Bishopton Action Group discovered that a secret regeneration study was carried out on the Georgetown section of the ROF site. The regeneration study included a contaminated land study, which revealed widespread asbestos contamination. According to FOI documents, following this study Renfrewshire Council officials advised against developing this part of the site and an official recommended that it should be a private woodland. Below we have prepared a short summary of events and background information. You can also view some of the key documents which reveal the extent to which Renfrewshire Council was involved. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background Georgetown is a 400 acres section of the ROF site. £178k of public money was used to fund a regeneration study (including a contaminated land study) of this part of the Bishopton ROF site. The study was initially commissioned in 1996 by Renfrewshire Enterprise and Strathclyde Regional Council. At reorganisation a few weeks later Renfrewshire Council took over Strathclyde Regional Council's role. The study revealed widespread asbestos contamination in the Georgetown area. According to FOI documents, following this study Renfrewshire Council advised against developing this part of the site and an official recommended that it should be a private woodland. In 2005 BAE Systems revealed its plan to build 2500 houses on the ROF site. This would more than double the size of the village. The proposal detailed a public forest park which included part of the Georgetown section of the ROF site. A public referendum was held. The results were 92% against the proposed development. In 2005->2008 Bishopton ROF was the subject of a controversial alteration to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan. The alteration designated Bishopton as a community growth area (CGA) with the capacity for 2500 additional houses and again included details of a public forest park. Some people including Trish Godman MSP expressed the opinion that if a development were to go ahead that it should be a separate community based at the Georgetown section of the ROF. Despite knowing the findings of the study and that they had advised against planning to develop this part of the site and that it had been recommended that it should be a private woodland, Renfrewshire Council withheld all this information from the Planning Board. Similarly the manager of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint committee witheld this information from the Joint Committee. Trish Godman MSP and the public were kept in the dark too. The public continued to express its opposition to the proposed development and the designation of Bishopton as a CGA. One of the main concerns of Bishopton residents was the risk from disturbing/burning contamination on the ROF site. As a result of the mass of objections (over 7000) an Examination in Public was held in 2007. One of the main topics of the EiP was contamination: "Do either the presence of contamination within the former Royal Ordnance Factory site at Bishopton, or the measures required for its remediation, raise issues of sufficient concern to preclude the identification of Bishopton as a Community Growth Area?". However despite being aware that contamination was the number one concern of the local community, Renfrewshire Council officials and the Joint Committee officials did not reveal to the Examination in Public that the Georgetown studies had taken place or the results of these studies. Bishopton Action Group found out about the Georgetown studies from documents obtained from the Forestry Commission through Freedom of Information. The officials had ample opportunity to reveal the existence of these reports. We have had public meetings including a presentation on contamination by BAE and Renfrewshire Council. There have been many reports to the Renfrewshire Council Planning Board and the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Committee. There was also an Examination in Public where contamination was one of the two main topics. We can think of no justifiable grounds for Renfrewshire Council having withheld this information regarding the Georgetown studies and Renfrewshire Council's role in commissioning these studies. Given the amount of public money (£178,000) that was involved in producing the Georgetown study it is shocking that this study was kept secret. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FOI Documents Below are documents which reveal Renfrewshire Council's involvement in the Georgetown studies and how Renfrewshire Council officials advised against development of the Georgetown section. Other documents show that Renfrewshire Council and Joint Committee officials made no mention of the Georgetown studies in their reports to Renfrewshire Council and the Joint Committee despite knowing that the public had very real concerns about contamination and that some people had responded to the various consultations by that the development should be a separate community based at Georgetown . Finally we show Renfrewshire Council's official statement on contamination to the Examination in Public which contains no reference to the Georgetown study. We have obtained the majority of documents through Freedom of Information. The Planning Board and Joint Committee reports are available from Renfrewshire Council website. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|