Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Draft Local Plan
Response from Callander Community Council

NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT ONLY.

Callander Community Council welcomes the draft local plan as a valuable document which will enable and encourage appropriate further development of the Park over the coming years. We have held two open discussion meetings in connection with the draft plan and a number of comments arise as a result. In addition there are some issues addressed in the plan that arise frequently in our monthly meetings and our response mentions these also.

We note that the plan is essentially a plan for land-use development over the period and that as such some of the drivers of land-use, such as economic development receive a light touch in the plan. To a degree this concerns us, as will be apparent below.

Natural Environment

At our monthly meetings, the impact of visitors to the park on the natural environment is a regular source of complaint. The issue primarily concerns noisy (occasionally rowdy) gatherings along our loch-sides and glens, with consequent litter, tree damage and land erosion. We are pleased to see that the Local Plan has considered the density of visits to different parts of the area and has designated some areas as needing some further management. From our perspective the most difficult areas are the car parks on LochVenachar and Loch Lubnaig, plus Balquidher Glen and we would urge some action to contain numbers of visitors to these areas. We fully support the designation of some more remote parts as areas for peace and quiet and hope that this can be achieved.

Existing Built Environment

we are impressed by the careful analysis of the existing built environment, especially of the conservation area of Callander. We understand that there are a number of technical corrections to be made.

We fully concur with the view that the public domain (pavements, streets, car-parks, signage etc) are in need of improvements. In a busy town centre, these can have a very significant impact on the experience that a visitor has and are currently piecemeal.

We have also heard within the town, and generally agree with the sentiment that the visual appearance and maintenance of some shop frontage is less than ideal. Further comments made to us also relate the same view to the upper storeys of shops, some of which appear to be somewhat neglected.

The proposed changes to the Conservation Area are welcomed by the Community Council. 

Developing Callander as a Community

Keeping Callander and other settlements as a sustainable communities is a fundamental aim of the Park. The draft Local Plan explores this issue in detail, and we largely agree with the draft. We would see a sustainable community as one which has a strong balance of age groups, housing, employment and supporting infrastructure. We are quite clear that the status quo will not be self-sustaining, but we do feel strongly that there is a driving need to maintain the special character of the area: a picturesque and historical town supporting an active energetic and community-minded population with realistic aspirations for existing in the 21^st century.

The statistics given in the report for the projected changes in the Park population show a worrying trend of an aging population. A local plan should be very clear in interpreting this trend and implementing measures to avoided the decreases in certain age groups. If, for example, the interpretation is that the 16-25 age group will decrease by 21% because of the lack of jobs then one of the primary objectives of the local plan should job creation. This detailed interpretation should be undertaken and the plan written to reflect the results.

Our own analysis of the threats to sustainability are largely in line with those identified in the draft Local Plan:

•·         outflow of young people, frequently (but by no means always) those with the best educational outcomes, or the most entrepreneurial attitudes.

•·         inflow dominated by people who are either retired or employed outside of the area

We agree that outflow is fuelled by cost of housing. But in our opinion, it is also driven by a dearth of local employment opportunities beyond the needs of a tourism industry based almost exclusively on retail and hospitality, both of which generate seasonal and low income employment opportunities but not many livelihoods.

The economic consequences of existing inflow patterns are not highlighted in the draft plan enough, we feel. To be clear, the people who fit into this bracket are very welcome in Callander and many of those who contribute most to the civic life of the town could be described in this way. However, in economic terms, the contribution of these people is limited to spend within the Park rather than wealth creation within the Park and it would serve the economic sustainability of Callander (and the rest of the Park) to have more local wealth generation, creating local jobs for example.

Our own analysis of the steps required to confront the demographic changes include those highlighted in the plan (principally housing), but also focus on the ability for people to find livelihoods in the National Park. We address each of these two separately.

Housing in Callander

Callander is the major settlement in the Park in terms of the existing number of houses. The proposed increase in housing within the Park shows and additional 389 houses for the period 2008-2015 and 351 for the period 2016-2020. The numbers proposed for Callander over the same periods are 140 and 202 representing 36% and 57% respectively of the growth in the Park. This growth would increase the position of Callander as the major settlement but it is a disproportionate growth which could change the character of the Town and exert unsustainable pressures on the local infrastructure.

The current local housing demand is not reflected in the statistics presented in the draft plan. A local housing needs survey is needed which takes the current economic situation into account. It is questioned whether the local housing needs for 2008-2015 and 2016-2020 are 140 and 202 houses.

The Community Council endorses the view that wherever possible, housing expansion should be within the existing town boundary. Development beyond this boundary to the north and west would damage the nature of the town as a gateway into those parts of the park, and we concur with the absence of any proposals for developments on these edges of the town.

The draft Plan does have a longer-term proposal to expand the Town to the east and this is not welcomed by  the Community Council. This will expand the Town well outside of the existing settlement boundary and increase the sprawl along the A84. The proposed expansion would result in the loss of the Gart caravan site, an important facility for visitors to Callander. There are many open spaces within the settlement which could be filled before expanding the boundary.

We believe that there are many existing properties with vacant floors which could be developed as affordable units either for sale or for rent. There needs to be a review of housing needs and housing opportunities in Callander to enable a balance to be agreed to infill gaps while preserving open spaces.

Economy of Callander

Tourism has been the main reason for the existence of Callander. It is presently the major local industry and the sustainability of the town does depend on it continuing to succeed. Existing tourism operates on the basis of day visitors and overnight stays, and benefits from visitors using retail and hospitality services. Callander businesses are clear that their viability would be significantly enhanced by expanding the capacity of Callander for overnight visitors: in simple terms the town needs about 200 more beds to accommodate visitors. However, the needs of the town are for accommodation for people who would use existing local services and retail outlets. Whilst the Community Council has no objection to proposals for a spa-style resort hotel to the east of Callander, the feeling is that in economic terms it would be fairly neutral for existing businesses. In this regard, a new town-centre hotel is clearly needed as well as the renovation of the existing Dreadnought Hotel.

The Community Council has also discussed other possible, desirable economic developments. Higher unit-value tourism rather than increased visitor numbers would be useful, and we have asked but not yet answered the question of why Pitlochry appears to do better than Callander in this regard. We need to find ways in which any growth on tourism can be achieved without threatening, damaging or destroying the basic tourism advantage of the area: unspoiled, peaceful, scenic beauty. At the same time, much more non-tourism based economic activity and associated jobs would be desirable and we would certainly ask that the Local Plan set out to encourage this, within the constraints of the purposes of the Park. For example, we would be very interested to discuss the possibility of a college focussing on traditional rural skills. Equally small-scale manufacturing could be explored.

We would very much like to see a study of some sort to explore the prospects for livelihoods in the National Park.

Infrastructure

It is considered that the infrastructure of Callander and the surrounding area is insufficient to support the Town over the period to 2015. Aims to increase tourism, housing, employment and the population will only succeed if the infrastructure is in place and maintained over the period.

There is a need to ensure that services can support the proposed developments. Statistics need to be presented to show whether the roads, schools, doctors, shops, transport, parking, water, gas and electricity supplies can support the proposed increases in the population and also the visitor numbers.

Transport

Finally, we would like to comment that there remains a very real difficulty with public transport, both within the Park and from major population centres to the Park.