LAND ADJA - Stirling Council

Item 7a

Stirling Council, Planning, Teith House, Kerse Road, Stirling FK7 7QA. Tel: (01786) 233660

Decision Noticeabc

Redgate Associatesper Hobson ArchitectsSeacliffEglinton TerraceSkelmorliePA17 5EP

APPLICATION NUMBER

19/00843/FULDECISION LEVEL

Delegated

Refusal of Planning PermissionStirling Council refuses Planning Permission for the proposals described below, on the application form and on the accompanying plans.

Description of the proposed development

Erection of 2 new dwelling houses with creation of habitat conservation and management area

Location of the proposed development

Land Adjacent And South Of Maryhill Cottage Redgate Hill Cauldhame Kippen

The Council’s reasons for refusal are:-

1 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is considered to be contrary to Policy 2.10 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Development Plan October 2018 and associated material planning consideration Draft Supplementary Guidance 10, as the application has not demonstrated that the proposed residential development accords with any of the circumstances described in this policy and the draft supplementary guidance for supporting housing in the countryside. There is no grouping or infill at this site and the site is not considered to be "Brownfield", as there are no former buildings on the site and it is not significantly degraded. Nor is there a operational justified need for the houses to be erected at this location.

2 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Policy 2.10 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan October 2018 and material consideration Draft Supplementary Guidance Ten (In particular the design guide part), as the proposed housing will look visually dominant sitting above the village of Kippen. The 2 houses have not been sympathetically designed to minimise visual impact. Instead the housing will be visually prominent and the engineering operations required to form the access roads, level areas for the construction and the parking will be harmful to the local landscape setting.

3 In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 9.1 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Development Plan October 2018 part (b) (i), as the proposals will not result in the enhancement of the Local Landscape Area. Instead the proposed housing will be visually intrusive and the engineering operations required to form the access roads, level areas for the construction and the parking will be harmful to the local landscape setting.

4 In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy 8.1 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Development Plan October 2018 part (a) as the proposals will not result in the preservation or enhancement of the biodiversity value of this site. The erection of 2 houses will have a direct impact upon biodiversity where the houses are to be built reducing the value of the area and reducing the necessary buffer area.

5 In the opinion of the Planning Authority the erection of two houses on this site is contrary to Primary Policy Five part (e) of the Adopted Local Development Plan Oct 2018, as the proposals have failed to clearly demonstrate that the erection of 2 houses on this site will contribute to a reduction in flood risk to the neighbouring properties.

6 In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposals have not been designed in the best interests of pedestrian and road safety, as they have failed to consider how the vehicular access and pedestrian access conflict will be mitigated over the initial section of core path/access track which will remain unchanged as part of the proposals.

Service ManagerPlanning & Building Standards

Date 17 December 2019

Schedule of Plans Refused - Plans can be viewed online at www.stirling.gov.uk/onlineplanning

Stirling Council Plan No.

Name Ref on Plan Status

02 Elevations 1911-P004 Decision

03 General 1911-P001 Decision



Reason for Decision

It is considered to represent housing in the countryside contrary to Stirling Councils Housing in the Countryside Policy 2.10, which is not supported and will not contribute in a positive manner to the rural environment, or local biodiversity, but instead it will impact negatively on the rural environment, the core role and function of the local landscape area and area of biodiversity value. Furthermore, it has failed to clearly demonstrate that the erection of two houses on this site will contribute to a reduction in flood risk and will not enhance road/pedestrian safety.

This Decision Notice is issued under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts. It should be read, together with the accompanying plans; if any details differ, then the Decision Notice takes priority.

This Decision Notice neither gives nor implies a decision on a Building Warrant or under any other legislation.

Your Rights of Appeal

If you disagree with the Council’s decision on your application, or with one or more of the conditions attached to the decision, you have the right to make an appeal within 3 months of the date of the decision notice.

If your application was determined under delegated powers you can apply for a Review by the Council’s Local Review Body (LRB) under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.

If your application was determined by way of the Council’s weekly Planning Schedule or heard at Panel, then you can appeal that decision to the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals.

In either event, you can apply online on the Government’s ePlanning Scotland website at www.eplanning.scot. You can also download the Notice of Review Form here and this should be sent to Head of Legal Services, Stirling Council, Old Viewforth, Stirling, FK8 2ET.

Report of HandlingApplication determined under Delegated Powers. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation can be viewed at https://www.stirling.gov.uk/council-democracy/politicians-elections-democracy/council-constitution-standing-orders/

REFERENCE NO 19/00843/FUL

PROPOSAL Erection of 2 new dwelling houses with creation of habitat conservation and management area

SITE ADDRESS Land Adjacent And South Of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen, ,

RECOMMENDATION Refuse

AGREED BY Appointed Officer

DATE 17 December 2019

Reason for Report

This report fulfils the requirements of Regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2013. The application has been determined in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation as well as the Procedures for the Handling of Planning Applications.

Development Plan Considerations:

The decision has been made with consideration to the following policies and guidance in the Stirling Local Development Plan:-

Policy 2.10: Housing in the Countryside

Policy 9.1: Protecting Special Landscapes

Policy 8.1: Biodiversity Duty

Primary Policy 5: Flood Risk Management

Other Material Considerations

Draft Supplementary Guidance Ten: Housing in the countryside (July 2019)

Summary of Representations

Twenty nine contributor letters were received setting out the following:

a) Raising concerns that the proposed site is within the countryside and is not allocated for housing within The Adopted Local Development Plan. Housing development on the site would be contrary to the Adopted Local Development Plan.

b) Expressing concern that the access to the site is via a narrow private access track, which doubles as a core path. This arrangement is dangerous with regard to the safety of current users. The access to this site is of particular concern due to the unsuitability of the access road for heavy construction

C:\USERS\STOKOED\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\UFM23.RTF

vehicles, it is far too narrow, even with the introduction of passing places.

c) That the proposals could exacerbate flooding. The burns running through the village have at times had difficulty coping with the volumes of water, leading to flooding. These proposals for houses and hard standing will greatly exacerbate this, unless the proposals are to include sustainable urban drainage arrangements.

d). Stating that these proposals on the raised part of the site could adversely impact upon the setting of the village. The proposed buildings would sit much higher than the surrounding properties and destroy the character of this part of the village when viewed from the south.

e) The development of this raised site will lead to substantial overlooking of neighbouring properties private spaces and habitable rooms.

f) The development of this site for 2 houses could adversely impact upon its biodiversity value, in particular it may not afford protection to the habitat where the Greater Butterfly Orchid grow.

g) Expressing concerns that the amount of extra heavy traffic this will bring to Cauldhame during any construction would cause inconvenience to the local residents. The possibility of further cars in the vicinity could have an adverse effect on the safety of pedestrians in particular young children walking to school. Additional traffic will come from delivery vans with online shopping (supermarkets, parcels), oil/gas delivery, services and friends. The lane is not capable of supporting the additional amount of traffic.

h) Concerns expressed that the development of this site for housing would have an adverse visual impact. The houses and new hard surfaces would negatively affect the area.

i) Stating that: this site belongs to the fields and woods of the uplands. It is not a natural continuation of the built area at Cauldhame. There is a drop of altitude which creates a natural barrier between the built environment below and the unbuilt land above.

j) That the Ecological Survey shows that about 2 thirds of the site is unimproved neutral grassland that is of national importance and it contains rare Greater Butterfly Orchid species which are considered of national importance. The neutral grassland and orchids are of national importance and destruction of this will be contrary to Stirling Councils biodiversity policies.

k) The existing watercourses already have significant capacity issues at peak flows. Any additional water from roads and hardstanding will inevitabley make this worse.

l) Concern regarding the provision of a new path, which would start at the lower entrance to the field and exit at the South-East corner of the field is not easily accessible. The new path is intended to segregate pedestrians from road traffic. Furthermore, due to how steep it will be it will also not be easily usable.

m) The erection of housing on this site will significantly reduce the quality of the rural amenity, and the inhabitants of Kippen and its visitors would suffer a needless diminishing of a valued community resource.

Summary of Consultation Responses

Stirling Council Roads: Transport Development Team does not favour this development, and recommends that planning permission be refused, in the interests of pedestrian and road safety.

Scottish Natural Heritage: Responded with standard advice for biodiversity protection.

Stirling Council Flooding: Object to the application on the grounds that a more detailed drainage design is required along with storage and flow calculations to provide evidence that flows will not be significantly increased.

Stirling Council Environmental Health: No response received.

Kippen Community Council objects to the application on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development is outwith the scope of the approved Stirling Council Local


Development Plan, issued October 2018.

2. The development would have a negative environmental impact on a sensitive rural area which would not be enhanced by the provision of housing within the site.

3. The proposed access arrangements are not considered to be sufficient to enable safe access and egress for the development.

4. The increased vehicular traffic would impact on the pedestrian traffic who regularly use the single-track road to access the local core path network.

5. The area has a history of flooding and a detailed drainage and flood risk assessment on the impact downstream of the development has not been provided.

6. There is considerable local interest in the development and attendees at a public meeting on 10 December expressed unanimous opposition to the proposal.

Previous History

Planning Application No 18/00604/PPP (In principle proposal for housing) was refused.Planning Application No 17/00732/PPP (In principle proposal for housing), which was subsequently withdrawn. Prior to this, there have been no previous planning applications on this site.

Officer Assessment

ProposalThe application proposes the erection of 2 dwellings on land adjacent and south of Maryhill Cottage, Kippen. The site falls outwith the Kippen village boundary, as defined in the Stirling Local Development Plan (2018). Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is proposed via Redgate Hill which forms part of the adopted road network, and thereafter via a private access track, which also doubles a core path 9078Kp/13. The submitted drawings show a design concept whereby the accommodation is arranged in an L-shaped configuration around an entrance courtyard, with the ground floor varying in height to respond to the site contours. The details are contained in Drawing No SL001: site plan, plus details of the contemporary dwellings themselves in Drawing Nos P001 to P004. For the elevations facing towards the village natural materials are to be used for the finishes, i.e. timber cladding to walls and a sedum green roof are proposed. The wing facing south and the wing running north-south frames the entrance courtyard and is more contemporary in nature with render and dark grey zinc roofing finishes.

The application includes a landscape appraisal, a preliminary Ecological Appraisal, a Drainage Assessment and a report on the results of the review of the consultations, objections and comments in response to withdrawn application 17/00732/PPP. The site is to be accessed via a narrow private access track, which doubles as a core path and leads down past the properties within the village of Kippen, such as Maryhill Cottage. The drawings also show proposals for a new pedestrian route which would start at the lower entrance to the field and exit at the South-East corner of the field.

Site DescriptionThe site is located immediately to the southwest of the village of Kippen in Stirlingshire and is bounded by access roads on the west and south boundaries. Immediately to the east of the site there is an area of dense woodland comprising a mix of deciduous and conifers known as Redgate Wood. There is also a mature line of trees along the western boundary. The site is at its lowest at 108.5 metres Ordnance Datum and at its highest just over 125 metres. In broad landscape terms, the site falls within the Southern Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA5) as shown in Stirling Local Development Plan 2 which covers much of the landscape across the Fintry and Gargunnock Hills.

The proposed site forms part of a larger area of ground owned by the Applicant which is immediately adjacent to the Kippen/Cauldhame settlement boundary. There is tree cover around the boundaries as described above. This is accessed via a field gate in the south-western corner which connects to a single-track access road which runs along the western boundary to the site. This links Davidsons Lea to the north which, in turn, connects to the B822, and provides access to Redmarley and Mid Redgate Hill to the south.


AssessmentThe proposals represent housing development in the countryside, on land within an area of local landscape importance and of biodiversity value. Therefore, the most relevant policy context for assessing the proposals are: Policy 2.10 and material consideration associated Draft Supplementary Guidance Ten: Housing in the countryside, Policy 8.1: For preserving and enhancing areas of biodiversity value and Policy 9.1: Protecting areas of Local Landscape Value. This policy framework has been used to assess the proposals, reaching a recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons set out below.

The application site appears as Greenfield natural rural grassland that is uneven and falls sharply to the north. As set out in the submitted biodiversity study the site is of biodiversity value and interest and is home to rare plants (wild orchids). No part of the site appears as degraded brownfield land and there is no evidence of a former building at the site. There are residential houses to the north of the site, all of which are within the village of Kippen and not in the countryside. The applicant proposes the housing as open market and has not submitted with the application any statement justifying any particular need at this location, in connection with an established rural enterprise. The applicants acknowledge the site is within the countryside and request the site is viewed as being an extension of the settlement.

These proposals cannot be considered as an extension of Kippen settlement as the land has not been adopted for housing development in The Adopted Local Development Plan. The land is distinctly in the countryside where policy 2.10 applies. Policy 2.10 supports additional housing in the countryside under certain circumstances and it is not considered that these proposals fall within any of the categories set out within Policy 2.10 and Draft Supplementary Guidance ten, which support the erection of houses in rural locations.

The applicant proposes the housing as open market, not in connection with an established rural enterprise, the site is not within an established grouping as defined within Supplementary Guidance Ten, there is no infill, the site is not a brownfield site, as defined by Draft Supplementary Guidance Ten and the proposal do not involve the conversion of any redundant rural building(s). Therefore, there is no policy support for residential development in this field neighbouring the village.

The Local Development Plan was adopted in 2018 and it has not included this field within the Kippen settlement boundary, despite representations seeking this. As described above the proposals represent speculative housing development within the open countryside where there is no support for it.

This proposal will have a harmful impact upon the designated local landscape area and the biodiversity value of the site and the proposals are contrary to the policies 8.1 and 9.1 set out above for this reason. The open nature of the site, combined with the scale and the positioning of housing within this field, with the creation of entirely man-made site boundaries will be harmful to the rural character of the area and the value of the local landscape. There is no fit within the established development pattern in the area and the housing will locally look visually dominant sitting above the village of Kippen, as seen from the photo montages submitted. Housing within this site is not supported by policy and will be harmful to the environment for the reasons set out above. It is not considered that the existing landscape setting can accommodate such a development. Furthermore, the engineering operations required to form the access roads, level areas for the construction and the parking will be harmful to the local landscape setting.

In respect of the biodiversity of value of the site, despite there being no formal designations the majority of the site is defined as unimproved neutral grassland, which is home to the rare Butterfly Orchids. Whilst it is acknowledged that these proposals seek to retain areas of Orchid Growth and a large area of the grassland it is still considered that the erection of 2 houses will have a direct impact upon biodiversity where the houses are to be built reducing the value of the area and reducing the necessary buffer area.

In respect of flood risk the application has received an objection from Stirling Councils Flood Officer on the grounds of that a more detailed drainage design is required along with storage and flow calculations to provide evidence that flows will not be significantly increased. Therefore, in its current form the application is considered to be contrary to Primary Policy Five: Flood Risk Management as the application has failed to clearly demonstrate that the erection of 2 houses on this site will contribute to a reduction in flood risk.

Lastly Stirling Council Roads have objected to the application on the grounds that the access arrangements including proposed passing places will not result in safe means of access to the


development. For these reasons the proposals are not considered to comply with the relevant Local Development Plan Policies set out above. It is considered to represent housing in the countryside contrary to Stirling Councils Housing in the Countryside Policy 2.10, which is not supported and will not contribute in a positive manner to the rural environment, or local biodiversity, but instead it will impact negatively on the rural environment, the core role and function of the local landscape area and area of biodiversity value. Furthermore, it has failed to clearly demonstrate that the erection of 2 houses on this site will contribute to a reduction in flood risk and will not enhance road/pedestrian safety.

ConclusionIt is considered to represent housing in the countryside contrary to Stirling Councils Housing in the Countryside Policy 2.10, which is not supported and will not contribute in a positive manner to the rural environment, or local biodiversity, but instead it will impact negatively on the rural environment, the core role and function of the local landscape area and area of biodiversity value. Furthermore, it has failed to clearly demonstrate that the erection of 2 houses on this site will contribute to a reduction in flood risk and will not enhance road/pedestrian safety.

Summary of Main Issues Raised In Respect of:

Any Environmental Statement submitted.Any assessment under Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 carried out.Any Design Statement or Design and Access Statement submitted.Any report on impact or potential impact of the proposed development (e.g. retail, transport, noise or risk of flooding) submitted.

Not Applicable.

Section 75 Obligations

In assessing and reporting on a planning application the Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation entered into under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of planning permission for the proposed development.

None.

Scottish Ministers Directions

In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017.

None.

Local Application

This application is classified as a 'local application' and as such is processed under delegated powers, unless one of the below criteria is met

- Ward member referral within 25 days of validation or marker set within 25 days and member referral following recommendation - NO- Recommendation to approve where there are five or more objections - NO- Council financial interest and proposal contrary to Development Plan - NO- The application is made by a member of the Planning Authority - NO- Recommendation to approve where the proposal is a significant departure from the Local Development Plan - NO- The application requires to be notified to Scottish Ministers - NO


Schedule of Plans Determined

Stirling Council Plan No.

Name Ref on Plan Status

02 Elevations 1911-P004 Decision




Equalities Impact Assessment

This application was assessed in terms of equality and human rights. Any impact has been identified in the Consideration/Assessment section of this report.

NOTICE OF REVIEW

IN RELATION TO THE REFUSAL BY STIRLING COUNCIL OF

PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF TWO NEW DWELLINGHOUSES, WITH CREATION OF

HABITAT, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT AREA ON LAND ADJACENT AND SOUTH OF MARYHILL COTTAGE,

REDGATE HILL, CAULDHAME, KIPPEN

PLANNING APPLICATION NO 19/00843/FUL

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT

Prepared By:

MICHAEL S EVANS BA (Econ); Dip TP, MRTPI, MCIM PLANNING CONSULTANT meicplan.associates “TY-NEWYDD” 11 MURCHIE DRIVE KINGS MEADOW PRESTWICK KA9 2ND

NICK HOBSON HOBSON ARCHITECTS

SEACLIFF EGLINTON TERRACE

SKELMORLIE PA17 5EP

March 2020

Notice of Review in Relation to Refusal by Stirling Council of Planning Permission for Erection of Two New Dwellinghouses, with Creation of Habitat, Conservation and Management Area on Land adjacent and south of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen: Statement in Support Prepared for: Redgate Associates per Alan Beaton

2

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Terms of Reference

The Applicant

The Proposals

2.0 AREA CONTEXT AND SITE ANALYSIS

Location

Area Context

Site Characteristics: – Historical/Current Land Use/Management

– Ecology

– Existing Site Boundaries and the Relationship

to Neighbours

– Site Condition

– Topography

– Services

– Connectivity

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.0 COUNCIL’S REASONS FOR REFUSAL

5.0 THE REASONS FOR SEEKING A REVIEW

6.0 RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL’S REASONS FOR REFUSAL

7.0 CONCLUSIONS


3

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Terms of Reference

On 28 October 2019, application was made on behalf of Redgate Associates

per Val and Alan Beaton, Fore Road, Kippen by Hobson Architects per Nick

Hobson, The Studio, Seacliff, Eglinton Terrace, Skelmorlie, North Ayrshire,

PA17 5EP for the erection of two new dwellinghouses, with the creation of a

habitat, conservation and management area, on land adjacent and south of

Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen, Planning Application No

19/00843/FUL.

This Notice of Review has been prepared by Michael S Evans, Planning

Consultant, and Nick Hobson, Hobson Architects, as instructed by the

Applicant, Redgate Associates per Alan Beaton, and is submitted in response

to the Council’s decision to refuse the application on a delegated basis on

17 December 2019. The contents of the Officer’s Report of Handling (which

has been submitted along with this notice) are viewed as a significant Material

Consideration in relation to the case being put forward in Sections 4.0 and 5.0

of this Statement.

The Applicant

History of Land Purchase/Background to Involvement with the Site

The Beaton family involvement with the land to the south west of Kippen,

called Maryhill in the Redgate Hill area of Kippen, originates over 10 years

previously. A relationship between the Denovan family (owners of the land

since the 1920s) and the Beaton family has existed for over 35 years.

The final purchase of the land five years ago occurred after a number of

adjoining neighbours had made approaches to buy the land from the Denovan


4

family. At that time, the Denovan family were considering an application for

themselves to build a family home in the field.

At this time, they had indicated to the adjoining neighbours their intent, and

received their agreement that they were comfortable, subject only to an area

of the field being transferred to the neighbour to extend their garden.

The field, prior to being purchased, had been used as an equestrian grazing

and stabling facility for up to 12 ponies/horseboxes for nearly 10 years. On

purchase, the stable block was removed without the foundations of the main

block and a small storage shed remained. Refer to Google extract

immediately below.

Over this period, the lane itself (originally called ‘the road to Redmarley’) was

also being used for the development of Redgate Hill Cottage, a development

having only been partially completed. Significant heavy haulage was

therefore using the lane at this time. Refer to Google extract on the following

page.


5

The closure of the facility has now meant the number of vehicular movements

on the land has been substantially reduced. We cannot comment on the final

completion of Redgate Hill but significant construction works will be needed in

the future.

After a period of lobbying from the neighbours and a reluctance to move there

themselves, they decided to sell the land to the Beatons. The initial intention

was to build a small lodge/cottage for one of the Denovan family members

and a family house for the Applicant.

During the preparation stages of the current adopted Local Development

Plan, the intentions were that the Council was intensifying one site for housing

in Kippen, i.e. at Burn Green, which was by then the subject of a planning

application. If developed, then this would leave Kippen without a recognised

housing site for the plan period.

With this in the background, the Applicant sought to assess the capacity of

the site and was aware that, to be of ‘interest’ to the Council during the LDP

process, the capacity would need to be for four or more dwellings.


6

That said, even if this had been achieved, the primary criterion was to provide

accommodation for the Beaton family.

The possibility of up to five units was, in the event, controversial and

generated upset with the neighbours and, after the major objector had his

significant financial demands rejected, it escalated into a most unpleasant and

divisive impact on the surrounding neighbours. In the final analysis, the

Application No 19/00843/FUL was in principle and was, in effect, ‘testing the

water’ to establish whether or not the site was capable of absorbing five units.

In the event, a careful examination of the reasons for refusal, together with

the objectors’ concerns, influenced the details of the application that is the

subject of this Request for Review.

In the meantime, family circumstances have changed and the Applicant is

now focused on a two-dwelling unit solution and, as will be confirmed

elsewhere, establishing an area where the highlighted biodiversity can be

protected over time – a level/variety of biodiversity that would not exist if the site had remained in other ownership and used differently.

The Beaton Family

The Beaton family have enjoyed ties with Kippen for almost 47 years.

The moved to the village in 1982, now staying in their third house. They

have refreshed the original doctors’ surgery and garden, where they have

stayed for over 25 years.

The family have sons, all of whom have grown up in the village, attending

both Kippen Primary School and Balfron High School, then going on to

Glasgow universities.


7

The eldest son has now returned to the village and is in the final stages of

completing a new property, with the middle son considering building on the

Maryhill site.

Over the 39 years, both Val and Alan Beaton have, and continue to,

participate in significant roles in the village.

Alan (James) now works in a part-time Group Executive role with FES group,

where he held a Group Board position for over 30 years. He now undertakes

a consulting and mentoring role in his spare time, supporting SME

companies.

Whilst he currently is the Chairperson of the Kippen Community Fund, he is

also a senior elder at Kippen Parish Church. Over the previous years, he

has assisted in arranging sponsorship to school events, Kippen street fair,

The Boys’ Brigade events and had a role of Chairperson when Kippen raised

over £25,000.00 to self-fund one of the first rolling blade parks in Scotland.

He wife, Val, has also supported many organisations, participating in the

toddler group, playgroup and School Parents’ Association committees, as well

as taking the Chairperson role on the Ralton Scott Cancer Charity, raising

significant sums in their anniversary year.

The Beaton family have quietly supported local organisations with funding for

events and projects. Both are life members of ‘Friends of Kippen Church’.

They were also responsible for the replacement of the DY Cameron lighting at

the Kippen church after they had been stolen. They have provided gifts and

prizes for the cancer whists, the local surgery, school events, gardening

equipment for the church, street fayre donations, blading park, and donations

towards the refreshed football park, village hall and reading room to name but

a few.


8

They have also opened their garden to the public and provided teas and

pancakes for a local fund-raising event. They continued this event, with last

year participating in the National Scottish Open Gardens which raises funds

for local charities.

They are also strong environmental supporters, having long been involved

with the planting of a significant number of trees around the village, and

remain very passionate to keep the traditional village intent and atmosphere.

Their involvement in the village is without question. With a legacy of nearly

40 years of support and giving, this demonstrates their continued commitment

to the village of Kippen.

The Proposals

The proposals are for:

(i) the erection of two detached dwellinghouses, including integral garages

and associated landscaping in the south-western corner of the

application site, as identified in Fig 1 on page 11. This will extend to

0.46 ha, and

(ii) the creation of an area of habitat conservation and management in the

remainder of the plot and, in so doing, delivering a unique opportunity


9

2.0 AREA CONTEXT AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Area Context

Broad Area Context

In broad landscape terms, the site falls within the Southern Hills Local

Landscape Area (LLA5) as shown in Stirling Local Development Plan 2

which covers much of the landscape across the Fintry and Gargunnock

Hills.

As confirmed by LDP 2, the proposed site is therefore literally on the very

northern edge of the LLA5 designation. The proposals, as a result,

represent only a very small-scale development on the edge of a

considerably larger landscape policy area.

The Landscape Assessment Statement which formed part of the planning application, and has been included for the Board’s consideration, provides the results of a detailed and systematic analysis of the role and functions of the proposed site within LLA5 and of any potential impact on the integrity of LLA5 as a whole.

Local/Site Context

Location

The proposed site is immediately adjacent to the Kippen/Cauldhame

settlement boundary as shown in Fig 1 on page 11. Fig 2 from the

Kippen Conservation Area Appraisal (in the Appendix), which is an

extract from the adopted Stirling Local Development Plan 2, shows the

site and its relationship to Kippen/Cauldhame as a whole.


10

The Site (Description)

Extent and Site Boundaries, including Relationship with Neighbours

Boundaries

Figure 7 of the Landscape Assessment Statement confirms that the

Applicant’s ownership is comprised of an easily identifiable single field

compartment. This is accessed via a field gate in the south-western

corner which connects to a single-track access road which runs along the

western boundary to the site. This links Davidsons Lea to the north

which, in turn, connects to the B822, and provides access to Redmarley

and Mid Redgate Hill to the south. The ownership is approximately

1.3 ha in size and has been used to graze horses in recent times. The

proposed development area, as confirmed in Fig 1, extends to 0.45 ha.

The overall field boundaries are post and wire fence on all sides, with a

track lying beyond to the south, a beech hedge to the north and a tree

line to the western boundary between the fence and the access track.


11

Fig 1: The Site


12

There is a large area of woodland to the east of the ownership which is a

mix of deciduous and coniferous plantation called Redgate Hill Wood.

This provides a screen in this direction.

Site Characteristics

Landscape Character/Topography/Current Use

(i) Landscape

Details of the landscape character and overall landscape context

within which the site is situated are provided in Section 3.0,

Planning and Landscape Character in the Landscape Assessment

Statement prepared by DWA Landscape Architects, which formed

part of the planning application and has been included for the

Review Body’s consideration.

(ii) Topography

Fig 2 of this Statement and Fig 8 of the Landscape Assessment

Statement shows the survey of the site with the topography

highlighted in colour bands to illustrate the levels at one-metre

increments. This shows a high point of 123.5 m at the south-

western corner, falling to a height of 108.5 m to the north west over

125 m, an average gradient of 1 in 8.3 or 12%. The site is not

uniformly sloped however, with the south-western section forming a

flatter plateau. Taking the 119 m contour line as a break in the

topography, an area of 0.77 ha falls by just 4.5 m over 100 m. This

would provide an area of developable space at an average gradient

of 1 in 22 or 4.5%.

The proposed development would be the flatter plateau part of the overall site. The 3D images provided in the Landscape


13

Assessment Statement confirm the relatively insignificant visual impact of the proposals and the capacity of the site to absorb the new houses without implications for the wider context. Importantly, the proposed development would be located in that part of the site that would make it virtually unseen from the immediately adjacent village.


14

Fig 2: Topography site study


15

(iii) Current Use

Vegetation

There is little tree cover or significant vegetation upon the site

beyond ground cover grass species, with the exception of an area

of mixed deciduous trees on the sloped embankment at the north-

west part of the site. This consists of oak, ash, birch, hawthorn

and beech. Some wooded gorse plants also exist on a small patch

on the eastern side but are in poor condition. There is tree cover

around the boundaries as described above but this would not be

adversely impacted.

Over the years however, the site has had a variety of uses,

especially equestrian activities. Ironically, as the report prepared

by EnviroCentre, Ecological Consultants, which has been submitted

for the Board’s consideration, indicates it is the Applicant’s more recent management of the site that has provided the habitat to enable the Greater Butterfly Orchids, in particular, to become established. This point will be returned to later.

Structures

There are no notable building structures within the site. A wooden

shed/stable previously stood near the entrance at the south-

western corner but this is no longer present. A second corrugated

iron shed sits near the south-east corner.

(iv) Historical Use

The field, prior to being purchased, had been used as an equestrian

grazing and stabling facility for up to 12 ponies/horseboxes for


16

nearly 10 years. On purchasing, the stable block was removed

without the foundations of the main block and the aforementioned

shed remained.

The actual impact of this use is partly illustrated in the Google extract on page 4. It is highly unlikely that the level of biodiversity experienced now

would have existed previously.

Services/Infrastructure

In order to confirm the site’s capability to sustain development, the

availability of services/infrastructure are important considerations. The

Glossary of terms in Stirling LDP2 describes utility services as ‘roads,

sewers and supplies of gas, water and electricity’. The on-site situation

is that water and electricity with sufficient capacity are adjacent to the

site.

With regard to foul water, the Drainage Strategy Plan prepared by

Goodson Associates, which formed part of the planning application and

has been submitted for the Board’s consideration, anticipates that the foul

discharge from both properties will be collected via a traditional gravity

system and directed into a package treatment plant on site.

The Glossary describes social/community services as ‘including schools,

community halls and health centres’. A two-house development is unlikely to put any measurable pressure on any of these.

Connectivity

Details of the immediate area are shown in Fig 4.


17

- Bus Routes

The nearest bus stops are in the centre of Kippen and the bus

service to Stirling.

- Core Paths

The Council’s Core Paths Plan, June 2009, shows that Core Path

9078Kp/13 runs along the western and southern edges of the

proposed site. This eventually links with 9078Kp/17 and Kp15

leading to the centre of Kippen.

- Primary School

The nearest primary school is Kippen Primary School, which is

approximately 0.5 miles away.

In terms of overall connectivity therefore, the site is on a par with the bulk of Cauldhame.

Views In and Out

Images taken in and around the site are identified in Fig 3. As the Board

will be aware, the opinion of objectors – one shared by the Council’s

officer – was that the proposals would have a significant visual impact on

the village to the north.

These, combined with the montages included in the Landscape Assessment Statement, confirm the very limited amount of visual presence vis-à-vis the village to the north. This point will be returned

to later.


18

Fig 3: Vehicle/pedestrian site study


19

Fig 4: Photo key map

View 1 View 2


20

View 3 View 4

View 5 View 6

View 7 View 8

Microclimate Characteristics (Refer to Fig 5)

Path of the Sun The site slopes down to the north but the high ground on the southern

boundary will afford unobstructed sun paths for the majority of the year.


21

There will be a degree of overshadowing toward the south-eastern

boundary due to mature trees within Redgate Hill Wood, and the hills to

the south will restrict low angle winter sun. Importantly, the proposed development would have no negative consequences for the ambient daylighting enjoyed by development immediately to the north.

Prevailing Winds

Fig 5: Microclimate Site Study confirms that the site is relatively

sheltered from the most frequent winds that come in from the west/south

west.


22

Fig 5: Microclimate Site Study


23

Flooding/Surface Water

The Drainage Strategy Plan prepared by Goodson Associates, which

formed part of the planning application and has been resubmitted, states

that: ‘The SEPA online flood maps were investigated for the proposed

site and surrounding land which confirmed that there was no risk of

surface water or river flooding.’

The Drainage Strategy Plan concluded:

‘The current development proposals can be drained in accordance with the recommendations of the latest planning guidance and key stakeholder design criteria, with regards to impact upon the existing drainage systems and the natural water environment, as:

1. the foul water will be collected and treated in a dedicated package

treatment plant prior to discharge into the existing surface water

ditch which runs to the west of the site

2. the surface water drainage from the site will incorporate full SUDS

measures to control the discharge from the site and minimise the

pressure on the existing watercourse. In the main, this will be

achieved using filter trenches, porous paving and filter volumes

design in accordance with the SEPA Simple Indice Tool

The future, detailed drainage design should, however, be carried out in

accordance with the standards and regulations in force at that time.’

We return to this matter later in our response to the Reasons for Refusal,

where we point out that we have serious concerns about the quality of the Council’s response to the evidence that was before them.


24

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

On 21 January 2019, permission for residential development in respect of

Planning Application No 18/00604/PPP was refused on a delegated basis by

Stirling Council.

Planning Application No 18/00604/PPP was preceded by Planning

Application No 17/00732/PPP which was subsequently withdrawn. Prior to

this, there have been no previous planning applications on this site.

Otherwise, relevant planning history therefore has been entirely in relation to

representations submitted by the Applicant in response to the various stages

in the Stirling Local Development Plan 2-making process.

The reasons for refusal for Planning Application No 18/00604/PPP, together

with the officer’s Report of Handling, were considered to be significant

material considerations in relation to the application that is the subject of this

Request for Review.

The officer’s reasons for refusal, together with the Report of Handling, were carefully scrutinised so that the issues raised could be adequately addressed through an evidence-led response.

Indeed, in this regard, i.e. the requirement, as we saw it, for an evidence-based response, we had considerable reservations about the approach taken by the Case Officer for Planning Application No 18/00604/PPP. These doubts, as have been detailed elsewhere in this Statement, have been reinforced by the nature of the response to Planning Application No 19/00843/FUL.


25

4.0 COUNCIL’S REASONS FOR REFUSAL

‘The Council’s reasons for refusal are:-

1 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is considered to

be contrary to Policy 2.10 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local

Development Plan October 2018 and associated material planning

consideration Draft Supplementary Guidance 10, as the application has

not demonstrated that the proposed residential development accords with

any of the circumstances described in this policy and the draft

supplementary guidance for supporting housing in the countryside.

There is no grouping or infill at this site and the site is not considered to

be "Brownfield", as there are no former buildings on the site and it is not

significantly degraded, nor is there an operational justified need for the

houses to be erected at this location

2 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Policy

2.10 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan October 2018 and

material consideration Draft Supplementary Guidance Ten (In particular

the design guide part), as the proposed housing will look visually

dominant sitting above the village of Kippen. The 2 houses have not

been sympathetically designed to minimise visual impact. Instead, the

housing will be visually prominent and the engineering operations

required to form the access roads, level areas for the construction and

the parking will be harmful to the local landscape setting

3 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is

contrary to Policy 9.1 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Development

Plan October 2018 part (b) (i), as the proposals will not result in the

enhancement of the Local Landscape Area. Instead, the proposed

housing will be visually intrusive and the engineering operations required

to form the access roads, level areas for the construction and the parking

will be harmful to the local landscape setting


26

4 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is


Plan October 2018 part (a), as the proposals will not result in the

preservation or enhancement of the biodiversity value of this site. The

erection of 2 houses will have a direct impact upon biodiversity where the

houses are to be built, reducing the value of the area and reducing the

necessary buffer area

5 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the erection of two houses on

this site is contrary to Primary Policy Five part (e) of the Adopted Local

Development Plan October 2018, as the proposals have failed to clearly

demonstrate that the erection of 2 houses on this site will contribute to a

reduction in flood risk to the neighbouring properties

6 In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposals have not been

designed in the best interests of pedestrian and road safety, as they have

failed to consider how the vehicular access and pedestrian access

conflict will be mitigated over the initial section of core path/access track

which will remain unchanged as part of the proposals


27

5.0 THE REASONS FOR SEEKING A REVIEW

In response to the reasons for refusal, our reasons for seeking a review are

that we are asking that the members of the Review Body consider the

following:

Reasons for Refusal

1 The particular geographical circumstances indicate that the proposed

site is immediately adjacent to the Kippen/Cauldhame settlement

boundary, and the potentially negative implications of the proposals for

the settlement and the Local Landscape Area, especially in view of

other significant nature conservation elements for Countryside policy,

are, in our opinion, greatly exaggerated.

It is important to note also that LDP2 identifies one site in Kippen for

housing development during the plan period. A planning application

for this site is currently being considered by the Council’s officers.

Beyond the development of the site at Burn Green, no further

opportunities for development are identified in Kippen/Cauldhame.

Any further developments are likely to require adjustment to the

settlement boundary into the adjacent countryside.

Reason for Refusal 2 subdivides into three main components, namely:

2(i) We have, in our opinion, submitted sufficient evidence to confirm that

the proposals will not be visually dominant ‘sitting above the village of

Kippen.’ The Council, in turn, if the contents of the Report of Handling

are not supported by further information that have not been issued into

the public domain, has, it would appear, provided no evidence to

suggest that this would actually be the case. Unlike the Applicant therefore, it has relied on anecdote rather than evidence.


28

2(ii) We do not agree that the two houses have not been sympathetically

designed to minimise visual impact and we have submitted evidence

to confirm this. The planning history of this site confirms that potential

visual impact was always going to be a consideration and we strongly maintain that, in bringing forward the proposals, the Applicant’s Agents, as confirmed in the supporting documentation, were well aware of the need to limit potential visual impact on the village to the north and, in particular, the setting of the Conservation Area.

2(iii) Any construction phase will be relatively limited in time and impact,

and the Council’s comments in this regard, if evidence-based, then

this is not clear from the Report of Handling while, on the other hand,

this matter has been addressed directly by the Applicant in the

information submitted as part of the planning application in the report

by Goodson Associates. We do not therefore agree that the

engineering operations for such a small-scale development, i.e. that

are required to form the access road, level areas for the construction

and the parking, will be harmful to the local landscape setting as

suggested.

Similar to Reason for Refusal 2, this also subdivides into three main

components:

3(i) In response to the requirements of policy 9.1, in our opinion the

proposals would result in no net detriment to the Local Landscape

Area. Again, we have applied an evidence-based approach to addressing this issue. From the contents of the Report of Handling, this does not appear to be the manner in which the Council has dealt with its response.

3(ii) That the implications that the proposals would be, in fact, ‘visually

intrusive’ are greatly exaggerated and not evidence-based.


29

3(iii) Engineering works, etc ‘would be intrusive’. We have confirmed that

the proposed method of construction would ensure that that part of the

site that would become a conservation management area, where the

bulk of Greater Butterfly Orchids are found, would be little disturbed by

the construction process. The report by Goodson Associates, which

forms part of the planning application, confirms this.

It is important to note that the proposed development would occupy

0.46 ha/35% of the site. 0.83 ha, i.e. 65% of the site, would form part

of a proposed habitat conservation and management area.

Engineering works, etc would be temporary and on a very small scale.

The Google image shown on page 5 suggests that the Council has

been prepared to accept engineering works in relation to other

developments in the immediate locality.

4 65% of the site would be a habitat conservation and management

area, the potential benefits of which, while confirmed by the report by EnviroCentre, are totally ignored by the Council/Council’s officer. In this regard, as the evidence submitted

as part of the planning application confirms, the overwhelming bulk of

the locations where the Greater Butterfly Orchids are found would be

retained and most of the proposals would therefore guarantee for the

long term a habitat that supports the current level of diversity and

which, if current circumstances continue, would not be the case. In

addition, the method of construction, as detailed in the report prepared

by Goodson Associates which formed part of the planning application,

would significantly limit potential impact on the area which would

become the management area.

5 That the previously referred to report prepared by Goodson Associates

confirms that the issues raised in this reason for refusal will not be the

case. Further comment is included later. This, in our opinion, is


30

yet another example of the Applicant underpinning the proposals with evidence and experiencing a response that clearly is not.

6 Police records show that there is no evidence to suggest that there is

currently significant vehicular/pedestrian conflict. In response to the

proposals, the Council has not provided any information that would

confirm that the traffic generated by a two-house development would,

as detailed in the report by McIlhagger Associates that formed part of

the planning application, exacerbate an existing problem. In addition,

the proposals include a footpath that would offer an alternative route

for pedestrians.

General Comment

And, as a consequence of the above, we would put it to Board Members that the proposals are sustainable at this location and are overwhelmingly compatible with the aspirations and policies of LDP. Importantly, the Applicant’s approach has been evidence-based, while that of the objectors and, disappointingly, that of the Council officer, appears not to have been.


31

6.0 RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL’S REASONS FOR REFUSAL

These are dealt with in turn.

Reason for Refusal 1

‘In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the application is considered to be


Plan October 2018 and associated material planning consideration Draft

Supplementary Guidance 10, as the application has not demonstrated that

the proposed residential development accords with any of the circumstances

described in this policy and the draft supplementary guidance for supporting

housing in the countryside. There is no grouping or infill at this site and the

site is not considered to be "Brownfield", as there are no former buildings on

the site and it is not significantly degraded, nor is there an operational justified

need for the houses to be erected at this location.’

Response

The particular reason for drawing the Kippen/Cauldhame settlement boundary

so as to exclude the proposed site is not known. The site is currently located

within – but only just – the very extensive Southern Hills LLA, the boundary of

which is currently being reviewed by SNH and HES. The Landscape

Assessment Statement submitted as part of the planning application

concludes that, of the subdivision of the LLA, the site would form part of the

Kippen Muir subdivision. That said however, the Landscape Assessment

Statement goes on to state that, following fine-gained assessment, it

concludes that the Muir’s key landscape and visual characteristics, special

qualities of diversity of the landscape experience is an overriding sense of

exposure and isolation. As such, these qualities of the Kippen Muir do not

apply to what is, in effect, the enclosed field compartment that in the subject

of the planning application. While the site sits higher than the village, it does

not share the open landscape or high visibility.


32

In conclusion therefore, we strongly refute the conclusions arrived at in the Report of Handling and that the proposals would not result in the predicted consequences. It does not therefore contribute in a major way to the intervisibility of the

landscape across the wider Carseland to the north or of the upper slopes of

the Southern Hills to the wider panorama.

The small-scale nature of the proposals, coupled with the intention to

retaining most of the site within a habitat conservation and management area,

will mean little or no impact on the LLA.

Should planning permission be granted, then the settlement boundary of

Kippen/Cauldhame could be adjusted in future without creating issues of

precedent.

We have confirmed elsewhere that the proposed development poses no

threat to the residential amenity of properties to the north, and consent would

bring the added bonus of regularising the protection of the wildlife habitat

area.


‘In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Policy

2.10 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan October 2018 and material

consideration Draft Supplementary Guidance Ten (In particular the design

guide part), as the proposed housing will look visually dominant sitting above

the village of Kippen. The 2 houses have not been sympathetically designed

to minimise visual impact. Instead, the housing will be visually prominent and

the engineering operations required to form the access roads, level areas for

the construction and the parking will be harmful to the local landscape

setting.’


33

Response

As stated in Section 5.0, i.e. The Reasons for Seeking a Review, our

interpretation of this particular reason for refusal is that it identifies three main

‘components’. Our response to each of these, in turn, is:-

(i) ‘The proposals will be visually dominant ‘sitting above the village of

Kippen’

The Applicant, from the outset, has paid due regard to context and, in

particular, the ability of the site to absorb development and the

resulting relationship between the proposals and the village, together

with the Conservation Area to the north and the LLA to the south.

Indeed, pages 29 – 35 of the Supporting Statement that formed part of

the planning application were devoted to this issue. The 3D imaging

provided in the Landscape Assessment Statement confirms the

minimal nature of the visual impact. One of the primary

considerations throughout was to minimise visual impact on the

skyline from a development from viewpoints within Cauldhame and

beyond.

(ii) ‘that the housing has not been sympathetically designed to minimise

visual impact’

It is not clear in practical terms what ‘minimise visual impact’ means

precisely, but it is reasonable to assume that visual impact will depend

on the precise circumstances of the site and the details of the

proposed development. One of the primary purposes of the

Landscape Assessment Statement as the starting point in the exercise

was to confirm the ability or otherwise of the site to absorb a level of

new development, subject to a range of recognisable constraints,

which included the requirements of planning policy, guidance and


34

advice. As stated elsewhere, potential visual impact was a major

consideration and, in particular, visual impact to the north, and the

criticism received from residents of Denovan Crescent and Davidsons

Lea re earlier proposals that they were, in effect, overbearing. The

Landscape Assessment Statement went into considerable detail in

examining ‘Views from the North’ and the fact that the proposed

housing was to be located in the south-west corner of the overall site,

as illustrated by photo montages, concluded that the concerns

expressed by residents and eventual objectors were greatly

exaggerated.

Suffice to say that neither the objectors nor the Report of Handling

produced any diagrammatic information that the conclusions of the

Landscape Assessment Statement were inaccurate.

If the Council’s interpretation of ‘minimise visual impact’ literally means

‘should not be visible at all’, then clearly the proposals would fail such

a requirement. We have assumed that this is not the case?

Another design solution could have delivered smaller houses but we

would maintain that the overriding consideration is not their size but

the ability of the landscape to absorb the scale proposed.

We maintain that we have submitted enough evidence to confirm that

this would be the case.

(iii) ‘impact of the construction on landscape’

This would be a very small-scale construction exercise and the

implications of the construction phase would be limited in time and in

terms of consequences for landscape setting. There would, for

example, be no consequences for tree cover, and the major part of the


35

site where the Greater Butterfly Orchids are found would be outwith

the development area. This matter is dealt with later.

In conclusion therefore, we strongly refute the assertions made in the

Report of Handling that the proposals are not compatible with the

requirements of LDP2.


‘In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is

contrary to Policy 9.1 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Development Plan

October 2018 part (b) (i), as the proposals will not result in the enhancement

of the Local Landscape Area. Instead, the proposed housing will be visually

intrusive and the engineering operations required to form the access roads,

level areas for the construction and the parking will be harmful to the local

landscape setting.’

Response

In response to the three main components of Reason for Refusal 3, our

comments are as follows:

(i) ‘impact on the Local Landscape Area’

This is a large LLA, with a variety of landscapes and is currently the

subject of review by SNH and HES. The Landscape Assessment

Statement submitted as part of the planning application concludes that

the site is most closely related to the landscape subdivision known as

Kippen Muir.

The Statement includes a fine-gained assessment of the

characteristics of Kippen Muir, its key landscape and visual

characteristics, special qualities of diversity of the landscape


36

experiences and the overriding sense of exposure and isolation. The

Assessment goes on to detail the particular sensitivities to change and

relates the proposals to these.

In para 3.6, DWA confirms that the proposed site sits on the very

northern edge of the LLA, bounded by Cauldhame to the north and, as

such, much of the broad description of the area and, in particular, the

Kippen Muir’s landscape, does not ring true for the enclosed field

compartment that is the subject of the planning application. While the

site sits higher than the village of Kippen, it does not share the open

landscape or high visibility described.

It does not therefore contribute in a major way to the intervisibility of

the landscape across the wider Carseland to the north or of the upper

slopes of the Southern Hills to the wider panorama.

In terms of the relationship with the LLA, views of the proposals from

the south are the most important. The Landscape Assessment

Statement confirms that there are only few receptors from this

direction, with the exception of Mid Redgate Hill, which is itself

prominent in the landscape.

(ii) As for the response for Reason for Refusal 2, point (ii).

The key is whether, in visual terms, the proposals do, in fact, detract

from the character of the Local Landscape Area.

The proposals, in geographical terms, are tucked away at the very

margins of the LDA. In visual terms therefore, they would be

relatively unsighted compared with the likes of Redgate Hill.


37

(iii) ‘engineering operations’

These will be relatively small in scale and limited in time to execute.

Indeed, dwelling access is as close as possible to the existing site

entrance to minimise engineering works and impact on the site.

We conclude therefore that the proposals are entirely compatible with

the requirements of LDP2.


‘In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is

contrary to Policy 8.1 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Development Plan

October 2018 part (a), as the proposals will not result in the preservation or

enhancement of the biodiversity value of this site. The erection of 2 houses

will have a direct impact upon biodiversity where the houses are to be built,

reducing the value of the area and reducing the necessary buffer area.’

Response

Prior to submission of the planning application, there is no record of any

sustained community interest in the biodiversity of the site. Ironically, it was

the Applicant and his commissioning of EnviroCentre to undertake a

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, which formed part of the planning

application, that eventually delivered a proper assessment of the site.

The reason for refusal includes the phrase ‘the proposals will not result in the

preservation or enhancement of the biodiversity value of this site.’ The two

key biodiversity considerations are the presence of unimproved neutral

grassland and the Greater Butterfly Orchids.


38

As a result of the development, 79% of the area covered by unimproved

neutral grassland would be retained and all of the area where Greater

Butterfly Orchids are known to exist as a result of the Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal.

The Applicant commissioned EnviroCentre to produce a Habitat Management

Plan and this formed part of the planning application, a detail which seems to

have been missed in the Council’s Report of Handling.

The Plan states that:

‘If the habitat is left unmanaged, it will become rank and will likely transition to the MG1 False Oat-grass Mesotrophic Grassland Community which is typically of low biodiversity value. Long-term abandonment of management would result in scrub encroachment and eventually succession to secondary woodland.’

There is no statutory obligation on the owner to manage the site in any particular way.

The planning application includes a proposed Habitat Management Plan that

would ensure the continued survival of the important elements of the existing

biodiversity.

Far from not resulting in the preservation or enhancement of the biodiversity

value of the site, the proposals clearly will do so.

The Report of Handling suggests (there is no quantification) that the

proposals would reduce the value of the habitat provided by the site.

The loss of approximately 20% of the area of the unimproved grassland, as

the Management Plan confirms, will not destabilise the circumstances

elsewhere.


39

In addition, the positioning of the proposed housing units will ensure that any

‘buffer’ requirements will be absorbed within the proposed curtilages. In fact,

therefore, the proposals would ensure that biodiversity will be retained and

what is there will enjoy a degree of protection that would not otherwise be

available.

On this basis, we maintain that the proposals are entirely compatible with the

requirements of relevant policy.


‘In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the erection of two houses on this

site is contrary to Primary Policy Five part (e) of the Adopted Local

Development Plan October 2018, as the proposals have failed to clearly

demonstrate that the erection of 2 houses on this site will contribute to a

reduction in flood risk to the neighbouring properties.’

Response

With regard to the points raised by the Flood Officer, we respond as follows:

(c) The existing site is a sloping field which sheds water directly into the

burn: the estimated greenfield run-off from the site pre development is

448L/a, as per our Drainage Strategy Report. The new development

does indeed include provision of SUDS, with associated attenuation

with the flow into the burn being restricted to 10.7L/s. Please refer to

attached drainage strategy drawing which illustrates the use of a basin

to the front of the units which collects the run-off from the houses and

hardstandings and, in addition, we have provided a cut-off filter trench

to the west boundary of the site to catch any overland flow from the

surrounding green space before entering the road, which is currently

an issue.


40

(k) The implementation of SUDS and attenuation will reduce the flows into

the burn and will reduce the risk of flooding further downstream, as

noted above.

On this basis, we therefore maintain that the proposals are entirely

compatible with the requirements of the relevant policies of LDP.


41


42


‘In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposals have not been

designed in the best interests of pedestrian and road safety, as they have

failed to consider how the vehicular access and pedestrian access conflict will

be mitigated over the initial section of core path/access track which will

remain unchanged as part of the proposals.’

Response

The Statement on Roads and Traffic Issues prepared by McIlhagger

Associates dated September 2019, which formed part of the planning

application, confirms, in relation to potential vehicle/pedestrian conflict, and

based on information obtained from CrashMap, that no accidents happened

during the period 2014 – 2018 near to the site.

Table 3.4, ‘Trip Generation’, provides data that, as para 2.16 states, ‘… for

two houses, there could be one traffic movement during each peak hour’ and

para 2.17 states ‘The 12-hour TRICS trip rate is some 2.5 movements per

house in each direction. Thus, with two houses, there might be expected to

be a total of 10 vehicle movements over the 12 hours.’ Para 2.18 goes on to

state ‘During discussions on previous applications (for a greater number of

houses), the Council expressed their concerns about vehicles meeting in the

single track road. As can be seen from the trip figures of 5 movements in

each direction over a 12-week period, it is very unlikely that vehicles would

meet.’

Returning to the potential for vehicles/pedestrian conflict, to date there has

been no evidence of this. The proposals include a new footpath along the

north and east boundaries of the proposed site connecting to the Core Path at

either end.


43

This addresses completely these concerns and would reduce even further the potential for vehicular/pedestrian conflict.

Neither the Case Officer nor his Roads colleagues have provided any evidence-based response to the case made in the McIlhagger Associates’ report.

On this basis, we therefore maintain that the proposals are entirely compatible

with the requirements of LDP.


44

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

Throughout the planning application process, we have taken an

evidence-based approach, using experts in their respective fields to

justify the case being put forward in anticipation that the documentation

would have been carefully examined/reviewed by those officers from the

relevant Council departments that were involved in the process

Regrettably, the contents of the Report of Handling, the primary

response document, strongly suggests that this hasn’t been the case.

While the concerns of legitimate objections must be taken into account,

it seems to us that much of what was stated by them was similarly

lacking in evidence and, indeed, many of their comments went well

outwith the subject matter that they should have been focused on, i.e.

the technical merits or otherwise of the proposals

The proposals are composed of two elements, namely:

(i) the erection of two detached dwellinghouses, including integral

garages and associated landscaping on 0.46 ha of land on the

south-west corner of the application site, and

(ii) the creation of an area for habitat conservation and

management on the remainder of the application site, i.e. 0.8 ha

In setting out the case, we have been, as would be expected, mindful of

the requirements of planning policy, guidance and advice and, in

particular, the relevant policies of Stirling Local Development Plan 2

In addition, we have been particularly aware of the responses received

in relation to refused Planning Application No 18/00604/PPP


45

The Statement in Support of Planning Application 18/00604/PPP, in

conjunction with the:

- Landscape Character Assessment by DWA Landscape Architects

Ltd

- Statement on Roads and Traffic Issues, McIlhagger Associates

- Drainage Strategy Plan, Goodson Associates

- Habitat Management Plan, EnviroCentre

has, in our opinion, confirmed that the evidence contained in these

documents confirm that:

- the proposals for housing are underpinned by a strong design

concept

- they respect the requirements of their setting and, in particular, their

visual relationship with/to potentially sensitive areas in heritage and

landscape terms, namely the neighbouring Southern Hills LLA and

the setting of the Cauldhame Character Area

- simultaneously, they would not impinge on the overall amenity/

residential amenity of the nearest housing as claimed in the Report

of Handling

- the proposals will ensure the future of 79% of the ecologically

important unimproved grassland which, in fact, only exists because

of the way the site is currently looked after

- and will ensure that all of the locations where Greater Butterfly

Orchids have been found and where other wild flowers survive

- the construction process used will minimise any potential negative

impacts on the ecologically sensitive area

- the proposals will not create any problems for local drainage or

result in flooding as suggested by officers/objectors who do not

appear to have actually read the information submitted

- the two-house solution, together with the introduction of a bypass

footpath, will result in an imperceptible change in the volume of


46

traffic and reduce even further the scope for vehicular/pedestrian

conflict which the evidence indicates does not actually exist at

present

- the site does not naturally form part of the Southern Hills LLA, is

distinct from it and its removal from it would be inconsequential. In

this regard therefore, and already being immediately adjacent to the

settlement boundary, its integration into Kippen would not create an

indefinable precedent that would serve to undermine the Council’s

approach to defining the limits of settlement

- being immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary, the

proposals would represent a modest extension to Cauldhame that

would not make other areas, as a consequence, vulnerable to

developments


47

APPENDIX


48

Fig 2: Kippen, indicating the Conservation Area (shaded in orange), Kippen Conservation Area Appraisal – Revised, Stirling Council, August 2012

Redgate Hill Habitat Management Plan

October

Redgate Hill Habitat Management Plan

Client: Redgate Associates

Document number: Project number: Status: Final V

Author: Mhairi MacKintosh Reviewer: Kathy Dale and Gemma Nixon

Date of issue: October Filename: K:\ - Redgate Hill\Outputs\Issued

Glasgow Aberdeen Inverness Edinburgh

Craighall Business Park Eagle Street

Glasgow G XA

[email protected] www.envirocentre.co.uk

Banchory Business Centre Burn O’Bennie Road Banchory AB ZU

Alder House Cradlehall Business Park Inverness IV GH

Suite Gyleview House

Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH DQ

This report has been prepared by EnviroCentre Limited with all reasonable skill and care, within the terms of the Contract with Redgate Associates (“the Client”). The report is confidential to the Client, and EnviroCentre Limited accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report may be made known.

No part of this document may be reproduced or altered without the prior written approval of EnviroCentre Limited.

Redgate Associates October Redgate Hill; Habitat Management Plan

i

Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................

. Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................................

. Habitat Description and Background ......................................................................................................

. Habitat Management Plan Aims .............................................................................................................

. Report Usage ........................................................................................................................................... Management Objectives ................................................................................................................................. Construction Phase Management ................................................................................................................... Post Construction Management ......................................................................................................................

. Mowing ...................................................................................................................................................

. Monitoring and Review ...........................................................................................................................

. Additional Actions ...................................................................................................................................

. Management Schedule ...........................................................................................................................

Appendices A Phase Habitat Map B Orchid Distribution Map C Monitoring Form


1 INTRODUCTION

. Terms of Reference

EnviroCentre Ltd were commissioned by Redgate Associates to complete a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for unimproved species rich grassland and greater butterfly orchids (Platanthera chlorantha) present on land south of Maryhill Cottages, Redgate Hill, Kippen.

The land intended for conservation management is part of a landownership parcel in which it is proposed two residential properties will be constructed. Redgate Associates have requested the production of the HMP to demonstrate how the proposed development can contribute to Policy . of Stirling Councils Adopted Local Development Plan1, for preserving and enhancing biodiversity value. In addition to the two residential properties a public footpath is proposed along the north and east site boundaries to maintain a public access route once the development is complete.

This HMP is to be submitted with the planning application for the two properties. For the purposes of clarifying roles within the project, Redgate Associates are both the landowner and developer as well as the intended occupiers of one of the properties. The HMP has been written with the intention that Redgate Associates will be responsible for implementing the year management plan.

. Habitat Description and Background

The site was surveyed by Envirocentre Ltd in June 2. The Phase Habitat Survey plan, inclusive of the proposed development layout, are available in Appendix A. The site is predominantly comprised of grassland habitats, with small areas of gorse scrub present in the south east and north west of the site.

The southern, flat section of site, where the proposed development is to be placed is semi-improved grassland which contains agricultural weeds indicative of nutrient enrichment. The northern, sloped part of the site is unimproved neutral grassland. The species within the unimproved grassland habitat are representative of National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Community Crested Dog’s Tail (Cynosurus cristasus) – Common Knapweed (Centurea nigra) Mesotrophic Grassland (MG ). The unimproved neutral grassland meets the criteria for the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat Lowland Meadows3. The UKBAP species, greater butterfly-orchid is also present within the north of the site. Its distribution has been mapped in Appendix B. Due to agricultural intensification, Lowland Meadows are nationally scarce with an estimate of less than , ha left throughout Britain. Due to the lowland setting and typically dry and easily improved soils much of the habitat has been improved for agricultural purposes, either being converted to arable land or re-seeded with high productivity grasses rye-grasses for pasture.

Traditional management of Lowland Meadows include agricultural use for haymaking and/or livestock grazing4. The site has received no form of management since it came into the possession of the current landowner, however, it was previously used for grazing horses.

1 https://www.stirling.gov.uk/planning-building-the-environment/planning/development-planning/local-development-plan- / (Accessed / / ) 2 EnviroCentre Report Number: ( ) Redgate Hill, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. 3 Joint Nature Conservancy Council ( ) UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions. JNCC. Peterborough. Available online at: http://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/ c-c c - b c- ccd-a cb f /UKBAP-PriorityHabitatDescriptions-Rev- .pdf. Accessed

/ / 4 Crofts, A. and Jefferson, R.G. ( ) The Lowland Grassland Management Handbook. nd Edition. English Nature/The Wildlife Trusts.


If the habitat is left unmanaged it will become rank and will likely transition to the MG False Oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) Mesotrophic Grassland Community which is typically of lower biodiversity value. Long term abandonment of management would result in scrub encroachment and eventually succession to secondary woodland.

. Habitat Management Plan Aims

The aim of the HMP is to prescribe actions which should be taken to maintain the unimproved species rich grassland and greater butterfly orchid population at the site during construction of the residential properties and path, and manage them in the longer term to enhance the biodiversity value.

. Report Usage

The information and recommendations contained within this report have been prepared in the specific context stated above and should not be utilised in any other context without prior written permission from EnviroCentre.

If this report is to be submitted for regulatory approval more than months following the report date, it is recommended that it is referred to EnviroCentre for review to ensure that any relevant changes in data, best practice, guidance or legislation in the intervening period are integrated into an updated version of the report.

Whilst the Client has a right to use the information as appropriate, EnviroCentre Ltd retain ownership of the copyright and intellectual content of this report. Any distribution of this report should be controlled to avoid compromising the validity of the information or legal responsibilities held by both the Client and EnviroCentre Ltd (including those of third party copyright). EnviroCentre do not accept liability to any third party for the contents of this report unless written agreement is secured in advance, stating the intended use of the information.

EnviroCentre accept no liability for use of the report for purposes other than those for which it was originally provided, or where EnviroCentre have confirmed it is appropriate for the new context.


2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The following SMART5 management objectives have been selected in line with desirable attributes for Lowland Meadows6:

. There should be no overall reduction in extent of habitat within the conservation area during the period of the management plan.

. The ratio of herbs to grasses should be maintained. The average percentage cover of herbs within monitoring plots should not decrease by more than % across the period of the management plan.

. Leaf litter percentage cover within sample plots should not be more than %, when averaged across monitoring plots, for the period of the management plan.

. Percentage cover of bare ground should not exceed %, when averaged across monitoring plots, for the duration of the management plan.

. The frequency of positive indicator species for the habitat, present within monitoring plots, should be frequent or constant7 for the duration of the management plan. Positive indicator species for this habitat include, greater butterfly-orchid, yellow rattle (Rhinanthus minor), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), common knapweed, red clover (Trifolium pratensis), crested dog’s tail, sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), and common spotted-orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsia).

. At least % of the monitoring plots should contain or more positive indicator species.

. The frequency of negative indicator species for the habitat, present within monitoring plots, should be no more than rare for the duration of the management plan. Negative indicator species include common nettle (Urtica dioica), creeping or spear thistle (Cirsium arvense or vulgare), broadleaved dock (Rumex obtusifolia) and ragwort (Jacobaea vulgaris).

5 Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound 6 Joint Nature Conservancy Council ( ) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland Grassland Habitats. Available online at: http://archive.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/CSM_lowland_grassland.pdf (accessed / / ) 7 Frequency Categories: - % rare, - % occasional, - % frequent, > % constant.


3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE MANAGEMENT

The following actions should be undertaken in order to prevent damage to the lowland meadows as a result of construction:

All site personal will be made aware of the presence of lowland meadows and greater butterfly-orchids adjacent to the site and mitigation required to protect it during construction via a ‘Tool box talk’. Herras fencing will be erected around the boundary of the development area to prevent access to the conservation area. The footpath should be fenced with livestock fencing which will prevent people and animals such as dogs from entering the conservation area. Fencing should have large enough gaps to allow small mammals such as hedgehog and brown hares which may be present in the locale to enter. No vehicles or personnel are to access the conservation area to avoid poaching and soil compaction. No materials are to be stored within the conservation area to avoid soil compaction and vegetation die off. Surface water management within the development area will be designed so surface water run-off from the development area is diverted away from the conservation area. This is to avoid water polluted with silted material and/or hazardous chemicals from damaging vegetation. All fuels, oils and other hazardous chemicals should be suitably contained within a double bunded environment to prevent pollution in case of a spillage or leak. Emergency spill kits will be available in case of plant leaking oil or fuel in order to contain contaminants. The implementation of the above will be audited at key points by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW).


4 POST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

. Mowing

The site has been historically grazed, however, the landowner does not have access to livestock and so implementing an appropriate grazing regime is not practicable. In cases such as this mowing or cutting can be used to mimic the effects of grazing8. The overall goal is to remove biomass from the grassland to reduce nutrient input and shading from dead plant material and to prevent undesirable species from becoming dominant and reducing overall species diversity. The following methodology is proposed to achieve this, however, monitoring will be carried out (as detailed in section . ) to determine if the below actions are having the desired outcomes. The below may need to be revised if objectives set out in section are not being met.

One cut should take place in late summer from August – September. Cutting should not take place until the greater butterfly-orchids have set seed which will vary year on year dependant on weather conditions. Cutting can be carried out by a standard ride on or push mower or tractor pulled mower. For a ride on or push mower, strimming of the grass may be required first if the growth is too tall. No cutting should take place until any ground nesting birds have fledged (nesting season extends from March to August inclusive). The grass cuttings should be removed from the site within weeks of cutting to prevent soil improvement via reabsorption of nutrients and to avoid smothering new growth. The cuttings can either be removed at the time of mowing, by using a mower with a grass collection attachment, or raked up and removed after mowing. Low cutting heights should be avoided with a minimum grass height of cm being maintained at all times. Mowing should be avoided immediately after, or during, wet conditions to prevent machinery causing rutting and creating bare patches which could be invaded by undesirable species. Additional mowing may be required in spring before the start of May, or a second cut in autumn if growth rates are high (to be determined following monitoring and review periods). Small patches of the site should be left unmown each year (eg. a patch m wide along the length of the east site boundary year, north boundary in nd year and west boundary rd year), on rotation, to ensure that some long vegetation is retained to provide cover for small mammals, birds, invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians which may utilise the site.

. Monitoring and Review

Monitoring is essential to determine whether management objectives are being met and if management practices need to be reviewed. The monitoring methodology is designed to be a rapid assessment which can be undertaken in a day. The following methodology is designed around the Joint Nature Conservancy Council Site Condition Monitoring methodology9 and the Save Our Magnificent Meadows assessment methodology.10

Monitoring should be carried out by a person capable of identifying indicator plant species and sufficient knowledge and experience of managing grassland habitats to review management practices if objectives not met.

8 Crofts, A. and Jefferson, R.G. ( ) The Lowland Grassland Management Handbook. nd Edition. English Nature/The Wildlife Trusts. 9 Joint Nature Conservancy Council ( ) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland Grassland Habitats. Available online at: http://archive.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/CSM_lowland_grassland.pdf (accessed / / ) 10 http://www.magnificentmeadows.org.uk/assets/pdfs/How_to_design__undertake_and_analyse_rapid_assessment.pdf (accessed

/ / )


Monitoring should be carried out within the peak flowering period for indicator species. As greater butterfly-orchids are of key importance within the lowland meadows monitoring should be conducted from mid-June – mid-July to coincide with their flowering period. Baseline data collection should be carried out in June or July with further monitoring periods carried out in the second and fifth years following construction. It would be preferable if baseline data collection was prior to construction commencing, however if the construction management plan is adhered to this should not impact collection of baseline data significantly. A minimum of x m quadrats should be surveyed with quadrats placed every m along a ‘w’ walk sampling pattern, with the surveyor starting at one corner of the conservation area. The quadrat locations are not intended to be fixed year on year. Within the quadrat the following information should be recorded:

o Percentage cover of all herb species and all forb species; o Percentage cover of leaf litter; o Percentage cover of bare ground; o Presence or absence of indicator species.

The proposed monitoring form is presented in Appendix C. If the management objectives have not been met then the management actions (eg. mowing) should be reviewed. The review will take place within the month following completion of monitoring and if amendments to the HMP is required it will be re-submitted to the landowner/occupier for comment and agreement by the end of August that year so that alterations to the late summer/autumn cut can be made if needed.

. Additional Actions

No fungicides, fertiliser and herbicides should be applied within the conservation area or adjacent m buffer at any time.

A record of management including dates and actions taken should be kept to inform reviews of management if necessary.


. Management Schedule

Year

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June

July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dece

mbe

r

(pre-or during construction)

Baseline data collection

Year post-construction

Cut and remove dead material


Monitoring visit

Review management if objectives not met







Monitoring visit

Review HMP if objectives not met



APPENDICES


A PHASE 1 HABITAT MAP

Do n

ot sc

ale

this

map

Revi

sion

Draw

ing

No.

Title

Scal

eDa

te

Draw

nCh

ecke

dAp

prov

ed

Stat

us

Crai

ghal

l Bus

ines

sPa

rk, E

agle

Str

eet,

Glas

gow,

G4

9XA

Tel:

0141

341

504

0Fa

x: 0

141

341

5045

Proj

ect

Clie

nt

A31:

1,25

0

1711

12-0

02

SMC

MM

MM

07 O

ctob

er 2

019

Lege

nd

Site

Bou

ndar

y

50m

Sur

vey

Buffe

r

Hous

ing

Layo

ut

Path

Site

Top

ogra

phy

JNCC

Cod

e

A1.3

.2 M

ixed

Pla

ntat

ion

Woo

dlan

d

DA2

.2 S

catt

ered

Scr

ub

!A3

.1 B

road

leav

ed S

catt

ered

/Par

klan

d Tr

ees

B2.1

Uni

mpr

oved

Neu

tral

Gra

ssla

nd

ISB2

.2 S

emi-I

mpr

oved

Neu

tral

Gra

ssla

nd

G2

Runn

ing

Wat

er

J2.1

.2 S

peci

es P

oor I

ntac

t Hed

ge

III

J2.4

Fen

ce!

J4 B

are

Gro

und

| | |||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

|||| |

| | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | || | | | |

| | | || | | |

| | | | ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||||||||||||||||||||||

||||||||||||||||||||

||||||||||||||

||||||||||

|||||||||

||||||||

||||||||

|||||

DD

D

D D

D

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!.

Sour

ce: E

sri,

Dig

italG

lobe

, Geo

Eye,

Ear

thst

ar G

eogr

aphi

cs, C

NES

/Airb

us D

S, U

SDA,

USG

S, A

eroG

RID

, IG

N, a

nd th

eG

IS U

ser C

omm

unity

2644

00

2644

00

2645

00

2645

00

2646

00

2646

00

2647

00

2647

00

694000

694000

694100

694100

694200

694200

694300

694300

Redg

ate

Asso

ciat

es

Redg

ate

Hill

Phas

e 1

Habi

tat S

urve

y M

ap

FIN

AL

A


B ORCHID DISTRIBUTION MAP

Do n

ot sc

ale

this

map

Revi

sion

Draw

ing

No.

Title

Scal

eDa

te

Draw

nCh

ecke

dAp

prov

ed

Stat

us

Crai

ghal

l Bus

ines

sPa

rk, E

agle

Str

eet,

Glas

gow,

G4

9XA

Tel:

0141

341

504

0Fa

x: 0

141

341

5045

Proj

ect

Clie

nt

A31:

750

1711

12-0

03

JEP

SMC

MM

07 O

ctob

er 2

019

Lege

nd

Site

Bou

ndar

y

Hous

ing

Layo

ut

!(G

reat

er B

utte

rfly

Orc

hid

Loca

tions

Site

Top

ogra

phy

Path

||||||

|||||

|Fe

nce

| | || | |

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

||||

|||||

| | |

| | | || | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | | || | | | |

| | | || | | | |

| | | || | | |

| | | | || | | |

| | | || | | |

| | | | || | | | |

|| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || ||| || ||| || || | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

||||||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||

||||||||||

||||||||||

||||||||||

||||||||

||||||||

||||||||

||||||||

|||||

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

Sour

ce: E

sri,

Dig

italG

lobe

, Geo

Eye,

Ear

thst

ar G

eogr

aphi

cs, C

NES

/Airb

us D

S, U

SDA,

USG

S, A

eroG

RID

, IG

N, a

nd th

eG

IS U

ser C

omm

unity

2645

00

2645

00

2646

00

2646

00

694100

694100

694200

694200

Redg

ate

Asso

ciat

es

Redg

ate

Hill

Gre

ater

But

terf

ly O

rchi

d Di

strib

utio

n M

ap

FIN

AL

A

Redg

ate

Asso

ciate

s Oc

tobe

r

Redg

ate

Hill;

Hab

itat M

anag

emen

t Pla

n

CM

ON

ITO

RING

FO

RM

Site

: Su

rvey

or:

Date

:

Quadrat Number

Grid Reference

Percentage cover of all herb species?

Percentage cover of all forb species?

Percentage cover of leaf litter?

Percentage cover of bare ground?

Posit

ive

indi

cato

r spe

cies

Nega

tive

indi

cato

r spe

cies

Greater butterfly-orchid?

Yellow rattle

Bird’s foot trefoil

Self-heal

Common knapweed

Red clover

Crested dog’s tail

Sweet vernal grass

Common spotted-orchid

Common nettle

Creeping or spear thistle

Broad-leaved dock

Ragwort

LLANDSCAPE APPRAISAL

Maryhill, Kippen

On behalf of

201

D W A L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s L t d

Landscape Assessment Statement in relation to

Proposal to Construct Two Residential Units and Create an Area for Habitat Conservation and Management

at

Maryhill, Kippen


Contents

1. Introduction

2. Context

3. Planning and Landscape Character

4. Site Appraisal

5. Visual Impact

6. Constraints

7. Recommendations


1. Introduction

1.1 DWA Landscape Architects Ltd have been commissioned by RedgateAssociates, per Mr & Mrs Beaton, to carry out a Landscape Appraisal on the proposed development of the land at Maryhill to the south west of Kippen in Stirlingshire, as part residential site and a substantial area for habitat conservation and management. This assessment will review the potential impacts upon the landscape of the site and surrounding area from this facility and will form part of a wider information set which will review the feasibility of the proposal.

1.2 This assessment will firstly look at the location and context of the site, taking account of surrounding settlement patterns, transport networks, cultural heritage features and nature conservation designations. It will also consider any constraints set out in the current Local Development Plan, where they relate to the landscape or surrounding context.

1.3 A review of the physical conditions of the site will be carried out and any constraints identified, followed by a review of the potential visual impacts which a residential development may produce. A set of overall constraints to development will be highlighted and recommendations set out.

1.4 The assessment is intended to be an initial appraisal and therefore does not strictly follow the format of an LVIA, however, it does use the “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd Edition)” as a basis for developing this methodology.

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph taken from Google Earth Pro.


2. Context

2.1 The site sits on the south-western edge of Kippen, a small village on the southern side of the wide rift valley on the upper Forth Valley and Carselands, west of Stirling. This is formed by the sharply rising Doune Hills to the north, and Touch, Gargunnock, Fintry and Campsie Hills to the south, with the RiversForth and Teith meandering through to the north. These two rivers form two separate wide valleys within the wider carseland, meeting at Stirling to form the singular Forth River. The upper part of the River Forth runs closest to Kippen at around 2km to the north and Kippen siting on a ridge north of the Fintry Hills.

2.2 The area immediately to the north of the proposed site is known as Cauldhame and forms the western part of the Village of Kippen. There are scattered small villages within the wider valley with Gargunnock (5.5km east), Kippen and Buchlyvie (6.7km west) lying close to the route of the A811 which extends west from Stirling along the foothills on the south of the valley. Thornhill lies around 5.5km to the north of the site across the Forth Valley and the larger towns of Callander(13.7km NW), Doune (13km NE) and Stirling (13.4km E) lying further within the larger rift valley. The landscape is therefore relatively sparsely settled in terms of towns or villages but is extensively farmed and settled with small holdings, rural homesteads and small scale commercial properties usually relating to agriculture.

Figure 2 – Section of OS Landranger series map. (Used under License)


Topography

2.3 Figure 3 shows the topography of the study area over a radius of 5km from the site. The contrast between the relatively flat river valley and Carseland landscape to the north and the rising Fintry and Gargunock hills to the south. Kippen itself sits above the river valley and the line of the A811 on a ridge which rises markedly to the south of the road. This means that views of the village are generally obscured by the topography and tree cover from the A811 from immediately north of the settlement. Views of the settlement become clearerwith distance to the north but the high level of tree cover and greenery in and around the village help to integrate the settlement into the landscape. The landscape to the south of Kippen and the site is characterised by the sharplyrising hillsides with woodland and forestry on the lower slopes and a rugged unmanaged landscape on the upper slopes. Settlement to the south of the site is therefore uncommon with a few scattered dwellings on the lower slopes.

Figure 3 – Topography to 5km radius – To be included


Transport Links

2.4 The A811 runs to the north of Kippen, passing Gargunnock and Buchlyvie, along the southern side of the Forth Valley, at the foot of the Gargunnock and Fintry Hills. The B8037 and B822 roads both leave the A811 and enter Kippenfrom the West and east respectively. Rising up over the ridge to the higher sitting settlement. The B822 crosses the A811 and heads north across the Forth Valley towards Thornhill. The A873 runs approximately Parallel with the A811 through the wider rift valley between the Forth and Teith Valley and crosses the B822 at Thornhill. A number of smaller country roads cris-cross the valley to the north, however there are no rail routes through the area with only a now dismantled route lying north of the A811. There was previously a small airfield at East Poldar Farm 3km to the north but it is unclear if this is still operational.

Cultural Heritage

2.5 The excerpt above shows a map taken from Pastmap online database. This locates all the Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas (built form), Gardens and deigned Landscapes, World Heritage site and Historic Battlefields. As can be seen there are no such designations or features which apply to the proposed site or the immediately adjacent area. The closestfeature is Kippen Conservation Area which includes the area of Cauldhame north of the B822 as it heads south west of the village as Fintry Road. This forms the Cauldhame Character Area. There are no individually Listed Buildings within the Cauldhame Character Area however. There are however

Figure 4 – Excerpt from Pastmap online database. Red line show g p f pScheduled Monuments, pink Circles show Listed Buildings and p gpurple shaded hatch shows Town Centre Conservation Areas.


listed buildings elsewhere, within the Conservation Area to the north east, and some buildings at Gribloch to the south west of the village.

2.6 Within the wider landscape there are some scattered Scheduled Monuments which generally relate to earthworks associated with historic forts, mottes and duns where the structures have long disappeared. These are low visibility features in the landscape, although have a cultural and historic significance.

2.7 4.8km to the north west lies the Garden and Designed Landscape of Cardross House, on the north bank of the River Forth. This estate landscape lies in tree covered parkland and is classified as High or Outstanding in the categories of; Work of Art (High), Historical (Outstanding), Horticultural, Arboricultural, Silvicultural (High), Architectural (Outstanding), Scenic (High), Nature Conservation (High) and Archaeological (High). It’s settling is described as:

“The Cardross Estate lies off the B8034 road, north-east of Stirling, and to the south-east of the Lake of Menteith. Cardross is a heavily wooded park situated on a plateau above the River Forth, with views to the south over the Carse of Stirling and the Campsie and Kippen Hills. There is a view to the north along a vista of oak to Ben Ledi.

General Roy's Military Survey of c.1750, shows Cardross House surrounded by a square park. Cardross Castle is labelled and indicated east of the present Cardross House. An estate map of 1767 shows more detail and indicates the house in the present position, with the entrance drive from the west, a vista to the north, avenues to the south-west, very much as it is today. The offices were moved north from the site they occupied to the south-east of the house and the drive was extended through the park with another entrance to the north. The walled garden was built in the 19th century.

Comparing an estate plan of 1761 with the 1st Ed O.S. 1:2500 (25in) map of 1859, the estate has expanded on the east and western perimeters. To the west, with the building of the Cardross Bridge in 1774 over the River Forth, and to the east probably in the late 18th early 19th century with the building of the walled garden and the stableblock. The estate was further added to in the east, taking the boundary out to the Meikle Burn. The Glen is really an extension of the area of garden around the walled garden which includes ponds where the burn has been enlarged.”

2.8 Other Gardens or Designed Landscapes lie within the wider rift valley such as Rednock House, Blair Drummond and Gargunnock House, but these lie outwith the 5km study area.

2.9 There are two notable viewpoints within the Valley to the north of the site. One at Thornhill looking southwards towards Kippen across the Forth valley and one at Flanders Moss looking north, away from Kippen and the site.


Natural Heritage

2.10 The above figure 5 is taken from Scotland’s Environment online database andshows Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Areas (SPA) and National Nature Reserves (NNR) .There are no international, national or local conservation designations which affect the site or the immediate surrounding area. The closest sites lie to the north of the A811 at Shirgarton Moss and Killorn Moss, with the larger Flanders Moss to the north of these two smaller pockets. Flanders Moss covers a large area of the Forth Valley between Kippen and Thornhill and is also a National Nature Reserve which is regularly visited. These features are sufficiently far and separated from the proposed site so as to be physically unaffected by any development. Any visual impacts will be assessed in the appropriate section of this report with emphasis on Flanders Moss where the visiting public are more likely to form visual receptors.

Conclusions

2.11 There are no constraints upon the development of the site from any conservation designations, protective status or heritage features.

Figure 5 – Excerpt from Scotland’s g p fEnvironment Web Database


3. Planning and Landscape Character

3.1 The site is covered by the policies set out in the current Stirlingshire Local Development Plan 2018. Figure 6 Below shows an excerpt from the online interactive map which identified any planning policies or designations which apply to a specific landscape.

3.2 The site, although immediately adjacent, is currently ouwith the Kippen settlement boundary, and is included in the Local Landscape Areas (LLA)designation - Southern Hills (LLA5) which covers much of the landscape across the Fintry and Gargunnock Hills. LLAs are a development of the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) designation and are described in a specific set of guidelines “Supplementary Guidance SG27 Protecting Special Landscapes” and LLA5 Southern Hills, more specifically in a dedicated set of guidelines in the Appendix of the document. This document is being reviewed under the current LDP 2018 process and as such is a non-statutory document in its current status. The document states:

“In accordance with SPP (2010) the local landscape designations are now termed Local Landscape Areas (LLAs) and their purpose is to:

safeguard and enhance the character and quality of landscapes, which are important or particularly valued regionally or locally promote understanding and awareness of the distinctive character and special qualities of local landscapes

Figure 6 – Excerpt from Stirling Local Development g p f gPlan (2018) interactive Online Map


safeguard and promote important settings for outdoor recreation and tourism locally

……. The Council will consider potential impacts on the character and integrity of LLAs when it makes decisions on planning applications or comments upon land-use changes such as forestry proposals. The citations provide background information to help inform these decisions in accordance with LDP policies PP9 and Policy 9.1.For the avoidance of doubt and in addition to specific guidance included in thisSupplementary Guidance, Stirling Council requires particularly high standards of siting, design and planting for all forms of development within designated landscapes - appropriate to local context and special qualities”

3.3 The document also states that the current boundaries of the LLA follow the former AGLV boundaries. This Southern Hills LLA is described in more detail in in the appendix which effectively defines the landscape character of the area.This states:

“Location and Overview - This large LLA comprises the southern hill mass and associated valley and upland fringe landscapes that separate the Carse ofStirling from the populous Glasgow-Falkirk corridor. Although some of the landscapes are physically and visually divorced from one another they alldefined by their important contribution to the character and impact of the Southern Hills as a whole. All areas are equally important to the overall experience and appreciation of the LLA.”

3.4 Stirling Council has issued a Draft Supplementary Guidance on Biodiversity and Landscape (April 2019) which says:

“SNH and Historic Environment Scotland are updating their ‘Guidance on Local Landscape Areas’ to help planning authorities identify or review local landscape designation and maximise benefits. This will be used to determine whether there is scope to designate further LLA’s within the LDP area, or modify boundaries of established LLA’s. …………. This SG will be amended to take any such changes into account.”

3.5 This indicates that the boundaries of LLA designation are open to review although it is more likely that further designations would be made rather than a reduction. The current situation is however, that the precise nature of these designations is not yet been clarified, and is therefore not definitive in relation to the proposed site. The original SG27 describes the landscape character of the Southern Hills designation in detail but as a large geographical area there is great variation within the designation. The area closest to the proposed site is likely Kippen Muir which extends to the south west of Kippen across the rising topography and open countryside. This is described as:


“Hill Fringes - The hill fringes are transitional landscapes, generally more favourable for settlement, diverse and relativelyprosperous than theopen hills. The historic influence of old estate and policy landscapes is still evident in many areas.

Kippen Muir - Lying at the foot of the Fintry Hills, but elevated above the carse (to the north) and valley of the Endrick Water (to the south-west), the location, landform and dominance of low moorland vegetation create an open landscape with extensive views to and from the wider landscape. Crossed by the B822 and several minor roads, farm tracks and footpaths.

Key landscape and visual characteristics

Kippen Muir - Kippen Muir shares characteristics with the open hills, but activeland management is more evident and shelterbelts, field boundaries and scattered farms create a less simple landscape. Unimproved land cover types dominate, giving way to improved grazing with more trees on the slopes above the Forth Valley.

Landscape has a strong horizontal emphasis, contrasting with the dramatic slopes of the Fintry and Gargunnock Hills that loom to the south-east Occasional visual foci (small plantations, lochans and scattered farms) but outward views generally dominate - panoramas of the carse and upland landscapes beyond or of the dramatic edges of the southern hill mass. Glimpsed views of the Earlsburn wind turbines. Travelling south-west views open into the secluded Endrick Water Valley.Kippen Muir is visible from many adjacent and more distant areas - from below, at the same level and from above - resulting in a high level of visual connectivity with the wider landscape. Important foreground in views to and from the Southern Hills

Special qualities Diversity of landscape experience

Contrast between large scale, simple open hill land and smaller scale, diverse, farmed, wooded and settled hill fringes – with areas such as Kippen Muir and the Carron Valley being transitional between the two. Contrast between expansive views from hill summits and edges with enclosure and introspection within the valleys and parts of the hill fringes.Large-scale forestry management and wind energy developments have created localised areas of marked change in landscape character and experience.

Kippen Muir Sense of exposure and isolation


Elevated position, open moorland character and panoramic views with big skies convey a sense of exposure, only marginally off-set by the shelter offered from the Fintry Hills. A sense of remoteness persists, despite the relatively small extent of the muir and somewhat diminished in areas where there are views of nearby wind turbines.

Sensitivity to change

Development or changes to land management that could compromise the physical integrity and views of key skylines, distinctive hill edges and perception of their great scale and inaccessibility or important geological and landform features.Additional built structures could compromise the perception of remoteness on the open hills, Ballikinrain Muir and Kippen Muir. New infrastructure and signage along or close to roads as well as new metalled roads/tracks in open areas need as much care and consideration as new buildings. Cumulative effects can be as damaging as single larger developments, potentially reducing distinctions between areas as well as a sense of isolation. Ground disturbance on higher areas, resulting for example from cut and fill works, can take a long time to restore/recover because of the nature of the upland soils and harsh climate. Particular care needed to protect and conserve high carbon/peat soils and to avoid pollution of watercourses and reservoirs.Development tipping delicate balance of existing wind energy developments and landscape character/quality. Presence of existing wind farms have diminished some of the original qualities of the LLA - heightening sensitivity to some forms/scales of further development or man-made structures and infrastructure. In particular, potential for adverse effects on the setting and ‘fit’ of existing wind energy developments and on overall landscape character (including local distinctions), were additional wind energy developments to spread to new areas, increase the extent of skylines affected or result in visual complexity and confusion from key public viewpoints.Developments or changes to land management that compromise the sense of containment in the valleys or diminish their sense of scale and seclusion. Developments that adversely affect the role of the LLA as a backdrop to existing settlements. Large-scale or cumulative development on or close to the edges of settlements may detract from their setting and key views in (e.g. to landmark buildings) and out. New buildings out of scale or character with the existing predominantly scattered and traditional patterns of development. Very careful siting and design applies to all built development, for example power houses associated with run-of river hydro schemes as well as farm, commercial or residential developments.


Development or changes to land management adversely affecting important networks of functionally connected habitats: These have been identified at three locations: o Woodland habitats around and between Scout Head, Gillies Hill and

Lewis Hill.o Woodland and wetland habitats south and east of Loch Coulter. o Wetland habitats between Earl’s Seat and Hart Hill.

Potential for landscape enhancement

Enhance/expand key networks of functionally connected habitats described above. Encourage active management of existing broad-leaf woodland to ensure continuity.Appropriate expansion/restoration of native woodland to deliver nature conservation, landscape and public access benefits, where this can be done without compromising important open habitats, landform features, wild land character or public views. Utilize restructuring phase to secure improvements to the design and boundaries of poorly shaped and scaled private forestry plantations. Restocking after all timber harvesting should respect key landform features long concealed beneath blanket tree planting. Reinstate degraded landscape features, such as stone walls, shelterbelts and small woods - particularly on the interior hill plateaux and the Upper Carron Valley. Encourage integrated management plan to enhance existing recreational resource and develop further potential of area in a responsible way.”

3.6 The site sits at the north edge of the LLA as it bounds the Village of Kippen and as such, much of the broad description of the area and even Kippen Muir landscape, does not ring true to the enclosed field compartment. The site sits higher than the village of Kippen but does not share the open landscape or high visibility described. It does not therefore contribute in a major way to the inter-visibility of the landscape across the wide Carsland to the north or of the upper slopes of the Southern Hills to the wider panorama.

3.7 The pressures upon the landscape described are also similarly large scale and rural in nature, applying to land management and infrastructure. There is little reference to any potential settlement expansion beyond a discouragement of large scale and/or inappropriate development.

Landscape Character

3.8 SNH have recently review and consolidated information on Landscape Character Areas on a map based online database facility. This shows the site to be within the Lowland Valley Fringes (Landscape Character Type 154) and describes this as (where relevant):


“Location and Context - The Lowland Valley Fringes Landscape Character Type occurs in four areas in Central Scotland, concentrated along the Forth Valley between Lake of Menteith and Flanders Moss in the west and the Forth estuary in the east, including the Forth/Kippen Muir, Forth/Teith, Teith/Forth/Allan and Devon/Forth areas.

……. The Forth/Kippen Muir area is sited on the north-western perimeter of the low lying moorland plateau of Kippen Muir.

Key Characteristics

Low, undulating and gently rolling landform separating the Lowland River Valleys - Central. Transitional landscape between the low lying Carselands and the more open hill fringes. Often dissected by distinctive narrow river valleys. Varied landcover of enclosed arable farmland, rough grassland and lush pasture. Unified pattern of small settlements and scattered farmsteads. Field boundary patterns well-defined by trees, shelterbelts, hedgerows and small woodlands. Swathes of broadleaf woodland and coniferous forest cover integrate with the undulating landform. Crossed and encircled by a network of communication routes, often running perpendicular to the gently sloping landform. Transitional nature of the landscape provides varying views across the wide, open Carselands and river valleys, and to the lowland hills which often form a dramatic backdrop.”

3.9 The LLA Landscape Character description differs from the SNH description is perhaps more accurate in terms of the semi-rural nature of the site at the edge of the existing settlement of Kippen. No guidelines for development are offered in this description however.

Conclusions

3.10 Ultimately the classification of the landscape as an LLA, as with the AGLV before, does not prohibit potential development of the site. In fact the site is more in step with the character description of the Lowland Valley Fringes which overlaps with the LLA but is a transitional landscape relating to the carseland edge and lower foothills than the large mass of the Southern Hills. As part of the LLA, proposals will rightly be held to a greater level of scrutiny and consideration. Provided they are mindful of the issues highlighted in character assessment, and the visual impacts can be demonstrated to be acceptable and do not compromise the integrity of the LLA, both locally and in the context of the wider rift valley and carseland, there should be scope for an appropriately scaled and styled settlement expansion.


4. Site Appraisal

4.1 Figure 7 on the following page shows a survey drawing of the site which is comprised of a single field compartment. This is accessed via a field gate in the south-western corner which connects to a single-trackaccess road which runs along the western boundary to the site. This links Davidsons Leato the north which in turn connects to the B822, andprovides access to Redmarley and Mid Redgatehill to the south. The site is approximately 1.3Ha in size and has been used to graze horses in recent times.

4.2 The field boundaries are post and wire fence on all sides with a track lying beyond to the south, a Beech hedge to the north and a tree line to the western boundary between the fence and the access track. There is a large area of woodland to the east of the site which is a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantation called Redgate Hill Wood. This provides a screen in this direction.

Topography

4.3 Figure 8 shows the survey of the site with the topography highlighted in colour bands to illustrate the levels at one metre increments. This shows a high point of 123.5m at the south-eastern corner, falling to a height of 108.5m to the north west over 125m, an average gradient of 1 in 8.3 or 12%. The site is not uniformly sloped however, with the south-eastern section forming a flatter plateau. Taking the 119m contour line as a break in the topography, an area of 0.77Ha falls by just 4.5m over 100m. This would provide an area of developable space at an average gradient of 1 in 22 or 4.5%

Picture 1 : Access point at south west of site.

Picture 2 : North of site slopes down towards Davidson Lea and Maryhill Cottage.


Figure 7 – Site survey plan with topography colour banding


Figure 8 – Site Topography


Vegetation

4.4 There is little tree cover or significant vegetation upon the site beyond ground cover grass species, with the exception of an area of mixed deciduous trees on the sloped embankment at the north-west part of the site. This consists of Oak, Ash, Birch, Hawthorn and Beech. Some woody Gorse plants also exist I a small patch on the eastern side but are in poor condition. There is tree cover around the boundaries as described above but this would not be adversely impacted.

Structures

4.5 There are no notable building structures within the site. A wooden shed / stablepreviously stood near the entrance at the south-western corner but this is no longer present. A second corrugated iron shed sits near the south-east corner.

Conclusions

4.6 The topography of the north part of the site is too steep to be built on but virtually all of this will fall within the proposed area which would be maintained as a habitat conservation and management opportunity. This could be left as natural grassland or planted and enhanced in order to help fit the proposed development further into the landscape. Over half of the area is relatively flat and could accommodate development in terms of physical accessibility and being free from constraints. Development of this site would also ensure that tree cover to the north-west corner of the site is unaffected.

Proposals

4.7 The proposal would be to develop the land for 2 residential plots accessed from the south west corner via the existing access. For the purposes of assessment, a sketch layout has been prepared by Hobson Architects showing a layout of houses on the southern edge of the site where the topography is flatter. The proposals would be to design houses which would fit naturally into the landscape with features such as grass roofs and Ha-Ha walls to integrate the built forms with the existing environment as far as possible. These proposals will be used as the basis for the assessment of potential visual impacts and alsothe preparation of photo montages.

Picture 3: A small area of tree cover to fnorth west on slope near access track.

Picture 4: Scrubby Gorse.


4.8 The layout and sections shown on the previous page are indicative of the design intention whereby the dwellings would be located to the south western part of the site close of the existing access which would allow views of the lower ground to be screened by the topography. This effect could potentially be further enhanced through screen planting on the slope to the north of the site. The remaining wider area of the site would be proposed as an area for habitat conservation and management taking in the landscape of the slope to the north of the site.

4.9 The indicative house design shown above has also been prepared by Hobson Architects and used natural materials and a proposed grass roof in order to fit within the environment as much as possible and reflect the rural location. This house design and the layout shown previously will be used as the basis for visual assessment and the creation of photo montages.


5. Visual Impact

5.1 The following is a condensed visual impact appraisal based upon observations on site and in the surrounding landscape. It does not assess all potentially impacted receptors within a defined study area but is sufficient to give a reasonably accurate impression of the potential visual impacts of the development and to draw conclusions.

Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)

5.2 Figure 9 shows a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) drawing which has been prepared using Ordnance Survey topographical data and Key Terra Firma ground modelling software to show the locations where visibility is theoretically possible. The information is based on a “bare earth” model where no account has been taken of screening elements in the landscape such as woodland, trees buildings etc. It is also broad brush in resolution but is sufficient to give a reasonable impression of where visibility may be possible, and more accurately, where the topography means that it is not possible. The ZTV has been

Figure 9 – Zone of Theoretical Visibility


modelled on a height of 8m from the ground and over a radius of 5km from the proposed site. This is considered a reasonable distance for the scale of the development and the scope of this assessment.

5.3 The drawing shows that potential visibility of the site will be confined to a relatively small area within 1km, extending out to the south west and north east. The topography then screens views to the south across the Fintry and Gargunnock Hills except for the ridgelines across the top of the steepest parts of the slope. To the north the ridge north of Kippen screens views in the southern part of the Forth Valley (where the A811 passes) before becoming potentially visible across the carseland from the river northwards.

Views from the East

5.4 In reality views from the east of the site will be entirely screened by the presence of the block of tree planting at Redgate Hill Wood. Visual impact upon receptors in this direction will be negligible.

Views from the South

5.5 Views from the south will also be restricted by the topography to approximately 700m from the site. There are few receptors in this direction with the exception of Mid Redgatehill, a rural homestead which overlooks the site. This property sits on the high ground south of the site and arguably sets the precedent for development on the Hilside to the south west of Kippen in terms of visibility.There will be a medium impact upon this property but impact in this direction will generally be low to negligible.

Views from the West

5.6 Views from the west will be restricted by tree cover in the landscape between Gribloch and the site. The ZTV predicts some visibility along the route of the B822 but this will be broken up by this tree cover and views of the site will be of a low impact. This is shown in picture 7 below.

Picture 7: View from the B822 from the west. Tree cover screens the site.


Views from the North

5.7 Views to the north are predicted across areas of Kippen and in particular, the Kippen (Cauldhame) Conservation Area on the west of the village. Tree cover at Redgate Hill Wood and in the settlement generally will mean that any views from most of the village will not be possible, particularly most of the Kippen Conservation Area and village centre. Views within the Caulhame area will be restricted to properties immediately to the north such as those on Donovan Crescent and Davidsons Lea and to some degree on Old Vinery across the B822, although the tree cover will screen much of this. Picture 8a,b&c illustrate views of the site from these locations.

5.8 Cauldhame Character Area lies mainly to the north of the B822 although extends across the road into the open space on the south side of the road. It does not include the dwellings on the south of the B822, however. Impacts from the north within Cauldhame Character Area would be of a low to negligible level as the houses along the B822 screen views from the houses further north within it. Some impacts may be experienced from these roadside houses and these are illustrated in Photo Montages 1 and 2. Any impacts would potentially be mitigated by ensuring that the development is kept to the south of the site away from the steeper slopes to the north.

5.9 Visual impact will not be experienced from the western part of Kippen Conservation Area due to the tree cover on the eastern side of the site and the set back of the proposed development within the site.

5.10 Visibility will be prevented from further north beyond Kippen and Cauldhame by the topography, making views from the A911 road impossible. Visibility will once again be possible from approximately 2km away to the north although the distance, tree cover in around the site and sparsely populated nature of thelandscape around Flanders Moss will mean that impacts will generally be low(see picture 9 below). It is unlikely that any clear views will be possible from

Picture 8a: Davidson Lea Picture 8b: Donovan Crescent Picture 8c: Old Vinery


Cardross House (Garden and Designed Landscape) and any which are possible will be mitigated by the distance of around 5km.

Impacts Upon the Setting of the Southern Hills Local Landscape Area

5.11 The site is well screened from the south, east and west by tree cover and the topography. Views from the north are also limited by this tree cover to east and west and by the topography of the ridge north of Kippen. Impacts upon the setting of the hills would potentially affect more distant panoramic views from the wider Forth Valley but the scale of the site combined with the screening would mean that views would not be possible from most locations in the valley, and impacts upon the setting of the hills would be unaffected from these.

5.12 Where views would be possible, directly north of the site, these are likely to be viewed in the context of the village. The property at Redgatehill to the south of the site sits on higher ground and the listed Gribloch House to the west is a prominent feature on the hillside. The development of the site would produce very little increase in impact upon the setting of the Local Landscape Area, particularly in the context of the existing, more visually prominent, buildings already sitting above the site close by. The series of photo montages which follow are designed to illustrate the potential impacts upon the landscape, including the setting of the LLA.

Photo Montages

5.13 A series of Photo Montages have been prepared to illustrate the potential visibility of the proposeddevelopment on the site. The initial 6 locations are from the residential streets immediately to

Picture 9: The view from the car park at Flanders Moss Nature Reserve.


the south where any potential visibility will likely be limited to, namely the B822 Fintry Road, Donovan Crescent and Davidson Lea and one from the south, close to Mid Redgatehill. The locations of these are shown in the figure aboveand photo montages are shown on the following pages and described as follows.

Photo Montage 1Junction of Davidson Lea and B822 – The site would be seen sitting behind the existing housing at the top of the slope, beyond the crest of the ridge. The houses on the western side would be mostly screened by existing tree cover, however. There is potential further to mitigate impacts through landscaping of the slope to the north of the site which would help to soften any views. The proposed Ha-Ha wall rather than fencing would also remove a visual element from the foreground and would help to set the buildings within the natural landscape. The character of Kippen is one of large garden spaces, greenery and mature tree cover so the incorporation of large gardens and landscaped areas would not be out of keeping with the village and should allow the development to be part of the overall fabric of the townscape. There are two properties in the landscape beyond the site to the south which would be considered part of the settlement although technically outwith the settlement boundary and set a precedent for development in the area south of the village.This location is just within the Cauldhame Conservation Area and represents the location where the most prominent views are likely possible.

Photo Montage 2 unction of Donovan Crescent and B822 – from this location further to the west on the B822 Fintry Road the ridge line of the roofs and tree cover, to the west of the site and in the landscape around Donovan Crescent, screens views of the proposed houses. This is also just within the Conservation Area but visual impact is minimal due to screening elements in the landscape.

Photo Montage 3From the entrance to the Cul-De-Sac in Davidson Lea – From this location the eastern most house would be partially visible above the roof lines, but the eastern house would be hidden. Mitigation planting has been illustrated to soften views. This location is outwith the Conservations Area.

Photo Montage 4From the lane which links Davidson Leas and Donovan Crescent – from this location partial views of the western house are possible over the roof line of the existing houses. The eastern house is again screened. Mitigative planting is shown as an example of how views of the houses could be softened


Photo Montage 5From the foot of the slope at cottage on the access track to the site – from the foot of the slope the houses are partially screened by the topography. At this close range there will inevitably be some views of the houses but mitigative planting around the dwellings would help to reduce visual impacts.

Photo Montage 6From the access track to Mid Redgatehill – The image shows a view north from the access track to Mid Redgatehill. The two houses can be seen on the left of the image with views to the north across the valley maintained to adegree. The houses would be visible from this close range but mitigative tree along to the southern boundary of the site would provide screening, enclosure and an element of backdrop to the houses (when viewed from the north).

5.14 Three further photomontages have been included to illustrate the site within the wider context and the screening properties of the tree cover within the landscape.

Thornhill – This photo montage shows the view from the viewpoint at “The Mains” on the south side of Thornhill. This is 5.9km from the site so outwith the general study range but as a recognised “viewpoint” with panoramic views across the Forth Valley to the Southern Hills, it is an important location. As can be seen in the wireframe, at this range the small scale of the site would be a very small element in the overall landscape and is difficult to discern. The overlaid wireframe and photograph demonstrate how the site would appear within the context of Kippen and confirm that it would not impinge upon the landscape of the hills due to its low-lying location and diminutive scale compared to the mass of the southern hills backdrop. Once tree cover is considered the visual impact upon the landscape would be minimal.

Flanders Moss Visitor Car Park – Second image is taken from the Flanders Moss car park which lies on the valley floor with open views across the carseland towards Kippen. At a range of around 3.7km the location is closer to the site but the lower lying position means that the site is more hidden by tree cover and screening elements in the landscape. Again, the location of the site would be viewed within the context of Kippen, if visible through the trees.

B822 near entrance to Gribloch House – This image is taken from close to the west of Kippen on the B822 on Fintry Road. The wireframe shows the development on the site within the landscape. Clear visibility would be possible from this location in a “bare earth” scenario, however the tree cover would completely screen the site even at this close range.


Conclusions

5.15 Visual impact will be minimised to the east and west by the existing tree cover.

5.16 Impacts to the south will also be restricted but some impact will be experienced by the property at Mid Redgatehill to the immediate south of the site. Beyond this tree cover and the topography will restrict any impacts.

5.17 Visual Impacts to the north east within Cauldhame will be minimal with any experienced being restricted to a corridor extending to the direct north of the site. This will take in some properties on Donovan Crescent and Davidsons Lea but will reduce with distance to the site. These are illustrated in photo montages 1 to 6 and any impacts upon Kippen (Cauldhame) Conservation Area would be very low and restricted to the immediate vicinity of the B822. Further north and the buildings within along the B822 will screen any views to the site.There will be no impacts within the eastern Kippen Conservation Area and from Kippen village centre as a whole, due to the screen elements to the east of the site and within the wider landscape.

5.18 The ridgeline restricts views from the A911 to the north of Kippen and views would only be possible from a distance of 2km or more across the wider Forth Valley, again in a cone shaped area directly north of the site. The wider area photo montages provide illustrations of the potential views in this direction from some key locations.

5.19 There will be very little impact upon the setting of the Southern Hills Local Landscape Area as the visibility of the site would be very low in the Forth Valley to the north, particularly when tree cover is taken account of. The site would appear in the context of the lower lying village with the mass of the hillside sitting behind as a backdrop unaffected by this small-scale development. Other more visually prominent development sits higher on the hillside so there should not be an issue in extending development of an appropriate scale, which is well screened and integrated into the landscape, in this direction.


6. ConstraintsContextual Constraints

6.1 There are no constraints upon the development of part of the site from any conservation designations, protective status or heritage features.

Planning and Landscape Character Constraints

6.2 Ultimately the classification of the landscape as an LLA, as with the AGLV before, does not prohibit potential development of the site. In fact the site is more in step with the character description of the Lowland Valley Fringes which overlaps with the LLA but is a transitional landscape relating to the carseland edge and lower foothills than the large mass of the Southern Hills. As part of the LLA, proposals will rightly be held to a greater level of scrutiny and consideration. Provided they are mindful of the issues highlighted in character assessment, and the visual impacts can be demonstrated to be acceptable and do not compromise the integrity of the LLA, both locally and in the context of the wider rift valley and carseland, there should be scope for an appropriately scaled and styled settlement expansion.

Site Constraints

6.3 The topography of the north part of the site is too steep to be built on but virtually all of this will fall within the proposed area which would be maintained as a habitat conservation and management opportunity. This could be left as natural grassland or planted and enhanced in order to help fit the proposed development further into the landscape. Over half of the area is relatively flat and could accommodate development in terms of physical accessibility and being free from constraints. Development of this site would also ensure that tree cover to the north-west corner of the site is unaffected.

Constraints from Visual Impacts

6.4 Visual impact will be minimised to the east and west by the existing tree cover.

6.5 Impacts to the south will also be restricted but some limited impact will be experienced by the property at Mid Redgatehill to the immediate south of the site. Beyond this tree cover and the topography will restrict any impacts.

6.6 Visual Impacts to the north east within Cauldhame will be minimal with any experienced being restricted to a corridor extending to the direct north of the site. This will take in some properties on Donovan Crescent and Davidsons Lea but will reduce with distance to the site. These are illustrated in photo montages 1 to 6 and any impacts upon Cauldhame Character Area would be very low and restricted to the immediate vicinity of the B822. Further north and the buildings within along the B822 will screen any views to the site. There will be no impacts within the eastern Kippen Conservation Area and from Kippen village centre as a whole, due to the screen elements to the east of the site and within the wider landscape.


6.7 The ridgeline restricts views from the A911 to the north of Kippen and views would only be possible from a distance of 2km or more across the wider Forth Valley, again in a cone shaped area directly north of the site. The wider area photo montages provide illustrations of the potential views in this direction from some key locations.

6.8 There will be very little impact upon the setting of the Southern Hills Local Landscape Area as the visibility of the site would be very low in the Forth Valley to the north, particularly when tree cover is taken account of. The site would appear in the context of the lower lying village with the mass of the hillside sitting behind as a backdrop unaffected by this small-scale development. Other more visually prominent development sits higher on the hillside so there should not be an issue in extending development of an appropriate scale, which is well screened and integrated into the landscape, in this direction.

7. Recommendations7.1 Development would be restricted to the south and west of the site close to the

existing entrance point and where tree cover on the western boundary helps to provide some screening. The slope at the north and west of the development site will form part of the proposed area for habitat management and conservation, provided is undeveloped.

7.2 Additional tree planting with Heavy Standard tree or larger should be included on the southern boundary and in locations to the east and west of the houses to help to set the dwellings within the landscape.

Designing for the present whilst protecting the future

AROS HOUSE, 121 CADZOW STREET HAMILTON ML3 6JA

Te l : 01698 200035 Fax : 01698 200036

w w w . d w a l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t s . c o . u k

Redgate Associates

Proposed Residential Development

Maryhill, Cauldhame, Kippen

Statement on Roads & Traffic Issues

McIlhagger Associates

Tel:- 01355 224888

E-mail:- [email protected]

September 2019

Proposed Housing Development, Cauldhame, Kippen – Statement on Roads & Traffic Issues – September 2019

Page 2

Section 1 - Introduction 1.1 Redgate Associates propose to build two residential units on land adjacent

and south of Maryhill Cottage, Cauldhame, Kippen.

1.2 McIlhagger Associates were appointed to report on roads and traffic issues associated with the proposed development.


Page 3

Section 2 – Existing Situation/Proposed Development 2.1 The proposed development lies to the south and west of Kippen, as shown in

Figure 2.1, below. The blue area shows the entire site and the red area the proposed location of the two houses.

Ordnance Survey © Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. Licence Number 100005505

Figure 2.1 – Site Location (Not to Scale)

2.2 There is an existing public road off Fintry Road which becomes a single track private road at Maryhill Cottage.

2.3 There is a footway on the east side of the public road but no footway on the private road.

2.4 There is street lighting on the public road but not on the private road.

2.5 The private road leads to two houses (Mid Redgatehill and Redmarley) and is considered as a Core Path, heading south and then to the east.


Page 4

2.6 Figure 2.2 below shows the proposed site layout, prepared by Hobson Architects. It is reproduced here for quick reference purposes only. For any details, reference should be made to the originals of the drawings.

Figure 2.2 – Proposed Site Layout

2.7 The proposed development consists of 2 new residential units, accessed off

the private road at the end of the access to Maryhill Cottage.

2.8 Also proposed is a footpath through the site, following the north and east site boundaries. Accidents

2.9 The Crashmap website www.crashmap.co.uk displays publicly available details of reported road traffic accidents.

2.10 Figure 2.3 shows the approximate locations of just one recorded accidents over the latest available five years (2014 to 2018. This was on Fintry Road some distance to the southwest of the site. None were recorded at or near to the site access with Fintry Road.


Page 5

Figure 2.3 – Screen-grab from Crashmap Website Private Transport

2.11 As there is not a good level of public transport service in Kippen, it is likely that there could be use of private car transport, either for complete trips or in order to get to bus / rail facilities.

2.12 From the computer program Microsoft AutoRoute, 10 and 20 minute off-peak drive time isochrones are shown in Figure 2.4 below.

Figure 2.4 – 10 and 20 minute Off-peak Drive Time Isochrones

2.13 These show that within 20 minutes (off-peak), a car could reach Stirling.


Page 6

Trip Generation 2.14 The TRICS Database is a national system of trip generation analysis,

containing over 7,000 directional transport surveys at 110 types of development. Its annual collection programme covers the UK and Ireland.

2.15 Trip generation rates from TRICS Land Use 03 – Residential, Category A – Houses Privately Owned are shown in Table 3.4 below. The full TRICS output is contained in Appendix 1.

Peak Arrival Trip Rate/House

Peak Departure Trip Rate/House

AM

0.156 0.401

PM

0.361 0.213

Table 3.4 – Trip Generation

2.16 Hence, for two houses, there could be one traffic movement during each peak hour.

2.17 The 12-hour TRICS trip rate is some 2.5 movements per house in each direction. Thus, with two houses, there might be expected to be a total of 10 vehicle movements over the 12-hour period.

2.18 During discussions on previous applications (for a greater number of houses), Stirling Council had expressed their concern about vehicles meeting on the single track road. As can readily be seen from the trip generation figures of five movements in each direction over a 12-hour period, it is very unlikely that vehicles would ever meet.

2.19 The Council had also expressed concerns about the safety of pedestrians on the Core Path. The proposed footpath along the north and east boundaries, connecting to the Core Path at the southeast corner of the site addresses completely these concerns as it would take pedestrians off the existing single track road.

2.20 Hence, it is concluded that two houses, as proposed, could be safely accessed off the single track road.

© McIlhagger Associates 2019

Copyright of this Report is retained by McIlhagger Associates

No part of this Report should be copied, or published on any website, without the prior written agreement of McIlhagger Associates


Page 7

Appendix 1

Trip Generation Information

*

Peter McKechnie Stirling Council Planning Teith House, Kerse Road Stirling, FK7 7QA

Environment and Place Stirling Council Roads and Land Kerse Road

Stirling FK7 7SZ

Senior Manager: Bruce Reekie

Tel: 01786 404040 Email: [email protected]

Ref: 19/00843/FUL Your Ref: 459

Date: 29 November 2019

Dear Peter McKechnie

Planning Consultation Response 19/00843/FUL, Land Adjacent And South Of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen

Thank you for the consultation. The site lies out-with the functional flood plain. It is however in my knowledge that there are historical flooding issues relating to the watercourse. Adjacent properties do not have the capacity to cope with a significant increase in flows. I have previously visited properties and can confirm this. A more detailed drainage design is required along with storage and flow calculations to provide evidence that flows will not be significantly increased. I therefore recommend an objection to the application at this stage.

This information is based on the accuracy and completeness of information supplied by the applicant or those working on their behalf. SEPA have a role to play as statutory consultee.

Yours sincerely

Ruth Thompson Assistant Flood Officer

Item 7b

Peter McKechnie Planning Officer Planning Services Stirling Council Teith House Kerse Road Stirling FK7 7QA

Infrastructure Stirling Council Teith House, Kerse Road, Stirling FK7 7QA

Senior Manager: Brian Roberts

Tel: 0845 277 7000 Email: [email protected]

Ref: DC/S/19/0843/ROPLAN-NP

Your Ref: 19/00843/FUL-PM Date: 27 November 2019

Dear Sir Erection of 2 new dwelling houses with creation of habitat conservation and management area Land adjacent and south of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame Mr Alan Beaton I refer to your consultation received on 14 November 2019 regarding the above planning application and would offer the following comments. The application proposes the erection of two dwellings on land adjacent and south of Maryhill Cottage, Kippen. The site falls outwith the Kippen village boundary, as defined in the Stirling Local Development Plan (2014). Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is proposed via Redgate Hill which forms part of the adopted road network, and thereafter via a private access track, which also doubles a core path 9078Kp/13. The core path/access track, as is currently available, is too narrow for two-way traffic and there are no passing places provided, with the running width being no more than about 3 metres. Forward visibility is severely restricted and given the land under the applicant ownership there appears to be limited opportunity for improvements over the initial section of private track. Given this the potential interaction between increased vehicle movements, and users of the core path, will need to be carefully considered. I understand these issues were raised when the site was put forward for consideration for inclusion in the Local Development Plan. As part of the planning submission the applicant has submitted a Roads and Traffic Statement (prepared by McIlhagger Associates (September 2019)) within which the anticipated vehicular and pedestrian impact of the development are considered. In order to mitigate the potential pedestrian and vehicle conflict it is proposed to provide a gravel path which runs along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, which connects to the core path at either end, thus potentially removing pedestrian movements from this section of existing core path (although it is questionable how suitable a gravel track would be for all users of the core path). What the report fails to consider however is the initial section of core path/access track which will remain unchanged as part of the proposals, and where our concerns regarding pedestrian and vehicle conflict remain. As the land required to improve this section of core path falls outwith the applicant’s control, there appears to be no opportunity to improve the existing arrangement. Given this I can confirm the Transport Development Team does not favour this development, and would recommend that planning permission be refused, in the interests of pedestrian and road safety.

Yours faithfully Neil Pirie Senior Development Control Officer Transport Development

Moorgait, Kippen, STIRLING. FK8 3HS. 22nd. November, 2019. Planning & Building Standards Service Manager Planning Services Stirling Council Teith House Kerse Road Stirling FK7 7QA Dear Mr. McKechnie, Planning Application 19/00843/FUL – Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen It has been brought to my attention that a third application for the construction of houses has been made as noted above without any robust attempt to address the reasons for refusal at the previous attempt made only 10 months ago in January, 2019. I would hope that this application will receive a fate similar to that decided on that date. I have read the letters submitted by Mr, John Walsh where he sets out in fine detail the reasons for that refusal and would concur with his comments in all 7 Concerns and Objections and his 6 bullet points outlining his conclusions as to why Planning application 19/00843/FUL should not be granted approval. As a long term resident of Kippen ( October, 1979 – present ), dog walker and former horse owner, I am particularly concerned about the increase of traffic on the unadopted road leading up past Maryhill Cottage towards Redmarley and Mid Redgatehill. This section is narrow, with no sensible option for widening and any increased traffic as envisaged with this development, not only during the development phase, but for the foreseeable future, will endanger walkers, riders, etc. to this most important link in the paths network around Kippen. It is this access to safe, traffic free paths that contribute much to the ambiance of the village allowing persons with a wide range of abilities to exercise safely around this network gaining the undoubted benefit from such activity.

Maps showing these pathways are available around the village for the use of visitors as well as residents in local shops and commercial premises. This increases the attractiveness of the village in the wider community as is shown by the frequent attendance of walking and rambling groups to the area throughout the year. I would ask you to add my objection to this proposal and look forward to the discussions to be held at the Reading Rooms on 10th. December, 2019. Yours sincerely, Dr. Paul A. Anderson. B Sc., Ph.D.

This site is also located in the Local Landscape Area whose purpose is to safeguard and enhance the character and quality of landscapes, promote understanding and awareness of the distinctive character and special qualities of local landscapes, and safeguard and promote important settings for outdoor recreation and tourism locally.

Comments for Planning Application 19/00843/FUL

Application SummaryApplication Number: 19/00843/FULAddress: Land Adjacent And South Of Maryhill Cottage Redgate Hill Cauldhame KippenProposal: Erection of 2 new dwelling houses with creation of habitat conservation andmanagement areaCase Officer: Peter McKechnie

Customer DetailsName: Mrs Catriona DennyAddress: 5 Davidson Lea, Cauldhame, Kippen FK8 3HH

Comment DetailsCommenter Type: Member of PublicStance: Customer objects to the Planning ApplicationComment Reasons:Comment:We wish to note our objection to the above planning application principally on thefollowing grounds:

Contrary to the Local Development Plan:

The site is not within the Local Development Plan that was adopted in May of last year. On whatgrounds should a development of this nature, that brings no benefit to the local community, beapproved?

Access:

Our home is very close to the start of the track that leads to the proposed site. This track is toonarrow for two way traffic and has blind bends on it. It is not uncommon for a vehicle to have toreverse to make way for someone travelling in the opposite direction. There are currently twohouses served by the track and the addition of further houses would increase the level of traffic.The access track is most definitely not suitable for a significant additional level of traffic. In additionto the extra cars that would require access there would also be service vehicles such as the postvan, refuse vehicles, fuel deliveries etc. In addition to the unsuitability of the access track there isthe issue of the narrow access point as traffic enters and leaves Fintry Road. This access is singlevehicle only and not suitable for the increased level of traffic that would arise. The number ofvehicle movements in the application seems unrealistically low at 10 vehicle movements over 12hours. The access track is used daily by walkers, including ourselves, and is a valuable villageamenity. There is no available space to provide a pavement or a separate footpath that wouldallow safe pedestrian access to the proposed new public path around the site.

Environment

This area is open countryside and home to a diverse range of wildlife, including red squirrels andrare plants and should be left this way.

Catriona and Alistair Denny



Customer DetailsName: Mrs Margaret DiamondAddress: Duncairn, Fore Road, Kippen FK8 3DT

Comment DetailsCommenter Type: Member of PublicStance: Customer objects to the Planning ApplicationComment Reasons:Comment:I regularly use the single track lane from Maryhill Cottage to Redmarley - on foot(dogwalking), by car and by pony and carriage - all these activities would be dangerous and in thecase of use by car and by pony and carriage ( a pony and carriage could not reverse to allowtraffic to pass ) impossible should even one house be allowed on the adjacent field - there are nopassing places and passing places could not be createdThere is some fantasy about an increase in traffic of one car only at peak times - an unsupportableclaim.The site is not within the Stirling Local Development Plan area



Customer DetailsName: Mrs Joyce DraffanAddress: Burnbank, Fintry Road, Kippen FK8 3HL

Comment DetailsCommenter Type: NeighbourStance: Customer objects to the Planning ApplicationComment Reasons:Comment:My objection to this planning application is1) The lane to this proposed site is too narrow for heavy traffic associated with a build of this typeand will cause considerable disruption to adjoining properties.2) Properties of this size on average would have at least 2 cars especially in a country village,causing more congestion.3) The speeding traffic on the the Fintry Rd on the way in and out of the village has increasedsubstantially in the last few years. There is no calming device at this part of the village! Anaccident waiting to happen!4) This proposed site does not as far as I am aware fall within the recently published StirlingDevelopment Plan area.

From:Brian JohnstonSent:Sun, 1 Dec 2019 22:02:57 +0000To:planningSubject:Planning Application 19/00843/FUL – Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen - FAO Peter McKechnie

Dear Peter

Planning Application 19/00843/FUL – Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen I write to register my objection to the above planning application.

I live at 1 Davidson Lea, Kippen; approx 200m from the proposed development site and have lived at this location since 1993. I’m therefore very familiar with the proposed development site and the facilities which surround it.

I note that a range of objections have already been raised, all of which have merit, and do not wish to repeat those here. Rather I’ve summarised the key points of my own objection below:

1.Increased traffic / poor access / safety implications for other residents

The development provides no passing places for cars passing Maryhill cottage where the 60-70m stretch of lane is very narrow. This is a highly popular public foot path in the village which I and many others use for exercise, dog walking, horse riding and so on. Large numbers of families with children use this public footpath. The increased levels of traffic would hinder the use of this public footpath by fellow residents and make the narrow stretch past Maryhill cottage more dangerous through increased traffic volumes.

In addition, access to the site from the main Kippen to Fintry Road (the B822) is wide enough for only one vehicle. This is likely to become a pinch-point for traffic as volumes of traffic increase. Were any development to proceed I believe access from the B822 would need to be widened to provide for two full lanes.

2. Thin edge of the wedge / lack of alignment with Local Development Plan

The developer previously applied for 5 houses on this site and has since reduced this to two in this most recent application. Studying the plans, it appears that, should the developer be successful with this application, further applications would be submitted to further develop the site. Should the Council approve an application that is outwith the Local Development Plan it would set a precedence for further development, not only by the developer of this proposal, but by owners of land adjacent to this site. It would be inappropriate of the Council, and clearly outwith policy, to approve such a proposal.

3. 3rd application - limitations must apply

As others have stated, this is the 3rd application in approx 3 years to develop this site. Whilst I have not identified any statutory limitations on the number of applications that can be submitted, it cannot be fair to residents of neighbouring properties and wider local residents to continually be subject to a stream of such applications which fail to address the limitations of previous applications. Surely the Council has a duty of care to residents to place a time limit on further applications or to at least ensure that any subsequent applications clearly address the failures of previous applications. This application evidently does not achieve this.

Yours sincerelyBrian Johnston

BSc 1st class Hons, Computer Science

Walter K. A Macdiarmid.

Dear Sir, Re: Planning Application 19/00843/FULL Residential development at land adjacent and south of Maryhill Cottage. Redgate Hill. Cauldhame Kippen In 2 years, it is the third time that an application is lodged for a change of use of this site from agricultural field to residential. The first application was withdrawn when it became obvious that it would be refused. A second application “in principle” was fully processed last year. It led to a refusal backed by genuine reasons notably regarding drainage, inadequate access road, environmental impact and negative consequences to the Cauldhame area in term of placemaking and amenity. Moreover this proposal does not comply with the Local Development Plan for Kippen. This third planning application only demonstrates that nothing has changed: the reasons previously mentioned against building houses on this field are still applicable. Local Development Plan The site is not included within the village boundaries where housing is permitted. Location Maryhill Hill field is not the continuation of Cauldhame. Caulhame residential developments are at a lower altitude than Maryhill Field. The houses are neatly tucked in discreet cul-de-sacs. By contrast, this application puts 2 houses on top of a hill. Accessibility

1. The private access lane is too narrow to support additional traffic without affecting the safety of existing users. Widening the lane or adding passing places is not a solution due to the topography of the area and the existence of burns on both sides of this single track.

2. Although a new pedestrian path is proposed, it would be very steep and not helpful for those needing access to Redgathill or to the gate of the field lying south of Burnbank, Springburn and Woodend Cottage. Horses are often grazing on that field and this requires access from the private lane.

3. The lane is unsuitable for the heavy traffic required for the construction of these houses.

4. The number of cars per 4/5 bedroom houses is likely to be at least 2 per dwelling. This type of house would be suitable for a family with 2 or 3 children. There will be the commuting to work or trips to clients for the adults. Additional traffic will be generated by friends of the family, journeys to school/ nursery classes, after school activities and clubs. There will be deliveries from online shopping, visits from maintenance trades, etc. This can easily generate 10 to 16 uses of the lane per house per day. All this traffic must negotiate a twisting single lane with poor visibility, no passing place and a sharp right angle just after Davidson Lea. In these circumstances, vehicles meeting half way will have to reverse and this may not be easy.

5. The lane would become unsafe for pedestrians. Drainage The area has a history of flooding. The addition of 2 houses with patio and drive will introduce hard surfaces which do not absorb rainwater. Moreover the addition of treated water from showers, toilets, washing machines, car cleaning, etc will increase the volume of water in the existing drainage system which is already unable to cope at certain times of the year. Even with the best SUDS and water tanks, these houses will increase the amount of water in the substandard existing system. Ecological value of the site The proposal recognises the importance of the ecosystem of the field by proposing a maintenance plan but has (surprisingly) no issue with destroying 35% of the site with the construction of two houses. It is not clear who will ensure that the maintenance plan is implemented. During the construction, there is a possibility that polluting substances used to build the houses are washed down either with a hose or accidentally during heavy rain. This could gradually pollute the slope (where the land should be protected according to the proposal). Rain runs down the slopes as a general rule and during recent years very heavy rainfalls occur more frequently. Once the work on site is finished, other products such as soap, moss and weed killers could also find their way down. Urban design and Placemaking It is difficult to see how this development enhances the character of Cauldhame. The proposed houses are of a different style from Cauldhame. The massing of the buildings, the materials and colours of the elevations are not related to the dominant architecture of the area.

The houses along Fintry Road are the dominant style of architecture: these houses determine the character of Cauldhame. Those at Davidson Lea, the Old Vinery and Denovan Crescent are different but they are only seen if people walk into these cul-de-sacs. They are discreetly tucked in pockets of land. By contrast, the proposed houses will be seen. The location at the top of the site provides great views towards the north but it also means that they will be seen. The whole point of building houses there is presumably to take advantage of the view. The ground is relatively flat there because it has reached the level of the upper strata made of fields. The houses will alter the appearance of the top of the village. They will also affect the privacy of some of the houses below. To recap: there are two strata: the lower one, Cauldhame where housing has grown along Fintry Road, or in cul-de-sac at Denovan Crescent, The Old Vinery and Davidson Lea.

Maryhill field is above Cauldhame in altitude. The field is part of an upper area made of fields and woods. Its character is completely different from the residential area below. In plan, Maryhill field can appear as an extension of Cauldhame but it is not. The residential proposed development at Maryhill Field would not enhance the character of the village and it would not improve the area. For the above reasons, I am against this proposal. Kind regards Liliane McGeoch Springburn, Fintry Road, Cauldhame, Kippen FK8 3HL

From:Jim mcGhieSent:Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:23:32 +0000To:planningSubject:Planning Application 19/00843/FUL

Address: Land adjacent and south of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, KippenProposal: Erection of 2 new dwelling housesCase Officer: Peter McKechnie

Customer Details:Name: Mrs Marjory McGhieAddress: Lynnburn, Fintry Road, Kippen

I object to the above Planning Application for the following reasons:

The proposed development does not appear within the boundaries of the Local Development Plan.

The erection of even one building would be harmful to the rural character of this area and may result in bio diversity impacts with plants and wildlife adversely affected.

The access track is totally unsuitable for increased traffic especially construction vehicles. This is also the only remaining safe footpath out of the village and into the countryside away from speeding traffic and is used by dog walkers, people with young children, children on their own, ramblers, horse riders and many others. On completion of the houses there would be increased traffic due to the residents going to and from the local amenities and work, visitors’ cars and delivery vans which would in turn result in more traffic on Fintry Road and the village in general.

Another major concern is the drainage and the risk of potential flooding downstream of the site due to the burn and its culverts especially now that we are frequently experiencing long periods of heavy rainfall.

I have always assumed that this area is identified as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)(if it is not it should be) and outwith the village as defined by the Countryside Policy Boundary and therefore speculative application to develop the site would be in conflict with these policies which seek to prevent any encroachment into the countryside.

Please acknowledge receipt of this objection.

Regards,Marjory S McGhie

Sent from my iPad

Name: Mr Thomas Smith Muir Page 1 Address: Mid Redgatehill, Cauldhame, Kippen FK8 3HS Reference: 19/00843/FUL/ Erection of 2 new dwelling houses with creation of habitat conservation and management area/ Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage Redgate Hill Cauldhame, Kippen Thank you for the notification letter dated 13 November 2019, received by me on 16 November 2019. Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: The proposed route to access the development of land adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgatehill, Cauldhame, Kippen. I am one of the neighbouring property owners with 35 years experience of using the full access route to approach my own property. The access route leads off the Fintry Road and is immediately met with a single vehicle width section over the bridge crossing, which on its own can be hazardous and is prone to flooding. Adjacent to the bridge crossing is Burnside Cottage which at times has had to necessitate the use of sandbags to help stop the overflow of water entering their home. The route would continue past Maryhill Cottage. Now this stretch lies between 2 dangerous blind bends. It would appear most unlikely that a vehicle passing place could be established within this extremely narrow lane section. Due to its already substantial traffic use, it is not uncommon for vehicles having to reverse back without clear vision around those blind bends owing to an oncoming vehicle. Regarding traffic use at present on the access route. It serves horse owners vehicles, including horseboxes/trailers. Farm machinery, bin lorries, home oil/gas delivery tankers, large delivery vans and trucks, postal service vans and with the addition of the ever-increasing popularity of supermarket delivery vehicles. In addition, the access lane attracts many walkers including the elderly, children and cyclists, owing to its most pleasant surroundings. The fact Kippen has no natural gas supply, oil and gas delivery tankers would be much more frequent. At present the precarious lane section adjacent to both Maryhill Cottage and Woodlane Cottage becomes totally blocked off to traffic for a considerable time. It is an unavoidable situation but necessary when the domestic fuel tankers are supplying their load to neighbouring households. Overall, it is felt the width of the lane is unsuitable to serve any additional traffic that would be generated with Redgate Associates proposal and it would have a serious impact on road safety.

Application number: 19/00843/FUL Page 2 Proposed Soakaway Drainage- Within the Development Field - on 01 Location Plan I am most concerned, that the proposed Soakaway Drain would only go a little way as a possible shot term solution to try and solve a drainage problem, in this extremely wet part of the field. Regardless of construction, Soakaway Drains, can become problematic sooner or later and prone to clog up due to sediment debris. Initially, after a below ground inspection and if conditions are suitable, this type of drainage system, if installed, would require continuous inspection and rigorous maintenance, to ensure its intended function. In respect of the ground levels and the close proximity to my property, water could still eventually emerge from the Soakaway and add yet more surface water both over and onto my driveway and the access lane. Inevitably it would continue itself down the entire length of the access lane. The present drainage system around the entire access lane is inadequate to cope with this and cannot be upgraded. Proposed Footpath at Top Easterly location within the Development Field – on 01 Location Plan Regarding the proposed footpath within the Development Field - applicant Redgate Associates. Positively, no permission has been given by the adjoining landowner Mr T.S. Muir of Mid Redgatehill to dismantle and remove the some 5 ft high boundary fence and sandstone wall line, dividing Redgate Associates Development Field and Mid Redgatehill property. Or again, no permission has been given to proceed to excavate and construct a path across a section of Mid Redgatehill property, with Redgate Associates vision of linking up with the existing core path. Yours faithfully, Mr T.S. Muir



Customer DetailsName: Mr David MunroAddress: Cardowan, 5 Denovan Crescent, Cauldhame, Kippen FK8 3HJ

Comment DetailsCommenter Type: NeighbourStance: Customer objects to the Planning ApplicationComment Reasons:Comment:Thank you for the information regarding this planning application.

As far as I know, this greenfield site is not part of the Stirling Council Development Plan area. Itwould therefore seem inappropriate to start to build on this site.

Although the development is described as small scale, it seems to me that the two dwellinghouses are anything but small scale. They seem to be very large and tall and not in keeping withthe surrounding properties.

The houses seem to be particularly tall, especially the one that is effectively three stories. Thephotos show that these clearly breach the line of the hill and tree line from the surrounding streets.Even a single story development is likely to have a negative impact on the natural environment.

As the winter sun is relatively low, I am anxious that the proposed height of this multi-storydevelopment may block the winter sun from reaching the windows to the rear of my property andgarden area, which is a health concern.

The flow of water from this site already seems significant in my experience. Transforming parts ofa grassed field into hard standing for houses, parking etc is likely to add to this flow. As I livedirectly downhill from this proposed development, the potential from flooding is a real concern,especially given the changing climate we are experiencing these days.

Having lived in Kippen for nearly 20 years, it seems to me that the estimate of vehicularmovements over a 12 hour period are significantly low (given the typical level of car ownership,

access to local amenities, travel beyond the village, deliveries and collections).

Any proposal to increase levels of vehicular transport along a very narrow and extended section ofsingle track (especially at the bottleneck between Maryhill Cottage and numbers 4 and 5 DenovanCrescent is likely to increase the risk to the many walkers, dog walkers, cyclists and horse ridersthat frequently use this shared route (with no real safety refuge). Importantly, many of the users ofthe narrow track are young children. A visit to the site will show this clearly as none of the photosshow the narrowness and the potential risks involved.

It seems to me that some of the photos used in the supporting statement document (e.g. views 4and 6 on page 15) do not correspond to the map on page 14. Therefore, these photos do notseem to give an accurate representation.

This is an area that features a rich variety of precious Scottish wildlife. It is difficult for me toimagine how building two houses on this site would preserve or improve that situation.



Customer DetailsName: Mr Hans SchuttenAddress: Burnside Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen FK8 3HL

Comment DetailsCommenter Type: NeighbourStance: Customer objects to the Planning ApplicationComment Reasons:Comment:I am a neighbour to the proposed development as that i live on the corner between redgate hill and Fintry Road, where all traffic and construction traffic will have to pass over a singletrack burn crossing.

This is the 3rd version of a development application and as before I object to the development on4 grounds:1. The drainage plan by Goodson Associates, August 2019 is factually incorrect and does notrecognise that the development site already has flooding issues which have resulted in out of bankflows during several occasions since i have lived here (11 years). These are described in detail inthe submission fo other objectors to the current and previous planning applications. In short athigh rainfall event the burn already is at full capacity and the inevitable additional runoff will onlyincrease this causing downstream flooding. The report also fails to mention the continuous highgroundwater tables and local springs which likely will be met during construction and result inincrease discharge into the burn. Being so close to foul drainage of other properties on Redgatehill, at the north-east corner of the proposed development and Davidson lea dwellings which areconnected to mains sewerage i find it hard to understand why the proposed properties cannot beconnected to the sewage network, but increase the loading and risk to a burn that goes throughthe village of kippen.2. The habitat management plan by Envirocentre (October 2019) shows that the Butterfly Orchidoccurs through 2/3 of the site. The pan clearly describes that any development should notencroach on this footprint and long term management that reduces nutrient input is essential toprotect the orchid population and nutrient poor grassland. The proposed development with onsitesewerage treatment and rainfall infiltration will inevitable increase the nutrient input to the areawith the Butterly Orchid and thus damage the valuable habitat. The continuous management of the

rite to remove litter and thus build up of nutrient is essential long term and this is not secured in theproposed development.3. The proposed development is outside the boundary of the village of Kippen and contravenesthe 2018 Local development plan for Stirling - Kippen. The location (at the top of the slope) andthe design (2 to 3 story dwellings) will have a significant visual impact on the area and thiscontravenes the aims of the local development plan.4. Traffic access: the site can only be accessed by a narrow, steep and single track. The track ispart of the Kippen path network and a significant number of residents of Kippen us this every daythroughout the day for example to walk their dog, go for a run or ride their horse. The trafficassociated with the construction and vehicular use by the residents afterwards will have asignificant detrimental impact on these uses.

So in short, I object to the proposals on 4 material planing issues: flooding / water managementissues, biodiversity issues, traffic issues and because it contravenes the Stirling/Kippen localdevelopment plan.



Customer DetailsName: Dr Ruth WatkinsAddress: Flagstones, 1 Denovan Crescent, Cauldhame, Kippen FK8 3HJ

Comment DetailsCommenter Type: NeighbourStance: Customer objects to the Planning ApplicationComment Reasons:Comment:I am disappointed to see another application for this site, within a relatively short periodof time. I have commented on previous applications and many of my original objections are stillvalid.

1 - Inadequate access to the building site - The access road/lane to the proposed building site isinadequate for the site location. All vehicles will have to pass along Redgate Hill, which is minor,single-track, residential road before a relatively sharp turn into the proposed access road. I haveconcerns about traffic both during the proposed building phases and also after the properties arecomplete. The road is unsuitable for additional traffic due to its width and lines of sight. To changethis would require significant engineering works and damage to trees either side of the lane.

2 - The road/lane is currently used by both local people and visitors (for running, walking, cyclingand horse riding). It can be linked into a network of paths around the back of Kippen and into thelocal woods. It is the only relatively traffic-free option for walking at the western end of the villageand it forms an immediate and strong connection between people who live at this end of thevillage with the countryside. Currently the lane is safe enough to allow children to use it withoutadult supervision. To allow this to be used as an access road would increase the volume of traffic,reduce the traffic free options for walking at this end of the village and severely comprise safetyalong this road/lane.

3 - I also have concerns about additional traffic at the junction between Redgate Hill and the mainroad (B822). Since the change in bus route for the Kippen children of Balfron High School, themain stop for the top end of the village is exactly opposite the junction between Redgate Hill andthe B822. Additional traffic using this junction in the morning and late afternoon, will be an added

hazard for school children getting on and off the bus, and crossing the road in order to use theonly pavement.

4 - The 2018 Local development plan for Stirling (Kippen) does not include this site. To accept aplanning proposal outside of the village boundaries would indicate that building on the edges ofthe village, in an area of ecological interest, is acceptable and would set an unwanted precedent. Itis more vital than ever, that wherever possible, we protect green corridors and spaces.

5 - Building multi-storey houses at the top of the slope would interrupt the views from the borderingpublic footpath and would also be visually intrusive from within the village. Having housesalongside the public path on the southern boundary would totally alter the whole feel of this area,changing it from a quiet rural location, to one which is inhabited.

From:john wilsonSent:Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:22:22 +0000To:planning;mike Bastock;John WalshSubject:Planning application Ref 19/00843/ful

FAO Mr Peter McKechnie . Case Officer.

Dear Sir.

I have recently been informed, of a third planning application submitted to yourselves,the proposal being ,to construct 2 houses ,on land ,adjacent to Maryhill cottage ,Cauldhame Kippen.

I feel I must strongly object, to any granting of this application, the reasons being as follows-

1 The proposed access to this development is to be by the existing lane ,that my garden fence borders for the first 40-50 yards ,at the entrance to the lane.

I am told that the applicants paperwork ,continually refers to the lane , as a road!----this is definitely not the case. The lane is just over 2 Metres wide, and approximately 200+ metres long ,and to my mind is totally

Unsuitable, for the use of any type of heavy lorry.

2 The lane is frequently used by dogwalkers and tourists alike ,and over its whole length , it does not have the width, or capacity, to allow 2 cars to pass each other.

Their is also no sidewalk or pavement for pedestrians to use.

In my opinion,the planning officers involved in this exercise, should visit the area, to determine for themselves, the unsuitability of this exercise.

Yours Faithfully

John Wilson

3 Denovan Crecent

Kippen FK8 3 HJ

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Item 7c

Representation for Local Review Body

Erection of 2 New Dwelling Houses with Creation of Habitat Conservation and Management Area at Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame Kippen

Application No: 19/00843/FUL

We are surprised that this application for review has progressed to this point.

Reasons for Review

The application form states:

“You must state in full, why you are seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents section: * (Max 500 characters)…

… You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances.”

The applicant’s agents have amended the Statement in Support from the previous application, adding a total of approximately 5,700 characters at pages 3-8. The stated ‘reasons for seeking a review’ are set out on pages 27 – 30 and comprise a total of approximately 5,300 additional characters.

It is difficult to see how the ‘new matters’ raised on pages 3-8, including the attendance of the applicant’s children at the local primary school or the provision of teas and pancakes in their garden, were not known of or could not be raised prior to the 2019 application. Or indeed, are in any way germane to an attempt to overturn a diligent, careful decision made by Stirling Council, anchored in the Local Development Plan, and clearly reported in a comprehensive Decision Notice and Report of Handling.

Argument Against Council Decision

Similarly, in respect of the rebuttal of the council’s decision on pages 27-30, the applicant’s agents argue that the application is evidence based and the council response is not so. In response to this assertion we would counter that the application and supporting documents carry, within them, the seeds of its own destruction. These contradictions have been highlighted in contributions to the 2019 planning application. The amended Statement in Support submitted in March 2020 confounds these issues further.

The amended Statement of Support states on page 27 that:

‘We have, in our opinion, submitted sufficient evidence to confirm that the proposals will not be visually dominant sitting above the village of Kippen’

This is contradicted by the graphics such as those in photo montage 5 in the Landscape Assessment Statement, including its airbrushed additional vegetation1:

1 DWA Landscape Architects. Landscape Assessment Statement.

As a second example, much is made in the latest statement of support about the applicant’s ecological credentials. The text has been amended. On page 15 of the supporting document the following statement has been added under the heading ‘Vegetation’:

“Ironically, as the report prepared by EnviroCentre, Ecological Consultants, which has been submitted for the Board’s consideration, indicates it is the applicant’s more recent management of the site that has provided the habitat to enable the Greater Butterfly Orchids, in particular, to become established.”

This is not true. The environmental report commissioned by the applicant and submitted for the Board’s consideration states:

“The site has received no form of management since it came into the possession of the current landowner”2.

One of the contributors to the 2019 application commented that the orchids had suffered under the ownership of the applicant:

“The orchids in particular have already suffered this year due to the mowing of the field at crucial times of plant development. The first short cut was done during the emergence of the plants early summer and then again just before the ripening and dispersal of the seeds.3”

2Envirocentre. Redgate Hill; Habitat Management Plan. October 2019. 1.2 Habitat Description and Background. 3 https://pabs.stirling.gov.uk/online-applications/files/AD5AB619C99A0000F1F20F7FC937961D/pdf/19_00843_FUL-BENDEN_D-704707.pdf accessed 16th March 2020.

Other contributors who have lived adjacent to the field for a longer period than our 17 years have commented on other errors and contradictions.

So, there is no legitimate ‘new matter’ and the reasons that Stirling Council refused planning permission are extant:

It is contrary to the Local Development Plan. It would be visually dominant. Engineering operations would be harmful to the local landscape setting. It will not preserve or enhance biodiversity. It has failed to demonstrate that it will contribute to the reduction of flood risk. It has failed to mitigate the risk to pedestrian and road safety.

In overall summary, as Stirling Council concludes “It will impact negatively on the rural environment”.

Martin and Anne-Marie Hopkins

6 Denovan Crescent

Kippen

FK8 3HJ

19th March 2020

Review in Relation to Refusal by Stirling Council of Planning Permission for Erection of Two Houses on Land adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgatehill,Cauldhame, Kippen.

Burnbrae, Redgatehill, Kippen. FK8 3HS.

In reference to the above application I am adding further representations and I hope our original ones will also be considered.

This is the fourth time in two years that time and effort has had to be put into reading, absorbing and replying to Redgate associates.

I acknowledge Mr and Mrs Beaton’s positive contribution to the Village of Kippen and their length of residence. This should not sway the review board. I would hope that Mr Beaton would not use his position to benefit himself or family. Many of the objectors have resided in this village for at least as long, and many others have contributed to the wellbeing of the village.Mr Beaton further states that the Denovans, who owned the field, had intended building a house on it, this was never tested to planning and should be discounted.On page 2, Mr Beaton’s address is given as being in Cauldhame whereas in fact Farringford is at the opposite end of the village. This mistake is misleading.

We would welcome a site review by the board members to see for themselves, in particular: -

1. The site of the proposed path and gradient associated with it supporting point L in the summary of representations. Furthermore, We strongly object to a public footpath being sited adjacent to our property.

2. The narrow, blind cornered lane in front of Maryhill Cottage.3. The view from the South and towards the back of the proposed property

would be impeded. At the moment, the open view could be considered a public amenity to the many who use the lane.

4. It is suggested that Mid Redgate Hill is prominent in the landscape, (p.36) it is not.

5. “Redgate Hill” is referred to in the last line p.36. Could this be investigated by the Board for relevance?

Flooding. No matter how much the flows to the burn are reduced, there will still be an added volume and a small increase would aggravate already proven flooding problems for neighbours.

When we saw the revised plans 2019, especially the photomontages 3, 4 and 5, theterm, ‘crouching beasts’ sprang to mind. They would be visually obtrusive even in the summer when there are leaves on the trees. Stating that the plans are designed to “minimise visual impact” and are “sensitive” to the site and environs is absurd. We support Stirling Council Planning Department in all of their reasons for refusal.

John and Mary Mackay

Representation for Local Review Body

Erection of 2 New Dwelling Houses with Creation of Habitat Conservation and Management Area at Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen

Application No: 19/00843/FUL

Notwithstanding the objections already made by the experts in Stirling Council and my neighbours, experts in their own particular fields; it is simply unbelievable that the applicants think they still know better and have no qualms about spending our Council Tax to try to get their own way.

My original objection about the width of the Public Footpath has still to be answered. The angles at the two bends are simply not able to deal with any large traffic without the need to manoeuvre back and forth. The rubbish collection for the 2 houses already there has to be done by a small dust cart because the usual bin lorry is unable to negotiate easily around these narrow bends – remember; this is a Public Footpath we are talking about!

As an ex-driving instructor, I can advise you that students find it difficult to comprehend the simple angle of turn required to get round a corner without mounting the kerb – and it is farcical to think that the blind bends on this narrow road could be expected to accommodate delivery vans etc. I would suggest that if you spoke to the Fire Brigade even they would not be keen to drive this narrow public footpath and meet children in prams, on bikes and dog walkers out for a stroll on our only local public path.

As Stirling Council concluded “It will impact negatively on the rural environment”.

Simon and Rhona Marshall 12 Denovan Crescent Kippen FK8 3HJ 27th March 2020

Julia McAfee, Chief Governance Officer Stirling CouncilViewforthStirlingFK8 2ET 29th March 2020

Dear Madam

Erection of 2 New Dwelling Houses with Creation of Habitat Conservation and Management Area at Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen

Planning Application No 19/00843/FUL – Comments in response to the new information supplied by the Agent in support of the requested Review submitted on 06/03/2020.

Once again this Review produces volumes of pages to deny what any local knows.

As a recently retired Chartered Architect and Town Planner living at Cauldhame since 1983, I have a very good understanding of this part of the village.

For 23 years, I worked from home at Fintry Road and during this time, I successfully acted as Agent for local Clients wishing new sites where housing would be allowed at Cauldhame: this included Burnbrae (neighbours of Maryhill Cottage), the housing scheme at Davidson Lea and a new cottage at the Old Vinery.

I am therefore not in principle against the concept of finding new sites for new homes, and allowing the village to grow and meet the local housing needs.

I have written letters of objections against this proposal in 2018 and 2019 because Igenuinely believe that changing the use of this field from agricultural to housing would be a mistake.

I have many times walked up Redgate Hill Road and know the area well. I have also immediately realised that a house on this field would wreck the place. It would be intrusive, block the view for everybody else, it would detract from the rural character of the upper land and it would negatively impact on the narrow lane which at the moment is an ideal place to walk and relax without going too far from the houses at Cauldhame. It is used by dog walkers, local parents with young children and residents wishing a short walk in a pretty setting. This lane contributes to making the area a pleasant place to live.

Building one or two or more large houses on this site would generate negative consequences (short and long term) for the residents at Cauldhame. There is nojustification to drastically reduce the amenity and the safety of Cauldhame for the

sake of one, two -or more! (See below) - dwelling houses when other parts of the village can provide alternative solutions.

Since 2017, a planning application has been submitted for this field every year. The objections mentioned in the past remain valid. Always the same issues, repeated again and again, denied again and again…in 2017, 2018, 2019.

The Planning Application in Principle revealed that regardless of the number of proposed houses, there were very serious issues with building houses on this site: the un-adopted private single track access road, the drainage, the amenity of the area, the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties, the impact on the skyline, the height of the proposed houses, their very visible location, the topography of the land, non compliance with the approved Local Development Plan, etc.

To quote the Review Report: “The water had been tested” in 2018 when the Planning Application in Principle had been determined. However the Applicants refused to accept the reasons for the refusal and persevered with a new Full Planning Application as if the refusal of the Planning Application in Principle was not important or only related to the number of houses.

The Review Report does not reflect how people experience Cauldhame and how theyperceive their area. Instead, it seems to interpret the area by looking at ordnance survey maps.

A number of inaccuracies can also be spotted in the Review pack.

For example, contrary to what is written on the Application Form, Mr and Mrs Beaton do not live at Cauldhame. Their house is located in Kippen right at the bottom of Fore Road at approx. 25 minutes walk from Cauldhame. Any development on Maryhill Field will not be seen from their home; will not affect their life or their daily perception of the village.

Proposed Houses

OccupantsWhether this proposal would be for the Applicants’ son, or would be sold for profit is irrelevant.

The houses have 4 bedrooms with en-ensuite at the top floor and 1 study at groundfloor level which could also become a bedroom. These large buildings together with double garages are aimed at young families with 2 cars. This will probably mean 2 adults and 2 or 3 children per house. Each of these persons will have their own occupations, timetables and friends.

Number of car trips per day per house:The Review Report states that the houses will have a very low impact on the traffic on the single lane. My experience suggests otherwise. Here is my explanation:

7:30 am: Parent 1 goes to work by car8:30 am: Parent 2 drives eldest child to primary school8:40 am: Parent 2 returns home9:30 am: Younger child is taken by car to Nursery or to Playgroup9:50 am: Parent 2 returns home for home workingNoon: Parent 2 collects youngest child from Nursery or Playgroup12:15 pm: Parent 2 and youngest child return home 3:15 pm: Parent 2 and youngest child drive to School to collect PS child3:30 pm: Parent 2 and children return home 4:30 pm: Parent 2 takes PS Child to after school activity6:00 pm: Parent 2 returns home 6:30 pm: Parent 1 returns home from work

Total: minimum 12 uses of the lane per day for one family house

Other expected additional motorised trips up and down the single track lane:Parent 1 or 2 needs a break after a hard day and is going out (yoga class, meeting friends, having a drink in the pub, etc)Both parents are going out (generating a car return trip) and a babysitter is coming to the house (another car return trip)One parent is going out to baby-sit during the evening to win points from the local babysitting groupSupermarket weekly delivery at home (lorry trips)Online/ Amazon shopping delivery (van trips)Friends or relatives are coming to visit Traders/ contractors/ Cleaner for repairs and maintenance workChildren activities requiring to go outClients may come to the house as part of working at homeShopping trips (at the Cross in Kippen, Woodhouse at the bottom of the Brae, Stirling, Glasgow, etc.)HaircutMedical appointments

This estimate is based on how I used to drive in and out of my house when my 2 boys were young. Even if car sharing occurs, it would still mean that someone needs to drive to Maryhill Field.It is not unreasonable to point out that 2 large family houses with 2 cars would increase the use of this lane in a very significant way.

How many houses?The two proposed houses use exactly half the length of the southern boundary of the site. They could be replicated along the other half to form a row of 4 identical large houses. See attachment. (I have simply cut and paste the 2 proposed houses along the other half of the boundary).

Is this application really for 2 houses or is it Phase 1 of a grander scheme? Is there a Phase 2 coming soon as the next planning application?

If this Review process approved the current proposal, it would create a Planning Precedent on this field and this would make it very difficult to refuse another 2 houses on this site in the near future. It could even be claimed that the wood forms a natural boundary for the village envelope.

However the impact of this possible scenario is worth considering.

Houses discreetly hidden behind trees?The Report states that the houses will be discretely hidden behind trees. The west elevation of house B would be visible from my house at Springburn (Fintry Road) and from my neighbours’ properties at Burnbank and Wood End Cottage. Refer to aerial view of the area shown at the beginning and at the end of the video found at this link: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-77121124.htmlThe photo montages do not illustrate where the visual impact of the proposals would be most visible.

The design of the houses does not comply with Housing in the countryside, Draft Design Guidance, Stirling Council 2019.

On page 51, the report admits that the proposals don’t necessarily fall into the categories outlined in Stirling Council’s Draft Supplementary Guidance: Housing in the Countryside 2019. It proposes that an exception should be made to allow the design to depart from the guidance. It is difficult to understand why that should be the case.

The external appearance of the proposed houses does not relate to the area.

The massing is not made of simple shapes as usually seen in rural villages. This design introduces new volumes and shapes that do not enhance the “Sense of Place” of Cauldhame.

The pitch of the roofs varies in a way that is more common in towns.

The window openings lack consistency.

The scale of the proposed villas is quite large and overpowering compared to the front of the houses along Fintry Road and Redgatehill Road.

At this location at the top of the hill, it is unfortunate that a two storey design was preferred to a single storey solution.

The proposed houses would stand out like urban dwellings parachuted on the hill.

Kind regards

Liliane McGeoch, FRIAS, MRTPI (rtd)

Springburn, Fintry Road, Cauldhame, Kippen FK8 3HL

Redmarley

KIPPEN

Stirlingshire

FK8 3HS

23rd March 2020

Sheila McLean Governance Officer Stirling Council Viewforth Stirling FK8 2ET

Dear Ms McLean,

Planning Application 19/00843/FUL Ref. Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen: Review by the Local Review Body

I refer to the above planning application which was refused by the Planning Department of Stirling Council. I am a contiguous landowner both to the west and the east of the proposed site and I obtain access to my house via the narrow lane mentioned in the application. I note that a number of the assertions and statements contained in the documents are either new or have been re-worded. That said, it is my opinion that none of the new representations answer the reasons given by Stirling Council Planning Department when refusing planning permission. The grounds for refusal were professionally assessed, considered and remain totally correct.

Secondly, I believe it is important to correct a number of incorrect statements made on pages 4 – 6 “Introduction and background” of the appeal submission and at subsequent points:-

1. I have lived in Redmarley since April 1958 and have a good knowledge of the area. 2. The only vehicle access to this house is by way of the narrow lane. 3. Page 4 – Denovan family planning applications. It is well known that applications in

principle were historically made by the family to the old Stirlingshire Council on a number of occasions over an extended period and that these were not successful.

After multiple planning refusals an informal approach was made concerning a possible purchase of the and now subject to the planning application.

4. The proposition that “a period of lobbying from neighbours” took place is a significant overstatement. At no time was any pressure exerted or applied to the Denovan family.

5. Given the location and topography of the field, the statement concerning part of the field becoming a garden extension lacks credibility, a protective strip possibly. I own much of the land on the east boundary of the field and have never indicated an interest in making part of it into a garden. I cannot speak for the other contiguous landowners.

6. The field itself is poor quality agricultural land to which only minimal husbandry has been applied for over 30 years other than an ill-timed topping exercise in 2019 which damaged the rare orchids.

7. To claim that the field has supported up to 12 ponies / horses for nearly 10 years is completely wrong. At no stage during my 62-year residence in Redmarley has the field ever supported more than 3 ponies / horses at any one time. Grazing by 3 animals also requires the land to be rested at intervals during each year. Additionally the wording suggests that there were stables for 12 animals. This is wrong as there were just 2 stables.

8. It is also worth noting that, owing to the narrowness of the lane and the restricted access to the proposed site, the last user of the field was latterly not able to take a horsebox to the site / stables.

9. The “traffic” associated with the 2 stables amounted to 2 movements per day. Their ceasing hardly amounts to a “substantial reduction”.

10. The statement that “significant heavy haulage used the lane for the development of Redgate Hill Cottage “ (page 4) is wrong. This project has always been a self-build exercise and there is no doubt that this will continue to be the case. Virtually all the materials delivered thus far have been in small quantities with construction being spread over a considerable number of years.

11. Currently, owing to the narrowness of the lane, Stirling Council has to use a small 4-wheeled lorry for all domestic collections and oil deliveries can only be made using 4-wheeled vehicles.

12. The potential building site at Burn Green remains unused.

The quantity of inaccurate statements and assertions, often of a material nature, does not give rise to confidence in the contents of the appeal document.

Turning to the appeal itself, this is ill-founded for the following reasons :

The planning application concerns land which is well outside the Local Development Plan. The area immediately adjoining the proposed site has been designated by Stirling Council as an area of high environmental amenity and the narrow access lane forms part of the Council’s footpath network.

The appeal does not address the issue of the restricted access lane, the lack of line of sight and the inability to address that issue or create passing places. Stirling Council Roads Department has consistently objected to the application on the grounds of the access. The assertions that “it is very unlikely that vehicles would ever meet” and that 2 large houses would “merely add one single vehicle journey in the (unspecified) peak hour” or give rise to “5 movements in each direction over a 12-week period”(page 42) is totally contrary to the current reality. At present, with two houses using the access lane, on average there are not less than 6 – 8 vehicle journeys every morning. Given the overall size and extensive accommodation of planned properties, the contention that just one vehicle movement would occur at the peak hour is not credible. The key reasons that there have been no reportable accidents are, first, the number of current vehicles and, secondly, that the drivers are very aware that, as walkers, children and other users are often hidden from view, great care is required at all times especially as there no passing places nor pedestrian pathways. All engineering and construction operations would have to make use of the narrow lane which is only accessible by 4-wheel commercial vehicles. Could access for emergency vehicles be guaranteed at all hours of the day during the periods of construction? The issues of drainage, flooding and property subsidence, which was highlighted by the Stirling Council Flood Officer as strong grounds for the rejection of the original application, have not been addressed. The probable increase in surface water / flooding that would result from the proposed development has been ignored. The discharge of treated foul water into the open stream which has caused the property subsidence is a cause for considerable concern. The two proposed properties would be visually dominant as shown by the computer-generated images. The claims of habitat management do not reflect the history of the site since its acquisition by the appellant. Claims that the development will preserve and / or enhance biodiversity are not supported by recent actions.

I believe that the members of the Local Review Body should visit the location prior to dismissing the appeal.

Yours sincerely

Richard Muir-Simpson

M Scott 3 Alexander Dr. Bridge of Allan

FK9 4QB Sheila McLean, Governance Officer Stirling Council Viewforth Stirling FK8 2ET [email protected]

28/03/2020 Dear Ms. McLean,

19/00843/FUL - review of planning decision submitted on behalf of Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) Stirling and Clacks volunteer planning team

These comments relate to 2 new dwelling houses with creation of habitat conservation and management area at land adjacent and south of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen. We appreciate that the Habitat Management plan recognizes that this field is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat Lowland Meadow and the need for its protection (categorized as ‘Needs Conservation Action’, the highest priority within the Scottish Biodiversity List). It is likely on the list of species-rich grassland that Nature.Scot has been gathering across the whole of Scotland, as it has become such a rare and declining habitat. SWT has records of greater butterfly-orchid (GBO) on this site dating back to at least 2006, with 275 spikes found in July 2018 (see map below), indicating that the past light “grazing” regime is most suitable for preserving the special biodiversity. The presence of yellow rattle will have prevented growth of rank vegetation. GBO is on the Scottish Biodiversity List, a priority for conservation, Red-listed as ‘near threatened’, legally protected.

GBO are predominantly located in the north and east part of the site targeted for a long-term management plan, e.g. winter strim and rake. However, the advised cutting timing could be slightly too early for seed to mature and drop. Additionally, a spring cut should be outwith bird nesting season (March – September). Stirling Council’s Biodiversity Officer should have the opportunity to review and comment on the plan.

Monitoring and auditing of the management success by the Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) is welcome, particularly long-term. Data collected should be reported via the biological record centre (TWIC – The Wildlife Information Centre www.wildlifeinformation.co.uk ) or another suitable database (NBN Atlas Scotland https://scotland.nbnatlas.org/) so it is preserved in the public domain.

As the site was last surveyed in June 2018, it should be looked at again in summer 2020 and if orchids are found within the construction zone, these translocated appropriately before work starts. This would partially satisfy the principle of no net loss of biodiversity.

The report notes that other species could benefit from a suitable management plan e.g. mammals (hedgehog, red squirrels), amphibia etc. Hibernacula and nest sites could be provided. Enhancing habitat by planting native trees and hedgerows that do not impinge on the wildflowers or special grassland, but give connectivity for migration routes, food and shelter would be added benefit.

As there will be a SUDS scheme, please could the applicant and advisors be directed to http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/Images/SuDS_report_final_tcm9-338064.pdf for good practice guidelines. Creating wildlife-friendly pond(s) within the curtilage of the proposed gardens would be beneficial.

Long-term planning is needed to preserve the site, beyond the 5 years proposed, including no additional development. A nearby field was removed from the local development plan when Stirling Council was made aware of the value of GBO.

A barrier such as a fence, wall or hedge should be constructed before work starts, to protect the biodiverse northern and eastern part of the site during construction and afterwards; no activity that could harm the habitat in this area is to be allowed either during building or afterwards -- emphasising that this would include storage of building materials and equipment and any planting of trees and shrubs or use of wildflower seed mixes on or near the bank. SWT can offer further advice.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Scott SWT Stirling & Clacks Planning Team

Woodlane CottageRedgate HillCauldhameKippenStirlingFK8 3HS

March 28th 2020

For the attention of:Sheila McLean, Governance OfficerStirling CouncilViewforthStirlingFK8 2ET

Dear Ms McLean,

Town and Country Plans (Scotland) Act 1997 - The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013

Erection of 2 New Dwelling Houses with Creation of Habitat Conservation and Management Area at Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill,Cauldhame KippenApplication No: 19/00843/FUL

I refer to the above application for which the applicant Mr Alan Beaton has made an application for a review by Stirling Council’s Local Review Body because he has been refused planning consent to build on the Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen.

As an Interested Party, you have asked that we only make new representations in relation to the review of the original decision to refuse planning permission which is what I aim to do.

I have read Mr Alan Beaton’s statement, which was extremely dismissive of my original objections, regarding the high risk of flooding and structural damage to my property, which is next to Maryhill Cottage and not that far downstream from the field in question.

Mr Beaton and his “experts” have the audacity to think that they can dismiss the professional expertise of my Surveyors and Geo Surveyors at IKM Consultants. In addition, he has been dismissive of experts from Stirling Council Flood team and Stirling Council engineers who have also been extremely professional and supportive in their investigations. I have also had the Scottish Flood Forum investigate the land and stream, all have surveyed and given me their professional assessment of my land and property and the increased risk of flooding and subsidence to my property.

The Council’s flood team, engineers and my surveyors and engineers have investigated what happens in my garden when increased volumes of water enter my garden and subsequently cannot exit my garden quick enough The water backs up in my garden and floods it within six feet of my actual property on the surface,

Since my previous letter, with all the rain we have had, these issues are not just an assessment now. My property has subsidence and structural damage and continuing and ongoing investigations are having to be undertaken since my last letter in November as increased issues of flooding and ground saturation of the land not just surrounding my property, but investigations are going to be taken as to increased saturation of the land under my property which has now washed out the foundations to the gable end nearest the stream of my property.

Further investigations, are being undertaken, with all the heavy rainfall that we have had over the winter and early this year. Monitoring, has highlighted that water does not just come from the land proposed by Mr Alan Beaton to be developed, it also comes from the track and land above that field, as the current drainage system on the track to Redgate Hill Cottage is inadequate to cope with heavy rain. That water and all the water from the fields, comes down that track and flows into the drainage system that Mr Muir-Simpson has put in to the left of the track. That then goes under the track and joins the main stream on the right hand side of the track. This stream then flows down through Maryhill Cottage and through a culvert before entering my garden.

In addition to the water being captured by the stream from all those areas, there is also the water that is not captured by the drainage and stream that comes down the track ,itself which becomes a surface stream and runs towards my property which is at the bottom of the track. I have a low wall built to deflect some of the water but it appears from investigations that it is getting under this. Since I moved in nine years ago the amount of rainfall we are experiencing has exacerbated this and I have been told with climate change alone, this matter will only get worse.

This was not explained in detail before by myself.

Mr Beaton and his “team’s” arrogance, is totally disrespectful to those that have been extremely thorough, professional and diligent in their investigations and reporting of the seriousness of the issues that I and others have raised as legitimate concerns to our properties.

Mr Beaton’s plans for the drainage on the site which he says will reduce flows to the burn are totally contrary to the expert opinions that I have sought in this matter. My experts have assured me that with any additional water being diverted into that stream, from any new source, would increase the volume of water in the burn, therefore exacerbate my problems, flooding my actual property.

Mr Beaton’s planned properties are outside the local development plan and if Stirling Council permits this then I see Mr Beaton seeking permission for further houses to be built on that field in the future. It will then be open season to all property developers, that any land that is outside the Local Development plan could be built on as this surly could be seen as a precedent This is extremely concerning as where will it end? Houses in all available fields all the way to Fintry? Local Development plans are there for a reason. This land and surrounding land is totally unsuitable to be built on.

I have also, in my nine years here, never seen any heavy goods vehicles for construction purposes go up that lane to Redmarley or Redgate Hill Cottage. Mr Beaton must be mistaking it with the cottage at Riggethill. Mr Beaton clearly has a problem with exaggerating facts to suit his purpose, which is quite common throughout this document.

Riggethill is a good example of what happens once planning permission is given to someone who clearly does not care about the surrounding countryside. The owner of Riggethill has destroyed the natural footpath and surrounding field. The owner of Riggethill has used Heavy plant vehicles to put in a rough hardcore road surrounding the property at Riggethill. That and the poor drainage that has been put in is nothing short of criminal damage to the surrounding area and fields. The owner is now storing construction junk in the field next to his property, which also has piles of hardcore in the field. It has totally ruined the landscape and caused major flooding in the surrounding footpaths which make it almost impossible to walk on without needing waders. This is an example of an extremely bad blot on the landscape in what was an area that used to be lovely with natural wildlife. I don’t know how the owner of Riggethill has got away with this as he is turning into a brownfield site. Thank goodness there is no road access between Redgate Hill and Riggethill which is on the other side of the village. I dread to think what could happen.

I apologise if I seem to be highlighting inaccuracies in Mr Beaton’s appeal but if Mr Beaton thinks that building the properties on that land would not overlook properties , can I ask which way he was he looking? To build, even a single storey property on that land, it would overlook all the surrounding properties - apart from Redgate Hill Cottage of course, which is in the field above that which he wants to build his two/three storey properties on. Perhaps I have misunderstood the plans and he was planning on building these properties underground?

I would also like to highlight another gross inaccuracy in Mr Beaton’s statement, he make the comment “the field had been used as an equestrian, grazing and stabling facility for up to twelve horses.”

I have never seen in the nine years that I have been here, more than two horses grazing in that field and the stable block that was built in the field was only for two horses - as you can see from the photograph, it is clear that the stable on view is only for two horses, obviously there is a typing error in his report when he claims there were twelve.

Another misrepresentation that Mr Beaton has stated in his documentation is, in regard to all the horse boxes that Mr Beaton claims to have gone up and down that track/lane The only horse box I have ever seen drive up and down that lane, in the nine years I have been here, belongs to the owners in Redmarley House at the top of the lane and that is only occasionally. Any other horse boxes that used to come were never taken up that lane, they were in fact, parked outside the front and to the right of my drive which is at the bottom of the lane and the horses would be walked to and from the field and horse box. Mr Beaton really needs to get his facts right.

I would also like to highlight that there have been no horses grazing in that field for approximately three or four years now. I have also never seen any sheep grazing in that field and asked my neighbours, in case I was delusional, if they had ever seen any sheep grazing in that field to which I was given a definite negative. Perhaps Mr Beaton was mistaken?

Mr Alan Beaton claims that he and his wife are pillars of the Kippen Village Community, Church Elder, etc, having done and only wanting to do good in the village. I note all the good things that he is happy to share with you, but I am sorry, true pillars of the community, in my personal opinion, do good deeds every day and do not do it for the recognition and in this case for self gratification.

Mr Alan Beaton’s planning submission is extremely dismissive of those people who use this area of the village for leisure and pleasure regularly, not just those of us who actually live here. He is planning on destroying our ability to enjoy walking in this area of the village without the danger of increased traffic using that lane. It is a very safe lane at present but that would change dramatically with the construction of any houses in that field.

Once again, I think Mr Beaton is inaccurate in his calculations of the volume of traffic that would use that lane by building two large houses. Would they have no refuse collection, deliveries, visitors and only one car per household? From my experience of family homes of that size you get husband, wife and children with cars these days, unless my family is different from other families. My eldest daughter has a five bedroomed house and they have three cars and a motorbike. This would be a serious health and safety risk to young children that use this lane with dogs and their parents. I see it also used by walking groups from the Stirling area and further afield too.

Those of us that live here, would have our lives disrupted both in the short term with major disruption during the construction phase and in the long term with the destruction of the surrounding area and for myself, it would destroy the home I have lived in for the past nine years, peacefully, and I would never be able to sell it as it would become worthless with theincreased risk of flooding.

Mr Beaton, lives in Fore Road, not Redgate Hill, therefore he can only assume certain observations, therefore I would suggest, that is where the inaccurate observations in his appeal documentation arises from.

Mr Beaton’s appeal to have this planning application reviewed and his comments within his appeal documentation, I found to be very disrespectful . The Planning Officer, Roads department, Flood officer and her team, the Kippen Community Council and all of those of uswho really care about this area of the village are all professional people, and have been treated with contempt.

Mr Beaton, in his planned proposal has total disregard for an area of the village that is at the opposite end of the village to where he lives. This area of the village has rare flowers, wildlife and the freedom for all of those in the village and further afield to enjoy, which is why I moved here.

This area of the village should not be used for the financial gain of one person who says he cares about the village, but clearly doesn’t. With this appeal and contents within his documentation, all it serves to prove to all that objected, following our extensive research into this area and its surrounds, is that we were vindicated by the original refusal of his planning application.

Mr Beaton’s subsequent appeal, serves to prove not only to the people who made the decision to refuse planning permission, but also those who objected against his proposal and took the

time to write our letters of objection. We clearly setting out our reasons and concerns about this planning application, or any proposed planning application, for this field and area of Kippen,now, or in the future. We are extremely concerned as once a habitat is destroyed it will never recover. I have seen Red Squirrels return, Deer, Hares, Rabbits , Bats and Owls as well as wild orchids. They would all disappear again.

I fear that Mr Beaton’s own financial gain is evidently more important to him than that of the feelings and welfare of both the people and village of Kippen he claims to care so much about.

I note in your documentation that you mention that at any point in the Review Process the LRB may inspect the land subject of the review. It states you would do this either unaccompanied or accompanied by the Applicant and any other party the LRB considers should attend.

I would welcome the opportunity to show you my property and show you and to explain the issues that are causing me great distress that I have discussed within this document as you will then see clearly the major issues that I have which are genuine.

I submit my comments for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Lorraine K Taylor MBA, MCMIBusiness Consultant

1

This letter sent as an email attachment and by Royal Mail, first class, recorded delivery 19 March 2020 Maryhill Cottage Fintry Road Kippen Stirling FK8 3HL Sheila McLean Governance Officer Stirling Council Viewforth Stirling FK8 2ET Dear Ms McLean, Planning Application 19/00843/FUL Ref. Land Adjacent and South of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen: Review by the Local Review Body There are several points that form this new “representation” from me. These are covered in the following sections. Over the past three years, the applicant has shown that his objective is to build five houses, or more; his previous planning applications relating to Maryhill field, in 2017 and 2018, prove this. The applicant submitted his third application, namely 19/00843/FUL in 2019, for two new houses instead of five. So, it can be seen that a trend has been established by the applicant; whilst five houses are the objective, together with the profit that they will bring, the applicant is content to continue submitting decreasingly scaled planning applications. It is easy to predict that this strategy could end in a final planning application for one house only. Here lies the most important point. The Stirling Planning Department, together with the Roads department and the Flood Officer, have provided a number of reasons why 19/00843/FUL had to be refused. Each one of these reasons is compelling and each would suffice in preventing any houses from being built on the field in question. For the reasons listed by Planning, if one single house was built on Maryhill field, every single reason for previous refusals would have to be ignored by the Local Review Body. This would effectively negate the planning process of Stirling Council because it would become immediately worthwhile for every failed planning application to be resubmitted and because there would be great encouragement given to everyone who wanted to build on land which, prior to this review, had been known to be completely ineligible.

2

1. The Local Development Plan (LDP). If there is no real point to the LDP, then the applicant is correct that there should be no reason to stop houses being built on this greenfield site. The site in question is not within the LDP area. Stirling Council serves communities including Kippen and it is trusted to authorise only those developments that comply fully with the LDP. 2. Traffic. The applicant’s latest Statement in Support accuses many people (namely the Roads department representative, the Planning Officer, the Kippen Community Council and the twenty-nine representatives of Kippen households who wrote letters of objection) of failing to read the McIlhagger paper entitled, Statement on Roads and Traffic Issues. This is a startling claim, not least because it was a childlike, exceedingly thin document which was very easily and quickly read. It contends that the two five-bedroomed houses would equate to merely one single vehicle journey in the peak hour. The McIlhagger paper also states, “……..it is very unlikely that vehicles would ever meet.” Cars, lorries, vans and horse carriages already occasionally meet on the narrow lane. This obligates difficult and potentially dangerous reversing. The lane is mainly a public footpath, therefore when these manoeuvres are taking place, pedestrians are at risk. All who live in the area and all those who use the lane know this. In the applicant’s supporting documentation, it is stated that the applicant’s design criteria allow for seven inhabitants in each of the new houses. Because of this, it is obvious that there will be a greatly increased number of vehicle journeys on the lane. McIlhagger refers to the proposed new gravel core path. His paper expects the reader to believe that this futile path which fails to segregate traffic from pedestrians on the most dangerous and constricted section of the lane, “addresses completely these concerns”. Neither McIlhagger, nor the applicant, appear to have understood the issue of segregation of vehicles from walkers, nor read the concisely explained objections. The McIlhagger paper on roads and traffic is amusing, but it is not credible. The applicant states that there are no Police records showing any accidents on the lane. The status quo is that the lane is relatively safe at present. Vehicle movements relate to the three inhabitants of the two existing houses at the end of the lane. All users of the lane understand that whilst it is a rural path and is used mainly as a walkway, vehicles can appear occasionally. Two new large houses will change the dynamic. The lane will become a roadway, primarily for cars, vans and lorries. Adequate and safe segregation is impossible. The applicant’s plans for the unadopted lane are dangerous and Stirling Council would be culpable in the event of a subsequent accident; this point is of particular relevance should the Council choose to ignore the recommendation of its own Roads department, its lead planning officer and twenty-nine local households. 3. Habitat Management Plan. Pages 37 and 38 of the latest Statement in Support make sweeping claims regarding the Butterfly Orchids and their management. Others, much more knowledgeable than me, will be commenting in writing on these claims.

3

Those that extol their own virtues fail to realise that this practice demeans them. Similarly, those who distort facts and statistics always harm their own cause. The applicant’s environmental spokesperson states that following completion of the development, 79% of the original Maryhill field will remain as unimproved grassland. The implication is that almost all of the field would be untouched for Butterfly Orchids and other wild species to flourish. However, with reference to Hobson Drawing No.1911-SL001 of June 2019, subtracting the area ringfenced for the new buildings, the sewage tanks and pipework, hardstanding, new roadways to the houses, front and back gardens, plus the new gravel core path, the area left as grassland is 59%. Is it possible that neither the applicant, nor the environmental spokesperson have referred to their own drawing by Hobson? 4. Visually Dominant Houses. The Statement in Support accuses the planning department of providing no evidence that the proposals would be visually dominant. Interestingly, the applicant provides all of the evidence needed. Reference to Photo Montage 5, Page 3/3, provided in the pack circulated by the Governance Officer on 12 March 2020, shows the two buildings, one two-storey, the other three-storey, superimposed on a photograph of the field taken from in front of Maryhill Cottage. The applicant and the applicant’s agent appear significantly out of step with what constitutes the term visually dominant. Three storey houses are extremely rare in Kippen, for good reason. Having lived in the village for 30 years, I am not aware of more than a couple. The proposed houses are exceptionally tall and large and completely out of keeping with Kippen. Regardless, as stated earlier, the main point in this new representation letter is that the compelling arguments and Council policies show that no house, of any type or size, should be permitted in the Maryhill field. 5. Drainage. The applicant cites the Drainage Strategy Plan, by Goodson Associates, as being “yet another example of the Applicant underpinning the proposals with evidence and experiencing a response that clearly is not.” This is a bold and foolhardy statement. The Goodson paper merely provides information relating to the background and sizing of the SUDS tanks. What is not in dispute by the applicant is that more water will be diverted to the existing burn. There will be rainwater run-off from the two houses and from their surrounds. Currently, the burn contains no mains water. According to Goodson, all foul water would be routed to the new treatment tanks; obviously this would comprise the majority of the mains water flow to the two houses. Mains water converted into foul water would be the discharge from toilets, washing machines, dish washers, showers, baths and sinks. As described by Goodson, the “treated” water would ultimately discharge to the surface water ditch i.e. the burn. It is not necessary to be either an engineer, or any type of drainage expert to know that two five-bedroomed houses will at peak times discharge a significant amount of water. Surely this is not in dispute. All interested parties could argue over the volumes of waste water and newly diverted rainwater. But, this would be pointless. The simple fact is that even if one house only was built, much more water would be diverted to the burn. The applicant and Goodson have failed to address the experiences of the householders downstream; similarly, both have ignored the concerns and advice of Stirling Flood Officer, who stated that the burn and its culvert systems could not absorb any

4

increase in flowrate. The existing natural drainage system is at capacity and floods annually. February 2020 was the wettest ever recorded. There is no sign that Central Scotland will become drier and if Stirling Council ignores current status and the recommendation of its own expert, then surely the Council would share the blame for the drainage problems that would ensue. Periodic flooding of the burn at one of the nearby downstream properties has resulted in an ongoing insurance claim. The subsidence that this has caused obligates remedial structural work and possible underpinning. The applicant cannot be faulted for the amount of effort expended. However, the quality of effort is very poor. In 2015, the agent for the applicant approached the Council, trying to have the field included in the forthcoming Local Development Plan. A repeat representation was made in 2016. In 2017 the applicant submitted a planning application, which he withdrew to field the significant number of objections from neighbours and the Community Council. In 2018, he submitted a second planning application for five houses; this was refused. In 2019, the applicant submitted a planning application for two houses and within the same year it was refused. This brings us to this appeal process. Maryhill field is not suitable for any housing development of any sort. If the Local Review Body upholds the review initiated on behalf of the applicant, Stirling Council will be acting in opposition to three of its own departments, Planning policy and the community. If this is their choice, then the Council would effectively negate the past and future planning process and become culpable for all of the damages that would ensue. Yours sincerely, John Walsh BSc. Mech. Eng, F.I.Mech.E.

Dear Ms McLean

I note on your letter to all, you request new representations in relation to this latest review of Stirling Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for house building on Maryhill.

My main concern is the vehicle movement that will impact the lane should the refusal decision be overturned.

1 Mcllhagger report page 6.

2.16---2.20.

This report in my opinion, should not be headed. Trip Generation,but ----a best guess estimate.

2 large houses c/w 2/3, cars maybe even 4 cars?

I have witnessed cleansing trucks vs delivery vans + cars reversing either down the lane or up it . My garden backs onto the lane for the first 40 or so metres (at its narrowest). Trucks and tractors are now eroding the(6 ft) garden fence land edge to less than half a metre. Hence my objection to this development.

2.19 The applicant’s proposal to install a footpath around the edge of the field, and this report saying that it would take pedestrians off the existing road (their words) lane (my words)—not true! The access to this path is 50 yards along the lane from the start, this is the narrowest part of the lane .

If I may, I would suggest a site visit by your committee, to see for yourselves, the unsuitability of this lane for the development that has been proposed.

Thank you for your attention re this matter.

John Wilson

1. Proposed Conditions and Reasons:

1. Details of Materials: A scheme of/Samples of the materials to be used for the externalwalls and roof of the development granted consent shall be submitted to, andapproved in writing by, the Planning Authority before any work starts on site.

2. Landscape New Planting: No development shall take place until details of newplanting proposals with details of ground preparation, species, nursery stock size anddensity of planting and areas of grass seed/turf have been submitted to and approvedin writing by the Planning Authority.

3. Landscape Hard Landscaping: No development shall take place until details ofproposed means of boundary treatment, enclosures, screening, walls and fences,paving and hard surfacing materials have been submitted to and approved in writingby the Planning Authority.

4. Unsuspected or Unencountered Contamination: The presence of any previouslyunsuspected or unencountered contamination that becomes evident during thedevelopment of the site shall be brought to the attention of the Planning Authoritywithin one week. At this stage, a comprehensive contaminated land investigation shallbe carried out if requested by the Planning Authority.

5. Removal of Permitted Development Rights: Notwithstanding the terms of the Townand Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order, (AsAmended 2011), no extensions shall be erected, garden buildings erected, decking orfencing erected within the garden grounds or to the chalets hereby grantedpermission without the prior submission and approval of a planning application.

6. Waste Pick‐up: Provision shall be made for a properly designed collection point at theroadside for bins awaiting collection. This collection point shall be out with therequired visibility splay sightlines. Prior to works commencing on site a drawing is tobe approved in writing by the Planning Authority showing full compliance with thiscondition.

7. Environmental Management Plan: No development shall take place until aConstruction Environmental Management Plan, relating to biodiversity (CEMP:biodiversity), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planningauthority.

8. Sustainable Urban Drainage: The surface water drainage system shall be designed tothe requirements and satisfaction of the Planning Authority, taking account of thesustainable urban drainage (SUDS) principles and in accordance with the guidancegiven in 'SUDS for development'. The SUDs design construction phase must be in placeprior to the stripping of topsoil. The finalised design annual runoff is to be agreed inwriting by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing on site. Thedetail of which shall be submitted for written approval of the Planning Authority andis to take account of storm events. No surcharging shall occur anywhere within the

Item 7d

drainage system for storm events up to and including 1 in 100 year (1%) and no overflow shall occur anywhere within the drainage system for storm events up to and including 1 in 100 year (1%).

Reasons:

1. In order to achieve an acceptable form of external treatment.

2. To ensure that the scheme of landscaping for the proposed development is of a satisfactory standard relative to the functional requirements and visual amenity of the site and its setting in the locality as insufficient details of the proposed scheme of landscaping have been submitted with the application.

3. To ensure that the scheme of landscaping for the proposed development is of a satisfactory standard relative to the functional requirements and visual amenity of the site and its setting in the locality as insufficient details of the proposed scheme of landscaping have been submitted with the application.

4. To ensure all contamination within the site is dealt with.

5. In order to ensure any of these future alterations are applied for, as the property is

not a house and to ensure they are respectful to the character of the development and its countryside setting.

6. In order to ensure vehicles exiting the development site can see and be seen by vehicles on the carriageway and join the traffic stream safely.

7. In order to ensure the access is designed to these standards.

8. In order to ensure road side waste pick up is provided outwith the required splay.

9. In order to safeguard the interests of nature conservation.

10. In order to ensure the drainage system is designed to use Sustainable Urban Drainage and to ensure that run off rates are to greenfield rates to protect against flooding neighbouring land and property.

MICHAEL S EVANS, BA (Econ), Dip TP, MRTPI, MCMI

Planning Consultant

“TY-NEWYDD”11 MURCHIE DRIVE

KINGS MEADOWPRESTWICK

KA9 2ND

Our Ref: MSE/St 23 June 2020

For the attention of Sheila McLeanGovernance OfficerStirling CouncilRoom 53Old ViewforthSTIRLINGFK8 2ET

Dear Sheila

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013Erection of 2 New Dwellinghouses, with Creation of Habitat Conservation and Management Area – Land adjacent and south of Maryhill Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, KippenRedgate Associates/BeatonApplication Ref 19/00843/FULResponses to Representations

Thank you for your e-mail of 14 May 2020 and the attached copies of new representations, etc. which have been forward to me by the applicants’ agent, Nick Hobson, Hobson Architects, The Studio, Eglinton Terrace, Skelmorlie, PA17 5EP

On behalf of the applicants, I will deal initially with the ‘Further Representation by the Planning Officer’.

The Officer, in his submission on behalf of the Council, has ‘returned’ to the reasons for refusal in order to structure a response made to the points that we put forward in our Statement in Support as part of our request for review and, in particular, Part 6.0 of this Statement, i.e. Response to the Council’s Reasons for Refusal.

Much of what he states is repetitive and I shall try and be as brief as possible.

Reasons for Refusal 1

With planning consent now granted for housing on the Burn Green Site, LDP identifies no other sites for housing in Kippen. For the remainder of the period of LDP, new housing in Kippen will, to a considerable degree, be dependent on feu

Item 7e

2 subdivisions – not a particularly encouraging picture, bearing in mind how much of Kippen/Cauldhame falls within the Conservation Area. Although in the Countryside, the proposed site is adjacent to the settlement boundary with Cauldhame but, as our Landscape Assessment Statement confirms, it is a field compartment that does not share in the characteristics of the neighbouring Kippen Muir subdivision of the LLA. Its ‘removal’ from the LLA would therefore not prove critical to the LLA or, indeed, other LDP policies. Otherwise, in terms of policy, guidance and advice, we have, in our opinion, confirmed in the material submitted as part of the planning application and subsequent documentation that the proposals are compliant with requirements. In particular, they would also deliver a long-term safe environment for the important elements of biodiversity. We are therefore asking Board members to consider the proposals in the round. Reasons for Refusal 2 There is a particular fondness on the part of the Council and objectors to use the term ‘visually dominant’ and statements such as ‘physically intrusive’. The New Oxford Dictionary defines ‘dominant’ as ‘most important – powerful’ and goes on to define ‘dominate’ as ‘having a commanding position’. That the proposed development would be on land higher than neighbouring development is a topographical fact and that the proposals will be visible from certain angles is not being denied, but to attribute the implied scale of impact is, with all due respect, nothing short of a hyperbole. As stated in the Statement in Support, if the Council’s interpretation of ‘minimise visual impact’ literally means ‘should not be visible at all’, then clearly any proposals would fail this particular test. And while there are other design solutions that could have delivered smaller houses, we maintain that size is not the overriding consideration but the ability of the landscape to absorb the scale proposed. On the matter of the details of the design, the Officers are of the view that the proposals would not complement the character of the immediate area. This did not, however, prevent consent from being granted relatively recently for a radical architectural outcome on land between Fairview and Keiryknowe, Kippen, and also on the outskirts of Fintry, i.e. planning application number 12/00614/FUL, and we are confident that there will be other examples within the local authority area of consent being granted where the exceptional qualities of the details of proposals have been viewed as a positive material consideration. While we are reassured that the Officer did visit the site, we also maintain that his assessment was not as rigorous as that provided by the Landscape Assessment Statement and that the latter delivers a substantial body of evidence that supports the overall case. In the final analysis, the proposals will be glimpsed from a relatively small number of houses, beyond which they will, in effect, be invisible and have absolutely no consequences, e.g. for the setting of the Kippen Conservation Area. We are reassured that the Planning Officers gave careful consideration to the photo montages included in the Landscape Assessment Statement which were used on the site visit. This was not clear from the Report of Handling which made no reference to them, possibly because they helped confirm the limited visual impact over a relatively small area that the proposals would have.

3 Reasons for Refusal 3 The concern here is for potential impact on Southern Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA). The Landscape Assessment Statement, following a fine-grained review of the Kippen Muir in particular, i.e. the subdivision of the LLA into which the site falls, concluded that the proposed site did not share the characteristics, i.e. those of an overriding sense of exposure and isolation, of this part of the Muir. These broad characteristics do not ring true for the enclosed field compartment that is the subject of the planning application, and its development, in part, would not impact negatively on the overall characteristics of the LLA and therefore detract from these. The potential impact of engineering operations would be small scale and transitory in nature and importantly, in view of the ecological position, of no concern to the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The proposals are therefore not at odds with the requirements of Policy 9.1, part (b)(i). Reasons for Refusal 4 Quite clearly, their letter of 28 March 2020 confirmed that Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) Stirling and Clacks were appreciative of the fact that the applicants had recognised the biodiversity importance of the site. Indeed, they went as far as to offer advice on how the proposed management plan might be strengthened. They also confirmed that the proposals offered the bulk of the ecologically important species a level of proper management and security that they do not currently enjoy. In so doing, they confirmed that the proposals did therefore enhance the biodiversity value of the site and therefore comply with the requirements of Policy 8.1, part (a). Reasons for Refusal 5 On the matter of flooding, in para 5.3, the Council’s further representation of SuDS concedes that, with associated attenuation, would reduce the flow into the burn to 10.7 L/S. Indeed, the representation goes on to state: ‘The implication of SuDS and attenuation will reduce the flows into the burn and will reduce the risk of flooding further downstream’. In fact, by way of this ‘additional information’ that was suggested would be required, we would add the following:- ‘Impact on Existing flows to the Watercourse from the new Development We refer to appendix 7 of the drainage strategy report and the proposed drainage layout, this includes the provision of the following: 1) Filter trench to the north and west boundaries to capture any overland flow 2) A SuDs basin with a hydrobrake flow control to the front of the two properties to

collect and attenuate the storm water runoff from the houses and hardstandings. The attenuation will be designed with a minimum 1:30 year storage plus 30% climate change below ground and containment of all flows up to 1:200 year rainfall events on site

The use of the SuDS feature creates the opportunity for bioretention and the introduction of wild flower planting or a raingarden. We will embrace best practice and develop our proposals during detailed design.

4 As per section 4.3 of the report, and reference in 5.3 of the Planning Report, a flow control device in the form of a hydrobrake will limit the flow off site to the 1 in 2 greenfield run, thus controlling and reducing the flows during excess rainfall events. As such, this will control the flow to the existing watercourse and reduce the flood risk further downstream during excess storm events’. I maintain, therefore, that the proposals are not contrary to Primary Policy 5. Reasons for Refusal 6 The key issue is that of potential vehicle/pedestrian conflict. The volume of traffic is currently very small but there is no actual information about the intensity of use of this part of Core Path 9078Kp/13 by pedestrians and there has been no attempt by concerned locals to produce figures. Bearing in mind the long-running nature of the planning story here and their apparently high level of concern, it was entirely possible for them to appoint appropriately qualified individuals to do some kind of assessment at least. In fact, there were no address-based objections re this matter from the wider Cauldhame/Kippen population. The Community Council did, of course, object, but provided no information about actual use. It would, in the absence of detail, be reasonable to suggest that the vast majority of users, both drivers and pedestrians, would be local and aware of circumstances. In our opinion, as we have already confirmed in the Supporting Statement, the amount of traffic generated by the two dwellings, based on the Council’s own method of calculation, would be small enough as to have no measurable impact on the situation. Indeed, it is virtually guaranteed that drivers intent on pulling into one of the houses would be travelling very slowly for at least 100 m before reaching the access, and it is highly unlikely that residents of the two houses, perfectly aware of local circumstances, would be routinely shooting out. It is also important to confirm that the footpath proposed for the northern and eastern margins of the site is not intended to replace the Core Path but to provide a second option that would reduce the already small risk of accident even further. We are well aware, for example, that the proposed gravel path would not be suitable for all walkers. Further Representations on behalf of Third Parties We have attached Table 1, ‘Maryhill Letters of Representation in Response to Request for Review’. This, we trust, will confirm that we have undertaken a detailed review of the submissions and identified the individual points raised. There is little, indeed, if anything, in these letters, in our opinion that, in terms of issues, is new. In terms of what might be described as additional information, we have recognised three points, namely: 1. Lilian McGeoch, Springburn, Fintry Road, Cauldhame, Kippen. The

representation provides an alternative methodology for calculating trip generation. This is based purely on the experience of one person and its statistical reliability must be seriously questioned. Even if the writer had stumbled on a more robust analysis of trip generation, in the opinion of our Transport Consultant, it would still result in a very low number of movements, i.e. approximately 1 per 30 minutes.

5 2. Lorraine K Taylor, Woodlane Cottage, Redgate Hill, Cauldhame, Kippen,

Stirling. Particular concern was expressed that the applicants had not been sufficiently thorough in assessing the matter of flooding. We take the view that the Planning Officer’s comments on SuDs, etc in the Council’s additional representation confirms that an adequate/appropriate solution can be arrived at.

3. Martin and Anne-Marie Hopkins, 6 Denovan Crescent, Kippen, FK8 8HJ and Richard Simpson Muir, Redmarley, Kippen, FK8 3HS. Both of these were critical of the applicants’ mowing of the field, suggesting that, if this was an example, good management would not be delivered in the long term. We can confirm that the mowing was undertaken following strict guidance regarding procedures obtained from the applicants’ ecological consultant.

Conclusions Our review of the additional representations has, in the final analysis, led us to the conclusion that the Conclusions set out in the Request for Review Supporting Statement remain substantially valid and, with minor modifications as a result of additional representations are, for the Board’s convenience, set out below:-

Throughout the planning application process, we have taken an evidence-based approach, using experts in their respective fields to justify the case being put forward in anticipation that the documentation would have been carefully examined/reviewed by those Officers from the relevant Council departments that were involved in the process While we are reassured by the Officer’s confirmation of a site visit, the comments resulting from that, together with those from other Officers referred to in the Report of Handling, which is still the primary response document, strongly suggests that this still hasn’t been the case.

While the concerns of legitimate objections must be taken into account, it seems to us that much of what was stated by them was similarly lacking in evidence and, indeed, many of their comments previously went well outwith the subject matter that they should have been focused on, i.e. the technical merits or otherwise of the proposals

The proposals are composed of two elements, namely: (i) the erection of two detached dwellinghouses, including integral garages

and associated landscaping on 0.46 ha of land on the south-west corner of the application site, and

(ii) the creation of an area for habitat conservation and management on the

remainder of the application site, i.e. 0.8 ha

In setting out the case, we have been, as would be expected, mindful of the requirements of planning policy, guidance and advice and, in particular, the relevant policies of Stirling Local Development Plan 2

In addition, we have been particularly aware of the responses received in relation to refused Planning Application Nos 18/00604/PPP and 19/00843/FUL

The Statement in Support of Planning Application 19/00843/FUL, in conjunction with the:

6

- Landscape Character Assessment by DWA Landscape Architects Ltd- Statement on Roads and Traffic Issues, McIlhagger Associates- Drainage Strategy Plan, Goodson Associates- Habitat Management Plan, EnviroCentre

has provided a substantial body of opinion and collectively provided the evidence that confirm:

- the proposals for housing are underpinned by a strong design concept- they respect the requirements of their setting and, in particular, their visual

relationship with/to potentially sensitive areas in heritage and landscape terms, namely the neighbouring Southern Hills LLA and the setting of the Cauldhame Character Area

- simultaneously, they would not impinge on the overall amenity/residentialamenity of the nearest housing as claimed in the Report of Handling

- the proposals will ensure the future of 79% of the ecologically important unimproved grassland which, in fact, only exists because of the way the site is currently looked after

- and will ensure that all of the locations where Greater Butterfly Orchids have been found and where other wild flowers survive

- and, importantly, have now been supported by SWT- the construction process used will minimise any potential negative impacts

on the ecologically sensitive area and is not an issue for SWT- the proposals will not create problems for local drainage or result in

flooding. Indeed, in his additional comments, the Officer has confirmed that a perfectly acceptable SuDS solution can be provided

- the two-house solution, together with the introduction of a bypass footpath, will result in an imperceptible change in the volume of traffic and reduceeven further the scope for vehicular/pedestrian conflict which the only available evidence indicates does not actually exist at present

- it was understood that the bypass footpath would not provide a complete substitute for the current arrangements

- the site does not naturally form part of the Southern Hills LLA, is distinct from it and its removal from it would be inconsequential. In this regard therefore, and already being immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary, its integration into Kippen would not create an indefinableprecedent that would serve to undermine the Council’s approach to defining the limits of settlement

- being immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary, the proposals would represent a modest extension to Cauldhame that would not make other areas, as a consequence, vulnerable to developments

I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Should you wish to discuss any of the points raised in this letter, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Yours faithfully

Michael S Evans, Planning Consultant

7

Tabl

e 1:

Mar

yhill

Let

ters

of R

epre

sent

atio

n in

Res

pons

e to

Req

uest

for R

evie

w

De

taile

d Po

ints

Rai

sed

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

1 Ch

alle

nges

info

re p

revi

ous u

se

✔

SWT LETTER – NO OBJECTION

1

2 Im

pact

of t

he co

nstr

uctio

n pr

oces

s ✔

✔

✔

3

+ 3

No p

roac

tive

man

agem

ent p

revi

ously

✔

✔

2

4 Pe

rson

al a

ttac

k/w

hy co

mm

ents

inclu

ded

✔ ✔

✔

3 5

Visu

al im

pact

/dom

inan

t re

villa

ge

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔ ✔

✔

7 *

6 La

ck o

f app

recia

tion

of th

e ac

tual

site

✔

✔

2

7 Lim

itatio

n of

the

prop

osed

foot

path

✔

✔

✔ 3

8 Th

e w

ell-d

ocum

ente

d ris

k to

ped

estr

ians

✔

✔

2

9 Fl

oodi

ng/d

rain

age

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔ ✔

✔

7 *

10

Mow

ing

of th

e fie

ld

✔

✔

2 11

Co

ntra

ry to

the

deve

lopm

ent p

lan

✔

✔ ✔

✔

4 12

En

gine

erin

g op

erat

ion

✔

1 +

13

Will

not

enh

ance

bio

dive

rsity

✔

✔ ✔

3

14

Road

safe

ty/n

arro

w b

lind

corn

er

✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

9 *

15

The

prop

osed

pat

h

✔

✔

2

16

View

impe

ded

✔

✔

2 17

Re

dgat

e Hi

ll isn

’t pr

omin

ent i

n th

e la

ndsc

ape

✔

1 18

Vi

sual

impa

ct o

n ru

ral e

nviro

nmen

t

✔ ✔

✔

3

19

Impa

ct o

n am

enity

✔

✔

2

20

Impa

ct o

n sk

ylin

e

✔

1

21

Traf

fic g

ener

atio

n le

vels

✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

5 22

Vu

lner

abili

ty o

f the

site

to fu

rthe

r dev

elop

men

t

✔

✔

1

23

Desig

n, e

tc n

ot d

oes r

elat

e to

the

area

✔

1

24

Prop

erty

subs

iden

ce?

✔

1

Tota

l by

lett

er

9 8

6 3

12 3

9

8 8

3

+ =

2 a

nd 1

2 ar

e ba

sica

lly th

e sa

me

* =

Hig

hest

tota

l

1. Planning Policies:

1.1 Policy 2.10: Housing in the Countryside

(a) New houses (including those for holiday let outwith managed chalet developments), of a scale, layout and design suitable for their intended location, will be supported in the Countryside* where one or more of the following circumstances apply: (i) When they are within or closely and cohesively visually related to existing Building Groups and Clusters. (ii) Where they will occupy Infill sites relative to existing rows of houses. (iii) Outwith existing groups or Infill situations when the proposal is for a Single house at a specific type of site or for a specific purpose. (iv) When the Replacement or Renovation of a single house is proposed. (v) When the proposal is for the Conversion, redevelopment or replacement of a Farm Steading or other range or cluster of Non‐Domestic Buildings. (vi) When the proposal will result in the beneficial re‐use of a Brownfield Site. (b) Support may be given to single houses in the Green Belt (outwith building groups or infill situations) for specific purposes where consistent with Policy 1.5 and Supplementary Guidance on Housing in the Countryside and Green Belts.

[SG: Approved Draft Housing in the Countryside supports this policy by providing details of the definition of terms used, requirements relative to Listed Buildings, affordable housing, Green Belts, etc, and includes guidance on siting and design, landscaping, energy efficiency etc. SG: Small Settlements sets out the procedures allowing for the identification and formation of Small Settlements within the Countryside and policy interpretation therein].

[SG: Placemaking supports this policy by providing specific design guidance in relation to the reuse of redundant rural buildings]. [*Countryside is defined by the Countryside Policy Boundary shown on Proposals Maps].

1.2 Policy 8.1: Biodiversity Duty

(a) All development proposals will be assessed for their potential impact upon biodiversity. This may be a specific impact on species or habitats at the proposed site, or cumulative impact if the species or habitats have a restricted distribution. (b) Developments likely to lead to a significant loss of biodiversity (relative to the Stirling Biodiversity Action Plan, the Scottish Biodiversity List and ‘Natural Heritage Futures’) will only be supported if the Planning Authority is satisfied that adequate provision can be made on or off site to maintain species populations and / or create or enhance comparable habitats such that overall biodiversity is maintained. [SG: Landscape and Biodiversity supports this policy by outlining what the general biodiversity interest is in the area, and provides guidance on surveying for biodiversity and links to natural heritage information].

1.3 Policy 9.1: Protecting Special Landscapes

Item 7f

Decisions on development proposals within designated landscapes will take into account the level of importance and qualities of the designated area and the nature and scale of development (see SG: Landscape and Biodiversity). In all cases the siting and design of development within designated landscapes should be of very high quality and respect the special nature of the area. (a) National Scenic Area (NSA) Development proposals in the NSA will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that: (i) The objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised. (ii) Any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. (b) Local Landscape Areas (LLAs) Development proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that: (i) The landscape character, scenic interest and qualities for which the area has been designated will not be adversely affected. (ii) There is a specific nationally recognised need for the development at that location which could not be satisfied in a less sensitive area, and any adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of local importance.

1.4 Primary Policy 5: Flood Risk Management (a) The Council will take a precautionary approach to flood risk from all sources, including coastal, watercourse (fluvial), surface water (pluvial), groundwater, reservoirs and drainage systems (sewers, culverts and surface water drains), taking account of the predicted effects of climate change. (b) Development should be avoided in locations at medium to high flood risk (unless it accords with the risk framework in paragraph 263 of Scottish Planning Policy) or where it would lead to an increase in the probability of flooding elsewhere. The functional flood plain will be safeguarded from development in order to maintain its water conveyance and storage capacity. ( Note: Scottish Planning Policy states that for planning purposes the functional flood plain will generally have a greater than 0.5% (1:200) probability of flooding in any year. (c) Development proposals on areas shown to be at risk of flooding on the SEPA Flood Maps, or adjacent to a small watercourse (which has not been assessed on the SEPA Flood Maps i.e. with a catchment area less than 3km2), or in an area known to be at risk of flooding from any source: (i) Shall be informed by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) assessing the risk from all sources of flooding. The FRA shall be carried out in compliance with SEPA’s Technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders. (ii) Will be assessed against advice and the Risk Framework in SPP relating to Flooding and Drainage. (iii) Shall not result in a use that is more vulnerable to flooding or has a larger footprint than any previous development on the site. Reference should be made to SEPA’s Land Use Vulnerability Guidance. (iv) Shall not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. (d) Surface water from new development shall be treated by a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) before it is discharged into the water environment, in accordance with the CIRIA C753 document ‘The Suds Manual’ and, where the scheme is to be adopted by Scottish Water, the Sewers for Scotland Manual 3rd. Edition.

(e) All developments will be assessed for their potential to contribute to the reduction of overall flood risk. Developments likely to result in an adverse effect upon sustainable flood management or otherwise not in conformity with the objectives of relevant Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Plans, will not be permitted. (f) A precautionary approach will be taken in controlling development in areas potentially subject to flooding from small watercourses with no obvious flood plain or from surcharging drainage systems, and in locations prone to landslips and other forms of erosion, which may be exacerbated by changing rainfall patterns. (g) In exceptional circumstances, as set out in SPP, where built development is permitted measures to protect against or manage flood risk will be required and any loss of flood storage capacity mitigated to achieve a neutral or better outcome. Water‐resistant materials and construction should be used where appropriate. Elevated buildings on structures such as stilts are unlikely to be acceptable.

LAND ADJA - Stirling Council

Documents

Transcript of LAND ADJA - Stirling Council