HALL visited the Council today and inspected the revised layout drawing submitted by Mactaggart & Mickel.  It was submitted on 1 April 2008 and a revision is noted as: “proposals changed to reflect planners (sic) comments”. 

The substance of the application has so changed from the original application made on 31 October 2007 that the Planning Officer agrees that if, having considered the revised application, the planning authority considers the application not to be contrary to the development plan they will treat it as a new application.  This will mean that the consultation and neighbour notification process will have to start again.  So unless the Head of Planning agrees with us that the application isn’t in accordance with the development plan and therefore recommends refusal, this will go on and on again.  We are now in week 25 of the original application. 

We area also told that the Council have received an 11 page drainage assessment on the 8 April 2008.   Remember, this is the assessment that was thought by the Council to be too big to copy.   

HALL have arranged to meet the planning officer on the 14 April 2008 to review this new information with him. 

The revised drawing proposes: 

·         On the south site, four three bedroom detached houses; eighteen 2/3 bedroom semi detached houses; and 8 two bedroom flats in two storey blocks.  A change from the proposal unveilled at the public meeting.

·         On the north site they are still proposing four serviced plots (no details of the proposed houses). 

·         None of the house styles meet standards suitable for homes suitable for elderly people. 

·         There is no indication of what proportion of the development will be affordable homes. 

·         There is no open space provision or proposals to make up for the loss of open space. 

·         The applicant is proposing a SuDS Lagoon in the south-west corner of the site located where the existing pond (which floods at high rainfall) is situated. 

·         There are no garages and the parking provision appears to be at a rate of 175%. 

·         Approximately 60% of the site will be covered over with hard landscaping, roads and houses. 

·         The applicant has submitted a tree survey which inter alia says that the copse is of no value and should be removed (it is in the way of at least four units). 

·         The Ash tree isn’t to be removed. 

·         To accommodate the SuDS ponds and minimum distance requirements between properties the access road has been moved by 7.5 metres where it meets the roundabout. 

·         The proposal is still for pedestrian access onto the roundabout. 

HALL says: 

The Council has some hard thinking to do on this one. 

1. How can they say the application is in accordance with a housing strategy?   It still is substantially different to that which they said they required at the outset.  
2. If the Head of Planning and his Convenor were right in saying that the original application was in accordance with the development plan why is there a revision which is so substantially different?
3. What were the discussions which led the applicant to revise his proposal? 
4. The planning system isn't intended to arrive at a compromise after the application has ben submitted.  The applicant should have engaged in pre-application discussions with local people and the planning authority.  Why didn't he? 
5. What insurmountable shortfall of flats requires there to be 8 flats built on valued open space in Houston when there is a development of 1500 at North Renfrewshire? 
6. Why can there be an insurmountable need for 8 detached houses when the Council justified the need for residential development on the basis that there are too many large houses in Houston? 
7. Is there an insurmountable need for 18 semi-detached houses in Houston when there are problems with infrastructure and school roles are full? 
8. How can the council say that the agreement with Darwen Developments (Scotland) Limited represented best value when it was not known what the outcome scheme would be? 
9. Has the outcome scheme been properly market tested against other potential schemes and by creating proper competitive tension? 
10. Is permitting Mactagagrt & Mickel to stand in and negotiate a new deal with the council happening and if so is that what is meant by assignment? 
11. Is this the best outcome for the Council?

We are looking forward to seeing the drainage impact assessment.  The applicant’s representative explained at the Public Meeting that the SuDS pond would help neighbours by lowering the water table.  We are puzzled about this.  The existing pond floods in high rainfall.  We think that by channelling storm water from such a large part of the site into it will cause more flooding.  But we are open to be persuaded that we are wrong. 

We are also interested just where the applicant intends to connect the foul drainage – in any case Scottish water doesn’t deny that there is a problem with sewer capacity, they just don’t know why.  We think it is with both the main and local sewers. We also think that it is imprudent to block free access to the massive joint combined sewer which runs through Manse Crescent and into the site.  This sewer carries the storm water from the springs which rise to the north of Manse Crescent.  We believe that the wet land adjacent to the playing field is part of the ground water system which feeds it.  The sewer was routed through open ground for a reason.  Putting it into the back garden of a new house appears to be questionable and something local residents will not find acceptable. 

The new location of the access to the roundabout would appear to be too close to the egress from the roundabout into Houston Road (going towards Glasgow).  The roundabout has been the scene of a number of accidents and such a short or even none existent weaving length would seem to create a hazard.  The problem could be made worse by the steep incline down from the site. 

We look at this new revision and ask, “what the hell is going on?” 

• The application is not what anybody wants and there is no need for the houses.  

• It helps neither the elderly nor those with social needs.

• It’s destroying open space which is valued by the local people.

• It’s destroying the character of the village.

• It will add to the sewer problems.

• There is no room in the schools who are having their budgets cut.

• Even if capital receipts were the reason for doing this they must be a lot less that the Council expected.

• It is calling the integrity of local government into question.

• Even if it should, it doesn’t meet SNP policy as the applicant claimed.

Why not just regard it as a good idea at the time, bin it now and give the people of Houston some peace? 

The northern part of the site should not be forgotten.  The public are being asked to accept new homes on this landmark site, which is currently open space, without even seeing the type of house which is being proposed.

We know that HALL members will oppose these latest proposals as much as they have opposed it from the start.  If  M&M and the council haven't got the message there is no compromise necessary to an application for something for which there is no need.