News Articles January 2007 -> June 2007

Click on link below to view article

Review of 2006 2/01/2007

Bishopton Action Group has had an extremely busy year. The year did not get off to a great start in January 2006 when the planning officials at Renfrewshire Council and the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Committee swept aside all the concerns of Bishopton  residents and recommended that Bishopton should be designated as a Community Growth Area. However, we were not surprised by this, as we had suspected that the officials had already made up their minds about the proposed development and that no matter what evidence we presented to them they would ignore it. We were proved right as the officials stated that the issues which we had raised would be dealt with at the next stage  i.e. after the principle of development had been approved. Undaunted we set about our next task, which was to make our case to the Scottish Ministers.

We worked extremely hard making Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests, piecing together the history of the proposed development at ROF and building up a dossier of information. We kept the Scottish Ministers informed of our findings. We also wrote  a very detailed response to the Alteration to the Structure Plan and this response was submitted to the Scottish Executive in June 2006.

As we pieced together the history of events surrounding the ROF development, it became apparent that the planning officials were almost oblivious to the "consultation" process that was taking place. Through FOI we obtained copies of minutes of planning liaison meetings which were attended by planning officials and the developers. These minutes were taken during the period Jan 2003 to Nov 2006. We discovered that while planning officials had stood up at public meetings and stated that they had not made up their minds about the proposed development at Bishopton, in private the planning officials were working with the developers towards the submission of an outline planning application for the ROF site. As Bishopton residents tried hard to participate in the consultation process and to make their voices heard, planning officials were collectively ignoring them and continuing with their own agenda for the ROF site.

In November 2006 we submitted a very detailed response to the Outline Planning Application for the ROF site. This was the culmination of many weeks of work by many dedicated individuals. Like everything we do, we put 100% effort into this submission. Bishopton now finds itself in a ludicrous situation where the developer has submitted detailed applications for the ROF site and yet the principle of development has not yet been decided at the Structure Plan level. Consequently, the Outline Planning Application cannot be decided upon. There is no planning logic to justify the submission of these detailed plans or the outline plan. The process is merely being driven by the developer's desire to get a financial return from the ROF site as soon as possible.

In December 2006 all our hard work was rewarded and the Scottish Ministers called for an Examination in Public (EIP). At last sense has prevailed and the Scottish Ministers have decided that the Alteration to the Structure Plan did not contain enough information to allow them to make a decision about Bishopton.

The news of the EIP has spread far and wide and we notice that journalists are now looking  beyond the spin and looking at the ROF site in a more realistic way. The GSPC property newspaper contains an article regarding the EIP. It states  "Rather than making an emotive decision, the Executive will concentrate on identifying whether the site is contaminated beyond practical use and whether the road and rail network could handle the increased volume of traffic."

At last people are concentrating on the real issues such as "whether the site is contaminated beyond practical use". What a difference a year makes.

All we have ever asked for was that the planning officials should look at the practical issues surrounding the ROF site instead of the green dream that was once called the "Bishopton Forest Park" (now downgraded to a "community woodland"). This makes sense. If the planning officials get it wrong, could Renfrewshire Council afford to put it right? Who would put it right? Who would be liable?

We would like to thank all our volunteers for all their hard work throughout the year and to the residents of Bishopton for their continued support.

We look forward to the challenge ahead and will give it 100% effort yet again.

All the Best for 2007

From All at Bishopton Action Group

Back

Working Group Minutes Released 23/01/2007

Officials have made references to the Working Group which examined the possible development scenarios for the Bishopton ROF site. These references are usually made to infer that Bishopton was consulted about the proposed development at Bishopton ROF, because Bishopton Community Council was a member of this Working Group. The Working Group meetings took place between 1999 and 2001.

We applied to the Scottish Executive under FOI for copies of the minutes of these meetings. However our request was initially refused because of the need for confidentiality, which had been agreed by members of the group. Following our request for a review of the refusal decision, we have finally obtained these minutes. They are fascinating to those of us who are genuinely puzzled as to why Bishopton has ended up in this situation, but they raise even more questions.

Unfortunately we do not have enough space to upload all of the documents onto our website. However we will try to highlight some of the more important documents. The Scottish Executive has indicated that it will be publishing all the documents on the FOI section of their website  - the public will at last be let into the "secret world" of the Working Group.

The Working Group members were as follows:-

• One Bishopton Community Councillor
• Scottish Executive
• Scottish Enterprise
• Renfrewshire Enterprise
• Renfrewshire Council
• BAE Systems
• Paisley Chamber of Commerce
• STUC
• Bishopton Union Convenor

Bishopton Community Councillor "Gagged"

The members of the Working Group were bound by confidentiality resulting in the ludicrous situation where the Community Councillor, who represented the community on the group, was effectively gagged and could not discuss the proposed development scenarios with members of the public and therefore could not gauge the community's reaction to the proposed development scenarios. See extract below from the Working Group Minutes dated 9 December 1999:

"Prior to commencement of discussions it was noted that while all discussions of the Working Group should be frank and open they must also respect confidentiality as the recommendations and proposals discussed may never be implemented and to discuss them outside the group may indeed be harmful"

Public Money Finances Consultant's Report

Cass Associates put in a tender of £68.5k (£28.5K more than the estimated cost) to prepare a scoping study into the potential uses of the site. This was not the lowest bid, but somehow they were appointed contrary to the wishes of the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive funded at least £10k of the report and Renfrewshire Enterprise funded at least £10k. BAE Systems funded at least £20k. The minutes don't exactly say how much each paid, but we know that this was the minimum contribution. Over £20k of public money was used to produce this report. Did the public get value for their money? Why did BAE Systems not wholly finance the report from the massive profits that they have made through redeveloping former ROF sites which they purchased for a song when the industry was privatised?

Outline Planning Application from the Start

From the minutes of 29 February 2000 we find that it was discussed that

"It could take two years to compile a reasonable masterplan for the site and at that point it should be possible to apply for outline planning consent". Using an outline planning application meant that Bishopton residents would have no right of appeal. However the developer would have the right of appeal. It seems the rights of Bishopton residents were of little interest to those who were pushing the planning agenda within the Working Group.

Consultation Mockery

The minutes of 16 November 2000 reveal that the Renfrewshire Council Director of Planning bypassed the public, when it came to consultation:

"The Working Group considered how to ensure that all those with strong feelings in the community had been consulted bearing in mind the cost and time of consulting very widely. Ian Snodgrass [Director of Planning, Renfrewshire Council] offered to provide a list of 360 organisations, which had been consulted as part of the current planning consultation, and this was agreed to be a useful level of coverage. It was also agreed that there was no need to organise public meetings at present."

Which organisations were consulted? What were they consulted about? What about the public, who might have strong feelings...it seems that they did not count!

Full Remediation Not Viable

The progress report at 28 March 2001 reveals that the Potential Uses/Engineering Solutions Joint subgroup did not believe that full remediation was viable.

"Broadly there are two main approaches:

• One based on achieving full remediation of the site, which requires major development to fund remediation costs(though still not financially viable on the basis of reported costs).
• Alternatives of a smaller scale, if full remediation cannot be funded"

Renfrewshire Council Local Plan Mystery

The minutes of the Potential Uses/Engineering Solutions Joint subgroup dated 11 January 2001 reveal what Renfrewshire Council planning officials considered to be the statutory planning process:

"2.11 Statutory Planning Process: Following a request on what the process would be once the Working Group had reached a decision on what should be done with the site, the statutory planning process was confirmed by JD [Jim Dewar, Renfrewshire Council(Planning)] as being (1) formal alteration of the structure plan, (2) local plan alteration, and (3) planning applications."

This is very strange as this is exactly what BAG has been advocating that the  planning process should be. However the process that has been implemented is as follows: (1) formal alteration of the structure plan (2) outline planning application (3) retrospective alteration to the Local Plan.

Altering the Local Plan retrospectively denies the local community the opportunity to have their objections heard by an independent reporter. There is little point in objecting at the Local Plan stage if the planning applications have already been granted. We have corresponded extensively on this matter with Renfrewshire Council officials mainly because the answers given were never satisfactory. Mr Crawford Russell (Head of Planning) has indicated that he does not wish to correspond further on this topic. A pity because the public would love to hear why Renfrewshire Council are not following the statutory planning process as described above. Why did Renfrewshire Council officials change their minds about the statutory planning process... a mystery!

Renfrewshire Council and Structure Plan Mystery

The minutes of the Potential Uses/ Engineering Solutions joint Sub-Group 4 May 2001 are very revealing. These minutes show that:

• There was no consensus about the best development scenario for Bishopton.
• Renfrewshire Council's opinion on the development scenarios was provided by the officials, because they stated that the views of the elected members would not be available until mid-May. They did not actually specify which year that they were referring to.  A revised version of the Cass report was officially reported to the Planning Board 4 years later and we can find no public record of the officials asking the elected  members for their opinions on the development scenarios.
• The officials had concerns that the scale of development was not justified against the Structure Plan Policies and also about the potential impact of the preferred scale of development on other priorities in the area. However from minutes of a planning liaison meeting held two years later in Sep 2003 we can see that Renfrewshire Council officials and the Structure Plan manager had completely changed their position and were actively working with the developer to bring about the development at the Bishopton ROF. This is a bit of a mystery as the Structure Plan had not changed, the scale of development still could not be justified and the impact on other priorities in the area had not been assessed. What precipitated this change of heart? We don't know, but we would love to hear Renfrewshire Council's explanation. However Renfrewshire Council officials have stated that they consider examining past events is a waste of time.
• Cass Associates proposed 6 development options for the ROF site:

• The minutes also show that Bishopton Community Council was not in favour of large scale development either. The report of 4 May 2001 summarises the community council concerns "The Community Council have expressed reservations about the scale of development that is proposed and the impact that this may have on the non-urban nature of the existing village, and existing services. Traffic and Road access is a major concern as is the retention of the recreation ground in an unspoilt fashion". The Community Council put it a bit more bluntly "The aim of most people who live here is to achieve a non-urban lifestyle and the prospect of what amounts to small town constructed on our doorstep is not therefore in tune with the residents' aspirations"

How were all these problems resolved? An alteration  to the Structure Plan was submitted to the Ministers in 2006 which promoted an agenda for growth based on more "aspirational" figures and this allowed a large scale of housing development at Bishopton. The solution to the problem of the impact on other priorities in the area was simple too; we cannot find any evidence that this was considered. They also chose to ignore Bishopton residents too. Easy!

Read the minutes of the sub-group meeting dated 4 May 2001 here

Back

Examination in Public- Procedures Meeting 22/02/2007

A meeting was held to discuss the procedures of the forthcoming examination in public. Several BAG members attended the meeting and were represented by Ms Frances McCartney of Pattison  & Sim, Solicitors.

You can read the official notes of the meeting here. (pdf format)

You can read the summary of responses to issues to be considered at EIP here. (pdf format)

NB You will require Adobe Reader in order to be able to view above pdf documents.

Back

Sudden Insight or EIP Dawns? 27/02/2007

BAE/Redrow informed a recent CLG meeting that although Renfrewshire Council had agreed that the current traffic proposals are technically sound, the developers however recognise the concerns of the local community and have therefore decided it is appropriate to propose new phasing of access roads and house building.

BAG are a bit puzzled by the developers' sudden interest in the concerns of Bishopton residents. BAG and the Community Council told the developers that the access roads were unsuitable in March 2006. At the exhibition held in May 2006 the public also told them that the roads were unsuitable. In October 2006 over 2400 letters of objection stated that the access roads were unsuitable. Also in October 2006 BAG delivered to Renfrewshire Council irrefutable evidence showing that Station Road was unacceptable. All our concerns fell on deaf ears. Now almost a year after the first presentation, the developers have suddenly taken an interest in the villagers' concerns. Has it anything to do with the fact that an Examination In Public is looming and an independent reporter will scrutinise the suitability of local roads or is it all just pure coincidence?

Back

BAG's Statements for Examination in Public 2/04/2007

There will be four sessions held at the forthcoming Examination in Public (EiP): introductory, contamination & remediation, road network and rail network. BAG has submitted statements for each of these sessions.

Our team of independent expert witnesses are as follows:

• Professor Anthony Dayan (contamination & remediation session)
• Professor John Midgley (contamination & remediation session)
• Dr Paul Johnston (contamination & remediation session)
• Dr D Van Steenis and his assistant, Michael Ryan (contamination & remediation session)
• Donald Chisholm (road and rail network sessions)

Frances MCartney will be our legal representative throughout the sessions.

We urge you to read all of our statements for each of the sessions. (Link to statements at end of article) We firmly believe that all our evidence precludes Bishopton from being designated as a Community Growth Area.

BAG and Bishopton Community Council are united in their opposition to the proposals for the development of the Bishopton ROF. We hope to put forward a very strong case at the Examination in Public and hope that the public will support us by attending each of the examination sessions.

However we have one very important request. We have the witnesses lined up to attend and the statements already prepared and submitted, but we need to pay for the travel and expenses of our legal representative and our expert witnesses, who are based all over the UK. This is where you can help. Please donate to our fighting fund. Every little helps. You can donate online by clicking the button below (Secure Paypal)

Or you can send us a cheque made payable to "Bishopton Action Group" to Treasurer, Bishopton Action Group, c/o Kilallan, Sachelcourt Ave, Bishopton PA7 5AA

Let us make this a level playing field. BAE and Redrow have lined up their team with no expense spared. The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Committee,  Renfrewshire Council, SEPA, Transport Scotland and SPT are all paid for directly from the public purse. However BAG has to raise  every single penny that it spends. Our case needs to be as professional as possible and we need to counter the arguments head on.  BAG has the experts to do it...we just need the funds. Support us by making a donation now.

If you are in any doubt whether to support BAG, please just read our statements - the evidence speaks for itself.

You can view BAG's Statements and find out details of the EiP here 

Back

M8 Congestion Tailbacks 06/05/2007

Read article here

Back 

BAG's EiP Summary 21/05/2007

Many people are keen to know news about the Examination in Public so we have prepared a summary of BAG's case to give people a flavour of the five day event and statements submitted by BAG. We promised Bishopton residents that we would tackle the issues head on and we certainly did. Bishopton Action Group and its expert witnesses put forward a very strong case.  It was a great team effort.

A special thank you to our expert witnesses and legal representative for their time, effort, diligence, dedication and commitment.

A special mention of our BAG members who represented us at the Examination in Public. A lot of hard work went into the preparation for the EiP, but it paid off. Our representatives were able to stand their ground and put forward BAG's case in a clear and succinct manner. We trust that the Reporter will appreciate the extraordinary effort that these individuals have made to protect their community.

Thank you to our volunteers for organising and delivering the latest newsletter.

Finally thank you to those who have kindly donated to our appeal.

You can read the summary here 

Back

Temperature Inversions and "Bonfires" 6/06/2007

BAG has stated over and over again that temperature inversion and "bonfires" don't make a good mix. You don't have to take our word for it. The weathermen at the BBC advise the public not to light bonfires during these weather features.

The only difference with the bonfires proposed at the ROF is that they will be burning buildings (over 500) to decontaminate them thus spreading the pollution into the atmosphere. This just underlines why it is not a good idea to burn buildings on the ROF site to decontaminate them.

Read our article about temperature inversions and view the pictures of ROF which demonstrate the effects of temperature inversions here

Back