News Articles: August 2005 -> October 2005

Click on link to go directly to article or scroll down the page

BAG Notes on Special meeting of GCVSP committee meeting 29/8/05

The Convenor, Cllr Malik, referred to our letter that had been handed round by the Committee Officer just before the start of the meeting and said that he would respond to the letter himself.

Vincent Goodstadt (Structure Plan team manager) on "consultation"

• "what we have done is in accordance with statutory regulations"
• on the subject of further consultation–will meet people when it is "useful" and while issues are still to be raised in order to "inform ministers"
• "no duty to carry out further round of consultation" but will follow the path of "targeted consultation on specific issues"
• need to get final plan back to a special committee meeting in December to be able to finalise it for ministers

Vincent Goodstadt on BAG and ROF development

• mentioned that proposals re Bishopton had produced significant representations
• BAG letter-stated our concerns that views not brought adequately to the committee.
• Referred to the "standard letter" that had come from 2,500 people - said that "this has all been brought to your attention". Suggested that everything he had has been "put to them".
• Our letter was a "misunderstanding" -and said to councillors "you have that list". Didn't say whether committee members had actually seen our letters nor did he explain what the misunderstanding was! (Didn't say that his arithmetic doesn't make sense!)
• Referred to our BAG letter they had all received - he is happy to respond to the points re the processes.
• He will be meeting with the community liaison group and will consider further meetings with representatives
• Any decision the SP committee makes on urban expansion areas will have to address the housing shortfall "as part of a package"
• He mentioned that he had responded to the points raised by house builders-why then do we not merit a response?

Cllr Gordon MacDonald (Lib Dem)

• Referred to Bishopton infrastructure, community facilities, shops, places of worship - these things need to be put in the plan at Structure Plan level so that the local plan can reflect this.
• It would be helpful to have a site visit so "we can see what it is we're deciding" (this was rejected by the convenor-it seems they have already taken a site visit. Talked about changing the location of the next visit. Also thought that consultation should take place first.)

Vincent Goodstadt reply

• We need to see this as different from smaller scale development dealt with at local plan level
• We need a master plan which sets out a range of requirements (including roads, sewers, how education, shopping, and leisure facilities will be dealt with).
• All these should be looked at as part of the master plan. It should be made clear that any area identified for urban expansion would be subject to "certain provisos". Referred to the development of Hamilton West in 1990's.
• Master plan requirements for any new location should be specified

Councillor Eric Forbes (Inverclyde)

• Concerned about the "pace and timing" of the Bishopton development "coming on board"
• Main concern is about the 2,300 houses. (Not concerned about the employment provision- said that a lot of people living in Inverclyde used to travel to work at the ROF, it was a big employer.)
• Mentioned the Waterfront regeneration project and the fact that Inverclyde is "leaking population". Need to replace this leakage through housing regeneration exercise.
• Inverclyde Council should meet with Renfrewshire Council for a "joined up thinking" approach.
• Mentioned that he did his police training within the grounds of ROF and that "you will need a helicopter to view it".
• Concerned about the "size and timing" of ROF development. The Convenor (Cllr Malik) agreed that perhaps other places should be allowed to "regenerate and settle down". The project should be time managed.
• Forbes stated that it has been "quite a pace to get this at the stage that it is" and said that Inverclyde is sitting with brownfield sites waiting to go ahead and that they had received a very negative response from the Scottish Executive.
• Bishopton seems to have taken precedence over other areas.
• Other Inverclyde councillor (Jim Hunter) said that they had "lost out" to Bishopton before.

Back

Letter:Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee - 29th August 2005

The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee met on 29th August 2005. BAG was shocked by the report which was presented to the committee members. This report failed to mention the 2471 letters of objection submitted by Bishopton residents. The list of respondents to the Structure Plan Alteration 2005 only gave details of 20 Bishopton residents. This report also did not address the concerns of Bishopton residents. In order to make the views of Bishopton residents known to the committee, BAG hand-delivered a letter detailing concerns to committee members. A copy of this letter is shown below.

Bishopton Action Group

"Kilallan"

Sachelcourt Avenue

BISHOPTON

Renfrewshire

PA7 5AA

25th August 2005

Dear Councillor,

Special Meeting of the GCVSP Joint Committee 29/8/05

Report on Consultations Agenda Item 1(e)

We write to you in your capacity as a member of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Committee and ask you to read this in conjunction with the letter we sent you dated 17th August 2005.

We are most concerned that you are being asked to approve the above report which is highly misleading and totally inaccurate with regard to Bishopton and the proposed ROF development, for the reasons outlined below.

During the recent consultation period, 2,500 Bishopton residents made representations to the Consultative Draft Structure Plan Alteration 2005 in the form of an objection letter individually signed and hand delivered to the Structure Plan Manager. I enclose for your information a copy of one of these letters. The name and address of the respondent has been omitted for reasons of confidentiality. We are astonished that these 2,500 respondents have been completely ignored, and their names deliberately omitted from Appendix 3 - List of Respondents to Consultative Draft Structure Plan Alteration. Appendix 3 contains only 20 named "Bishopton Residents" in addition to the letters of objection received from the Bishopton Action Group, Bishopton Community Council, Erskine Community Council, Houston Community Council, MSP Annabel Goldie, and Mr. Iain Langlands.

We would like to emphasize that the vast majority of Bishopton residents are vehemently opposed to the designation of Bishopton as an Area of Urban Expansion. On page 29 of the Structure Plan Manager's report, he states that "The redevelopment of the former ROF site at Bishopton is considered supportive of the... Guiding Principles of Sustainable Development of the 2000 Structure Plan." Bishopton Residents strongly object to this statement and the attached letter explains why the designation of rural Bishopton as an area of urban expansion and the redevelopment of the former ROF site CONTRADICTS the guiding principles of sustainable development under 4 main headings: (1) Strengthening Communities (2) Principles of Urban Expansion (3) Agenda for Sustained Growth and (4) Assessment of Development Proposals. We would like to comment also that it is strange that the report states that there are objections to the structure plan alteration, but does not actually state what the objections are. How are you able to make an informed decision on the designation of Bishopton as an area of urban expansion when you do not have detailed information on the arguments against this? The planning process is fundamentally flawed in this respect.

Agenda item 1(e) refers to the statutory context of any alteration to the Structure Plan and contains the following:

"Planning authorities must take steps so as to ensure, in their opinion that:

• all persons wishing to make representations are aware of their right so to do
• all such persons are given adequate opportunity to make such representations
• all such representations, received within the prescribed consultation period are considered by the Planning Authorities"

The mainstay of the White Paper "Modernising the Planning System" is that openness and transparency should underpin all stages of the planning process, and that individuals should be involved and included in planning developments which affect their lives and their communities. On behalf of all the Bishopton residents who made representations, we ask why their submissions are being overlooked and trivialised in such a blatant disregard for the stated principles of the modernising agenda. We would like to stress that there has been inadequate consultation with the local community about the redevelopment proposals. Bishopton people knew nothing about the proposals until February of this year, when BAE/Redrow unveiled their plans. Immediately following this, the Community Council organised a referendum and a massive 92% of the voters said "NO" to the new development. This was followed by an unprecedented and spectacular response to the proposed alteration to the Structure Plan when 2,500 representations were made to the Structure Plan Manager. The people of Bishopton feel angry, frustrated and deeply suspicious of why the proposals are being surreptitiously railroaded through the planning process despite the massive public opposition that exists. The omission of these 2,500 representations from the Structure Manager's report serves to reinforce these feelings.

Reference is made in the report to the Community Liaison Group which has recently been established so that the preferred developers can claim to have involved the local community in their plans. However as the majority of the local community oppose the principle of development of the ROF site, it could be argued that progress will be difficult as a result of the two widely differing and inherently irreconcilable viewpoints. It is unacceptable to pretend that consultation is meaningful when many Bishopton people feel that they have been kept in the dark about BAE's proposals so that it would be too late to influence events in any way. Moreover, when they do attempt to exercise their right to make a submission to the Structure Plan Alteration, their opinions are inexplicably omitted from the consultation exercise! The opportunity to object to the Structure Plan only becomes purposeful when the Structure Plan Manager can explain why he believes the objections made by the 2,500 residents are not valid.

We again question why vital information is being deliberately withheld from members of the Structure Plan Committee. We claim that this action totally discredits the entire planning process, and that you cannot be expected to compromise your individual integrity as an elected representative of the people by supporting this misleading report in its references to Bishopton and the ROF site.

We therefore seek your reassurance that you will NOT accept the recommendations of report 1(e) in relation to Bishopton and await your written response to the points we have raised.

Yours sincerely,

Stewart Ferguson

Chairman

Anthony Sowersby

Vice Chairman

On behalf of Bishopton Action Group On behalf of Bishtopton Action Group

Enclosed: One of the 2,500 letters of objections submitted to the Structure Plan Manager

Back

Meeting with Structure Plan Manager 27/09/05

BAG met with Mr Goodstadt (GCVSP) and Mr Darracott (Director of Planning and Transport) on 27 September 2005. Mr Goodstadt assured us minutes of the meeting would be provided to us in time for our input at the Bishopton Community Liaison Group meeting (31 October 2005). The minutes have failed to appear. Lucky then that BAG recorded the meeting.

Back

Letter to Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee Members - 4/10/05

Bishopton Action Group

c/o Kilallan

Sachelcourt Avenue

Bishopton

PA7 5AA

4 October 2005

Dear Councillor

Report on the Assessment of Potential for Urban Expansion

We formally request that you use the powers vested in you not to designate Bishopton as an 'area for urban expansion' when you are asked to approve the above named report on Monday, 10 October 2005. For your information, we met with Mr Goodstadt and his team on 27 September 2005 and discussed many topics. Few of our fears were quashed. The meeting was recorded with full consent. We write to all Joint Committee members.

Please read in conjunction with The Report’s Appendix E.

Issue 1. We hold strong beliefs that the proposals do not adhere to the Guiding Principles of the Plan. Any development should avoid negative impacts on Health and Safety grounds. Also, in accordance with Strategic Policy 2 (SP2), we find no independent evidence that work has been carried out by the Planning Authority to assess the potential for development. Also, any development of significant scale will change the nature of Bishopton forever. It will not reinforce or strengthen the existing community nor will it support it. We (the residents, majority of) can see no benefit to our Community. When asked repeatedly, Mr Goodstadt could offer no reason as to how Bishopton would benefit from any expansion.

Issue 2. It is not accepted that the Strategic Planning Authority for this region should dismiss its responsibility for the Health and Safety of its populous. SP2 states that the Planning Authority needs to assess potential before change. This is clearly not happening and apparently, according to Mr Goodstadt, represents another 'misunderstanding' on our part (our first 'misunderstanding' being the omission of 2500 letters of representation from his 31 August 2005 report).

Renfrewshire Council (RC) does not have an Environmental Health Department. They do have a division of Environmental Services which, by their own admission, will be hard pressed to meet the unique challenges Bishopton holds (RC/BAG Meeting, 27 May 2005, and Public Meeting, 21 June 2005). We cannot accept that responsibility for our safety rests with the landowner. We have drawn to your attention our concerns in the most proper way we can. Strategic Planning must ensure that the safety of all is maintained. At best, this is a moral obligation although we believe it to be legal. Whilst any doubt exists as to the Community's well-being, Bishopton must remain firmly in its current classification.

The site at Bishopton is unique although BAe claim it is not. They have refused many times to give us the data required to make our own assessments (which we have the rare expertise to do) on other 'comparable' sites. We believe such data does not exist or else what have they to hide? PAN 33 Paragraph 55 states there are 'no generic UK standards for acceptable concentrations of contaminants'. Must we be lab rats in our own homes? Think risk to population versus the benefit of unwanted houses. Risk to benefit has never been mentioned.

Paragraph 28 of PAN 33 states that 'effective policy should be based on accurate information'.

Issue 3. We reaffirm that Renfrewshire Council is a vested interest party. We draw your attention to the report for RC's Planning and Development Policy Board, 9 August 2005, paragraph 4.15 where the Director of Finance states at length that revenue from homeowners forms a significant income and that any development would be welcome. Also, the Bishopton Community Liaison Group (CLG), recognised by RC as a conduit of information, at its inaugural meeting, (19 May 2005) determined RC to have a vested interest (CLG1 Minutes, Ref 19).

Issue 4. The response to the matter of BR 4/05 falls way short of a good excuse. This document is the re-branded CASS Associates report. If the Joint Committee were being open, why re-brand it as their own? To attempt to pass it off as a document that could fulfil SP2 is deplorable. Are we 'misunderstanding' again? We restate that the Planning Authority should determine potential and certainly not, in effect, the landowner via a self commissioned third party report. In our original letter of objection dated 17 June 2005, we did make reference to the CASS Associates professional standards in paragraph 13, when we commented on the 'vague statements and lack of detail in Background Report 4/05'.

Issue 5. Questions surrounding the consultation are not agreed upon. From the Bishopton perspective, very little has been given and what has, amounts to lip service. The 2000 Plan, SP2 does indeed refer to Bishopton but gives no indication as to the potential scale of development or where such development might be located within, what is, a very large site. The Scottish Executive's working party had one member within it from the Bishopton Community Council (BCC). This person was sworn to secrecy post the meeting. We do not refute that dialogue is currently ongoing between the residents, RC and the Structure Plan Team, however, with bodies such as RC devoting much time to discussing, then agreeing with a 'decision in principle' (Planning and Development Policy Board Meeting, 8 September 2005) to make Bishopton an 'area for urban expansion' you might understand how we perceive any dialogue to be mere lip service. According to Mr Goodstadt, the decision to make Bishopton an expansion area in principle has not been made to date, yet RC have given it the green light already. Perplexed; we are. Back to front; it would seem it is.

You are urged not to make the decision early next week that will agree Bishopton becomes such an area. Very much more consideration and understanding of the site is required.

Issue 6. We are fully aware of the process that holds the future of Bishopton.

Issue 7. The points we initially raised with regard to the impact of the development, if grafted onto Bishopton, were not general as implied. On the contrary they were incredibly specific. There is nothing general about asking how infrastructure will be funded, schooling provision made, rail and road improvements implemented, a motorway alteration managed, how the two communities will link and what the flooding issues might be. These points aside, we fear deeply that the proposed piecemeal remediation of the site would form the biggest danger. What if a third party developer ceases work because he comes across a heavily contaminated area that is not economically viable to sort? The promised new facilities would not appear. Adjacent new houses would be next to some of the most contaminated land in the country and the developer would do nothing due to financial or other constraints. Just how will Bishopton benefit from this? We restate that a full site risk assessment must be done now as part of SP2 to assess potential for the whole site.

Issue 8. At this juncture we accept that the Joint Committee has given careful consideration to scales of growth.

Issue 9. We have anecdotal evidence that discussion surrounding the development of the site goes back some six years (Councillor Harkins, RC Meeting, 8 September 2005). This would predate the 2000 Plan. If indeed the inclusion of Bishopton is a response to the increased forecast for housing as stated, then why was the site a discussion topic six years ago and not included within the 2000 Plan?

Issue 10. The current Community is already well provided for. Any increase in facilities would only provide to serve an increased Community. There would be no net benefit for Bishopton.

Issue 11. We welcome the acknowledgement that standards of remediation should come up to the specifications as laid down by SEPA. The sooner RC invite SEPA to involve themselves the safer our residents will feel.

Issue 12. A Business Park. This is old ground and one only needs to look around to see units are still standing empty all over the immediate district.

Issue 13. The wildlife in and around our village is important to the residents in terms of the amenity it brings.

Within The Report and in addition to Appendix E, reference is made to:-

Page 42. The reference to The National Planning Framework (NPF), suggesting that Bishopton should become an area for urbanisation. Please read paragraph 155 of the NPF. It is suggested that Bishopton has 'good transport links'. Half a sentence is not justification for what is happening to our Community.

2(d). The BCC letter dated 3 June 2005 to the Structure Plan Team supports the view that Bishopton is rural in nature and that our existing Community will not be reinforced.

5(b). This Community will not be strengthened by any major change on this scale. It is accepted within the village that our Community will be destroyed (Iain Langlands, Councillor for Bishopton, letter dated 20 June 2005) should urbanisation take place.

5(c). Probably enough said about the hazards to health for now.

We fully understand that you will look to you colleagues from RC (Cllr's Hood and Green) for the latest information. We hope they in turn have spoken to Councillor Langlands to attain the latest views and feelings within the village.

For the record, Mr Goodstadt has been personally invited to address Bishopton at a public meeting to gauge for himself the true feelings about what is proposed. We suggest that this would be appropriate during the next round of consultation. We would also be supportive of a Committee field trip to Bishopton so you might see first hand this fine Community at work, as was suggested at the GCVSP Meeting, 29 August 2005, where you will be made most sincerely welcome.

For the avoidance of doubt, we are not implying that the site as a whole should be left to fester. There is a better way.

Yours sincerely

Stewart Ferguson                                              Anthony Sowersby

Chairman                                                           Vice-Chairman

On Behalf of the Bishopton Action Group

Back

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan (GCVSP) Joint Committee meeting 10 October 2005.

Bishopton was approved as a "preferred" area for Urban Expansion. Please note that no decision has been taken as to whether it will actually be an area of Urban Expansion. Despite our very best efforts to persuade our Renfrewshire Council representatives (Cllrs Green/Hood) that they should give more consideration to Bishopton's case, they failed to invoke a debate on the subject at the required time. As usual Bishopton Action Group found itself lettering the Committee members directly just days before to redress the information imbalance. BAG were in strong attendance.

Back

New Community Council 28/10/05

Well done to David Woodrow and the "New Bishopton Community Council" councillors, new and old, for stepping up to the plate and pledging action on behalf of their community. BAG, Bishopton Community Council, Cllr Iain Langlands, MSP Annabel Goldie, Erskine-Inchinnan-Houston Community Councils all agree that what is proposed is very wrong for Bishopton and have stated so in writing. All parties involved have their own very individual roles to play. Residents have faith, we are united in this cause though there are others out there who would like to "divide and conquer". Stay sharp.

Back