top of page

20 views0 comments

The Director of Development and Housing Services

Renfrewshire Council

Renfrewshire House

Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1JD

November 2022

Insert address below

Option 1 : Cut out this form, insert address and sign – drop off in collection box in the village shops and pubs.

Option 2 : Send an email copy of this form to You can send an email for each household member from the same email address – they will each count as separate objections as long as you write the different name at the bottom of the email.

19/0766/PP | Residential development including formation of access, landscaping and associated works. | Site between Garpel Burn and St Joseph's Nursing Home, Burnfoot Road, Lochwinnoch

I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is on a site that Renfrewshire Council reported and recognised in 2013 as ‘very difficult to integrate with the existing settlement, therefore not suitable for development’. It is urban in character and will never be a true part of the village.

2. Contrary to a previous council denial that this land was within the regional park, it is proven that this land is within the park. Development of this land for housing is therefore not permitted.

3. Since the planning application was submitted, SEPA have revised their guidance as a result of climate change and this land should not now be developed for housing. It will worsen the impact of flooding on the village.

4. The proposed development would overload the infrastructure of the village, examples being drainage and sewerage systems. This will increase the known health hazard when the sewerage delivery system is overloaded.

5. The development will be car dependent and has poor links to public transport, this is in contravention to current planning policy and National Planning Framework 4.

6. The proposed development has a single point of vehicle access including emergency vehicles. This access is in the SEPA predicted flood zone and is known to be impassable due to flooding.

7. The ecological survey is out of date and the site is currently inhabited by protected species. Further survey work must be undertaken.

Yours sincerely,

Print name : Sign :

………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………

39 views0 comments

1.Present: Kerry MacKendrick (KMac), Kerr Bryson (KB),Shona Finnie (SF), Liz Walker (LW), Paddy Douglas Early (PDE), Dick Graham (DG), Ross Anderson (RA), Arthur Donnachie (ADon), Cllrs Doig, Gilmour, and Rodden (AD, CG, ER).

Apologies: Duncan Adam, Marion Cochrane, Cllr Graham.

Large public attendance due to the Burnfoot Road development proposals going live:

E. Beattie, S.Queen, H.Harris, L.Currie, H.Hooper, A.Hogan, V.Hutton, N.Naismith, A.Pellon, R.Chambers, P.McDonald, K.Bird, W.Bird, N.Cameron, C.Main, C.Watton, M.Jarvis, J.Low, D.Wingate, J.Starr, C.Patterson, E.Patterson, S.Davis, D.Mellor.

PDE in the Chair.

Police report: Secretary read written report out; 2 common assaults, 1 traffic incident (unsafe load)

2.Minute of meeting of October; moved ADon, seconded SF..

No matters arising.

3.Secretary report: written report pre-posted. Additionally, letter to Primary School Head concerning straffic, and requested permission to invite Parking Officer to December pre-meeting at 18.30. Request endorsed, with KMac suggesting questions are notified via SB.

4.Treasurer Report: DG reported to Covid infections prevented meeting with former Treasurer who is still de facto Karen Malcolm until signatures formalized. Balance of account is £ 2933

5.Councillor Reports:

CG: question of Xmas lights and McKillop power source have been resolved. McKillop is the busiest hall in Renfrewshire and the teething problems meeting to be held soon will resolve post modernisation snags. CG will report back to December meeting.

ER: constituent communications traffic raised issues of local economic development. CMRP was seen as an asset requiring review. The Participatory Budgeting Scheme voting cycle would commence soon. Meeting of LCC/LCDT has been facilitated for 8 November at 19.30, McKillop. Also involved with flooding at Lochlip Road and legitimate tree felling.

AD: managed to raise item re. Reporter in Burnfoot/LDP case should have met with LCC to fully comprehend the location status. Matter is under a representation to the Ombudsman on the Council/Reporter apparent confusion. It was confirmed that MSPs were briefed on these issues from the community’s perspective.

DG thanked AD for his help which finally resulted in maintenance work on re-pointing the Primary School wall.

6.Burnfoot revised development proposals:

Chair prioritised this item ahead of the draft agenda given the large public attendance and this was unanimously adopted.

KMac has submitted letter to the Planning and Climate Change Board members directed by the LCC indicating the questions we feel they are obliged to ask concerning material issues of fundamental importance.

The revised plans feature 25 changes, mainly in relation to the increased total number of dwellings and provision for affordable housing, changed parking. Question of pre-eminence: is it a new application or an amendment to an existing one ? Considerable discussion failed to elicit unanimity on this issue.

  • How can Councillors advise the community procedurally? (Note #)

  • Various agencies need to re-submit reports because the original submissions are dated

  • A major development constituting major change is a new application ?

  • The infrastructure is unchanged, only the dwelling profile is revised

  • The changes are all in response to Council comments (?)

Several members of the public reported on their concern about procedural issues in relation to this and the enforcement of conditions in a separate matter .There were questions raised about professional conduct and the former lead planning officer. SB advised that there are legal issues in the realm of defamation which require consideration.

SF suggested that the public were interested in being offered a pro-forma letter to sign and transmit to establish an objection, thematically consistent with, but additional to, the current LCC sponsored correspondence. Those with an existing objection can make such an additional one if it is materially different to their original.

There was noted a “fatigue” in the community over the length of this saga. However, the principle of providing a standard letter by the time of the December LCC meeting was endorsed.

Media releases were considered and it was reported that an individual’s letter via social media platform(s) had already been adopted by approx. 100 residents.

SB made a statement concerning the considerable work over the last 7 years that the LCC and its Planning Sub-Group had put into the process. Whilst he could claim no input he wished to give these people the accolade that was merited.

KMac put this item in the wider context of Planning in terms of 4 separate applications running concurrently at the moment. The LCC letter issued to members of the Planning and Climate Change Board would be on the notice board and website almost immediately.

The Chair summed up the detailed, vibrant discussion and closed the meeting at approx. 21.00.

Note # - Councillors cannot take a position prior to their determination at the Board, but they can keenly listen to any discussions and comments of relevance to the case, and advise on matters of procedure. This is set out in the relevant code of conduct.

30 views0 comments
bottom of page