Disability law delays hut decision
A DECISION on the fate of a hut built without permission by a Deputy Lord Lieutenant for his disabled wife by Seil Sound has been delayed until December to allow planners time to investigate disability law, writes Sandy Neil.
Argyll and Bute Council’s planning committee met at Kilmory on Wednesday to determine Graham MacQueen’s ‘part retrospective’ planning application to erect a recreational hut on land 830m north-east of the Atlantic Bridge, near Clachan Farm.
Planning officers recommended councillors refuse the plan, and so demolish the hut, because it was contrary to the local development plan and did not qualify as an exceptional case. They argued it had a ‘significant adverse impact on the Knapdale/Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality’.
Their report counted 17 letters of objection and 116 in support, but that tally was boosted in the last hours by supporters Michael Russel MSP and councillors Jim Lynch, Julie McKenzie and Elaine Robertson.
Objectors argued the hut was a ‘humiliation’ to the planning process, asking: ‘If you pass this, what is there to stop anyone else doing exactly the same?’
Another, the report said, alleged, ‘the applicant has knowingly from the start played the planning process by clearing and building on the site without permission to be able to feign ignorance of the need for planning consent and apply retrospectively and pay the token fine.’
Mr MacQueen denies this, telling The Oban Times his builder advised him the hut did not need planning permission and he stopped building the moment he discovered he did.
Mr MacQueen unreservedly apologised, adding: ‘I have spent my life trying to help people. I will endeavour to use all my resources and energy to make sure I do not offend anybody.’
In support, councillor Robertson wrote: ‘Mr MacQueen is the main carer for his family, three of whom have long-term conditions and mobility issues. The health, well-being, and quality of life of this family will be greatly enhanced by access to this peaceful and very private area. This recreational hut is not visually intrusive. The area has been in the past an industrial site, and until recently was a campsite.’
Mr MacQueen’s wife Morven, who suffers from MS, said the planners’ report had made her feel she was ‘being discriminated against’, adding: ‘You state that “sea-based activities do not depend on land-based activities”. Firstly, I note that these comments mimic those of an able-bodied objector and secondly they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of disabled requirements. Do you imagine my husband can take me perched on the end of his kayak?
‘Disabled access and the need for a hut are crucial to this application and your report makes no specific comments on those aspects. Why does your report completely ignore the crucial element of disabled access?’
Planning head Angus Gilmour told the meeting: ‘This is exceptional circumstance. We are taking a pause until December to allow us to take legal advice so we can better inform the committee. Legally we could not determine because there are some elements we discovered late in the day and these elements should be in the application.’