Category: Housing

Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Board unanimously accepted the Park Authority’s recommendation to remove its Ardentinny housing proposal from the Local Plan. The Plan in its entirety will now go to the Reporter and, depending on the Reporter’s decision, it will be adopted or amended accordingly.

This remarkable decision was taken at the Board’s meeting at National Park Headquarters in Balloch on the 23 June 2010. It was the culmination of a 17-month-long campaign by local residents in objection to the Park’s proposal to build housing south of Lochview in Ardentinny and resulted in the Park Authority’s suggestion to make a ‘significant change’ to the finalised Draft Local Plan. That change being:

‘Ardentinny – H2 Site South of Lochview

Considering the number of objections and comments received regarding this site, it is recommended to remove H2 from Schedule 1: Housing Allocations. It is also recommended that the Ardentinny Proposals Map is amended to remove the allocation and the settlement boundary adjusted to follow the A880 road so the site lies outwith the boundary.

It is noted that under Policy HOUS3 New Housing Development Adjacent to Settlements, this site could come forward for development subject to the plan’s policies. If in the event that a planning application came forward for housing development on this site, community consultation would be undertaken as set out in the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.’

(Report NPA/02/2010/06 on the Consultation on the Finalised Draft Local Plan. Stuart Mearns, Forward Planning Manager).

On presenting the Consultation Document on the Finalised Draft Local Plan, Gordon Watson, Director of Planning and Rural Development, explained that the recommendation for change to the Housing Proposal for Ardentinny was due to the large number of objections from residents to the proposal together with the Petition sent to all Board members which recorded a ‘significant number of signatories’.

Councillor Bruce Marshall asked if there were any plans to develop housing on another site in Ardentinny. Gordon Watson replied that they had identified other sites for housing in Cowal but not in Ardentinny. Later, Board Member, Russell Bruce asked about the significance of the recommendation to adjust the settlement boundary. Gordon Watson responded by saying that it was necessary to move the site south of Lochview outside the settlement boundary otherwise there would always be a predisposition to use it for the development of housing.

This result is undoubtedly due to the spirit and determination of the Ardentinny community whose resolve and staying power have been exemplary. A record of its campaign and how it evolved can be found at the following pages:

https://ardentinny.org/category/phousing/

http://old.ardentinny.org/community/localplan3.html

http://old.ardentinny.org/community/localplan2.html

http://old.ardentinny.org/community/localplan1.html

Copy of letter which accompanied 96 signature petition to National Park Authority (pdf 70kb).

Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority  has produced its Report on Consultation, which is their report on the results of the initial consultation on the draft local plan in February 2009. This apparently fed in to their Finalised Draft Local Plan, the consultation period of which ended on 6 April 2010. Copies of their Report on Consultation are available  on the National Park website (pdf 3.3mb).

29 of the 50 attendees at the Public Meeting, held in Ardentinny on 26th January, completed feedback forms which were provided by The Community Council. The results are as follows:

Question 1. Were you given sufficient information to understand the planning issue and its possible impact on the village in order to attend and take part in this meeting?
26 responded Yes
3 responded No

Question 2. Did you consider the Community Council and Working Group conducted an equal and fair meeting, allowing important points to be raised and answered?
28 responded Yes
1 responded Don’t know

Question 3. Did you consider the National Park statements satisfactory or inadequate?
4 responded Satisfactory
25 responded Inadequate

Question 4. Do you wish the Community Council and Working Group to continue to monitor this planning issue?
29 responded Yes

Further comments were also invited and those submitted were:
– The representatives of the National Park seem to know little about the area.
– Further clarification for criteria required for ‘Social Housing’
– How are Housing Associations selected for the development?
– No information on the environmental impact.
– Good meeting re-affirming a substantial majority against the proposed housing.
– Thin end of the wedge – 10 houses initially, then what? Not convinced of sincerity of NP to take into consideration feelings of the majority present.
– Disappointed that the elected National Park Councillor does not feel he has to support the overwhelming view of the meeting.
– Very pleased with the way the meeting was conducted.
– Majority at meeting voted NO to new houses in Ardentinny.
– I think there were some questions that revealed a lack of democracy and real consultation and concern for local communities and their sustainability and health.