APPROVED Minutes 134 Cambusbarron Community Council April 2021

 

Members and office bearers

Marion MacAllister, Chair (MMacA) Janice Paterson, Vice Chair, (JP)
Ann Finlayson, Secretary (AF) Keith Ratcliffe (KR)

Melissa Nelson, Treasurer (MN) Jennifer Macleod, Planning (JM)*
Cathie Graham (CG) * Douglas Campbell (DC)

Richard Blore (RB) Scott Farmer (SF) elected rep
Christine Simpson, elected rep (CS)* Neil Benny (NB) elected rep *
Pam Campbell, Stirling Council (PC)* Pam King, police (PK)*

Mark Hill, Headteacher (MH)* Helen Bang, minute clerk (HB)

 

1. Introductions and Welcome (MMacA)

   1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting via Zoom.

      Pam Campbell is resigning from Stirling Council. Here for another month. Says lease
      will be done.

   2. *Apologies were received from Mark Hill, Pam Campbell, Jennifer Macleod, Cathie
      Graham, PC Pam King.

       

2. Minutes of previous meeting

   1. The minutes of the March 133 Zoom meeting were approved with minor
      amendments, Catriona Rae, Craig Heaney and Treasurer's Report, funds available
      should be £2830.81

      Proposed AF, Seconded JP. ACTION HB to AF for Stirling Council.

       

   2. Conflicts of interest declared

      AF and MN on CCDT Board, RB on Management Group.

       

3. Matters arising

   1. Map project [KR]. Ongoing.

   2. Burnside orchard [RB] Ongoing.

   3. Burnside Bridge – [RB/DC] Ongoing.

   4. Footpath project. [KR]

      1. Contacted Stirling Council to get name. Same person – Angela Simpson – has had
         no reply. Reception at SC didn’t find it, had to suggest it. Footpath and Access Officer,
         perhaps furloughed. Question for Pam Campbell before she leaves. ACTION AF.

          

      2. SF – Angela Simpson is current officer. ACTION KR will contact again.

          

   5. Persimmons adoption – [MMacA]. Confirmed contact Ali Malloy. Frustrated with
      slow progress and escalated to director level. Have to acquire legal ownerships of
      Suds Basin. This has been going on for over a decade. Have contacts at
      Persimmons. Suggest contact them directly and produce information leaflet for
      residents to advise them what is happening. DECISION Unanimous agreement.

       

   6. Playpark improvements

      1. The see saw which was purchased new for disabled access/parent use – now has
         faults with springs and significant cracks have appeared in the metalwork.
         Photographs have gone to the supplier, going to get back to Donna as soon as
         resolved. Is this another example of vandalism in the village?

          

         HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

      2. Major safety concern - holes have still not been filled in. AF and MMacA saw a child
         almost injured – it has been reported. SF thought this had been addressed by Land
         Services. ACTION SF.

         ACTION AF to take photographs in the park, send to SF.

          

         Has put up signs asking for vandalism to be reported, these were taken down. A
         substantial/vandal proof sign should be in every playpark for people to report damage
         to correct department.

          

   7. Dog fouling and litter [MN/JP]
      Sent report in.

       

      Recommendations are summary of report. Highlighted particular areas which are
      bad. More bins, bins relocated.

       

      Path from motorway bridge – no bins at all. None near Gillies Hill, route to school.
      Want to start putting up posters asap.

      Is JP going to contact Land Services – what is available, do we have to fundraise for
      additional bins? £330 cost for bin?

       

      Any new bins will be on the existing route for the bin lorries. Stephen Robertson.

      ACTION JP.

       

   8. Cambusbarron Fund (MMacA) Fund is open, closes at end of month. Lots of
      applications this month,

   9. Community Council insurance [AF] All Community Councillors now insured if need to
      drive on CC business.

   10. Parking church corner. (MMacA) SF has been involved in this. Dan Hartley has asked
       team to pay particular attention to this area. Enforcement team, also flagged with the
       police.

   11. Quarry Road [DC]

       Not much has happened this last month. Had meeting at end of February with SC.
       Asked in two emails for progress report but reply didn’t indicate that any action was
       forthcoming. This is with regard to the permanent repair. Chief concern now is had
       asked for temporary protection (cones, bollards) for what is a vertical drop at the side
       of the road and has had no response. Say someone is looking at it fortnightly but it is
       dangerous.

       Asked SF to chase this issue. It’s a flooding issue from last year. Claire Elliott was
       contact. ACTION SF.

   12. Brown bins [MMacA] See reports at end of minutes. Questions raised regarding how
       team knew who is entitled to bins, what to do if contaminated, if bin stolen, we now
       have information, thanks to SF for getting this information.

        

       Bins in the community, Kings Park/Thompson Place – full to overflowing on Easter
       Sunday. People trying to pick up litter, pick up after dogs, but overflowing rubbish is
       a disincentive puts people off. Rat problem for some residents. What is bin emptying
       schedule, have they thought about avoiding placing them too close to hedges which
       might encourage vermin.

        

       SF bin locations – practicalities. Rats will get in regardless. ACTION JP to write to
       Stephen Robertson.

        

       HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

       JP – traps have been put down but rats still in garden. Thought to be a lockdown
       issue as rats move into residential areas looking for food with hospitality closed.

        

   13. Garages Thompson Place

       Thanks to SF for response. Has been five years, still saying they are looking at
       ownership. Ongoing issue with vandalism – if someone falls through there is going to
       be a serious accident. Concerns there may be asbestos may be at side of garages.
       ACTION SF to chase regarding timescales, will alert Environmental Services re
       asbestos suspicion.

        

       JP the worst garage has been demolished and waste removed by SC but two others
       are also in a serious state.

        

4. Reports

   1. Police Report Attached as Appendix I

      1. MN noticed that an officer had been injured in Kings Park at the weekend.

         SF – there were 15 arrests. Police and Enforcement Officers will continue to tackle
         disorder.

          

         MMacA – attended event where issue with secondary school pupils and litter was
         acknowledged.

          

         SC and Provost sent message of support to injured officer for a speedy recovery.

          

      2. Police have volunteered to be in the old quarry and look at drug issue. Can’t currently
         be supplied with bags for litter or have uplifts.

          

      3. JP sometime last night the path at Touch Road was full of blister packs again.

          

      4. Item 2/4/21 Dangerous dog – require more information. Has this been dealt with? Are
         residents allowed to know about this? MN what legislation covers this? MMacA A
         location would be helpful so we can warn people.

          

         Dangerous to humans or to other dogs? ACTION MN.

          

   2. School Report [HT] Attached as Appendix II

       

   3. Planning [JP]

      One extension. Barratt application.

       

   4. Murrayshall and ROMP [DC] Attached as Appendix III

Paterson’s planning application for new access has been allowed following an
appeal. Irreversible but have to comply with 16 conditions. Main one is that Polmaise
Road has to be improved in accordance with report.

 

Remote footpath issue has been mentioned. Reporter has said that details have to
be submitted to SC for approval.

 

Understands there has been Some action in village regarding planning application
but not included in report.

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

ROMP – indication is that this process will be going through in the summer.
Background is that we had a couple of items; existing ROMP had condition saying
there is only a single access into quarry and secondly the sequoia grove and whether
this could be retained.

 

DC contacted elected members 3-4 weeks ago hoping they could help with sequoia
grove issue. Funding may be required if compensation due to Paterson’s. Chris Cox,
Head of Planning invited DC to have discussion. Meeting took place on 7 April.
Informative meeting if not very encouraging. Three items – see Appendix.
Involvement of councillors in ROMP process, single access and six additional
conditions CBCC requested end 2018.

 

The ROMP process is not like a planning application, it’s a separate process.
Planners hoped to be able to give up delegation and put it to a planning panel but
have been informed by lawyers that this is not an option. However, are looking at
other options to get elected members involved in the process.

 

Single access – it appears that SC will not retain single access condition in new
conditions because there is no planning reason to exclude a separate access. In 2002
when previous ROMP was done and from 1984, the original application. No

 

AF – concern is number of lorries, walled garden application was rejected owing to
single access.

 

SF – The ROMP is a process which looks at environmental conditions on site e.g.
noise, dust, it does not take into account other issues. Owing to holidays and
availability of people meeting was delayed but it did take place earlier today. Issue
again in terms of access road not having a valid planning reason.

 

Sequoia – there is no valid planning reason, but this could form basis of negotiation
with Patersons going forward. SF doubts that full council meeting would be the right
forum as some members have no background or knowledge of specific area. Chris
going to speak to Julia, Governance Officer, to see how community can have scrutiny
role going forward. Perhaps have a member officer group – legal looking into this.

 

DC is there any need for CC to meet with elected representatives at this stage? SF
the plan is to have a conversation once they have clearer guidance from governance.

 

Sequoia – felt that elected members could have more of a say. Condition CC
proposed was that SC enter into discussions with Paterson’s to see if there was
compensation arrangement that could be agreed. Planners are saying that cannot be
included as a condition in the ROMP because there is no planning reason. Instead of
SC it might be community entering discussion with Patersons.

 

DC wrote to planning consultant (Mike Hyde see appendix 2) this confirms what Chris
Cox said.

 

AF – conditions put in place, who monitors these? SF if any infringement would be
referred to Planning. Supposed to be putting in a path? SF yes this goes to Planning
AF there are 3 paths through CCDT land. Who is going to make decision on which
path to put in? How will CCDT know? Have never negotiated anything with us.
Reporter said land belonged to Dry Grange, this hasn’t been the case since 2019, it’s
owned by the community.

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

No notification as a landowner has been received by CCDT.
SF they have permission to build the path.

AF – how are we going to have any information or say on this? When will it start, who
is building it? Too late once trees taken down.

 

SF in terms of any objections, opportunity was there to make submissions to
Reporter. AF CCDT were never asked. SF Should raise with planning authority. DC
has been in contact with Jane Brooks – inform her of concerns.

 

AF we advised them that CCDT owned the land. DC – AF should write to Jane and
ask for foreknowledge, whether information will be in the schedule. ACTION AF.

 

KR – is road improvement subject to planning permission?

SF in terms of detail, not sure if this is applicable or whether as part of Reporter’s
decision permission is extant and Road Authority just looks at technical details.

 

DC road improvement. One way system discussed. Councillors have no say of
whether this is acceptable means of controlling traffic. One of the conditions in ROMP
was that there has to be a traffic management assessment. If elected members are
involved this may be a way to have a say in what is done on the road.

 

Currently Tillicoultry Quarries insist they can use the road without any improvements.
There has to be a traffic management system to investigate this.

 

AF and MMacA had meeting with Barratt – they had no idea that quarry could reopen
and affect their new development.

 

MN CCDT were not informed, Barratt not informed about quarry development
regarding their new roundabout.

 

1. Greener Cambusbarron [MMacA] Attached as Appendix IV

   1. Derek has ordered for a number of hanging baskets. Can’t go by a door or where
      people might have to pass. Volunteers – watering schedule should be easier. Hoping
      to fill some of the community tubs, still need volunteers to assist.

       

   2. CHECK FIGURE £1110.72 Community Pride – to replace tubs by side of bowling
      green. Only for £600 as contribution as a whole. With permission will apply to
      Foundation Scotland - DECISION agreed.

       

2. CCDT [AF]

   1. Planning volunteer Days after 26 April. Need to check on restrictions. Mineshaft –
      insurers are insisting it is fenced.

       

   2. Online survey going out soon on walled garden and firewood supply. Also hard
      copies for residents not on social media.

       

   3. Researching access to power. Education group discussing John Muir and D of E
      awards. Looking at funding available to improve ponds. Memorial benches – these
      have been requested.

       

   4. Castle Gardens – ongoing development, hope to do some planting this year

       

      HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

   5. Walled garden – have ordered fruit trees, original ones that were planted from 1851
      along with others.

       

   6. Storage container – need prior approval. Waiting to see if there any objections

       

   7. Visitor shelter/gazebo – also needs planning permission. Could be a site for
      information posters.

       

   8. DC – fencing off – what sort of fence? AF thinks it will be wooden stakes and wire –
      signs to say it is unsafe. DC would a capping of shaft be possible? AF it would need
      filling with concrete.

      .

3. CVN [AF]

   Village nursery – one in community centre and woods. Looking to do more sessions
   in the woods. Want to apply for funding to find out what kind of structure they could
   put there. Going to use the walled garden, do some planting. Has to wait until walls
   are finished.

    

   Hoping to put up polytunnel. Blue shed from primary school was moved to Gillies Hill.

    

4. Treasurer's report [MN] Attached as Appendix V

   Payment to Stirling Council cleared - £4348 for multi park. Clerical fee. Cheque
   donated for Gala. £1601. Children enjoyed seeing sunflowers.

    

   Greener Cambusbarron have had a good input. £1500 from Covid fund. £100 from
   Craig.

    

   Funds available £2830.81

    

5. Seven Sisters

• Cambusbarron Village Nursery Project

  1. Want to do a Gala Afternoon Tea for elderly, isolated residents. Have formalised
     proposals. Some money has been spent. See report. Will be expecting equality of
     opportunity to all elderly residents. Not in favour of single use paper products.

      

  2. Money has gone for projects that are being done by the nursery.

     DECISION - agreed.

      

• Damage to Cambusbarron School Nursery/ Park /School

   

  HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

  1. There was damage over Easter holidays. Tree irreparably broken. No directives
     from Pam Campbell on CCTV policy.

     ACTION MMacA ask PC re CCTV regulations.

      

  2. MN library had CCTV inside. Because it was in a contained area.

     ACTION MN gather information with AF.

      

• Kersebonny Road [AF]

   

  1. Issue for SF. MMacA walked it again today. It is dangerous. Met two groups of
     walkers who agreed. Need 30mph not 40mph. Cars should give way to pedestrians
     and cyclists. The edge of road is damaged when it was only resurfaced last year.
     Photos were circulated prior to the meeting.

      

     There are concerns a driver might hit this in the dark.

     ACTION SF will see what can be done regarding road edges. In terms of speed –
     question is how to enforce it.

      

     SF will need to see if there was a preconstruction audit in place regarding who is
     responsible for repairs.

      

     MMacA would like to invite Caroline Fraser and elected reps to walk road to see the
     situation.

      

     JP – complaint from resident in Bobbin Wynd – not just construction lorries it is
     delivery vans because sat nav takes them this way to Co operative.

      

• Other business

  1. Motorway bridge – MN CCTV operation on certain dates. Will look again tomorrow
     and get a proper picture.

      

  2. Scottish Field magazine article – can now freely distribute to anyone.

      

     1. Applied for two tables and chairs

         

     2. Audit of expenditure by SC – will hold next week.

      

• Correspondence

  1. None.

      

• Date of next meeting and events

  1. Tuesday 18 May at 7pm via Zoom.

      

• Decisions taken at this meeting

  3.51 Persimmons leaflet

  4.6.2 Greener Cambusbarron tubs

  5.1 Gala Afternoon Tea - Nursery

   

• Actions

2.1 Approved March minutes to AF HB

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

 

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

Appendix I Police Report

 

Name of
Community
Council

Our priorities in the Cambusbarron area
continue to be Anti-Social Behaviour, Drug
misuse/Drug dealing, Road Safety and

Community Engagement and Reassurance.

20/04/2021 – Cambusbarron Community Council

meeting

 

 

Crime

reports

24/03/2021-25/03/2021 – Theft from motor

vehicle

Undetected: 4

31/03/2021 – Drugs supply
06/04/2021 – Breach of the
peace/vandalism/resist arrest

09/04/2021 – Breach of undertaking conditions

Detected cases: 3

Crime Reports for Cambusbarron area

between 16/03/2021-18/04/2021.

 

 

Appendix II School Report

19.04.21 - Cambusbarron Primary and Nursery – Update

 

Easter Break

• Staff and children have benefited from the Easter break. The first holiday in a year
  where national guidance has not updated requiring staff to work during their
  holidays. This allowed staff to switch off and was very welcome.

   

  Vandalism/Anti-social behaviour

• Over the Easter break we have seen a rise in anti-social behaviour around the
  school. This has resulted in the nursery garden being damaged and litter being left

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

by groups of young people. I have raised this with our community Police officers
and has requested that the school / nursery be visited where possible and young
people engaged with appropriately. CCTV signs have been displayed and the
nursery team are happy for the community to use the garden but wish this to be
done respectfully. I would like to thank members of the community who I know have
spoken with young people found in the nursery garden.

APPENDIX III
MURRAYSHALL QUARRY

REPORT FOR [VIRTUAL] MEETING 20th April 2021

 

• PATERSONS QUARRIES PLANNING APPLICATION FOR NEW ACCESS [Second
  Application 18/00735

   

  As reported to the March meeting Patersons application for planning permission for a
  second access into the quarry has been allowed after appeal.

   

  This decision is irreversible; however, Persons must comply with the 16 conditions
  associated with this permission. For example, Polmaise Rd must be improved in
  accordance with the Systra report specified in the conditions attached to the planning
  permission by the reporter before the access road can be used. Further, details of the
  remote footpath have to be submitted to Stirling Council for approval.

   

• TILLICOULTRY QUARRIES /PATERSON QUARRIES ROMP APPLICATION 18/00137

 

No further information on progress of ROMP, although it appears that ‘summer’ is the likely date for
determination.

I had meeting with Stirling Council planners on 7th April to discuss various issues relating to the
ROMP. A separate report on this is attached as appendix 1, but the main issues are summarised:

Involvement of councillors: The ROMP process is formally a ‘delegated’ decision.
It appears however, that the preferred choice of planners to refer the decision to the
Planning and Resources panel is not a valid legal option. However other options are
being investigated to enable elected member involvement.

Current ROMP condition on only single access: Stirling Council will not retain a
similar condition in new list of conditions, as there is a requirement [confirmed by
planning Consultant Mike Hyde see appendix 2] that as is required in any planning
decision, conditions imposed in the ROMP must be based on valid planning reason.
At this stage no valid planning reason for the imposition of a single access condition
has been identified.

Six CCC proposed additional conditions: see attached report for fuller details of
discussion, but the CCC proposed condition to preserve the sequoia grove will not be
included in the new list of conditions. Again, a valid planning reason is required before
inclusion and currently no such reason has been identified.

A question on the status of existing conditions in the ROMP process and the Council’s ability to
change them in the current process was passed to Mike Hyde [Planning Consultant], and the gist
of his response was that any condition attached to the current ROMP - whether an existing
condition or a new condition - must be a valid planning reason by passing the tests detailed in

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

Planning Circular 4/1998: the use of conditions in planning . An extract from his response is given
in appendix 2

 

It is also proposed to have a meeting with local elected members to examine if they can assist with
progressing the CC objectives

Douglas Campbell
18th April 2021

 

APPENDIX 1

CAMBUSBARRON COMMUNITY COUNCIL
MURRAYSHALL QUARRY -ROMP

REPORT ON MEETING WITH PLANNING 7TH APRIL 2021

Virtual meeting using ‘Microsoft Teams’

Stirling Council: Chris Cox and jane Brooks-Burnett
CCC: D Campbell

 

Background information

Following the successful appeal by Patersons for planning permission for a new
access into the east half of Murrayshall Quarry, the attention of CCC has turned to
exploring any mitigation that can be derived from the current ROMP process.

In late 2018, CCC submitted detailed comments on two sets of proposed
‘conditions’ submitted to the ROMP process by Patersons Quarries and Tillicoultry
Quarries separately. These comments consisted of various suggested
amendments, primarily aimed at making the wording more precise and enforceable,
and also six proposed additional conditions.

The six proposed new conditions covered, retention of the Sequoia Grove [ref
PQL53], monitoring of quarrying activities by a formal community/council/quarry
operator liaison group [ref PQL51], appointment of an independent Ecological Clerk
of Works ECoW [Ref PQL 42(a)], monitoring of particulates [Ref PQL 34[(a)], limits
on material brought onto site [Ref PQL52] and finally one dealing with formal
‘conformity’ of additional details with what planners had stipulated [ref PQL50]

After the Appeal decision, CCC asked local elected members for information on
progress of the ROMP and particularly on the suggested amendments by CCC. A
meeting was initially proposed between CCC, elected members and Chris Cox, but
It was then suggested that it would be more appropriate if the councillors met with
Chris without CCC presence, and that Chris meet with CCC separately.

This meeting CCC/planners is the subject of these notes, which are intended to
clarification of the planner’s position

 

Primary purpose of meeting was to obtain information on progress with ROMP process,
particularly with regard to the additional conditions proposed by CCC, but also on the role,
if any, of elected members in the approval of conditions.

Involvement of councillors: The ROMP process is a formally ‘delegated’ decision. It
appears however, that a possible choice of planners to refer the decision to the Planning
and Resources panel is not a legal option. However other options are being investigated to
enable elected member involvement.

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

Second access: CCC position has historically been that the single access condition in the
1984/2002 conditions is fixed unless there are good reasons [not PQL’s commercial
considerations] to change.

Planner’s position is different. They argue that the ROMP process is a stand-alone current
review and any conditions imposed must conform with planning practice and law. The
legal test of any imposed condition is that it must be appropriate, reasonable etc

Post meeting research

Planning Circular 4/1998: the use of conditions in planning

General policy

 

1. Conditions imposed on a grant of planning permission can enable many
   development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary
   to refuse planning permission. While the power to impose planning conditions is
   very wide, it needs to be exercised in a manner which is fair, reasonable and
   practicable. Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are:

   • necessary

   • relevant to planning

   • relevant to the development to be permitted

   • enforceable

   • precise

   • reasonable in all other respects.

The Secretary of State attaches great importance to these criteria being met so that
there is an effective basis for the control and regulation of development which does
not place unreasonable or unjustified burdens on applicants and their successors in
title.

JBB emphasised that the reason for the imposition of a single access is not stated in the
1984/2002 documentation and cannot be easily deduced from current conditions. Because
of this the continued imposition of a single access condition could be judged legally
‘incompetent’

Further, the reporter’s approval of a second access is a material consideration against the
continued imposition of a single access condition.

HGV traffic on Polmaise Road:

DC asked for clarification on the mechanism for determining the requirements for use of
Polmaise Road by HGVs.

The reporter has clearly stated in condition** that the road must be improved in
accordance with Systra report ***, while the current proposed TQLs ROMP conditions
[PQL 35] duplicate this requirement.

An anomaly seems to exist that PQL cannot use their access until Polmaise Rd is
improved but there are no restrictions on TQL, hence there may still be a role for the
ROMP to remove this anomaly /8and add controls on TQL’s potential use.

DC questioned whether the reporter’s decision effectively removes any role elected
members would have in approving, say, the shuttle working proposed in the Systra report,
or whether the ROMP process restores some elected member input.

 

Remote footpath: DC asked if any formal planning process remained before final detailed
approval.

 

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

JBB No: only details on gradients, alignment etc submitted to officers for approval
required.

JBB noted that interpretation of the reporter’s condition ‘suitable for all non-vehicular users’
will result in a 3m wide footpath, [pram and horse passing!] which could be more
environmentally intrusive.

 

CCC 2018 proposed conditions:

Sequoia Grove:

JBB repeated her previous comments that Sequoia not of ecological value etc and
therefore no planning reasons for retention.

DC reiterated that current CCC focus was not on discounting the above, but on promoting
a scheme for possible retention through compensation to PQL for loss of profit. CCC
proposed condition was to require future talks to examine levels of compensation required,
with the option on both parties to decline

JBB stated that any ‘conditions’ included must have a planning reason and that the
proposed CCC condition is unlikely to meet that criteria.

JBB suggested that a direct community approach to Patersons might be the best
approach.

Community liaison group /ECoW:

DC mentioned the community wish to monitor compliance and suggested that since
Patersons have expressed an interest in working with the community that this condition is
appropriate.

CC wants to discuss with JBB before comment

Particulates

DC mentioned current national concern on pollution and that this condition would be
appropriate in addressing these concerns.

CC wants to discuss with JBB before comment

Other CCC conditions and suggested wording amendments

No discussion

 

Douglas Campbell
10th April 2021

 

Appendix 2

Text of report from Mike Hyde Planning Consultant 13/4/21 in response to question
Does the imposition of conditions in the ROMP process have to follow the guidance of

Circular 4/1998, or can an existing condition retain its status until evidence is produced by
the developer to change it?

A ROMP approval does not grant a new stand-alone planning permission, it is merely a process that
has to be gone through in order to update the conditions attached to the original permission. When
the Reporter said the ‘2002 permission’ what he therefore really meant was the ‘1984 permission
with its revised conditions’.

 

Having said that, any ROMP conditions imposed must still pass all of the 6 tests set out in
Circular 4/1998. This means that they must be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to
the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

 

As the appeal allowed a second access it would now be unreasonable of the Council to seek
(through the ROMP process) to retain just a single point of access. As the ROMP application has
not yet been determined I would have thought that PQ would simply now be submitting a request
that when the new conditions are imposed the Council remove the single access condition.

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

If the ROMP conditions had been approved already (which they haven’t) then in Scotland you would
submit a Section 42 Application under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland)
Act 1997 in order to have the condition removed

 

Appendix IV

Greener Cambusbarron

 

On behalf of the group I have ordered the fill of a number of hanging baskets. Due to
Covid restrictions it will not be possible to do the full village. A volunteer is happy to put
these in place and can do so in a domestic bubble. We hope to fill some of the community
tubs but still need volunteers for this task.

The group applied for £1110.72 to replace the tubs on the banking at the bowling green
with Amberol tubs , through the Community Pride Fund. GB have been given a
contribution towards the project of £600 which has disappointed us given we tried so hard
to maintain floral display last year when other communities cancelled everything. We
intend, with the permission of CCC, to apply for the remainder from Foundation Scotland
before the end of the month.

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

Appendix V Treasurer's Report

 

 

 

Appendix VI Additional Reports

 

1. Persimmons

   Our contact at Scottish Water is now an Ali Molloy, Customer Services Team Leader at
   Scottish Water. Her reply to our enquiry received 1st April is as follows

   HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

   Scottish Water is working with Persimmon to vest the assets at Cambusbarron, in order for
   us to complete vesting; the assets need to be at an acceptable standard.

   Persimmon have not yet provided timescales as to when they will complete the remedial
   work and to date have provided little information. The vesting team have met regularly with
   Persimmon to discuss progress with this and their other sites, the slow progress has been
   escalated up to Director level.

   As part of the vesting process Scottish Water will acquire the SuDs basin land, generally
   up to the edge of the basin. Legals are progressing but will not complete until the SuDs is
   at an acceptable standard.

   When we do get a further update from Persimmon I will share it with you.

    

   We responded siting community frustration and residents complaints and requesting
   contact details of their contact at Persimmons. We now have contact names and contact
   details.

    

   I suggest we contact Persimmons directly and produce an information leaflet for the
   residents to inform them of the status of this issue.

    

2. Park Renovation and Enhancement

The new adult/child see saw has had to be removed from the park, which is very
disappointing. There are two broken springs and some significant cracks where the seats
connect to the main body of the unit. This has been referred to the manufacturer who has
been asked to investigate the matter.

We are very disappointed that there has been minimal progress to the drainage in the park
and that there are still huge, and very dangerous, holes in the ground in the Toddler Area.
We have received further complaints from parents/carers and would now ask for
intervention by our councilors to move this forward.

(Ann – can you attach some of the photographs of holes and the condition of the land
around the new Fire Engine please)

 

1. Parking issues at the church junction

   The Community Safety Team has been asked to pay attention to the issue and to monitor
   moving forward. Where necessary enforcement action will occur. This has also been
   flagged with Police Scotland at a multi-agency meeting.

    

2. QUARRY ROAD DRAINAGE AND EMBANKMENT ISSUES
   REPORT FOR [VIRTUAL] MEETING 20th April 2021

    

   There has been little progress in the actions arising from the meeting with Stirling Council
   on 28th February 2021, despite email reminders on 29th March and 16th April.

   Although progress on the permanent repair is important, the provision of some form of
   temporary protection to the hazard of unprotected slope into the burn is urgent and if no
   action is forthcoming soon, then the assistance of local elected members will be
   necessary.

   Douglas Campbell 18th April 2021

    

3. Brown Bins

    

    

   HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

   Cllr Scott Farmer sent information in regard to our enquiries; please see below the most
   relevant.

   Is it obligatory to have a number on your wheelie bin?

   No it is not obligatory to have a number on your wheelie bin.

   Should a bin be found to be contaminated and refused for emptying how is the owner
   identified and charged?

   Contaminated bins will not be collected by our crews and if left on the street will eventually
   be permanently removed by our staff. In terms of fly-tipped waste the Council’s
   Enforcement Officers can look for any identifying information within the waste and contact
   a householder and if necessary issue a fine.

   What happens if a brown bin sticker (or whole bin) is stolen?

   The permit stickers are very difficult to remove and as such cannot be transferred to
   another container.

   If a brown bin goes missing a customer can report this to the Council and a new bin and
   permit will be issued to the customer.

   Permits have the address of the property printed on them so cannot be used elsewhere,
   any bins that have been stolen and are seen in use elsewhere will be uplifted by our staff.
   Each permit is unique and as such staff can identify if they are being used within the
   conditions of the permit scheme. For example a replacement bin and permit can be
   identified and removed if it is used alongside the original permit and bin, which had
   previously been reported as missing. The permits are in wide use across Scotland and the
   UK and are designed to prevent fraudulent use.

    

4. Garages in Thomson Place

CCC sent this enquiry to SC

Several of the garages at Thomson Place are now in a very dangerous condition and are
causing concern to residents – schoolchildren pass this area daily and there are fears of a
collapse that could cause injury. The near neighbours are also unhappy by the general
untidiness, which they live near. This community council and CCDT have had several
conversations with council officers over the years in which there have been promises of
removal and renewal. Can this now be expedited, particularly the removal of dangerous
structures.

 

Cllr Farmer received this reply from waste services

 

Our officer have been able to move forward in regards to identifying the possible owners

/previous owners of the garages in respect of your enquiry. Once these have been
confirmed Housing Services will instruct the amenity squad to take the necessary actions
to address these issues.

 

We would like to reassure you and the Community Council this matter is being progressed
however this may take some time to fully complete. We will however keep you updated.

We have replied to Cllr Farmer to say that this is very similar to a response we received
several years ago with regard to the same issue. We are anxious to have clarification, as
there is a pile of what appears to be asbestos by a garage.

 

1. CCDT

    

   • Considering restarting volunteer days after26/04/21.restricted

   • Fence off Fairy Hill mineshaft.

   • Putting out an online survey for walled garden growing area and firewood supply.
     Offering paper copies for those with no access to social media

     HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

   • Researching accessing power to the walled garden area.

   • Started an education group considering John Muir award and Duke of Edinburgh.

   • Gardens continue to be developed more benches being donated community want to
     help with planting.

   • Walled garden. Original fruit trees ordered some already delivered to be planted
     below the yew hedge.compost toilet due this month, Compost toilet due this month.
     Awaiting felling licence to clear the trees from the garden and result of the survey
     before further plans developed.

   • Planning permission is in for two containers as storage and work areas situated
     close to the walled garden.

 

5 Gala Day Tea at Home

 

Jane Bain, on behalf of the nursery made the following request. The full application letter is
appendiced.

 

Further to my recent emails, on behalf of Cambusbarron Village Nursery, I would like to
formally request funding for the following project:

 

Gala Day Tea at Home is a proposal by Cambusbarron Village Nursery (CVN) to deliver
Afternoon Tea to elderly, isolated and/or vulnerable Cambusbarron Community Council
area residents on Gala Day 2021.

 

This project will be managed and coordinated by CVN as part of our intergenerational
outreach work but will involve other organisations from the community.

 

2. The costs : • Cost per bag (per person) • Afternoon teas provided by Michael More £5 •
Bee bombs £1 • Incidentals (tea bag, paper bag, napkin) £1 Total £7 per bag.

Approval was sought and obtained in principle by the community council, formal
clarification of pricing requested, a clear plan of activities and assurance of equality of
opportunity for all residents.

 

Our reply is as follows:-

 

Thank you for confirming the information from MR More with regard to catering costs.

I am happy to confirm the support of the community council with regard to this project with
some conditions.

We are unable to support the use of single use paper products. Foundation Scotland,
Stirling Council and this community council support the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
philosophy and the supply of paper products to people for use in their own homes would
run contrary to this. MR More will supply products in a bag and have always supplied
napkins in the past.

We are delighted that the children will make cards and gifts that we are certain will be well
received.

The logos of Foundation Scotland and Cambusbarron Community Council should be
displayed on all materials used for this project and a short statement to state that their
support made the project possible.

Please confirm to us that this project is open to all residents in the community council area
and that there will be equality of opportunity.

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021

After conversations with Melissa, given that your numbers are subject to change, she is
happy to pay MR More directly to save admin for both sides. Therefore I shall ask her to
furnish you with £213.40 to cover your costs. We shall require receipts, a financial
breakdown and a refund of any unused monies at the end of your project.

We wish you well with this endeavour.

 

7 Kersebonny Road

We sent the following to SC on 19th March

The condition of the road edges on Kersebonny Road, particularly the stretch from
Kersebonny Steading to Dunbarton Road is becoming quite dangerous. Large vehicles,
including a crane, are using this road to exit the village from the building site at the mill and
there are now areas of the road edge with very large holes. These could be dangerous to
drivers in the dark and cause damage to vehicles. This road has become very busy with
walkers and cyclist during lockdown and the subject of reducing the speed limit to 20mph
will be on the agenda for our next meeting.

 

The reply from SC Team Leader – Operations

 

Noted that the speed limit had been reduced to 40mph on this cycle friendly road SC
deem it is working well and is being monitored but gave no details as to how.

Road Maintenance has been asked to investigate the need for work to roads and verges.
We responded with regard to walkers on the road and concern of walkers.

Personal note:- I walk this road often and push a pram that often gets trapped in the very
large holes on the verges. (Photos to follow to attach). I would be looking for a reduction to
30mph at the very least and a sign asking that vehicles “give way to cyclists and walkers”.
Next Steps?

 

HB draft minutes 134 CBCC April 2021