(Return to main Glasgow / Newton Mearns page)

Briefing Notes no.13 - 13th. Jan 2012 

Stop press: LRV

It has been confirmed to Briefing Notes that the Lifetime Recycling Village, due to substantial alterations in the proposal from the Pre Application Notice (PAN), has now gone back to stage one. Before LRV can submit its long overdue planning application, it will firstly have to go through a fresh public consultation by submitting its revised proposals to another PAN. In view of the strength of local opposition, any such PAN will undoubtably be a magnet for resident activists.

Last Monday I asked LRV's managing director's son who has joined Newton Mearns CC if he could advise of any fresh developments. This was because I could not disclose what I knew at that time. However,I was free to invite him to tell us of any developments. He said he didn't know what I was talking about. The CCllr. representing Mums against the incinerator, objected to my questioning him citing his declared interest! I take the view that whilst his declared interest bars him from any discussion the CC may wish to discuss, it does not prevent him from being directly questioned on the subject. After all, he choses to be present and is a director of at least one of the LRV group companies. I for one will continue to make use of the opportunity afforded by his presence. He has the choice to answer or not but cannot knowingly mislead with his answers so future questions will be framed with this in mind.

The following article has since appeared in the Evening Times. 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/clydeport-owners-unveil-180m-plan-to-turn-rubbish-into-power-and-hot-water-for-glasgow-1.1143204

My personal view, ignoring for the moment obvious concerns such as toxins, emissions etc. is, if the Shieldhall development goes ahead, and being of a more manageable scale, I believe, unlike LRV, it has some merit in terms of the existing local rail, dock and road infrastructure with the ability to deliver usable heat locally to existing buildings as well as generating power, it might, repeat might, administer the kiss of death to LRV's plans for Newton Mearns. I say this as it will reduce the available supply of waste materials they require to fuel the plant, and potential investors including banks might well be discouraged by the competition from Shieldhall and the intended development at Polmadie.

The Scottish Governments Energy Consents Unit confirmed to me that there is a deathly silence from LRV and LRV's scoping report promised for December has not materialised.

In the meantime it will be business as usual with regard to LRV until there is a clear announcement as to their intentions.

Contents

1. Summary of Councillor's responses to BN12

2. Commentary

3. Action required

Summary of Councillors responses to BN12

Right, let's get down to business with the first Briefing Notes of 2012. The replies are in and I'll start with a summary of responses.

I'd asked Cllrs. to respond to the MIR consultation requesting them to select from the following options:-

Councillor Party Response

Ward 1 - Neilston, Uplawmoor and Newton Mearns North

Tony Buchanan * SNP None

Charlie Gilbert Conservative I support points B and D

Elaine Green * Labour None

Leslie Rosin Conservative happy to support the options B and D that you provide.

Ward 2 - Barrhead

Betty Cunningham * Labour None

Danny Devlin * Independent None 

Eddie Phillips * Labour None

Douglas Yates * SNP Leader Members of the public have until the end of the extended period to make up their minds. Councillors are no (Joint Deputy Leader ERC) different. The  Council will make a decision after the close of consultations.

Ward2 - Giffnock and Thornliebank

Jim Fletcher *   Labour Leader  None

(Leader ERC)

Alex Mackie Liberal Democrat I would therefore reply to your e-mail having chosen the following options : Option B and Option D

(Provost)

Gordon Wallace Conservative I am advocating options B and D

Ward 4 - Netherlee, Stamperland and Williamwood

Gordon McCaskill Conservative Option C

Mary Montague * Labour None

Ward 5 - Newton Mearns South

Barbara Grant Conservative happy to support the options B and D that you provide.

Ian McAlpine * Labour None

Jim Swift Conservative Leader I am happy to go with your option B and state for the record I and my colleagues are implacably opposed, 

     as we cannot even support option 1, which is infilling our area.

Ward 6 - Busby, Clarkston and Eaglesham

Alastair Carmichael * SNP Says he is prevented from commenting. I replied pointing out this is wrong. No further response.

Alan Lafferty * Labour I consider myself accountable as an Elected Member to the Electors of Busby, Clarkston & Eaglesham.

(Joint Deputy Leader ERC) Please pursue your local issues with the Elected Members for your Ward. 

Stewart Miller Conservative I am completely opposed to building more and more houses on productive agricultural land and our natural

  environment.

Commentary

We have an interesting situation where 6 out of 20 Councillors are opposing the MIR by choosing our options B & D with a further 3 opposed to development on the green belt. If another two were to sign up to Options B & D, then the MIR in it's current form, with all the disastrous proposals it contains, should be dead in the water. 

So what do we do next? Well we do have the advantages afforded by the May elections to think carefully about issues such as the MIR and the impact it will directly have on our lives and communities. We also have the Provost, who has shown himself to be a man of principle over the Robslee school issue, now supporting our opposition to the MIR without hesitation or reservation. I think it worth noting that he is one of only about 5 or 6 out of the 20 Cllrs whose experience lies in the commercial sector rather than the public sector. Whilst I wish Briefing Notes to remain apolitical, it would be remiss of me to fail to record that I find unacceptable those Cllrs, who despite having the choices of accepting, rejecting or putting forward their other views  simply have chosen en masse to refuse to respond in any way. 

This leads me to two other points on the subject of communicating with us, their electorate. Firstly one Cllr. wrote elsewhere this week, "I've never had a problem with answering queries from constituents wherever they reside in East Renfrewshire. I do this all the time. But I do it person to person either via surgeries or more commonly email or phone or letter. I don't do it via a public forum. I don't know anyone who has a convenership portfolio in any Council in Scotland who regularly has time to spend contributing to community websites."  (Source http://ernhw.org.uk/forum?func=view&id=18084&catid=2&start=36)

So one might think Cllrs would appreciate the efficient use of their valuable time afforded to them by Briefing Notes written on behalf of a large body of residents where their one reply is circulated to all of them? Why do they not avail themselves of this opportunity to promote your views on a major issue such as the MIR? The Governments's Improvement & Development Agency says, "Taking part in social networks and interactive activity online is now a majority activity and will certainly grow. If local government does not keep up with the pace, it will increasingly seem less relevant and will not be able to fulfill its role in the leadership of place. As representatives of their local areas and the democratically elected leaders of their organisations and partnerships, councillors must take the lead in using the social web." (Source:  tp://socialmedia.21st.cc/wp-content/uploads/connected_councillors.pdf )