Updated links

NB. Paper forms are available from the Council or in the Library and can be submitted by post

These are the new links: Emailing Microsoft Word form: If you are going to submit multiple responses then this is the easiest method. When completed, please attach the form(s) to an email and send to ldp@eastdunbarton.gov.uk. Representation Form (doc) (76Kb) Representation Form (rtf) (1.50Mb) Paper Forms: are also available and can be posted to: Land Planning Policy, Development and Regeneration, Southbank House, Strathkelvin Place, Kirkintilloch G66 1XQ. Representation Form (pdf) (380Kb) Online Survey: if you do not have access to Microsoft Word or do not wish to use a paper form, an online version of the form can be completed and automatically submitted via our Survey Monkey facility. Survey Monkey Representation Representations will be processed by East Dunbartonshire Council in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The data you provide will be used for the purpose of the consultation. The comments you provide will be made available online as part of this consultation although no personal detail will be published. Completed representations must be received by 5pm on Wednesday 27 May 2015. Submissions received after this date will not be accepted.

We recommend that you concentrate on one or two of the material considerations set out in the document prepared by a local expert that you received with the Community Council Newsletter earlier this month e.g. the planning history of the site – the same Application (for the whole site) was rejected by the Reporter in 2011, since which time nothing has changed except that the South area has now been dropped and it is proposed to build 80 rather than 50 houses on the North area. the proposed development would have a negative impact on the character, functions and amenity of the village. the proposed development does not satisfy the criteria for sustainable urban development – it is not within 400 metres of public transport so would encourage the use of private cars. it does nothing to support regeneration – there are numerous brownfield with Milton of Campsie sites that could accommodate a total of 80 affordable houses e.g. Lillyburn and West Baldoran Farm, and nearby at Broomhill Hospital and Tom Johnston House. protecting the greenbelt – there is a long established defensible boundary behind the existing houses in Elizabeth Ave and Laburnum Drive and intrusion into the greenbelt would set a dangerous precedent. the environmental impact – see new document attached (written by the same local expert). This was issued with the original email two weeks ago but omitted last night, a further copy is attached. the inadequacy of the service infrastructure to accommodate new development including access to the site presumably at Marley Way, increased traffic on Redmoss Road etc, water pressure issues and so on. risk of flooding from unsustainable development The above list is not exhaustive. Please also remember to complete the final section of the form where you are asked HOW THE PROPOSED PLAN SHOULD BE MODIFIED. This is where you need to say something like The proposal to build any houses on Redmoss Farm in Milton of Campise should be removed from the LDP. Alan Harris

FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 80 HOUSES ON THE NORTH REDMOSS FARM SITE First, the proposal infringes 8 of the 10 principal planning policies (specifically policies 2 – 9). Second, the history of the site is of significance. As you are aware, this is the latest in a series of development applications submitted over the course of four decades since the land was withdrawn from agriculture. These have all been refused by the Council or by the Reporter on appeal by the developer/landowner. It is evident that judged even on the Council’s own criteria for sustainable development the Redmoss Grasslands site is not– and has never been - a sustainable development location. Indeed even this Council would not have identified the area for development had Bellway not played the ‘affordable housing’ card. Third, in terms of Policy 8, much of the Council case for their withdrawal of the southern site and focus on the northern site is based on their site assessment. (This was undertaken on one day in November, and in a recent meeting I had with the ‘LDP team leader’ it was clear to me that they are not 100% confident in the strength of this report and indeed suggested they would have to undertake further studies – but this would probably be after permission was granted!). The site assessment supporting document may appear to be a clear ‘expert’ justification of the Council’s decision.. However, in my view the site assessment in November 2014 identifies little difference in ecological value between the two Redmoss sites. While the southern site contains potentially more meadow flowers, the northern site has more wildlife including protected bats, badgers, roe deer, pheasants, buzzards, badgers, newts, hedgehogs, and toads; is part of a LNCS; an important wildlife corridor; is subject to TPOs; and is close to the Glazert river with its otters and water voles. The distinction between the 2 sites is qualitative with each having particular fauna and flora attributes that collectively make up the valued landscape and environment of Redmoss Grasslands. The surveyor’s conclusion that any development should be on the northern site - ( a) ignores the complementarity of the 2 sites and the integrity of the whole area; and (b) is clearly influenced by the presumption of development inherent in the Council’s designation of Redmoss as a ‘preferred development location’.