(Other plans cover Milngavie, Bearsden, Glasgow, Drumchapel, Craigton, Carbeth, Croftamie, Mugdock and Blanefield).
Read more for Clydebelt's comments on the recent consultation about the Main Issues, which is the first stage in producing a new plan.
Clydebank 18th June 2012
Green Belt Boundary Review
We are pleased to see that the existing boundaries are to remain more or less unchanged and in some areas extended. We are particularly pleased to see the replacement of Dalmuir Park back into the green belt at Dalmuir wedge. May we make comment on the following?
12. Dumbarton Common North.
The suggestion of releasing this area for potential housing is surely contradictory to policies on reuse of brown field sites and maintaining riverside green corridors and the green network. It is on a site liable to flooding and housing could be said to constitute ribbon development along the A82. Housing would not enhance the vision of Dumbarton as seen from the A82 We would suggest keeping in green belt and enhanced for nature conservation. With poor demand in the current and potential housing market and the number of sites already available we do not see why this should be released from green belt at this time.
See under Main Issue Report
38 Bowling Basin
See under 30.2 Ref 039 Bowling Basins p 7
Potential New Housing Sites
The objections from the previous plan are still valid. New housing could constitute ribbon development along the A82 and compromise the setting of the Crematorium and the Kilpatrick Hills Scenic area. There is a green belt link to the Dalmuir Wedge which gives a tenuous wildlife corridor/ Green network link. We object to removal of green belt for housing.
No objection to the small alteration to greenbelt at the farm, but Clydebelt did object to the housing proposed some years ago, mainly on the grounds that the house types were not in keeping with the adjacent 19th century farm building and were out of place and orientation with the adjacent green belt and Kilpatricks scenic area.
Cochno Road East Faifley
In addition to the negatives in the background report may we add the following from the Report to the Secretary of State from the inquiry into Review of the Local Parliamentary Boundary at Faifley and Whitehill Farm 29th June 1984. Sir Wm Weipers of the Snab stated he had “conducted a land reclamation scheme and planted 4 acres with specimen hardwood and conifer trees on a global scale and represented 100 species” Preservation of existing trees should be considered in housing application and it seem this is a particularly unusual and varied collection worthy of conserving.
Faifley has a high density population, particularly adjacent to this area and this open space should be available for enhancing for recreation as part of the Faifley fringe. At the time of the above report a BMX track was being suggested for this area. We object to removal of green belt for housing.
The Cleddens Burn is piped through the Lower Sourfold Glen. Under the aims of the SPP and Local Biodiversity Action Plan this conduit should be removed and the glen returned to a more natural state and not built on. Increase in population would put more strain on the already congested Kilbowie Roundabout.
Duntiglennan Fields Duntocher
The arguments against from the previous Local Plan Inquiry stated in the Background Report are still valid. The site is prominent and the houses would become intrusive on the skyline. Increase of population puts more strain on already poor access via Cochno Road, Farm Road and the Kilbowie Roundabout. We object to removal of green belt for housing.
Cannot understand why anyone would want to destroy a reasonable building which could surely continue as offices, a health centre, museum or whatever, just to build houses. The centre of Clydebank is already identified as deficient in Greenspace per head of population and this should also include workers and shoppers in the shopping centre There are brownfield sites available for over 1000 houses in the near vicinity plus five former school/college sites. The canal is supposed to be a wildlife corridor and part of the Green Network and yet housing is being promoted right up to the banks. Demolition of the existing building and development for housing would have a considerable environmental impact, loss of the little Greenspace present, waste of the world’s resources and landfill issues. We do think that new buildings to the south of the Town Hall are required but fail to see why this necessitates the demolition of the existing offices.
Site should be kept as possible industrial use especially as it has access to water transport or possible marine use. The previous objections re airport noise, oil terminal and possible recycling facility are still valid.
Housing on these two areas of land would result in loss of green belt, be visually intrusive, detracting from the Kilpatricks Hills Scenic Area and have traffic concerns for access to and from the A82 We object to removal of green belt for housing.
Why a council with reputed £200 Mn debt should be considering demolishing their HQs in the present financial climate is questionable. Objections are mostly the same as those for Rosebery Place.
Lomondgate Area 5
See Dumbarton Common p.1 above
Allowing housing on this site would seem to reward the excessive dumping on an area which should have perhaps been left to nature. However the site is very important to the landscape of Dumbarton. Any development should be of a high architectural standard and compliment the Castle on the other bank of the Leven. Being adjacent to Levengrove Park, Leisure and Tourism would be preferred to housing
Green Network Opportunities
We welcome the Council’s commitment to the implementation of the ideals of the CS and GCV Green Networks and in particular for riverside access and environmental improvements at all possible points along the River Clyde.
Main Issues Report
Issue 3 Esso Bowling
Option 3b –Limit the developable area of the Bowling Site to that shown in the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan.
The proposed extension of the Key Regeneration Site would result in the loss of part of the current green belt. Any change to the greenbelt would have a detrimental impact on the biodiversity of existing green spaces which if lost for redevelopment cannot simply be replaced by the redesignation of other sites as biodiversity can take a considerable period of time to develop/establish on each particular site, if at all possible. Suggestions for new housing on the site could cause coalescence of the individual communities of Milton and Bowling. If a new road is deemed necessary, should it not be by-pass for Milton which suffers from its present association with the A82? The site is part of the River Clyde green network and parts adjacent to the River and the Ramsar site could be enhanced for nature conservation and become part of the floodplain.
Issue 4-Carless Old Kilpatrick
Option 4b- Retain site boundary as currently designated within the West Dunbartonshire L.P.
Access from Freelands Place would destroy one of the few open/play spaces south of Dumbarton Road. Housing is unlikely in the near future due to difficulties with contamination and access and the availability of other sites in Clydebank. Space should be left for green corridors along the Canal and Clyde. At present ponds on the site have fish and are used by wildfowl, and former railway track is a valuable wildlife corridor. Preferred use industrial /commercial/ leisure/open space.
Issue 5 Queens Quay
Option 5a The regeneration of this site should be housing –led with ancillary retail, office and tourism/leisure
Clydebelt and Clydebank Local History Society made representation at the planning meetings for the plans already submitted. We were critical of the changes in the final plan compared to the outline plan as follows. Increase from 1200 to 1600 houses—no parking provision near or behind the library or in Bruce Street for the library and Town hall, Omission of the ‘town square,’ drastic reduction of open space, particularly in that the ‘square’ from Dumbarton road to the basin had been reduced to a lane and the riverside park had been omitted. There was nowhere near recommended public open space provision or play areas. We agree that major retailing should be kept to the Clyde Shopping Centre
Issue 7 – The Lomond Canal
Option 7c The proposals for the Lomond Canal should not be included in the LDP
The river Leven WAS navigable until the barrier was built. A lock in the barrier, dredging and bouyage would make it easily navigable again when timed with high tides. The whole concept is just an excuse to spend money on construction with no end benefit other than perhaps to British waterways who might gain by selling canal side houses at enhanced values. It would be cheaper to transport every boat by road. The Forth and Clyde had exactly the same hype –boats from Europe queuing to access the West Coast -6000 new jobs- where are they now? At least we had the benefit of the visual improvements to a derelict canal. This canal would ruin the river Leven and its environment. There must be much cheaper and less damaging ways to provide flood prevention.
Issue 12- Network of Centres
Option12a The LDP’s network of Centres strategy should have a town centre focus as set out in Table 12
The reasons are clearly set out in the Main Issues report- Town centres must be protected and only smaller shopping centres and shops allowed for use by their immediate local communities
Issue 17- Land for Housing
Option 17b- The existing housing land supply provides a generous choice of land for housing development over the Plan period to 2019 and no further land should be allocated.
Our views on some of the sites being proposed are stated earlier. It is established that there is no requirement for additional land to be released to meet housing requirements in either of the W.D.Housing Market areas. There are plenty of second hand houses on the market to allow local flexibility, releasing further land could result in existing brownfield sites lying derelict for much longer.
Issue 18- Green Network Opportunities
Option 18a – The LDP should identify a Green Network and make use of the Green Network Opportunities mapping methodology to identify priorities for its enhancement. Supplementary Planning Guidance should be developed to support this approach.
The justifications are clearly laid out in the Main Issues and plans for the GN should be closely tied to the aspirations to the LBAP.
Issue 19 – Provision of open space through new residential development
Contributions to open space should be sought on a basis of 6 ha per 1,000 new residents. Determination of whether the contribution should be on-site, off-site or financial will be made with regard to analysis of quantitative, qualitative or accessibility deficiencies supported by Supplementary Planning Guidance
These suggestions are not new, yet when the previous planning application for 1600 houses at Queen’s Quay was passed, there was no mention of any contribution or even relative provision of play areas or open space.
Issue 20- Green belt boundary review
Comments on this are dealt with above
Issue 21 – Local Nature Conservation Sites
Option 21a- The Plan should clearly identify and protect the network of Local Nature Conservation Sites shown on Map 21.
To date, the identifying of LNCS seems to have done little for their protection or enhancement. The council owned Auchentoshan and Duntocher Burn LNCS has been almost completely neglected and suffers from the unwitting actions of Council staff.
Issue 22 – Designated Landscape Area
Option 22b-The Plan should identify a Local Landscape Area based on revised boundaries of the existing Regional Scenic Area. The Local Landscape Area designation should be coupled with a green belt or countryside designation.
If this option is not chosen it opens up the Designated Landscape Area of the Kilpatrick Hills Regional Scenic Area as a development opportunity for Wind Energy (see issue 23 and the councils preferred option of removing the designation of Regional Scenic Area from the Kilpatrick Hills which would allow the Kilpatrick Hills to be taken into consideration for Wind Turbines into the Local Plan.)
The present designation of Regional Scenic Area emphasised the importance of the south west facing slopes of the Kilpatrick Hills as to their landscape value as seen from the Clyde valley and Renfrewshire, yet a massive hole is about to be rent into this face by quarrying, removing a Scheduled ancient monument, part of a TPO protected wood and a SNIC. Where is the protection being offered by this designation?
Issue 23- Wind Energy
Option 23b- Yes, it is considered that the green belt should be identified as requiring significant protection and the designated landscape area as an area with potential constraints. Remaining land should be identified as an area of search.
This would protect most of the Kilpatrick Hills within the local plan from significant development such as wind farms etc and the area will retain its protected status.
No mention of other forms of renewable energy is mentioned such as tidal or river flow e.g. River Leven
Issue 27- Kilbowie Roundabout
Removal of the Duntocher Road junction would require upgrading of Hawthorn Street/Kilbowie Road and Hawthorn Street/Duntocher Road junctions. One of the reasons for the formation of the roundabout was a series of severe and fatal crashes caused by ‘jumping’ the ‘straight through’ traffic lights previously there .A least the roundabout reduces the traffic speed and accidents are relatively minor.
Would the only ultimate answer not be a fly-over?
Issue 30- Development Sites
8.5.6 Cochno Farm
Any development allowed should be minimal and not allowed to develop into a science park or similar as was envisaged by Dunbartonshire Enterprise some years ago.
8.5.9 Great Western Road.
This further expansion of the site should be refused and green belt protected. It constitutes ribbon development along what should be a by-pass road and further eats into the Hardgate green belt wedge. When the adjoining ‘World of Golf’ submitted their original planning application they claimed that it was only a golf driving range on site of former playing fields but in fact extended well into the green belt.
30.2 Ref 039 Bowling Basins
Bowling is a particularly sensitive spot and requires sensitive development appropriate to its situation, architecture and history.
The area to the east of the basin is developing into an extremely interesting wildlife area with 123 different species of plants recorded recently. The BSBI (Botanical Society for the British Isles) records for 1km. grid square ref. NS4573 (245673) total well over 200 plant species, indicating the richness of the area around Bowling. To protect this area the green belt between the canal should not be removed but extended to include all the existing green belt ’ and then all the land from the canal to the Clyde back to Ferry Road. This would provide a degree of Biological linking with the green belt to the north of the A82.
This whole area should also be considered as an L.N.C.S.
The circular walk along the canal and back though the Saltings and along the Clydeside is one of the best locally and the whole area would be better environmentally improved and kept as an extension to the Saltings Local Nature Reserve/public park.
No mention of conservation areas and their mapping.
No possibility of Township Protections Areas to try to apply some kind of standards or uniformity?
For example some areas are becoming hideous due to the lack of uniformity of street boundaries
In housing schemes hedges, walls, fences etc of all heights and configurations are become the norm. At Lomondgate uniformity of hedging took place yet on the Stirling Road a fence, which will no doubt become decrepit with age, was allowed to be erected .Hedging should be encouraged for carbon capture and wildlife and yet some housing associations are removing them to be replaced with hideous wooden fencing- Faifley and metal fencing- WDC.