Chop for butcher’s farm plan

Expansion bid is refused

Perthshire butcher Simon Howie has suffered a significant setback as his sevenfigure plans to expand his existing farming operation in Dunning were refused.

Mr Howie had applied for planning permission to erect four new buildings at Millhouse Farm - three to store cattle, straw and animal feed and one as a workshop/office and also to house his staff.

But the application was met with 77 objections from villagers unhappy about how close the cattle would be kept to the village and concerned about the possible excessive noise and unpleasant odours which could emanate from the proposed development.

Appearing at a meeting of the council’s development management committee to defend the plans last week, Mr Howie told members his intention was to build a “centre of excellence” for cattle finishing where chefs and hoteliers could see how his cattle were fattened up.

Acknowledging the number of objections the application had received Mr Howie insisted he had a good relationship with villagers and that he wished to maintain that relationship.

Putting forward his arguments for the application to be approved, however, he said: “We need a modern farming operation that’s suitable to move forward.

“It is a seven-figure investment and we think [the proposal] is really positive for Scottish agriculture.”

But one local objector, Angela Armstrong, told councillors she lived just 47 metres away from where cattle would be kept and drew attention to a Scottish government guideline stating that farming operations should be built at least 400 metres away from residential areas.

She went on to argue that if councillors agreed to approve the application it would show a “blatant disregard” for government guidelines and also set a “dangerous precedent” in Scottish planning.

And Jim Perrett, the chairman of Dunning Community Council, told councillors he had been “inundated” with correspondence from other villagers also asking why PKC planning officers had ignored the government guideline and recommended the application for approval.

“I know of two [other] cases where the 400 metre exclusion zone has been used,” he said.

In the ensuing debate over the application councillor John Kellas asked PKC planning officer Joanne Ferguson three times why officers had chosen to ignore the 400 metre guideline but she was unable to summon a satisfactory answer.

On each occasion Ms Ferguson replied that consultants hired by Mr Howie had provided council officers with information which had persuaded them to back the application but she was unable to point to any one specific piece of information which had persuaded them to ignore the guideline.

Summing up the debate Councillor Tom Gray, the convener of the committee, said the application had clearly split the community. The application had also received 79 letters of support.

Describing the application as “very curious”, Councillor Gray went on: “We have a situation where [we have] a strong conflict of interest between the community and the applicant.”

And stating that he found it hard to believe Mr Howie could not find an alternative site for the development that would not bother the village he moved a motion to refuse the application, which was seconded by councillor Ann Gaunt.

However, councillor John Kellas then moved an amendment to approve the application and this was then seconded by councillor Henry Anderson.

In the end councillor Gray’s motion was successful as every member of the committee except councillor Kellas and councillor Anderson voted to refuse the application.