THE PLANNING CONTEXT 

When reference is made to the development plan it means for these purposes the Local Plan which was adopted in March 2006.  Essential to this application is that the Local Plan was adopted after the disposal of the land was raised and in the realisation that it wouldn’t be disposed of before 31 March 2006.   

The Local Plan covers many policies and they all have to be read in conjunction with each other.  Whilst the land is designated under policy H1 this only means that residential development isn’t prohibited.  It has to meet other policies and be practicable. 

A key consideration in the application of development plan policies is the effect on amenity.  Planning regulation properly applied reflect natural justice and the right of individuals not to suffer abuse.  The planning authority has to take cognisance of guidance and policies issued by the Scottish Government/Executive which set down common standards to prevent abuse. 

Essential to any application for residential development is the policy on the supply of housing land.  In the Local Plan this is covered by policy H1 which identifies a need for 4076 units over a planned period from 2001 to 2008 and then beyond.  The policy specifically says that Renfrew North and Bishopton ROF sites are capable of meeting a large part of the demand.   

It also notes that Houston is largely built out to its planned extent.  The capacity of Houston was shown to be 20 new private units all completed before 31 March 2005.  This will have been achieved and Houston is now built out to its planned extent. 

If the Council had decided to sell the land for private housing it could have been seen as being opportunistic and contrary to the development plan.  To their credit they didn’t – they set out to sell the land for social housing or private housing which is suited to life long living by elderly people.  

Social Housing is normally referred to as “Affordable Homes” and provided by a Housing Association.  The development plan didn’t identify any capacity in Houston and indeed no Housing Association stepped up to the plate and bid for the land.    

Residential housing for life long living is designed specifically to meet the demands of old age.  Normally the house will be single storey with wheel chair access and facilities which are consistent with infirm or disabled people.  The preference is for them to be situated on flat land and near to local amenities and public transport.  The land would not be seen as being an ideal site for such housing. 

Nevertheless the Council decided that there was a need (despite the fact that a study into need hadn’t been completed).  They advertised the land on the basis that the southern part was suitable for; “20 – 30 residential units to 1 or 2 bedroom units designed primarily to meet the needs of the retired, the elderly or those with special needs.” 

On numerous occasions (including evidence to two formal proceedings) they have given the impression that this is the definitive guidance as to what will comply with the development plan. HALL challenges their reasoning and claim that only development for the purposes of open space is consistent with the Local Plan. 

However, an applicant who has no contractual relationship with the Council has submitted an application to build 41 private family houses on the southern part of the site.  To put that into context it amounts to about 25% of the total capacity of Renfrewshire in one year. 

The proposed units contain 3 and four storey blocks of apartments which are inconsistent with the surrounding developments.  The proposed density of development is twice that of any other area in Houston.  It is what is described as “high density”. 

Even by the Council’s interpretation of the development plan any application for private housing should be refused.  By any interpretation Mactaggart & Mickel's should be refused.