Updated: Jun 17, 2021
At a meeting of East Dunbartonshire Council
on Thursday, 26 June 2014 at 6.00pm the following item was considered:
Agenda Item 12
Local Development Plan Proposed Plan –
“Where We Live” Section – Report by Director of Development & Regeneration.
The full paper under consideration can be found here:
http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/system_pages/current_committee_docs_search.aspx
(Pages 69-81)
However these paragraphs are particularly significant:
4.7. Between September and November 2013 the Council undertook a consultation on the content of the MIR and associated technical reports. The Council received a large number of responses to the Main Issues Report and officers have carried out a detailed analysis of these to inform the Proposed Plan. A Report of Findings can be found on the Council's website.
4.8. Whilst members of the public responded in greater numbers to specific housing sites, some responded to the overall strategy for addressing housing need. In the main communities expressed support for a housing strategy which prioritises controlled expansion of the wider built-up area to facilitate urban regeneration, however some respondents showed support for going further to meet housing need and others did not agree with any strategy that would result in the loss of greenbelt land. In terms of the figure noted in paragraph 4.2 above, some members of the community felt that the level of affordable housing required was too high. With regards to individual sites, LDP18 Redmoss Farm in Milton of Campsie was the only site that attracted significant amount of opposition with 160 objections. Six other sites also received between 20 and 30 objections.
4.17. The selection of sites for inclusion in this new option package (detailed in Appendix 2 and 3) is supported by extensive technical work which demonstrates the distinction between the identified sites and all other sites submitted by developers which are considered unreasonable (Background Report 3: Site Assessment Report available at www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/MIR).
The strategy focuses on Brownfield sites within the urban area and Greenfield sites which are designed to deliver affordable housing or which are well located, in sustainable locations and close to larger settlements to minimise the need to travel for services. The identification of large sites, where there is potential for significant impact on the deliverability of other existing sites within the area has been avoided. The justification for the selection of reasonable sites is considered to be sound and therefore defensible at public examination. For this reason it would be challenging to undertake a revision of the individual sites included in the package as the selection is based on consideration of the factors impacting on both individual sites and the package as a whole. Attempts to remove or introduce other sites would have the potential of undermining the basis for the package that is being promoted by officers as the most balanced overall package of sites.
Prior to the debate the SNP opposition introduced an amendment to exclude:
Redmoss Farm
Blackthorn Grove
Bishopbriggs Memorial Hall
from “preferred” status and to “instruct officers to bring back to Council outline affordable options for all Brownfield sits in the Council ownership”
After a recess:
The Debate
Councillor Billy Hendry Ward 5 - Bishopbriggs North and Torrance, the Leader of the Conservative Group asked officials how many marketable houses would be needed if the 190 affordable houses at Redmoss were removed from the Plan. A – 760 total 570 marketable (25% affordable basis). He questioned the achievability and affordability of such an alteration. Officials responded that it would leave the Plan “unresolved”
Councillor Rhondda Geekie Ward 7 - Lenzie and Kirkintilloch South, the Leader of the Labour Group and Leader of the Council then moved the motion, drawing attention to the lack of availability of brownfield sites. She expressed surprise at the amendment in the light of the “long, difficult process” and said that changes to the Plan “will have ramifications elsewhere”. She said that all the proposed “sites can be defended” and said the Council should “stick with the recommendations”.
Councillor Ian Mackay Ward 2 – Bearsden North, Leader of the SNP Group moved the amendment. He agreed that the process had been difficult but pointed out that the Plan only delivered half of the 900 affordable houses required. He said that the idea that Redmoss Farm (providing 190 of the 450 affordable units in the Plan [42% - ASH] of 900 required [21% - ASH]) was the only answer to the affordable housing issue was “not necessarily true”. “No one knows the capacity of the Brownfield sites” and that Council should “look elsewhere”.
Councillor Ashay Ghai Ward 2 - Bearsden North, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group and Depute Leader East Dunbartonshire Council made a very brief speech saying the issue was “problematic”. Throughout the debate he was more prone to interrupt and make sarcastic comments about other Councillors’ remarks than make any constructive points himself.
Councillor David Ritchie Ward 4 - Campsie and Kirkintilloch North, SNP, said that whilst affordable housing was the key, the Redmoss Farm (RF) development was extremely contentious, with local feeling strongly against building on Greenfield sites. He said there were issues at RF concerning: wildlife, roads, biodiversity etc. In his opinion it was a “gorgeous site”. There were numerous Brownfield sites including Tom Johnston House which was ideal for affordable housing being on a bus route, close to the train and across from the Sports Centre.
Councillor John Dempsey, Ward 4 - Campsie and Kirkintilloch North, Lab, said that he had received representations for and against RF. However he was in favour of the proposal as mitigation measure would balance the need for affordable housing.
Councillor Gemma Ward 4 - Campsie and Kirkintilloch North, Lab, made a very brief contribution along similar lines saying that RF was “not perfect” and that officials should remit to the developer for mitigation measures whilst continuing to look for other sites. (Note – that is specifically excluded at 4.17 in the documents).
Councillor Alan Moir Ward 6 - Bishopbriggs South, Lab, said that it was a “challenging” issue but that there was “pressure on this authority to deliver because East Dunbartonshire (ED) had no Plan in place” (see Minister’s letter in the documents). The proposal was necessary to “protect ED”
Councillor Billy Hendry Ward 5 - Bishopbriggs North and Torrance, the Leader of the Conservative Group stated that the SNP had argued for affordable housing in the past and also referred to Scottish Government (SG) pressure.
Councillor Eric Gotts Ward 1 – Milngavie, LibDem, continued the theme saying that Cllr Ritchie was being hypocritical in his arguments to protect the greenbelt.
Councillor Gillian Renwick Ward 7 - Lenzie and Kirkintilloch South, SNP, refuted the suggestion that the SNP had selected random sites for objection in the amendment and also said that this was the first opportunity that the opposition had had to amend the Plan.
Councillor Vaughan Moody Ward 3 - Bearsden South, Lib Dem, said the report “highlighted the tensions between national and local government”. ED had been very successful in defending the greenbelt to the extent that the population had fallen in the 10 years 2001 -11. In his opinion the report took “the middle way”. “If RF falls out then other applications will come forward in the same area.”
Councillor Stewart MacDonald Ward 8 - Kirkintilloch East and Twechar, Lab, said that the amendment was all “about Councillors protecting their own interests”. If RF falls it will cascade the issue out to other areas e.g. Kirkintilloch.
Councillor Keith Small Ward 3 – Bearsden South, made perhaps the best contribution on the SNP side for the amendment. He started by saying that it was “wrong to personalise the issues”. RF was “peculiar” with 160 objections. He asked how many representations Cllr Dempsey had received in favour of RF. (No answer.) He drew attention to the carrot offered by the developer in offering 100% affordable housing on the site; but pointed out that this was against Council policy – “affordable housing should be integrated not stand alone.” “There ARE Brownfield sites that could and should be looked at first.”
Independent Councillor Jack Young, Ward 8 - Kirkintilloch East and Twechar referred to the late Cllr Kennedy’s opposition to development on RF. He pointed out that the report considered 475 units on Brownfield sites and 477 on Greenfield. He said that it was “particularly important to look at Brownfield sites first”. Tom Johnston House was indeed suitable for affordable housing.
Summing Up:
For the Amendment Councillor Ian Mackay said that:
“The Council was not looking at (enough) Brownfield sites.”
“If we (the opposition) agree with Redmoss being in the Plan it will become a fait accompli at any later Appeal to a Reporter.
“Until we know the potential for Brownfield sites we should not include Greenfield”
For the Report Councillor Rhondda Geekie reminded Councillors that they were “not considering a Planning Application tonight”. She said that work had been done on Brownfield sites not all of which were in the Council’s ownership.
Vote
On a roll call vote (whatever happened to modern technology?) the Report was adopted by 14-10. The 9 Lab, 3 LibDem & 2 Cons voted as the Administration block. Both Independents voted for the amendment with the 8 SNP members.
ASH/29.06.2014
NB: Despite the microphones it was quite difficult to hear everything that was said. Andy MacKenzie also took notes and may well have some additions or amendments.