Councillors to visit site before house plan decided
Councillors are set to visit a site in Bridge of Allan before deciding whether to allow a new home to be built.
Members of Stirling Council’s planning and regulation panel decided recently they should see the plot at Sunnylaw Farm Water Tank off Pendreich Road for themselves.
An application by Mr and Mrs M and K Tomkinson to build a one-and-a-half storey house on the land has been recommended for refusal by council planners and five objections have been submitted to the proposals.
The house would have three floors, with a cinema/ gym in the basement. The first floor would provide a double garage, living/ dining/kitchen room, utility and shower room. There would also be two further bathrooms, three bedrooms and a balcony at first floor level.
Among objectors’ concerns are overlooking of other properties, increased traffic, parking, vehicle access and the impact of construction work,
The site, which still features a disused water tank, was formerly owned by Scottish Water and a previous plan to build a house there was refused.
Residents, Gregor and Lindsay Roberts, wrote in their letter of objection: “Access is not fit for purpose for the proposed development. We regularly observe medium-sized vehicles having difficulty accessing Sunnylaw Farm steading from our living room.
“There is a single entry and exit access point into the privately-owned road through a narrow gate into our premises. There is a severe lack of turning space in the property. There is no adequate passing space or turning areas for Heavy Goods Vehicles in the property. Access is not fit for purpose for the proposed development.”
Fellow Sunnylaw resident Barry Ponzio, wrote: “Planning to build a residential home on this site was previously refused, and the circumstances since then have not materially changed.
“The Sunnylaw Farm tank site has not changed, Pendreich Road where the site is accessed has not changed, and the long privately owned access road (owned by the Sunnylaw residents) remains unchanged.”
Council planners are recommending refusal on the basis that they don’t believe the proposal complies with polices and it “is not considered to complement and connect with its surroundings, or create a sense of identity within the development by way of its location or scale”.
They added: “Although within 100 metres of the other buildings, the site sits outwith the compact cluster layout and is not considered to sensitively integrate into the development.
“It has been put forward that the proposal would enable the reuse of a brownfield site. As the site has some evidence of a former use that could not easily be restored to its original state, it is accepted that the site is brownfield. However, given the modest scale of the evidence of former use, and size of the site, it is not considered that a residential development proposal would result in significant wider environmental and visual benefits.”
However in a submission to planners Enspire Architects, agents for the applicants, said: “It is clear that the proposal has support from the brownfield category of Housing in the Countryside policy as the site has undeniably been previously developed and is incapable of reversion to grazing or cultivation land.
“The residential redevelopment of the site will result in wider environmental benefits through the recycling of the redundant water tank. An opportunity exists to achieve significant visual enhancement of the landscape by removal of the unsightly security fence boundary, with a welldesigned and sympathetic house in the countryside which fits well in the natural setting.”
Councillor Neil Benny, who chaired the discussion after panel convener Councillor Alasdair Macpherson declared a family interest in the item, suggested the site visit was needed to fully understand the layout and topography of the site.