A community’s on-going battle

Objectors had breathed a tentative sigh of relief in June, when Scottish Ministers finally announced they had rejected the Airthrey Kerse application - almost a year after they had originally called it in.

The Ministers had sided with the DPEA (Planning and Environment Appeals Division) Reporter, who had published his findings in 2017.

The appeals reporter had acknowledged there was an argument for economic benefit and a degree of housing need being met.

But protection of the green belt was seen as an overwhelming priority - a position subsequently backed by Ministers.

Graham’s – in partnership with Mactaggart & Mickel Homes – first submitted the planning application for 600 houses including 150 affordable units, a new primary school and public park in 2014 promising it would bring significant socioeconomic benefits Stirling, the Scottish food and drink industry, and Scotland as a whole.

They said the development would help fund a new £30 million national dairy processing and development centre at Craigforth.

However, Stirling councillors turned down the Airthrey Kerse application on March 23, 2016 on grounds that the houses would be on an area of greenbelt land and concerns about flooding and other issues. Around 450 letters of objection had been lodged to the homes plans.

Graham’s and Mactaggart and Mickel Homes, lodged an appeal to the Scottish Government just weeks later. Holyrood’s planning and environment appeals division forwarded their recommendation to Scottish Ministers for a final determination on June 13 last year, with their decision coming just over a year later - a delay which had sparked criticism.

A separate inquiry also concluded earlier this year that the Airthrey Kerse site should not be earmarked for housing in the area’s Local Development Plan because of impact on the green belt.

DPEA appeals reporter Dannie Onn had said last year: “Housing should be planned for and provided in the context of the new Local Development Plan.”

Flooding concerns, one of the main points raised by objectors, were dismissed, however, with the reporter saying the development had the potential to improve drainage issues.