Responses to Main Issues Report consultation (Part 1) September 2014 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 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 x’s (xxxxxxxx) - 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 we may produce further versions 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. Note: should you wish to review comments relating to MIR4 Braeval (Port of Menteith) please see comments under Aberfoyle. 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 to 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 19 2 National Park Partnership Plan >> 2.2 Delivering the National Park Partnership Plan 32 3 Current Planning Policy - The Local Plan >> Strategy summary 35 4 Identifying the Main Issues - what needs major change and what are the options? 36 4.1 Drivers for change 37 4.1.1 Do you agree with summary outlined? Is there anything we have missed? 49 4.2 Summary of the main issues 54 4.3 Main issues, potential options and solutions 55 4.3.1 Rural Economy Question 1: Should we provide greater support for a broadening of economic activity by providing 82 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? 96 4.3.3 Rural Economy Question 3: Do you agree that closer links with Land and Visitor Management would be 109 beneficial? 4.3.4 Options and Solutions for Rural Economy: What option do you prefer? Why? 116 4.3.5 Visitor Experience Question 1: Do you agree? Are there any other settlements where we should support tourism 129 investment and development? 4.3.6 Visitor Experience Question 2: Do you agree? 138 iii 4.3.7 Visitor Experience Question 3: Where should new provision for camping and motor-homes be supported? 147 4.3.8 Options and Solutions for Visitor Experience Question 4: What option do you prefer? Why? 151 4.3.9 Infrastructure and Services Question 1: Do you agree with the opportunities listed above? Are there others? 161 4.3.10 Infrastructure and Services Question 2: How best to deliver improvements to infrastructure that benefits 172 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 177 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 179 further suggestions? 4.3.13 Housing Question 1: How much new housing is required? 190 4.3.14 Options & Solutions for Housing Question 1: What option do you support? Why? 209 4.3.15 Housing Question 2: How can we best deliver housing in the National Park? 215 4.3.16 Options and Solutions for new housing in the settlements Question 3: What option do you support? Why? 229 4.3.17 Options and Solutions for new housing on sites adjacent to settlement boundaries Question 4: What option do you 239 support? Why? 4.3.18 Options and Solutions for new housing within Small Rural communities and Building Groups in the Countryside 244 Question 5: What option do you support? Why? 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? 254 5.1.1 Placemaking Question 1: Do you agree with the sites identified for development and the proposed Placemaking Priority 260 sites? 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.2 Aberfoyle 262 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.3 Ardentinny 328 iv 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.4 Arrochar & Succoth 335 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.5 Balloch 343 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.6 Balmaha 362 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.7 Callander 377 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.8 Carrick Castle 421 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.9 Crianlarich 423 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.10 Croftamie 425 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.11 Drymen 431 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.12 Gartmore 508 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.13 Gartocharn 517 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.14 Killin 522 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.15 Kilmun, Strone & Blairmore 527 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.16 Lochearnhead 532 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.17 Lochgoilhead 533 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.18 Luss 534 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.19 St Fillans 539 v 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.20 Strathyre 542 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.21 Tarbet 543 5 Placemaking - What sites should be considered for development? >> 5.22 Tyndrum 551 6 List of Consultation Questions 554 7 Policy List and Action Summary 556 8 List of Accompanying Documents 569 9 Appendices 570 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: 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.