|
UNTIL THIS TRIAL IS OVER WE WILL BRING YOU NEWS ON THE HOME PAGE AS IT BREAKS HELP us to conserve and improve our village and Gryffe Valley GREAT NEWS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF HOUSTON.
THE MANSE FIELD PLANNING APPLICATION HAS BEEN REFUSED The planning authority has published its reasons for refusal: - That the proposed development would not be in keeping with the rest of the housing in village as there were no flats in Houston, with the proposed development resulting in an over-development of the site in relation to density;
- That there would be problems of access to the site which would result in traffic congestion;
- That the development would result in a loss of amenity with an adverse environmental impact particularly for the foul water system, where there already was a problem with undercapacity resulting in surcharging,
- That there was the possibility of there being landfill gas at the site;
- That there would be a problem with traffic noise at the South end of the site;
- That the development would present a problem for education provision in the area;
- That the development was detrimental to the residential amenity of the area by reason of over-looking of adjacent properties; and
- That the development was contrary to Policy L4 of the adopted Local Plan in that it would result in the loss of open space to the determent of amenity.
We understand that these reasons were in keeping with the fierce tongue lashing Head of Planning received from a number of very angry councilors at the meeting. If the report to them wasn’t bad enough the Director of Planning issued a supplementary report on the day. In it he conceded that the house adjacent to 34 Manse Crescent should be moved and lowered. The reason he gave was; “in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring residents”. Curious to say the least, because the original report was at pains to claim that the residents of Manse Crescent weren’t entitled to have their amenity interests considered. Nine councillors saw through the Director’s recommendations. The applicant now has 6 months to decide whether they will appeal. HALL will stay vigilant until this tragic matter is finally put to bed.
THE APPLICATION WILL BE PUT BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD ON TUESDAY 17 MARCH 2009 AT 1PM WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF "DISPOSED TO APPROVE AND REFER TO SCOTTISH MINISTERS". WE BELIEVE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S REPORT IS MATERIALLY FLAWED - To see the Director's Report [click here]. To see our notes [click here]
We emailed all Councillors today: You will no doubt be aware that the Director of Planning has issued his report on the Manse Crescent Application with a recommendation “Disposed to Grant”. We have studied the Director’s report and will publish our notes on our web-site later today. We do not expect the Director to have different interpretation of the planning framework to us. But, we believe that his report is open to challenge on errors in fact and omission of consideration of material representations. His recommendation appears to obfuscate the drainage issues and if accepted would leave the council taxpayer at risk of having to pay the cost of improving the drainage system and, maintaining and managing an inadequate SUDS solution. The Director appears to rely on and seek to promote social divisions rather than social integration. He also dismisses the risks to increasing class sizes. On a day when it is announced that BAA prefer Edinburgh to Glasgow Airport councillors must ask whether the Director’s report is symptomatic of why. It is certainly a clear message that Renfrewshire Council is not interested in creating a sustainable environment where wealth can be created and appreciated. To see HALL's representation on the Applicant's latest revisions [click here] Council's experts admit Applicant has failed to submit "appropriate drainage proposals" [click here] Council's refusal upheld at appeal [click here]
LATEST BUDGET DOES NOT RELY ON DISPOSAL OF THE SITE. In its recently approved budget Renfrewshire Council has made no allowance for capital receipts from Manse Crescent. The Council has increased its plans to raise capital through the prudential borrowing regime – in other words it will borrow money. HALL has always said that this was the most sensible route for the Council to adopt. HALL CALLS FOR SCOTTISH WATER TO BE PRIVATISED As Scottish Water appears to have gone back on its undertaking to get the Gryffe Valley Sewer fixed HALL enmailed Dawn McDermott: "Thank you for your email. You may be aware that Clemency Webb (Shadbolt) has also received a letter from Waterwatch dated 23 October which responds in a similar vein to some of the points on funding you make. I am pleased to have your reaffirmation that the developer has not yet submitted a compliant DIA. However, I am not entirely convinced that having been asked by the planning authority for your views as a statutory consultee SW cannot comment. As far as I am made aware SW have commented and this is why I asked for Mr. Sillar’s letter dated 23 May 2008 to be explained. He appears to be giving Scottish Water’s approval of a non-compliant DIA. I do of course accept that you cannot comment on behalf of the Council. Thank you for your frank explanation of SW’s funding dilemma. I expect that it makes your job all the more difficult to deal with the irony of having clean beaches and at the same time polluted inland open space. Some residents who watched Watchdog last week commented just how lucky the lady in Portland is – she doesn’t get raw sewerage backing up into her toilet. The problem in Gryffe Valley is of course more than external flooding – houses adjacent to the River Gryffe do get affected as well. What can be done? - It would help greatly if the Council and SW could be seen to be working together to solve the problem and not to be thought to be adding to it.
- It would assist if SW and the Council could install some means of preventing internal flooding (the flooding is also a Council problem).
- It would help if SW could give the residents a regular update of progress – however small.
- I have come to the conclusion from what Waterwatch and you write that the only way in which SW’s funding dilemma can be solved is if it is privatised – maybe this is what the electorate should be campaigning for. The “Shadbolt Letter” sets out a compelling case."
If you agree that Scottish Water should be privatised write to Jim Mather MSP, Minister for Enterprise, Scottish Government, 5 Cadogan Street, Glasgow G2 6AT. email: ministerforenterpriseenergyand
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
';
document.write( '' );
document.write( addy_text14168 );
document.write( '<\/a>' );
//-->\n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTED The Applicant has submitted another major revision which in part tries to answer some of HALL’s representations HALL has written to a senior opposition councillor asking him to raise the issues we explained in the following email: “When considering whether this revision constitutes substantial change which warrants a new application the aggregate of the changes must be considered. The new proposal is for 3 bungalows, 3 detached and 8 semis plus two block containing 16 flats. The four plots in Manse Crescent now show outline footprints (an application for outline consent). The revised application has some road layout changes and retains the SuDS pond which was not included on the original application. Apart from being residential within the same site boundary the changes are as comprehensive as they could be. We now have 3 bungalows, 3 detached and 8 semis plus two blocks containing 16 flats in area of some 1.5 acres. I doubt whether this is consistent with any other similar area in Renfrewshire let alone Houston, let alone the Neuk, let alone Manse Crescent. It is hard to imagine that the planners could have suggested this. I think that anybody with a modicum of residential development experience would question whether this is the best value use of such a prestigious site if residential development was in accordance with the development plan. On the hypothesis that residential development is appropriate why pursue a hotchpotch low value development at this time? This proposal has never made sense - but what is proposed is just not competent.” The Planning Officer told HALL that it will be months before this new revision is dealt with and that M&M will be given further extensions to the longs-stop dates.. . SEE NOTES OF LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE HELD 25 NOVEMBER 2008 [click] COUNCIL ADMIT CONTRACT WITH M&M IS NOT BINDING Aggrieved residents of Houston will remember that councillors have been consistent in saying that the agreement with Mattagart & Mickel is “binding”. HALL have consistently questioned this statement – fearing that the agreement favours the developer. In a letter to HALL dated 11 November, council solicitor Ken Graham confirms that the current sale may not go ahead. To see what Mr. Graham says [click here]. HALL wrote to the council under the Freedom of Information Act on 20 September: “We understand that the Council has extended the longstop dates in the agreement with MacTaggart & Mickel. We request copies of all correspondence between Mactagagrt & Mickel or their representatives and the Council which relate to extensions of the longstop dates from their original dates. We also request copies of all information the Council may hold by the way of internal notes, minutes, emails and memorandums which refer to such extension of the longstop date. This request is made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act.” Even if it is commercially sensitive HALL hasn’t asked for details of the price and Mr. Graham’s refusal therefore appears to be unsound. But is it? Maybe council officers have agreed a reduction in price at the same time as they agreed the extension of time - in which case the fact that the Chairman of the Finance Board was not informed seems even more outrageous. The assertion that making the price public “will lose the advantage of obtaining the best offer obtainable in a future sealed bid process”, makes no sense either. How could it? FURTHER DELAY AND CONFUSION. The application is not on the agenda for the next Planning Board on 2 December. All that Councillors can tells us is that they have been told, “the application has been sent back to the applicant (or the planners) for some sort of revision in terms of the height of the buildings”. If this is the case it is another outrageous example of the way the public are been trampled on. If the applicant’s proposals are unacceptable they should be refused or the Board can be asked to agree to a condition which requires the applicant to correct the error. HALL’s members are fed-up of this process of negotiation and Councillors inability to do anything about it. It certainly shows just what a sham the Public Hearing was. Some neighbours have received a Section 21 Notice from the applicant which refers to their application to the roads authority to construct the new access roads that haven’t yet got planning consent for - seems that it is all nicely agreed between the Council and the applicant. HALL has made representation on three specific safety issues which may not be reasons for refusal of the application – but they are certainly reasons for the road’s authority to refuse consent. [Click here] to see HALL’s representation But is there another ulterior motive for the delay? You can read from the Council’s agendas that Head of Planning is due to retire soon (that's shortly after heads of department got inflation busting increases to keep them). Some members have asked: "Could he be avoiding making recommendations to the Board before he retires?” It’s a thought – he must know that the issue is heading for the Courts WHAT HAPPENS NOW? We can expect the application to go to any of the next four boards. Of course we can’t be certain, but the behaviour by the council has to indicate that they are hell bent on approving this application. If they do and you have objected they should inform you of the decision and provide you with a statement of their reasons and they should explain why they are asking you to comment. This means that they have to write to all objectors. Bearing in mind that they should have done so when organising the public hearing, but only notified around 30%, you must be vigilant. You will then be given a minimum of 14 days to lodge any further comments you may wish to make. Note the 14 days arguably runs from the time you receive the statement not when they send it. But if you want more than 14 days from the date of the letter you should email or write and say why. Having received all of the objectors’ comments the board has to review its previous decision. If they decide to ratify it they must inform Scottish Ministers who may decide to call in the application. If they do it is likely for an application like this that there will be a public enquiry – we think there should be. But, it may be decided on its merits without one. The longstop dates in the agreement run-out at the end of February – but that wont stop this Council just extending them if that is necessary. It will be, because there should be no way this can be pushed through by then unless Scottish Ministers turn a blind eye. PLEASE LOBBY THE MINISTERS AND YOUR MSP’S AND MP’S – THIS APPLICATION MUST BE CALLED IN. . THE COUNCIL FACES BUDGET NIGHTMARE At a recent Council Meeting it was reported that the increase in revenue grants received by the Council from Holyrood would represent less than 2.5%. This depends on the Council accepting a freeze in Council tax again. The Council identified a need to increase its spending last year by some £60 million year on year, from £358 million to £417 million. The increase in grants, if the Council don’t accept the carrot, is a little over 1%, around £5 million. There are hard times coming – are you confident that your elected members are in control? To see the Council’s Report [click here] COMPLETE LACK OF CONTROL? We promised to keep you informed of developments – but when there hasn’t been any we are unable to. The simple fact is that Councillors just don’t know what’s happening with the Manse Crescent Application. We also hear that Councillors are now asking why they aren’t been told what’s happening on other fronts. What we can report is that we have been told that at a recent Community Council meeting the Chairman of the Finance Board declared that he didn’t know that the longstop dates for Mactaggart & Mickel had been extended. Our attempts to find out have been frustrated, but we got a letter dated 1 October from the Council confirming that contract with Mactaggart & Mickel was “ongoing”. We haven’t been told why and we are pursuing that through the formal review procedures under the Freedom of Information Act. But, the really serious and alarming issue is that the Chairman of the Finance Board may not know what’s going on. If this is the case it shows that the Council’s Finances are not been managed by the elected administration. We think the public are now well aware of how poorly regulated institutions can affect them. COUNCILLORS DENY BIAS Community Council Chairman Douglas Kirkwood, tells HALL that Councillors Allan Noon and Audrey Doig have given him assurances that all "Renfrewshire residents receive the same services and that it is not true that the Council is only interested in Renfrew, Johnstone and Paisley." We are also told that “we (we assume this means objectors) should ask the Planning Officers why they have extended the application period for Manse Crescent and that they have not made representations to the Chief Executive and contact Scottish Water regarding the Gryffe Valley Sewer”. This doesn’t reassure HALL. RIGHTS ARE BEING WRONGED The planning framework is intended to protect the publics’ human rights. Natural justice is intrinsic to the proper implementation of the planning process. Unless there is an overriding public interest those who implement the planning system have to protect peoples rights to enjoy their property by refusing to grant consent to developments which will cause a raised nuisance and loss of amenity to its neighbours. They also have to permit objectors to exercise their rights of expression and free speech without attempting to control or limit them. And, they should not discriminate against group of people. This last week HALL received confirmation of what they had deduced from Head of Legal Services. The longstop date has been extended until the end of February. We are now given firm dates: 27 February 2009 for planning consent and 5 March 2009 for agreement of price. It wasn’t difficult for us to deduce this – they are the latest dates possible if the Council are to get any payment this Financial Year. The issue is that we understand that Council Officers have made this decision without the matter being referred back to the Planning Board or the Finance Board. Coincidentally the original decision to advertise the sale of the land in February 2005 was taken by officers. They had to get retrospective consent from these two Boards. The history of obtaining approval hasn’t been without controversy. This new administration sought re-approval to sell from the new Boards immediately after being elected in May 2005. Since then new Councillors to the Boards have told us that they hadn’t had an opportunity to find out about the depth of opposition from local people or the issues involved. There have been material changes in those issues since then and Councillors have had an opportunity to hear from both the developer and the objectors in early August. How can officers decide in such circumstances that the electorate should be denied their right to express their views? Unlike 2005 their decision cannot be reversed so a retrospective decision by the Boards would be gratuitous. The Head of Legal Services also informed us that the Council couldn’t be held responsible for Mactaggart & Mickel’s claim that they had been told to ignore the people who live in “big hooses” in Manse Crescent. What he didn’t do was disassociate the Council from the comments. As the applicant has confirmed not to have considered the neighbours, and by implication that their proposals will call nuisance and loss of amenity, the application must be refused. Granting the application would amount to discrimination on social grounds by the Council. What the Council hasn’t confirmed is when the application will actually be considered, or why it is being delayed. Bearing in mind the concern this application is causing its neighbours HALL consider this to be a “social disgrace” and have told the Council so. This Council says that it is concerned about the welfare of third world farmers. But they do not appear to be concerned about the residents of Manse Crescent. There is only one course of action open to the Council – refuse the application. FURTHER DELAY AND CONFUSION It gets very difficult not to just believe that this Council treats its electorate like “dirt”. The application is not be on the 23 September Agenda - when we know why we will let you know. Several councillors have written to say that they will try and find out what’s happening. On top of this Head of Planning has written to say that it is Council policy to exclude the public from site visits. To see what HALL have said to Councillors [click here] At the same time as this is all happening well meaning Council Officials are trying to engage in consultation. To see what HALL have said on Housing and Regeneration [click here]. Will it all end in tears? We know of developers who are attempting to off load building land with planning to Housing Associations for less than £20k/unit less abnormals. If the Manse Crescent deal goes through either the Council or Mactaggart & Mickel are going to look stupid. To find out what HALL have said to Waterwatch [click here]. Council admit spending £4 million on public open space in Renfrew [click] Leader explains Councillor Derek Mackay emailed HALL on 11 September 2008. The purpose of the visit is to allow those attending the opportunity of seeing the physical characteristics and context of the site of the proposed development and to view the plans within that context. Any member attending a visit should have regard to the Councillors Code of Conduct and the guidance issued by the Standards Commission for Scotland. Applicants, agents or objectors should not attend the visit as this could lead to lobbying. I trust this is of assistance. To see HALL's reply [click] Some councillors have apologised We are pleased to report that some councillors have apologised for not being able to make the site visit. Evidently Monday morning isn't a usual day for Council meetings and it’s difficult to get time off from work. (Makes you wonder why it was arranged for Monday morning) We are also told that local ward members are invited in their capacity as representatives of the local people. Thus the Chairman of the General Management & Finance Policy Board attended. We suggest: - that the Council arrange another site visit which is convenient to all councillors who are eligible and want to attend;
- that local residents attend the planning meeting on 23 September 2008 at Cotton Street and hear whether local councillors have made any representation on their behalf; and
- if this application goes to a second meeting, that local residents ask local councillors to make representations on behalf of the community that the application should be refused.
Residents shouldn’t be put off by protestations from councillors that they cannot seek to influence the planning decision – councillors have a right to object just like any body else and a duty to make representations on behalf of their constituents. If they didn’t there would be no point in them attending site visits. To see what Councillor McGurk did [click here]. If you sympathise with the plight of local people and want to register your protest at the way this site visit was organised please send this message [click] to
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
or and/your local MSP. Delete what does not apply to you. SHOCK SITE VISIT Having established himself as something of a local hero for the way he conducted the recent public hearing Councillor Nicolson disappointed local residents by standing by whilst they were in their words “treated with contempt” by a councillor and council officials. At the public hearing Councillor Nicolson announced that there would be a site visit by the Planning Board and they were not made aware that they wouldn’t be welcome or that their attempts to welcome the Board would be spurned. Coffee was laid on and the principal features of the proposed development were set out with an explanatory note. Many locals, some having taking time off work, turned out and the two immediate neighbours in Manse Crescent invited the visiting party into their homes. For what has been described as Renfrewshire most contentious planning application, only Councillor Jackie Green (Labour) and Councillor David Clews (Conservative) turned up. Two officers from the planning department were present along with Councillor Noon – Convenor of the General Management & Finance Policy Board. Local people in a public place were told that “they had no business being there”, the coffee was refused and the invitation to visit the neighbours turned down. Councillor Clews, in his capacity of Ward Councillor, did visit the neighbours after the visit was over. Words don’t fail us – this is a situation when saying nothing speaks volumes. We attach the explanatory note [click here] handed to the visiting party – if any councillor or MSP would like to visit and see the impact of this development and get and understanding why, commenting on Scottish Water’s presentation, a senior officer at SEPA yesterday told HALL “I do agree that any development that adds to the problem should be delayed until the matter is resolved”, please contact HALL. Scottish Water say Sewer needs massive upgrade. On Friday 5 September Scottish Water met a number of local people, including representatives from Kilmalcolm, Quarriers, Houston Community Council and ourselves. They explained the outcomes of their extensive investigation into Gryffe Valley Main Sewer. Councillors Langlands and Clews were invited and attended. Councillor Hall was invited but unable to attend. These three Councillors had made representations to Scottish Water on this subject in the past. SEPA were also present. Scottish Water reported that: - The Gryffe Valley Main Sewer is under-capacity – in parts requiring an increase of 50% to just cope with current flows, assuming 30 year storm levels.
- One cause of under-capacity being new development which has not recognised the capacity limits of this important infrastructure.
- They are seeking to upgrade the system in the programme period 2010 – 2014.
- No new development can be permitted which will increase the current overloading.
Please write to your local MSP asking them to help get this important infrastructure upgrade into the 2010 – 2014 programme. To: - eliminate internal and external flooding; and
- permit new development which will regenerate Gryffe Valley.
Mystery (no longer)! We are told that the application will be on the agenda for a board meeting to be held one day before the longstop date expires - 23 September. The "fly in the ointment" is Scottish Water - the planners are waiting for their comments. Scottish Water tell us that they haven't seen the DIA and have written to M&M telling them what they require.We think it would be irresponsible for the Council to grant consent knowing that the main sewer requires a 50% increase in capacity just to accommodate the current use (misuse) of this critical piece of infrastructure. VISION OR SOCIAL JUSTICE? HALL emailed all Councillors on 28 August 2008. You may have woken up this morning to hear yet more depressing news about the economy and the housing crisis – nothing to lift your electorate out of the climatic gloom which seems to have engulfed us. But wait a minute there may be hope if Renfrew has been identified as one of the happiest places to live. No, sorry, it lies 258th out of 273 centres of population. It is in fact found to be one of the most miserable, trailing far behind Inverclyde and Glasgow. Maybe it is explained by what has caused the residents of Houston to be still in the dark about what is happening with the planning application at Manse Crescent. The feed back from Councillors who attended the public hearing have shown that they were shocked when they saw just what the applicant was presenting and how they seemed not to bother to explain it. Yet desperately concerned residents are trailing off to their jobs this morning not knowing what lies in wait for them, or why no body is reassuring them that there amenity is not in for being crushed. Getting Renfrewshire to the top of the league tables of happiness will require all of its resident communities to be encouraged to believe that the Council is addressing the right problems in the right way. Its one thing having a vision – but there has to be visionaries who have the communities trust to deliver it. Let’s hope that in his report the Director of Planning explains why he recommends refusal of the application AND how the Council are intending to address the socially crippling lack of affordable homes and proper lifetime homes situated in the right locations with affordable rents. Our members are concerned about addressing social injustice for all not just for themselves." Please attend Local Area Committees and get you views known. See below for details of the next one on 2 September 2008. PUBLIC HEARING 12 August 2008 For comment [click here] LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE next meeting on 25 November 2008 at 6 pm - local location to be announced. PLEASE BE THERE. SuDS EXPOSED - CAN WE TRUST THE COUNCIL TO PUT SAFETY FIRST? We haven't fully recovered from Mactaggart & Mickel's audacious claim at the public hearing that their propsed SuDS pond will be some sort of amenity and open space. PAN 61 is meant to set down guidelines for the design of SuDS schems. The planning authority should have got SEPA, Scottish Water and Building Control together with the applicant. Public safety is supposed to be paramount and the proposal should conform with the wider requirements of planning policy and guidance. The public are entitled to conclude that the planners are so satisfied with this idea that they didn't have to bother - just send out the DIA approach is good enough. The public at large haven't seen the details. This Council have shown scant regard for safety when it comes to overflowing sewers, inadequate footways and dangerous potholes. If they adopt this pond they will be responsible for it and they can be certain the residents of Houston will hold them responsible. To see what should be done [click here] PS - The Council now call it a "Drainage Basin". ITS ALL COMES DOWN TO TRUST We have been told the Scrutiny & Petitions Board had agreed to accept the Directors advice that our petition was invalid. We will leave the public to decide – see below. We were waiting to see what the outcome was before we made HALL’s submission on the Council’s draft Vision Statement. You can see it by going to www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/communityplanning. To see HALL’s response [click here] We had hoped that our petition would be a positive sign that members of HALL and the community we are representative of could put their trust in a new order. It seems that we cannot say to our community that you can trust the council to do the right thing for our community. HALL invited the Leader to meet with the community. His response was that he had already met with Bridge of Weir Community Council and the Chairman of Houston Amenity Council. In 15 months of office that does not amount to engagement. The Community should not place any trust in this Council until it earns it. NEW MEASURES TO HELP FIRST TIME BUYERS. Alex Salmond announced positive steps yesterday towards increasing the number of new affordable homes built in the next two years in Scotland. HALL estimates that these measures may increase the new homes by between 500 and 1,000 each year. And, council tax payers will have to find some of the extra money. [Click here] to see a summary of the measures. These are positive measures which show just how limited the options are for the government unless the private sector can boost the provision of homes which first time buyers can afford. HALL suggests that the government may consider: · incentives to make “build-to-let” attractive for private investors; · new homes to built in affordable locations on low cost land; · making building utilitarian and luxury homes on greenfield land more difficult. The danger facing Alex Salmond is that he can fall into the trap of being “all things to all men” – he may learn lessons from how past housing shortfalls have been dealt with since 1946. Using planning control as an incentive can be too broad. The logical revision to developer contributions is to rescind them only on houses which are truly affordable. Otherwise the relaxation helps developers rather than first time buyers. WILL THE HOUSES SELL? The Scrutiny & Petitions Board received a report from Homes for Scotland yesterday. We are told that their representative was very depressed about the housing market. The Councillor who told us also asked whether we thought the houses would sell at Manse Crescent. This is an example of why the Community should have doubts about the way the Council deals with these important issues. The facts are that houses aren’t selling and Renfrewshire already has enough housing land with planning permission to satisfy the demand from the private sector for the next five years and, more than likely ,beyond. There is no justification to agree to build more. It is gratuitous to claim that there is “demand” unless those who are creating the perceived demand can afford to buy – the attitude of lenders makes this very unlikely. Mr. Mickawber should spring to mind. If Mactaggart & Mickel can afford to subsidise house prices at Manse Crescent they can do it elsewhere and leave Manse Crescent alone (see below to find out that they are being accused of mothballing sites elsewhere). Councillors should stop worrying about housebuilders being depressed and start worrying about their constituents’ feelings. Mactaggart & Mickel accused of mothballing site. The Mail on Sunday reported in their 17 August edition that house building sites across Scotland are being mothballed. Homes for Scotland admitted that the report was true, commenting that new-build starts are down 50%. One property insider is said to have claimed, “No house builder in their right mind will be forging ahead with new homes”. The Mail cited a Mactaggart & Mickel development at Williamwood as an example. This is for a high density 2 to 4 bedroom development. To be fair to Mactaggart & Mickle their web-site says that they don’t expect to start until 2010. But HALL members question how this all squares with their claims that the Manse Crescent site is needed. If you want to see the Mail report [click here]. 34 MANSE CRESCENT WILL HAVE SIX HOUSES OVERLOOKING IT. The Council claim that they have been negotiating the application for nine months. They admit that the development’s density should be in keeping with the surrounding area. A measure of their failure is that the residents of number 34 Manse Crescent will have SIX new houses overlooking them. The application is not only in contravention of the Council's own guidance on distance between houses but the applicant says they did not consider the neighbours in Manse Crescent. They impilied that it was the Council who said ignore those people who live in "big hooses". We are waiting for the Council to issue a denial - better still to throw this application on to the rubbish tip where it belongs. The Scottish Government ask the Council to respect the community in these circumstances. We are simply outraged for the residents of 34. This isn’t respect. WHAT IS THE LOCAL COUNCILLOR DOING? No councillor has visited the residents of number 34 Manse Crescent or any other neighbour in The Neuk. This goes beyond sitting on the fence. If you are disgusted write to Councillor Derek Mackay who claims to be our Leader. FIND OUT WHAT THE HOUSEBUILDERS THINK The Council's Scrutiny & Petitions Board will consider a report on Holyrood's study on Flooding and Flood Plains. Included is a report from Homes for Scotland who claim to represent the companies who build 95% of Scotland's private homes. They use this important study to rant on about needing to build on more greenfield sits and balame SEPA for all of the problems caused by building on flood plains. To see what they say [click here]. When you read this remember the Chairman of Homes for Scotland is the Chairman of Mactagart & Mickel. He is the same Chairman who asked the government to buy up their surplus houses. The only floods we saw then was floods of tears about the housing crisis. SECOND READING OF HALL'S PETITION The Scrutiny & Petitions Board will hear the second report on our Petition which we submitted way back on 6 May 2008. Good job it wasn't urgent. In this report [click here] the Director of Services is inviting the Board to ask HALL to revise its petition. This is not an option open to him and in any event is totally unneccessary. See our letter to The Director [click here]. We think we are getting the message from the council's officers - people who live in "big hooses" don't count. Old order politics - move on guys, wake up and smell the coffee. We have to say that the hearing last week shows that to many councillors all residents count. We think that most elected members embrace the new order of community engagement. Maybe its the people from "big hooses" who have to support them. THE COUNCIL PROTECT THE ASH TREE Having previously questioned the value of the ASH Tree the Council have now placed a TPO on it. Seems to us like they are taking no risks. COUNCIL REPORT PROVES THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT Using the Freedom of Information Act HALL have obtained the Council’s own programme for new housing over the next seven years. HALL says it proves there is no need for this development. For more information [click here]. SPP3 PLANNING FOR HOMES REVISED The Scottish Government last week issued its revised policy on Planning for Homes. It stresses the preference for brownfield sites and the need to respect the surrounding population and to enhance and protect amenity, landscape and open space. The application fails woefully to meet any of the requirements and if the Council approve this application it will be a travesty of any pretence to engage in Community Planning. COUNCIL CLAIM TO BE "SEEKING BEST DESIGN SOLUTION". Ken Graham, the Council's Head of Legal Services has written to tell us "Head of Planning in seeking to achieve the best design solution for development of the site at Manse Crescent, Houston. See what they say [click here] and our reply [click here]. ARE APPLICANT'S PLANS ON FIRM FOUNDATIONS? The applicant is claiming to be helping the Scottish Government to meet its policy to increase new private houses to 35,000 a year. Industry experts say that sales will fall to 6,000 this year from 22,000. There is simply no need for more private houses in Houston. But it seems as though the SNP/LibDem administartion just won't listen. [Click here] to read paper by Anthony Rush. Find out what the Financial Times had to say[click here] DO YOU TRUST RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL? - please let us know. Scottish Water come clean about the problems with the sewers being more than they have previously owned up to [see] The Council have disclosed information on public hearings which contradicts what they have claimed in the past [see] No Councillor has yet told us what they have achieved to improve the quality of life of the community they represent. . Look out for regular up dates - make us a favourite
Using this site These are complex issues and HALL has submitted very detailed representations to the Council objecting to the application. HALL hasn't just objected. Visit and click on items that interest you: FIND OUT - for topics of interest and information on the two main issues including: - HALL's study of the need for homes for elderly people;
- An independent ecologists report.
NEWS - for the latest and old news items. FAQ's -answering question frequently asked.. REPRESENTATIONS - to see what HALL have said to the Council. - NEWS LETTERS - to catch up on HALL's Newsletter
.
The information on this web-site is to Houston Amenity Land Limited best knowledge. They cannot warrant accuracy or accept responsibility if others rely upon it. |
