Organisers behind the long-awaited redevelopment of an Angus Scout hall were “delighted” to hear it was approved.
Members of Angus Council’s development standards committee agreed a new hall at Hillside, north of Montrose, despite an objection from a resident complaining that his “human rights” would be impinged upon.
After several years of fundraising by Scouts in the village, councillors considered an application to more than double the size of the 1st Hillside Scout Group’s premises at Hillside Park.
Hut group chairman Steve Valentine told The Courier he was delighted with the news.
“It has taken about four years for us to get to this stage, and now we’ll put out bids for tender. We’ve got the vast amount of the capital needed, if not it all.
“We’re a community group and we don’t want to cause any problems so if there are any issues we’re happy to speak to people.”
Neighbour and formal objector Ian Hamilton spoke at the meeting and addressed a council officer judgment that the new hut would be “slight”.
“I feel the strategic director’s response to this is both misleading and inaccurate,” he said.
“The building in fact would be more than double the size of the existing building. In no way can a development of more than double the size be considered slight.”
Council planning officer Jamie Scott had said the existing timber hut was in “a fairly poor state of repair”. He added that an indication of use by other groups would be supported by development plan policy, and it was not anticipated that the new hut would increase foot traffic.
However Mr Hamilton said he considered the nearby village hall to be fit for housing other community groups that would allegedly use the new Scout hall.
The current hut is roughly 21m by 5.5m but the new build, which would be a wet dash and timber cladding structure with a pitched slate roof, will be 30m by 8m.
A written statement submitted with the application indicated that the existing hut is in a poor state of repair and unsuitable for purpose.
Councillor David Fairweather asked for clarification on the difference in size between old and new premises, and Mr Scott replied the footprint would increase from 116sq m to 240, but it would not be considered to give an adverse visual impact.