A9 roadside services plan is thrown out Councillors reject idea for development near Dunblane
Plans for a roadside services development on the A9 near Dunblane have been rejected by Stirling councillors just a year after being conditionally approved.
In August 2020 Stirling Council’s planning panel approved the application by GB Grove Ltd for a filling station, HGV truck stop, amenity building - with rest area, toilet and shower facilities - and two units for use as a cafe and/or restaurant on land 500 metres south west of Balhaldie.
A legal challenge was later lodged against the decision, however, which the council chose not to contest.
The proposal was returned to the council to be considered afresh and at a meeting this month, it was this time unanimously refused by the planning panel.
Council planners, who renewed their original recommendation of refusal, said no weight could be given to the panel’s previous determination and that a further consultation process had been carried, with 99 objections submitted and one representation of support. Dunblane Community Council also objected to the application.
Representing the developers, Kerry McGuire, partner and heading of planning at Graham and Sibbald, said her client was a long established developer and operator of roadside services in the UK, that BP had committed to operating the fuel element of the project and that there had been no objection to the proposals from any statutory consultees.
She added: “By its very nature a roadside location is required, with facilities for traffic travelling north on a key transport corridor. It will assist Stirling Council and the Scottish Government to meet their net zero requirements and support the uptake of electric vehicles...with 58 electric charging points and allow for further to be added to meet demand.”
Ms McGuire said it would also provide safer facilities for 50 HGVs and have signficant economic benefits, including the creation of 54 jobs.
Objector Jo McDonald, however, said the application had “united our community” with concerns over road safety and the potential impact on local businesses who may miss out on trade.
She cited cases of accidents at that section of the carriageway, including a fatality.
“This is already the most dangerous stretch of the A9 between Stirling and Dunkeld,” she added.
The impact on the Sheriffmuir battlesite was also a local concern, plus any jobs created would be minimum wage and would have to be accessed by car, said Ms McDonald.
Panel members were told by planners that Transport Scotland had not objected to the application and were satisfied that road safety concerns could be mitigated. There was some complexity, however, with how that would be achieved and at what part in the process.
When the application was approved in August 2020 an advisory note attached to the decision had stated: “The applicant should liaise with Transport Scotland to explore a road safety strategy for the area, in particular regarding signage in the vicinity of the development site and road safety with regards to U-turn movements in the area.”
A spokesperson for Transport Scotland had later said that, while planning permission in principle had been granted, any works on the trunk road network would not be able to proceed without Transport Scotland’s approval, and further work was required to demonstrate that an access could be provided safely and in line with current standards.
Councillor Jeremy McDonald asked for his dissent to be recorded after he failed to get a seconder for his motion to defer the application for further information.
The remaining panel members refused the application as per the planners’ recommendation.