Lochgair Report 0401219.Pdf

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 9.7.04 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Informal Hearing Date - 19.01.05

Reference Number: 04/01219/DET Applicants Name: Scottish Water Solutions Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Construction of a waste water treatment facility, access, lay-by, control kiosk and formation of a slipway Location: Foreshore adjoining ‘Lochside’, Lochgair

(A ) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:

• Raising of existing ground levels and installation of retaining structure to accommodate below ground valve chamber, pumping station and septic tank; • Formation of access and lay-by to accommodate tanker and maintenance vehicles; • Installation of above ground control kiosk; • Formation of slipway for recreational use.

(ii) Other Aspects of the Development:

• Installation of collection and transfer sewer to intercept existing sewage discharge into Loch Gair; • Construction of long sea outfall to Loch Fyne; • Construction of storm outfall to discharge to Loch Gair (below MLWS).

(B) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the application be refused for the reason stated in the report.

The settlement of Lochgair is partly served by an adopted communal septic tank with a short sea outfall into Loch Gair, and partly by individual private septic tanks. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations (1994) require ‘appropriate treatment’ to be provided in order that the public sewer system meets EU standards. In the case of Lochgair, this will require Scottish Water to provide primary treatment (i.e. a septic tank served by a long sea outfall) to serve those properties connected to the existing system. There is no obligation to connect additional properties to the public system, although clearly it would be good practice to do so in small communities such as this, where for historical reasons the public system only serves part of a village. Scottish Water do not intend to connect additional properties as a matter of course, although properties adjacent to the system will have the opportunity for ‘first time provision’ at householders’ expense. Scottish Water do not consider that it is appropriate to replace the existing public septic tank in its present location due to the limitations of the site to accommodate a larger development, and the difficulties involved in collecting the sewers from properties below this site.

The proposal is to install a new tank and associated equipment and ancillary works on the foreshore, which would be served by a long sea outfall to Loch Fyne. There is only one site in Lochgair which is adjacent to the foreshore and capable of reasonable access by tanker. This site currently has permission for a community slipway although this has not been implemented. The scheme involves infilling and retaining part of the foreshore to accommodate the underground plant, and involves the part construction of a slipway which will initially provide an off-road platform for construction, and facilitate recreational use in the long-term. The site is served by a single track road and is closely adjoined by residential property. There is a history of tidal inundation in this locality. Whilst the

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC

Council would be responsible for issues relating to the operation of the site, such as noise and odour control, the consideration of a discharge consent application will be the responsibility of SEPA.

The Head of Protective Services has objected to the application on the grounds that the proximity of the site to residential property will constitute a ‘bad neighbour’ development in respect of adjoining dwellings at close quarters, particularly as a result of potential odour nuisance. Contributing factors to this stance are the failure to meet BS separation distance guidelines, likely nuisance associated with periodic tanker emptying, and the fact that those properties most likely to be adversely affected are not served by the public system. As the scheme only constitutes a partial solution to the sewerage needs of Lochgair, it is not considered that the environmental benefit of the scheme is of such magnitude that it would, irrespective of the localised consequences of the proposal, warrant the development of this site in the public interest. Although any odour nuisance is likely to be intermittent, this could not be satisfactorily mitigated by odour control measures or by planning conditions. It is considered that the only reliable means to avoid potential nuisance from such a facility is by maintaining physical separation between the source and potential receptors. In the absence of adequate separation to secure this, the development would be contrary to the ‘bad neighbour’ policies of both the adopted and emergent local plans.

Objections or concerns regarding the proposal have been raised by 11 local households and the Lochgair Association, largely in relation to anticipated problems associated with flooding of the site, visual appearance and nuisance from smells.

Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 12th January 2004

Author: Richard Kerr (01546) 604080

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC

REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 04/01219/DET

1. The proposal relates to the development of a waste water treatment facility in a foreshore location in close proximity to dwellings adjacent to and overlooking the site. The development does not meet the recommended separation distances between such a facility and residential property as advised in ‘BS6297 Cess Pools an Septic Tanks’, and the site by virtue of its location, its history of tidal inundation and its requirement for periodic emptying by tanker, has the potential to constitute a ‘bad neighbour’ as a consequence of the production of offensive odours, both in respect of adjoining residential property, users of the single track road serving the village and future users of the proposed slipway. The nuisance risk posed by the development cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by odour control measures or by the imposition of planning conditions, as the only practicable safeguard in this case is to maintain an adequate separation distance between the odour source and sensitive receptors. The development would have adverse consequences for the amenity of the surrounding area in general, and the residential amenity of nearby dwellings in particular, and would therefore be contrary to adopted local plan policy COM 3 and draft local plan policy E 3, which seek to safeguard existing development from impacts which are significantly injurious to, and incompatible with, existing development.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC

APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 04/01219/DET

A. POLICY OVERVIEW

Mid Argyll Local Plan 1985 (1st Alt. 1989 and 2nd Alt. 1993)

Policy STRAT DC1 – Lochgair is identified as a minor settlement, where small scale, or in exceptional cases, medium scale development is supported.

Policy E8 – identifies Lochgair as a ‘special built environment area’ where conservation and enhancement is promoted.

Policy COM 3 – seeks to prevent the introduction of ‘bad neighbour’ uses into residential areas.

'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003)

Policy STRAT DC 1 – supports in small towns and villages development serving a local community of interest up to and including medium scale development on appropriate sites.

Policies STRAT DC 10 and E 2 – Development which would be at risk from flooding will be contrary to the plan unless the risk can be managed by mitigation or other measures.

Policy E 3 – development will not be supported where it gives rise to bad neighbour impacts which are significantly injurious to, and incompatible with, existing development.

Policy E 4 – development on the natural foreshore will only be acceptable if there is no alternative suitable landward location, and if key features such as ecology, access considerations, and the appearance of, and views across, the foreshore are not undermined.

Policy S 1 – expresses support in principle for sewerage development, other than in particular circumstances. Facilities serving a population equivalent of + 50 within 250 metres of occupied property should be resisted, unless a lesser distance is specified by an approved odour control model.

Policy E 8 – identifies part of Lochgair including the application site as a ‘Special Built Environment Area’ where development which undermines the qualities of such an area should be resisted. .

B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

(i) Site History

03/01796/DET Planning permission granted for community slipway (18.11.03).

(ii) Consultations

Head of Protective Services (memo dated 12.1.05) – The proposed communal septic tank would eliminate the routine discharge of raw sewage from the public sewer system into Loch Gair. As is common with any septic tank, there will be periods where odours from the septic tank will be detected in the immediate vicinity. These will be intermittent and the highest levels will be experienced when a road tanker is emptying the tank.

The application site is close to residential property, the public road and a proposed community jetty. The separation distance, (15 metres to the nearest dwelling), fails to meet that recommended in British Standard BS 6297 : 1983, “Design and Installation of Small Sewage Treatment Works and Cesspools”, which contains general guidance on the design and installation of small sewage systems. In respect of location, it states that “sewage treatment works should be as far from habitable buildings as is economically practicable and the direction of the prevailing wind shall be considered”. A small treatment works serving more than one premises, incorporating conventional biological treatment, should be a

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC

minimum of 25 metres from any dwelling. For cesspools, a minimum distance of 15 metres is advised, although these are generally single property tanks.

There is no specific distance stated for a communal septic tank, and I would not view such tank as a small-scale sewage works. It is more than a cesspool (which is a covered, water- tight tank for receiving and storing sewage from premises which cannot be connected to a public sewer, and whose ground conditions permit the use of a small sewage treatment works, including a septic tank (para.3.8 of BS 6297:1983)). The system proposed is for a pumping station and septic tank.

There is environmental benefit from the scheme in terms of pollution reduction in Loch Gair, although this is limited as there are no proposals to address private discharges. The proximity of the site to dwellings renders the site unsuitable for the development proposed, given that the risk of nuisance can only be satisfactorily controlled by maintenance of adequate separation distance between the odour source and sensitive receptors. It would not be appropriate to seek to control nuisance by conditions, as there will be the need for tank venting and Scottish Water have indicated that gas tight seals are not a viable option. Similarly, as there is no odour control plant, the regulation of odour emissions is not possible, as it is in larger waste water treatment plants. It is therefore considered that the development would adversely affect residential property and give rise to the potential for odour complaints, resulting in a ‘bad neighbour’ development under local plan policy POL COM 5.

SEPA (7.9.04) – comment as follows: Foul drainage – Loch Gair is designated as recreational and shellfish growing waters. Appropriate treatment to meet EU Directive standards for the community of Lochgair is primary treatment, i.e a septic tank. SEPA discharge consent will be required to meet appropriate standards. The regulatory obligation is to upgrade the system for those properties already connected to the public system and not to provide additional connections. Odour – situations giving rise to malodour can arise with septic tanks. Controls are to be exercised by the Council under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, rather than by SEPA. Flood Risk – The locality is subject to tidal inundation and therefore the installation should be designed to address risk from flooding; Construction – the developer should adhere to recommended pollution prevention guidelines.

Area Roads Manager (13.7.04) – no objection subject to condition.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (21.7.04) – no objection.

(iii) Publicity

The application has been advertised in the local newspaper under the provisions of Article 9. The period for representations expired on 6th August 2004. Letters of objection have been received from the following:

Mr J Graham Neilson, Lochside, Lochgair PA31 8SD (27.7.04); Mr C Freer, 4 Gallanach, Lochgair PA31 8SD (29.7.04); M M Finlay, 6 Upper Lochgair, PA31 8SB (1.8.04) Capt. S Norwell, Cabarfeidh, Lochgair PA31 8SD (3.8.04); Prof. W Foulds CBE, Melford Cottage, Lochgair, PA31 8SD (4.8.04); Mr and Mrs F Belll, Clachaig, 5 Gallanach, Lochgair, PA31 8SD (4.8.04); Mrs E Wells, Gair Cottage, Lochgair, PA31 8SD (31.7.04); Mr C Culley, Ash House, Cleish, Kinross, KY13 0LR (owners of Gallanach Cottage)(5.8.04); Mr and Mrs J Coleman, Achnabreac, Lochgilphead PA31 8SD (4.8.04); Dr and Mrs McCulloch, Camus Beag, Lochgair PA31 8SD (4.8.04); The Lochgair Association, 6 Gallanach, Lochgair PA31 8SD (26.7.04); Mrs D Bruce, Waterford, Lochgair, PA31 8SD (20.12.04).

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC

• The development may adversely affect the gabion wall and private septic tank at ‘Lochside’ adjacent to the site;

Comment: Issues of potential damage arising from construction works would be civil legal issues between the applicants and the owner of property concerned.

• The proposed tank and kiosk will be sited 20’ (6 metres) from the front window of Gallanach Cottage and it is questioned whether it is legal to site such a facility so close to residential property.

Comment: The actual separation distance is 15 metres and not as stated. BS6297 (Cess Pools an Septic Tanks) provides advice but there is no statutory minimum.

• The works are located close to residential properties and unless a smell free works can be guaranteed they should be located on a more open site;

Comment: The applicants contend that because the new septic tank would be an underground sealed vessel, discharged by close coupling to the tanker when required, nuisance would be minimised. Although the existing site does not appear to have been a source of complaint, they do not consider that it lends itself to redevelopment, and are of the view that the application site is the only suitable alternative within the village. The Head of Protective Services considers that the environmental benefits of a scheme serving only part of the village will not outweigh the adverse consequences of the risk from malodour associated with a site so closely adjoined by dwellings. It is considered that the only safe means of avoiding potential nuisance from such a facility is by maintaining adequate separation between the odour source and potential receptors.

• The proposal will only serve half the houses in the village and will not serve future development. It will therefore only partly remedy pollution problems in Loch Gair;

Comment: The failure of Scottish Water’s Coastal Communities programme to address the needs of property served by private drainage systems, or to provide for future development, has been a source of criticism by residents in this and other coastal communities, by the Council and by SEPA. However, Scottish Water are only required by legislation to remedy the defects associated with existing sub-standard public sewer systems. They have, as a matter of policy, established their stance in relation to the regulatory requirements, which does not extend to the connection of private systems, or to the provision of capacity tailored to future settlement growth. The scale of the intended provision is therefore a matter for Scottish Water to address as sewerage authority, and cannot be directly influenced by the Council as part of the planning application process. That said, the extent to which the scheme will remedy the sewerage problems of the village, and the balancing of the wider public interest against likely localised adverse effects, must be influenced by the scale of the contribution which the scheme will make to improving water quality as a whole.

• The site is regularly flooded by high tides and waves breaking over the shore. The risk of flooding may lead to smell nuisance as a result of salt water ingress as has been experienced in Inveraray, or pollution from contaminated floodwater (photographs of flood conditions have been supplied). Interruptions in electricity supply, as experienced locally would inhibit the ability to pump;

Comment: Scottish Water have confirmed that they have engineered the site in the knowledge of highest astronomical tide levels and with regard to potential wave inundation. It is proposed to fit the tank with water-tight covers. If flooded in the course of an extreme event, the overflow would be discharged by pumps via an outfall with a ‘non return’ valve. Their view is that the sealed vessel would not discharge into the surrounding area or contaminate floodwater. Electrical equipment is to be mounted in the upper part of the control cubicle where it will be at least risk from flooding. The Head of Protective Services is concerned that the possibility of salt water ingress remains in which case malodorous sewage would cause serious nuisance to property in such close proximity.

• The environmental impact of the proposal outweighs the need to site it in this location in order to facilitate the connection of the small number of properties which currently connect to the discharge pipe rather than to the existing public septic tank.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC

Redevelopment of the existing site would pose less of a threat than a site prone to inundation;

Comment: SEPA have confirmed that all properties currently connected to the public system at whatever point, must be connected into the new scheme. Scottish Water have confirmed that the option of redeveloping the existing septic tank site has been considered. However, they have indicated that were it practicable, redevelopment of this site would not allow those properties below to be directly connected to this location, and this option would still require a pumping station (along with access works an a control kiosk) to be sited on the foreshore. Redevelopment of the existing site would require levelling of a substantial area and a visually obtrusive retaining structure to support surrounding higher ground. Unlike the application proposal, which involves the pumping of treated effluent, a pumping station on the foreshore serving a small number of properties would have greater potential for odour, due to the small volumes to be pumped, the dwell time of raw sewage, and the likelihood of septicity.

• Development of the site will cause residents substantial disruption, and may lead to the single track road being closed for prolonged periods;

Comment: Some disruption must be expected from an engineering operation of this nature. Construction is expected to last for five months although not at the same intensity throughout. It is proposed to construct the slipway in the early stages of the contract to allow this to be used as a platform from which to undertake operations which would otherwise have lead to periods of blockage of the single track cul-de-sac.

• The storm water overflow proposed is impracticable as it will discharge onto soft mud flats at low water level where it may pollute the beach.

Comment: The design and operation of the outfalls is a matter between Scottish Water and SEPA to be considered through the discharge consent process, and is not a planning consideration.

• The proposed slipway would attract more visitors to the bay but the proposal will be unsightly and will detract from the amenity of the area. The fibreglass kiosk will be particularly unsightly. If required along the shoreline it should be sited further along the loch side where it would have less of an impact in the most densely populated part of the village;

Comment: The proposal will involve the raising of ground levels and the formation of a gabion crate retaining structure (as serves the parking area for the adjacent dwelling). The tank and associated plant would however be buried underground and will not be visible. The only significant above ground element will be the control kiosk. Scottish Water have indicated their willingness to clad the standard GRP unit in a more sympathetic material in order to reduce its visual impact in this sensitive setting. The integration of the development with the lay-by and slipway would help to render it less of an isolated incongruous feature.

• The proposed alternative slipway leaves the road at right angles which will make it difficult for vehicles towing larger craft and leads to an unstable area of beach unsuited to larger craft;

Comment: Whilst Scottish water intend to construct the landward portion of the slipway, there is no obligation upon them to provide a facility to serve a particular size of boat.

C. ASSESSMENT

The proposal is to install a new wastewater system to primary treatment standard with a long sea outfall, to replace an aged communal and undersized septic tank with a discharge into Loch Gair. The public catchment lies partly above the trunk road, with only a small number of properties below the main road being connected to the public sewer system. The remainder of the village is served by private septic tanks and associated outfalls. Loch Gair is designated as ‘recreational waters’, whilst Loch Gair and the inshore zone of Loch Fyne is designated as ‘shellfish growing waters’. Pollution of Loch Gair would be reduced as a consequence of a new facility discharging treated effluent by means of a long sea outfall into Loch Fyne.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC

Redevelopment of the existing site has to date been discounted by the applicants due to the inability to connect all properties currently served by the public sewer, without recourse to a system involving the pumping of raw sewage. A foreshore location is therefore preferable in order that all connections to the septic tank may be gravity fed. Suitable sites at low level are limited, particularly in view of the narrow nature of the road along the edge of the foreshore which would be required for tanker access to the site, and Scottish Water contend that the application site is the only reasonably practicable location. The site benefits from an unimplemented consent for a slipway which is intended to replace the historic use of the shelving foreshore for boat launching/recovery. The applicants intend to incorporate a repositioned slipway within their proposal.

The system is designed to cater for a 90 population equivalent, plus a small element to provide for ‘first time provision’ for those households wishing to pay for a connection to the public system. The system is designed to collect sewage by gravity using a new main along the foreshore which will provide an element of in-line storage capacity. Sewage will be received in a sealed septic tank with treated element being pumped out to an outfall at Castle Point which will discharge into Loch Fyne by means of a 200 metre long sea outfall pipe. Emergency overflow will be handled by a short outfall into Loch Gair, which will only discharge dilute sewage under emergency conditions.

The scheme involves building a level platform on the foreshore adjacent to the proposed slipway in order to accommodate a buried septic tank, valve chamber and pumping station. This would be retained by stone filled gabion baskets, protected by rip-rap boulders to improve the appearance of the works and to provide some wave protection. The site is susceptible to wave inundation and tidal flooding, and therefore the site has been engineered to avoid inundation other than in the case of extraordinary flood events. The level of the site (and tank covers) will be 0.5 metre above existing road level, and above highest astronomical tide levels. The site incorporates a lay-by for maintenance vehicles and a tanker. A control kiosk would be the only significant above ground element (3.2m long and 1.7m high).

There is benefit in a system which has the pumped component at the end rather than the beginning of the process, as only treated effluent is pumped. This avoids serious problems of septicity and odour associated with the pumping of raw sewage (as has been experienced at Inveraray, for example). It is envisaged that the septic tank would only require to be desludged on two or three occasions per year. This would be by means of close-coupled connection to the tanker which would be fitted with odour scrubbers. (This would be an improvement on the emptying of the existing brick tank, where the hose has to be inserted into the crust covering the effluent, with greater potential for the release of odours).

Despite the advantages in a system of this design, the septic tank/pumping station site is closely adjoined by residential properties. Residents are understandably fearful that the site will become a source of malodour, particularly if it were to become flooded out, when salt water would encourage the contents of the tank to become septic and malodorous, or when electrical failure could inhibit pumping. They point out that exceptional conditions can result in flood levels which exceed highest astronomical tide predictions. They would prefer re-use of the existing site which is in a less prominent location and which appears not to have given rise to nuisance in the past. Scottish Water have discounted this as a less environmentally acceptable option, and point out that in any event, even if the septic tank was located elsewhere, a raw sewage pumping station would still be required in the same or a similar location to that proposed for this development, which would equally give rise to the principal concerns expressed by the objectors.

Scottish Water contend that, if installed and operated properly, the treatment works is capable of operation without significant odour or pollution risk, despite its shoreline location where it will be vulnerable from occasional flooding. Scottish Water are aware of the local conditions and intend to engineer the installation accordingly. They indicate that the septic tank will be a sealed vessel secured from salt water ingress and with sealed covers to prevent any leakage or potential contamination of floodwaters. In the event of an extreme event, pumps within the unit would ensure that discharge would be made via the proposed storm/emergency overflow into Loch Gair. The electrical elements serving this would be mounted high up in the control kiosk where they would be at less risk from flooding.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC

Residents are further concerned that the proposal does not fully address pollution issues affecting Loch Gair, in that only half of the dwellings in the village are connected to the public sewer and the remainder will continue to have private discharges into the loch. They also point out that the new local plan envisages further development in the village and the scheme does not provide additional capacity to serve this growth. These are clearly an important issues, which have arisen elsewhere in association with equivalent schemes serving coastal communities. However, Scottish Water has established as policy, its response to the regulatory obligations with which it is faced, and this does not provide for the connection of existing private systems, or for the provision of additional capacity to serve future growth. However regrettable, this cannot be addressed in response to the perceived shortcomings of the scale of the development proposed. How Scottish Water chooses to exercise its functions as a sewerage authority cannot be a material planning consideration. That said, the balance between the macro environmental advantages of the scheme, when weighed against the micro environmental consequences of the development of this particular site, must indirectly be influenced by the scale of the contribution which the development makes to the reduction in pollution as a whole.

In terms of the acceptability of the proposal, the two principal issues at stake here are firstly, whether development of this nature should be accepted at close quarters to residential property in view of the likely risk of nuisance, particularly from odours; and secondly, whether the design and appearance of the development is acceptable in terms of its foreshore location and its relationship with existing development.

As far as potential nuisance is concerned, Scottish Water have indicated that they have carried out an ‘Odour Screening Risk Assessment’ based upon UK Water Industry Research Technical Reference Document 01/WW/13/3 which identifies the proposal as ‘low risk’ in terms of odour. An initial study has produced a 16 metre predicted complaint radius and it is anticipated that a refined version would reduce this further. Despite Scottish Water’s assurances, the Head of Protective Services is not satisfied that the environmental benefits of the proposal are of such magnitude as to outweigh the risk of nuisance which the development poses to adjacent residents. He has concluded that: • A communal septic tank poses intermittent risk of odours; • The proposed location is very close to domestic property and does not meet BS guidance on the location of such facilities; • Risk of nuisance cannot in this case be avoided by odour control measures or by the imposition of planning conditions; • Only adequate separation distance between the odour source and sensitive receptors can provide adequate safeguard against nuisance for a facility of this nature; • The development as proposed would constitute ‘bad neighbour’ development in terms of development plan policy. • It is appreciated that Scottish Water have to provide a scheme and that their options are restricted. However these should be investigated more fully giving the evident shortcomings of this site.

As far as visual amenity is concerned, the development will change the character of the foreshore area, which will take on the appearance of an engineered and retained area and slipway, rather than the natural foreshore area found at present. Emergent local plan policies seek to resist developments with adverse consequences on the foreshore, especially in a location such as this, which is identified as prospective ‘Special Built Environment Area’. However, a change in the character of this area has already been accepted as a consequence of the permission granted in 2003 to the Lochgair Association for an engineered slipway. There is some advantage in seeking to combine the proposed engineering works with the development previously approved, as its integration with the lay-by and slipway would help to render it less of an isolated incongruous feature. As most of the works would be underground, only the extended infilled area and the control kiosk would be readily apparent. With the foregoing in mind, I do not consider that the appearance of the combined slipway/waste water treatment facility will be so adverse as to merit its refusal in terms of the local plan policies relating to visual amenity of the foreshore and protection of the built environment.

In conclusion, having regard to the position adopted by the Head of Protective Services, I consider that the development, by virtue of its proximity to neighbouring residential property, presents a nuisance risk from odour in particular, which would render it a ‘bad neighbour’ in terms of both adopted and emergent development plan policy, and I therefore recommend that the application be refused for the reason stated in this report.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001965\AI00021039\LOCHGAIRREPORT04012190.DOC