. Cost came down quite significantly a year or two after the first adoption by other Councils. We then entered into the marketplace. That was prudent cost-wise, and it also gave us a bit of history and learning there. So we certainly benefited from that. And yes, the technology is still improving, but we are seeing some historical legacy issues coming through with LED, but very happy to see what other stats I've got for you there. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Carr. Councillor Black. Thank you, Alan. Just one quick question, just for clarification. On page 88, you've got the K and M current 10 areas and the percentage of gross rent due. Just to clarify fairly well, that rent due figure, 7,144,664 for Q3 and slightly less for Q4, is that the total amount that is due per quarter, or is that the actual 1.3% that is due to us that hasn't been collected? No, that's the total rent that's due rather than not collected. Yes. That's what I did think, because that would be a phenomenal number otherwise. Just to follow up on that, the timescale of that figure, how historical are the areas that are being accumulated in that 1.3%? My response to that was they could be significant rather than just in the quarter, but can I just check if Ali is on the call? Ali may be able to give a slightly, well not slightly, significantly more detail than I've got. Ali, please, are you up to step in there? Yeah, no thanks. They are current tenant arrears, but some of those will date back a number of years. We do write off arrears once they reach a certain timescale. If we have received advice from others in terms of debt collection, if it's not appropriate to continue pursuing arrears. So there'll be a mixture in there of what is current, but that will include some historical stuff in there too. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Alan. I'm very interested in what you've just said about the street lights, because when I read the report and saw the impact locally from staff illness, there was great concern there about why has that been able to happen? So anything we can do to make the system more agile and have people working together across the One Aberdeenshire approach, I think is really important because you shouldn't have one area suffering because of staff illness, for whatever reason that comes about. So welcome the comments you made when you presented, which put my mind at rest a bit more than they had been. The other point I wanted to make was about the planning, not so much about the figures, but in the comments about how planning applications have marginally increased, there was comment within that about a case was referred to Area Committee for determination and then had a site visit, and that delayed the process. Just wanted to stress obviously that the process of determining planning applications sometimes involves site visits, and that will sometimes extend the length of time, but that is entirely appropriate if that's the best thing to do in terms of determining the application, and just slightly concerned that what could be read into that was that planning site visits are bad because they lengthen the period of time, and I wanted to clarify that that's not the case, if it's appropriate to have a site visit, it's appropriate. Yeah, absolutely. Gia, if I may, first of all, thanks for your comments around streetlights. I think the variance that we see with a small change in the number of people obviously impacts the numbers, but then again, we have to look after the welfare of the team, and that's what we look to do in balance out the service provision and how we use external contractors. With regard to planning, let me be as clear as you are being, absolutely site visits are appropriate, and absolutely they will be followed when the committee determine and in conjunction with officers. What I'm trying to do, and if I need to be clear in the text, is explain why some of the figures and the stats are there. It is not a detrimental part of the planning process to go for a site visit, but it can impact on the time taken to resolve, so I'm absolutely in the same place as you. Yes, good morning Alan. Couple of questions. Page 82, the percentage of non-householder planning applications. Welcome the fact that it's showing green, whereas the previous quarter it was red, but what I notice is it's green because it's been rounded up, 64.7, and if I'm reading it right, it's less planning applications in the previous quarter. So is the reason it's gone green just because we've actually had less applications, or is it we've actually done an improvement which is going to be sustainable into the next quarter? If you see what I mean Alan. And you said if we weren't yet, there'll be no surprise, perhaps I'll pick up on streetlights. And I think the last time that it came before K&M, I actually queried the metric, and somewhat of this, the scenario that Councillor Carr brought forward, the different types of lights and different types of challenges. You would initially think it's a bulb replacement, but the work actually could be a lot more significant. It could be column replacements and everything. I just wonder if a consideration could be given to at some point changing this report. So we actually break out what are things that can realistically be rectified within the time period of seven working days versus the bigger challenges where we would have to wait for materials to be a specific type of column, or as George perhaps alluded to, it needs replacement wiring, etc. I just wondered your thoughts on that. And the bit that's linked on the question, while it's raised, I'm just curious, how does K&M sit versus the other areas? Will they all be as low or will some of them be lower in terms of the lightning? Chair, let me pick up those three points. First of all, on planning, a couple of things there. Yes, the 64.7, it will be rounded meeting target 65. However, behind that is the length of time taken to process the application would have come down from 12 weeks to 10.8. So there's a secondary bit of information goes along with the 64.7, which then will turn that to green. I think that supports my point about I'd rather report on timescales in weeks and then show a physical change rather than just a percentage change, which can often be directly linked to the number of applications that have come through rather than the speed of processing those. So it's teasing that out. And we are dependent on a couple of other factors as well. And staffing, as I know, you'll be acutely aware and that is settling down. But then also the complexities and I do mean the complexities rather than the mechanism that committee will choose to look at the applications, the complexities. And once these are resolved, the application when it's resolved in that quarter will then count into the stats. So I think what I would take from this is that there's quite an improvement from Q3 to Q4, but look across all those metrics, I would say when considering that improvement. And with regard to streetlights, yeah, I think because of the variation here and because of what's being discussed, I'll look to get more information around the stats and the repairs. We certainly look at the repairs around the either column repairs or column replacements. Sometimes there's an emergency with live wires being exposed. We also look at doing some replacements to the heads on the street columns as well. And then there's the bulb replacements. There's quite a bit of activity in there, which can either be caused by damage or by age or by other factors, which is age, shall we say. But there's at least four elements of repairs that can come into that factor as well as the is it is it in other agencies impact as well. So if there's more breakdown there, then yes, I can look at that. With regard to other other areas, I mean, I was at Giri last week and I think from memory, if I've got their stats correct, the Q3 to Q4 performance have dropped from about 80 percent down to 26 percent with very similar reasons to the ones I'm giving you today. But that percentage shift was was was even greater than this one. So across the Shire, we're seeing those those variations. Hence why I'm outlining what the four quarters are, just to give you a greater period of comparison. So there is similarities there. Yes, Councillor Turner. Thank you for that. Thank you very much. Thank you for all your feedback Alan. The number of fire catcher rates have been covered by your introduction or by comments from other members. I just want to pick up on the homelessness statistics for King Cardin and Burns. I mean, obviously, you know that Stonehaven is very desirable for people to wish to find housing here. So I just want to clarify whether or not the results here reflect people being determined to stay in K&M, presenting in K&M, determined to stay within K&M or does this just reflect ultimately somebody presented in K&M, but they may have ultimately been settled somewhere in Geerley or elsewhere, for that matter. So just to understand whether, yeah, people are managing to stay here, very aware that we have quite a bit of affordable housing that should be coming on stream installed at the time it's been given. It's not happening. And I mean that out in the private sector with registered social landlords. And so those practices continue that we're not going to easily provide for those who might be presenting. Yeah, I'll do a double act with Ali again, if I may here. We're certainly seeing greater demand in the Portlethon and Stonehaven areas compared to the stock that we've got. And on the flip side of that, the last, sorry, the first three quarters of this year, we've seen the number of days taken to resolve homeless cases dropping across K&M down from 110 to 67. That's gone back up in Q4, as you'll see there. But Ali, could you complement that, please, with a response? Yeah, and so the part of the reason there for those figures jumping up in Q4 is the resolution of the longer term cases in K&M, which had been for over six months. And so I think in those cases, Councillor Dickinson, there would have been a preference to stay in the Concord and the Mairns area without wanting to comment specifically on individual cases, if you see where I'm coming from. But so there is that, I suppose there's a balance here to strike. We have a duty and then we can, we can fulfil that duty across the entire Aberdeenshire area. But we do, you know, we do try to rehouse people in the area, their preferred area, where we can and where they're, depending on where their networks are and where their support is, et cetera, depending on individual circumstances. But that will obviously be dictated by the availability of accommodation. So there is a bit of a mixed approach here, and that's just the only way really to deal with quite a complex issue. Thank you. Thank you very much. CEO, am I in the hand? Are there any further questions for the Director of the Ministry? I see no hands, so just thank you both for attending this morning. Thank you for the progress that has been demonstrated within the reports. I'm sure we'll appreciate that. And I'll just turn to the recommendations. So we have acknowledged and considered the progress made in relation to Environment and Infrastructure Services performance in the Cletus, for the Environment and Infrastructure area, and we are instructing the Director of Environment and Infrastructure Services to continue to present performance reports to the Area Committee on a six-month basis in line with the performance management framework, evidence in progress and performance with delivery of the Council planning within an area perspective. So on that basis, the recommendations have been discharged. Thank you again both very much for being with us. Thank you. Bye bye. So moving on to Item 9, which is the draft local housing strategy for 2024-29, and I believe we have Hannah McSherry, can they meet with us? Thank you, Chair, and good morning all. So this report presents the draft local housing strategy for 2024 to 2029. The LHS is a key strategic housing document which sets out the priorities for the housing service over the next five years. It has been developed in line with the Scottish Government local housing strategy guidance, and it also has taken into account the evidence from the housing need and demand assessment, which was completed and given robust and credible status in January of this year. It also takes into consideration any local economic considerations. The LHS considers the Council priorities as set out in the Council plan. It is acknowledged, however, that these are currently under review and therefore any changes will be reflected in this document in due course. During previous consultation workshops with members, five priorities were identified for the 2024 to 29 period. The draft strategy details each of these and also looks at the actions and performance measures that we would use to achieve those. In order to succeed in delivering these priorities and actions, it is vital that the housing service work with their stakeholders and partners to meet the needs of local people across all tenures in housing in Aberdeenshire. The document is based on an outcome focused approach and performance and action plans will be monitored annually by Communities Committee. The strategy is also out for public consultation and has been shared with all key partners for comment. It is also out for peer review by other local authorities collating with the Scottish Government and feedback from this exercise along with members from each of the area committees will be taken into account and fed into the final draft. Members are asked today to discuss the draft strategy and provide comments to Communities Committee. These responses will be collated for final draft for presented to the Communities Committee for approval in September of this year. Thank you, Chair, and happy to take any questions or comments. Thank you very much, Hannah. So we're being invited to discuss the strategy and to provide comments to Communities Committee. Can I ask if there are any questions or comments? Sorry, my hand's not staying up there. I don't know what's happening there. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, for noticing regardless. And Hannah, thank you for the report. Reading it, there was so much detail in there, so much explanation and actually it was really helpful for us as Councillors in a general sense, I think, about the picture it painted of our area. So very much appreciate the report. I suppose it took a while to get to the detail of it, didn't it, in what we're actually asked to do because there was a lot of introduction to it. But it was useful in a great extent and I appreciate all the work involved. A couple of questions about specific questions, though, from reading on it. I was particularly interested in the section on health and care and how that's related to housing. But it was limited to talking about adaptations and how we can adapt our housing and yet we know that housing has a greater impact on population health in a general sense and has a key role in prevention. And I just thought we maybe needed to broaden that out in that good quality housing supports mental and physical health. And we seem to be missing that point in what's written and we're just thinking about how we need to adapt it with someone who's who's not as able-bodied as someone else. So I thought there was a bit of missing there in terms, especially in terms of working in the in the wider context. That was my first comment. The second comment is something that I think we brought up, I think both myself and Councillor Dickinson have brought up actually on various matters we've had at committee before about wheelchair accessible housing and the dangers of walking down and going down a route whereby on a new housing development on a new area, there is one house over there that's appropriate for wheelchair users and not thinking more generally about it. We talk in the report here about the importance of having options for housing, and yet when it comes to wheelchair users there seems to be a limited, we're not giving them the same options. So whether that's something we could think about in terms of the report and where we're going as well. My third point was, it's more about housing than housing, it's about the general context as well and making it possible to live in Aberdeenshire and I think we need to always be alert to that as well. And my final comment though, really sums it all up. When I was reading this and thinking how wonderful this is, how great it is, we've got this understanding where we're going. But my question came down to money, realism. What can we actually deliver from this, and however good it is in the paper and even if you take on board the comments I've made there, is this actually achievable in the context we're in, was my final comment. Thank you. Please respond when you're ready. Thank you, and thank you Councillor Evason for your comments there. So just in terms of the health and care point, the document is looking at the housing aspect, but we completely understand that we need to work in partnership. And part of the role that we play, the health and social care partnership, but also looking at their strategic documents, which we are feeding into. However, I take on board the comments around about mental and physical health and we can look to perhaps strengthen that in the document. Because I think, you know, we have focused on housing need, I suppose, as opposed to some of the outcomes of providing good affordable housing across Aberdeenshire. Wheelchair accessible housing is something else that we're working really hard with the developers around and trying to ensure that we've got a supply of wheelchair accessible housing. There are changes afoot in terms of accessibility and adaptability, building standards as well, which may mean that there will be more properties that are available that would be easier adapted or able to be built at that. So I think those are things that we've been working really hard on and we have increased the number of wheelchair accessible stock over the past few years and that's why we've got a target to try and ensure that we do meet some of that need. And looking at and working with developers in terms of other housing tenures and it not just falling completely with the social housing sector. And in terms of the third point, we've tried to be ambitious but realistic with some of the actions that we're looking to take. We're aware of budget pressures and also the housing revenue account and business plan has been under review. So we're looking to try and connect all those things up together to make sure that what we are trying to deliver within the local housing strategy is achievable. And that's why we want to make sure that the action plans are performance based so that we can monitor that. The action plans will be a fluid document so we can update them to ensure that if things improve then we can change things to increase supply. However, if they don't, we're trying to be realistic within our timeframes and also how achievable those targets are. Thank you, very helpful. Thank you. Thank you for the report, Hannah. It is a weighty document, lots in there. In places, if I say repetitive, it kind of picks up themes and then comes back to them, which I think is interesting and perhaps reinforced one's understanding as one moved through it. I would certainly echo comments made by Councillor Ederson. I mean, it's on page 114 and I don't have it open in front of me, but I wrote down our projections around spend and investment realistic. So I think there is something just responded to, so you don't need to respond to it again, but I understand why the question is being asked. I noted on page 104 that there are 900 people on the building, that's the wheelchair, around accessible properties, wondering what's happening to the 900 people at the moment, to what kind of things are they living, how limited are their lives, if they are not getting access to the sort of properties they need. And then that does take me on to something I will keep repeating and again, it comes back to things that Councillor Ederson has just said, you know, in terms of our options around access. I just think we know from our strategic assessment that we are facing an aging population, the need for wetland floors, level access to the front door and so on is just only going to increase. And that we should be designing that in, it should just be being designed all the time, white floor frames, level access at the front door, you can do that with landscaping, you don't have to start introducing the concrete, you can just be landscaped appropriately. And we really encourage the housing service to be encouraging that mindset. Let's do this well so people can stay in their properties, but also the adaptations we have to do down the line can be minimized. Pages 156 and 157, there's references to schemes to improve energy efficiency in housing. There is a role there that the council is carrying. I think we need to be clear about the limit of the council's expertise. When it comes to energy efficiency and advice that it may be giving, we need to be clear about the need for schemes around their accreditation so that homeowners and especially if it's working with private householders that they are confident about work that they're going to undertake. Incredibly important, we don't want problems for anybody, for the individuals, the homeowner or for the council down the line if problems are emerging there needs to be clarity in that place if we're putting forward schemes. Do we understand the impacts? Does the homeowner fully understand what the impacts? Does the mortgage provider fully understand the impacts of this and is on board that these sort of changes can be made to a property without that impact in the later stage, the sale of that property. So I think there's quite a bit around that that just needs to be very thoughtful about. I'm not saying it shouldn't be happening but it needs to be done in a very considered and careful way and we want to encourage that. A lot of good work going on around planet first, energy efficiency in social housing, very much welcome that. At the moment we don't pick that up in our carbon budgeting. I'd like to see that captured at some point. I guess my final comment with being when it comes to affordable housing and what the social landlords are contributing. We know there are storm sites in this area, certainly in the Stone Canean area, and there's only so much that can be done about that because that's all sorts of things causing that, but it does have a real impact on certainly the people who wish to live in the Stone Canean and so on. This is a desirable area. People who have families who want to stay here, we know that we have trends of increasing breakdowns, relationship breakdowns, various things that drive the need for more well-made properties perhaps. And holding that together is not easy, but I think a lot of good work has gone into that document. The first thing I've written here, a lot of good work has been reported on and to come and thank you very much. So, Councillor Victor, do you want to come back to me before I move on to Councillor Victor? No, I don't think so, chair. I've taken some notes of that just to make sure that we've got those covered off. So, no further comments at this stage if that's okay. Thank you very much, Councillor Victor. It's really very welcome to see the housing strategy that is moving forward. My question is quite a simple one really. Are we making sure that infrastructure and facilities are clean enough to get planned housing? I'm speaking of Chapton, it's got 4,000 plus houses that are planned there. And then I'm talking about a pharmacy being planned there, but no keeping surgery. So, it's things that I'm thinking, you know, it's valuable in the houses and we're changing them, but is there anything else people want to know? Thank you. I think in terms of the infrastructure, that's something that we work closely with with our planning colleagues. Also looking at place making and place planning and things. I think we try to take on board that. So, we do work closely with planning it and trying to look at how we can link up to make sure that some of that infrastructure is there. So, it is a wider, again, it goes back to that partnership working, trying to ensure that we have the right facilities and places. But I think in terms of some of these bigger and larger developments, sometimes they need that little bit extra of ensuring that the properties are there before we can start getting into that. But that probably moves away slightly from the housing aspect, but it is definitely part of the the overall thought process around place and how we can make sure that to sustain tenancies and ensure that people have the facilities around about that. And that's definitely discussions that we have. Thank you, Luca. I'd like to ask a question on this. I would like to see something out of virtual work and where it was very thoughtful to the facilities and extra sporting facilities and things like that. So that was the reason I asked that question. I just wanted to keep in mind that it's not just housing, we need to get everything else to go into. Definitely. Thank you, Councillor Victor, and that is very much part of the place-making, as you've said. Are there any further comments? I'm seeing no hands, so the recommendation was to discuss the draft local housing strategy, Appendix 1, and we need to provide comments to the community. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. In which case, if we're all agreed that the recommendation has been discharged, then thank you very much for attending this morning and if the layman is online with you as well. Thank you both for being here. Thank you very much. We'll move on to item 10. I'm going to take a brief break after item 10 before we go to the asset transfer request. If everybody's OK with that, just carry on with this next item and then we'll have a short break. Right, so this is item 10, Aberdeenshire Council Tree Preservation Order 135 with Alan John Scaven, and we have here on the 20 side with us this morning to introduce the report. Hello, Fiona. Yes, good morning. So this report is seeking confirmation of a recently served tree preservation order, which is the subject of an outstanding objection. It requires to be confirmed within six months of making or the TPO will lapse and that period ends in August, 8th of August. So the background to this is that in November 2021, there were some concerns raised about potential unauthorised felling within the estate of Lathallan School within the settlement of John's Haven, and a number of trees were found to have been removed without an approved felling permission there. The matter was investigated by Scottish Forestry under the Scottish Forestry and Land Management Scotland Act and replacement planting was secured. But further to that discussion with Scottish Forestry after the incident led officers within the Natural Environment team to consider whether or not a tree preservation order be appropriate in that location. And so an assessment was carried out using our standard procedure for assessing trees and woodlands and we found the woodland to be visually significant on the edge of the coastal settlement and of particular value due to there being limited tree cover within the area. From the expediency perspective, given the history of felling within the area, as well as ongoing development within the school estate and proximity of neighbouring properties, it was considered expedient to serve a TPO to ensure the trees were protected in the long term. The landowners at Lathallan School have been supportive of the TPO and have actively engaged with the process of securing approvals for necessary tree work and have found that process easier to deal with than the process under Scottish Forestry. We received one objection during the 28 day representation period and this was received from an owner of a property in Lathallan Grange whose garden is adjacent to Woodland area W2. And the detail of the ejections included in the appendix of the report, but in summary, they considered that the trees within the woodland presented a risk to walkers on the path and houses on the north side of Lathallan Grange and were concerned that the TPO would stifle effective removal of branches, limbs or trees which were at risk or falling during storms, etc. A site visit was undertaken with the objector, we discussed the issues concerned, we looked specifically at the trees from the perspective of the properties at the Lathallan Grange. And during that conversation sought to provide reassurance on the process for seeking approval, reassuring the objector that any works necessary in the interests of health and safety would always be permitted. From our perspective, Woodland area is subject to the objection is an integral part of the woodland which surrounds the Lathallan School. It's a key landscape feature. There is an access track running through that area with the properties east of the track and the school grounds to the west. There are very few remaining trees on the housing side of that track. Most of the Woodland area is on the western side of that track and within the school grounds. And as such, the impact on the properties is considered to be minimal. So it's recommended the TPO is confirmed as served in order to protect the trees surrounding Lathallan School and to ensure the woodland character of the part of settlement is retained in the long term. Thank you. Thank you very much Fiona for that introduction to the report. Can I ask if there are any questions for the officer? Seeing no hands, the committee is being asked to confirm the tree preservation order number 135 of the Lathallan-Johnshaven. Without notification, I'm now taking hands. So I'll bring in Councillor O'Connor. I think it's always tree preservation orders. We all need to have pragmatic approach to them. And I think that's given us reassurance that that will be incorporated into the TPO. So I think that's as good as we can achieve at this point in time. So I think if there's no safeguards, I'll do them and propose that we accept them. Thank you. Thank you very much. I mean, we have the full TPO in the papers for us, but we have the assurance that health and safety issues will be addressed to committees, so that's good. So if I bring us back to 102 where the committee is recommended at 182.1 to confirm the tree preservation order number 125, 2024 of the Lathallan-Johnshaven without notification, do we agree to confirm that tree preservation order? Thank you very much. Now I'm going to suggest we take just a five minute break and we'll come back at 12.15, six minute break, and then we will take the asset transfer.

Transcript