Local politicians critical of plans for the controversial development at Park of Keir have vowed to fight on despite the application now having reached the peak of the planning process.
Last week Stirling Council’s planning panel unanimously expressed dissatisfaction at the planning process as they noted a legal agreement struck over the development.
Park of Keir Partners want to build 19 luxury homes on the land near Bridge of Allan along with a tennis centre, golf centre and Sir Andy Murray Museum led by Judy Murray.
The initial application for the Park of Keir Development was rejected by Stirling’s councillors in 2015 after more than 1000 objections.
Following an appeal and public local inquiry, Scottish ministers issued a Notice of Intention to approve the development in 2017, pending agreement between the applicant and the council to secure: affordable housing; education contributions; community access to the tennis facilities; and a ‘no more houses’ agreement for the site.
The Section 75 agreement covers a range of requirements the developer is legally obliged to deliver and had been brought before the planning panel last week for scrutiny before it is passed to Scottish Ministers for final consideration.
Council officers had advised that failure to note the report could see it taken entirely out of the council’s hands, potentially putting any perceived bonuses already negotiated at risk.
Panel members were told that their “hands were tied” in terms of any influence they may have and that the parameters had essentially been set out by Scottish Ministers.
Green MSP Mark Ruskell has called now called on Planning Minister Tom Arthur to use his authority to throw out the application.
He said: “Despite the clear displeasure expressed by the panel, we now have a deal which the people of Dunblane and Bridge of Allan don’t want, and which will ruin a much loved part of the green belt.
“The new Planning Minister Tom Arthur now has a responsibility to own up to the mistakes of his predecessor, do the right thing and throw out this unpopular, undemocratic, and destructive application.”
Scottish Conservative MSP, Alexander Stewart said: “As a Bridge of Allan resident, I am personally disappointed at this decision.
“This is not what the local community wanted, as again the decision will be taken by Scottish Ministers from a government which has a long track record on this application.
“I, our residents and Stirling councillors had hoped there would finally have been a line drawn under this, however once more a travesty has occurred for local democracy where the resounding local voice against this development may undoubtedly fall on deaf ears.
“I shall be writing to the planning minister to seek clarity on his intentions and to implore that he and the Scottish government heeds the collective wishes of our local community.”
Dunblane and Bridge of Allan Councillor Graham Houston (SNP) said the panel had been put in a “wholly invidious position”.
He added: “The panel could either agree to the improvements planning officers have negotiated in addition to the bare minimums set by the Government Minister, or reject them and risk approval being given nonetheless by a Government Minister, perhaps with no improvements being required of the developer.
“This application has been resoundingly rejected by local people, planning officers, councillors, and the government’s own planning reporter, but nonetheless a Minister deemed this to be of “national importance” and approved it – despite us having a world class centre of sporting excellence on our doorstep at Stirling University.
“I regard this as a deeply flawed decision which ignores overwhelming local community opinion and a cross-party consensus against this proposal from local members, but the fact is the planning decision has been made.
“We do not have the powers to reverse this decision, and although it thoroughly sticks in the craw, we must seek to win the best result for our communities in the circumstances by extracting the most beneficial conditions possible at the stage we have now reached. And that means imposing conditions locally rather than risking local communities being let down further.”
