A homeowner has been told to rip up his riverbank garden despite strong support from some locals.
The spot in Huntingtowerfield, to the east of the River Almond, has been transformed with fencing and a bird hide.
However planning officials have refused a retrospective planning application, meaning the owner Michael Paton faces having to undo the work.
Among the concerns raised by the local authority was that the land, which Mr Paton bought from Greenbelt Energy Ltd, is potentially contaminated.
The area was once home to the Huntingtowerfield bleachworks, which was founded in 1775 and became one of the largest in Scotland.
In a report outlining their reasons for refusing the application, planning officials said: “The proposed development site is on the site of a former bleachfield which was part of the Huntingtower bleachworks.
“There are also known to previously have been barrels thought to be associated with the bleachworks found buried within the riverbank.
“As such there is the potential for the ground in this area to be impacted by contamination associated with this historical land use and so the applicant should satisfy themselves that it is suitable for the proposed development.”
They also raised concerns regarding a right of way running along the riverbank.
It said: “One of the attractions of utilising the right of way and core path network along this section of the River Almond is the interaction between the path and the river corridor.
“The close-boarded and painted fence that has been erected between the footpath and the river restricts views of the river corridor. The fence design also has a suburbanising effect along with the other garden paraphernalia that has been erected at the site.
“From my review of the supporting statement and the letters of objection this was an area that previously enabled access to the river and facilitated recreational use associated with the river environment (such as anglers and dog walkers).
“Although I note that it may have also facilitated other unsavoury activities. While the site may not be afforded the same protection as zoned open space … it is nevertheless a resource that has recreational and amenity value accordingly it should be retained as such.”
Mr Paton declined to comment but is understood to be appealing.
