& BUTE COUNCIL

Note in connection with Hearing held in the Connel Village Hall on Wednesday 14 th January 2004 in regard to the following applications by Scottish Water for planning permission:

(a) Ref: 03/01551/DET: Construction of waste water pumping station, lay-by and ancillary works at car par and land adjacent to Clachcruachan, Connel, by ;

(b) Ref: 03/01553/DET: Construction of waste water pumping station, lay-by and ancillary works at land adjacent to Meadow Road, , by Oban; and

(c) Ref: 03/01689/DET: Construction of waste water pumping station, septicity building, lay-by and ancillary works at land east of Achaleven Primary School, Connel, by Oban.

Present: Councillor Alistair MacDougall (Chairman) Councillor Robin Banks Councillor Allan Macaskill Councillor Sidney MacDougall Councillor Donald McIntosh Councillor Duncan MacIntyre Councillor Elaine Robertson

Also Present: Mr Kenneth Macdonald, Area Corporate Services Manager Mr John Maciver, Senior Planning Officer Mr Iain MacKinnon, Senior Environmental Health Officer Mrs Lisa Robinson, Environmental Protection Officer Mr Jim Hunter, Biwater Leslie Mr Alasdair Graham, Scottish Water Mr Steve Greenall, Scottish Water Mr J.Anderson, Objector (03/01551/DET) Ms S.Davies, Objector (03/01551/DET) Mr H.Powell, Connel Community Council, (Consultee – 03/01551/DET) Mr T.Neal, Dunbeg Community Council, (Consultee – 03/01553/DET) Ms L.Robb, Objector (03/01553/DET) Mrs A.McLennan, Objector (03/01553/DET) Ms M,McLean, Objector (03/01689/DET)

Apologies: Councillor Ian Gillies

Declaration of Interest: Councillor Elaine Robertson declared a non-pecuniary interest in applications 03/01551/DET and 03/01553/DET in light of her spouse’s professional interests, and took no part in the discussion of these matters.

Councillor Duncan MacIntyre declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 03/01553/DET as he had previously submitted a letter of objection.

In accordance with the decisions of the Area Committee on 5 th November and 3 rd December 2003, a hearing was held in regard to the following planning applications by Scottish Water:

1

(a) Ref: 03/01551/DET: Construction of waste water pumping station, lay-by and ancillary works at car par and land adjacent to Clachcruachan, Connel, by Oban;

(b) Ref: 03/01553/DET: Construction of waste water pumping station, lay-by and ancillary works at land adjacent to Meadow Road, Dunbeg, by Oban; and

(c) Ref: 03/01689/DET: Construction of waste water pumping station, septicity building, lay-by and ancillary works at land east of Achaleven Primary School, Connel, by Oban.

The Chairman introduced the Members of the Area Committee, and explained to those present the format for the meeting. He then invited Mr Graham to give an overview of Scottish Water’s proposals, prior to dealing with each application in turn.

Mr Graham advised that the proposals were driven by new legislation requiring Scottish Water to provide appropriate waste water treatment by December 2005, and are all parts of an overall scheme for the collection and transfer of waste water from Connel and Dunbeg to the Oban Waste Water Treatment Works at Pennyfuir for treatment.

The Chairman then invited Mr Maciver to address the Committee in relation to application ref. 03/01551/DET (Construction of waste water pumping station, lay-by and ancillary works at car par and land adjacent to Clachcruachan, Connel, by Oban).

Mr Maciver, Senior Development Control Officer, referred those present to the report dated 10 th October 2003 by the Head of Planning, which set out the basis of the planning assessment. He advised that the assessment had only been made in terms of the control kiosk, car park extension, retaining wall and access alterations, as the other elements of the proposed works can be undertaken by Scottish Water without the need for express planning permission as they are deemed to be ‘permitted development’ in terms of Class 43A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) () Order 1992. He then outlined the background to the application, the determining issues and material considerations, and concluded by recommending that this application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

In response to a question from Councillor Macaskill, Mr Maciver advised that the number of car parking spaces available following the proposed works, should they proceed, would be no fewer than currently available, and that it was difficult to be more specific due to the absence of lines specifically delineating individual spaces.

Mr Graham outlined Scottish Water’s reasons for choice of this site, which included an existing access for service vehicles, adequate space for the proposed works, and that sewage would gravitate to this point. He advised that the public car parking facility would not be adversely affected by the proposals, as the requirements for attendance at the site by a service vehicle would be limited. He then summarised the proposed works in terms of elements which would be above and below ground level respectively, concluding that any visual intrusion would be minimal, though the retention of trees and shrubs and sympathetic design of the above-ground structure.

Mr Anderson expressed concern in regard to the effect of severe flood conditions, and also in regard to the perceived waste of money by only servicing 37% of properties in Connel. He stated that he would prefer that the project was deferred in the hope that a ‘proper’ scheme might be programmed.

Mr Graham responded that the design specifications had been produced to meet the

2 guidelines of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), in that there can be no more than ten ‘spills’ per annum. In terms of the perceived limitations of the scheme, Mr Graham advised that Scottish Water are required to upgrade the existing waste water schemes to meet the legislation, and that the funding available to them does not provide for any extensions of existing schemes.

Ms Davies expressed concern in regard to the adverse visual impact of the proposal, and to the arrangements for odour control.

Mr Graham assured the meeting that no new odours would be created.

Mr Powell expressed disappointment at the limitations of the proposed scheme, and asked whether the scheme will be designed to ‘pick up’ additional properties in the future, to the extent of two or three times the existing number of properties linked in.

Mr Graham advised that a limited level of spare capacity is built in to the scheme, but not to the extent suggested by Mr Powell.

Councillor MacIntyre asked what effect the legislation referred to by Mr Graham would have on the 62% of properties in Connel not connected to the public system. Mr Graham was unclear what the effect might be.

Councillor Macaskill asked whether any additional car parking spaces might be created by moving the proposed works to an area of ground slightly to the south-east. Mr Graham responded that there would be difficulties with moving the proposed site and pointed out that the current proposals maintain the status quo in terms of the available car parking area.

Mr Maciver, summing up, felt that all the issues raised had been addressed, and recommended that the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report dated 10 th October 2003 by the Head of Planning.

Mr Graham, summing up, reiterated his view that the proposed site is the best site for the proposed pumping station, with a minimal impact on visual amenity and no loss of public car parking space.

Mr Anderson, summing up, reiterated his concerns in regard to odour control and the limited nature of the proposal.

Mr Powell, summing up, expressed disappointment at Scottish Water’s inflexible approach.

Councillor McIntosh asked whether the capacity of the sewer could be increased in the future if appropriate funding were to become available. Mr Graham responded that in the absence of knowledge of future capacity requirements he was not in a position to provide an answer to this question.

Councillor MacIntyre asked whether, in the event of all properties in Connel being connected at some point in the future, the pumping station would require to be relocated. Mr Graham responded that this might not necessarily be the case.

Decision:

It was unanimously agreed that this application be approved, subject to (a) the conditions set out in the report dated 10 th October 2003 by the Head of Planning; and (b)

3 an additional condition requiring the provision of space for an additional three car parking spaces.

The Chairman then invited Mr Maciver to address the Committee in relation to application ref. 03/01553/DET (Construction of waste water pumping station, lay-by and ancillary works at land adjacent to Meadow Road, Dunbeg, by Oban).

Mr Maciver, Senior Development Control Officer, referred those present to the reports dated 14 th October and 4 th November 2003 by the Head of Planning, which set out the basis of the planning assessment, the determining issues and material considerations, and concluded by recommending that the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the aforesaid report dated 4 th November 2003.

Mr Graham summarised the reasons for choice of the site, which included ease of access, and that this is the most cost effective site to replace the existing two pumping stations at Dunbeg with one. He then summarised the proposed works in terms of elements which would be above and below ground level respectively, concluding that any visual intrusion would be minimal due to the limited size of the above-ground structure.

Mr Neal stated that at a public meeting residents had overwhelmingly objected to the proposals on the grounds of road safety and the proximity of the site to dwelling houses. He expressed disappointment that Scottish Water had chosen to ignore the clear wishes of the community. The landowner of the site had expressed support for the community, and Mr Neal produced a letter from the landowner’s agents stating that they would not willingly dispose of the ground to Scottish Water for such a purpose. Mr Neal asserted that this left the alternative site at Jane Road as the only possible option, but that this had been consistently rejected by Scottish Water.

Ms Robb stated that the proposed site lies only ten metres from her front door. She expressed surprise that the Area Roads Manager had raised no objections to the proposal on the grounds of road safety, given that the access would be by way of a single track road used for play by 11 local children, and would require maintenance vehicles to negotiate a blind bend. She questioned why the proposals included a sizeable hammerhead area when it had been alleged that maintenance would be carried out by staff in a small van visiting only twice per month. There are already parking difficulties, made worse by the fact that the view from the site is picturesque, and hence attracts many visitors. She asserted that access at this point has also been of concern to Strathclyde Fire Brigade. Ms Robb continued by stating that the proposals will not have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity, but will also attract vandals and graffiti artists. Although the proposed kiosk is only 1.6 metres high, it will be situated on relatively high level ground, obscuring all but the skyline. She expressed the view that no account had been taken of the effects of global warming and the risk of flooding. She referred to recent instances of failures of Scottish Water engineering works and asserted that the organisation had lost the confidence of the public as a result.

Mrs McLennan stated that she had been resident in Dunbeg for 47 years, and asserted that the single track road access had never been constructed to cope with heavy vehicles. Accordingly she expressed concern in regard to the damage which might accrue to the surface. She also expressed concerns in regard to odour and noise, both during and after the construction phase, as well as the disruption which would undoubtedly occur to resident parking. She concluded that on the basis of ten ‘spills’ per year, Scottish Water would be allowed to backflush into Dunstaffnage Bay every 5 weeks. Accordingly she asserted that on the grounds of human decency, this application should be refused.

4

In response to a question from Councillor Macaskill, Mr Graham confirmed that the site at Jane Road is in the ownership of Scottish Water.

Councillor Macaskill asked Mr Graham whether Scottish Water might reconsider the Jane Road site given the terms of the letter produced by Mr Neal in regard to the lack of willingness by the landowner to dispose of the required ground adjacent to Meadow Road.

Mr Graham responded that the additional area of ground that would be required at the Jane Road site is not in Scottish Water’s ownership. Furthermore, the proposal would be more expensive in terms the technical requirements.

Mr Maciver, summing up, stated that the proposals were deemed to be acceptable in planning terms, and recommended that the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report dated 4 th November 2003 by the Head of Planning.

Mr Graham, summing up, reiterated that the proposals were led by the requirements of legislation and spending constraints, and that accordingly the site adjacent to Meadow Road was deemed to be the most appropriate.

Mr Neal, summing up, stated that village opposition to the proposals was unanimous on the grounds of road safety, visual amenity and residential amenity.

Ms Robb, summing up, asserted that the additional cost to Scottish Water of upgrading the Jane Road site would be minimal compared with the fall in property prices which would accrue from pursing the current proposal. She also said that the proposal would result in all Dunbeg’s sewage plus 37% of Connel’s sewage being dealt with at this site.

Decision:

It was unanimously agreed that this application be refused for the following reasons:-

(a) In the interests of residential amenity. There is likely to be noise and disturbance to residential amenity from increased activity at the lay-by and site, rendering the proposal contrary to the Lorn Local Plan policy COM 4, which states that “the Council will continue to examine carefully proposals for ‘bad neighbour’ commercial uses in residential or mixed commercial and residential areas, and will not normally permit such uses where it is considered that they have an unacceptable detrimental effect on amenities of residential properties”; and

(b) In the interests of visual amenity. The proposed lay-by, kiosk and any necessary fencing would represent prominent visual clutter in an attractive village coastal area, which is important to the overall landscape setting of the North West Argyll Regional Scenic Coast, within which the site lies. The proposals having an adverse environmental impact are therefore contrary to Development Plan policy, specifically Lorn Local Plan policies RUR1 and RUR2.

The Chairman then invited Mr Maciver to address the Committee in relation to application ref. 03/01689/DET (Construction of waste water pumping station, septicity building, lay-by and ancillary works at land east of Achaleven Primary School, Connel, by Oban).

Mr Maciver, Senior Development Control Officer, referred those present to the report dated 13 th November 2003 by the Head of Planning, which set out the basis of the

5 planning assessment, and concluded by recommending that consideration of the application be continued to allow further information to be received which demonstrates the system proposed would mitigate the potential for the development of septic sewage within the network.

Mr Graham stated that there is no alternative suitable site for this proposal, which had been chosen because the existing sewer network gravitates to this point. He then summarised the proposed works in terms of elements which would be above and below ground level respectively, concluding that there will be a minimum of visual intrusion.

Ms McLean expressed concern in regard to the risk of flooding at times of high tides and strong westerly winds. She also expressed concern in regard to road safety, and alleged that there is an alternative and much more suitable site only 100 metres east in an area of shoreline woodland.

Mrs Robinson stated that at this point in time there is insufficient information to provide adequate assurance in regard to septicity and odour control. Further information would be required in regard to how Scottish Water intend to quantify the dosing and monitor the system to ensure that there is no septicity build up in the system.

Decision:

It was agreed that consideration of this application be continued to a future Area Committee meeting to allow time for the further information referred to above to be submitted.

Corporate Services 20 th January 2004

6