To view some of the objection letters which have been submitted during round 2 of the consultation process click on the links above (Annabel Goldie, Iain Langlands and Bishopton Action group)

To view one of the articles on this page click on one of the links below:

• BAG Report on Structure Plan Joint Committee Meeting 01/02/06 
• Structure Plan Manager's Report - Poor Effort  29/01/06

BAG Report on Structure Plan Joint Committee Meeting 01/02/06

Meeting of the Joint Structure Plan Committee 30.01.06

A total whitewash!

The joint Committee met to consider the results of the second round of consultation regarding the Alteration to the Structure Plan and the proposal to designate Bishopton as a Community Growth Area.

The SP Manager, Vincent Goodstadt, referred to the responses received from Bishopton residents. He wished to draw attention to these responses to avoid any misunderstandings and to show that all representations had been circulated to the councillors. He also mentioned the report received from Renfrewshire Council, which outlines the issues raised by the community. He said that the Community Council, the local councillor, MSP Annabel Goldie, and the Action Group had also raised concerns. He mentioned that a lot of the concerns relate to how remediation will take place so that there are no adverse effects on the community. He understood that there are concerns relating to health and safety, local services, amenities etc, but at SP level they can only recognise these concerns and set them down as matters that have to be taken into account. He thought that some of the issues raised were not unique to this development, and that the Joint Committee should not usurp the role of the local planning authority, SEPA, and all the other agencies who will be involved in the process. He said that there are safeguards in the plan, and if a proposal is brought forward which does not support the issues, it would not be taken forward. With regard to the issue of decontamination, he said that the questions asked were not for the Joint Committee to answer, and that the processes that are involved will address these. SEPA will help to manage the processes through their licensing powers. He commented that:

• The Joint Committee has recorded the concerns and put safeguards in place.
• Other statutory agencies will now take forward the proposals.
• The alternative would be not just to drop it (i.e. the designation of Bishopton as a Community Growth Area) but to find other locations which would suit the criteria.
• It would be remiss of the Joint Committee not to promote further work to bring forward this development

Mr Goodstadt asked for any comments the Director of Planning remained silent as did Councillor Green, our sole council representative at the meeting (our other SP representative, Councillor Hood, was absent). The only observation was from the Joint Committee Convenor, Councillor Malik, who noted that the local authority is happy with it!!!! The report was accepted without any debate.

The following points should be noted:

• Although the figure of 2,200+ objections was mentioned, we doubt that the councillors realise that in terms of our small village population, this is roughly one objection per household.
• Neither of our local councillors on the SP Committee has said a single word at any of the meetings about this proposed development and the concerns raised by our community and yet the other SP councillors would have expected them to take the lead on this important decision that affects the future of our village.
• The report was accepted by the Joint Committee on the basis that Renfrewshire Council "is happy with it". Bishopton people have been sold down the river by our so called elected representatives, and in particular by the Director of Planning, who has chosen to ignore the massive opposition demonstrated at every opportunity, and to disregard all the evidence relating to the hazards that exist within the grounds of the ROF.
• The SP Committee have totally abdicated their responsibility by saying that it is up to other agencies such as the local authority and SEPA to sort out any problems. Why designate Bishopton as a Community Growth area before the problems of decontamination and remediation have even been properly investigated? We do not yet know if the land is suitable or even safe for housing development, and yet the SP Committee is confident enough to take the decision to designate Bishopton as a Community Growth area and let the processes take care of the problems!
• It is complete nonsense to say that the processes will address the contamination issues. So far, our community has no faith in a planning process that pretends to seek our views, then to patently ignore them. Why should we therefore have confidence in any future stages of the processes?
• The SP Manager is totally wrong to say that the issues relating to the ROF are not unique. The ROF site IS unique.

N.B. It was announced at the end of the meeting that the SP Manager, Mr. Goodstadt has resigned. As he has been the main driver of the proposals, it is disappointing to note that he will not be around to witness the fruits of his labour, or to take responsibility for any future problems associated with the development of the ROF site.

Here is what one Bishopton resident who attended the meeting had to say:

I am appalled at the way this decision was taken. No one raised a voice, or asked a question, before the paper was approved. It was a total whitewash.

Structure Plan Manager's Report - Poor Effort  29/01/06

Below is an extract from the Structure Plan Manager's report on consultation responses regarding Bishopton. BAG submitted a 17 page letter of objection, 1632 standard letters of objection were submitted, 587 standard letters with additional comments were submitted and 33 individual letters were submitted.

The Structure Plan manager's response is completely inadequate and lacking in substance. There is not much point in having a consultation if this is the level of response from the Structure Plan manager.

BAG has always maintained that the officials are only paying lip service to the consultation process. Please check the extract and see how it compares to the objection letters which we have put on our site. Click on links above (Annabel Goldie, Iain Langlands and Bishopton Action Group).

Extract from Report

Statement of Publicity and Consultation and

Report on Matters kept under Review (Survey)

Issue 6: Bishopton: In terms of the issues raised the majority of these relate to local planning matters and have been considered by Renfrewshire Council (see Appendix X See link at end of extract). Most of these matters will be dealt with in detail through the master planning and planning application process both of which will be the subject of further public consultation. From a strategic perspective the key issues relate to the following matters together with a recommended response. These relate to matters already considered in the Committee's earlier report which still apply.

Issue 6A: Risks to Health and Safety including Responsibility for Assessing Contamination

Response: The applications, particularly for the remediation of the site will provide full details of the identified problems of contamination and set out what is required in terms of remediation. Renfrewshire Council have been in regular contact with BAE Systems and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) regarding the site. Any future remediation measures will require to satisfy both parties in terms of;

any works being carried out in line with current Scottish Executive guidance, and,

to ensure that the site is remediated in a manner which will not affect the end users of the site or the current residents in the vicinity of the site during the remediation phase of the works.

The Health and Safety Executive will also be part of this regulatory framework.

BAE Systems will require, as part of their remediation plans for the site, to ensure that any treatment/removal of contaminated materials is undertaken in such a manner that it does not cause the escape of contaminants to the wider environment. SEPA will also be a statutory consultee on any applications for the development of the site and will be responsible for licensing activities involving waste disposal.

Given the complex and technical nature of this work Renfrewshire Council will as necessary take its own independent advice on these matters.

Issue 6B: Impact on Natural Environment, Wildlife, Landscape and Green Belt

Response: These issues will be specifically addressed through the Environmental Statements to be submitted with the planning applications. Advice will be provided by Scottish Natural Heritage who are a statutory consultee and through detailed assessment against national planning policy and development plan policy.

Issue 6C: Transport Issues

Response: Transport matters will be covered by the Transportation Assessment and the Public Transport Strategy.   The Scottish Executive as Trunk Roads authority as well as the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive will be formally consulted. The formation of a new access to the M8 will be assessed in relation to Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG).

Issue 6D: Requirement for release of land for housing, scale of development, effect on character of village, and impact on infrastructure and facilities 

Response: The need for the release of land to accommodate the long term housing requirements of the Structure Plan Area has been confirmed in the Alteration.   Issues relating to the impact of the development of the Royal Ordnance Factory site will be considered in detail in relation to the proposals submitted for the development of the site. The master plan will provide the vehicle for assessing the acceptability of the proposals in relation to the issues raised by the community.

Issue 6E: Lack of Consideration of Alternative Locations 

Response: The Joint Committee have undertaken an assessment of potential locations and have considered alternative locations proposed through the consultation process. This work was presented as a Technical Report (refer TR B/05) and was part of the public consultation process.

Issue 6F: Lack of information 

Response: The Joint Committee has sought during the consultation process to make available, through a variety of means, all the necessary information to the Bishopton residents. Additionally the Structure Plan Manager has met on various occasions interested parties from Bishopton including the Bishopton Action Group and the Bishopton Liaison Group.

Once the planning applications have been submitted to Renfrewshire Council these will form part of the public register and all submissions from the applicant and consultees will be available for public scrutiny.

Issue 6G: Inclusion of Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory site as a Community Growth Area before detailed assessment undertaken

Response: The planning system in Scotland is plan led and in accordance with this the Structure Plan seeks to give a strategic planning context for considering detailed issues through the submission of planning applications or through the local plan. The site has previously been identified in the 2000 Structure Plan as an area for the assessment of long term potential for development and also in the National Planning Framework (2004).

The planning applications which BAE Systems and their development partner propose to submit will allow detailed issues to be assessed in full before a final decision is made.  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.

Issue 6H: Lack of Consultation and lack of regard for representations which have been made

Response: The Structure Plan Joint Committee has undertaken three consultation exercises in respect of the 2005 Alteration. In addition there have been a number of meetings held locally to discuss the redevelopment Royal Ordnance Factory site. The Joint Committee has previously considered a report on representations received in respect of urban expansion areas. Representations made in respect of the Draft Finalised Written Statement will be considered by the Joint Structure Plan Committee at the meeting on 30 January 2006.

Issue 6I: Development Options for Bishopton: Various representations, including the Bishopton Action Group, have suggested that an acceptable proposal for the redevelopment of Bishopton would be to locate the new housing in the Georgetown area of the Bishopton ROF site.

Response: The detailed options for the renewal of the Bishopton site is a matter for the local planning authority in considering the master plan for the site. It should however be noted that the Georgetown area does not relate as well to the criteria set out in the Plan in terms of relationship to the existing community and rail network.

Link to original report from which Appendix X was taken

http://ilwwcm.renfrewshire.gov.uk/WebReplicas/agendar.nsf/f91574314892c33b80256af600412a7a/25282F7D66143914802570ED00311370/$file/Structure%20Plan%20-%20Alteration.pdf