Chalet plans ok’d for Sauchieburn
Council approve holiday homes for Roddie’s site
A controversial landowner has been awarded planning permission for chalets on his estate despite suggestions the area had been run down in order to justify development.
Spectrum Properties Scotland want to build 12 holiday chalets and infrastructure 190 metres north of Barns Knowe in the grounds of Sauchieburn House/Estate, owned by William Roddie.
Mr Roddie hit the headlines in recent years after Riding for the Disabled said they were forced to quit their long established base within the Sauchieburn estate, which had previously been long supported by the estate’s late previous owner.
In 2016, Stirling Council also appeared to have drawn battle lines with the landowner over his bid to divert a pathway that runs through his estate and replace it with an alternative 510 metre path.
Critics, however, suggested he was trying to restrict access to the public -- a claim he refuted.
The estate was again in the spotlight on Tuesday when Spectrum’s bid for holiday chalets came before the council’s planning panel.
The site of almost 2.3 hectares is within the grounds of the estate, between one and two miles south west of Chartershall and the Battle of Bannnockburn Visitor Centre.
Six objections/comments had been submitted raising concerns including inappropriate location and adverse impact on the natural environment, and Woodland Trust Scotland had expressed concerns about the loss of ancient woodland.
Planning consultant for the applicants, Andrew Bennie, said the development could be blended successfully into the landscape and there would be no impact on existing woodland.
Addressing concerns about access, he added that visitors to the chalets themselves would require unrestricted access and it was “not in the applicant’s commercial interests” to do anything which restricts access to the site and it was “unreasonable to suggest or imply that would be the case”.
The council’s archaeologist had reported that there could be an impact on potential foundations on the site of late 18th/early 19th century lime kilns, which were destroyed in 2008.
Mr Bennie said he had no knowledge of these and could find no mapping evidence of them despite being aware of a grid reference.
Secretary of Carron Valley and District Community Council, Dorothy Breckenridge, however, spoke on behalf of objectors, referring to changes that had been made to the site in recent years.
She said: “The applicant insists it is not intentional and just happened. If this is taken as it stands it calls the whole planning process into disrepute and means any landowner can say ‘oops, sorry’ and then just build anyway.
“A two minute search on the internet can give the 10 figure grid reference for where the limekilns were. Should destruction be rewarded with planning consent?”
Councillor Chris Kane said: “I recognise it’s not a material planning consideration for this application but I want to make my feelings known that anyone can in effect do what they want, burying material, blocking paths and doing whatever they want to make sure they get a planning application to this table.
“I think the applicant here has demonstrated a history of abusing the system to meet his own wants and I see no reason he will stop doing this in the future.”
Committee clerk Iain Strachan said: “We don’t know what the applicant has or hasn’t done, we need to be clear on that. We can only determine the application on material considerations.”
Asked why planners’ opinion had changed to one of recommending development when previous applications for the site had been refused, council planner Iain Jeffrey said: “The applicants have come forward with a complete scheme this time and it represents an upgrade.
“The site itself is in a state of disrepair and an eyesore.
“The proposal now shows a sensitive layout of chalet buildings.
“The overall package is now presented and the written documents submitted making a case and argument for why it is acceptable on landscape grounds leads me to make a recommendation for conditional approval.”
Panel chair Councillor Alasdair Macpherson raised concerns about the limekilns saying he felt a recommended condition on the archaeological remains was not robust enough.
No panel members wanted to move the recommendation on the paper, however, following discussions, they eventually approved the application subject to a strengthening of the conditions.
These included that no works could be carried out until such times as the council’s archaeologist was happy with a mitigation strategy and also that a single track road was to be provided with passing places.
Councillor Kane asked that his dissent to the application be recorded after he did not find a seconder for refusal.