Park of Keir questions still need answering

Dear Editor If Judy Murray seriously wants to create a sports facility to benefit the community she might have involved the community in her plans in an open and collaborative manner. Instead she has “climbed into bed” with a property developer who is using her high profile to get housing on his slice of greenbelt.

The plans keep changing : First they needed 100 houses, then 19.

First it was a partnership between Judy Murray, Colin Montgomery and Duncan King the developer, then we learn that it’s not, they are just friends, and Colin Montgomery has dropped out.

First the golf will subsidise the tennis, now the ‘leisure elements’ will subsidise the tennis and golf.

First it would be operated by a Community Interest Company, now it is a “charitable trust”.

The current negotiations with the council are shrouded in secrecy at the insistence of the developer. If she had asked what the community wanted they would have told her: no golf and no building on Park of Keir.

The small financial contribution from the housing (10 or 20 per cent of the total required to construct the sports facilities) does not justify allowing housing on this greenbelt site which will effectively join the two communities of Dunblane and Bridge of Allan.

Housing is only there to make a profit for the developer. There appears to be no guarantee that once he gets consent for housing that the expensive and under-funded sports facilities will materialise. Or that more housing will not be applied for due to the need to fund the sports facilities.

We know from experience that any legal agreement the developer enters into can be altered at a later date. The previous Section 75 Agreement to prohibit future housing applications on the site, set up in 2004 has lapsed as he did not sign the renewal in 2010.

There is no evidence of funding from either Tennis Scotland or Sportscotland.

There appears to be no Murray money going into the project. How will they fund the construction? How will they cover the running costs? Is there any contingency plan if they do not reach the suggested 270,000 visits per year?

If Judy Murray can provide more details we really would like to hear them. We have never received a direct answer to any of our questions or concerns, merely denigration for showing concern about our surroundings! And spin about the benefits of the project. As highlighted by the Reporter, without adequate safeguards we could be left with only housing being developed, or a sports centre that is not viable and subsequently altered into something fundamentally different from the proposal. This is our community, our place that is facing these major changes

Inga Bullen By email