Action group calls on formal objection

Published 23 Nov 2009 13:20 14 Comments

Share this

A LOCAL action group is hitting out at the community council's decision not to lodge a formal objection against controversial development plans.

At their latest meeting, Bishopton Action Group expressed their dismay at the local community council's refusal to formally oppose proposals for the former ROF site in the village.

One member blasted: "The Community Council is the ONLY recognised voice of the community and it is imperative that it reflects the community's wish. In that respect it should lodge an formal objection.

"The people I meet in the village - each one is at least as opposed to the development as before.

"The Community Council, in refusing to object to this, is certainly not representing the views of the greater community. In the last opportunity the village had to express its views, 94 per cent of villagers voted against the development.

"The original letters of objection (almost 7,000) organised by Bishopton Action Group, were against the development in any shape or form. To just say, without any proper evidence or justification, that opinion has changed is patently wrong."

Chair of Bishopton Community Council, David Woodrow, said: "Formally objecting is not a way to work when you are trying to build a relationship with developers to ensure the best possible gain for the community.

"We have always expressed the concerns of everyone in the community. Lots of things have changed since the original concerns were expressed. For example, the way the roads have been realigned has come out of negotiation with the planners. And there will no longer be transport coming through the centre of the village - a lot of concerns have been removed by that.

"The contamination is an issue, but the site is to be remediated, and BAE are in the UK among the top companies for doing this.

"We have to express the concerns of the whole village - not just the objectors'. There are people who want to see the benefits that a larger community can bring.

"We're still not 100 per cent happy with the plans, but we are asking that the developers use all means to alleviate all potential problems, which is very similar to an objection, and is recorded in the documentation."

A member of Bishopton Action Group said that any changes had been of 'a minor nature'. He added: "Although further negotiation may lead to other concessions, there is still the question of the risk posed to the community by the current remediation techniques proposed. Lodging a formal objection is the only way that the Planning Department will recognise opposition."

And changes to roads 'are of little consequence when we are staring a Corby situation in the face', added another.

A spokesperson for BAE Systems said: "The planned remediation scheme is in accordance with industry best practice and Approved Codes of Practice as provided by the Government to ensure the site is safe and suitable for the planned redevelopment."

This article appeared in The Gazette 18 Nov 09

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

John Mackintosh
Unregistered User
Nov 23, 16:36
Report comment

That site has had 90years of uncontrolled, undocumented pollution, and they are going to dig it up and truck the worst to a landfill site. Corby has shown what airborne contaminated dust can do, must we wait 20years or so before this disaster is confirmed? The burning of buildings on the site, as BAe plan, can hardly be described as "best" practice. This will also cause airborne contamination over neighbouring communities.

Also, why is the council refusing to make public comments about the risks from "radioactive substances" in its own Differentiation Exercise report, and hiding behind "National Security"? Just what IS in that site?

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Bishopton Action Group
Unregistered User
Nov 23, 21:26
Report comment

We find it surprising that BAE Systems plan to decontaminate buildings by burning them. They have decided that they won't do so for buildings within an arbitrary distance of 400 metres from inhabited property. The EPA in Wisconsin, USA has prevented the burning of similar buildings within 2300 metres from inhabited property. Why does SEPA not apply the same standards in the UK?

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Bishopton Action Group
Unregistered User
Nov 23, 21:43
Report comment

We find it surprising that BAE Systems plan to decontaminate buildings by burning them. They have decided that they won't do so for buildings within an arbitrary distance of 400 metres from inhabited property. The EPA in Wisconsin, USA has prevented the burning of similar buildings within 2300 metres from inhabited property. Why does SEPA not apply the same standards in the UK?

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Janette Waller
Unregistered User
Nov 23, 22:57
Report comment

It is very frustrating to read that the Chair of the Bishopton Community Council thinks that we should be "building a relationship with the developers" when,for the last four years, the entire community has been fighting against the plans to develop the former ROF site. A total of 9,400 letters of objection were delivered to the planners, as well as two referendums organised by the CC itself, when 92% and then 94% voted against the development proposals. How dare the Chair of the BCC claim that people support the development and want to be part of a "larger community" when he has absolutely no evidence to prove this? Houston CC objected to the plans for the ROF - why can't our own CC express the concerns of the people of Bishopton, who have said time and time again that they do not want this unnecessary and highly dangerous development to proceed? The families at Corby have made legal history by successfully proving a link between the terrible birth defects suffered by their children and exposure to contaminated waste during the remediation of the former British Steel works. Have we learned nothing from this? We do not want history to be repeated at Bishopton, and call upon our CC to stand up to the greedy developers, whose sole aim is to make a profit from bulding houses on contaminated land.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Neil Stewart
Unregistered User
Nov 24, 09:15
Report comment

We seem to have failed to learn the terrible lessons of Corby, even though our American cousins have finally realised (at the Badger Munitions Plant, USA) the potentially horrendous effects of burning heavily contaminated buildings within close proximity of a residential area. It is, to the 'man in the street', inconceivable that the practise of burning buildings is 'best practise', even ignoring the evidence weighed against it from other such sites across the globe. Why oh why are the authorities yet again not taking this very real threat to public health seriously ? It defies belief ! But what really grates is that Bishopton Community Council can fly in the face of overwhelming public opinion and throw in the towel, the BCC should be forced to hold a public meeting and explain themselves.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Peter Wilson
Unregistered User
Nov 24, 09:28
Report comment

Bishopton CC are meant to be the voice of the people. Maybe they should find out what people in the village REALLY want rather than making assumptions. They could do another survey as they did before, to find out whether public opinion has changed, rather than simply stating that it has.

This is not just about new houses and overcrowding in schools or roads. This is about people's health not just in Bishopton but in other nearby towns and villages. This is about the possibility of people developing cancers and neurological problems and children being born with birth defects.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
linda watson
Unregistered User
Nov 24, 20:10
Report comment

When did BCC become the unilateral voice of the residents of Bishopton.Previous posts have indicated views on this and it would appear the need for some kind of referendum is obvious. Many residents in Bishopton have spent the past 4 years objecting at every stage. Their views should be sought again before BCC rolls over. Why do they think that this is the way forward? There is no requirement to work with BAE. Who says they are right and can they give guarentees about harm that may be caused? What benefits are there to be gained by the residents of Bishopton when a great deal of the development is dependent on so many variants, ifs buts and maybe's. Once this project starts the damage to the local environment and future generations may be irreparable. Don't let Bishopton become another Corby.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Joyce MacCormack
Unregistered User
Nov 24, 22:36
Report comment

Just watched the BBC news tonight (Tues 24th Nov) What a great idea to help the environment - plant thousands of trees on this polluted land to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Help the planet, AND protect the people of the area. It should also clean the land over time.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
John McCreadie
Unregistered User
Nov 25, 13:35
Report comment

At the last Public Inquiry into Renfrewshire's current Local Plan, in more financially stable times, every major house builder seeking release of land was told, in no uncertain terms, that more than sufficient land had already been earmarked in Renfrewshire to cover the projected number of new build homes which would be required up until the year 2012, R.O.F.Bishopton was not included in that earmarked land. Given the collapse in the new build housing market the 2012 date could reasonably be projected to 2015.

When, by Renfrewshire Council's own stance, there was no requirement for any release of further housing land,and every other developer was given short shrift, what was so special about BAE Systems that the could apply for and be granted consent for a massive new build of 2500 houses, for which there was no projected requirement.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Corinne Hughes
Unregistered User
Nov 25, 16:54
Report comment

As a resident of Bishopton for nine years, I am appalled and perplexed at the lack of support from some members of the Bishopton Community Council, and in particular the Chair, to oppose this unwanted and dangerous development of the former ROF site. What is the point of a community council if they do not listen to the majority of the people it is supposed to represent? They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Bishopton Resident
Unregistered User
Nov 26, 18:40
Report comment

In the artical it states 94% opposed. This is incorrect - over 60% of the village didn't even bother to vote on the issue. There are residents of the village that are not opposed to the redevelopment of the site but feel the to voice this opinion openly will bring down the wrath of the Bishopton Action Group.

How can Bishopton Action Group have 700 letters of ojection - There are only just over 2000 households in Bishopton.

The gentleman who suggests another survey obviously does not know the work involved in putting together a survey of this nature to ensure the questions are not biased nor the logistices of delivering, collecting, collating and analysing the results of the questionnaire.

The Community Council is there to represent the whole community which is a thanklesss task on a subject that divides the community the way this issue does.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Janette Waller
Unregistered User
Nov 29, 01:06
Report comment

Just to enlighten the anonymous "Bishopton Resident" above who is unwilling to identify himself. The article is correct in that the vote was 94% AGAINST the development. The turnout was higher than that of most local elections and is a very accurate representation of feeling in the village. I would like to know who these people are who are FOR the development because so far they have remained totally silent. The CC seems to think it should represent only the 6% who voted for the development which is a totally unacceptable situation. BAG delivered 9,400 letters of objection during FOUR rounds of public consultation on the ROF plans. Bishopton is not divided over this issue - it is totally UNITED in its opposition to these plans which will detroy everything that it good about our community.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Gary Pearson
Unregistered User
Dec 2, 03:42
Report comment

The members of Bishopton Community Council who voted against the 94% should resign. How can you claim to serve the people and go against virtually the entire population wishes. Possibly because there will be no elections this year as planned, the election has been posponed for an extra year.

This was not a democratic vote with the best intrest of the people this was a complete deniel of the bishoptons residents wishes. I hope the residents remember next year when the voting starts and the councillors deny they had any choice.I wonder how many will sit at the next election or will they have moved on to better and bigger posts.

By Gary Pearson a serving Community councillor for Lochwinnoch.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
John Wilson
Unregistered User
Dec 7, 20:33
Report comment

This should be considered a very contentious issue by all the residents in the many villages surrounding the former ROF simply because the site is contaminated throughout with materials which are dangerous to human and animal life.

The proposed development has been consistently opposed by Houston Community Council simply because the implied benefit of development are outweighed by the potential risks. The only benefits to be gained will be by BAE and any developer interested in the site.

There is apparently heavy contamination from asbestos in the vicinity of the proposed access road to the site off the Georgetown Road and the movement of other contaminated materials within the site to a landfill to be located within the site is of particular concern to Houston residents due to its close proximity.

There is no guarantee that toxic particles from the proposed burning of buildings or the result of soil movement will not be airborne throughout the general area surrounding the site and this should cause concern even to those in Bishopton who could not be bothered to consider opposing the development since there are risks to health which could affect future generations. Just remember the recent findings on genetic defects suffered in the Corby area stemming from the clean-up of the former steel mill.

Meetings held by the Bishopton Action Group have in my experience been well attended with the few supporters of the development apart from BAE having their say. I may add that several members of Bishopton Community Council were vocal in their condemnation of the policy adopted by the Community Council and it is unfair to tar them all with the same brush.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0

Follow @thegazettepaper

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.