For supporters of Pennan Hall came the good news that it is to be refurbished and upgraded following its virtual destruction by landslides a year ago.

And plans for a house in Gardenstown that incurred strong protest, including a 60 signatures petition, and was recommended for refusal by Council planners, was voted 6-4 approval.

The contract to restore Pennan Hall to habitable state with disabled ramp added, railings and path - external walls repainted and re-clad and roof work, was awarded to the firm, Alexander Duthie & Sons Ltd, to the amount of £134,555.90, the project overall costing £148,055.90 with property costs added. Hall insurers, Royal Sun Alliance, will pay around £45,000, and the Council's Public Convenience Budget and Repair & Maintenance Budget will account for the balance.

The disabled ramp is to be paved with concrete slabs and enclosed by a black, metal balustrade. The existing corrugated asbestos external walls and roofs are to be replaced by non-asbestos materials with corrugation size and colour all matching the existing ones. The external refurbishment would also involve

replacement of the entrance, windows, masonry wall, and gutters.
In the planning service report for Tuesday's meeting, the village of Pennan is explained as "a small village built between18th-19th Century with its own harbour. The village lies at the base of a north-facing cliff. The village is characterised by a single row of traditional dwellings, many painted in white."

More controversial might have been the application, from Mr & Mrs Donn, Riverside, Inverugie, Peterhead, for full planning permission and conservation area consent for demolition of existing *shed and erection of dwellinghouse, at 18 Seatown, Gardenstown. (*later in report two sheds are the focus of the application).

Two previous applications for the erection of a house on the same site had been refused (Sept 18, 2006 and March 9, 2007).

There were 16 letters of objection to the proposal as well as the petition. Main concerns related to demolition of the two sheds, public seating, distance between proposed building and existing building, path and access, daylight and sea view loss, sea defence, and "there is no parking provision for the site, any additional car parking occupying public space would exacerbate the parking problem in Seatown."

But in spite of a recommendation by the planning service for refusal, Tuesday's report showed the Environment (Built & Cultural Heritage) Planner "of the opinion that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area subject to details of finishing materials."

Similarly, Transport and Infrastructure (Roads) Service "indicated that if the applicant can provide the required two parking spaces, the application would be supported." Scottish Water had no objections, reporting that "Turriff Water Treatment Works currently has sufficient capacity to service this proposed development. Gardenstown Waste Water Treatment Works currently has sufficient capacity to service this proposed development."

Scottish Natural Heritage didn't oppose, nor did the Department of Geology at the University of Aberdeen.

The Council's Environmental Health Officer advised that the proposed chimney on the Southwest Elevation would likely cause flue emission nuisance to the adjacent property of 6 Seatown, and their "Officer has therefore suggested a planning condition that only a smoke-free burning fuel be used or that alternatively the chimney be removed from the proposal, or if required for design purposes that it is a dummy chimney only."

But, by a 6-4 vote on an amendment from Cllr Michael Watt, Fraserburgh and District, all doubts and opposition was effectively dispelled in Banff Council Chambers on Tuesday, and the application was approved.