M&M say, "we are following SNP policy" - a threat or a promise?

Douglas Kirkwood welcomed those present and said that the meeting had been called by Houston Community Council because of the level of local concern in the development of the land at Manse Crescent and Quarry Brae. The Convenor of the Planning Board has advised that, if the planners recommend approval of the application then he will hold a Hearing which the objectors to the application will be invited to attend. The Community Council will be invited and wished to hear the comments of those present and take these forward to the Hearing. 

Douglas read out a list of those he had invited but who had declined - Councillor Iain Nicolson, Convenor of the Planning Board, Mr Bob Darracott, Director of Planning and Transport, Mr Crawford Russell, Head of Planning, Scottish Water and Waterwatch Scotland.  Those who said that they were not available were Mr Jim Sheridan MP, Mrs Trish Godman MSP and Councillor Anne Hall.  Those who said that they would attend were Mr Jim Kirkwood, Mactaggart & Mickel, Mr Robert Kerr, Head of Environmental Protection and Improvement, SEPA, and Councillors David Clews, Audrey Doig and Allan Noon.   

Douglas advised that he intended to ask Mr Jim Kirkwood to make presentation on behalf of the developer after which he would read a comment that he had received from Scottish Water.  He said that he had asked HALL to make presentation and they had requested that they make that presentation towards the end of the proceedings and he had agreed. 

Mr. Jim Kirkwood explained that his company believed in consultation and that they were sorry that the meeting had been arranged at such short notice. 

He explained that they would be developing the Southern part of the site and Darwen Developments would be developing the northern part.  He said that Darwen Developments had carried out similar developments in this locality in the past. 

Jim Kirwood unveiled the scheme that they will submit for planning consent on the southern part of the site.  It is for 34 units of 2 and 3 bedroom two storey houses.  It was, he claimed, much reduced on the scheme agreed in the missives between the Council and Darwen Developments.  This he said was for 37 units.  He implied that his company had made this reduction as a compromise to satisfy public concern. 

He stressed a number of times that their proposals were intended to meet “SNP” policy to provide more houses and that this scheme would make significant contribution to those aims and satisfy the under supply problems in Renfrewshire. 

He also confirmed that whilst the houses would be designed to suit elderly people there would be no way of preventing them being bought by families and that he expected there to be a need for school places.  The reasoning behind there being no one bedroom houses he said was because elderly people like their relations to visit and stay overnight. 

He explained that their drainage proposals would alleviate Scottish Water’s problems and that their SuDs proposals would reduce ground water levels in the area.  He claimed that Scottish Water hadn’t objected to their application. 

Correspondence had been received from Scottish Water which stated that they are currently undertaking investigations within the sewer network to identify the cause of the surcharging in the area. They will not object to any planning applications received from a developer and they are not funded to upgrade water and waste water networks. It is the responsibility of the developer to determine the effect their development will have on the system and to fund any solutions that are required. 

Mr Robert Kerr from SEPA made it quite clear that they would object to the application and would have done earlier if the planning authority had consulted with them.  He said that the problem with the sewers was unacceptable and that the infrastructure had to be reliable before there was any further development.   He explained that the problem could be that the system was just inadequate or that there was a fault which was causing the problems of overflow.  Whilst he appreciated HALL’s suggestion for an interim solution he believed that a final solution should be found.  

HALL believes that there is a serious consequence of the Council not consulting with SEPA.  Officers have spent many hours, in their own words, negotiating with Mactaggart & Mickel – they have caused members of the public to object whilst if they had consulted with SEPA it would have been unnecessary.  This is a waste of Council Tax payers’ money and time. 

There were a number of questions and answers from the floor. 

It was agreed that the correct infrastructure had to be in place before any development took place. 

When questioned Jim Kirkwood appeared to be unaware that the contracting party was Darwen Developments (Scotland) Limited.   

Comment was made that the site was unsuitable for elderly people.  

Jim Kirkwood said that the roads were designed to gradients which meet normal road standards. 

Councillor Noon pointed out that Houston was the beneficiary of substantial capital spending on schools and that the sale of this land would be a contribution towards the capital budget.   

Councillor Noon also confirmed that the Head of Planning as yet to report on this matter. 

Councillor Doig explained that the new administration had to go ahead with this sale, because the past administration had decided on it. 

There was general agreement that the land should not be built upon. 

Anthony Rush summed up on behalf of HALL. 

He did point out to the meeting that HALL had proposed a Public Meeting in November and had written to the Chairman of Mactaggart & Mickel.  In response to their representative’s interjection that this was a “cheap shot”, Anthony disagreed.  He pointed out that HALL was supported by some 550 people at inception in 2005, over 300 had written in since then objecting to residential development in principle.  Certainly more than 200 (we now know the number is 274) had formally objected to this application and there had been over 1,000 hits on the web site in just over three weeks.   And, despite short notice there were around 150 people at the meeting.  The level of objection is exceptional. 

He started by recollecting that when the Environmental Protection Act was being drafted there was concern from bodies that were responsible for health and safety and that time that they would lose some of their powers.  As a consequence the legislation which led to the formation of SEPA did not replace existing legislation.   In his opinion HSE has powers to prosecute Scottish Water or its individual managers for failing to have proper systems in place.  The Council has powers to prosecute Scottish Water for the nuisance caused.  They can also clean up the mess and get Scottish Water to pay the cost of doing so. 

He then went on to explain the tests that the Head of Planning will have to apply when he writes his report to the Planning Board. 

He explained that Policy H1 in effect meant that residential development wasn’t prohibited – but it had to pass certain tests.  The essential tests being that it isn’t detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area and, by extension through Policy L4, that on assessment it enhances the amenity value of the site to the surrounding area and the recreational value to the surrounding population.  He commented that the proposals obviously failed in these respects. 

Later Mr Kirkwood denied that land was open space and Councillor Audrey Doig asserted that Council Officers had told her that it wasn’t open space. 

HALL says that by definition set out in Scottish Planning Policy 11 it is open space.  Moreover, the Development requirements for this site clearly say that Policy L4 will apply to it.  And, if that wasn’t enough the Council’s Chief Executive, David Martins, confirmed in writing to HALL on the 22 November 2007 that Policy L4 applies to the site. 

When Audrey Doig was shown the Development Requirements she commented that she hadn’t seen them before.  HALL find it very difficult to understand why she hasn’t been shown this critical document as she was a member of the General Management Policy Board which approved the sale to Darwen Developments (Scotland) Limited.  Rather, she was told that it wasn’t open space. In its evidence to the Ombudsman the Council also confirmed that the land was covered by Policy L4.  

Anthony went on to explain that the Policy H7 would also be considered by the Head of Planning.  The important points being that the density had to be in keeping with the adjacent developments.  The density of the new proposal is still well in excess of the adjacent developments. There has to be adequate provision of services and schools.  As we had heard from SEPA there isn’t adequate drainage.  There is also a question over the capacity of Gryffe High School. 

Anthony continued by addressing the need issue.  He commented that Jim Kirkwood had said that he thought the Local Plan to be badly prepared.  Moreover, the Convenor of the Planning Board thinks it ambiguous.  Nevertheless, in Houston and Crosslee there are no new houses, private or affordable, planned after 2004.  The Local Plan confirms the feeling that Houston and Crosslee are built out to their planned extent. He also pointed out that the Local Plan articulates that a large proportion of the supply in Renfrewshire will be provided by North Renfrew (36%) and Bishopton. 

HALL says that it understands that there may be a need for new homes and they certainly agree that the Council should divest unused assets.  But in furtherance they cannot simply rip up their policies.  It may be aggravating to those who thought up this scheme, but it doesn’t tick any boxes and there is an exceptional local feeling against it.  Promoting the idea that the amount the Council are now likely to receive in the way of receipts puts the capital budget for the next ten years at risk is simply derisible. 

HALL also point out that the Local Plan was adopted in March 2006 – if the Council had intended this site to be used for residential development they would have designated it under Policy H3.  When the Local Plan was adopted the public were entitled to believe that the Council had abandoned their plans for the site. 

Anthony then explained the Development Requirements for the disposal of the Site.  Apart from amenity and loss of recreational value he pointed out other key criteria. The requirement was for between 20 and 30 units of 1 to 2 bedrooms.  His interpretation of this was that it meant not more than 30 bedrooms in a combination of 1 and 2 bedroom house.   

He then went on to explain the accepted meaning of homes which meet the requirements for the elderly.  He recounted that an expert had said that “you would be stark raving mad to put homes for elderly people on this site”.  He explained that homes suitable for elderly people are normally on flat land, close to shops and services as well as public transport and mixed into the community. He commented that it was easy to conclude that the elderly homes idea was just a red-herring. 

HALL says we fully recognise the need to provide housing and environments which are accessible, inclusive and supportive for an ageing population.  And, that actions had to be taken to improve the supply, design and standards of housing for an ageing population; to help older people to 'stay put' for longer in their own homes; and to assist older people to move on when they wish to do so, or when their level of dependency means they require more intensive care and support.  Designing all new homes to a standard which meets these requirements should be mandatory on all new developments.   The way it is being portrayed and explained in the Development Requirements is that it is a unique requirement which is intended to satisfy a current need.  We agree it is a red herring. The numbers game is also a mystery.  Jim Kirkwood said that the deal between the Council and Darwen Developments (Scotland) Limited was based on 37 units.  Yet from information given to HALL by the Council under the Freedom of Information Act it says that the offer which was approved by the Board was for 33 units. 

We don’t know what is difficult about understanding that 20 to 30 means not more than 30, 1 to 2 bedrooms means not more than 2 bedrooms with some 1 bedroom units.  It is totally disingenuous to say that the requirements were a guide which can be ignored completely.  It can be described as a guide, but as it uses terms such as “should” we believe that it is not intended to offer scope for more than 30 units and no more than 2 bedrooms. (You will be able to refer to the Development Requirements by clicking on to them on this page) Anthony then briefly referred to the drainage issue which had been more fully covered. 

HALL says that comment was made that Scottish Water had not objected and it was pointed out that they will look to the developer to pay for any upgrading costs as part of the “approval to connect”.  Anthony had drawn reference to a letter from Michael Russell’s Office (Minister for the Environment) which says that Scottish water have “highlighted to the local authority that there may be problems with the waste water network which will require to be investigated by the developer”.  In these circumstances it is SEPA’s role to object – the theory is that Scottish Water are relaxed about any new development provided that the developer pays the cost of accommodating it.  Scottish Water would not have known that the Council hadn’t consulted SEPA and would have expected SEPA to object – as they will do. 

Anthony finished by explaining the Next Steps. 

The applicant will submit a final version of his application and the Council had given assurances that they would start the consultation process again. 

HALL says: Later Jim Kirkwood told us that he would be sending out Neighbour Notification Notices again.  In effect they will be submitting a new application.  How on earth can the Council justify this wasteful process they have involved themselves and the public in? 

Anthony briefly touched on the idea of a Public Hearing and confirmed HALL’s view that it was unnecessary.  He also pointed out that the Head of Planning had written to Councillor Langland saying that they had held several, but had written to HALL saying that they had only held one.  That was in relation to the White Cart development and was part of a long consultation process but that there is no record of it. He pointed out that it was to be restricted to those who had objected – whilst he understood that the Board may wish to restrict presentations to them he couldn’t see why the public at large should be excluded. 

He then mentioned the Head of Planning’s report and how he must take account of all the tests and objections.  He should also give an account of the “negotiations” which have taken place. Anthony explained that the Planning Board would have to come to their own decision – they don’t have to accept the Head of Planning’s recommendation.  He pointed out that the members of the committee should not be given instructions from their political party on how to vote.  He explained that when this Board voted in favour of disposing of the land on 5 June they were not voting on a planning issue and could therefore have been under party whip.  The votes were for disposal; 2 Lib Dems and 6 SNP Councillors – total 8.  The votes against were 1 Tory and 5 Labour – total 6. 

He pointed out that if the Board refuse the application the applicant could appeal, but if the approve it the public cannot appeal. Because the land is in ownership of the Council there is strong objection the application should be referred to Scottish Ministers.  They can, accept the Boards decision, reject the Boards decision, or hold a public Inquiry.  The latter may be by written submission or by full open inquiry. He stressed the need for objectors to continue to make submit written objections. 

HALL met Andrew McIlwraith, the Planning Officer for this application, on 13 March 2008.  He expressed no knowledge of the scheme presented by Mactaggart & Mickel to the meeting.  They haven’t received any further revisions, drainage impact assessment or SuDS assessment. He confirms that Policy L4 applies and is cannot say why Audrey Doig should have been told it didn’t. He confirms that if the Council decide to approve an application, because of the level of objection, it will have to be referred to Scottish Ministers. 

HALL says this matter has been a catalogue of mismanagement, disinformation and error.  The Council admit that the Head of Planning was consulted with regard to what may get planning approval.  We believe that the “elderly homes” idea was derived from the Local Plan setting down that the Old Peoples Homes Strategy had not been finalised.  

The low density had to comply with adjacent developments and small houses were substantiated because there are more large houses than small houses in Houston. It seems that the highest bidders offered an alternative which was too tempting to refuse.  However, we also believe that the Council should have put the proposal out for tender again. They have left themselves open to legal challenge by other tenderers 

The idea had obviously been seen as unlikely or had been binned – the land was not designated under Policy H3 in the Local Plan.  Of course if it had been, local objection could have caused a Public Inquiry – so maybe it was tempting to risk it not being designated under H3. 

Whatever, Jim Kirkwood’s insistence that they were following “SNP” policy contradicts the idea that the new administration had to adopt the past administrations plans.  HALL has never thought that explanation had any credibility.  Neither of the two SNP Councillors challenged Jim Kirkwood who had given the impression to a number of people that he was saying that there was nothing the objectors could do – because they were following “SNP” policy. 

We also learnt from Jim Kirkwood that they would be contracting directly with the Council and that the price hadn’t been finalised.  Whatever anybody likes to claim an agreement to agree is not a binding contract.