Village victory as homes appeal KO’D
Developers‘surprised’by refusal
Developers have lost their appeal against Stirling Council’s refusal of 265 new homes in Cambusbarron.
Councillors on the planning panel rejected controversial plans for the Seven Sisters Field development off Polmaise Road in December, which had attracted a 230-signature petition from worried locals.
During a lengthy planning wrangle, local campaigners had warned the community’s infrastructure, including the school, roads and health services, wouldn’t be able to cope even with significant investment.
However, an appeal by Barratt Homes West Scotland Ltd lodged with the Scottish Government’s planning appeals division (DPEA) earlier this year has now been rejected, mainly on grounds of the density of the housing proposed.
Given t he pri n c i p l e o f development on the site had been established earlier, the developer, or others, could come back with a fresh proposal.
However, on learning of the outcome, locals on social media appeared hopeful that, at the very least, they have bought more time or even deterred development on the site completely.
In her decision, DPEA appeals reporter Karen Black said: “I accept that through the imposition of conditions, the retention of some existing trees and provision of further maintenance details could be achieved, thereby meeting the requirements of local development plan policies related to the impact of development on trees.
“However, I find that the density of the proposed development has an excessively dense and urban character, particularly in the context of the linear and relatively narrow form of the site in the southern and eastern part of the site. Furthermore, the densities as proposed in those areas do not reflect the rural nature and character of adjacent development.
“I therefore conclude that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify approving the matters specified in conditions of the planning permission. I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions.”
The council originally refused permission in 2014 to Hallam for a 170-home housing estate on the field.
A subsequent appeal was turned down by the DPEA - however its rejection was based almost solely on lack of space at the village primary school. Hallam then pledged £3.5million for an extension to the school and the appeals reporter gave the council and the developer more time to agree a planning obligation. When that failed to materialise Hallam submitted a draft planning obligation to the reporter and planning permission in principle was eventually conditionally approved in September last year.
After that Barratt became involved and submitted an application for approval of matters specified in conditions (MSC) of that permission to build 265 homes and associated infrastructure.
When it came before the council’s planning panel in December, Barratt representatives said 40 per cent of the site would be open space and there would be a range of one- to fourbedroom homes “for a large variety of budgets and circumstances”, with demand already strong for the location. An extra classroom would be funded at the school and there would also be affordable homes built.
Ho w e v e r, c ommu n i t y representatives said there had been a 40 per cent increase in housing stock in Cambusbarron over 20 years which would jump to 65 per cent if the development went ahead. They also reiterated concerns about school capacity and loss of open space.
Council planners had said the development was “an example of good design” and considered 265 homes to meet guidelines after taking factors such as layout and the mix of housing type and size into account.
Councillors on the planning panel, however, questioned whether the original appeals reporter had perceived 265 homes would be proposed when they had deemed “indicative capacity” to be 170 homes, and refused the application on the grounds of over-density and over-development of the site.
In appeal documents lodged with the DPEA, however, the developers said they were “surprised and disappointed” by the panel’s conclusion, describing the decision to refuse as unreasonable and without proper basis.
Density of the proposed development has an excessively dense and urban character