Page 1 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]











Page 2 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
Page 3 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
Page 4 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
Page 5 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
Page 6 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
Page 7 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:

H38 - Berryfield, Alva

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
Page 8 of 16
Environmental Health team.

H39 - Former Alva Glen Hotel, Alva

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.

M05 - Park Street, Alva

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.

Page 9 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:

H38 - Berryfield, Alva

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.

H39 - Former Alva Glen Hotel, Alva

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
Page 10 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
Page 11 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.

Page 12 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
Page 13 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
Page 14 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.

Page 15 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.

M05 - Park Street, Alva

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.
Page 16 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: