The Scottish Green Party have lodged an objection to the Waterfoot Greenbelt Development proposed west of Glasgow Road in Waterfoot.
Hundreds of local people have already lodged formal objections to the 200-home greenbelt development and an action group, Waterfoot Action, have been working with the local community to stop the development.
Ross Greer, Green MSP for the West of Scotland submitted a response calling for the application to be rejected on the basis of inappropriate loss of Greenbelt Land, and the impact on the existing community.
Greer said: “This application is clearly an opportunistic attempt by developers to profit from a wonderful piece of greenfield land. It flies in the face of established planning policy and housing allocations which do not identify the site for housing, and for good reason.”
A spokesperson from the Waterfoot Action group said: “We were amazed with the previous objection total of 313. But even we underestimated the strength of community feeling against this unwanted and ill-advised development proposal.
“Thank you Team Waterfoot – for such a small community to hit 404 plus in official objections received by Renfrewshire Council is truly outstanding.
“Every objection goes a long way to sending Gladmanpackingn! Talk to neighbours, people at the shops, dog walkers….everybody needs to know their support is essential. Multiple submissions per household are permitted!
“You can lodge your objection to any proposed development in Waterfoot by submitting an email to planning@eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk, by writing to: Head of Environment, Planning, Property and Regeneration, 2 Spiersbridge Way, Spiersbridge Business Park, Thornliebank, East Renfrewshire, G46 8NG.
“There is no closing date for objections yet but we do urge you to act ASAP.”
For more information on the Waterfoot Action Group, click here to visit their Facebook page.
Laura Stevens from East Renfrewshire Green Party added “The site is truly loved and valued by local people and is at the heart of Waterfoot. Development here would mean loss of green space, an increase in traffic and extra stress on infrastructure and local services such as schools. Greens call on the council to listen to the community and turn this down.”
In 2013, Waterfoot lost its only public open space, and the surrounding greenbelt field, when East Renfrewshire Council voted in favour of a Cala Homes development.
Main photo credit: Waterfoot Action
Ross Greer’s objection was as follows:
Dear East Renfrewshire Planning,
I would like to add my objection to the application 2017/0367/TP.
My main concerns are around the impact upon a valuable piece of Greenbelt, but the proposal would also be severely detrimental to the character of a rural area.
Greenbelt: I would question whether the very basis of the proposal is in line with Policy DM3 – Green Belt and Countryside Around Towns of the adopted East Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2015. The council already has a long-term approach to finding appropriate sites for housing up to 2029 that does not include development at Waterfoot. Furthermore, the plan pre-empts the ongoing Local Development Plan 2 process- local policy should be developed through formal channels first, not led by applications such as this. I understand that the Scottish Government Reporter said in 2015 that “development would represent a significant intrusion into the green belt and a major change to the landscape setting of Waterfoot.” If development was a significant intrusion two years ago, it still inevitably is.
There are good reasons why building on greenbelt locations such as this should be opposed, and all of them apply in this case. The development will damage a beautiful location, which is to the detriment of both the amenity for residents who lose a valuable green space and of the ecological value of the location- the Ecology study raised issues around the protection of a number of species that have not, to my knowledge, been addressed by the proposed developers.
Impact on Waterfoot and surrounding area: The proposal would lead to an approximately 40% increase in developed land in the village and would expand the population by a similar scale. This would not only change the character of the area, but would create a range of problems regarding infrastructure and local services. I am aware from my work as a regional MSP that local schools are already running at, or close to, full capacity, and that the local bus service is insufficient to meet the needs of residents. Both of these factors mean that the development would lead to a significant increase in car traffic.
In summary, I would urge you to reject the planning application on the grounds that it is contrary to planning policy and housing allocations for the area.
Ross Greer