Responses to Main Issues Report consultation (Version 3) March 2015 POST MAIN ISSUES REPORT DOCUMENT The LIVE Park consultation process The LIVE Park public consultation was held for 11 weeks from 28 April until 14 July 2014. We wanted to encourage as many people as possible to get involved in the process and we welcomed comments and feedback in a variety of ways: • Through our website either as quick comments or formal consultation responses (Responses to MIR consultation Part 1) • Through hard copy forms either or electronically or via our online system (Responses to MIR consultation Part 1) • At our events focused on working with Young People (‘Youth engagement and input to the Main Issues Report consultation’ - Part 2) • Through comments on our Facebook, Blog and Twitter pages (Part 3) • At community or stakeholder events/meetings (Part 3) What is this Report? This report (Part 1) includes all the comments submitted during the LIVE Park consultation process as formal responses (attributable) or ‘quick’ comments (non attributable) via the ourlivepark.com. It also includes those received via our website (including our online system – OLDP), by email or posted to us as a hard copy. As verbatim comments, these are shown word-for-word. To make it easier to analyse we’ve been through every comment and categorised them so what you’ll see presented in this report is organised by the relevant section of the Main Issues Report (e.g. by theme, such as housing or rural economy, or by area). We received approximately 653 comments to our consultation so this document is lengthy and it’s advisable to be read online along with the actual Main Issues Report document which can be found on www.ourlivepark.com by clicking on ‘Downloads’ then on ‘Full Main Issues Report’. Sharing feedback We want to share the feedback we received through the process either through the formal consultation, via our activity with young people or through our online and social media activity, so this report (Part 1) is the first of a series that we’ll publish. How did we prepare this report? Comments have been reviewed, entered into our database and split up to allocate the content with the relevant part of the Main Issues Report document. This means we have split up the comments where needed. We have not edited or summarised the comments. There are a small number of comments that we have not published in full – these are marked with asterisks (*) - as they used inflammatory or inappropriate language. i Things to remember With 130 individuals or organisations submitting comments, generating over 650 comments, this has been a detailed and complex task. We are still reviewing the comments, summarising the changes or preferred options sought, so we may need to change how we have allocated them and so we may produce further version for our internal use. We still hold the original responses separately and will also use the full response received when analysing the comments. Where a document has been submitted with comments, we have made reference to an appendix where you can view this. If you notice any errors that we might have overlooked, please let us know by emailing us at [email protected] Please note, the consultation is now closed so there is no opportunity make any additional comments or change your comment at this stage. If anything is unclear or you need further guidance, then get in touch by emailing us at [email protected] or by calling us on 01389 722600 and asking for Thom, Susan, Hugh or Stuart. ii Contents Responses in order of Main Issues Report chapters/sections Page Number 1 Introduction and Overview 1 2 National Park Partnership Plan >> 2.1 Vision for the Park 20 2 National Park Partnership Plan >> 2.2 Delivering the National Park Partnership Plan 32 3 Current Planning Policy - The Local Plan >> Strategy summary 36 4 Identifying the Main Issues - what needs major change and what are the options? 37 4.1 Drivers for change 38 4.1.1 Do you agree with summary outlined? Is there anything we have missed? 51 4.2 Summary of the main issues 56 4.3 Main issues, potential options and solutions 57 4.3.1 Rural Economy Question 1: Should we provide greater support for a broadening of economic activity by providing 88 greater flexibility for new business development in the countryside? 4.3.2 Rural Economy Question 2: Do you agree that a pilot approach should focus on two key areas in the Park? 103 4.3.3 Rural Economy Question 3: Do you agree that closer links with Land and Visitor Management would be beneficial? 116 4.3.4 Options and Solutions for Rural Economy: What option do you prefer? Why? 123 4.3.5 Visitor Experience Question 1: Do you agree? Are there any other settlements where we should support tourism 136 investment and development? 4.3.6 Visitor Experience Question 2: Do you agree? 146 iii 4.3.7 Visitor Experience Question 3: Where should new provision for camping and motor-homes be supported? 154 4.3.8 Options and Solutions for Visitor Experience Question 4: What option do you prefer? Why? 157 4.3.9 Infrastructure and Services Question 1: Do you agree with the opportunities listed above? Are there others? 168 4.3.10 Infrastructure and Services Question 2: How best to deliver improvements to infrastructure that benefits 179 communities and visitors through new development? 4.3.11 Infrastructure and Services Question 3: How can the retention and improvement of key community services such 184 as schools, healthcare, road and broadband be supported? 4.3.12 Options & Solutions for Infrastructure & Services Question 4: Do you agree with the options listed above? Any 187 further suggestions? 4.3.13 Housing Question 1: How much new housing is required? 200 4.3.14 Options & Solutions for Housing Question 1: What option do you support? Why? 219 4.3.15 Housing Question 2: How can we best deliver housing in the National Park? 226 4.3.16 Options and Solutions for new housing in the settlements Question 3: What option do you support? Why? 239 4.3.17 Options and Solutions for new housing on sites adjacent to settlement boundaries Question 4: What option do you 249 support? Why? 4.3.18 Options and Solutions for new housing within Small Rural communities and Building Groups in the Countryside Question 254 5: What option do you support? Why? 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? 264 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.2 Aberfoyle 273 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.3 Ardentinny 346 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.4 Arrochar & Succoth 354 iv 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.5 Balloch 367 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.6 Balmaha 393 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.7 Callander 410 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.8 Carrick Castle 462 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.9 Crianlarich 464 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.10 Croftamie 469 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.11 Drymen 477 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.12 Gartmore 566 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.13 Gartocharn 575 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.14 Killin 590 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.15 Kilmun, Strone & Blairmore 596 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.16 Lochearnhead 596 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.17 Lochgoilhead 600 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.18 Luss 602 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.19 St Fillans 612 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.20 Strathyre 616 v 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.21 Tarbet 621 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.22 Tyndrum 635 6 List of Consultation Questions 639 7 Policy List and Action Summary 641 8 Appendices 654 9 Amended Loch Lomond Steamship Company Responses 656 vi Main Issues Report Our Live Park Comments Received Chapter Commented on: 1 Introduction and Overview Customer Reference: 00107 Organisation: (If applicable) Customer Name: Non Attributable Comment Reference: LDP01/MIR/CONS/00107/1/074 Comment Method: ONLINE Customer Type: Information not available Verbatim Comment: On specific comments I have a few. Firstly, tourist signage within the park must be improved for general amenities. Several times a year I am stopped on the street in Balloch and asked where the nearest Petrol station is. From the round about at Park HQ it is only a few hundred meters but is not signed. I think through the park, general tourist brown signs need improvement for petrol in particular but other services as well. Scenic routes should also be signed better, two weeks ago my wife and I expored the East of the park to see the new public art installations. It took us all day to find and staff in the Callander park office had no clue where it was. # If you feel any information in this report is incorrect please contact us by email at [email protected] Page 1 Main Issues Report Our Live Park Comments Received Chapter Commented on: 1 Introduction and Overview Customer Reference: 00107 Organisation: (If applicable) Customer Name: Non Attributable Comment Reference: LDP01/MIR/CONS/00107/1/073 Comment Method: ONLINE Customer Type: Information not available Verbatim Comment: Thank you for the great promotion, and clarity of information in the current Park consultation.