Newton Mearns Briefing Notes no.17 - 9th. Feb 2012 

(Return to main Glasgow/Newton Mearns page)

1. LRV update

2. MIR phase two

3. Unfinished Business

LRV Update

At first sight there is nothing to report on LRV from either ERC Planning or from the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit. (SG ECU)

However, Councillor Ian MacAlpine (Ward 5 - Newton Mearns South) has stirred matters by publicly being reported as coming out against LRV.

This Cllr. is the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee. (PAC) He is quoted as accepting, that by having publicly declared his opposition, he is now excluded from taking part in any future debate or subsequent vote on LRV. BN had to do some digging to discover if this Cllr. knows something the rest of us don't.

Having established beyond doubt that there is no knowledge of any news of any forthcoming planning application from LRV, by either ERC's planning dept. or the SG's ECU, there is in fact no practical reason whatsoever, for Cllr. MacAlpine to make such an aberrant and ill-judged move, especially at a time when in essence 'all is quiet on the LRV front.' Even if an application was imminent, this is a totally pointless gesture on his part. 

We can therefore only conclude this smacks of panic over the forthcoming election and appears to be a desperate move to find favour with voters. Having argued strongly that the LRV proposals should not be used for political purposes, we find this very disappointing.

Rational analysis leave us to conclude if Cllr. MacAlpine were to be re-elected, he is now unable to represent the views of those residents whose votes he is going to seek. Despite knowing this, he has still cynically resorted to such a desperate and ill judged measure. He clearly knew the consequences as he admits to them in his press statement. Not only can he now not vote against any future application, were the council of 20 members to be split where 10 voted in favour, the norm would be if 10 were for, with 10 against, the Chair or Provost gets a casting vote.

Now if 10 vote for, there are only 9 to vote against so any approval sought would be approved. So those residents whose votes he so assiduously seeks, have in practical terms, in our reading, been sold down the river by a candidate who is claiming to be on their side on what is arguably, the largest, most contentious proposal to hit, not just Newton Mearns, but potentially all of East Ren and beyond. It is inconceivable that after such blatant dereliction of duty, Cllr. MacAlpine could, if re-elected, after the May election, continue to Chair the Planning Applications Committee. 

If we have missed some justifying reason for what seems to be a cavalier disregard for his constituents' need for a voice to speak on their behalf, we invite Cllr. MacAlpine to write and explain and we will publish his response.

Info about Cllr. MacAlpine  http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2493

MIR phase two

BN is confident that you have, with your responses to the MIR, produced the largest ever response to an ERC Consultation. We confidently predict the majority of responses, by some significant margin, are opposed to the MIR.

As we said to a subscriber who wrote in, this is only the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.

In our view it is not simply sufficient to say what is unacceptable, we really need to offer better alternatives. We should know, better than those officials who don't reside in our communities, what we want, what is acceptable and what is practical in our neighbourhoods. Therefore we should now be thinking carefully about this. This applies even if we conclude and say 'we want nothing.'

This is the background to the following email we sent on the 8th. Feb to our Community Councils.

Dear All,
Our opposition to the proposed MIR leaves us with a simple question. Is opposing something simply enough?
Surely our opposition leaves us with a responsibility to offer what we consider to be better and acceptable to our communities?
Briefing Notes is today resurrecting the concept of an East Ren Think Tank in an attempt to assemble an alternative to the current MIR. We hope CCs will see the sense and the advantages of keeping it local and will try to lead the way in what could be a bottom up rather than a top down set of proposals based on local knowledge and involvement.
As we have shown there are those out there who care deeply about their communities and the environment in which they live.
I urge CCs to lead the way in consulting with their residents. I believe this will also shorten lead times over what ERC are able to offer.
Our proposal is for you engage, deliberate and put forward your local version of the MIR based on answering these questions.
1. Where can you grow the number of households in your CC area by 5% between now and 2025 and what order of preference do you have for the development of sites you identify?
2. What proportion of the 5% should be private, affordable or council housing?
3. What infrastructure changes do you want? 
a. in your area
b. out with your area but within ER e.g. transport links, schools etc.
4. What other suggestions do you have for East Renfrewshire?

The 5% is based on a rounding up of the 3.25% forecasted growth of the population.

I would ask for a very quick expression or rejection of interest by CCs in taking this forward followed by confirmation immediately following your next monthly meeting.

In terms of timeframe it should be possible with hard work to produce something by the end of March. We would then try to pull all the ideas together within a fortnight to enable it to be offered to the main political parties for discussion and some level of commitment or at least interest before the May election.

There is also a need to engage and publicly debate on what we mean by 'green belt' as most, in fact all of our homes are built on land which was once green belt. Ditto 'affordable housing' which obviously would require MSP's involvement.

I hope you can see merit in these proposals.

Kind regards,

Our Community Councils are there specifically to represent our views. After seeing the magnificent 120+ members of the public who turned up at a recent Busby CC meeting demanding a debate on the MIR, we would now encourage you to engage by turning up at your local CC monthly meeting.

The diary for CC meetings over the next month is as follows:-

 

COMMUNITY COUNCIL	DATE	TIME/VENUE
Newton  Mearns	13.02	7.00 p.m.  Albertslund Hall.
Netherlee & Stamperland	16.02	7.00 p.m.  Clarkston Hall
Uplawmoor	20.02	7.30 p.m.  Mure Hall.
Barrhead	01.03	7.00 p.m.  Council HQ - Barrhead
Clarkston	05.03	7.30 p.m.  Clarkston Hall
Thornliebank	06.03	7.30 p.m.  Thorntree Hall
Giffnock	13.03	7.15 p.m.  Rhuallan House
Busby	19.03	7.30 p.m.  Duff Memorial Hall.
Eaglesham & Waterfoot	26.03	7.30 p.m.  Montgomerie Hall
Neilston	27.03	7.00 p.m.  Glen Halls

If you cannot attend, you can email them directly to encourage them to participate. Links to the email addresses are on the left hand side of this linked page.

http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1871

The contact phone number for ERC Community Planning who are responsible for all 10 CCs is on the top right of the page if you have any questions.

At community council meetings there are three distinct groups,

1. The Community Councillors, who are always local residents

2. ERC Councillors for the ward

3. Members of the public.

Practices vary with some CCs allowing you to participate during the meeting, others prefer the public to have their say at the end of the evening's business. Either way they are there specifically to represent your views to ERC and you should make every effort to attend thereby supporting your CC as well as having your voice heard.

At BN we are also keen to hear from any other other groups about what they want for their area. You might be a group of neighbours in a street or a formal group with a constitution. Share your thoughts with us.

Unfinished Business

You will recall our previous questions to all ERC Cllrs. and known candidates (at that time) for the May election. Nine out of twenty Cllrs. responded along with three out of 6 candidates. Two Cllrs and one candidate wrongly claimed they were prevented by rules from replying. Therefore yesterday BN tried again.

We will shortly revert to those others who failed to respond. If you are elected to public office and paid for the privilege, we believe you should where permitted, be prepared to respond to requests as to where you stand on issues of importance and public interest. Otherwise what purpose do they serve? As always, we will report back to you on the outcome.