PLANS to build nine new homes in Kilcreggan have been approved – desipte more than 30 objections to the proposal.

Frank Phipps' application to build nine new dwelling houses at Portkil, on a site of approximately three acres, north of West Shore Cottage on the single-track Fort Road in the village, were given the green light by Argyll and Bute Council's planning committee on Wednesday.

Planning officials recommended that Mr Phipps' application should be approved despite 31 objections.

They also recommended that a discretionary hearing should take place before making a final decision, but the committee members decided not to go down that path, opting to approve the application without a hearing.

A spokesperson for the authority said: "Members took the view that a discretionary hearing would not add any value to the process."

The authority's planning department said the plans should be granted as a 'minor departure' from the local development plan, subject to an agreement covering off-site junction improvements, footway provision and affordable housing.

The council's area roads manager said he had no objection to the plan, subject to Fort Road being upgraded.

Mr Phipps' application also sought permission for a private vehicle access from Fort Road to serve four of the houses, and individual accesses direct from Fort Road itself to serve the remaining five.

The objectors, who live as far away as Kendal in Cumbria, complained about the poor state of Fort Road, the density and scale of the development and the impact on wildlife and the surrounding landscape.

But 11 supporters backed the plans, saying the development will improve the village and will see full use made of a site which was once used for illegal fly-tipping.

The planners' report said a 'section 75' agreement would be required to secure off-site road improvements, including widening Fort Road to 5.5 metres between the junction with the B833 and Rockfield House.

The report also said that if that agreement can't be secured with the developer, planning permission for the project should be refused.

Planning officer Howard Young stated in his report: “Nine houses are proposed to fund the road improvements required by the Area Roads Manager.

“The development of nine houses will have an economic benefit to the local area and the upgrading of the existing access road will create additional opportunities for development.

“By improving the infrastructure of Fort Road, specifically upgrading the access, it will make the only entrance to this area and access to the medical centre safer in terms of both vehicular and pedestrian safety.

“The creation of a countryside footpath/cycle/bridleway will also improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.

“In environmental terms the creation of a defined edge with significant boundary planting will enhance this part of Portkil and have a minor positive impact on the local nature conservation area by creating additional habitat.

“Previous development along Fort Road has not included any affordable housing. The scheme of nine houses will provide two affordable units by means of a commuted sum off site thus having a positive social benefit.”

One of the 31 objectors, Fort Road resident Tim Burgess, told the council in his submission: “The proposed site is a consideratble distance from the main village and in close proximity to a conservation area. It over-develops the site in a manner that is totally out of context with the surroundings.

“Other partially developed sites have been abandoned, blighting the landscape within the village boundary.

“If a site within the village and close to the local school can remain unfinished for nearly a decade, why would a development two miles from the village centre, and with poor infrastructure, be considered prudent?”

But another Fort Road resident, Christina Irvine, said in her submission: “I have lived on Fort Road for 30 years and have worked on Fort Road for 25 years.

“I am infuriated by all the negative comments from people that do not even live in the area or even use this road.

“The site in discussion is not a conservation site. It is earmarked as a settlement zone and a much needed one at that.

“The land owner has done a vast amount of work to the ground, and it is no longer the eyesore it was when I very first moved here.

“I also think the road improvement is very much needed.”