Vincent Goodstadt Esq Structure Plan Manager Glasgow & The Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee 10 Killermont Street Glasgow G2 3NW 1st December 2005 Dear Mr Goodstadt Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Draft Finalised Alteration 2005 to the Joint Structure Plan 2000 I refer to my original submission to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Draft Structure Plan dated 17th June 2005 and to the subsequent draft finalised supplementary written statement produced by the Structure Plan Joint Committee in 2005 as a consultation document. I am surprised and disappointed that the concerns addressed by me in my submission and repeated in many other submissions showing a huge body of objection from the Bishopton community and other organisations including Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Executive and Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in respect of the designation of Bishopton as an area for urban expansion, have either been ignored or simply not addressed. One has to question the purpose of this consultation process. I therefore wish to re-iterate all the points raised in my earlier submission, a copy of which is attached for ease of reference and to comment specifically on points raised in the Joint Committee’s documents of October 2005. In the document entitled Technical Report – TRB/05 at paragraph 28 there is a bland statement that concerns expressed about environment, transport and community facilities have been taken into account. Please therefore confirm whether the Joint Committee considers these concerns non-existent, exaggerated or relevant but capable of being addressed. If the last criterion applies please confirm how these relevant concerns are being addressed. If document TRB/05 – Appendix E paragraph entitled “Issue: Impact of the development of the former ROF site on the character, identity, quality of life of, and integration with, the existing community,” and the following “Response” is an attempt to address such concerns, the response is misdirected and wrong. The draft joint structure plan proposes not a new community but an expansion of Bishopton. The concerns expressed are not general, they are specific, existing and capable of being confirmed by a visual inspection of the existing community of Bishopton. The response totally fails to recognise or address the irreconcilable conflict between what is proposed and what is currently there. In the same paragraph the text immediately moves on to contamination. At least that is acknowledged as being a real concern. 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. Given these obvious challenges and uncertainties the obvious importance of looking at other areas such as Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire seems now to be a priority. That recognition is neither acknowledged nor addressed within the October 2005 documents. Indeed the whole attitude within the documents with reference to Inverclyde is reflective of a lack of urgency although interestingly the potential for making a significant contribution to meeting the development needs of the wider market than it currently does is expressly stated in TRB/05 at paragraph 40 (a). In conclusion I consider the earlier submission still valid and unanswered and I await comment on the further points raised in this letter. Yours sincerely, Annabel M Goldie MSP West of Scotland Region |