Page 1 of 14

Contents Page - Issue 46 - Muckhart Sites and Proposals

1. Schedule 4

2. Representations

Alistair Lawson (CLDP001)
Tom Mullan (CLDP006)
Marion Marsden (CLDP025b)
Dr Kenneth Hunter (CLDP152)
Tim Allan (CLDP147)
Neil Duthie (CLDP156)
TMS Planning and Development Services for Zandy Izat (CLDP161b)
Philip Lord (CLDP170d)
Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174y)

3. Supporting Documents

CD013 Planning Advice Note 68 - Design Statements
CD014 Planning Advice Note 83 - Master Planning
CD022 Designing Places - A Policy Statement for Scotland (2001)
CD023 Designing Streets - A Policy Statement for Scotland (2010)
CD056 Muckhart Conservation Area Character Appraisal,
Consultation Draft (July 2013)
CD092 Muckhart Community Council Muckhart Area Plan
Questionnaire Results 2009 [attached]
SD44 TMS Planning and Development Services for Zandy Izat
(CLDP161b) - Masterplan [attached]
SD45 TMS Planning and Development Services for Zandy Izat
(CLDP161b) - Supporting Information [attached]




















Page 2 of 14
Issue 46 Muckhart Sites and Proposals
Development Plan
reference:
H48 - South and East of Pool of
Muckhart (Page 158)
Reporter:
Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue
(including reference number):

Alistair Lawson (CLDP001)
Tom Mullan (CLDP006)
Marion Marsden (CLDP025b)
Dr Kenneth Hunter (CLDP152)
Tim Allan (CLDP147)
Neil Duthie (CLDP156)
TMS Planning and Development Services for Zandy Izat (CLDP161b)
Philip Lord (CLDP170d)
Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174y)

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

Alistair Lawson (CLDP001) The proposed housing development offers a
once-and-only chance to restore the Pool which is believed to have given the
settlement its name. A restored pool, along with associated paths, benches,
picnic tables, etc. would be an invaluable community asset and would mitigate
the impact of the proposed housing. It would also enhance the attraction of
the village and provide a potential 'congregating area' which the village
currently lacks. Given that the current village playpark is at the very edge of
the village, the restored pool area could also include some play furnishings,
thereby providing play opportunities close to the geographical centre of the
community.

Tom Mullan (CLDP006) Objects to development at south and east of Pool of
Muckhart (H48) as:
it is not required and will have a impact visually and environmentally to my
property.
There is no demand for houses in this area.
The area is the original Pool that gave the village its name and should
remain a refuge for the extraordinary amount of wildlife that occupies it.
Believe that building on Greenbelt and agricultural land is prohibited.
The development will make the conservation area of the village look like a
pantomime horse, neither one thing or the other.
The sewage system for the village is at its maximum and further
development will require massive and expensive earthworks.
Farming land should remain for its original purpose raising livestock not
raising building sites.

Marion Marsden (CLDP025) This plan should be abandoned:
This proposal would result in urban sprawl in east Clackmannanshire. It
would be criminal to allow this to deface the beautiful and environmentally
Page 3 of 14
diverse countryside.
The development is not required. Social housing and sheltered housing for
an ageing population are the kinds of housing most required and these sites
are not very suitable. There are more suitable sites in towns and village
centres, which do not require greenfield development.
By building multi storey car parks (and charging for parking to reduce
unnecessary travel), more space could be freed up for housing in town-
centres. The centres of some of the hillfoots towns are empty and derelict
and could be improved to provide suitable housing.
Building on the proposed site would increase car use and air pollution.
There would also be additional noise and light pollution.
The proposed development would totally destroy the atmosphere and
community spirit of Muckhart. It would become far less attractive for
tourism, ceasing to have an identifiable character and merging with the
other faceless developments in the county.
The area is subject to flooding and further building is likely to exacerbate
flood problems. Even if measures are taken to control flooding in the
immediate vicinity of any new building, the excess water will just appear
elsewhere, flooding fields or other housing in its place.

Dr Kenneth Hunter (CLDP152) No objection to the expansion of housing
provision in Muckhart, but questions the suitability of the site identified,
particularly the ground condition in terms of standing water and flood risk.
Would hope a better suited alternative site could be found.

Tim Allan (CLDP147) Support the concept of residential development on this
site and endorse the sound reasons given in the LDP to provide a sustainable
supply of mixed use homes of varying size but uniform high quality. Muckhart
has an ageing population and limited housing stock with only 8 infill units
developed in the last decade. There seems little doubt that the existing
organic growth rate of less than one unit a year in the village, is not
sustainable and that a larger provision for development would provide a
degree of future proofing for the village community. Bringing in new members
of the community, of all ages and demographics, would underpin the existing
services such as the village school, shop, pub and bus service.

Concerned that 35 units is a fairly arbitrary number chosen by the local
Councillor to reflect the historic development of bungalows at Cairns Place
and Kirk Hill on the North side of the road. It does not offer a material
improvement to the scale of or variety in housing stock in Eastern Clacks, and
it almost falls between two stools. While 160 units, even over many years,
could imbalance the unique nature of the village, 35 units is not enough to
provide the kind of opportunity for placemaking that this LDP offers.

On a technical point, the Muckhart WWTW will require works to be carried out
to bring it up to capacity for these new units and that cost is better spread over
80 units than a mere 35. Also, the school at Muckhart struggles to get to 50%
local occupancy so more young families could move to the area and greater
turnover in homes in Muckhart allows new families to move into the area.

Page 4 of 14
Support the idea of H48 as a development site and would oppose any erosion
of the green space to the east of Pool of Muckhart along the A91 which would
destroy the distinct separateness of the two villages and create a long thin
ribbon village with no heart. H48 should allow the creation of a significant
community space and centre. Also fully support an extended and improved
foot, cycle and bridle path network along the existing network as represented
by T28 and T29. This would allow better access to both the village and to the
school.

Neil Duthie (CLDP156) Supports reduction in house numbers and seeks
further clarification through the LDP of how the site will be developed.

TMS Planning and Development Services for Zandy Izat (CLDP161b)
Request the indicative unit numbers on site should be increased from 35 to
50. A Masterplanned approach following best practice set out in Scottish
Government publications such as Designing Places (CD022), Designing
Streets (CD023), PAN 83, Master Planning (CD014) and PAN 68, Design
Statements (CD013), and in line with the stated requirements in the LDP
offers the best means of achieving a high quality outcome at Pool of
Muckhart. This is the clients preferred approach and would involve additional
liaison with the local community following the successful allocation of the site
through the LDP process. It is only through this process and subsequent
planning applications that the final house numbers will be determined and the
present allocation of 35 units appears to be inadequate for the clearly defined
and justified development area identified in the plan. Initial site assessment
(refer Indicative Masterplan below) indicates that an allocation of 50 units
would be more appropriate albeit, as indicated, the final house numbers will
be determined through the Masterplanning and planning application process.
It would however not assist the emergence of the best design solution for the
site and the village to have an artificially low units allowance.

The emerging Local Development Plan notes that the lack of allocated
housing sites and limited brownfield opportunities within the settlements in the
East Ochils area have contributed to maintaining high house prices which has
had an effect on the ability to provide affordable homes. There is also a higher
ratio of privately owned homes in the area relative to other parts of
Clackmannanshire. Without the provision of new housing to attract families,
and allow younger people to remain in the area, the population imbalance
between young and old will increase. There is a clearly stated need to allocate
suitable housing sites in order to help meet defined community needs,
including affordable housing.








Page 5 of 14


Indicative Masterplan


Philip Lord (CLDP170d) Major concern is the expansion plan for housing in
Muckhart and its impact on both the natural and built environments, and its
effect on the local infrastructure.

The five-sided marked area at the northern corner of the area designated for
proposed development is mature woodland, which is part of the garden to the
Woodacre property (and is not a separate field as indicated on the map
provided). This area of woodland is designated as of special value, forms an
essential landscape feature of the village, and as advocated by the Muckhart
Community Council should be included in the Muckhart Conservation Area.
There is a spring at the north-east corner of this woodland feeding a
watercourse, not marked on the maps in the LDP, which drains to the south-
west towards the Pool. This watercourse also drains the pond which regularly
appears adjacent to this woodland just east of the path called Maudies Loan
along the eastern boundary of the site.

Development of a site of this size changes the existing character of the village
and conservation area, and would alter its historical linear nature along the
A91.

Development in this area must ensure that the rural nature of the area and its
value to wildlife is protected and preserved. The views from the golf course
Page 6 of 14
northwards, from the Pool of Muckhart southwards, and from Seamab Hill
above Muckhart should be protected. The views west from Maudies Loan on
the north boundary of the site should remain as undisturbed as possible,
including the retention of trees and bushes along this boundary. Amenities
should be provided for existing and future residents of the village.

Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174y) Accept that some growth should
be directed to Muckhart, provided that the development is in line with Scottish
Government policy, is sustainable and does not significantly increase the
villages carbon footprint. Muckhart is a small rural village and it is important
that the village does not lose its identity and that the countryside is not subject
to suburbanisation.

The figure of 35 houses is commensurate with the projected overall housing
growth in Clackmannanshire so that Muckhart takes its fair share. The Cairns
Place/Kirkhill development in the 1970s to the north of the village was of a
similar size and is now well integrated into the village. Site H48 would be of a
similar size on the other side of the A91 and give the village a spatial
symmetry.

Provision of units suitable for live/work use is an important element of the
development given the lack of employment opportunities in the local area.

There is a problem with the capacity of Muckhart Primary School. The School
could absorb the increased demand from 35 houses but any further expansion
could well lead to capacity problems and bussing children to Strathdevon
Primary School which will have capacity problems of its own due to
expansions in Dollar.

A larger development would be in contravention of Scottish Government
policy which ensures that rural development does not result in small
settlements losing their identity nor the suburbanisation of the countryside..
The Community Council feels that this is exactly what would happen if this site
is developed above 35 units.

The site is not sustainable in transport terms given the poor public transport
links from Muckhart. As there is extremely limited economic growth envisaged
in the LDP, commuting to jobs outside the County would increase and so
would vehicle emissions.

We strongly argue that the houses constructed should not exceed 35. We are
also concerned that the development should not be purely large executive
houses but that a balanced range of houses should be provided which
diversifies the housing stock in Muckhart.

Access from the A91 could be problematic but agree that the most appropriate
access is from the A91 at the former Bowling Green.

Would like to see a Village Square created around the Coronation Hall which
Page 7 of 14
is away from this site. However, the housing site does contain the original
Pool which accounts for the Pool of Muckhart name. Believe that this area
should be maintained and should be made the centrepiece of the
development. Welcome new/enhanced pedestrian and cycle links as the
paths in and around Muckhart are in need of improvement. Muckhart Playing
Field is located at the western edge of the village. This is not an ideal location
due to the speed and volume of traffic on the A91.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Alistair Lawson (CLDP001) Development at Pool of Muckhart should include
a requirement for the restoration of the ancient pool (of Muckhart) and some
play provision.

Tom Mullan (CLDP006) Requests removal of site from LDP on the grounds
of visual and environmental impact, no demand for housing, wildlife value of
the site, protection of greenbelt and agricultural land, negative impact on the
Conservation Area and sewage capacity.

Marion Marsden (CLDP025b) Requests removal of site from LDP on the
grounds of environmental impact, urban sprawl, no requirement for housing at
this location, increased car use and air pollution, noise and light pollution,
flooding and adverse impact on Muckhart.

Dr Kenneth Hunter (CLDP152) The re-instatement of the Pool of Muckhart
would hold back substantial volumes of water and help with flood prevention
and the creation of a wetland habitat for nature.

Suggests alternative sites to the east and west of the village that would not
have such an impact on the Conservation Area. The fields to the west, beyond
Golf View, would be ideal, extending the line of the village beyond the school
path, building on the rocky ledge on which the original village is built and
having good drainage, excellent outlook and easy transport links onto the
A91. An alternative site could be to the south of Rumbling Bridge Road on the
hillside overlooking the Cowden Course.

Tim Allan (CLDP147) The LDP should lay out a vision of the future whereby
Muckhart grows as a coherent community with enough houses to make an
impact for the better, with ready access to pub and shop and bus services on
the A91. The Council may wish to allocate 80 units to a masterplan on the
south side of the village, to be developed in 2 tranches over time. This would
make the development attractive to potential house builders as the
infrastructure required for 35 units is similar to that for 80 units, but the costs
are shared over a larger number of units. This means that the builder can
afford to build 2 and 3 bedroom affordable homes as well as larger 4 and 5
bedroom units, for which they get higher returns. Such a mix is desirable and
means too that the planning gain on 80 units would be much greater with the
Council able to extract more community benefits from a larger project.
Supports the idea of the site as a development site and would oppose any
erosion of the green space to the east of Pool of Muckhart along the A91
Page 8 of 14
which would destroy the distinct separateness of the two villages and create a
long thin ribbon village with no heart. The site should allow the creation of a
significant community space and centre. Also fully support an extended and
improved foot, cycle and bridle path network along the existing network as
represented by T28 and T29. This would allow better access to both the
village and to the school.

Neil Duthie (CLDP156) Supports reduction in house numbers but concerned
about the density of units on the allocated site. The proposed density is less
than half that of any other site approved for housing in the plan. Concerned
that this will lead to either:
a. the development of units with large plots designed for the executive market
(pricing in excess of the average house price in Clackmannanshire) or
b. the reservation of some of the proposed land for development in the future.
Concerns are reinforced by the lack of commitment to provide affordable
housing or recreational space for the community and I trust that
Clackmannanshire Council will honour their vision statement and aims laid
down in the plan to promote an integrated society.

To this end I ask for further clarification in the plan to ensure mixed housing
with an average house price in line with the county average.

TMS Planning and Development Services for Zandy Izat (CLDP161b) The
single matter at issue is the number of units to be planned for. Presently 35
units are noted and initial assessment indicates that a larger number, circa 50
units, could be provided within the site in a manner to address all of the
relevant design constraints set out. Amending the number to 50 units would
also support the potential for additional proportionate housing delivery (this is
an effective housing site) and, in line with the LDPs Strategic Objectives,
ensure the most efficient use of land in meeting development needs.

The proposed allocation is fully supported by the emerging Local
Development Plan albeit an increase in the development numbers to 50
residential units is also considered to be fully supported by the Plan and
justified in terms of the specific scale and characteristics of the site, its
relationship to the village and the need to support the local area/community,
including the local Primary School.

Philip Lord (CLDP170d) The LDP identifies Muckhart with just the Pool of
Muckhart. It should provide options to share the proposed 35 new housing
units over the Yetts o Muckhart and Upper Yetts as well as the Pool of
Muckhart, whilst retaining the separate historical identities of these
settlements. H48 should be amended to reflect this.

The area designated in H48 for development (6.64 ha) in the Pool of Muckhart
should be reduced so as to be more proportionate to the area of the village
and in a manner to reinforce the traditional linear nature of the village. This
would also remove the anomalously low density of the proposed housing on
the site (5.27 units per hectare).

Page 9 of 14
The wooded area at the northern corner of the site must be taken out of the
area designated for development and the boundaries duly amended. The area
of wetland, the Pool from which the Pool of Muckhart derives its name, in the
designated area must be retained and restored to a pool, as it was in the past,
after conducting a wildlife survey.

Should the pool obstruct access to the site via the old bowling green fronting
the A91, then alternative access should specified using existing roads on the
west of the site, suitably upgraded. The proposed entrance to the site is
opposite the village shop and cafe at the centre of the village, reinforcing the
case for providing access elsewhere. This would preserve the views
southwards, one of the stated aims in proposal H48, and would also allow for
reinstatement of the bowling green.

The following should be required of the developers:
Low profile housing, preferably single storey, to protect the landscape;
Provision of a mixture of types of residence (not just large, 'executive'
housing);
Each dwelling be supplied with boundary hedges of shrubs and trees
indigenous to Scotland;
A community orchard(s) and woodland should be incorporated into the
plans;
A sports field should be incorporated into the plan, providing a better
alternative to the current field close to the busy A91 to the southwest of the
village. This to be provided instead of a developer contribution to
community art;
On environmental and aesthetic grounds buildings must be made with
traditional materials where possible; and
Consideration be given to supplying the homes with shared energy sources
(district heating, from, say, biomass).

Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174y) Support the provision of up to
35 units on the site but want the Council to look at the boundaries of the new
site. Strongly believe that the Council should review the site boundaries and
protect the area in the middle of the site which is the original site of the Pool of
Muckhart and a valuable wetland in biodiversity terms. We also note that the
site includes an area of woodland in the north-west of the site which we
understand is part of the Woodacre property. This is an important tree group
in relation to the Conservation Area and should not be included in the site,
indeed we believe that this area of mature woodland should be included within
the Conservation Area boundary.

Concerned that the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Assessment are not
completed before sites are earmarked for development in the LDP. These
assessments seem to be key components in assessing the suitability of sites
especially as there have been many examples of flooding on unsuitable sites.
Moreover the site has been subject to serious flooding in the past and we
understand a local resident has submitted photographs to the Council
showing the extent of the flooding.

Page 10 of 14
We have strongly argued in this submission that the houses constructed
should not exceed 35. We are also concerned that the development should
not be purely large executive houses but that a balanced range of houses
should be provided which diversifies the housing stock in Muckhart. However,
we are concerned that as things stand the housing density of 5.5 per hectare
would favour these larger houses.

Would emphasise the importance of retaining and enhancing views outwards
from the Muckhart Conservation Area across the Bowling Green and feel that
transport and visibility issues should be addressed as the access onto the A91
will be in the vicinity of the Village Tearoom and Shop. This is a key amenity
for Muckhart.

Would like to see a Village Square created around the Coronation Hall which
is away from this site. However, the housing site does contain the original
Pool which accounts for the Pool of Muckhart name. Believe that this area
should be maintained and should be made the centrepiece of the
development. We would also want to see the Pond restored. If this was part of
the Masterplan, it would substantially reduce the housing density on the site.

Would welcome the improvement of pedestrian and cycle links as many of the
paths in and around Muckhart are in need of improvement.

Muckhart Playing Field is located at the western edge of the village. This is
not an ideal location due to the speed and volume of traffic on the A91.
Strongly suggest that the Playing Field is moved to Site H48 and located in
part of the site which is well drained.

We welcome the requirement to form strong habitat network linkages and
would like to see a full biodiversity and habitat survey before development
begins. This would include the neighbouring Community Woodland as
inappropriate housing development could affect habitats and biodiversity in
this area.

Require clarification over Developer Contributions. In the section relating to
Sustainable Communities, the LDP makes reference to the possible creation
of a Village Square, the improvement of cycling and footpaths and
improvements to Muckhart Playing Field. However, none of these
improvements are mentioned in the section on Developers Contributions. The
Community Council would like to know if and how these improvements will be
funded. We would like to be consulted when Clackmannanshire Council
discusses contributions with the developers.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Alistair Lawson (CLDP001) and Dr Kenneth Hunter (CLDP152) It is
understood that the 'original' pool was drained as part of improvements to the
land for farming purposes and its exact position is difficult to identify for
certain. There is however a requirement for a Drainage Assessment to
establish the potential for a Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) on the site,
Page 11 of 14
which would be likely to include ponds or water retention features. This could
effectively form the 'new' pool and the Masterplan submitted to accompany
representation CLDP161 does identify a 'pool' and a play area. The 'new' pool
would be of wildlife value. A Flood Risk Assessment is required to consider
and address any flooding concerns. No changes are therefore sought to
the LDP.

Tom Mullan (CLDP006) and Marion Marsden (CLDP025b) The
Development Requirements state that the development must be of high
quality, comply with the principles set out in the Muckhart Conservation Area
Appraisal (CD056) and contribute to the enhancement of the Conservation
Area. The LDP is required to find sites for housing and the questionnaire
carried out by Muckhart Community Council (CD092) showed support for
some additional housing in the village. There is a requirement to form strong
internal and external habitat network linkages in the design and the provision
of a 'new' pool, which would be of wildlife value. A Flood Risk Assessment is
required to consider and address any flooding concerns. The proposed site is
neither green belt nor prime agricultural land. Any sewage capacity
constraints would be addressed prior to development. The scale of the
development would not contribute significantly to pollution any more so than
had the allocation been proposed in one of the nearby hillfoot villages. No
changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Dr Kenneth Hunter (CLDP152) The suggested alternative sites are further
from the village centre and would result in a more pronounced ribbon
development or a group of new houses in the countryside detached from the
village. There would be less opportunity for trips to be made conveniently on
foot to the services within the village, bus stops, etc. No changes are
therefore sought to the LDP.

Tim Allan (CLDP147) and Neil Duthie (CLDP156) Policy SC2 requires that
sites of 20 or more homes are required to provide for affordable housing,
therefore this site, whether developed for 35 homes or 80 homes would
require to provide an element of affordable housing. A lower number of homes
would mean a proportionate reduction in the number of affordable houses, but
it would still be a requirement. "Planning Gain" would also only be in relation
to any additional pressures caused by the development and would therefore
again be commensurate with its size and impact. Support for the location of
the proposed development and the extended and improved foot, cycle and
bridle path network along the existing network as represented by T28 and T29
is noted. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Neil Duthie (CLDP156) Support for the house numbers proposed is noted. As
there are a number of Development Requirements which have to be
considered and provided on the site, and because of the close proximity to the
Conservation Area and the relationship with the surrounding countryside, it is
considered that the development site as identified will give more scope for
successful design solutions incorporating all of the requirements to a high
quality standard and design. Things such as habitat networks, SUDS features,
landscaping and recreation and community spaces can best be successfully
Page 12 of 14
incorporated and implemented if they are within the development site. No
changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

TMS Planning and Development Services for Zandy Izat (CLDP161b)
Support for the allocation of the proposed site is noted. Regarding the
capacity of the site, there are a number of Development Requirements which
have to be considered and provided on the site, and because of the close
proximity to the Conservation Area and the relationship with the surrounding
countryside, it is considered that the development site as identified will give
more scope for successful design solutions incorporating all of the
requirements to a high quality standard and design. Things such as habitat
networks, SUDS features, landscaping and recreation and community spaces
can best be successfully incorporated and implemented if they are within the
development site. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Policy SC2 requires that sites of 20 or more homes are required to provide for
affordable housing, therefore this site would require to provide an element of
affordable housing. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Philip Lord (CLDP170d) The suggested alternative sites are further from the
village centre and would result in more of a spread of houses in the
countryside, where national and local policies are trying to prevent such a
spread. The houses would be in the countryside, detached from the village
with less opportunity for trips to be made conveniently on foot to the services
within the village, bus stops, etc. No changes are therefore sought to the
LDP.

As there are a number of Development Requirements which have to be
considered and provided on the site, and because of the close proximity to the
Conservation Area and the relationship with the surrounding countryside, it is
considered that the development site as identified will give more scope for
successful design solutions incorporating all of the requirements to a high
quality standard and design. Things such as habitat networks, SUDS features,
landscaping and recreation and community spaces can best be successfully
incorporated and implemented if they are within the development site. No
changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

It is understood the area of woodland at the northern corner of the site may
actually belong to the Woodacre property to the north (see representation
CLDP174). While this may therefore not be a part of the site which would be
developed, the overall contribution it makes to the landscape and setting of
the development and the existing village needs to be considered. It is
understood that the 'original' pool was drained as part of improvements to the
land for farming purposes and its exact position is difficult to identify for
certain. There is however a requirement for a Drainage Assessment to
establish the potential for a Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) on the site,
which would be likely to include ponds or water retention features. This could
effectively form the 'new' pool and the Masterplan submitted to accompany
representation CLDP161 does identify a 'pool' and a play area. No changes
are therefore sought to the LDP.
Page 13 of 14

Drumburn Road to the west of the site is not an adopted road, therefore taking
access from the west would be difficult. As part of an access to the site
through the former bowling green additional parking could be provided to
service the village shop and cafe. Retaining and enhancing the views from
Muckhart to the south at this location are listed as one of the Development
Requirements and would be essential in the preparation of a design for the
proposed site. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Layout and orientation will help to determine suitable house sizes and heights
and a mix will be achieved through requirements to provide affordable housing
and live/work units as well as more mainstream housing. Materials, boundary
treatments and low and zero carbon generating technologies will be
considered at the detailed design stage in accordance with the provisions of
the policies in the LDP. The Development Requirements include consideration
of the demand for allotments and the masterplan submitted with
representation CLDP161 identifies an area for allotments, although if the
Reporter is so minded, consideration could be give to substituting this for a
community orchard if there is demand. There is also provision in the
Development Requirements and masterplan for leisure and recreation
provision which would incorporate some kickabout space.

Muckhart Community Council (CLDP174y) - As there are a number of
Development Requirements which have to be considered and provided on the
site, and because of the close proximity to the Conservation Area and the
relationship with the surrounding countryside, it is considered that the
development site as identified will give more scope for successful design
solutions incorporating all of the requirements to a high quality standard and
design. Things such as habitat networks, SUDS features, landscaping and
recreation and community spaces can best be successfully incorporated and
implemented if they are within the development site. No changes are
therefore sought to the LDP.

If the area of woodland at the northern corner of the site belongs to the
Woodacre property to the north it may not be a part of the site which would be
developed, however the overall contribution it makes to the landscape and
setting of the development and the existing village needs to be considered. It
is not proposed to include this area within the Conservation Area as requested
in the Community Council's response to the Conservation Area Appraisal. No
changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Assessment will inform the detailed
layout and drainage arrangements for the site, including the location and size
of any Sustainable Drainage Systems required. Had there been any more
fundamental flooding issues these would have been flagged up through
consultation with SEPA, and indeed some proposed sites have been removed
from the LDP as a result of SEPA's advice. They did not ask for this site to be
removed, therefore detailed flooding and drainage issues will be considered
after appropriate assessments have been carried out. No changes are
therefore sought to the LDP.
Page 14 of 14

A mix of housing will be achieved through the requirement to provide
affordable housing and live/work units as well as more mainstream housing.
No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Retaining and enhancing the views from Muckhart to the south at the location
of the former bowling green are listed as one of the Development
Requirements and would be essential in the preparation of a design for the
proposed site. Transport and access issues will be addressed at the detailed
design stage. No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

It is understood that the 'original' pool was drained as part of improvements to
the land for farming purposes and its exact position is difficult to identify for
certain. There is however a requirement for a Drainage Assessment to
establish the potential for a Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) on the site,
which would be likely to include ponds or water retention features. This could
effectively form the 'new' pool and the Masterplan submitted to accompany
representation CLDP161 does identify a 'pool' and a play area. No changes
are therefore sought to the LDP.

Support for the extended and improved foot, cycle and bridle path network
along the existing network is noted. No changes are therefore sought to the
LDP.

While it is unlikely that a development of this size would be able to deliver a
new playing field as well as the other Development Requirements, there is
provision in the LDP and masterplan for leisure and recreation provision. No
changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

The habitat network linkages are required to be integrated to the site layout
and design, therefore survey information and studies will be required to justify
and support the proposed design solution, both within and adjacent to the site.
The inclusion of a village square and new/enhanced pedestrian/cycle links
would be integral parts of any submission for planning permission and would
therefore not be "Developer Contributions" but rather part of the development.
Similarly improvements to Muckhart playing fields would be required in lieu of
on-site provision rather than an additional Developer Contribution. The
Community Council would be consulted when a planning application was
submitted and their views would be taken on board when the Council
discussed contributions with the developer. These discussions would be
based around the requirements of the Development Requirements of the LDP.
No changes are therefore sought to the LDP.

Reporters conclusions:

Reporters recommendations: