Neighbours unite over Badabrie tree objection
A planning application to build two houses with shared access on a plot of land on the hill behind Badabrie has been met with a wall of objection from residents in the area.
The application, submitted by estate agents Bidwells, identifies at least 19 Scots pine trees that are to be removed from the site situated on the outskirts of Banavie.
After speaking to a representative from the estate agents, however, locals believe the vast proportion of the 60 plus trees in the area would have to be removed given the level of excavation for drainage etc that is needed and the road required to service the plots.
After receiving several letters of objection from residents who would be directly affected by the proposals, Kilmallie Community Council added its weight to the list of objectors.
“These concerns indicate the information provided in the supporting statement that: ‘It is felt that the neighbouring residents, although initially concerned about the development, are not opposed to the principle of development on this site’ is not correct,” it said on their documents of interest.
“The document also claims to ‘demonstrate that the concerns of the consulted neighbours have been taken into account at this early stage’, which is also not the case. Given the applicant has clearly misunderstood the views of the immediate neighbours and the information provided in the supporting statement is not correct, we believe this application should not be considered until these misunderstandings have been resolved.”
One such neighbour, Joanne Jones, also sent in a lengthy objection and speaking to the Lochaber Times this week she said: “It’s important the proposed destruction of trees and haven for wildlife is questioned especially when there is no community benefit to the proposal.”
Colin Mackenzie, member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, prepared a joint objection signed by several home owners and businesses.
“The proposal involves the removal of 19 semi-mature Scots pine (and other trees) which are protected by policy, including those essential to facilitate access,” it stated.
“This is a significant loss of local and community amenity, undermining an established landscape feature; and significantly disregarding the local character and with unacceptable environmental impact.
“The proposal does not accord with the settlement pattern and character, and is not demonstrated to function as viable residential plots; but in any event, its servicing implications are not explained in terms that the impact of essential works on other trees identified as protected, and on neighbouring properties, is proven.”