Topic

Discussion

Action

1. Opening

Trevor Geraghty (TG) chaired the meeting &

welcomed all.

2. Apologies

Michelle Flynn

Martin Earl, Evelyn Tweed

3. Minutes

Proposed Stuart Stephen (SS), Seconded Natasha

Shephard (NS)

4. Matters arising

SS – question re if Pier are charging for parking.
TG not as yet. Joyce Kelly (JK) this was not

included in the planning application.

5 Police Report

See Appendix 1

TG – probably have noticed more police
presence.

No reported thefts
Reports of bogus workmen

24/25th April damage to election board.

6 Treasurers report

See Appendix 2

SS – balance over £12k

Brief summary of commitments and cleared
funds.

No queries made by SCC or members of the
public

Confirmation that we hold no legacy funds of
the Blue book.

7 Planning

See Appendix 3

Joyce Kelly (JK) informed the meeting that there
were 8 new applications, 10 approvals and 15
overdue applications. She explained it was a
longer list as it spanned a 2 month period
covering March and April. While there are no
significant causes for concerns with any of the
applications she picked out 3 which may have
been of particular interest.

Ref No 2021/0050/LBC Retrospective proposal to
replacement of Aberfoyle Schoo’s slate roof. JK
explained that while the intention was to replace

50% of the roof with Cupa H3 tiles retaining

traditional slate on the other 50% it had become
clear during the renovations that 100% of the
roof tiles needed to be replaced. Due to COVID
many suppliers were either closed or working
with a skeleton staff which had resulted in
shortages of tiles in the timeline required for the
School. The supplier providing the Cupa H3 tiles
had sufficient supplies to meet the demand for
the school so in order to keep the work on track
the contractor opted to use these as they had
previously been approved for use by the LLTNP.
The LLTNP decision on the retrospective
application is outstanding.

Ref No 2021/0107/DET Proposal Erection of
wooden gazebo Location Faerie Tree Main Street
Aberfoyle. Given recent objections to the
erection of Gazebos on the site JK noted that for
this application there had been 1 resident had
lodged a note of concern on some aspects of the
proposal but not an objection and one resident
commented in support of the application.

Ref No 2021/0037/DET Proposal Demolition of
dwellinghouse and erection of replacement
dwellinghouse Location Gartnerichnich Aberfoyle
Stirling. JK explained that the house had in fact
been demolished before the application to do so
was published on the LLTNP planning portal
causing concern to a number of Kinlochard
residents. However the replacement dwelling
planning application almost completely mirrors
the original building which went some way to
placating resident concerns.

In regard to approvals JK reported that the
planning application for an extension to Altskeith
House had finally received approval. The
decision had been pending since 2018. Another
approval she noted was the application for an
extension to the Pier Café car park and
associated work. The SCC had sent in comments
in support of this application.

JK went onto to discuss a recent planning
proposal by Landpods to certify a site for siting of

Landpods in a field within the Kinlochard village
envelope. She explained that it was an unusual
proposal in that it did not have to go through the
normal planning process and the proposal would
not appear on the LLTNP planning portal. The
consultation process in this instance would be
directly between the residents and the
proposers. Several residents had approached JK
in her role as planning rep for the SCC noting
their concerns and in particular that the
proposed site was within Exclusion Zone 2 in the
Kinlochard Community Life Plan which meant it
had been identified as a site not suitable for
economic or housing development. JK said that
in normal non COVID times the SCC would have
convened a public meeting to enable residents to
meet and discuss their concerns but since that
wasn’t possible the SCC had taken the decision to
conduct a poll of Kinlochard residents via
Monkey Survey. The results were forwarded to
the proposers in time for the shut down period
for comments of 28 April. The SCC had
subsequently informed that proposers did not
intend to pursue certification at this site at this
point in time.

TG thanks for phenomenal work to JK.

8 Coop/SKS potential
community buyout

JK announced that it was with regret that she had
to report that the SCC/SCT would not be taking
the community purchase of the Coop to the next
stage. At a meeting on 20th April the Steering
Group and Project Team members made the
decision at this point, to mothball the Project.

The Project team felt that the risks to success of
the project outweighed by some margin the
potential to provide community benefits. A
resume of the risks will be published on the SCC
web site with the full project documentations set
when these are signed off. JK went onto report
that there was an intention to continue engaging
with the Coop Disposals team to keep up to date
with future plans for the Coop building.

JK thanked everyone who participated in the
project and said that she hoped everyone efforts

would not be wasted. She went on to say that on

the plus side the SCC/SCT now had a very
comprehensive business case, feasibility and
options study and an extensive record on
resident views in relation to what they would like
to see on Aberfoyle Main street so if another
opportunity for community purchase presents
itself the community were in a much better
position to move forward than at the start of the
Coop project.

NS – thanks to all involved but especially JK for
work, time & energy, how useful it has been in
exploring event though it hasn’t come through,
it’s still been very worthwhile. Endorsed
wholeheartedly by TG who went onto say that
the exercise produced positive outcomes and
that process identified local residents, good
motivated individuals with lots of ideas. The Coop
proposal was a very different to the community
pub buyout in Gartmore due to it being a new
development rather than taking over an existing
business. SCC now has built up a detailed

knowledge of site as to what’s possible which will
help the SCC evaluate development proposals for

the site.

9 Community Life

Aberfoyle Community Life Plan (ACLP)

JK reported that the survey of residents was now
complete but that only 50% of the 60% who
signed up to the ACLP opened up the survey.

This could have been because the email address
was unfamiliar as it didn’t come from the SCC.
Kate Bovill (KB) mentioned that her email had
gone to junk mail. The SCC offered to resend the
survey to all those who had not responded. The
decision on whether to take this forward will be
made at the next ACLP Steering Group meeting
on Tuesday 11 May. The results from the
returned surveys are in the process of being
analysed but if the decision is taken to resend the
survey this will be put on hold to give more time
for responses. A part of the budget is being
preserved to allow a face to face workshop when
COVID restrictions allow.

No objections from CC noted unanimous to
allow working group to progress with survey.
KB asked whether there was a difference in
response rate for those who opted for paper
survey. JK will try to find more details on this.

Post Meeting Note:
The ACLP Steering
Group agreed that
the SCC should
resend the survey.

Completed Community Life Plans (CLP’s)

JK reported that the completed CLP’s were in
somewhat of a hiatus due to COVID 19
regulations. She said that it was planned to
convene community workshops for both of the
completed life plans at the very earliest
opportunity to ensure that the plans remain
current and progressive. She said that in the

meantime the CLP’s were being used regularly in
discussions with the LLTNP and other authorities
to influence the direction of travel on issues
which affect the communities of Stonachachlar,
Inversnaid, Kinlochard and the Strathard region
as a whole. Councillor McDonald (JMcD)
confirmed that the community plans were often
quoted in discussions he had with the various
authorities and that other Community Councils
were looking to our CLP’s for guidance on how to
deliver similar for their own areas.

Trevor Geraghty (TG) took the opportunity to
confirm that the CLP’s were providing tangible
benefits to the SCC. In the first instance giving
clear direction to the SCC on how to represent
the community view when the SCC is presented
with planning applications and other initiatives
by the LLTNP and Stirling Council. The CLP’s have
afforded SCC reps on the Strathard Framework
Steering Group evidence to represent the views
of the Strathard communities throughout the
development process of the Strathard
Framework document which is important as the
Strathard Framework document will have a
strong influence on the next Local Development
Plan. The CLP’s have been instrumental in
influencing the portrayal of key community
aspirations in the Strathard Framework
Document and with some effect enabled the SCC
to challenge assumptions being presented which
would not be supported by Strathard residents.
The Stronachlachar/Inversnaid CLP was used as
evidence by the SCC to encourage more
sympathetic development of the redundant

Scottish Waterboard site offices and the

Kinlochard CLP has on several occasions enable
the SCC to respond quickly to events and
proposals which it otherwise would not have
been able to do. It is expected that as the plans
become embedded into the planning processes
they will increase in value both to the SCC and
Strathard residents as well as the LLTNP and SC.

10. Kinlochard
resilience Group/
Forestry & Land
Scotland (FLS)

NS & John Lewis (JL) reported that the Resilience
Group engaged FLS, meeting with Shirley Leek
and John Ireland. Post this meeting key points
had been sent to the CC and FLS had been sent
questions around the key points on 30/4.

Unfortunately responses from FLS were not
related to the questions sent. FLS did assure that
there was no question of emergency access if
needed. However protocols around providing
emergency access were not clear. Advice was to

– ring 999, but FLS could not confirm if keys were
held by police at Callendar office. Fire service also
have keys but not known where held or by
whom. FLS claimed it was down to resilience
group to find out. SS pointed out that in an
emergency the current system, even if there was
a documented process in place which could be
followed, would result in inevitable response
delays which could be critical.

Non emergencies call FLS 24hr number. Noted
that they don’t’ have to respond if not an
emergency. Response time within 24hrs.

Difficulty around how FLS vs community define
emergency. JL – had asked if FLS had carried out
a risk assessment before implementing the
closed gate policy. John Ireland FLS indicated
onus is on each user to draw up risk assessment.
Resilience group believes this to be unacceptable.

JL informed the meeting he had spoken to
Councillor Martin Earl (ME) about the problems
of getting answers from FLS – Advice from ME
was to engage with the SC rep Jim Dickie who
deals with resilience groups.

JL – FLS/SC meeting highlighted the issue of road
adoption. FLS said that earlier approaches to SC
requesting that SC adopt the Duchray road
accepting responsibility for it was refused. In fact
FLS used this instance to conflate the issue by
broadening their focus on the need to provide

access to ALL roads in forestry. JL confirmed that

this was not the case and that the request from
the Resilience group was in relation to a single
emergency route. JL said that the Resilience
group needed to reiterate the basic requirements
& force FLS to deal with the specifics of that
route and continue to make the case that a risk
analysis for emergency access only was required
to be carried out by FLS and the results made
public. In support of this FLS has been asked for
data on specific road incidents on the Duchray
Road involving vehicular transport but to date
they have not provide any supporting evidence.
JL went on to say he had checked out the route
and found little which would cause concern to
cars. JL said that in his opinion generalities were
being used as a red herring to justify recent FLS
policy decisions. Next step – How best to
approach to put pressure on FLS to get progress.
FLS had sent their operational info showing FLS
forest roads are subject to mandatory access but
they haven’t provided any specific info. It was
suggested that there was a need to involve SC to
get help to raise issue as ultimately the
responsibility for the B829 and consequences
resulting from closures is theirs to resolve.

SS – asked if any info been circulated to SC and
also aked if the SC would have any sway over
FLS. His advised that there was a need to go to
centre of FLS, as this was the area in FLS with the
power to make decisions. While local FLS reps
could advise they were unlikely to be in a
position to make the decisions required to
resolve the current impasse.

TG – reminded the meeting Dean Lockart our
area MSP had offered to engage with the FLS CEO
on our behalf during the Feb 04 SCC meeting but
his response is still outstanding.

Cllr Jeremy Rice McDonald– concerned about
keys, and the need for a clear policy which
enabled swift action in the event of an
emergency. He went on to say that the road not
a fast road and that when SC adopt road it must
be kept to a high standard and that this was not
what is needed here. He said that solutions must
have been found elsewhere in similar contexts
and that the onus should be on FLS.

TG – asked JRM to find out what MSP Dean
Lockhart had managed to get from FLS. He said
that the current situation was not acceptable and

that the suggestion by FLS that in an emergency
the locks could be cut off was not an acceptable
solution.

JL asked if anyone could suggest the names of
right people in FLS to approach. LmC – names
could be found on the FLS website

SS – advice again was to go to CEO of FLS, and
bypass policy makers.

11 Reports &
correspondance

SCC has been asked about what happening with
Aberfoyle play park?

Trust – has funds available for development

12. Trust update -
Appendix 4

SS reported that the Broadband project funded
by SC was progressing. The Trust act as
paymasters – Inversnaid not connected yet so
not paid. Broadband to Duchray will begin in June

Trust has various small legacy funds, SS asked
trust directors to see if there were suitable
community initiatives to which could use the
funding to enable the Trust to start applying for
funding for new SCT projects. He went on to say
that the grant from ‘Scotland loves local’ was
underspent, has permission that can use the rest
for another appropriate community project. SS
provides link between the SCT & SCC

Asked about Christmas SS – going to go check
with Alison Boa about plans

TG – compliments to Tartan ink for local map.

13. AOCB

Gillian McEwan progressing safe routes to school

, engaging relevant agencies and residents.
Ongoing

TG – to JRM well past time when decisions re
flood planning should have been made
clear/available by Stirling Council

JRM – SC working on things in conversation with
Scottish Government will chase up

TG – have AGM in sept, chance to have a physical
AGM with social distancing.

SS explained to the public attendees – The
reasoning about Xmas was that we could
probably do more if more if the SCC and SCT
acted together in conjunction with the

community and any other groups such as the
Village People etc.

SS – Bench replaced on high road. Forestry have
offered to give another. A few options available.
A bench between k’ard and aqueduct thought
most practical for those needing a rest on the hill.
JK suggested an additional bench would be also
useful between the Aqueduct and Milton.

Strathard news, struggling to get a replacement
editor. John McGregor is currently trying to find
someone to take the role on. SS will provide the
advert for volunteer staffing placed in the last
Strathard Life edition. JK will make an approach
to the volunteers who stood up to support the
Coop project to see if interest in taking on the
role could be generated.

Community
Council:

Trossachs and Teith Ward,

Strathard Community Council

hello@ccstrathard.org

Reporting
Period:

03/03/21 to 03/05/21 Compiled by PC Lorna Deans

Ward Plan
Priorities

Antisocial Behaviour

You are concerned about antisocial behaviour including drunken behaviour.

On 27/3/21 as a result of police being called to an area at Kinlochard, 4 males were
issued with fixed penalty notices in relation to breach of coronavirus regulations.

Other
Incidents /
Activity of
note

Sometime between 24th and 25th April 2021 damage has been caused to an
election campaign banner on Lochard Road, Aberfoyle.

There has been an increase once again in the reports being received about
possiblebogus workers in the Forth Valley area. We ask that if you require
work carried out on your property, to obtain quotes from recommended
companies. For more information please check online at

https://www.scotland.police.uk/keep-safe/personal-safety/Shut-
Out-Scammers.

£

£

General Fund opening Bank balance

12196.10

Monies out

SKS (Co-op feasibility)

( 4200.00)

SKS (Co-op feasibility)

( 4200.00)

Minute Secretary

( 40.00)

Minute Secretary

( 40.00)

ICO

( 40.00)

Expenses (S Stephen)

( 51.00)

Total monies out

(8571.00)

Monies in

SLF (Co-op grant)

4200.00

SLF (Co-op grant)

4200.00

SLF (Co-op grant)

4200.00

Total monies in

12600.00

General Fund closing Bank balance

16225.10

Subsequent income/expenditure

SKS (Co-op feasibility)

( 4200.00)

General Fund closing Balance

12025.10