Causewayhead Community Council
Approved Minutes of the Meeting held at 7.00pm
on Monday, 5 August, 2024
Present: Valerie Sinclair (Chair), Joyce Carberry, Darren Draper, Sue White, Stuart Wilson (Secretary).
In Attendance: Councillor Jim Thomson, Ward 4, Stirling North, Thelma Barron (Temporary Minutes Secretary), fifteen local residents, Mr M. Niaz, and his nephew. for discussion of the application for planning permission in relation to the former Johal Convenience Store at 6 Munro Avenue, Causewayhead
Apologies: Amy Britton (Vice-Chair), Isobel Jackson, Fiona Macleod (Treasurer),
1. Welcome
The Chair welcomed all attendees to the meeting, and noted apologies. She extended a particular welcome to Mr Mohammed Niaz and his nephew, who had come to respond to residents’ queries on Mr Niaz’s planning application. She also expressed her gratitude to one local resident, who was in attendance, who picks up and recycles rubbish from the streets of Causewayhead on a weekly basis.
2. Adoption of Minutes
The unconfirmed Minutes of the business meeting held on 3 June, 2024 were approved, having been proposed by Joyce Carberry and seconded by Stuart Wilson, subject to amendment of M6.15 to read ‘Easter Cornton Road’.
- Matters Arising
Sustrans successor project to Walk, Cycle, Live:
North East Stirling Active Travel Project (M2)
- There was nothing further to report at the present time.
Safety Issues – Hillfoots Road (M4.2)
- The broken wall had been repaired.
Flooding on Easter Cornton Road (M4.3)
3.3 Council workers would be coming out on 6 August, to address the Intermittent flooding issues on Easter Cornton Road, on the lane by the Dance School, as a consequence of tree roots having grown into drainage pipes.
Sustrans – Residents’ Concerns:
inadequacies of new road layout and priorities (M4.3) Buchanan Drive.
3.4 The Community Council had made a request to Stirling Council that a GiveWay be painted on the pavement on Causewayhead Road on the approach to Buchanan Drive, to force cyclists to stop, with a view to averting a possible collision, arising from obstructed visibility for drivers emerging from Buchanan Drive due to an overgrown hedge. Stirling Council had refused, as this was contrary to the Highway Code, as it currently stands, that cyclists
have priority. (A similar ‘Give Way’ in Bridge of Allan would be removed in due course.) Stirling Council had written to residents about the overgrown hedge at the flats, at the junction of Buchanan Drive and Causewayhead Road, which was seriously obstructing visibility, and invited them to discuss matters with the Council, but had received no responses. In the meantime, one of the residents had cut back some of the hedge. The Council would now write to residents again, to issue a Section 93, whereby they would be given 7 days to cut the hedge back; alternatively, if Stirling Council had to cut the hedge, the residents would be charged. Independently, the Chair had managed to speak to one of the landlords, and had explained what was about to happen. The landlord was proposing to seek a stay of execution from Stirling Council, with a view to identifying, making contact with, and advising the other landlords of the situation.
3.5 One member observed that in addition to the overgrown hedge on the left hand side, at the Buchanan Drive junction, there was a high garden wall on the right hand side, which also obstructed visibility. If there was to be no ‘Give Way’ for cyclists approaching on Causewayhead Road, he considered that the removal of obstructions to visibility on the exit from Buchanan Drive was a matter of urgency.
3.6 The same member also expressed concerns about cyclists travelling at speed on the non-cycle path between Buchanan Drive and Morland Place, having witnessed a near miss. A contributory factor was the hedge, which had been planted by Stuart Milne but was no longer maintained (as Stuart Milne had been taken over some years ago). He suggested that a bollard was required to slow the cyclists down (although it was understood current Council policy was to remove bollards). The Chair undertook to inspect the path.
3.7 A further complication at this junction was that one of the tenants in the Buchanan Drive flats is buying vehicles at auction and parking them near the junction, while they are awaiting repair. Stirling Council had agreed to paint double yellow lines on the road, to act as a deterrant, but the work had yet to be done. Councillor Thomson would undertake a safety check once the work was completed.
Giant Japanese Hogweed on Causewayhead Road (M6.4)
3.8 The Council had dealt with the giant Japanese hogweed growing along the bank beside the railway line on Causewayhead Road.
Proposed planting of trees and shrubs in Barnwell Monument area (M6.9)
3.9 Following an application to Sustrans for funding to replace trees that their workers had removed from the Barnwell Monument area, the Chair had received a response that Sustrans had no funding available. In addition, the Community Council had agreed to take charge of two flower beds in that area, which Stirling Council Land Services would no longer maintain, with the intention of planting them up with shrubs. To this end, the Secretary had submitted an application for Stirling Community funding, the outcome of which was awaited. Stirling Council had undertaken to cut the hedge. A Community group of helpers would be led by Terry Lawrence, who had also undertaken to re-paint the two benches.
Dunster Road – issues with exit onto Airthrey Road (M6.11)
3.10 Drivers continued to turn into Dunster Road from Airthrey Road, despite the fact that Dunster Road is now exit only. The signage advising motorists of no entry was poorly positioned and could not be seen. The situation was perceived to be dangerous, particularly as children tended to emerge on bicycles from Aboyne Avenue onto Dunster Road. Councillor Thomson had spoken to the Roads Team to expedite the relocation of the signs. If drivers continued to ignore the ‘No entry’, it would be necessary to involve the Police. Meanwhile, exiting from Dunster Road onto Airthrey Road was challenging, particularly turning left, as a tight turn was required to cross the monoblock onto Airthrey Road.
Stevenson Bridge (M4.4)
3.11 The Secretary was still awaiting evidence of documented inspections which he had requested under the Freedom of Information Act, including the outcome of checks by divers on the foundations. It was noted that Stirling Council had said in 2020 that the bridge required repairs, and they had erected metal barriers on either side. Four years on, members expressed concerns about the state of the stone work and the overall safety of the bridge, which, they noted, was built in 1831.
- Chair’s Report
The Chair provided an oral report as follows:
Removal of bin from Ladysneuk Road
4.1 A resident had written to the Chair to report the removal of a bin from Ladysneuk Road, expressing concern about where dogwalkers and others could deposit their rubbish and waste. On checking with Land Services, the Chair learned that the bin had indeed been removed, as someone had been depositing domestic rubbish in them.
Opening of Spar Shop, Alloa Road
4.2 A Spar grocery would be opening on 16 August on Alloa Road in the premises previously occupied by the Co-op, and until recently by a furniture shop.
Planning Applications
4.3 Planning applications since the last meeting were as follows:
- 10 Cleuch Road, an application for a single storey extension;
- 42 Lothian Crescent, an application for a side and rear extension;
- Causewayhead Road, an application for change of use from storage yard to build a detached house;
- 6 Munro Avenue, an application for demolition of derelict shop, to build two five-bedroomed houses.
5. Police Report
There was no Police Report for this meeting. It was noted that Community Police Officer Fisher, who left in May, had not yet been replaced. The Chair had emailed Stirling Police to find out what was happening.
6. Councillor’s Report
Councillor Thomson provided an oral report, noting that as no Council meetings were taking place at present, there was less to report than usual.
New Chief Executive
6.1 Stirling Council’s new Chief Executive, Caroline Sinclair, had taken up her post last week. Her background was in Social Care.
Sustrans: Walk, Cycle, Live
6.2 The Sustrans Walk, Cycle, Live project had over-run its deadline by 18 months, which had caused considerable frustration. In particular, the end of the cycle lane at Bridgehaugh had not yet been completed as the University would not permit the work to go ahead while there were students in residence in the halls there.
6.3 In discussion it was noted that the cycle lane on Airthrey Road to Bridge of Allan was now tighter due to the bollards. Weedkiller had been applied to grass and weeds on the stretch from Wallace High School to the University.
6.4 Stirling Council had agreed to replace the speed bump on Dumyat Road.
7. Planning application, 6 Munro Avenue
7.1 Before inviting Mr Niaz to speak, the Chair asked those present to kindly remain quiet and to listen to what Mr Niaz had to say. For information, she then read out the key outcomes from Nr Niaz’s previous planning application, which was initially refused in May 2020, and reviewed, following appeal, in October 2020. The Review stated that ‘The proposals are of a scale and design that do not complement the existing urban context and will dominate the site and the surroundings. The design is not considered appropriate to the wider surroundings in terms of appearance, position, height, scale and massing……….The proposals do not demonstrate that they will preserve the amenity levels currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents and it is considered that they will result in a material reduction in the levels of privacy currently enjoyed by these neighbouring properties………It is considered that insufficient information has been provided which demonstrate that vehicles from each property can move freely, without obstruction from the vehicles associated with the other dwelling.’
The Chair then invited Mr Niaz to explain how the current proposals differed from the original proposals.
7.2 Mr Niaz stated that the plans had been adjusted to take cognisance of
residents’ previous comments and issues raised. The size of the houses had been reduced, the design was different, and the houses now faced onto
Munro Avenue. He considered the double storey design would fit
sympathetically into the surrounding environment. The plans also included an additional footpath for access to the park, which would join up with the pavement outside No 1 and No 3 Munro Avenue.
7.3 The Community Council learned that Mr Niaz’s current seven bedroom house in Bridge of Allan was too small for his family’s needs, and that he required the two proposed five-bedroomed houses to accommodate his own family, including an adult disabled son, together with his brother’s family. In accordance with their culture, adult sons and their families usually remain with their parents. Mr Niaz was keen to return to Causewayhead, and to utilise the site of the now disused shop. Thus, the two houses would be family homes, and were certainly not intended for use as HMOs. It was further noted that Mr Niaz owns the pavement outside the shop, which represents the boundary of their property.
7.4 The Chair invited comments from the floor, including the fifteen local residents in attendance. Comments were wide-ranging, and focused on the following key points:
Proposed extension of pavement
7.4.1 There were concerns about the proposed extension of the pavement to sweep round to the park, joining up with the pavement outside No 1 and No 3. Residents in No 1 and No 3 perceived that it would inhibit access to their driveways, precluding a wide turning area, as well as preventing parking at the kerbside outside their houses. It was suggested that Mr Niaz might make an approach to the owner of the park, to obtain more space, but unfortunately, it was confirmed that this would not be possible, as the land of the park belonged to a developer who had long since gone out of business. Notwithstanding these comments, assurances were given to residents that the road width would not change. However, members noted that the Planning Officer would exercise due diligence in evaluating the plans.
Overdevelopment of site
7.4.2 Various residents expressed a view that the proposals would result in the site being very congested, with two large houses that they perceived did not fit well with the surrounding environment, and had minimal garden space. It was suggested that the frontage and height of the two houses would be incongruous with adjacent houses, given that there were no five-bedroomed houses in this part of Causewayhead. In response, Mr Niaz pointed to the number of extensions which were being built in Causewayhead. Some residents expressed the view that the current plan was not substantially different from the previous plan.
Density of occupation and parking
7.4.3 Concerns were expressed about how many people would be living between the two houses; reassurances were received that numbers would be within reason, and at least one of the bedrooms would become an office. However, residents’ overall impression was that the level of occupation was still very dense for the size of the site, would differ markedly from the houses around it, and could not be said to be maintaining the character of the community. They were also concerned
that the likely number of cars would not be confined to the two parking spaces allocated to each house, and could lead to yet more congestion with roadside parking. Responding to suggestions that he build smaller houses with fewer bedrooms, Mr Niaz affirmed that he required the houses to have five bedrooms, and this was not negotiable. This was his final submission, and he would countenance only small adjustments to the plan. Again, members noted that the Planning Office would exercise due diligence in this regard.
Potential roadside parking impeding C30 bus
7.4.4 Concerns were expressed that possible increased roadside parking at
the proposed site would impede the route of the C30 bus, which was already experiencing problems in navigating its route through Munro Avenue and Lothian Crescent. The C30 was seen to be a vital service, which residents did not wish to be withdrawn as a result of such issues.
Derelict shop and other property
7.4.5 It was noted that the shop had been disused for ten years, and had been allowed to fall into a state of some disrepair, including removal of the roof, three years ago. Residents described it as an eyesore, though, at the present time, Stirling Council did not deem it to be unsafe. Local residents also complained that a bungalow in Munro Avenue, which Mr Niaz owned, had not been well maintained, and in particular, the garden had frequently been overgrown. Consequently, it was suggested, some residents had lost trust and confidence in Mr Niaz’s endeavours. Asked if he would go ahead with demolition of the shop, were his planning application to be unsuccessful, Mr Niaz responded that he would probably leave it as it stands, but might then consider selling the site.
Change from commercial use of site to dwelling houses
7.4.6 One member expressed disappointment at the potential change of designation of the site from commercial to dwelling houses. However, it was noted that the previous tenant of the shop had done his utmost to make the convenience store succeed, but had succumbed to changing trends in shopping and greater reliance on big supermarkets.
Relocation of Utilities
7.4.7 It was noted that there were shared utilities on the shop site, including water mains. The residents in No 1, had had to break through the Heras barriers to access the water mains, in order to address a plumbing issue. If the proposed development of the site went ahead, the utilities would need to be relocated.
Timescales
7.4.8 Mr Niaz did not have a clear timescale in mind for the commencement of work, as this would be contingent on the sale of his house in Bridge of Allan. Nor did he yet have a timescale for how long the building work would take.
Deadline for Planning Department Decision
7.4.9 The Planning Department would issue a decision by 13th September, 2024.
Thanks
- 10The Chair thanked Mt Niaz and his nephew for their attendance, and for allowing local residents to voice their concerns.
- Any Other Business
Logo for proposed boxing club, Bandeath Road
8.1 Planning permission had been sought for a boxing club in Bandeath Road. Concern was expressed that the logo for the club was the head of a Bully type dog, which was considered inappropriate. However, it was agreed that the proposal was a matter for the Planning Department.
9. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting would take place on Monday 7th October at 7.00pm in the Birds and Bees Function Room.
- The meeting closed at 8.30pm.
TASB/ VS 12.8.24