Hi all,
This is the last appeal for support I'll post so bear with me....
We're onto the final straight now so far as lodging objections is concerned, and as I type we have 623 logged on the planning portal. It's a fantastic number and so a huge thank you to those of you who have contributed.
On Tuesday Grace Church had 395 supportive comments. In 72 hours it has more than doubled to 825. There is no doubt that those who support Grace Church's prejudicial and discriminatory views and beliefs have essentially hijacked the planning system to ludicrously skew this figure beyond any recognition from the reality.
I have raised the obvious concerns with the planning department and local councillors, and we can only trust that it will be seen for what it is and viewed accordingly. Nonetheless, there are now 1,573 signatories to this petition, and more than 1,000 with FK postcodes. If you are reading this and haven't objected, please do so (details below). It takes around a minute to do, and a strong surge in numbers now could make a genuine difference to the outcome.
If you don't have an FK postcode but wish to help us by objecting, we would really appreciate your support. I haven't sought to encourage this previously, but given Grace Church's actions this week it is now reasonable to do so.
Thanks again everyone, and if you have any questions feel free to email us at ngckinnaird@gmail.com
Gary
Below is the link to the application, where you can post your comment in objection, and the template if you wish to use it:
The application is contrary to the LDP (in particular 3.13, 3.31, 3.35, 3.36.4, 4.47, 5.11, 5.49, 5.52, 5.54.3, 5.76, 5.79, 5.80.1, 5.92.3, 5.92.5, 5.95.1, 5.95.6) and masterplan, which never envisaged a building occupying this land that would require inwards travel of up to 300 people.
The proposal is contrary to Designing Streets, Supplementary Guidance SG02 – Neighbourhood Design, the National Roads Development Guide, and Planning Advice Notes 75 and 78.
The streets were not designed to cater for such concentrated movement or parking of traffic, and cannot now be amended to. 27 spaces are proposed, of which many are already in use by residents. Scottish Government statistics say the average car journey consists of 1.59 people, providing for up to 188 cars entering the area en masse, most of which with nowhere obvious to park. A serious safety risk would arise and community movement by cycling and walking would be discouraged. This is of particular concern in our family community, where there are a large number of children using the streets, whose safety must be paramount. The LDP targets addressing existing parking and traffic issues in Larbert, not adding to them, which is what this proposal would achieve.
The land is the sole piece of community access land available in the heart of our community, defined as a Local Centre in the LDP. As your David Paterson said “Whatever proposals come forward, it is considered that proposals should include a significant degree of public access and community use provision, whatever that may be.” I wholeheartedly agree. The land is for everyone in our community. None of the applicant’s 12 directors are residents of our community, nor is the majority of their congregation. Their proposal is first and foremost to use the land for their benefit. Little is known about their community offering, as they have refused to enter into any dialogue with us about it or even confirm if we could all use it. These are clearly not the actions of a party who genuinely wish to offer our community what we have always been promised from that land and what the LDP and masterplan requires.
All parties forming the owners/development consortium have been asked to provide details of the “extensive marketing” of the land they claim has taken place. They have either ignored or refused that request. There is no evidence that the land has been thoroughly marketed, certainly since removal of the ruined façade, which significantly increases its marketability due to reduced construction costs, to include tax benefits.
I would like to see the land developed, either as always intended, or as a greenspace/playpark. Whatever goes there, it should be a prerequisite that its primary function is for the use and enjoyment of every person in our community, rather than as a secondary function for an applicant who has made no attempt to communicate or integrate with us.