Park of Keir plan is muddle of ideas
Dear Editor As the community councillors who represented Dunblane Community Council (and also Bridge of Allan Community Council) in the recent Park of Keir local public inquiry we wish to offer the following response to the recent piece about Judy Murray and her tennis centre proposals.
We spent weeks reading the appeal documentation, preparing our submissions and then participating in the public inquiry and, as we are fully conversant with the application, we feel that we can knowledgeably comment on the points that she makes.
The community council did not oppose this application without considerable thought and discussion with the community. Neither does it consider that the objectors are a “relatively small group of people” because they proved capable of raising considerable funding for an advocate, at short notice, to represent them at the public inquiry. The list of objectors on the Stirling Council planning portal shows over 1000 objectors from the two communities, hardly a small group.
The community council did decide to oppose this particular application on this site because it considered that the loss of a significant part of the countryside between Bridge of Allan and Dunblane is a major risk to the loss of identity of Dunblane as a clearly separate town with its own 1,000 year history. We believe that this application has to be considered, and decided, strictly on planning grounds. To do otherwise could lead to a rash of celebrity endorsed developments all across Scotland, where the media power of the celebrity is used to overwhelm local communities. This cannot be the vision of a modern Scotland that our government wishes to present to its citizens.
We are not against the concept of a community-based tennis facility and would be willing to work with Judy Murray if she was to propose that. We certainly would like to see the “Murray legacy” benefit the whole of Scotland.
However this application, lodged by the King Group of Auchterarder, not by Judy Murray, was for a mixed development including the housing. At the public inquiry King’s advocate went to great pains to state that the application had to be treated as a whole, stressing that the housing is an integral part of the application.
The whole concept is a muddle of ideas about what it is trying to achieve, which, on the basis of the figures that were provided, is going to require many from various parts of the world as well as the dedicated local support. Thanks are also due to the Stirling Observer for their continual press coverage of the activities and remit of Save Gillies Hill.
I and others will await the reporter’s decision, which of course will not be any time soon. It is expected that this decision and the subsequent announcement and report could take up to a year to be made.
Margaret Strang By email
ongoing financial support by Tennis Scotland and will be unable to support the community facilities that are being proposed.
Such a large facility on such an important site cannot be reliant on the drive of just one person. This is particularly important as there is no legal relationship between Judy Murray and the King Group, so, were permission to be granted, there is no certainty that Judy Murray’s vision would be realised.
Tennis Scotland stated that they were seeking to develop ten local indoor tennis facilities throughout the length and breadth of Scotland over the next five years. This appears to be a much more pragmatic and realistic approach – rooted in the local communities and not reliant on the energy and drive of one woman, who has stated that she will not continue if this application is rejected and who cannot see anyone to take over from her.
The future of tennis in Scotland has to be based on a well-considered and fully funded long-term plan, not on Judy Murray’s, very focused, vision of a big tennis centre beside the Keir roundabout.
David Prescott and Rosemary Hunter, Dunblane Community councillors