PLANS which would have seen a tranquil Wee County village massively increase in size have been curtailed by elected members.

Clacks Council's Planning Committee curtailed plans for 50 houses at the Pool of Muckhart during last Thursday’s three-hour meeting at Kilncraigs.

Villagers, who were clearly energised in the local democratic process, vehemently opposed the plans, with volume of objections rivalling the number of properties proposed.

The committee heard representations from Elgin-based developers Springfield Properties as well as a number of residents and Muckhart Community Council.

At present, there are around 110 properties in Muckhart and the addition of the development would have increased its size by almost 50 per cent.

A number of concerns were cited – chief among the issues was that the Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan (LDP) indicates a maximum of 35 houses for the site in question.

The community council, and many others, highlighted that villagers were particularly active in the consultation leading up to creation of the LDP.

Original plans called for a figure of 100 for the site, but this came down thanks to the consultation exercise and representations from locals.

In light of that, many wondered why plans for 50 homes were being considered.

Council papers said there was “no compelling reason to indicate that the site cannot adequately accommodate the number and mix of houses proposed” and that it was “very low density”.

In contrast, community council chair Mr John Anderson highlighted the difference of 15 houses was a “significant deviation” and called for the LDP policies SC20 and SG4 as well as a conservation appraisal for the area to be respected.

He explained Muckhart is a “very dynamic, active community” and indeed, earlier in the meeting resident Ms Alison Peden explained to the committee that there was a lot of debate before folks concluded that a maximum of 35 houses should go on the site.

She said: “We felt good about that number and there was logic in it.”

When asked why 50 houses were being proposed, a representative for the developers said he would not like to hide the fact that Springfield was a private company that needed to make money.

Simply put, it was down to economics; the developer did not think the investment would be worth the risk with just 35 properties.

But, he said he felt the company arrived at a compromise in that it could have crammed more properties in to maximise profit – instead it looked to strike a balance.

A number of other issues were raised around sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), traffic and environmental issues as well as an issue that the proposed buildings not being in keeping with the village’s cottages and bungalows.

After around three hours of representations and questions, the committee rejected the plans by a vote of six to two.

Elected members encouraged the developer to bring back new and suitable plans for the area.