Transcript
That's the recording started. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Good morning everyone. This is Councillor Darrum Begley, Chair of
the Bharnia Lecture meeting. Welcome to the Bharnia Lecture meeting of Tuesday 27th
of February 2021. Please note that today's meeting will be recorded. The recording will
be published online after the meeting. If any Councillor has not been able to access
today's agenda, please indicate via the hands up function. Thank you. Thank you. One, the
sentiment. I don't give a reference. So Jim, thank you very much and before 12th of June,
and Councillor Colleau, you will know me at 11 a.m. and to rejoin us. Thank you, Kai.
Thank you very much. If she's there, can I ask you to do a roll call, please?
Can I ask of the following Councillor Landon's instance, please? Councillor Darrum Begley?
Present. Councillor Matthew James? Present.
Councillor Allen Bochen? Present.
Councillor Geoff Croson? Yes.
Councillor George Hall? Present.
Councillor Landon McQuinney? Yes.
Councillor David Meer? Yes.
Councillor Hana Powell? Present.
Councillor An Simpson? Present.
Councillor Colle and Simpson? Present.
Councillor Stephen Smith? Yes.
You can also confirm that the following officers will be in attendance this morning.
Thank you very much. Do members have any decorations and interest, please?
Councillor interjecting. I just got an interest in items 7, the planning land to the south
of Old School House, Kriman, just by being a cadence and our respective children being
in school together. So I will leave the meeting and just take no part in the item.
Yes, thanks, Chair. I have a transparent statement to make in relation to item 5, by virtue of
the applicant and agent being a local building attractor that is known to my workplace, having
applied the objective pest of the tournament. I have no interest to declare and save for
the discussion of that, but thank you. Thank you very much. And please indicate using
hands-up function for members joining firstly, can I remind you, should you intend leaving
the meeting, the particular item, you should indicate that you intend doing so as a committee
or the civil building, right to remove you from the recording, you should not rejoin
onto the right to the back of the conclusion of this item. So the item 7, Councillor Powell,
thank you. Item 2, public sector and vultitude duty guidance, should any member not agree with
the guidance. Please educate via the hands-up function. Thank you. Before I proceed,
I have to see it applied upon nomination and we have an announcement. Councillor Einstein,
would you like to put forward your plan to apply nomination for the committee to consider
this? Thank you, Chair. I want to nominate Alexander Lipschied, Alexander Lipschied,
Alexander Lipschied, the British Empire Medal. I have known Sandy for many years and his knowledge
of the love of the village of New Year's segment in Amm. Sandy is 94 and is dedicated
to sliding to serving the people of New Year. His long life has allowed him to acquire many
studies of life on the military, as his membership of so many community organisations, including
New Year's public hall, very much a trustee for many years. There have been many changes in
village life in this corner of Amm. During Sandy's lifetime, many old ways of life, language and
culture have been lost. Sandy has recorded his memories, traditions and myths and set them down
before they've lost forever. His book, New Year Under the Boot and his strength, has recently been
published and many of his already sold. It features, amongst others, prominent Northeast personalities,
including Cloner Gallery, Efland Glenne, Robbie Shepherd and Jack Webster. Sandy understands the
importance of the past, including a sense of place in the present. He was a former member of
the Bukadiyya Project over 30 years ago and retained the key interest in the work of the project.
He was absolutely delighted to see the Beabook and Albert Eden in July 2022.
He was also a former member of the Buck & Head of the Society. He was recently awarded a British
Empire Medal for voluntary services to cultural heritage, but the community in Northeast Scotland.
I would like to propose that we follow this up with this national recognition up with our
local kind of Buck & Award. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Simpson. Committee,
are you hard to tell you this prior to a fucker nomination?
Thank you very much and we have one tonight tonight.
Kirkburn, you've worked here at Long Peterhead. Kirkburn, you've worked here at Long Peterhead,
they were delighted to have been created as follows. The one was assessed and related on two key areas.
One, how well do we support people's well-vegan? A venue being assessed and of course settled
to catch these, they actually achieved the great six excellence and won at grade five very good.
And two, how good is our leadership, for which they received a great five very good.
Due to the way in which the carers' spectre collates the grades, they were awarded an overall
very good. On their Facebook page, the care room responded, We are absolutely delighted
to achieve great six, the highest possible in the areas. These grades are certainly not
being awarded around the country on any kind of regular occurrence, so that makes this achievement
all the greater for us.
Kirkburn asked that a lot of congratulations be sent to the staff at Kirkburn,
Kirkburn, please. Thank you, Theresa. Okay, moving on to how to leave these draft minutes at the
meeting of the 6th of February 2024. Should any member not agree with the content of the draft
minute, please indicate via the hands-up function. Item 4, draft minutes of special meeting of the
6th of February 2024. Should any member not agree with the content of the draft minute,
please indicate via the hands-up function.
Good morning, Chair. Thank you. I'm just going to share my screen now, so you just let me know if you can see it.
Not yet. That's it. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So, yes, this application is for full planning
permission for the change of use of agricultural lands and the direction of a building to form a
category. It means of culture. So, means of culture is located approximately 1.6 kilometers north of New
Dear. So, the applicant proposes to erect a category within the existing farm yard.
The category building would contain about 20 pounds of reception area. I'll just show you here,
reception area, utility area, a W.C. store and isolation room. Let's go back. The proposed
building would measure approximately 10 meters by 21 meters with a ridge height of 5 meters and
would be clad on the hall with the grey composite sheeting. So, the journey for the site would be
disposed via the existing septic tank and so-called which serves the house on site. So, this drainage
arrangement is approximately here and the applicant proposes to deal with surface water by installing
a new so-called way located immediately west, which is in this area here of this proposed building.
Access to the site is to be taken via the existing check that leads to the farm and the planning
service didn't receive any objections to this application and we don't have any objections or
outstanding matters from our consultees. I'll just take you through some of the slides quickly.
Apologize. So, this is the existing farm here and then this is where the proposed building is
going to go. I stated before that this is what the category is going to look like with the
open mesh pens and the translucent roofing material above the outdoor elements of the pens
and floor plan of what they're doing themselves. The access road is to be taken in from here
up here up to the existing farm. Now, the application boundary shows this red line coming in here.
This is actually because that's the route off to access the septic tank and soak away.
What the applicant actually proposes is to come to drive through here and into the site from
this element in here.
And just a quick video of how the site looks. So, this is a site here that we're looking at
and just a quick look of the surrounding area. Existing buildings, the main house
and some of the existing farm buildings and then obviously the access we're coming
into here and then into this hard-standing area here.
I can replay this video as often as you would like me to and just for another perspective,
this is the appearance from the farm from the public road just up the hill slightly.
So, the proposed building would be going in this area next to the,
on that hard-standing area there, next to the agricultural building and you can see the house.
So, the application site is located with an accessible rural area of the countryside.
Therefore, the principles of development to assess in the first instance under policy R2
of the Aberdeenshire local development plan, 2023. Within the accessible rural area employment
proposals such as this one are restricted to brownfield sites and have to be small-scale
development occupying land less than 0.5 hectares. In addition, the development has to be in keeping
with the cut to the surrounding area. In this case, the development proposal is considered
small-scale as the application site on whole is 0.34 hectares. However, the development is not
on brownfield land or for the replacement of an existing redundant building. As such,
the proposed development does conflict with policy R2. The planning service recognizes that
casualties are often situated in rural locations as they offer the least disruption to residential
amenity and therefore are generally deemed an appropriate rural business. Policy 29,
rural development of MPF4, encourages diversification of existing rural businesses. However,
development proposals in the rural area, oops. There we go, must be suitably scaled and designed
to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. In this case,
the proposal is adjacent to the existing buildings within the main farm hub. Therefore,
the proposal is adjacent to the, furthermore, the proposal is adjacent to the dwelling house
that the casualty would be managed from. Therefore, the proposed building would only be seen as part
of that existing farm cluster. As you can see there, that's where the building would just be
going in that hard-standing layer, so it would be seen as part of that larger cluster.
In addition, the design of the building and the materials proposed are common in agricultural
buildings and as such, the development would be considered the building to be in keeping
with the cut-back character of the area. While the development would conflict with policy R2,
the planning service considers this development in this location, in this particular circumstances,
would be unacceptable to partner against policy R2.
The planning service does acknowledge that
the site is not well connected in terms of footpaths and public transport. However, customers to such
facilities rarely travel by public transport or cycle. Typically, they arrive by car. While
the location may be deemed as unsustainable. However, the nature of the development and its
location next to the existing farm hub and, of course, the manager living on site, it's deemed
acceptable, it's deemed an acceptable departure from policy 15, living in 20-minute neighbourhoods
of NPF4 and, of course, policy P1 of Aberdeenshire local development plan, which encourages
sustainable development. And it's for these reasons that the planning service is recommending
that members consider an acceptable departure from these policies in this particular case.
Just to go on and say that the planning service is completely satisfied with the design,
we're also satisfied the site can be suitably serviced with a private water supply, drainage
and access. Thank you. Thank you very much, Lola. Can we open up our discussion, please?
I see no indication. Should any member consider that they have not received sufficient information
and feel able to participate in the determination of the application. Open your microphone and
advise now, please. Thank you. Okay, 10, recommendation, 10.1 grant for planning permission, subject to
conditions, details and district work. Thank you very much, Lola. Okay, members. Thank you.
Which is planning application veterans number APP20231709,
full planning permission for change of use from business class four and general industrial class
five to class one A of retail and external and internal alterations and abandonment to site
access. George S. Foreman limited 25 block post circle, plan for industrial safety to head.
We have had a question suggest the committee in relation to this planning application
from the agent, Mr Bob Goodes. Can I confirm Mr Coats that you're in attendance?
Yes, I am. Can you hear me? I can't. Thank you very much. Welcome to the meeting
of the Bani area committee for your evaluation. I can confirm you have 11 members of Bani area
committee and attend today. In line with the Council's procedure, I am now going to confirm
that the committee wish to hear the representation. I will then ask
Alan Davidson to present the planning application before asking you to address the committee.
When you're invited to speak, you will be given five minutes before your representation. After
that, members may ask questions. Thank you. Committee members, should a member not likely to
hear the representation please indicate via the hindsight function. I see your
indication. Thank you. Good morning, Alan. Can I ask you to present the support, please?
Good morning, Chair. I'm taking it that the PowerPoint is on the screen.
It is. Thank you. Great. First victory of the day.
Okay, yes, as you can see in the screen, plan an application for a change of use of an industrial
unit in Peterhead, which is currently class full. It's light industrial with a small element of class
1, actually, to a retail warehouse, non-food drink, hot food takeaway, meat and space.
Just move. This is going to work. Yes, it is. Okay, as I say, the site is
towards the west of Peterhead. As you can see, we've got an industrial area here and here
with residential surrounding it.
Slide here is really typical of an industrial site. Fenced in, middle-shade, yard,
tornado, etc. The use for the applicants are intending to run this hybrid retail food,
or its food and meat in the area. It's for a membership only, which is an unusual
concept. Although some of you might be members of the likes of Costco and companies like that,
which kind of run as a hybrid retail, but not quite. They're often found in industrial estates,
as opposed to the high street or town centers. We've got three key policy areas that we use
when we're assessing. It's an element of retail. We've got the town center first,
which is an abadential-driven thing. There's policies in the abadential local development
plan and also in MPF4, all of which support that retail should be allocated in town centers
wherever possible. However, all of these policies also allow effectively a sequential test,
which is that you assess what is available and if it's not applicable to the business that you're
going to operate, then it's like the ripples in the pond and you can move further out and further out.
So in this case, the requirement by the applicant was for 2 to 300 square meters of retail,
1 to 200 square meters of warehouse. I'm not pretty much found that, although there is,
we all know those sites available in the town center. This was a better suited to the
to the earth sort of business model, which also kind of involves, as a membership,
it's the likelihood that people will travel in and with the available park and etc. It makes
more sense. The policies allow us to accept the sequential test and accept places further out
and one of the things that we do require is that the premises should be marketed.
We don't have any evidence of that, although understanding is as vacant.
We have also policies that protect employment land. We don't want a business site to
effectively become a retail site, etc. So that as well as it's not that, but the employment in
land audit is confirming those currently about 14 hectares of available employment land in areas.
So in strategic terms, with the loss of this, have a significant impact on availability of
employment land in Peterhead, the evidence points to the fact that that probably is not the case.
So we can accept, there's an unusual set of circumstances here for why this business would
operate out there and we are in agreement if it's an acceptable departure in this case,
that we would allow this. But this is what we do with the fact of
the application package is being put together by the applicants. So what we are recommending that
we would distract the use of the property to the applicant so only and which means that should the
lease run out, it would divert back to use class 4 or use class 5, which seems a sensible approach
to take. That would stop in the future, a retail company closing a shop in the middle of Peterhead
moving out there. So it's an acknowledgement that we accept that in this case it is acceptable.
We carried out IIA against town centre first as the sort of modern requirements,
so recently requirements, we have to assess if anything does well have an impact on the town
centres. We do this by routine now. What it found was that it was a potential impact in the town
centre. I mean you open a retail unit out with a town centre, that means it's not
being opened in the town centre, but the sequential test from that effectively
and we've accepted that this is an acceptable departure for the plan. I don't know if there's anything
really relevant in terms of the slides, I mean it's just the existing building. There's no external
changes to the site, I mean this is quite a good one, which you can see here, there's little
hybrids, there's obviously a fish company in there, but they will sell. There's various companies that
will kind of do that it's a no-brainer business but will sell to the public in terms of impact
on immunity for residential immunity, nearest residential over here as we go over the top.
So we think this can operate in here fine. I don't think there's anything
particular of this or the fact that it's clearly an industrial estate.
So as a result we are perfectly happy and we think it's an acceptable departure. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr Coates, can I invite you to address the committee and you'll have
five minutes in total please. Just when you're ready.
Dar six I think turn mute.
Excellent, I think I can hear you now, yes.
Thank you very much. If you'd just like to take your five minutes representation, thank you.
Thank you. Good morning Chair, good morning members of the committee, Council staff and all
others present. I had originally made a request to speak prior to the Planning Department report
being issued just in case there were any points of clarification necessary from your perspective.
But having read the report in front of you and listened to the order of somebody here this morning,
I would like to thank Albert Dinscher Council Planning Department for that document
encapsulating all the salient planning issues. I'm grateful too for the recommendation to
approve the application. I think just one small point just as back up to the earlier oral
representation is that the applicant currently operates within the Black House industrial estate.
And so once that if granted this application the existing operation would move to number 25
and therefore the current operation round in I think number four and would then revert back to
class four as per the terms of their planning arrangement there. So I just thought I'd reiterate
that point and that's more related to point six nine in the report. But beyond that I've
known for the material points to add in respect of this however remains at the committee's disposal
so there are any aspects of the application which require further clarification. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Mr. Coats. Members any questions Mr. Coats? I see no indication.
Okay thank you Mr. Coats thank you for your representation. Members any questions for Council
officers? I'm so proud please. Thanks Councillor. I fully support any new business so really
welcome this. My only question was to Alan regarding the road because is it an adopted road
with increased kind of parking it's quite in a bad state in other areas of that state
particularly to the west. Will there be any implication to the Council for resurfacing this
road or is that unadopted do we know? Alan?
Sorry I was trying to spin too many plates there. In terms of the roads obviously
roads that no objection it doesn't exist in employment this state and it's got an
existing use so regardless of who operates a business from there there will be there will be
coming and going. In terms of whether it's a private road I don't know. I know some employment
estates that still have them as private. It's unusual but it does exist but all I would say
really is that it's not a new property being parachuted in through an existing industrial
state it's a change of use. You realistically replace an article arrays and 7 afternal arrays
and vans with cars which is likely to have less wear and tear in the road.
Thank you Alan. Councillor Powell? Yes that's fine it's just if it is our responsibility we don't
want to put any potential customers off or from the state of the roads. It would be nice to know if
it is our responsibility and how it can help fix all those potholes but yeah okay we can find
that later thank you. I can consider that they have not received sufficient information.
I'm feel able to participate in the determination of this application. Please indicate the other
hands up. Thank you members I see no indication. Therefore we'll move on to the recommendation.
10.1 grant full planning permission subject to the conditions detailed at the report.
Thank you very much Mr. Quartz for your time. You can not leave the meeting and I can confirm
the committee's decision is to grant. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. These are Councillor Powell. Can we remove her from the VA?
Thank you. I can confirm that Councillor Powell has been removed from the meeting. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We move on to item 7. One application directors AVP 2.2.3.2.1.2.
planning permission and principal for the direction of dwelling house at the Limesville South
Alka Bay School house and looking to remain. We have a request to address the committee in relation
to the planning application from Alka Bay's Mr. Peter Ostenoff and I have found that Mr. Osten
attendance. Yes. Thank you very much. Welcome to the meeting of the Beynerley community.
For your information I can confirm that we have 11 members of the Beynerley
community in attendance today. In line with the Council's procedure I am now going to confirm
that the committee wish to give your representation. I will then ask Alna Davidson to present for
our application before asking you to address the committee. When you are ready to speak you
will be given five minutes to put forward your representation. After that members may ask questions.
Thank you. Should our member not agree to hear the representation please indicate the other
hands up function. Thank you. Can I ask Alna Davidson to present the support please. Thank you Alna.
I'll get you out and again I got out of the PowerPoint is on the screen.
Thank you very much. Okay, an erection of the well on house.
I'm going to generate the PowerPoint apologies. It's okay. I'm going to try again.
You now have the PowerPoint. Thank you.
Okay, an erection of a house.
Okay, so as can be seen with this slide we've got the side here. So it's for a new house
located here. So relatively reasonable size deployed of 0.7 about a hectare.
The site it's large enough it can accommodate the tunnel areas.
The thing was it parking for a house through and for the structure in terms of
waterways etc etc. So in terms of the site it could easily comply with P1 layered site and design.
It's public water, private drainage. So I suppose in the technical side of things there's no issue
necessarily with the application. At this point here I point out that we had three reasons for
refusal the third one of which was the failure to establish for contamination on the site.
That's a fairly straightforward process where you you fill out a questionnaire and that's
since been done and contaminated land are happy. So regardless of how this plays out
reason three would be removed. There's now no issue in contaminated land.
So there was how the countryside always comes down to principle. The policy supports
essential workers in the countryside. There's a couple of things it must apply however it
need to be crucial to the effect of operation of the business. There's going to be no viable
alternatives and it's going to be an immediate vicinity of the farm. So basically crucial to
the effect of operation generally in almost all occasions that's animal welfare where you need
somebody on the site and we accept that. That's quite typical. The viable alternatives that's really
rare. A lot of the rural polishes are trying to protect as much of the culture and it's possible.
So there's a kind of order, natural order of things of what we look for.
Trying to replace an existing building. Can you replace a brownfield site and then
it comes down to the if there's nothing available then we do accept a lot of agriculture land.
It's for generally animal welfare so we expect it to be in the immediate vicinity.
I know in this case this is for cows but common ones for farming and things you would expect.
The essential worker to be living beside where the hub of the farm is.
As we'll see in a subsequent slide it's a feral operation up there 865 hectares.
It's a combination of a number of farms and they've got 2,000 beasts, 2,000 cows.
They provided a labour requirement which came to a not too shabby 25 36 probably, 25.7 workers.
However, we've taken out this to be just over two full-time equivalents for workers that would
be working with the animals. Where we have a problem or one of the issues we have is
there's been no demonstration of what alternative potentials for replacement buildings and our
brownfield opportunities within the farm units. How can I go through that later?
The location is somewhat distant from the main farm hub.
This slide is just simply demonstrating that you can get your turn in area,
get your parking, get all your sugar bays and stuff and it's in the corner of a field so it's
screened. There's a little bit more information so it's the main road, the trunk road. Here's the
site here, next to the tree belt as you can see. Here's the main farm hub up here. I think it's
about two and a half kilometers away by my road, if my measurement was correct. I'll come back to
this slide. It shows that it's not only quite a distance from the farm but actually
it's also a long way from a public road. There's a question of whether there's a need to be that
distant because that by itself contributes to remoteness.
There are a couple of photographs of the site. I think the satellite aerial photograph probably
shows it as well but you can see there's a kind of slight slope. There's a three line
sites up in the corner so that's the tree belt coming along and coming towards you.
That's looking on the way, same well-screened. I knew that was happening. Let me go from the
beginning again and I'm going to come down to this slide because this really is the one that
probably best explains the, probably the, I'm guessing the reasoning behind
what the applicant is saying but certainly the reasoning behind what we are saying and why
we are not supporting it. The house plot is here and the previous map I showed really was this area
and that's the sort of two and a half kilometer gap between. It was obviously a lot of land
moved to the south and to the north and that could be an argument that if we had to put your
workers for the cattle, you put them smack in the middle because he's equidistant between the two.
I think the inauguration of a farm doesn't necessarily work like that but if we go through
the individual bits with a group of fields here, there's no buildings in it at all.
In this town here, there's no buildings but the dots are existing farms.
So O'Lorhales, there's a farm house there plus sheds
which potentially could be an opportunity for development,
riding hill again as a farmhouse, stadiums and things where there's opportunities,
upper riding, keldenlobe, where's keldenlobe there, there's some derelict buildings there so there's
definitely alternatives to using greenfield sites, bark holes, where's bark holes going?
Can't see it, that's going, oh there it is there, there's a house on there.
Now I'm going to make this one up, Kyak Snook, sure that correctment, my pronunciation there,
there's a house there, server's got death at the main hub with the farm, lots of which looks,
I'm taking this from satellite photographs, which looks where a lot of the cattle are going to
went down, maybe we'd be here, and the common market means, which is here again, it's a large farmhouse
and associated buildings. So I go back to the policy, which kind of, you know, says,
well, you know, would we accept an essential worker's house and he said, yes, if it's for
animal welfare reasons, yes, and there appears to be enough for an additional worker, we don't
know where the workers are living currently, we don't know what's happening in all these different
farms. So, is there a way they're viable alternatives? I think this needs to be
looked at more, because as I go back to, we want to avoid a house and a green field site,
especially if there's derelict sites elsewhere that can be used.
So, having removed the reason three for the contaminated lands,
we're left with the two reasons for refusal that we are putting forward. One is the location of the
house isn't in the vicinity of the operation, as opposed to some of the fields, and that
does mean a failure to demonstrate that there's alternative
sites on the farm. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you. Mr. Rosterhoff, can I invite you to address the committee if you'll leave five
minutes into it?
Hello, thank you. Good morning, committee. I'm Pete Rosterhoff, I'm a farmer and I'm an
applicant for this work for the competition. I'll start by addressing some of the points in the
planner's report, and then I'll tell you a little bit about my business. So, looking at the report,
the points of contention, section 4.1 about contaminated land, I saw that you've been dealt
with, I was just, we missed the form at the time, and we have now some of it, and there's no issues.
Section 6.5, and we did engage with the planner about the lack of suitable housing for sale
within the proximity of our farm, and I regularly check the ASPC website, and there aren't any
houses for sale within the farm area, and certainly not of the correct size or quality.
Talking about the brown field issue, I'm not sure which point that is raised then, but
we also engage with the planner and said that basically all of the farm buildings,
outlined on that map, are all in use. So, you know, I don't think it's right to be asked
the more I should build a farm building that's in use to build a farm market house, and likewise,
and all of those farms, we don't go in any of the houses either, and we never owned them, they were
not included when we bought the farms, or they've been sold long ago in the past, by my father
or previously. So, we don't own any spare farm houses, and all of the farm buildings,
which could be brown field sites, are on an agricultural use. So, section 6.6, which seems
to be the main point of objection about the location, not being close enough to what the
planners call the farm hub. Looking at that map, you can see that our farm has several hubs,
we don't feel it makes sense to describe a farm and business of the size as having one hub.
So, we have several hubs, and you can see that the plot we've chosen is right in the middle
of the hubs, and also land cool them, and it's actually to the northern boundary of the land ownership,
besides in Combs, there's five or eight kilometres, into the southern boundary,
besides Kiliman School, there's 5.7 kilometres, so it's right in the middle.
So, this location should be the planning that allows an employee to easily reach the cattle,
that all the sheds, all the different farm locations, but also in the summertime, when cattle are
grazing at land, any of that land spread around the farm, it allows easy access to check on cattle,
while they're grazing in the summer. Section 6.8 is about the track, but then the
point of the report is described as a dirt track, it's actually a gravel road, and it's a hard gravel
road, it could easily be graded, very surfaced, and the reason we've chosen that field in particular
earlier is because it's a small grass field, the fields around a bite which are closer to the main
trunk road are better arable fields, so we've chosen a field that has the least loss of agriculture
output, so it's a small and shaded, relatively wet land field, I mean, not wet as in flooding,
but wet from an arable perspective, so it's the least loss of arable land, so that's why we've chosen
that exact field. To point to one, our agrees with us on, section 6.3, they agree that we meet the
labor requirement for additional housing, I'm so confused, they mentioned where we have the need
of one to two full-time labor units, but the report actually says 25 units, and so we couldn't
have four full-time staff, they all live locally, but we're looking to grow that number, and last
thing we advertised, we had several applicants who would have needed a accommodation. Section
6.7 landscape, the planner agrees the development does not have a negative impact, and as he said,
it's well screened, and so that's some of the reasons why we chose that location. Additionally,
it's very close to the main road which the service bus route should founding members need to use
buses, and then a little bit of our business, so we're a mixed livestock and arable farm,
since I took over the running of the farm from Afghanistan 2017, we've actually quadrupled our
turnover and doubled our staff. We've invested 500,000 in renewable energy, we don't burn any
heating oil on the farm, we get 50% of electricity from solar panels, and we have a lot of environmental
schemes working with RSVP, the Health Institute, and nature scoring, and so with a rapidly growing
business, we plan to keep growing, and in order to do so, we need to employ more people and providing
comfortable energy efficient accommodation from the correct location, that's essential to
meeting that goal. I'm just out of time. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's a very good question.
Thank you very much. Do members have any questions from Mr. Rossello?
Okay, I see no indication. Thank you very much for your representation.
Members, any questions for Council officers, please.
Okay, I see no indication, so I will now open up for discussion, that after should any member
consider that they do not, they have not received sufficient information, I feel
little to participate in the determination of this application, please indicate the other hands up
function. Councilor James, please. Yeah, thanks, Chair. I was listening
intently there to both Alan's presentation, and Alken's presentation, that so clearly there's
two elements of the application that was of concern to plans which put the vicinity of the
operations in terms of selection of the house plot, and also whether or not they're any viable
alternatives that have been the vicinity of the farm as a whole, to consider for housing.
The applicants clearly, in my mind, gone through both of those elements as part of this presentation,
addressing the second point first. I don't feel like there's a lack of suitable housing in the
vicinity of the farm of the size of the quality required for farm market. I also gone through that
on all the farm buildings I don't find on the image that we see on the screen. The farm buildings
are in use now, I think it's perfectly acceptable justification to accept that using the farm buildings
for their requirements, rather than not being done with replacing the house plot, is acceptable.
I would also be minding to accept this justification in the location of the house plot in relation
to the farm as a whole. I whilst Alan did identify that the centre and a plot within the farm is not
always the most appropriate way of positioning a plot. It sounds quite reasonable that the
positioning of this is equidistant to both ends of the extent of the farm, but also to livestock on
both the north and south side of the A90 is shown. To me, that seems quite suitable as well.
So I would be quite reminded to go out on that basis given that I think that the
applicants address both the points and the plans concerned on this occasion. I'll move on that
basis if possible. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor James, let's again come slash
my question and then we'll come back to your motion. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, very similar to
Councillor James, you know, very much support what he said there, and if he has a motion, I'll
have him to second that as well. I think, you know, I understand the argument, you know, so on.
You know, the location for these things, in terms of climate policy, need to be close to what was
described as the farm. I think we have to recognise, I'm just looking at the map, which is still on
screen, but of course, Parliament as a business has changed over the years, and there's been a lot
of consolidation taking place, and we can see that the location chosen as was said by the applicant,
you know, reflects the centre of the range of your Department of Businesses that are
indicated over there. So I think, on the basis that, as I went back to Councillor James,
and also that, you know, I think this would be an acceptable application in relation to the
location as it relates to an existing, you know, business and countryside at one of those
reasons became a more thorough departure, and it's important to start the location.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councillor Schman.
Yeah, I see no further indications that that's what I do, Councillor Rossell please.
Yeah, can I ask a little bit to your hands?
Yeah, and I'm going to do all the points that have been put forward, but have possibly been
needed in an application like this, the final plans may not come back to us, but so our appreciation
and, according to the idea of South Finance, how much work you've been doing in your business,
in the solar panels and stuff, I'm sure you'll probably be forgetting all that sort of considerations
to make my problems, so I'd be supportive.
Thank you very much, Councillor Rossell. Okay, just to recap, we have got motion on the table
being Councillor James. Legal are you concerned with the motion?
Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you very much, and that's seconded by Councillor Schman.
Thank you. I see no indication on amendments coming forward. Okay, thank you very much.
So, we would want to attend the recommendation. So, 10.1, the committee month grant planning,
permission and principal for reasons I'd like to report. I can confirm the committee's decision,
I'm done, Mr. Rossell, for this time, and advice you can now leave the meeting.
Thank you very much. Very much. Thank you. And coming very carefully, Councillor,
all that, because it should be our meet-to-get moment. Thank you.
Thank you. You're concerned about that.
Well, we are in recognition of the reasons in the report,
when it was actually been approved, I tell that they make a lot of apologies.
Apologies, too. It's because, right, the planning permission,
for the reasons I'm aligned by Councillor James and Councillor Schmidt. I apologize.
Yeah, Hanabaka, I bet. So, Councillor Powell will remain out with me in at the moment,
and we'll move on to item 8.
Councillor Rides, I would like to sign language plan 2020-2030.
Can I ask if you would have a call and business strategy manager to present this report please.
Martin Pune, to lease that story. Appoles used to share, unfortunately, if you
know a call is in the giddy equity at the moment presenting.
Do you think we might be able to take a break at this time? And I could,
for Mike Casio, ask him to come in slightly earlier than we expected.
Yes, we'll take a 10-minute break. Thank you.
Yeah, and then first we'll take a 10-minute break.
Should he second the fourth of the report, please?
Sorry. I'm sorry.
