Item

Action

PART A: WELCOME AND PROCEDURES

A 1. Introduction

JW welcomed everyone to the meeting. It was noted that SH (Chair) was having
difficulties accessing the meeting. It was agreed that the meeting should proceed
with invited guests giving their presentations and to have a rescheduled meeting to
cover the other areas on the agenda. JW to chair the meeting.

The following apologies were noted: - Evelyn Tweed, Police Scotland.
ME, JM would join the meeting later.

A 2.Recording

The meeting was being recorded for the purposes of minute taking only.

A 3. Declaration of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

PART B: ORGANISATION, OUTSTANDING MATTERS AND MINUTES

B 1. Minutes of the previous meeting

A spelling error in draft minutes was to be corrected. The amended draft minutes
were proposed by DM, seconded by BF, and accepted unanimously.

B 2. Matters Arising

There were no matters arising.

B 3. Co-opted Members

One co-option application had been sent for approval to Stirling Council.

B 4 Technical Difficulties – Proposal to split tonight’s meeting into 2 parts

Ward Councillors will try to attend continuation meeting if possible.

B. 4 Resilience Planning (Learning From Storm Arwen)

Item

Action

Items discussed included:

• SC Planning committee is already looking at improving connections with
  power companies, roads, police, and Public Safety Panel. Important for
  communities to tell SC what happened and be engaged with this.

• BT are opening up a new digital service, which will cut off the analogue line.
  The new service does not function during power cuts, and people will
  therefore have no way of contacting emergency services, or get information
  about when the power is likely to come back on.

• Better use of the emergency services network, and how this could be done, as
  these run off a completely different system and are very robust in their
  capacity to “stay in play”.

• Feedback to be gathered from ourselves and the community

• Issues with people having electric cars, and running out of power (there is a
  need for a back-up plan/alternatives).

These will be discussed in more detail at the continuation meeting

B. 5 Speed bumps at Bridgend

Member of the public commented on “Chat” function, that neither the school nor the
PTA had been contacted for comment on the speed bumps. ME asked her to email

him and he would get her some detail.

PART C: INVITED GUESTS

C 1. Proposed Care Home Development , Jill Kerr (JK) , Balhousie Care CEO, and
Robbie Stevenson (RS), Lead Design Consultant)

JK gave a presentation in relation to Balhousie Care Group, and their new proposal for
a care home in Callander.

The presentation has been summarised below:

Main points of the Callander Proposal: -

• 50 bed care home

• Heart of the community

• Environmentally-friendly design

• Aesthetically pleasing design

• Care home specialist design team

• Job creation in the local economy (75 positions)
  Site plans and indicative visuals were included.

   

  RS made the following points: -

• Small-scale living principle being followed by architect, Stuart Dallas

• The building is intended to blend into the site and community

• Suitable car-parking for staff and visitors, with some electric charging points
  and cycle provision

• There is demand in Callander for another care home

• The proposed care home would fit well within the demographic need for
  Callander

Item

Action

• All relevant information is contained within the planning statement lodged

• Any flooding potential would be out with the development area for the site
  JK answered the following questions

• What type of development do you plan to initiate in the area of land not
  populated by the care home? JK – This has not yet been decided, but is likely
  to be something that would align itself with the care home e.g. retirement
  flats

• Will residency be restricted to Callander residents, or will your potential
  intake come from anywhere? JK – It is generally local residents that are
  placed within our care homes, but there is nothing that bars out of area
  placements

• JW asked if the footpath at the side of the river would be maintained for
  public use (and noted that RS had “dropped out” of the meeting. JK – said she
  would ask RS (when available) and feed this back

  DM stated that it was strongly felt in Callander that a road-crossing bridge would be
  needed in the future, and that the Rural Stirling Housing development on the other
  side of the river (recently completed) has part of the link road which could be
  assigned as part of a future bridge link, and for the Lagrannoch site to include a bridge
  there could be beneficial for everyone.

   

  RS discussed previous reports for proposed bridges, and said the conclusion was that
  a combination of crossings was preferred (pedestrian/cycle crossing at Geisher Road,
  and road crossing at the retail site/Lagrannoch site). Timescales are not yet known,
  although Phase 1 (Geisher Road crossing) can happen now. The road going down the
  middle of the care home site does not exclude the potential for a road crossing to
  occur, and BCG are not stopping a road bridge from going there. DM emphasised the
  need for BCG to quite clear about understanding the aspirations of the community for
  a bridge, even if it is in the longer term. RK stated that BCG have fully taken
  cognisance of that.

   

  BCG answered the following questions: -

• Timescales for taking the project forward? RS – a 3 month extension was
  requested by the planning authority to go to the March Planning Committee,
  and following that another 6 months would be needed to get all relevant
  approvals in place. Therefore, 9 months would be the earliest start. JK
  confirmed that BCG are keen to start as soon as possible. Building work
  would take approximately 18 months

• Although not currently possible, a public meeting would be beneficial to
  enable the public to positively ask questions and feed back to BCG. Would
  BCG be happy to come and present at this? JK – Yes, and would obviously
  need to take account of the Covid situation at that time (happy to attend
  virtually or face-to-face as required)

• Would RS/JK consent to CCC sharing their presentation e.g. via the CCC
  website? JK – we could arrange to have the plans made into a more user-
  friendly format, and to have the more detailed plans available too



The public displaying of plans was discussed. McLaren Leisure Centre was suggested.

RS confirmed that the footpath by the river would be kept and would be formalised.

DM to liaise
with RS.

Item

Action

C 2. Dementia-friendly Largs (Additional Information from Robbie Stevenson)

RS discussed Dementia-friendly Largs (a group which he is part of and chairs), and
encouraged people to have a look at this. He is happy to liaise with anyone to show
how this could be set up in Callander. He highlighted that Callander’s demographics
are the same as Largs, with an ageing population.

C 3. Flooding information update and potential public meeting (still tbc) Maria Lucy,
Stirling Council Team Leader, Bridges, Flooding and Drainage

There was a short presentation by Maria, on “Callander Flood Prevention Scheme and
Surface Water Management Plan as below: -

• Slide 1 – Flood Protection Scheme Update

  • Over the past 12 months, further options appraisal has taken place

  • Various options have been assessed.

  • All options assessed against a framework of criteria laid down by the
    Scottish Government (potential flood risk benefit, environmental,
    economic, landscape/visual, any other relevant constraints)

• Slide 2 – Flood Protection Scheme Update – Final Options Assessment –

  • Call for any final suggestions/options

  • These submissions to be made via the Callander Community Council

  • Submissions will be welcomed until 7.2.22

  • Options appraisal summary to be drafted and shared publicly

  • The appraisal findings will inform the short-list of options then
    presented to the public

  • Community will have the opportunity to prioritise solutions which will
    inform the next steps we take to move a flood defence scheme
    forward

• Slide 3 – A New Approach to Engagement

  • Acknowledgement that previous engagement, communication and
    reports now always been presented in a complete way

  • Recognition of Callander community’s frustration with this

  • Keen to create and develop open engagement with the community to
    reach better decisions, whilst funding is still available

  • Funding window is tight, and we propose a set time-line for this
    engagement

• Slide 4 & 5 – Proposed Engagement Plan (which can be adapted by
  community as appropriate)

  • Additional proposals submitted for consideration

  • Full options appraisal report produced

  • Soft launch of website

  • Letter drop to directly affected property owners and/or occupiers and
    relevant groups

  • Meetings held with affected property owners and/or occupiers and
    relevant groups

  • Display in library

  • Public notice boards

  • Advertise via local press and social media

  • Website live

Item

Action

• Hold 3 public drop-in sessions, face-to-face, outdoor in Meadows or
  CYP

• Hold 1 online public meeting

• Outcome of engagement

• Progress updates

• Slide 6 – Surface Water Management Plan Update

  • A surface water model has been developed for Callander

  • Model is awaiting validation prior to seeking wider community
    feedback

  • Stirling Council keen to arrange a “walk around” with a local rambler’s
    group and any key local contacts to run through current output so
    that initial validation works can take place

  • Further validation work

• Slide 7 – Surface Water Management Plan Update Validation Examples

• Slide 8 – Model Validation Examples

• Slide 9 – Key Considerations

  • Important to note the current position on Scottish Government
    funding

  • Timelines for progressing funding

  • No progress with detailed design has taken place this year, although
    there is opportunity to progress design of box culvert within Station
    Road

• What Happens Next?

  • Obtain feedback on proposed engagement

  • Finalised detailed plan of engagement plan

  • Share this plan with community, along with a timeline of activities

  • Community to be kept informed
    ML answered the following questions: -

• DM – It seems clear that part of the flooding in the Meadows is contributed
  by the bridge, which is effectively damming the river, and the river has clearly
  silted over time. Everyone is avoiding the question of dredging the river.
  Maybe a bit more pressure needs to be put on the people who make the
  decisions as this would be a way of increasing the culvert depth within the
  river. ML – we did look at dredging 450m, and 0.5m depth of silt removal was
  proposed. This reduced the flood waters, but only minimally, and didn’t have
  as significant an impact as was hoped or expected, so would only provide a
  minimal amount of protection or flood reduction. Also, SEPA were very much
  against this due to the potential environmental impact. Therefore, it was not
  something that could be progressed. There was also anecdotal evidence of
  rock bed at the bridge, which would mean that dredging would not be
  possible at that point.

• DM - With global warming etc., is it possible that we may just have to learn to
  live with flooding? ML – One of the newer themes of flooding is “managed
  retreat” – she discussed – communities choose to move rather than protect
  themselves from the inevitable flooding. Are we at that point yet? Are we still

at the point where we want to retain our settlements? It’s about striking a

Item

Action

balance i.e. doing something that you can live with, which carries a certain
amount of risk.

• MM – in relation to the Surface Water Management Plan, she highlighted the
  Forestry Commission’s policy of clearing woodlands, and the potential impact
  of this on the surface water over a very large area. What sort of cooperation
  are you likely to get from Forest Land Scotland in terms of them modifying
  their felling programmes, and have you managed to obtain more cooperation
  from Scottish Water with regards the management of water coming down
  from Loch Katrine into Loch Venachar, and having a better control in that
  area? ML – re Forestry Land Scotland – we would have limited influence,
  although could highlight the issues to them (the relationships are growing).
  We could air our concerns. There is more willingness on their part to give us
  ownership of drainage channels adjacent to their private roads, and would
  share information on existing channels within their forest ground, and may
  work with us to enhance their drainage network. It’s unlikely we could have
  any influence over their felling patterns, although there have been tentative
  conversations about lots of things, and there is more of a willingness to listen
  and be informed by us. ML – re Scottish Water – we have now set up a
  working group with Scottish Water, Stirling Council, SEPA, and Loch Lomond
  National Park, with all 4 parties trying to understand how we can enhance and
  understand each other’s responsibilities within the area, and understand
  what each of the other groups do and speak to each other more. Meetings
  have started to take place, and will be set up on a regular basis and be
  ongoing.

• Ian McCourt (IM) asked ML to send her presentation re proposed
  engagement plan to him directly (for another meeting this week), and will get
  comments back. ML – I’ll send it to the CCC and copy you in

– What has WSP been doing in the past year? ML – they were appointed in
2019, to look at a whole host of things. Because of the challenges with the
engagement (community were not happy with the options etc) the
programme was halted/paused. If design work is still to happen, there are 3
different options. If WSP are carrying out design of the culvert in Station
Road, will that design take account of those 3 different options (as they are
quite different). ML – discussed – the culvert design and capacity would
remain the same for any of the options

ML confirmed that she would copy in the 3 councillors when sending the
presentation/proposal to CCC and IM. JW asked ML to send the presentation to SH
(CCC), ML stated that she would appreciate comments back as quickly as possible.

C 4. Local Place Plan Update (HT)

• from 15th December to end of February there will be rollout of the first public
  consultation.

• A leaflet drop was planned, but leaflets will not now go out until 27th
  December. HT has already given copies of the survey to the library, and will
  be offering to post surveys through doors of people without internet access,
  but HT was directing people to “Survey Monkey”

PART D: REPORTS

Item

Action

D 1. Community Council Office Bearers
Chair

Vice-chair
Secretary
Treasurer
Planning

Website/Communications

D 2.Statutory Bodies:

D 3.Other Callander organisations
Town Coordinator

PART E: PROGRESS REPORTS

F 1. Airtricity

F 2. Motorhomes

F 3. Camp Place Play Park and BMX track

F 4. St. Kessogs

F 5. Environment

F 6. Flooding

F 7. Roads, parking, pavements

PART F. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

F 1. Associate Members

JW – noted that SH should be able to deal with associate members by email (SH will
check with Stephen Bly that she can deal with it that way).

F 2. Minutes

F 3. Future Meetings

JW – thanked all for coming, and said that in future, only one presentation per
meeting should be scheduled to allow the rest of the agenda to be dealt with

(although tonight’s presentations had both been very useful).

Actions Summary

Item

Awaited

Ongoing

Completed