BAE Systems estimate that their proposed engineering works and remediation of the Bishopton ROF site will cost around £30m. This may seem a vast amount of money, but if you compare this to a small site in Renfrewshire which was recently remediated it seems that this would be bargain basement remediation. That small site was only 0.7ha and cost £3.2m to remediate. The ROF site is approximately 964ha. If we compare the average costs of remediation per hectare, the ROF remediation will be £0.031m per hectare whereas the small Renfrewshire site’s remediation cost was £4.57m per hectare. If you are wondering how BAE Systems manage to keep their costs so low, it is quite simple, they propose:
scraping up contamination and dumping it in a landfill or
covering with a layer of clay or
doing nothing as in the case of the BAE retained land. (BAE claim that this part of the site is not used so it is safe to leave it.)
monitoring the surface water of toxic picrite lagoons and appraising options(again probably do nothing since these are in the BAE retained land)
Tables 15 and 16 in BAE's remediation strategy document detail their selected remediation methods. You can find the whole document on the Renfrewshire Council website, but you can read an extract showing tables here.
At the end of BAE’s proposed "clean-up" of the site there will be just as much contamination on the site as there is today. The only difference is that some of it will be moved to the on-site landfill and some will be hidden under clay. There is one exception: contamination from burning 284 contaminated buildings will be spread across the sorrounding countryside polluting the environment and exposing the public to health risks.
The UK government will be removing the landfill tax exemption for waste arising from remediation. They are removing this exemption in order to deter developers from dumping contaminated soil in landfills rather than treating it to remove the contamination. BAE Systems quite unashamedly however, suggest in their planning application that they might accelerate their dumping to landfill in order to beat the tax deadline. They state "... commercial constraints stemming from the abolition of exemptions from Landfill Tax in March 2012 may make accelerated filling of the facility a possibility."
A landfill on the ROF site would make a mockery of Renfrewshire Council’s current Greener Renfrewshire recycling initiative. In an effort to reduce the dumping of waste to landfill Renfrewshire Council has provided locals with blue bins for recycled material and has also reduced the capacity for non-recycled waste. Will BAE’s desire for profits be allowed to take precedence over the Council's own environmental policy?
BAE has another trick up its sleeve for getting rid of waste. It is called a "landscape mound". They propose to carry out a confidence 0.15m (about six inches) topsoil scrape of the core development area. They believe that this will give confidence that all the contaminated soil has been removed. Soil from areas where there is known to be contamination will be dumped in the landfill. The remainder (i.e. the stuff of which they are not 100% sure) will be dumped in a landscape mound. In effect this mound is really an unlicensed landfill or landraise to be more precise and since it is not classed as a landfill, the waste dumped here will not be subject to a landfill tax. BAE Systems insist that this material is not "waste"; they are merely recycling the material into a landscape mound. We don’t think many people will be persuaded by that argument. SNH were not impressed with BAE’s previous submission and complained about the height of one of the proposed landscape mounds. It seems SEPA were a bit sceptical too.
Another area where BAE propose to take the cheap option is the rate of sampling for contamination. At the Bishopton Examination in Public Prof Dayan, Prof Midgley and Dr Johnston all recommended that to determine the extent and type of contamination within the site, samples should be taken on a 10m x 10m grid basis in the proposed residential area and 25m X 25m in all other areas. They also recommended that the number of contaminants for which the soils should be tested should also be increased. However BAE Systems preferred to target their sampling i.e. they test in specific areas for specific contaminants. Vast areas remain untested. After the remediation BAE will check the soil for contamination. These validation sampling rates do not even come close to the standards recommended by our experts as can be seen below.
BAE’s proposed validation sampling rates:
25mX25m - residential in core development area
50mx50m – recreational open space in core development area
50mx50m - commercial in core development area
100mx100m - community woodland
The average garden width for a semi-detached house in Bishopton is approximately 7m. Three plots could fit into a 25mx25m square. According to the proposed validation, samples would only be taken at the corners of the 25mx25m square. If your house was built on land which had been remediated to bring contamination down to acceptable levels, would you feel confident of the safety of your garden if you knew that no validation samples were taken in your garden or each of your adjacent neighbours’ gardens?
How confident would you be to let your children and pets roam in a community woodland knowing that for an area of 10,000 sq m (100m x 100m), equivalent to two football pitches, only the four corner points were checked to see if there was any contamination?
However BAE Systems does not have to worry about the liability for the contaminated land. According to documents obtained through FOI, BAE Systems only provide a warranty i.e. if contamination is found within a limited period of time they will come back and fix it. The liability for the land lies with the current landowner and once BAE Systems sells the land, it is no longer their problem. It is easy to understand why the forestry commission has declined ownership of the community woodland.
The whole point of community growth areas as defined in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan was to encourage people outwith the area to come and live in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan area. Bishopton ROF was designated as one of these areas. Is this the best that "Greener Renfrewshire" can offer? "Come and live on the site of a former chemical works. There will still be contamination in your garden, but according to current guidelines the levels are acceptable. This may change however. Please note if someone becomes ill as a result of working or playing in your contaminated garden, you will be liable. Of course if your garden requires further remediation after the warranty expires, you will also be liable for the cost and this will be a considerable amount."
The final piece de resistance of this bargain basement remediation proposal is the method which BAE has chosen for decontaminating buildings; pack them with straw and set them alight. This method "cleans" the buildings, but spreads the pollution far and wide putting the public’s health at risk. Clearly the US Environmental Protection Authority does not agree with BAE's theory that the pollution will only affect those living within 400m of the building being burned. There the EPA has made an outright ban on burning all contaminated buildings at the former Badger Munitions plant in Wisconsin, even those buildings which are over 2000m from the nearest residence. Over 800 buildings have now been successfully decontaminated there and not one was burned.
Some politicians have called for the highest remediation standards to be used at Bishopton. However as you can see from the information above the reality is completely different. Renfrewshire Council is currently considering BAE's application for remediation and engineering works at the ROF site.
BAE Systems currently has two applications before Renfrewshire Council. We submitted our response to the hazardous/non-hazardous waste landfill application during the summer and we have recently submitted our response to the application for Engineering operations comprising remediation and bulk earthworks.
While reading the "remediation" planning application we discovered that BAE Systems has been experimenting on the local population again. They were trying to work out how far pollution travels downwind during the burning of contaminated buildings so that they can define a minimum "safe" distance between a burning contaminated building and the nearest residence. The experiment was not very scientific. In fact it was pretty poor. They only had two machines which measured and recorded the levels of PM1, PM2.5 and PM10. On 11 June 2009 they burned two contaminated buildings. Before the burns were started they tried to take background readings. However after starting recording, the wind changed so they had to move the location of their equipment. The buildings were burned one at a time. During the burning of the second building the wind changed direction. The equipment remained in the same location. So although they were supposed to be taking readings downwind of the burning building, the wind was in fact travelling in a different direction for part of the experiment. The report claimed that the results from the experiment supported BAE Systems' 400m no-burn zone theory i.e. they will not burn buildings which are within 400m of the nearest residence, but they will burn contaminated buildings which are over 400m from the nearest residence, because they assume that pollution will not travel that distance. We disagree. The experiment only tells us what the readings were at two specific points for these two specific buildings, at two specific locations and given the specific weather conditions at the time of burning. The experiment does not tell us what the readings were at other locations or what would happen if the building/contamination/building location/terrain/weather varied. It also did not tell us what pollution remained in the upper atmosphere and where it would be eventually deposited, or what would happen when pollution accumulated when several buildings were burned on the same day and this process continued day after day. It is well known that PM2.5 can stay in the upper atmosphere for several days/weeks.
If we follow BAE Systems' own special theory then pollution from Chernobyl would only have affected a finite area directly downwind of the plant. However we know that pollution from that disaster spread across Europe and fell in rain on hills in Scotland and Wales leaving a toxic legacy. Once pollution is released into the atmosphere, it cannot be controlled and its final destination is completely unknown. Therefore we are appalled that BAE Systems is relying on such flimsy evidence to support their case for burning contaminated buildings. With regards to PM10 and PM2.5 it is documented that PM10 can travel as far as 30 miles and PM2.5 can travel many hundreds of miles, therefore we question the value of the 400m no-burn zone as proposed by BAE Systems.
BAE usually gives the excuse that it is safer to burn buildings to decontaminate them i.e. it is safer for the personnel who are decontaminating buildings. This is the exact same excuse that the US Army used at the Badger munitions plant in Wisconsin. However there the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) banned the burning of contaminated buildings and so far the US Army has successfully and safely decontaminated over 800 buildings without burning a single building. We also note that the EPA did not carry out any experiments on the local population before they came to their decision. They carried out lab tests and as a result there was an outright ban. We have been in touch with local representatives in Wisconsin to check the distances between the contaminated buildings at the Badger Plant and the local residences. The distances range from 200m to over 2300m. If a 400m no-burn zone was really the best solution and offered good protection, then the Wisconsin EPA would have adopted this practice. Clearly they did not and the ban applies to all buildings even those buildings which are over 2300m from the nearest residence. It seems that BAE Systems are making up the rules as they go.
PM2.5 and PM10
We know that many people will not be familiar with the terms PM10 and PM2.5 so we searched the internet for an easy to understand source and we came across the following USA environmental protection agency site. This site presents the information in a very easy to understand manner. EPA Site Link
There have been many scientific studies into the effects of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) on health and it is well documented that both short- term and long-term exposures to PM have been shown to lead to harmful effects on health including respiratory illnesses and premature death. Therefore we are shocked that BAE Systems carried out this experiment with the approval of Renfrewshire Council. It is completely unacceptable. It is unethical to carry out an experiment that wilfully causes the release of harmful pollution into the atmosphere, when the final destination of the pollution and its impact are unknown. However we should not be surprised by BAE Systems’ actions as they carried out five similar experimental burns at Chorley in order to collect data which could be used for Bishopton. We believe that it was highly unethical to experiment on one community in order to try and determine safety rules for another community.
Contaminated Buildings - Figures Don’t Add Up
In the Environmental Statement which accompanied the remediation planning application the figures for the number of contaminated buildings to be burned do not add up. In one section the number given is 500. "Prior to demolition, it is proposed that approximately 500 contaminated buildings on site will be burnt to remove any trace of the explosives that were manufactured on site." However in another section it states that following assessment the contaminated buildings have been categorised as follows: 284 buildings will be burned, 73 will be jet washed or steam cleaned and 30 buildings have been assessed as not requiring decontamination, but will require removal of asbestos. That makes a total of 387 buildings in CDA (core development area) and woodland park. What happened to the other 113 buildings? Then we noticed that the derelict contaminated buildings in the land to be retained by BAE Systems (ETF) are not earmarked for decontamination. (So much for the claims that the proposed development would finance the cleanup of the whole site) Is this how they have reduced the number of buildings to be burned i.e. by excluding the contaminated buildings in the ETF area? BAE Systems currently has a contract with the MOD. When this contract ends and BAE Systems no longer requires this land, will this area require to be remediated? Will our community be once again held to ransom? Will we be told that the land needs to be cleaned up and it has to be financed by development? And again will we be told that these remaining buildings require to be decontaminated by burning? Are they burning buildings in stages hoping that the seemingly "reduced" number will somehow make burning contaminated buildings seem more acceptable?
EiP
For the record so that BAE Systems and Renfrewshire Council are in no doubt, the burning of contaminated buildings in this day and age is completely unacceptable. As Dr Paul Johnston stated at the Bishopton EiP "This seems to be a strategy grounded in a different era and borders on the irresponsible." The Reporter at the EiP understood our concerns about pollution resulting from the burning of contaminated buildings and for this reason she specifically excluded this form of remediation from her findings about measures required to remediate the site. She stated that burning contaminated buildings was not a measure required for remediation as there were alternatives available and that it was open to Renfrewshire Council to prohibit the burning of contaminated buildings.
Burning buildings to decontaminate them is the cheapest remediation method and as Dr Paul Johnston of Greenpeace stated at the Bishopton EiP “It should be recognised that it is cheap simply because the technique externalises the environmental costs on the surrounding communities and countryside. “
Simple Question: Are Renfrewshire Council going to protect the health of the surrounding communities or are they going to protect the profits of BAE Systems?
Bishopton Action Group attended the Community Liaison Group (CLG) meeting held on 6th August 2009. The main topic of the evening was the Section 75 agreement which had been drawn up between Renfrewshire Council and BAE Systems. This agreement was a condition of the outline planning permission. The CLG was told that the financial figures were confidential and could not be revealed until the section 75 agreement was officially signed off. Since Renfrewshire Council is now making statements in the press about the agreement, we will now post our notes and comments about the meeting/agreement.
Below we give some of our notes and comments on the Section 75 agreement:
Section 75 Agreement Participants:
BAE Systems
Renfrewshire Council
BAG Comments: We note that there is no developer in this agreement. It has been reported in the press that this section 75 agreement will be a "massive boost" for Bishopton. However there is a simple equation:
no developer = no investment
It is rather premature to be talking about a "massive boost" when the last developer has pulled out and there is no developer on the horizon. If a developer were brave enough to take on the contaminated ROF land, the first thing that they would do is try to re-negotiate the section 75 agreement. Developers up and down the country are currently trying to renegotiate their section 75 agreements because of the housing slump.
Given that there are two very important planning applications (landfill for hazardous/non-hazardous waste and remediation) currently being considered by Council officials, we are astonished that a council spokesperson would make any statements about the proposed development when this might be considered to be prejudicial. You can read article and make comments here
(NB Redrow pulled out several months ago and no replacement has been found. Redrow had been involved in this project for many years but they decided to cut their losses and run. On a side issue it would be interesting to know exactly when Redrow indicated that they wished to pull out and if this was before the planning application was approved in December 2008.)
Health Centre:
Health Centre Options :
Developer provides ½ hectare of land plus £1M or
Health Centre supplied by developer. Community Health Provider (CHP) would lease it.
The CHP will not decide which option is the preferred option. If no decision is made, then after a period of 8 years the developer would give £1M to Renfrewshire Council who would put it in trust for CHP plus the ½ hectare.
BAG Comment:
We do not think that this is a good deal for Bishopton. Given the options we are sure that the developer would take the opportunity to make money out of Bishopton; the tax-payers would end up paying the bill for many years to come. It is well known that the Bishopton Health centre has been running at over-capacity for some time. If the public is going to have to fund this health centre then we could have been provided with a new health centre a long time ago. So this option provides no real benefit to Bishopton. The health centre was just a useful carrot that was dangled in front of the local community to persuade them that the development of the ROF was a good idea.
In 8 years time how much will £1m buy? Would £1m be sufficient to pay for a fully equipped health centre at today’s prices? The problem of the health centre running at overcapacity could be with us for many years and steadily getting worse if the development were to go ahead.
Both options are a very poor deal for Bishopton.
Education:
The Primary School and associated Community facility would be a "turnkey" solution provided by the developer. The school capacity would be 340, and provided at the 1700th house. The Director of Planning acknowledged at the meeting that there would be problems at the existing primary school in the early years.
Estimated value - £6M
BAG Comments:
Secondary school: There will be no secondary school in Bishopton. Neither Renfrewshire Council nor the developers will provide one. Renfrewshire Council has only recently determined that there are not enough pupils in Bishopton to merit building a secondary school here. It is amazing that they wait until after planning permission is granted before revealing this. Another carrot that was tantalisingly dangled in front of the local population.
Primary school: We believe that this agreement would lead to overcrowding in the current primary school as the children from the first 1700 houses would be accommodated in local schools. Many of the children in the proposed development would live a considerable distance from the existing primary school and it is highly likely that parents would drive their children to school. We believe that this would cause traffic problems on Old Greenock Road. NB BAE Systems did not properly assess the impact of traffic on Old Greenock road. They assessed the former setup where there was a cross-roads at Porton Place.
It would be interesting to see how the Education Authority defined the catchments areas for each school. Houses built in the early phases would be close to the proposed new school and yet the children living in these houses would attend the existing primary school. We don’t think this matter has been thoroughly considered. The authority has been looking at numbers, tacking things onto Bishopton and keeping costs down for the developer rather than trying to set up a school which would be the hub of a new community.
If the developer considered that it was not economically viable to continue building after 1700th house (i.e. the cost of building a new school and community facilities is too much) then Bishopton would be stuck with an overcrowded school.
Community facilities:
Provision of an all-weather floodlit football pitch adjacent to the school value - £750K.
A community centre of approx 650 sq metres at the 411th house. This a turnkey solution - £2M
BAG Comments:
We are not entirely sure exactly when this football pitch would be built, but we believe it would be linked to the primary school and therefore probably at least 1700 houses could be built without this facility being provided. Again the developer could just decide that it was not economic to continue building and walk away from the project without providing these facilities.
The new community centre would be for the new development. Therefore this is not a benefit to existing Bishopton. Is Renfrewshire Council likely to wish to fund the upkeep of two community halls in Bishopton in the future?
Transport
A subsidy of £714k for additional bus services "in the early years"
M8 – 4 phased payments of £300K each would be made towards improving capacity.
Station Rd - £100K for improvements (pedestrian),
Newton Rd., Rossland Cresc., pedestrian improvements - £25K.
Park and Ride expansion at station +15 spaces at 411th house and +150 more at 1000th.
BAG Comments:
The additional bus services are for accessing the new development. What happens when the funding runs out? The current bus service in Bishopton is already heavily subsidised. Woud further subsidy be provided or will current services be less frequent and just cover a larger area?
BAE Systems calculated that that they were only due to pay to £1.2m towards the capacity problems on the M8. Who is going to pay the rest?
The local "improvements" are only required because the proposed development will cause extra traffic in these areas. They are no really benefits for Bishopton. Do we really want yet another set of traffic lights on Greenock Road? We assume that the cost of £100k for Station Road includes new traffic signals to control traffic passing under the railway bridge. The traffic signals will lead to frustration for drivers using Station road. In reality this road is not suitable for increased vehicular access.
Up to 1000 houses can be occupied and there will only be 15 additional car parking spaces at the station car park. We don’t think that this is sufficient.
Housing:
25% of the residential development to be "affordable" – 270 Social Rental, 130 shared equity or co-ownership and 235 private sector development aimed at the lower end of the market.
Renfrewshire Council has estimated that this has a value of £12M.
BAG Comments:
The social rental housing will meet the housing needs for the whole of Renfrewshire. Not much use if you actually want to live in Kilbarchan, Houston, Howwood, Lochwinnoch, Elderslie, Johnstone, Linwood as there is no direct public transport link to friends and family in these areas. However we don’t think anybody has actually considered the needs of end-user. Has Renfrewshire Council put all their eggs in one basket? How will social rental housing for Renfrewshire be provided if no developer comes along?
What do Renfrewshire Council consider as “affordable”? This is generally an ill-defined term.
Environment:
15% reduction in CO2 over the current requirements for all houses to be built.
2 phase contribution to an "Innovation Fund" of £50K at each of the 411 and 900 house mark. To be used for sustainable development.
BAG Comments:
The proposed development will destroy many trees. These trees actually help to protect the environment. In particular the burning of contaminated buildings will require the surrounding trees to be felled. The Forestry Commission has concerns about the number of trees to be felled for the proposed development and has stated that the current Scottish Government has a policy on control of woodland removal, which seeks to protect the existing forest resource in Scotland and supports woodland removal only where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional benefit.
Will Renfrewshire Council protect the environment by banning burning of contaminated buildings and hence protect the trees or will they go against Scottish Government policy and bow to pressure from the profit motivated BAE Systems who have chosen the cheapest method of decontaminating buildings at the expense of the environment?
"Sustainable Development" is one of the current planning buzz words. When planners/developers want to push through a development they slap on the description "sustainable development" and it automatically becomes a good idea. Bishopton ROF is supposed to be a "sustainable development" and yet it requires its very own motorway junction in order to succeed. BAE Systems can be quite innovative with their "definitions" of "sustainable". Even hiding contamination under a layer of clay is claimed to be "sustainable" remeidation.
What exactly will this innovation fund be used for and who will use it?
Site for Religious Building
½ hectare - estimated value £0.5m.
BAG Comment:
Value of £0.5m is nonsense. This is contaminated land. It is currently worthless.
Sports and Recreation:
2 full size football pitches plus a synthetic one and changing facilities which would be transferred to Renfrewshire Council with a capital sum (20X annual running cost) for ongoing maintenance. (Not sure when this would be provided)
£100K towards improvements to the Newton Rd., pitch and pavilion, at the 411th house.
The ROF playing fields would be improved and transferred to a Bishopton Community Trust, as would the Wester Rossland Woodland .
Estimated value of the sports facilities £2M.
BAG Comments:
The ROF playing fields are yet another carrot that has been dangled in front of the community for a long long time. Is it a good exchange for the health risks that the surrounding communities will be exposed to? We certainly don’t believe that it is worth exposing the local communities to these health risks in exchange for the ownership of the ROF playing fields and improvements to sports facilities.
Community Woodland
Community Woodland to be managed and maintained by the developer, but in discussions with the Forestry Commission.
Estimated value: £0.5m
BAG Comment:
It is worth noting that the Forestry Commission has declined ownership of the community woodland because of concerns about the liability associated with contaminated land and the possibility of buried munitions. Perhaps if Renfrewshire Council consider the community woodland is such a good idea they should consider taking ownership and hence the liability associated with it. Would they pay £0.5m for it? We wonder what the insurance would cost.
We question the estimated value of the land as there is widespread contamination in the Georgetown section of the community woodland and this contamination includes asbestos. Public access to parts of the community woodland will be restricted because of the contamination. Vast amounts of trees will be felled during remediation and site preparation. The Forestry Commission is currently not convinced that the planting will replace the trees that will be lost.
Employment:
Commercial development: a rolling 10 hectares of serviced industrial land would be available from the 411th house. There is no dependence on the occupation of this commercial facility and the continued building of houses.
BAG Comment:
When the Scottish Minister for Transport approved the principle of a new motorway junction at Bishopton he was assured by officials that the build-out of houses would be linked to the delivery of the employment element thus preventing the Bishopton development becoming a dormitory development which increased commuter traffic. This section of the section 75 agreement is completely inadequate and does not ensure that Bishopton will not become a dormitory development. All the developer has to do is ensure that there is 10ha of serviced industrial land. The developer does not even have to encourage any employers to buy or lease the land. If the initial 10ha of land remains unoccupied, then the developer does not even have to provide any more serviced industrial land. Clearly this is not what the Transport Minister intended or was led to believe would happen.
Remediation
Developer would fund an independent consultancy for 15 years , to be engaged by the council . Value £625K.
Projected cost of remediation and reclamation works is £30M
BAG Comment:
Is £625k enough to fund an independent consultancy for 15 years especially if we consider inflation over such a long period? What happens when funding runs out?
£30m may seem a large amount for remediation. However if you consider that over £4m was spent on remediating a tiny site in Renfrew which contains just 26 houses, it becomes very obvious that entirely different standards of remediation will be achieved on the huge ROF site, which covers over 963 hectares. It should be noted that the ROF site will not be decontaminated; it will be remediated. Remediation can mean many things e.g. contamination is reduced to a level where it is considered suitable for the land’s final use or contaminated soil is dumped in a landfill or contaminated soil is covered with clay or it can even mean just control public access. We were promised that the whole site would be cleaned up. However 170 hectares that BAE will retain will not be fully remediated. The derelict contaminated buildings will remain there untouched and the majority of the site which is rarely used by BAE staff will remain untouched. At the end of the remediation process the majority of contamination will remain on the site; it just might be in a different location. The contamination will either have been scraped up and dumped in a landfill, or hidden under clay or even possibly moved and placed in a landscape feature in the recreational open space. However we must not forget that some contamination will be removed; it will become airborne and spread further afield polluting the environment.
If you consider that this £30m will also cover the cost of all the earthworks on the site then £30m is clearly not sufficient.
Community Trust
A community Trust would be set up 6 installments of £50K. First 50K after the 411th house.
BAG Comment:
Again we feel that risks to health are too high a price to pay for a community trust fund.
ROAD WEAR & TEAR
A contribution for road “wear and tear” during construction would be made.
BAG Comment:
What will the contribution be and will it be ring-fenced for road repairs in the local area?
Other matters discussed/raised by BAG at Community Liaison Group Meeting:
There was no provision within the Section 75 agreement for any potential contamination related impacts like Corby.
We asked - In view of the Corby judgement, has the council taken any specific additional action. Answer was "No". Environmental Health dept would report to the planning board as normal.
We asked if the Council had taken any insurance out against a Corby situation. Again answer was "No"
Discussion on location of Northern access road is on-going
There would be 6 phases of house building of about 150 – 200 /year. (BAG considers that this is probably very optimistic given that this site will be known as contaminated land)
It is now up to the councillors on the planning board to examine their consciences and decide whether, in the light of the Corby outcome and the terrible consequences that can result from exposing a community to contaminated waste and airborne pollution, they are prepared to take the responsibility for approving the seriously flawed, potentially dangerous, and totally unwanted ROF development. The councillors must ensure that the health of the local community and that of future generations is not put at risk by the disturbance of the known and unknown contamination that lies within the former ROF site.
BAG does not believe that the technology exists to be certain that the remediation and decontamination exercise is 100% safe for the residents of Bishopton and the surrounding areas. Many mistakes have been made in the past from remediating former brownfield sites and building houses for profit on contaminated land. We hope that our councillors will not allow history to be repeated at the ROF - it is not too late to stop Bishopton becoming the next Corby.
For the past few years BAG has been highlighting the dangers associated with the remediation of contaminated land. We cited the case of Corby where parents believed that birth defects suffered by their children were a direct result of the remediation works carried out at Corby Steel Works. Now those families have made legal history and have successfully proved a link between their children's deformities and exposure to contaminated waste. You can read BBC news story here.
Havingread about the Corby case in 2007 BAG contacted Des Collins, the families' lawyer. He was utterly convinced that the families would win as the evidence was so compelling. He urged BAG to do everything possible to prevent Bishopton becoming the next Corby. As a consequence BAG raised the Corby issue at the Examination in Public in 2007, in our objections to the planning applications for the ROF in 2006/2007, at the Planning Hearings in December 2008 and at various Councillors' surgeries.
Bishopton residents' fears regarding remediation of contaminated land were highlighted in two news reports today. One appeared in the Scotsman and the other appeared on STV news. You can read the Scotsman report here.
The STV news report showed an interview with Janette Waller, a member of BAG, and Dr Hesset, a former ROF employee. BAE Systems, who have been pushing for this development for the past nine years, declined STV's invitation and did not put anyone forward for interview. Although they were not prepared to be interviewed, a BAE representative did peer through the railings and watch the interviews being recorded on land adjacent to the ROF site.
The STV news report zoomed in on a document, which detailed contamination. For the record Renfrewshire Council tax-payers paid for this report. However the officials never informed the Council Planning Board about this report or its findings. Renfrewshire Council officials stated that the reason for this was that it was a "technical" report. You can read here about this report and the other ROF reports which Renfrewshire Council tax-payers have financed, but were similarly not reported to the Planning Board.
BAE Systems has currently lodged two planning applications for the ROF: an application for a landfill in which hazardous waste can be deposited and an application for remediation works.
A recent article in the Telegraph newspaper throws some light on Redrow’s current attitude towards the development of brownfield sites. The article describes how regeneration schemes depend on a finely calibrated relationship, and a complex network of deals, between the public and private sectors; but it is the potential profitability for developers that essentially drives the scheme.
In February this year, Redrow reported a £46.2 million loss in the six-month period leading up to January 1 2009, against a profit of £35.8 million 12 months earlier, leading to the company axing half of its 1,300-strong workforce as well as putting building and land purchases on hold.
In May Redrow announced that with sales volumes in the housing market 'seeming to have stabilised' it was recommencing construction on certain sites, but 'rationalising' its product range to concentrate on 'traditional family housing with improved specification' – in other words, not regeneration projects on brownfield sites. According to John Ireland Managing Director of Redrow Ireland “With smaller-scale housing developments you can 'turn on and turn off'. You build a house; you stop; you sell it; you build another one. But with big regeneration schemes involving apartments, developers who are already locked into a project are faced with a stark choice, depending on where they are in 'the build cycle': either to press on because they are too far down the line to stop; or to put the brakes on altogether, 'because why would you continue with a work in progress if you can't sell it?'
In the article Mr Ireland defines how he assesses development projects "You have to say, how am I going to fund a project? How am I going to sell? Who's going to buy it, when and at what rate? There's only one simple question to be determined, and that's risk and reward – what reward am I going to get for the risk I'm taking?"
In the case of Bishopton for Redrow it would appear that the risk is too high and the reward too low.
So how does this all affect Renfrewshire Council given that it has a structure plan within which there is a housebuild rate for Renfrewshire set to meet the requirements of Redrow, the housing capacity for Bishopton was also set to meet the requirements of Redrow and the masterplan for Bishopton was designed for Redrow? (NB This master plan was criticised by Architecture and Design Scotland.) Renfrewshire Council is now left with a strategic plan which cannot be achieved and a second-rate masterplan for Bishopton.
"To dump or not to dump" - that is the taxing question that has been troubling BAE Systems.
BAG has always insisted that scraping up contamination and dumping it in a landfill is not the best way to deal with contamination on the ROF site; it is merely the cheapest method of remediation. BAE Systems usually try to put a positive spin on it by claiming that it is more environmentally friendly to have an on-site landfill rather than transport the material off-site. The truth of the matter is that landfills, whether off-site or on-site, are not a good idea. For this reason the UK government has changed its landfill tax regime to deter the use of landfills. The cost of dumping active waste (e.g. contaminated soil) to landfill has steadily increased and is currently £40 per tonne. The cost will continue to increase annually by £8 per tonne and by 2013 the landfill tax will be £72 per tonne. This is an attempt by the UK government to deter developers from dumping rather than treating the contaminated waste.
Previously waste disposed to landfill from contamination remediation was exempt from this tax. The cut-off date for applying for an exemption certificate was 1 Dec 2008. All exemption certificates will cease to be valid on 1 April 2012.
According to the latest information from BAE Systems the proposed landfill will now be roughly 1/3 of the size of the original proposed landfill. The tax cost has obviously concentrated minds. As we have always pointed out, the remediation methods chosen by BAE Systems are purely cost driven.
This shrinking landfill, which will contain both hazardous and non-hazardous waste, seems to have dramatically decreased in size. Do they really intend treating all the waste that would formerly have been dumped in the landfill or are they going to remediate a smaller area? Will the later phases of remediation simply be forgotten?
Now we understand why BAE Systems was in such a hurry to push through the outline planning application last year in 2008. They wanted to beat the tax deadline. The puzzle still remains as to why Renfrewshire Council officials hurried through the amended outline planning application and refused to give the public extra time to consider all the planning documents for this complicated planning application? They also quietly forgot that they had given an undertaking to the Scottish Minister for the Environment that the outline, landfill and remediation planning applications would all be determined at the same time. There was no development on the horizon so why the haste to push through the outline planning application? Were they just being "helpful" to the developer while at the same time being unhelpful to the public?
BAE Systems is still giving very carefully worded responses to any questions about Redrow. Initially their representative responded by saying "I can confirm, currently there has been no contractual change with Redrow". The latest statement is that they are "renegotiating their partnership". Is this a polite way of stating that Redrow is trying to extricate itself from the legal partnership?
BAE Systems will be re-submitting the planning applications for the proposed landfill (hazardous and non-hazardous waste) and decontamination. SEPA had previously objected to these planning applications and as a result they were withdrawn. Formerly these applications were submitted in both Redrow's and BAE Systems' names. However BAE Systems is now going solo. It would seem that their partnership with Redrow has hit the buffers.
It is worth noting that Redrow was not in attendance at the May exhibition regarding the proposals for landfill and decontamination. Not only are Redrow silent, they are now invisible.
Currently Renfrewshire Council and BAE Systems are negotiating a section 75 agreement. This agreement will determine the developers' contribution towards facilities required by the development. Why is Redrow not involved? If they were truly "renegotiating" their partnership with BAE Systems, they would want to be a part of the section 75 negotiations as it would directly affect their profits i.e. the more facilities they have to provide the less profit. What value does this agreement have if the actual developer is not involved? Planning permission is not granted until the section 75 agreement is completed. We assume that this is the reason that both parties are pushing forward with this "agreement" so that planning permission can be issued regardless of the fact that the agreement is probably meaningless.
When are BAE Systems and Renfrewshire Council going to come clean about what is really going on?
In a report to the Planning Board dated 31 Jan 2006 Renfrewshire Council officials recommended to the Planning Board that the Structure Plan should be modified to reflect the house build rate as recommended by Cass on behalf of BAE and Redrow. It looks likely that Redrow has now withdrawn and there is currently no other developer on the horizon. Was it wise for the planning authority to modify the structure plan to suit a specific developer when these plans are meant to be strategic plans which are not site specific or developer dependent? As usual our comments on this matter were ignored.
Renfrewshire Council has finally come clean and stated that there is no justification for Renfrewshire Council to build a separate secondary school in Bishopton. It would have to be funded by the developer. The developer stated in their planning application that secondary education would continue to be provided outwith Bishopton. It is amazing how we have gone through all of the planning processes since 2005 and the officials wait until after the outline planning application is determined before revealing the truth. Were the officials quite happy to allow the public to believe that, if the development were to go ahead, a secondary school was on the cards for Bishopton?
At the latest CLG meeting it was mooted that it would appear that the proposed development would bring no benefits to Bishopton. BAG has stated this all along.
Of course let us not forget the "new health centre". The developers are only willing to "reserve a site". Any new health centre would have to be paid for from the public purse. If the development were not to go ahead, Bishopton would still need a new health centre and it would still have to be funded from the public purse. Are we to believe that if the development were not to go ahead that the Bishopton health centre would never be upgraded or replaced? So clearly the proposed development offers no real benefits to the community, whereas the proposed development would clearly derive benefits from the existing community e.g. primary school, library, community halls etc. This is what BAG has stated all along.
BAE Systems are required by law to consult on the planning applications for remediation and landfill. They held an exhibition in early May. Very few people attended the exhibition mainly because very few people knew that it was taking place. BAE Systems claimed that it had leafleted the village. However, most people that BAG has spoken to did not receive a leaflet. Did you receive a leaflet? It would seem that BAE Systems are not really interested in your views. At the exhibition when BAG raised the issue of the "missing" leaflets, BAE did not really see that this was a problem. We cannot wait to see how BAE report the exhibition and the results of the questionnaire in their planning application. No doubt it will bear little relation to reality.
Right from the start of the ROF development proposals residents of Bishopton called on Renfrewshire Council to carry out contamination tests before Bishopton ROF was put forward as a community growth area. It made little sense to designate the area as a community growth area if there was the possibility that the contamination and/or the remediation of the land precluded development there. Renfrewshire Council officials and the Joint Committee officials always dismissed this idea of testing first. They stated that these matters of contamination would all be dealt with at the planning application stage. They were so insistent that contamination should not be considered at the Structure Plan stage that they even tried to block the discussion about known contamination details at the Examination in Public in 2007.
Those who have followed this saga closely will be surprised to learn that contrary to the stance that the officials have taken, they have in the past taken the approach which Bishopton residents advocated. In 1996 a regeneration study was carried out into the Georgetown section of the ROF site. This study was carried out before the area was put forward for development. The study included a contaminated land study, which revealed widespread asbestos contamination. Following the study Renfrewshire Council advised against developing this area and it was recommended that the area should be a private woodland.
We have a few questions:
1. If “test first” was deemed to be the best approach in 1996, why did officials dismiss this approach in 2005?
2. Why did officials and BAE try to block the discussion about details of contamination at the Examination in Public?
3. Why did the officials not reveal at the EiP that the regeneration study had taken place, the results of the contaminated land study and that they had advised against developing this part of the site? Did they fear that this information would completely undermine the stance that they had taken and reveal that the ROF site as a whole could not be designated as a community growth area because of the contamination?
The public will be shocked to learn that Renfrewshire Council jointly commissioned the study. We have obtained many documents relating to the study through FOI and we are currently constructing a page where key documents can be viewed which reveal the extent to which Renfrewshire Council was involved in this study.
This is the second report that has been kept secret from the public, the Planning Board and Joint Committee. The Envirocentre study was also kept secret. You can read about that study here. The Structure Plan manager stated at the EiP that "the Envirocentre report was not commissioned by anyone concerned with promoting the structure plan proposal" and that is why the report was not drawn to the attention of the Joint Committee. We have discovered that the Georgetown study was commissioned by BAe in conjunction with Renfrewshire Council (and Renfrewshire Enterprise) so there can be no excuse for not drawing this report to the attention of the Joint Committee, the Planning Board or the EiP.
Is there a pattern of behaviour emerging? How many other secret reports are there? Given that it is the Planning Board and the Joint Committee that have to make the decisions why do the officials keep them so poorly informed?
There are rumours flying round the village that Redrow no longer wants to be involved in the development of the ROF site. According to Renfrewshire Council "they have no information" and according to BAE Systems "They can confirm, currently there has been no contractual change with Redrow." Such careful wording leaves us highly suspicious that we are not being given the whole story. Adding to our suspicions is the deafening silence from Redrow. At the planning hearings the Redrow representative said absolutely NOTHING. When Redrow was asked for a comment by the local press after the planning decision in December 2009, the response was NO COMMENT. Redrow churns out press releases on an almost daily basis. Why were they so reticent about commenting? Also according to Renfrewshire Council at the March CLG meeting, the developers are not pushing the development. Does this sound like a development company that is overjoyed and desperate to get the development moving?
So if Redrow does not go ahead with the development where would this leave the section 75 agreement that is currently being negotiated by Renfrewshire Council? (This agreement defines developer contributions to facilities required as a result of the development e.g. provision of health care facilities.) Section 75 agreements may be attached to the land and written into the title deeds. (It was confirmed at the CLG meeting that the ROF site is still in the ownership of BAE Systems.) We question the value of any section 75 agreement if those who participated in the agreement are not involved in the delivery. It would seem a pointless exercise. It should be noted that a section 75 agreement is a voluntary agreement. It is not set in stone and can be modified. Could we have the scenario where the landowner makes an agreement in order just to get planning permission, but future developer (s) may demand to renegotiate? Are all the parties involved waiting until planning permission has been granted before revealing what is really going on? NB Planning permission will not be granted until the section 75 agreement has been completed.
Has Redrow looked at the reality of the situation and taken fright:
House prices are significantly lower, but costs of remediation have increased (e.g. landfill tax)
They initially thought that they could get away with using Station Road as an access road for the first few hundred houses, but now a new access road has to be built before houses are occupied and this road includes an expensive bridge over the railway line.
They now have to make a contribution to improvements to M8 capacity between junctions 26 to 29a.
New M8 junction must be in place before the 451st house is occupied.
When it is now more difficult to get loans, where are the developers going to get the finance for the above "extras".
When the demand for houses is lower, why would anyone want to buy a house on land which may contain residual contamination, located near a landfill containing hazardous waste and a test centre where they test items that contain explosives and depleted uranium. And just for good measure the nearby community woodland contains areas where access is prohibited because of contamination. No doubt other developments would have much better appeal.
The full Planning Board consisting of 14 councillors attended the special meeting of the Planning Board. (This was in contrast to the two Planning Hearings held in November, where only 9 Councillors turned up to hear representations from the public.) The Director of Planning put forward his argument and recommended “disposal to grant” for the outline planning application for the site. Cllr Bruce McFee put forward an amendment to refuse the application. His argument was reasoned and he spoke eloquently. He explained that the application did not comply with the EiP recommendations, Structure Plan Policy and Local Plan Policy and he also detailed the inadequacy of the conditions attached to the consent. You can read his report here. He was backed by Cllr David Clews. However the remaining 12 councillors chose to ignore these major flaws in both the application and consent conditions and voted against this amendment. Interestingly some of those councillors, who voted against the amendment, had initially been swayed by the deep concerns expressed by Bishopton residents at the two planning hearings. We wonder why all these councillors changed their minds simultaneously over the weekend prior to the meeting? It has been reported in the press that there had been serious lobbying behind the scenes prior to the meeting. You can read the article here.
We don’t know who was lobbying or their reasons for lobbying or why the councillors would let this override their previously expressed concerns about the proposed development, but one thing is for certain Bishopton residents feel utterly betrayed that all of the issues raised at the Planning Hearings remain unresolved. Residents attended the planning hearings in their droves. (So many turned up for the Planning Hearing that an extra hearing had to be arranged.) They explained in great detail the problems associated with this development. BAG also put forward a powerful argument at the planning hearings and received a standing ovation. It was recognised by all who attended the hearings that BAG had done a great deal of work and demonstrated a great understanding and knowledge about the applications, the EIP and the planning process. In contrast the developers’ responses were poor; Redrow said absolutely nothing. The developers’ argument was definitely not strong enough to sway the Councillors, therefore Renfrewshire Council officials had to draw on other sources to bolster the case for development. The opening gambit in the Planning Director’s report to the Planning Board at the Special meeting was that the population of Renfrewshire is declining and this will have major impacts on grants support received from the Government i.e. Council revenue is falling. This had nothing to do with the planning applications which were being considered and should not have been put forward as an argument, but it set the tone i.e. Renfrewshire Council "needed" the development at Bishopton to go ahead.
We believe that Renfrewshire Council’s first priority should be public safety. Renfrewshire Council’s consultants, Atkins, had stated that they did not have enough information to comment on the likelihood of unacceptable risk to human health or the wider environment.Why was this ignored?We also firmly believe that the proposed development will be a constant source of problems and drain on Council resources for many years to come, and will create serious risks for future generations.
In a recent press article Cllr Nicolson quoted the EiP finding that "there is no contamination on the ROF site that raises issues of sufficient concern to preclude identifying Bishopton as a community growth area". We wonder if he is aware that a contaminated land study of the Georgetown section of the ROF site was carried out in 1996 and it revealed widespread asbestos contamination. Following this study Renfrewshire Council advised against planning to develop this part of the site. The study had initially been commissioned by Strathclyde Regional Council in conjunction with BAE, however Renfrewshire Council took over Strathclyde Regional Council’s role in the commissioning partnership. None of this information was presented to the EiP. We can only assume that it was not presented because it would have undermined the case that "there is no contamination on the ROF site that raises issues of sufficient concern to preclude identifying Bishopton as a community growth area". NB You will find no reference to this study in any of the official planning board reports on the proposed development at the ROF. In addition BAE did not include this study report in the outline planning application. They only referred to a study, but no mention was made of Renfrewshire Council’s involvement. It seems that the Councillors were not given all of the facts. You can read the contaminated land study here (part 1, part 2 and part 3) The documents were obtained through FOI and the handwritten comments are those of officials.
Over the years and at the two planning hearings Bishopton residents have continually pointed out the negative impacts of the proposed development: remediation will expose Bishopton and surrounding communities to health risks, community destroyed not strengthened, a divided community separated by an elevated railway line, overcrowding on local roads and trains, further congestion of the M8, overcrowded schools, local access roads not compliant with Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), restricted access to community woodland because of contamination etc. However consultation seems to mean that you ask for the views of the community, listen to them, and then either totally ignore them or state that these matters will be dealt with at a later stage. None of the problems have been resolved.
Council officials have continually pushed this development forward. Anything that might have impeded progress has always been removed for consideration at a later stage. At the structure plan stage all our objections were ignored and we were told that these would all be dealt with later at the planning application stage. When we reached the planning application stage and objected that the cumulative impact of this development could not be assessed because all the applications would be dealt with separately, we were told that all of the applications for the site would be dealt with at the same time. However two of the planning applications were proving too difficult to gain approval so they were withdrawn. They will now be dealt with at a later stage. The next major problem was the burning of buildings as specified in the outline remediation strategy. The decision on that was similarly moved to a later stage. The consideration of problems associated with a landfill containing hazardous waste was similarly moved to a later stage. The decision on the location of the northern access road was also removed to a later stage etc etc. Bit by bit the officials advanced the application by giving assurances that all the problems will be dealt with at a later stage. Another tactic was to simply ignore problems. They even ignored the response from Architecture and Design Scotland which was rather scathing about the proposed design of the development and who stated they could not support it. You can read their response here.
The officials claim to have assessed the development against various policies at all different levels (local, strategic and national). This must be the most perfect development ever, because they do not list it as being contrary to any policies. However we can give a list of policies with which the development conflicts and Architecture and Design Scotland stated that "The project as currently presented does not comply with current Government policy and planning guidance". However the Director of Planning will no doubt state that he does not share these views or or that it will be dealt with at a later stage.
The developers can forget popping the champagne corks; they are not out of the woods yet. They have to resubmit the two remaining applications for landfill and remediation. These were withdrawn because SEPA had indicated that there was not enough information on which to make a decision. There are also 56 conditions attached to the outline consent, and 36 conditions to the motorway junction application consent, and there will be a plethora of Section 75 agreements to be made. (NB Consent cannot be issued until all these section 75 agreements have been made.) When the applications for reserved matters are submitted (i.e. the detailed applications for the development), the developer will have to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment for the whole development and at this stage planning permission could be refused.
The general downturn in the economy, few houses being built or sold, house prices falling (15% drop in Renfrewshire in 2008), lower land values and building companies in difficulty will also present major problems for the developer. In addition the further investigations that are necessary may now reveal the true extent and the real costs of properly remediating the site. Landfill tax has also increased. These and other external factors mean that it may not be financially viable to proceed with this development.
This is only the beginning of the process and we are still hopeful that this development will not proceed. The fight continues.
We would like to thank Cllr McFee and Cllr Clews for taking a stance and trying to protect Bishopton and the surrounding communities from this ill-conceived development.
You can read BAG’s notes of the planning board meeting here.
A special meeting of Renfrewshire Council Planning Board will be convened on Monday 15 December 2008
The Planning Board will be determining two applications for the proposed ROF development: Outline planning application for the development and motorway junction application.
Time: 1.30pm
Location: Council Chambers, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley
At the first planning hearing (12 Nov 2008) officials expressed "surprise" that there was a perception in Bishopton that the applications for the ROF were being railroaded through.
The background to this is as follows:
In June 2006 the developers took a gamble and submitted an outline application for 2500 houses on the ROF site. This was before any decision had been taken as to whether Bishopton should be designated as a community growth area (CGA). Later that year they also submitted three further applications: motorway junction, landfill and remediation.
In a letter to Ross Finnie (Minister for Environment) dated July 2006 the Chief Executive of Renfrewshire Council stated that despite the applications being submitted at different times they would all be determined at the same time.
The motorway junction application was for a specific type of motorway junction at a specific location on the motorway. However Transport Scotland was in the process of assessing various junction options presented by the developer and the best junction option (including location) had not yet been determined. It was also entirely feasible that none of these options would be approved.
The decision regarding Bishopton being designated a CGA was delayed because of four rounds of consultation and an Examination in Public and hence the applications could not be determined.
The designation of Bishopton as a CGA was finally approved in April 2008. However there were some very serious caveats that transport capacity problems on the M8 and Inverclyde rail route had to be satisfactorily addressed before development could go ahead.
Scottish Government's decision on motorway junction has been delayed because auditors have found errors/omissions in the applicant's submissions and therefore this work has had to be revised and resubmitted.
As a result of the responses/objections received to the planning applications, the developers were required to submit amendments to all of the applications.
The amendments to the motorway and outline applications were submitted in September this year and were advertised on 1st and 3rd of October 2008. The closing date for responses was 31st October 2008 giving the public 4 weeks to respond. The landfill and remediation applications were withdrawn by the developer in October/November 2008.
The remaining two amended applications (outline and motorway junction) are extremely complex and cover a wide range of very technical topics. Given the complexity of these amended applications the Council has the power to extend the period of representation.
Below are the reasons why the public believe these applications are being railroaded through:
Given the complexity of these applications and the fact that there were two applications BAG requested an extension to the period of representation -Renfrewshire Council officials refused to extend the period of representation beyond the statutory minimum 28 days following statutory advertisement. The reason given was that the Head of Planning would be writing his report on the applications shortly after the period of representation closed.
Councillors asked for the public to be given an extension – Renfrewshire Council officials refused the Councillors' request for an extension.
BAG informed Renfrewshire Council officials that the applicant's Transport Assessment report was full of mistakes including incorrect references to tables and structure plan policy and that these errors made this important pivotal document difficult to understand. The same document had been submitted for both applications. BAG requested that the applicant should be asked to submit a corrected version – Renfrewshire Council officials did not respond. However, theupdated document was delivered to Bishopton library 1 week after the representation period closed.
As part of the Scottish Government's appraisal process for new motorway junctions the applicants have to appraise several different junction options to determine the best option (known as DMRB stage 2/3) . Based on this report the Scottish Ministers then make a decision on whether the junction can go ahead or not. This appraisal process must be completed before the planning application for the motorway junction can be determined. Ignoring this requirement, in 2006 Renfrewshire Council accepted the application for a specific motorway junction and asked Transport Scotland for their response to the motorway junction Environmental Statement. When Transport Scotland stated that they could not make a response until the Scottish Ministers had made a decision, Renfrewshire Council officials asked them to reconsider. Transport Scotland responded by detailing the correct procedure that should be followed and stated that the "submission of the planning application was somewhat premature." BAG has made that same statement including at EiP, but has always been ignored by the officials. (You can read Renfrewshire Council letter and Transport Scotland response). When the period of representation ended on 31st October, the applicant had still not completed the best junction option selection report. (See letter from Transport Scotland dated 3 Nov 2008) In fact because of the short timescale set by Renfrewshire Council for determining the motorway junction application, Transport Scotland has had to alter the way it is handling the motorway junction appraisal. They realised that they could not deliver the DMRB2 assessment within the short timescale and that they would have to design a report which could be used to determine the best motorway junction option. The Scottish Ministers have not yet made their decision about whether a junction can go ahead. Despite the fact that the best junction option had yet to be selected and the Scottish ministers had not made a decision or given the necessary approval, Renfrewshire Council officials were intent on determining the application for the motorway junction.
The Examination in Public report stated that the development of a CGA at Bishopton was dependent on M8 capacity being satisfactorily addressed. Improvements on capacity would require funding from the Scottish Government. However it would not be known if funding was available until the STPR report was published. The STPR Report has not been published. Therefore Renfrewshire Council does not know if or when M8 capacity will be satisfactorily addressed.
The Examination in Public report stated that the development of a CGA at Bishopton was dependent on rail capacity being satisfactorily addressed. The Rail Arbiter’s report, which will determine rail capacity provision, has not yet been published. Therefore Renfrewshire Council does not know if or when rail capacity will be satisfactorily addressed.
Despite the assurance that all the applications would be determined at the same time Renfrewshire Council will now be determining only two of the applications. The applications covering remediation and hazardous waste landfill have been withdrawn. These applications could have potentially serious implications for the health of the residents in the local communities. The Councillors on the Planning Board are being asked to determine the outline planning application without being given the full facts about the proposed development.
At the Examination in Public, Renfrewshire Council officials stated that "knowledge of the nature and extent of contamination is still at a lower degree of resolution than would normally be expected for the purposes of determining an outline planning application." The applicant has not increased the degree of resolution regarding the extent and type of contamination on the ROF site.Therefore the statement made at the EiP still applies. Contrary to the statement made at the EiP Renfrewshire Council officials are now asking the Councillors to determine the outline planning application.
In summary the officials were so keen to write their report that they could not spare the time to wait for a corrected transport assessment, or give the public extra time to respond. Similarly, they could not wait to find out if transport capacity problems would be resolved, or what the best motorway junction option was, or if the Scottish Ministers approved the motorway junction. In addition, they seemed to forget their EiP statement that they do not have sufficient information on contamination to determine application.
These are the reasons why Bishopton residents believe that these applications are being railroaded through. Given the evidence above what do you think? Are you surprised at the conclusions drawn by Bishopton residents?
Heavy Rain Sparks Landslide Fears at Chorley 01/12/2008
The surface water drainage system (water from roofs, paths and roads etc) at the development on the former ROF site in Buckshaw Village, Chorley, seems to have run into serious problems.Excess surface water has collected in parts of the watercourse which runs throughout the development and the effect of this build-up of water has led to fears from one local councillor that it could undermine the infrastructure of the site. The construction of the drainage system was jointly funded by Barratt and Redrow and the design was approved by the local planning authority.
Could the same problem happen at Bishopton? The simple answer is "Yes". However the drainage problem is even more complicated at Bishopton in that part of the site is at risk of flooding. If the drainage system and flood prevention measures are not completely effective, then flooding may occur. There is also a further problem associated with sites like Bishopton ROF: CONTAMINATION. If a landslide occurs, is this likely to result in contamination being spread or exposed? One of the proposed remediation methods for the Bishopton ROF site is encapsulation i.e. the contaminated soil is covered by a layer of "clean" soil. There is also the problem that flooding may spread contamination.
The Chorley example demonstrates that surface water drainage systems cannot be guaranteed to be 100% effective. It also demonstrates that planning authorities are not always able to spot the major flaws in the drainage designs.
The problems associated with heavy rain are further compounded at Bishopton ROF by the fact that during heavy rain the current Bishopton sewerage pumping station will not be able cope with the flow of foul water (waste from toilets, sinks, showers, baths etc) from the proposed development. The developers propose that in this case foul waste water will be kept in a holding tank. This tank will have the capacity to hold 400 cubic metres of foul waste water. There are problems associated with this method. Here are a few:
Sewage with an age greater than 3 hours is considered as a high risk for the creation of odour problems through the formation of hydrogen sulphide and subsequently, sulphuric acid. This creates an odour nuisance, can render anyone entering a confined chamber unconscious and ultimately kill them. The acid is also corrosive to the structural integrity of the tank and pipe work down stream. The sewage in the holding tank is likely to be this age or older.
What happens if the foul waste water exceeds the capacity? Where will the overflow go? Which watercourse will be polluted?
What happens in a catastrophic emergency?
Given all of the problems associated with the ROF site is it really the best location for a new community or does the proposed development merely turn a liability into a profitable asset for the BAE Systems shareholders …and create a bigger liability for the local community and Renfrewshire Council?
You can read the newspaper article on Chorley here
BAE Systems has made great play of the fact that they ran a computer model to determine how pollution from burning buildings would be dispersed and hence to determine safety distances for the public. However we have always been very wary of the modelling carried out. Computer models by their very nature can be fine tuned to produce the desired results.
For the original outline planning application a dispersion computer model was run and as a result BAE Systems defined a list of safety distances that would be applied when burning the contaminated buildings. However after the continued opposition from the village they reran the model and yet another set of safety distances was produced. This time the distances had significantly increased. We were always concerned that the model would not exactly reproduce the conditions likely to occur during the burning process, where temperature varies as fire starts, burns for a period of time and then slowly cools down. We were also concerned that it would also not replicate the temperature inversion as experienced in and around the ROF site. It seems we are not the only ones to be concerned about this model. Below is an extract from SEPA’s response to the amended outline planning application:
“SEPA would still disagree with BAE's assessment that the ADMS [Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System] model is the considered to be the most suitable for assessing impact from open burn scenarios. It is only "Industry standard" for point source emissions from controlled and not variable combustion conditions. SEPA considers that there are more suitable models available for open fires.
ADMS has a margin error up to 50% which increases when assessing short-term impacts, which is the case in this scenario. SEPA notes BAE's attempts to provide more confidence in the model by testing outputs against monitoring conducted at a similar burn at Chorley, Lancashire. However as previously stated at the meeting held in July 2008, this cannot be accepted as validation of the model.”
In order to validate the results from their computer model BAE Systems burned six buildings down in Chorley. When we read this in the amended outline planning application, we were shocked. We consider it highly unethical to experiment on one community in order to "validate" the safety distances for another.
As Dr Paul Johnston of Greenpeace stated at the Examination in Public regarding decontamination of buildings by burning "It is proposed to decontaminate buildings by packing them with combustible material and then firing them. This seems to be a strategy grounded in a different era and borders on the irresponsible…It is probable that this method of decontamination has been selected very largely on cost grounds. It should be recognised that it is cheap simply because the technique externalises the environmental costs on the surrounding communities and countryside."
We consider the environmental cost to be too high for the village of Bishopton and the surrounding communities.
The Planning Hearing was held on Wednesday 12 November. Despite the inconvenient 6pm start-time people turned up in their droves to express their concerns about the proposed development. Unfortunately a large number of people had to be turned away because the audience had reached the permitted capacity of the hall. Therefore Renfrewshire Council has decided to hold an additional hearing in Erskine Bridge Hotel, Erskine River Front, Erskine PA8 6ANon Monday 17 November 2008 at 6 pm. Renfrewshire Council has sent out notification letters.
The additional hearing is your opportunity to let the councillors know yourconcerns about the development.
Wednesday night’s hearing was a pretty lively event to put it mildly and the audience pulled no punches when it came to expressing their opinions. At previous consultations which have taken place the Councillors have not heard directly from the public, but have been given summaries of the issues that have been raised. Unfortunately these summaries have not done justice to the objections raised; they did not cover all of the issues raised nor did they convey the reasoned arguments submitted. Therefore it was refreshing that the public were able to put their cases directly to the Planning Board without a "middle-man".
For those that cannot make it for the 6pm start on Monday you may be interested to know that the questions and comments session at Wednesday’s hearing did not start until after 7pm. The running order for Wednesday’s hearing was:
Presentation by the developer
Presentation by the Community Council
Presentation by BAG
Questions and comments from the audience
Many locals have thanked BAG for putting forward such a strong case against the proposed development.
Bishopton Action Group has prepared a standard objection letter to the amendments which have been made to the outline planning application for the ROF site. We have prepared the letter in 2 formats PDF or RTF. You will require Adobe Reader to view the PDF format and a word processing application like Microsoft Word to view and edit the RTF version. We have left space so that you can add any additional comments.
Bishopton Forest Park was one of the main selling points for designating Bishopton as a community growth area in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan. Through Freedom of Information we have obtained some very interesting documents which reveal the truth about the "Forest Park":
The "Forest Park" was downgraded by the Forestry Commission to a "woodland park" because the area concerned was not large enough to qualify as a Forest Park.
In 2004 Forestry Commission believed that it was a political decision to develop the ROF and they were keen to please the Scottish Ministers. They were also looking for a big project, because of lack of success with other projects and the Bishopton ROF fitted the bill. They were also fearful that the potential costs and complexities could bury them.
In 2004 BAE Systems were lobbying the Scottish Ministers about the motorway junction. They wanted the Forestry Commission to bring to the attention of the Forestry Minister the opportunity at Bishopton ROF i.e. lobby the Scottish Ministers, but the Forestry Commission to their credit would only provide the facts.
Initially there were discussions between the Forestry Commission and BAE Systems regarding Forestry Commission buying the Park, but as reality hit home about the extent and type of contamination on the ROF site, the Forestry Commission decided that it would only lease the land. This meant that the liability for the land would remain with BAE Systems. The Forestry Commission is a risk averse organisation and therefore they were not willing to take on the liability for this contaminated land. They suggested ownership could be held by a trust, but BAE Systems did not agree to this because if the trust folded liability would fall back on BAE Systems. The reason for this is that the polluter pays. It was also reported that BAE Systems normally provided a warranty and wanted a quick exit from ownership of the site. The Forestry Commission maintained its preferred option of leasing. BAE Systems were not in favour of long leases so the net result was that if the development were to go ahead Forestry Commission would take two consecutive leases of seven years (14 years in total). Either party could withdraw at any time. So if the development were to go ahead there is no guarantee that there would still be a woodland park by the time the development was finished.
When we looked at the documents we could see that the Forestry Commission had similar concerns to BAG: lack of information on contamination, restricted access because of contamination, blast zone for Environmental Test Facility crossed into woodland park, huge loss of trees, inaccessible for those without a car.
BAE Systems also hired the Forestry Commission to produce a forest plan. The Forestry Commission to their credit repeatedly reminded BAE Systems about public consultation, but BAE Systems were not keen because they did not want to be seen to be jumping the gun before the Scottish Ministers' made their decision about designating Bishopton as a Community Growth Area. So although they were forging ahead with their plans, they did not want the public to know this. It was a shrewd move of BAE Systems to hire the Forestry Commission. Since BAE Systems were the clients they were in control and could call all the shots including the design and layout of the park. It would also be unlikely that the Forestry Commission would strongly object to their client's specification. It also meant that planning officials would be suitably impressed that the Forestry Commission had been involved in the Forest Plan.
We also discovered that following a study of the Georgetown area of the ROF site in 1995/96 Renfrewshire Council advised BAE Systems against developing this area.
Apparently Renfrewshire Council's Head of Planning sees the woodland area as a priority "showcase" for the Green Network and is keen to alert the developer to any forest grant potential to help establish and manage the areas of any new woodland created through the development.
It appears that the reference "Forest Park" in the Structure Plan was really very misleading: The area is too small to be considered a Forest Park, it contains the parts of the site, which are too difficult to decontaminate for development purposes, it houses a landfill for the deposit of hazardous waste, part of it lies in the ETF blast zone, no one wants liability for the park, there will be restricted access to prevent the public from wandering into contaminated areas, there will be massive tree loss and it is not readily accessible for those who do not have a car.
Does this sound like a good place to take your children for an outing? How many priority showcase community woodlands have restricted access because of contamination? How many priority showcase community woodlands house a landfill for hazardouswaste? How many priority showcase community woodlands are in a blast zone?
The amendments to the outline planning application and M8 junction application have now been published on the Renfrewshire Council website. Although the neighbour notifications stated that the recipients only had 14 days to respond to the planning applications, this was in fact the statutory minimum time. We have written to Renfrewshire Council and requested an extension to review these very complex applications. At the controlled burn demonstration Crawford Russell, Head of Planning, acknowledged that these were complex planning applications and said that an extension would be given but he was not prepared to commit to a specific time limit. We await a formal response from Renfrewshire Council.
BAG's Report on Controlled Burn Demonstration 01/10/2008
After weeks and weeks of rain, grey skies and low cloud the day of the "controlled burn demonstration" dawned and it was a beautiful sunny day. BAE Systems representatives must have breathed a collective sigh of relief for as far they were concerned they thought the conditions were ideal for the burn demonstration. As Bishopton residents can confirm days like this don't happen very often in Bishopton. The following day the grey skies and rain returned.
BAE Systems gave a brief talk before the demonstration began. They have again revised the number of buildings which they propose burning. At the first demonstration in 2005 it was mentioned that over 1000 buildings would be burned. In the outline planning application this number was reduced to over 500. The latest number is around 400. The continued opposition from Bishopton residents to this method of decontamination has obviously concentrated minds. According to BAE Systems the recently resubmitted outline planning application apparently revises the plans for decontamination of buildings, especially those in close proximity to the village. BAG will of course be carefully scrutinising the revised submission.
Quite a few people attended the demonstration; three Bishopton residents (two members of BAG and 1 member of the Community Council), a large contingent of officials from Renfrewshire Council including from Environmental Services and Planning, representatives from SEPA, representatives from Redrow and of course the demonstration was hosted by BAE Systems. Members of the Strathclyde Fire Brigade were also in attendance. None of the councillors, who will determine the planning application, were present.
There were four buildings scheduled for burning that day. BAG representatives noted that on this occasion the buildings to be burned were all formerly used for the production of gun propellant and therefore were unlikely to have any of the noxious elements which created the green smoke observed on the previous demonstration. At that demonstration BAG representatives observed the burning of a building formerly used for the manufacture of rocket propellant, which can contain a variety of additives such as lead salts, barium compounds etc. During that demonstration our representatives were very concerned to witness green smoke belch horizontally through windows and even more concerned when BAE Systems were unable to explain with any certainty the cause of the green smoke. BAG also expressed concern that the fire had not penetrated the large aluminium cowlings and horizontal ventilation funnels on the roof. Having learned from this experience BAE Systems had this time removed the cowlings from the roof before the burn and placed them inside the buildings. It is concerning that those experts, who claimed to have "successfully" decontaminated several hundred buildings at Chorley, did not know to remove the cowlings and vents for the first demonstration.
The buildings were set alight at various intervals. The observers watched as the fires went through the various stages. The plumes of smoke carrying the pollution skywards changed from almost black through various shades of grey. In some cases there were later bursts of black smoke but no one was able to define the precise cause of this. Officials filmed each building burning for at least 30 minutes. They also had a test strip with various shades of grey which they included in the shot from time to time so that they could assess the colour of the smoke. Although the observers were a few hundred metres from the burning buildings and not downwind of the fires, ash fell on the observers and the smell of smoke filled the air.
At the end of the process BAE Systems believed that the fires had been successful in decontaminating the buildings, but in reality pollution was carried skywards and will be deposited elsewhere. As Dr Paul Johnston of Greenpeace stated at the Examination in Public "It is probable that this method of decontamination has been selected very largely on cost grounds. It should be recognised that it is cheap simply because the technique externalises the environmental costs on the surrounding communities and countryside."
BAG's concerns regarding this method of decontamination remain unchanged:
This method spreads pollution and this has the potential to affect the health of the surrounding communities
Temperature inversion will be a problem. This could result in pollution being trapped above Bishopton only to be deposited on Bishopton at the next rainfall.
What happens if the wind direction changes just prior to, or during the actual burn?
The main method to mitigate the environmental impacts of burning is to burn buildings when the wind is blowing away from Bishopton. However if the wind is blowing away from Bishopton then it is blowing towards other parts of Renfrewshire (e.g. Houston) and therefore spreading pollution there.
Which independent body will be responsible for monitoring the burning and ensuring that all procedures are carried out safely and correctly?
How do we know that burning will only take place in "perfect" weather conditions, such as that on the day of the second demo burn, when it was stated in the original Environmental Statement that "for operational reasons, fires may be set on days when the optimum conditions are not met"?
Why should reasons of cost determine which method is to be employed for decontaminating buildings? If other methods are safer, and minimise the risk of spreading toxic pollution, they should be employed for every building.
We have a few questions, which are puzzling us:
Why did BAE Systems organise a second demonstration of burning buildings? After all in the real world if you make a mistake when you burn a building you don't get a second chance to do the job properly next time.
Why did the officials record the event and take readings this time, but did not think it was necessary last time?
You can read our report on first demonstration here.
Demonstration of decontamination by burning 22/09/2008
BAE Systems are going to hold a demonstration of burning a contaminated building to remove the explosive residue. The demonstration will take place on the morning of Tuesday, 23 September 2008. This is the second demonstration. At a previous demonstration held in November 2005 things did not go to plan for BAE Systems and green smoke belched from the burning building. BAE Systems were never able to explain the cause of the green smoke with any certainty.
BAG has always had concerns about this method of decontamination fearing that it would spread contamination and potentially affect the health of local residents. So we asked some experts to give us their opinion of the method.
First we contacted a meteorologist who looked at BAE Systems proposals and explained that, if we look at the last ten years, the claims that the prevailing winds were southwesterly are not true. Changing weather patterns have meant that we have had long periods of easterly winds over the past few years. There is no way anyone can say over a period sometime in the future that winds for planning purposes will be southwesterly. Then it was drawn to our attention that temperature inversion would also be a problem. This occurs when a layer of warm air forms above a layer of cold air preventing normal convection processes from taking place i.e. it would prevent the smoke from rising and the pollution would be trapped over Bishopton and could be spread over Bishopton by next rainfall. Bishopton locals are used to seeing mist and fog clinging to the land surface even on a reasonably bright day. These mists and fogs are evidence of temperature inversions. The meteorologist then explained the optimum conditions for pollution dispersal and said that it would be difficult to predict when this would occur.
Do you believe that BAE Systems will hang about waiting for these rare occurrences of optimum weather conditions? This is what they wrote in one of the documents submitted with the planning applications
"Foroperational reasons, fires may be set on days when the optimum conditions are not met".
We also contacted Greenpeace for advice. Dr Paul Johnston, a contamination expert and head of Greenpeace research labs, was so appalled by the idea of burning the contaminated buildings that he attended the Examination in Public in person as an independent witness. In his statement he wrote "It is proposed to decontaminate buildings by packing them with combustible material and then firing them. This seems to be a strategy grounded in a different era and borders on the irresponsible." His full statement regarding burning contaminated buildings can be read here.
The Reporter, who chaired the Examination in Public, was well aware of the concerns of the local community regarding the proposals to decontaminate hundreds of buildings by burning them, and stated that alternative methods should be considered. This is what she wrote:
“5.39...smoke from fires would have the potential to affect a wide area. Local concerns regarding the environmental effects of this remediation method are therefore readily understandable……..However, as alternatives to burning are available, burning is not “a measure required” for remediation. Chemical treatment, steam cleaning, pressure washing and/or grit blasting are envisaged for buildings closer to residences.”
“5.41 It would be open to Renfrewshire Council as planning authority, in the context of the policy and best practice advice in SPP 1 and PAN 51, to impose conditions on any planning permissions that encompassed remediation regulating or prohibiting burning.”
Full extract regarding burning contaminated buildings is given at here.
Locals asked "Why are BAE Systems pursuing this method of decontamination?" The simple answer is that it is the cheapest method. It is highly likely that they will use the more expensive methods of decontamination to decontaminate buildings which are close to the Environmental Test Facility. They may also use the more expensive methods of decontamination for some buildings which are close to Bishopton residences. However the cheap method, which they intend to use for the majority of the buildings, puts profit first.
Locals also asked "Can this method of remediation be stopped?" According to the EiP Reporter, Renfrewshire Council could set planning conditions that prohibit the burning of buildings and that "on the basis that burning is not 'a measure required' any such conditions would not make remediation impractical."
SEPA Objects to Remediation and Landfill Applications 15/09/2008
SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) has objected to the remediation and landfill applications for the proposed ROF development on the grounds of lack of information. You can read the objections by clicking on the links below:
BAG volunteers have been enjoying a well deserved summer break. We scaled down our activity over the summer to give our volunteers time to recharge their batteries. However work did not grind to a complete halt. We have received some fascinating FOI documents. Once we have had a chance to digest all of these documents, we will summarise our findings and place the info on our website.
Locals have been asking if there is any news about the ROF. The CLG recently received an e-mail from Graham Vincent of BAE Systems regarding the Outline Planning Application. He advised that BAE Systems will be submitting amendments to their original submission.
We believe that the amendments relate to the Environment Statement and may include a revised transport strategy/transport assessment, and that these documents will be subject to public consultation.
Next BAG meeting is at 7.30 pm on Monday 8 September 2008 in the Bishopton Community Centre.
Repercussions of Bad Planning Decisions 29/06/2008
A former gas works in Renfrewshire is a prime example of a bad planning decision. In the late 1970s planning permission was granted for a small housing development (26 houses) on this site . The houses were duly built and occupied. Over two decades later contamination was discovered and the residents were initially liable for the costs of the cleanup. However last year it was announced that the Scottish Government had awarded Renfrewshire Council a grant of £3.247m to remediate the site. Renfrewshire Council does not have the expertise to monitor/manage the remediation of the site so they hired specialist consultants. The initial completion date for remediation was January 2008. However during preparatory works carried out by the specialist consultants additional investigation revealed that two semi-detached houses (forming one block) had been built directly over the top of a small gas holder and a tar and liquor well. Further investigative works were undertaken and it was decided that the only viable option was to demolish the two houses to allow removal of the tank remains and their contents. Renfrewshire Council will be purchasing these houses in order to demolish them. This case highlights the problems associated with developing/remediating contaminated land and the need for very thorough sampling of a site in order to determine the extent and type of contamination that exists on the site.
No one knows exactly what is buried on the ROF site and we firmly believe that the density of sampling and tests proposed by BAE Systems will not detect or reveal all contamination. To determine what contamination may exist on the site and design the remediation strategy, BAE Systems has carried out intrusive investigations at 1189 exploratory points. This equates to approximately 1 exploratory point per 0.8 hectare (1 exploratory point per 8000sq m). The actual density of exploratory points used within the ROF site will vary depending on the activities that were known to have been carried out in that area and its proposed future use. Exploratory points are selected on a grid basis with the corner points of grid square being selected as the exploratory points. In the core development area the grid size will vary from 75m (area 5625 sq m) to 125m (area 15625 sq m). In the other areas the grid size varies from 150m (area 22500 sq m) to 250m (area 62500 sq m). Once remediation has taken place they will check that the remediation has been successful by taking samples on 30m grid for housing development area and 50m grid for commercial development area i.e. testing the corner of points of each grid square where a grid square covers 900 sq m. and 2500 sq m respectively. If there were contaminated substances right in the middle of these grid squares, would BAE Systems' tests reveal it? We doubt it. We believe that the density of exploratory points and sampling at the former gas works will far exceed that proposed by BAE Systems. The grant for remediating this very small site, which contains 26 houses, was £3.247m. How much would it really cost to test the ROF site to the same level and to remediate an area of 964ha which will contain 2500 houses, commercial area, recreational areas and the ROF Environmental Test Facility?
The most important aspect of the proposed ROF development is the potential impact that contamination and the remediation methods may have on public health. Despite this fact a recent report (3 June 2008) to the Planning Board, regarding the Scottish Ministers’ decision on the Structure Plan Alteration, made no mention of the modification regarding remediation. The summary of this report states that it "describes the background to the decision and highlights the key issues arising from it". Do the officials consider that "satisfactory remediation" is not a key issue? Why did the report not mention the modification regarding remediation? In a previous report to the planning board (22 Jan 2008) which was supposed to "review" the draft modifications, it merely states the Reporter’s conclusion regarding the contamination and then later states the modification regarding remediation. It provides no context for this modification. It does not explain the significance of this modification or the implications of the findings of the EiP report. Why do officials seem to attach so little importance to the remediation issue?
It is easy to understand how bad planning decisions can be made when officials fail to provide councillors with the full facts.
As we have witnessed in example of the former gas works, bad planning decisions made today can have catastrophic effects for future residents and it can be many years before these bad decisions come to light!... with potentially adverse effects on the local population We must not allow history to be repeated at the ROF Bishopton site, and pray that the councillors will have enough information on which to make an informed and safe decision, in order to protect the health and welfare of our children and that of future generations.
You can read Planning Board 4 June 2008 report on the former gas works site here, Planning Board 3 June 2008 report (pdf format 36.8kb) here and Planning Board 22Jan 2008 report (pdf format - 64.9 kb) here.
The Scottish Ministers have now approved the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Alteration 2006. All the "Bishopton" modifications, which were made to the Structure Plan as a result of the Examination in Public, still apply. However there is now a very significant additional statement which affects Bishopton. With regards to the M8 improvements, which would be required before any development at Bishopton could go ahead, the Structure Plan alteration now states "At present Transport Scotland is not committed to these schemes which will require appraisal to justify government support". By inserting this statement the Scottish Government is effectively spelling out in capital letters to the planning officials and developers that there is no Government commitment to the M8 improvements and therefore they should not make any assumptions that the M8 improvements will go ahead.
How this affects Bishopton
The developers submitted an outline planning application for a 2500 house mixed-use development almost two years ago. Renfrewshire Council cannot approve this application because no development can go ahead at Bishopton until M8 capacity problems to the east of Bishopton are satisfactorily addressed and as we can see from the statement above there is currently no government commitment to funding these M8 improvements. The main factor affecting the capacity of this stretch of motorway is the width of the White Cart viaduct. It would require massive government investment to improve the capacity on the viaduct. With all the competition for resources we do not believe that widening the White Cart viaduct is a high priority for the Scottish Government.
Looking back
It has been quite a steep learning curve for Bishopton residents these past three years. It all started off at a public meeting in Bishopton where the "Village Design Statement" was unveiled. Locals listened intently as a planning official implied that Renfrewshire Council officials were impartial and that the proposed development at ROF had nothing to do with them. However the "impartiality" mask began to slip when the first "consultation" took place. The officials did not even bother to properly report the overwhelming response against the designation of Bishopton as a community growth area. All the objections from Bishopton were swept aside and effectively ignored. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information later revealed that contrary to the message at the public meeting the officials were actively working with the developers to bring about the development of the ROF site and had been doing so for several years.
It soon became clear that no matter what evidence BAG produced, the Structure Plan officials and Renfrewshire Council planning officials would close ranks and simply ignore it. Bishopton residents raised many issues including contamination and transport capacity. When it came to contamination, SEPA was wheeled out to reassure the public and the councillors that SEPA would oversee the remediation of the ROF site and ensure that contamination would be properly and safely dealt with. However we now know that this is not the case; Renfrewshire Council is the lead regulator for the contaminated land, it is not legally obliged to consult SEPA, SEPA is not legally obliged to respond, Renfrewshire Council can simply ignore SEPA’s advice and most worryingly Renfrewshire Council does not have the expertise to regulate the remediation of the ROF site. This is not the reassuring picture that the officials tried to paint. With regard to transport capacity problems the officials just ignored them.
If the selection process for community growth areas had been fairly administered, the transport capacity problems alone would have excluded Bishopton from being selected. It does not make sense to select an area for expansion, if there are known problems which will prevent that expansion from going ahead. The selection process was a sham as far as Bishopton was concerned; Bishopton was selected for expansion long before the selection criteria were drawn up. Hence the officials ignored all the dis-benefits of creating a community growth area at Bishopton. We note that the Scottish Ministers did not approve the Assessment of Potential Areas for Urban Expansion technical report or the Environment Report. Both these documents were used to justify the selection of the community growth areas. It is very worrying that these important documents did not require the Ministers' approval.
Eventually the continued opposition from Bishopton and BAG’s campaign began to have an effect and the Scottish Government began to take note of some of the issues raised by Bishopton residents. The Scottish Ministers called for an Examination in Public (EiP). As a result of the polished performance of BAG’s participants at the EiP, modifications were made to the Structure Plan. It was a fantastic achievement for those involved. The Ministers' modifications along with the EiP report will have a profound effect on any proposed development at the ROF site:
M8 – CGA development will be dependent on M8 capacity problems being satisfactorily addressed
Rail – CGA development will be dependent on rail capacity problems being satisfactorily addressed
Remediation – Satisfactory treatment required – Alternative remediation methods to be considered – Further testing required
Development Post 2018 – Review of housing demand/supply (i.e. is a 2500 house development required at Bishopton?)
For developers each of the above increases the uncertainty that development can be achieved. The alternative remediation methods and further testing required increases costs and adversely affects the viability of the proposed development.
What Next
What next for BAE Systems, Redrow and the ROF site? Well, BAE Systems will have plenty of time to do their calculations to work out the true cost of remediating the ROF site and decide if it is worth it. Is it wise to proceed, taking into account all the inherent dangers of developing such a deeply contaminated site, when profit margins were always ill-defined and questionable to begin with? Why should the Scottish Government stump up millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money to try and solve the roads and rail capacity issues, simply to allow a private company to build 2,500 houses at Bishopton, when there are so many other more suitable locations? Is it not time to admit that development at the ROF would be a costly mistake, from both sides of the fence? BAE Systems can always continue with their lucrative Environmental Test Facility (ETF), which is located within the ROF grounds. The ETF returns a healthy profit without any development taking place. Meanwhile Redrow will have other things on their minds as the housing market slows and the latest merger/takeover fever takes grip. Perhaps a site that involves less financial risks and uncertainty would seem a safer bet. With regard to the ROF grounds we sincerely hope that the ROF site will continue to flourish as a wildlife "reserve".
What next for BAG? At BAG we take absolutely nothing for granted and we will continue our fight. We are still on the case and our work will continue.
Thank you
Finally we would like to thank all our volunteers and supporters, who have worked so hard these past three years. It has been a great team effort. In particular, we would like to thank again our expert witnesses who attended the EiP and were completely impartial, and not associated with BAG, who gave up their time to attend for no financial reward. These professional, highly respected experts in their own specialised fields, pointed out the serious flaws in BAE's approach and the dangers and problems in proceeding with the ROF development. Their evidence is a matter of public record, and has been recognised by the Reporter and the Scottish Ministers, so that there are now insurmountable obstacles to proceeding with the development. We would also like to thank those who have given us financial help. We couldn’t have done it without you all!
At each round of consultation on the Structure Plan, Bishopton Action Group has raised serious questions about the potential risks to the health and safety of the local population if the proposed development at ROF were to go ahead. We were particularly concerned about which organisation would be responsible for assessing the contamination at the ROF site and which organisation would be responsible for monitoring the remediation work being carried out.
In response to these concerns and in a bid to reassure Renfrewshire Council Planning Board the Director of Planning emphasised in his report to the Planning Board (10 Jan 2006) that SEPA would have a major role in the remediation of the ROF site. Under the heading "Risks to health and safety and responsibility for assessing contamination" he wrote:
"The Director of Environmental Services ... has stated that if a planning application for the redevelopment of the site is received, his Department, and SEPA, will require to be satisfied that remediation measures proposed for the site are satisfactory and are carried out in line with current Scottish Executive guidance... SEPA will also be a statutory consultee on any applications for the development of the site"
To help clarify the situation Bishopton Action Group and Bishopton Community Council submitted a joint questionnaire to SEPA through the CLG (Community Liaison Group). The responses show that, contrary to the above statement, SEPA will have a very limited role in regulating/overseeing the development of the ROF. In fact SEPA is not a statutory consultee for contaminated land issues for sites going through the planning process. The lead regulator will be Renfrewshire Council. It is not true that SEPA "willrequire to be satisfied that remediation measures proposed for the site are satisfactory and carried out in line with current Scottish Executive Guidance".
We believe that the Director provided this incorrect information simply because the officials at Renfrewshire Council misunderstood SEPA's role. As we can see from SEPA's letter to Renfrewshire Council approximately nine months after this statement was made (See letter dated 3rd October 2006 from SEPA's response to the outline planning application) Renfrewshire Council had requested that SEPA “identify a clear understanding of what the respective roles of SEPA and the Council will be in the course of the ROF Bishopton site’s redevelopment”. Therefore although the Planning Director’s report had tried to reassure the Planning Board that SEPA would play a major role in any planning applications for the ROF site, they did not actually know what role each organisation would play.
It is very concerning that those, who do not have sufficient knowledge to know what their role is, should have the lead role over regulating remediation. Remediation of contaminated land has the potential to have serious adverse affects on health and the environment. We now understand how the fiasco of Linstone sheltered housing complex development could have occurred. If the lead regulator does not actually know what its role is then how can it carry out that role. If you add in that Renfrewshire Council does not have the expertise to carry out its role, then this is a recipe for disaster.
If the Planning Board and Joint Committee members had known of SEPA's very limited role and Renfrewshire Council’s lack of expertise in contamination and remediation, would they still have voted to accept the designation of Bishopton as a Community Growth Area?
You can read the questions we posed and SEPA's responses here. The introduction of the response defines SEPA's regulatory role with regards to the development of contaminated land.
Flooding - SEPA Questions Development Location 21/04/2008
Bishopton Action Group has always questioned why the developers are proposing developing on areas of the ROF site which are at risk from flooding. From SEPA’s response to the RO Bishopton Flood Risk Model and Flood Strategy document submitted by BAE Systems it appears that SEPA questions this too. They state that it is their preference and also the most sustainableoption to avoid development of areas identified as being within the '200 year' flood envelope. They also state that the flood strategy document "should outline the reasons and justification for the development being located within the floodplain". The ROF site is a massive area covering 964 hectares. How can the developers seriously justify developing within the flood envelope?
SEPA also objects to the outline planning application for the proposed ROF development on the grounds that the Environmental Statement does not provide sufficient detail on the implementation of the development in relation to the water environment; these include engineering and flood risk and impact of remediation processes. If planning permission is granted then they request that planning conditions are attached to planning consent which will address these issues.
With regards to air quality and the mitigation measures in which BAE Systems propose burning contaminated buildings when the wind is blowing away from Bishopton in order to prevent pollution being blown towards Bishopton, SEPA asks the same question as BAG : What happens when the wind’s direction changes?
According to SEPA's response a whole new set of guidance has come into effect since the planning application was first submitted. These changes affect sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). All of these changes must now be taken into consideration and would add delay and expense to any development at the ROF site. If you add in that BAE Systems will have to redo the Environmental Statement because Renfrewshire Council stated at the Examination in Public that they did not have enough information to determine the outline application then the costs seriously mount. The developers must have their calculators out and it will not be good news for them. SEPA warns in their response "The significant scale of the redevelopment works proposed at ROF Bishopton will inevitably impact on the preliminary timescales envisaged by the applicant and SEPA would recommend that the precautionary principle is applied to these aspirational dates as the full extent of the environmental constraints at the site have not been fully assessed"
We firmly believe that the Joint Committee and Renfrewshire Council officials completely underestimated the complexity of bringing about a development at the Bishopton ROF site and hence had unrealistic expectations about the development's ability to contribute to housing supply within the timescales specified in the Structure Plan.
Bishopton Action Group keeps asking "Of all the brownfield sites within the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area were there no other appropriate sites?" Given the complexity of developing this site and the potential for risk to health and the environment, the fact that the site is located next to a train station does not seem a good enough reason to select this site in preference to other brownfield sites. It seems utter madness considering that the works associated with flood risk management have the potential to flood that very same railway line. The Structure Plan did not consider the flooding problem at the ROF site. However it rejected other sites because of flood risk. We have never been given a satisfactory explanation why flooding at Bishopton ROF was not considered.
You can read SEPA’s response here (Pleas note that this is a very large PDF file (6.4mb) and you will require a copy of ADOBE reader in order to read document)
Buyer beware - the hidden cost of your new home 29/03/2008
According to the latest newsletter from Scottish Construction News, the Landmark Information Group is warning that land contamination could in fact be the biggest financial threat to Scottish homeowners, potentially costing up to £250,000 per acre to remediate.
It advises Scottish homeowners that if they discover contaminated land underneath their home, it is not necessarily their solicitor or council who is responsible, but the homeowners themselves who could be forced to foot the bill. The councils, developers and builders can all breathe a sigh of relief because it seems the poor unsuspecting house buyer will be landed with the responsibility. If the proposed ROF development goes ahead, how could future home owners ensure that the land had been properly remediated when the current site owners do not have a full audit of all the contaminants on the site?
Bishopton Action Group has always questioned the cost of remediating the ROF site, which is 2382 acres (964 ha) in size. According to the above remediation cost figures it could cost up to £595.52m. In BAE Systems’ Development Strategy Final Report dated April 2001 they state the cost of remediation will be £38m. What is the true cost of remediating the Bishopton ROF site?
We have repeatedly raised the issue of the cost of remediating the site. Can the remediation be funded from the proceeds from the proposed development? The masterplan for the proposed development states that the remediation will be phased with the community woodland being remediated after the housing development has been completed. What happens if the cost of remediation is higher than anticipated? Will this part of the development be dropped or will more houses require to be built in order to finance it? Is the proposed ROF development financially viable? Do the planning officials who are assessing the planning applications know? The following extract from chapter 7 page 43 of the Public Consultation Statement (dated May 2006) which was part of the Outline Planning Application reveals the developers’ thoughts on the matter of viability:
"The Bishopton site at Bishopton is both large and contaminated. The clean up costs alone place a significant burden on the development - particularly as the landowners decided in conjunction with the local council to restrict development to the minimum required to fund the clean up. Add on to these costs the burden of constructing a new motorway junction, building several miles of roads and the funding of affordable housing and the viability of the site becomes a question of some importance."
Below is an extract from Bishopton Action Group’s response to the outline planning application:
"If the developers feel that the project is not financially viable (and indeed no accurate costings have been provided to determine this) and there is doubt about whether they can afford to provide the necessary infrastructure and community facilities and safely carry out full site remediation and decontamination, then Renfrewshire Council must refuse this Outline Planning Application. Our health and safety is too important to be placed secondary to the aim of maximising profits from house sales. The site should be declared as Contaminated Land under the terms of the Environment Act 1995 and the Contaminated Land (Scotland) regulations 2000."
Will the planning officials pay heed and finally get some independent advice as to the viability of the proposed ROF development? Renfrewshire Councillors will require this information if they are to make an informed decision about the planning applications for the proposed development.
You can read the original Landmark Information Group article about remediation costs and liability here. The article features Royal Inch crescent in Renfrew where Renfrewshire Council gave planning permission to build on a former industrial estate (late 1970s) The site has since been found to be contaminated. The house owners were initially faced with remediation costs to clear up the land. However the Scottish Government provided a grant of over £4m. With the current emphasis on building on brownfield sites, we very much doubt that in the future the Scottish Government could afford to pay for any more mistakes that Renfrewshire Council or any other council might make.
In case our readers are wondering where this river is located, we should explain that this is a picture of a flooded Station Road (Bishopton) at the railway bridge. This road is described in BAE's masterplan as being "the most significant link between the new development and the existing village" . The masterplan also states "Station Road will be the most significant corridor for movement providing access to a remodelled transport interchange as well as a controlled route for traffic." Apart from the facts that this road is sub-standard and there are height restrictions because of the bridge, this section of the road is also prone to flooding. Does this road look like a wise,well thought outchoice as the most significant link between Bishopton and a proposed new development?
The road remained flooded for about 24 hours and it took the Renfrewshire Council contractors quite a few journeys and at least four hours to remove all the water which had accumulated under the bridge.
However, the problems caused by flooding on this road will seem minor in comparison to the problems which may be encountered on the ROF site. Part of the ROF site is at risk of flooding. See SEPA flood risk map. Bishopton Action Group would like to know what will happen to the contamination, if flooding occurs. Will contamination be spread by flooding? Will previously remediated/tested areas have to be retested each time flooding occurs to ensure that these areas do not pose any risk to the public? Who would pay cost of retesting?
Given that flooding has the potential to spread contamination, why did the officials ignore the flood risk at Bishopton when assessing the site's potential?
It seems that members of BAG are not alone in their concerns that planning officials are making decisions and recommendations about contamination and remediation, although they may have no expertise in these subjects; the legal profession are also raising concerns. Click on the link to read the excellent Scotsman article about Ravenscraig, " Nerves of steel to build here". The author Barry Love is a partner in Semple Fraser LLP's environment and pollution group."
Bill Wilson MSP is concerned about the proposed landraise at the Bishopton ROF. He has asked a series of questions in parliament regarding contamination, landfills and remediation. He has now received responses to all of the questions. You can read a summary of our concerns and the full text of questions and responses at the From Parliament section of our site.
Structure Plan Modifications - Consultation 10/02/2008
Despite driving rain, freezing winds and what can only be described as utterly miserable weather conditions, BAG's dedicated volunteers have been out and about delivering the latest BAG newsletter along with standard response forms for the latest round of consultation. They completed the deliveries in record time too. Producing and distributing the newsletter involves a lot of hard work. As usual it was a great team effort. A big thank you to all involved. Thanks for the donations, which enable us to have these newsletters printed.
This is the fourth round of consultation on the Structure Plan. Just to recap Rounds 1 and 2 were organised by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Committee. Despite approximately 4,700 objections (2,490 from Round 1 and just over 2,200 from Round 2) the Joint Committee officials saw no need to modify the Structure Plan Alteration and recommended that Bishopton should be designated as a Community Growth Area. Actually that is not strictly true. They did make a modification, but it had nothing to do with the objections from Bishopton. They modified the housing build rate to that proposed by the developers, BAE Systems and Redrow. While the Joint Committee Officials were deaf to the thousands of objections from Bishopton residents, they could hear the developers loud and clear.
Once the Structure Plan Alteration had completed the Joint Committee stage, it was passed to the Scottish Ministers for approval and so the Scottish Ministers organised consultation Round 3. As a result of the usual deluge of objections from Bishopton during this third round of consultation an Examination in Public was held in April/May 2007. BAG representatives spent a lot of time burning the midnight oil preparing for this EiP. Some even remarked that it brought back not so fond memories of studying for exams. Their hard work paid off and together with the independent expert witnesses they put forward a powerful case highlighting the contamination and transportation problems that Bishopton would face if the proposed development went ahead.
The Reporter, who chaired the EiP, recommended a number of very significant modifications be made to the Structure Plan Alteration regarding Bishopton. These modifications along with modifications regarding other matters were incorporated into the Structure Plan Alteration and Scottish Ministers published this new version for consultation in December 2007.(Consultation Round 4).
The consultation period for Round 4 finished on Friday, 25th January. As usual BAG delivered a standard response form to each house in the village. We also submitted a detailed response to the modifications. We have already received the standard response from the Scottish Government via e-mail. It states “Your comments will be fully taken into account by Scottish Ministers before a final decision is made on whether to approve the plan”. We sincerely hope that our comments will be fully taken into account by the Scottish Ministers before their final decision is made. However there is a very serious flaw in the entire consultation process. BAG has submitted lengthy detailed responses at each round of consultation. However neither the Joint Committee nor the Scottish Government has ever responded and it is easy to see how bad planning decisions can be made. Officials do not have to counter objectors’ arguments with logical reasoned arguments. They can merely ignore the objectors’ arguments. It is for this reason that we really appreciated the EiP. BAG representatives and the independent witnesses put forward their arguments and the officials were at last forced to address the issues raised. There was no hiding place. Obviously the officials’ counter arguments did not stack up, because the Reporter recommended that the Structure Plan Alteration should be modified.
At the EiP the Reporter kept to the very narrow remit defined by the Scottish Ministers. However we firmly believe that if all of the matters, which we have raised in all of our submitted objections, had been fully considered at the EiP then Bishopton would have been removed from the Structure Plan Alteration altogether.
What next? .... We await the Scottish Ministers’ decision regarding the Structure Plan Alteration and of course the fight continues.
Finally we would like to thank all of those including the independent expert witnesses who have worked so hard this past year. We would also like to thank those who have donated to our fighting fund.
You can download a copy of the official Examination in Public Report (836 kb) here. This is a PDF document and you will require to have Adobe Reader installed on your machine in order to read it.
On Saturday the letters from the Scottish Government started to arrive and Bishopton residents are probably still scratching their heads as to what it all means for Bishopton. There are 11 pages of changes, which are to be made to the Structure Plan, but only a few of the changes relate to Bishopton. In order to understand the changes you need access to the Structure Plan Written Statement. A summary of the changes is given below.
Our Summary
Bishopton is still included as a community growth area (CGA). However as a result of the Examination in Public there are some new conditions applied to any development, which cover the following areas:-
M8 – CGA development will be dependent on M8 capacity problems being satisfactorily addressed
Rail – CGA development will be dependent on rail capacity problems being satisfactorily addressed
Remediation – Satisfactory treatment
Development Post 2018 – Review of housing demand/supply
These new conditions are a whole new set of hurdles, which could seriously affect the viability of any development at the ROF and adds uncertainty that a CGA could go ahead.
How Reporter Arrived at Decision
The Reporter, Ms McNair, kept to the very narrow remit as defined by the questions set by the Scottish Ministers and looked at each question individually. Her logic was that all the issues raised could (theoretically) be addressed i.e. road capacity could be improved, rail capacity could be improved, site investigations and testing could be improved, hazardous waste could be dumped elsewhere rather than on site landfill and buildings could be decontaminated using a more acceptable method other than burning. Therefore in her opinion since these issues could be improved, they did not preclude Bishopton from being designated as a Community Growth area. This very narrow remit did not allow her to examine the probability of all these issues being addressed, the economic costs (both to the public purse and to the developer) of addressing these issues, the economic viability of funding remediation through development of housing and how it would affect the growth strategy of the Structure Plan if these extra costs prevented the development from achieving the housing targets during the lifetime of the Structure Plan. However she did recognise that there would be problems.
The Implications of these new Changes
M8 – There are currently very serious congestion problems on the M8. The proposed development will be dependent on these capacity problems being satisfactorily addressed. One of the solutions offered by Transport Scotland at the EIP was hard shoulder running i.e. use the hard shoulder as an extra lane. Notwithstanding the safety issues this raises, BAG pointed out that there is no hard shoulder on the White Cart viaduct. So there are no cheap solutions to this problem. The Reporter stated “Whether, when, and to what extent, funding is put in place depends on the outcome of the SPTR, which is considering improving capacity on this route and other transport schemes. The outcome of this consideration is due to be announced in August 2008”
Therefore no decision on the ROF planning applications can be taken until August 2008 at the very earliest and even then there is no guarantee that funding will be provided to address these capacity issues. This adds quite a degree of uncertainty to the development of the ROF.
Rail – There are currently capacity problems on the Inverclyde line. The proposed development will be dependent on capacity problems being satisfactorily addressed. Increasing capacity would require extra rolling stock to be purchased. The Rail Arbiter will decide, in 2008/09, what provision is desirable, and the minimum level of funding that Transport Scotland should provide. Therefore the outline planning application cannot be determined until the rail capacity problems are addressed, which would be 2008/2009 at the earliest.
Remediation – The word “satisfactory” has been added before treatment. This was added because remediation methods may not all be satisfactory e.g. you can decontaminate a building by burning it, but is it a satisfactory method when this spreads pollution, or is it considered satisfactory to have an on-site landfill which contains hazardous waste when there are reports which record a higher incidence of birth abnormalities in populations living in the vicinity of landfills?
The Reporter suggests that burning is not a measure required for remediation. Alternatives are available. Similarly an on-site landfill is not a measure required for remediation. Alternatives are available. She also states “...investigations have been undertaken at the ROF site particularly over the last two years, have provided a considerable amount of information regarding the contamination present. While this has allowed a strategy for remediation to be formulated, the nature and extent of contamination, and the measures required for its remediation merit further investigation. It is essential that these matters are rigorously scrutinised before any development is allowed to proceed”
RC now recognises that the resolution of testing on the ROF site is inadequate. How much would it cost to improve the resolution of testing and increase the number of contaminants tested for? How much would it cost to transport hazardous waste off-site? How much would it cost for other methods of decontaminating buildings? The answers to all these questions have serious implications for the economic viability of the proposed development.
Review – This will require the Structure Plan to regularly assess whether they still require 2500 houses at Bishopton. We very much doubt that they will, since the Structure Plan figures were based on “more aspirational” forecasts. This adds even more uncertainty for the viability of any development at Bishopton, given that the developers will have to put in place infrastructure before any development takes place. Will they be able to recoup their costs for infrastructure such roads, sewerage and flood prevention if the longer-term development potential is more uncertain?
Our Conclusion
We do not agree with all the findings of the EIP and feel that examination of our case was hampered by the narrow remit of questions. However we welcome the proposed changes.
The narrow remit of the EIP prevented the Reporter from examining many administration issues. These were issues which we had already complained about to the Ombudsman. However the Ombudsman stated that these matters could not be investigated as they would be covered by the EIP. Unfortunately they were not. So is it back to the Ombudsman?
The modifications to the Structure Plan make any development at the ROF more uncertain than ever. Will the extra remediation costs be too high? Will the rail/road transport issues be resolved? Rail Transport issues cannot be determined until 2008/2009. Therefore we doubt if the Outline Planning Application for the ROF can be determined before that date. Will the regular Structure Plan reviews reveal that the full 2500 houses are not required at Bishopton? As we have said the proposed development looks more uncertain than ever.
We have come a long way with our campaign over the last two years. Officials at the Structure Plan Joint Committee and Renfrewshire Council have always ignored our concerns about Transport and stated that contamination was not a structure plan issue. These modifications show that it is not good enough to state that there will be a Transport Assessment, but that you have to ensure that capacity issues are addressed before any development takes place. There was also implicit criticism of the Joint Committee officials’ stance that contamination was not a structure plan issue. The Reporter was only able to make her assessment based on data that had been collected after the Structure Plan Alteration was first announced. The Reporter stated "... it is undesirable for a structure plan to encourage unrealistic expectations on the part of potential developers by identifying for development a site known to be contaminated if it is unlikely to be practical to remediate the site safely to a satisfactory standard. It is also undesirable to give rise to needless public anxiety by identifying such a site for development". We believe this vindicates our stance.
Congratulations to our EIP participants for their success.
What Next?
There is now a further round of consultation and of course the fight continues.
Bill Wilson MSP has some concerns about the proposed landfill for the Bishopton ROF site and so he asked some questions at the Scottish Parliament on the subject of how health would be monitored and who would be held legally responsible for any health problems which might arise as a result of the construction or the operation of the proposed landfill site at Bishopton. You can read the questions and answers here.
In the report to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee dated 30th January 2006 it was stated with regard to the proposed development at Bishopton ROF that
"...In addition, no formal decision will be taken by Renfrewshire Council on any planning applications for the site until the Scottish Ministers issue their formal decision on the Structure Plan Alteration and it comes into effect."
Although the Scottish Ministers have yet to make their decision about the Alteration to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan, Renfrewshire Council Director of Planning used delegated powers to grant planning permission for a planning application for the Bishopton ROF site. This planning application was one of a suite of several planning applications for the development of the ROF site. BAE Systems were applying for planning permission to build a 3.14km security fence to separate the part of the ROF site which would be retained as an Environmental Test Facility (ETF).
Here are some of the reasons given by the applicant for wanting to build the security fence:
"With the planned regeneration and diversification of uses within the whole site it is essential that this ETF be separated."
"BAE Systems land Systems require that physical containment of ETF should be carried out within the next twelve months before regeneration activity commences on the remainder of the site."
As we can see this planning application is clearly related to the development of the ROF site. The Joint Committee had agreed that no application should be determined until the Scottish Ministers had made their decision. Therefore why did the Planning Director break this agreement and grant planning permission for this application? Why did the Planning Director use delegated powers to determine this application?
Delegated powers allow the Director of Planning to determine some planning applications. Planning applications are normally determined by the Planning Board (i.e. elected Council members). Delegated powers only apply to more minor planning applications such as developments of under 1 hectare e.g. erection of a garage. In the cases where delegated powers apply, the report which gives the Planning Director’s decision and justifications for his decision is not published. Copies of the report can only be obtained by making a written request. This is in direct contrast to planning applications which are determined by the Planning Board, where reports are published several days in advance of the Planning Board making their decision. This gives the public the opportunity to scrutinise the report before a decision is made and allows them to alert the Planning Board to any problems with the report. e.g. in the case of the planning application for the ROF site, if this application had been determined by the Planning Board, the report would have been published and Bishopton Action Group would have informed the Planning Board members that determining the application was contrary to the Joint Committee agreement.
The Joint Committee had good reasons for stating that no decision would be taken on ANY planning applications for the ROF site until the Scottish Ministers had made their decision and that decision had come into effect:
a) The principle of development has not yet been determined
b) Granting planning permission for the application could prejudice the consideration of responses to the Structure Plan Alteration.
Where does this leave the Joint Committee if other officials in individual authorities ignore Joint Committee agreements? A Structure Plan in chaos or possibly a "plan led" system without a plan?
A detailed formal complaint about the determination of this planning application has been submitted to the Chief Executive of Renfrewshire Council.
Bill Wilson MSP has some concerns about the proposed landfill for the Bishopton ROF site and so he asked some questions at the Scottish Parliament on the subject of hazardous waste landfills . You can read the questions and answers here.
We are sorry that our website has been down for the past few days. There were a few problems with our server so we decided to move to a new "home". As with all removals it takes a while to get everything "unpacked" and back up and running so please be patient while we get things back in order.
Many people have asked BAG about the outcome of the Examination In Public. Ms McNair, the Reporter, who held the Examination in Public, has completed her report and passed it to the Scottish Ministers for their consideration. The Scottish Ministers will be reponsible for making the decision about whether Bishopton should be designated as a community growth area in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan.
BAG's Response to Motorway Junction Planning Application 16/09/2007
We are gradually uploading our responses to the planning applications for the proposed ROF development. Click here to go to page containing response to motorway junction planning application.
It seems that Bishopton Action Group is not alone in questioning the competence of Renfrewshire Council officials to oversee the development of contaminated land. A recent article in the Renfrewshire Gazette highlights the problems of the Very Sheltered housing complex in Linwood. The complex was officially opened in April 2007, but residents have been unable to move in because of contamination fears on the site.
As one relative said "Something has gone seriously awry here. It does beg the question as to why they built on land which wasn't known to be safe.
“Why was the land not tested before any building work started? It does make you wonder how competent some of these people are. Surely they should have checked into the past use of the land. What are they playing at?"
The housing complex at Linwood is a very small site - imagine the chaos that will ensue if Renfrewshire Council officials were to oversee the decontamination of 964 hectares (over 2000 acres) of land.
We ask again. Given all of the brownfield sites available in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area, who would choose to build a 2,500 house mixed-use development on a site:
Where 100% decontamination of land can never be guaranteed
Next to a hazardous waste landfill site
Next to an Environmental Test Facility where explosives and items manufactured from depleted uranium may be tested
Where the decontamination process including burning over 500 buildings might put residents' health at risk
Where the decontamination process is likely to destroy a thriving wildlife resource and destroy mature woodland
Where land is at risk of flooding
Where core access roads are substandard and cannot be upgraded
Where motorway and rail capacity is insufficient
Where schools capacity is unknown
Where health provision is already overstretched
Where a community’s way of life will be destroyed
It appears that Bishopton was selected as a community growth area because it had "good transportation connections". From the recent Examination In Public it became apparent that although Bishopton has a railway station and is located near the M8, these modes of transport do not have the capacity to cater for the extra demand from proposed new housing developments in Bishopton and Inverclyde. To cure the existing capacity problems would require massive government investment.
Let us not forget the other reason for building houses at Bishopton: predicted demand for housing based on population forecasts which are more "aspirational" than the General Register Office forecasts - predicted demand that might never materialise.
It seems that officials are ignoring the practical aspects of the proposed development e.g. protecting the health of current/future residents or making sure that the residents can actually travel in safety to work.
The current problems at Linwood only heighten our concerns.
The people behind the Linwoodsucks website are working very hard to ensure that the contamination issues at Linwood are properly dealt with. For more information visit their website www.linwoodsucks.com
Burning Buildings – Fog year round problem 11/07/2007
In a previous article we detailed that fog was a problem at the Bishopton ROF site and how this fog was evidence of temperature inversion. We included a reference to an article written by BBC weatherman, Bill Giles, which indicated that the public should consider the possibility of temperature inversion before lighting bonfires in autumn and winter as the inversion would trap the pollution.
However the problem of fog at Bishopton ROF is not restricted to autumn and winter. It is a year round problem. See some pictures which were taken in June 2007
When BAE/Redrow initially submitted their outline remediation planning application in June 2006, we asked a meteorological expert to examine the mitigation measures proposed by BAE to counter the effects from pollution, which burning contaminated buidlings would create. At the time the expert advised that temperature inversion would be a problem and that the occurrences of the optimum conditions for burning buildings would be rare.
How do BAE/Redrow propose getting round this problem? Well it is simple they have a get-out clause in the section titled "Optimum conditions for minimising local impacts" on page 21 of Appendix 9.3 of Appendices to the Environmental Statement titled "Air Quality assessment – Remediation through burning": "However, for operational reasons, fires may be set on days when the optimum conditions are not met."
It seems that operational reasons will take precedence over the health and well being of the local residents.
We have uploaded our objection to the outline planning application onto our website. You can read our report on meteorological aspects of the planning application here
BAG has stated over and over again that temperature inversion and "bonfires" don't make a good mix. You don't have to take our word for it. The weathermen at the BBC advise the public not to light bonfires during these weather features.
The only difference with the bonfires proposed at the ROF is that they will be burning buildings (over 500) to decontaminate them thus spreading the pollution into the atmosphere. This just underlines why it is not a good idea to burn buildings on the ROF site to decontaminate them.
Read our article about temperature inversions and view the pictures of ROF which demonstrate the effects of temperature inversions here
