OPINION is split over whether plans for a new distillery and visitor centre in the heart of Luss should receive planning permission.
The Glen Luss Distillery company’s plans have received the backing of Luss and Arden Community Council – but Argyll and Bute Council officials have lodged an objection on road safety grounds.
And one Luss resident has complained that the village is already “swamped” by tourists – and that the proposed distillery will only make matters worse.
A “change of use” planning application for the current Luss Smokehouse building on Church Road in the village was lodged with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority in August.
READ MORE: Distillery plans set to create more than 20 jobs in Luss
According to the park authority’s website, the application had a ‘determination deadline’ of October 23, and has an ‘expiry date’ of December 8.
No decision has yet been made on the plans, and the application was not on the agenda for the park authority’s most recent meeting, on Monday, November 23.
The company says it expects the facility to bring in 70,000 visitors a year, and that the project will lead to the creation of 29 new jobs.
In an official objection to the plans, Argyll and Bute Council’s roads department states: “Pedestrian access to the main site on Church Road cannot be taken from the private road leading southwards from Pier Road. There are not suitable pedestrian facilities.
“There is the risk of potential conflict between commercial vehicles and pedestrians.
READ MORE: Falkirk FC chairman joins Glen Luss Distillery board
“The access via the proposed car park to the warehouse and ‘cask and bottling visitor experience’ is not acceptable as there is the risk of potential conflict between commercial vehicles, private vehicles and pedestrians within the proposed car park.
“Due to the existing parking issues within Luss, until the proposed car park is constructed and fully operational there is no capacity for the parking of any additional vehicles.
“There is a requirement for a transport strategy to show the proposed increase in visitors to Luss.”
Four members of the public – three of whom are Luss residents – have also objected.
One, Alyson Walker, said in her representation: “In my opinion there are already more than enough businesses within the core of the village and any more, or the expansion of existing ones, will simply be disastrous for the community and the infrastructure of the village.
READ MORE: Luss traffic control measures go out for public consultation
“The proposed visitor centre also goes some way to counteracting a long held community aim in which the local community hopes to reclaim the original visitor centre in the car park and use it for community benefit.
“For a long time now and getting worse year on year, the people of Luss are becoming more and more swamped by tourism, whereby the local community is completely disregarded over businesses.
“The simple fact is there is no capacity for further businesses which will only lead to even more tourists.”
In contrast, Luss and Arden Community Council has given its “general support” to the proposal, while making points in relation to tourism, traffic and parking and “whisky mould” – the black fungus that can occur on buildings near cask storage facilities.
READ MORE: Special edition rum to mark 475th anniversary of Royal Navy
Writing on behalf of LACC, Andy McClay says: “It is noted that the applicant has taken steps to mitigate traffic issues with primarily only pedestrian access to the eastmost site. It is also noted that a traffic assessment has been requested by Argyll and Bute Council.
“The applicant has offered local employment, modern apprenticeships, a contribution to community welfare projects and, jointly with Luss Estates, new play equipment for the children’s park area in mitigation of any increase in visitors as a result of the development.
“This is welcomed by the Community Council.”
On the topic of “whisky mould”, Mr McClay says: “Following a presentation by the applicant the community council, whilst not qualified, are satisfied with the applicant’s explanation that this generally occurs in significantly larger facilities.
“However, the applicant must assume responsibility for any future issues arising from this naturally occurring by-product.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here