17 December 2007 - HALL PRESS RELEASE

The Paisley Daily Express refused HALL the right to reply to Council Leader's comments printed by them on 11 December 2007.

 Hall said:

Houston Amenity Land (HALL) is calling upon the Leader of Renfrewshire Council to not allow a mockery to be made of the planning system and to pledge to safeguard open space in Renfrewshire.  Answering Derek Mackay’s accusation printed last Tuesday in the Paisley Daily Express that HALL were making “inaccurate and unjust allegations” in their campaign against the Council’s plans for a controversial housing development in Houston

A spokesperson for HALL said: “We stand by everything we have said, if it is inaccurate then that is because Derek Mackay refuses to meet us and explain, or the Council hasn’t given detailed answers to our complaints and queries.  By comparison with our questions we find their replies superficial and lacking in transparency.”  The spokesperson went on to ask: “Just who does the Leader say are we being unjust to?   This is even stranger than a man bites dog story.”   

HALL do give a guarded welcome to Derek Mackay’s confirmation that the planning decision will be decided on the merits of the case in a non-party political way.   “Time will tell.”  Said the spokesperson. “All the experts who have looked at this for us tell us that in planning terms the application should have no chance.  It clearly fails on its merits.  However, it is being said that the decision is already made and that the site will be developed for housing because the Council needs the money.   We are aware that over 140 letters of objections, apart from HALL’s and the Community Council, have already been received by the Council.  There have been no letters of support.  We would call ignoring that amazing level of local objection – unjust!” 

The disposal of the land was put before the first meeting on the new Planning and Economic Policy Board as agenda item 1 on the 5 June 2007.  This time it was reported that the sale would support the 2007/2010 Capital Plan.  As reported by the Paisley Daily Express, some protestors feel let down by SNP Councillors who voted for what they see as a new proposal. 

The spokesperson for HALL suggested: “If Councillor Mackay wants to restore local confidence he could confirm that members of the Planning and Economic Policy Board who may have previously declared their intention on this matter have been asked to abstain from voting when the application comes before them.” 

HALL has never opposed selling off the land as open space – they were formed to acquire it.  But they are concerned that the changes in Scottish Government’s guidance show a different attitude to the old Labour/LibDem coalition.  New planning rules revised and finalised by the Scottish Government to protect open space were questioned by opposition politicians and campaigners when they were issued by Stewart Stevenson, Planning Minister, earlier this month.  The document – SPP11 – was intended by the former Labour-led Scottish Executive to have established national minimum standards, but the SNP have changed the provisions in order they say “to ensure the provision of open space across Scotland is sensitive to local circumstances”.   

Other planning rules – PAN 82 - require Councils to refer any decision to grant consent to build on open space they own to the Scottish Ministers before they grant consent.  The Scottish Ministers can, if they choose, decide to call the application in. 

HALL’s spokesman said: “Bearing in mind what happened in Aberdeenshire, over what involves a housing development, and the allegations from opposition parties this week we are now very concerned.  The sale of our open space started out as an urgent measure by Council officers to meet a budget shortfall by March 2006. 

The Council wanted to build up to 30 homes for elderly and socially disadvantaged people.  Whilst we didn’t like it we did have sympathy if there was a need for more affordable homes, but we think for that purpose there are better alternative sites owned by the Council in Houston.  We had confidence that the planning system would prevail and the proposal would be defeated. 

We believed that the old administration wanted to be transparent and give local communities a fair hearing.  Now we just aren’t sure what to think. The current proposal is even more contrary to the development plan than the original hurried proposal and is not making claim to be for the elderly and socially disadvantaged.  By everything we believe to be just, it should be refused out of hand.  But how can the public be confident now? 

The public have no right of appeal and depend on Scottish Ministers calling-in the application to enforce retention of open space.  The applicant hasn’t even been asked to carry out any kind of environmental assessment despite an expert saying that there are matters which should be investigated.  We understand that an environmental assessment is mandatory for a development of this size. 

The applicant has declared that he owns the land which as far as the Council tells us is not the case.  Yet the Council don’t seem to have made the applicant correct this mistake.  Just what’s going on?  The Council claim to have entered into a conditional agreement to sell the land to a company who are not the applicants. 

The public aren’t being told what’s going on.  In our book this isn’t what’s meant by transparency and consultation. If this application goes through, rightly or wrongly, we think that it gives another clear message that SNP and SNP/LibDem. Councils are “open for business” in selling off open space including playing fields and anything that will take a house.  This is the thin end of a wedge.  It has the potential to change the face of every Renfrewshire Village. We understand that the Council are now rushing to get the application to the earliest possible committee.  We invite all interested communities to add their voices to our campaign”