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)

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.
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

Matters arising from the minutes not covered elsewhere:
None.

Reports

School Report - none received.
Greener Cambusbarron (MMacA)

Carry forward to February meeting.

Treasurer's Report (MN)

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

£2,945.81.

Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

Cambusbarron Community Council Main Account				Of this the sum	held in trust are

28/10/2020	Opening Balance		£16,683.65	Newsletter	£519.00
29/10/2020	CHQ 010633	Donation to S/Ai	d -£500.00	WWW1 Exhib	£315.00
29/10/2020	CHQ 010638	Reimburse M/M	-£15.42	Quarry/Fpaths	£442.61
30/10/2020	CHQ 010636	Audit J/Mackinno	-£40.00	Greener Cambs	£2,834.20
03/11/2020	CHQ 010637	Helen Bang Mins	-£40.00	Elephant I T Sky	£280.00
10/11/2020	CHQ 010640	Reimburse D/C	-£175.24	Touch K/BSeats	£1,500.00
13/11/2020	S/C Pride Grant	Touch/KB Seats	£1,500	Micro Grants	£3,889.69
14/12/2020	CHQ 010641	Helen Bang Mins	-£40.00	Covid-19 S/C	£289.36
				Covid-19 W/F	£4,357.32

			£17,372.99		£14,427.18


Funds Available to C/C			£2,945.81

Murrayshall Quarry Update (DC)
CAMBUSBARRON COMMUNITY COUNCIL
MURRAYSHALL QUARRY

REPORT FOR [VIRTUAL] MEETING 19th January 2021
- PATERSONS QUARRIES PLANNING APPLICATION FOR NEW ACCESS [Second
  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
  date.
  
  It is noted that a number of members of the community have also made valid
  representations
  
  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.
- TILLICOULTRY QUARRIES /PATERSON QUARRIES ROMP APPLICATION
  18/00137
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.
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

Police report (PK)

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.

19/01/2021 – Cambusbarron Community Council meeting

Crime
reports

Crime Reports for Cambusbarron area between
17/11/2020-18/01/2021

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

DRUGS

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:

StirlingWestCPT@scotland.pnn.police.uk

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).

Other
Incidents of
note/relevant
Community
Council
information

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

StirlingWestCPT@scotland.pnn.police.uk

Feedback
from
meeting

Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

Councillor’s report

No report received this month.

Map Project (AF)
1. Carry forward to February.

Footpath project (KR)
1. Nothing new to report.
State of village Roads
1. Nothing new to report.

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.
CCC/CDT Relief Work
1. Nothing new to report.
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

Quarry Road Erosion
1. Ongoing. Planned meeting postponed. To be re-arranged.
King George V Park Renovations
1. January 15 meeting postponed. Further meeting to be arranged.
Adoption Permissions
1. Ongoing. Residents have expressed dissatisfaction.
Cambusbarron Community Development Fund (AF)
1. Inclusion in February's agenda to form group/trustees to take this forward.
Persimmons
1. On hold due to a lack of response from either Persimmons or Stirling Council.
Douglas Terrace
1. Ongoing, under review.
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.
Community Welcome Signs
1. On hold for the time being.
The Touch Road Benches
1. Richard is making the benches and they will be put in place ASAP.
Shelloch Wind Farm
1. Shelloch windfarm reply to planning that we have no objection to this development.
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
Microgrant.
1. No new information on this. To be followed up.
  
  Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021
Zoom Meeting
1. Further interest has been voiced about having future. meetings on this platform.
  
  ACTION AF will investigate and inform. Carry forward.
Elephant in the Sky
1. No further sales of either Elephant in the Sky or Tapestry since November meeting.
Correspondence and AOCB
1. Nothing not covered elsewhere.
Date of next meeting
1. Scheduled for Tuesday 16 February.
ACTIONS

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

Zoom meeting investigation AF

Appendix I Murrayshall Quarry

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

CAMBUSBARRON COMMUNITY COUNCIL
SUBMISSION TO APPEAL PPP-390-2068

CREATION OF A NEW ACCESS TRACK FROM POLMAISE ROAD TO THE SOUTH
EASTERN CORNER OF MURRAYSHALL QUARRY, SETTLEMENT PONDS ALONG THE
LINE OF THE NEW ACCESS TRACK, SOIL BUNDS, A PUBLIC CAR PARK AND A
SEGREGATED WOODLAND FOOTPATH RUNNING PARALLEL TO POLMAISE ROAD, AT
MURRAYSHALL QUARRY, POLMAISE ROAD TO CARRON RESERVOIR, STIRLING -
PATERSONS QUARRIES LIMITED – REFERENCE 18/00735/FUL

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

NOISE AND AIR QUALITY

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
enjoyment.

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.
TRAFFIC SAFETY

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.
1. ACCESS ROAD INCLUDING JUNCTION WITH POLMAISE ROAD
  
  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
  accepted.
  
  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
2. POLMAISE ROAD WEST FROM PROPOSED JUNCTION NORTHWARDS
  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
    unambiguous.
    
    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
        motorway
        
        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
      network
      
      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
        Kennels.
      Further
      
      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
        pedestrians.
      - 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
      EIA].
      
      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
      [c]]
    - 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
      adopted.
    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.
TREE LOSS

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.

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.
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
14/00742/FUL

Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

Appendices

4.7-A CCC Internal traffic paper
4.7-B	S Shortt report
4.7-C	Swept path analysis report
4.7-D	HGV conflict probability calculations (spreadsheet)
4.7-E (1)	HGV conflict probability calculations (1) (pdf)
4.7-E (2)	HGV conflict probability calculations (2) (pdf)
4.7-F	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
4.7-H	Cala Homes planning application decision 1996

Approved minutes 131 CBCC January 2021

Jan 2021 Minutes

APPROVED Minutes 131 Cambusbarron Community Council January 2021

Members and office bearers

Introduction

Minutes

Matters arising from the minutes not covered elsewhere:None.

Reports

Greener Cambusbarron (MMacA)

Treasurer's Report (MN)

Murrayshall Quarry Update (DC)CAMBUSBARRON COMMUNITY COUNCILMURRAYSHALL QUARRY

REPORT FOR [VIRTUAL] MEETING 19th January 2021

PATERSONS QUARRIES PLANNING APPLICATION FOR NEW ACCESS [SecondApplication 18/00735

TILLICOULTRY QUARRIES /PATERSON QUARRIES ROMP APPLICATION18/00137

See Appendix I for further details.

Planning

Police report (PK)

Councillor’s report

Map Project (AF)

Footpath project (KR)

State of village Roads

Burnside/Step and Handrail / Community Orchard (DC)

CCC/CDT Relief Work

Seven Sisters / Barratt

Quarry Road Erosion

King George V Park Renovations

Adoption Permissions

Cambusbarron Community Development Fund (AF)

Persimmons

Douglas Terrace

Blister Packs / Litter / Dog fouling in the village

Community Welcome Signs

The Touch Road Benches

Shelloch Wind Farm

Nursery plans and CC support (AF)

Microgrant.

Zoom Meeting

Elephant in the Sky

Correspondence and AOCB

Date of next meeting

ACTIONS

NOISE AND AIR QUALITY

TRAFFIC SAFETY

General

Previous CCC comments

Previously identified Adverse impacts from HGV traffic on Polmaise Road West and wider roadnetwork

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

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

Appellant’s mitigation for traffic issues

Required mitigation for traffic issues

Planning panel decision

ROMP appraisal of traffic issues

Council Report on traffic issues

TREE LOSS

Matters arising from the minutes not covered elsewhere:
None.

Murrayshall Quarry Update (DC)
CAMBUSBARRON COMMUNITY COUNCIL
MURRAYSHALL QUARRY

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

TILLICOULTRY QUARRIES /PATERSON QUARRIES ROMP APPLICATION
18/00137

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