MARINE Training Company Lose Fight Over Harbour Facility Put Up Without Permission
A COMPANY has been given six months to remove a marine training facility it has built at a Greenock harbour.
Stream Marine Training Group put up portable buildings, fencing and associated infrastructure including small cranes, at the east side of Victoria Harbour without permission.
The company had planning consent to install the facility on the quay between East India and Victoria harbours but argued this became unsuitable because of “fishing groups utilising the same area…interfering with the safe operation of training requirements.”
Stream state: “These operations require safe and unhindered passage of trainees on to and from the boats for offshore training activities where such conflicts as existed could imbalance the attitude ot trainees and cause uncertainity in the training programmes.”
Inverclyde Council served an enforcement notice calling for removal of the installations but leaving open the option to use the original proposed site.
The council described the development as being of “low quality design, detrimental to visual amenity, contrary to the approved masterplan” for the harbour area.
Their submission also states: “The development results in a partial loss of event space and will prevent the link to the coastal path being established over the proposed new footbridge as envisaged by the masterplan.”
Stream appealed to the Scottish Government but its planning expert Trevor Croft has now backed the council in requiring the area to be cleared.
In his report, Mr Croft accepts that development has clearly taken place without permission and adds: “The appellant [Stream] argues that the davits [lifting equipment] and fence are entirely appropriate for the location of the operational elements of the training facility and can be maintained in place to allow continued marine activity at this location.
“The council disputes this, but it is not open to me to judge whether or not the use is appropriate. I accept that in stating that the use
must cease and the structures be removed the notice simply confirms the steps that are necessary to address the breach. If they are not done the breach would continue. Any impact on amenity is not relevant in this case.
“I am satisfied that the development that has taken place requires a harbour location and the council notes that planning permission has been granted for an alternative site.
“The appellant argues that this is not a viable location and I accept that it could take some time to identify and agree an alternative site and obtain planning permission before an actual move takes place. In these circumstances I consider a timescale of six months as requested would be appropriate.”
