May I thank you for taking the time to come and meet Bishopton residents today, and for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of those present at your surgery. Our meeting proved very useful and informative, and I have summarised below some of the main points from our discussions:
You agreed that you stood by what you said a year ago regarding certain safeguards that should be put in place regarding the proposed development i.e. there should be no physical disruption to the lives of people in Bishopton, that traffic to the site must be distanced from the village, that any development should be independent of the existing village and have its own infrastructure, and that the site must be thoroughly cleaned up to high standards. I explained to you in some detail why the residents feel that none of these principles is being adhered to. In particular, this is due to the fact that BAE/Redrow have quite clearly stated that in Phase 1 there will be 400 houses built with no community facilities and no access roads (despite what was promised at their exhibition last February) and that the development will be "tagged on" to the existing village, with a resultant overburdening of our already stretched facilities and infrastructure (i.e. roads, railway system, dentist, health centre, schools etc). I asked you directly what you could do to help us to achieve a separate community being built with its own infrastructure - indeed, most Bishopton residents would feel less aggrieved if this were the case, and it would certainly be a possible compromise solution.
It would be helpful if you could clarify your views on how we can work together to achieve this goal.
I outlined in some detail our fears that the decontamination issues are not being properly addressed, and our concern that our health and safety might be compromised by the need to generate revenue from house sales to pay for the remediation and decontamination of the site. As mentioned in the CLG March 2006 Newsletter which we gave you, Bob Darracott, Director of Planning of Renfrewshire Council has confirmed that, contrary to what the public have been led to believe, the whole site will not be decontaminated prior to the commencement of building work. However, before any land is built upon, that piece of land will be decontaminated.
You said that you were not aware that it would be piecemeal decontamination only, and that this was not what the developers had told you. You undertook to look into this matter.
We discussed the fact that the developers will shortly be submitting an application for a landfill site, so that waste will be contained within the ROF site. As mentioned in the Director of Planning’s January 10th report, "the contaminated material which cannot be cleaned and recycled for reuse" will then be moved somewhere else i.e. within the site. So all of the contaminated material (this might include soil, shrubs, trees, equipment and crushed buildings), which cannot be decontaminated, will be lifted, transported and deposited in the landfill within the site. We are concerned about the dangers from airborne contaminants during this process, and feel that it would be simpler and safer to leave the land undisturbed. We are also concerned about the fact that BAE do not have a satisfactory solution for dealing with the contaminated buildings immediately adjacent to existing houses.
You said that you were not aware of the fact that BAE would be submitting an application for a landfill site, and that you would investion this.
We explained why we feel that the preliminary site investigations have not been properly carried out by BAE. Rural Bishopton has been designated as being suitable "in principle" as an urban expansion area (as per Structure Plan) BEFORE any investigation as to whether the site is suitable for large scale development, BEFORE any assessment of infrastructure requirements and BEFORE any risk assessment to health and safety of residents or future residents has been carried out. There has been no independent assessment carried out (other than the Cass report produced on behalf of the developers) to justify the designation of Bishopton as an urban expansion area/ community growth area. The Envirocentre Report (a copy of which has been included in the reading material provided to you today) was highly critical of the approach taken in Cass report, and yet this has been conveniently ignored. BAE has admitted that they do not have a full audit of the chemicals/contaminants which exist within the ROF site, due to the fact that there has been 70 years of largely uncontrolled site activity. It is obvious that, if you don't know all the toxicants that are present on the ROF site, it will be impossible to locate these, because you don't know what you are looking for. Similarly, a BAE spokesperson recently declared that they had taken samples from 600 areas along with 1300 soil samples to determine how the site should be decontaminated. It seems a large quantity of samples until you realise that the site is over 2300 acres, and that this represents roughly one sample per size of a football pitch.
You agreed that the ROF site was somewhat of "a mystery" and that you would seek further advice on whether the sampling methods used by BAE are adequate.
I outlined why Bishopton residents feel that they are being unfairly treated in the way the proposed development is being processed through the planning system. Johnstone is the only other area within Renfrewshire designated as an Urban Expansion Area/Community Growth area. However, Johnstone will be dealt with through the local plan while Bishopton will be processed through an Outline Planning Application and the Local Plan will be altered retrospectively. Johnstone residents will be able to participate in the planning process and have their suggestions incorporated within the Local Plan. They will also be allowed a public inquiry. This is in stark contrast to Bishopton, where Bishopton residents are being denied the right of appeal - it is no use to appeal against the local plan when outline planning permission has already been granted. We also questioned why Renfrewshire Council is wasting staff resources, time, consultants' fees etc by considering planning applications from the developers BEFORE the Scottish Executive has granted approval to the principle of development of the ROF site.
You undertook to look into why Bishopton is being treated differently to Johnstone, and why Outline Planning Application is being used to by-pass the Local Plan process and deny Bishopton the same rights of appeal as Johnstone residents.
You referred to the Planning Bill on Modernising the Planning system that will become law, and the emphasis in the recent government White Paper on openness, transparency, and the need to involve the local community in the formal planning process. The people of Bishopton have not been properly consulted on the principle of development of the ROF site. The Local Plan was published for public consultation in October 2002 but made no mention of the nature and scale of the development. It was only at the time of the BAE exhibition in February 2005 when the plans to build 2500 houses became known to the public. Since then, there has been a massive public outcry against the plans. We discussed how the residents of Bishopton feel that their wishes have been totally ignored, and outlined the flaws which have occurred so far in the formal planning process. Despite a massive number of 4,700 letters of objection being delivered to the Structure Plan Manager, with hundreds of personal comments and highly technical information provided in individual letters, these have not been properly recorded and the issues raised have been totally ignored. The Structure Plan has proceeded unaltered to the Scottish Executive.
You agreed that the scale of development was not known to the people of Bishopton until 2005 and acknowledged the strength of feeling that exists within the village against this development in its current form.
It was a pity that time was so short for you to hear all the individual concerns from Bishopton residents present at your surgery today. In addition, many people who would like to have met with you were unable to do so because of work commitments. The above points form only a small portion of the many concerns that we have. However, I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters further in the near future.
Thank you again for agreeing to look into the matters referred to above. I look forward to receiving your reply, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.
