Contents

1. NMCC

2. Potential income for LRV of £32m per annum

3. LRV's potential herd of Trojan horses within ERC Main Issues Report (MIR)

4. Other related matters

LRV September to November
On the face of it, all seems quiet. However, a number of issues of major significance have arisen, hence this briefing note, which, for the first time, calls for your direct action. Apologies for the length.

Developments at Newton Mearns Community Council (NMCC)

NMCC's constitution, requires that the CC does not co-opt more members than it has elected members.

Unaware of this, we had co-opted two more members than we should have primarily because we are also required to maintain a minimum number of members.

However, one of our officers (who was co-opted onto NMCC) decided without any reference whatsoever to me, as the then Chairman, or the rest of the CC, to raise this matter with ERC and thereby force them to stand down the existing NMCC and hold a fresh election.

The alternative option, which I put forward, was for the last two co-opted members to stand down, thereby balancing the numbers and preventing the need for any election.

The majority view, which I opposed, was to have an election.

With twenty seats available, fifteen names were put forward and all duly elected.

This offered an opening for any NM residents to put their names forward, so it came as no surprise to learn that one of those new names was the son of Brian Kilgour, managing director of LRV.

Primarily for that reason and the fact that the new NMCC does not come into effect for another week, I have decided to write this briefing note independently of NMCC.

If you do not wish to receive briefing notes on this basis in the future, please email briefingNM@gmail.com with unsubscribe in the subject line. Otherwise, please  ensure this new email address is whitelisted so it does not get blocked by your spam filters as it will be the address used for these briefing notes going forwards.

Rumours abound of a potential income for LRV of £32m per annum from Renewable Obligation Certificates. (ROCs.) This money essentially comes from your energy bills.

See   http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspx 

LRV's potential trojan horse within ERC Main Issues Report (MIR)

In the meantime, ERC has released their Main Issues Report. (MIR) Part of these were discussed at the last NMCC meeting as we were alarmed to note certain unusual suggestions contained therein as the intention is, after public consultation, to incorporate it into the forthcoming Local Development Plan.

That consultation is now well underway and we believe you need to be aware of the following possibilities, which were put to ER Councillors MacAlpine (Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee) and Buchanan (ER Convenor of economic regeneration) attending at the last (Oct.) meeting of NMCC. Predictably, they denied any knowledge of this but clearly they had not given it any consideration.

Possibly the biggest single weight carrying objector to LRV's plan is the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (SEPA)

SEPA produced their scoping report last year and their biggest objection to LRV's proposal was the lack of usage of the waste heat this plant, and especially the incinerators, would generate. They cited two examples of waste heat being used for community benefit, one, from memory, in Lerwick where the waste heat was used in a village a few kilometres away, and the other example was in Denmark where the heat was piped to homes some 80 kilometres away.

What has set alarm bells off is the MIR proposals. In direct contravention of the recent local plan and the recently released Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure plan, it proposes to built 600 affordable homes as an extension to Mearnskirk, siting them at Maidenhill on greenbelt land. In essence, affordable housing was originally promoted to enable essential keyworkers such as teachers, nurses, Police and fire officers etc. to live in the communities they serve. In fact, this critical condition no longer applies and these would be used to house those highest on the ERC housing lists. This would do nothing to protect the values attached to adjoining private housing nor is there sufficient provision to accommodate the likely increase in places in our already near to capacity schools. Further, by expanding Newton Mearns southwards, it is getting dangerously close to the boundary with neighbouring authorities such as East Ayrshire. It also delivers exactly the type of housing that SEPA envisage could most benefit from 'free' heating almost to the doorstep of LRV's site.

Before you dismiss this, as the two Cllrs did, allow me to throw in to the pot, that it is now public knowledge that LRV are in negotiation, AT THIS TIME, to acquire a site for sorting of waste in Barrhead, from ERC. 

You will recall in LRV9 back in June, I recorded, 'The other item we have clearly established is that components of the development capable of being operated offsite, will be determined by East Renfrewshire Council rather than the Scottish Government. This will apply to components such as the waste sorting station, visitor centre and shops.'

Removing the above operations from the greenfield site, removes those elements from ERC's planning body when considering the Loganswell site. They would then be considered as an application, located on an industrial site in Barrhead and therefore become difficult for ERC to refuse. Now, as LRV's trucks will obviously weigh more than 3 tonnes, the existing Aurs road into Barrhead will not be able to accommodate these vehicles due to the weight restrictions at the weak bridge. It also seems reasonable to question why LRV would not want to have all their operations on the one site, especially as they have already indicated that they intend to scale back the proposal by at least 1/3rd. The route to Barrhead would perhaps be as follows:-

1. Loganswell to M77 Jct 5 by way of the A77.

2. M77 Jct 5 to Jct 3 (Darnley.)

3. From Jct 3 to the Hurlet.

4. Turn left at the Hurlet and drive to the industrial estate in Barrhead.

That, with a loaded wagon, is both costly, undesirable and a time-consuming exercise. Remember, an average HGV swallows fuel at around 3-6mpg. It also, unnecessarily one might think, adds considerably more trucks to our congested roads. 

However, notwithstanding this possible Aurs Rd. route, the MIR proposes building a new road from Jct 5 of the M77 to link Barrhead to the M77. I estimate this route could easily cost between eight and sixteen times the cost of linking Barrhead to the M77 at Jct 4, a route previously desired by ERC. One has to question why this extortionate and illogical option has appeared from nowhere, unless ERC are considering supporting the LRV proposals. 

Councillor Swift, (Leader of the opposition group,) has also voiced concerns over the housing proposed for Maidenhill and the new route for the road to Barrhead. He confirmed that the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan says East Renfrewshire does not need any additional housing at all, with over 2000 approved applications. The Council recently refused permission (ER Council meeting 14^th September) for building additional houses at Greenlaw on the pretext that there was no need on a site earmarked for industrial development, despite there being no hope of industrial development because of incentives to locate elsewhere. So how can it be they suddenly propose additional houses at Maidenhill on the greenbelt?

Further, Cllr Swift advised that East Renfrewshire Council has delayed submitting its waste proposal projections to a joint initiative to manage the waste for the whole Clyde Valley. This proposes that Councils share waste management services that would lock up the disposal of municipal waste in the West of Scotland for a generation. This whole proposal for a Clyde Valley wide waste disposal plan has been delayed specifically by East Renfrewshire. This is a matter of public record (ER Council meeting on 14^th September.) 

So, to summarise, we suddenly have a surprise wish by ERC to extend NM southwards on greenbelt land joining onto Mearnskirk. Those houses, by being in close proximity to LRV's site at Loganswell, could, by virtue of being "affordable", perhaps resolve one of the biggest obstacles faced by LRV from a Statutory body, namely SEPA, by utilising 'waste' heat from their plant. Then LRV suddenly and unexpectedly want to acquire premises miles away in Barrhead in which ERC have failed to find much commercial interest. Mysteriously, all ERC plans going back many years to link Barrhead to the M77 at Jct 4 are scrapped without warning in favour of a hitherto never discussed, much longer, more expensive route to Jct 5 and next to Loganswell. Lastly, ERC are suddenly in reverse gear and delaying a unified, West of Scotland wide plan for waste disposal. Time is running out to respond to the MIR so do it now AND encourage everyone you know to participate or be prepared to live with the consequences.   Of course, it could all be a happy series of coincidences, especially if you subscribe to fairies at the bottom of the garden!

Action required.

I will be objecting to the Main Issues Report on all grounds possible, especially to this ludicrous and alarming proposal for 600 affordable homes in Mearnskirk and the extremely expensive route for linking Barrhead to the motorway networks. Surely there is something seriously wrong when ERC insist on building a much longer route than required between two points. Hardly carbon footprint efficient! It is essential you do likewise if you agree with my analysis of this charging herd of  Trojan horses. I urge you to have every ER resident who shares these concerns to write letters of objection. Letters of objection must be individual, as, for example, a petition with 1000 signatures is likely to count as only one objection. Ditto chain letters. A pain, I know, but these are the rules ERC apply. Have everyone in your household write on their own behalf.

I should also suggest there might be mileage in contacting your ER Councillor as they all are standing for re-election next May. Your vote and feelings on topics are legitimate matters for communicating to candidates as well as the current incumbents. We pay them plenty to look after our community interests, not to foist the undesirable upon us.

It is interesting to note that Newton Mearns has by far, of all the East Ren areas, the largest number of proposals for affordable housing. One wonders why the ERC-owned sites in Barrhead are not similarly put forward for affordable housing proposals considering that Barrhead arguably has the greatest need? I also put directly to Cllrs, at the last NMCC meeting, the danger that Newton Mearns was in danger of being turned into a sink estate. Its greatest asset after its schools is the enjoyment of private property and this is in serious danger of being disrupted if these plans come to fruition. Cala Homes built a cul-de-sac of very expensive villas on Stewarton Rd. One hundred affordable houses have been built completely overlooking and dominating one side of the cul-de-sac removing any privacy from the back of these houses, where the gardens and, presumably, bedrooms are located. 

That cannot be good planning by any any definition, yet an official told me in these words, "these plans were known for the affordable housing, caveat emptor.'

For those partial to making their eyes bleed, the MIR report can be found here. It also explains how to object.

http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/planning-and-the-environment/planning/developmentplans/local-development-plan.htm 

I should remind you that the consultation closes in December. This neatly ties in conveniently with LRV who still plan to deliver their planning application in February 2012, some two months after this consultation closes!

Other matters worth noting.

Boost for tidal energy
Energy Minister, Fergus Ewing, has launched a consultation on plans to remove financial support for large-scale biomass electricity generators and increase it for tidal energy. The consultation on the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) (ROS) raises the possibility of a cap on the size of biomass plant which would receive support. Smaller, more efficient biomass projects would continue to receive support, but large-scale electricity-only stations, above a certain generating capacity, would no longer be eligible for support under the ROS. The consultation requests views on the level at which such a cap might be set. 

Scottish Government, 22.10.11
View article
Related articles:
The Scotsman, 22.10.11 page 6
View article
The Herald, 22.10.11 Business section back page & page 25
View article

David Jesner

N.B. The views contained in this Briefing Note are not necessarily those of members of NMCC and should be considered to be independent.