Issue 43 Alva Sites and Proposals

of 16

Contents Page - Issue 43 - Alva Sites and Proposals

1. Schedule 4

2. Representations

Robert Wilson (CLDP010) Alastair Short (CLDP021) Susan Atkinson (CLDP026, CLDP026b) Pamela & John Glass (CLDP028) Michael Blackie (CLDP034) Loes McEwan (Scouts) (CLDP040) Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043) Mr V Le Flohic (CLDP044) Mr Alex Pollock (CLDP046) M Pirrie (CLDP052) Sandra Rees (CLDP054a, CLDP054b) Larry Dreyer-Larsen (CLDP055) Alva Community Council (CLDP059a, CLDP059b, CLDP059c, CLDP059d) Ochil Leisure Enterprises (CLDP064) Mr & Mrs Day (CLDP067) Mrs Margaret Wilson (CLDP080) Ms C Wilson (CLDP081) SEPA (CLDP101, CLDP118, CLDP121) William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) Christina Murray (CLDP166) Hugh Skivington (CLDP176)

3. Supporting Documents

CD047 Clackmannanshire Council Open Space Strategy - Consultation Draft (November 2013)

SD12 Michael Blackie (CLDP034) - Covering Letter [attached] SD13 Michael Blackie (CLDP034) - Supporting Information

[attached] SD14 Michael Blackie (CLDP034) - Scanned Plan 1 [attached] SD15 Michael Blackie (CLDP034) - Scanned Plan 2 [attached] SD20 Ochil Leisure Enterprises (CLDP064) - Plan [attached]

of 16

Issue 43 Alva Sites and Proposals

Development Plan reference:

H38 - Berryfield, Alva (Page 144) H39 - Former Alva Glen Hotel, Alva (Page 145) H41 - Alva West (Page 146) M05 - Park Street, Alva (Page147) B17 - Glentana, Alva (Page 149) E01 - Alava Woodland Park Expansion (Page 149)

Reporter:

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

Robert Wilson (CLDP010) Alastair Short (CLDP021) Susan Atkinson (CLDP 026, CLDP026b) Pamela & John Glass (CLDP028) Michael Blackie (CLDP034) Loes McEwan (Scouts) (CLDP040) Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043) Mr V Le Flohic (CLDP044) Mr Alex Pollock (CLDP046) M Pirrie (CLDP052) Sandra Rees (CLDP054a, CLDP054b) Larry Dreyer-Larsen (CLDP055) Alva Community Council (CLDP059a, CLDP059b, CLDP059c, CLDP059d) Ochil Leisure Enterprises (CLDP064) Mr & Mrs Day (CLDP067) Mrs Margaret Wilson (CLDP080) Ms C Wilson (CLDP081) SEPA (CLDP101, CLDP118, CLDP121) William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) Christina Murray (CLDP166) Hugh Skivington (CLDP176)

Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates: Planning Authoritys summary of the representation(s):

H38 - Berryfield, Alva

Susan Atkinson (CLDP026b) requests a requirement for a green space boundary to be incorporated between this site and Main Street, Alva.

SEPA (CLDP118) support the inclusion in the developer requirements for this site for a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the inclusion of the requirement to deculvert the watercourse and in turn restore it to its natural state. Also advise that the site is located next to a site regulated under Part A of The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (Benkert). This site has been the subject of previous noise complaints, beyond the proposed

of 16

housing allocation. A noise impact assessment has been conducted and the resulting noise management plan identifies in its conclusion that complaints from the west may be likely but also highlights the presence of a "faint drone" which is not associated with the site. There is also the potential for odour issues from the site. SEPA highlight that locating housing close to the industrial site may increase the number of people affected by this nuisance, and recommend that the Council's Environmental Health team are consulted. If the site is retained, SEPA state that the authority may wish to include specifications in the development requirements regarding layout to minimise risk of nuisance.

H39 - Former Alva Glen Hotel, Alva

Susan Atkinson (CLDP026) supports the redevelopment proposal for the Alva Glen Hotel.

Sandra Rees (CLDP054a) and Alva Community Council (CLDP059c) request that a community garden/green space be incorporated into the redevelopment of the Alva Glen Hotel which could include trees and a seating area.

Alva Community Council (CLDP059c) suggest that the site would be suitable for a Housing with Care Development as there is space to create individual apartments where those who aspire to maintain their independence can do so safely; it is central to a supportive community; it is in close proximity to shops and public transport; and there is space to create communal amenity space both inside and out.

H41 - Alva West

Michael Blackie (CLDP034), Alex Pollock (CLDP046), Larry Dreyer-Larsen (CLDP055), William Shaw Murray (CLDP154), Christina Murray (CLDP166) and Hugh Skivington (CLDP176) object to the proposal. Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043) requests deletion of the proposal to use this site for housing development, or, suspend the proposal to develop this site until the proposed sites at H36; H37; H38; H39 and H40 are developed. Mr V Le Flohic (CLDP044) objects to the inclusion of the northern part of site H41 in the Plan. M Pirrie (CLDP052) is very much opposed to the Alva West proposal.

Robert Wilson (CLDP010) requests a public meeting in Alva as no meeting had been held.

Alastair Short (CLDP021) and Michael Blackie (CLDP034) note that the site is adjacent to a noisy industrial recycling plant. SEPA (CLDP121) note that the allocation is located in proximity to a licensed waste management facility (Marshall Farms Transfer Station). This may increase the number of people potentially affected by nuisance. They recommend that the authority considers whether a housing development at this location would be appropriate co-location with the existing waste management facility and recommend that

of 16

contact is made with Environmental Health Department colleagues. If the site is retained in the LDP they state that they may wish to include specifications in the development requirements regarding development layout to minimise risk of nuisance from the transfer station.

Alastair Short (CLDP021), Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043), William Shaw Murray (CLDP154), Christina Murray (CLDP166) and Hugh Skivington (CLDP176) raise concerns that development of the site will contribute to coalescence between the edge of Alva and the bonded warehouses on the edge of Menstrie.

Pamela & John Glass (CLDP028) are concerned that they may lose their present view and their privacy as a result of the proposed development. They are concerned that houses will be built close to their property and request consultation on provision of a buffer zone if the development does proceed. Larry Dreyer-Larsen (CLDP055) is concerned that the development will affect the outlook from his property and will lead to his property being de-valued.

Pamela & John Glass (CLDP028), Michael Blackie (CLDP034), Mr & Mrs Day (CLDP067) and Ms C Wilson (CLDP081) raise concerns about drainage of water from the site. Michael Blackie (CLDP034) notes that flooding regularly occurs in Cleuch Drive and Cochrane Park and the fields to the west of Alva absorb a great deal of storm waters. It is therefore likely that development on the fields will increase flood risk. Mr & Mrs Day (CLDP067) note that flooding has occurred on several occasions over the years and ask whether a new drainage system will be planned and installed to reduce overloading on existing drains. William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) and Christina Murray (CLDP166) state that the field has always been subject to flooding and is not cultivated for that reason and that they believe a burn drains into the field. Flooding also affects Cleuch Drive. Alastair Short (CLDP021) states that the site is not suitable for development due to regular flooding. Mr V Le Flohic (CLDP044) believes the northern part of the site should not be developed due to existing drainage problems. Alex Pollock (CLDP046) notes that there is severe water run-off affecting the north of the site and states that an extensive flood risk assessment will be required prior to any development taking place on the site, and that good planning practice should ensure that homes are located away from high flood risk areas. M Pirrie (CLDP052) would like a guarantee development of the site won't cause more flooding. Alva Community Council (CLDP059a) request that trial holes are dug to determine the groundwater conditions and water table level, and are concerned about drainage and flood risk on the site and the possibility that water from the site will drain into existing gardens and properties. Ms C Wilson (CLDP081) notes that the site is underlain by impermeable clay which results in it being waterlogged most of the time. SEPA (CLDP121) support the development requirements for a drainage impact assessment and a flood risk assessment to be undertaken.

Michael Blackie (CLDP034) and Alex Pollock (CLDP046) state that a trunk water main runs across the northern half of the Alva West site. The mains

of 16

pipe has been fractured twice, flooding the Cleuch Drive area. Alex Pollock (CLDP046) requests that a thorough risk assessment is undertaken to prevent damage to the pipe during groundworks, leading to a reoccurrence of the flooding.

Michael Blackie (CLDP034) believes that the development will place additional strain on the sewer system and sewage works to the south of Alva which is at or close to capacity.

Michael Blackie (CLDP034) notes that gas utilities lie within the field to the west of Cleuch Drive. Diversion works could be disruptive, lengthy and dangerous for adjacent properties.

Pamela & John Glass (CLDP028) and Michael Blackie (CLDP034) are concerned about noise resulting from construction on the site; and Pamela & John Glass (CLDP028) raise concerns about mess and upheaval.

Michael Blackie (CLDP028) raises concerns about dust and water pollution that may arise as a result of construction works.

Michael Blackie (CLDP028) raises concerns regarding the safety of access for site traffic from the A91, due to the horizontal alignment of the road. He states that the ideal position for entrances/exits would be the east end of the site but this would have negative consequences for the residents adjacent. Pamela & John Glass (CLDP028) and Michael Blackie (CLDP034) note that the narrow road between the existing edge of the site and the development site is unsuitable for access to the proposed development. Mr & Mrs Day (CLDP067) ask whether the existing cul-de-sacs on the west edge of Alva will remain closed and what the location of any new access on the A91 will be.

Michael Blackie (CLDP034) notes that construction activities will impact on wildlife, including buzzards, deer, rodents and birdlife. He is concerned that development could result in rat and mice infestations in existing properties, and that development could result in a pollution risk to the River Devon, affecting aquatic life. M Pirrie (CLDP052), Ms C Wilson (CLDP081), William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) and Christina Murray (CLDP166) note that the site has wildlife.

Michael Blackie (CLDP034) states that a lack of consideration has been given to the impact on local services such as schools, libraries, recreation facilities and public transport services. M Pirrie (CLDP052) questions whether the schools and health centre will cope and William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) and Christina Murray (CLDP166) state that it is already difficult to obtain an appointment at the local health centre.

Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043), William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) and Christina Murray (CLDP166) disagree with the development proposal as a means to improve the western landscape edge of Alva. Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043) argues that more limited landscaping and planting

of 16

could achieve this without the need for development. Alva Community Council (CLDP059a) want to see landscaping and tree enhancements on all sides of the development site (including the east) if development proceeds.

Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043) states that the sites at H36 to H40 provide considerable scope for development that is more amenable to the existing townscape and sustainability of the town centre. The greenfield site at H41 is more financially attractive to a developer so would likely delay the more acceptable development of the other sites referred to. Alastair Short (CLDP021) states that there would appear to be more than enough sites for new housing in Alva without allocating more on this sensitive greenfield site. Ms C Wilson (CLDP081), William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) and Christina Murray (CLDP166) would also prefer to see these sites developed.

Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043), William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) and Christina Murray (CLDP166) are concerned that the distance of H41 from the town centre, the schools and other amenities will generate a considerable increase in vehicular traffic. Parking in Alva is now a problem that this proposal will exacerbate, impacting adversely on the economic life of the town centre. Similarly, the current volume of vehicular traffic at Alva Primary School is problematic and potentially dangerous for children. That will worsen if this proposal proceeds. Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043), Alex Pollock (CLDP046) and Ms C Wilson (CLDP081) argue that the distance of the site from Alva schools will result in increased car traffic and transport of children to school by car. While safe travel routes to schools and the town centre that avoid the use of vehicles is achievable with development of sites H36-H38, this is not so with H41. M Pirrie (CLDP052) is concerned about additional traffic and William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) and Christina Murray (CLDP166) state that children should not have to walk from the site when sites closer to schools are available.

Alex Pollock (CLDP046) and Ms C Wilson (CLDP081) are concerned that the development of H41 will lead to unnecessary loss of green belt.

William Shaw Murray (CLDP154) and Christina Murray (CLDP166) do not agree that the development of the site can be advocated on the basis that the primary school is under occupancy. If the brownfield sites were developed this point would not exist. Also state that the secondary school is almost at capacity and asks where children will go from H41 for secondary education.

M05 - Park Street, Alva

Alva Community Council (CLDP059d) supports the development of the site. Alva Community Council (CLDP059d) and Sandra Rees (CLDP054b) wish to see the inclusion of a community building/Community Hub on this site. Alva Community Council (CLDP059d) states that the community would like the opportunity to discuss this proposal with the developers and the possibility of a developer's contribution. Sandra Rees (CLDP054b) advises of the intention of Ochil Leisure Enterprises to extend the footprint of the Ochil Leisure Centre to incorporate a Community Hub, and requests that the Council confirms

of 16

whether or not developers will be asked to provide the Community Hub as a 'community benefit'.

Alva Community Council (CLDP059d) and Sandra Rees (CLDP054b) request that consideration is given to a Housing with Care Development on this site and Sandra Rees (CLDP054b) requests that Clackmannanshire Council Development Service consult with colleagues in Social Policy to pursue this.

Ochil Leisure Enterprises (CLDP064) supports the Development Plan but requests correction of the Proposals Map which includes the parking area belonging to and owned by Ochils Leisure Enterprises. They also note that the name of the development site is inappropriate.

Margaret Wilson (CLDP080) requests that consideration be given to returning part of the site to the adjacent parkland to the west, from which it was taken to enable construction of the (previous) swimming pool on the site.

B17- Glentana, Alva

Loes McEwan (Scouts) (CLDP040) and Alva Community Council (CLDP059b) are concerned that access to the Scout Hall should not be constrained by development of Proposal B17.

Alva Community Council (CLDP059b) query whether the Glentana Mill building will be saved and developed; whether this be a community building where the community can meet, organize and take part in activities which help promote inclusion and a sense of wellbeing; and whether existing businesses located there and serving the needs of the community would be retained.

E01- Alva Woodland Expansion

SEPA (CLDP101) Note that there are no specific plans in place for this site. If this site is within the hills above Alva and Tillicoultry there may be concerns regarding the effect of land use change to forestry that could have flood risk impacts down gradient . SEPA would expect the development of this project to take these issues into consideration in discussion with them.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:


Susan Atkinson (CLDP026b) does not seek a specified modification, but it is assumed that she would wish to see the Developer Requirements for site H38 modified to require the provision of a green space boundary/landscape buffer along the A91 (northern) boundary of the site.

SEPA (CLDP118) do not seek a specified alteration but do suggest that specifications to minimise nuisance are included in the development requirements, and should be informed by discussion by the Council's

of 16

Environmental Health team.


Sandra Rees (CLDP054a) and Alva Community Council (CLDP054a) do not request any specific modification to the existing proposal in relation to the representations on provision of a community garden but it is assumed that they would wish to see the Development Requirements amended to make provision for a community garden.

The representations from Alva Community Council (CLDP054a) in relation to the suitability of the site for a Housing with Care development is noted. The Community Council make no specific request for a modification to the existing proposal.

H41 - Alva West

No modifications are sought by Robert Wilson (CLDP010).

Alastair Short (CLDP021), Pamela & John Glass (CLDP028), Mr V Le Flohic (CLDP044), Alex Pollock (CLDP046) seek deletion of the proposal.

Michael Blackie (CLDP034), Larry Dreyer-Larson (CLDP055), William Shaw Murray (CLDP154), Christina Murray (CLDP166) and Hugh Skivington (CLDP176) object to the proposal and it is assumed that they seek its deletion.

Cllr Archie Drummond (CLDP043) requests deletion of the proposal to use this site for housing development, or, suspend the proposal to develop this site until the proposed sites at H36; H37; H38; H39 and H40 are developed.

M Pirrie (CLDP052) is opposed to the proposal and it is assumed they seek its deletion.

Alva Community Council (CLDP059a) request that trial holes must be dug from which to take soil samples at lower levels to determine the groundwater conditions and water table level.

Mr & Mrs Day (CLDP067) seek unspecified changes to the Plan to address their concerns relating to drainage and access.


No modifications are sought by Alva Community Council (CLDP059d) who provide suggestions for the development.

Sandra Rees (CLDP054b) requests a modification to the proposal to require the developers to build a Community Hub on the site, and to also consider provision of a Housing with Care development on the site.

of 16

Ochil Leisure Enterprises (CLDP064) support the proposal but request that the area of land owned by OLE and forming their car park is deleted from the proposal.

Margaret Wilson (CLDP080) does not request any specified modification to the Plan but it is assumed she would wish the Plan to be modified to re-allocate land from the area of proposal M05 to form an extension to the parkland to the west.

B17 - Glentana, Alva

Loes McEwan (Scouts) (CLDP040) notes that there is an established right of vehicular access to the Scout Hall but does not specify what modification she is seeking in relation to the proposal. It is assumed that she would wish for the right of access to be acknowledged in relation to the proposal.

Alva Community Council (CLDP059b) query whether there will be suitable access to the Scout Hall but do not specify what modification they are seeking, if any.

Alva Community Council (CLDP059b) also seek information relating to the Glentana Mill building but do not seek any specific modification to the Plan in relation to the proposal.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:


Susan Atkinson's (CLDP026b) request is acknowledged and, as a detailed matter, will be considered as part of the Development Brief which is required for the site. The Development Requirements for the site do require new and enhanced native tree and hedge planting on the boundaries and within the site as part of the landscaping proposals. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

SEPA's (CLDP118) support for the inclusion of a requirement for FRA and flood risk management provisions is welcomed. In relation to noise and odour concerns, contact will be made with Clackmannanshire Council Environmental Health and any further detail or information will be included in the Development Brief, unless the Reporter is minded to recommend the inclusion of such advice or recommendations received in the Development Requirements of the LDP. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.


The request by Sandra Rees (CLDP054a) and Alva Community Council (CLDP054a) to incorporate a community garden and accommodate a Christmas tree into the site redevelopment is noted. This is a relatively constrained site and it is anticipated that the need to provide appropriate access and parking to service the site may make provision of a community

of 16

garden difficult. However, it is appreciated that a community garden could contribute to the amenity of the site and provide an attractive and accessible community facility. Should the Reporter be minded therefore, minor modifications could be made to the development requirements, to add a bullet point under 'Environmental Assets' to read: "Consider the scope for incorporation of a small community garden, to include seating and tree planting", or similar. The scope and practicality of providing such a facility will then be considered as part of the Development Brief for the site.

It is not considered that any modification of the development requirements is necessary to address the view of Alva Community Council (CLDP054a) that the site is suitable for Housing with Care. The existing development requirements state that the site "may be particularly suitable site for low cost affordable housing or housing for the elderly", and this encompasses the potential for Housing with Care. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

H41 - Alva West

Five respondents would prefer to see brownfield sites developed in Alva rather than the greenfield site at Alva West. It is acknowledged that bringing existing brownfield sites into use in advance of any release of greenfield land may be more sustainable and support regeneration aims, however, the Council maintains that this site is required to contribute to housing needs, reverse population decline in Alva and rebalance demographic patterns by encouraging younger people and families to the area. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Six respondents raise concerns about the distance from the site to the town centre and schools, and the potential for the site to generate significant additional traffic, particularly traffic accessing the schools. It is acknowledged that the site is further from the schools and town centre than existing brownfield sites H36-H40. However, the Council maintains that this site will be required as well as the brownfield sites listed to contribute to housing needs, reverse population decline in Alva and rebalance demographic patterns by encouraging younger people and families to the area. The northern part of the site has the benefit of lying adjacent to the Back Road which has recently been incorporated into the Council's network of safe cycling routes, providing a safe active travel link to the Alva schools and town centre. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

The two drop-in meetings to which Robert Wilson refers, at Alloa Town Hall on Wednesday 27th November 2013, and Devonvale Hall, Tillicoultry, on Saturday 30th November 2013, were extensively advertised in the press, on the Council's website, and by poster in all settlements in Clackmannanshire, including Alva. It is regrettable that Mr Wilson received his letter after these events had taken place. However, Alva Community Council organised a further meeting which took place on Monday 13 January 2014 and which was attended by the Council's Team Leader responsible for the LDP. A presentation and question and answer session was held on the LDP

of 16

proposals for Alva as part of this meeting. It is understood that this meeting was well advertised in Alva. Ample opportunity was therefore given to discuss the implications of Alva proposals with Council officers and it is therefore not accepted that there is a need for a further meeting in Alva at this stage. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

A licensed waste management facility lies adjacent to proposal H41, to the north west. It is noted that SEPA have advised that development of the site may increase the number of people potentially affected by noise nuisance, and two other representations also refer to the potential noise nuisance from this site. Discussion will be carried out with the Council's Environmental Health Team, as recommended by SEPA, to establish the potential risk of noise nuisance, the need for mitigation, and any implications for the layout and design of the site. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

A number of respondents raise concerns about the potential for the development to contribute to coalescence between the communities of Alva and Menstrie, and that the development will result in unnecessary loss of green belt. Two respondents are concerned that the development of site H41 will lead to unnecessary loss of green belt. An important function of green belt is to protect the identity of established settlements. Therefore, an important consideration is whether the deletion of the green belt on the H41 site and its allocation for housing will have a negative effect on the distinct identity of Alva. The distance between site H41 and the bonded warehouses to the east of Menstrie is 380 metres with the land between comprising open farmland. While this would bring built development in Alva closer to the bonded warehouses, most travel between the two settlements is along the A91. The bonded warehouses lie outwith the Menstrie settlement boundary and the separation distance between the two settlements along that corridor would actually be approximately 1.3km, which is substantial and considered adequate to maintain the individual identity of the two settlements. An important principle of the development will be green belt enhancement and the visual improvement of this western edge of Alva and these issues will be addressed as part of the masterplan for the site. It is recognised that the south west part of the site comes within relatively close proximity to the bonded warehouses. In order to further enhance the green belt in this area and to address concerns about coalescence, the Reporter may be minded to modify the fourth bullet-point in the 'Environmental Assets' section of the Development Requirements to read "The enhancement of the green belt and settlement edge has been identified as a key element of the development of this site. Significant landscape and access improvements will be required and the masterplan should demonstrate how the development will strengthen the distinct and established identity of Alva", or similar. The Reporter may also be minded to modify the fifth bullet-point to read "The landscaping and planting strategy and the implementation of structural planting should result in a significantly improved transition between the urban edge of Alva and its surrounding rural landscape. A key development principle will be the need to improve the green belt between Alva and Menstrie, and enhance access to it", or similar.

of 16

Three respondents disagree with the development proposal as a means to improve the western landscape edge of Alva and one respondent wants to see landscaping and tree enhancements on all sides of the development site (including the east) if the development proceeds. The site does offer the opportunity to improve the western landscape edge of Alva and this will contribute to the improvement of the green belt and enhance the environment of this part of Alva. The Development Requirements set out a requirement for a landscaping and planting strategy and this will be undertaken as part of the masterplan for the site. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Two representations concerned potential loss of view and privacy with one respondent concerned that his property may suffer a loss in value. There is no evidence that the development would result in the value of properties in Alva being diminished and this is not a consideration which would be material to a decision to develop the site for housing. Loss of view is also, in itself, not a material planning issue. However, these issues are closely allied to the question of amenity. The Development Requirements for Proposal H41 place considerable emphasis on enhancing the setting of the site and integrating it into the existing landscape. Policy SC5 (Layout and Design Principles) sets out a number of principles which all developments must meet to ensure that an excellent standard of amenity is met in new developments, and this is supported by more detailed Supplementary Guidance. In particular, new developments are required to contribute positively to their setting, surrounding landscape/townscape, character, appearance and ecology; integrate well with existing streets, neighbourhoods, green networks; and ensure that development density in new developments reflects the character and townscape quality of the surrounding area. It is considered that Policy SC5 and the Development Requirements relating to the proposal site will provide the basis for the masterplan to provide appropriately for the protection and enhancement of the amenity of residents living adjacent to the proposal site. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Drainage of water from the site attracted a number of representations. Concerns have been raised that the site absorbs run-off from surrounding land, and particularly from the Ochil Hills to the immediate north of the site. It is noted that flooding has affected properties adjacent to the site in the past, although it is unclear whether this has been as a result of run-off from the site or damage to a water main. However, given the significance of this issue, the Drainage Assessment which is required as part of the Development Requirements will be of considerable importance in establishing the hydrology of the site in detail and assessing the most appropriate drainage solution. The Development Requirements also provide for a Flood Risk Assessment to be carried out. Together, these will provide a clear picture of current and potential future drainage and flooding issues. Given the current drainage issues on the field, which appear to be unmanaged and which appear to have resulted in the northern field being taken out of productive agricultural use, the proposed development provides an opportunity to take action to improve drainage and reduce flood risk. Through the use of a sustainable drainage scheme and the sustainable management of watercourses that may flow beneath the field, flood risk to neighbouring properties could potentially be reduced. SEPA

of 16

support the deculverting of the existing water course and it is noted that SEPA data indicates that most of the site is not at high likelihood of flooding. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Two representations referred to the existence of a trunk water main running across the northern part of the site and one refers to the presence of gas utilities. New development is routinely carried out in the vicinity of major utility infrastructure and the Council agrees with Mr Pollock that a thorough risk assessment should be undertaken to prevent damage to the pipe. A full assessment of utilities lying in, under or over the site will be carried out before development proceeds and any mitigation works will be incorporated into the masterplan for the site. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

One respondent states that the sewer system and sewage works in Alva is at or close to capacity. Scottish Water have not highlighted this as a constraint to development. However, any necessary upgrading to sewage infrastructure would be carried out at the developer's expense. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Two representations were in relation to noise resulting from construction on the site and one in relation to possible dust and water pollution resulting from construction works. While some noise and dust may be experienced as a result of construction works and vehicles accessing the site, this will be temporary in nature and can be mitigated through the use of conditions, for example limiting the time periods during which work can take place. This would be dealt with as part of any planning application for development on the site. With regard to water, conditions will be used as necessary to safeguard against any significant pollution of watercourses or deterioration of the status of watercourses in and around the site as a result of development. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Three representations were received in relation to access to the site. An initial site survey has suggested that the access to the site (both north and south of the A91) would be through the provision of a roundabout on the A91 at the existing junction of roads to Balquharn Farm and the Sewage Treatment Works. This would provide for safe access to the site and would also have the benefit of slowing traffic approaching Alva from the west as it enters the town. However, no final decision on the exact location of the access point to the development will be taken in advance of completion of a Transport Assessment, as required as part of the Development Requirements for the site. Access arrangements will be developed as part of the masterplan for the site. Access to existing streets immediately to the east will be limited to 'off-road links' as specified in the Development Requirements for the proposal. If the Reporter is minded, this could be made more explicit in the Development Requirements to address the concerns raised by respondents. The fifth bullet-point in the 'Creating Sustainable Communities' section of the Development Requirements could therefore be amended to state "All vehicular access and egress to/from the site will be via the new roundabout on the A91. Active travel links will be provided in all directions from the site, including links to the Diamond Jubilee Way, the River Devon and into existing

of 16

streets immediately to the east of the site", or similar. It is envisaged that construction access to the site would be taken from the roundabout on the A91. Conditions attached to any planning permission will take into account road safety and amenity issues during the construction period.

Five representations address the need to protect wildlife on the proposed development site. There is no known evidence to date of the occurrence of any protected species, in terms of the Habitats Regulations 1994, on the proposed development site. At present the site has limited biodiversity value and an important beneficial objective of the development incorporated in the Development Requirements is to "enhance biodiversity and existing green corridors". Overall, therefore, it is envisaged that the development will result in an improvement of the biodiversity of the site and create new habitats for a range of species. In relation to pollution risk for aquatic life, appropriate planning conditions will be used as necessary to safeguard against any significant pollution of watercourses or deterioration of the status of watercourses in and around the site as a result of development as explained above. There is no evidence to suggest that development results in rat and mice infestations to existing adjacent homes and, to our knowledge, no development proposals have been rejected in the past on the basis of such a risk. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Four respondents raise concerns about the effect of the development on local services, including medical services, schools, libraries, recreational facilities and public transport. The impact of development on existing community facilities and infrastructure requires to be considered and this issue will be a matter for the masterplan for the site. Developer Contributions will be required (as stated in the Plan) to address educational issues in relation to secondary education, but there is no capacity issue in Alva in relation to primary education. The Council is in discussion with NHS Forth Valley with regard to health facility requirements across Clackmannanshire and, where necessary, developer contributions will be sought for any improvements required. An important advantage of the development is its role in safeguarding and enhancing the existing facilities in Alva. Alva is one of the few settlements in Clackmannanshire to have experienced continuing population decline over the past 10 years and the Alva West site will address the need for new housing for existing residents of the town while attracting new residents and helping reverse population decline. It is anticipated that this will provide additional demand for services such as public transport in future, helping to protect and enhance existing services. While there are no plans to enhance library services in the foreseeable future, new development would also help to support provision of the existing library service. The Draft Open Space Strategy (CD047) identifies priorities for the improvement of recreational and open space opportunities in Alva, including provision of allotments, a cemetery extension and expansion of the Woodland Park, with a requirement for the developer of Alva West to contribute to the latter. Existing play and sport provision has been assessed as satisfactory and no significant additional provision is considered to be necessary as a result of the Alva West development. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

of 16

Two respondents argue that the development of the site cannot be advocated on the basis that the primary school is under occupancy, and note that the secondary school is almost at capacity. It is noted that there are capacity issues at the secondary school and a Developer Contributions will therefore be required to address educational issues for secondary schools. The Council is currently considering options for future capacity in the secondary school estate. The availability of primary school capacity in Alva has been a consideration in the proposed allocation of this site, in order to use existing facilities and investment efficiently and reduce unnecessary cost to both the taxpayer and private developers. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.


The comments of the respondents in relation to the potential for a community hub on this site is noted. At present, no developer has indicated an intention to apply for planning permission to develop a community building on the site. However, it is considered that the site may be suitable for such a use and, accordingly, if the Reporter is minded, a modification may be made to the Plan to support such a use. The initial paragraph of Proposal M05, headed 'Development Requirements', could be amended to read "Brownfield opportunity. Site located close to the settlement centre would be suitable for residential, commercial/business, community or mixed uses. Development Brief required to consider and address the relevant points below", or similar. However, in the absence of any clear proposal from a potential funder and operator for such a facility and any evidence of demand it is not considered appropriate to consider imposition of a requirement for a Developer Contribution at this or other sites to support the funding of such a facility.

The site would be suitable for a Housing with Care development but, to date, there is no known interest in the site for the use from a developer. The current scope of use for the site, set out in the Proposal, would support such a use. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

The comment from Ochil Leisure Enterprises regarding the error relating to inclusion of their car park within the site boundary is acknowledged and accepted. The Reporter may be minded to recommend modifying the boundary of Proposal M05 to remove the area of land owned by OLE and used as a car park, as indicated on the map provided with their representation.

The representation requesting that part of the site be returned to the parkland to the west is noted. While the Open Space Strategy (CD047) notes that, at 2.1 ha of parks, gardens and amenity spaces, Alva has slightly below the Clackmannanshire average per 1000 population, it does not identify any need for new parks and gardens or expansion of existing parks and gardens. Cochrane/Johnstone Park is the only Category A park in Clackmannanshire and it is intended that the focus should be on further improving the quality of the existing park which is considered large enough for purpose. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

of 16

B17 - Glentana, Alva

Two respondents have identified that access to Alva Scout Hall could be constrained by development on this site. It is acknowledged that access to the Scout Hall needs to be protected and, accordingly, the Reporter may be minded to recommend modifying the 'Creating Sustainable Communities' section of Proposal B17 to add a further bullet-point, to read: "Vehicular and pedestrian access to the Scout Hall from West Stirling Street to be retained", or similar.

Alva Community Council made a number of queries regarding the Glentana Mill building. The Proposal provides an opportunity for retail, commercial leisure and/or tourism use to assist in the regeneration of Alva and provide new employment opportunities. Limiting this to retention of existing buildings and uses would constrain potential options and this is not proposed. Development on the site will be subject to a development brief which will set out the development principles for the site. The potential of the site for community use is acknowledged, although no proposal relating to this has been submitted in relation to the Development Plan consultation. However, to acknowledge the scope for this in future, the Reporter may be minded to recommend modifying the first sentence of the Development Requirements to read: "Suitable for retail, commercial leisure and community use, retaining sufficient public parking combined with a potential new tourism development opportunity", or similar.

E01- Alva Woodland Expansion

SEPA (CLDP101) Comments noted.

Reporters conclusions:

Reporters recommendations: