Mr Vincent Goodstadt Structure Plan Manager Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee 10 Killermont Street GLASGOW G2 3NW Dear Sir Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Consultative Draft, May 2005 Consultation Response, December 2005 I wish to make comment on the above document with respect to considerable comment received by me from Bishopton residents who are concerned about the designation of Bishopton as a Community Growth Area, formerly Area of Urban Expansion. You are aware of my earlier comments described in correspondence of 20 June 2005. I thank you for your response at that time. However, many of the concerns expressed in my earlier correspondence remain. Population Projections The majority of Bishopton residents who have contacted me are sceptical of the population projection figures. Will you present your population analysis and associated independent assessment for public scrutiny? It is clear that the Structure Plan is promoting the growth of Bishopton rather than development of the Royal Ordnance site (ROF) in another non-contiguous location. I understand this is a consequence of National Planning Policy. However, with such a significant development one would expect due consideration of all options. I do not believe that all options have been considered fully. This is evidenced in the Structure Plan consultation process. Consultation You have previously advised me that consultations have been on-going since the Structure Plan was published in 2000. This is not the public's perception. There is a common perception that, whilst statutory procedures may have been followed, there was no attempt to communicate with the wider population who are generally unaware of procedural issues associated with Structure Planning. I believe the consultation process has been flawed. It has failed to engage with Bishopton's residents; the very people who, it is claimed, stand to benefit from any future ROF development. Why did the Structure Plan process not engage fully with Bishopton residents? Public Transport It is clear that the adjacent railway line is influential in the choice of Bishopton for Community Growth. I ask that you note my previous comment (June 2005) that Bishopton is not served effectively by public transport. Whilst residents enjoy a frequent rail service, the single local bus service falls far below any aspirations for a robust, integrated public transport service. If Bishopton's ROF site is developed the situation may become intolerable. What measures may the Structure Plan invoke to ensure appropriate public transport provision in Bishopton? It is clear that current national transport policies encourage the use of public transport. At present, this is simply not an option for a considerable majority of Bishopton's residents. ROF Site Decontamination and Remediation The decontamination and remediation of the ROF site is a major concern to Bishopton's residents. The community seeks reassurances that the regulatory framework associated with such issues will protect and shelter residents from consequential harm. You are aware of the public meeting I hosted in Bishopton Community Centre on 2nd December 2005. Regrettably, the impression given at that meeting was that neither Renfrewshire Council nor the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency had a clear understanding or appreciation of local concerns and failed to convince those in attendance that they would monitor decontamination and remediation processes effectively. Will the Structure Plan be amended to give residents confidence in the statutory processes associated with decontamination and remediation of sites such as ROF Bishopton? Is it procedurally correct that Bishopton be designated a Community Growth Area without reference to the significant decontamination issues associated with site development? Service Provision With regard to Bishopton, there are significant capacity issues relating to schools provision, health services, recreation / community facilities and the road network. Bishopton Health Centre operates from a building that is less than 30% the expected capacity for the population served. Clearly, continuation of this service in its present accommodation is unsustainable in the event of the ROF development proceeding. School provision is a major concern. Renfrewshire Council has not yet made any public statement on its intentions for school provision in any new development. Recreational and community facilities are fundamental to creating cohesion amongst residents of any identifiable settlement. Bishopton does not enjoy local access to many such facilities at present. Without their inclusion in any future development, Bishopton would not function as a community but rather as an overburdened housing estate. What measures may the Structure Plan recommend and promote to ensure the sustainability of communities affected by policies advocated in the Plan? Conclusion As in my correspondence of June 2005, I would wish to see a better balance between the aspirations of Bishopton residents and the wider strategic aspirations of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan. Despite the significant representation made from Bishopton to the Structure Plan Team, to BAE Systems (ROF site owners) and, to a lesser extent, Renfrewshire Council since the development plans for Bishopton were publicised there appears to have been little change to the Structure Plan. The most common response to representations appears to indicate that Bishopton residents will have an opportunity to comment through appropriate planning processes. What can one say to those who wish to comment right now? The principle of Bishopton as a Community Growth Area is not yet accepted by the very residents who will be most affected by any development. Will you reassure Bishopton that our views have been considered and properly analysed? Bishopton residents must be confident that the Structure Plan process and any consequential planning applications for ROF Bishopton will not lead to the ruin of a very desirable place to live. Will you reassure Bishopton that any Structure Plan recommendations will not be detrimental to that which we currently enjoy? I ask that you give the above questions and discussion your most serious consideration and look forward to receiving your detailed response in good time. Yours faithfully cc. Mr R Darracott, Director of Planning & Transport, Renfrewshire Council |