Renfrewshire Council
 

The latest news from Renfrewshire Council is listed below. Please click on the link to go to the news article.



BAG Report on Planning Board Meeting 11/01/06

 

Meeting of the Planning and Development Policy Board


Tuesday 10th January


All 8 labour councillors were present (Green, Hood, Harkins, Kelly, Hall, Burns, McDowall, McMillan)


Two SNP councillors were present (McGuinness, Nimmo)


The Board was asked to approve a Report dated 10th January prepared by Bob Darracott, Director of Planning and Transport, as the Council's formal response to the Draft Finalised Alteration to the Structure Plan. The Board were asked to:


endorse the identification of the Royal Ordnance Factory site as a Community Growth Area in Schedule 1c of the Alteration and agree that the detailed acceptability of the development of the site should be assessed through the submission of planning applications including a masterplan for the site



Bob Darracott outlined the main points of the report regarding Bishopton and gave a history of the structure plan meetings that have taken place, and the consultation processes that have been carried out.  He referred to the Renfrewshire Council Planning Policy Board meeting of 9th August where it was agreed that the site was suitable in principle as an Area of Urban Expansion. He said that in his report he had gone into a lot of detail about Bishopton because in the past there have been criticisms about not recording the level of responses and comments made to the Structure Plan. He said that the ROF site has received the most significant level of objection, and gave the figures already mentioned in his report:


  • A standard objection letter submitted with 2474 individual names and addresses to the Consultative Draft Alteration
  • In the second round of consultation on the Finalised Alteration there were 2253 representations comprising 33 individual representation letters, 1633 standard letter representations, and 587 standard letters with further comments. He acknowledged that there was a significant level of objection continuing throughout this process. He said the report covered the main issues of concern i.e. contamination, impact on natural environment and wildlife, infrastructure etc (para 4.9 of the report lists the main points).



He said that it is evident that there is a lack of confidence amongst a sizeable proportion of the population. However they are now gaining feedback from the community on a regular basis, and mentioned meetings with the CLG, BAG, Community Council, and the public meeting held in December. He said that he was aware of the level of concern and the nature of the objections. He referred to the email that had been circulated by Bishopton Action Group to Board Members with 3/4 pages of comments on his report and said he would reply to any questions the councillors had  however, no-one spoke to raise any points. He confirmed that BAE will submit 3 applications to the Council once the Structure Plan has been submitted to the Scottish Ministers.



Councillor McGuinness (SNP) then put forward an alternative motion to replace recommendations (i) (ii) and (iii) of Bob Darracott's Report. His motion recommended the following:



(i) Identification as Community Growth Area


The board acknowledges the continuing reservations held by the local residents over the proposals for this site and urges Renfrewshire Council, the structure plan board, and applicants to continue to meet, discuss and come to a consensual view as to the future development of this area.


This view would be presented to the board at a future date and would from the basis of an agreed development framework for the long term remediation of the site. It is in our view that the successful renewal of this site relies on consensus of opinion among all concerned.




(ii) Housing Capacity of Site


The housing capacity of the site should comply from the outset with SPA 3 in that affordable housing should be factored into any detailed master plan involving the construction of 2300 new houses.




Councillor McGuinness (SNP) then added the following comments:


There is quite clearly much unrest and unhappiness in Bishopton


We haven't taken the people with us.


There is an enormous amount of objection


We haven't convinced them of our case


This is a huge development we must get the people on board


We must talk to the local people and hear their case


We haven't done our job


Developers promises are written in the wind



Councillor Nimmo (SNP) spoke to say that he supported everything that Councillor McGuinness had said. He felt strongly that, as it is such a big development, there has to be closer contact with the locals and a move towards what they want.



In reply Bob Darracott said:


  • This is not a planning application yet. He knows that they have to address the issues. . This is why he has gone into such a lot of detail to say what information he would expect to be submitted at the time of the application being made.
  • In terms of consultation, there has been a sizeable degree of consultation with the public already. There will be further consultation “as and when the Council has the detail of a planning application in front of them.

The vote was then as follows:


10 present


8 votes to accept the Director of Planning's recommendations


2 votes against



So once again, despite being aware of the huge amount of opposition demonstrated by the majority of Bishopton residents, the Planning Board has chosen to accept the recommendations of the Director of Planning in order to pave the way for the development to go ahead. Whilst paying lip service to the consultation process by merely listing the numbers of objections, and acknowledging the fact that there is a total lack of confidence in the proposals to decontaminate and develop the site, Renfrewshire council officials have managed to persuade the ruling political group to accept the designation of the ROF as a community growth area BEFORE any proper independent investigation has been carried out to assess the suitability of the site for large scale housing development. Despite the fears and concerns the local population have so eloquently expressed in the personal comments attached to the standard letter of objection, and the anecdotal evidence provided in these letters about the dangers, hazards and unknown silent killers which exist in the deeply contaminated grounds of the ROF, the Council has once again given the developers the green light to proceed with their plans to undertake piecemeal remediation and put our health and safety at risk in order to make profits from house building on the former ROF site. At least it is now recorded in the minutes that the people of Bishopton tried to warn the Council of the dangers, and in spite of the fact that two councillors spoke out to say the council isn't doing its job properly by reaching agreement with the electorate it purports to represent, the Councillors on the Board have voted in favour of the developers. If the development goes ahead, these eight councillors will be held accountable on a personal and moral basis for any future health problems which arise from the decontamination and remediation of this site.



Notes E-mailed to Planning Board Members 10/01/06

Prior to the Planning Board meeting Bishopton Action Group e-mailed the following notes to all Planning Board members. The notes relate to the report on 2nd round of consultations, which was to be presented to the Board by the Director of Planning and Transport.



Issue 1 

The purpose of the documents released in the second round of consultations was to provide further clarification and justification of Urban Expansion Areas (renamed Community Growth Areas). Bishopton Action Group made a very detailed response (17 pages), which covered planning, economics and environment. The current report does not list our arguments nor provide any evidence to counter them. We believe that the Director of Planning and Transport has been very selective in the information that has been presented in his report to Planning Board.

In the environment section of our response we referred to a meeting organised by Bishopton Community Council on 21 June 2005 -

a senior representative from SEPA (Caroline Thornton) stated confidently, in response to a question from the floor, that SEPA was protecting public health by monitoring water supplies at, or emanating from, the ROF site. In response to a question from the floor concerning precisely what was being monitored by SEPA, the response was phosphorus (which is chemically impossible and should have been phosphates), nitrates and oxygen burden. It was pointed out from the floor that these constitute part of the profile of farmyard chemicals and have nothing whatsoever to do with potential toxicants resulting from activities at the ROF during some 80 years or so. What does this do for the scientific credibility of presentations specifically designed to win over the community and gain support for the development of the ROF site? Such a statement from a representative of our national body for the protection of the environment may reassure the layperson but in scientific terms it is absolutely ludicrous. Moreover, SEPA's remit can only be related to superficial contaminants which leach readily into the surface water. This ignores potential deeper contaminants which will be exposed during any reclamation and building work.


This is the entry in Renfrewshire Council report regarding same meeting:


In addition, members of staff of the Environmental Services Department and SEPA attended a meeting arranged by Bishopton Community Council on 21 June 2005 where a presentation was made on contamination and remediation.


Annabel Goldie MSP submitted a document which listed over 70 contaminants that are known to exist in ROF site. She wrote:

In addition I have now procured under Freedom of Information and attach information concerning contamination from the Ministry of Defence. That information in conjunction with other evidence suggests that these are very real issues which will affect both the development potential and if the ground can be made safe, the timescale for such development.

This information is not referred to in report.


Cllr Langlands wrote in his response to consultation: 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.


This is what the report states about the same meeting regarding risks to health and safety and responsibility for assessing contamination:

Many of the issues were raised and responded to at the public meeting of 2nd Dec 2005 A common theme in the above responses was that our concerns in previous responses had not been addressed. This is still the case.


We have highlighted above just a few of the issues not listed in report. We question the value of this report in documenting the public's response to consultation round 2, when none of the above information has been listed in the report presented to the Planning Board.


Issue 2

Renfrewshire Council officials recommend that the ROF development should be processed through outline and master plans and then the Local Plan should be retrospectively altered. This method makes a mockery of the Local Plan system. Using this method of outline plan and master plan has the following effects:


  • local community is denied the basic right of appeal 
  • the developers have right of appeal 
  • there is no independent scrutiny of the plans unlike Local Plan where the Reporter can adjudicate
  • there is no point in objecting to retrospectively altered Local Plan as planning permission has already been granted

Bishopton Action Group believes that there is no justification for this method being used. It is not in the best interests of the Local Community, but is advantageous to the developer.



Issue 3

Rate of House Building


The report to Planning Board states:


Schedule 6(b)(ii) of the Alteration should be adjusted to reflect the most up-to-date rates of house building envisaged in the representation made by Cass on behalf of BAE Systems and Redrow


In our opinion Schedule 6(b)(ii) should reflect the housing needs of Renfrewshire and the Structure Plan Area. It should not be used to secure the commercial interests of Redrow Homes.


Further we note that the Structure Plan states in Joint Policy Commitment 2 Priorities for Local Planning Supplementary Written Statement that


The Local Plans covering the areas identified below will be reviewed as a matter of priority to meet the requirements of this alterationThis statement applies to Bishopton and Johnstone.


We question why Renfrewshire Council officials propose using outline planning method for Bishopton but Local Plan method for Johnstone.



Issue 4

Officials state that BAE/Redrow will be submitting plans before The Scottish Executive has made its decision. Bishopton Action Group maintain that Renfrewshire Council should not work on these plans until the Scottish Executive has made its decision as the Scottish Executive may uphold Bishopton's objections or may make amendments to Structure Plan. Either case would mean that Renfrewshire Council resources/funds had been needlessly wasted on processing BAE/Redrow's plans which were not applicable.



Issue 5 

Financial/Legal implications


At the end of Planning Board report it lists financial implications of this report as being None. This just underlines the lack of attention to detail in Renfrewshire Council's approach to the proposed ROF development. What about the costs incurred for:


  • regulating development in planning and environmental terms over many years
  • the social, educational and infrastructural requirements resulting from the development

Issue 6

Officials, who openly admit that they do not have the expertise to deal with the contamination issues, confidently recommend that the Planning Board endorse Bishopton as a Community Growth Area. Does the Planning Board feel that they have been given sufficient information on which to base their decision? Bishopton Action Group and its scientific experts certainly do not.


Back 


BAG Notes on Planning and Development Policy Board Meeting 9/8/05

A meeting of Renfrewshire Council's Planning and Development Policy Board took place on 9th August 2005.


Item 4 on the agenda was the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley 2025 Consultative Draft Structure Plan and the Board were being asked to endorse a report from the Director of Planning & Transport which recommended a proposed response by the Council.


BAG felt there were important issues in the report:


  • No reference was made to the actual number of letters of objections delivered to the Structure Plan Manager (i.e. 2,500).
  • No importance was attached to the objections made.
  • The key sentence in the report It is suggested that the site should be identified as being suitable, in principle for inclusion in Schedule 1C (i.e. that Bishopton be designated an Area of Urban Expansion) is exactly what we have been fighting against.
  • No reasonable explanation was given as to why the Council should accept the principle of development of the former ROF site.
  • If the board accepted the principle of development of the ROF site, this would make it easier for the developers to obtain outline planning consent. BAG felt that is was important to let Councillors on this committee know exactly what the people of Bishopton felt about the proposed development, and the strength of feeling that exists within the village. Above all we wished to highlight the lack of consultation and the way these proposals are being railroaded through the formal planning process against the wishes of the majority of Bishopton residents.

A letter outlining these facts was hand delivered to all 14 councillors on the planning and policy board on Monday 8th August, i.e. the evening before the meeting. Also included with the letter was BAG's five page letter of objection to the structure plan, and the Envirocentre report dated 24 August 2001. Several of the councillors were receptive and listened to our points of view.


A group of 10 BAG members attended the meeting, although members of the public are not allowed to speak. However Mr. Iain Langlands was present and spoke eloquently about the feelings of Bishopton residents. It is unusual for councillors who are not members of the Board to participate in Board meetings. We believe Councillor Langlands was allowed to do so as a result of our actions the previous evening.


The Board Convenor (Councillor Green) tried to have the report accepted without discussion; however several councillors (mainly SNP) wanted to speak. The section of the report on Bishopton was debated fully, and a number of interesting points emerged e.g. Councillor Harkins (Labour) has been involved in discussions about the development for the past 6 years and yet some of the board members were aware of only selected facts surrounding the proposed development until they read our letter and enclosures. He also stated that the local community had been fully involved from the outset (although in fact most villagers were unaware of the proposals until the BAE/Redrow exhibition in February 2005, but this was not stated!). During the meeting, it was suggested that the report be accepted but excluding the section on Bishopton.


However, after much discussion, the report was accepted by a majority of 7 votes to 5.


During the meeting, SNP Councillors raised points which we considered reflected some of our views. Councillor Harkins (Labour) was not sympathetic to our cause.


A roll call of the vote was not taken, so it is not possible to report how each councillor voted.


However, the facts are as follows:


7 Labour councillors were present


5 SNP councillors were present


The vote was as follows:


7 councillors voted to accept the report


5 voted against accepting the report


This was obviously a disappointing result for BAG and the residents of Bishopton.


However, the following has emerged as a result of the lobbying exercise:

  • Planning officials are now aware of the massive opposition against the development.
  • They have voted with full knowledge of our fears and concerns for the future health and wellbeing of our community.
  • We have raised the profile of BAG and allowed the views of Bishopton people to be heard.
  • If the development does go ahead, it will be on record that the residents of Bishopton did not want it, and tried vehemently at every possible stage to oppose it. It should be stressed that Renfrewshire Council has a duty to protect the welfare of our existing community and its residents who diligently pay their council tax. We elect our local councillors and expect them to protect our interests and represent our views. It is a pity that on this occasion, Renfrewshire Council has ignored the wishes of 2,500 Bishopton residents who signed letters objecting to Bishopton being classed as an Area of Urban Expansion.

Please write to members of the Planning & Development Policy Board expressing your own opinions on the proposed new town development, as follows:


*(Convenor) John Green, 15 Baronscourt Gardens, Paisley PA1 2TJ (LAB)


*John Hood, 7 Planetree Place, Johnstone, PA5 0BT (LAB


Jim Harkins, 19 Dunbar Avenue, Johnstone, PA5 0HE (LAB)


Terence Kelly, 105 Greenhill Road, Paisley, PA3 1RD (LAB)


Anne Hall, 29 Rowan Road, Linwood, PA3 3TH (LAB)


(Provost) Ronald Burns, 32 Irvine Drive, Linwood PA3 3TB (LAB)


John McDowall, 105 Foxbar Road, Paisley, PA2 0BA (LAB)


Ian McMillan, 7 Swift Place, Johnstone, PA5 0RY (LAB)


Richard Vassie, 43 Lismore Drive, Glenburn, Paisley, PA2 8HU (SNP)


William McGuinness, 136 Craigielea Road, Renfrew, PA4 8NJ (SNP)


Alastair Nimmo, 33 Calderpark Avenue, Lochwinnoch, PA12 4BD (SNP)


Ian Taylor, 118 Old Greenock Road, Inchinnan, PA4 9QH (SNP)


Iain Nicholson, 54 Allands Avenue, Inchinnan, PA4 9LG (SNP)


Marie McGurk, 68 Southwold Road, Paisley, PA1 3AL (LIB DEM)


* These 2 councillors represent Renfrewshire Council on the Structure Plan team, so it is particularly important that they are aware of the views of Bishopton residents.


Back



Tony Sowersby's reaction to Renfrewshire Council Planning and Development Policy Board - 9th August 2005

 

The Planning and Development Policy Board met on 9th August 2005. On finding that the report to the board ignored the letters of objection submitted by Bishopton residents, we hand-delivered this letter to the members of the board.

 I think when you read this you will question what agenda the board or certain individuals within the board have when the resolution was passed.


 This is what Tony Sowersby said on the result of the vote:


A disappointing result yesterday regarding the Renfrewshire Council vote on whether or not Bishopton should be 'included in principle' in the review of the Structure Plan under 'Area's for urban Expansion'.


 Well done to everyone who managed to attend though. I must say without the recent efforts I reckon the vote would have been 12-0.


 As it was it came out at 7-5 against what we would have wished for, and the motion was carried. At least four of the councillors spoke very well in favour of us. One in particular did not (Harkins of Johnstone Castle).


 In an unusual move, Iain Langlands was allowed to speak ahead of the meeting and he did so very well indeed.

 The positives are that we have raised the profile of our cause vastly. As for touching the hearts and minds of our decision makers; well, we definitely did that when we turned up at their doors! Some of the councillors were very positive, some not so. There will be much more of this and we will continue to do our very best.


 Between now and early next year is when this battle of ours will be won or lost so come on, role up your sleeves, and let's take this to the next level and give no quarter


 Kind regards to you all

Back


The letter submitted to the Planning and Development Policy Board 8/8/05


Monday 8th August 2005


 Dear Councillor,


Planning and Development Policy Board Meeting 9/8/05

 Bishopton ROF site


The residents of Bishopton are angry, frustrated and deeply suspicious of why the Planning and Development Policy Board are being asked to accept the principle of development of the former ROF site when there is no reasoned argument or justification for it.


 All the facts presented so far in 2,5OO LETTERS OF OBJECTION TO THE STRUCTURE PLAN BY BISHOPTON RESIDENTS, and letters of objection submitted by Bishopton Community Council, MSP Annabel Goldie, and Mr Iain Langlands, prove that the proposals contradict the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Development in both the 2000 Structure Plan and the Draft 2005 Plan. There is absolutely no reason why rural Bishopton should be classified as an Area for Urban Expansion. The statistics which assume an increase in the population and a demand for further housing and industrial land are unproven, flawed and incorrect. WE URGE YOU TO TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE ATTACHED LETTER SUMMARISING OUR OBJECTIONS AND OUR FEARS.


 There has been inadequate consultation with the local community about the new town development and residents are asking why the proposals are being surreptitiously railroaded through the planning process despite the massive public opposition that exists. We feel that you are being deliberately misled about the strength of feeling that exists within the community of Bishopton, and that you are not being presented with all the facts.


 There are real fears about the health and safety of our community and the fact that no detailed assessment has been made of the potential hazards to our families during the process of remediation. The site is deeply contaminated by substances and chemicals which can cause cancer and will pose a threat to humans and the ecosystem. We are particularly scared about the obvious dangers from the release of airborne contaminants. The preferred developers have been unable to answer any of the questions raised at public meetings about how they will protect the local community from these risks. Envirocentre Report dated August 2001 sent to Renfrewshire Council (copy attached) states that the site has significant possibility of creating significant harm. Are you, as an individual councillor, prepared to accept legal and criminal responsibility for the health problems of future generations of Bishopton residents? Why are councillors being asked to give the green light to proposals for a site where the risks have not been properly explored, identified and made available to the people who will be affected?


 DID YOU KNOW 


  • Due to the lack of consultation, people feel that they have been deliberately kept in the dark so that it would be too late to influence events in any way.
  • Bishopton people knew nothing about the proposals until February of this year when BAE unveiled their plans. Immediately following this, the Community Council organised a referendum and a massive 92% of the voters said "NO" to the new development. 
  • This was followed by an unprecedented and spectacular response to the proposed alterations to the Structure Plan 2005, when a total of 2,500 letters of objection were delivered to the Structure Plan Manager on Friday 17th June. Why are the contents of these letters and the wishes of Bishopton residents being ignored by the councillors we elected to protect us? 
  • Important questions are now being asked publicly at the Scottish Parliament relating to contaminated land and the protection of local communities, an in particular why Renfrewshire Council has failed to register the site as contaminated land. It is extremely premature and dangerous to accept the principle of strategic development within the Structure Plan before these important issues have been fully addressed. 
  • When Renfrewshire council's Local Plan was being finalised, a public local inquiry took place between December 2003 and January 2004. In his report to the objections submitted by various individuals, including MSP Annabel Goldie, the Reporter stated the following:

I consider that there are substantial grounds for requiring the restoration of the land to its original condition, now that it is no longer needed for its stated purpose. The planning authority has the legislation on its side to enable it to achieve this.


  • "there is no need neither immediate nor in the longer term for a new tranche of industrial or residential land to be introduced to the plan area "
  • any new development within the objection site would require to be considered as a separate, and therefore a totally new community, with its own access and its own infrastructure


WHY IS THE POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD NOW BEING ASKED TO DISREGARD THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND TO FACILITATE THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR EXISTING COMMUNITY?

 The report to be considered at the Policy Board Meeting on 9.8.05 contains the following sentence: "the Council will take careful account of the concerns of the local Bishopton community ". How then can you therefore agree "in principle " to the proposed alterations to the Structure Plan to permit this development? We know that if the Board accepts the principle of development at this stage, when it comes to outline planning permission, it will be a purely academic exercise, and it will be easy for the developer to get outline planning consent. It will then be totally futile to object at the Local Plan stage, since planning permission will already have been granted.


 WE FEEL THAT THE VIEWS OF BISHOPTON RESIDENTS ARE BEING DELIBERATELY AND UNFAIRLY EXCLUDED. WE DO NOT WANT THIS NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT, AND AS THE REPORTER TO THE LOCAL PLAN HAS STATED, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT FOR IT. WE QUESTION THE LEGITMACY OF THE WAY THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IS BEING MANIPULATED TO ALLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED IN SPITE OF THE OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OPPOSITION THAT EXISTS.


 In the light of the above, we urge you NOT to accept the recommendation in para 4.25 of the Report by the Director of Planning and Transport to identify the Bishopton ROF site as being suitable, in principle, for inclusion in Schedule 1c "Established Urban Expansion Areas ".


 The reasons for our objections to this are as contained in the attached letter dated 17th June 2005 to Mr. Vincent Goodstadt. Please make your decision based on the wishes of your electorate and taking account of our fears for our future health and safety and the well being of our community.


 Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and enclosures.


 Yours sincerely,


 Stewart Ferguson

 Chairman


 Anthony Sowersby

 Vice-Chairman


 On Behalf of the Bishopton Action Group


 Enclosed: BAG letter of objection & Envirocentre Report


Back