Sustainability

iii) Social sustainability

Referring to the Sustainable development diagram, the balance between Social with Environmental and Financial implications needs to be both Bearable and Equitable.

There are no social benefits from the environmental impact of this development, only negative ones associated with pollution, reductions in bio-diversity, risks to health and loss of amenity. Considering the balance between social and environmental shows this is clearly not Bearable and therefore not sustainable.

The Social / Financial balance of this development rests heavily in favour of Cononsyth Farms. The development will have a negative, long term impact on tourist-related businesses in the area although it is claimed it will bring four full time jobs to the area, at least two of which are likely to be minimum wage positions. The development therefore fails the Sustainability test because it is clearly not Equitable as well.

To be fully sustainable it is necessary for the proposed development to position itself right at the centre of the diagram. Our group believes that we have sufficient hard evidence, and have identified sufficient reasonable doubt to conclude that this development is going to be anything but sustainable and as such should be refused.

As explained prviously, the Angus Council's definition of Sustainable Development has similar reuqirements although expressed in slightly different ways, but the development fails their requirements in the same ways.

This would seem to be an appropriate time for our Councils and the Government to stand firm and declare a moratorium on further development of intensive poultry units until the damage to the health of local residents and to the environment, local and global, were better understood.