In the introductory session at the Examination in Public (EiP), we described how a serious error had been made, in that the National Planning Framework described Bishopton as the "preferred location for long term expansion to the west of Glasgow" – this was despite the fact that neither the Scottish Executive nor the planning authorities had undertaken any assessment of potential, nor had any evidence been provided to substantiate the term "preferred". This statement in the National Planning Framework was cited in the Structure Plan Alteration to justify the designation of Bishopton as a Community Growth Area (CGA). In the later sessions at EiP we proved beyond doubt that there is no justification for designating Bishopton as a Community Growth Area (CGA)
Roads capacity
It was highlighted at the EiP that there are already problems of capacity on the M8 at the Kingston Bridge, and between junctions 26 and 29. These problems can only be aggravated by the cumulative effects of developments at Bishopton and Inverclyde, and the increased traffic on the motorway as a result of normal growth. In the Supplementary Written statement to the Third Alteration to the Structure Plan, the proposal for a new junction on the M8 to serve Bishopton is mentioned and it is stated that "this will be assessed as part of a masterplanning"exercise. Motorway access for a Community Growth Area at Bishopton has serious implications for the strategic road network and capacity problems should have been assessed at the strategic level – the masterplan for development is not a strategic document. Moreover, STAG 2 detailed assessment has not been completed to determine the best option for the motorway junction. The timing of the motorway junction is vague – Transport Scotland in their statement said that they intend to "advise a suspensive condition restricting the timing of any new junction to ensure that the delivery of the housing phases is supported by an appropriate level of employment use". We have argued that the actual take up of land for employment purposes is doubtful - simply setting aside land for potential employment use does not guarantee that the forecasted (and hypothetical) number of jobs will actually materialise.
At the EiP, our expert witness referred to the lane closure on the flyover by the airport which is currently causing tailbacks from the St James roundabout to where the junction at Bishopton is proposed (See videos of tailback here). However, the additional traffic generated from the Bishopton and Inverclyde developments will be sufficient to require a full lane to itself, so the closure of the lane on the flyover exactly simulates what would be expected every day at peak periods if the CGA is approved – i.e. tailbacks and problems in accessing the M8 at the proposed Bishopton junction.
In the debate on roads capacity, our expert witness described how our local village roads are already substandard and do not conform to Renfrewshire Council’s "Guidelines for Development Roads". This is adequately demonstrated by the example of the dangerous manoeuvres required by school buses turning from Greenock Road into Kingston Road (View videos here). It is patently obvious, even to the most cynical of observers, that adding any development traffic will saturate existing junctions and exacerbate the current situation. Traffic from the new development cannot be accommodated safely. From a common sense point of view, the sheer size of the development will mean that large parts of the site are not within easy walking distance of the station, post office, bank, shops, library, hotel etc – people will use their cars to access these local facilities. The increased number of car journeys, on substandard roads infrastructure, is not sustainable. Upgrading our local roads will incur huge financial costs for the developer. The fiasco of access roads to the proposed development was mentioned as an example of how masterplanning is not working. The developers have continually changed their minds about the phasing of access roads, and the current plans submitted to Renfrewshire Council propose that the totally unsuitable roads of Station Road, Newton Road and Rossland Crescent will be used as the main access routes into the new development for Phase 1.
Rail capacity
In the session on rail capacity at the EiP, it was highlighted that there has been a large increase in the number of rail passengers in general (rail passenger usage has increased by 20.6% in Scotland over the two years 2004 – 2006 according to Scottish Transport Statistics 2006). There are capacity issues on both the Inverclyde and Ayrshire routes which are particularly busy at peak times. This was highlighted in Miss Annabel Goldie's travel logs which were submitted as part of her statement, where she details the number of passengers who board at Bishopton Station and regularly have to stand. It was confirmed also by Network Rail's statement where they state that "on the Inverclyde lines 3 trains in each peak convey more passengers than there are seats". They indicated the problems caused by the line being so busy: "The section of track between Glasgow and Paisley is heavily utilised at peak times and it would be difficult to run additional trains at present." As we have pointed out, when the proposed developments at Bishopton and Inverclyde are factored into the current situation, there are serious concerns whether the rail network will be able to cope with the likely increase in passenger demand. The problems are centred on the issues of rolling stock capacity, line capacity and Glasgow Central Station platform capacity (where there are only a limited number of platforms available and most are relatively short but must often accommodate two or more trains).
The proposed improvements to the rail network resulting from the Glasgow Airport Rail Link and the Cross Rail project were mentioned, but it was argued that these would have little impact on Bishopton passengers travelling to work in Glasgow during the busy morning peak times. The possible solutions to the problems of rail capacity that were suggested at the EiP e.g. leasing or purchasing additional rolling stock, increasing the number of trains with 4, 6 or even 8 carriages (involving major infrastructure improvements and lengthening of existing platforms), all have significant funding implications. It is not clear where the funding would come from as this is not addressed in the Route Utilisation Strategy, nor do we know if the Scottish Executive will make any mention of it in the High Level Output Specification document to be published this summer.
The problem of car parking in and around Bishopton Station was highlighted (the additional 80-100 spaces created recently are now almost entirely taken up with no visible reduction in on-street parking) as was the difficulty of accessing the station from the new car parks (particularly for disabled people) which are too far away and cause problems for pedestrians using the underbridge at Station Road. More people from surrounding areas are using the park and ride facilities at Bishopton, causing a further increase in rail passenger numbers.
The problems of rail capacity and the likely detrimental effects on the quality of life of Bishopton residents were not adequately addressed at strategic level in the Stucture Plan.
Contamination and Remediation
At the EiP, we showed that the important issues of contamination and remediation have not been properly considered by the Joint Committee – their argument is that everything will be dealt with at the planning application stage. In their statement, they say that the assessment of contamination, its details and how to deal with it are beyond their competence – and yet they are responsible for designating Bishopton, with the largest contaminated site in Scotland, as a CGA. Similarly, Renfrewshire Council has admitted that it does not have the expertise to deal with planning applications for the ROF site, and has engaged an independent consultant. This consultant is looking at data supplied by the developers. According to SEPA’s statement, "It is not SEPA’s role to investigate or assess potential contamination on a site". They will have to licence the landfill site, and will become involved as the regulatory authority if the site or parts of it are designated as "special" under the contaminated land legislation, which to date has not been done.
Our expert witnesses proved beyond doubt, during the two sessions on contamination and remediation, that before the principle of strategic development is established, we need to know more about the extent of the contamination and the possible adverse effects of burning over 500 buildings and exposing our community to the dangers from airborne contaminants. Our independent expert witnesses have highlighted serious flaws and inadequacies in the developers’ sampling methods, and have illustrated that there are too many unknowns to justify the designation of Bishopton as a CGA. No-one knows enough about all the chemicals and the mix of processes that occurred during the site’s history. It is possible that not all contaminants will be identified, as you have to know what you are looking for in order to test for it - simply put, if you don’t know what you are looking for, then you won’t find it because you won’t have tested for it.
In addition, we have pointed out that any information on contamination/remediation has come from only one source, - the developers, who have repeatedly stated that large scale housing and business development is necessary to fund the clean up of the site. We have always argued that our health and safety should not be placed secondary to the need to generate profit from house sales to fund the remediation of the site. Our fear is that, if the development does not generate sufficient revenue, will the site still be thoroughly cleaned up? We also have fears about the economic viability of properly remediating the site – what happens if it becomes too costly?
We discussed how the Bishopton ROF site is unique, adjoining the village of Bishopton, and that householders living in such close proximity to the site are worried about the dangers of disturbing contaminated land. The impact assessment which accompanied the Structure Plan did not consider the huge size and complexities of the site, or the fact that records are poor and may not contain all the information about contaminants which may have been used on the site. We are worried about the landraise, where the contaminated waste from the site will be dumped. This will be open for about 15 years while the development takes place. The fear again is that the process of excavation and transportation may cause danger from contaminants dispersing into the air. In the impact assessment, the Joint Committee did not even consider the safety aspect of having a new housing development next to a hazardous landraise site. This landraise is located within the area referred to as a community woodland park. The community woodland park is also adjacent an Environmental Test Facility. (Would you take your children for a walk next to an Environmental Test Facility where explosives and items manufactured from depleted uranium may be tested, and near a hazardous landraise, where contaminants are dumped?)
The Structure Plan Manager has said that the Joint Committee were in full possession of all the facts when they made the decision to designate Bishopton as a CGA. We have argued that this is wrong, since the only other independent report, the Envirocentre Report, which was critical of both the methods and the costings in the 2001 Cass report (the basis for current remediation and development proposals), was never presented to any of the committee members. Also, Renfrewshire Council did not ensure that the follow up report by the Envirocentre, which could have provided more vital information, was ever carried out.
The developers have stated that they have successfully remediated other brownfield sites. But what is the measure of success? The fact that a site has been completed does not prove it will be free from problems in the future. Also, as we heard at the EiP, there has been no public health monitoring carried out at places such as Chorley, so we do not know if there are any problems yet. Every day we hear horror stories about former brownfield sites which were probably considered to be successfully remediated at the time, and now householders have been told not to dig in their gardens for fear of disturbing toxic chemicals, or we see media programmes about people who cannot sell their homes because contaminants have been found on their land. We only very briefly alluded to Corby, where toxic waste disturbed in the clean-up at a former steel works is being blamed for birth deformities suffered by a group of about thirty children. More than 20 families are planning to sue Corby Borough Council in a high court action due to be heard this year.
We must stop this unwanted development from going ahead. The community, in over 9,000 letters of objection in four rounds of consultation, has continually shown its opposition at every stage of the formal planning process. The site has to be made fit for its proposed use whatever that might be – it is not up to us to decide this, but the community must be consulted. All we can say is that we do not want large scale housing development on contaminated land which is totally unsuitable and the remediation of which will place our health and safety at risk.
To conclude
We do not want our community, and future generations to be exposed to the dangers from the proposed development of the ROF site. In addition, we have argued that the problems of road and rail capacity were not adequately considered at strategic level, and that huge problems will result if the development at Bishopton is allowed to proceed. Because of the presence of the elevated railway line, it will be impossible to have an integrated, sustainable development – we will always be a community physically and geographically separated, and there will be no social cohesion between "old" and "new" Bishopton. We feel strongly that at the EiP we have proved beyond doubt that there is insufficient evidence to designate Bishopton as a CGA in the Structure Plan. We trust that the Reporter will appreciate our arguments, and the overwhelming evidence presented by our expert witnesses, and make the appropriate recommendation to the Scottish Ministers.
