AN article is none the worse for having the journalist express a personal view, which Stewart Fisher clearly has (“Murray & Co make concessions to keep development alive”, Herald Sport, July 23). What is disappointing is that he has not informed himself with any of the background with respect to the land or the bid.
There have been two public inquiries in 25 years, which have found against housing on Park of Keir. True, the second (2004) did not ask for housing, but the developers still agreed to give an undertaking not in future to ask for housing in exchange for outline planning permission for a modest hotel and golf course.
The ink is barely dry on the Stirling Local Development Plan, which was arrived at by a process one might describe as democracy in action. Both Dunblane and Bridge of Allan community councils also signed off on a local development plan, which foresaw no development here – least of all housing. I understand that neither was there any proposal from the landowners.
True, Mrs Murray has for some time been looking for a site for her tennis centre and an Andy Murray museum. Mr Fisher acknowledges that Stirling Council has tried to be positive and constructive in finding an appropriate site. This is just the latest and least appropriate site. Given all the environmental difficulties with this piece of designed landscape, not to mention the transport implications of the site, it is clearly not the best.
Why then did Mrs Murray and Colin Montgomerie pick this one? Could it be that it is thought the involvement of two celebrities might be a factor in getting permission for the development of greenbelt land?
Malcolm Shaw,
5, Pendreich Road,
Bridge of Allan.
THE Woodland Trust Scotland has no intention of taking on the management of the greenspace at Park of Keir. This has been made clear to the developers.
We have offered our expert advice on the creation of any new woodland planted alongside the development, a service that is available to any landowner free of charge as part of our efforts to double Scotland’s native woodland cover by 2050.
Charles Dundas,
Woodland Trust Scotland,
South Inch Business Centre,
Perth.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here