Appendix 3. Proposed Plan, Issues and Responses

Transcription

Appendix 3. Proposed Plan, Issues and Responses
This report contains the responses received as part of the Proposed Local Development Plan
Consultation. The responses are grouped together by Issue, then by Local Development Plan
Document, by Comment type (General Comment, Objection, and Support), and then by Policy
and Proposal.
To reduce the length of this report, and to remove repetition of information, when we have
received standard letters from multiple representees, we have created a summary of standard
letters’ comments against each appropriate point. The names of all representees who made
each comment within such a letter are listed at the back of the document, from page 256.
When the representation has included a recommended change to the plan, this follows the
comments in italicised print.
Appendix 3. Proposed Plan Issues and Responses
Index
Issue 1. General
Page 1
General Comments
Habitats Directive
Proposals Map
Regional Policy
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Issue 2.1. Vision and Strategy Issue, Development Strategy
Page 8
Areas for Change
Green Network
Key Diagram
Objectives
Phasing and Delivery
Policy D2: General Urban Areas
Strategic Aim
Strategic Policy 1: Development Strategy
Transport and Accessibility
Vision
Support
Issue 2.2. Vision and Strategy Issue, Assessment of Development Proposals
Page 23
Strategic Policy 2: Assessment of Development Proposals
Issue 2.3. Vision and Strategy Issue, Development Contributions
Page 26
Strategic Policy 3: Development Contributions
SPG Development Contributions
Issue 3.1. Master Plan Issue
Page 28
Delivery
Policy M1: Master Plans
Issue 3.2. Master Plan M77 Strategic Development Opportunity
Page 30
Policy M2: M77 Strategic Development Opportunity
Policy SG10.11 Aurs Road , Newton Mearns
Policy SG10.12 Crookfur Road / M77, Newton Mearns
Policy SG10.3 Balgray Link ‐ Balgraystone Road, Barrhead
Policy SG2.7 Hillfield, Newton Mearns
Policy SG2.8 Barcapel, Newton Mearns
Policy SG6.13 Netherplace Works, Newton Mearns (Policy M2)
Issue 3.3. Master Plan Malletsheugh‐Maidenhill Newton Mearns
Page 44
Policy D13.19 Maidenhill, Malletsheugh, Newton Mearns, Expansion Area
Policy M2.1: M77 Strategic Development Opportunity ‐ Malletsheugh/Maidenhill Newton Mearns
Policy SG1: Housing Supply
Policy SG2.10 Malletsheugh (West), Newton Mearns
Policy SG2.11 Maidenhill Newton Mearns
Policy SG2.9 Malletsheugh (East), Newton Mearns
Issue 3.4. Master Plan Barrhead South – Springhill, Springfield, Lyoncross
Page 108
Policy M2.2: M77 Strategic Development Opportunity ‐ Barrhead South – Springhill, Springfield,
Lyoncross
Policy SG2.12 Lyoncross, Barrhead
Policy SG2.13 Springfield Road, Springhill Road, Barrhead
Policy SG2.14 Springfield Road, Balgraystone Road Barrhead
Policy SG2.15 Springhill Road, Barrhead
Lyoncross
Issue 3.5. Master Plan Shanks‐Glasgow Road Barrhead Strategic Development Opportunity Pg 116
LDP53 Grahamston Road and Blackbyres Road
Policy SG2.17 Shanks Park, Barrhead
Policy SG2.19 North Darnley Road, Barrhead
Policy SG6.3 Glasgow Road East, Barrhead (Policy M3)
Policy SG6.5 Grahamston Road/ Blackbyres Road, Barrhead
Strategic Development Opportunity ‐ Policy M3: Shanks/Glasgow Road Barrhead
Issue 3.6. Master Plan Braidbar Quarry
Page 120
Policy M4: Braidbar Quarry
Issue 3.7. Master Plan Drumby Crescent
Page 121
Policy M5: Drumby Crescent
Policy SG1.15 Drumby Crescent Playing Fields, Clarkston
SG1.15 Drumby Crescent Playing Fields
Issue 3.8. Regeneration Issues
Page 123
Issue 3.9. Rural Issues
Page 124
Policy M7: Rural Settlements
Issue 3.10. Neilston Village Regeneration
Page 126
Neilston Village Regeneration
Policy D11.20 Crofthead Mill, Neilston
Policy D13.17 Kingston Playing Fields, Neilston
Policy M8: Neilston Village Regeneration
Policy SG1.24 Crofthead Mill, Neilston
Double Hedges Road/Harelaw Avenue
LDP58/59 Nether Kirkton Farm
LDP60A/B North Kirkton Road,
LDP62B East Kingston Road
LDP66 Uplawmoor Road
LDP86 Springfield Road
Policy SG2.1 Neilston Jnrs, Neilston
Policy SG2.2 Holehouse Brae, Neilston
Policy SG2.3 Neilston Road, Neilston
Policy SG2.4 North Kirkton Road, Neilston
Issue 4. Greenbelt
Page 148
Policy D3: Green Belt and Countryside Around Towns
Lyoncross
Issue 4.1. Green Network and Natural Environment
Page 150
Policy D10.1 Dams to Darnley Country Park
Policy D10.3 Rouken Glen, Giffnock
Policy D4: Green Network
Policy D5: Protection of Urban Greenspace
Policy D6: Protection of Local Urban Greenspace
Policy D7: Green Infrastructure and Open Space Provision within New Development
Policy D8: Natural Features
SPG Green Network and Environmental Management
Issue 4.2. Outdoor Access
Page 157
Policy D10: Environmental Projects
Policy D9: Protection of Outdoor Access
Issue 5. Detailed Guidance for all Development
Page 158
Policy D1: Detailed Guidance for all Development
Issue 6. Built Heritage
Page 160
Policy D11.21 Caldwell House, Uplawmoor
Policy D11.6 Netherlee Article 4 Direction Area
Policy D11: Management and Protection of the Built Heritage
Policy D12.1 Netherlee
Policy D12.2 Crookfur Cottage Homes
Policy D12: New Conservation Areas
Issue 7. Community, Leisure and Educational Facilities
Page 163
Policy D13.23 Broomburn Drive, Newton Mearns
Policy D13.3 Barrhead Town Centre
Policy D13.6 Barrhead South Expansion Area
Policy D13.7 Barrhead to Pollok
Policy D13.8 Centenary Park, Carlibar Park , Barrhead
Policy D13: Community, Leisure and Educational Facilities
Waterfoot Road, Netwon Mearns
Issue 8. General Development Management Policies
Page 165
Policy D14: Extensions to Existing Buildings and Erection of Outbuildings and Garages
Policy D15: Sub‐division of the Curtilage of a Dwellinghouse for a New Dwellinghouse and
Replacement of an Existing House with a New House
Policy D17: Telecommunications
Policy D18: Airport Safeguarding
SPG Daylight and Sunlight Design Guide
SPG Rural Development Guidance
Issue 9.1. Housing Supply
Page 167
Policy SG3: Phasing of New Housing Development
Issue 9.1.1. Housing Supply Barrhead
Page 172
Policy SG1.1 Barnes Street/ Cogan Street/Robertson Street, Barrhead
Policy SG1.2 Chappell field, Barrhead
Policy SG1.4 Dunterlie Park/ Carlibar Road, Barrhead
Policy SG1.5 Fereneze, Barrhead
Policy SG1.6 Glen Street / Carlibar Road, Barrhead
Policy SG1.7 Glen Street/ Walton Street, Barrhead
Policy SG1.8 Kelburn Street / Neilston Road, Barrhead
Issue 9.1.2. Housing Supply Busby
Page 186
Policy SG1.14 Main Street, Busby
Policy SG1.44 Easterton Avenue, Busby
Issue 9.1.3. Housing Supply Giffnock
Page 194
Policy SG1.22 Fenwick Road/ Burnfield Road/Dalmeny Avenue, Giffnock
Policy SG1.23 Robslee Drive, Giffnock
Issue 9.1.4. Housing Supply Newton Mearns
Page 195
Policy SG1.27 Ayr Road, Newton Mearns
Policy SG1.32 Broompark Drive/Windsor Avenue, Newton Mearns
Policy SG1.33 Capelrig Road, Newton Mearns
Policy SG1.34 Capelrig Road (Hillcrest ), Newton Mearns
Policy SG1.36 Greenlaw, Newton Mearns
Policy SG1.38 Patterton Farm, Newton Mearns
Issue 9.1.5. Housing Supply Uplawmoor
Page 198
Policy SG1.42 Pollick Avenue, Uplawmoor
Policy SG1.43 Uplawmoor East, Uplawmoor
Issue 9.1.6. Housing Supply Waterfoot
Policy SG2.6 East Glasgow Road, Waterfoot
Issue 9.2.1 Submitted Housing Supply Barrhead
LDP48 Fereneze Garden Centre
LDP55B The Hurlet
Issue 9.2.3 Submitted Housing Supply Busby
LDP17 Wester Farm
LDP20A/B Easterton Avenue
Issue 9.2.3 Submitted Housing Supply Clarkston
Beechlands Drive
LDP13 Flenders Farm East and Newford
Issue 9.2.4 Submitted Housing Supply Eaglesham
LDP34 Alnwick Drive
LDP40B Humbie Road
LDP78 Waukers Farm, Eaglesham
Issue 9.2.5 Submitted Housing Supply Newton Mearns
Greenlaw adjacent to LDP27
Greenlaw Business Park
LDP03 (Part) Humbie Road/Mearns Road
LDP04 Humbie Road
LDP08 and LDP10 Barrance Farm Sites
LDP09 (Part) Humbie Bridge
LDP25 Patterton
LDP28 Ryatt Farm
Red House site, between A77/M77
Issue 9.2.6 Submitted Housing Supply Uplawmoor
LDP73 Land at Uplawmoor West
LDP74 Libo Avenue
Issue 9.2.7 Submitted Housing Supply Waterfoot
LDP15A/B West Glasgow Road
LDP88 (Part of) Land at Waterfoot Bridge
Issue 10. Affordable Housing and Housing Mix
Affordable Housing
Housing Mix In New Developments
Policy SG4: Housing Mix in New Developments
Policy SG5: Affordable Housing
SPG Affordable Housing
Issue 11. Economic Development
Economic Development
Policy SG6.1 Field Road, Busby
Policy SG6.10 Greenlaw Business Park, Newton Mearns
Policy SG6.14 Spiersbridge Business Park, Thornliebank
Policy SG6.20 Greenlaw Business Park, Newton Mearns
Policy SG6.6 Muriel Street, Barrhead
Policy SG6: Economic Development
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 206
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 226
Issue 12. Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Page 229
Policy SG7.1 Barrhead
Policy SG7.10 Sheddens, Eaglesham Road, Clarkston
Policy SG7.16 Fenwick Road, Merrylee, Giffnock
Policy SG7.26 Mearns Road, Newton Mearns
Policy SG7.4 Newton Mearns
Policy SG7: Town and Neighbourhood Centre Use
Policy SG8.10 Clarkston Town Centre
Policy SG8.12 Newton Mearns Town Centre
Policy SG8.3 Main Street, Barrhead
Policy SG8: New Development and Business Improvement Districts
Policy SG9: Protecting the Retail Function of the Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Issue 13. Sustainable Transport Network
Page 232
Policy SG10.13 M77 / GSO, Newton Mearns
Policy SG10.4 Springfield, Barrhead
Policy SG10.5 Glen Street, Barrhead
Policy SG10: Sustainable Transport Network
36 Station Road
Issue 14. Renewable Energy
Page 235
Policy E1.1 Broad Areas of Search
Policy E1: Renewable Energy
SPG Renewable Energy
Issue 15. Energy Efficiency
Page 243
Policy E2: Energy Efficiency
SPG Energy Efficient Design
Issue 16.1. Water Environment and Flooding
Page 344
Policy E3: Water Environment
Policy E4: Flooding
Policy E5: Surface Water Drainage and Water Quality
Policy E6: Waste Water Treatment
Water Environment
Issue 16.2. Waste
Page 249
Policy E7.3 East Capellie, Neilston
Policy E7: Waste Management
Issue 17. Technical Documents
Page 250
Action Programme
Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment
Framework for Assessing Unallocated Proposals
Monitoring Statement
Site Evaluation Assessment
Representees with Standard Letters
Page 256
Standard Letter Code 1.1A (Introduction)
Standard Letter Code C01A (Consultation Issues)
Standard Letter Code D13A (Policy D13: Community, Leisure and Educational Facilities)
Standard Letter Code D1A (Policy D1: Detailed Guidance for all Development)
Standard Letter Code D1B (Policy D1: Detailed Guidance for all Development)
Standard Letter Code E3A (Policy E3: Water Environment)
Standard Letter Code E4A (Policy E4: Flooding)
Standard Letter Code E6A (Policy E6: Waste Water Treatment)
Standard Letter Code FAA (Framework for Assessing Unallocated Proposals)
Standard Letter Code M1A (Policy M1: Master Plans)
Standard Letter Code M1B (Policy M1: Master Plans)
Standard Letter Code M2.1A (Policy M2.1: M77 Strategic Development Opportunity Standard Letter Code M2.1B (Policy M2.1: M77 Strategic Development Opportunity Standard Letter Code PMA (Proposals Map)
Standard Letter Code PMB (Proposals Map)
Standard Letter Code SEA (Site Evaluation Assessment)
Standard Letter Code SEB (Site Evaluation Assessment)
Standard Letter Code SG1.44A (Policy SG1.44 Easterton Avenue, Busby)
Standard Letter Code SG1.44B (Policy SG1.44 Easterton Avenue, Busby)
Standard Letter Code SG1.5A (Policy SG1.5 Fereneze, Barrhead)
Standard Letter Code SG10A (Policy SG10: Sustainable Transport Network)
Standard Letter Code SG1B (Policy SG1: Housing Supply)
Standard Letter Code SG1C (Policy SG1: Housing Supply)
Standard Letter Code SG2.7A (Policy SG2.7 Hillfield, Newton Mearns)
Standard Letter Code SG2.7B (Policy SG2.7 Hillfield, Newton Mearns)
Standard Letter Code SG2.7C (Policy SG2.7 Hillfield, Newton Mearns)
Standard Letter Code SG2.8A (Policy SG2.8 Barcapel, Newton Mearns)
Standard Letter Code SG2.8B (Policy SG2.8 Barcapel, Newton Mearns)
Standard Letter Code SG2.8C (Policy SG2.8 Barcapel, Newton Mearns)
Standard Letter Code SG5A (Policy SG5: Affordable Housing)
Standard Letter Code SP1A (Strategic Policy 1: Development Strategy)
Standard Letter Code SP1B (Strategic Policy 1: Development Strategy)
Standard Letter Code SP1C (Strategic Policy 1: Development Strategy
Standard Letter Code SP2A (Strategic Policy 2: Assessment of Development Proposals)
Standard Letter Code SP2B (Strategic Policy 2: Assessment of Development Proposals);
Standard Letter Code SP3A (Strategic Policy 3: Development Contributions)
Standard Letter Code SPGA (SPG Green Network and Environmental Management)
Standard Letter Code SPGC (SPG Affordable Housing)
Standard Letter Code SPGD (SPG Renewable Energy)
Appendix 3. Proposed Plan Issues and Responses
Issue 1. General General Comments
Consultation Issues
Objection
Ian Davidson (Ref 9/1)
Difficult for the 'layman' to understand 'technocratic' documents.
More direct consultation process with public meetings would have been helpful.
Most people are unaware of what is going on until it is too late to make any meaningful comment contribution. Consultation is too remote.
Jackson Carlaw, Scottish Parliament (Ref 25/1)
Letters of objection limited to 2000 words seems unfortunately bureaucratic.
James Whyteside (Ref 82/1)
LDP consultation inadequately publicised and fails to apply best practice for a major consultation exercise and fails to make clear the consequences of the policies
LDP is a dense and opaque document
Views expressed during the MIR consultation have been ignored
Abandon LDP and start again on basis of a survesy of what residents want to see happen in their community.
Robert Johnston (Ref 131/6)
Consultation poor
number of documents hard to understand
Events inadequate
Norman Graham (Ref 286/1)
Considered Drop‐in session unhelpful and feels that having polled residents attending that they felt it was unhelpful also.
Dr Brian Robson (Ref 345/4)
Insufficient consultation
Planning Committee Councillors not attending meetings
Newton Mearns Council not part of formal consultation process
Mrs. Margaret Hamilton (Ref 348/1)
Insufficient information for residents to understand what is happening
Drop in session vague
Councillors did not attend public meetings
Too many aspects of plan that have not been discussed
Ian Gladstone (Ref 380/1)
Poor Councillor attendance at consultation events
John Muchan (Ref 492/2)
Unacceptable consultation process, lack of publicity/profile, refusal of authority to attend meetings
Page 1
Alistair Fyfe (Ref 541/1)
Proposals difficult to understand, complicated documents and structure.
Mrs Christine Woods (Ref 586/3)
Poor publicity of consultation
Maps unclear
Ishbel C. Woods (Ref 587/3)
Maps unclear
Aileen M Fyfe (Ref 599/1)
Proposals difficult to understand, complicated documents and structure.
Charlie McGeever (Ref 653/1)
Consultation not sufficient
Council refused to attend public meetings
Notification process pre‐LDP consultation not satisfactory
Eugene Kelly (Ref 671/2)
Lack of consultation
Nicola Livingston, Glasgow Jewish Representative Council (Ref 722/2)
Not aware that any consultation has taken place with individuals or organisations representing the Jewish Community and no approach was made to this Representative Council or the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) for statistical information. Jules McGeever (Ref 744/1)
Undemocratic approach to the plan
Letters and maps sent through Neighbour Notification process almost impossible to understand
Lack of consultation
Lack of preinformation on site selection
D Jesner (Ref 783/3)
Consultation:
Delay in hard copies of all 26 documents being available
ERC deliberately refused to engage with the concept or ethos of public participation
Refused to attend to present plans to Community Councils
Planners only attended area forums for a short time (18 mins)
Refused to hold a public meeting
Consultation not well promoted on website
Officers misled councillors by reporting high levels of satisfaction with drop‐in sessions
Mail server issues
Did not give all community councillors a full copy of LDP
Councillors and ERC Officials refused to attend joint Community Council meeting on the plan
Evelyn Muchan (Ref 811/1)
Lack of consultation with local residents and in particular the apparent local authority refusal to attend public meetings.
Page 2
T D West (Ref 848/2)
Unacceptable lead time for people to respond to consultation
Documents not aimed at public just to satisfy that they legally have been publicised
Page numbers etc requested on Response Form not in Summary Document
Litigious documents lacking in plain language
Mr Iain McCowan (Ref 896/12)
Advised LDP would be reduced from MIR but is now 26 documents
Non attendance at public meetings
Questions not clearly answered at drop ins
Mrs Rena McGuire, Barrhead Community Council (Ref 924/8)
Not user friendly
Brian Connelly, Auchenback Tenants and Residents Association (Ref 938/8)
Not user friendly
Standard Letter Comment C01A (17 reps) (Ref 985/1)
Unnecessary amount of documents make it difficult for residents to understand and are repetitive. Consultation inadequate.
New consultation process started when new documents (as per other comments) are completed. Information delivered to residents homes. Full attendance at public meetings
Support
Norman Gray (Ref 214/4)
Consultation information and events have been good.
Mrs Margaret Gray (Ref 231/6)
Pleased with consultation event at Clarkston Library and glad ERC made an effort to listen.
John W Kilmurray (Ref 798/2)
Found consultation/drop‐in session to be informative and useful
General Comment
General
My overall concern is that the public are being asked to approve something which is very general and by the time specific proposals emerge it will be too late to make any significant difference.
Proposed Local Development Plan
Habitats Directive
Objection
Toby Wilson, RSPB Scotland, South and West Region (Ref 280/1)
New section added after Section 1.8 to refer to the requirements of the The Environmental Assessment
(Scotland) Act 2005 and cross reference to the Environmental report to highlight this as a key
requirement that has influenced the LDP.
New section added after Section 1.8 to refer to the requirements of the The Environmental Assessment
(Scotland) Act 2005 and cross reference to the Environmental report to highlight this as a key
Page 3
requirement that has influenced the LDP.
Introduction
Objection
Anthony B. Northcote, The Coal Authority (Ref 59/1)
Resources:
Northern part of East Renfrewshire contains coal resources which are capable of extraction by surface mining operations.
The Coal Authority is keen to ensure coal resources are not unduly sterilised by new development prior to the extraction of coal.
Legacy:
93 recorded mining entries and other coal mining hazards recorded in East Renfrewshire
LDP needs to recognise these areas when proposing new development. Policy omission ‐ Minerals
There are coal resources present in the north of the LA area that are capable of extraction
GIS data previously submitted to the council shows these
LDP should cover the issue of mineral planning with policy in place to meet the requirements of the SPP
This should include areas of search and highlight opportunities for extraction prior to sterilization and identify opportunities for Coal Bed Methane extraction.
At the very least readers of the LDP should be directed to the section in the SDP on minerals.
Julie Gerc, SEPA (Ref 70/6)
Object to lack of inclusion of specific policy to address air quality.
An alteration to strengthen the plan and allow us to remove our objection in line with national planning policy, guidance and advice, would be:
1) Reference to air quality as a significant issue for the Council.
2) The inclusion of a specific policy (linked to supplementary planning guidance if available) to address air quality issues which requires that an air quality assessment is undertaken for all proposed developments which may give rise to accidences of specific air quality objectives, resulting in the need for an Air Quality Management Area. This policy should address the effects of individual and cumulative developments on air quality.
Mr Philip Garner, Confederation of UK Coal Producers (CoalPro) (Ref 472/1)
No reference to coal or other minerals
Shallow coal could be extracted by surface mining methods in ER
Paras 239 to 247 of SPP should be included in LDP to address issues:
Safeguarding of shallow coal resources to avoid unnecessary sterilisation also including the
principle of prior extraction of resources in urban areas.
Support of the principle of prior extraction in relation to redevelopment in urban areas
especially if this also represents the most efficient and economic method of ground
stabilisation.
Policies to deal with proposals to extract minerals, including surface coal.
Policies for appropriate restoration and aftercare to best industry standard.
LDP should incorporate policies to deal with the extraction of minerals, inckuding coal, mineral safeguarding and prior extraction.
John Hall (Ref 486/18)
No provision under SPG for developers of more than one house to included provision for connectivity to fibre optic network/high speed internet access.
Policy created to ensure developers in site plans and house design include the latest recommendations for connectivity Page 4
to internet/telephony/fibre optic and were delayed this is updated to latest at time.
Andrew Crawford, Aardvark TMC Ltd (trading as ATH Resources) (Ref 503/1)
Object to lack of reference to coal or other minerals in direct contrast to SPP
ER has reserves of shallow coal and must accept the availability of this resource
Policy should be included with the requirements set out in paras 239 to 247 of SPP
Surface coal mining is an important industry in Scotland providing high levels of employment and pay
Complete withdrawal of any minerals based policies can affect the potential growth of the ER economy
Victoria Geddes, Link Group Ltd on behalf of Link in consultation with Barrhead, Arklet and Hanover Housing Associati
Difficult to read ‐
Layout not user friendly
Settlement strategies should be grouped together like Falkirk's Local Plan
Robert Caldwell (Ref 774/4)
Should not proceed without full community support
LDP should be redrafted in entireity
Standard Letter Comment C01A (2 reps) (Ref 984/1)
Concern over lack of detail in plan, at SPG stage it will be hard to comment on.
Proposals Map
Objection
completely unreadable maps
James Baird, Coriolis Energy Ltd (Ref 99/3)
Legend is not coherent e.g. South of Barrhead Use of different colours/symbols
Maps hard to understand
Caroline Viney (Ref 308/2)
All sites in green
Difficult to read
Are there standards that have to be adhered to?
Use of greens confusing
Mrs. Margaret Hamilton (Ref 348/2)
Overuse of green in an effort to appear environmentally friendly.
David Campbell, GL Hearn Limited on behalf of Cala Homes and Taylor Wimpey (Ref 378/2)
Page 5
are to be spread throughout the sites.
Amend Proposals Map to show non‐residential uses across the site
Maps poor and difficult to engage with
Ritchie Adam, Thornliebank Community Council (Ref 504/2)
Not easy to follow
Maps poor, hard to understand
Poor maps
Norman Oliver (Ref 764/2)
Difficult to read
Colours
No named landmarks/roads etc.
Proposals not clearly illustrated
Use of colours poor Use of codes difficult to understand
Proposals not clearly illustrated
Use of colours poor Use of codes difficult to understand
Standard Letter Comment PMA (4 reps) (Ref 997/1)
Map is too difficult to use
It does not feature known landmarks to aid navigation
It was too ambitious that the map could convey 1000 pages of written information
People cannot understand masterplanning process from the map
Failure of maps as they compress too many proposals and concepts onto each map.
Series of simple maps created to convey one element of a proposal at a time, thereafter proposals subject to a further/repeat consultation period.
Simpler maps created with reference to transport systems and geographical landmarks.
Standard Letter Comment PMB (13 reps) (Ref 998/1)
Failure of maps as they compress too many proposals and concepts onto each map.
Simpler maps created with reference to transport systems and geographical landmarks.
Regional Policy
Page 6
Objection
What has ERC done about encouraging other Council's to address their own shortcomings.
Ian Kelly, Graham+Sibbald on behalf of Save the East Renfrewshire Green Belt (Newton Mearns) (Ref 463/4)
Section on SDP policy framework too short for key overarching document
Section 2 of the Monitoring Statement gives more detail but is not cross‐referenced in text
Monitoring statement conforms no SDP requirement for large scale strategic land release to meet housing targets
Supplementary Planning Guidance
General
Consider specific pressures on the water environment that might be exacerbated or addressed by proposed development including sites where a buffer strip would be required and also potential opportunities for restoration. We would expect these recommendations and any existing pressures to be considered through the planning application process or through the production of detailed Development Briefs.
At the LDP stage the most appropriate way to ensure these recommendations are taken into account through the planning application process is the inclusion of policies which refer to the water environment such as Policies E3 and E5 of East Renfrewshire Council’s draft LDP. You may also wish to consider producing supplementary planning guidance regarding buffer strip and restoration requirements, this could highlight sites where buffer strips will be required. Objection
James Sandeman (Ref 600/1)
SPGs are historically produced to enlarge on topics already included in the Plan. Their content at this early stage should therefore be integral to the Plan, not a never‐ending series of supplements.
Object to additional guidance should be incorporated into LDP
No justification for additional SPGs, these should be incorporated into document
Page 7
Issue 2.1. Vision and Strategy Issue, Development Strategy
Areas for Change
Objection
Releasing Green belt discourages Brownfield development
A hierarchy of land release must be developed to ensure developers cannot access Greenfield before committing to Brownfield
If the Council is proposing to release greenbelt land now, how can it ensure that for the (un)foreseeable future it
provides a "defensible" boundary?
Chris Logan, Persimmon Homes Ltd (Ref 743/6)
Para 3.3.6, Pg 16 The very use of the word “longstanding” somewhat contradicts the later use of the phrase “generous and flexible” as it proves that many of the sites which are included within the pre‐LDP established and effective land supply have been awaiting delivery for a significant period of time. In order to promote a “generous and flexible” supply post‐LDP adoption further housing sites should be released which are capable of being developed within the plan period. Blair Melville, Homes for Scotland (Ref 758/11)
Paragraph 3.3.5. Homes for Scotland is not persuaded by the arguments for limiting growth in rural
settlements to the degree proposed. The detailed reasons are dealt with in representations on Section 6
of the Plan.
Paragraph 3.3.6 Homes for Scotland does not agree that the Plan as presented contains a generous and
flexible housing land supply. The detailed reasons for this, and proposed changes, are dealt with in
representations on Section 6 of the Plan.
Green Network
Objection
Enabling access to greenspace is contradicted by the proposal to release Green Belt for development.
Development site at Newton Mearns has no access to country park.
Plans for Aurs Road will discourage users of the park.
Key Diagram
Objection
Stephen Hall, Scottish Government on behalf of Transport Scotland (Ref 962/1)
New station referred to under policies M2.1 and SG10.4 Replace New Railway Station with word 'Proposed New Railway Station'
Support
Page 8
Gordon MacCallum, Keppie on behalf of Jamie Irvine (Land Director) Miller Homes SW (Ref 77/3)
Miller Homes also support the key diagram Figure 4, which shows the location of the major release areas.
Objectives
Objection
lacks detail and without measure to determine successful outcomes
What does "address the impact of climate change" mean in practice, how will it be achieved, same for other 5 objectives and 27 sub‐themes
Does not understand "address out‐commuting of workforce"
Support
Fiona Morrison, Education Department, East Renfrewshire Council (Ref 275/1)
Support the objectives and how they support the vision.
Education have been consulted many times in development of the plan and this is recognised within key themes.
Phasing and Delivery
Objection
Growth "managed, phased and flexible" ‐ we should know how the Council proposes to achieve this, since in the past once a site is approved the developer has been in charge of when it is developed.
Investment in house building benefits the builder (who will usually be based outside E.Ren and employ little labour or suppliers in the county). E.Ren is not a charity to support companies from elsewhere.
Adverse impact on the infrastructure is to be avoided through partnership working, but sites are to be released (and have in the past been approved) without any such "partnership working" having taken place. Will Scottish Water, SEPA etc now be asked for
definitive commitments on sites before they are approved? If they are not, the Council risks legal action when well‐meant planning conditions prove impossible to achieve.
Policy D2: General Urban Areas
Support
Professor Amir Hussain, ER Mosque & Community Centre (ERMEC) on behalf of Mr Nazir Ahmed (Ref 755/12)
Support policy
Strategic Aim
Support
Richard A Shaw (Ref 234/3)
Strategic Aims and Objectives are supported. Strategic Policy 1: Development Strategy
Objection
Ulric J Gerry (Ref 21/1)
There should be no more building on the Green Belt in East Renfrewshire.
Huge areas of Brownfield in Glasgow that should be redeveloped first.
City centre living is more environmentally friendly than suburban.
Roads already getting full to capacity.
More housing will make the area unpleasant to live in.
Page 9
Services already stretched including schools.
Existing new developments not all sold.
"No more development on fields please until existing Brownfield in Glasgow utilised."
Iain Cameron (Ref 22/2)
LDP provides for more homes than required by SDP.
LDP states East Renfrewshire is a desirable place to live with a high quality natural environment but the LDP seems to ignore its own words as what it proposes will fundamentally alter the appeal of East Renfrewshire with proposals for 4100 homes supply target and 4279 potential proposed housing supply. These houses will put increased pressure on services which is acknowledged in the plan as already being a problem.
Overdevelopment is inconsistent with the message that East Renfrewshire will retain its appeal of being a desirable place to live and work.
There is an inherent fallacy within the document; it proposes sizable increase in homes to be built on the Green Belt, yet argues the Green Belt will provide a defence to unplanned growth while further reducing its boundaries.
LDP does not deal with the increased infrastructure requirements for the number of homes proposed. If expenditure is not increased in line with number of houses we will suffer further declines in the standard of roads. Already there is a decline in the up keep of roads. Lack of consideration for public transport. Clarkston and Whitecraigs park and ride exhausted with no provision to extend. There will not be enough with additional 4100 homes without further investment in public transport. Further investment would miss the point as homes are not likely to be adjacent to existing public transport links.
ER has highest level of car ownership in Scotland. Despite the notion of climate change permeating the document cars will be needed to travel to homes not easily connected to public transport. Public transport currently poor due to high levels of car ownership.
No analysis of the implications of increased housing on public services. What assessment has been made for school provision, GP services or general amenities?
What assessment has been made of pinch point traffic locations e.g. J5 and J4 on M77 or Clarkston and Eastwood Tolls?
The homes currently approved through the existing Local Plan (8% growth) more than double required by the estimated population growth from the office of national statistics.
Cannot support the main thrust of the LDP to build 4100 homes.
LDP contradictory ‐ proposed release of Green Belt at Malletsheugh/Maidenhill increase need to travel and is far away from rail and bus routes.
Sites sit on watercourses and support natural habitats.
Allocation undermines LDP strategy.
for Newton Mearns/ Eastwood the proposed document is self defeating and contradictory loosing long standing protection of the Green Belt for short term housing development
Joseph Fell (Ref 87/1)
Sequential approach not demonstrated in LDP as stated in SP2
Page 10
Reduction in housing from 5700 in MIR to 4100 in LDP has seen no reduction in Green Belt use, sites SG2.7 and SG2.8 should be the first removed by reduction in numbers through this sequential approach
GCVS ‐ HNDA states population and household growth to be modest
Affordable housing ER has significant pressure with known differences between Eastwood and Levern Valley.
Mrs Marion Fleming (Ref 98/2)
No explanation is given about the depopulisation of Glasgow
it has been an on going plan to remove residents from Glasgow City
removal of residents from there communities to areas which are unknown to them and lack the amenities of the City
it is only fair and just that officials and MSP’s meet with the residents of East Ren. before imposing on taxpayers against their will to enlighten us on how this restructuring of communities will benefit all of us in a free and independent Scotland.
Green Belt should not be sacrificed for short term needs in housing caused by economic crisis
Council not implementing housing needs by allowing 4/5 5/6 bedroom houses instead of the smaller units required
Commutation is abhorrent, developers should not be allowed to exclude affordable from their site and will not deliverer the needed affordable housing
Pressure on local infrastructure substantial, reluctance to accept Education's figures of 1 child per household
Councillors should be required to undertake site visits before approval
Planning department too close to developers
Campbell Black, Bett Homes (Ref 138/2)
Housing strategy relies on masterplanning sites which require upfront investment
Smaller sites more viable in economic climate
Quantative but not qualitative assessment
Andrew Beaumont (Ref 142/2)
Object to all building on Green Belt
Green Belt shrinking and brownfield expanding
Council trying to increase revenue to fund over extravagant spending
Patricia Beaumont (Ref 143/1)
Object to all building on Green Belt
Green Belt shrinking and brownfield expanding
Mrs Janet Mylett (Ref 191/1)
"very definite No to the LDP"
John Stewart (Ref 204/1)
Council should more vigorously defend major land releases in the Green Belt (Malletsheugh/Maidenhill, Barrhead).
Brownfield sites and sites earmarked for business, together with sites such as Greenlaw. where there is no demand should be used rather than Green Belt land.
Alan Fairlie, Busby Community Council (Ref 226/1)
Economic/industrial and population increases envisaged in LDP cannot be guaranteed with economic future unpredictable in the UK. Population growth is highly speculative.
Page 11
Community Council not convinced that adequate infrastructure has been planned for the projected population increase and insufficient funding will be available in the future.
Community Council feel that at every 5 year review a building/development programme should be set out and provide for objections from residents with appeal mechanisms for residents available and recourse to the Scottish Government guaranteed.
Iain Donaldson (Ref 252/1)
Object to 5700 houses proposed (by SDP)
Already huge increases in housing
Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor have had less development than Newton Mearns.
Southside of Glasgow already biggest suburb in Europe
Brownfield sites not examined in plan before Green Belt sites.
Mrs I Cameron (Ref 272/2)
Retain the Green Belt.
James Scrimger (Ref 278/1)
LDP ill conceived and shows lack of insight into the impacts on the existing communities and the ability of services and infrastructure to cope.
More information require on positive an negative impact of proposals.
Commitment of other public bodies and service providers has not been demonstrated.
Welcome support for sustainable development. However, reference to the natural environment is
required to ensure the policy is consistent with this aim.
‘Proposals will be supported where they provide positive economic, environmental and social benefits to
the area’
Janice Scrimger (Ref 284/1)
LDP ill conceived and shows lack of insight into the impacts on the existing communities and the ability of services and infrastructure to cope.
More information require on positive an negative impact of proposals.
Commitment of other public bodies and service providers has not been demonstrated.
Does not provide sustained controllable development in line with SDP
Oversupply of Green Belt sites
Should direct development to brownfield in Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley
36 year land supply in GG and CV
Urban Expansion against SDP
Brownfield sites should be used first
Bob Salter, Geddes Consulting Limited on behalf of Wallace Land Investment and Management (Ref 331/6)
Policy does not acknowledge the value of Greenfield land infill or adjacent to settlements has to offer in delivering sustainable economic growth. Policy could be reworded (below).
Development on Green Network designated land does not automatically result in adverse impacts and can facilitate Green Network objectives.
Page 12
Regeneration and consolidation of urban areas with an emphasis on developing brownfield and vacant
sites in addition to sustainable greenfield land where its development meets an identified need alongside
the continued protection and enhancement of the green belt and countryside around towns and the
green network.
Tom Weir (Ref 334/1)
Green Belt development when Brownfield sites exist
Traffic concerns and disregard for criteria
Drainage/ no studies to check provision
School capacity/ No schools proposed
Loss of character
Other areas more suited to development
Disregard for residents wishes
Brownfileds sites should be developed first, what are ERC doing to ensure this happens?
Question the population projections in SDP, has the Council argued against these?
Jane Donaldson (Ref 375/1)
Object to 5700 houses proposed (by SDP)
Already huge increases in housing
Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor have had less development than Newton Mearns.
Southside of Glasgow already biggest suburb in Europe
Brownfield sites not examined in plan before Green Belt sites.
Welcome Council's growth strategy but not clear why a strategy of 'consolidation' and 'controlled urban expansion' has been chosen over 'flexible long term growth' as was favoured in the MIR.
The MIR confirmed 'flexible long term growth' as 'most appropriate and sustainable strategy' Support long term growth approach in order to meet SPP requirement for a generous supply of land for new housing
Further areas should not be considered for release for development when sites already released have not been developed
Council should insist development of previously released sites before any Green Belt land is considered
Mrs Susie Stewart (Ref 408/4)
Unlimited or excessive housebuilding will destroy special value of authority.
Currently good place to live with clearly defined communities.
Pressure on infrastructure and services must be taken into account.
Ruth King, Geddes Consulting on behalf of CALA Homes (West) and Paterson Partners (Ref 414/1)
Para 3.12.2 does not acknowledge the value sustainable Greenfield land within or adjacent to existing settlements has to offer in developing sustainable economic growth ‐ Policy could be reworded to maintain flexibility
Development on Green Network does not automatically result in adverse impacts
Regeneration and consolidation of urban areas with an emphasis on developing Brownfield and vacant site in addition to sustainable Greenfield land where its development meets an identified need alongside…
Mrs Irene Graham (Ref 448/2)
Controlled urban expansion against SDP
Page 13
Plan does not:
Provide reasoned justification for enormous scale of strategic land release
Provide precise reviewable figures for the quantum of land release proposed for the various different land uses Assess the proposals in any way in terms of the other key Strategic Policies in the Proposed Plan
No evidence of appetite for investment required
Absence of robust reasoned justification through evidence base
Wording is misleading
Plan does not address concerns raised at MIR stage ‐ development should be close to rail routes, on Brownfield, no new release of Greenfield, greenspaces and Green Belt retained, MIR option 1 supported, objections to 1000 affordable homes at Newton Mearns, objections to urban sprawl and ribbon development
Development strategy does not propose controlled urban expansion due to scale of masterplan sites and 5 year reviews
No evidence of outcome of Green Belt review
No reasoned justification as to why 'Areas of Change' chosen or setting out consideration of alternatives
'Defensible Boundaries' approach not considered sound planning principle if used on its own to justify land release
Site M2.1 contradictory to parts of SP1
Proposed land releases not tested against policies SP1 and SP2, in particular M2.1
Major land releases are not justified against SDP
Land releases not assessed and justified in terms of reasonable alternatives
Land releases not in accordance with sustainable development aspirations or national policy
LDP is contrary to SDP:
Promotes sustainable locations for development, consider promoting Green Belt development that would add more traffic to M77 against this policy
Identifies increase of 113,700 households between 2008‐2025 many of them single person or elderly so should be in urban areas. 34,000 of these household will have been formed since 2008 ‐ no need to provide additional households
Compact city region running east‐west along Clyde is vision, ribbon development along M77 does not fit with this
SDP housing based on in‐migration to city region and assumption housing rates will return to pre‐2008 levels consider this unrealistic in terms of LDP
In SDP Housing Land Audit sites and community growth areas (not M77 corridor) may provide sufficient land for private housing demand to 2025. Of the 2500 homes ‘allocated’ to ER there is no provision for these to be delivered as major Greenfield releases
Surplus housing is shown in schedules 8 and 9 of SDP
Levels of affordable housing in SDP does not translate into new house building requirements in reference to backlog SDP para 4.78/4.80 as other measures such as housing management conversion etc can be used. Schedule 10 SDP figure is not a requirement or guide for land allocations
Schedule 11A figure of 5700 houses is not a requirement or direction of policy to allocate new sites and does not justify major Green Belt release
In summary SDP does not justify M77 development corridor release in particular site M2.1
If LDP had followed SDP objection would not have arisen
Housing Land Supply – proposed policy approach is not clear if any adjustments have been made for housing unit completions 2008/9 and to the end of 2012
Proposed Plan and table 4 do not show how existing housing land supply figures have been taken into account or if figures gross or net
Strategic land releases proposed will provide over1300 houses to 2025 ‐ for market housing there is no housing land supply requirement at all for the proposed scale of Green Belt releases In affordable housing there is no demonstrable prospect of funding available to deliver the numbers in LDP and used in justification for land releases
SPP:
ER has not followed SPP approach of housing land up to year 7 of SDP
Have not set out a settlement strategy with the first key point being efficient use of existing buildings, land and infrastructure. As required under SPP
Page 14
Policy and proposals should be deleted and replaced with an urban regeneration approach reflecting the role of East Renfrewshire in SDP area.
W.R Barr (Ref 470/1)
Plans for 4279 houses go against the stated objectives and vision of the plan
Green Belt should be protected at all costs
Brownfield sites available in ER and Clyde Valley
Lack of infrastructure ‐ roads, drainage, schools, healthcare
Insufficient developer contributions
Dormitory developments lacking transport links
John O'Malley (Ref 477/3)
Substantial availability of Brownfield (table H2 Monitoring Statement)
In the LDP the word 'Brownfield' appears only 8 times, 'sequentially' 4 times
Statements on Brownfield have no detail about implementation
Housing Land Audit unreadable, prepared information on Brownfield sites should be made available to developers
No explanation of how developers to go about discounting non Green Belt sites first
Suspect ERC have not made effort to implement policy
it is significant that despite the reduction in housing units from 5,700 in MIR to 4,100 in LDP there is no reduction in the areas to be released from the Green Belt
Sites SG2.7/SG2.8 should be first priority in restoration of Green Belt classification if sequential approach used.
there is adequate land supply currently available to meet initial 5 year requirement
3000 houses with permission yet to be built
if further land supply is required long term this should be taken from other less sensitive and less contentious Greenfield sites
Add section on sequential approach process and publish audit of planning applications following policy implementation.
Anne M Macfarlane (Ref 491/1)
Use of Green Belt sites against SDP
John Muchan (Ref 492/1)
Removal of Green Belt
Unacceptable numbers of houses and business development, particularly at Newton Mearns
No demand for business
No infrastructure to support development
Incinerator unacceptable
A.L.S. MILL (Ref 499/1)
Strategy heavily weighted in favour of developers
Against incinerator
Loss of amenity
Brownfield sites should be developed
Places such as Busby improving but need better strategy
Traffic impact (Busby)
Plans for special needs housing should be reviewed to ensure one locality does not take the burden in social responsibility. Housing should be integrated into dispersed locations. Needs and aspirations of people to be housed should also be taken into account.
Page 15
Bill Duguid, Eaglesham and Waterfoot Community Council (Ref 510/3)
Object to "controlled urban expansion" (as quoted para 3.1.2) contrary to SDP which does not call for release of major sites within the Green Belt but directs to brownfield
Lynda Murray (Ref 511/1)
LDP does not provide sustained controllable growth in line with SDP
Has the potential to oversupply inappropriate Green Belt sites which significantly undermine the economic, social and environmental being of East Renfrewshire
No objection in principle to building on Green Belt, most homes where once Green Belt, but object to productive agricultural land being developed before less productive sites
Site analysis undertaken
Derek Morris (Ref 528/1)
Questions figures on population, housing requirements Concerned focus of plan is on building new homes but not enough emphasis on traffic congestion, schools, health services
Distinct lack of clarity on what benefits will be on business opportunity and job creation
Keith A. Vallance (Ref 536/1)
Urban expansion is contrary to SPD and at odds with a strategy of consolidation ‐ both aims cannot be achieved in one strategy
Policy M2.1 is not a sustainable development due to lack of infrastructure
Object to preference devoted to housing above other key items such as infrastructure, community facilities and education
Strategy focussed on housing to the detriment of other concerns
Target figures inaccurate and misleading
Admission in Monitoring Statement that release of Green Belt is to facilitate 'critical short period in difficult for the house building industry' is alarming ‐ private house building industry is not state sponsored and cannot be afforded special treatment, difficulty is of its own making.
As plan period is long term up to 2025 and 2035 it short term difficulties should not be matters in the LDP
214 hectares of Green Belt have been designated ion the LDP (equivalent of 278 Hampden Parks) and this is wholly unacceptable
Concern that this release of Green Belt will lead to further release
ERC seem to be generally in favour of Green Belt release based on planning applications approved 2005 to 2012
Have ignored responses to MIR on growth strategy, Monitoring Statement confirms this in para 1.5.23
Simon Calvert (Ref 546/1)
Object to such large volume of housing on Green Belt land
Use of Green Belt against SDP
Significant number of private houses over SDP
Oversupply of homes will negatively effect house prices
Will not create economic growth
No infrastructure to support
Ron Fairholm (Ref 572/7)
As part of a sustainable development policy new housing and businesses should be directed to those lower altitude sites in preference to higher altitude sites in any ward. Neil Warren (Ref 578/1)
Does not meet the objectives of the SDP
Page 16
Does not provide sustained controllable development
Has the potential to over‐supply of inappropriate Green Belt sites
New development should go to Brownfield sites
36‐year supply of Brownfield sites in area and 643 consented houses in Newton Mearns
No take up of business space in Newton Mearns
Object to controlled urban expansion
As part of a sustainable development policy new housing and businesses should be directed to those lower altitude sites in preference to higher altitude sites in any ward. Alison Smith (Ref 585/5)
As part of a sustainable development policy new housing and businesses should be directed to those lower altitude sites in preference to higher altitude sites in any ward. Stuart Smith (Ref 591/5)
As part of a sustainable development policy new housing and businesses should be directed to those lower altitude sites in preference to higher altitude sites in any ward. Southern most aspect of Newton Mearns colder than other areas resulting in unsustainable U values
Housing and businesses should be directed away from this area (directed to lower altitudes in preference to higher altitudes)
Martyn Gallop (Ref 619/1)
Green Belt loss
Coalescence
Brownfield sites not used
Insufficient data to back up housing need ‐ should negotiate with SDP
Development not delivering employment
Sewage / drainage capacity
Part completed development should finish before new work starts
Should ensure affordable housing is built first in development
Barbara Macdonald (Ref 632/1)
Object to loss of Green Belt
Incinerator
Impact on health, education, schooling and existing population
Grace McCarthy (Ref 638/6)
As part of a sustainable development policy new housing and businesses should be directed to those lower altitude sites in preference to higher altitude sites in any ward. T. Nigel Brown (Ref 664/1)
Document long winded and difficult to understand
Social structure will not cope with number of new residents
Infrastructure impact
All new housing should be stopped
Mrs Ruth Mavunga (Ref 673/2)
LDP proposes 3200 homes not enough information on where these will be built and impact on infrastructure
, Newton Mearns Community Council (Ref 686/2)
Does not provide sustainable controllable development in line with the SDP
Page 17
Over‐supply of Green Belt sites
36 year land supply of brownfield available
Controlled urban expansion contrary to SDP approach
Proposes 70 to 216 more houses in Newton Mearns than consulted on in MIR
LDP25 and LDP23B have increased in size without justification, important sites that prevent coalescence
As part of a sustainable development policy new housing and businesses should be directed to those lower altitude sites in preference to higher altitude sites in any ward. Delete M2.1, SG2.7 and SG2.8 and SG1.32
Reallocate SG6.10 for housing
Ryan McAlindin, Sport Scotland (Ref 702/3)
Precautionary principle ‐ sportscotland request a clear, unequivocal interpretation is provided in proposed plan
Request to be consulted on masterplans and development briefs
Adrian Smith, Muir Smith Evans on behalf of Mactaggart and Mickel Homes Limited (Ref 703/3)
Not sufficient to rely on 3 SDOs for delivery of plans housing target
Fails to take account of need for 'truly generous supply'
Does not take account of lead in time for masterplans
Suggests inclusion of further sites
Change wording to all tenure for 5700 homes
Julie Mylett (Ref 704/1)
Object to all loss of Green Belt
School impact
Road safety impact
Not using brownfield sites
Goes against political promises
Jennifer and Walter Speculand (Ref 710/1)
Object to Green Belt development
Traffic impact on M77
One of the stated key objectives to the Local Development Plan is to ‘Provide for local needs and equality of access to housing, jobs, facilities and services, particularly to assist in social inclusion.’ The Glasgow Jewish Representative Council has undertaken wide ranging consultation on the future needs of the Jewish community and infrastructure requirements. There are a number of issues specific to the demographics and religious and cultural needs of the Jewish community which require to be taken into consideration as part of ERC’s Proposed Local Development Plan.
There is a specific need to cater for the large Jewish population in East Renfrewshire in terms of housing ‐ particularly for the ageing population who require faith specific care. There are a number of younger people living within their family homes that would like to live independently within the same area to ensure that their continuing social, cultural and religious needs can be met in a faith specific environment. Future planning for these individuals should include the availability of suitable supported accommodation located within the heart of the Jewish community, and should also take into account the differing housing needs across the age range. There is also requirements for Jewish education, community and religious facilities within the plan.
Iain Rennie (Ref 791/2)
Views of residents should be primary consideration Object to urban expansion
Page 18
Karen Mitchell (Ref 799/2)
More private houses than SDP, prevents innercity regeneration
Housing need unproven
Alistair Mooney (Ref 801/1)
Loss of farmland and Green Belt
Loss of chracter/qualities
Brownfield sites should be developed
Sheila Mitchell (Ref 807/2)
Implementation of the LDP, providing in excess of 4000 additional homes, is contrary to the principle of inner city regeneration. It has never been proven that there is the ‘housing need’ being provided for in the proposed LDP. Margaret Hislop (Ref 812/1)
Object to housing on Green Belt
Schools and infrastructure over stretched
Roads and other services need attention before more homes
Will become expansion of Glasgow rather than suburb
Mrs Diane Kerr (Ref 841/2)
Against further Green Belt development
No need to cionsider Green Belt development when unbuilt permissions exist
Infrastructure concerns
Climate change/ environmental concerns
Stuart S Pirie (Ref 845/1)
Detrimental effect on Newton Mearns and South Side of Glasgow
Traffic/congestion, condition of roads
Not brownfield
More effort should be made to build on difficult Brownfield sites
John Corstorphine (Ref 884/1)
Education and healthcare not addressed in LDP
Concern over total number of homes
Concerned fewer affordable homes than SDP
No evidence of affordable homes available for purchase, will be free for all for builders
Polnoon's 'affordable' £250,000 ‐ not affordable
No faith in local government to control such massive expansion
LDP should reflect wishes of local community
No evidence SDP incorporated into LDP
LDP does not enable compact city region, increased urban density or use brownfield
Should safeguard environment and Green Belt
Oversupply of inappropriate Green Belt sites, undermining economic, social and environmental well‐being
Serves fiscal requirements of council not residents
All new developments should solely be on brownfield sites
Page 19
SDP confirms 36 year supply of Brownfield in city region
No release of Green Belt until all consented houses are built
Development in Newton Mearns should be urban infil and located next to rail network with school places created in catchment areas
John Boyle (Ref 958/1)
Discrepancy if 3200 houses planned and 2000 already granted
New school costs outstrip developer contributions, PFI would burden tax payer
Developing Brownfield would make it easier for children to be incorporated into existing schools
Damages inner city regeneration, damaging long term future of Glasgow city centre
Schooling underpins quality of ER, housing will diminish this and healthy environment for children
Bob Salter, Geddes Consulting Limited on behalf of Lynch Homes (Ref 965/8)
Does not acknowledge value of sustainable greenfield land as infill is directly adjacent to settlements offer in sustainable economic growth as part of urban consolidation
Development on land designated as green network does not automatically result in adverse impacts on green network objectives.
Reword: Regeneration and consolidation of urban areas with an emphasis on developing brownfield and vacant sites in addition to sustainable greenfield land where its development meets an identified need alongside the continued protection and enhancement of the green belt and countryside around towns and the green network
Anthony Aitken, Colliers International on behalf of Mr Francis Baird and family (Ref 979/1)
Consider it is not possible to meet all housing needs with Brownfield sites and Green Belt development is necessary, consider current Green Belt allocations in plan insufficient to meet housing needs
Limiting development in rural settlements to infill is a missed opportunity for Waterfoot
Do not believe housing supply is generous as claimed
Add third point to polict "Village Expansion: in order to ensure that the local communities needs are met for hosuing, economic and community facilities over the plan period, there will be appropriate development opportunities identified which will result in Green Belt boundary adjustment"
Standard Letter Comment SP1A (5 reps) (Ref 1014/1)
It is significant that despite the reduction in housing units from 5,700 in MIR to 4,100 in LDP there is no reduction in the areas to be released from the Green Belt
3000 units with planning permission not yet built, Council should press for progress on existing sites rather than seek new sites
there is adequate land supply currently available to meet initial 5 year requirement.
if further land supply is required long term this should be taken from other less sensitive and less contentious Greenfield sites.
Next consultation Brownfield sites available for housing development made clear.
Standard Letter Comment SP1B (65 reps) (Ref 1015/1)
Large area of Brownfield sites not brought forward for housing development.
Standard Letter Comment SP1C (9 reps) (Ref 1016/1)
No proven need for housing over and above previous plan
Impact on roads
Developer contributions insufficient for all infrastructure required
Page 20
School capacity
Flood risk and drainage issues from overdevelopment
Green Belt should not be lost until Brownfield developed
Maps unclear
Support
Fully support the Council’s strategy and, in particular, the two strand approach to development which includes controlled growth, masterplanned and developed to the following locations: Barrhead South – Springhill, Springfield, Lyon Cross, Strategic Development Opportunity and Urban Expansion.
Alastair McKie, Anderson Strathern LLP on behalf of Mr and Mrs P Layden and Richard Layden (Ref 86/1)
Support Development Strategy and policies
Support growth including Barrhead South ‐ Lyoncross SDO
Considers this to be a justified release of Green Belt and will provide a defensible boundary to unplanned growth.
Ross Johnston, Scottish National Heritage (Ref 88/6)
We welcome the development strategy and that there will be the “continued protection and enhancement of the
green
belt and countryside around towns and the green network”
Stuart McMillan, Renfrewshire Council (Ref 194/1)
Renfrewshire Council recognise the LDP builds on many elements of the Adopted Local Plan. It is considered that elements of the strategy that propose changes will have minimal implications for Renfrewshire.
Education welcomes the two strand approach to development as a means of consolidation and the controlled approach of master planning particularly in areas where schools are operating close to capacity. The approach is important to ensure growth is delivered in a phased way with schools, public transport, roads and green space provided as an integral part.
The plan is clear development will lead to increased demand for school places and new community facilities (para 3.10).
Sam Taylor, Glasgow City Council (Ref 465/1)
Propose housing in excess of SDP, however, most sites are within urban areas or on the edge of settlements, but not adjacent to Glasgow, and therefore present no significant issue to Glasgow City Council.
Blair Melville, Homes for Scotland (Ref 758/8)
Commends the Council for producing a clear, balanced and well-argued strategic approach which
conforms to the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy. In particular, it is clear about the need to
accommodate development while balancing a range of economic, social and environmental factors and,
where necessary, making choices between competing pressures.
David J Bryce, Bryce Associates Ltd on behalf of Elderslie Estates (Ref 983/1)
Support policy in terms of consolidation, controlled urban expansion, green belt and green network and areas of change. Specifically support some limited growth in Neilston
Page 21
Transport and Accessibility
Objection
Improving public transport is not in the Council's gift, so the Council cannot plan for it.
Vision
Objection
The Vision states ER to remain a desirable place to live and work but this is being eroded through the loss of Green Belt, leisure and amenities proposed in the plan. Quality of life will be degraded.
T I A McCall (Ref 265/1)
Amount of growth planned will make East Renfrewshire an undesirable place to live
Growth planned and previous growth since 2008, do not have the necessary infrastructure ‐ schools/medical/social in place
Recent development has already been to the detriment of Newton Mearns
There is no local employment in Newton Mearns
Pressures on Newton Mearns and Eaglesham too great and Busby, Clarkston and Netherlee are already overflowing
Roads already highly congested
Why is tourism a factor and does this include day visitors
Aims of the plan are unrealistic
Plan does not satisfy the needs and wishes of residents
Support
Support overall LDP and strategic vision and objectives, overall compliance with national and city region policy.
support and in particular by 2025 "enhanced green network."
Page 22
Issue 2.2. Vision and Strategy Issue, Assessment of Development Proposals
Strategic Policy 2: Assessment of Development Proposals
Objection
Roger Quin (Ref 72/7)
No demonstration that sequential approach methodology ‐ urban, brownfield, Greenfield, Green Belt has been used
Brownfield appears only 8 times in LDP, sequential 4
There is substantial availability of Brownfield land in ER, availability of information on Brownfield land availability is poor however, Housing Land Audit impenetrable
Reference is made for the need to demonstrate non‐Green Belt sites exist before Green Belt sites are used but no information is given on what steps are required
Develop a policy for the implementation of a sequential option appraisal based on Brownfield first.
Adopted LDP should contain detail on the sequential approach principal and the policy to implement it, cross referenced from information other LDP documents.
An audit should be undertaken to show its effectiveness.
Release of Green Belt undermines the prioritisation of Brownfield.
No record of implementation of 'sequential approach' or that developers have followed this
Robert Russell (Ref 215/7)
No demonstration that sequential approach methodology ‐ urban, brownfield, Greenfield, Green Belt has been used
Developed a policy for the implementation of a sequential option appraisal based on Brownfield first.
An audit should be undertaken to show its effectiveness. Toby Wilson, RSPB Scotland, South and West Region (Ref 280/3)
Support this policy but suggest changes with refrence to flood risk.
Suggest reference is also made to flood risk as well as water quality in line with the requirements of
SPP.
Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/4)
No demonstration that sequential approach methodology ‐ urban, brownfield, Greenfield, Green Belt has been used
No demonstration that this methodology has been used
No evidence potential developers have to consider Brownfield sites
Developed a policy for the implementation of a sequential option appraisal based on Brownfield first.
No evidence potential developers have to consider Brownfield sites
Develop a policy for the implementation of a sequential option appraisal based on Brownfield first
Page 23
An audit should be undertaken to show its effectiveness.
Key tests must be more rigorously applied
Brownfield sites should be retained and a very string case made if not used
In terms of the sequential approach to development; it is not clear how this can be applied to applications for development when an applicant is unlikely to have control over multiple sites. Each application should be considered on its own merits outwith the requirement to compare the site to other sites which are not in the ownership of the applicant. Nor is it clear how planning consents and conditions can stipulate matters such as size, type and tenure. This should be the concern of the housebuilder attached to the site, as they are more likely to understand the target market of the development. Clause 1 should be deleted. Clause 2 should be amended to read “the proposed mix of house types and tenures, with a view to encouraging mixed and balanced local communities.” Blair Melville, Homes for Scotland (Ref 758/9)
Homes for Scotland objects to clauses 1 and 2 of this policy.
Clause 1 it is not clear how a sequential approach can be applied to planning applications. A sequential
approach principally applies to the plan-making process, in terms of evaluating alternative site proposals
for residential and retail uses in the main. This is accepted as a legitimate policy aim in plan formulation.
However, at the level of an individual planning application, there is nothing in national policy and
guidance applying such a test to a residential application. There is no guarantee that an applicant will
have control over any other sites; if he does he may well intend to bring those forward too, but the
timing and sequence of sites coming forward is driven by many factors including marketability, viability
and constraints to be overcome.
Clause 2 is also impractical. There is nothing in planning policy or guidance which allows a planning
authority to control by conditions the sizes, types and tenures of housing. Even affordable housing policy
can be delivered through a variety of types and tenures. The Glasgow and Clyde Valley HNDA does not
assess need by size, type and tenure of housing in any detail, other than by identifying need in terms of
“affordable”, “market” and “intermediate”. The delivery of affordable and intermediate products will
largely derive from negotiation on contributions through the Affordable Housing Policy SG5. Likewise the
Local Housing Strategy does not contain detailed analysis of housing stock by size and type or assess
future patterns of need at that level of detail.
Clause 1 is unworkable in practice and should be deleted.
Clause 2 should be amended to read “the proposed mix of house types and tenures, with a view to
encouraging mixed and balanced local communities.”
No demonstration that sequential approach methodology ‐ urban, brownfield, Greenfield, Green Belt has been used.
Standard Letter Comment SP2B (62 reps) (Ref 1018/1)
No demonstration that this methodology has been used No evidence potential developers have to consider Brownfield sites
Develop a policy for the implementation of a sequential option appraisal based on Brownfield first.
Support
Page 24
We welcome the criteria which new development will be assessed against and particularly support the inclusion of the
following criteria
4.The impact on the landscape character as informed by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley and the East
Renfrewshire
Landscape Character Assessments, the character and amenity of communities, individual properties and
existing land
uses;
8. The impact on the built and natural environment, including the green belt and green network taking into
account the
need for an Environmental Impact Assessment and the requirement for proposals to provide a defensible
green belt
boundary and links to the green network;
9. The impact on air, soil, including peat and water quality;
10. The potential for remedial or compensatory environmental measures including temporary greening;
Reason ‐ This should help ensure that the green network and natural heritage are integral to proposed developments
Page 25
Issue 2.3. Vision and Strategy Issue, Development Contributions
Objection
It is recommended that this policy makes explicit reference to Policy Tests in Circular 3/2012 to ensure clarity It is welcomed that the policy acknowledges the need to consider viability when determining the package of developer contributions
This Policy also needs to acknowledge that the provision of affordable housing requires to meet its proportionate share of developer contributions
Viability will require to be assessed against the provision of homes/land or financial contribution to delivering affordable housing alongside contributions to supporting services and facilities
Para. 3.17.2: New developments that individually or cumulatively generate a requirement for new infrastructure or services will be expected to deliver, or contribute towards the provision of, supporting services and facilities. Developer Contributions will be agreed in accord with the five Policy Tests in Circular 3/2012. Planning permission will only be granted for new development where the identified level and range of supporting infrastructure or services to meet the needs of the new development is already available or will be available in accordance with an agreed timescale.
Policy should make explicit reference to policy tests in Circular 3/2012
Welcomed that the policy considered viability
Policy needs to acknowledge that the provision of affordable housing requires to meet its proportionate share of developer contributions
Viability needs assessed against homes/land/financial contribution when delivering affordable housing alongside contributions to supporting services and facilities
Para. 3.17.2 New developments that individually or cumulatively generate a requirement for new
infrastructure or services will be expected to deliver, or contribute towards the provision of, supporting
services and facilities. Developer Contributions will be agreed in accord with the five Policy Tests in
Circular 3/2012. Planning permission will only be granted for new development where the identified
level and range of supporting infrastructure or services to meet the needs of the new
development is already available or will be available in accordance with an agreed timescale.
Claire Wharton (Ref 419/6)
Developer Contributions should be ring fenced for use in settlement directly effected by development.
LDP must include clear proposal on developer contributions (as opposed to saying SPG will be updated)
M2.1 requires substantial education contributions, costs within document inadequate and require doubled
Suggest contributions calculation is altered to reduce the complexity and reinforce the sequential approach of Brownfield first ‐ on Brownfield sites £7500 per house and on Greenfield £25000 per house.
Circular 3/2012 has replaced Circular 1/2010 and the text of the Plan should be updated accordingly.
Circular 3/2012 provides that applicants for planning consent can reasonably be expected to pay for
either new services/infrastructure essential to make their developments acceptable in planning terms, or
for enhancements to existing services and infrastructure if the impact of development causes a
deficiency in those services/infrastructure. The reference to “new infrastructure or services” in paragraph
3.17.2 is not sufficiently clear as to whether it covers both these circumstances.
It is suggested that in paragraph 3.17.2 line 2 there should be inserted after “new” the words ”or
enhanced”.
Page 26
Policy should make explicit reference to policy tests in Circular 3/2012
This Policy also needs to acknowledge that the provision of affordable housing requires to meet its
proportionate share of developer contributions
It is welcomed that the Policy acknowledges the need to consider viability when determining the package of developer contributions. This is in accord with Circular 3/2012 (para. 23).
Viability will require to be assessed against the provision of homes / land or financial contribution to
delivering affordable housing alongside contributions to supporting services and facilities where
appropriate
Para. 3.17.2 New developments that individually or cumulatively generate a requirement for new infrastructure or services will be expected to deliver, or contribute towards the provision of, supporting services and facilities. Developer Contributions will be agreed in accord with the five Policy Tests in Circular 3/2012. Planning permission will only be granted for new development where the identified level and range of supporting infrastructure or services to meet the needs of the new development is already available or will be available in accordance with an agreed timescale.
Development contributions be realistically set to achieve infrastructure and school capacity for existing residents before new housing development commence.
Calculation of children in new housing developments must be realistic (current calculation underestimates by 300%).
Support
Support, subject to accordance with Circular 3/2012
Support, subject to accordance with Circular 3/2012
Important in enabling improvements to school estate for those establishments operating near capacity. Policy takes account of cumulative effect of new housing development.
The cost of new school provision is not inconsiderable, and the full funding implications require to be assessed against the extent of the anticipated level of the total developer contributions. If the developer contributions do not meet the full cost of the new schools then supplementary funding would be required. The proposed plan acknowledges this.
Welcome support for contributions towards environmental works - suggest clarification of what is meant
by environmental benefits. For example, where mitigation is not possible on site, contributions would be
required for environmental works offsite to ensure no net loss of biodiversity.
SPG Development Contributions
Support
Very important in effective management of resources.
Page 27
Issue 3.1. Master Plan Issue
Delivery
Objection
When will we see the "detailed infrastructure requirement schedules" for the master plan areas? Since the areas are included in the LDP these schedules should also be displayed
Policy M1: Master Plans
Objection
Scott Graham, McInally Associates Ltd on behalf of Stewart Milne Homes (Ref 500/3)
Object to approach followed with site M2
4.2.2. insert 'ideally' between "should" and "relate".
Standard Letter Comment M1A (18 reps) (Ref 993/1)
No examples of the details required for masterplanned areas to enable ERC residents to make an informed decision.
Gives carte blanche powers to planners.
No obligation to consult in reaching future planning decisions.
Master plans approved in principal but not in detail gives little benefit to residents.
No guarantee loss of Green Belt sites would achieve desired objective.
Not consistent with ambitions for Sustainable Economic Growth elsewhere in ERC.
The proposal is likely to lead to land banking by developers waiting for good times.
Leads to stroke removal of large tracts of land from the Green belt.
Not consistent with SHNDA.
No mention of public consultation on supplementary guidance.
No detail of possible future development uses.
The Proposed LDP disenfranchises residents through masterplanning.
No support in Strategic Development Plan for this policy on masterplanning.
25 years too long to give permission without further consultation.
LDP should remove masterplanned areas and 'normal' planning application process should be undertaken for sites for the next 5 years.
Withdraw masterplanning New LDP based on 5 year period put out to consultation without large scale removal of Green Belt land.
Standard Letter Comment M1B (7 reps) (Ref 994/1)
25 years too long to give permission without further consultation.
New LDP based on 5 year period put out to consultation without large scale removal of Green Belt land.
Support
Endorse as the correct approach for master planning of SDOs.
Tom McInally, McInally Associates Ltd on behalf of Cruden Estates (Ref 248/1)
Support policy as enables development of Shanks site.
Page 28
Adele Gallagher, Scottish Water (Ref 256/1)
Support and will work closely with Local Authority and participate in the masterplan process.
Page 29
Issue 3.2. Master Plan M77 Strategic Development Opportunity
Policy M2: M77 Strategic Development Opportunity
General
The proposal to undertake a masterplan for the M77 Corridor is noted. Glasgow City Council would anticipate consultation with
East Renfrewshire Council during the development of the masterplan, particularly in relation to the development of any proposals which could impact upon the Dams to Darnley Country Park, and on Glasgow’s economic development offer.
Carol A. Gilbert, SPT (Ref 969/1)
Pleased to note comments on MIR have informed strategy
Note provision of public transport improvements to serve medium and long term development, will assist in bus solutions supported by developer contributions
Objection
George M Morton (Ref 38/4)
No reason for including land to the east of Patterton roundabout ‐ reduces protection of Green Belt in the future and increases potential for coalescence
Major housing envisaged has no social or economic benefit
Prime agricultural land
Not an area of less environmental quality and sensitivity ‐ historical pedigree aligned to natural features and watercourses enjoyed by walkers, golfers and cyclists.
Significant negative effects on the local environment through development.
Were are appropriate development contributions? ‐ plans inadequacy in solving problems self created by the plan such as schools.
Encouraging commercial and leisure on keys sites destroys their function.
Site contradictory to policies: SP1, SP2 (see previous conpoint), D5, 6.2 Housing Supply, SG6, E4.
We recommend that reference within Policy M2.1 and M2.2 to “Upgrades to Aurs Road, Barrhead to Crookfur Road / M77 link road” should be removed as this was the wording used to describe the now abandoned Barrhead/M77 link road through the middle of the Country Park which appears in the currently adopted Local Plan. We recommend that alternative wording may be better to describe the currently proposed Balgray Link to prevent confusion. Mrs Janet Mylett (Ref 191/2)
Existing infrastructure ‐ schools, drainage, transport, roads GP surgeries needs to be thoroughly planned before any additional housing is planned.
Promise of protecting the green belt is meaningless.
Dawn Roberts (Ref 225/1)
Plan compromises East Renfrewshire's amenities and access to green space and fields
Overbuilding without comparative investment in local infrastructure
Enough areas which can be built on without destroying Green Belt
Against incinerator.
Elaine Anderson, James Barr Ltd on behalf of Personal Pension Trust (Ref 274/4)
Page 30
use.
Would restrict future development of site
National policy states that major business/industrial organisations should not be designated within a Green Belt location. Site not important within the wider Green Belt and does not enhance the setting.
Ensure Green Belt boundary reviewed and Mearns Park taken out.
Ron Burkey (Ref 279/1)
Brownfield sites should be used first and sites already with planning permission developed first
Current poor state of roads will be made worse by 3000 extra cars and will have no chance to improve
Schools already at capacity ‐ require 2 new primary and 2 new secondary
Who will pay for new schools and all changes from development?
Little regard given to flooding ‐ houses built at Cheviot Drive demonstrate this
New health centre at Drumby Crescent in wrong place and will be required in Newton Mearns when the development goes ahead
Loss of rural character
Community does not want businesses growing up
Waste incinerator under guise of this development
ERC and elected councillors should be more active in presenting plans at public meetings
Contrary to SDP
Contrary to LDP policiy SP2
Green Belt release contrary to SDP, Brownfield not used first
In conflict with SP2 Brownfield first, sequential approach not demonstrated, conflict with trunk and local roads, GSO would not provide defensible Green Belt boundary due to permission for motorway services
Contrary to SDP and compact city region
Contrary to other LDP policies SP2
Identification of the areas covered by the M77 SDO (M2) are fundamentally the wrong locations to promote substantial growth within East Renfrewshire. Based on landscape, transport and planning issues.
Landscape:
Greenbelt Landscape Character Assessment 2005 identifies sites within the M2 area (LDP42 Lyoncross, LDP44 Springhill/Springfield Road and LDP12A/B Maidenhill) as Priority Areas for Landscape Protection but these have still been allocated
It also identifies areas along the urban edge for small scale development only
M77 Corridor Masterplan Development Framework Sept 2011 makes reference to the Landscape Character Assessment but does not include detail such as Green Belt Value, Landscape Sensitivity, Visual Coalescence/merging of settlements or Landscape Framework for Change. This is surprising given that apart from sites 01, 02 and 85 (at Malletsheugh) the Masterplan is entirely within the areas identified as Priority Areas for Landscape Protection and Conservation
The Site Evaluation states the Greenbelt Landscape Character Assessment 2005 has been used but this is not apparent
An assessment by Mark Turnbull Landscape Architects of the M77 SDO states:
All the Barrhead sites are noted in the Green Belt Landscape Character Assessment as requiring Protection and Conservation; the area has a strong relatively intact landscape character which forms an intrinsic part of the physical setting and visual backdrop to Arthurlie....With this robust developed edge and higher landscape sensitivity the area ‘should impose a constraint to further development. Landscape enhancement should seek to reinforce the landscape Page 31
character where appropriate’.
Scale of development and cumulative impact are important for this area and seem to have been missed in preparation of the plan, Council have undertaken a site by site analysis but failed to undertake an analysis of the cumulative impact of all the sites
The scale of the released proposed (2110 units) ignores the basis of the Greenbelt Character Assessment document and the Site Evaluation. The Plan relies heavily on releasing several large sites of questionable effectiveness and substantial infrastructure costs (when alternatives exist) in order to pursue other objectives
Para 4.3.1., bullet 1, is refuted in that development sites have not been directed to areas of less environmental quality and sensitivity that will provide defensible Green Belt boundaries
Transport:
The Balgray Link road and upgrades to the Country Park are used to justify the release of the M2 housing sites. However, no business case for Balgray Link Road, considerable financial cost and will exacerbate traffic on M77
In the presented masterplan of May 2011 the Balgray Link Road, Lyoncross, Springhill Road and Springfield Road/Springhill Road where not included and appeared only in the final version. No justification is given for inclusion
M2 will generate significant levels of peak hour commuter trips and proposed Balgray Link Road will add further congestion. Consultation between ERC and Transport Scotland on the LDP appears limited and constricted. Given concerns of Transport Scotland and levels of peak traffic on M77 presently the development sites appear unwise
Detailed cumulative impact on traffic has not been done
Concerned Balgray Link Road is to be phased and linked to Country Park development. Surely if required for housing it should be developed first
Planning:
M77 Masterplan Report states that the current planning policy framework is not necessarily supportive of the vision in the masterplan. The SDP, through the HNDA communicates concerns with regard to significant Green Belt release and strategic housing allocations.
A strategy which allows for proposed housing relates sites to be less concentrated, smaller and more widely dispersed would have a lesser impact on M77 than the concentrated development proposed.
Alternative Green Belt residential release sites exist and the sites within the M77 SDP have been chosen in order to pursue other objectives
It is submitted that the sites noted above and within the M77 Strategic Development Opportunity should not be identified as residential release sites. An alternative strategy should be adopted which promotes the release of a greater number of smaller more appropriate, more effective and dispersed green belt sites, including sites LDP08 and LDP10 at Barrance Farm, Newton Mearns, as referenced in the accompanying Objection No. 9.
Based on transport and landscape issues an alternative strategy should be pursued.
Alternative sites exist as Barrance Farm, Newton Mearns which is smaller and more effective
An overall roof tax should be implemented to pay for the Balgray Link Road (should the council pursue this), Country Park improvements, community facilities etc.
Sinéad Lynch, TPS Planning Ltd on behalf of Whitecraigs Village Ltd (Ref 502/1)
Plan should identify Netherplace Works as a business proposal as per SG6.22 suitable for redevelopment as a care home, retirement village and associated facilities.
Support the concerns of other community councils over loss of Green Belt, more housing, school places, busy roads and lack of youth entertainment and amenities.
It is hard to see why education department do not foresee need for further secondary school spaces
Contrary to LDP policy SP2 :
‐ Brownfield sites with planning permission exist and other Brownfield sites could be brought forward or where land is unproductive
Page 32
‐ no positive economic benefits, no demand for business sites in area, Greenlaw promoted previously was not successful
‐ Adverse impact on Roads
‐ GSO not a defensible Green Belt boundary, would put further pressure on Green Belt, Motorway services demonstrate this.
Policy contrary to stated consolidation approach and will have significant adverse effect on environment, infrastructure, community and education facilities.
Object to business use as this is contrary to SDP
Lack of demand for business in this location
Contrary to SDP ‐ not creating compact city region, not brownfield, does not increase urban density, is a major Green Belt release
SDP demonstrates ample supply of Brownfield
Contrary to LDP policy SP2‐ Brownfield sites available not used, will not attract businesses based on previous sites e.g. Greenlaw, adverse impact on roads, does not provide defensible Green Belt boundary
Data does not support release of additional sites in Newton Mearns in the next 5 years
SG1.27 Ayr Road/Cheviot Drive has consent but is on functional flood plain
Julie Mylett (Ref 704/2)
Schools not considered
Unnecessarily constrained through phasing ‐Build rate affects money release and viability
LDP has set housing land below HNDA, if plan reflected HNDA there would be no need for artificial phasing
SDOs hard to implement, additional requirements cause delays, funding hard to secure
It would be preferable to remove the artificial phasing of housing numbers. The full numbers are justified by the GCV HNDA and Strategic Plan all‐tenure requirement. Allowing development to accord with market demand is a far better approach than artificial phasing constraints. More development will increase the scope for more affordable housing, even if it has to be developer‐led provision at a lower percentage rate than 25% to reflect the fact that it will be unsubsidised or other tenures than social‐rented. It would be preferable for the relevant sentence in each policy to read: “Approximately XXXX homes to be built in accordance with a delivery programme based on a viable approach to meeting developer obligations” Mr Iain McCowan (Ref 896/4)
Contrary to SDP
Contrary to LDP policies, specifically SP2
Support
Support inclusion of Mearns Park site within SDO and promote Mearns Park for investment/development.
Page 33
Addresses the need for additional primary schools with pre‐five provision an early priority. It is important Plan recognises future provision will continue to be monitored.
Examining future provision will be required to ensure sufficiency of education places as development within the LDP take place.
In Newton Mearns and Barrhead South capacity can be managed subject to appropriate development contributions. The Action Programme and review of LDP will allow schools estate to be monitored and any needs addressed.
LDP24B Barcapel (non‐ reduced)
Objection
Ian Gallacher, GVA on behalf of Persimmon Homes and Elphinstone Barcapel Ltd (in administration) (Ref 773/2)
Non‐ inclusion of site
175 units
Second phase to SG2.8
Can be delivered short term
Site is effective
Object to D3 protection of site
Too reliant on M2.1 to deliver large number of units
Not enough sites in LDP to address shortfall
Should promote additional private housing to make up affordable shortfall
Phasing issues
M2.2 delivery issues
Presumption in favour of Council owned sites in Site Evaluation
Over reliance on established housing land supply
Not 5 year effective land supply
Supporting information supplied
Allocate phase 2 Barcapel site
Policy SG10.11 Aurs Road , Newton Mearns
Objection
Assessment of flood risk required.
Support
Support alignment of dangerous bend
Policy SG10.12 Crookfur Road / M77, Newton Mearns
Objection
Support
Page 34
Support Junction 4 enhancement to improve noise, safety and condition of roads in Newton Mearns
Andrew Gray (Ref 501/1)
Support as impractical to direct traffic to J5
Support junction enhancement
Policy SG10.3 Balgray Link ‐ Balgraystone Road, Barrhead
Objection
Would lead to further traffic on M77
Not sustainable Would not improve connectivity but add extra milage and congestion.
Would lead to further traffic on M77
No identified need for the road to justify loss of Green Belt and environmental damage
Not sustainable would add congestion and emissions to M77
Edward Gunn (Ref 651/2)
Unsustainable
Causes congestion, pollution at J5 M77 Kate Makrides (Ref 706/2)
Would cause merging of settlements
Increase congestion to M77 J5
Air pollution
Contravenes policy on sustainability and reduction in car use
Would not improve connectivity but add to pollution and congestion
Not sustainable
Would increase congestion at J5
Actively assists incinerator
Policy SG2.7 Hillfield, Newton Mearns
Objection
Page 35
Reduces separation between Newton Mearns
Reporter at Greenlaw inquiry stated there should be no further encroachment in this area
Rejected appeal 2009/0071/TP was because of coalescence
MIR site reduced 12.5HA to 4.3HA, now increased to 6.8HA
Access issues compromise safety of Capelrig Road
Site Evaluation scoring altered to more favourable from MIR scoring despite only being reduction in site size
Site evaluation takes no account of access problems
Robust and defensible Green Belt boundary cannot be created artificially
Goes against Q3 of Methodology Statement in Site Evaluation
Increased pressure on services and infrastructure
no social, cultural or economic benefits to the residents of Newton Mearns
 SNH MIR objection "particularly sensitive part of the green belt which functions as a green wedge; very worst encroachment of the Green Belt; Completely at variance with all previous and current planning guidelines."
Sites SG2.7/SG2.8 should be first priority in restoration of Green Belt classification if sequential approach used.
Redesignate site as Green Belt
Do not support allocation
Remove sites SG2.7 and SG2.8 from Schedule 11 and Proposals Map and redesignate as Green Belt
Mr and Mrs William Reid (Ref 95/1)
Infrastructure not in place to handle the existing expansion
LDP23b and LDP24b are in a particularly sensitive area
It was stated by a planning officer at the last Local Plan inquiry Capelrig Road is the defensible Green Belt boundary
Objection on grounds of sewage problems. Drainage cannot cope at present and raw sewage has flower into Capelrig Road and Rouken Glen Park
Access to site dangerous, fixed railway bridge and blind corner
Effect on services ‐ Eastwood High School replacement has same capacity as old
Mrs Isobel Jane Gallacher (Ref 130/1)
Sensitive site should be last part of Green Belt to be utilised Retain SG2.7 Hillfield in Green Belt
Remove from Schedule 11
Access issues ‐ width of road, footpath, topography, low rail bridge, four phase traffic management system
Public transport access‐ Patterton Station at capacity, single decker bus infrequent, affordable housing occupants further away and may not have access to a car
Traffic census by developer is out of date
Roads in area at capacity
Inner Green Belt loss probability of coalescence
Reference made to development breaching strong Green Belt boundaries
Change in Site Evaluation scoring unexplained
Would cause landlocking at Barcapel
Level of visibility from site plan not in keeping with site evaluation requirements
Retain as Green Belt
Against LDP para 3.2.1 'settlement will be able to accommodate planned growth', already extensive housing at Greenlaw
Page 36
Against para 3.4.2 adverse impact on social, physical and environmental infrastructure
Against para 5.2.1 loss of character
Reporter at last Local Plan said these sites should not be developed
Coalescence
Applications for Hillfield previously rejected
From large number of responses clear residents are against development
MIR comments including those by Scottish natural heritage and 1000 residents not taken into account
Monitoring Statement Table D1.1 supports the retention of this visual barrier
 Plan contrary to reasons people live in Newton Mearns
No detailed consideration of infrastructure
Little contribution to the area
Education facilities at capacity
M2 specific site SG2.7
Hillfield should be retained as Green Belt:
Encroachment onto sensitive site in Green Belt, visual prominence
No suitable access to site, site reduction from Local Plan means no access to Stewarton Road, sole access from Capelrig Road dangerous, impacts on residents. Site Evaluation takes no note of access, part of masterplan site connected by narrow and unclassified road with through traffic restricted by railway bridge.
Still farmed, valuable agricultural land
Green corridor separating Newton Mearns from other settlements
In Planning Inquiry for Greenlaw site Reporter said there should be no more land release at this location
 North east boundary undefined by landscape features, removal from Green Belt leaves a week indefensible boundary, contrary to the Environment Theme in Table 2 which states "ensure any green belt releases provide a strong defensible green belt boundary"
 Site contributes to separation between Newton Mearns and adjacent urban settlements and prevents coalescence
 Goes against LDP Monitoring Statement Landscape Capacity Assessment Table D1.1, Appendix D1 ‐ where medium landscape and visual sensitivity/strong landscape value/ visually prominent etc listed
 Adverse impact for residents, road and rail users
 Adverse impact on pre‐existing traffic congestion
 adverse impact on over‐stretched school capacity
 adverse effect on water and sewerage infrastructure, information from Scottish Water confirms issues in adjacent postcode
site suffers from rail noise
development of site would have no social, cultural or economic benefit to the residents of Newton Mearns
Retain SG2.7 Hillfield in Green Belt
Coalescence
Martin and Lynn Smith (Ref 296/1)
Object to release of Green Belt/ erosion of robust Green Belt
Coalescence (Newton Mearns/Glasgow/Deaconsbank)
Capelrig town boundary should be maintained
No justification for further housing
Areas of Greenlaw remain undeveloped
Impact on traffic, schools, services and wildlife
Dr Archie Bethel CBE
Page 37
Green Belt release despite assurances of no further release until other sites developed
Sites currently prevent coalescence
Loss of character and distinction from other areas
Brownfield and Greenfield sites designated for development that are still to be developed
Planning applications accepted before LDP finalised ‐ meaning decisions have already been made
Will Council be arranging for session with residents, Councillors, MPs and MSPs?
Need to protect Green Belt buffer to Glasgow
Outwith Greenlaw community growth area
Will 'piggyback' Greenlaw's infrastructure
Impact on road network
Inadequate access arrangements
Identified as requiring conservation in the Green Belt Landscape Character Assessment
Site intrudes into Green Belt as all boundaries are undeveloped, potential for coalescence
Release would reduce effectiveness of retained areas of Green Belt in providing landscape setting and individual identity
No development should take place north of railway line to prevent coalescence
Difficult access, visibility, traffic signals would be required,
Transport Assessment based on 2009 figures which do not include substantial development since this time and are therefore inaccurate
 No frequent bus services within 400m
Poor access to schools/services
 Significant length of off‐site water mains required to connect development
 Barrance Farm should be considered.
Site should not be identified in LDP and not form part of M77 SDO
Site Evaluation should be amended ‐ Impact of development from ‐3 to ‐6, Access to Service/Facilities from 3 to 0, Effectiveness from ‐3 to ‐6, total score from ‐3 to ‐12
Barbara Fewkes (Ref 705/1)
Impact on house prices
Impact on congested traffic
Should use Brownfield sites first
Loss of defensible Green Belt boundary
Urban sprawl
Not in interest of community, area or environment
Is social housing required in this area
Lack of amenities, creating traffic pollution
Nothing to encourage walking or cycling
Fergus Muirhead (Ref 780/1)
I believe that there is sufficient development in this part of Newton Mearns and further development as proposed will spoil an area of natural beauty.
Standard Letter Comment SG2.7A (4 reps) (Ref 1007/1)
Sensitive site should be last part of Green Belt to be utilised
Hillfield should be retained as Green Belt:
Encroachment onto sensitive site in Green Belt, visual prominence
Page 38
No suitable access to site, site reduction from Local Plan means no access to Stewarton Road, sole access from Capelrig Road dangerous, impacts on residents.
Site Evaluation takes no note of access, part of masterplan site connected by narrow and unclassified road with through traffic restricted by railway bridge
North east boundary undefined by landscape features, removal from Green Belt leaves a week indefensible boundary, contrary to the Environment Theme in Table 2
Site contributes to separation between Newton Mearns and adjacent urban settlements and prevents coalescence
Goes against LDP Monitoring Statement Landscape Capacity Assessment Table D1.1 and Appendix D1 ‐ where medium landscape and visual sensitivity/strong landscape value/ visually prominent etc listed
Adverse impact for residents, road and rail users
Adverse impact on pre‐existing traffic congestion
Adverse impact on over‐stretched school capacity
Adverse effect on water and sewerage infrastructure/information from Scottish Water confirms issues in adjacent postcode
Site suffers from rail noise
Development of site would have no social, cultural or economic benefit to the residents of Newton Mearns
Standard Letter Comment SG2.7B (51 reps) (Ref 1008/1)
Site Evaluation Assessment ‐ Amend site scoring LDP 23 (SG2.7)
Q3 score change to ‐3
Overall recommendation change to retain as Green Belt.
Standard Letter Comment SG2.7C (16 reps) (Ref 1009/1)
Against objectives of LDP
Unnecessary development in Green Belt
Not Brownfield as in national/local policy
Lack of infrastructure
Developers will not pay for all infrastructure required
Dormitory development removed from transport links
Buffer between Glasgow and ER and should be protected
Will piggyback on Greenlaw's infrastructure, unsustainable
Pressure on road network
Poor access
Drainage/flooding
Support
Ian Gallacher, GVA on behalf of Patterton SPV (Ref 776/1)
Support allocation for housing and release from Green Belt
Options for delivering affordable housing:
1. Mixed tenure ‐ social rent, mid‐market rent, share equity
2. Social rent (funding required)
Ian Gallacher, GVA on behalf of Mansell Homes (Ref 781/1)
Support allocation of site on behalf of developer
Page 39
Policy SG2.8 Barcapel, Newton Mearns
Objection
Site Evaluation scores altered from MIR‐7 and ‐4 to ‐6 and ‐3, nothing has changed in the interim to justify alterations
Presumption that the current planning application is the first phase of a larger scheme for 400 houses, developer response to MIR promotes larger site
 Access issues pedestrian and vehicular
 Increased pressure on services and infrastructure
no social, cultural or economic benefits to the residents of Newton Mearns
Major housing development will have a major impact on area inappropriate to locality
landlocks and sterilises agricultural land making the case for more housing in the future with no areas robust and defensible, urbanisation of Green Corridor.
SNH MIR objection "particularly sensitive part of the green belt which functions as a green wedge; very worst encroachment of the Green Belt; Completely at variance with all previous and current planning guidelines."
LDP Site Evaluation Report Q3 of Methodology page 4 against site.
Redesignate site as Green Belt
Do not support allocation
Remove sites SG2.7 and SG2.8 from Schedule 11 and Proposals Map and redesignate as Green Belt
Mr and Mrs William Reid (Ref 95/2)
Infrastructure not in place to handle the existing expansion
LDP23b and LDP24b are in a particularly sensitive area
It was stated by a planning officer at the last Local Plan inquiry Capelrig Road is the defensible Green Belt boundary
Objection on grounds of sewage problems. Drainage cannot cope at present and raw sewage has flower into Capelrig Road and Rouken Glen Park
Access to site dangerous, fixed railway bridge and blind corner
Effect on services ‐ Eastwood High School replacement has same capacity as old
Access issues ‐ width of road, footpath, topography, low rail bridge, four phase traffic management system
Public transport access‐ Patterton Station at capacity, single decker bus infrequent, affordable housing occupants further away and may not have access to a car
Traffic census by developer is out of date
Roads in area at capacity
Inner Green Belt loss probability of coalescence
Reference made to development breaching strong Green Belt boundaries
Change in Site Evaluation scoring unexplained
Would cause landlocking at Barcapel
Level of visibility from site plan not in keeping with site evaluation requirements
Against LDP para 3.2.1 'settlement will be able to accommodate planned growth', already extensive housing at Greenlaw
Against para 3.4.2 adverse impact on social, physical and environmental infrastructure
Against para 5.2.1 loss of character
Reporter at last Local Plan said these sites should not be developed
Page 40
Coalescence
Applications for Hillfield previously rejected
From large number of responses clear residents are against development
MIR comments including those by Scottish natural heritage and 1000 residents not taken into account
Monitoring Statement Table D1.1 supports the retention of this visual barrier
 Plan contrary to reasons people live in Newton Mearns
No detailed consideration of infrastructure
Little contribution to the area
Education facilities at capacity
Sheila Greenshields (Ref 217/1)
Formally object to removal of Green Belt.
Coalescence
Martin and Lynn Smith (Ref 296/2)
Object to release of Green Belt/ erosion of robust Green Belt
Coalescence (Newton Mearns/Glasgow/Deaconsbank)
Capelrig town boundary should be maintained
No justification for further housing
Areas of Greenlaw remain undeveloped
Impact on traffic, schools, services and wildlife
Dr Archie Bethel CBE
Green Belt release despite assurances of no further release until other sites developed
Sites currently prevent coalescence
Loss of character and distinction from other areas
Brownfield and Greenfield sites designated for development that are still to be developed
Planning applications accepted before LDP finalised ‐ meaning decisions have already been made
Will Council be arranging for session with residents, Councillors, MPs and MSPs?
Need to protect Green Belt buffer to Glasgow
Outwith Greenlaw community growth area
Will 'piggyback' Greenlaw's infrastructure
Impact on road network
Barbara Fewkes (Ref 705/2)
Impact on house prices
Impact on congested traffic
Should use Brownfield sites first
Loss of defensible Green Belt boundary
Urban sprawl
Not in interest of community, area or environment
Is social housing required in this area
Lack of amenities, creating traffic pollution
Nothing to encourage walking or cycling
Page 41
Ian Gallacher, GVA on behalf of Persimmon Homes and Elphinstone Barcapel Ltd (in administration) (Ref 773/1)
Support inclusion of part site but object to non‐inclusion of LDP24B
Fergus Muirhead (Ref 780/2)
I believe that there is sufficient development in this part of Newton Mearns and further development as proposed will spoil an area of natural beauty.
Site should be removed from Schedule 11 and retained as Green Belt:
Encroachment onto sensitive site in Green Belt/ Sensitive site should be last part of Green Belt to be utilised
Site contributes to separation between Newton Mearns and adjacent urban settlements and prevents coalescence
Removal from Green Belt leaves a weak indefensible boundary, contrary to the Environment Theme in Table 2 which states ensure any green belt releases provide a strong defensible green belt boundary
Goes against LDP Monitoring Statement Landscape Capacity Assessment Table D1.1, Appendix D1 ‐ where medium/high landscape and visual sensitivity/strong landscape value/ visually prominent etc listed
Development would lead to further development on Barcapel Fields (site LDP24A)
Larger version of site previously rejected by Reporter
Large addition when combined with recent Capelrig Road site on a population scale with ‐ 3 Uplawmoors, 1.5 Waterfoots or 2/3rds Eaglesham
Site is part of master plan site connected by narrow and unclassified road with through traffic restricted by railway bridge
Significant visual impact particularly from rail line
Access poor/dangerous access to site
major impact on pre‐existing traffic congestion
pedestrian and cycle access will impede on traffic flow at Capelrig Road
Bus access poor and will be restricted by low rail bridge
impact on infrastructure/services ‐ adverse impact on over‐stretched school capacity /adverse effect on water and sewerage infrastructure
site suffers from rail noise
development of site would have no social, cultural or economic benefit to the residents of Newton Mearns.
Site Evaluation Assessment ‐ Amend site scoring LDP 24 (SG2.8), Q3 score change to ‐3, Overall recommendation change to retain as Green Belt
Retain SG2.8 Barcapel in Green Belt
Remove from Schedule 11.
Site Evaluation Assessment ‐ Amend site scoring LDP 24 (SG2.8)
Q3 score change to ‐3
Overall recommendation change to retain as Green Belt.
Standard Letter Comment SG2.8C (18 reps) (Ref 1012/1)
Page 42
Buffer between Glasgow and ER and should be protected
Will piggyback on Greenlaw's infrastructure, unsustainable
Pressure on road network
Poor access
Support
Persimmon Homes wish to take this opportunity to support the residential allocation within the Proposed Local Development Plan of land at Barcapel, Newton Mearns. This site is zoned in the current Local Plan as ‘Greenbelt’. We support the proposed allocation of Barcapel for housing development within the emerging East Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and that this should be recognised through an appropriate allocation. The proposed allocation of land at Barcapel for housing is supported for the following reasons: • the site has no environmental or historical designations which would restrict development • the site is within close proximity to public transport and local facilities and services • the development of the land would create a logical expansion for housing development within this area. • the site is in the hands of a recognised housebuilder who can guarantee delivery Policy SG6.13 Netherplace Works, Newton Mearns (Policy M2)
Objection
Objection
Sinéad Lynch, TPS Planning Ltd on behalf of Whitecraigs Village Ltd (Ref 502/2)
We would suggest that the reference to Netherplace Works, Newton Mearns at SG6.22 is expanded to include the following:
“Brownfield Opportunity site suitable for re‐use as a care home, retirement village and associated facilities”
Support
Assists in safeguarding of areas use for the lifetime of the plan. Keen to ensure ER continues to recognise and support the future potential as a business/industrial site or consideration of other uses suitable for this location if the site was no longer required for its original purpose.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING STATEMENT AND SITE PLAN SUPPLIED
Page 43
Issue 3.3. Master Plan Malletsheugh‐Maidenhill Newton Mearns Proposed Local Development Plan
Objection
Kathryn Sanderson (Ref 235/2)
Clarification required on religious facility.
Strongly object to Muslim facility as there is not a large Muslim population and will not serve the majority of the population. People in Newton Mearns do not have a community centre as it is and should be open to all
Being available just to the Muslim community infringes on human rights
Already facilities in South side of Glasgow why is a third needed?
Strongly object to Muslim facility as there is not a large Muslim population and will not serve the majority of the population. People in Newton Mearns do not have a community centre as it is and should be open to all
Being available just to the Muslim community infringes on human rights
Already facilities in South side of Glasgow why is a third needed?
Objection
Objection
Dr Ajay Fowdar (Ref 2/1)
Objects to development of site due to :
Effect of Green Belt loss on local wildlife.
Effect on school provision both primary and secondary.
Green Field development at the expense of innercity Brownfield rejuvenation.
Impact of policy on Newton Mearns infrastructure without adequate provision of additional infrastructure.
Traffic congestion from cars in new development. Extra transport will cause pollution.
Loss of amenity to local community
Iain Cameron (Ref 22/1)
Objects to plans for a retail gateway at Maidenhill plus 1200 additional homes.
Asks if there is not a plentiful supply of land in Barrhead for an outlet similar to the proposed plans for Maidenhill.
Impact on local community:
Road infrastructure already quite congested with increased traffic off M77
What additional transport link would be provided? currently poor bus service.
Who will support infrastructure ‐ developer contribution insufficient
Drainage and sewerage issues
Medical care provision ‐ new centre is at Clarkston and no A and E at Victoria Infirmary, seems problematic.
Page 44
If not enough jobs at the retail gateway, where will new residents be employed, would a new job centre be included.
Primary school is full to capacity. Would plans include another primary? Does not include secondary places.
Any increase in traffic would be quite hazardous to the existing local resident's children.
Against policies in SDP
Incinerator
Asks ‐ Is there a hidden agenda for LRV? Does the proposal give more weight to this as a means of power supply as part of the incineration process. Concerns about potential contamination of the environment and HGV traffic movement and traffic increase.
Loss of parkland and access to the countryside if Green Belt is built on.
Declining wildlife and insect environment across the UK, these plans will exacerbate an already fragile situation.
Surely there are plenty of Brownfield sites in East Renfrewshire suitable for use.
Bryson McNeil (Ref 35/1)
Object to proposal to build 1000 houses at Maidenhill as there is not any increase in infrastructure to support such a development. Barrie Fleming (Ref 40/1)
services will not be in place until housing is occupied
no rail stations in walkable distance so require transport/carbon emissions
increase in traffic M77 congestion more than it is now
development/M77 impact biggest carbon emitter in west of Scotland
affordable housing were cars are not readily available requires regular and low cost transport facilities, building affordable housing in this area is a contradiction
decreases desirability of area with high cost housing.
primary school would not be in walking distance increasing carbon emissions
pressure on health services
new shopping facilities would be an improvement
no access to leisure facilities would require car/carbon emissions
Newton Mearns not suitable for sustainable development as travel (car etc) required to access facilities and work. Will never provide jobs in the area
should plan housing where people access affordable services without a car
Charles Murray (Ref 65/1)
Object to proposals for 4100 houses (in Newton Mearns)
Will permenantly change character of the area
New houses poor ‐ close together/small gardens
It is unclear how additional housing will support economic development on a local basis at Newton Mearns.
No faith in masterplan to deliver schools without disadvantage to residents.
Where is evidence to prove need for secondary school provision can be absorbed.
Proposed housing at M2.1 is far away from bus/train services.
Gloria Stewart (Ref 90/1)
Object to plans to build at Maidenhill:
flood risk
roads
nowhere to grow food if Green Belt built on
Schools braking point
Upgrading Aurs Road so traffic can travel faster through country park bad idea
Page 45
Not listening to residents.
Norman Fleming (Ref 97/1)
2000 homes/ 4000 extra cars on already gridlocked M77
Primary schools at capacity are we planning on more and can we afford them
Local Plan stated no building on Green Belt areas what has changed
Do not want Newton Mearns to become a New Town
Mrs Marion Fleming (Ref 98/1)
Newton Mearns reached critical mass on housing development
Congestion
Lack of amenities
Impact on wildlife and beauty
Peter Asplin (Ref 196/1)
Opposed to erosion of Green Belt, Council has a duty to protect this and resist pressure from the Scottish Government
Detrimental visual impact on the approach to Glasgow
Destroys wildlife habitat and leads to displacement
Urban expansion of Newton Mearns at the expense of the rejuvenation of inner Glasgow where brownfield sites exist
Not clear where high tech businesses will be sited
Incinerator grossly out of place (and will deter buyers)
Strain on infrastructure including fresh water and drainage which has not been addressed by the plan
Additional congestion and pollution. Lack of railway mean new commuters will use roads, new shops are unlikely to deter residents from driving elsewhere and schools will generate traffic
Extension of southern orbital may take some traffic from M77 but this will be offset by new traffic.
John Stewart (Ref 204/2)
Burden on local infrastructure will be massive in particular more car journeys in an area of existing high car ownership
Takes no account of pressure on local secondary school just two new primaries. Will extensions to the school be funded by tax payers as developer contributions not sufficient
Urban run‐off poses a risk of flooding lower down as Ayr Road already suffers. Has a costly flood prevention scheme been considered by the council?
Jim Swift (Ref 216/1)
Proposal is excessive
Greenbelt site when not all Brownfield sites have been exhausted
Unwarranted as population projections do not anticipate anything like this population growth the LPD caters for (figures 3.25% by 2023, 5.2% by 2033 Registrars General)
Current services and infrastructure insufficient to cope
Massive shortfall even with developer contributions for two primary and two high schools
Council cannot afford increased costs
Effects on wildlife and amenity
There will be insufficient demand causing house prices to drop
Could cause depopulation in Glasgow creating further inequalities
Anti environmentalist policy which will promote greater use of cars
Ecologically unsound as Brownfield site for development
Joe Hamilton (Ref 228/1)
Page 46
Details incomplete on education facilities ‐ it should be made clear how it affects catchments, should be explained how schools will cope, impact on traffic and parental choice.
More information required on traffic impact including M77
Impact of drainage on Cheviot Drive and Ayr Road, bad flooding in past, need plans to see impact.
Craig McGibbon (Ref 229/1)
Existing planning permissions in Newton Mearns for many house in better locations yet to be built showing lack of demand
2000 houses puts amenity and environment at unacceptable risk
Damage to reputation, economy irreversible along with infrastructure and social issues
Does not provide additional secondary school capacity developer contributions insufficient and flawed mechanism
LDP contravenes SDP by not putting brownfield first, SDP does not call for major Green Belt release
Additional private houses in excess of SDP, ER already urbanised and does poorer economically than other areas (Lothians, Aberdeenshire)
SDP no access to mass transit system
Unsustainable pressure of overstretched road network, higher levels of traffic pollution, road wear and tear, delays and indirect cost to local economy
Increased accident rates
Drainage issues already significant, development would use unadopted private watercourses
Unsustainable ‐ irreplaceable resource, social and environmental cost bourne by existing residents, while ERC receive short term financial gain.
Fail to provide strong defensible Green Belt boundary, will make surrounding land amenity drastically reduced, will encourage development in these areas
Development could be used to address SEPA objection to incinerator by using waste heat, incinerator would go against SDP renewable energy policy. Cannot support proposals that would make the incinerator more viable.
Ian Murdoch (Ref 232/1)
Green Belt used when brownfield available
No demand for projected housing, current demand could be satisfied through brownfield
Significant and adverse effect on the water table, heightened risk of flooding, surface run off localised and concentrated. No flood risk plan proposed equivalent to Whitecart.
Any linkage with the plan to heat supply through construction of incinerator at Loganswell horrifying, dangerous in operation and exhausts, prevailing winds would take fumes to built up area.
Gayle Hill (Ref 233/1)
Secondary places not proposed, developer contributions insufficient for schools
Contrary to SDP as Brownfield not used first and Brownfield sites are available
SDP does not call for major Green Belt release
Developer contributions insufficient to provide necessary infrastructure
Sites will not provide significant business opportunity SDP directs this elsewhere
Contrary to SDP infrastructure policy as no mass transit system
SUDs contrary to SDP, drain into private gardens and watercourses
Object to large waste incinerator and this is against Policy E1
Does not provide strong defensible Green Belt boundary
LDP provides 3200 private houses more than SDP requirements
Kathryn Sanderson (Ref 235/1)
Newton Mearns targeted for overdevelopment and lose its identity
will change the dynamics of Newton Mearns
Green Belt use against SDP
Exacerbates traffic on Junction 5 M77, increase in emissions
Site not adjacent to mass transit system as required by SDP
Developer should pay for new secondary school and contribute to providing appropriate infrastructure
Page 47
Virtually gives consent to Lifetime Recycling Village. Against this.
Clarity required on Denomination School
proposed area used for walking and cycling
Concerned about flooding
Stephen Borys (Ref 241/1)
Reckless expansion on a small community without necessary infrastructure.
Local suburb cannot sustain such expansion.
Change in Landscape will change dynamics for residents for the worst.
Emma Borys (Ref 242/1)
Changing community into an estate with little supporting provision.
Loss of green area detrimental to authenticity of the area.
Loganswell would kill off attraction to the area and cause existing residents to move out.
School provision inadequate
Flooding problems overlooked
No provision of medical facilities
Increased traffic congestion, transport demand and resulting pollution
Building increases carbon footprint
Loss of amenity, social and recreation facilities
M77 not built for 'ribbon development', presently congested
Peat at Maidenhill
Incinerator close to housing and downwind, would generate heavy traffic
Businesses do not wish to locate in this area
Coalescence
Affect on wildlife
Community Councils have expressed concern about traffic
Page 48
David Campbell, GL Hearn Limited on behalf of Co‐operative Group (Ref 254/1)
Objection to lack of detail on retail
Define size/threshold of retail floor space to ensure it is at neighbourhood scale.
Elspeth Gladstone (Ref 270/1)
Productive farming land and should not be released until all brownfield sites fully developed
No identified need for business use
Adds to road congestion
Doctors and schools impact
impact on environment and quality of life
Developer contributions only cover small part of cost of new schools, council should show how other part financed
A Hughes (Ref 271/1)
Brownfield sites available Green Belt land should not be used
Object to large waste incinerator, development at Maidenhill should not be used to justify this and vice versa
William White (Ref 273/1)
No need for further Green Belt loss
Newton Mearns already expanded beyond recognition
Lack of leisure facilities and safe routes to Dams to Darnley park
Proposal contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield sites available, not maintaining a compact city region, no call for major Green Belt release.
Developer contribution insufficient for infrastructure needed
Maidenhill will not provide business opportunity no local demand for sites ‐ SDP directs economic development elsewhere
SUDs scheme drained through unadopted private watercourses
Object to large waste incinerator
Does not provide strong defensible Green Belt boundary already planning permission for motorway services.
James Scrimger (Ref 278/2)
No justifiable case for scale of housing proposals
no infrastructure to cope
Does not have universal support from elected members
Does not reflect community demand at a very unacceptable location
Driven by developers looking for profit and short term gain to the council
Barrhead and others council areas require economic regeneration and housing should be prioritised in these areas to stimulate growth
Approved developments remain undeveloped and Brownfield areas in Glasgow urgently require regeneration ‐ M2.1 should be redistributed over smaller more manageable sites to such areas
Traffic:
Assessment should be made available from Strategic Traffic Model for different Modal Splits to determine impacts on local road network, impact on traffic and parking at main centres and other areas of congestion should be presented for discussion
Not clear where sites will be connected to road network
Effects on M77
Council cannot maintain current network
Transport Scotland need to make comment and have not funded J4 M77 improvements
Comments required from all transport providers
Comments required from all utility providers on viability and cost of servicing proposals
Detailed assessment on take up of primary and secondary places, Education Department must provide information
Page 49
Health and social services must comment of effects
EIA made available to the public
Protection of the Green Belt at Newton Mearns must be given high priority
Information should be available for discussion by the community
Council concentrate on maintaining and improving existing services and infrastructure rather than LDP
Councillors should meet communities to discuss plans
M2.1 abandoned and resources directed to more suitable development sites. Only well distributed smaller scale developments should be retained within LDP for Newton Mearns where it can be demonstrated they meet the changing needs of existing local communities.
Remaining proposals for Newton Mearns should not progress until above issues researched and transparently disclosed.
Mr Iain Johnston (Ref 283/1)
No proven need for vast amounts of housing over and above previous plans
Object to waste incinerator to provide heat. Contrary to SDP policy
Traffic congestion increase. Developer contributions insufficient
Provides no secondary places
Flooding and drainage issues from overdevelopment. Scheme proposes drainage via unadopted private watercourse
Contrary to SDP Brownfield sites not used first.
Janice Scrimger (Ref 284/2)
No justifiable case for scale of housing proposals
no infrastructure to cope
Does not have universal support from elected members
Does not reflect community demand at a very unacceptable location
Driven by developers looking for profit and short term gain to the council
Barrhead and others council areas require economic regeneration and housing should be prioritised in these areas to stimulate growth
Approved developments remain undeveloped and Brownfield areas in Glasgow urgently require regeneration ‐ M2.1 should be redistributed over smaller more manageable sites to such areas
Traffic:
Assessment should be made available from Strategic Traffic Model for different Modal Splits to determine impacts on local road network, impact on traffic and parking at main centres and other areas of congestion should be presented for discussion
Not clear where sites will be connected to road network
Effects on M77
Council cannot maintain current network
Transport Scotland need to make comment and have not funded J4 M77 improvements
Comments required from all transport providers
Comments required from all utility providers on viability and cost of servicing proposals
Detailed assessment on take up of primary and secondary places, Education Department must provide information
Health and social services must comment of effects
EIA made available to the public
Protection of the Green Belt at Newton Mearns must be given high priority
Information should be available for discussion by the community
Council concentrate on maintaining and improving existing services and infrastructure rather than LDP
Councillors should meet communities to discuss plans
M2.1 abandoned and resources directed to more suitable development sites. Only well distributed smaller scale developments should be retained within LDP for Newton Mearns where it can be demonstrated they meet the changing needs of existing local communities.
Page 50
Remaining proposals for Newton Mearns should not progress until above issues researched and transparently disclosed.
Fiona Orton (Ref 287/1)
Loss of unique character
Pressure on services
Overdeveloped
Strain on infrastructure ‐ roads, schools, surface water run off
LRV close to homes, schools and leisure facilities ‐ well documented biomass plants create serous environmental impacts
Road congestion and pollution
Jonathan Matthews (Ref 289/1)
Cannot accept the need to build so many houses from Scottish Government or reasons behind vast increase in population
Damage caused by building on watercourses and flooding effects
ERC trying to hide plans from public and push it through. No public meeting attendance
Being asked to support plan without full details ‐ secondary school provision, only two primary schools, road development required, infrastructure impacts and needs.
Sheila Walker (Ref 294/1)
Increase traffic congestion
No proposed new secondary school
Loss of valued Green Belt when already diminished
No large incinerator
Leanne Henderson (Ref 300/1)
Increased traffic noise and volume
Safety issues as no road calming measures proposed
School class sizes already in excess of Government directive
Flooding on Ayr Road
Disagree with building on established Green Belt
Robin Forster (Ref 303/1)
Object to large waste incinerator
No demand for business opportunities, should be directed elsewhere in region
Contrary to SDP infrastructure policy
Increase congestion, pollution and proximity to Green Belt areas
B Foley
Object on grounds of Save the Green Belt campaign leaflet
Caroline Viney (Ref 308/1)
Brownfield sites available, should be used first
no details of infrastructure required
Flood risk
Link between proposals and potential for large waste incinerator
Increased road congestion
Other sites available near railway links
LDP proposes more private homes than SDP
Page 51
Patrick Viney (Ref 309/1)
Negative impacts on respondents education
No infrastructure for new secondary schools
Will have to attend oversubscribed school reducing chance of reaching potential and good results
May have to attend school in another area due to lack of places
No increase in young peoples places ‐ community halls, clubs and youth groups
Increased cars and greater pollution, safety and negative impacts on health and well‐being
Lois Viney (Ref 310/1)
Negative impacts on respondents education
No infrastructure for new secondary schools
Will have to attend oversubscribed school reducing chance of reaching potential and good results
Increased traffic will reduce chances of travelling independently and safely
Inadequate health facilities
LDP could have been promoted more in local schools rather than libraries mid week
Mr. J . Farnham (Ref 311/1)
Housing unnecessary given Newton Mearn's ageing population
Brownfield sites are available
Impact on 'one of the best' residential areas in Glasgow will be catastrophic
Object to incinerator
Mrs. E. Penman (Ref 322/1)
Traffic
Pollution
Infrastructure
Services
Overdevelopment
Linsey Beck (Ref 325/1)
Use of Green Belt when Brownfield available
Infrastructure capacity
Against incinerator and potential for toxic fumes
Coalescence
Destruction of landscape
Jean Beck (Ref 326/1)
Brownfield sites available
Lack of infrastructure to cope with increased population
Do not want to see a city here
I M Borland (Ref 327/1)
Schools require massive investment
Infrastructure, transport and drainage inadequate
Developer contributions will not be sufficient
Green Belt development contrary to SDP
Page 52
At the expense of inner city regeneration
Contrary to SDP
Green belt boundary definition loss
Judith Hume (Ref 337/1)
Cannot cope with demands of increased population
Traffic capacity
Demand on amenities
Lack of infrastructure in place
Developer contribution insufficient
Incinerator against SDP
More homes proposed than SDP requirements ‐ prevents inner city regeneration
No strong defensible Green Belt boundary
Flood risk not accurate and a further detailed assessment should be carrier out. SEPA maps and propensity to flooding indicates issues
Impact on public safety from increased traffic, what road safety risk assessment has been carried out, what traffic calming measures are planned?
Social and health infrastructure insufficient, what plans are in place to address increased population, how are resources assessed?
General public should not meet increased infrastructure requirements through taxation, have costs been calculator, how are ERC ensuring developers meet a substantial part of these costs?
Mrs Fiona McKenzie (Ref 346/1)
M77/GSO Road Noise Survey Report 2012 indicated high levels of noise, development will increase this even further
Plans will increase congestion on M77 and increase pollution
No public transport so will increase emissions
Business sites at Greenlaw unsustainable here will not do better
Contrary to SDP, brownfield sites not used first, not compact city region, no call for Green belt release
SUDs contrary to SDP ‐ drainage via private watercourse
M2.1 masterplan will have no input from local residents
Large waste incinerator against SDP, traffic increase, pollution
More private homes than SDP prevents innercity regeneration
Valerie Paton (Ref 350/1)
Already had significant expansion in Newton Mearns
Impacts on schools, medical facilities and roads
New amenities must be built to accommodate expansion
Object to incinerator, pollution, increased traffic, loss of character
Donna Cameron (Ref 351/1)
Increased traffic M77
Impact on schools/school places already under pressure/ no secondary places provided
Drainage capacity
Surface water risk of flooding
Contrary to SDP Brownfield sites available, not compact city region, SUDs via private watercourses, no mass transit system
Page 53
Increase congestion, pollution greenhouse emissions
Ribbon development
LDP more private homes than SDP
Alan Collins (Ref 356/2)
Contrary to SDP infrastructure policy
Council more concerned with developers gain
Object to incinerator, against SDP
No defensible Green Belt boundary
More homes than SDP
Stephanie Rogan (Ref 358/1)
No secondary school places
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, brownfield available, compact city region, no major release of Green Belt
Transport impact/ requires investment
Loss of character ‐ housing estate only lacking amenities
Potential social problems as a result
Loss of Green Belt
Sylvia and Arnold Black (Ref 362/1)
Object to more houses
Traffic congestion
Incinerator ‐ against SDP, traffic and odour implications
No industry, so why houses required?
Local people concerned and should be listened to
James Ward (Ref 363/1)
Why are Brownfield sites not used as a priority
If Brownfield sites not used strong reasons should be given as to why not
If Greenfield sites have to be used it should be demonstrated how this benefits local community
School capacity/ provides no secondary school places
Developer contributions insufficient
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, Brownfield sites available (listed as sites LDP 53, 54, 80, 82,83, 84), not compact city region, no call for major Green Belt Release
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere SUDs via private watercourse
No mass transit system, sites available near one
Increase congestion, pollution, greenhouse emissions
Masterplan will have no local input
Will lead to ribbon development along trunk road
Moira Humphreys (Ref 364/1)
Green Belt ,Brownfield sites available
Against national policy to expand urban area when brownfield available
Underprovided in services ‐ schools GPs
Incinerator should not be built justified by these houses or built on Green Belt land
Page 54
Valerie Weaver (Ref 366/1)
People have little say or power over these plans
Current residents will be disadvantaged
No mass transit system
Sandra Weaver (Ref 367/1)
Services currently poor and should not be subject to further pressure
More houses and incinerator will destroy character and amenities
Duncan Matthews (Ref 368/1)
Brownfield sites have not been properly considered and it is an easy option to develop Greenfield already owned by developers
Not representing residents by considering sites which go against the SDP
Brownfield sites with consent are available
Other Brownfield sites not released for housing (LDP 53, 54, 80, 82, 83, 84)
Against SDP ‐ not compact city region, no call for major Green Belt release
School catchment areas
Cannot guarantee what age children moving to the area will be
Developer contributions will not be sufficient
Cameron Shearer (Ref 370/1)
Local businessman considering relocating due to current traffic situation which will only be made worse
Newton Mearns becoming an unattractive place to conduct business or bring up children
Page 55
Mrs Christine Greig (Ref 371/1)
Object to use of Green Belt for urban expansion
Planning have not attended Community Council meetings
Notification of meetings poor
Already poorly thought out infrastructure in Newton Mearns
Proposal detrimental to health and well being of existing residents
Existing public transport poor and access to train station requires car use
No local benefit from construction of incinerator
 School capacity/ provides no secondary school places
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere. Any businesses likely to develop will be small scale with often just a single employee SUDs via private watercourse
Keith Murray (Ref 372/1)
Brownfield sites not considered fully and openly explained why Brownfield sites have not been used
Sites selected benefit developers and are being pushed through without sufficient consultation
Politically motivated
Poor communication, maps and materials
Page 56
School provision inadequate
Flooding problems overlooked
No provision of medical facilities
Increased traffic congestion, transport demand and resulting pollution
Building increases carbon footprint
Loss of amenity, social and recreation facilities
M77 not built for 'ribbon development', presently congested
Peat at Maidenhill
Incinerator close to housing and downwind, would generate heavy traffic
Businesses do not wish to locate in this area
Coalescence
Community Councils have expressed concern about traffic
Mrs. J V Farnham (Ref 376/1)
Already small Green Belt surrounding towns along A77, Whitelee windfarm takes away from green moorland, proposal will reduce remaining greenspace available.
Not clear if incinerator plans going ahead but object to another industrial site following Whitelee damage to moorland.
Lorne Greig (Ref 377/1)
Have Scottish Government been advised SDP is being ignored
Cannot maintain current Roads
Sites near Patterton train station should be examined
More private houses than SDP, prevents inner‐city regeneration
Increase figures as Malletsheugh being promoted for non‐residential elements allowing provision of residential elsewhere
 Accept need to deliver public transport upgrades but question upgrades to Aurs Road, Barrhead to Crookfur Road/ M77 link road and Balgray Link
Page 57
Unclear on enhancements to Dams to Darnley Country Park and why this is relative to this site
Want all non residential elements to be justified and viable
Firmly of the view the whole site can deliver more than 450 units between LDP adoption 2014/2015, land in current local plan not sufficient to maintain 5 year land supply
Extend to include Maidenhill Farm within boundary
Request flexibility in numbers and phasing Long term development should be post 2025 only rather than 'safeguarded'
Viable agricultural land
No details for how new schools could be financed
Developer contributions inadequate
Development should not be considered without all funding in place
Schools, medical and roads capacity
Deterioration in quality of life for existing residents
Security and mobility issues from congested roads
No demand for business, will not reduce commuting
Maidenhill should not be used to justify incinerator
Kenneth G Olverman (Ref 381/1)
Against SDP not Brownfield first, brownfield sites available, developing Green Belt land prevents inner city regeneration
School capacity, no provision for secondary places
Contrary to SDP infrastructure policy no access to rail system, brownfield sites available which meet that criteria
No drainage management system
Will not provide significant business opportunities, SDP directs elsewhere
Site Evaluation Assessment, Maidenhill site LDP12A/M2.1:
Q4 fails to meet any criteria score should be ‐3
Q5 fails to meet any criteria unless a new school is build then it will achieve 1 of the criteria, score should be ‐3
Overall score should be ‐9 and retained as Green Belt
Alan Speck (Ref 384/1)
Green Belt use when Brownfield sites exist
Not suitable location for incinerator
Page 58
Hazel Speck (Ref 386/1)
Green Belt use when Brownfield sites exist
Not suitable location for incinerator
Barbara White (Ref 397/1)
Object to incinerator, fumes
Housing could be accommodated on unused Brownfield sites
Contrary to SDP ‐ SUDs via private watercourse, no management scheme
More private homes than SDP
Brownfield land not used first, not compact city region, no SDP call for Green Belt release
Iain P Irvine (Ref 398/1)
More than enough houses in area
More housing would put strain on existing resources
Emma Osborne (Ref 399/1)
No benefits to area, will result in poorer living standards
Impact on road, already poor condition
Impact on schools, medical, transport and other services ‐ bus service recently reduced
Impact on traffic congestion
Will remove two thriving businesses from local area
Susan Borland (Ref 401/1)
Page 59
Secondary school provision will children still be educated in Newton Mearns
Medical and social services impact
Utilities provision not addressed
People will not want to buy houses near incinerator
Sewer/flooding impact. Require flood prevention measures
LDP does not address any issues with development and should not go ahead until issues are addressed and infrastructure provided
Brownfield sites in need of development
LDP should go to public enquiry
Martin Rae (Ref 405/1)
Housing will increase road safety issues
Jennifer Osborne (Ref 406/1)
Damage to Newton Mearns and whole of East Renfrewshire area
Will close two thriving businesses
Charles Hunter (Ref 407/1)
Creates greater population drift from Glasgow city where land could be redeveloped. Strain on services and infrastructure.
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere Page 60
SUDs via private watercourse
Andrew Fitzgerald (Ref 409/1)
Council have not adequately consulted
Plan unrealistic in current climate
Morag Hunter (Ref 410/1)
Impact on services and education already under severe strain
Without developer funding all of the education facilities shortfall made up by the council will but strain on council and personal budgets
Liz McShane (Ref 411/1)
Newton Mearns already too large and becoming a less desirable place to live
No direct transport to areas and bus service being reduced
Lack of education facilities
Questions amount of house building in last few years, how successful this has been, amount of businesses set up on Green Belt or attracted to area
Page 61
Increase in congestion, pollution and poor state of roads
New houses out of reach of 1st or 2nd time buyers
Areas in Newton Mearns are distinct this will be lost
Appears to be establishment of new town
Poor quality of map
Cycle facilities poor
Drainage and flooding concerns, no mitigation
Masterplan poor
Jack Cunningham (Ref 415/1)
Loss of character for short term monetary gain
John Campbell (Ref 416/1)
Traffic volume impact, safety implications, road repair
Secondary school places required, against environment aims to bus children elsewhere
1000 new homes approved in Newton Mearns, no need for additional houses, where is evidence of growing population
Not sustainable LDP
David McLay (Ref 417/1)
Infrastructure capacity
Incinerator near primary school and large community, should be where fumes can be blown out to sea
Jennifer McLay (Ref 418/1)
Infrastructure capacity
Page 62
Incinerator near primary school and large community, should be where fumes can be blown out to sea
Contrary to SDP and LDP
Will not promote sustainable development, reduce carbon emissions or be served by a range of transport modes
School capacity, road capacity and public transport insufficient
Increased risk of flooding downstream
Potential links to incinerator does not comply with SDP
David Wilcock (Ref 420/1)
Impact on schools and resources
Council should listen to residents
Mrs Jane Condie (Ref 421/1)
Loss of character/housing sprawl
Traffic impact
Council failure to attend meeting
Mr Leslie Condie (Ref 422/1)
Loss of character/housing sprawl
Council failure to attend meeting
Elliot Miller (Ref 423/1)
Will be used to justify incinerator
Page 63
Mrs Jill Tuck (Ref 428/1)
Increased works traffic
Safety of children in traffic
Loss of old trees and effect on wildlife an insects
Urban sprawl
Karen McCotter (Ref 429/1)
Area should be preserved for greenspace Overpopulation
Emily McCotter (Ref 431/1)
Sprawl/loss of character
Page 64
Shirley Anderson (Ref 436/1)
Incinerator pollution
Joe Jackson (Ref 438/1)
Poor public transport
Other areas in central belt more suited to development and size of expansion
Newton Mearns will not be enhanced
David Walker (Ref 439/1)
East Renfrewshire should protect residents from developers wanting to build on the Green Belt and refusing to build on Brownfield sites
Destroys quality land
If developers are allowed to develop here will set a precedent and Brownfield land will never be developed
Needs of developers put ahead of residents
Mrs M. A. McGregor (Ref 442/1)
Productive farmland
Little or no amenities
Page 65
Margaret Gunn (Ref 443/1)
Overdevelopment
Impact on schools, infrastructure, healthcare, road surface
Newton Mearns should be ring fenced to prevent further development
36 years worth of land supply in Glasgow and Clyde Valley on Brownfield sites
Urban infill in Newton Mearns should be prioritised with developer contributions for school places in area
No community consultation on M77 masterplan
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, Brownfield sites available (listed as sites LDP 53, 54, 80, 82,83, 84), not compact city region, no call for major Green Belt Release SUDs via private watercourse
 No strong defensible Green Belt boundary
Richard Lord (Ref 450/1)
Loss of remaining greenspace
Ecosystem loss
Unsold new houses in existence with better public transport
Incinerator should be in industrial location
Page 66
Gillian Cameron (Ref 452/1)
loss of greenspace
Scott Sanderson (Ref 453/1)
School capacity and catchment areas impact
Drainage issues/ flooding of gardens
Number of homes in excess of SDP
Would like to input into masterplan as neighbour
Elizabeth Burke (Ref 454/1)
Previous developments unsold
Huge previous expansion
R Fraser (Ref 455/1)
Destroy community
Lack of control and disregard for appearance of Newton Mearns
object to incinerator
No significant business opportunity, previous sites not used e.g. At Osprey
Decline of area
Page 67
Lorna McNicol (Ref 456/1)
Susan McMurdo (Ref 457/1)
Brownfield available
Ian McMurdo (Ref 458/1)
Incinerator contrary to SDP
More houses than SDP prevents regeneration
Laura Carragher (Ref 459/1)
Building on farmland and Green Belt not in keeping with preserving healthy/green environment
School capacity, do not want to be bussed to school further away, should be able to walk to school
Road impact ‐ busier, less safe, not eco friendly
Colin Hamilton (Ref 460/1)
30 year supply of Brownfield sites within SDP area
Business development unlikely
No integrated mass transit system
Scottish Government have objected to use of M77 corridor for development
Brownfield in wider area should be developed first
Mrs G E Dunlop (Ref 461/1)
impact on services
 Release not justified
Does not meet criteria set out para 3.12.1 in SP1, urban expansion of such scale on Green Belt cannot be sustainable, Page 68
will not demonstrably reduce carbon emissions and is not well served by a choice of transport modes
Does not demonstrably meet points 1 sequential test, 3 positive community and economic benefits, 5 impact on infrastructure, 6 impact on existing facilities, 7 transport impact, 8 impact on built and natural environment, 11 energy reduction, 14 impact on other proposals and designations
failed to justify and assess proposal against own policies
no attempt at justified scale, mix and location of proposal
Provision in policy are list with no indication of what happens if not met (assumed development would not go ahead but this is not stated)
No explicit policy provision that would prevent release or partial release without full infrastructure or developer contributions. Particularly serious due to existing infrastructure issues
SPP does not provide justification for such large scale Green Belt release
M77 Corridor Study is self justifying – assuming continuing requirement for large scale residential land release
There is no investment/developer appetite or finance available for anything of such scale in the immediate first 5 years of the plan
Consider M77 masterplan study optimistic in current market and does not justify land release
Greenlaw appeal demonstrates mixed‐use aspirations for M77 Corridor and M2.1 are unlikely to go ahead and therefore do not justify land release
There is no reasoned justification for the scale of business employment land releases including those in M77 corridor and M2.1, reasoned justification is needed given Greenlaw Park appeal
Marian Brady (Ref 464/1)
Capacity of infrastructure
Sarah Matthews (Ref 467/1)
No new businesses to support housing growth
Brownfield use not properly explored
Impact on watercourses and flooding
Road capacity
Infrastructure, schools, services impact
Malcolm Greig (Ref 468/1)
Should consider City Region scale planning more
Use Brownfield sites in Glasgow
Brownfield
Insufficient developer contribution
Business sites not required
Contrary to SDP ‐ watercourses/SUDs, no mass transit, incinerator
School places
Green Belt should be protected at all costs
Brownfield sites available in ER and Clyde Valley
Lack of infrastructure ‐ roads, drainage, schools, healthcare
Insufficient developer contributions
Dormitory developments lacking transport links
David Elliot (Ref 481/1)
Affordable housing will change the reputation of the area
Page 69
Detriment to living environment
Sarah Elliot (Ref 482/1)
Green Belt development lowers reputation of area
Mr Kenneth Nicolson (Ref 484/1)
No justification for development
Payment for planning permission is bad practice
High voltage electrical installations damage health
Health risk of incinerator, cost and management problems with district heating
Low cost housing is inferior quality
Document should have reasoning and cost implications
Page 70
George Macfarlane (Ref 487/1)
Brownfield first
Road capacity
No access to railway
In excess of population statistics
Sites with planning permission should be developed before Green Belt release
Calum Haddow (Ref 488/1)
Decrease in local wildlife
Gillian Craig (Ref 489/1)
If consented planning applications are developed there would be no need for land release
3000 units could be constructed on Brownfield sites
Anne M Macfarlane (Ref 491/2)
Largest Green Belt release not near public transport or facilities
Brownfield sites would be better located for this
Wind high at site/inclement
Drainage issues
Page 71
Road capacity
Journeys to services unsustainable
Would require to be new town/village as no close by facilities
John Dickie (Ref 495/1)
Independent traffic assessment required
Impact on visual amenity due to contours
Dianne Smillie (Ref 497/1)
Road impact
Flooding issues
Water supplies impact
Productive farmland should be protected for future ‐ climate change, need for self sufficiency and food shortage/prices.
Impact on all infrastructure
Landscape:
All the Barrhead sites are noted in the Green Belt Landscape Character Assessment as requiring Protection and Conservation; the area has a strong relatively intact landscape character which forms an intrinsic part of the physical setting and visual backdrop to Arthurlie....With this robust developed edge and higher landscape sensitivity the area Page 72
‘should impose a constraint to further development. Landscape enhancement should seek to reinforce the landscape character where appropriate’.
Transport:
Planning:
James Barnes (Ref 505/1)
Consultation poor
Incinerator mentioned in M77 Masterplan as CHP and MIR but no mention in LDP ‐ this means the proposal has not been defined and discussed in a transparent manner. Concerned this is 'conniving at the link between CHP and the LRV'
Health risks from municipal and industrial waste incinerators
W Howie (Ref 506/1)
Infrastructure cannot sustain development such as this
Page 73
Green Belt should not be lost, should be 'sacrosanct'
Incinerator not supported by public and MPs and MSPs
Bill Duguid, Eaglesham and Waterfoot Community Council (Ref 510/2)
Conflicts with SP2 ‐ Large supply of Brownfield sites in Glasgow and Clyde Valley area not used first
643 consents in place in Newton Mearns
Conflicts with SP2 ‐ adverse impact of greatly increased traffic from proposed development and proposed Jackson development in South Lanarkshire
Consider alterantive startegy
Urban expansion will not promote sustainable development, reduce carbon emissions and is not served by a range of transport modes
Concerned over run off from SG2.1 Maidenhill to Shawlinn Burn which is already at flood risk and on SEPAs flood risk map
The watercourse from the proposed site at SG2.11 (Maidenhill) to the Broom Burn is unadopted and has no agreed maintenance regime in place. Any potential use of this watercourse to drain Maidenhill would require full hydrological modelling of the whole watercourse, including all culverts; and a maintenance regime would first need to be agreed with the riparian land owners before this site could be included in the Adopted LDP
No economic development is planned for Newton Mearns other than aspirational business and shopping developments.
When greenbelt sites in Newton Mearns need to be released it should be done in a sustainable way, with access to jobs, public
rail transport, adequate school provision, the new Health Centre and adequate drainage. The current site scores seem surprising and appear to demonstrate considerable distortion and bias to suit ERC’s agenda. The Council’s preferred option of development at Maidenhill and Malletsheugh is considered unsustainable as it is contrary to the SDP; it has a lack of access to rail transport (Policy SG10), lack of adequate control over surface drainage (Policy E5). It is noted that the Planning Department has increased the scores for the Maidenhill and Malletsheugh sites by +4 points since the MIR consultation without any rationale or justification.
Graeme Scott (Ref 514/1)
Do not benefit local area
Development does not take account of established local community and their views
G Canning
Greenfield sites with awful environmental effects
'railroaded through without discussion'
Sharon Kerr (Ref 518/1)
Expansion would be detriment to area ad will result in people leaving and no demand for further housing
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, Brownfield sites available (listed as sites LDP 53, 54, 80, 82,83, 84), not compact Page 74
city region, no call for major Green Belt Release
James Kerr (Ref 519/1)
Expansion would be detriment to area ad will result in people leaving and no demand for further housing
Ron Connor (Ref 522/1)
Council have failed to convince public development is required
Do not take account effect on infrastructure and it is not in place
Development should not be permitted until sites with permission are built out
Christine Dearie (Ref 523/1)
Impact on school places, change of catchment areas, bussing children will affect their personal safety
2025 is too long to want for non‐domination primary school
Not in line with SPP Brownfield not used first, sites with consent should be used
SDP does not mention need for Green Belt release
Effects on children high levels of traffic, schools and health issues.
Guy Duman (Ref 525/1)
Brownfield available and far more suitable locations available, against use of Greenfield
More private houses than SDP, prevents inner city regeneration
Page 75
Julie Matthews (Ref 530/1)
Impact on overloaded infrastructure
No community amenities in area
Against wishes of population
No demand for 2000 houses
Pollution from extra vehicles
Developers put profits before area
SDP ignored
Drainage, pollution and flood risk ignored
Ruin character of area
Allison Greig (Ref 534/1)
No balance to equate needs of housing against needs of existing community, infrastructure and amenities
Excessive development
Loss of only usable greenspace in area
Dams to Darnley park has access issues and will not be of sufficient quality to be a 'country park'
Does not take into account school catchments, provides no secondary places
Conflicts with greenspace and biodiversity strategy
Reduces opportunity for healthy lifestyle by removing local countryside
No infrastructure for 4000+ homes
Distance from rail station, contrary to SDP
Arran Greig (Ref 535/1)
Likes walking on site and it will be lost
Contact with wildlife and good views from hill
No where else can walk from house
Concerned about pollution from incinerator
Proposals in response to a framework document that was not consulted on
Barrhead link road through J5 M77 not feasible based on any financial model
Object to sites SG6.12/6.13/6.21/6.22 due to lack of demand for business in area, contrary to SDP
Object to sites D13.19/13.20 contrary to SDP
Object to SG10.3 based on masterplan with no consultation, note technically or financially feasible ‐ upgrade of J4 could be achieved and delivered for fraction of cost
Scoring of LDP02, 12a, 12b and 85 in Site Evaluation Assessment does not accord with assessment methodology
LDP02 – Q2 should be ‐3, with the total changed to ‐7
LDP12A – Q10 should be 0 and Q11 should be 1 with the total changed to ‐7
LDP12B – Q2 should be ‐3 and Q3 also ‐3 with the total changed to ‐9
LDP85 – Q2 should be ‐3 and Q10 should be 0 with the total changed to ‐7
Lesley Murray (Ref 537/1)
Brownfield sites first
Lack of greenspace, resources for children in the future
Profit put first
Lack of amenities and poor state of roads
Page 76
No rationale for the demand proposed
No rationale for demand proposed
Almost all housing on Greenfield land and much of this Green Belt ‐ should be greater emphasis on Brownfield use in whole region
Road maintenance
Will increase travel to work and congestion ‐ should be located closer to transport hubs
No details of number of school places provided, why build denominational and non‐denominational instead of a single multipurpose facility
No mention of secondary school places
Health care provision will be inadequate
SG10.3 Balgray link would make traffic worse, will increase congestion and emissions, improvements to Aurs Road better
Open space and play areas for children should be considered
Against policy in SDP to maintain compact city region and develop Brownfield sites
William Jenkins (Ref 542/1)
No shortage of homes on ER, 2000 homes have planning permission but have not been built
Loss of Green Belt, counter to SDP, not Brownfield first
Increases commuting, poorly served by public transport, increases congestion and pollution
Impact on schools, no secondary places
No benefits to area
No demand for business premises
Would not achieve aim of development in the right place
Abandon plan, maintain existing Green Belt
Edward Howie (Ref 544/1)
Brownfield sites available not compatible with Scottish government policy
Private gardens not protected from new watercourse
Value of properties will fall near incinerator
Amanda Templeton (Ref 548/1)
Busy enough area
Stretched facilities
Unsold houses in area
Elizabeth Forbes (Ref 549/1)
600 undeveloped sites with consent in area
More houses provided than SDP requirements
Page 77
Does not clearly sate school provision/ School capacity/ provides no secondary school places
Charles Kelly (Ref 550/1)
Increase in traffic
Green Belt use when Brownfield exists
Eleanor Watson (Ref 551/1)
Brownfield sites available and should be used as priority
Alison Gillanders (Ref 552/1)
Object to incinerator, against SDP
Mrs Anne H Grimes (Ref 556/1)
Despite past objections site still proposed
Traffic safety
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere Incinerator against SDP
Moira Meek (Ref 560/1)
No secondary places
Insufficient infrastructure
No Green Belt boundary as proved by motorway services permission
Page 78
Emily Laird (Ref 562/1)
Lack of investment in leisure and services for so many homes
Ian Laird (Ref 563/1)
Other sites could be used instead of destroying the Green Belt
Brownfield sites available and sites with approval not built because of insufficient demand
Jamie Laird (Ref 564/1)
Natural boundary of M77 not a good explanation for loss of Green Belt particularly when Brownfield sites exist
Page 79
Lesley Laird (Ref 565/1)
Insufficient facilities for existing residents
No provision of sports centre
Mr and Mrs P Barbary (Ref 566/1)
Object to more homes
Increase in commuter journeys
Increase in school pupils
GP services
lack of capacity for more drainage of domestic water
Risks from surface water and flooding
22.5% increase in homes will have negative impact on existing house prices
Seen no plans to plug infrastructure gap
Brownfield land should be used if there is such a high demand
Mrs Laura Kincaid (Ref 569/1)
School impact
Green belt loss
Brownfield site should be used instead
Heather Barnes (Ref 575/1)
What is the point in attending an eco‐school when incinerator is proposed
Effect on loss of wildlife and plants
Loss of Green Belt effects whole character of Country
Page 80
Mr G Branter (Ref 576/1)
There is a lack of a cohesive plan that brings together infrastructure, education, public transport and public services
Object to Green Belt development rather than brownfield or regeneration of older parts of Newton Mearns
Incinerator, smaller systems in line with SPP
Neil Warren (Ref 578/2)
Will not promote sustainable development, reduce carbon emissions or be served by a range of transport, contrary to SP1
Against SDP ‐ not compact city region, not Brownfield, is a major Green Belt release
Contrary to SP2 Brownfield sites available, no demand for business, adverse affect on trunk roads and local roads, no defensible Green Belt boundary
No Consultation on M77 Corridor Masterplan
Concerned over run off from SG2.1 Maidenhill to Shawlinn Burn which is already at flood risk and on SEPAs flood risk map
Watercourse from site goes to Broom Burn which is unadopted and there is no proposed management scheme in place
Maidenhill requires full Hydrological modelling and maintenance
Southern most aspect of Newton Mearns colder than other areas resulting in unsustainable U values
Housing and businesses should be directed away from this area (directed to lower altitudes in preference to higher altitudes)
Siobhan Barnes (Ref 580/1)
Incinerator bad for health
Should build on developed space not greenfield
Terry McGowan (Ref 581/1)
Effect on quality of life
Page 81
A W Hislop (Ref 582/1)
Brownfield sites available and developers are awaiting affordable housing conditions to be removed in order to make greater profit before they develop
Mrs J S Hislop (Ref 583/1)
Loss of good productive farmland
Object to industrialisation from incinerator
Miss E J Hislop (Ref 584/1)
Impact on infrastructure
Page 82
Fiona Bradnam (Ref 592/1)
Loss of good productive farmland
Object to industrialisation from incinerator
Selena Jackson (Ref 593/1)
Health risks from incinerator
Detrimental to house prices and infrastructure
Celia MacLeod (Ref 594/1)
School places
Not brownfield as in SDP
Strain on other infrastructure
Incinerator in suburban area ‐ effects on air
Alastair MacLeod (Ref 596/1)
Strain on infrastructure/services
Pollution from incinerator
Page 83
Prevents inner‐city regeneration
Mrs Emma MacKinnon (Ref 597/1)
School impact ‐ catchment areas, places
Loss of Green Belt when Brownfield available
No rationale for the demand proposed
No details of number of school places provided, why build denominational and non‐denominational instead of a single multipurpose facility
No mention of secondary school places
Health care provision will be inadequate
SG10.3 Balgray link would make traffic worse, will increase congestion and emissions, improvements to Aurs Road better
Open space and play areas for children should be considered
Against policy in SDP to maintain compact city region and develop Brownfield sites
Masterplan not drafted and consulted on so cannot form part of LDP
Implications for infrastructure need to be quantified
No reference to secondary school places
Mr Angus MacKinnon (Ref 606/1)
Impact on schools, traffic,
Pollution
Other infrastructure
Incinerator
Blair Henderson (Ref 624/1)
Drainage issues for neighbouring properties and drainage via unadopted courses
Green Belt site contrary to SDP
Brownfield should be used as priority
Moira Blacker (Ref 625/1)
Loss of green character
Wellbeing of population after Green Belt loss
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere Page 84
SUDs via private watercourse
Kirsten Ross (Ref 633/1)
Overcrowding
Exceeds requirements
Impact on resources, amenity and services
Roz Rae (Ref 635/1)
Loss of suburban character
No demand for business opportunities
Martin Campbell (Ref 637/1)
Negative impact on environment
Page 85
Laura Henderson (Ref 639/1)
Impact on schools and facilities from insufficient developer contributions
Lack of facilities for youth
No requirement for business provision
Donna Henderson (Ref 641/1)
No mass transit
Contrary to SDP‐ Green Belt use
Dr Rosalynn Morrin (Ref 642/1)
Council's financial gain
School impact
Services impact
Lack of transport infrastructure
Incinerator
Vivien Thomson (Ref 643/1)
Impact on services
Traffic increase
James W Green (Ref 644/1)
Excessive development
Uncharacterised expansion
Impact on facilities, schools
Mrs Helen Bradford (Ref 645/1)
Impact on roads, pollution, affordable housing difficult to achieve due to high value area, Brownfield available, Remove M2.1
Raemond Bradford (Ref 646/1)
Encourages car use
3rd NPF shows vacant land close to Glasgow that could be used instead
Can M2.1 be affordable for social rent only? If built , market value would be well above what is considered affordable
E. F. Hanvey (Ref 648/1)
School capacity, developer contributions insufficient
Demand on services
Brownfield sites ignored
Traffic increase, road safety
E M Spalding (Ref 649/1)
Against SDP not Brownfield
Page 86
Impact on services and schools
Public transport inadequate
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere Further erodes green credentials of ERC
Would object to incinerator if it came forward
Edward Gunn (Ref 651/1)
Contrary to SP1
No consultation on M77 Corridor masterplan
No further consultation proposed
Council should direct development to Brownfield sites in greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley
Not viable development due to:
Drainage ‐ recent dumping of soil on site has already caused flooding to cottages
Lack of viable infrastructure
Environmental impact
Other more sustainable sites available ‐ Brownfield sites with permission should be developed first and developers obligated to use these sites before others, these sites have infrastructure in place
No justification for housing numbers above Government's
No residential input proposed for masterplan
No plans for school impact/catchment areas, under 5 provision
No plans to address impact on roads ‐ congestion, road safety, lack of public transport
What has hanged since MIR to affect scoring in Site Evaluation ‐ increased by +4
Housing generally slow to sell, site will take disproportionate time to develop
Ageing population do not require family homes
Linda Davidson (Ref 654/1)
Traffic congestion and road safety
Pollution
Taylor Stewart (Ref 660/1)
Not in best interests of residents
Impact on schools and environment
 Incinerator against SDP
George Allan (Ref 661/1)
SDP does not call for any Green Belt release
No infrastructure to support development
Impact on environment, Green Belt loss, wildlife and pollution
Marjorie Daniell (Ref 666/1)
Page 87
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, Brownfield sites available (Incinerator against SDP
Catriona Carragher (Ref 667/1)
Impact on school places and catchments
Green Belt and productive farmland bad for environment
Consideration of Brownfield sites has not been thorough
Infrastructure impact, no improvements planned
Incinerator concerns
Laura Carragher (Ref 668/1)
Building on farmland and Green Belt
Impact on oversubscribed schools, do not wish to be bussed to school
Impact on roads ‐ no new ones proposed, road safety
Alistair W Knox (Ref 675/1)
Developer contributions insufficient for all infrastructure required
Flood risk and drainage issues from overdevelopment
Proposal contrary to SDP
Alister McLaren (Ref 676/1)
Brownfield sites exist
Incinerator
Increase congestion, pollution
No resident input into masterplan
Eliza‐Rose McGeever (Ref 678/1)
Drainage, lack of infrastructure, impact on environment, Green Belt loss
No justification for housing
No residential input in masterplan
School impact
Scoring changed since MIR
Gerald Edwards (Ref 680/1)
No business opportunities
Green Belt
Incinerator
R A Crusher (Ref 683/1)
Page 88
No business opportunities
Green Belt
Incinerator
Business use unfeasible and will lead to further housing release
No resident consultation in M77 Corridor Masterplan forming basis of policy and no further input proposed
Southern most aspect of Newton Mearns colder than other areas resulting in unsustainable U values
Housing and businesses should be directed away from this area (directed to lower altitudes in preference to higher altitudes)
In Site Evaluation there is no rationale for increased scoring to Maidenhill and Malletsheugh and site LDP85 no rationale or justification for inclusion and high score
SG2.11 Maidenhill will drain to Shawlinn Burn which is subject to flood risk
Development in Newton Mearns should be infill, adjacent to rail network and provide school places within existing catchment areas
A. Soudry (Ref 694/1)
School impact
Effect on wildlife
Air quality
Lack of amenities
Concerned about impact on available recreation. Urge council to assess and mitigate against impacts on outdoor sport and recreation interests.
Kate Makrides (Ref 706/1)
Contrary to SDP, not Brownfield first, no call for large Green Belt release
Floodrisk
Health and education impacts
Mr Ross Morrin (Ref 709/1)
Brownfield should be used first
Impact on schools
Disregard for residents views
Incinerator causes blight
K J Maxted (Ref 718/1)
Lack of public transport
Does not utilise brownfield
May enhance case foe incinerator
S Petrie (Ref 721/1)
Balance between urban and rural needs to be preserved, has been overdeveloped recently leading to wildlife loss and loss of farmland
Page 89
Harmos Makrides (Ref 731/1)
No need for increase in housing
No demand of business sites
Flood risk
Impact on strained transport
Object to any consideration of incinerator
Simon O'Hare (Ref 732/1)
Loss of Greenfield
Jennifer Smith (Ref 736/1)
Loss of green belt, productive farm land, pollution
Brownfield undeveloped
Margret MacDonald (Ref 737/1)
Page 90
No business demand
Flood risk
Incinerator risks
Fiona Paterson (Ref 738/1)
Object to school catchment changes
Contradicts strategic objectives ‐ transport
Erodes natural environment and Green Belt
No clear benefits to community
No need for retail opportunities
Incinerator risks and against SDP
Thomas A. Carvel (Ref 739/1)
School impact
Drainage impact
Developer contribution insufficient ‐ will incur significant cost to council
M77 traffic impact
Allan Carvel (Ref 740/1)
School impact
Drainage impact
Green Belt and productive farm land loss
Impact on house values
Strain on Council services
Christine Carvel (Ref 741/1)
Secondary school insufficient in area
No demand for business use
Further loss of Green Belt
Elisabeth B.Carvel (Ref 742/1)
Reduce area appeal
School impact
Local shops and facilities overcrowded
The Council have allocated units post 2025 the programming which has been attributed to these areas up to 2020 is unrealistically high and unlikely to deliver the numbers which they are anticipating. This somewhat clouds the overall five year effective land supply figure and will create a further shortfall.
The Council may wish to reassess the requirement to provide indicative programming in order to encourage development to be considered wholly prior to indicatively phasing delivery. This also enables smaller sites, without the requirement for a masterplanning exercise to come forward in the interim and deliver units within the plan period, something which Masterplan sites are unlikely to achieve. East Renfrewshire Council should ensure that the indicative capacity of housing units proposed as part of the ‘Strategic Development Opportunity’ sites do not prejudice ‘oven‐ready’ housing sites coming forward by allocating too many Page 91
units associated with the Masterplan developments within the plan period, which are unlikely to be delivered. Jules McGeever (Ref 744/2)
Lack of viable infrastructure
Other sites available (LDP27) that would have less impact on Green Belt
Education not thoroughly aware of plans and lack finance
Drainage
Brownfield land not used
Scoring in Site Evaluation changed and additional site (LDP85) added without consultation
Goes against SDP policy
Evidence suggest homes not in demand and would take a long time to complete/sell
Population ageing so why build family homes
Steven Smith (Ref 746/1)
school capacity
impact on environment
Brownfield sites exist
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere Incinerator against SDP
Adrian Carragher (Ref 749/1)
No explanation of how infrastructure will cope
Loss of Green Belt, farmland
Disconnect between what is proposed and what is needed
Loss of quality of life
Mr J G Spence (Ref 750/1)
Contrary to SDP
Mrs Sandra McBride (Ref 752/2)
No need for business
Incinerator issues
Amanda Fairley (Ref 753/1)
School provision
Kathryn Fairley (Ref 754/1)
Page 92
Mrs. Kathryn Oliver (Ref 756/1)
School capacity/catchment
Flood risk
lack of facilities
Rosalie Menon (Ref 757/1)
Displacement of wildlife
Jim Moore (Ref 762/1)
Infrastructure
Flooding/drainage
Green Belt loss, against SDP policies, Brownfield first
School impact
No need for housing ‐ existing not selling
Norman Oliver (Ref 764/1)
Flood risk
Public transport insufficient
Ms. A Allan (Ref 772/1)
Road impact
School impact
Not Brownfield
No demand for business use
Incinerator agianst SDP
Colin Hamilton (Ref 782/1)
Unecessary inappropriate numbers
30 year land supply of brownfield in area
Will not attract business based on past sites
Housing should be centred on urban infill adjacent to rail network to reduce dependancy on fossil fuel
Scottish Government have objected to M77 corridor growth
Page 93
Development shoudl be directed to greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley
Severe impact on road infrastructure, lack of drainage, lack of schools
Productive agricultural land
Will not provide defensible boundary as this has been breached by permission for motorway service area
ERC refused request to show how the site can be provided with off site drainage
Should not be allocated without thorough investigation of traffic and drainage impact
Scored over‐favourably in Site Evaluation
Site M2.1 risk of flooding elsewhere
Mrs M. Anderson (Ref 789/1)
Against SDP site selection, Green Belt release
Imapct on schools, roads, services
Claudia De Marco (Ref 792/1)
Damage to local retail if more introduced
Congestion, pollution, emissions
2000 homes not built from existing permissions
Peter De Marco (Ref 794/1)
No requirements for business
School impact
2000 homes with existing planning permission
Polluting a desirable area
David Yde (Ref 800/1)
School impact, negative effect on house values
Traffic impact, road maintenance
Flooding and drainage issues
Contrary to SDP policies
Mrs Ann Anson (Ref 802/1)
Alison McKinlay (Ref 803/1)
Amenity impact
School impact/ loss of education standards
Services, roads and retail overburdened
Page 94
John Stuart (Ref 806/1)
Not enough public transport available
Environmental damage
Sheila Mitchell (Ref 807/1)
David Fairley (Ref 809/1)
School impact
Dawn Bell (Ref 810/2)
School impact
Evelyn Muchan (Ref 811/2)
Loss of Green Belt
Against incinerator
James Dearie (Ref 813/1)
School impact ‐ no secondary provided, bussing of pupils, places impact, Non demonical school not until 2025 this is too long
Not brownfield, against SDP
Brian Lavalette (Ref 815/1)
Loss of character and community
Page 95
Infrastructure impact, schools
J.G.Grindlay (Ref 816/1)
Incinerator
School impact
Greenfield loss at the expense of inner city regeneration
Harris Macfarlane (Ref 823/1)
Flood risk
Roads impact
Duncan Dickson (Ref 832/1)
School, health services impact
Roads impact
Not wanted by community
Mrs V G Jardine (Ref 833/1)
Exposed area
Will give rise to incinerator proposal
George Willoughby (Ref 836/1)
Pleased to see MIR response accepted
Concerned about new housing's effect on infrastructure, road maintenance made worse, effects of Greenlaw not yet known, congestion
Sites can be infilled without Maidenhill
Margaret Whyte (Ref 837/1)
Countryside/ wildlife
Schools, services
Misuse of Green Belt
Incinerator
Mora Main (Ref 839/1)
Page 96
SUDs drained via private watercourse and private gardens
D S Mylett (Ref 840/1)
What happened to Green Belt protection
School impact
Road/public transport capacity and impact
Existing drainage problem
Brownfield not first
Houses already built not selling well
Mrs Diane Kerr (Ref 841/1)
No demand for business here, SDP directs away
No public transport
Incinerator/ Future health risks
Green Belt should be retained
Recylcling increased
Freya Macfarlane (Ref 842/1)
Brownfield exists
School cpacity
Road impact/safety
Ms Sue Jardine (Ref 844/1)
Green Belt use when Brownfield available
Effect on wildlife, farmland availability, biodiversity
Roads/traffic impact
Services impact ‐ developer contributions insufficient
Incinerator
Mr and Mrs W Devlin (Ref 846/1)
Lack of infrastructure, developer contributions insufficient
Roads worst in Scotland
No consideration given to pollution and traffic
Not Brownfield
Incinerator disaster
Will make area outer Glasgow slum
Kathleen I Mooney (Ref 850/1)
Floodrisk, gardens already flooded
Green Belt
Already largest suburb in Europe
W R G Barr (Ref 872/1)
Green Belt loss against SDP
No business need/demand
Enables incinerator
Page 97
Loss of environment
Urban sprawl
Scott Mathers (Ref 873/1)
Amenity loss
Brownfield sites need devloped
Infrastructure required would damage features
Public transport, other areas supported by rail
Gregor Mathers (Ref 874/1)
Incinerator
Green Belt
Catherine Wharton (Ref 875/1)
Suds/drainage, flood risk
No train service
Julie Mathers (Ref 876/1)
Incinerator
Green Belt
Health impacts
Brownfield needs developed
Craig Mathers (Ref 877/1)
No mass transit
Pollution from roads
Rail should be prioritised
Green Belt
Health impacts
Brownfield needs developed
Jeffrey Bailey (Ref 878/2)
Green Belt
Access
Insufficnet lighting
Incinerator
Iris Glegg (Ref 882/1)
Schools
Incinerator
Page 98
Roads impact
Continued loss of character
Nancy Walker (Ref 883/1)
Destroy Newton Means
Wildlife
Last part of Green Belt
Health
Plenty of other places to build
Congestion
Incinerator
Mrs R D Miller (Ref 889/1)
Amount of development already
Road impact
Erwin and Audrey Macbeth (Ref 890/2)
School capcity
Service impact
Pollution and congestion
1200 houses too much
Incinerator
para 3.12.2 contrary to SDP
Will not promote sustianable devlopment, reduce emissions or be served by choice of transport
No resident consultation in M77 masterplan, non efurther proposed
Run off from Maidenhill to Shawlinn Burn subject to flood risk
Watercourse to the Broom Burn which is unadopted, requires full hydrological modelling, with managemet scheme agreed with landowners
No demand for housing other than from people that want to move to Newton Mearns
Not Nimbyism for residents wanting to protect existing environmentn
Undeveloped Brownfield sites should be used first
Site Evaluation Assessment:
Difficult for layman to understand scoring
Bias and distortion evident
Criteria do not match LDP polilcies
Increased scores for Maidenhill, Hillfield and Malletsheugh since MIR
W Crann (Ref 897/1)
Incinerator
David C Clapham (Ref 899/1)
Brownfield should be used first
Miss J E Marley (Ref 902/1)
 Green Belt
Page 99
 Incinerator
Mrs E S Tweedie (Ref 903/1)
Exceeds SDP requirement for houses
 Drainage
 School capacity
 No business requirements
R W R Barr (Ref 906/1)
N Barr (Ref 907/1)
M M Barr (Ref 908/1)
Mr F McCarroll (Ref 911/1)
Incinerator
Loss of hedgerows, wildlife
Page 100
Roads impact
School and shops cannot support
Green Belt
Mrs Eileen E Fraser (Ref 913/1)
 Brownfield available
 Traffic impact
No proven need for housing
Incinerator
Eleanor Kellock (Ref 919/1)
 Traffic impact
 School capacity
 Drainage
 Incinerator
Russell K Henry (Ref 921/1)
Ian Callander (Ref 927/1)
Strain on services
Fiona Callander (Ref 928/1)
Page 101
Mylene Kidd (Ref 930/1)
Brownfield sites available (listed as sites LDP 53, 54, 80, 82,83, 84)
 Insufficient infrastructure
 Lack of take up for other developments at J4
Flood risk
Reliance on Developer Contribution could lead to conflict of interest and will be insufficient
Drop‐in session not enough detail for issues such as site scoring and procedures
Andrew Kidd (Ref 931/1)
Drop in did not answer questions in detail
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere No mass transit system
Andrew Main (Ref 935/1)
 Incinerator
Dr J Wyllie (Ref 963/1)
Joanne Stirling (Ref 967/1)
No basis for mass expansion, provision already outstrips demand
Developer contributions insufficient and not targeted enough
 Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, enough brownfield in city region for 30 years land supply, not compact city region
Private houses far in excess of SDP ‐ damage economic prosperity and social cohesion
Rationale for increasing residents unclear
Drainage and sewerage issues existing
No access to mass transit
Alastair Henderson (Ref 972/1)
Page 102
Loss of productive farmland
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, Brownfield sites available
Tara Menon (Ref 975/1)
Loss of amenity space
Wildlife loss
Impact on younger generations
Climate change
Dr Grace Ballantyne (Ref 980/1)
Inappropraite scale
Will damage community
Standard Letter Comment M2.1A (227 reps) (Ref 995/1)
Developer contributions insufficient/ No guarantee of developer contributions
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield not used first and Brownfield sites available (listed as sites LDP 53, 54, 80, 82,83, 84), not compact city region, no call for major Green Belt Release
Will not provide business opportunity as no interest, SDP directs economic development elsewhere SUDs via private gardens and watercourse/ flood risk to private houses
Page 103
Contrary to SDP ‐ No mass transit system
Masterplan will have no local input/ No consultation on M77 Corridor Masterplan
Object to large waste incinerator against SDP/ E1
Additions from individuals:
Traffic Impacts/ roads busy enough already/ crowded roads/ provides no choice in transport, Road maintenance issues/ No need for straight road from Newton Mearns to Barrhead No infrastructure capacity / Infrastructure should be improved first
No increase in services and decrease in quality of life for existing residents/ Impact on services/ Services and amenities not presently maintained would be made worse
Housing need unproven/ No need for mass housing/ Housing numbers vague/ SHNDA states no requirement for 'large scale strategic releases'
Coalescence/Adds to urban sprawl/ Should not become New Town/ Negative impact on town
Not sustainable/ Will not reduce carbon emissions
Countryside should be preserved/ Loss of productive farmland
Will lead to further development
Retail development not required
Will affect property value
Object to health issues from telegraph monopoles
Health concerns about incinerator
Standard Letter Comment M2.1B (9 reps) (Ref 996/1)
No proven need for vast amounts of housing over and above that of previous plan
Roads could not sustain traffic flow
Schools at full capacity, bussing of children not acceptable, will affect house prices
Flood risk, drainage via unadopted watercourses
Contrary to SDP Brownfield not used as priority
Who inherits results of bad decision making
No proven need for vast amounts of housing over and above previous plans
Object to waste incinerator to provide heat. Contrary to SDP policy
Traffic congestion increase. Developer contributions insufficient
Provides no secondary places
Flooding and drainage issues from overdevelopment. Scheme proposes drainage via unadopted private watercourse
Contrary to SDP Brownfield sites not used first.
Support
Recognises the appropriateness of site for residential development and delivery of the aims of the LDP
Site meets effectiveness tests
Masterplan has been prepared (submitted with rep)
Masterplan submitted includes Maidenhill Farm ‐ extending M2.1 boundary, increasing site capacity, flexibility and potential for site to accommodate more than 800 units
Will seek to develop mixed types and tenures of housing and delivery of live/work units
Would support land at Malletsheugh Inn for development of employment/community/retail/religious facilities due Page 104
to central location and road frontage
Seek to work with council on provision of 2 primary schools and under 5s provision, have allocated area in masterplan
Council could adopt higher growth strategy/ site could accommodate more units with inclusion of Maidenhill Farm to site
Specifically sites SG2.9 and SG2.10
Question linkage to larger site SG2.11 and M2.1 generally
M2.1 does not allow for site to be delivered in short to medium term
Sites SG2.9/10 are obvious first phase of development but current wording does not provide necessary flexibility
Sites could stand alone on its own merits, representing a logical rounding off of Newton Mearns
Would work with SPG and other sites in M2.1 for developer contributions
School need not be located within the masterplan area
4.5.2. delete words 'adoption of' and insert 'approval of development framework for'
4.5.4. add, in brackets, 'Note: an alternative opportunity site for the denominational primary school is being investigated at Waterfoot Road Newton Mearns. In the event that this proves feasible a facility at this location would fulfill the requirement for a denominational primary school at this location.'
Support allocation of a site for a Muslim religious facility in the Maidenhill, Malletsheugh, Newton Mearns, Expansion Area (D13.19). We would be looking for, depending on costs, a 1‐2 acre (preferably corner) plot in the relevant LDP, conveniently located for access (to and) from the closest major main road and residential community facilities. Policy SG1: Housing Supply
Garden Centre Malletsheugh
Support
Archie Hillen, AJM Hillen on behalf of Mathieson Melrose (Ref 971/1)
Promotion of site
Planning application exists for a Garden Centre development (Ref: 2011/0765/TP)
Mixed use development
Policy SG2.10 Malletsheugh (West), Newton Mearns
Objection
Support
Gordon MacCallum, Keppie on behalf of Mr John Pollock (Ref 61/1)
Support inclusion of land at Malletsheugh Farm site SG2.10 as part of SDO Policy M2.1.
Agree with Council's approach to early consultation which should form the basis for detailed masterplanning.
Committed to joint working with other land holders/developers.
Agree to general terms of masterplanning subject to further information being supplied by the Council and subject to further planning gain information.
Page 105
Site is effective in accordance with PAN2/2010
Site attractively set with defensible boundaries
Suitably located to link with existing facilities
Site can be integrated ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT SUPPLIED
No change.
Policy SG2.11 Maidenhill Newton Mearns
Objection
Sites 12A/B Maidenhill are identified as requiring conservation in the Green Belt Landscape Character Assessment
Identified as having moderate to strong Green Belt value, medium landscape value and conservation and protection
Small scale development may be appropriate to define edge
Site would require at least 2 access points ‐ it is considered the existing site frontage is insufficient to accommodate this
Inconsistent with access on M77 Masterplan Corridor Study
No foul drainage sewers in vicinity of site
Significant infrastructure upgrades and access limitations (which reduce effective capacity) ‐ site would be ineffective doe to significant financial investment required (as recognised in effectiveness scoring in Site Evaluation)
Barrance Farm should be considered.
Site Evaluation should be amended ‐ Impact of development from ‐3 to ‐6, total score from ‐2 to ‐5
Policy SG2.9 Malletsheugh (East), Newton Mearns
Objection
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Objection
Arthur Keller, Scottish Natural Heritage (Ref 964/3)
The assessment of the overall Master Plan sub‐area M2.1 concludes that it will in fact have beneficial impacts in terms of Environmental Objective 1 ‐ protecting, enhancing and restoring biodiversity. SNH would query this. Neutral impacts in terms of this Objective are certainly possible, but only if the first sentence in the commentary box on this assessment succeeds – i.e. that master planning can ensure no negative impacts on the Local Biodiversity Site (LBS) which lies at the heart of the area. Furthermore, the assessment of the biodiversity impacts of the specific housing allocation that includes this LBS (allocation SG2.11) have accordingly been assessed as negative, while all other housing allocations making up the M2.1 Master Plan area have been assessed as having neutral impacts. How the Masterplan of itself can ensure that there will be an overall positive biodiversity impact in this area is not clear. We would therefore suggest that such impacts would be more likely to be neutral overall. SNH would agree with the assessment of The Balgray Link road presented here. We note that the impacts of the proposal in terms of Environmental Objective 15 – Protect, enhance and create green spaces important for recreation Page 106
and biodiversity ‐ are considered to be negative, and this is indeed likely to be the case given the proposed creation of new road infrastructure through green belt land. However as this transport proposal should meet an established need while avoiding the requirement for a new Barrhead to M77 motorway link built through the centre of the Dams to Darnley Country Park (as proposed in the current adopted Local Plan), this is certainly SNH’s preferred option in terms of environmental impacts. Page 107
Issue 3.4. Master Plan Barrhead South – Springhill, Springfield, Lyoncross
Policy M2.2: M77 Strategic Development Opportunity ‐ Barrhead South – Springhill, Springfield, Lyoncross
Objection
Jean S.C. Hutchison (Ref 57/1)
SG2.14 site as part of M2.2:
object to proposal for 1050 homes
effect on already poor water pressure
SG8.1 /SG6.18 site as part of M2.2:
object to economic development in neighbouring fields
no details of what is planned
Object on ground of increased traffic:
Springfield Road is a rat run to Neilston
Bridge cannot cope with current traffic
Road cannot cope with current traffic from school
Objection to lack of detail on retail
Define size/threshold of retail floor space to ensure it is at neighbourhood scale.
Object to phasing of site ‐ phasing should be market led and future growth should not be restricted. SPP does not require LDPs to phase sites.
Wallace Land therefore requests that the 2nd bullet point in para. 4.6.4 is removed from Policy M2.2, in accord with SPP and to provide flexibility.
Landscape:
All the Barrhead sites are noted in the Green Belt Landscape Character Assessment as requiring Protection and Conservation; the area has a strong relatively intact landscape character which forms an intrinsic part of the physical setting and visual backdrop to Arthurlie....With this robust developed edge and higher landscape sensitivity the area ‘should impose a constraint to further development. Landscape enhancement should seek to reinforce the landscape Page 108
character where appropriate’.
Transport:
Planning:
Julie Cameron (Ref 507/1)
Schools have not been considered and schools at capacity presently (in relation to new housing proposed)
No mention of upgrading Barrhead High or Cross Arthurlie , no mention of St Marks
School upgrading should be a priority
Edward Kelly (Ref 655/2)
Loss of privacy, outlook (respondents home 200m from site)
Loss of property value
Potential Brownfield sites have been overlooked in place of these sites
Will box in property
The Council have allocated units post 2025 the programming which has been attributed to these areas up to 2020 is unrealistically high and unlikely to deliver the numbers which they are anticipating. This somewhat clouds the overall five year effective land supply figure and will create a further shortfall.
The Council may wish to reassess the requirement to provide indicative programming in order to encourage development to be considered wholly prior to indicatively phasing delivery. This also enables smaller sites, without the requirement for a masterplanning exercise to come forward in the interim and deliver units within the plan period, something which Masterplan sites are unlikely to achieve. East Renfrewshire Council should ensure that the indicative capacity of housing units proposed as part of the ‘Strategic
Page 109
Development Opportunity’ sites do not prejudice ‘oven‐ready’ housing sites coming forward by allocating too many units associated with the Masterplan developments within the plan period, which are unlikely to be delivered. Professor Amir Hussain, ER Mosque & Community Centre (ERMEC) on behalf of Mr Nazir Ahmed (Ref 755/3)
Support development but do not support site for allocation of Muslim religious facility (D13.5)
Removal from Green Belt in contravention of policy
Lyoncross scored over‐favourably in Site Evaluation
Eileen Ross (Ref 923/1)
Contrary to other LDP policies
Increase in traffic, congestion, emissions
Springfield Country Park, loss of amenity
Will not enhance Green Network and leisure opportunities
Flood risk
Wildlife loss
Green Belt designation removed at will for LDP it should be there to protect residents
Loss of amenity and quality of life for existing residents
Air/soil, peat, water impacts
Impact on health and well being of existing residents
Development not in keeping with surroundings
Loss of privacy and sunlight
No proven need for religious facility
Live/work units cause disruption and should not be in residential areas
Develop Springfield country park as tourist attraction
Leave land to original designation
Pleased to see continuing support of Dams to Darnley Country Park, support enhancement and safeguarding
Concerned of the definition of the area of the country park and inconsistencies in plan
Concerned about removal of vast areas of Green Belt
Land east of Aurs Road, Lyoncross is considered to be in Country Park
Consider Aurs Road, Lyoncross to be the most obvious and clear long term defensible boundary to Barrhead and object to development
Development at Lyoncross will negatively impact on the setting of the Country Park
Concerned development here will lead to further development in the future
Amend Local Plan to keep M77 Corridor in Green Belt until masterplan has been prepared and consulted on by local community
No clear proposals
No reference to community involvement in masterplans
Traffic impacts
Lack of detail over Balgray Link
Impact on facilities
Areas within Dams to Darnley Country Park should be protected
Page 110
Concerned about implications from the Country Park as expressed in the M77 Corridor Masterplan (page 18, para 4), concerned this is cover‐up for will to develop Country Park
No justification given for development needs over needs for protection of Country Park
Lack of public dialogue
Balgray Link unnecessary
Pleased to see continuing support of Dams to Darnley Country Park, support enhancement and safeguarding
Concerned of the definition of the area of the country park and inconsistencies in plan
Concerned about removal of vast areas of Green Belt
Land east of Aurs Road, Lyoncross is considered to be in Country Park
Consider Aurs Road, Lyoncross to be the most obvious and clear long term defensible boundary to Barrhead and object to development
Development at Lyoncross will negatively impact on the setting of the Country Park
Concerned development here will lead to further development in the future
No clear proposals
No reference to community involvement in masterplans
Traffic impacts
Lack of detail over Balgray Link
Support
Support policy
Sets out a justified and sound basis to enable development to take place in a sustainable manner in accordance with NPF and SPP.
Support inclusion of site ‐ can accommodate 300 homes and can be delivered in initial plan period.
Support Council's repositioning of Green Belt
Wallace Land wishes to support the Council and other key stakeholders to define and agree the masterplan principles and requirements for this growth area as part of the preparation of the SPG. Further engagement on this SPG is therefore welcomed
prior to the adoption of the LDP.
The Springfield Road/Springhill Road site (ref: LDP45A) by Wallace Land is confirmed as effective in accord with PAN 2/2010, and can be delivered as part of the Masterplan Area M2.2 during the period of the LDP.
The evidence to confirm this site’s effectiveness is set out in the Development Framework Report (attached) and the Statement of Site Effectiveness (attached). The site’s effectiveness is also acknowledged by the Council in its Site Evaluation.
Site LDP45A (SG2.13) supported for inclusion as part of Masterplan M2.2.
DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK SUPPLIED
Support regeneration of Barrhead
David Jones on behalf of Dalton Demolition (Ref 968/1)
Rail station should be developed as first phase of plan
Page 111
Policy SG2.12 Lyoncross, Barrhead
Objection
Significant loss of Green Belt between Glasgow and Barrhead
Private sector land identified is more than 25% in excess of SDP requirements, deletion of this site would still be in compliance with SDP requirements for a generous land supply (leave 20% in excess)
Within the boundary of Dams to Darnley Country Park, park was Green Belt stabilisation project, would not accord with 2004 masterplan or Development and Management Plan
Housing in the park would undermine the reason it was established and set a precedent for further development
Deletion of Lyoncross site
No clearly identifiable or defensible boundary putting Green Belt status of neighbouring land in doubt
The Greenbelt Landscape Character Assessment and assessment by Mark Turnbull Landscape Architects as requiring protection and conservation, contributing to the landscape character and further development should be contained
No evidence the cumulative impact of all the sites, including this one, have been considered
Very sensitive site in landscape terms ‐ steep nature of the site, the lack of a defensible eastern boundary and the protection recommended by the Green Belt Landscape Character Assessment and the sensitivity of the site in landscape and visual terms, it is submitted that the site at Lyoncross, Barrhead should not be identified in the emerging East Renfrewshire Local Development Plan as a residential development site
Concerns noted by Dougall Baillie Associates on foul drainage capacity and pumping will be required to existing sewer network in western area of site, topography change in level by 50m from high point to centre, power lines from western boundary to eastern boundary
Consider viability and effectiveness barriers to development of site
Unrealistic to expect development within lifetime of plan due to constraints
Site is ineffective
Comparison score with Barrance Farm site shows Barrance Farm (LDP08 and LDP010) to be a better site
Site should not be identified within LDP
Barrance Farm should be allocated
In Site Evaluation change effectiveness scoring from ‐3 to ‐6 and overall score from ‐4 to ‐7.
Support
Support site identification, phasing and capacity for 170 units and as part of M2.2.
Site is effective and deliverable.
Policy SG2.13 Springfield Road, Springhill Road, Barrhead
Objection
Council have not considered cumulative impact of all the sites
Disagree with scoring for site ‐ intrusion into Green Belt, effect on longterm integrity of the Green Belt, effect on an area of Green Belt listed as requiring protection and conservation and moderate to strong value
Site would expose further areas of the Green Belt to development pressure due to lack of strong boundaries Page 112
between Barrhead and Neilston
Without development of LDP44 stronger Green Belt boundaries not created
 No frequent bus services within 400m
Services/facilities ‐ over 400m to primary school and in excess of 1000m to neighbourhood centre
Site does not meet criteria in Site Evaluation document for Effectiveness and Accessibility to Services/Facilities
Issues with foul drainage, would require bridge for watercrossing if centre of the site used for drainage, Water Impact Assessment required, undulating and steep site, overhead power lines
Above issues question effectiveness and marketability of site
Nearby Springfield Road site undeveloped despite allocation since 2001
Barrance Farm is a better site
Change score in Site Evaluation ‐ Impact of Development from ‐3 to ‐6, Accessibility to Services/Facilities from 3 to 0, overall score from ‐6 to ‐15
Loss of privacy, outlook (respondents home 200m from site)
Loss of property value
Potential Brownfield sites have been overlooked in place of these sites
Will box in property
Policy SG2.14 Springfield Road, Balgraystone Road Barrhead
Objection
Access issues ‐ Site requires single access and has limited frontage to Springfield Road but substantial to Balgraystone Road, neither roads have a footway, speed limit would need to be reduced, pour visibility ‐ it is considered a suitable junction could not be devised for Springfield Road/Balgraystone Road to accommodate development of this site
No frequent bus services within 400m
Services/facilities ‐ over 400m to primary school and in excess of 1000m to neighbourhood centre
Site does not meet criteria in Site Evaluation document for Effectiveness and Accessibility to Services/Facilities
Foul drainage, no outfall for 40% of site, reinforcement of water supply and topography issue affect site
Significant investment would be required to develop the site based on the issues identified making development in plan period unlikely
Issues and low densities make the site of questionable effectiveness
Change effectiveness score in Site Evaluation from ‐3 to ‐6, Accessibility to Services/Facilities from 3 to 0, overall score from ‐7 to ‐13
Section bordering Springfield Road belongs to Springfield house
Objector holds title to land and wished removed from plan
Page 113
Section of site bordering Springfield Road is land that belongs to Springfield House and is owned by respondent
Remove section of site SG2.14 that is owned by Mr Kelly from plan
Policy SG2.15 Springhill Road, Barrhead
Objection
Site will be intrusion into the Green Belt
No bus service within 400m walk
Significant off‐site drainage work required, no watercourses on site to provide outfalls to the north due to topography will be deep water Impact Assessment will be required, topography and drainage issues, overhead power lines
Effectiveness and marketability questioned
Scoring in Site Evaluation Q3 changed from ‐3 to ‐6, effectiveness from 0 to ‐6, total score from ‐3 to ‐12.
Support
Support inclusion of site as part of Barrhead SDO, Policy M2.2
Committed to joint working
Agree with masterplanning approach and general terms of masterplanning requirements subject to further detailed studies
Important to recognise the level of planning gain will be more modest than for the M2.1
Effective in terms of PAN2/2010
Objection
The assessment of M77 Master Plan sub‐area M2.2 against the SEA Environmental Objectives generally seems sound as it will have a degree of negative impacts, partly related to the fact that it will introduce development to an area of the Dams to Darnley Mill Country Park adjacent to Barrhead. The impacts of M77 Master Plan sub‐area M2.2 on protecting, enhancing and creating green spaces important for recreation and biodiversity in particular have been assessed as being both positive and negative. Positive impacts are possible if the suggested sustainable transport network is delivered which could help people to access the Country Park (a recognised problem at present). However negative impacts are also possible if development here restricts the ability of the land in question to be realistically managed as a Country Park – i.e. with recreation and biodiversity as management priorities. The stated need to try and protect the area’s several Local Biodiversity Sites (LBSs) through appropriate design layout is welcome. However the challenges this presents in addition to the introduction of development to a corner of the Country Park more generally explains the assessment of impacts on biodiversity as being “unknown or unclear”. SNH agrees that the two housing allocations which include LBSs (SG2.12 and SG2.16) will have negative impacts in terms of Environmental Objective 1 ‐
Page 114
protecting, enhancing and restoring biodiversity. Achieving successful development of SG2.12 in particular – i.e. housing development which does not result in unacceptable impacts to the LBSs or the recreational experience of the Country Park, while at the same time allowing for delivery of the proposed access and other Country Park facility improvements that are linked to M77 Master Plan sub‐area M2.2 – is likely to be one of the most significant challenges the planning authority will face in implementing the LDP.
As a final point, SNH would draw the planning authority’s attention to the fact that the list of bullet points outlining the various elements of the proposed development in M77 Master Plan sub‐area M2.2 given in section 3.4.3 of Appendix 3 continues to list “Upgrades to Aurs Road, Barrhead to Crookfur Road / M77 link road”. As this was the wording used to describe the now abandoned Barrhead/M77 link road through the middle of the Country Park which appears in the currently adopted Local Plan we would suggest that alternative wording may be better to describe the currently proposed Balgray Link.
Page 115
Issue 3.5. Master Plan Shanks‐Glasgow Road Barrhead Strategic Development Opportunity
LDP53 Grahamston Road and Blackbyres Road
Objection
Andrew McCafferty, Andrew McCafferty Associates on behalf of Bunzl plc (Ref 402/3)
Site 3.79 ha
Brownfield
Site previous use with railway lines removed 1960s, site not in use since
Site is in single ownership and should be stand alone site
Site has frontage to roads and is capable of being developed in its own right
No reference is made within policy M3 to the site and it is not physically connected to Shanks site or Glasgow Road land
There is no planning need to tie sites future development to that of Shanks
Vision for site is a mixed‐use development with live/work focus
Important gateway site, development would greatly enhance appearance
Unlikely to be developed if solely allocated for economic use, derelict land is detrimental to economic growth
LDP states new approaches to economic development in para 6.10, Bunzl supports this move away from narrow use classes
Wish to develop site a mix of live/work units, Class 4 units for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), open market housing and a “pocket park”
Small businesses operating from the live/work work units which out‐grow the “work” floorspace part of the live/work units would be able to move within the site to the Class 4 units. In this way, a sustainable environment would be created in line with the vision set out in paragraph 47 of SPP
Number of jobs from live work and class 4 could exceed those created by classes 5 and 6
Live/work units typically built on non‐housing sites and are more than just units to facilitate home working and can form business communities in their own right.
Enabling housing development can be a factor
Greater positive enterprise effect than traditional employment models
In England land is considered employment land/housing hybrid ‐ own use class or can be allocated as employment
Opportunity to kick start stalled employment area
Reduced/nil business rates to some occupiers
Would mean reduced out commuting ‐ a particular issue in ER
Meets particular demands in area for private offices and workspace
Would draw on and support existing town centre hub (Barrhead Steps) in Barrhead
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND CASE STUDIES ON FILE
Policy SG2.17 Shanks Park, Barrhead
Objection
Policy SG2.19 North Darnley Road, Barrhead
Objection
Page 116
Objection
General
No details of proposals in plan, Community Council would appreciate details at an early date to allow consideration of impact on sheltered housing and salvation Army Centre.
Objection
Policy SG6.5 Grahamston Road/ Blackbyres Road, Barrhead
Objection
Object to allocation of area of land bound by Grahamston Road and Blackbyres Road as area for Economic Development
Site has not been in use since 1960s
Has been allocated as industrial or business use since 1996 with no interest in development solely for employment uses
New approach should be considered for mixed use with an element of employment in accordance with SPP para 45‐48
Allocation as mixed use would improve chances of development over the plan period
Rep sent during MIR
Shanks site has been rationalised to this effect and this site should be treated similarly
Site is an important gateway and development would enhance the appearance of urban edge
Site vision is for live/work units, class 4 units 500sqm, open market housing 50‐70 units (20% live work) and a pocket park
Development of the site for these purposes could exceed the number of jobs that would be achieved with class 5 or 6 uses
Access can be provided, Grahamston Road
Supporting information provided
Site allocated as mixed use development opportunity
Strategic Development Opportunity ‐ Policy M3: Shanks/Glasgow Road Barrhead
General
Shanks SDO requires community and leisure facilities to be addressed. New pre‐five provision may be required depending on phasing housing mix and other factors.
Objection
Page 117
Danger policy could inadvertently support out of centre retail without clarity, policy should define what use classes would be acceptable.
Policy should define what use classes would be acceptable.
Object to inclusion of site (land bounded by Grahamston Road and Blackbyres Road) within M3. Site shown included in Figure 8
Site 3.79 ha
Brownfield
Site previous use with railway lines removed 1960s, site not in use since
Site is in single ownership and should be stand alone site
Site has frontage to roads and is capable of being developed in its own right
No reference is made within policy M3 to the site and it is not physically connected to Shanks site or Glasgow Road land
There is no planning need to tie sites future development to that of Shanks
Vision for site is a mixed‐use development with live/work focus
Important gateway site, development would greatly enhance appearance
Unlikely to be developed if solely allocated for economic use, derelict land is detrimental to economic growth
LDP states new approaches to economic development in para 6.10, Bunzl supports this move away from narrow use classes
Wish to develop site a mix of live/work units, Class 4 units for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), open market housing and a “pocket park”
Small businesses operating from the live/work work units which out‐grow the “work” floorspace part of the live/work units would be able to move within the site to the Class 4 units. In this way, a sustainable environment would be created in line with the vision set out in paragraph 47 of SPP
Number of jobs from live work and class 4 could exceed those created by classes 5 and 6
Live/work units typically built on non‐housing sites and are more than just units to facilitate home working and can form business communities in their own right.
Enabling housing development can be a factor
Greater positive enterprise effect than traditional employment models
In England land is considered employment land/housing hybrid ‐ own use class or can be allocated as employment
Opportunity to kick start stalled employment area
Reduced/nil business rates to some occupiers
Would mean reduced out commuting ‐ a particular issue in ER
Meets particular demands in area for private offices and workspace
Would draw on and support existing town centre hub (Barrhead Steps) in Barrhead
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND CASE STUDIES ON FILE
Remove area of land bounded by Grahamston Road and Blackbyres Road from M3 area and designate as stand alone site for mixed‐use live/work.
Julie Cameron (Ref 507/2)
Schools have not been considered and schools at capacity presently (in relation to new housing proposed)
No mention of upgrading Barrhead High or Cross Arthurlie , no mention of St Marks
School upgrading should be a priority
What school would children go to if Shanks is developed
Support
Tom McInally, McInally Associates Ltd on behalf of Cruden Estates (Ref 248/2)
Support identification of site as Strategic Development Opportunity enables development of this site.
Page 118
Keen to take forward the development at the earliest opportunity.
Screening option has been received.
Planning application envisaged in next 18 months.
Support regeneration of Barrhead
Support development but do not support site for allocation of Muslim religious facility (D13.5)
Welcome progress towards redevelopment of Shanks Park
SG10.7, SG6.17 and SG6.3 will guide business towards Glasgow Road Corridor, retain employment in town and ensure redevelopment of Nestle
Welcome progress towards redevelopment of Shanks Park
SG10.7, SG6.17 and SG6.3 will guide business towards Glasgow Road Corridor, retain employment in town and ensure redevelopment of Nestle
Page 119
Issue 3.6. Master Plan Braidbar Quarry
Policy M4: Braidbar Quarry
General
SNH understands that the situation with Braidbar Quarry has recently changed and that the increasing instability of the land has required it to be cordoned off from the public. As the Master Plan’s objective is now to simply investigate means by which the land could be made safe and appropriate land uses found, SNH largely agrees with the assessment presented in the SEA. However the predicted benefits in terms of Environmental Objectives 3 ‐ Provide environmental conditions promoting health & wellbeing (including increasing opportunities for outdoor recreation) and 15 ‐ Protect, enhance and create green spaces important for recreation and biodiversity ‐ will only come about provided a sufficient extent of the land is left as green space post remediation and the majority of the area is not given over to housing or similar commercial land uses.
SNH has no specific concerns with this particular Master Plan area or the assessment of its environmental effects, and notes that the assessment appears to be considerably more coherent than that which was presented at MIR stage.
Objection
Barry Gladstone (Ref 1/1)
Policy M4 Braidbarr Quarry boundary includes land that is owned by the properties 11‐25 Braidpark Drive and should be amended to take this area out of the proposal site.
Sports pitches on site, requirements of SPP need to be considered in the ongoing development of policy.
Support
John Handley, John Handley Associates Ltd on behalf of Trustees of The Glasgow Jewish Community Trust (Ref 681/1)
Support Braidbar Quarry
Still viable for development
Long term phasing
(supporting documentation supplied)
Support policy
Page 120
Issue 3.7. Master Plan Drumby Crescent
Policy M5: Drumby Crescent
Objection
Keith Hargest, Hargest Planning Ltd on behalf of Lidl UK GmbH (Ref 76/1)
Development of Isobel Mair School and Williamwood High School playing fields, Drumby Crescent should include a mid‐sized supermarket (such as a discount food store) within the range of uses.
Support mixed use development on site, however, proposed uses fail to maximise the planning benefits of the site:
A medium sized supermarket in particular a discount foodstore would maximise the potential of the site
Key benefits: local shopping facility to serve need in local area, reinforce local provision, easily accessible by a range of transport modes inc. Rail, bus, walk and cycle catchments
objectives that support this development: sustainable benefits of highly accessible site, addresses quantitative and qualitative retail deficiencies in area (north Clarkston), significant economic benefits, no significant adverse retail impacts on existing town centres (see response).
Store would be 0.60ha of total 4ha site. Site would be reduced from 40 to 20 units.
para 4.12.1:
“ ….a mixed use healthcare centre, medium sized supermarket (up to approximately 1500‐1750 sq m GFA) including discount food store, and housing development of the site…..” Ryan McAlindin, Sport Scotland (Ref 702/6)
Sports pitches on site, requirements of SPP need to be considered in the ongoing development of policy.
Support
Support policy
Policy SG1.15 Drumby Crescent Playing Fields, Clarkston
General
Opportunity should be taken to review location of park and ride spaces, pedestrian access to station and enhanced bus infrastructure and provision of information to serve new health centre
Objection
Amend remaining capacity to 20 units from 40 to accommodate mid‐sized food store.
Roger Spooner (Ref 387/4)
Playing field should be protected under Green Network policy D8 and land used for community, ideally a playing field.
SG1.15 Drumby Crescent Playing Fields
Page 121
Objection
Change allocation of part of site to accommodate medium sized supermarket
0.60ha for store
Would provide key benefits to local area
Easily accessible
Addresses inadequacies existing retail provision
Provides economic benefits
Page 122
Issue 3.8. Regeneration Issues
Policy M6: Regeneration Areas
Objection
Policy states that proposals for each of the town centres are show in the schedules. Its is unclear what the proposals are for Neilston, Thornliebank and Busby having reviewed the schedules.
Support
Support regeneration of Barrhead M6.1. Proposed plan will further enhance the area by creating housing building opportunities and more jobs for people living in Barrhead.
Support the regeneration of areas set out in policy.
Support policy
Page 123
Issue 3.9. Rural Issues
Policy M7: Rural Settlements
Objection
Policy does not define rural settlements
Policy requires mechanism which enables sustainable development to be considered
Sites may be equally sustainable on settlement edges but not considered 'infill'
Development sites proposed, of an appropriate scale and contribute to meeting identified need should
be considered at application stage against all other policies in LDP
Mechanism should allow council to approve housing development where not meeting housing
requirement in full or 5 year land supply (SPP para 74/75). Proposals then be required to accord with
SP2, D1 and Technical Document.
Development in the rural settlements will be of an appropriate scale limited to infill development,
compatible with the character and amenity of the area and will focus on meeting locally identified needs
and to reinforce their roles and functions.
Proposals for development in rural settlements which would assist the Council in maintaining a 5 year
land supply at all times will be considered in accord with Strategic Policy 2, Policy D1 and the Technical
Document - Framework for Assessing Unallocated Proposals.
Policy does not define what rural settlements are
Requires mechanism which enables sustainable development of an appropriate scale to be considered
Land on settlement edge may be as sustainable as infill
Merits of specific site locations should be considered at application stage
Mechanism should allow approval of sites if 5 year land supply not met
Development in the rural settlements will be of an appropriate scale limited to infill development,
compatible with the character and amenity of the area and will focus on meeting locally identified needs
and to reinforce their roles and functions.
Proposals for development in rural settlements which would assist the Council in maintaining a 5 year
land supply at all times will be considered in accord with Strategic Policy 2, Policy D1 and the Technical
Document - Framework for Assessing Unallocated Proposals.
Policy M7 attempts to focus new rural development within Neilston which goes against the requirements of SPP to provide a range and choice of developments. Excluding proposals from the other 3 rural settlements of Waterfoot, Eaglesham and Uplawmoor does not support the notion of sustainable economic growth within rural communities. These settlements require investment to enable the communities within them to benefit from the economic gains which housing provides.
A fairer distribution of residential allocations should be spread throughout the four rural settlements to provide a range and choice of sites for development and to encourage their sustainable economic growth.
The approach to rural settlements is overly‐restrictive. A failure to promote new development will not assist with bringing down prices or promoting affordability, including making available new land for affordable housing using the affordable housing policy. A range of high‐quality residential environments is as important as a range of employment land in attracting businesses to locate locally
In the context of the Plan allocating land to meet the full Strategic Plan requirement of 5700 to 2025, additional sites should be Page 124
allocated in each of the rural villages Bob Salter, Geddes Consulting Limited on behalf of Lynch Homes (Ref 965/4)
Does not define rural settlements
requires mechanism to enable development in some circumstances
Development in the rural settlements will be of an appropriate scale, compatible with the character and amenity of the area and will focus on meeting locally identified needs and to reinforce their roles and functions.
Proposals for development in rural settlements which would assist the Council in maintaining a 5 year land supply at all times will be considered in accord with Strategic Policy 2, Policy D1 and the Technical Document ‐ Framework for Assessing Unallocated Proposals
Support
Support policy
Page 125
Issue 3.10. Neilston Village Regeneration
Neilston Village Regeneration
Objection
4.17.1 Good description of Neilston any future development should respect this and allow Neilston to remain as a historic mill village surrounded by green open spaces and not contiguous with Barrhead
4.17.2 Town Charter does not speak for entire population, some place should be given to the views of others including Neilston Community Council. Dislike use of word 'town'
4.17.3 Unsatisfactory wording, deceitful and full of jargon. Enables Council to do what it wishes in the future regardless of Green Belt or countryside.
Policy D11.20 Crofthead Mill, Neilston Objection
Policy D13.17 Kingston Playing Fields, Neilston
Objection
Davidina M. Fox (Ref 336/3)
Important outdoor play space for families
Currently free access
Joyce Wallace (Ref 430/6)
Neilston Charter asks for improvement not commercial development of playing fields
Purpose built ground would have to conform to SFA rules and parking, leaving no space for children to play
Kingston Hostel a historic site and remaining structure used as changing facilities, visitors are disappointed
Skatepark petition should be represented in plan
Consultation with younger generation required
Propose removal of the following paragraph on page 26
“Relocation of Neilston Juniors FC to Kingston playing field and development of a sports/community hub
and some limited enabling residential development with the redevelopment of the former site for
residential development of approximately 35 homes phased by 2025.”
Replaced with
“Improvement to sports and recreational facilities at Kingston Playing Fields”
William McCarthy (Ref 559/1)
Not against reasonable development but object to loss of playing fields for amorphous sports hub
Removes only green space in village
Will leave no room for children's games
No safe play environment if lost
Proposals not raised in MIR
Who are Town Team, what do they do, do they have formal constitution
T D West (Ref 848/1)
Page 126
Houses unacceptable
Car park borderline
Swimming pool and facilities currently underused
'Cafe' would compete with existing facilities
Not enough spectators for stadium
Neilston Town Team have been prevented from discussing proposals
 Unease about 'enabling development'
John Scott, Neilston Community Council (Ref 894/2)
Community Council have carried out consultation with village
A 'handivote' phone poll was carried out by Glasgow University concluded 81% against any development
A show of hands at Community Council meeting was unanimously against development
Was not consulted on fully in MIR
Lack of consultation on removal of protected green space designation
Community sports hub, if based on Petershill Stadium, will just be a football stadium that complies with SFA guidelines
Question if building on playing fields constitutes an improvement
Locally valuable area for recreation
Council have not been transparent in providing plans showing the stadium
Contradiction as to whether the proposal came from Council or club
Currently free pitches will potentially be made for hire
No figure provided for number of enabling houses, again not in MIR
Policy M8: Neilston Village Regeneration
General
Support modest expansion, and specifically:
Increase in car parking at Neilston station using part of Kingston Playing Fields subject to the rest of the fields being retained as greenspace.
Mixed housing industrial at 'The Old Mill' subject to road safety improvements A736 junction including reduced speed limit.(SG1.24)
The possibility of re‐introducing Neilston‐low train halt for Glasgow ‐ Kilmarnock line.
Limited housing development at Hillside Road (SG2.2)
John and Agnes Brown (Ref 43/3)
Against relocation on Neilston Jnrs to Kingston playing fields:
motivated any developers and money
loss of green space
loss of sport/play space for young people
If two pitches can be fitted along with stadium and better playground facilities and dog walking area this could be beneficial, however.
Support park and ride proposals
Swimming facilities required
Development would result in loss off village atmosphere
Should include discussions with Neilston Community Council as a properly constituted body representative of village views ‐ feel they should be specifically named.
Page 127
Support reopening of pool as previously a well used facility and Neilston library as an amenity
Plans for Crofthead Mill and environs are supported fir a mixture of housing and small business. Cowden Hall Estate could provide heritage, park and woodland area. Work of East Renfrewshire Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes group have done work which can be viewed on rcahms.gov.uk.
Support improved Park and Ride
Reservations about loss of Kingston Playing fields. Would be good to see improvements to existing space but open play areas are still required. One of few remaining greenspaces in village
Brig O'Lea is well situated and would benefit from upgrading. Ground was given to the people of Neilston by the English Sewing Company "to be used as a recreational park and ground for the benefit of Neilston and district and for no other purpose whatsoever." Precluding its use for housing.
Sports/community hub would be better a pool/library area
Kingston playing field should not have there status as protect L1 greenspace without consultation
Neilston Road site of most concern if developed for housing as it would cause coalescence with Barrhead.
Kingston Playingfield status should revert to L1 protected greenspace
Susan Mathers (Ref 490/1)
Infill Strategy appropriate for housing in the long term
Ageing population in Neilston will move away to be near their children who do not live in Neilston freeing up low cost housing for ne families
W D S Chalmers (Ref 853/1)
Not views of residents
Who has been commissioned to carry out the charter, if Town Team at what cost?
What is 'crossfunding, developer contributions', will the Council be funded by ill conceived Neilston Wind Farm
Need to talk to Crofthead Mill owners about proposals
Have already provided full funding to take forward park and ride improvements at rail station
Support approach to regeneration generally.
Suggest guidance includes Neilston's hinterland as well as the village, taking account of the village's functions in terms of adjoining countryside.
Entitle SPG Neilston Development Strategy
Objection
The proposals for Kingston Playing fields look overcrowded and will overwhelm the new station car park.
Why can't the Brig O'Lea be redeveloped for Neilston Juniors.
Why spend money £750k on Neilston Leisure Centre and then create a new 'sports hub'
If housing was removed would the council still back the plans.
To what extent will the facilities benefit the Neilston community will they bring in other users and charge?
Disparancy between work of LDP, Neilston Town Team and Neilston Community Council.
Gordon and Moira Robertson (Ref 10/2)
Object to proposals for 500 houses plus as traffic and parking is already a struggle in the village. "A further influx of people, cars etc would be a disaster waiting to happen."
Page 128
Graeme Orr (Ref 11/1)
Attended a community council meeting where the majority of Neilston residents in attendance where against so many Greenfield developments without improvements to infrastructure and also against the loss of play space for children at Kingston Playing Fields and Brig O'Lea Stadium.
Respondents states: Houses should not be built on Greenfield land when there are large undeveloped Brownfield sites for example in Barrhead.
Two areas of Neilston where 'responsible development' would be desirable ‐ The area around Neilston train station could be developed to provide a sports centre and car parking if the footbridge, second platform and points are removed. Freeing up land adjacent to the playing fields for the sports centre and vehicle access where the second platform has been removed. Restoring the former rail bridge over Double Hedges Road for access. (Plan sent with response)
Development of the mill on Lochlibo Road. Suggest structural survey done immediately and consideration given to redevelopment. Commenting the internal framing appears solid but facing brickwork cladding is an eyesore.
Cornelius McGuire (Ref 16/1)
Building 500 new homes will destroy the village, its atmosphere and safety.
Concerns on infrastructure impact in particular schools and nursery as there is no more room at the nursery and schools are just coping presently. Roads from Neilston to Barrhead can hardly cope with existing traffic at peak times. Need a feeder road to link Neilston that bypasses Barrhead.
Believe ER is more interested in securing funds than improving village infrastructure and until improved schools and infrastructure should say no to housing.
Steven Healy (Ref 31/1)
Object to section 3, 10
Coalescence
No infrastructure
Traffic problems
Object to housing in the following areas:
Kingston Playing Fields
Brig O'Lea
Holehouse Brae
Matthew Drennan (Ref 39/2)
nursery, schools, doctors are all full to capacity
object to loss of designated Green Belt
increase in traffic problems in the village
more housing not needed as reflected in house prices in the village
loss of ancient character of village as a result of Green Belt encroachment
too few leisure and recreation facilities in village, loss of green belt will impact on this
 developments do not defend robust Green Belt Boundaries, coalescence
Rachel Anne Drennan (Ref 44/2)
Page 129
developments do not defend robust Green Belt Boundaries, coalescence
Jacqueline Drennan (Ref 45/2)
Matthew John James Drennan (Ref 46/2)
Mrs Anne Henderson (Ref 69/1)
Object to housebuilding/playing field development in Neilston:
increase in traffic congestion and deterioration of road surface
pavements narrow and inadequate would be dangerous with increased traffic /danger to school children with increased traffic
coalescence between Barrhead and Neilston already at extremes, development proposed in one field left
where is the evidence for the need for more houses in this area with houses not selling currently
loss of wildlife/ environmental impact on Green Belt
loss of 'village'/ do not want to become 'commuter village'/ increased too much in size at present
school and nursery spaces not available for number of houses
Neilston playing fields are the only greenspace left in village and should be untouched
Brig O Lea stadium could be made fit for purpose as it is with parking addressed
Sandra McKenzie (Ref 83/1)
No literature provided to make resident aware of the proposals
Village not equipped to support 500 homes
Roads cannot support traffic increase
School access already dangerous ‐ parking
Not enough amenities in the village, coupled with loss of leisure centre
Appalled at potential for dangerous people to be housed here
Destroy quality of village life
Mrs Findlay (Ref 85/1)
Object to: Neilston Road, Crofthead Mill, Brig O'Lea, Kingston Playing Fields, North Kingston Road, developments.
Detract from community feeling in Neilston
Page 130
Impact on Roads
Impact on schooling
Further development at detriment to village.
Janet Wilson (Ref 96/1)
Wish to remain a village, building on green spaces would change character
Impact on schools and services
Impact on roads and parking which are currently inadequate
Proposals not inkeeping with spirit of village charter
Creates imbalance between population and jobs
Kingston playingfields ‐Loss of accessible urban greenspace, safe area for children to play
Schedule 10 Impact on landscape and setting of the village
Increased traffic
Brig O'Lea in centre of village would cause further traffic issues
SG2.4 has possible historic interest, narrow access road
SG2.3 Narrow Road
Fully support restoration of Crofthead Mill and Cowdenhall access/woodland.
Schedule 10
James Pearson (Ref 202/1)
If Kingston Playing Fields developed where would green area and children's play park be?
Sports complex ‐ Neilston Jars would need own facilities (according to SJFA rules) so some facilities would not be able to be used by general public. There would need to be a wall and turnstiles in order for the supporters to pay to see the games.
Cost of moving Neilston Jnrs ‐ Sport Scotland would not finance this for only a football club and not a community facility.
If new homes built can infrastructure cope.
New homes will add to congestion.
Margaret Shaw (Ref 230/1)
Infill strategy will not infill but will extend village dramatically
Only one main road to village traffic problem would be excessive
500 homes means Neilston accommodation 1 in 7/8 houses for whole of ER unacceptable for a small village
Kingston Playing Fields seems excessive to have stadium, hub, 35 homes and 2 five a side pitches on site but no actual free outdoor area for children to play. More playground items, cycle track and possible skateboard facility would be of benefit. Assume Hub would not be free. Playing fields used by several teams at weekends where stadium would only accommodate 1 and their fans.
£60,000 spent on Barrhead improvements when Neilston only has one speed hump and plans for trees. Speed bumps are required n Neilston and children's safety should come first.
Parking will be excessive even with 80 spaces.
Sports Hub should be accommodated in swimming baths and baths brought up to a high standard. With funds allocated the football stadium should be improved where it is.
Area behind parking lot at school could be used to extend parking.
David Campbell, GL Hearn Limited on behalf of Wallace Land (Ref 255/4)
Do not support phasing of Neilston Road site (SG2.3). Firmly of the view site is unaffected by constraints and can be available for development immediately. Site is capable of delivering 150 units between 2014 and 2025, housebuilders regard site as an immediate opportunity. Could be developed in 5 years contributing to 5 year land supply. No need for the council to impose phasing restrictions.
Page 131
Early release would see early delivery of affordable housing.
Not clear why a strategy based on 'consolidation' and 'controlled urban expansion' rather the 'flexible long term growth' has been chosen. Crofthead Mill and Station yard have not been subject to planning applications and recognised in the case of Crofthead Mill as having difficulties in development and not counted as part of effective land supply. It is clear that Neilston Road is the preferred development site and it is unfair to judge it against these sites in the same context. Housing at Neilston Jnrs site may also not come forward quickly as there appears no developer interest. Development Proposal and housebuilder support letters on file.
Site will as stated in policy M8 provide open space and landscaping to prevent coalescence. A robust and defensible long term settlement edge will be established. Make site for release immediately. Remove reference to 'safeguarding' of the site.
Support ‐ as long as infill development strategy does not apply to Neilston road site or does support development of 150 houses at Neilston Road.
Jonathan Kerr (Ref 264/1)
"Relocation of Neilston Juniors FC to Kingston Playing fields..." Page 36 Para 4.18
Playing fields one of the great qualities of village
Need safe place for small children to play/ Village is stretched in terms of safe recreation space
Oppose development plans but would support enhancement of existing Neilston Jnrs ground
Depleting green space (Kingston Playing Fields) should only be done if safety of children not compromised and greenspace is ensured for future.
"Enhancement of Kingston playing fields as a key local asset by retaining green space, and allowing for continued use by all parts of the community."
Anna Kerr (Ref 266/1)
"Relocation of Neilston Juniors FC to Kingston Playing fields..." Page 36 Para 4.18
Wording in LDP causing animosity in the community between those who want to keep open space and those who support development for Neilston Jnrs
People are against use of playing fields
Title deeds state the area should be used for recreation but the 35 houses planned as part of redevelopment
Ideally Neilston Jnrs would stay with an enhanced ground and the playingfileds also enhanced
Playing filed is safe place for children to play
residents should be consulted before any changes.
"Enhancement of Kingston playing fields as a key local asset by retaining green space, and allowing for continued use by all parts of the community."
Ian McKenzie (Ref 269/1)
1 in 8 of the houses proposed in the plan are to be built in Neilston which would change the village character
All housing development is planned for Greenfield sites or the Brig O'Lea
The LDP states developments should provide a robust Green Belt boundary. Proposals indicate this will not be the case
Traffic increase by 500 cars
Insufficient parking for sports hub and little elsewhere
Brig O'Lea land donated to the village for recreation. Fail to see why stand not upgraded where it is vague proposals Page 132
for sports hub loose open recreation space and curtain the land for other uses
Playing fields could be termed a village green
Current safe path for children through field away from lorries
What does the term 'enabling houses' mean when located next to a children's play area?
Mr. Ronald Sills (Ref 276/1)
Sports hub could easily be attached to the swimming pool
Only a few hundred supporters for Neilston Jnrs in village ‐ should not be moved to Kingston Playing Fields
Kingston Playing Field only large free green space in village and belongs to residents.
Improvement to childresn swing park to something like the adventure site in Rouken Glen. Mr. George E. Sills (Ref 277/1)
Sports hub could easily be attached to the swimming pool
Only a few hundred supporters for Neilston Jnrs in village ‐ should not be moved to Kingston Playing Fields
Kingston Playing Field only large free green space in village and belongs to residents.
Improvement to childresn swing park to something like the adventure site in Rouken Glen. Davidina M. Fox (Ref 336/1)
Concern that the development sites are considered before infrastructure and services are calculated
Akin to housing development post war built without proper facilities and services which led to social problems e.g. Castlemilk
Services required at start of development not after.
Kingston Playing Fields the only green space in Neilston for children to play ‐ should not be removed for something that benefits a minority
Disruption during construction and no clear length of time or access decided
Lack of public transport from the village particularly after 6pm
Loss of community feel
Develop library and swimming pool area as a sports and community hub in the centre of the village which would encourage use of shops and bring together the community. Play equipment instead of development on Kingston Playing Fields.
Loss of identity as a village
Coalescence with Barrhead
Already new developments to sustain village
Neil Dunn (Ref 607/1)
Road improvements needed/ Traffic impact
Parking issues
Loss of open play space/ access charges to new hubs
Development of existing stadium better. Object to houses on Kingston Playing field, however
Joyce Dunn (Ref 611/1)
Suggest swing park, tennis court, skate‐park, free play area for Kingston Playing fields
Only green space in village, used as village green
Could not cope with 500 new homes
Page 133
Allan Stewart (Ref 621/2)
Much of proposal is positive ‐ Crofthead Mill and Cowden Hall
Kingston Playing Fields ‐ Last green space in Neilston, improvement suggested in town charter is not this, Brig O'Lea belongs to people of Neilston
No projections to justify 500 homes
Object to Neilston Road site ‐ drainage and access issues
Loss of identity as village/coalescence
Ian Wood (Ref 640/1)
Undermine character
Coalescence
Lack of services
Environmental impact ‐ flooding and drainage
Brig O'Lea land belongs to people of Neilston
Kingston Playing Fields ‐ loss of free play space
Unclear if Neilston Jnrs or Council requested move
Kirkton Road archaeological site
Margaret Pettigrew (Ref 656/1)
Lack of consultation regarding Kingston Playing fields
Support a sports hub but not where proposed
Do not support housing on playing fields/Neilston Jnrs
Important green space within village
Infrastructure cannot cope with impact of proposed houses
Lack of parking
Concerns of school pupils using rail line
M V Wood (Ref 657/1)
Loss of village character and aspect
Coalescence
Hole House Brae ‐ do not object to development but road safety issues on A736
Object to park and ride on land proposed, a warehouse in the village has been offered for this use and would be preferable to loss of green space
Support restoration at Cowden Hall for leisure
Object to Neilston Jnrs relocation, urgently require facilities, but not a football stadium on only remaining green space
Lack of engagement with residents over issues
Object to housing on Kingston Playing Fields
Neilston Jnrs land owned by village
Sites in plan Crofthead Mill and Station Yard will not deliver housing and should be removed from plan
Seek assurances Neilston Jnrs/Kingston Playing Fields is assessed against requirements of SPP and East Renfrewshire Sports facility and Pitch assessment Report 2009.
Page 134
Michael S Evans, Dawn Homes (Ref 712/1)
It is recommended on basis of the conclusions drawn from the assessment in relation to Q3 and Q8 of the Site evaluation that the settlement boundary shown in red figure 11: Policy M8 Neilston Village Regeneration be amended to include site LDP60A
Object to the conclusions of Site Evaluation Matrix (P16) in relation to site reference LDP 60B. While supporting the proposal in the plan to include site LDP 60B Dawn Homes do not agree with the conclusions arrived at for LDP60A and the scores given to this site in relation to:
a) Q3 Impact of Development, ie. ‐6 and
b) Q8 Effectiveness, ie.‐3
and the subsequent recommendation that this site should be retained as greenbelt.
Dawn Homes while supporting the release of site LDP60B continue to maintain their position that the most effective land use solution would be achieved by the release of the combined LDP60A and LDP 60B area.
Colin and Joanne Gardner (Ref 859/2)
Detrimental to character
Increase in congestion/ decrease in road safety
No satisfactory access to sites
Kingston Playing Fields not in MIR
Previously L1 Protected Green Space what has changed
Brig O'Lea gifted to community
Charter not a material consideration in past why has this changed
Sports Hub will be exclusive development and loss of community green space
John and Elizabeth Proud (Ref 860/2)
Harold B Smith and Mary S Smith (Ref 864/1)
Safe play area and swing park not mentioned in relation to Kingston Playing Fields
Road impact
School capcity
Medical provision
Public transport
Janet Gordon (Ref 865/1)
Page 135
Jean Sheriff (Ref 905/1)
Selective interpretation of Charter
Excessive proposal
Big O'Lea community asset
Not in MIR
Lack of discussion
Community Council showed 100% rejection by residents
Kingston Playing Fields protected green space
Reduction in pitches not in line with policy
Population due to decrease
Council require proper declaration of land ownership
Non‐consulted so should not be material consideration
Modify to reflect public opinion
Retain Brig O'Lea and upgrade
Reflect appropriate housing needs
Improved discussion in the future
Consider in later phase
Policy M8 (point 2) should be amended as follows to confirm the inclusion of site (ref: LDP66)
as follows:
2. The Council is also supportive of residential development at the following locations as shown on the
Proposals Map and Schedule 10 and in accordance with Policy SG3:
Policy M8 (point 2) should be amended as follows to confirm the inclusion of site (ref: LDP66)
as follows:
2. The Council is also supportive of residential development at the following locations as shown on the
Proposals Map and Schedule 10 and in accordance with Policy SG3:
· Uplawmoor Road – 81 homes phased by 2025.
Support
James Caldow (Ref 203/1)
Pleased to see more park and ride at railway and end of playing fields.
Will be glad to see changing hut disappear as it is an eyesore, attracts graffiti and acts as a spot for 'neds'.
Community leisure facilities are a priority and may help with aimless groups who gather in the village.
Any facility would have to be well secured and located away from the station end where it may be vulnerable.
For new houses better shopping facilities are required present are not adequate.
Increased traffic will happen as plans progress but for the betterment of Neilston it will be for the good.
Supportive of regeneration of Neilston. Second bullet could be strengthened to clarify scale of infill development to be commensurate with the size of the town and associated population.
Gary Elliot (Ref 515/1)
Excited about the possible regeneration of area
Page 136
Park (Kingston Playing Fields) has been underdeveloped for years
Fantastic opportunity for the community to get an asset that will be the envy of other towns
It could solve the issue of parking on match days
Hopefully the facility will be for the use of all the community and would be good for school kids
Andy Whiteford (Ref 568/1)
Support community sports hub as pitches at Kingston Playing Fields often unused and would provide an all weather facility
Could incorporate range of activities to meet needs of the community
Could incorporate new children's play area
Could provide opportunities for local people in terms of upskilling, volunteering and employment
Could attract funding from SportScotland and would be a fantastic opportunity to take advantage of their funding scheme to create 150 sport hubs
Could assist in long term for funding for other facilities such as the swimming pool
100% behind proposals
Would be a mistake to miss such a huge opportunity
Families with young children will benefit and look forward to suing facilities
Support policy
Pauline Gallacher, Neilston Development Trust (Ref 768/1)
Welcome similarities between the plan and the Charter including shared planning objectives, willingness to collaborate and integrated social, environmental and economic goals.
Neilston's SPG will be responsive planning
Very supportive of key Charter themes in LDP
Phrasing of key parts of the policy is very significant
Consider Kingston Playing fields description in policy to be too specific and premature
No objection to the principle of increased population, if infrastructure provision taken into account
Potential clash between conventional housing allocations and those that will be identified under SPG
Effectiveness requirements conflict with infill site allocation through SPG
Land allocations on Green Belt sites will dilute potential for housing sites brought forward through SPG
Green Belt sites allocated are not the most sustainable in terms of links etc., and appear allocated based on developer readiness
Infill approach favourable over the sites allocate under the plan, and in particular SG2.3
Neilston is an 'Accessible Small Town' under Scottish Urban Rural Classification
Suggest bullet 8 changed to: "Enhancement of Kingston Playing fields as a key local asset by developing greenspace, sports and leisure provision in collaboration with stakeholders, including all local sports organisations inclosing Neilston Jnrs"
Remove "...residential development of approximately 35 homes" as too specific.
Remove all Green belt site allocations for Neilston in favour of infill strategy through SPG
Change status from Neighbourhood Centre to Town Centre
Objection
Support
Page 137
Preference to development of mill site of all sites in Neilston.
Objection
Geraldine Warner (Ref 917/1)
Site Evaluation: Object to revision of scoring of all sites in Neilston Double Hedges Road/Harelaw Avenue
Objection
Mohammed Siddique (Ref 982/1)
Land at the corner of Double Hedges Road and Harelaw Avenue
Object to land designation as Green Space
Land has been designated without consultation
Land is within residential area
Surrounding residential gardens not designated as Green Space
Site should be designated residential
Site plan on file
Designate as residential
LDP58/59 Nether Kirkton Farm
Objection
Gordon MacCallum, Keppie on behalf of Mactaggart and Mickel AWG Property Ltd (Ref 132/2)
Non‐inclusion of sites: Nether Kirkton Farm LDP58/59
Effective
Sustainable
Neilston highlighted as a growth villages
120‐150 units
Would 'round‐off Neilston in a clear defensible manner'
Will not lead to visual coalescence
Logical edge to settlement alongside SG2.3
Site Evaluation Assessment ‐rescore of sites LDP58 and LDP59
LDP58 total scoring from ‐12 to ‐2
LDP59 total scoring from ‐7 to ‐2
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION INCLUSING TRANSPORT AND FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENTS
Sites to be safeguarded post 2025
LDP60A/B North Kirkton Road,
Objection
Michael S Evans, Dawn Homes (Ref 712/2)
non‐inclusion of sites
Site for 150 homes
Combined site 22.5 acres
Site is well contained by railway
Low Green Belt value
Page 138
Defensible boundary
SUPPORTING INFORMATION ON FILE
Release from Green Belt for housing
LDP62B East Kingston Road
Objection
Non‐inclusion of site ‐ East Kingston Road, Neilston LDP62b
Q3 impact of development in Site Evaluation score should be amended as it is considered impact on the Green belt is only moderate
Southern boundary will be contained by woodland, planting and footpath
Northern boundary is visually contained by rising ground.
Reducing score to ‐4 would release the site from Green Belt
Some supporting info supplied
Site LDP62a cannot contain 122 units as it is sterilised by pylons.
Amend score to ‐4 and release from Green Belt
LDP66 Uplawmoor Road
Objection
Site Evaluation: Lintmill Uplawmoor Road LDP66
Score revised from ‐4 to ‐1, accept changes in criteria, but see no reason for change.
Re‐examine particularly Q4, 5, 8, 9. Score should be ‐5 or ‐6.
Allan Stewart (Ref 621/1)
Object to scoring of LDP66 Lintmill site off Uplawmoor Road
Overall scoring changed to ‐1 from MIR scoring of ‐4, Q5 Natural Heritage from ‐1 to 0 ‐ wildlife has improved so does not make sense
Similarly Effectiveness and affordable housing score Score should be reassessed Colin and Joanne Gardner (Ref 859/1)
Site Evaluation Assessment , Uplawmoor Road:
Scoring has been changed to make it most desirable site in village
Rescoring devalues Green Belt
John and Elizabeth Proud (Ref 860/1)
Site Evaluation ‐ object to scoring of site
Rescore LDP66 from ‐1 to ‐6
Janet Gordon (Ref 865/2)
Site Evaluation rescoring makes site vulnerable to devlopment
Page 139
Jim Sheriff (Ref 892/1)
Site Evaluation:
Object to amended scoring ‐ MIR ‐4, LDP ‐1
Lack of consistency in scoring, not impartial.
Proposed rescore to ‐6
Mrs Marion Mould (Ref 918/1)
Site Evaluation:
Object to revised scoring from ‐4 to ‐1
Non inclusion of site LDP66 Site is effective
Could deliver 81 affordable homes
Short term delivery
Green Belt can be repositioned
Site has no adverse impacts on surrounding landscape (Geddes report)
Does not meet SDP housing figure
Require effective sites short term
Not followed methodology from PAN2/2010 on effectiveness
Assumed annual build rate questioned
Housing shortfall 1600
No programming of expected completions
No effective 5 year land supply in medium term
Site Evaluation Assessment: LDP66 ‐ amend scoring overall from ‐1 to 3
Allocate site
LDP86 Springfield Road
Objection
Non‐inclusion of site ‐ Springfield Road LDP86
Q3 impact of development in Site Evaluation scoring should be amended as the impact on Green Belt is considred to be only moderate
Northern boundary is constriained by railway
Eastern boundary will be contained by a proposed woodland belt ‐ reduce from ‐6 to ‐3
Q8 Effcectiveness scoring is incorrect as site there are no difficulties ‐ reduce from ‐3 to 0
Some supporting info supplied
Amend scoring to ‐5 to release site from Green Belt
Policy SG2.1 Neilston Jnrs, Neilston Objection
Gordon and Moira Robertson (Ref 10/1)
Object to the loss of sports facilities and public recreation space that will occur if Neilston Juniors move from there current ground to Kingston Playing Fields.
Page 140
Neilston Juniors require a lot of facilities and space including permanent goal posts, terracing, changing rooms, admin facilities etc. Plus require their ground to be secured with high fencing, turnstiles etc. If this type of facility is built on Kingston Playing fields this will take up a lot of space meaning the playing fields will loose existing facilities (basketball, swings etc) but will also reduce the amount of space for recreation available in the village as a whole. Neilston Juniors and other youth teams, amateur leagues, school children will need to use facilities at the same time there will be less access as only one group can use the space at a time. Neilston Juniors plus the two fields available at Kingston Playing fields equals 3 pitches is moved there will only be 2 or less.
The openness and availability of Kingston Playing fields is also used for other informal recreation and exercise and this access will also be lost.
It is hard to see how all that is proposed will fit in the space without a loss.
Suggest to upgrade Neilston Juniors where it is, include parking at the field just past the ground where housing has been refused. Upgrade Kingston Playing Fields to include new changing rooms, hub, car park.
Suggest proposal is against LDP policies D4 and D5.
Cornelius McGuire (Ref 16/2)
Neilston Juniors football field was originally a gift from Crofthead Mill to the people of Neilston. Brig O'Lea should stay where it is and playing fields should remain same size with possibly a small section made into a car park for supporters/station.
Coalescence
Matthew Drennan (Ref 39/1)
object to proposed development for Kingston playing fields and Brig O'Lea Stadium
the plan does not have the support of residents and was unanimously voted against at community council meeting Feb 2013
only free to play area in village, looked upon as a village green/ well used public park not just a playing field
two football fields, basketball court and play park. Football fields used up to 6 matches on a Saturday. Proposal to build walled stadium and 97 car parking spaces would mean this would be lost.
6 matches plus would mean up to 300 people using the ground on a Saturday morning.
Jnrs would have first call on ground at expense of others who currently use Kingston Playing Fields
loss of facilities to youngest sportspeople.
Neilston Jnrs valuable asses should have their facilities upgraded at current location.
removal of free to play area would be at detriment to the health of the village.
Rachel Anne Drennan (Ref 44/1)
Neilston Jnrs valuable assets should have their facilities upgraded at current location.
Page 141
Jacqueline Drennan (Ref 45/1)
Matthew John James Drennan (Ref 46/1)
the plan does not have the support of residents and was unanimously voted against at community council
meeting Feb 2013
two football fields, basketball court and play park. Football fields used up to 6 matches on a Saturday.
Proposal to build walled stadium and 97 car parking spaces would mean this would be lost.
Ann Kelly (Ref 64/1)
D13.7 M8 SG2.1 Object to proposal
Loss of informal recreation ‐ not allow youths to play football when they wanted to
Loss of green space for stadium and housing would detract from village life
Increase in traffic/ increased danger to children
Elizabeth Sills (Ref 201/1)
Object to proposed development of Kingston Playing Fields.
Don't feel area could accommodate all that is proposed, stadium would take up most space with little benefit to residents. Parking on Kingston Road an issue.
Would like to see area improved for local children with 'fun facilities', skateboarding, cycling and field for young footballers.
Large plot of land adjoining car park opposite the school could be used
Swimming baths and surrounding are could accommodate sports hub.
Mr Robert J G Mould (Ref 212/1)
SG2.1 and D13.17
Improved facilities agianst the needs and wishes of residents, do not offer adequate alternative to loss of playing fields
Goes against policies D9 and D10
Sports hub would not enable informal recreation as available at present/ loss of play space
Detrimental effects to residents ‐ increased traffic, loss of outlook, light pollution
Page 142
Youth and children would suffer and plan does not compensate
Mrs Christine Sills (Ref 306/1)
Loss of large free access greenspace
Sports hub could be at swimming pool an library site
Proposal will only benefit tiny majority of residents and be a step backward in development of Neilston
Areas should not be used for housing
Sport facilities should remain
Has not been subject to consultation ‐ does not appear in MIR, reference to Charter but no reference to housing
Brig O'Lea contributes to village character (as referred to in Charter)
Do not consider this an infill site
Status of Kingston Playing Fields as protected urban greenspace removed
Site was donated by English Sewing on condition that it be used for leisure an recreation in perpetuity and for no other purpose
No improvements to infrastructure for 500 houses proposed
Requirement for housing far from proven
Policy SG2.2 Holehouse Brae, Neilston
Objection
Chelsea Healy (Ref 30/1)
Object to section 3, 10
Object to housing being built at Holehouse Brae, Neilston. The field is used by many different people living in Neilston, Barrhead and Uplawmoor.
The filed is a recreation area and an important part of Neilston Green Belt.
Coalescence
Gordon MacCallum, Keppie on behalf of Mactaggart and Mickel AWG Property Ltd (Ref 132/1)
Fully support identification of land as housing site with notional capacity for 65 houses.
Support Neilston as a settlement with capacity for growth and general links with the Neilston Town Charter.
Object to the phasing of Holehouse Brae scheduled for post 2025 development:
Site is effective now and complies with effectiveness tests
Owners wish to proceed
Expenditure committed to undertake as studies/procedures towards an early planning application
Other sites are not as far advanced
Early release will stimulate market in Neilston
Site scored well in evaluation
Page 143
Require more flexibility in SG3 to achieve 5 year land supply at all times
Smaller sites in early phases of the plan required as larger masterplanned sites require time consuming arrangements put in place.
Site SG 2.2 be re‐phased to short‐term housing land in Schedule 10.
Steep site/ poor access
Risk to neighbouring Green Belt sites
Access ‐ considered unlikely a suitable junction configuration could be devised
Lack of footpath on one side of street
Watercourse ‐ wetland at low point of site very sensitive in terms of water quality and quantity
Cast iron mains runs through site and will not have the capacity to supply development
Site is too steep for conventional development
Significant investment required to provide infrastructure
Site Evaluation should be amended ‐ Accessibility to public transport from 3 to 2, Effectiveness from ‐3 to ‐6, total score from ‐3 to ‐7
Support
Preferable to other sites (if needed)
Less traffic impact
Policy SG2.3 Neilston Road, Neilston Objection
Mr E Hughes (Ref 5/1)
Against proposal and do not want any houses built on this land.
Will spoil the landscape.
Should remain a village.
Will increase number of cars by 150 to 300 creating more pollution to the environment and ozone layer.
Increase in traffic through Barr Avenue and Glennifer View.
No Infrastructure in place to cope with extra houses.
Build houses on the land between Neilston and Uplawmoor instead.
Will cause major disruption for people trying to get to work and children to school due to diggers, lorries and roads being dug up.
Will cause increased electricity, gas and water usage.
Object to Green Belt loss when brownfield sites available
Shanks site and old Volvo site should be built on first
Amenity and value of home will be affected
Traffic increase would put pressure on already busy roads at Kirkhill Brae.
In heavy snow and ice getting into the village is hazardous this will become worse/ cars would have to be abandoned in Barrhead
Page 144
Traffic lights would be required at Lochlibo Road
If site was to go ahead:
suggest access from Glennifer Way or direct to Robertson Crescent, widening the road beside the church, traffic lights at the crossroads with Main Street and High Street or a mini roundabout. Significantly improve traffic flow in Kirkhill Brae in snow/icy conditions.
Planting to screen at perimeter
single storey buildings at perimeter and two storey down slope towards Barrhead and Lochlibo Road.
Site Evaluation Assessment ‐ Scoring of Neilston Road, Neilston is scored unfairly on natural heritage and effectiveness.
Effectiveness proven by ‐ single ownership, parts of the site with constraints are not to be developed on, no contamination, no deficit funding required, confirmed interest from several house builders, site unaffected by infrastructure constraints, housing is sole preferred use of site. Areas with natural heritage interest will be left free from development.
Amend natural heritage scoring to 0 from ‐1.
Amend effectiveness heritage scoring to 1 from ‐3.
Eleanor Milloy (Ref 285/1)
Effect on Wildlife
No real need for houses, existing houses take 3 years to sell
Increase in road congestion, air pollution and parking
Nursery and schools at capacity
Lack of local amenities ‐ few shops, poor public transport, police, doctors and leisure facilities
Village character and landscape loss
Construction access will cause safety issues at Gleniffer View
Coalescence
Colin High (Ref 307/1)
Loss of character, country setting and rural country life
Distract from historical village image and coalescence
Increase in traffic volumes and congestion
Davidina M. Fox (Ref 336/2)
Road capacity
Lack of public transport
Should remain protected Green Belt
Underground natural waterway
Will affect D8.4 wildlife protection
Increased traffic
Difficult access in bad weather
Object to construction traffic via Gleniffer View
Subsidence issues
Page 145
Pauline Gallacher, Neilston Development Trust (Ref 768/2)
Do not support site allocation
Ignores principles of Charter by loss of Green Belt and character and causes coalescence
Proposed site not mentioned in Monitoring Statement
MIR stated site was environmentally sensitive and would be inappropriate development in Green Belt
Traffic safety concerns
Need for more housing is not in Levern Valley
Will increase carbon footprint through increased commuting
Not opposed to sensitive infill development, site fails to meet this criteria
Support
Support development of site at Neilston Road for 150 homes
Committed to delivery of site
Site is effective
Preferable to other sites (if needed)
Less traffic impact
Policy SG2.4 North Kirkton Road, Neilston
Objection
Mr and Mrs Colin Nicol (Ref 51/1)
Concerned development will prevent access to septic tank
Kirkton Road not suitable for extra traffic from development
Poor access
Increases risk of children crossing railway line
Traffic congestion/impact
Against policy D5
Loss of recreation space
Loss of wildlife
More effective as natural community site Margaret and James Thomson (Ref 904/1)
Green Belt and most attractive and picturesque land in village
Will not produce robust boundary
Access to open space
Standing stone
Views, spot used by tourists, eductional
Biodiversity
Quality of life
Page 146
Poor access to site
Shoudl protect land
Objection
Objection
Page 147
Issue 4. Greenbelt
Policy D3: Green Belt and Countryside Around Towns
Objection
Green spaces including the Green Belt are important for community use and should not be burdened with buildings as seen with Waterfoot Park.
What protections are available for green spaces in the future if further incursions could be done by simply recalibrating the Green Belt boundaries?
Gordon MacCallum, Keppie on behalf of Philip C Smith (Ref 78/1)
ERC no differentiation between Green Belt and Countryside around Towns and has therefore a presumption against development in both not just Green Belt.
This is against SPP in Para 94 which requires Development Plans to allocate 'a generous supply in ..rural..areas' and 'support opportunities small scale housing in all rural areas'
Green Belt policies are being applied to countryside uses contrary to SPP Para 94
Neighbouring council areas differentiate between Green Belt and countryside policy areas.
Adopt a similar approach to neighbouring councils on non‐urban housing procedure outwith Green Belt area and take a different policy stance on Countryside Around Towns.
Review of Green Belt has not been made available for consultation, has not been possible to analyse rational
CALA have prepared a Green Belt review which shows the Green Belt around Eaglesham can be repositioned to accommodate growth
Green Belt review not presented for consultation
As per SPP Green Belt boundaries should not be drawn tight around settlements and should reflect long term strategies
Green Belt Review and Impact Assessment undertaken by Geddes Consulting for Lynch Homes undertaken
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
Support
Support plans to preserve the Green Belt
Will help support birds
Will help Internationally Protected Species and other wildlife
Will help protect Humbie Road
GSO created displacement and loss of habitat this will help preserve and protect what exists
Will protect Newton Mearns from sporadic development and allow residents east access to the countryside without having to drive
Support policy
Support policy
Page 148
Support
Support repositioned Green Belt south of Barrhead to accommodate growth.
Page 149
Issue 4.1. Green Network and Natural Environment
Policy D10.1 Dams to Darnley Country Park
Objection
Park is not well used and investment will not have a significant impact on this. Proposed spend better directed elsewhere.
Objection
Policy D4: Green Network
Objection
Kenneth Wharton (Ref 75/2)
Should be clear Green Network policy does not stand on its own and can only be used in conjunction with policies D3, D5 and D8
Green Network policy is supplementary to existing protection of green space policies
All land defined as Green Network is already Green Belt, Urban greenspace or a natural feature
Two separate policies applying to the same bit of land is confusing
Should be sub category of Green Belt, Urban greenspace or a natural feature
Policy should be clarified to make clear it can only be used in conjunction with policies D3, D5 and D8
Green Network areas are always also designated as Green Belt, urban greenspace or a natural feature which causes confusion
D4 should be amended to a sub section of other polices to avoid confusion
Should not be used for drainage as often polluted
Enhancement of other areas of Green Network should only be necessary where a new development does not enhance objectives of Green Network
Housing development can enhance Green Network providing open space etc
Support subject to clarity of above
Support
We strongly support Policy D4: Green Network and particularly welcome that
“The provision of the green network will be a core component of any master plan. “.
Pleased with emphasis on protecting and enhancing the environment and continued protection of the Green Belt.
Signing up to National initiative of the Green Network will help to promote a healthier lifestyle for residents of ER and a nurturing environment for biodiversity.
Page 150
As a resident of Newton Mearns, happy to support ERC's plans to preserve the Green Belt for the following reasons:
Birds, animals ‐ Humbie Road since creation of GSO this is a haven for walkers, nature lovers and cyclists.
Adoption of the LDP would mean that Green Belt is preserved in the area where wildlife has been displaced by the GSO.
The Green Network if adopted would mean residents would not have to drive to access Dams to Darnley and would protect and enhance Newton Mearns and preserve it from sporadic development.
Particularly welcome emphasis on enhancing Green Network rather than just protecting.
Agree to safeguard and reinforce Green Belt land. It will help promote healthier lifestyles and create a nurturing environment for biodiversity.
SPG confirms Country Parks are defined as core/hubs in Green Network and protected through policy.
Support policy
Support policy
Policy D5: Protection of Urban Greenspace
Objection
Proposals on Capelrig Road and Fruin Avenue go against this policy.
Council disingenuous.
Support playing fields protection, however policy does not consider all aspects listed in para 156 of SPP and does not provide appropriate policy protection for formal sports playing fields.
Support temporary greening ‐ however stalled spaced policy would be useful to protect in the long term, sites through the stalled spaces approach that become popular and important resources for sport (where council is land owner).
Policy add criteria from SPP para 156
Support
Support policy
Policy D6: Protection of Local Urban Greenspace
Support
Support policy
Page 151
Policy D7: Green Infrastructure and Open Space Provision within New Development
Objection
Wish to see the policy incorporate biodiversity and suggest the following revised wording ‘Policy D7: Green Infrastructure and Open Space Provision within New Development
5.11.1. New development proposals should incorporate a range of green infrastructure including open
space provision, multi use access, sustainable urban drainage, wildlife habitat and landscaping. This
infrastructure should not only form an integral part of the proposed scheme but should complement its
surrounding environment.’
This policy should clarify that developer requirements to provide open space should be justified by a clear strategy and standards for the provision, as well as an understanding of existing provision/deficiencies as opposed to being required in every instance. 5.11.1 should be re‐written: “New development proposals should be served by a range of green infrastructure including open space provision, multi‐
use access, sustainable urban drainage and landscaping in accordance with local standards of provision. These standards are detailed in the Green Network and Environmental Management Supplementary Planning Guidance. Where a development is not adequately served, then the developer should incorporate new provision within the development, or contribute to the upgrading of existing provision which would be capable of serving the development.” Blair Melville, Homes for Scotland (Ref 758/5)
This policy does not accord with Scottish Planning Policy. SPP is clear that greenspace and open space
provision should be determined with reference to an open space audit and strategy.
The Plan should identify assets to be protected; identify opportunities for new assets; set out (probably
in Supplementary Guidance) the standards which apply, and identify areas of deficiency against those
standards.
5.11.1 should be re-written:
“New development proposals should be served by a range of green infrastructure including open space
provision, multi-use access, sustainable urban drainage and landscaping in accordance with local
standards of provision. These standards are detailed in the Green Network and Environmental
Management Supplementary Planning Guidance. Where a development is not adequately served, then
the developer should incorporate new provision within the development, or contribute to the upgrading
of existing provision which would be capable of serving the development.”
Support
We strongly support Policy D7: Green Infrastructure and Open Space Provision within New Development which we
believe will help deliver good place making in East Renfrewshire
Support policy
Policy D8: Natural Features
General
General support for policy, however, does not reflect the specific protection given to SSSIs. Suggest revise wording ‐
‘5.12.1. There will be a strong presumption against development where it would compromise the overall
Page 152
integrity of Local Biodiversity Sites, Tree Preservation Orders and ancient and long established woodland
sites. Development that affects a SSSI will only be permitted where:
- It will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated.
- Any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of
national importance.
The location of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Biodiversity Sites and Tree Preservation Orders
are identified on the Proposals Map and referred to under Schedule 1.’
Objection
Remove LBS designation from site subject to 2011/0824/TP planning application ‐ LDP66
Support
We strongly support Policy D8: Natural Features and welcome the protection given to protected areas and protected
species.
Support policy
Objection
Standard Letter Comment SPGA (17 reps) (Ref 1020/1)
Support in principle 250m buffer zones to any new urban fringe
Object creation of new green space without Community Safety Assessment by Strathclyde ALO
Community Safety Assessment should be policy not left to individual officers discretion
Green Corridors must not be created behind existing houses without mandatory Community Safety Assessment
Concerned about crime increase by giving ease of access to back gardens.
Objection
No mention of "Urban Fringe" in Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership documentation as a recognised element of Green Network. It is ERC's planning department's interpretation.
Rural settlements such as Eaglesham sit isolated and apart from urban areas, not surrounded by Urban Fringe but Green Belt fields already protected under policy D3
GN policy exists to provide connectivity to Green Belt, however, surrounding fields in Eaglesham are Green Belt not a connection to it
The Site Evaluation document implies the next step for urban fringe areas is to incorporate them to urban areas
Conflict between GB boundary and GN policy
Urban Fringe is an unnecessary interpretation of the GN definition and should be removed from maps.
In Eaglesham an appropriate application of GN policy would be to connect core green area e.g. The Orry to surrounding Green Belt.
A 250m buffer zone around the village does not constitute Green Network
Removal of "Urban Fringe" as Green Network element around rural settlements
Section 2.1.18 should be reworded as in its current form implies that green network is primary policy for assessment of development proposals instead of as a supplementary policy to LDP D3, D5 and D8.
Page 153
Suggested wording:
Proposals which impact upon areas designated as Policy D3 Green Belt and Countryside Around Towns, Policy D5 Protection of Urban Greenspace or Policy D8 Natural Features where the site is also designated as green network will be assessed against policy D4 Green Network in addition to the relevant D3,D5 or D8 policy. Ross Johnston, Scottish National Heritage (Ref 88/4)
Support aims of document but could be presented in a more engaging way including more images and diagrams
Emphasis should be on developer site requirements in natural features section
Benefits of changing the focus of guidance to developer site requirements to stop applications being held up for seasonal survey data, to change this show natural heritage information likely to be required and the time of year it can be gathered
Suggest looking at Orkney Natural Heritage SPG – Key considerations in the assessment of planning applications (link in rep)
Focus in protected animals as no protected plants
Include information for applicant to determine if site in a national or local natural heritage designation, what the applicant would have to do e.g. if SSSI (details in rep)
Suggest adding SPP para “Development that affects a SSSI will only be permitted where it will not adversely affect the qualities for which it has been designated , or any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance”
LBS, developer will need to put forward means by which site integrity will be protected/mitigated
Development Management guidance factors should be included
Section on licensing and tests
Developers need to establish whether their site supports any protected animal breeding or resting places –
international/nationally/locally protected species and set out best practice prior to application
Details of times of year suitable for bat surveys would be useful to stop holding up applications
Should advise developers that mature trees or buildings could support bats and watercourses could support otters
For protected species advise planning permission only given is authority satisfied in line with habitats regulations 1994
Developers need to establish presence of breeding birds, planning authority could advise on development activity in breeding season March to July
LBAP encourage developers to establish presence on sites
Green Infrastructure section would be considerable improved by using diagrams and graphics to replace some messages in text. Could try using South Lanarkshire, Fife or Scottish Government ones with permission
As above, plus:
Delete paras 1.1.1 to 1.1.6 leaving just 1.1.7 most useful part of introduction other paras not required
Delete paras 2.1.2‐2.1.7 add little other than context
Paragraph 2.1.1 information is repeated in paragraph 2.1.12
Add in “The “existing” to the Plan 1 text
2.3 revise information on providing natural heritage info a developer needs for a site or create a new section for this
2.4.8 We recommend that the text is amended to “….outset of the design process with proposals protecting existing access provision and seeking to enhance access where there are opportunities within the development to make links into core path network.
Promotion of Green Network supported and consider SPG will provide the right level of certainty
It is essential the Council's roads, flooding, environmental health and maintenance support the design principles in the SPG and views from these departments obtained
Policies D4, D5, D6 and D9 refer to the SPG but these references are considered too generic and should be made clear what parts of SPG apply
The Council is therefore urged to specifically link the relevant supporting information and criteria for
each policy, to make the SPG a more useable and clearer policy document
Some of the guidelines (Appendix 1) appear to conflict with established design principles – in particular
the principles of Designing Streets
Private open space and garden standards should be revised - end of terrace should be clear not a semi-
Page 154
detached, front garden should compliment street not just house, minimum gable distances of 4m (2m
either side) may compromise streetscape call for greater flexibility with half minimum distances.
MUGA on developments 50+ units should be more flexible as alternatives may be more suitable
Para 2.1.15 Table 1 not explained or justified
250m buffer does not appear to have rationale should be removed or reconsidered
Urban Fringe is not described by Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership, appears an invention by ERC
Rural settlements are already surrounded by Green Belt protected under D3
Green Network connects areas to Green Belt, area around Eaglesham is Green Belt so not needed to be connected to it
Urban fringe appears to be the next step in incorporation into urban area
Conflict between Green Network policy to open up urban area to Green Belt and protecting Green Belt
In Eaglesham Green Network should connect Orry Common through to Orry Burn.
250m buffer around village does not constitute Green Network ‐ does not connect anything.
Urban fringe is unnecessary and should be removed from documents and Proposals Map
Request rewording of section 2.1.18
Proposals which impact upon areas designated as Policy D3 Green Belt and Countryside Around Towns, Policy D5 Protection of Urban Greenspace or Policy D8 Natural Features where the site is also designated as green network will be assessed against policy D4 Green Network in addition to the relevant D3,D5 or D8 policy.
Margaret Greene, Strathclyde Geoconservation Group (Ref 529/1)
No carry through from para 2.3.5 to designate geodiversity sites
Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) should be used to designate LBS former SINCs and that biodiversity and geodiversity is taken into account
Appendix 3 para 4.8 Policy D8 should include LNCS as a type of designation
Understand that geology is covered under SSSI but other geological and geomorphical features would benefit from recognition under LNCS and be afforded the same protection as bio‐LINCS
Requires working with SEPA, Scottish Water and roads department to ensure schemes are acceptable to all parties
Support promotion Some principals conflict with established design principles[les including Designing Streets
250m buffer around urban fringe not explained
Support
We support the preparation of supplementary planning guidance to assist in the delivery of the
East Renfrewshire green network. We welcome the recognition that the provision of wide ranging
green infrastructure can provide numerous benefits.
Welcome 3.1.4, encourage green infrastructure when it can benefit enhancements in waster habitat, improvements in water quality and resilience to climate change.
The SPG should refer to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and river basin planning (RBMP) two aims of the directive are for all waterbodies to reach good ecological status by 2015 (or by 2027) and for there to be no deterioration in ecological status. East Renfrewshire Council is a responsible authority in delivering WFD Page 155
objectives.
SPG should ensure that green infrastructure near to a watercourse harnesses opportunities for environmental improvement and ensures that these are linked with the priorities outlined in the River Basin Plan for the Scotland River Basin District. In particular:
deliver RBMP measures when creating or improving open spaces;
manage drainage through the creation of SUDs
provide habitat enhancement around watercourses; and
remove invasive non‐native species.
SEPA’s WFD interactive map should be used to understand the ecological status of any watercourses present and how they could benefit from improvement as part of green infrastructure development. Opportunities could include removal of culverting and returning watercourses to more natural channels, improving bankside habitat or remediating specific sites leading to better ecological status. For further advice SEPA’s Clyde River Basin Planning Coordinator should be contacted.
We welcome the recognition that blue infrastructure can provide design solutions which address water quality and quantity issues.
The SPG should mention the requirements on the council of the new Flood Risk Management Act and how using open space to manage surface water can help them comply with the requirements of this in terms of managing flood risk sustainably.
We support the inclusion of hydrology and drainage as elements to consider in a site appraisal.
As well as new development proposals incorporating sustainable urban drainage we would also be keen to support the introduction of retrofitted SUDs wherever possible (SEPA’s Renfrew & Inverclyde operations team would be available to assist)
Specific guidance relating to SUDs and the regulatory method involved can be found by referencing Regulatory Method (WAT‐RM‐08) Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. In addition to this The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011: A Practical Guide is a useful guide to the levels of authorisation required under the legislation for any work involved in or near a watercourse.
The removal of structures such as culverts would also have significant benefits in terms of reducing flood risk, increasing biodiversity and improving water quality.
page 6, para. 2.1.17 – We support this paragraph. We particularly welcome the reference to mitigating
damage to the green network through the enhancement of other parts of it.
page 12, para. 2.3.10 – We support this paragraph. We particularly welcome the opportunities for
enhancing Local Biodiversity Sites.
page 12, para 2.3.12 - We support the recognition of the LBAP.
Page 156
Issue 4.2. Outdoor Access
Policy D10: Environmental Projects
Support
Support policy
Policy D9: Protection of Outdoor Access
Support
We welcome the inclusion of Policy D9: Protection of Outdoor Access and the protection given to core paths and rights
of way.
Support policy
Support policy
Page 157
Issue 5. Detailed Guidance for all Development
Policy D1: Detailed Guidance for all Development
General
Council should use GIS data submitted by the Coal Authority in October 2011.
There is a particular issue in new housing developments when bus infrastructure is not provided from the outset and
funding is not available. While there is a reference in Policy SG10, there is no clear reference to the need for new
infrastructure to be funded by the developer
Section 14 reworded to include after sustainable transportation: "including provision for bus infrastructure, where
appropriate".
Objection
Public space where people can mingle is an under recognised need
Increased private malls and sports facilities risk segregating people
Facilitate genuine public spaces and allow diverse use
Does not adequately prioritise impact on new development on existing local infrastructure
Development should only be considered if the necessary infrastructure is in place
House designs should be of interesting design and mix with hip, cross‐hip or cross‐gable roofs. Single or two‐way pitched roofs should not be encouraged. New homes should have one off road parking space per bedroom plus one additional space
Off road parking should be tandem driveways with room to open doors and of permeable material
New homes on sites of more than one house should have latest recommended design of both fibre network on site, data cabinets and all connections external to the site; for high speed internet access and telephony Standard Letter Comment D1A (4 reps) (Ref 987/1)
No provision under SPGs for developers of more than one house to included provision for connectivity to fibre optic network/high speed internet.
Policy created to ensure developers in site plans and house design include the latest recommendations for connectivity to internet/telephony/fibre optic and were delayed this is updated to latest at time.
Standard Letter Comment D1B (7 reps) (Ref 988/1)
House designs should be of interesting design and mix with hip, cross‐hip or cross‐gable roofs. Single or two‐way pitched roofs should not be encouraged. New homes should have one off road parking space per bedroom plus one additional space.
Off road parking should be tandem driveways with room to open doors and of permeable material.
New homes on sites of more than one house should have latest recommended design of both fibre network on site, data cabinets and all connections external to the site; for high speed internet access and telephony .
Support
Page 158
Supports policy recognition that land instability arising from mining legacy needs to be considered.
Consider that the issue of ground conditions is properly highlighted in the LDP.
We welcome the criteria which have to be met for development proposals. We particularly support the inclusion of the
following criteria
4. The development should not impact adversely on landscape character or the green network, involve a
significant loss
of trees or other important landscape, greenspace or biodiversity features;
5.Developments should incorporate green infrastructure including access, landscaping, greenspace, water
management
and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems at the outset of the design process. Where appropriate, new tree
or shrub
planting should be incorporated using native species. The physical area of any development covered by
impermeable
surfaces should be kept to a minimum to assist with flood risk management.
14. Development should enhance the opportunity for and access to sustainable transportation, particularly
walking and
cycle opportunities including cycle parking and provision of facilities such as showers/lockers, where
appropriate. The
Council will not support development on railways solums or other development that would remove
opportunities to
enhance pedestrian and cycle access unless mitigation measures have been demonstrated;
Reason ‐ This should help ensure the green network natural heritage active travel is integral to proposed developments
Support policy
Support policy
Page 159
Issue 6. Built Heritage
Policy D11.21 Caldwell House, Uplawmoor
Objection
What is meant by 'limited development to secure listed building restoration'. What constraints should be imposed to safeguard important features of the landscape. Restoration of the house and preservation of an important historic landscape with high amenity value are likely to be in conflict.
Policy D11.6 Netherlee Article 4 Direction Area
Objection
Barbara Rourke (Ref 494/1)
Object to change of status without direct consultation with residents
No benefits to residents from changes
Disadvantages in planning fees and applications
No assessment of necessity for area
Parking restrictions need revised in light of inability to convert front gardens to driveways
Support preservation of area but flexibility required
Support
Alistair Hendry (Ref 966/1)
Support and promote policy to protect character
Policy D11: Management and Protection of the Built Heritage
Objection
There are a significant number of entries in the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) database pertaining to Caldwell and its historic landscape this highlights the importance of the historic landscape in the immediate area of Caldwell House. This aspect of the site (and perhaps other sites) should be acknowledged as part of the plan or as appropriate elsewhere, including on associated maps. This would then help reflect a more accurate picture consistent with the claims of section 3.6.
Caldwell House and the importance of its historic landscape in immediate area, along with other RCAHMS sites, should be acknowledged in the plan or as appropriate elsewhere including on maps.
Support
Support policy
Policy D12.1 Netherlee
Support
Alastair Graham and Monique Graham (Ref 13/1)
Strongly support designation of Netherlee Conservation Area. Page 160
Long term residents, support the stronger protection of character and architecture such as sandstone terraces through Conservation Area designation rather than article 4. Wish to see a commitment by the council to the ongoing preservation of the area in the Conservation Area Appraisal and associated consultation. Look forward to the Council moving it forward in the shortest term possible.
Alistair Hendry (Ref 966/2)
Support and promote policy to protect character
Policy D12.2 Crookfur Cottage Homes
Support
Mrs Norma W. Mistofsky, Crookfur Residents Committee (Ref 54/1)
Support Crookfur becoming a conservation area. Cottages and estate are unique.
(Member of Crookfur Retail Trust and Crookfur Residents Committee)
Mrs Margaret MacMorris, Crookfur Residents Committee (Ref 55/1)
Support Crookfur becoming a conservation area to maintain character and village environment.
(Member ofCrookfur Residents Committee)
Mrs S Howat, Crookfur Residents Association (Ref 56/1)
Support Crookfur becoming a conservation area. Design Basil Spence created truly unique and should remain.
Policy D12: New Conservation Areas
Objection
Paul Houghton, Houghton Planning on behalf of Retail Trust (Ref 89/1)
Retail Trust as owner of the Crookfur Estate object to the Council identifying the Estate as a Conservation Area.
First opportunity Retail Trust have had to submit comments, no mention of it in MIR
D12 is unnecessary:
1. Estate is protected by other Development management policies
2. Site is of local importance only not worthy of a conservation area.
LDP policies D1, D6 and D8 alongside SPGs provide protection for buildings that have local historic and cultural significance.
Similar polices in the Local Plan proved robust enough.
In order for the Estate to survive in its current form there is a need for buildings to be repaired, refurbished and sometimes replaced. This would be much more difficult to achieve if not impossible by CA status.
question if buildings are so exceptional or rare that they warrant protection, no listed buildings, question if area is of significant architectural or historic interest. Not clear if designed by Basil Spence himself.
Small Conservation Area will have bigger impact on owner and will hinder the Estate to be dynamic and respond to change.
CAA should be prepared in collaboration with Retail Trust if it goes ahead.
Remove Crookfur Cottage Homes from D12.
Support
Page 161
Support policy
Page 162
Issue 7. Community, Leisure and Educational Facilities
Support
Support improvements but consider park to be in Thornliebank
Policy D13.23 Broomburn Drive, Newton Mearns
Objection
A.M. Lyall (Ref 6/1)
As someone who was born and brought up in the countryside I feel it is a retrograde step to build on what is basically parkland. Parks are few and far between and should be preserved for future generations.
Question council ability to support alongside Lygates
Support
Ageing population will benefit without having to travel great distances.
Policy D13.3 Barrhead Town Centre
Objection
Policy D13.6 Barrhead South Expansion Area
Objection
Policy D13.7 Barrhead to Pollok
Objection
Policy D13.8 Centenary Park, Carlibar Park , Barrhead Page 163
Objection
Policy D13: Community, Leisure and Educational Facilities
Objection
The second and third bullet points in paragraph 5.20.1 should be amended to make reference to the needs analysis provided in the East Renfrewshire Sports Facility and Pitch Strategy. Professor Amir Hussain, ER Mosque & Community Centre (ERMEC) on behalf of Mr Nazir Ahmed (Ref 755/1)
Eastwood High: After the replacement Eastwood High School is constructed, a residual part of the site will remain between the School and Barcapel Avenue/Flats. Having consulted the Muslim community, we believe this site would be most suitable for establishing an East Renfrewshire Mosque and Community Centre (ERMEC) facility, since it is centrally located and conveniently accessible for all East Renfrewshire Muslim community residents. The site is currently not well used, and is not overlooked, with the nearest housing being Barcapel flats, with no flooding issues. Further, ERC’s ownership of the site would help expedite its sale to the ER Muslim Community for constructing a religious and community facility. We therefore propose the designation of Eastwood High to be amended to allow the establishment of ERMEC, and hence object to the current policy designations for this
site. Consider the residual Eastwood High site to be most appropriate for the purposes of a religious facility and propose that the policy designations for this site [Policies D5 and D8] be amended to Community Use (Policy D13) amendment:
“The provision of community (including religious), leisure and educational facilities, including for the growing under represented minority ethnic
communities, will be a core component of any master plan.”
Standard Letter Comment D13A (18 reps) (Ref 986/1)
Education facilities insufficient at present with residents unable to find places at local schools.
Limit development of housing until there is certainty of provision of school places for current residents and capacity for additional new pupils.
Support
Ms Rose Freeman, Theatres Trust (Ref 136/1)
Support Community, Leisure and Education Facilities which will safeguard existing facilities.
However, para 5.20.2 states if facilities are no longer viable. Theatres are rarely viable and usually exist on grants and various forms of funding.
ERs theatre supports the services around it including restaurants, pubs, printers, caterers and taxis and is a part of community and evening economy.
Waterfoot Road, Netwon Mearns
Objection
Identify site at Waterfoot Road as site for school (figure in rep)
Add School Site to Waterfoot Road, Netwon Mearns
Page 164
Issue 8. General Development Management Policies
Policy D14: Extensions to Existing Buildings and Erection of Outbuildings and Garages
Support
Support policy
Policy D15: Sub‐division of the Curtilage of a Dwellinghouse for a New Dwellinghouse and Replacement of an Existing House with a New House
Support
Support policy
Policy D17: Telecommunications
Support
Ginny Hall, Mono Consultants Limited on behalf of Mobile Operators Association (Ref 213/1)
While we support the inclusion of Policy D17 on Telecommunications within the emerging Local Development Plan we would like to make the following comments.
We would suggest that the wording of paragraph 5.27.2 is amended to relate only to new telecommunications sites as we feel that some of the requirements would not be relevant to the upgrade of an existing telecommunications site.
If the Council intends to proceed with
Policy D17 in its current format we would suggest the following amended wording to the start of paragraph
5.27.2:
“For new telecommunications sites, Telecoms operators should…”
However, if it would be considered useful in creating a concise and flexible telecommunications policy, we
would suggest the following wording:
Proposals for telecommunications development will be permitted provided that the following criteria
are met: ‐
(i) the siting and appearance of the proposed apparatus and associated structures should
seek to minimise impact on the visual amenity, character or appearance of the surrounding
area;
(ii) if on a building, apparatus and associated structures should be sited and designed in order
to seek to minimise impact to the external appearance of the host building;
(iii) if proposing a new mast, it should be demonstrated that the applicant has explored the
possibility of erecting apparatus on existing buildings, masts or other structures. Such
evidence should accompany any application made to the (local) planning authority.
(iv) If proposing development in a sensitive area, the development should not have an
unacceptable effect on areas of ecological interest, areas of landscape importance,
archaeological sites, conservation areas or buildings of architectural or historic interest.
When considering applications for telecommunications development, the (local) planning authority
will have regard to the operational requirements of telecommunications networks and the technical
limitations of the technology.
We would suggest that the wording of paragraph 5.27.2 is amended to relate only to new telecommunications sites as we feel that some of the requirements would not be relevant to the upgrade of an existing telecommunications site.
If the Council intends to proceed with
Policy D17 in its current format we would suggest the following amended wording to the start of paragraph
5.27.2:
“For new telecommunications sites, Telecoms operators should…”
However, if it would be considered useful in creating a concise and flexible telecommunications policy, we
would suggest the following wording:
Page 165
Proposals for telecommunications development will be permitted provided that the following criteria
are met: ‐
(i) the siting and appearance of the proposed apparatus and associated structures should
seek to minimise impact on the visual amenity, character or appearance of the surrounding
area;
(ii) if on a building, apparatus and associated structures should be sited and designed in order
to seek to minimise impact to the external appearance of the host building;
(iii) if proposing a new mast, it should be demonstrated that the applicant has explored the
possibility of erecting apparatus on existing buildings, masts or other structures. Such
evidence should accompany any application made to the (local) planning authority.
(iv) If proposing development in a sensitive area, the development should not have an
unacceptable effect on areas of ecological interest, areas of landscape importance,
archaeological sites, conservation areas or buildings of architectural or historic interest.
When considering applications for telecommunications development, the (local) planning authority
will have regard to the operational requirements of telecommunications networks and the technical
limitations of the technology.
Support policy
Policy D18: Airport Safeguarding
Support
Support policy
Objection
The SPG contains worthy sentiments which are technically sound for single house design. However it would be nigh on impossible to apply this to a housing development and maintain a coherent design. There’s an inherent danger in designing by numbers.
Objection
ERC no differentiation between Green Belt and Countryside around Towns and has therefore a presumption against development in both not just Green Belt.
This is against SPP in para 94 which requires Development Plans to allocate 'a generous supply in ..rural..areas' and 'support opportunities small scale housing in all rural areas'
Green Belt policies are being applied to countryside uses contrary to SPP para 93‐96
Neighbouring council areas differentiate between Green Belt and countryside policy areas.
Page 166
Issue 9.1. Housing Supply
Housing Supply Delivery and Distribution
Objection
Lack of clarity between tables in LDP and MIR between land supply, land requirements and housing needs
Yearly timescales would be useful
More cross referencing between MIR and LDP
General
Standard Letter Comment SG10A (18 reps) (Ref 1004/1)
Support retention of sites 40A and 40B Humbie Road, Eaglesham as Green Belt and all sites evaluated under 6.6 Eaglesham and Waterfoot.
Eaglesham and Waterfoot are rural settlements, distinct and isolated from others. Further release of Green Belt land here is unsustainable due to lack of services, employment and public transport.
The extent to which Eaglesham and Waterfoot can be developed has been reached without spoiling their rural character distinct from other settlements in ER.
Revised scoring method has rescored these sites disproportionately to others placing sites at increased risk of development.
Site should be rescored in light of 200 signature petition against 2012/0612/TP.
LDP40a Humbie Road 'Impact of Development' score changed back to ‐6
LDP40b Humbie Road 'Impact of Development' score changed back to ‐6, 'Effectiveness' changed back to ‐6
Objection
No explanation given as to what ERC agreed its contribution and decision that ER must provide 5700 homes
If Council can reduce maximum provision set in SDP why can this not be reduced further.
LDP 75 Field Road Busby ‐ overdeveloped, oppose any further development here.
Provides 700 private homes above SDP
2000 affordable homes blow SDP target
19 additions to the land supply, 17 of which in Green Belt
SDP housing requirement aspirational beyond 2018
25% greater supplied than aspirational requirement
Have not demonstrated how infrastructure can be supplied
The Council has still to prove the effectiveness of all of the sites proposed for allocation as required by PAN 2/2010. Liaison with the private sector and Homes for Scotland will enable the Council to further confirm effectiveness of sites through the Housing Land Audit process.
Page 167
Housing is not required other kinds of employment, care, education, leisure and outdoor access more useful
Many sites proposed on valuable land in mature areas
Selling off pockets of valuable land as a short term budgetary measure cannot improve the community long term
Minimise new house building in mature neighbourhoods
ERC discuss with Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee/GCVSDPA a realistic number of homes in current financial environment.
LDP21 Object to consideration of rezoning this site, unacceptable loss of few green spaces left (Site Evaluation)
Council has not demonstrated associated infrastructure can be delivered
No costed data to analyse and comment on
No allowance for secondary school places
Advised of shortfall in projected funds for the proposed primary schools
Based solely on arbitrary assessment of potential population growth and household size ‐ do not stand up to scrutiny or other evidence
Monitoring Statement figures require significantly more robust base information
Population increase figures based on those in monitoring statement would mean there is provision for household sizes of 1.43 where average is 2.47 dropping to 2.25 by 2035. Based on this the amount of houses required would be 2783 not 4389.
Suggested 2000 home increase from Monitoring Statement table B14
Based on houses already constructed and consented schemes there is sufficient brownfield sites for remainder
Private houses in excess of SDP, more than 25%
SDP target is aspirational beyond 2018
Not demonstrated how infrastructure can be delivered
Page 168
SDP figures aspirational
LDP allocates 25% more
Infrastructure delivery not demonstrated
Focus on masterplanned areas has not provided a range and choice of sites for development as required by SPP
Shortfall in effective land supply ‐ 1190 units due to previous period shortfall and masterplans only deliver 328 units between 2012‐2017 causing an additional shortfall of 338 units, therefore, shortfall in total 1528 units (spreadsheet supplied)
1354 units in HLS will not be delivered due to issues such as ownership and ground condition
 Have just reduced affordable housing target as opposed to attempting to meet it
Full housing requirement of SDP should be allocated in LDP
Additional 1528 units should also be allocated for 2012‐2017 to provide an effective land supply
Enable a higher level of market housing to address limitations of delivery of affordable housing and scope for developers to propose innovative ways of providing affordable
Add to para 6.3.2 "Planning consents may be granted for unallocated sites where the established land supply is not maintaining a minimum 5 year land supply"
Support that plan recognises need for growth, shortage of housing land and generous supply etc.
Commend plan's Monitoring Statement and analysis but do not fully agree with conclusions
Agree delivery of 3200 affordable homes to 2025 not possible
Argue that plan should allocate land to meet full SDP allocation
Short‐term issues should not be a consideration (recession etc) and it is more sensible to plan for full need and demand
Assessment of delivery of affordable housing does not acknowledge possibility of changes in resource or delivery methods
Further increasing private sector housing could enable more affordable housing
Potential underestimate of private demand in ER from SDP, shortage of supply will lead to reduced affordability
Post 2025 phasing relies on areas of sites also allocated in earlier phases but subject to requirements such as infrastructure, flexibility by identifying a greater number of sites required
Should allow for additional consents if 5 year land supply not maintained as part of the policy
Allocate full supply from SDP, 5700, as all tenure Affordable housing limitations should be enabled through greater private sector allocation
Add "Planning consents may be granted for unallocated sites where the established land supply is not maintaining a minimum 5 year effective supply"
Callum Fraser, Holder Planning on behalf of Greenlaw Park Limited (Ref 775/4)
Not generous land supply as required by SPP
Fails to allocate sufficient effective sites
Does not provide 5 year land supply
Does not meet SDP requirements
SDOs make up most of land supply, M2.1 cannot be delivered short term
Allocate 2ha Greenlaw site
Private sector housing in excess of SDP, 25% over aspirational target
SDP housing target is aspirational beyond 2018
Sites should be held back based on population/migration figures, so as to ensure supply is not over generous
Not demonstarted how associated infrastructure can be delivered
Page 169
Elaine Shannon (Ref 947/2)
Concerned about loss of Green Belt between East Kilbride, Eaglesham, Waterfoot and Newton Mearns
Eaglesham will loose village charm if more development takes place
Standard Letter Comment SG1B (71 reps) (Ref 1005/1)
Object to SDP target.
ERC discuss with Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee/GCVSDPA a realistic number of homes in current financial environment.
Standard Letter Comment SG1C (17 reps) (Ref 1006/1)
Support retention of LDP15A,B and 16B, Waterfoot in Green Belt
Object to any large scale development in current Green Belt in rural areas.
Support
Support policy
Policy SG3: Phasing of New Housing Development
Objection
No need for the council to impose phasing restrictions.
There is no requirement in SPP or in the SDP for the Council to impose phasing restrictions in the LDP
There is therefore no need to restrict development over particular time periods - This could impact on
the funding for infrastructure.
There is no requirement in SPP or SDP to impose phasing
Council have not proven effectiveness of all sites for allocation cannot pre‐empt with certainty that sites will be released
Site LDP40B is effective demonstrated by evidence supplied
Market and growth should not be restricted by phasing
Based on housing timeframe which commenced in 2008, between 2008 and 2012 597 houses were completed, plus windfall, sites with consent and Greenlaw, without further release of land there is provision of 1887 units within Eastwood alone. Demonstrating that further release of Green Belt is unjustified.
"phased release" is meaningless unless the developer actually builds. Can the Council ensure that he does, by placing a sunset clause on the planning consent?
No requirement in SPP to impose phasing
Effectiveness not proven so cannot be certain they will be released for development
Page 170
Support
Support policy
Page 171
Issue 9.1.1. Housing Supply Barrhead
Policy SG1.1 Barnes Street/ Cogan Street/Robertson Street, Barrhead Objection
Policy SG1.2 Chappell field, Barrhead
Objection
Dr Stuart Honan (Ref 29/1)
Object to site as:
Will impact on residential amenity of his and neighbouring properties. For reasons of: loss of privacy, loss of view, out of character with the existing state of development, loss of open aspect.
The above shall impact on quality of life and economic value of property.
Proposed changes:
SG1.2 is adjusted to remove the area between Chappell Street and the railway line leaving it as tree preservation only.
A condition is appended to the site that the remaining area (between Chappell Street and the railway line as above) is thickened with trees to protect amenity.
Would like to remain in contact on the site SG1.2.
Thomas Mann (Ref 36/1)
COMMENTS ON CHAPPELLFIELD BARRHEAD PLANNING BRIEF APRIL 2011
120 units plus affordable hard to achieve on this site
limited access to site, questionable if permeability possible
improvements to surrounding roads/junctions hard to achieve
various private roads surround the site and should remain undisturbed
bridge and access from Cogan Street must be in place, and conditioned so, before work starts
full contamination survey of all site required
Archaeological sites
design constraints to railway line, should remain as unbuilt recreation areas
Zone E SINC, trees and plant life 50%
septic tanks and outfalls should remain viable or connected to new system as part of development
Zone E intrusion into protected nature area
Diagrams submitted.
Mrs Edith Megson (Ref 47/1)
Loss of amenity/view from property
Site currently home to large range of wildlife including protected species
if building goes ahead, should be restricted to area on left of Chappell Street and not area next to railway line to protect residential amenity of Maxton Grove
Tree planting near railway to provide screening.
Page 172
Rozanne Brakenridge (Ref 58/1)
Loss of amenity/views
Effect on wildlife
Area of Tree Preservation Order
Reduction in house values
Roads/bridge could not cope with increased traffic
(images submitted and in PDF file)
Trees to screen view from existing houses
Buildings away from railway line
Support
Alex Mitchell, James Barr Ltd on behalf of Westmarch Barrhead LLP (Ref 73/1)
Continued support for allocation of this site for housing and its potential to assist in the regeneration of Barrhead
Westmarch are presently in discussion with two national housebuilders with a view to developing the site, site therefore remains to have potential and is currently attracting market interest
Comments on greenspace, wildlife, access and affect on existing properties:
greenspace loss is minimal, proposed site is predominantly brownfield
site heavily overgrown, derelict and subject to fly tipping, development will enhance site
proposed development does not propose significant development within greenspace or local biodiversity area
only small part of site affected by potential flooding
 SINC largely concentrated to west areas of site and has been subject to an Ecological Assessment and tree survey
proposed development designed to minimise impact and intrusion on SINC
proposals would not compromise the ecological value of the area
proposals include provision for landscape enhancement and management plan
Policy SG1.4 Dunterlie Park/ Carlibar Road, Barrhead
Objection
Objection in principle on flood risk grounds.
Remove from plan.
Policy SG1.5 Fereneze, Barrhead
Objection
Nicola and Andrew Crawford (Ref 4/1)
Object strongly as development will have adverse effect on residential amenity including (amongst other factors) noise, disturbance, overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing. It also:
Will destroy open aspect of neighbourhood.
Proposed development is overbearing, out of scale or out of character.
Will result in loss of existing views.
Site used by locals and tourists for recreation and walking dogs, building here would diminish striking view.
Development will adversely effect highway safety and convenience of road users in area.
No need for open‐market housing in this area. Barrhead has more than 5 years supply of housing land. Would Page 173
support houses on Shanks Industrial Site if assured homes were affordable to local people. Mr and Mrs M and C Wong (Ref 7/1)
Objection to development of land designated as Green Belt.
Development of the site would require blasting and we envisage personal danger and damage to our property which would not be covered by our insurance.
Severe flooding problems in area due to solid ground conditions. Cannot see how development can make this better and will make it worse particularly with extreme wet weather which is expected to continue. Account should be taken of lorries and extra traffic at Brownside Road which the building will require. Narrow road with parked cars and young children. Rob Steer (Ref 8/1)
Reconsider the designation of this site as housing. Site borders country park, could be considered part of the Green Belt and current infrastructure can not handle existing traffic.
The country park is next door to site and wildlife is often encountered here. Has accurate determination of flora/fauna/animal and bird life been undertaken prior to change of use for this site?
East Renfrewshire Green Belt decreases each year. How much more land will be sold to accommodate housing needs.
Roads are in extremely poor condition and in extreme weather residents cannot access to properties higher up the estate in their vehicles. An increase in traffic will see the roads deteriorate further ‐ cease to exist and will lead to complete breakdown with very little possibility of being maintained. Construction traffic has also not been considered. Aileen Thomson (Ref 14/1)
Against development due to fears of loosing valuable Green Belt area.
James Hamilton (Ref 17/1)
Object to inclusion of Fereneze as a housing site and disagree with reporter's conclusions during the examination of the Local Plan.
Development would have a detrimental effect on natural drainage from surrounding hills and would
have implications for
immediate property gardens.
Development would be highly visible.
Would require major upgrading of utilities infrastructure.
Strongly disagree with reporter as area plays a major part in providing a recreation area. It is the only
site within 2 miles that has sufficient space for sporting activity and is constantly used by local children.
Development would have an effect on nature conservation and is currently populated with all types of
living creatures.
The sites inclusion was contradictory to the reporter's statement to discourage access to local quarry.
Eileen and Barry Hughes (Ref 18/1)
Strongly object to Fereneze proposal.
Development would effect the biodiversity and impinge on the integrity of the landscape type. Area is designated as important for nature conservation and could impinge on ssi.
Impinge on privacy of existing houses due to the raised nature of the site.
Negative impact on recreation for local community.
Development could bring around 80 extra cars to the area and roads are already poorly maintained and access is difficult in snowy weather with cars needing to be left at the bottom of the estate.
Cross Arthurlie School is already at capacity. Will have a negative impact on existing families with schools overcrowding and a lack of places.
Page 174
Drainage is already a problem and this will increase.
Dog fouling is a problem which will increase with more households and development would also take away space for dog walking and mean more dogs walked on the street.
Development will impact on quiet area with like minded people and have a negative impact on desirability of the area and house prices.
Insurance issues for residents if blasting is required and is the land suitable for building on?
There is sufficient and more suitable previously developed land in Barrhead.
There is a strength of feeling against the development from current residents.
Ian Higgins (Ref 20/1)
Strongly object to the proposal.
Will spoil views
Field already has considerable water run off problem from hills and this will increase if houses are built. Water problem has never been as bad as it is now.
Increase in traffic in the area.
More children in the primary school.
Will affect water pressure.
Many natural springs in the field and the dramatic increase in high rains falls cause problems for houses bordering the field.
Development will effect the abundance of wildlife in the area and impact on wildlife such as deer, foxes and pheasants.
The area is an outstanding area where children play and Barrhead should be proud of it not destroying it. Should be left as a natural site for the community.
Margaret Fulton (Ref 23/1)
Lives two houses away from proposed site.
Objects to developing the Green Belt site.
Very concerned about street being used as a through road.
Current parking issues in Brownside Place making it difficult to access driveways heavy traffic will make this worse.
Problem with flooding when there is heavy rain and gardens cannot be used.
Children use the proposed site as a safe place to play, see wildlife. Parents are able to watch their children playing here.
Site has been used during emergences for helicopters and street used by fire brigade.
Very much against this area being built on.
Kirsty Menzies (Ref 24/1)
Strongly object to Fereneze, Barrhead being listed in the proposed LDP as a housing development.
Strategic Policies in the Proposed LDP have not been followed in regard to their strong message about protecting wildlife and the environment. Development runs contrary to the particular policies set out in Chapter 3 of the Proposed LDP:
SP1: Development Strategy, Para 3.12.2. ‐ SG1.5 is contrary to this policy by not being retained as part of the Green Network. It should be looked on as a site integral to the Green Belt around Barrhead where abundant wildlife and amenity is protected and
enhanced. Great potential value as a site for environmental education particularly with Cross Arthurlie Primary School.
SP2: Assessment of Development Proposals, Para 3.15.1., point 1 ‐ Shanks park has been identified for 400 housing units, Fereneze would only provide 40 and should not be proposed for development in priority to the much larger Shanks brownfield site.
D1: Detailed Guidance for all development, para 5.2.1. –
“1. The development should not result in a significant loss of character or amenity to the surrounding area." ‐ Area has Page 175
significant amenity use which would be lost. Children play, people stable and exercise horses, local people interact with horses, walk dogs and access the network of paths in the hills. Biggest impact would be loss of somewhere to play for local children. Although there is surrounding countryside, site is relatively flat and horses grazing keep the grass short making a good, safe place for children to play. No similar sites in the area.
Site would have negative visual impact on rural character. East Renfrewshire Green Belt Landscape Assessment (2005) states the area is of "high visual sensitivity" as "the area is open and visible form Barrhead" and provides a "strong contribution to Green corridors and contributes to the undeveloped corridor between Barrhead and Paisley" also stating “...this area plays an important role in forming a backdrop to Barrhead and is an important area for recreation..."
“3. The amenity of neighbouring properties should not be adversely affected by unreasonably restricting their sunlight or privacy.” Properties would have their privacy significantly reduced. Development land is on a northeast facing slope sunlight would be unreasonably restricted. “4. The development should not impact adversely on landscape character or the green network, involve a significant loss of trees or other important landscape, Greenspace or biodiversity features”. Site is currently Green Belt, Green Network, Local Biodiversity Area. Priority Species have been identified Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus), Pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and Lesser Whitethroat (Sylvia curruca) two of which feed on the invertebrates attracted to the area by the wild flowers. Development would have a highly adverse impact on these and also the adjacent Habitat Enhancement Project at Brownside Farm where Local Priority Species, the Lesser Whitethroat (Sylvia curruca) and the Greater Butterfly Orchid (Platantherachlorantha) are found. This is not shown on the Development Plan Map as it lies over the boundary in the Renfrewshire Council area. According to the East Renfrewshire Greenbelt Landscape Character Assessment (2005) this type of grassland, particularly with a marshland are important for biodiversity. Site is clearly abundant with wildlife and would have an adverse serious impact.
“9. Parking and access requirements of the Council should be met in all development and appropriate mitigation measures should be introduced to minimise the impact of new development” ‐ Brownside Avenue only possible access, this would have serious impact on road safety. Road is steep and relatively narrow and always has cars parked on either sides of the road, negotiating road can be hazardous. This would be particularly dangerous during the building stage. In heavy snow cars cannot
make it up the steep hill and there is not sufficient space at the bottom of the hill to accommodate cars from a new housing development. Increased car traffic would also be a danger to children who play in what is currently a cul‐de‐sac at the top of Brownside Avenue.
D3: Green Belt and Countryside Around Towns – impact of proposal on function of the Green Belt.
D4: Green Network – proposal will adversely affect wildlife, recreational landscape and Green Networks, will likely destroy or impact adversely on character or function of the green network, policy states mitigation will be required.
D8: Natural Features – policy states strong presumption against development where it would compromise the overall integrity of a Local Biodiversity Site, adverse effect on protected species, close proximity to natural features.
All of the Strategic policies set out to protect wildlife, biodiversity and Green Belt. If all of the above policies where being adhered to SG1.5 would not be considered for housing development. Impact on Green Belt in this area has not been considered. Importance of biodiversity of the site itself and impact on adjacent LBSs have clearly been ignored. Impact on quarry, SSSI not taken into account.
Propose site should be identified as a site for environmental management, enhancement and education. It is already a popular
amenity area, close to a primary school and a large urban population. Green Belt, LBSs and SSSI. Site has a great potential for enhanced recreation and is imperative for education.
Thomas McBride (Ref 26/1)
Oppose plans for SG1.5 Fereneze for the following reasons:
Green Belt will disappear
Field is one of few places kids can play
Wildlife will be driven away ‐ deer, foxes, crested newts (a protected species)
Dog walking
As written in examination report on adopted local plan site is contrary to policies in the Structure Plan (quotes page 231), the council referred to the site as important for recreation and site would not be considered favourably in sequential approach to site selection. Page 176
The area plays an important role in the environment for recreation.
Further development would impinge on the landscape,
The site makes a strong contribution to the containment of Barrhead.
Shirley‐Anne Kierney (Ref 27/1)
Loss of amenity ‐ Field is one of the only areas in the Boylestone Estate for children to play safely.
Wildlife will be driven away.
Dog walkers will no longer be able to walk their dogs in the field.
Quotes from examination report on adopted local plan ‐ site is contrary to policies in the Structure Plan (quotes page 231), the council referred to the site as important for recreation and site would not be considered favourably in sequential approach to site selection. The area plays an important role in the environment for recreation.
Further development would impinge on the landscape,
The site makes a strong contribution to the containment of Barrhead.
Morris McNaughton (Ref 32/1)
Object to site:
Would cause an increase in traffic including heavy lorries. Additional rises and nuiscence in volume of traffic and potential for accidents.
Brownside is a major road to Chappellhill Road.
During bad weather cars have to be left at the bottom of the hill.
Area is home to protected species and is an area of scientific interest. Development would bring this to an end.
Site should not be included in the plan and Green Belt land should be preserved.
Joyce McNaughton (Ref 33/1)
Object to site:
Would increase traffic including heavy lorries and additional risks in terms of volumes of traffic and risk of accidents.
Brownside is a major road to Chappellhill Road.
During bad weather cars have to be left at the bottom of the hill.
Site was not favoured by Council during the Local Plan.
Site is Greenfield and therefore not in accordance with national policy.
Within Barrhead there are many sites that would benefit from development.
The Green Belt areas are being eroded to the detriment of local residents and wildlife.
Mr H.M. McKenzie (Ref 34/1)
Proposal previously rejected as Council site and reasons for rejection are still valid.
Site only safe play area, has existed since 1960, keeps children safe and out of the road.
Blind entry to Brownside Avenue, increased traffic and construction vehicles would make it more dangerous if used as main access.
Existing road surface poor and crumbling. Increased traffic would require resurfacing.
Flooding increased in recent years with water coming off the braes coming down the road and into peoples gardens. Building on the field will nullify its natural drainage and possibly cause major problems.
Others sites such as Shanks should be developed first and other sites such as unsightly areas as you approach Barrhead by train, old Kenmoat area, the old sewage field and the derelict ground just past the fire station.
Area above Auchenback with the installation of a train halt on Neilston line would provide another commuter link to Glasgow and relieve congestion.
do not feel residents should have to raise objections and Council should do what is best for the people.
Page 177
Mr Jim Hamilton (Ref 37/1)
Oppose new building in Green Belt at Brownside Road:
building work would cause chaos
concerns about increased crime
will reduce house prices
Elizabeth D McKenzie (Ref 41/1)
Object to building houses in the Green Belt
Loss of amenity, area of recreation (walking, dogs, horse riding, sledging, football)
Loss of unobstructed access to Fereneze Braes
Increase in traffic. Lorries during building, road safety and noise
Access to site limited
Pressure on school places
Utilities cannot take extra housing
Robert McKenzie (Ref 42/1)
Object to building houses in the Green Belt
Loss of amenity, area of recreation (walking, dogs, horse riding, sledging, football)
Loss of unobstructed access to Fereneze Braes
Increase in traffic. Lorries during building, road safety and noise
Access to site limited
Pressure on school places
Utilities cannot take extra housing
Mr David Gorman and Mrs J Gorman (Ref 62/1)
Strongly against development
Should be designated Green Belt
Loss of amenity ‐ views, walking, dog walking, wildlife.
Disruption ‐ mud, heavy traffic noise, pollution, crime during construction, disruption to lives.
Site to remain as Green Belt
Mr and Mrs J Thomson (Ref 63/1)
Strongly against building 40 houses on Horsefield (Fereneze SG1.5)
Building on Green Belt
Coalescence
Loss of access to Braes
Shanks site development will require greater access to the Braes (population increase)
Better if walkway was constructed
Loss of wildlife inc. Endangered species
Extra traffic
John and Rosemary MacLeod (Ref 68/1)
oppose loss of green belt when other more convenient sites available in Barrhead
increase in traffic and vehicles turning onto Caplethill Road impacting on access to their property
elevated site unsuitable for elderly and those with disabilities
access difficult without a car
Page 178
access poor during frosty/snowy weather
Robert and Jennifer McCombe (Ref 71/1)
Loss of amenity ‐ safe, peaceful environment, views, privacy for homes backing onto development
Physical and visual intrusion 'into human rights'
increase in traffic noise and amount, increase in danger to children with no field left to play in
Heather Avenue steep and dangerous in winter
Machinery during construction causing dirt
Concerns over risks and noise from blasting including health risks/ loss of air quality from dust (asthma sufferers)
School at capacity
Loss of value to existing homes
Loss of Green Belt when Brownfield sites exist (Shanks)
Mrs Sheena Graham (Ref 74/1)
Object to site:
Great Crested Newts at Brownside Farm within half a mile of development, newts travel over half a mile in search of food. There is a legal obligation for full survey, licensing, working practices and mitigation required.
Loss of quality of life with loss of Green Belt
Loss of recreation ‐ walking
Loss of amenity ‐ views, activity
No need to build on Green Belt, brownfield sites existing could be developed
Graham Fotheringham (Ref 84/1)
Contrary to SP2 ‐ no overall demand for housing in the Green Belt given estimates of supply and demand
Area is an important backdrop to Barrhead, development would impinge on the integrity of landscape type, negative influences on landscape setting of Barrhead
Important for recreation
Development would effect biodiversity value
Greenfield development ‐ not in accordance with national policy SPP3, development should be directed to Shanks
Access would impact on residents
Site rejected by Council in Local Plan
Robert Macaulay (Ref 101/1)
Previous Local Plan stated no further development on the periphery of Barrhead
Adverse effect on fauna, flora on site and in surrounding area
Site abuts country park and SSI
Iain and Lynn Macleod (Ref 133/1)
Brownfield sites available such as shanks should be developed first
Exacerbate flooding including to property
Traffic increase during and after completion
Poor access in winter weather
Increased pressure on water system resulting in burst pipes as has happened previously
Ann and James Paterson (Ref 141/1)
Page 179
Loss of area for children to engage with nature and for recreation
Limited space elsewhere for recreation
Negative impact on wildlife and proximity to Braes
Old Nestle site, Volvo and Shanks developed first
Mr and Mrs G Aird (Ref 205/1)
Access, loss of Green Belt, increase in traffic.
Developments at Shanks and Volvo site will put strain on infrastructure.
Fereneze is small and insignificant in overall housing plan is it worth the trouble with this site and potential to end with decision by Secretary of State.
Mrs P Blair (Ref 207/1)
Site is known as 'The Horses Field' and development is unnecessary in comparison to Shanks site.
No need to consider building on Green Belt land. Local area can ill afford further encroachment.
Increased accessibility to Green Belt will have negative effect on nature conservation and SSSI.
Road Safety issues, speed limits currently not observed.
Mrs Agnes Brown (Ref 218/1)
Impacts on the area.
Goes against policies in the LPD:
SP1 brownfield sites should be used first
SP2 Shanks should be developed ahead of this small site
D1 ‐ 1. Site results in loss of amenity, site has significant recreation use. Sloping site means negative visual impact.
 3. Loss of privacy
 4. Land important for biodiversity
 9. Access dangerous
D3 Impact and importance of function of Green Belt here not considered
D4 (as D3)
D8 Impact on adjacent LBS and SSSI
Identify as Green Network to protect and enhance
Mr Thomas Lagan (Ref 219/1)
Safety concerns:
Loss of play area forcing kids onto streets or quarry to play
Increased traffic and works traffic
Access issues
Non alignmen twith LDP policies:
Strategic Aim ‐ no benefit to community and loss of rich and diverse environment
 SP1 ‐ LBS, Green Belt use when Brownfield sites available
SP2 ‐ Other sites should be developed first, Landscape Character Assessment pages 50/51, site used for recreation
Site Evaluation ‐8 so should not be developable
D1 ‐ amenity loss, privacy and sunlight loss, important site for biodiversity, site provides backdrop to Barrhead, poor access
D3 ‐ Impact and importance of function of Green Belt here not considered
D4 (as D3)
D8 Impact on adjacent LBS and SSSI
Page 180
Local Site Evaluation 2008 (TR/ERC/01), Score of ‐15 more realistic than ‐8:
Local biodiversity is affected
Greenspace would be lost
Rights of way cross the site
Backdrop to Barrhead and important for recreation
Horse stabling, dog walking effected ‐ loss of facilities
Safe and adequate access cannot be provided
Challenge to Scottish Reporters findings 2010:
Reporter evaluated small rather than large site and vice versa unclear what he is reffering to
Site is used for recreation, would result in loss of amenity, impact on biodiversity, loss of greenspace not compensated with tree planting ‐ why destroy space in the first place?
Reject site SG1.5 for development.
Southern part of site within Local Biodiversity Site.
Section removed and boundary redrawn to conform with policy D8. Lorna Thomson (Ref 318/1)
Green Belt
Loss of amenity ‐ space used for recreation, children, dog walking
Lack of other suitable open space in area
Lack of school capacity
Limited access to site
Pressure on water and sewerage supplies
Flooding
Gareth Thomson (Ref 319/1)
Green Belt
Flooding
Morag McKenzie (Ref 320/1)
Green Belt
Flooding
Tom Lagan on behalf of 516 Signatories of SG1.5 Petition (Ref 332/1)
Major effect on existing residents lives with no benefits to local community
Page 181
Safety risk from increased traffic and works traffic
Loss of play space/amenity/ kids forced to play in more dangerous areas e.g. quarry
Loss of wildlife and community interaction with wildlife
Mess during construction in particular Brownside Road
Loss of outlook
Years of building work loss to quality of life
Noise pollution
Impact on overlapping biodiversity site
existing Brownfield sites in Barrhead (Shanks) in need of development ahead of this site
Removed from LDP and area to remain as Green Belt.
Mr and Mrs J Dunne (Ref 359/1)
Many other Brownfield sites in Barrhead which should be used before greenspace
Important site to the community
Play area loss / force children to unsafe areas e.g. quarry
Increased traffic and traffic during construction
Roads poor during winter
Lack of facilities in area
Effect on wildlife including protected species under Schedule 5 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Loss of amenity for dog walking and stabling
Safety concerns due to land type ‐ bedrock
Loss of privacy as houses built at higher level
Flood risk
Biodiversity Site
Leave site as Green Belt
Selby and Catherine Cochrane (Ref 391/1)
Site already rejected by the council and overturned by reporter
Against policy D3 para 4.3.6 due to open space and recreation value
No other outdoor play areas in vicinity
Affect on wildlife/flora/fauna
Loss of gateway view eastwards from paisley/Caplethill Road
Flood risk ‐ issues presently, SUDs will not prevent this
Vehicular access issues ‐ safety, pollution, quality of life, construction traffic
Mr Colin Nicol (Ref 400/1)
Goes against policy D8 para 5.12
Proposals Map shows the significance of area to continuity of natural environment with sites D8.2 and D8.4
Risks loosing value as wildlife corridor
Loss of undeveloped land
High visual impact
Lack of Council commitment to own policy
Alan and Moira Gibb (Ref 540/1)
Contravenes SP1, SP2 and D1
Green Belt loss, impact on this area not considered
Shanks park could provide 400 houses, this site only 40
High amenity use of site
Loss of access to path network in hills
Loss of privacy and sunlight due to slop of site
Impact on road safety, access from Brownside Avenue
Page 182
Drainage problems in area
Mr J and Mrs F Auchincloss (Ref 557/1)
No need to change Green Belt here
Strain on transport
Loss of amenity/Loss of recreation
Other sites available
Loss of wildlife
J Graeme Herd (Ref 626/1)
Loss of Green Belt due to developer pressure
Adjacent to SSSI
Disruption during construction
Traffic increase
Impact on wildlife
Disruption from new thoroughfare
Loss of play space
Brownfield sites could be used
Brian Maclachlan (Ref 687/1)
Loss of open space
Brownfield sites abundant in Barrhead that should be developed first
Coalescence to Paisley
Claire Hendry (Ref 719/1)
Impact on area
Contravenes policies:
SP1 ‐ should be protected as green network
SP2‐ Shanks provides 400 houses on brownfield site and should be priority
D1 ‐significant amenity use, negative impact on rural character, sunlight and privacy loss, effect on wildlife, LBS and landscape impact, no safe access.
D3 and D4 ‐ Function of this part of Green Belt not considered
D8 ‐ Impact on adjacent LBS and SSSI not considered
Mr Colin Hamilton (Ref 766/1)
Access issues
Pollution
Environmental/wildlife impact
Trees should be planted if built
Loss of amenity, privacy, light
Flood risk
Mr and Mrs Cook (Ref 847/1)
Important Green Belt site
Visual intrusion
Wildlife loss
Privacy loss
Page 183
Louise Maxwell (Ref 915/1)
Greenfield not in accordance with national policy
Cannot be justified under SP10 (Structure Plan?)
Economic social benefits not demonstrated
Mrs Ann McMillan (Ref 922/1)
Contrary to SP1 should be part of Green Network
Shanks should be made priority as a larger site
Significant amenity use will be lost
Green Network, Green Belt, LBS, SSSI
Protected species on site
Poor access
Site goes against LDP policies:
SP1: site should be Green Network
SP2: brownfield site at Shanks should be prioritised over this site
D1, POINTS:
1. significant amenity loss: children's play space, stable and exercise of horses, local interaction with horses, dog walking, access to path network to hills, negative visual impact due to slope of site, impact on rural character.
3. loss of privacy/overlooking, sunlight unreasonably restricted due to north east facing slope
4. loss of Green Belt, Green Network and Local Biodiversity Area, Priority Species in area (Brown Hare, Pipstrelle Bats), impact on habitat enhancement project at Brownside Farm and Priority Species there (Lesser Whitethroat and Greater Butterfly Orchid). Grass land important for biodiversity and numerous wildlife on the Fereneze site.
 Site goes against East Renfrewshire Greenbelt Character Assessment (2005) which lists it as an area of "High Visual Sensitivity as the area is open and visible from Barrhead" and proving a strong "contribution to green corridors and contributes to undeveloped corridor between Paisley and Barrhead"
Adverse impact on biodiversity not properly considered
D1, POINT:
9. serious impact on road safety if Brownside Avenue is only access. Ave is currently narrow, steep and used for parking, right turn to Caplet Hill dangerous. Dangerous/difficult road in poor weather e.g. snow.
D3: impact and important function of Green Belt not properly considered
D4, POINTS 1., 2., 3., 5. : Green Belt impact not considered against these points
D8, POINTS 1., 2., 3. : impact on Green Belt, LBS and adjacent SSSI.
Policy SG1.6 Glen Street / Carlibar Road, Barrhead
Objection
Policy SG1.7 Glen Street/ Walton Street, Barrhead
Objection
Policy SG1.8 Kelburn Street / Neilston Road, Barrhead
Objection
Page 184
Why are road improvements at Lochlobo Road/Volvo site dependent on housing development?
The existing traffic flow requires attention as does traffic via Barrhead Main Street.
Why are public transport improvements dependent on further housing development?
Support
Alex Mitchell, James Barr on behalf of Keiller Edinburgh Lts and Aberdeen Estate Company Ltd (Ref 476/1)
Support for site with capacity for 108 units
Assists in the regeneration of Barrhead
Request LDP highlights that particular site has no obligation to provide affordable housing as per the extant planning permission on the site. This aspect is critical to the delivery of this site.
Page 185
Issue 9.1.2. Housing Supply Busby
Policy SG1.14 Main Street, Busby
Objection
Policy SG1.44 Easterton Avenue, Busby
Objection
Robert Swan (Ref 12/1)
Traffic issues ‐ If you are going to build in Station Road you will have to open South Road and make a one way system or stop Park and Ride in Station Road for Busby Station.
Mrs Heather Rutherford (Ref 28/1)
Using Green Belt sites when there are numerous Brownfield sites
There is no suitable access road to proposed site ‐
Roads one street away are used by commuters and residents parking for the train station, cars have to back up road because of this. There is also access from the middle of Station Road for Silvan Place. Kippen Drive has blind bend so can only be used from East Kilbride Road.
There are children in Easterton Avenue and increased traffic would be dangerous.
Little pockets of Green Belt that give a lot of pleasure to those that enjoy them.
Object to affordable housing on the Green Belt at Easterton Avenue, Busby.
LDP states "right development in the right place" and to protect the Green Belt. This site meets neither of these aims.
Feels the council look upon Easterton Avenue as a council scheme and somewhere they can build more council houses.
Station Road would not be a suitable access as it is generally reduced to a single track because of the station and residents parking.
Kippen Drive has a blind bend.
Local schools would not be able to take a large amount of pupils.
Doctors surgeries are busy enough.
Please leave it as it is and use a 'brown' site.
Catherine Doherty (Ref 48/1)
Object to development of Easterton Avenue site when brownfield land available.
Concerns:
increase in traffic, poor state of roads, Station Road junction
loss of Green Belt
food production
infrastructure, schools at capacity, amenities cannot cope
increase in crime (area already bad/affordable housing)
wildlife loss
privacy/views loss
leads to further development
proximity to conservation area
object to affordable housing only development
Page 186
Raymond Doherty (Ref 49/1)
Concerns:
wildlife loss
Darren Doherty (Ref 50/1)
Concerns:
wildlife loss
Gerard McNeill (Ref 197/1)
In reference to Planning Brief
Government Reporters found that the site would have no significant adverse affect on the Green Belt ‐ this is a false claim it would have significant adverse effects on the residents of Easterton Avenue.
Green Belt should be preserved.
Do not support further use of Green Belt land until all vacant and brownfield sites have been fully utilised.
Support retention of land adjacent site SG1.44 as Green Belt.
Patrick Doherty (Ref 239/1)
Existing Brownfield sites undeveloped
2000 homes with planning permission undeveloped
Pollution
Traffic increase. Station Road single lane due to parked cars
Loss of productive farm land
Strain on council services and lack of funding
Impact on local stables
Page 187
Amenities at full capacity
Brownfield land in Busby main street which should be used first
Site next to power station and conservation area
Flood risk
Makes way for further development
Pictures of flooding submitted on file.
Reporter reconsider this site and look at Brownfield first.
Arthur Mulholland (Ref 282/1)
Should remain Green Belt land
No need to build on Green Belt when Brownfield exists
Negative effects on existing wildlife
Station Road suffers from parking and unsuitable for current level of traffic and East Kilbride Road junction issues
Land adjoining site should also remain as Green Belt
Ewan Macbeth (Ref 321/1)
Kippen Drive would be used in construction phase and is already congested with parked cars
Station Road does not have capacity due to parked cars
A727 capacity
Kirsty MacKenzie (Ref 323/1)
Would lead to further development and further Green Belt loss
Lack of supporting infrastructure
Not suitable for 'particular needs' as this could lead to increased isolation and vulnerability due to location.
Lesley McCreaner (Ref 353/1)
Secondary school capacity
Brownfield sites undeveloped (inc. Main Street)
Station Road congestion
Pollution
Strain on service and lack of funding
Loss of outlook
No details of layout
Alan Collins (Ref 356/1)
Contrary to SDP Brownfield available/not used first, major release of Green Belt
Jamie Roddie (Ref 357/1)
Green Belt loss ‐ little remaining ‐ should be preserved in line with Government policy
Lack of school places and impact on catchments
Brownfield should be developed first
Busby in need of regeneration without strain on resources
Roads and amenity improvements for existing residents should be a higher priority than new homes
Traffic increase, strain on public transport
Page 188
David and Marjory Carey (Ref 373/1)
Traffic impact, congestion, roads unsuitable for heavy traffic, Station Road used for parking
School capacity at Williamwood, pupils attending from outside ER
Supported accommodation not suitable here, access is difficult and pedestrian access to town also difficult if you are less able
Services already overstretched
Brownfield site use should be more carefully scrutinised first
Litter problems in area
A.K. Ritchie (Ref 396/1)
Object to Green Belt release LDP20a/20b
Site added to plan by Reporter therefore no consultation at time
Other consultation poor
Green Belt area should be protected from any form of development
Loss of agricultural land
No amenities to support development (medical, school capacity)
No jobs in area, increases commuting and pollution
Station Road not suitable for access due to parked cars, visibility, junctions
Traffic increase safety issues
Construction traffic access difficult
Impact on utilities and flooding
Lisa Gemmell (Ref 426/1)
Access issues
Building works access
School capacity Busby Primary School
Sandra McCormick (Ref 498/1)
Reluctance of Council to release Brownfield sites
Effects on wildlife
Security and safety ‐ footpath to rear of properties
Road safety
Allows further development in the future
A.L.S. MILL (Ref 499/2)
Health hazard from pylons at Easterton Avenue, has a risk assessment been undertaken
Iain Fell (Ref 517/2)
Will cause immeasurable risks to pedestrians
Traffic congestion impact
more appropriate locations in region for this type of development
Kevin Corr (Ref 533/1)
Green Belt site does not safeguard environment and protect community
Conservation area should not have further development when Brownfield sites available in Busby
Change of character will not attract residents
If people really want affordable housing they will not be concerned with a brownfield site
Strain on infrastructure
Page 189
Loss of countryside outlook
Wildlife displaced or endangered
Poor services and facilities
Public transport overstretched
detrimental to house prices
School overpopulation
Railway line safety issue
Access to site through children's play park ‐ will destroy sense of community if removed
Traffic increase impact
Mrs Christine Woods (Ref 586/1)
Contrary to SDP non‐brownfield
100% affordable with no balance of market housing, will devalue properties in Station Road
Dangers to children and pets from poorly fenced railway line
Proximity to sub‐station ‐ emissions
Poor access from Station Road, dangerous junctions (photos included)
Drainage
Object to development in adjacent fields
Ishbel C. Woods (Ref 587/1)
Drainage
Mr Reg Woods (Ref 588/1)
Drainage
Roisin M Hegarty (Ref 605/1)
Road safety poor in area, particularly Station Road
Lack of amenities and resources to support affordable/needs housing
Loss of greenspace/character
Lack of consultation in area
Lesley‐Anne Thomson (Ref 609/1)
Green Belt loss when Brownfield available
Page 190
Loss of quality of life
SDP states East Renfrewshire does not need this development
Road safety
Vacant social properties available
Consultation held at unsuitable time of day
R.R.Hanvey (Ref 612/2)
Poor access
Road capacity and safety
Infrastructure not in place
Loss of green character
Mrs Ruth Mavunga (Ref 673/1)
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, Brownfield sites available, no call for major Green Belt Release
No indication developer will provide infrastructure
No information on disruption caused to residents of Easterton Avenue
Mrs Sandra McBride (Ref 752/1)
Close proximity to sub‐station
Poor access
Increase demand on local services
Gordon Smith (Ref 797/1)
Object to urban expansion
Loss of view
Loss of propoerty value
John W Kilmurray (Ref 798/1)
Detrimental to quality of life
Significant effcet on Green Belt, commented by Government Reporter
Not Brownfield first
Loss of farmland/woodland/amenity
Pollution increase
Access issues
Road damage
Lack of local amenities near site
Yvonne Roddie (Ref 808/1)
Brownfiled sites should be prioritised as per SDP
Page 191
School impact
Not a strong defensible Green Belt boundary
Diminished remianing Green Belt between settlments
Ian Steven Smith (Ref 838/1)
No call for Green Belt release through Government policy
Brownfield sites exist with consent
Poor/dangerous access
Farmland should be retained
Irene Cairns (Ref 849/1)
Pedestrian safety
Jeffrey Bailey (Ref 878/1)
Green Belt
Access
Insufficnet lighting
Incinerator
Mrs M Morgan (Ref 879/1)
Traffic/access issues
Mr D Morgan (Ref 880/1)
Busby expanded enough without taking away countryside
Erwin and Audrey Macbeth (Ref 890/1)
Arable farmland
Gap site at Main Street should be used instead
Service impact
Pollution and congestion
Adrian Smith, Muir Smith Evans on behalf of Taylor Wimpey plc (Ref 936/2)
Include as part of larger site
School impact/ provides no school places
Contrary to SDP, not Brownfield, Brownfield sites available and not used, no call for major Green Belt release
Reporter reconsider this site and look at Brownfield first.
Page 192
All Brownfield sites should be used first
Contrary to SDP ‐ brownfield first, Brownfield sites available (listed as sites LDP 53, 54, 80, 82,83, 84 and Busby Main Street), not compact city region, no call for major Green Belt Release
Page 193
Issue 9.1.3. Housing Supply Giffnock
Policy SG1.22 Fenwick Road/ Burnfield Road/Dalmeny Avenue, Giffnock
Objection
Should include commercial development that engages public and employees as well as residential use
Policy SG1.23 Robslee Drive, Giffnock
Objection
A M Robertson (Ref 3/1)
Serious concern at proposed housing site due to drainage. On‐going problem in area which causes sewage to overflow at the junction of Treeburn Avenue.
As the operators of the site have no plans to move and there is no planning application represented, it is assumed development is not imminent.
A published timescale would be useful.
Objection in principle on flood risk grounds.
Remove from plan.
Page 194
Issue 9.1.4. Housing Supply Newton Mearns
Objection
Site SG1.27 (Ayr Road), with existing planning consent, also drains through an unadopted watercourse with no maintenance
regime in place. The developer interfered with the site without planning consent and the increased run‐off has already increased flooding to riparian properties.
Has existing planning consent but will be built on a functional flood plain, contrary to Policy E4 Flood Risk.
Objection
Remove SG1.32 due to flood risk
David McLean (Ref 444/1)
Flood risk
Sheila McLean (Ref 445/1)
Flood risk
Remove site due to flooding
Support continued allocation of site
Object to Policy D5: Protection of Urban Greenspace cover of site as could be developed for 1 to 2 houses
Absence of development does not mean it is openspace ‐ site is privately owned and has no public access
Remove southern portion from D5 and D8.3
SG1.32 should be removed due to flood risk
Policy SG1.33 Capelrig Road, Newton Mearns
Objection
Woodland loss at Capelrig Road already started
Development will lead to greater loss of mature trees
Site planted with more trees and used as green space
Important site for nature conservation
Community greenspace from original 60s/70s development
Page 195
Driven by Council's land receipt
Drainage and flood risk
R W R Barr (Ref 906/2)
N Barr (Ref 907/2)
Site is important for nature conservation
Green space for local community, transfered to Council from builder in 60s/70s to protect for community
Flood risk
M M Barr (Ref 908/2)
Site is important for nature conservation
Green space for local community, transfered to Council from builder in 60s/70s to protect for community
Flood risk
Policy SG1.34 Capelrig Road (Hillcrest ), Newton Mearns
Objection
Why does schedule give remaining total of houses as 5 totalling 16 units when permission for 11 was granted?
New access road issues
Right of way through site
Loss of amenity ‐ extra housing and two meter high wall
Objection
Dawn Bell (Ref 810/1)
School impact
Page 196
Policy SG1.38 Patterton Farm, Newton Mearns
Objection
Page 197
Issue 9.1.5. Housing Supply Uplawmoor
Policy SG1.42 Pollick Avenue, Uplawmoor
Objection
Mr and Mrs D.J Bain (Ref 589/3)
Object to development of the wrong types of houses in Uplawmoor
Require properties for older people, in keeping with the village
Suggest bungalows
Object to loss of outlook and character
Lack of facilities, services and transport to support development
Policy SG1.43 Uplawmoor East, Uplawmoor
Objection
Object to development of the wrong types of houses in Uplawmoor
Require properties for older people, in keeping with the village
Suggest bungalows
Object to loss of outlook and character
Lack of facilities, services and transport to support development
Page 198
Issue 9.1.6. Housing Supply Waterfoot
Policy SG2.6 East Glasgow Road, Waterfoot
Objection
Page 199
Issue 9.2.1 Submitted Housing Supply Barrhead
LDP48 Fereneze Garden Centre
Objection
Alan Fitzpatrick, Montagu Evans LLP on behalf of Mr Ron Murray and Persimmon Homes (Ref 763/1)
Non‐inclusion of site: Fereneze Garden Centre, Lochlibo Road
Housebuilder identified (Persimmon)
Forms defensible Green Belt boundary
Continuation of existing housing
Mix of family housing, 50‐60 units, 2.55ha
Available and effective
Will be developed immediately if allocated
Supporting info supplied
LDP should include a strategy to replace sites that become non‐effective
Shortfall in housing figures (2009‐2017)
Sites in HLS may not be delivered in timescales due to ownership ground conditions etc.
Presumption in releasing sites in Council ownership against neighbouring sites that score the same in Site Evaluation
Sites must be released to make up shortfall and non‐delivery from SDOs/masterplan areas
Modify plan to include site for housing
LDP55B The Hurlet
Objection
Peter W. Fenton, Planning and Design Services on behalf of L Mackay and R Saurin (Ref 195/1)
Site LDP55B should be removed from Green Belt and allocated for early release housing.
Site is available immediately, suitable for 30 dwellings
If Brownfield land is to be used as a priority it makes sense to include this site as it is vacant and derelict land. Shanks
will take a long time to develop with ownership and contamination issues.
Site is enclosed by development and does not encroach into the green belt.
Development could be flatted, with improved junction and connection to the green network/wildlife corridor.
Development could have increased sheltered housing due to proximity to bus stops and other amenities.
Site Evaluation Assessment, site scoring should be amended:
Q1 ‐ as previously developed land (+3)
Q3 ‐ would be improvement to the environment (+3)
Q5 ‐ site does not impact on SSSI and outwith local biodiversity sites (0)
Q8 ‐ owners known a and willing to release land, development would takeplace outwith flood area, existing road can be used with improved access, density of 30 units should not affect road network, do not consider there are significant development constraints. (‐3)
Q9 ‐ could be higher provision than 25% (1)
From ‐8 amend total scoring to +9
SITE PLANS SUBMITTED ON FILE
Release from Green Belt
Page 200
Issue 9.2.2 Submitted Housing Supply Busby
LDP17 Wester Farm
Objection
Eddie Casey (Ref 91/1)
Non‐inclusion of site
Site has been promoted through previous Local Plans as part of a larger site. When site refused by Reporter it was acknowledged that the northern part of the site, subject of this rep, would form a logical extension to Busby's boundary.
No issue of coalescence
Logical extension to Busby/ Urban fringe location
Railway and school within walking distance as well as other services and infrastructure
Site favourable in terms of sequential approach with shortfall of Brownfield
No loss of amenity
Robust boundary could be formed
No known environmental designations
No known contamination
PAN 2/2010 compliant ‐ Site is effective, available, marketable, infrastructure supported
Affordable housing can be provided at 25%
provide landscaping, children's play space, open space.
Inclusion of site.
LDP20A/B Easterton Avenue
Objection
Adrian Smith, Muir Smith Evans on behalf of Taylor Wimpey plc (Ref 936/1)
Non Inclusion of Site ‐ LDP20A/B
Site Evaluation did not consider involvement from developer or potential for short term delivery
Question if housing supply is sufficiently generous or flexible in line with SPP
Shortfall in overall SDP housing target
SDOs may not deliver short to medium term housing
Require genuine range of sites
Affordable housing alone unlikely to be delivered due to funding on SG1.44
Expansion of site for market housing would enable delivery of some affordable housing
Site could enhance Green Belt boundary and Green Networks
SUPPORTING MASTERPLAN AND ASSESSMENTS PROVIDED
Add site as housing to Schedule 10 ‐ capacity 150 units
Remove from D3 and D4 designation
Page 201
Issue 9.2.3 Submitted Housing Supply Clarkston
Beechlands Drive
Objection
Non‐inclusion of site: Promoting land for housing allocation Disagree that it is open space, no public access to site TPO trees can be protected or mitigated if developed
Site could be developed for single or two semi‐detached properties
Opportunity for bespoke architecture, retaining some tree belt/green link
Small site would have little impact on infrastructure or facilities
Supporting info in rep
Remove from D5. Allocate as housing
LDP13 Flenders Farm East and Newford
Objection
Non‐inclusion of site: LDP13 Flenders Farm East and Newford, Clarkston Promoting land for housing allocation Supporting info in rep
Allocate Flenders for housing notional capacity 450 units and remove from D3 and D4
Page 202
Issue 9.2.4 Submitted Housing Supply Eaglesham
LDP34 Alnwick Drive
Objection
Richard Moffat, Lambert Smith Hampton on behalf of Scottish Water (Ref 662/1)
Object to non‐inclusion of site Alnwick Drive, Eaglesham (LDP34)
Site is no longer required by Scottish Water and development would prevent dereliction
Site could provide a mix of house types and tenure and would deliver a range and choice of housing sites
Site adjoins existing urban area
Site could contribute to supply of generous land supply
Site would be compatible with surrounding uses
In sustainable location and has access to public transport
Site makes no contribution to Green Belt ‐ Inclusion illogical given village boundaries, topography, does not contribute to sense of openness, limited views into site
Site does not enhance the character, quality, landscape setting or identity of Eaglesham
Does not give access to open space
Site should be removed from Green Network
Scottish Water is willing to work with Council to explore ways additional land owned by Scottish Water could be used to enhance Green Network
Revision of Green Network boundary would be more logical following Polnoon development
Site included in LDP as housing site with notional capacity of 35 dwellings
Remove from Green belt and Green Network
LDP40B Humbie Road
Objection
Non‐inclusion of site LDP40B
Council does not meet SDP housing target in figures and insufficient land has been allocated to meet requirement of 5700
HNDA states most housing will be required up to 2020, it is imperative housing sites are released in the short term
Council have not followed PAN2/2010 to assess site effectiveness
It is not known when sites will be under construction
Council assumes annual average build rate ‐ concerned this is an assumption and creates doubt about delivery
Have not specifically defined housing shortfall to be met by emerging development strategy in proposed plan ‐
derived from calculations in monitoring statement this is 1652.
Require 'generosity allowance'. South Ayrshire have set a generosity allowance of 20%, East Renfrewshire only 4%/179 more homes.
Strategy needs to focus on releasing sites capable of being effective in short term, additional sites therefore be required
Development strategy offers an unacceptable risk of failing to deliver its proposed 4100 homes (notwithstanding the SDP requirement of 5700)
Monitoring Statement (Table H1.12 and para 1.8.65) confirms the development strategy does not meet 5 year effective land supply in the medium term, the council is required to maintain an effective supply at all times, if not met criteria for identifying additional sites should be used.
Council states LDP approval will make up shortfall ‐ but only if allocated sites for that period are immediately effective making an assumption that house building will increase by 120% on previous years, there is no support for such an increase
Page 203
Only when the annual audit process in the future proves that the development strategy is working can it be demonstrated that no further sites are required
As the requirement is not being met and additional manageable sites are required ‐ site LDP40B Humbie Road, Eaglesham (under MIR as LDP41 submitted by Paterson Partners) is such a site
Site LDP40B:
Meets visions and principles of SDP and LDP in delivering sustainable economic growth
Site has infrastructure, construction can commence immediately and planning obligation package to mitigate impacts
Is effective (additional report supplied)
Site Evaluation Assessment: LDP40B
Q4 change from ‐3 to ‐2
Q8 ‐3 to ‐1
Q9 0 to 1
Q10 0 to 2
Overall score of ‐9 changed to ‐3 release from Green Belt
LDP78 Waukers Farm, Eaglesham
Objection
Gordon MacCallum, Keppie on behalf of George Strang and Sons (Ref 60/1)
Object to non‐inclusion of site LDP78 Waukers Farm, Eaglesham in LDP
Principal of inclusion has been supported at earlier stages of the plan under sections 2a and 2b of MIR. Scoring matrix confirms site is best in Eaglesham for release:
Site is logical, sensible, obvious and sustainable addition to settlement envelope. 1. Site is close to bus terminus, community facilities and local footpaths
2. Nothing has changed with site between MIR and LDP
3. Site SG1.7 at Polnoon is more remote and distant. Site SG1.8 St Roddens Lane at 4 units would not provide affordable housing.
4. Eaglesham does not have the range and choice, size and type of opportunity seen elsewhere in the Plan and relies solely on one house builder. This is against national planning policy.
5. The Vision set in the LDP is not being achieved in Eaglesham and there is no "dynamism or ambition" for the village or "arrange of house types, sizes to meet local needs".
6. Approach of consolidated and controlled urban expansion has not been applied to Eaglesham/ Support overall ambition of the Plan but do not feel this has been applied to Eaglesham.
Contest scoring on Site Evaluation Matrix of ‐5:
Main issue effectiveness scoring of ‐6
Owners in active discussions with house builders. No ownership difficulty.
Physically no issues with site and no infrastructure issues
Education – the development of 24 houses will generate a maximum of 4 pupils for the primary school.
Effective site in terms of PAN 2/2010:
Ownership – owners willing to sell site to volume housebuilder and have been approached by several
Physical – development attractively set in landscape and defined by southern boundary
No contamination
No Deficit Funding required
No infrastructure constraints
Private house sole preferred land use
Consider ‐3 to be a fairer reflection of effectiveness scoring as per PAN 2/2010 and the site scoring to be ‐2 overall.
Page 204
Assessment of Development Proposals (Quoted from response)
1. The site abuts the urban area and is close to facilities, within the 30 MPH zone.
2. A mix of housing will be incorporated including 6 affordable units.
3. It will result in a modest extension to the village and an opportunity for local people to
relocate within the community.
4. It will not impact on the landscape character of, or setting of, the village or conservation area.
5. The site will not adversely impact on infrastructure.
6. In terms of the statement in the report, page 58, and assessing the actual likely impact of between 24‐30 houses on primary education. This would be apparently 3/4 new pupils generated for a non‐denominational primary school and that would be phased over 2 academic years. We assume the Polnoon site has been factored‐in, although just recently started, it may not be completed for some time yet. We firmly assess that education capacity will not be an issue for a site of this size generating 4 new pupils. (This assumes we count 6 affordable houses which other LA’s don’t include in educational calculations).
7. The site will not create an adverse impact in terms of volumes on the existing roads
infrastructure.
8. Impact on the greenbelt will be minimal as the site is a natural extension to the village.
9. – 15. These criteria will not be affected or are development control items which can be assessed at a later stage.
ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT SUPPLIED
Reinstate site LDP78 Waukers Farm, Eaglesham as private housing allocation for 24‐40 units with 6 affordable units
Page 205
Issue 9.2.5 Submitted Housing Supply Newton Mearns
Objection
Site SG1.27 will be built on functional flood plain going against policy
Site SG1.27 with consent, is at risk of flooding contravening policy
SG1.27 will be built on functional flood plain, modeling should be required
Objection
Site SG1.32 should be removed as at risk of flooding contravening policy
Greenlaw adjacent to LDP27
Objection
No justification for land release startegy at Newton Mearns
Next logical step Greenlaw business site as this would compy with SDP and not expand city region footprint
Propose further new site adjacent to LDP27 be released
Greenlaw Business Park
Objection
Promotion of site for mixed‐use housing development
Brownfield site
No interest in site for business use
Site infrastructure in place
Loss of site will not undermine employment land supply
Shortfall in housing supply
Delete the Safeguarded Business and Employment Area (Site Ref: SG6.10) and Business Proposal (Site Ref: SG6.20) allocations currently affecting the Greenlaw Business Park site. Modify Schedules 12 and 13 to reflect this. Allocate the 2 hectare site at Greenlaw Business Park, Newton Mearns as a residential‐led mixed use development opportunity. Modify Schedule 10: Distribution, Capacity and Phasing of Additions to the Housing Land Supply to reflect this. Page 206
LDP03 (Part) Humbie Road/Mearns Road
Objection
Laura English, Keppie on behalf of Taylor Wimpey (Ref 394/1)
Objection to non‐inclusion of site LDP03. Rep submitted for part of site (10 hectares)
Site can be delivered more easily and quickly than other larger sites which may have multiple ownership issues or planning gain issues
Site established variety and choice
Application has previously been prepared and can be submitted quickly following plan adoption
Site was not presented at MIR stage as it was subject to a planning application with a favourable recommendation, subsequently refused
Favourably considered by Planning Department previously
Residential development established through 2012/0103/TP
Site is appropriate in terms of assessment through policy SP2:
Capacity 200 units, 25% affordable housing, mix of house types and sizes
Will present a natural Green Belt boundary
Developer contributions will be provided
Will not impact on character or existing landscape due to existing residential properties adjacent to the site
Impacts can be mitigated
Can be integrated with existing transport network
Proposed residential site is more sustainable than application site (2012/0107/TP)
Scoring in Site Evaluation should be revised to reflect the smaller site (subject of this rep) as follows:
Q3 site would not have significant impact on Green Belt, has no recreation or amenity value, and landscape enhancements proposed will provide robust defensible boundary with no coalescence, due to topography visual impacts minimal
Q6 no national or local designations, SINC located to the south but not within the revised release area, any adverse impacts would be mitigated
Q8 site is effective ‐ in sole ownership of developer, no flood risk, SUDs investigated, 4 arm roundabout can reduce transport impact, no major infrastructure plans in vicinity, mitigation of any school capacity impact at time of application
Rescoring of site from ‐12 to ‐5 and reflect revised site boundaries.
PLANS, EIA etc. ON FILE
Release from Green Belt and include in LDP land allocations LDP04 Humbie Road
Objection
Campbell Black, Bett Homes (Ref 138/1)
Objection to non‐inclusion of site
Logical and sustainable expansion
Adjacent to established residential areas, close to community and recreation facilities
Capable of integration to existing and improved pedestrian and public transport, close to existing bus service Humbie Road
Meets effectiveness criteria PAN2/2010
 Currently agricultural land propose low density development of 60 to 65 houses on 15 acre site, 10 acres to be developed
4 bed and 5 bed houses 1200 sq ft to 2100 sq ft
Affordable housing provided over and above this figure
Anticipated planning gain/community benefits
Reporter in 2003 inquiry concluded site as logical extension
Page 207
Site makes limited contribution to landscape, character and integrity of area would be maintained
Access via new junction to Humbie Grove and Whitehill Grove
Smaller housing development more achievable in current economic climate over masterplanned sites
Site Evaluation Assessment‐ LDP04 Humbie Road, Newton Mearns
Site is effective, site close to public transport
Rescore of effectiveness, accessibility to public transport ‐ rescore totatl to ‐3 Release from Green Belt
Site boundary on file
Omit site from Green Belt and allocate for housing as an effective site
LDP08 and LDP10 Barrance Farm Sites
Objection
Non‐inclusion of Barrance Farm Sites, Waterfoot Road, Newton Mearns (LDP08 and LDP10)
Barrance Farm would form logical extension to Newton Mearns
Would establish a strong defensible Green Belt Boundary
Sites can be masterplanned and landscape mitigation provided
Will reinforce Green Belt boundary (LDP10)
Would bring new woodland planting and habitat enhancement
Existing bus service
Transport assessment in ERC Site Evaluation is more onerous than National Planning Policy
Additional documentation supplied.
Sites should be allocated for residential and released from Green Belt
LDP08 ‐ Site Evaluation should be amended ‐ Accessibility to public transport from ‐3 to 1, total score from ‐8 to ‐4
LDP10 ‐ Site Evaluation should be amended ‐ Accessibility to public transport from ‐3 to 1, total score from ‐5 to ‐1
LDP09 (Part) Humbie Bridge
Objection
W Clifford (Ref 881/2)
Promotion of small site for housing
3 to 5 dwellings
LDP25 Patterton
Objection
Ian Gallacher, GVA on behalf of Patterton SPV (Ref 776/2)
Non‐inclusion of site
Mixed‐use residential site
Accessible location
Can enable land for country park
Development would be phased, phase 1 utilising or redeveloping steading buildings which would resolve site issues, phase 2 including a green corridor
commericail/ retail possible
would introduce art work for entrance to country park
Provide affordable housing self funded
 Have come to agreement with landowners over land required for country park and core path (link between country park and M77 bridge) ‐ if site is allocated for housing
Page 208
If housing is allocated M77 bridge will allow pedestrians use, ungated at end, enable access to Waukmill Reservior and will not be used for livestock
Shortfall in housing supply
Does not meet SDP target
Phasing issues
Over reliance on established housing supply
Not all sites effective or still effective having been in plans for 5 years
Include additional sites to meet shortfall
Include site within M2 SDO
Remove site from D3 Green Belt allocation
Scored less‐favourably in Site Evaluation
LDP28 Ryatt Farm
Objection
Scott Mackay, Mackay Planning on behalf of Borders Eco Estates (Ref 751/1)
Promoting inclusion of site as part of M77 SDO in place of sites Maidenhill M2.1 and Lyoncross M2.2.
Ryat site:
Close to transport links
Would lead to link road J4/Barrhead
Close to facilities
Is previously developed land as opposed to 'virgin Greenfield'
Meets all objectives of LDP
Site Evaluation Assessment LDP28: Q1 previously developed land, new score 1 (current score 0)
Q2 site has strong boundaries e.g. reservoir, 0 (‐3)
Q3 positive impact from link road, ‐ (‐6)
Q4 within bus service range, 3 (‐3)
Q5 proximity to Greenlaw local centre, 3 (‐3)
Q6 no heritage assets, 1 (‐3)
Q8 effective, 1 (‐6)
Q10 2
Q11 no loss of employment as designation removed in LDP, 1 (0)
Overall score change to 13 from ‐23
Site Evaluation biased against site disproportionate to other sites
Remove sites Maidenhill M2.1 and Lyoncross M2.2 and include 'Ryat Eco Village' site
Remove designations under D3, D4, D10
Non inclusion of site as SDO
41.4 Ha site for mixed use development including:
Public open space
Public car park facilities
Orientation/interpretation facilities
Viewing platform
WC facilities
Visitor café
Page 209
Enhanced footpath connections to existing communities/local amenities
Road network improvements
Site for potential new primary school
Hotel/Restaurant/Leisure complex
Housing (350 homes) SUPPORTING PLANS ON FILE
Include site as SDO
Site Evaluation comments:
Ryatt site not in sole ownership, four different proprietors
Has descended three points since MIR
Ryatt site scored unfairly despite being in a particularly sustainable location with transport, services and facilities, has lowest score in Site Evaluation
Better site than Maidenhill and scores do not compare
Site Evaluation scoring for site Ryatt Farm LDP28 is biased based on personal feelings towards respondent
Unexplained alterations to scoring system in Site Evaluation is a result of incompetent planners or wilful manipulation by officers politically motivated or with bias to favoured sites in the Plan
General:
Respondent has not made submission for his piece of land, which could be used for tourism, due to criticisms made against him
Evidence to suggest planners are biased
Planners have unhealthy relationship with developers
Red House site, between A77/M77
Objection
Propose new site at Red House between M77 and A77 for approx 4 houses in light of comments on policy D3 (conpoint 1/3)
Landlocked site from agricultural perspective.
Page 210
Issue 9.2.6 Submitted Housing Supply Uplawmoor
LDP73 Land at Uplawmoor West
Objection
Non‐inclusion of site: LDP73 Land at Uplawmoor West Promoting land for housing allocation Site reappraised in rep.
Supporting info in rep
Removal of open space designation (D5) and allocation as housing site for 25 units for land at Uplawmoor West
LDP74 Libo Avenue
Objection
Bob Smith (Ref 784/1)
Object to non‐inclusion of site
1‐3 units
No adverse impact on TPO
Natural extension to Libo Avenue
Site can be developed without undermining the Green Belt
Will not lead to loss of character/amenity
Improvements to Green Network
Housing in proximity is in Green Belt
Access from Libo Avenue
Sits within defensible boundaries will not set precedent
Has sustainable transport links, close to primary school
3 acres of development, 7 acres gifted as local woodland nature park
Plan supplied
Page 211
Issue 9.2.7 Submitted Housing Supply Waterfoot
LDP15A/B West Glasgow Road
Objection
Promotion of site LDP15A/B
Development at Waterfoot would assist in achieving LDP objectives
Site can meet SP1
Site can deliver developer contributions
Masterplan proposals could provide planned an incremental expansion of Waterfoot
35‐40% affordable housing to meet local housing needs
100 units 2012‐2020, 50 2020‐2025, 50 post 2025
Potential for live‐work units
Have not met SDP housing numbers for overall housing requirement
Site Evaluation Assessment: Amend scoring sites LDP15A and LDP15B to '0'
PLANS ON FILE
Add to schedule 10
LDP88 (Part of) Land at Waterfoot Bridge
Objection
Non‐inclusion of site: Part of LDP88 Land at Waterfoot Bridge
Promoting inclusion of site part of LDP88 Land at Waterfoot Bridge
Waterfoot Bridge could provide additional site in short to medium term
supporting info in response
Alllocate Waterfoot Bridge site for notional capacity 50 units
Page 212
Issue 10. Affordable Housing and Housing Mix
Affordable Housing
Objection
Previously too much emphasis has been placed on the requirement for ‘social housing’ delivery through a registered social landlord, particularly with the difficulty surrounding access to funding. Delivery mechanisms should be flexible to ensure that East Renfrewshire Council and Private Housebuilders can satisfy the demand for affordable housing within the East Renfrewshire without the requirement to obtain funding through an RSL.
Page 56, Para 6.8.2 ‐ requires private developments “to provide an element of affordable housing..”. This phrase could be misinterpreted as a requirement for a developer to physically construct the affordable element of housing. An explanation, either as an appendix, or within the policy should be included to explain the acceptable types of affordable housing which should then be discussed with planning/housing on a site by site basis. Low cost for sale, mid market rent and shared equity are all acceptable forms of affordable housing which are easier to implement than delivery through an RSL. Paragraph 6.8.2 sentence 1 delete “provide”; replace with “make provision for”.
Housing Mix In New Developments
Objection
Paragraph 6.6.3 contains a reference in the final sentence to homes built to adaptable and accessible
standards.
The 2010 Building Regulations now contain all the provisions that used to be contained in Building for
Variable Needs, a set of standards devised for subsidised housing and containing provision for adaptable
and accessible design to suit disabled and other particular needs. All new houses therefore already cater
for a wide range of possible needs. The final sentence of paragraph 6.6.3 is superfluous.
Delete final sentence of paragraph 6.6.3
Policy SG4: Housing Mix in New Developments
Objection
Miss V. I. Rowan (Ref 19/1)
We have a huge increase in the elderly population in Barrhead and need:
Retirement flats with lifts etc. For rent and for sale.
Sheltered accommodation.
Sheltered housing with assisted living.
Support
We support Policy SG4 (Housing Mix in New Developments) subject to the following amendment: “The design should include smaller house types and an element of accessible and adaptable properties to meet the diverse needs of our ageing population, including of the growing under‐represented minority ethnic communities and households with particular needs.” “The design should include smaller house types and an element of accessible and adaptable properties to meet the diverse needs of our ageing population, including of the growing under‐represented minority ethnic communities and households with Page 213
particular needs.” Policy SG5: Affordable Housing
Objection
Respondent works in the social welfare advice sector (not in East Renfrewshire). There is a major housing crisis in Scotland especially in relation to affordable housing and changes to HB etc. Would be more supportive of any proposed housing developments if they had significant and not simply tokenistic affordable housing element for a balanced mix of population in the village. (Neilston)
Policy implies that minimum 25% contribution can be met by three equal options of on‐site, commuted sum or off‐
site ‐Important to emphasise that on‐site provision should take precedence
Off‐site and commuted sum should only be considered under very exceptional mitigating circumstances
failure to do so could lead to ‐ affordable housing shortfall not addressed, selective development of prime local instead of areas of housing requirement, lack of mixed and inclusive communities
Policy SG5 should be reworded to strongly emphasise on‐site affordable housing provision has precedence over all other options.
Joanne Ault (Ref 79/6)
Affordable housing should be located where there is need not where developers make the most profit
shortfall in affordable housing should apply over whole of ER not to artificial sub areas
no perceived need or demand for affordable housing in locality (Newton Mearns)
Iain McNeil (Ref 80/6)
Rose Ann O'Shea (Ref 81/6)
Housing for over 65s is identified (section 2.2.4) but not followed through by reference to social housing in policy. Anecdote and experience suggest that social housing offered by developers is simply a way of obtaining planning permission on
Green Belt or amenity land with few questions asked (e.g. Waterfoot and Eaglesham). How will this, and the increasingly expensive provision of McCarthy and Stone type developments, address the problem? Joseph Fell (Ref 87/4)
Jennifer Quin (Ref 129/16)
Page 214
Mrs Isobel Jane Gallacher (Ref 130/4)
Commutation is abhorrent, developers should not be allowed to exclude affordable from their site and will not delivered the needed affordable housing
No substantiation of affordable housing needed in Eastwood over Levern Valley
Affordable housing need should be calculated over the whole country not for social economic reasons
Mrs Levin (Ref 146/5)
Mr Leonard J Levin (Ref 147/5)
Mr Irving M Hyman (Ref 148/5)
Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref 149/16)
Mrs Marie Miller (Ref 150/5)
Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref 151/16)
Page 215
Mrs Irene Links (Ref 152/5)
Mrs Mary Johnston (Ref 153/5)
Mrs Joni Kaplan (Ref 154/5)
Mrs Alice Kirkwood (Ref 155/5)
Mr Ronald Kirkwood (Ref 156/5)
Mr Ian McDickom (Ref 157/5)
Mrs McDickom (Ref 158/5)
Mrs Mindel Rose (Ref 159/5)
Mr Henry Rose (Ref 160/5)
Page 216
Mr George Cornforth (Ref 161/5)
Mrs Lettie Galpern (Ref 162/5)
Mrs Ida Caplan (Ref 163/5)
Mrs Carol Smith (Ref 164/5)
Mrs Winnie Sweeney (Ref 165/5)
Mr Dan Sweeney (Ref 166/5)
Mr Harold L Gold (Ref 167/5)
Mrs Vera Gold (Ref 168/5)
Mrs Helen Blin (Ref 169/5)
Page 217
Mrs Elise Sochart (Ref 170/5)
Mrs Irene Berkley (Ref 171/5)
Mr Arthur Segal (Ref 172/5)
Mrs Phyllis Segal (Ref 173/5)
Mrs Sheila Fell (Ref 174/5)
Mr John Finlay (Ref 175/5)
Mrs Elspeth Finlay (Ref 176/5)
Mrs Jill Massey (Ref 177/5)
Page 218
Mr Colin Massey (Ref 178/5)
Mr Robin Johnston (Ref 179/5)
Sheonagh Beaton (Ref 209/5)
W T Mackie (Ref 211/14)
Joseph Fraser (Ref 220/5)
Joshua Fraser (Ref 221/5)
Holly Fraser (Ref 222/5)
Lynsey Fraser (Ref 224/5)
Page 219
Fiona McAllister (Ref 227/5)
Ziyad Thomas, The Planning Bureau Ltd on behalf of McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles LTD (Ref 243/1)
As submitted previously, consider the requirement for all developments of 4 or more dwellings to provide 25% affordable housing too rigid.
Commend the Council, however, for commitment to a more flexible approach (para 2.1.4.) which is expressed throughout the SPG, particularly with regard to onsite contributions. The Council need to ensure this approach is adopted pragmatically.
Johnny Loudon (Ref 257/5)
Ivan Woodcock (Ref 258/5)
William Goldberg (Ref 259/5)
Mrs Edith Bruce (Ref 260/5)
Mr Alasdair Bruce (Ref 261/5)
Mrs Joan Goldberg (Ref 262/5)
Page 220
Mrs Doreen Nicol (Ref 263/5)
Mrs Heather A Russell (Ref 328/15)
On site provision of affordable housing should take presidents over off site or commuted sum
Commuted sum should be considered only under very exceptional circumstances
Wording from existing H3 affordable housing policy should be reinstated
Gary Elliot (Ref 515/5)
The LDP should take account of welfare reform which may have an impact on property size
An assessment on the sustainability of tenancies when a site for affordable accommodation is considered by way of access to adequate public transport services and local amenities
Para 6.2.5 states reduction in affordable housing targets due to reduction in public subsidy levels. Council should be taking issue to Government to review level of subsidy
Developer led affordable housing will not deliver requirements for social rent, this can only be done by developing with RSLs
ERC has been identified as having significant pressure for affordable housing reducing / 3000 people waiting for social housing should be made a priority – ERC have reduced target
Pot should be set up for commuted sums and this used to contribute to shortfall in social rent projects
In absence of grants, subsidy from others needs to be addressed through affordable housing policy
Strategy should be put in place for a holistic solution to deliver affordable housing on targeted sites
Project group with RSLs set up
Page 221
practice deliverable. SPP sets a benchmark of 25% affordable housing provision, the exact percentage to be determined through a needs assessment. SPP further notes that a percentage higher than 25 is only justifiable on specific site in exceptional circumstances. PAN 2/2010 sets out an approach to a realistic appraisal of land, financial resources and deliverability in order to determine the percentage. Practice has shown that the cost to the developer of providing homes, either intermediate tenure or low‐cost market homes, is higher per unit than providing land. If a developer opts to provide homes – usually because no social housing provider can guarantee having the funds to build on any land transferred to them ‐ he can provide fewer than 25% of the site capacity for the equivalent cost. In practice, it has emerged that the percentage deliverable by this method varies widely depending on tenure and size of property. The imposition of a “minimum” 25% is entirely impractical. The policy must also have flexibility to account for viability considerations and for the principle of equivalent cost. Policy SG5: Affordable Housing line 3 delete “minimum”. Add a new third sentence: “All forms of contribution will result in the same cost to the developer as the cost of transferring serviced land to a social housing provider at a value reflecting its use as affordable housing.” Blair Melville, Homes for Scotland (Ref 758/4)
Paragraph 6.8.2 requires private developments “to provide an element of affordable housing..”. This is potentially‐misleading. It should be replaced by something which refers more accurately to SPP. Policy SG5 states that the Council “will require provision to be made for…” affordable housing and this wording should be replicated in 6.8.2. “minimum 25% affordable housing contribution”. This is contrary to SPP and is not in practice deliverable. Practice has shown that the cost to the developer of providing homes, either intermediate tenure or low‐cost market homes, is higher per unit than providing land. If a developer opts to provide homes ‐ he can provide fewer than 25% of the site capacity for the equivalent cost. In practice, it has emerged that the percentage deliverable by this method varies from zero, where viability is an issue, up to around 15% depending. The policy must also have flexibility to account for viability considerations and for the principle of equivalent cost. Paragraph 6.8.2 sentence 1 delete “provide”; replace with “make provision for”. Policy SG5: Affordable Housing line 3 delete “minimum”. Add a new third sentence: “All forms of contribution will result in the same cost to the developer as the cost of transferring serviced Jack Silverstone (Ref 793/5)
Mrs Norah Butters (Ref 817/5)
Mrs Helena Dykes (Ref 818/5)
Mr Iain Hutton (Ref 819/5)
Page 222
Mrs Maureen Hutton (Ref 820/5)
Mrs Leila Sragowitz (Ref 821/5)
Mrs Sadie Hirsfelds (Ref 893/5)
Support
Support policy
Objection
Standard Letter Comment SPGC (6 reps) (Ref 1022/1)
Object to 'pepper potting' of affordable housing in high value owner occupied areas as it affects the value of properties and prevents and effective management by RSL or council, leading to anti‐social problems
Where affordable housing is 'pepper potted' in such areas it should be for shared ownership, shared equity or mid market rent only
Policy states affordable housing should be integrated, but this will be impossible in high value estates
No public transport serves Maidenhill impacting on the residents of affordable housing proposed
No accurate definition of affordable housing
Affordable housing counter productive as forces up cost of other homes on the site
Does not deliver housing for key workers but delivers social housing
ER currently has council housing advertised as available
Self‐build housing should be encouraged as a method of affordable housing. Would allow people to help themselves, provide employment and work for local tradesmen and businesses and add value to the local economy. Houses would be truly more affordable due to no overheads, developer fees etc, Self‐build would offer a broader range of designs and retail craft and architect skills, Sites would be next to public transport, Solution for infill and small sites, Would not increase urban footprint, Self‐builder would have to live in house for a minimum period before reselling (other details in rep)
Self‐build affordable housing encouraged.
SPG Affordable Housing
Page 223
Objection
Request housing capacity/density of units per hectare is factored into the calculation of the 25% minimum affordable housing requirement.
Sections 2.1.2, 2.6.2, 2.6.10 ‐ Examples of where reference is made to 25% minimum contribution in terms of units
If purpose of affordable housing is to accommodate actual people the measure should be:
25% of the total people able to be housed in a development will be affordable dwellings
Developer contributions would then more realistically 25% of the site land area
Units is an arbitrary measure
Density of units should be a key factor when calculating minimum site requirement as with commuted sum
Ziyad Thomas, The Planning Bureau Ltd on behalf of McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles LTD (Ref 243/2)
The SPG plays down the role of viability in determining the role of affordable house contributions (para 2.9.2.). Economic downturn means that developments are often marginal at best. Viability is therefore not an issue limited to sites with "exceptional development costs" but rather is a key consideration for the overwhelming majority of new housing developments. The Council's stance toward development viability is ill‐judged as this is a factor in all new housing developments. Limiting the consideration of viability to 'extraordinary costs' is an over simplistic view and contradicts the 'realistic and flexible' approach within the SPG.
Wording of the SPG downplays the importance of viability and contradicts advice given by the Chief Planner (March 2011) and guidance in the rest of the document.
Housing capacity/density of units factored into 25% minimum affordable housing requirement
If requirement is for people should be based on the number of people that can be housed not the number of houses, units is arbitrary and does not achieve this
Alternatives to developer led affordable housing should also be considered such as council facilitated self‐build where serviced plots are available to a range of individuals or community groups. Providing diversity, vested interest in the local community and adding value to the local economy in a way house builders cannot. Adrian Smith, Muir Smith Evans on behalf of Mactaggart and Mickel Homes Limited (Ref 703/6)
Welcomes the genuine attempt of Council to introduce a degree of realism and flexibility into previous guidance
Concerned SPG does not adequately reflect economic realities of development viability
Guidance from Chief Planner 15 March 2011 not clear in policy/SPG
Encourages social rented accommodation above all other forms
25% minimum conflicts with Chief Planner letter
SPG over prescriptive about levels of provision types and client groups
SPD needs to acknowledge officers will 'seek to' agree
Developers have the right to offer a unilateral obligation in relation to affordable housing and to have a planning application determined on this basis
More flexibility needed in securing mechanisms for provision and detail at early stages
'Roof tax' method should be added
Not reasonable for the council to seek to dictate the provision of specific forms of affordable housing to address what they consider to be priority client groups and to use legal agreements to achieve this
Instances of 'minimum' replaced with 'up to', in refrence to 25% level
Pepper potting of affordable housing in high value sites affects the value of housing for sale and limits provision of effective tenant management
Provision should be limited to shared equity, shared ownership or mid‐rent
Will be impossible to integrate affordable housing with high value properties in Eastwood
Page 224
No public transport to Maidenhill impacting on residents of affordable housings access to services etc.
Self‐build affordable housing should be encouraged as a method of delivery, with benefits to the wider community
Affordable housing can make other housing less affordable in small developments
Page 225
Issue 11. Economic Development
Economic Development
General
It is noted that the East Renfrewshire economy is closely linked to that of the City, and that out‐commuting is likely to be an issue for the period covered by the Plan. It is also considered that the proposed developments outlined in the Plan at this stage are unlikely to alter this long established functional relationship to any great extent.
Policy SG6.1 Field Road, Busby
Objection
Policy SG6.10 Greenlaw Business Park, Newton Mearns Objection
Reallocate as housing site
Objection
Policy SG6.20 Greenlaw Business Park, Newton Mearns Objection
Objection
Page 226
Support
Support extension to business park.
Policy SG6.6 Muriel Street, Barrhead
Objection
Policy SG6: Economic Development
Objection
Leisure and tourism development at country park will ruin it.
There is no schedule of business/employment land requirements for the Proposed Plan period set out in the text nor is there any comparison between requirements and existing supply of such land. The Proposed Plan should have set out a broad scale of requirement and provision, with the associated reasoned justification, so that reasonable comparisons can be made.
Schedule 12 does not provide acreage
Schedule 13 no areas or timescales give
Policy purely general, not linked site by site or on a phased basis, no targets given – therefore no quantative basis for economic development objectives or method for assessing if met in future(including M2.1)
Employment land and mixed‐use may end up as housing (Greenlaw) they should not be included as they are not sustainable development
 SPP confirms Strategic sites for business use are to be identified in SDPs, the SDP does not identify any need for new strategic business sites in ER, planning authorities a 5 year supply of marketable sites – Proposed Plan does not do this as no acreage, supply figures or targets. Proposed plan should focus on previously developed sites and unused premises to provide economic development opportunities.
Currently 54.24 hectares of Brownfield vacant land in Council area, this is weighted heavily towards business and industry (60%)
Close proximity to Glasgow limits need for this substantial area , as such, proposed land for business and industry should be reduced by 50%
This will release a further 16Ha for housing on brownfield land/ around 320 units
Remove Linn Products facility from Green Belt and allocate as Safeguarded Business and Employment area Schedule 12
Support
Safeguards business and employment areas, promotes new development but also allows for non‐employment generating uses where sites are no longer required for their original purpose.
Local employment is important to communities.
Page 227
Support policy
Page 228
Issue 12. Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Policy SG7.1 Barrhead
Objection
Policy SG7.10 Sheddens, Eaglesham Road, Clarkston
Objection
Policy SG7.16 Fenwick Road, Merrylee, Giffnock
Objection
Policy SG7.26 Mearns Road, Newton Mearns
Objection
Policy SG7.4 Newton Mearns
Objection
Policy SG7: Town and Neighbourhood Centre Uses
Objection
Are town centre focuses in priority order? Retail cannot stand alone in town centres
Support
Supportive of policy and framework that establishes the assessment of retail, leisure, community and other complementary uses.
Support policy
Policy SG8.10 Clarkston Town Centre
Objection
Page 229
Policy SG8.12 Newton Mearns Town Centre
Objection
Requires date and targets to take BID seriously
Policy SG8.3 Main Street, Barrhead
General
Objection
Amend New shopping development allocation to a mixed‐use allocation incorporating retail, commercial and residential use.
Amend New shopping development allocation to a mixed‐use allocation incorporating retail, commercial and residential use.
Policy SG8: New Development and Business Improvement Districts
Objection
Schedule 15 provides very broad descriptions for development opportunities.
fails to elaborate on nature of acceptable retail development at each location. Without detail the policy gives unqualified support retail development which is unacceptable.
Provide further detail on the specific opportunities, particularly scale of development.
Policy should be expanded to clarify what proposals will be subject to assessment under SG7.
Support
Support policy
Policy SG9: Protecting the Retail Function of the Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Objection
Council has already undermined retail by development at Greenlaw, Malletsheugh/Maidenhill would worsen situation.
Contradicts prioritising retail
Other uses cannot be ignored
Page 230
Support
Support policy
Page 231
Issue 13. Sustainable Transport Network
Policy SG10.13 M77 / GSO, Newton Mearns
Objection
Policy SG10.4 Springfield, Barrhead
Objection
Policy SG10.5 Glen Street, Barrhead
Objection
, Mackinlay and Suttie on behalf of Mr Bernard Kelly and Ms Irene McCartney (Ref 92/1)
Impact on day to day lives
Currently quiet and secluded area, distressed that area will become noisy during construction with inconvenience caused by workmen and work vehicles
Will cause difficulty entering and exiting street
Objector works constant night shirt rota and is likely to be disturbed ‐ sound barrier should be erected
Plan detrimental to house value and clients wish compensation
Sound barrier to minimise disturbance
Compensation for loss of house value
Gordon Meeten, North Park Residents on behalf of 24 Signatories of SG10.5 Petition (Ref 105/1)
Object to development:
Impact on day to day lives in quiet secluded area
Concerned about noisy construction vehicles and workmen
Inconvenience to residents entering and exiting North Park Avenue
Greater flow of traffic in area
Impact on residents working shift patterns/night shift
If goes ahead sound barrier to minimise disturbance
Residents compensated for disruption to daily living and loss of property value
Policy SG10: Sustainable Transport Network
Objection
No explanation given as to how sustainable use of public transport has to be achieved.
Does not promote suburban rail network
Page 232
Seeks to safeguard M77 and GSO as transport corridors ‐ wish to reserve position fully to investigate access from site to GSO mindful that development of M77 is strategic priority.
Bullet 2 of para 6.17.3, could prejudice development of Maidenhill site to consider several access alternatives
Para 175 of SPP renders the above point unnecessary Remove or amend bullet 2 para 6.17.3
Public transport throughout council area is poor Lynda Murray (Ref 511/9)
Policy does not promote and develop the suburban rail network as the preferred sustainable mass transit passenger system
Housing sites should be encouraged along suburban rail network
Policy does not sufficiently promote and develop suburban rail network as required under SDP
Carriageway should be increased on M77 southbound between J3 and 4
Development should be encouraged along rail network rather than M77
Object to Council support of SG10.3 and SG10.11/12
Policy does not sufficiently promote and develop the suburban rail network as the preferred sustainable passenger mass transit system, in line with the transport objectives of the SDP. SG10.3 Balgray link not sustainable
Support paragraph 6.17.3, point 2, page 64, that the Glasgow Southern Orbital and the M77 be reserved as transport corridors and that they be safeguarded from development that could prejudice its ability to function
Support SG10.11
To reduce congestion on M77 J3/J4 number of lanes should be increased using hard shoulder
Does not sufficiently promote and develop suburban rail network
GSO and M77 should be safegurded from development
M77 southbound carriageway should be made 3 lanes southbound
Congestion at peak times currently in Newton Mearns
Reducing car use is unlikely due to limited public transport and residents mostly commuting out of area for work
Housing development should not proceed without assessment of short term and long term effects of development on traffic
Support
We support Policy SG10: Sustainable Transport Network particularly that “Opportunities for improving
Page 233
the walking and cycling network, public transport and the health benefits of proposals will be key
components of the master plans. “
Support reserving M77 as transport corridor and safeguarded from development
Support policy
Support clear emphasis on promoting sustainability
Reference to how travel plans are a key tool in changing behaviour towards more sustainable travel choices and provision of infrastructure and services
6.17.4 final bullet reword to include "maintain or increase patronage"
36 Station Road
Objection
W Clifford (Ref 881/1)
Promotion of warehouse site as parking for 50‐100 cars
Page 234
Issue 14. Renewable Energy
Policy E1.1 Broad Areas of Search
Objection
Stephen Hall, Scottish Government (Ref 496/1)
Broad Areas of search not compliant with SPP paras 189 to 191
SPP makes no provision for landscape capacity sensitivity groupings or buffer zones around individual dwellings to be used to
exclude land from areas of
search. Whilst such matters may well be considerations at the development management stage, they should not be used to limit areas of search. Notably when considering these matters at the planning application stage there may be scope to mitigate through detailed sitting and design. Similarly, noise,
visual and other impacts on dwellings may be capable of mitigation through detailed sitting, design and controls over conditions of use.
We have commented separately on the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance, and requested that the Council rework the areas of search along the lines set out in SPP. But a consequence of this for the Proposed Plan itself should be a redrawing of the areas of search as shown on the Proposals Map.
Policy E1: Renewable Energy
Objection
Energy form waste not renewable energy. Energy used to create waste not recovered and the waste itself is not renewable or sustainable.
It is notable that the Council’s preferred definition of ‘renewable energy’ in the Appendix II Glossary would allow nuclear energy to be classified as such. Ross Johnston, Scottish National Heritage (Ref 88/1)
Amend Para 7.2.2 to clarify policy wording to prevent confusion about what is shown on the Proposals Map the current wording suggests both the Broad Areas of Search and the areas of potential constraint are shown on the proposals map whereas only the Broad Areas of Search is shown. Potential constraints are not mapped and only discussed within the Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Para 7.2.2 "Broad areas of search are shown on the Proposals Map. Further information on the Broad Areas of Search as well as details of areas of potential constraint and the range of criteria against which all the applications will be considered against are contained within the Renewable Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance”. James Baird, Coriolis Energy Ltd (Ref 99/4)
The LDP does not provide a spatial framework for onshore windfarms over 20MW as directed by SPP
Inclusion of spatial framework
Agree with SNH on wording of policy
Para 7.2.2 states "Broad Areas For Search" Proposals Map lists "Broad Areas Of Search" suggest 'of' is used
Para 7.2.2 "renewable energy" too generic replace with "wind energy"
Development of more wind farms will result in loss of amenity and scarring of the environment and contribute little to economy.
Michael Rieley, Scottish Renewables (Ref 404/1)
Page 235
Not in favour of further wind turbine development. Unproven source of renewable energy and have a negative effect on tourism. Tidal is more effective.
Support proposals to contain turbines in certain areas.
Object to visual impact of Neilston wind farm
Environmental impact of wind farms not considered seriously enough
Object that meeting European targets more important than environs of Scotland
Kate Makrides (Ref 706/3)
Object to incineration
We appreciate that the purpose of this policy is to direct renewable energy developments to an area of search where it may be possible to develop such proposals with a lesser degree of environmental impact than projects in more sensitive areas. Nonetheless, where ever commercial scale wind turbines are installed it will give rise to significant landscape change locally. As a result, it is SNH’s advice that this should be recognised by the assessment and the landscape impacts deemed negative in the table, albeit that the policy greatly reduces the extent of negative impacts to East Renfrewshire’s wider landscape character and supports other environmental objectives.
Support
For the benefit of future generations accept the need for RE but not in favour of haphazard turbines in landscape. Encouraged by plans shown in Key Diagram of sitting turbines in specific areas.
Welcome reference to renewable energy developments in appropriate locations. We suggest that
reference is also made to renewable energy developments of an appropriate scale as the Scottish
Governments Electricity Generation Policy Statement supports biomass ‘at a scale appropriate to make
best use of both the available heat, and of local supply’.
Support policy
Objection
Standard Letter Comment SPGD (6 reps) (Ref 1023/1)
East Renfrewshire Council has not adopted Scottish National Heritage guidelines on landscape impacts as part of Policy E1: Renewable Energy
Support the reduction in search area for wind farms over 20MW
Object that there is no agreed comparable search area and Policy for small scale/micro developments. These applications can currently be made anywhere on the protected greenbelt or countryside around towns (CAT).
Object that there is inadequate neighbour notification system in place for new wind turbine developments. Propose that the ten nearest properties and all neighbours within ten times the tip height (not hub height) are notified of any new development.
Page 236
Object that the set back distance of wind farms for individual properties is understood to be only 500m, whilst the set back distance for settlements is 2km. Propose standard set‐back distance of 2km for all properties, so that all residents have equal protection of their amenity.
All new wind turbines must be finished in a non reflective finish to reduce flicker and reflection and a similar approach applied to existing turbines as and when they require external surfaces to be renewed.
General
page 16, para 3.4.26 – We recommend that additional wording should guide developers away from
areas of deep peat (over 0.5m) and suggest the following sentence is added to the paragraph ‘Development should seek to avoid areas of classed as deep peat – this is where it is over 0.5m deep.’
Objection
Welcome landscape capacity work to review wind energy development over 20w, however:
When suitable landscape areas are combined with other constraints they areas left are odd shaped and in most cases so small you would not get many turbines on them, certainly not enough to generate 20w. Fragmented and small scale nature, areas of search would not facilitate appropriate and coherent design and layout of any proposed wind farm.
Wind farm development in the Moorhouse area would result in adverse cumulative impacts as in combination with Whitelee and Middleton a continuous horizon of turbines would be created when viewed from southern edge and parts of Glasgow city.
We recommend that to provide more certainty to developers and communities the current search areas should be reality checked and only areas that realistically provide enough appropriate land for 20MW turbine developments should be included and mapped. We envisage that this review would remove many of the smaller search areas as currently shown on the proposals maps, but would probably retain the Broad Areas of Search identified on the proposals maps which form part of the Loch Hill forest and Whitelee Wind Farm Local Landscape Character in Figure 5 of the East Renfrewshire Wind Energy Study.
James Baird, Coriolis Energy Ltd (Ref 99/1)
Object to mapped 'Broad Areas of Search' due to unjustified constraints.
ER must provide a positive policy framework for renewable energy as set out in SPP
In Figure 3 of the SPG areas identified as having higher capacity for wind farms would be better as broad areas of search in greater accordance with SPP. Site 3b demonstrates this by identifying few sensitivities on page 11.
Use of LBS/SINCS in Broad Areas of Search is inappropriate. The Proposals Map shows Whitelee turbines are contained within LBS. EIA at time of Whitelee obviously did not identify these as a constraint. EIA on Moorhouse Farmers Wind Farm shows LBS are not a constraint.
 500m buffer round dwellings considered overly restrictive and does not allow developments to be considered on individual merit taking into account noise, direction etc. In terms of Broad Areas of Search. No reference to this is made elsewhere in the SPG
Broad Areas of search for wind farms over 20 Megawatts are too small to be considered for this type of development. Appropriate Broad Areas of Search be those identified under figure 3 and EIAs used to determine individual constraints
Labelling of area 1C as 'Moorhouse' confuses area with Moorhouse Wind Farm proposal on a different site
Moorhouse area (1A, B, C) could contain windfarm as due to topography and context of urban infrastructure
Disagree with SNH to restrict area of search near Whitelee Wind Farm
Landscape capacity higher in 3A/B
Figure 3 not Figure 4 should form Broad Area of Search
Page 237
Request LBS are not considered a constraint and a landscape led approach be used
Appropriate Broad Areas of Search be those identified under Figure 3
Mrs Norma Barr (Ref 199/1)
Do not believe Local Biodiversity Sites are a useful constraint to add to figure 4 and consider 'Landscape Character Area' in figure 3 to form a sound basis for the Broad Areas of Search.
Whitelee demonstrates that Local Biodiversity Sites and windfarms can happily exist together.
Eaglesham Moor area is more appropriate for wind farms backed by landscape capacity study.
Thomas Barr (Ref 200/1)
Do not believe Local Biodiversity Sites are a useful constraint to add to figure 4 and consider 'Landscape Character Area' in figure 3 to form a sound basis for the Broad Areas of Search.
Whitelee demonstrates that Local Biodiversity Sites and windfarms can happily exist together.
Eaglesham Moor area is more appropriate for wind farms backed by landscape capacity study.
Aileen Jackson (Ref 298/1)
There is a need to protect and conserve environment, landscape, protected species, local communities, single dwellings and other sectors of the economy from potential adverse effects of renewable energy developments.
It is good that Broad Areas of Search have been reduced
Neilston and Middleton appear as one windfarm and will possibly be enlarged bringing blight, negative tourism and adverse health effects to residents
Turbines contrary to Rio Declaration and Precautionary Principle ‐ uncertainty about safety and well being
Settlements have greater buffers than individual dwellings. Should be extended to at least East Ayrshire's 700m
Development Plan policies not indented for consideration of individual turbine applications but still provide valid policy framework, Industrialisation of landscape remains a risk ‐ further restrictions required on small scale and micro developments from cumulative impact, ERC should follow Stirling and East Lothian
Council's approach and update guidance to reject most single and small group turbines
Considerable provision of turbines in East Renfrewshire and East Ayrshire ‐clear need for cross boundary approach and wide ranging landscape capacity assessment
Land owners avoid time consuming EIA by submitting a series of individual proposals rather than one application resulting in wind farms by stealth ‐ applicants should be restricted to a certain number of turbine applications
ERC disregard SNH guidance for small and micro developments and in the case on Neilston commercial developments such as Neilston Community Windfarm which was approved against wishes of SNH and without EIA
SNH view that local landscape character on the northern side of watershed between Ayrshire an d Glasgow is unsuited to commercial turbine development and nearing capacity in terms of cumulative impact ‐ SNH must be listened to and acted on
If people are deterred from visiting countryside their well being will suffer
ERC have ignored British Horse society guidance on separation between turbines, public roads and bridleways (East Ayrshire respect this guidance)
Community benefits should not be a material consideration for applications
Has increase in wind capacity had a proven effect on reduction in fossil fuel use and power imports
Council are obliged to set precise detailed evidence of environmental (not assumed) benefits when assessing any application.
Fiona Chambers (Ref 316/1)
Support inclusion of Carrot Moor Farm, Fenwick Moor and Bennan farm, Eaglesham Moor within higher landscape capacity for wind farm area
Page 238
Renewable energy here would help support the farms
Object to reduction of Broad Areas of Search as shown in figure 4
Turbines are compatible with Local Biodiversity Sites and should not be used as a constraint when identifying Broad Areas of Search
Clean energy should be encouraged
Robin Chambers (Ref 317/1)
Support inclusion of Carrot Moor Farm, Fenwick Moor and Bennan Farm, Eaglesham Moor within higher landscape capacity for wind farms area
Renewable energy here would help support the farms
Eaglesham Moor is more appropriate for wind farming than Hare law as backed by the Landscape Study
Object to reduction of Broad Areas of Search as shown in figure 4
Object to 500m buffer around dwellings ‐ each turbine should be considered on its own merits
having worked on Whitelee in the Habitat Management Group it is clear turbines are compatible with Local Biodiversity Sites and should not be used as a constraint when identifying Broad Areas of Search
Michael Rieley, Scottish Renewables (Ref 404/2)
Wind farms:
Broad Areas of Search should not have grid capacity as a constraint
Isolated residential properties as a constraint goes beyond SPP requirements and should not be considered a constraint
Unclear where 500m buffer around dwellings is derived from and goes beyond SPP and national guidance
2km distance between edge of cities/towns/villages is recommended
1km distance between consented wind farms goes beyond requirements of SPP
Concerned by stated requirement for developers to put measures in place to mitigate any adverse impacts of wind farms
distinction should be drawn between developer contributions and community benefit payments, Circular 1/2010 makes it clear community benefit will not pass and cannot be sought as part of section 75
particularly concerned permission granted in basis of community benefit
Non wind farm:
lack of detail on other types of renewable energy
SPP states sites should be identified for biomass, issues which can be taken into account on hydro‐electric schemes, energy from waste sites and factors taken into account in assessing planning applications
Suggest Council adhere to online planning guidance which sets out technical information and guidance on a range of technologies.
Stephen Hall, Scottish Government (Ref 496/2)
Paragraph 3.4.34 indicates that the broad areas of search have been informed by, inter alia, landscape capacity and a 500m buffer around dwellings. The landscape capacity study has been used to generate areas of higher and lower capacity with the latter, which includes undesignated sites, introduced as a potential constraint under stage 2. This approach is not compliant with the approach currently set out in paragraphs 189 to 191 of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). SPP makes no provision for landscape capacity sensitivity groupings or buffer zones around individual dwellings to be used to exclude land from areas of search. Whilst such matters may well be considerations at the development management stage, they should not be used to limit areas of search. Notably when considering these matters at the planning application stage there may be scope to mitigate through detailed sitting and design. Similarly, noise, visual and other impacts on dwellings may be capable of mitigation through detailed sitting, design and controls over conditions of use.
We request that the Council rework the areas of search along the lines set out in SPP. We have made a separate representation on the Proposed LDP itself on the basis that the broad areas of search indicated on the Proposed Plan may require changing as a consequence of a reworked SPP‐ compliant approach.
Page 239
We would be happy to discuss the implications of this representation with you. As a minor amendment we would also suggest that Section 3.4.22: Historic Environment is
amended to read “It is Council policy to prevent unacceptable impact on these sites or their
settings and applicants will require to demonstrate that this is the case”. This would bring it
into line with the published policy in both the Proposed Plan and Built Heritage SPG.
Ron Fairholm (Ref 572/6)
East Renfrewshire Council has not adopted Scottish National Heritage guidelines on landscape impacts as part of Policy E1: Renewable Energy Support the reduction in search area for wind farms over 20MW Object that there is no agreed comparable search area and Policy for small scale/micro developments. These applications can currently be made anywhere on the protected greenbelt or countryside around towns (CAT). Object that there is inadequate neighbour notification system in place for new wind turbine developments. Propose that the ten nearest properties and all neighbours within ten times the tip height (not hub height) are notified of any new development. Object that the set back distance of wind farms for individual properties is understood to be only 500m, whilst the set back distance for settlements is 2km. Propose standard set‐back distance of 2km for all properties, so that all residents have equal protection of their amenity. All new wind turbines must be finished in a non reflective finish to reduce flicker and reflection and a similar approach applied to existing turbines as and when they require external surfaces to be renewed. D Jesner (Ref 783/10)
Propose 2km set back for all properties from wind farms not just settlements
All new turbines to have non reflective finish and also applied to existing turbines
Mrs M Barr (Ref 858/1)
Moorhouse Farmers Wind Farm was rejected by Council
Eastmoor House Farm (part of above?) is classified as 'severely disadvantaged'
On maps this farm is now circled by possible wind farm proposals, this seems unfair
G Barr (Ref 870/1)
Agree South Moorhouse farm has higher capacity landscape for wind farms
Farm requires diversification to survive and maintain high welfare standards
Disappointed application was rejected, impact would have been lessened by proximity to Whitelee and would have less visual impact than others proposed
Local biodiversity sites not a useful constraint (figure 4)
Figure 3 forms a soundbasis for broad areas of search
Joyce Mitchell (Ref 886/1)
South Moor House Farm, with rising costs, makes little profit. Wind farming would compliment farm and would be logical extension.
Figure 3 map forms sound basis for areas of search and this is supported.
Disapointed planning application rejected
Eaglesham Moor more appropriate for wind farm than Harelaw Moor
Biodiversity sites not useful constraint (figure 4)
Mrs J Shearer (Ref 887/1)
Figure 3 should be area of search for windfarms
Would be greater area, provide jobs and capacity, would help landowners at tim eof recession
Visual impact minimal when 200 already in place
Page 240
Michael Mitchell (Ref 888/1)
Farm would benefit from wind farm
Better landscape capacity than Harelaw
Land could still be used for livestock and recreation
Question integrity of figure 4
Figure 3 a sound basis for area of search
Donald Chambers (Ref 891/1)
Farm would benefit from wind farm
Better landscape capacity than Harelaw
Land could still be used for livestock and recreation
Question integrity of figure 4
Figure 3 a sound basis for area of search
, Scottish Government on behalf of Historic Scotland (Ref 961/1)
Paragraph 3.4.34 indicates that the broad areas of search have been informed by, inter alia, landscape capacity and a 500m buffer around dwellings. Further examination of this establishes that the landscape capacity study has been used to generate areas of higher and lower capacity with the latter, which includes undesignated sites, introduced as a potential constraint under stage 2. This approach is not compliant with the approach currently set out in paragraphs 189 to 191 of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). SPP makes no provision for landscape capacity sensitivity groupings or buffer zones around individual dwellings to be used to exclude land from areas of search. Whilst such matters may well be considerations at the development management stage, they should not be used to limit areas of search. Notably when considering these matters at the planning application stage there may be scope to mitigate through detailed siting and design. Similarly, noise, visual and other impacts on dwellings may be capable of mitigation through detailed siting, design and controls over conditions of use.
We request that the Council rework the areas of search along the lines set out in SPP.
As a minor amendment we would also suggest that Section 3.4.22: Historic Environment is amended to read “It is Council policy to prevent unacceptable impact on these sites or their settings and applicants will require to demonstrate that this is the case”. This would bring it into line with the published policy in both the Proposed Plan and Built Heritage SPG.
Support
Generally supportive
Should acknowledge difficulties with peat
Peatland management should be included within site waste and environment management plans
SUDs at large windfarms
Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems are also specifically protected under the Water Framework Directive. We would request that additional advice is included in the section which recognises the importance of this wetland habitat.
3.4.26 request further emphasis is included surrounding the difficulty in working with/in peat,
request that additional wording is included to state that:
“There are important waste management implications regarding measures to deal with surplus
peat as set out within our SEPA’s Regulatory Position Statement ‐ Developments on Peat.
Landscaping with surplus peat (or soil) may not be of ecological benefit and consequently a
waste management exemption may not apply. In addition, the disposal of significant depth of
peat is considered landfilled waste and this again may not be consentable under SEPA’s
regulatory regimes. It is therefore essential that the scope for minimising the extraction of
peat is explored and alternative options identified that minimise risk in terms of carbon
release, human health and environmental impact”.
Page 241
Q W Mitchell (Ref 869/1)
Agree South Moorhouse farm has higher capacity landscape for wind farms
Farm requires diversification to survive and maintain high welfare standards
Disappointed application was rejected, impact would have been lessened by proximity to Whitelee and would have less visual impact than others proposed
David Mitchell (Ref 885/1)
Southmoor House Farm, with rising costs, makes little profit. Wind farming would compliment farm and would be logical extension.
Figure 3 map forms sound basis for areas of search and this is supported.
Page 242
Issue 15. Energy Efficiency
Policy E2: Energy Efficiency
Objection
Setting artificial requirements for the use of micro‐renewable technologies is discredited and unnecessary. It is suggested that the development plan is not the right place for policies which relate to Buildings Standards matters. Energy efficiency and carbon reduction can be dealt with entirely through Building Standards. The development plan should rightly concern itself with matters relating to site planning. This policy should be deleted in its entirety. Blair Melville, Homes for Scotland (Ref 758/6)
This policy is clearly outdated, being based on historic Building Standards and on the provisions of SPP6
and PAN 68, both now repealed. SPP no longer refers to a requirement to use low and zero-carbon
generating technology; it is suggested as one option but is not required. In reality, developers are
already achieving very low carbon emissions and high energy-efficiency in new buildings, and where
they are building to the 2010 Building Regulations then there is no requirement to go further in terms of
efficiency.
This Policy is therefore superfluous and should be deleted in its entirety.
Support
Support policy
Support
Standard Letter Comment SPGB (6 reps) (Ref 1021/1)
Support best practice U values.
Objection
Content of SPG covered by Scottish Building Standards Act
Will officers be trained to assess matters of energy efficient design competently
Page 243
Issue 16.1. Water Environment and Flooding
Policy E3: Water Environment
Objection
Standard Letter Comment E3A (17 reps) (Ref 989/1)
In some areas current residents experience episodes of failure of water supply.
The various assessments in the proposed LDP talk of mitigation without expanding how this will be achieved.
New developments have to introduce pumps to guarantee supply to the new development but to the detriment of current residents.
No development should proceed until Scottish Water can guarantee water supply to current residents.
No development should proceed until Scottish Water can guarantee water supply to current residents.
Support
Support policy
Support policy
Policy E4: Flooding
Objection
Support inclusion of a policy but E4 is too brief and overlooks several aspects of sustainable flood risk management
Link to SPG may address points below.
We welcome the inclusion of a ‘presumption against development’ within the functional flood plain, and the clear reference that is made to the Risk Framework. It would be useful to emphasise that this policy should be looked at in conjunction with the flooding requirements of SPP as a whole (paragraphs 196 to 208) and that the functional flood plain equates to the ‘medium to high risk’ category
We require an explicit reference to be made to avoidance being the first principle of flood risk management – as per the requirements of SEPA’s Interim Position on Flooding and Planning.
As per LUPS‐GU11 we also require the development plan to identify and protect existing land uses that contribute/ have potential to contribute towards sustainable flood management.
Policy makes reference to water attenuation areas; however it is not thought that these areas have been formally identified.
Encourage East Renfrewshire Council to expand on what a Flood Risk Assessment is, and when such an assessment would be required ‐ reference climate change (with reference to its impacts on flood risk) and what East Renfrewshire’s policy is on freeboard.
In section 4 the wording of this section should be altered to be consistent with the wording of SPP
Within SPP there is not a blanket exception for infrastructure development within the medium to high risk zone, and we will object to any infrastructure development that falls outwith the categories of exceptions as per the Risk Framework.
Whilst we welcome the inclusion of clear support for development that would reduce the likely incidents of flooding it would be useful to expand this to include flood risk vulnerability. In many instances the most effective means of reducing flood risk is through redevelopment that reduces the vulnerability of existing sites and buildings located within the functional flood plain.
It would be useful to reference the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. This is legislation which dictates i) our responsibilities and those of East Renfrewshire Council as the local
Flood Prevention Authority with regards to reducing flood risk overall, and requires ii) that all potential sources of Page 244
flood risk must be considered.
Any new developments requiring SUDS, should not be reliant on discharge through private culverts via private gardens. If any such developments are to be considered, then agreement would first need to obtained from all riparian land owners for a wayleave, and an enforceable maintenance regime. • All SUDS detention basins and ponds will be adopted by Scottish Water, so that all downstream riparian land owners have the
full insurance protection of Scottish Water. • All Compensatory Flood Stores will be built to the same minimum best practice standards as Scottish Water SUDS detention basins, outflow limited to a 2‐year return period, and be adopted by East Renfrewshire Council, so that all downstream riparian land owners have the full statutory insurance protection of East Renfrewshire Council. • Flood Risk and Drainage Impact assessments for developments requiring SUDS must include full hydrological modelling of the downstream watercourse including culverts. • East Renfrewshire Council will maintain a copy of the micro‐drainage calculations for all new developments requiring SUDS; including any fluvial flows and Compensatory Flood Stores. These calculations will be available for public consultation. • East Renfrewshire Council Flood Prevention Officer will check, or have independently checked any micro‐drainage calculations for all new developments requiring SUDS; including any fluvial flows and Compensatory Flood Stores, prior to Planning Application Committees, and not rely on developers self‐certifying their own designs. The Flood Prevention Officer will be required to provide a report to the Planning Applications Committee and their independent analysis must be available for public consultation. Remove site sg1.32
Council not taking flood responsibilities seriously with approval of SG1.27 and proposed M2.1
Suport infrastructure on watercourses as exceptions
Newton Mearns exposed to flood risk due to housing proposals. Very little mitigation for downstream residents if upstream developments are approved.
Sites should not be developed if they pose significant flood risk to current residents. Mitigation is not an option. SEPA and Scottish Water should advise. Support
Support policy
Support presumption against development at risk from flooding and flood plains.
Support the presumption against development on functional flood plains
Support Council to resist development in flood risk areas
Support infrastructure developments may be permitted on watercourses but only where development is required for operational or could not be located elsewhere
Support the presumption against development on functional flood plains
Page 245
Support Council to resist development in flood risk areas
Support infrastructure developments may be permitted on watercourses but only where development is required for operational or could not be located elsewhere
SUDs in should be in all new developments
General presumption against culverting of watercourses
Support presumption against development within flood plains
Support policy
Development at risk of flooding or that could increase flood risk elsewhere should be resisted
Presumption against development in functional flood plains
Council to resist development on accordance with SPP risk framework
Development of infrastructure on watercourses
Support presumtion aginst development in flood plains
Support resistance of development in areas at risk of flooding
Policy E5: Surface Water Drainage and Water Quality
General
Support SUDs in all new development
Must be assumptiona gainst culverting
New devlopments should not rely on SUDs discharge through private watercourses and culverts
All SUDs basins and ponds adopted by Scottish Water
Compensatory Flood Stores will be built so that downstrean landowners have protection
Flood Risk and Drianage Impact Assessments must include full hydralogical modeling including downstream
ERC will keep a copy of micro‐drainage calculations for new developments
ERC Flood Prevention Officer will check all calculations and plans prior to Planning Committee
Objection
Object to new developments with SUDs draining through private watercourses and culverts
Support SUDs in all new developments
Must be a presumption against culverts in new development
Policy E5, must include the following additional points: Any new developments requiring SUDS, should not be reliant on discharge through private culverts via private gardens. If any such developments are to be considered, then agreement would first need to obtained from all riparian land owners for a wayleave, and an enforceable maintenance regime. • All SUDS detention basins and ponds will be adopted by Scottish Water, so that all downstream riparian land owners have the
Page 246
full insurance protection of Scottish Water. • All Compensatory Flood Stores will be built to the same minimum best practice standards as Scottish Water SUDS detention basins, outflow limited to a 2‐year return period, and be adopted by East Renfrewshire Council, so that all downstream riparian land owners have the full statutory insurance protection of East Renfrewshire Council. • Flood Risk and Drainage Impact assessments for developments requiring SUDS must include full hydrological modelling of the downstream watercourse including culverts. • East Renfrewshire Council will maintain a copy of the micro‐drainage calculations for all new developments requiring SUDS; including any fluvial flows and Compensatory Flood Stores. These calculations will be available for public consultation. • East Renfrewshire Council Flood Prevention Officer will check, or have independently checked any micro‐drainage calculations for all new developments requiring SUDS; including any fluvial flows and Compensatory Flood Stores, prior to Planning Application
Committees, and not rely on developers self‐certifying their own designs. The Flood Prevention Officer will be required to provide a report to the Planning Applications Committee and their independent analysis must be available for public consultation. , Newton Mearns Community Council (Ref 686/7)
Must be a general assumption against culverts
Any new developments requiring SUDS, should not be reliant on discharge through private culverts via private gardens. If any such developments are to be considered, then agreement would first need to obtained from all riparian land owners for a way leave, and an enforceable maintenance regime.
• All SUDS detention basins and ponds will be adopted by Scottish Water, so that all downstream riparian land owners have the full insurance protection of Scottish Water. • All Compensatory Flood Stores will be built to the same minimum best practice standards as Scottish Water SUDS detention basins, outflow limited to a 2‐year return period, and be adopted by East Renfrewshire Council, so that all downstream riparian land owners have the full statutory insurance protection of East Renfrewshire Council. • Flood Risk and Drainage Impact assessments for developments requiring SUDS must include full hydrological modelling of the downstream watercourse including culverts. • East Renfrewshire Council will maintain a copy of the micro‐drainage calculations for all new developments requiring SUDS; including any fluvial flows and Compensatory Flood Stores. These calculations will be available for public consultation. • East Renfrewshire Council Flood Prevention Officer will check, or have independently checked any micro‐drainage calculations for all new developments requiring SUDS; including any fluvial flows and Compensatory Flood Stores, prior to Planning Application Committees, and not rely on developers self‐certifying their own designs. The Flood Prevention Officer will be required to provide a report to the Planning Applications Committee and their independent analysis must be available for public consultation. Support
Support development of SUDS
SUDs should be adopted by Scottish Water
Plans, Flood Risk and Drianage Assessments completed and stored for all developments and reported to Planning Committee
Support SUDs in all new developments
Must be general presumption against diverting watercourses
Support SUDs in all new development Professor Amir Hussain, ER Mosque & Community Centre (ERMEC) on behalf of Mr Nazir Ahmed (Ref 755/36)
Support policy
Policy E6: Waste Water Treatment
Page 247
General
Scottish Water is funded to provide upgrades at treatment works where 5 growth criteria have been met ‐ lack of capacity should not be seen as a barrier to development .
Early conversations with developers advised to ensure maximum time for scheduling of upgrades.
Objection
Capacity of sewerage system insufficient resulting in frequent overflow in Newton Mearns, new developments will add to this.
Mitigation proposed in LDP is not feasible.
Housing development should not proceed until Scottish Water have augmented sewer capacity in affected areas.
Support
Support policy
Water Environment
Objection
Suggest word change.
7.4.4. replace word "constraints" with "issues".
Page 248
Issue 16.2. Waste
Policy E7.3 East Capellie, Neilston
Objection
Policy E7: Waste Management
Objection
Suggestion that small‐scale energy from waste would be permissible would give Lifetime Recycling Village an opening to begin development. Technology is far from safe.
Support
Support policy
Page 249
Issue 17. Technical Documents
Action Programme
Action Programme
General
Chapter 4‐ Partnership working. As a key agency, Scottish Water will continue to participate in the bi‐annual review meetings with the key officers at East Renfrewshire Council and support the outcomes of the action programme where appropriate.
Consider if plan should define short term timescales more closely, many timescales are out of first two years/ life of the Action Plan
A number of transport actions may not be completed in 2 year period
SPT supports the need for an annual meeting of a Developers Forum to include Key Agencies as referenced in Paragraph1.1 .11 and a bi ‐annual meeting of Key Agencies referenced in Paragraph 4.1 .3.
Page 17 Barrhead South: It is expected that the development of a sustainablee transport strategy will include the investigation of new and extended bus services as well as a possible rail station ("halt").
Page 56 Sustainable Transport Network: We note there is no specific reference to a process for monitoring and enforcing Travel Plans in thee Actions and consider that this would be helpful.
Page 89 Sustainable transport core paths and walking cycling: SPT has approved significant funding for East Renfrewshire in the current Capital Plan (2013/14 to 2015/16) for pedestrian and cycling improvements.
Page 90 Rail Station at Springfield, Barrhead: SPT has preeviously provided funding to East Renfrewshire to consider transport opportunities for Springfield and will continue to provide technical expertise as required. However any decision on progressing with a new rail station would be for Transport Scotland.
Page 91 Neilston Park and Ride: SPT has already approved significant funding for East Renfrewshire in the current Capital Plan (2013/14 to 2015/16) for additional parking spaces.
Support
We welcome the format and detailed information contained in the Action Programme and we are happy to be included as a key partner in all the Actions that we are listed against. We particularly welcome the commitments within the Action programme for the delivery of the masterplan sites and the direction to include Green Infrastructure and the Green Network within the masterplan sites. We believe the masterplan sites offer a real opportunity to plan and deliver development which are place‐based and that make a positive contribution to enhancing the wider East Renfrewshire Green Network.
Under “SG3 Phasing of new housing development”; we recommend that, in order to maintain a high amenity value, it states that the council will work with the development industry on intermediate or stalled sites to encourage temporary or advanced greening.
Objection
Disappointment & concern (no specific consultation taken place with individuals or organisations representing Jewish Community) and that the EQIA method & conclusion showed a 'Neutral Impact on Religious & Race Groups' in relation to ERC Proposed Local Development Plan.
Needs to recognise that half/75% of Scotland's Jewish population live in East Renfrewshire, the SOA does to some extent under 'Promoting Inclusion'
Page 250
Objection
Standard Letter Comment FAA (4 reps) (Ref 992/1)
Document suffers from same problems as the Site Evaluation.
No details given on sequential approach.
'Landscape Character' and 'Cumulative Impact' comprise different attributes and should be under separate headings.
'Accessibility to Public Transport' should be changed to 'Proximity to Public Transport' and similarly for 'Services/Facilities'.
'Effectiveness' should be expanded and given separate headings with concepts defined.
'Transport Impact' should be 'Traffic Impact'.
Realistic assessment of expected school children must be undertaken, Education Department substantially underestimates.
Objection
Sequential approach no details on how developer is to prove it has been followed
Landscape Character and Cumulative Impact need defined
Accessibility changed to Proximity to Public Transport
Accessibility changed to Proximity to Services/Facilities
Effectiveness explained
Transport should be Traffic Impact
The Framework for Assessing Unallocated Proposals is considered a ‘Technical Document’ as part of the LDP but is not being consulted on. The previous Framework for Assessing Unallocated Housing Proposals was considered an SPG and was consulted on yet this document is not. It was not made clear whether this document would be a material consideration as part of a planning application or whether it was simply ‘guidance’. East Renfrewshire Council should seek to clarify the role of this document. Monitoring Statement
Monitoring Statement
General
1.8 Infrastructure Capacity
Scottish Water acknowledges that in some areas the capacity at our treatment works and within our existing network is insufficient to accommodate additional development without network reinforcement. Should there be insufficient capacity for development at our Water or Wastewater Treatment Works (Part 4 Assets) Scottish Water will provide additional capacity if the Developer meets the following criteria:
1. The development is supported in the Local Development Plan and has full planning permission. If the capacity in the Scottish Water system is the only reason preventing a development gaining full planning then outline planning would be accepted.
2. The developer confirms land ownership or site control through a solicitor’s letter.
3. The developer can confirm plans are in place to mitigate any network constraints that will be created by the development through a Minute of Agreement with us or alternatively, a letter showing commitment to mitigate the Page 251
network impact through Part 3 investment. 4. The developer confirms any time remaining on current planning permissions with the local council.
5. The developer can demonstrate reasonable proposals in terms of the development’s annual build out rate.
On receipt of these criteria Scottish Water will instigate a growth project to provide Part 4 capacity for development. Scottish Water will also work with SEPA, the Developer and the Local Authority to identify solutions to enable development to proceed.
Table 1 ‐ reference to "explore and review the need for possible rail stations ("halts") at Barrhead South" should be taken forward in such a way that rail is considered as one of a number of different transport options that could meet travel needs.
We note the removal of reference to a station at Uplawmoor.
Note that Appendix H4 usefully includes technical information on accessibility provided by SPT and agree that additional Park
and Ride facilities may be required. Table H4.5 notes that a Barrhead to M77 Link Road is no longer appropriate and the Proposed Plan references more modest proposals.
Objection
Monitoring Statement Para 2.2.3 confirms SDP does not provide for any strategic economic investment in East Renfrewshire, Para 2.2.6 sets out dropping of Pollock Ryatt site, importance of Green Belt and flexibility required to address short term delivery issues without reference back to main plan text. It is not clear how these issues have been addressed in main plan.
Support
Appendix C Section 2.3.1 ‐ Recommendations Eaglesham
Support ERD's recommendation that it is unsustainable to release any further sites in the rural settlement of Eaglesham.
Appendix C Section 2.3.1 ‐ Eaglesham
Support that it is unsustainable to release any further sites in Eaglesham
Objection
Scoring inconsistent and unexplained alterations made since MIR
Standard Letter Comment SEA (18 reps) (Ref 999/1)
Site Evaluation is illogical, inconsistent and does not define the meaning of the terms used
Unidentified concepts, is ambiguous, inconsistent and not rigorous.
Site evaluation using the Questions and the Matrix as proposed in the Site Evaluation December 2012 is not logical and not consistent; there is overlap in the questions used. The questions and sub‐questions should be defined and a value attributed. The whole process of site evaluation will need to be re‐run using the appropriate questions, appropriately defined and evaluated and new tables for 5 SITE EVALUATION MATRIX created. Little evidence sequential approach is put to practice
Adopted local Plan site evaluation comprised one site visit and desktop based subsequent assessments
Page 252
questions have varied over the last two Site Evaluations
None of the terms (11) used in the Site Evaluation are defined
'The choice of some of the terms in the matrix reduces the discriminatory power of the evaluation process because the same value for the term is allocated'
Q1 should be spit into two tables brownfield and greenfield so that developers can be direct to brownfield first
Q4 and Q5 confuse Accessibility with Access (as in MIR) a better word would be Proximity as distances are used for scoring
Q6 and Q7 should say sites 'will not be considered' not 'will not be considered favourably'
2.9.4 Transport Impact would be better as Traffic Impact and site traffic considered in the context of current spare capacity on adjacent roads
misplaced reference to 'will not be considered favourably' inappropriate if no suitable access
reference to public transport already covered in Q4
Q9 Affordable Housing has 'no discriminatory power as an index'
Q10 loss of facility an unlikely scenario
Q11 'no discriminatory function'
Barcapel spelt wrong (Barcapel)
in the table LDP76 and LDP78 are duplicated.
Site evaluation should be displayed to separate Brownfield and Greenfield in separate tables. Some of the questions would immediately exclude a site from consideration and these sites would not appear in the table. These would be Natural Heritage, Built Heritage and sites with no suitable access. Impact of development would separate into Impact of Development on Landscape Character and Impact of development on Traffic. (Traffic and Transport should be defined and distinguished). Accessibility to public transport would be changed to Proximity to Public Transport and Accessibility to Services /Facilities would be changed to Proximity to Services/Facilities to remove confusion with access to a site. Double consideration of availability of transport facilities should be resolved – Public Transport should be removed from Q5. The Questions for the table should exclude Affordable Housing, Other Community Benefits and Economic Benefits which have no discriminatory value. Q8 Effectiveness should be defined and the question expanded into a number of separate sub‐questions. Note a usage of effective – ‘effective’ sites are those which are expected to have completions in the next seven years – in an email from a Principal Planner. The suggested questions would be: ‐
Q1 Site location Q2 Impact of development on Landscape Character Q3 Impact of development on existing and planned infrastructure Q4 Impact of development on School Capacity Q5 Impact of development on Traffic Q6 Proximity to Public Transport Q7 Proximity to Services / Facilities Q8 Effectiveness These suggestions cover most of the questions asked at public events about the LDP and should enable a more relevant site evaluation. Each question would have sub‐questions and a value attributed similar to that used in the proposed matrix for Landscape Character Assessment, Proximity to Public Transport, Proximity to Services and Facilities and Effectiveness. Adopt Site Evaluation based on defined concepts and re‐evaluate sites
Consult on site selected through re‐evaluation.
Standard Letter Comment SEB (9 reps) (Ref 1000/1)
Unidentified concepts, is ambiguous, inconsistent and not rigorous.
Adopt Site Evaluation based on defined concepts and re‐evaluate sites
Consult on sites selected through re‐evaluation.
Page 253
Objection
Scoring does not reflect ‘key primacy’ of sequential test (brownfield first, urban area, sites well served by public transport)
Outcome is not guided by overall land release targets with reasoned justification
Scoring shows distortion and bias on site selection
Scoring criteria do not match that of LDP policies
General
In general, SNH notes that following some of the comments we made in response to the SEA at the Main Issues Report stage, this current version appears to be presented in a much more easy to follow and coherent manner. The principle issue we would wish to raise with the planning authority regarding the current SEA is that while it is notable how many proposals in the proposed plan are now assessed as requiring mitigation in order for their environmental impacts to be acceptable, it is not always clear how this identified requirement has influenced the policies in the plan itself in order to ensure that the necessary mitigation is achieved. In many areas it will therefore fall to the master planning process to ensure that development is taken forward in an acceptable manner. As such SNH would be keen to work with East Renfrewshire Council on the development of these master plans.
No apparent mention of the recently completed SINC review process
Green spaces and the Green Belt are mentioned, though not East Renfrewshire’s contribution to the wider CSGN
SNH would suggest that the ideal way to assess the current state of East Renfrewshire’s (or indeed any local authority’s) biodiversity would have been to consider the status and trends of the priority habitats and species in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan
It is also worth noting that little if any mention is made of the local landscape character of East Renfrewshire. Yet this aspect of the local authority area’s environment has in fact been central to some of the advice SNH has provided in response to specific development consultations in recent years.
SNH notes that the great majority of individual allocations and/or proposals made subject to SEA are assessed as requiring mitigation. However it is not always clear how this identified need for mitigation has led to identifiable policies or hooks in the proposed LDP itself that will achieve such mitigation and allow the environmental impacts of the proposed development to become acceptable. It will thus fall largely to the master planning process to mitigate negative impacts in the areas where it is applied. SNH would therefore be pleased to work with East Renfrewshire Council in the development of these master plans when the time comes.
Objection
With reference to M2/M2.1:
SEA contains no assessment of reasonable alternatives and contains no justification for scale of land release
Only puts forward masterplanning as mitigation for negative effects of Green Belt loss. This optimistic and not objective
Support
Page 254
pleased to note issues raised 24 June 2011 have been addressed
Welcome the emphasis on brownfield redevelopment with associated environmental benefits
Agree that providing masterplans for proposed developments in the Green Belt can provide some mitigation for the inevitable negative environmental impacts
Very much welcome the acknowledgement of the importance of green infrastructure and green networks
Support the proposal to SEA SPGs
Table 3 'Summary of Assessments' is comprehensive
Generally agree with mitigation proposals set out in sections 6.4 to 6.8
Generally agree with environmental objectives set out in Appendix 2, but suggest Objective 5 could be strengthened with reference to overall improvement of water conditions rather than minimising, Objective 7 could aspire to overall decrease in flooding.
Generally agree with environmental objectives set out in Appendix 2, but suggest Objective 5 could be strengthened with reference to overall improvement of water conditions rather than minimising, Objective 7 could aspire to overall decrease in flooding.
, Scottish Government on behalf of Historic Scotland (Ref 961/2)
Welcome the preparation of this revised Environmental Report and consider it clearly presents the potential environmental effects of the plan. I agree with the findings presented within the report and welcome the mitigation identified in relation to the policies and proposals and their potential effects on the historic environment resource. The recognition of the need for any Supplementary Planning Guidance not covered by this Environmental Report to be subject to their own SEA process is welcomed. Page 255
Representees with Standard Letters
Standard Letter Code 1.1A (Introduction)
Mrs Rena McGuire, Barrhead Community Council (Ref 924/1); Brian Connelly, Auchenback Tenants and Residents
Association (Ref 938/1)
Standard Letter Code C01A (Consultation Issues)
Roger Quin (Ref 72/19); Jennifer Quin (Ref 129/5); Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref 149/5); Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref
151/5); W T Mackie (Ref 211/6); Robert Russell (Ref 215/18); Alex Bowers (Ref 247/11); Ken Thomson (Ref 251/10);
Mrs Heather A Russell (Ref 328/5); Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/11); Christine A. Christie (Ref 330/11); Joyce Winston
(Ref 335/11); Maureen McCormick (Ref 338/7); David Little (Ref 374/11); Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/11); Morag Little
(Ref 466/11); John Hall (Ref 486/5)
Standard Letter Code D13A (Policy D13:
Community, Leisure and Educational Facilities)
(Ref 335/6); Maureen McCormick (Ref 338/2); David Little (Ref 374/6); Mike Nowak (Ref 413/4); Deirdre Bernard
(Ref 462/6); Morag Little (Ref 466/6); John Hall (Ref 486/11)
Standard Letter Code D1A (Policy D1: Detailed Guidance for all Development)
Roger Quin (Ref 72/5); Jennifer Quin (Ref 129/17); Robert Russell (Ref 215/5); John O'Malley (Ref 477/7)
Standard Letter Code D1B (Policy D1: Detailed Guidance for all Development)
Ron Fairholm (Ref 572/5); Neil Warren (Ref 578/8); Alison Smith (Ref 585/3); Stuart Smith (Ref 591/3); Grace
McCarthy (Ref 638/3); Iain Clark (Ref 658/1); Newton Mearns Community Council (Ref 686/12)
Standard Letter Code E3A (Policy E3: Water Environment)
(Ref 335/7); Maureen McCormick (Ref 338/3); David Little (Ref 374/7); Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/7); Morag Little (Ref
466/7); John Hall (Ref 486/12)
Standard Letter Code E4A (Policy E4: Flooding)
151/14); W T Mackie (Ref 211/5); Robert Russell (Ref 215/15); Alex Bowers (Ref 247/12); Mrs Heather A Russell (Ref
328/14); Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/12); Christine A. Christie (Ref 330/12); Joyce Winston (Ref 335/12); Maureen
McCormick (Ref 338/8); David Little (Ref 374/12); Mike Nowak (Ref 413/7); Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/12); Morag
Little (Ref 466/12); John Hall (Ref 486/15)
Standard Letter Code E6A (Policy E6: Waste Water Treatment)
Standard Letter Code FAA (Framework for Assessing Unallocated Proposals)
Roger Quin (Ref 72/6); Jennifer Quin (Ref 129/18); Robert Russell (Ref 215/6); John Hall (Ref 486/6)
Standard Letter Code M1A (Policy M1: Master Plans)
Roger Quin (Ref 72/4); Joanne Ault (Ref 79/4); Iain McNeil (Ref 80/4); Rose Ann O'Shea (Ref 81/4); Jennifer Quin (Ref
129/4); John Purdie (Ref 140/1); Mr Colin Massey (Ref 178/7); W T Mackie (Ref 211/10); Robert Russell (Ref 215/4);
Joseph Fraser (Ref 220/6); Joshua Fraser (Ref 221/6); Holly Fraser (Ref 222/6); Lynsey Fraser (Ref 224/6); Mrs
Heather A Russell (Ref 328/4); Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/1); Christine A. Christie (Ref 330/1); John O'Malley (Ref
477/5); John Hall (Ref 486/4)
Standard Letter Code M1B (Policy M1: Master Plans)
Page 256
Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref 149/4); Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref 151/4); Alex Bowers (Ref 247/1); Joyce Winston (Ref
335/1); David Little (Ref 374/1); Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/1); Morag Little (Ref 466/1)
Standard Letter Code M2.1A (Policy M2.1:
M77 Strategic Development Opportunity -
Roger Quin (Ref 72/17); Andrew Beaumont (Ref 142/1); Patricia Beaumont (Ref 143/1); Julie Scott (Ref 244/1);
Jonathan Clark (Ref 245/1); David Scott (Ref 246/1); Anne Cowan (Ref 253/1); Carol Whyte (Ref 281/1); Norman
Graham (Ref 286/2); Robert C. Jones (Ref 288/1); Alec McDonald (Ref 290/1); Mrs Suzanne McDonald (Ref 291/1);
Mr Michael J McDonald (Ref 292/1); Carol Coubrough (Ref 293/1); J Coubrough (Ref 295/1); Jacqueline Shearer (Ref
297/1); Dr Rohit k Sabharwal (Ref 299/1); Alan Milligan (Ref 301/1); Patrick Durning (Ref 302/1); Liz Forster (Ref
305/1); John Rooney (Ref 312/1); Rungthip Rooney (Ref 313/1); A D B Borland (Ref 314/1); David Rooney (Ref
315/1); Mr Allan Marshall (Ref 324/1); David Garbutt (Ref 333/1); Josephine Johnstone (Ref 339/1); Miss Emma
Robson (Ref 340/1); Gillian Robson (Ref 341/1); Jan Mair Porter (Ref 342/1); Mr John Foster McKenzie (Ref 343/1);
Mrs Isabel Drennan (Ref 344/1); Julie Robson (Ref 347/1); Mrs. Margaret Hamilton (Ref 348/3); Bruce Cameron (Ref
349/1); Alison Langley (Ref 352/1); Rob Langley (Ref 354/1); Gerard O’Brien (Ref 355/1); Wilma Robertson (Ref
360/1); Hazel McBride (Ref 365/1); Janet Olverman (Ref 369/1); Mrs Jeanette Nicolson (Ref 379/1); Christian Marney
(Ref 382/1); Ian Hall (Ref 383/1); D W Turner (Ref 385/1); Anu Joseph (Ref 388/1); Pam Hall (Ref 389/1); Suzanne
Wildman (Ref 392/1); Douglas Hunter (Ref 393/1); Suzanne Wildman (Ref 395/1); Elizabeth Osborne (Ref 412/1);
Martin Ogilvie (Ref 424/1); Elspeth Campbell (Ref 425/1); Alex Campbell (Ref 427/1); Kate Jackson (Ref 432/1);
Laurence McCotter (Ref 433/1); Mrs Susan Halbert (Ref 434/1); Holly McCotter (Ref 435/1); Mr Leon Tuck (Ref
437/1); Mr Robert Halbert (Ref 440/1); Niall Sloan (Ref 441/1); David McLean (Ref 444/2); Sheila McLean (Ref 445/2);
Michael Barnett (Ref 446/1); Allan Viney (Ref 449/1); Ewan Alexander Bryce (Ref 451/1); Belinda Fitzgerald (Ref
469/1); James L Nicolson (Ref 471/1); Dawn Haddow (Ref 473/1); Mr Stuart Haddow (Ref 474/1); Robert Malyn (Ref
475/1); Mr Cameron Haddow (Ref 478/1); Jacqueline Nicol (Ref 480/1); S Nicol (Ref 483/1); John White (Ref 485/1);
Arthur Slight (Ref 508/1); Elisabeth Jones (Ref 509/1); Alexander McArthur (Ref 512/1); Iain Fell (Ref 517/1); John
Fingland (Ref 520/1); Emma Mcwiggan (Ref 527/1); Mark Kelly (Ref 531/1); John and Penny Rowell (Ref 532/1);
William Hughes (Ref 538/1); John F Smith (Ref 539/1); Mrs Ann Henderson (Ref 543/1); Derek Templeton (Ref
545/1); Eleanor Campbell (Ref 547/1); Margaret Bell (Ref 553/1); Mr Scott Buchanan (Ref 554/1); Jonathan Slack (Ref
555/1); Mrs G. Buchanan (Ref 558/1); Mrs Lisa Branter (Ref 561/1); Stuart Lennox (Ref 570/1); Susan Fraser (Ref
571/1); Ron Fairholm (Ref 572/1); Rory K MacLeod (Ref 573/1); Laurence M Fraser (Ref 574/1); Mr Richard Jack (Ref
577/1); Michael Bradnam (Ref 579/1); Kenneth Logan (Ref 590/1); Mustafa Asim (Ref 595/1); Dr Audrey J Forrester
(Ref 598/1); Miss Elaine Brierley (Ref 601/1); Donald McCalman (Ref 602/1); Brian Keay (Ref 603/1); Julie Keay (Ref
604/1); Valerie Murray (Ref 608/1); Mr. Colin C. Kennedy (Ref 610/1); R.R.Hanvey (Ref 612/1); Dr Ahmed M Alani
(Ref 613/1); John Cairns (Ref 616/1); Dr Amina Alani (Ref 617/1); Mrs Susan Galbraith (Ref 618/1); Mrs R A Horne
(Ref 620/1); George Blacker (Ref 622/1); Derek Proudfoot (Ref 627/1); Linda Proudfoot (Ref 628/1); Fraser Proudfoot
(Ref 629/1); Eilidh Proudfoot (Ref 630/1); Graeme Ross (Ref 634/1); Lynne Ross (Ref 636/1); W M Spalding (Ref
647/1); Kirsten Oswald (Ref 659/1); Paul Daniell (Ref 663/1); Susan Steen (Ref 665/1); Mr Robert Brierley (Ref
670/1); Mrs Irene Brierley (Ref 672/1); Mrs Kirsteen Allan (Ref 674/1); Miss Briony Allan (Ref 677/1); Mr Peter Allan
(Ref 679/1); Martine King (Ref 688/1); David Trotter-King (Ref 691/1); Natalie Trotter-King (Ref 692/1); Connor King
(Ref 693/1); Thomas Doherty (Ref 695/1); Maria Thomson (Ref 696/1); Ross Thomson (Ref 697/1); Kirsten
Thomson (Ref 698/1); Karen Macpherson (Ref 699/1); Hayley Macpherson (Ref 700/1); Tanya Macpherson (Ref
701/1); Laura Cochrane (Ref 708/1); Alan McQueen (Ref 711/1); Jane McQueen (Ref 713/1); Gavin McQueen (Ref
714/1); Bruce McQueen (Ref 715/1); Tom O’Hara (Ref 716/1); Grazyna Carroll (Ref 717/1); Jeremy Burley (Ref
723/1); Gordon Hill (Ref 724/1); Ross Ramsay (Ref 725/1); Mrs Dawn Burley (Ref 727/1); George Mackie (Ref 730/1);
Susan O'Hare (Ref 733/1); Alex O'Hare (Ref 734/1); Sian Ramsay (Ref 735/1); Elaine Spence (Ref 745/1); Michael
Graham (Ref 747/1); Pauline Graham (Ref 748/1); Jane McClement (Ref 759/1); Moireach McClement (Ref 765/1); P.
Graeme Kelly (Ref 767/1); Steven Syme (Ref 769/1); Stephanie Syme (Ref 770/1); William Kelly (Ref 771/1); Robert
Caldwell (Ref 774/2); Hannah Bradley (Ref 777/2); Jean Bradley (Ref 778/2); Mark Bradley (Ref 779/2); Mrs S Masson
(Ref 786/1); Elizabeth Tortolano (Ref 787/1); Dorothy Drewett (Ref 788/1); J Munro Anderson (Ref 790/1); Iain
Rennie (Ref 791/1); Dr Michael Gow (Ref 795/1); Gordon Smith (Ref 797/2); Karen Mitchell (Ref 799/1); Andrew
Mitchell (Ref 804/1); Frank Carroll (Ref 805/1); Aldo Tortolano (Ref 814/1); Ivy Grieve (Ref 822/1); F Lawson (Ref
824/1); Kimberley Murray (Ref 825/1); Rosalind Murray (Ref 826/1); James Jardine (Ref 827/1); Anne R Malyn (Ref
828/1); Thomas Malyn (Ref 829/1); Enid Liddell (Ref 830/1); G Kelly (Ref 831/2); Mrs Sybil Burnside (Ref 834/1); Mr
and Mrs K I Amner (Ref 835/1); Suzanne Wildman (Ref 843/1); K Hunter (Ref 895/1); Hugh MacGilp (Ref 898/1); Dr
and Mrs S K Ghosh (Ref 901/1); Donald R Fraser (Ref 912/1); Mrs M A Kennedy (Ref 925/1); Jennifer Whiston (Ref
926/1); E M Scott (Ref 929/1); David Kidd (Ref 932/1); David Thomson (Ref 933/1); Ian McDonald (Ref 934/1); Neil
Warren on behalf of V Forgie (Ref 939/1); Neil Warren on behalf of Lilah Gillis (Ref 940/1); Maria Strachan (Ref
Page 257
941/1); Martin Campbell (Ref 942/1); Alex Holligan (Ref 943/1); Fiona Holligan (Ref 944/1); Bernard Campbell (Ref
945/1); Andree Campbell (Ref 946/1); Elaine Shannon (Ref 947/1); Melissa Shannon (Ref 948/1); John Shannon (Ref
949/1); Neil Warren (Ref 950/1); Mitchell and Pamela Biggart (Ref 951/1); E. Ferrell (Ref 953/1); L.M. Ferrell (Ref
954/1); R. Ferrell (Ref 955/1); C. Ferrell (Ref 956/1); Derek Robertson (Ref 959/1); Mrs Pat McCall (Ref 970/1); Barry
Henderson (Ref 973/1); Angela Henderson (Ref 974/1); Cheryl Clark (Ref 976/1); Luke Clark (Ref 977/1); Jonathan
Clark (Ref 978/1)
Standard Letter Code M2.1B (Policy M2.1:
M77 Strategic Development Opportunity -
Mrs Anne Johnston (Ref 240/1); Mr Peter Cation (Ref 249/1); Mrs Mary Cation (Ref 250/1); Catherine Duff (Ref
521/1); Anne Johnston, Clarkston Community Council (Ref 524/1); David Duff (Ref 526/1); Fraser W. Knox (Ref
682/1); Elspeth J Knox (Ref 685/1); Ian Kellock (Ref 920/1)
Standard Letter Code PMA (Proposals Map)
Roger Quin (Ref 72/8); Jennifer Quin (Ref 129/7); Robert Russell (Ref 215/8); John Hall (Ref 486/8)
Standard Letter Code PMB (Proposals Map)
Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref 149/7); Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref 151/7); W T Mackie (Ref 211/7); Alex Bowers (Ref
247/10); Ken Thomson (Ref 251/9); Mrs Heather A Russell (Ref 328/7); Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/10); Christine A.
Christie (Ref 330/10); Joyce Winston (Ref 335/10); Maureen McCormick (Ref 338/6); David Little (Ref 374/10);
Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/10); Morag Little (Ref 466/10)
Standard Letter Code SEA (Site Evaluation Assessment)
129/3); Mr Colin Massey (Ref 178/1); W T Mackie (Ref 211/1); Robert Russell (Ref 215/1); Joseph Fraser (Ref 220/1);
Joshua Fraser (Ref 221/4); Holly Fraser (Ref 222/4); Lynsey Fraser (Ref 224/4); Fiona McAllister (Ref 227/4); Mrs
Heather A Russell (Ref 328/2); Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/1); Christine A. Christie (Ref 330/2); John O'Malley (Ref
477/6); John Hall (Ref 486/3)
Standard Letter Code SEB (Site Evaluation Assessment)
Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref 149/1); Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref 151/3); Alex Bowers (Ref 247/2); Ken Thomson (Ref
251/1); Joyce Winston (Ref 335/2); David Little (Ref 374/2); Mike Nowak (Ref 413/1); Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/2);
Morag Little (Ref 466/2)
Standard Letter Code SG1.44A (Policy SG1.44 Easterton Avenue, Busby)
Paul Doherty (Ref 237/1); Hannah Bradley (Ref 777/1); Jean Bradley (Ref 778/1); Mark Bradley (Ref 779/1); G Kelly
(Ref 831/1)
Standard Letter Code SG1.44B (Policy SG1.44 Easterton Avenue, Busby)
E. Ferrell (Ref 953/2); L.M. Ferrell (Ref 954/2); R. Ferrell (Ref 955/2); C. Ferrell (Ref 956/2)
Standard Letter Code SG1.5A (Policy SG1.5 Fereneze, Barrhead)
Vicki Anderson (Ref 52/1); Murdo MacPhail (Ref 53/1); Lilias Conroy (Ref 66/1); Patrick Conroy (Ref 67/1)
Standard Letter Code SG10A (Policy SG10: Sustainable Transport Network)
Standard Letter Code SG1A (Policy SG1: Housing Supply)
Kenneth Wharton (Ref 75/1); Margaret McCann (Ref 93/1); Malcolm Reid (Ref 94/1); Barbara Edmond (Ref 100/1);
Julie Simpson and family (Ref 102/1); Graeme Hunter (Ref 103/1); T.M.M. Gemmell (Ref 104/1); Claire Duncan (Ref
134/1); Graeme Fraser (Ref 135/1); Bruce Greenshields (Ref 137/1); Gordon Cunningham (Ref 144/1); Rosaleen
Ventisei (Ref 145/1); Paul McAtear (Ref 180/1); Julie McAtear (Ref 181/1); Stuart Sinclair (Ref 182/1); Sylvia Mackay
(Ref 183/1); Eric Dodd and Rosaleen Dodd (Ref 184/1); James Black (Ref 185/1); Mr K Irving (Ref 186/1); Julia Hunter
(Ref 187/1); Jennifer MacPherson (Ref 188/1); Bruce Greenshields (Ref 189/1); Walter Newton (Ref 190/1); Diane
Brooks (Ref 192/1); Colin Pinkerton (Ref 193/1); Edmund C Williamson (Ref 198/1); Nichola Thompson (Ref 206/1);
Page 258
Mrs Joan Douglas (Ref 208/1); Bruce Robertson (Ref 238/1); Lynne Robertson (Ref 267/1); George T Phillip (Ref
268/1); A Hughes (Ref 271/2); Mrs I Cameron (Ref 272/1); Wendy Reid; Derek MacDonald (Ref 403/1); Claire
Wharton (Ref 419/3); Ken Graham (Ref 479/1); Lorna MacDonald (Ref 493/1); Bill Duguid, Eaglesham and Waterfoot
Community Council (Ref 510/1); Elizabeth Symon (Ref 513/1); Derek Symon (Ref 567/1); Alastair Fraser (Ref 614/1);
Iain Fraser (Ref 615/1); Dawn Fraser (Ref 623/1); Scott Fraser (Ref 631/1); Fiona Simpson (Ref 689/1); Jane Black (Ref
690/1); Sharon Forrester (Ref 760/1); Richard Forrester (Ref 761/1); Moira Fraser (Ref 785/1); A G Johnston (Ref
796/1); Maureen Sleigh (Ref 851/1); Tessa Cadden (Ref 852/1); Sandra Scott (Ref 854/1); Andrew McLintock (Ref
855/1); Alister Ogg (Ref 856/1); Catherine McLachlan (Ref 857/1); M M Greenhill (Ref 861/1); Andrew and Catherine
Fraser (Ref 862/1); Fiona Fraser (Ref 863/1); Stuart Thompson (Ref 866/1); Ian McDougall (Ref 867/1); Mrs Margaret
McDougall (Ref 868/1); Joan Telfer (Ref 871/1); Campbell Hughes (Ref 909/1); Linda Carruthers (Ref 910/1); Lynn
Walls (Ref 914/1); Richard Johnson (Ref 916/1); John Draffan (Ref 952/1); John Duncan (Ref 957/1)
Standard Letter Code SG1B (Policy SG1: Housing Supply)
Mrs Heather A Russell (Ref 328/9); Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/5); Christine A. Christie (Ref 330/5); Joyce Winston (Ref
335/5); Maureen McCormick (Ref 338/1); David Little (Ref 374/5); Mike Nowak (Ref 413/3); Deirdre Bernard (Ref
462/5); Morag Little (Ref 466/5)
Standard Letter Code SG1C (Policy SG1: Housing Supply)
K Pattullo (Ref 720/1); Linsey Pattullo (Ref 726/1); Harry Pattullo (Ref 728/1); C Pattullo (Ref 729/1)
Standard Letter Code SG2.7A (Policy SG2.7 Hillfield, Newton Mearns)
129/2); Susan Purdie (Ref 139/2); Mr Irving M Hyman (Ref 148/1); Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref 149/3); Mrs Marie
Miller (Ref 150/1); Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref 151/2); Mrs Irene Links (Ref 152/1); Mrs Mary Johnston (Ref 153/1); Mrs
Joni Kaplan (Ref 154/1); Mrs Alice Kirkwood (Ref 155/1); Mr Ronald Kirkwood (Ref 156/1); Mr Ian McDickom (Ref
157/1); Mrs McDickom (Ref 158/1); Mrs Mindel Rose (Ref 159/1); Mr Henry Rose (Ref 160/1); Mr George Cornforth
(Ref 161/1); Mrs Lettie Galpern (Ref 162/1); Mrs Ida Caplan (Ref 163/1); Mrs Carol Smith (Ref 164/1); Mrs Winnie
Sweeney (Ref 165/1); Mr Dan Sweeney (Ref 166/1); Mr Harold L Gold (Ref 167/1); Mrs Vera Gold (Ref 168/1); Mrs
Helen Blin (Ref 169/1); Mrs Elise Sochart (Ref 170/1); Mrs Irene Berkley (Ref 171/1); Mr Arthur Segal (Ref 172/1);
Mrs Phyllis Segal (Ref 173/1); Mrs Sheila Fell (Ref 174/1); Mr John Finlay (Ref 175/1); Mrs Elspeth Finlay (Ref 176/1);
Mrs Jill Massey (Ref 177/1); Mr Colin Massey (Ref 178/1); Mr Robin Johnston (Ref 179/1); Sheonagh Beaton (Ref
209/1); W T Mackie (Ref 211/15); Joseph Fraser (Ref 220/1); Joshua Fraser (Ref 221/1); Holly Fraser (Ref 222/1);
Lynsey Fraser (Ref 224/1); Fiona McAllister (Ref 227/1); Mrs Heather A Russell (Ref 328/3); Peter D. Christie (Ref
329/15); Christine A. Christie (Ref 330/15); John O'Malley (Ref 477/2); John Hall (Ref 486/2); Alasdair Beaton (Ref
684/1)
Standard Letter Code SG2.7B (Policy SG2.7 Hillfield, Newton Mearns)
Mrs Levin (Ref 146/1); Mr Leonard J Levin (Ref 147/1); Tom Hamilton (Ref 236/1); Johnny Loudon (Ref 257/1); Ivan
Woodcock (Ref 258/1); William Goldberg (Ref 259/1); Mrs Edith Bruce (Ref 260/1); Mr Alasdair Bruce (Ref 261/1);
Mrs Joan Goldberg (Ref 262/1); Jack Silverstone (Ref 793/1); Mrs Norah Butters (Ref 817/1); Mrs Helena Dykes (Ref
818/1); Mr Iain Hutton (Ref 819/1); Mrs Maureen Hutton (Ref 820/1); Mrs Leila Sragowitz (Ref 821/1); Mrs Sadie
Hirsfelds (Ref 893/1)
Standard Letter Code SG2.7C (Policy SG2.7 Hillfield, Newton Mearns)
R W R Barr (Ref 906/3); N Barr (Ref 907/3); M M Barr (Ref 908/3)
Standard Letter Code SG2.8A (Policy SG2.8 Barcapel, Newton Mearns)
129/1); Mrs Isobel Jane Gallacher (Ref 130/2); Susan Purdie (Ref 139/1); Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref 149/2); Mrs
Marie Miller (Ref 150/2); Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref 151/1); Mrs Irene Links (Ref 152/2); Mrs Mary Johnston (Ref
153/2); Mrs Joni Kaplan (Ref 154/2); Mrs Alice Kirkwood (Ref 155/2); Mr Ronald Kirkwood (Ref 156/2); Mr Ian
McDickom (Ref 157/2); Mrs McDickom (Ref 158/2); Mrs Mindel Rose (Ref 159/2); Mr Henry Rose (Ref 160/2); Mr
George Cornforth (Ref 161/2); Mrs Lettie Galpern (Ref 162/2); Mrs Ida Caplan (Ref 163/2); Mrs Carol Smith (Ref
164/2); Mrs Winnie Sweeney (Ref 165/2); Mr Dan Sweeney (Ref 166/2); Mr Harold L Gold (Ref 167/2); Mrs Vera Gold
(Ref 168/2); Mrs Helen Blin (Ref 169/2); Mrs Elise Sochart (Ref 170/2); Mrs Irene Berkley (Ref 171/2); Mr Arthur
Segal (Ref 172/2); Mrs Phyllis Segal (Ref 173/2); Mrs Sheila Fell (Ref 174/2); Mr John Finlay (Ref 175/2); Mrs Elspeth
Page 259
Finlay (Ref 176/2); Mrs Jill Massey (Ref 177/2); Mr Colin Massey (Ref 178/2); Mr Robin Johnston (Ref 179/2);
Sheonagh Beaton (Ref 209/2); W T Mackie (Ref 211/2); Robert Russell (Ref 215/1); Joseph Fraser (Ref 220/2); Joshua
Fraser (Ref 221/2); Holly Fraser (Ref 222/2); Lynsey Fraser (Ref 224/2); Fiona McAllister (Ref 227/2); Mrs Heather A
Russell (Ref 328/1); Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/16); Christine A. Christie (Ref 330/16); John O'Malley (Ref 477/1); John
Hall (Ref 486/1); Alasdair Beaton (Ref 684/2)
Standard Letter Code SG2.8B (Policy SG2.8 Barcapel, Newton Mearns)
Mrs Levin (Ref 146/2); Mr Leonard J Levin (Ref 147/2); Mr Irving M Hyman (Ref 148/2); Tom Hamilton (Ref 236/2);
Johnny Loudon (Ref 257/2); Ivan Woodcock (Ref 258/2); William Goldberg (Ref 259/2); Mrs Edith Bruce (Ref 260/2);
Mr Alasdair Bruce (Ref 261/2); Mrs Joan Goldberg (Ref 262/2); Mrs Doreen Nicol (Ref 263/2); Jack Silverstone (Ref
793/2); Mrs Norah Butters (Ref 817/2); Mrs Helena Dykes (Ref 818/2); Mr Iain Hutton (Ref 819/2); Mrs Maureen
Hutton (Ref 820/2); Mrs Leila Sragowitz (Ref 821/2); Mrs Sadie Hirsfelds (Ref 893/2)
Standard Letter Code SG2.8C (Policy SG2.8 Barcapel, Newton Mearns)
R W R Barr (Ref 906/4); N Barr (Ref 907/4); M M Barr (Ref 908/4)
Standard Letter Code SG5A (Policy SG5: Affordable Housing)
George M Morton (Ref 38/5); Roger Quin (Ref 72/18); Joseph Fraser (Ref 220/5); Joshua Fraser (Ref 221/5); Mrs
Helena Dykes (Ref 818/5)
Standard Letter Code SP1A (Strategic Policy 1: Development Strategy)
George M Morton (Ref 38/3); Roger Quin (Ref 72/9); Joanne Ault (Ref 79/7); Iain McNeil (Ref 80/5); Rose Ann O'Shea
(Ref 81/5); Jennifer Quin (Ref 129/8); Mrs Isobel Jane Gallacher (Ref 130/3); Mrs Levin (Ref 146/4); Mr Leonard J
Levin (Ref 147/4); Mr Irving M Hyman (Ref 148/4); Mrs Marie Miller (Ref 150/4); Mrs Irene Links (Ref 152/4); Mrs
Mary Johnston (Ref 153/4); Mrs Joni Kaplan (Ref 154/4); Mrs Alice Kirkwood (Ref 155/4); Mr Ronald Kirkwood (Ref
156/4); Mr Ian McDickom (Ref 157/4); Mrs McDickom (Ref 158/4); Mrs Mindel Rose (Ref 159/4); Mr Henry Rose (Ref
160/4); Mr George Cornforth (Ref 161/4); Mrs Lettie Galpern (Ref 162/4); Mrs Ida Caplan (Ref 163/4); Mrs Carol
Smith (Ref 164/4); Mrs Winnie Sweeney (Ref 165/4); Mr Dan Sweeney (Ref 166/4); Mr Harold L Gold (Ref 167/4);
Mrs Vera Gold (Ref 168/4); Mrs Helen Blin (Ref 169/4); Mrs Elise Sochart (Ref 170/4); Mrs Irene Berkley (Ref 171/4);
Mr Arthur Segal (Ref 172/4); Mrs Phyllis Segal (Ref 173/4); Mrs Sheila Fell (Ref 174/4); Mr John Finlay (Ref 175/4);
Mrs Elspeth Finlay (Ref 176/4); Mrs Jill Massey (Ref 177/4); Mr Colin Massey (Ref 178/5); Mr Robin Johnston (Ref
179/4); Sheonagh Beaton (Ref 209/4); W T Mackie (Ref 211/13); Robert Russell (Ref 215/9); Joseph Fraser (Ref
220/7); Joshua Fraser (Ref 221/7); Holly Fraser (Ref 222/7); Lynsey Fraser (Ref 224/7); Fiona McAllister (Ref 227/6);
Johnny Loudon (Ref 257/4); Ivan Woodcock (Ref 258/4); William Goldberg (Ref 259/4); Mrs Edith Bruce (Ref 260/4);
Mr Alasdair Bruce (Ref 261/4); Mrs Joan Goldberg (Ref 262/4); Mrs Doreen Nicol (Ref 263/4); Mrs Heather A Russell
(Ref 328/8); Peter D. Christie (Ref 329/3); Christine A. Christie (Ref 330/3); John Hall (Ref 486/9); Jack Silverstone
(Ref 793/4); Mrs Norah Butters (Ref 817/4); Mrs Helena Dykes (Ref 818/4); Mr Iain Hutton (Ref 819/4); Mrs Maureen
Standard Letter Code SP1B (Strategic Policy 1: Development Strategy)
Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref 149/8); Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref 151/8); Alex Bowers (Ref 247/3); Ken Thomson (Ref
251/2); Joyce Winston (Ref 335/3); David Little (Ref 374/3); Mike Nowak (Ref 413/2); Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/3);
Morag Little (Ref 466/3)
Standard Letter Code SP1C (Strategic Policy 1: Development Strategy
Mrs Christine Woods (Ref 586/2); Ishbel C. Woods (Ref 587/2); Mr Reg Woods (Ref 588/2); Richard Mowat (Ref
650/1); Helen Mowat (Ref 652/1)
Standard Letter Code SP2A (Strategic Policy 2: Assessment of Development Proposals)
George M Morton (Ref 38/6); Joanne Ault (Ref 79/5); Iain McNeil (Ref 80/7); Rose Ann O'Shea (Ref 81/6); Jennifer
Quin (Ref 129/6); Mrs Isobel Jane Gallacher (Ref 130/6); Mrs Levin (Ref 146/3); Mr Leonard J Levin (Ref 147/3); Mr
Irving M Hyman (Ref 148/3); Mrs Marie Miller (Ref 150/3); Mrs Irene Links (Ref 152/3); Mrs Mary Johnston (Ref
153/3); Mrs Joni Kaplan (Ref 154/3); Mrs Alice Kirkwood (Ref 155/3); Mr Ronald Kirkwood (Ref 156/3); Mr Ian
McDickom (Ref 157/3); Mrs McDickom (Ref 158/3); Mrs Mindel Rose (Ref 159/3); Mr Henry Rose (Ref 160/3); Mr
George Cornforth (Ref 161/3); Mrs Lettie Galpern (Ref 162/3); Mrs Ida Caplan (Ref 163/3); Mrs Carol Smith (Ref
164/3); Mrs Winnie Sweeney (Ref 165/3); Mr Dan Sweeney (Ref 166/3); Mr Harold L Gold (Ref 167/3); Mrs Vera Gold
(Ref 168/3); Mrs Helen Blin (Ref 169/3); Mrs Elise Sochart (Ref 170/3); Mrs Irene Berkley (Ref 171/3); Mr Arthur
Segal (Ref 172/3); Mrs Phyllis Segal (Ref 173/3); Mrs Sheila Fell (Ref 174/3); Mr John Finlay (Ref 175/3); Mrs Elspeth
Finlay (Ref 176/3); Mrs Jill Massey (Ref 177/3); Mr Colin Massey (Ref 178/4); Mr Robin Johnston (Ref 179/3);
Page 260
Sheonagh Beaton (Ref 209/3); W T Mackie (Ref 211/12); Joseph Fraser (Ref 220/3); Joshua Fraser (Ref 221/3); Holly
Fraser (Ref 222/3); Lynsey Fraser (Ref 224/3); Fiona McAllister (Ref 227/3); Johnny Loudon (Ref 257/3); Ivan
Woodcock (Ref 258/3); William Goldberg (Ref 259/3); Mrs Edith Bruce (Ref 260/3); Mr Alasdair Bruce (Ref 261/3);
Mrs Joan Goldberg (Ref 262/3); Mrs Doreen Nicol (Ref 263/3); John O'Malley (Ref 477/9); Jack Silverstone (Ref
793/3); Mrs Norah Butters (Ref 817/3); Mrs Helena Dykes (Ref 818/3); Mr Iain Hutton (Ref 819/3); Mrs Maureen
Standard Letter Code SP2B (Strategic Policy 2: Assessment of Development Proposals); Professor Alan Shenkin (Ref
149/6); Mrs Leona Shenkin (Ref 151/6); Alex Bowers (Ref 247/4); Ken Thomson (Ref 251/3); Mrs Heather A Russell
(Ref 328/6); Joyce Winston (Ref 335/4); David Little (Ref 374/4); Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/4); Morag Little (Ref
466/4)
Standard Letter Code SP3A (Strategic Policy 3: Development Contributions)
(Ref 335/13); Maureen McCormick (Ref 338/9); David Little (Ref 374/13); Deirdre Bernard (Ref 462/13); Morag Little
(Ref 466/13); John Hall (Ref 486/16)
Standard Letter Code SPGA (SPG Green Network and Environmental Management)
McCarthy (Ref 638/2); Newton Mearns Community Council (Ref 686/11)
Standard Letter Code SPGB (SPG Energy Efficient Design); Ron Fairholm (Ref 572/3); Neil Warren (Ref 578/7); Alison
Smith (Ref 585/4); Stuart Smith (Ref 591/4); Grace McCarthy (Ref 638/4); Newton Mearns Community Council (Ref
686/10)
Standard Letter Code SPGC (SPG Affordable Housing)
McCarthy (Ref 638/1); Newton Mearns Community Council (Ref 686/9)
Standard Letter Code SPGD (SPG Renewable Energy)
Neil Warren (Ref 578/11); Grace McCarthy (Ref 638/5); Newton Mearns Community Council (Ref 686/13)
Page 261

Appendix 3. Proposed Plan, Issues and Responses

Transcription

Similar documents

Inżynier Utrzymania Ruchu – Elektryk

Cokin Mineral ND Filters technical sheet.indd

Print - balearhouse

FUENTE RUTA DEL QUIJOTE ENGLISH

STATION ROAD, NORTH WINGFIELD

Traffic Engineering Company

Layout 1 (Page 1) - Weir`s Furniture

METU M BS536 METU M BSat 36 METU M 536 536 MET M ETU

ECLIPSE ECLIPSE

cataloguefor website