Click on link below to go to article

Motorway FOI Material Raises Some Serious Questions 28/10/06

In a previous FIO we have seen Structure Plan officials and Renfrewshire Council officials working closely with the developers to push forward the development at Bishopton ROF, but we were surprised to find officials at the Scottish Executive under pressure with regards to the motorway STAG appraisal and telling the Minister for Transport " Urgent: A decision by 9 February 2005 would allow us to meet the timescales agreed with the developer". We do not understand why officials were working to the developer's timescales and why  the Minister was given only 2 days to make his decision.

Despite three independent reports, one being quite critical of the developer's submission another claiming that more appraisal was required and one report claiming the development of 29 hectares of land for commercial use within a 15 year period as unrealistic, the official recommended "You are asked to endorse our recommendation that TRNMD write to the developer advising him that we are content that providing access to the M8 motorway represents the best transport solution for the development and we would be prepared to promote the necessary road orders."

Another part which troubles us is that one of the reports is dated March 2005, while the Minister was asked to make his decision by 9 February. Did the Minister not see this report before making his decision?

One vital piece of information missing from the reports is that in appraising the development no one has assessed the risk to human health.

Have a look at the files. They make very interesting reading. They also confirm our view that the jobs bonanza is not likely to happen (as we all knew would be the case – and when the jobs do not materialise, what is to stop them building even more houses?). NB All of these files are pdf files. You will require to have Adobe reader installed on your machine in order to be able to read these files.

Email from Scot Exec official who claims to be under stress (47KB)

Environ Report(321KB)

Report to Transport Minister (332KB)

SteerDavisGleaveReport (762KB)

James Barr Report (796KB)

Back

Freedom of Information at a Price 6/10/2006

Members of BAG have been trying to establish the history of events surrounding the development proposals at Bishopton ROF. They have done this by writing directly to the Director of Planning and asking questions or by making FOI requests.

The Head of Planning has decided that he does not want to correspond about past events anymore and has stated

"I pointed out that the Council has limited staff resources and that there is little to be gained from committing these limited resources to re-examining past events rather than dealing with matters which will determine the future development of the ROF site in particular and Renfrewshire in general.  I also indicated that I hoped that my letter of 7 July would conclude the series of correspondence. Clearly you have chosen not to take heed of my views and you continue with the correspondence....I have responded in some considerable detail to the large number of points that you have raised in relation to these processes and have to inform you that I will not be responding to further correspondence on these matters..."

The trouble is that they have never adequately explained why they opted to process the Bishopton ROF development using an outline application rather than through the Local Plan. So effectively they are stonewalling us.

When it came to Freedom of Information we hit another brick wall at Renfrewshire Council. Members of BAG had chosen a year from the period 1999 to 2006 and then wrote off to the relevant authority requesting under the FOI documents  relating to ROF for that year.

The Scottish Executive responded asking them to be a bit more specific then sent the requested documents free of charge.  

Renfrewshire Council on the other hand decided that they would supply the documents under a different law, the Environmental Information Act. Unlike the FOI act where there is a maximum charge of £50 for supplying documents, under this other law 'the sky is the limit'. They calculated that the cost would be £850.87 per request (£453.43 for staff time and 1104 pages @ 36p=£397.44) Strangely they quoted the exact same number of pages for each year and the same cost. What were Renfrewshire Council’s intentions by charging such exorbitant fees? Why did they specify the exact same number of pages of documents for each year? We will let you make up your own mind.

Back

Minutes Reveal Work Behind Scenes 6/10/2006

In one of the documents which we obtained through FOI  we found the minutes of a meeting of a Planning Liaison Group. The members of this group were Renfrewshire Council officials, Structure Plan officials, BAE Systems, Redrow housebuilder and Cass Associates. In all of the correspondence received from Renfrewshire Council in which they detailed the planning process, they never once mentioned this important Planning Liaison group.

The date of the Minutes is September 2003. In these minutes they discuss how the ROF development will be processed through the Structure Plan and specify the timetable. They also specify that an outline planning application will be submitted. The Structure Plan manager even offers to change the date of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Committee meeting to help. It is worth noting that at this stage there had been no studies done which would justify the development of 2300 houses at ROF.

NB At the same time as this meeting was taking place Renfrewshire Council officials were preparing the Local Plan and yet this plan (which was adopted in March 2006) contains no details about the scale of the proposed development.

To most people this will not seem too significant. However we have spent months examining this process and we will explain the significance:

• If the details had been provided in the Local Plan, the public would have had the opportunity to have their objections heard by an independent Reporter.  By opting to process the Bishopton development through an outline planning application the objections are determined by Renfrewshire Council Planning Board and the public has no right of appeal whereas the developer does have a right of appeal. Officials make the recommendations to the Renfrewshire Council Planning Board and as we can see from this meeting, the officials appear to be in favour of the development. So this method therefore would seem heavily weighted in favour of the developer.
• Using the Local Plan process instead of an outline planning appplication, the public would also have had a chance to participate in the planning process and to help decide such things as the location and type of development.
• Using the Local Plan process the officials would also have specified the parameters of the development instead of the developer calling all the shots in the outline planning application. 

Why would Renfrewshire Council officials and the Structure Plan manager agree to this method, when they knew the public would be so disadvantaged?

It is worth noting that although this meeting took place in 2003, it was Feb 2005 before the public became aware of this proposed development.

We have searched the Renfrewshire Council Planning Board reports and the first indication that we can find of a report to the Planning Board is March 2005, where the Director of Planning recommends to the Planning Board:

"Agree it is appropriate that the Structure Plan Committee considers proposals for the treatment of the ROF site at the level of development proposed by BAE Systems".

Is this how democracy works in Scotland - officials work closely with developers (even moving Joint Committee meetings to help) without the knowledge or permission of our elected representatives?

BAG has always claimed that Bishopton was well and truly "stitched up". Now the public can make up its own mind on this.

One of the key concerns of the Renfrewshire Council officials at the meeting was that:

"if the process is too swift, there may be a public perception that the development has been pushed through"

It is not the timescale that has resulted in the perception that this development has been pushed through. It is the actions of the officials

Click on link below to download minutes. Document is a PDF file and you will require Adobe Reader to view it

Minutes Planning Liaison Group 17 September 2003

Back