Newton Mearns Briefing Notes no.14 - 21st. Jan 2012 

(Return to main Glasgow-Newton Mearns page)

Comment of 2012 (so far!)

'With the release of the East Renfrewshire Main Issues Report this close to the May election, have the ruling Labour / SNP coalition created the longest suicide note in history?' (Anon.)

Red alert.

NOTE: Next Friday the 27th is the closing date for responding to the MIR - ESSENTIAL YOU ACT NOW

Out of 89,000 residents only 361 have responded as of 18th January.

From: "McDonald, Dorothy"
Date: 18 January 2012 17:05:58 GMT
To: 'D J' 
Subject: RE: MIR

Dear Mr Jesner,
We have received 361 representations as at 16:58 today.
A high percentage of these are objections to the principle of development in the Green Belt.
Following the close of the consultation a report will be produced summarising the comments received, and detailing the Council's response.  This report will then be made available on the Council's website. 

Kind Regards

Dorothy McDonald
Principal Planner
Development Plans
Environment (Planning, Property and Regeneration)

This represents 0.4% response and is less than a reasonable margin of error. Do people really not care whatever's dumped on them?

If you don't want this MIR you have 4.5 working days to contact every resident you come across in East Ren.

Encourage and cajole everyone to respond by email, hand delivered letter or online NOW.

My personal response by email to the MIR is summarised in the first two sentences which say:-

The critical words are in red.

I have been calling for each of you to knock on every door in your street. Then to start on the next street. Most people will know nothing about the MIR. Encourage them to object to the MIR and sign up to receive these free Briefing Notes, details at foot of this email. Rant over.

_____________

Contents

1. The news

2. LRV1 and LRV2

3. Greenbelt - do we know what we mean?

4. Stop Press - ERC can't fill their housing

5. Summary of candidates' responses to BN12

6. Open space

7. Last chance for Action

8. A thank you

 

The news.

A dark night out in Busby

Last Monday, at the request of some Busby residents, I attended Busby CC's monthly meeting along with approx. 120-140 residents.

Three Cllrs. were in attendance. Cllr. Carmichael spoke (actually read from a paper) but didn't make any sense, 'he's reading and still incoherent, I think he's wired to the moon' was the verdict of his lady constituent sitting next to me. I could only share her concerns.

Cllr. Lafferty seemed in denial of the MIR and appeared to sow the seeds of confusion by trying to direct everything back to a reporters decision to release land from the greenbelt in Busby for affordable housing. This decision came from the public inquiry to the previous Local Plan rather than the MIR proposals. Cllr. Lafferty also said there was nothing ERC could have done to prevent the reporter's decision from being implemented. This I believe to be completely wrong. As Joint Deputy Leader of ERC, he should know that ERC could have taken such an unwanted decision to judicial review. Whether this is ignorance on his part, or a desire for the proposals to go ahead through calculated misdirection, by disingenuously blaming this unpopular decision on a Scottish Government Reporter, I don't know.

Surely it is beyond all credibility that the Joint Deputy Leader of the Council would not know this key element of planning procedure, especially in light of the gravity of the MIR proposals? 

He also said 'any developer applying to build 100% affordable housing on a site would be something the council would find very difficult to turn down. Residents in all areas should be aware of this. He added 'every week at his surgeries he has people asking for houses in the areas they were brought up in rather than houses in Thornliebank and Barrhead.' (See ERC have to advertise for tenants - below.)

Cllr. Lafferty also suggested they will be another consultation but by then I believe the MIR will be distilled down with the contents still based on this MIR. I put it to Cllr. Lafferty that it smacked of the Irish referendums where voters having said 'no' were asked again until they capitulated giving the 'yes' answer the politicians needed.

It was up up to Cllr. Miller to try his best to explain honestly and reflect on the potential carnage this MIR will bring to our communities. This he did to applause from the audience. Who says honesty isn't the best policy?

Independent reports on the Busby meeting from the public can be found here http://ernhw.org.uk/forum?func=view&id=18771&catid=2&start=126

My jottings are on the following page of this link. My congratulations to Andy R and his fellow Busby residents who ran off leaflets, knocked doors and persuaded the public to attend en masse on a miserable January night, perhaps showing we really do care, but not enough people know of the MIRs existence. Every time I start to think community spirit is dying in ER, an event such as this proves it's alive and well, just slightly hidden below the surface. It was a pity more children weren't present, to implant the seed of community spirit for them to tell to their children in future years. Well done Busby!

 

LRV 1

Roy Beers reports in the Barrhead News on Neil Gallacher's statement that LRV have no further interest in Barrhead.

However Mr. Gallacher has previous in retracting his statements. Barrhead CC Chairman and ERC candidate for the SNP Tommy Reilly is reported as saying 'no scheme should be rejected out of hand.'

Source at foot of page  http://ernhw.org.uk/forum?func=view&id=10469&catid=2&start=342

LRV 2

Over the last three days I've called LRV's MD Brian Kilgour four times and Neil Gallacher, another LRV MD, three times to request an update. Neither have accepted nor replied to my calls. Nor did I receive a xmas card from LRV so I guess they're not talking to me.... again!

Brian and Neil, we know you read briefing notes and how disappointed you are when not mentioned so don't be shy, is it something we've said or are you just too busy rewriting the masterplan. If it helps, feel free to reverse the charges. You know it's good to talk and every little helps!

 

Greenbelt, what do we mean?

We talk about objecting to development on the green belt but what is it? I ask as if your home was built post 1947 it most likely was built on the then "green belt." I've written about growing up in Giffnock watching the farmer build haystacks across the road. Planners talk about protecting the 'greenbelt' then propose affordable housing be built on Woodfarm and Huntly Park playing fields. Residents threaten to burn effigies of Cllrs and officials but in planning speak no-one has broken their word. The playing fields are green open space or public open space if you prefer. Definitely not, in planning speak, green belt. The Greenlaw Business Park complete with roads, services, street lighting, electricity, gas and telephone enclosures is, the owner says, a brownfield site. Sounds sensible to me especially as it already has planning consent for commercial development. Wrong, say the planners, it's a greenfield site. It's now going to an expensive appeal which you are going to pay for. If the developer wins his argument and that's where I would place my bet, he could also ask for compensation as well as expenses. Ka-ching! Feel those pound coins falling out your pockets? You will, because in the event ERC lose and get awards against them, the money has to be cut from somewhere as fortunately they can't simply raise our council tax the next year to make up for this 'misunderstanding.' So I contend 'green belt' is a notional and badly understood term. Even brownfield sites were once green field or green belt if you prefer. We are all for protecting the little pockets of green open space which form the playing fields and parks in our communities. What about farm or agricultural land. I suggest it too should fall into two camps, productive agricultural land and redundant agricultural land. Perhaps you agree, perhaps you don't. Either way let me give you a question. So you are seriously worried we are rapidly running out of land for building? What percentage of Scotland is built upon? Write down three numbers, the first one you guess and two wild cards, one on either side. The answer I am always quoted by professionals is hidden further down the page.

Stop press: ERC Housing

East Ren are having to advertise to find tenants for 3 apartment properties with  "controlled door entry systems, are double glazed, have affordable heating and come with modern kitchens and bathrooms. Average rents are only £54.07 per week. For some properties we may also assist with decoration for new tenants." One in Giffnock even has a lift!!!

If there is a shortage of tenants at these bargain rents, why do we suddenly need thousands of new affordable houses?

Could it be we don't in fact have the shortfall in housing the administration claim? Source http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1622

Summary of Candidates responses to BN12

I'd asked the six declared candidates to respond to the MIR consultation requesting them to select from the following options:-

Candidate Party Response

Ward 1 - Neilston, Uplawmoor and Newton Mearns North

Ward 2 - Barrhead

Tariq Parvez Conservative I would like to confirm my opposition to the proposed building on the green belt and support

options B and option D with regards to the main issues report. 

Ward2 - Giffnock and Thornliebank

Vincent Waters     SNP   None

Ward 4 - Netherlee, Stamperland and Williamwood

Irene A Anderson SNP With regards to your question, I am unable to comment on this matter because if elected, I would then be unable to vote on it.

Ward 5 - Newton Mearns South

Alistair Haw Conservative In response to your survey my responses are B and D.

Ward 6 - Busby, Clarkston and Eaglesham

Alex White Conservative I support option B and D within your briefing paper.

Commentary

So once again out of six candidates, three are happy to answer the questions which seek to simply state their positions on the MIR.

Two refuse to reply and one give an erroneous answer, interestingly an answer similar to one of the current councillors. This is a consultation not a planning application and all Cllrs. and candidates are therefore free to answer. There is a pattern evident of councillors preferring to openly hide behind ignorance rather than answer a straight question.

Surely we residents of East Ren deserve answers from those who seek our votes to elect them to lead us? If anyone wishes to see the full unedited reply from any councillors or candidates just ask, naming the councillor(s) or candidate(s). This BN would be far too long and boring to reproduce all of them or do you want them all?

Open Space

I previously offered to print responses or concerns from the communities of ER. Here is the first batch. The second item reflects what many of you think about the MIR, too complex, too wordy, too difficult to access and the offered reply form is a disgrace. One copy per library - so follow the numbers, one full day to read, digest and respond per resident is probably ambitious but perhaps do-able, multiplied by the number of libraries multiplied by the number of library open days during the consultation period. I do not accept it can be done easily or effectively on-line. This requires hard copy to be manageable. Public consultation? Who's kidding whom? Most noteworthy of all is the fact the MIR is not mentioned in the recent (and expensive) ER magazine. Cock-up or conspiracy? That decision is entirely yours. However it does raise legitimate questions on competency levels, experience and relevant skillsets. 

_____________

Neilston Villagers in Fight to save Countryside.
 
Villagers in Neilston are fighting a proposal by Lynch Homes to build 81 houses by the Lintmill Dam on Uplawmoor Road.   They state the proposal is clearly against the East Renfrewshire Local Plan which designates the site as Countryside, and would have a devastating impact on wildlife.   An important ground of objection is that the proposal is contrary to the Neilston Renaissance Town Charter which states "extending the village into the countryside is not seen as a preferred option under this Charter.   Instead the residents of Neilston believe that future growth should make use of the villages gap sites and left over spaces."'   Former MP Allan Stewart says "this a fight for the whole of Neilston.  If this goes ahead it will be the green light for the developers all round the area and the village will be destroyed."
 
Information : To object - email - planningapplications@eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk Ref 2011/0824/TP   (By 26 January)
Contact lintmillactiongroup@gmail.com 

_____________

_____________

Clarkston Community Council to the East Renfrewshire Council consultation on the Local Development Plan:

Mr Andrew Cahill 
Head of Development Plan Team 
Environment Department Clarkston Council Glasgow 
Spiersbridge Business Park 
G46 8NG 

9th January 2012 

Dear Mr Cahill

Main Issues Report Consultation

Clarkston Community Council strongly supports Preferred Option 1.

We hereby outline our views and objections to the changes to the LDP proposed in the Main Issues Report.
1. The proposed developments would irrevocably erase Greenbelt Land, protected in the current LDP.
2. The loss of Greenbelt Land precludes any future sustainable local food production, so keenly promoted by the Scottish and UK Governments.
3. The pressures upon Infrastructure would be destructive and unacceptable. Traffic increase sequential to housing increase, in the proposed changes, would create unacceptably higher levels of CO2 emissions and pollutants, detrimental to health and well-being. Schools already at full capacity would be unable to accommodate consequential pupil population increase. Service Providers such as Doctors’ and Dentists’ surgeries and social care would struggle to cope.
4. The proposed developments contravene the previously passed LDP, as well as the Clyde Valley Structure Plan. 

Yours sincerely

Eleanor Kellock
Chair: Clarkston Community Council

_____________

_____________

 

_____________