Jan 2021 Minutes

APPROVED Minutes 131 Cambusbarron Community Council January 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. Introduction

    1. No physical meeting was held in January 2021 owing to Covid 19.


      Instead reports were submitted by office bearers and are included below along with
      updates from Community Councillors.


  2. Minutes

    1. The minutes of virtual meeting 130 compiled in November were approved via
      email. Proposed Janice Paterson: Seconded Ann Finlayson. ACTION HB to AF for
      Stirling Council.


    2. Actions from previous meeting

2.1 Approved Minutes of October meeting to Stirling CouncilHB/AF Done


  1. Matters arising from the minutes not covered elsewhere:


  2. Reports

    1. School Report - none received.


    2. Greener Cambusbarron (MMacA)

      Carry forward to February meeting.


    3. Treasurer's Report (MN)

      1. Break down of December accounts are

        The donation to Stirling Aid for £500 for Covid relief.
        Reimbursement for Admin items back to Marion McAllister £15.42.
        Payment to our auditor of £40.

        October minutes Helen Bang £40.

        Reimbursement to Douglas Campbell for the fabulous work on the Plaque that was
        damaged over the first lockdown period. £175.24 out of the S/C Covid fund.

        £1,500 S/C Pride Grant, for the Touch & Kersebonny Seats.
        November minutes for Helen Bang £40.


        All accounts held in sums in the trust are update and the funds available to C/C are



        Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

        Cambusbarron Community Council Main Account


        Of this the sum

        held in trust are









        Opening Balance






        CHQ 010633

        Donation to S/Ai

        d -£500.00


        WWW1 Exhib



        CHQ 010638

        Reimburse M/M






        CHQ 010636




        Greener Cambs



        CHQ 010637

        Helen Bang Mins



        Elephant I T Sky



        CHQ 010640

        Reimburse D/C



        Touch K/BSeats



        S/C Pride Grant

        Touch/KB Seats



        Micro Grants



        CHQ 010641

        Helen Bang Mins



        Covid-19 S/C







        Covid-19 W/F






























        Funds Available to C/C







    4. Murrayshall Quarry Update (DC)

      REPORT FOR [VIRTUAL] MEETING 19th January 2021


        Application 18/00735

        At the November meeting I reported that a CC response to the Department Planning and
        Environmental Appeals [DPEA] on Paterson’s Appeal was required by 27th November
        2020. The document [included as Appendix 1] was submitted on behalf of CCC on that


        It is noted that a number of members of the community have also made valid


        A Reporter Mr David Liddell has been appointed to decide the Appeal


        The Reporter has requested further information from Patersons relating to a possible
        requirement that an Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] may be required for this
        proposed development and requesting their comment.


        There is no indication at this stage of the Reporter intends to hold a formal hearing.




      Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

      At the November meeting I reported that I was still awaiting a response C Cox Planning
      and Building Standards Manager on progress of the ROMP process.

      The following response was received on 23rd Dec

      Thanks for your email. I’m really sorry for the delay – a combination of a busy inbox
      and needing to take remaining leave for the year.


      Progressing this is just a matter of split priorities for Jane who has a couple of other
      substantial developments to deal with first. I would expect that she might be able to
      take this forward to conclusion early Spring.


      Hope that’s helpful.

      I am surprised at the delay in completion of the ROMP, but it is primarily for Patersons and
      Tillicoultry to complain at lack of progress.

      Douglas Campbell
      14th January 2021


      See Appendix I for further details.


    5. Planning

      1. The following application was approved:


      2. The following applications were received:


        Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021



        Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

    6. Police report (PK)


      Name of


      Our priorities in the Cambusbarron area continue to be Anti-

      Social Behaviour, Drug misuse/Drug dealing, Road Safety and
      Community Engagement and Reassurance.

      19/01/2021 – Cambusbarron Community Council meeting





      Crime Reports for Cambusbarron area between


      Detected cases: 0


      Undetected: 1


      06/12/2020 – Online fraud (enquiries on-going)
      Total Crime Reports: 1

      There were 74 calls made to Police for the Cambusbarron area
      over the stated period. The calls relate to a number of
      incidents including anti-social behaviour, domestic matters,
      road traffic matters, vulnerable/missing persons and fraud.





      Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021




      Efforts are always being made to obtain intelligence in
      relation to substance misuse and drug dealing in the
      Cambusbarron area.


      Any information regarding substance misuse and drug
      dealing is welcomed, and can be reported to Police Scotland
      via Tel: 101, to Crime stoppers, or directly to the Community
      Officers via:




      Your information/name will never be disclosed.


      We have been made aware of drug paraphernalia found
      within the community gardens at Cambusbarron Community
      Centre. We are aware of other previous anti-social behaviour
      within said area and we will continue to carry out high
      visibility patrols. If you see any suspicious persons within
      the area please tel 101 (non-emergency) and 999 (emergency
      eg crime in progress).


      Incidents of





      Please e-mail any feedback/questions to PCs King and






      Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

    7. Councillor’s report

      No report received this month.


  3. Map Project (AF)

    1. Carry forward to February.


  1. Footpath project (KR)

    1. Nothing new to report.


  2. State of village Roads

    1. Nothing new to report.


  1. Burnside/Step and Handrail / Community Orchard (DC)

    1. Richard has yet to prepare the land we then have to purchase / obtain the trees we
      require. We are looking to see if trees can be obtained through Woodland Trust or
      some other organisation rather than purchasing them. Planting should be done
      around March.


  2. CCC/CDT Relief Work

    1. Nothing new to report.


  3. Seven Sisters / Barratt

    1. The Community Council have had two meetings with Barratt, they took on board
      comment at the first meeting and brought plans to the second meeting, reducing the
      number of houses, as well as changing the house types by including bungalows
      removing the one-bedroom flats.


aerial view


Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

  1. Quarry Road Erosion

    1. Ongoing. Planned meeting postponed. To be re-arranged.


  2. King George V Park Renovations

    1. January 15 meeting postponed. Further meeting to be arranged.


  3. Adoption Permissions

    1. Ongoing. Residents have expressed dissatisfaction.


  4. Cambusbarron Community Development Fund (AF)

    1. Inclusion in February's agenda to form group/trustees to take this forward.


  5. Persimmons

    1. On hold due to a lack of response from either Persimmons or Stirling Council.


  6. Douglas Terrace

    1. Ongoing, under review.


  7. Blister Packs / Litter / Dog fouling in the village

    1. Ongoing problem. this is not improving. As well as the increased problem of

      blister packs throughout the village, there has been a huge amount of litter and dog
      fouling in many areas. These problems continue to get worse and any ideas as to
      how they could be tackled are welcome. For inclusion in February's agenda.


  8. Community Welcome Signs

    1. On hold for the time being.


  9. The Touch Road Benches

    1. Richard is making the benches and they will be put in place ASAP.


  10. Shelloch Wind Farm

    1. Shelloch windfarm reply to planning that we have no objection to this development.


  11. Nursery plans and CC support (AF)

    Emails have been exchanged between Jane Bain from the nursery, MMacA, CC
    Chair and Foundation Scotland. Matter ongoing.


    Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021



    • This appraisal is commissioned to establish the basis of construction
      practicality and budget costs to relocate the activities of CVN to a totally
      new building on a selected site within the woodland of Gillies Hill.

    Cambusbarron Village Nursery
    Woodland Project Development Appraisal


    Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021


    Cambusbarron Village Nursery

    Study into the Feasibility of Cambusbarron
    Village Nursery Constructing a Bespoke
    Building in Gillies Hill Community Woodland


    Cambusbarron Village Nursery CIC


    December 2020




  12. Microgrant.

    1. No new information on this. To be followed up.



      Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

  13. Zoom Meeting

    1. Further interest has been voiced about having future. meetings on this platform.

      ACTION AF will investigate and inform. Carry forward.


  14. Elephant in the Sky

    1. No further sales of either Elephant in the Sky or Tapestry since November meeting.


  15. Correspondence and AOCB

    1. Nothing not covered elsewhere.


  16. Date of next meeting

    1. Scheduled for Tuesday 16 February.



2.1 Approved Minutes of November meeting to AF for Stirling Council HB

  1. Zoom meeting investigation AF


    Appendix I Murrayshall Quarry


    Appendix 1 Document submitted to DPEA by CCC on 27th November 2020




    This document will specifically address issues raised in the Appellant’s Appeal Statement and
    Grounds for Appeal [AS/GA] and outline Cambusbarron Community Council’s [CCC] support for
    the Refusal of Planning Permission Notice 18/00735/FUL dated 31st July 2020

    Decision Notice contained three reasons for refusal:

    1. Noise from the development would increase and air quality would
      deteriorate from existing. Together these would have a significant adverse
      impact on residential amenity in neighbouring properties and on the amenity
      of the rural area which was frequently visited by residents and users of the
      existing paths.

    2. The volume of general traffic would increase as a result of this
      development and for the roads to the south of Polmaise Road this would
      present road safety concerns by virtue of the characteristic of the road. In
      particular there were road safety concerns at the access road junction with
      Polmaise Road that could not be suitably mitigated.

    3. The extent of tree loss would be significant in the context of the need to
      preserve the ancient woodland and this was contrary to Policy 10.1 of the
      Local Development Plan.


These three general issues will be addressed


Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021



    CCC agrees with the Council objection insofar as there will be potentially adverse impacts on the
    “amenity of the rural area which was frequently visited by residents and users of the existing paths”.
    The current proposal would take HGV traffic through the woods, where people go for quiet

    Even if statutory noise levels are not exceeded or no ‘statutory nuisance’ it is nevertheless our
    judgement is that there will be an impact on amenity.



    CCC accept that this planning application is not concerned with the extant permission for the
    winning and working of aggregates from Murrayshall Quarry per se. However, CCC argue that this
    NEW application for an access to part of this quarry must be considered for the cumulative impacts
    of its use with the extant permission.

    CCC agree with Stirling Council’s broad reason for refusal #2 which highlights general concerns
    with traffic on Polmaise Road and also with issues connected with the proposed junction.



      The junction is sub-standard for visibility as indicated in the Appellant’s supporting statement
      “Using TD42/95 'Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions' the visibility splays
      required at this location are 4.5m by 215m for the current speed limit, however due to land
      constraints and the existing topography it is proposed that visibility splays of 4.5m by 165m to the
      north and 146m to the south would be achievable”.

      Speed mitigation indicates that 160m minimum is required but not achieved to the south. This is not
      acceptable, as opinions that reduced demand from south is sufficient mitigation are not justified by
      any further information.

      Without further information it is our view that “Land constraints and existing topography” are not
      sufficient reasons for departure from standard.

      The judgement that warning signage is sufficient mitigation for this departure from standard is not

      There is an inbuilt assumption in down rating south bound traffic from the junction that the two-
      ownership model would continue. Risk assessments should have considered the feasible situation
      where Murrayshall Quarry came under single ownership and the consequential potentially greater
      use by south bound ‘internal’ traffic

      It is accepted that the junction has been improved in line with the swept path analysis however, the
      Stage1 and 2 Audits recommends, in connection with conspicuity of the junction that

      • The existing carriageway is retrieved from below the encroaching verge

      • Warning lines are provided on Polmaise Road across the new junction.

      CCC objects that the Appellant is not willing to implement both recommendations, choosing not to
      install the second item -warning lines.


      Reporter to Appellant’s 2014 planning application states in 2017 Appeal Decision Notice [ADN} #202
      “However, the new access would effectively lead to a shared access arrangement for the quarry and The”.


      The current Proposal is essentially the same as the 2014 proposal.



      Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

      CCC agree with the conclusions of the Reporter



      1. General


        CCC argue that this NEW application for an access to part of this quarry must be considered for the
        cumulative impacts of its use with the extant permission. A major element of the cumulative impact
        is the potential adverse impacts of HGV traffic generated by the quarry under the extant permission
        using the NEW access and entering the public road system.

        CCC considers that phrasing of Stirling Council’s Reason for Refusal #2 could have been clearer,
        but maintains that the intention of the objection is clear. The traffic issues relating to the route for
        HGVs -primarily, but not exclusively, the section from the point where the proposed access meets
        Polmaise Rd to the bridge over the M9 Motorway - have been well documented in previous
        objections by CCC, referred to by the Reporter to the 2015 Appeal and are the subject of a report
        commissioned by the Appellant by Systra. The locus of the Council objection is therefore

        In addition, the issues identified historically with this section of road are connected to high volumes
        of HGV traffic rather than ‘general traffic’, and this is well understood by all parties.

        In the Appellant’s 2014 planning application Ref 14/00742/FUL the route from Murrayshall Quarry
        to the motorway network was defined, and the Reporters conclusion in Appeal Decision Notice
        [ADN] PPA-390-2047 was that [for the levels of traffic associated with the extant permission] the
        “route, in total, would not be suitable for use of heavy goods vehicles ….”

        The current proposal -in line with the extant permission - has no such defined route and HGVs
        distributing product from the quarry using the proposed access can select any of three main routes
        to the major road network. After the common route from where the proposed access meets Polmaise
        Rd to the bridge over the M9 Motorway these are: -

        1. Left to M9 Junction 10 via Kings Park

        2. Right to M9 Junction 9 via Weavers Row

        3. To Torbrex bridge junction: St Ninians Rd through Cambusbarron Village

        All of these routes have major adverse traffic impacts including proximity to schools, pedestrian
        routes to schools, congested narrow carriageways.

        CCC have assumed that consideration of these alternative routes should have been done under the
        framework of the ROMP with the agreement of a Traffic Management Plan. On the basis that the
        current ROMP process has not concluded then these route possibilities must be considered for this
        appeal before a fair appraisal of the safety of the Proposal can be determined.

        However, for the purposes of this submission, CCC will directly focus its attention under ‘traffic’ to
        the adverse impacts of HGV traffic on the section of Polmaise Rd from the proposed access location
        to the bridge over the M9 motorway, referred to as ‘Polmaise Rd West’. The potential adverse
        traffic impacts on all of the routes beyond Torbrex bridge documented in CCC-1 and CCC-2

        should not be ignored.

        1. Previous CCC comments

          The Appellant concludes in AS/GA #3.19 that the Application addresses both concerns raised by
          the local community, and paraphrases these concerns: -

          • Polmaise Road west of the M9 footbridge needs to be widened to
            accommodate the needs of vehicular traffic and a footway and cycle path
            provided for local residents, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians

          • Failing the above, the MINIMUM requirement would be for resurfacing of this
            part of the proposed haul route and extensive cutting back of roadside


            Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

            shrubbery and verges

            Consideration of a 15mph speed limit on this section of the proposed route


          • The creation of pedestrian crossings on Polmaise Road at Kenningknowes
            and Springwood Avenue

          • No HGV movement on Polmaise Road west of overbridge prior to 8am


            Cambusbarron Community Council [CCC] /Save Gillies Hill statement in their joint Objection
            Report March 2015, under the heading ‘mitigation for traffic’ [CCC-1] it was stated:


            It has to be emphasised from the outset that the views of the residents represented in this Objection
            document are that this development should not be approved for all the reasons articulated.

            In a situation where the authorities were minded to approve the Application against the expressed
            wishes of constituents then Cambusbarron Community Council/Save Gillies Hill Group would ask
            for the following mitigation measures to be considered in an effort to minimize the impact of such a
            development on the community.

            • Negotiations should commence with the Scottish Government for the construction of a
              new on and off slipway on the M9 motorway south of the M9 overbridge at Torbrex
              which would be restricted for use to quarry traffic

            • Failing the above, Polmaise Road west of the M9 footbridge needs to be widened to
              accommodate the needs of vehicular traffic and a footway and cycle path provided for
              local residents, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians

            • Failing the above, the MINIMUM requirement would be for resurfacing of this part of
              the proposed haul route and extensive cutting back of roadside shrubbery and verges

            • Consideration of a 15mph speed limit on this section of the proposed route

            • The creation of a roundabout at the junction of Polmaise Road (west) and the M9

            • The creation of pedestrian crossings on Polmaise Road at Kenningknowes and
              Springwood avenue

            • 20mph speed restrictions applied at peak crossing times for schoolchildren

            • No HGV movement on Polmaise Road west of overbridge prior to 8am


            Appellant’s AS/GA #3.20 states that the “proposals in the Application” addresses both the”. However, none of the issues raised by CCC have been
            addressed in the Proposal. The provision of a remote footpath does not address CCC comments in
            bullet 2 above as the comment clearly referred to new footways integral with the roadway and in
            association with road widening.

            The Appellant’s assertion that the proposals addresses the concerns of the community is
            therefore not accepted


        2. Previously identified Adverse impacts from HGV traffic on Polmaise Road West and wider road


          The adverse impacts identified in the 2017 ADN were


          #205 On the basis of the foregoing I conclude the route, in total, would not be suitable for


          Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

          vehicles with a weight of over 7.5 tonnes, the impact on other road-users and residential
          amenity. In respect of residential amenity, I also believe there would be an unacceptable
          impact on The Kennels.


          #207 The proposal is unacceptable in its own right in terms of the following impacts:

          • noise, insofar as traffic noise would have a major impact on properties at Bearside,
            Polmaise Road;

          • road traffic, insofar as Polmaise Road from the Torbrex over-bridge to the proposed
            site access is of a standard unsuited to the type and level of traffic generated by the
            development; this would have a further unacceptable impact on the residential
            amenity of properties at Bearside and, additionally, insofar as the site access road is
            concerned, would have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of The




          The width and alignment of Polmaise Rd West leads in part to the above conclusion on unsuitability of
          the road. It is noted that the applicant commissioned a report from Systra which recommended
          mitigations which we will comment on in the following section. It is also noted that these
          recommendations have not been implemented in this proposal.


          Polmaise Road West has a weight restriction of 7.5T [except for access] While this would not legally
          preclude the use of the road by quarry generated HGV it is a clear indication of the Local Authority’s
          assessment of the route.


          Extracts from CCC submission to planning application 14/00742/FUL [Document CCC-1 with associated
          appendix] together with extract from a supplementary report in connection with the same planning
          application [Document CCC-2 with associated appendices] outlines CCC’s previous objections on traffic
          issues on the HGV routes out of Murrayshall Quarry and we submit that they are relevant to this appeal.


        3. Appellant’s mitigation for traffic issues


          Appellant’s AS/GA #3.21 outlines three matters recommended from Systra report.



          • The provision of a formal footway on the east side of Polmaise Road to
            accommodate pedestrians.

          • The implementation of a one way road system with passing places to
            appropriately manage the movement of HGV’s and provide some facilities for

          • Local widening of Polmaise Road plus a remote footpath through the land
            under the ownership of DI to provide an appropriate alternative for pedestrians
            and cyclists, from the south of the residential properties to the new Quarry
            access junction with Polmaise Road.



            Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

            Appellant’s AS/GA #3.22 asserts that “all of these mitigation measures have been incorporated into”. However, only the remote footpath is incorporated into the proposal within the
            scope of the proposed development outlined in #3.10 to #3.14.


            No condition implementing the remaining recommendations of the Systra report have been included
            in the Proposal


            Appellant’s AS/GA #3.22 classifies the ‘remote footpath’ as ‘mitigation’ and it is therefore not
            provided solely as a recreational benefit as could be implied from #3.24. Therefore, there is
            acceptance by the appellant that -in this case - mitigation for a previously identified adverse traffic
            impacts [pedestrian anxiety] out-with the plan boundary of the proposal is necessary and
            consequently has been provided.


            This apparent inconsistency with a failure of the proposal to mitigate for other adverse traffic issues
            out with the plan boundary of the Proposal will be discussed later.


            Appellant’s AS/GA #3.23 raises the issue of the positive impact of the removal of the Appellants
            share of future HGV traffic from the section of Polmaise Rd from the existing quarry entrance to
            the proposed new access. This comment again departs from the apparent principle that only traffic
            issues within the plan boundary of the proposal are relevant to the appeal.


            CCC will argue later that this principle is not acceptable, but even in the event that it was, the
            inclusion of a comment on a positive impact of the proposal on the road network without the
            balancing inclusion of comments on the known adverse impacts is not acceptable.


        4. Required mitigation for traffic issues


          Apart from inconsistency in the appellant’s documentation, referred to above, and the inclusion of
          some, but not all, mitigation for identified adverse impacts, we consider there are sound reasons for
          considering the adverse effects of HGV traffic on Polmaise Rd West in this appeal


          The Appellant states in AS/GA #3.3 “planning permission is in place and quarrying can re-, and argues therefore that the existing road network has full approval for
          quarry generated traffic. CCC do not accept this for the reasons given below.


          The first review under the ROMP system took place in 2002 and the ‘2017 review’ has still
          to be concluded. It is anticipated that this review will consider traffic issues on Polmaise
          road, probably through a Traffic Management Plan. Until this is completed and agreed
          between the various parties then quarrying at Murrayshall cannot legally recommence.


          Both Patersons and Tillicoultry Quarries have made submissions to Stirling Council for the
          new conditions under which the quarry will operate for the next 15 years, and Patersons
          proposed condition 35 states

          Unless otherwise agreed, no mineral extraction shall take place until the completion
          of infrastructure improvements along Polmaise Road, generally in accordance with


          Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

          the scheme of measures prepared by SYSTRA and detailed within its report
          Reference AG-105885 – Version 4 dated 4 May 2018 [*]


          The Reporter to the 2014 Planning Application Appeal addressed traffic issues on Polmaise
          Road West and the wider road network, and identified adverse impacts in relation to HGV
          traffic volumes in line with the 1982 planning permission. The recommendations in the
          Systra report purport to address these issues. The reference to - but not a proposal for
          implementation - the Systra report could reasonably be taken to indicate that the Appellant
          accepts that the current road system cannot meet current safety requirements.


          Traffic issues on Polmaise Road in particular, must at some point form part of the current general
          approval process for Murrayshall Quarry. It is already part of the current ROMP process, but
          arguably must be considered as part of this planning application in the absence of a conclusion from
          the ROMP process.


          The mitigation proposal to ease pedestrian HGV anxiety on Polmaise Rd is the construction of a
          remote footpath; however, in our judgement, pedestrians could have more concerns for their
          personal safety using this unlit path especially during the hours of darkness when quarry HGV
          traffic is still running. The proposed path is 3m wide, certainly wide enough for illegal use by small
          cars or motor cycles.

          CCC objects that there is no reference to these potential hazards in the safety audit, despite CCC
          concerns on this matter being raised, and therefore without it the proposal cannot be accepted.


        5. Planning panel decision


          Information on the adverse traffic impacts on Polmaise Rd was not included in the Council’s Report
          to Planning Panel, but CCC were given an opportunity of highlighting these issues at the Planning
          Panel Hearing and therefore Councillors were aware, if not from their own research, of potential
          adverse traffic issues from the proposal.

          CCC comment on the failure to include this in Council Report will be included later [2.2 [h]). CCC
          had argued in correspondence with Stirling Council that decisions on the ROMP process,
          particularly in relation to traffic ‘conditions’, should have been taken before the determination of
          the planning application for the access route.


          The Appellant argues in AS/GA #4.13 compliance with the requirements of LDP Policy 1.1 Site
          Planning. i.e. that “the Proposed Development” …can be safely accessed… “

          CCC argue that this assertion is wrong and that the proposal does not comply with this aspect of
          LDP Policy 1.1, as there are indisputably, unmitigated adverse traffic impacts outined in 2.2 [c]


          The circumstances surrounding this planning application, particularly in relation to road safety on
          Polmaise Road West are unusual if not unique. Councillors were required to determine the
          application’s compliance with LDP Policy 1.1. In most circumstances where a development leads to
          traffic onto the public road network this requirement can be met simply by a ‘deemed to satisfy’ of
          safe dispersal of traffic onto the local or national road network.


          Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

          In this case the simple conclusion of a ‘deemed to satisfy’ could not be reached as adverse impacts
          due to levels of HGV traffic had historically been recorded by a previous Reporter, and the
          Appellant did not include full mitigation measures for these in the Proposal.


          A second method to determining compliance with Policy LDP Policy 1.1 open to Stirling Council
          wouldbe if the ROMP review had been completed and concluded prior to the determination of the
          planning application for the access. With suitable mitigation in place Polmaise Road local road
          network could be considered safe. This method was not open to councillors as for whatever reason
          the planning application was determined prior to the conclusion of the ROMP.


          Even this second method of discharging Councillor’s responsibilities under LDP Policy 1.1 is
          subject to, possibly unacceptable, less democratic scrutiny as our understanding is that the ROMP
          process is officer led and therefore elected members have limited, or no influence in the conclusions
          reached. The planning application determination process was the only opportunity of formally
          discharging this responsibility to ensure compliance with traffic safety under LDP Policy 1.1


        6. ROMP appraisal of traffic issues


          A question may arise - on the basis that the Appellant wishes to continue his campaign to reactivate
          Murrayshall Quarry – as to whether the Appellant had a choice on timing when making this
          planning application.


          One choice would have been to wait until the planning condition [confirmed in the 2002 ROMP]
          that only one access to the quarry was permitted was or was not, removed in the current ROMP
          process. In this Review the environmental impacts of HGV traffic on Polmaise Road West [and
          other locations] will be considered formally for the first time [the 2002 ROMP failed to include an


          If the Appellant had been successful in changing the access condition in the ROMP process, then
          the planning application for the access would have been relatively straightforward and importantly
          Councillors would have been able to rely on the conclusions of the ROMP in relation to safe access
          to the development and conclude that the safety issues embedded in Policy 1.1 had been met.


          In the event this route was not chosen with the consequence that Councillors were legally obliged to
          consider the implications of the Proposal’s compliance with LDP Policy 1.1 at the Planning Panel
          Hearing and returned the only possible determination possible in the circumstances.


        7. Council Report on traffic issues


        In paragraphs AS/CA 7.5 and 7.6 the Appellant highlights agreement with the Council’s Planning
        Department Committee Report paragraphs 2.10, and 2.63. Our view is that the weight attached to
        the appellants endorsement of these paragraphs should be considered in the light of our criticism of
        the substance of the paragraphs outlined below.

        Council Committee Report Parag 2.10

        This paragraph makes three assertions.


        Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

        Firstly, that “traffic movements are currently controlled under the extant permission”
        Importantly, the report fails to mention that no traffic movements can occur under the extant
        permission unless they conform to conditions still to be agreed under the current ROMP.
        Secondly, that the Proposal would not change the number of HGV using Polmaise Rd. This
        has never been disputed. What is disputed is the subsequent implied assumption that
        because the numbers of HGV will be consistent with the extant permission that the
        environmental impacts need not be considered further.

        Thirdly, the report gives an unbalanced view as it only emphasises the positive impact from
        the use the proposed access [due to reduced traffic on the section of the existing route from
        existing to proposed access] while neglecting to consider the possible adverse impacts of
        HGV on the remaining sections of the public road. The inclusion of this positive comment
        on the impact of the development on road safety on the public road gives an unbalanced
        view which inconsistent with the Council position which seems to be that only traffic issues
        within the proposal plan boundary need be considered.

        Council Committee Report Parag 2.63

        This paragraph states “the proposed development does not generate HGV movements nor”

        And further “it is therefore not appropriate to seek to control via this application the arrival”

        This stance must be questioned. An access is an integral part of any quarry its main function
        being the discharge of quarry products, so while this particular planning application does
        not relate to the operation of the quarry in terms of winning and working rock aggregate, [it
        is accepted that that function is covered in the extant permission] it does relate to the
        equally important “quarry operation” of safely discharging quarry products to the market.

        The appellant has submitted a NEW application for an access, and this must lead to a new
        examination of this important element of this ‘quarry operation’, namely the environmental
        impacts of the discharge of materials onto the public road system.

        Hypothetically, had a new planning application for an access involved the dispersal of HGV
        traffic onto a section of public unused under the extant permission then it is inconceivable
        that the planning authority would not consider the environmental impacts -including any
        adverse traffic impacts- of the use of the new route.

        The argument forwarded by the appellant [and erroneously endorsed in the Council Report]
        is that for the current planning application a new examination of environmental impacts
        need not be considered, because the numbers of HGVs on any particular section of road do
        not exceed the numbers envisioned in the 1982 extant permission, and therefore traffic
        adverse impacts need not be considered.

        There are material considerations that should be considered in support of the argument that
        the use of the access is a relevant consideration for this appeal.

        • It is generally accepted that the 2002 ROMP, erroneously, did not include an environmental
          impact assessment, and consequently any adverse traffic impacts connected to the
          discharge of quarry products onto the public road were not, and have not subsequently
          been formally examined.

        • The Reporters 2017 ADN to the 2014 planning application [see comments in section in 2.2

        • The Appellant commissioned the Systra report, which purports to address the issues
          outlined above raised by the 2014 Reporter and by doing so, tacitly accepts there are issues
          that have to be addressed in connection with traffic matters.

        • The Appellant has considered the movement of HGV in the vicinity of the proposed access
          junction e.g. position of HGVs relative to lane width on Polmaise Rd when approaching the
          junction, but technically outwith the plan area of the proposal. This indicates that for this
          particular situation the principle of having to consider of the use of Polmaise Rd has been


        Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

        These material considerations indicate that, at least, the assumption that the existing road
        network can be ‘deemed to satisfy’ traffic safety issues because volumes of traffic are
        unchanged from the date of the extant permission is questionable.

        AS/GA #3.26 notes that Roads Development Control has no objection to the Proposal. As
        described fully above, CCC’s position is that the fundamental advice/brief of planning
        officers to consultees must have been based on their [flawed] opinion that the scope of their
        consultees investigations should preclude any considerations of adverse impacts from the
        use of Polmaise Rd West, and therefore, unsurprisingly, no comment on this was received.
        CCC therefore argue that the any weight attached to Stirling Council’s endorsement of the
        appellants position, either in the Planning Report or in advice from Road Development
        Control requires to be reduced.



CCC agrees that Council decision that the Proposal is in conflict with LDP Policy 10.1
CCC also argues that Proposal is in conflict with LDP Policy 10 : -

i. Promote Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) to protect trees and groups of trees important for
amenity, or because of their cultural or historic interest, or on account of their contribution to
the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

  1. Protect existing woodland, especially woods with high natural, recreational and cultural
    heritage value. The criteria set out in the Scottish Government’s policy on Control of
    Woodland Removal will be used to determine the acceptability of woodland removal.

  2. Seek to expand woodland cover and, where practicable, secure establishment of new
    woodland in advance of development, particularly in association with:

    • Larger scale development proposals and / or developments on the edges of

    • settlements as set out in the Key Site Requirements.

    • Existing woodland or Green Corridors (see Policy 1.3).

    • In areas of degraded landscape.


There is a strong presumption in favour of protecting Scotland’s woodland resources and woodland
removal should be allowed only where it would achieve significant and clearly defined public
benefits, which might include social, economic and environmental benefits.


CCC accepts that in appropriate cases a proposal for compensatory planting may form part of this
balance, but notes that by definition complementary planting is of young trees which will take
decades to reach the stature of the trees displaced. In the meantime, the public are disadvantaged by
a loss of amenity.


In the current case the Officers were of the opinion that the loss of trees of plantation origin would
be more than compensated for by the planting of a greater number of native trees, and that this was
a ‘public benefit’ sufficient to allow the woodland removal.


CCC agree with the Committee decision to set aside this opinion, and confirm its view that this
Proposal leads to an unacceptable loss of amenity.


Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

Summary of CCC position


Noise and Air quality

  • in the vicinity of the access there will be potentially adverse impacts on the “amenity of the rural
    area which was frequently visited by residents and users of the existing paths


    Junction and traffic


  • Considering the detailed design of the access junction, it is noted that it is sub-standard for visibility
    and that the judgement that warning signage is sufficient mitigation for a departure from standard
    is not accepted

  • Considering conspicuity of the junction, we note that the full recommendations of the Stage 1 &2
    safety audits are not being implemented

  • Considering the effect on the Kennels we agree with the Reporter to previous 2014 planning

    application Appeal that there would be unacceptable reduction in the level of residential amenity.


  • This NEW application for an access to east half of Murrayshall Quarry must be considered for the
    cumulative impacts of its use with the quarry extant permission. A major element of the cumulative
    impact is the potential adverse impacts of HGV traffic generated by the quarry under the extant
    permission using the NEW access and entering the public road system

  • The use of Polmaise Road West by HGV traffic is a relevant issue to be considered for this appeal

  • The Appellant’s mitigation proposals do not, as suggested, meet the historic concerns of CCC

  • Any weight attached to Stirling Council’s endorsement of the appellants position, either in the
    Planning Report or in advice from Road Development Control requires to be reduced

  • The Reporter to 2014 planning application appeal identified adverse impacts in relation to the use
    of Polmaise Road by HGV at traffic volumes consistent with the extant permission. The Appellant
    has acknowledged these but included only part mitigation for them in his proposal.

  • Because of this failure to mitigate these adverse impacts the proposal does not comply with LDP, specifically along Polmaise Rd West.

  • It was reasonable therefore for a consideration of the adverse impacts of traffic to lead to a refusal
    of the planning application and we argue that this appeal should be rejected.


    tree loss,


  • the public are disadvantaged by a loss of amenity despite complementary planting.


Document List


CCC-1 Extract from CCC submission Section C.5.5 to planning application 14/00742/FUL
Appendix C5.5 Transportation Review by Sam Shortt Consulting

CCC-2 Extract from CCC supplementary submission Section 4.7 to planning application

Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021


4.7-A CCC Internal traffic paper


S Shortt report


Swept path analysis report


HGV conflict probability calculations

4.7-E (1)

HGV conflict probability calculations (1) (pdf)

4.7-E (2)

HGV conflict probability calculations (2) (pdf)


Road safety auditor opinion

4.7-G (1)

Polmaise Rd and Kings Park - Forestry
commission map

4.7-G (2)

Polmaise Rd and Kings Park - Forestry
commission paper


Cala Homes planning application decision 1996


Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021