Agenda Document Pack - Planning and Climate Change Policy Board - 17/03/2026
Renfrewshire Council · 17 March 2026
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 17 March 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
10/03/2026 Notice of Meeting and Agenda Planning and Climate Change Policy Board Date Time Venue Tuesday, 17 March 2026 13:00 Council Chambers (Renfrewshire), Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1AN Membership Councillor Jim Paterson (Convener): Councillor Bruce MacFarlane (Depute Convener): Councillor Jennifer Adam: Councillor Alison Ann-Dowling: Councillor Andy Doig: Councillor Chris Gilmour: Councillor Edward Grady: Councillor Neill Graham: Councillor Anne Hannigan: Councillor Kenny MacLaren: Councillor Marie McGurk: Councillor John McNaughtan: Councillor Iain Nicolson: Councillor John Shaw: Councillor Ben Smith: Further Information This is a meeting which is open to members of the public. A copy of the agenda and reports for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the Customer Service Centre, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley and online at http://renfrewshire.cmis.uk.com/renfrewshire/CouncilandBoards.aspx For further information, please email democratic-services@renfrewshire.gov.uk Members of the Press and Public Members of the press and public wishing to attend the meeting should report to the customer service centre where they will be met and directed to the meeting. Hybrid Meeting Please note that this meeting is scheduled to be held in the Council Chambers. However, it is a hybrid meeting and arrangements have been made for members to join the meeting remotely should they wish. MARK CONAGHAN Head of Corporate Governance
Page 2
10/03/2026 Webcasting of Meeting This meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site – at the start of the meeting the Convener will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. To find the webcast please navigate to https://renfrewshire.public-i.tv/core/portal/home
Page 3
10/03/2026 Items of business Apologies Apologies from members. Declarations of Interest and Transparency Statements Members are asked to declare an interest or make a transparency statement in any item(s) on the agenda and to provide a brief explanation of the nature of the interest or the transparency statement. 1 Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring 2025/26 as at 9 January 2026 Joint report by Chief Executive and Directors of Finance & Resources and Environment, Housing & Infrastructure. 1 - 10 2 Scottish Government Consultation: Increasing the Threshold for Applications under the Electricity Act Report by Chief Executive. 11 - 20 3 National Planning Improvement Framework – Improvement Action Progress Update 2025 Report by Chief Executive. 21 - 36 4 Scottish Government Consultation: Accelerating Home Building Report by Chief Executive. 37 - 52 5 Local Place Plan Validation – Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan and Houston Local Place Plan Report by Chief Executive. 53 - 196 6 Planning Applications Planning applications to be determined by the Policy Board. 6(a) 197 - 224
Page 4
10/03/2026 22/0178/PP - Residential development comprising fifty- seven dwellinghouses and eighteen flats, including access, drainage, landscaping and associated works at site Between Sandieland Wood and Florish Road, Erskine by Trustees Of the Blyswood 1969 Trusts & Stewart Milne Group Ltd. 6(b) 24/0516/PP - Erection of residential development comprising 10 dwellinghouses and 23 flats with associated infrastructure and landscaping at Site on Western Boundary of No 24, Thriplee Road, Bridge of Weir by James (Glasgow) Ltd 225 - 246 6(c) 25/0361/PP - Erection of a petrol filling station (Sui Generis) with kiosk (Class 1A retail), electric vehicle charging station, restaurant/cafe (Class 3) with drive-thru facilities, access, parking and associated works at Land To North West of Junction with A726, West March Road, Paisley by EG On The Move Ltd 247 - 262 6(d) 25/0706/PP - Change of use to site self-storage containers (Class 6) and associated administration hut, external yard, access, parking, lighting, and landscaping at Arkleston Road, Renfrew by Sterling Sinclair Removals Limited 263 - 272 6(e) 25/0834/PP - Use of land for open storage (Class 6), erection of fencing and associated works at West Lodge Road, Renfrew by Ewan Mackay. 273 - 280
Page 5
PUBLIC ___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 17 March 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive, Director of Finance and Resources and Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring 2025/26 as at 9 January 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 At the close of reporting Period 10 on 9 January 2026, the projected revenue outturn at 31 March 2026 for those services reporting to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board was an underspend position of £0.038m (4.4%) against the revised budget for the year. 1.2 The projected capital outturn at 31 March 2026 for projects reporting to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board, is a break-even position. 1.3 This is summarised in the table below and further detail is provided in the report and appendices. Revised Annual Budget £000 Projected Outturn £000 Budget Variance (Adv)/Fav £000 Budget Variance % Revenue Chief Executive’s Service (Planning Services) 641 603 38 5.9% Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Climate) 214 214 0 0.0% Total 855 817 38 4.4% Capital Climate 450 450 0 0.0% Item 1 PACC170326 Page 1 of 280
Page 6
PUBLIC 2. Recommendations 2.1 Members are requested to: a) Note the projected Revenue outturn underspend position of £0.038m; and b) Note the projected Capital outturn break even position. 3. Revenue Budget Projection – underspend of £0.038m by 31 March 2026 3.1 The tables in Appendix 1 present the projected year-end position for all services reporting to this board, by both subjective analysis (what the budget is spent on) and objective analysis (which division is spending the budget). Significant variances affecting the projected position are analysed further below. 3.2 It should be noted that the projected outturn position reported here is based on the latest information available, which is subject to change during the financial year. 4. Objective Analysis – Significant Variances 4.1 There are no significant objective analysis variances to report to the Board. The variances within Planning Services reflect the financial impact of staff turnover and income under-recovery outlined in the subjective analysis. 5. Subjective Analysis – Significant Variances 5.1 Employee Costs – £0.176m underspend by 31 March 2026 The projected underspend, mainly within Planning Services, reflects the impact of increased levels of staff turnover over the course of the financial year. Recruitment exercises have been undertaken as and when required to ensure teams continue to operate as near to full capacity as practicable. 5.2 Income – £0.130m overspend (under-recovery) by 31 March 2026 This reflects the impact of a projected under-recovery in Building Standards income of £0.130m (7.2%), where income levels remain behind expected targets. The Planning Services income stream is very demand-led and impacted by the current economic and financial climate. In previous financial years, income streams have experienced an upturn in fee levels in the final quarter of the financial year. Any significant movements in income generation will be reported to Council in June 2026 as part of the Outturn Report submitted with the Unaudited Financial Accounts for 2025/26. Page 2 of 280
Page 7
PUBLIC 6. Revenue Budget Virements 6.1. Under the Council’s financial regulations, Directors and their nominated officers, in consultation with the Director of Finance and Resources, have certain delegated authority to transfer sums between subjective budget headings within a service division to enable budget management throughout the financial year. This is known as ‘budget virement’. 6.2. Transfers between divisions of the same service / department in excess of £100,000, and transfers between services / departments must be authorised by the respective service Director/Chief Executive and the Director of Finance and Resources for submission to the relevant policy board for approval. There are no such requests this period. 7. Capital Budget Projection – break-even position by 31 March 2026 7.1. The Capital Investment Programme 2025/26 to 2029/30 was approved by Council on 27 February 2025. The revised capital spend for 2025/26 for those projects reporting to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board is £0.450m. Further information on the projects listed in Appendix 2 was reported to the Board in May 2025. 7.2. The in-year Capital budget is forecast to break even by 31 March 2026, after a number of budget adjustments between years have taken place, to reflect revised programming of some capital projects. Details of these adjustments, which amount to (£0.425m) are as follows: Project Amount (£m) Budget carried forward into 2026/27 Climate Projects (0.035) Airgon Units Implementation (0.035) EV Infrastructure Improvements/Expansion (0.132) Linwood Moss Solar Farm (0.050) Marketing and Communications (0.048) Set Up Costs for Recycling Related Projects (0.025) Windfarm Feasibility (0.100) Total (0.425) Page 3 of 280
Page 8
PUBLIC Implications of the Report 1. Financial The projected budget outturn position for the Planning and Climate Change Revenue budget is an underspend position of £0.038m (4.4%) at 31 March 2026. Income and expenditure will continue to be monitored closely for the rest of the financial year and as far as possible, steps will be taken to mitigate any overspend. The projected outturn position for the Planning and Climate Change Capital budget is break-even. 2. HR & Organisational Development While staffing budgets form a significant proportion of the Council’s revenue budgets, there are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 3. Community/Council Planning Community Plan Our Renfrewshire is thriving The Council’s revenue and capital spend ensures that its facilities are fit for purpose and safe for the community, to maximise accessibility. Our Renfrewshire is well Our Renfrewshire is fair Our Renfrewshire is safe Council Plan Reshaping our place, our economy, and our future The Council’s revenue and capital spend ensures that its facilities are fit for purpose and safe for the community, to maximise accessibility. Building strong, safe, and resilient communities Tackling inequality, ensuring opportunities for all Creating a sustainable Renfrewshire for all to enjoy Ongoing revenue and capital budget monitoring is a tool to enable good financial management so that the Council has resources now and in the future for continued service delivery. Working together to improve outcomes 4. Legal There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Page 4 of 280
Page 9
PUBLIC 5. Property/Assets There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 6. Information Technology There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 7. Equality & Human Rights There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 8. Health & Safety There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in the report. 9. Procurement While Procurement is an important consideration prior to the Council incurring any revenue or capital spend, there are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 10. Risk The potential financial risk that the Council will overspend its approved revenue budgets for the year is managed at a Council-wide level by the Chief Executive and Directors. 11. Privacy Impact There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 12. Cosla Policy Position N/a 13. Climate Change The establishment of the Sustainability Team and the Climate related capital projects noted in Appendix 2 will contribute to the Council’s target of reducing its carbon and other emissions to net zero by 2030. 14. Children’s Rights There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Page 5 of 280
Page 10
PUBLIC List of Background Papers • Revenue Budget and Council Tax 2025/26, Council 27 February 2025 • The Capital Investment Programme 2025/26 to 2029/30, Council 27 February 2025 • Update on Renfrewshire’s Climate Change Action, Planning and Climate Change Policy Board 20 May 2025 Authors: Revenue - Valerie Howie, Finance Business Partner and Lisa Dickie, Finance Business Partner Capital - Linsey McGregor, Capital Accountant Page 6 of 280
Page 11
PUBLIC Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 2025/26 1 April 2025 to 9 January 2026 POLICY BOARD: PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE Objective Summary Annual Budget at Period 8 Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 10 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Previous Projected Outturn Variance Movement £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % £000 £000 Chief Executive's Service (Planning Services) 642 (1) 641 603 38 5.9% 32 6 Environment, Housing and Infrastructure (Climate) 214 0 214 214 0 0.0% 0 0 NET EXPENDITURE 856 (1) 855 817 38 4.4% 32 6 Subjective Summary Annual Budget at Period 8 Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 10 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Previous Projected Outturn Variance Movement £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % £000 £000 Employees 2,089 0 2,089 1,913 176 12.6% 192 (16) Premises Related 0 0 0 1 (1) 0.0% (1) 0 Transport Related 15 0 15 15 0 0.0% 0 0 Supplies and Services 219 (1) 218 227 (9) (33.3%) (11) 2 Third Party Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Transfer Payments 93 0 93 91 2 2.2% 9 (7) Support Services 317 0 317 317 0 0.0% 0 0 Depreciation and Impairment Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 GROSS EXPENDITURE 2,733 (1) 2,732 2,564 168 6.1% 189 (21) Income (1,877) 0 (1,877) (1,747) (130) (7.2%) (157) 27 NET EXPENDITURE 856 (1) 855 817 38 4.4% 32 6 Page 7 of 280
Page 12
PUBLIC Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 2025/26 1 April 2025 to 9 January 2026 POLICY BOARD: PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE - CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S SERVICE (PLANNING SERVICES) Objective Summary Annual Budget at Period 8 Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 10 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Previous Projected Outturn Variance Movement £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % £000 £000 Planning Strategy & Place 594 0 594 508 86 14.5% 81 5 Development Management 278 (1) 277 260 17 6.1% (4) 21 Building Standards (230) 0 (230) (165) (65) (28.3%) (45) (20) NET EXPENDITURE 642 (1) 641 603 38 5.9% 32 6 Subjective Summary Annual Budget at Period 8 Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 10 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Previous Projected Outturn Variance Movement £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % £000 £000 Employees 1,835 0 1,835 1,668 167 9.1% 183 (16) Premises Related 0 0 0 1 (1) 0.0% (1) 0 Transport Related 15 0 15 15 0 0.0% 0 0 Supplies and Services 192 (1) 191 191 0 0.0% (2) 2 Third Party Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Transfer Payments 92 0 92 90 2 2.2% 9 (7) Support Services 317 0 317 317 0 0.0% 0 0 Depreciation and Impairment Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 GROSS EXPENDITURE 2,451 (1) 2,450 2,282 168 6.9% 189 (21) Income (1,809) 0 (1,809) (1,679) (130) (7.2%) (157) 27 NET EXPENDITURE 642 (1) 641 603 38 5.9% 32 6 Page 8 of 280
Page 13
PUBLIC Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 2025/26 1 April 2025 to 9 January 2026 POLICY BOARD: PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE - ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE (CLIMATE) Objective Summary Annual Budget at Period 8 Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 10 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Previous Projected Outturn Variance Movement £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % £000 £000 Climate 214 0 214 214 0 0.0% 0 0 Subjective Summary Annual Budget at Period 8 Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 10 Projected Outturn Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Previous Projected Outturn Variance Movement £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % £000 £000 Employees 254 0 254 245 9 3.5% 9 0 Premises Related 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Transport Related 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Supplies and Services 27 0 27 36 (9) (33.3%) (9) 0 Third Party Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Transfer Payments 1 0 1 1 0 0.0% 0 0 Support Services 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Depreciation and Impairment Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 GROSS EXPENDITURE 282 0 282 282 0 0.0% 0 0 Income (68) 0 (68) (68) 0 0.0% 0 0 NET EXPENDITURE 214 0 214 214 0 0.0% 0 0 Page 9 of 280
Page 14
PUBLIC Appendix 2 Prior Years Approved Budget Revised Projected Total Approved Projected Expenditure Budget Adjustments Budget Outturn Budget Outurn Project Title to 31/03/2025 2025-26 since previous 2025-26 2025-26 to 31-Mar-30 to 31-Mar-30 Board report £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 CLIMATE PROJECTS 0 35 (35) 0 0 0 0% 327 327 0 0% Airgon Units Implementation 0 35 (35) 0 0 0 0% 35 35 0 0% Electric Vehicle Fleet Expansion 0 140 0 140 140 0 0% 140 140 0 0% EV Infrastructure Improvements/Expansion 0 140 (132) 8 8 0 0% 140 140 0 0% Linwood Moss Solar Farm 0 50 (50) 0 0 0 0% 50 50 0 0% Marketing and Communications 0 50 (48) 2 2 0 0% 50 50 0 0% Set Up Costs for Recycling Related Projects 0 25 (25) 0 0 0 0% 25 25 0 0% Solar PV(Photovoltaic) Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0% Windfarm Feasability 0 100 (100) 0 0 0 0% 100 100 0 0% Building Management Systems(BMS) 0 300 0 300 300 0 0% 300 300 0 0% TOTAL PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE BOARD 0 875 (425) 450 450 0 0% 1,167 1,167 0 0% RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY - NON-HOUSING SERVICES 1st April to 9th January 2026 POLICY BOARD: PLANNING & CLIMATE CHANGE Current Year 2025-26 Full Programme - All years Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Page 10 of 280
Page 15
2 PUBLIC ___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 17 March 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Consultation on Increasing the Threshold for Applications under the Electricity Act ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The Scottish Government has recently published a consultation seeking views on potentially increasing the current threshold of 50MW for onshore electricity generating stations to be considered by local authorities. Increasing the 50MW threshold, whether for all or only some technologies, would effectively transfer responsibility for deciding more electricity generating station related applications to planning authorities as the determining authority. 1.2 This report provides an overview of the topics covered by the consultation document and details the response proposed to be submitted by officers prior to the submission deadline of 27th March 2026. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board: ▪ Note that The Scottish Government published a consultation on the threshold and seek comments on proposed changes from planning authorities. ▪ Agree with the proposed response set out in Appendix 1 below to be submitted by officers prior to the submission deadline of 27th March 2026. _________________________________________________________ Item 2 PACC170326 Page 11 of 280
Page 16
3 PUBLIC 3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Government has recently published a consultation seeking views on potentially increasing the current threshold of 50MW for onshore electricity generating stations to be considered by local authorities. Increasing the 50MW threshold, whether for all or only some technologies, would transfer responsibility for deciding more applications to planning authorities. 3.2 A consultation document was recently published, and planning authorities were invited to make comments on the potential changes. 3.3 The consultation paper can be viewed at: Onshore electricity generation - Electricity Act threshold: consultation - gov.scot 3.4 Comments require to be submitted to Scottish Government by 27th March 2026. ___________________________________________________________________ 4. Proposed Changes 4.1 Scottish Ministers are responsible for deciding applications to build, operate or modify onshore electricity generating stations (including wind farms, solar arrays, battery storage and hydro scheme projects) with capacities exceeding 50 megawatts (MW) under powers contained in the Electricity Act 1989. Where consent is granted under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, Scottish Ministers have the power under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to grant ‘deemed’ planning permission. The local planning authority is a statutory consultee as part of the Section 36 process. 4.2 Applications concerning onshore electricity generating stations with capacities of 50 MW or less are dealt with as applications for planning permission and are largely determined by planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended. 4.3 The consultation document invites views from planning authorities on potentially increasing the 50MW threshold which determines whether applications for onshore electricity generating stations are decided by Scottish Ministers or by the relevant planning authority. The consultation document comprises of a number of sub-sections including planning policy framework, a summary of the technologies considered under Section 36 and relevant considerations including decision making, timescales, resourcing and fees. The consultation document also includes a consideration of equivalent thresholds elsewhere the UK and data and statistics in terms of the types, categories, quantities of electricity generating developments across Scotland in 2025. ___________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 280
Page 17
4 PUBLIC 5. Next Steps 5.1 Officers have reviewed the consultation document and have prepared a response ahead of the deadline for submissions on 27th March 2026. A copy of the response is detailed in Appendix 1 of this report. 5.2 It is recommended that the Board agree with the proposed response set out in Appendix 1 of this report to be submitted by officers prior to the submission deadline of 27th March 2026. __________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial – None. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None 3. Community/Council Planning – None. 4. Legal – None. 5. Property/Assets – None. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights - The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – None. 13. Children’s Rights – None 14. Cosla Policy Position – None. Author: Ross Lee, Development Standards Manager. Tel: 07811899920; Email: ross.lee@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 13 of 280
Page 18
5 PUBLIC APPENDIX 1: Response to Consultation Paper On-Shore Electricity Generation: Consultation on increasing the threshold for applications under the Electricity Act Respondent Information Form Please Note this form must be completed and returned with your response. To find out how we handle your personal data, please see our privacy policy: https://www.gov.scot/privacy/ Are you responding as an individual or an organisation? Individual Organisation (TICK) Full name or organisation’s name Phone number Address Postcode Email Address The Scottish Government would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference: Publish response with name Publish response only (without name) Do not publish response Renfrewshire Council Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley. 07811899920 PA1 1JD dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk Information for organisations: The option 'Publish response only (without name)’ is available for individual respondents only. If this option is selected, the organisation name will still be published. If you choose the option 'Do not publish response', your organisation name may still be listed as having responded to the consultation in, for example, the analysis report. Page 14 of 280
Page 19
6 PUBLIC We will share your response internally with other Scottish Government policy teams who may be addressing the issues you discuss. They may wish to contact you again in the future, but we require your permission to do so. Are you content for Scottish Government to contact you again in relation to this consultation exercise? Yes No Page 15 of 280
Page 20
7 PUBLIC Questionnaire Question 1 Should there be a single threshold applicable to all technologies? Yes No No View Please give reasons for your answer. Question 2 What threshold should apply for applications for electricity generation to be determined by planning authorities? 50MW 100MW 150MW Please add any comment in support of your answer. Renfrewshire Council do not consider that a single ‘catch all’ threshold is appropriate given the material differences and diversity involved in the assessment and consideration of different types and categories of electricity generating developments. In particular, the output generating capacity relative to the physical, environmental, visual, amenity impact of the development varies greatly between the different types of electricity generating developments. For example, the difference in the footprint and required landholding between a 100MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and a 100MW Solar array or 100MW Wind Farm could be significant and the suite of considerations as a result of this could also be materially different. As outlined in response to Question 1 above, Renfrewshire Council consider that it will be necessary to have bespoke/dedicated thresholds relative to the different types of electricity generation development categories that exist for the reasons stated. Page 16 of 280
Page 21
8 PUBLIC Question 3 Any change to the threshold would apply only to new applications. Do you have any comments on transitional arrangements? Question 4 Renfrewshire Council’s only comment in this regard is that for current applications determined by the Scottish Governments Energy Consent Unit (ECU) which would then be below the new threshold and in future would be determined by planning authorities, that this should be reflected in the ECUs overall assessment and even greater weight attached to the planning authorities position in these cases. Greater control and input from the planning authority into any conditions to be attached to any such cases would also be useful to ensure consistent with how similar future applications would be assessed in the event the planning authority would be the determining authority. Page 17 of 280
Page 22
9 PUBLIC Do you have any other comments to add? Renfrewshire Council considers that the work undertaken by the planning authority as a statutory consultee to the Section 36 application process is generally commensurate with the work undertaken if the planning authority were the determining authority. Essentially, the assessment process and associated consultation activity (to inform our overall assessment) undertaken through the Section 36 application process is in many respects indistinguishable from scenarios where the planning authority are determining an electricity generation development as a planning application. The distinctions and differences between being determining authority or a statutory consultee essentially relate to a few procedural matters. Despite the limited differences in practice, where the planning authority is a statutory consultee engaged through a Section 36 application, the downside is that we will often lose a degree of control in terms of both the conditions and of course the final decision. Notwithstanding this, the onus is also on the planning authority to both assess and discharge the planning conditions attached to the deemed consent which is some cases the planning authority would have not imposed if we had been determining authority. On this basis and subject to an appropriate fee payment scale and sufficient resourcing within the service, Renfrewshire Council consider that the planning authority could be capable of determining both more and larger scale planning applications concerning energy generating developments. We see benefit in terms of being to be apply local knowledge, having greater control over key aspects of the development, autonomy in terms of the conditions attached to any decision and thereafter an understanding of the monitoring expectations and obligations of the future development. Our only concerns to this approach that a shift to local planning authority decision making may: • Prevent a wider strategic overview and result in decisions not taking into consideration the national significance of projects as well as both best practices, case law and changes in approaches that the centralised ECU are likely to be more aware given the exposure to such developments across Scotland. • Potential for more electricity generating developments to go before the Council’s Planning Committee depending on the scheme of delegation. In turn, greater uncertainty in decision making may arise as a result of the introduction of another step in the determination route. In addition, this may result in an increase in the number of proposals being considered by the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). We consider that the implications of this would need to be carefully considered when reviewing any potential changes to the thresholds. • Resourcing at local planning authority level and ensuring that we have professional officers within the team who have capacity and expertise to prioritise the assessment and determination of these applications. • Increased reliance on external consultees and advisors to assess aspects of these developments where there is no in-house technical expertise at the Council. This includes landscape impacts, ecological, hydrology. This in turn has an impact on budget and resources. Page 18 of 280
Page 23
10 PUBLIC Question 5 Do you have any comments on the partial and draft impact assessments undertaken? Question 6 Do you have any suggestions for additional sources of information on the potential impacts of the proposals that could help inform our final assessments? Renfrewshire Council has no comments to make on this. Renfrewshire Council has no comments to make on this. Page 19 of 280
Page 24
Page 20 of 280
Page 25
2 PUBLIC ___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 17 March 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: National Planning Improvement Framework – Improvement Action Progress Update 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 This report seeks to provide an update to members on the progress made in respect of the action plan which was agreed as part of the National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF) in 2024. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board: ▪ Note that the Council’s Planning Service has prepared an Improvement Action Progress Update which has been agreed by the National Planning Improvement Champion. ▪ Note the progress made in respect of the various workstreams which are identified within the Action Plan of the National Planning Improvement Framework. ▪ Note that a further update will be provided in 2027. _________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 introduced a new approach to measuring the performance of planning authorities and made it mandatory for planning authorities to prepare a report on their performance after the end of each financial year. Item 3 PACC170326 Page 21 of 280
Page 26
3 PUBLIC 3.2 The Act also introduced the role of the National Planning Improvement Champion to monitor the performance of planning authorities and provide advice to them, and other persons considered appropriate, on the steps that might be taken to help improve performance. 3.3 The NPIF has been developed by the National Planning Improvement Champion and aims to “manage the development and use of land in the long term public interest through” ensuring that: ▪ the planning system enables the delivery of sustainable, liveable, and productive places. ▪ planning services are equipped to work effectively and efficiently, embedding continuous improvement. ▪ users are able to engage constructively with the planning system and planning service. 3.4 Our NPIF Report was agreed in November 2024 and included an action and improvement plan which would be implemented over a three-year period. The NPIF Report was presented to members at the November 2024 meeting of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board. 3.5 The action and improvement plan requires to be implemented over a three-year period. 3.6 As part of the National Planning Improvement Framework an annual report requires to be prepared which details the progress made in respect of the various workstreams identified within the action and improvement plan. ___________________________________________________________________ 4. Year 2 Update 4.1 The Improvement Action Progress Update 2025 represents our year 2 report as required by the National Planning Improvement Framework. 4.2 A copy of our Improvement Action Progress Update 2025 is detailed within Appendix 1 of this report. 4.3 The action and improvement plan is divided into five key areas as follows: ▪ People ▪ Culture ▪ Tools ▪ Engage ▪ Place Page 22 of 280
Page 27
4 PUBLIC 4.4 Most of the identified action points remain in progress, however it is significant to note that the following action points have been completed: ▪ Appointment of designated Enforcement Officer. ▪ Introduction of customer service survey in relation to the preparation of the local development plan/local place plans. ▪ Publication of guidance relating to education contributions. ▪ Investigate how to proceed in respect of flooding advice. 4.5 The remaining actions will be implemented over the remaining two years of the adopted National Planning Improvement Framework and a further update will be provided in 2027. __________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial – None. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None 3. Community/Council Planning – None. 4. Legal – None. 5. Property/Assets – None. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights - The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – None. 13. Children’s Rights - None 14. Cosla Policy Position – None. Author: David Love, Chief Planning Officer. Tel: 07483410182; Email: david.love@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 23 of 280
Page 28
NATIONAL PLANNING IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK Improvement Action Progress Update 2025 Renfrewshire Council Appendix 1 Page 24 of 280
Page 29
Renfrewshire NPIF Annual Report (Year Two - 2025) Foreword Over the past year, following the completion of our National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF) and our peer review session, we have sought to progress and implement our agreed Improvement Action Plan. At the outset we would note the challenging circumstances we have experienced over the past year especially in relation to our Business Admin Support Team. As a result of limited staff resource and staff absence within our support team, a number of officers have experienced increased workloads and pressures including Planning Assistants and Planning Officers. In addition, workload demand and pressures relating to complex and major developments have also had an impact upon our ability to progress some actions within the Action Plan. In addition to the above, the Planning and Building Standards Service have been reporting to an internal officer Board of the Council – the Performance Board. The Performance Board has enabled a detailed evaluation of many of our processes and procedures, and we are pleased that a number of workstreams have been commenced and progressed as a result of our work with the Performance Board. Many of the workstreams align with actions outlined in our Improvement Action Plan and are detailed in relation of the respective action point. Notwithstanding the above, we are pleased to report that our Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance was adopted at a meeting of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in August 2025. Progress has also been made in relation to many of our other action points and although not completed to date we look forward to completing them in the coming year. Our professional development plan process is about to be implemented and as such this process has been progressed in partnership with our colleagues in Environment, Housing and Infrastructure. All staff within the planning service will now complete the review and discuss matters with their manager setting individual goals and action points. Our review of processes is ongoing and continues to help enhance our procedures. Over the past year improvements and enhancements have included new decision notice templates together with the introduction of formalised assessment processes and decision notices relating to applications for treeworks, notification of works to trees in a conversation area, proposal of application notices, EIA Screening opinions, non-material variations and discharge of conditions. Work is continuing and a review of our procedures in relation to planning enforcement has highlighted and identified a number of areas of improvement as we seek to streamline and enhance our processes in respect of enforcement matters. This includes drafting a suite of bespoke enforcement related notice templates and associated letters and coding/embedding these into our Uniform. In addition, we are pleased to be working with colleagues from our IT team to investigate and implement, where possible, the automation of some tasks thus helping to save staff time which can be diverted to other tasks. Page 25 of 280
Page 30
We remain committed to ensuring that the planning process is transparent and accessible to all and draft guidance has been prepared in relation to the introduction of hearings at meetings of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board. The introduction of hearings would enable applicants and those making representations to address the board as part of the consideration of the respective planning application. Further work requires to be undertaken with our colleagues in legal and committee services however we hope to be in a position to introduce hearings early in 2026. Challenges remain within the service in relation to staff resource; however, we are currently preparing a business case in respect of seeking additional staff, firstly in relation to our Business Admin Support Team and thereafter in addition officers. Additional staff across the service will enable us to continue to progress the Improvement Action Plan but also enable us to improve and enhance our performance as we seek to promote quality developments across Renfrewshire. Introduction The National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF) was piloted incrementally in three separate cohorts throughout the 2024/25 financial year. This was to test a new approach to measuring the performance of planning authorities. The pilot aimed to test the new framework, to explore what works and what doesn’t. This resulted in each planning authority producing an improvement action plan and performance assessment. Each improvement action plan sets out: • What the planning authority has agreed as its priority activities • Whether these have short-, medium- or long-term timescales • The owner of the actions • The resources needed Link to action plan for 2023/24. In year two of the NPIF the planning authorities are to update on their progress with the improvement actions. This report sets out the progress Renfrewshire has made, detailing any updates to actions, any further actions and plans for further collaboration with peer partners. Planning Improvement Actions Progress Update This section details each of the improvement actions and the progress the planning authority has made. Page 26 of 280
Page 31
Renfrewshire has 21 improvement actions. The status of the actions is shown below: Action 1: Prepare a formal workforce strategy document detailing the adopted approach of grow our own In Progress Progress against this action: The Planning and Building Standards Service has been subject to review and evaluation by an internal board of the Council – the Performance Board. The Performance Board has considered all aspects of our operations and as such as identified and enabled a number of recommendations to be made in respect of our workforce. Although the preparation of a formal workforce strategy has not yet been completed it is significant to note that a number of improvements points have already been realised as we seek to grow our own. Firstly, we created a new role within the Planning Service – Planning Trainee. The trainee role combines study at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS) one day per week together with on-the-job training on the other four days. The UWS course represents a degree apprenticeship and seeks to equip candidates with the academic qualifications while working within a planning authority. We are delighted to advise a Planning Trainee commenced work with Renfrewshire Council in September 2025 and is currently working within our Strategy and Place Team while meeting the study and assessment requirements of the UWS course. A number of improvements from a workforce perspective have also been identified in relation to our Business Support Officers. The officers are currently based within the respective planning and building standards teams however the current set up lacks resilience, capacity and flexibility to meet service demands and in this regard, we have adopted a new approach with the creation of a new Planning and Building Standards Business Support Team. This new team will bring together all support officers and will help create a more resilient and flexible Page 27 of 280
Page 32
team which will be able to adapt to challenging work periods or indeed periods of staff leave or absence. In addition, the new approach introduces two new positions within the team – team leader and task leader. The newly created roles will assist with the co-ordination and management of the team while also increasing the capacity within the team. As part of the grow our own model we currently have one trainee working within the team as we seek to provide opportunities for those seeking work or a return to work while also enhancing our capacity. In respect of professional posts within the Planning Service a number of recommendations have been made, and a formal proposal has been submitted which is currently under consideration. The proposal would result in an increase in the number of posts within Development Management Team while also providing an opportunity for promotion within the Strategy and Place Team. It is envisaged that should financial approval be achieved; the additional posts will be recruited in early 2026. The following next steps are proposed: In order to progress matters and to create and establish the Planning and Building Standards Business Support Team, formal recruitment processes will be undertaken and thereafter the team established. Similarly, should approval be granted for additional posts within the respective planning teams the relevant recruitment processes will be commenced at the earliest opportunity. The formal workforce strategy document will include all the improvements noted above and will be progressed at the same time as the corporate approach to workforce strategy progresses. Action 2: Re-introduction of Professional Development Plans of all staff In Progress Progress against this action: The PDP document had been created in collaboration with colleagues in Environment, Housing and Infrastructure and seeks to provide staff a comprehensive opportunity to review their development and training needs for the short, medium and long term. The PDP aims to assist, motivate and support staff to achieve continuous professional development. Testing of the PDP has been undertaken with colleagues from ICT with a view to enabling the process to be undertaken online this allowing reports and action lists to prepared. The PDP will be implemented in early 2026 with all staff required to complete the document prior to discussing matters in further detail with their line manager. The following next steps are proposed: The PDP process will be implemented in early 2026 and all staff within Planning and Building Standards will be required to complete the document and discuss matters with their line manager. Thereafter an annual review will be undertaken in order to best support staff with their own professional development plans. Page 28 of 280
Page 33
Action 3: Introduction of Staff Survey to determine training needs and other matters In Progress Progress against this action: We are currently at the early stages of undertaking a staff survey to determine training needs. It is envisaged that the survey will complement the introduction of Professional Development Plans and help to fully support all staff in maintaining and enhancing their skills and knowledge and also helping staff to achieve their professional development goals. The following next steps are proposed: We will follow up with our HR colleagues prior to the staff survey going live. Thereafter the survey will go live and will be open for staff to complete for two weeks. Action 4: Review scheme of delegation as it relates to planning matters and make changes as required Not Started Reason(s) action has not been progressed: • The action was set as a low or medium priority To date Action 4 has not been progressed as the action was identified as a low or medium priority. In this regard, it should be noted that initial discussions have been undertaken with the Convenor however it is considered that may be better for such discussions to take place after next local government elections in 2027. The following next steps are proposed: Further discussions will be undertaken following the local government elections in 2027. Action 5: Review Board timetables and operation of the board including introduction of hearings and the policy relating to site visits In Progress Progress against this action: Action 5 has been progressed however to date it has not been completed. An outline guide of how hearings could be introduced to the meetings of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Boards has been prepared. In addition, discussions have been undertaken with the Convenor and Deputy Convenor of the Board and colleagues from Legal Services and Committee Services. To date a final decision has not yet been reached in respect of the introduction of the Hearings. The introductions of hearings will also have an impact on the existing site visit protocol and in this regard should it be decided to introduce hearings, the site visit protocol will be re- Page 29 of 280
Page 34
considered and amended as required. To is envisaged that should hearings be implemented, the new site visit protocol will be implemented at the same time. The following next steps are proposed: Further internal discussions require to be undertaken, and considerations given to the wider implications of the introduction of hearings at the Planning and Climate Change Policy. Thereafter it is envisaged that a report will be prepared which will be considered by Elected Members at a meeting of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board. Action 6: Training programme for elected members In Progress Progress against this action: The training programme for members in recent months has focused upon LDP matters including National Planning Framework 4, the LDP preparation process and the evidence report. In addition, sessions have also been held in respect of the Developer Contributions – Education. A more formal training programme will be implemented throughout 2026 and ahead of the requirement for Elected Members to undertake necessary training. The following next steps are proposed: A formal programme of training will be prepared and circulated in the coming weeks. It is envisaged that the necessary Elected Member training will be implemented following the local government elections in 2027. Going forward the necessary training will be supplemented with additional training as required in respect of various topics. Action 7: Increase capability within the Strategy & Place team to undertake more GIS work In Progress Progress against this action: A member of the Strategy & Place team was one of a limited number of attendees from Scottish planning authorities who attended Improvement Service GIS training. The training was useful and has been practically applied to support the team. The GIS module has been a significant part of the trainee planners course work on the UWS planning course. Regular (fortnightly) meetings with the Council’s corporate GIS team have been re-established. Strategy & Place staff have had ArcGIS Pro software installed on devices to enable them to undertake relevant training and work. Staff have become more skilled in the creation and management of ArcGIS tools such as Survey123 and hubs. The following next steps are proposed: A purpose of the meetings with the corporate GIS team is to discuss what additional GIS work can be undertaken by the Strategy & Place team rather than requested from the corporate GIS team. Page 30 of 280
Page 35
Action 8: Commence preparation of a data strategy for the planning service and identify planning representative to engage with corporate Data Advisory Group In Progress Progress against this action: Action 8 is in progress, and the Chief Planning Officer is now a member of the Data Advisory Group which has been set up within the Council. The formal strategy document has not yet commenced due to availability of staff resource and as such it is recommended that the timeframe is updated to medium. The following next steps are proposed: To prepare the data strategy in respect of the Planning Service. The data strategy will be included in the workplan for the next financial year 2026/2027. In response, the following changes to the action are proposed: Update the timescale to medium. Action 9: Put in place designated Enforcement Officer Complete What was the outcome of completing this action? Following a number of recruitment attempts, a Planning Officer with dedicated focus on Enforcement matters was appointed in November 2025. The officer in question is now leading on all enforcement matters and reviewing our internal processes. The officer will take a lead role in the review of our Enforcement Charter later this year. Action 10: Review Uniform workflow processes/letters and templates In Progress Progress against this action: Our workflow process as they relate to development management matters have been reviewed from start to finish including all template letters, notifications and reports. The work date includes: • Review of all workflow process and generated tasks within the uniform system. • Review of all template letters, acknowledgements, notification and reports. • Introduction of formal application process relating to discharge of conditions, non- material variations, pre-application enquiries, notification of initiation of development, notification of completion of development etc. In addition, as part of our internal review with the Council’s Performance Board we are also progressing the use automation within the uniform system. The Council are currently testing the use of an automated robot undertaking and completing rule-based tasks such as sending acknowledgment and notification letters and data entry. Page 31 of 280
Page 36
The use of Artificial Intelligence is also being progressed throughout the Council with the introduction of the Council’s AI powered digital assistant – Millie. The digital assistant seeks to help customers get faster responses to routine queries and reduce pressure on staff. As part of the wider roll out, Millie is currently being adapted to deal with enquiries relating to Planning and Building Standards. It is envisaged that the introduction of Millie will respond to enquiries more efficiently while also creating additional time for staff to process applications. Link to more details on Millie. The Council’s Performance Board has also included a review of our Business Support Staff and in this regard a number of amendments are currently being implemented. The introduction of a dedicated Business Support Team serving both Planning and Building Standards will help provide clear and consistent reporting, while also removing single points of failure and indeed increase resilience within the service. The dedicated team will include the appointment of a Team Leader and Task Leader, while the four Senior Clerical posts (currently split between the respective Planning and Building Standards Teams) will be made permanent and sit within the same team. The dedicated team within increased staff resource will assist in reducing the time officers undertake administration and seeks to enhance performance by maximising the time spent processing applications. The long-term aim is for the Business Support Team to undertake initial validation of applications. The following next steps are proposed: A number of steps have been identified: • The continued evolution of the uniform system and the review of tasks to help drive performance. • The instruction of more formal and automated procedures in respect of Planning Enforcement. • The introduction of automation within the uniform system following detailed testing. • The introduction of Millie to be the first point of contact when seeking call Planning and Building Standards. • The formation of the dedicated Business Support Team. Recruitment of the team is due to take place in February/March 2026. Action 11: Review of Board and LRB procedures In progress Progress against this action: This action has been progressed at the same time as Action 5 given it covers many similar issues. As previously noted, work has commenced in respect of the operation of our Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in that consideration is being given to the introduction of hearings and the operation of the wider Board. This action has not yet concluded however it will be progressed following further discussions with the Convenor and thereafter any changes will be considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board. The following next steps are proposed: We will engage with legal and committee services in order to progress the review and make recommendations on the operation of the board and implement agreed changes. Page 32 of 280
Page 37
Action 12: Review and refresh all planning webpages on the Renfrewshire Council website In Progress Progress against this action: Limited progress has been made to date due to staff resource and availability. The roll out of the new Renfrewshire Council website has commenced and as a result the priority of reviewing and renewing our webpages has increased. An initial review of our existing pages has taken place and as such it is the intention to prepare the content for our new webpages over the next ten months. In addition, views were sought on the content of development planning related webpages as part of the 2025 Development Plan Scheme consultation. Responses were limited but did provide some useful feedback. The following next steps are proposed: A timetable of implementation will be prepared and agreed and thereafter we will liaise with our communication colleagues to update our webpages. Action 13: Introduce a customer service survey measuring satisfaction with the level of collaboration in the preparation of the local development plan/local place plans Complete What was the outcome of completing this action? A survey was issued alongside the draft 2025 Development Plan Scheme seeking views on satisfaction with opportunities to input to the new local development plan, and how to improve opportunities. Unfortunately, only nine responses were received (9), with the majority indicating they were dissatisfied (4) or very dissatisfied (1) and providing reasons why. The same survey sought views on the frequency of local development plan communications, with the majority of responses (5) indicating the frequency was about right. Some of the suggestions received were reflected in the updated Development Plan Scheme and Participation Statement. Action 14: Identify gaps in responses to the have your say survey from places and groups, and run targeted consultations to address this In Progress Progress against this action: The 2025 Development Plan scheme identifies children and young people, disabled people, older people, local interest groups (e.g. natural and built environment groups) and gypsy/travellers and travelling show people as groups that are to be engaged with during the preparation of the proposed plan. There are also areas of Renfrewshire that will not be covered by a Local Place Plan where an alternative approach to engagement will be required. Page 33 of 280
Page 38
The following next steps are proposed: Engagement with these groups and areas will form part of the proposed plan preparation process. Action 15: Regular engagement events with stakeholders and customers to include: - Developers Forum - Community Council Visitations In progress Progressed against this action: To date this action has not yet been completed however plans are currently being progressed in relation to a Developers Forum taking place later this year. The Developers Forum would provide the opportunity for the Planning Service and Developers to engage and discuss pertinent issues including those relating to processes and procedures. In terms of Community Council visitations, Officers continue to attend meetings of Community Councils where invites are received and remain committed to attending such meetings as required. In addition, Officers also attend meetings of Local Partnerships throughout Renfrewshire as required to provide updates relating to particular projects. A monthly drop-in session is held for those community councils and other community groups that are preparing a Local Place Plan. These have proven to be a useful forum for those organisations to ask questions directly of Council officers and each other. The following next steps are proposed: We will confirm plans relating to our Developers Forum and confirm arrangements. The Developers Forum will be held later this year. Action 16: Investigate use of customer questionnaire on issue of decision notice, taking account of any national survey implemented by NPI Not Started Reason(s) action has not been progressed: • We are relying on a partner or stakeholder to action this This action point has not yet been progressed and as such we have sought to rely upon the national survey which was implemented by NPI. In order to ensure we get the best possible response to the NPI survey from a Renfrewshire perspective, efforts have been undertaken to make applicants, developers and customers aware of the survey and to encourage participation. The following next steps are proposed: On reflection it is considered that any Renfrewshire specific survey is likely to replicate the work undertaking as part of the national survey. In this regard it is our intention to continue to promote the national survey and indeed respond to the outcomes highlight in respect of a Renfrewshire perspective. Page 34 of 280
Page 39
Action 17: Investigate charging for preapplication advice Not Started Reason(s) action has not been progressed: • Other The introduction of charging for pre-application advice has not yet commenced mainly as a result of competing priorities and the ability to respond to increased expectations where charging is associated with provide the service. The following next steps are proposed: Over the next year progress will be made in relation to the introduction of a charging regime in respect of our pre-application service. Action 18: Seek discussion/ training session with Improvement Service to provide planning staff with more knowledge of the Place and Wellbeing Outcomes and how these can be used in decision-making In Progress Progress against this action: Contact has been made with Irene Beautyman of the Improvement Service who has agreed to provide a training session. The following next steps are proposed: Confirmation of training session with Irene Beautyman as part of a wider training event. Action 19: Preparation of model template for legal agreement and engagement with HOPS working group Not Started Reason(s) action has not been progressed: • We do not have the resources we need to do this • The action was set as a low or medium priority To date no progress has been made in relation to the preparation of a model template. The delay has been experienced as a result of staff resource pressures with legal services, however it should be noted that the action was identified as low to medium priority. The following next steps are proposed: We will engage with colleagues in legal services to prepare a model template for legal agreements and take account of any recommendations that come from the HOPS working group. Page 35 of 280
Page 40
Action 20: Publication of guidance relating to Education contributions Complete What was the outcome of completing this action? Our Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance was adopted in August 2025. The guidance document is now a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and is used by both Children’s Services in responding to consultation requests and by Planning in reaching recommendation and decisions in respect of planning applications. Action 21: Flooding Officer Complete What was the outcome of completing this action? Discussions have been undertaken with a neighbouring local authority and the Planning Hub in respect of a shared Flooding Officer Resource. As a result of the discussions and review of current spend it was considered that a shared resource would not be viable and as such we decided, for the time being, to continue to rely on external advice from relevant consultants. Peer Collaborative Review Follow Up As part of the pilot, each planning authority held a peer collaborative review workshop. This brought together key stakeholders and customers to discuss and provide constructive feedback on the improvement action plan. Status of the peer review follow-up meeting: Staff resources are such that we are limited on time at present. We hope to provide a further update in the near future. Page 36 of 280
Page 41
OFFICIAL ___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 17 March 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Accelerating home-building in Scotland consultation ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The Scottish Government has issued a consultation paper titled ‘Accelerating home-building in Scotland’ setting out fiscal and planning measures that could be introduced to encourage the faster build-out of homes. The measures include providing relief or supplements to taxes to encourage faster build-out; monitoring build-out rates and intervening when these are considered to be slow; reducing procedural times and costs for small and medium builders; and diversifying house types and tenures on housing sites. 1.2 The proposed Council response to the consultation is set out in Appendix 1 and summarised in paragraph 4.6. It supports some of the suggestions included in the consultation paper but raises concerns about the practicalities of implementation and associated resource issues. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board: • Approve the consultation response set out in Appendix 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Item 4 PACC170326 Page 37 of 280
Page 42
OFFICIAL 3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Government declared a national housing emergency in May 2024 and has subsequently published a Housing Emergency Action Plan and a Planning and the Housing Emergency Delivery Plan. 3.2 The ‘Accelerating home-building in Scotland’ consultation paper was published on 5 February 2026 as a starting point for discussion about possible measures that could be deployed to accelerate the build-out of housing in Scotland. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, future action may include primary and/or secondary legislation. Legislative changes would not be feasible until the next session of the Scottish Parliament. 3.3 The consultation closes on 30 April 2026. 4. Accelerating home-building in Scotland consultation – content and proposed response 4.1 The consultation paper sets out a range of potential incentives and penalties which could be deployed to overcome barriers to housing delivery. These are set out under the following four options. Option 1: Introduce fiscal measures to tackle inactivity or slow build-out 4.2 This option considers introducing relief or supplements to taxes, such as the Scottish Building Safety Levy or Land and Buildings Transaction Tax to stimulate or speed up delivery where build-out is not progressing at pace. Another aspect considered is charging Council Tax on all properties in a project after planning permission has been secured and/or development commenced, whether they have been built or not. Option 2: Monitor build-out rates and intervene where these are unreasonably slow 4.3 This option considers extending powers to manage the pipeline of deliverable housing land, by for example requiring reports to be submitted to planning authorities such as a build-out statement and annual report of development progress, with linked powers to cease planning permissions after a fixed deadline or where the planning authority considers progress to be unreasonable. Option 3: Reduce procedural time and costs for small and medium enterprise (SME) developers 4.4 This option considers refining the development hierarchy in order to enable the planning process for smaller housing sites (more commonly developed by SMEs) to be varied. The current development hierarchy consists of major developments of 50 houses or more and local developments of 49 houses or less. Through introducing more categories, it is suggested that planning applications for smaller sites could be fast-tracked; the planning application requirements for smaller sites could be rationalised to allow applications to be Page 38 of 280
Page 43
OFFICIAL brought forward more quickly and at a lower cost; and advice could be provided on planning application requirements for different sizes of proposals, setting clearer and more streamlined expectations. Option 4: Diversify outputs from deliverable land 4.5 This option relates to increasing the mix of types and tenures of homes on housing sites. It sets out that there may be scope to develop existing requirements further to shape how sites are appraised and selected for allocation in local development plans, and how delivery expectations are then specified. The goal would be to ensure local development plans allocate sites to accommodate as wide a range as possible of sizes, types and tenures of development. Legislation could be brought in to require sites above a fixed threshold to offer a diversity of housing types and tenures. Proposed consultation response 4.6 The proposed response to the consultation is set out in Appendix 1. It includes the following points: • The fiscal incentives suggested to accelerate house building appear complex to introduce (requiring primary and secondary legislation) and to apply, with uncertainty over who they would apply to and when they would apply. • Some measures proposed could be counter-productive by resulting less sites being brought forward for housing development. • The suggestion of a vacant land tax is of interest and could have a broader impact through being applicable to land allocated not just for house building. • Any tax introduced should be a local tax, which is set and administered locally. • Income from such tax should be used to help accelerate housing development e.g. to deliver affordable housing or infrastructure that would support housing development across a range of sites. • It is not clear whether bringing forward powers to require developers to report on development progress would be beneficial. It could increase bureaucracy without any resultant increase in delivery. • It would be disproportionate to revoke an unimplemented planning permission if if progress is considered unreasonably slow. However, powers to revoke an implemented consent which is not being progressed should be a consideration • Changes to the development hierarchy to enable more streamlined planning processes for planning applications for smaller housing sites should be considered. • Encouraging/requiring a more diverse range of house types across development sites could increase the pace of build-out of houses on that site, as the houses built would be accessible to a wider range of Page 39 of 280
Page 44
OFFICIAL buyers/renters. However, legislation requiring this would be disproportionate and inflexible, and either stronger planning policy or guidance would be a better approach. Implications of the Report 1. Financial – some of the proposals set out in the consultation would provide an income to the Council e.g. introducing Council Tax on homes that have not been built but have planning permission. The consultation paper states that the purpose of any fiscal measures would be to stimulate build-out rather than raise revenue. The consultation paper also states that there is potential for revenue to be used to fund infrastructure and other interventions to de-risk sites, improve viability and therefore speed-up build-out. 2. HR & Organisational Development – some of the proposals set out in the consultation paper would have a resource impact on the Council’s planning service as they would require increased monitoring of housing development. 3. Community/Council Planning – None 4. Legal – some of the proposals sets out in the consultation would require primary and secondary legislation to be introduced to the Scottish Government. 5. Property/Assets – some of the proposals set out in the consultation would impact on Council-owned land and Council housing developments. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights – The report does not relate to a policy or proposal of Renfrewshire Council. 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – None. 13. Children’s Rights – None. 14. Cosla Policy Position – Not available at time of writing the report. _______________________________________________________ List of Background Papers Accelerating home-building in Scotland consultation paper - Accelerating home building in Scotland - A consultation on incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery Page 40 of 280
Page 45
OFFICIAL Appendix 1: Proposed Renfrewshire Council response to the Accelerating home- building in Scotland consultation paper ___________________________________________________________________ Author: Alan Williamson, Strategy & Place Manager, alan.williamson@renfrewshire.gov.uk, 07811 053968 Page 41 of 280
Page 46
1 OFFICIAL Respondent Information Form Accelerating home-building in Scotland A consultation on incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery Please Note: this form must be completed and returned with your response. Please indicate how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular, whether you are content for your response to published. If you ask for your response not to be published, we will still take account of your views in our analysis but we will not publish your response, quote anything that you have said or list your name. We will regard your response as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly. To find out how we handle your personal data, please see our privacy policy at the bottom of the page. By submitting your response to Scottish Government you agree to our privacy policy. 1. What is your name? Alan Williamson 2. What is your email address? Your email address will never be published. Your email address will be used if you give permission below to be contacted again in future about this consultation. Alan.williamson@renfrewshire.gov.uk 3. Are you responding as an individual or an organisation? Individual ☐ Organisation ☒ 4. What is your organisation? If responding on behalf of an organisation, please enter the organisation's name here. Renfrewshire Council Appendix 1 Page 42 of 280
Page 47
2 OFFICIAL 5. The Scottish Government would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference: Publish response with name ☐ Publish response only (without name) ☒ Do not publish response ☐ Information for organisations only: The option 'Publish response only (without name)' refers only to your name, not your organisation’s name. If this option is selected, the organisation name will still be published. If you choose the option 'Do not publish response', your organisation name may still be listed as having responded to the consultation in, for example, the analysis report. 6. Do you consent to Scottish Government contacting you again in relation to this consultation exercise? Yes ☒ No ☐ 7. I confirm that I have read the privacy policy and consent to the data I provide being used as set out in the policy. You can view the privacy policy here: Privacy - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) I consent ☒ Page 43 of 280
Page 48
3 OFFICIAL Questionnaire Question 1 Could fiscal incentives offering relief to other charges help to accelerate build-out rates? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. The fiscal incentives suggested to accelerate build-out appear to be complex to introduce, some involving primary and secondary legislation, and to apply, with uncertainty over who they would apply to and when they would apply. They would add regulatory burden to builders and planning authorities with no guarantee of effectiveness and could, in fact, be counter-productive, through preventing housing sites being brought forward. For this reason, reliefs for meeting planned delivery timelines are likely to be more effective than charges/levies/taxes for slower than expected delivery. Question 1a Which charges / taxes / levies could the incentives be applied to? Please explain your answer. The consultation paper refers to the Scottish Building Safety Levy, Land and Buildings Transaction Tax and Council Tax. These would appear to be the main charges/levies/taxes that could be used to influence house building delivery. The suggestion of a vacant land tax is of interest and would have a broader impact than just house building through being applicable to vacant/derelict land identified for a range of uses, including environmental uses. It could be targeted at land in the vacant and derelict land register and at the owner of the site, and applied until the land is removed from the register. Where the tax is not paid, a charge could be put over the land to enable payment at the time of a future sale, and ultimately to enable compulsory sale/purchase. The tax would need to be commiserate to the eventual end use of the site i.e. the tax for vacant sites eventually being developed for houses for sale would be set higher than the tax for sites being brought into environmental use. Question 1b Should relief be in the form of full exemptions or variable rates? ☒ Full exemptions ☒ Variable rates Page 44 of 280
Page 49
4 OFFICIAL Please explain your answer Variable rates including up to full exemption would provide flexibility. Question 1c Could a tax impact differently on different types of land owners? Please explain your answer. The premise of the question is not clear. Question 1d Please provide any evidence of how fiscal measures linked to other charges would impact development finance to influence built out rates. Renfrewshire Council does not hold any evidence in relation to this question. Question 2 Should we introduce a tax on sites which have been allocated for residential development and/or have permission for homes, but are not being built out as expected, as set out in option 1? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. For such a tax to be effective i.e. to have an impact on build-out rates, it would have to be set at a level high enough to achieve this. However, such a level of tax may be counter-productive and prevent sites being brought forward for allocation/ planning permission. There is therefore a risk a negative impact on housing delivery associated with this suggestion. Question 2a Should this apply to allocated sites, sites with permission, or both? ☐ Allocated sites ☐ Sites with permission ☒ Both Please explain your answer. If such a tax is introduced, it would be logical for such a tax to be applied to both allocated sites and sites with planning permission. However, a consequence of this is that speculative planning applications that can ultimately contribute Page 45 of 280
Page 50
5 OFFICIAL towards housing delivery may not be brought forward, and likewise land that might otherwise have been promoted through the LDP process may not be. For sites with planning permission, there is the complexity of sites not being deliverable until certain conditions are discharged. Some pre-commencement conditions can be complex and take significant time to be met, raising the issue of whether a tax would kick-in from when planning permission is granted or when certain conditions are discharged. If the latter, then the discharge of conditions could be delayed to avoid tax. Question 2b How should the tax be calculated? Please explain your answer. If such a tax is introduced, the tax should be calculated based on site area if site is at the allocated or planning permission in principle stage or calculated based on number of units if detailed planning permission is in place. Question 2c Who should be required to pay the tax? Please explain your answer. The clarity on who should be required to pay the tax varies depending on circumstances. For an allocated site, the responsible party could be the landowner or the organisation that has promoted the site for allocation. However, a site can be submitted for allocation without landowner permission or based on an option which may not last as long as the allocation. In these circumstances, it may not be clear who should be required to pay the tax. For sites with planning permission, the tax could be linked to the organisation that made the planning application. However, an applicant’s interest in a development site may end during the period that a planning permission is extant. There are therefore practical difficulties associated with the application of such a tax. Question 2d Should the tax operate as a local or a national tax? ☒ Local tax ☐ National tax Please explain your answer. Page 46 of 280
Page 51
6 OFFICIAL If such a tax is introduced, the tax should be set and administered locally. A local tax can be introduced more easily than a national tax, and local setting of the tax would allow for differences in the housing market across the country to be reflected. Question 2e How should any income be used? Please explain your answer. If such a tax is introduced, the income should be used to create a fund to help accelerate housing development e.g. to support affordable housing development or to contribute towards infrastructure that would support development across a wider area. It would not seem appropriate to use income associated with under-delivery on one site to directly fund issues contributing to under-delivery on another site. Question 2f Please provide any evidence of how a tax connected to sites allocated or permitted not being built out would influence build-out rates. The Council does not have specific evidence to offer in relation to this question. Question 3 Should we bring forward powers for reporting on development progress and powers to intervene where it is considered to be unreasonably slow, as set out in option 2? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. There could be value in planning authorities having these powers available for circumstances when development is considered to be progressing unreasonably slow. However, there would be difficulty associated with planning authorities determining when progress is unreasonably slow. There is a risk of increasing bureaucracy and resource issues associated with closely monitoring delivery rates on sites, with potentially no resultant increase in delivery. Question 3a Should this include creating a legal framework for reporting on development progress? ☐ Yes ☐ No Page 47 of 280
Page 52
7 OFFICIAL ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. As no legal framework currently exists for planning authorities to require developers to report on development progress, then a legal framework would have to be created. Question 3b Should there be a power for planning permission to be revoked, without compensation being payable, where reporting demonstrates that progress is unreasonably slow? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. It would be considered disproportionate to revoke an unimplemented planning permission if progress is considered unreasonably slow. Planning permission, unless implemented, only lasts 3 years so it would be unreasonable to revoke planning permission based on slow build-out in such a short period. However, consideration could be given to delivery issues when a permission is sought to renew a planning permission, although development plans do not make this a consideration at this time. For sites where planning permission is implemented and therefore permanently extant, the revocation of planning permission without compensation should be a consideration. Sites such as these, because they have planning permission, can be continually carried forward in housing land audits and planning permissions, despite there being no certainty of the development being delivered. This ultimately introduces uncertainty into the planning system. This matter could be resolved by the revocation of planning permission in these circumstances. However, there would be difficulty associated with sites where progress is made on a stop/start basis. Planning authorities may be reluctant to use powers of revocation owing to concerns over this being challenged and associated costs. Question 3c How would the pace of development be set and agreed – for example how would reasonable-ness be measured? The housing land audit could offer the reporting tool through which the pace of development can be set and agreed, as least for some developments where there is a builder attached. There are various factors that will affect a site’s build-out rates. Planning authorities are unlikely to have insight to most of these and are therefore dependent on a builder’s advice on the likely build-out rate of a site and the Page 48 of 280
Page 53
8 OFFICIAL reason why this is not being achieved. Planning authorities are unlikely to have the knowledge or means to challenge a builder’s view on why a site is not meeting expected build-out rates. Question 3d Please provide any evidence of how reporting on development progress would influence build-out rates. The Council does not have specific evidence to offer in relation to this question. Question 4 Should we bring forward legislation to amend the development hierarchy, to enable us to introduce more streamlined planning processes on planning applications for smaller sites, as outlined in option 3? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. The suggestion is supported in principle, in that it would be appropriate to apply the requirements of development plan policies proportionately depending on the size of the development. However, it is not clear how amending the development hierarchy in isolation would result in the introduction of more streamlined planning processes. It would need to be accompanied with changes to NPF4 indicating how different hierarchies of development are to be assessed, and/or accompanying guidance setting this out. Also, the information required in support of a planning application will often relate to the nature of the site, not just the size of the site/development. For example, a small site of significant ecological interest or with a complex flooding/drainage background will still need to have its issues addressed comprehensively regardless of the site size, or the size of the development. Question 4a How many categories should be defined by the development hierarchy, and what size of development should these cover? For example, four categories, that define major, medium, small and very small developments. A possible model is: Very small - 1-3 homes Small – 4-9 homes Medium – 10-49 homes Major – 50+ homes Page 49 of 280
Page 54
9 OFFICIAL Question 4b What are your views on, and do you have any evidence relevant to whether creating more categories in the development hierarchy might have an overall effect of speeding up or slowing down build-out of housing? Creating more categories in the development hierarchy could potentially speed up planning processes by reducing the amount of information required to support, and be assessed in relation to, planning applications. However, speeding up the planning process does not necessarily mean that the build-out of housing will be speeded up. Question 4c What are your views on whether we should review and rationalise policy requirements for smaller housing sites, or introduce a new rules based policy for smaller housing sites? This has been addressed under Question 4 above. Question 4d Do you think that further advice on planning application information requirements would support faster delivery of housing on smaller sites? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. While this would be welcome and may speed up the planning process, it would not necessarily result in faster delivery of housing on smaller sites. Question 4e Do you think there are any further options that creating more categories in the development hierarchy might open up, further to those outlined in option 3? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 4f Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? ☒ Yes ☐ No Page 50 of 280
Page 55
10 OFFICIAL ☐ Unsure Please explain your answer. Many SME builders will not have in-house planning expertise and may rely on consultancy support for planning applications which can be expensive, thus affecting the viability of schemes, or just appear too complex, meaning schemes do nor progress beyond initial site identification and design. Question 5 Do you think that encouraging more diverse housing outputs across the pipeline of deliverable housing land would increase the pace of build-out? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure Please explain your answer. There is weight to the argument that the availability of a more diverse range of house types across a development site will broaden the appeal of the site to a wider range of buyers/occupants thus increasing the pace of build-out. As an example, the inclusion of social rented or MMR housing on a site in an area where there is a demonstrable demand will result in the quick uptake of these houses. Anecdotally, there often seems to be demand from older people in larger homes to move into smaller homes, for which there is a limited supply in some areas and, in the same areas, are often not provided on new-build sites. Similarly, the provision of a limited range of houses (e.g. 4 bedroom detached) will cater for a more limited market of buyers/occupants. Question 5a Should we use legislation to require a diversity of housing types and tenures on sites above a certain threshold? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Legislation seems disproportionate and could be inflexible. A more proportionate measure would be strengthening planning policy/guidance to require a diversity of housing types and tenures on sites above a certain threshold. This would also be quicker to introduce and could be varied easier than legislation. Page 51 of 280
Page 56
11 OFFICIAL Question 5b Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. If SME are delivering smaller sites, they are unlikely to be above the size threshold that would require greater diversity to be required. For smaller sites, it is less likely that the provision of diverse house types will have an impact on build-out and may impact on viability as there would not be the scale of development to support less profitable house types. Question 5c Please provide any evidence of how increasing diversity would influence build-out rates. Please explain your answer. The Council does not have specific evidence to offer in relation to this question. Question 6 Do you have any other suggestions for measures which could use levers available, or which could be put in place through the planning system, to deliver more homes at pace? Where a S42 application is sought, any new permission issued should have the same expiry date as the original consent. This would stop applicants seeking to amend conditions purely to extend the lifetime of the consent without real intent to commence delivery. Question 6a Please provide any evidence of how these potential measures would influence build- out rates. The Council does not have specific evidence to offer in relation to this question. Page 52 of 280
Page 57
PUBLIC ___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 17 March 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Local Place Plan Validation – Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan and Houston Local Place Plan ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to validate and register Local Place Plans that have been prepared for Bridge of Weir and Houston by the Community Council’s that represent these villages. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board: ▪ Approves the validation of both the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan and Houston Local Place Plan, as set out in the validation assessments in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. Once validated, the Local Place Plans will be placed on the Council’s Register of Local Place Plans. __________________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 Local Place Plans are community led plans which can be prepared by a community council, or another community body as defined by the Community Empowerment Act. They are to be focused on proposals for the development and use of land. 3.2 An invitation to prepare Local Place Plans was sent to community councils and development trusts across Renfrewshire in May 2023. Information sessions Item 5 PACC170326 Page 53 of 280
Page 58
PUBLIC were held for these groups in March 2024, and several one-to-one meetings with interested organisations have been held. Monthly online drop-in sessions are also taking place to allow community groups to share their experience and progress to date in preparing Local Place Plans, and an opportunity to ask Council officers questions around process and seek relevant support. 3.3 The February 2025 Full Council meeting established a Local Place Plan Fund of £100,000 to support local communities to prepare Local Place Plans for their area. This fund has been utilised by both Bridge of Weir Community Council and Houston Community Council in preparing their Local Place Plans. 4. Validation and Registration of Local Place Plans 4.1 The Council, as Planning Authority, is required to validate and register Local Place Plans which meet the requirements of paragraphs 1(4) and 2(1) of Schedule 19 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. This requirement is further expanded upon by The Town and Country Planning (Local Place Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. 4.2 At the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board held on 19th March 2024 it was agreed that the decision of whether to validate a submitted Local Place Plan would be taken by this policy board. 4.3 The validation process only considers the requirements of legislation and is not an assessment of the proposals within the Local Place Plans, therefore no consideration can be given to the content within the submitted Local Place Plans. In relation to this, the identification of the Council for the delivery of a project in a Local Place Plan does not commit the Council to undertake this project. 4.4 Officers worked with both Bridge of Weir Community Council and Houston Community Council to help ensure that the submitted plans meet the validation legislative requirements. This includes ensuring that the plans contain information, such as a statement of the community council’s proposals and relevant mapping and evidence that the community council has taken the required notification requirements before submitting the Local Place Plan. 4.5 Appendix 1 sets out the validation assessment that has been completed for Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan and Appendix 2 sets out the validation assessment that has been completed for Houston Local Place Plan. These assessments are in line with the requirements of the Act and Regulations referred to in paragraph 4.1 of this report. It is recommended that both Local Place Plans are validated. 4.6 All validated Local Place Plans require to be added to a register which will be published on the Council’s website. Registered Local Place Plans will be reviewed as part of the process in preparing the new Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and will help inform the preparation of the plan. The content of registered Local Place plans may also be a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. Page 54 of 280
Page 59
PUBLIC Implications of the Report 1. Financial – None. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None. 3. Community/Council Planning – Local Place Plans are key community documents in establishing a land use framework for supporting, encouraging and delivering economic development, a sustainable Renfrewshire, building strong and resilient communities and working together to improve outcomes across Renfrewshire. 4. Legal – Registered Local Place Plans must be taken into account in preparing the next Local Development Plan and their content is a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. 5. Property/Assets – Local Place Plan may include proposals for the use of Council assets. The Council is not committed to these proposals through their inclusion in a Local Place Plan. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights – None. 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – Local Place Plans can support the re-use of vacant and derelict land for a range of uses including those which can help address the climate crisis and biodiversity enhancements. 13. Children’s Rights – None. 14. Cosla Policy Position – None _________________________________________________________ Appendices Appendix 1 - Validation Checklist Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan Appendix 2 - Validation Checklist Houston Local Place Plan Appendix 3 - Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan (2026) Page 55 of 280
Page 60
PUBLIC Appendix 4 - Houston Local Place Plan (2026) ___________________________________________________________________ Author: Alan Williamson, Strategy & Place Manager, alan.williamson@renfrewshire.gov.uk, 07811 053968 Page 56 of 280
Page 61
OFFICIAL Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan Local Place Plan Officer Validation Check List: Requirement Green – no further work needed Amber – work required Reason Form and Content of the Local Place Plan 1. Identify the community body who prepared the Local Place Plan and check if it meets legislation (see procedure) Highlighted on page 3 2. Contain a map that shows the land to which the Local Place Plan relates Included on page 6 3. Contain a statement of the Community Body’s proposals as to the development and use of land or identifies land or buildings that the community body considers to be of particular significance to the local area within the Local Place Plan area. Outlined on page 5 and throughout document 4. Check that where a proposal relates to a specific area of land or building that the Local Place Plan contains a map or maps to identify the location of the land or building. Each ‘Place Action’ is mapped out where appropriate Information about the Community Body 5. Contact details (including email address) to contact the community body Email address set out on page 3 and final page of document. 6. A copy of the written constitution of the Community Controlled body Set out in Appendix C Consultation Evidence – Information Notice 7. A list of the councillors and community councils consulted that border the area to which the Local Place Plan relates Set out in Appendix B (page 34) 8. A copy of the Proposed Local Place Plan Sent to Council via email 9. A copy of the information notice Set out in Appendix B (page 34) Having regard to certain plans 10. National Planning Framework Included on page 4 Appendix 1 Page 57 of 280
Page 62
OFFICIAL Requirement Green – no further work needed Amber – work required Reason 11. Local Development Plan Included on page 4 12. Locality Plans Included on page 4 Engagement evidence 13. A brief description of the engagement and consultation activity or activities Included in Appendix B 14. An estimation of the number of interests of people/organisations involved (that would be in a survey or workshop) Numbers of respondents to survey is outlined in Appendix B 15. A brief summary of the views expressed in both support or opposition Pages 35 and 36 offer a clear summary of views in favour and in opposition of the Local Place Plan respectively. Request for Amendment – this is not always applicable, only if the community want a change then a reason must be included. 16. Clear reasons for any amendment to a policy or site allocation – if applicable. Outlined on page 5 Page 58 of 280
Page 63
OFFICIAL Houston Community Council Local Place Plan Local Place Plan Officer Validation Check List: Requirement Green – no further work needed Amber – work required Reason Form and Content of the LPP 1. Identify the community body who prepared the Local Place Plan and check if it meets legislation (see procedure) Highlighted on page 4 2. Contain a map that shows the land to which the Local Place Plan relates Map included on page 5 3. Contain a statement of the Community Body’s proposals as to the development and use of land or identifies land or buildings that the community body considers to be of particular significance to the local area within the Local Place Plan area. 1.3 Executive Summary outlines proposals 4. Check that where a proposal relates to a specific area of land or building that the Local Place Plan contains a map or maps to identify the location of the land or building. Proposals involving specific areas are mapped. Information about the Community Body 5. Contact details (including email address) to contact the community body Additional Information document with email added to front page of plan. 6. A copy of the written constitution of the Community Controlled body Provided Consultation Evidence – Information Notice 7. A list of the councillors and community councils consulted that border the area to which the Local Place Plan relates Full list provided in Additional Information document 8. A copy of the Proposed Local Place Plan Provided 9. A copy of the information notice Evidence that information notice was provided to neighbouring Appendix 2 Page 59 of 280
Page 64
OFFICIAL Requirement Green – no further work needed Amber – work required Reason Community Councils and councillors is available throughout additional information document. Having regard to certain plans 10. National Planning Framework Included in page 6 and throughout document 11. Local Development Plan Included in page 6 and throughout document 12. Locality Plans Renfrewshire Community Plan taken into consideration Engagement evidence 13. A brief description of the engagement and consultation activity or activities Included, starting on page 23 (sections 3.2 and 3.3) 14. An estimation of the number of interests of people/organisations involved (that would be in a survey or workshop) Summary of engagement activities include figures (page 23) 15. A brief summary of the views expressed in both support or opposition Included in 3.2 - Summary of Engagement Activities and additional information document. It is clearly stated that there was no opposition to the Local Place Plan. Request for Amendment – this is not always applicable, only if the community want a change then a reason must be included. 16. Clear reasons for any amendment to a policy or site allocation – if applicable. Basis for amendments is provided. Page 60 of 280
Page 65
Prepared by Bridge of Weir Community Council SHAPING THE FUTURE OF BRIDGE OF WEIR LOCAL PLACE PLAN BRIDGE OF WEIR 2026 – 2036 Appendix 3 Page 61 of 280
Page 66
02 Page 62 of 280
Page 67
INTRODUCTION This Local Place Plan has been prepared by the Bridge of Weir Community Council following more than 18 months of resident engagement and consultation. It sets out a series of ‘Ambitions’ for the village together with associated transformational objectives and key actions aimed at improving village life through the development of its places and buildings. It is the first time that Bridge of Weir has had a Local Place Plan, or indeed any kind of community plan, and hence will be subject to improvement and adjustment as time progresses. What is a Local Place Plan and why does Bridge of Weir need one? Essentially a Local Place Plan (LPP) is a community-led plan setting out proposals for the use and development of land and buildings within a local area. Instigated by the Scottish Government, Local Authorities in Scotland are obliged to consider all registered LPPs in preparing their new Local Development Plan (LDP). The LDP is the main mechanism by which a Local Authority (Council) allocates land for future uses such as new homes, green space, retail and leisure. Local Place Plans were introduced to give communities such as Bridge of Weir a stronger voice in shaping the future of their local areas. They create an opportunity for local people to tell Councils about their ideas and vision for their communities, specifically about new uses for land and buildings as well as identifying land or buildings of special importance to the local community that should be protected. Renfrewshire Council is currently preparing a 10-year LDP so there is a unique opportunity for communities across Renfrewshire to influence decisions for the long term through LPPs. Without a Local Place Plan in place, Bridge of Weir would lose the opportunity to influence decisions about the use and development of land and buildings in the village which, ultimately, will be taken by Renfrewshire Council through the new LDP. Clearly, however, it also provides a framework for local action aimed at improving village life for all sections of the resident population. The mobilisation of effort to implement the LPP is not covered in this document and needs to be addressed in future actions. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 03 The Bridge of Weir Community Council gratefully acknowledges the support and funding provided by Renfrewshire Council in the preparation of this Local Place Plan. Page 2 – Gryffe Castle picture courtesy of Andrew Curley and Brighter Bridge of Weir picture courtesy of Gary Montgomery. Want to get involved in the implementation of the Local Place Plan? For more details, please email bowcommunitycouncil@gmail.com Page 63 of 280
Page 68
04 SUMMARY OF KEY ELEMENTS OF THE LOCAL PLACE PLAN Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 People find it easier to travel within and beyond the village without using a car. The village retains and enhances its existing green spaces and natural habitats. The village attracts and retains a range of successful small businesses that service local needs. Young people have a range of facilities that enhance their enjoyment of the village. More local people have the opportunity to remain in the village as they build careers and families or when their circumstances change (e.g. retirement). This Local Place Plan identifies the following Ambitions as the driving principles behind the future development of Bridge of Weir’s land and buildings: The LPP has taken into account key areas of regional evidence, such as housing demand and vacant/derelict land availability, and supports the following regional policy objectives: ■ Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero. ■ Renfrewshire Biodiversity Action Plan. ■ Renfrewshire Economic Development & Tourism strategies. ■ Renfrewshire Community Plan. LOCAL PLACE PLAN BRIDGE OF WEIR 2026 – 2036 Page 64 of 280
Page 69
05 This LPP recommends that Renfrewshire Council takes into account the following changes to the current Local Development Plan content when considering the development of a new Renfrewshire Local Development Plan: A specific Action is required within the Infrastructure Theme aimed at improving public transport-related and pedestrian/ cycle infrastructure in Renfrewshire’s Villages. Restore the West of Thriplee Rd site’s place in the Greenbelt as part of Policy ENV1. A specific Action is required within the Economic theme of the LDP to support the development of tourism across Renfrewshire’s villages. There is a need for a specific Action within the Centres theme to develop Visions, Strategies and Action Plans for the villages. At the moment the LDP Delivery Plan in relation to Tourism and Centres appears to focus entirely on major centres of population. Currently there is no mention of how the Places element of the LDP will be pursued for the benefit of younger people. We believe this is a serious omission which should be addressed. Policy P3 in the LDP needs to be much more specific in relation to the types of housing required for villages such as Bridge of Weir to meet local needs In particular, there needs to be a recognition that there is little requirement for larger 4- or 5-bedroom private houses and much more emphasis placed on the need for 1- or 2- bedroom rented properties to meet local needs. A specific Action is required within the Infrastructure theme of the LDP to explore the potential for local renewable energy in the villages. 05 Page 65 of 280
Page 70
PROFILE OF BRIDGE OF WEIR BACKGROUND FACTS AND FIGURES Bridge of Weir is located in West Renfrewshire and is approximately eight miles from the county capital, Paisley. The River Gryffe runs through the northern part of the village and indeed the settlement of Bridge of Weir developed during the 18th and 19th century as a result of industries that utilised the river as a resource. Bridge of Weir’s location and boundary can be seen in the diagram above. Although Bridge of Weir was originally an industrial town centred on textile processing, today it is predominately a medium-sized commuter village with a prevalence of higher income households and private housing. The main employer in the village is the world-renowned Bridge of Weir Leather Company which has been supplying high-quality leather products to the global automotive sector for over a century. The farming sector has been a prominent feature of the village and its surroundings over the entirety of its existence and clearly has a great deal of influence over the future use of large land areas associated with the village. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 06 BRIDGE OF WEIR KILBARCHAN LOCHWINNOCH KILMACOLM QUARRIER’S VILLAGE BROOKFIELD HOUSTON Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. Page 66 of 280
Page 71
HOUSING As can be seen from the chart opposite, Bridge of Weir has a higher proportion of owner-occupied housing than the Renfrewshire average and also a much lower proportion of social housing. POPULATION AND TRENDS A large proportion of the population in the village are over 45, and many are retired. Many people own their home. There is also a high proportion of people in professional employment and a high proportion of residents are educated to HNC level or above. Many residents own two or more cars (from Understanding Scotland’s Places). Current population (2022) – 4924 Change since 2011 – 0.6% increase Change since 2001 – 4.8% increase There is a higher proportion of children, elderly people and retired people than, for example, Paisley. Looking forward across the Renfrewshire area: ■ Between 2018 and 2028, the population of Renfrewshire is projected to increase from 177,790 to 182,256. This is an increase of 2.4%, which compares to a projected increase of 1.8% for Scotland as a whole. ■ More deaths than births in this period will cause a population decrease of 2.6% but it is estimated that net migration will boost the population by 5.0% over the same period. ■ Between 2018 and 2028, the 45 to 64 age group is projected to see the largest percentage decrease (-7.8%) and the 75 and over age group is projected to see the largest percentage increase (+21.1%). Compared with Renfrewshire as a whole, for Bridge of Weir: ■ A significantly smaller proportion of people travel to work by bus. ■ A higher proportion of people work from home. 05 AGE GROUPS (2022) % 0-17 years 1,047 21.2% 18-64 years 2,769 56.2% 65+ years 1,107 22.5% 07 Renfrewshire 2022Bridge of Weir 2022 Owned 80 60 40 20 0 Private rented Living rent free Social rented Old Leather Works picture courtesy of Jonny Lang. Page 67 of 280
Page 72
DEVELOPING THE BRIDGE OF WEIR LOCAL PLACE PLAN Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 The Local Place Plan content has been reviewed to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 and the Local Place Plan Regulations 2021 – see Appendix C for more details. OUTLINE OF PROCESS The development of the Local Place Plan has been driven predominantly by the views of residents on current issues and potential opportunities across a range of factors. There have been four main opportunities for residents to input their views during the LPP development process, as follows: A ‘Have Your Say Survey’ of residents in 2024 conducted via Facebook using a Renfrewshire Council framework which covered 14 topic areas (see Appendix A for details). There were c. 870 individual responses across the 14 topics. This provided the main issues of concern of residents across a range of issues – transport, infrastructure, environment, housing, economy etc. With reference to key Renfrewshire Council policy areas, the Survey results were used to derive high- level ‘Ambition’ statements for the Local Place Plan. A second online survey of residents in early 2025 was conducted to enable feedback on the draft Ambition statements plus the opportunity to input ‘ideas for action areas’ relating to each Ambition. There were 71 responses to this survey and lots of great ideas were submitted. From the survey results, an outline LPP was drawn up with the following structure: ■ Modified ‘Ambition’ statements. ■ Supporting Objectives relating to the Ambitions, based on the survey input. ■ Specific ‘Place Actions’ for each Objective based on the survey input. An LPP Development Workshop was held in June 2025 to review and augment the Objectives and Place Actions. Finally, a consultation exercise was carried out on a draft final LPP developed from the input gathered from the surveys and workshops. As well as a public consultation, key local stakeholders were contacted for their feedback on the draft Plan, including local Councillors, adjacent Community Councils, the local Parents Council, the local Tenants and Residents Association and a local group focused on enabling more sustainable living in the community. A copy of the consultation communication used, a log of the consultees engaged and evidence of support for the LPP, alongside comments challenging the LPP content, are set out in Appendix B. MAY 2024 FEBRUARY 2025 JUNE 2025 SEPTEMBER 2025 08 Page 68 of 280
Page 73
09 Housing requirements Using data from Renfrewshire Council’s Housing Need Demand Analysis 2023, the housing requirement for Bridge of Weir was estimated as follows: Split by size: A full breakdown of how these figures were calculated is shown in Appendix E. Gap analysis: Bridge of Weir currently has four approved housing developments at Station Rd, Clevans Rd, Maxwell Place and Fetlar Rd. These approved proposals will deliver 31x3 bedroom houses, 14x4 bedroom houses and 5x5 bedroom houses, easily meeting all the 10 year requirements for these size of houses in the village from the above analysis. Moreover, these approved proposals will provide more than 100% of the total 10 year requirement for market houses. However, there remains a gap in requirement in relation to social housing and other rented property for one and two bedroom units. Note there are no current planning applications for these types of houses. BoW HOUSING ESTIMATES 2023 – 2032 (as of 2024) No. % Social Housing Estimates 17 18% Below Market Rent Housing Estimates 8 9% Market Rent Housing Estimates 26 28% Market Housing Estimates 43 45% Total Housing Estimates Year 1 – 10 94 100% INDICATIVE HOUSING MIX BoW (as of 2024) Number required Bedroom 1 24 Bedroom 2 43 Bedroom 3 14 Bedroom 4 12 Bedroom 5 0 Regional Policies ■ Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero. ■ Renfrewshire Biodiversity Action Plan. ■ Renfrewshire Economic Development & Tourism strategies. ■ Renfrewshire Community Plan. See Appendix D for a summary of the main issues from these Policies that were considered in developing the LPP. POLICY-RELATED INPUTS The interaction with residents has involved the consideration of a range of factors influencing decisions about place development, as follows: Page 69 of 280
Page 74
Vacant and derelict land in Bridge of Weir Renfrewshire Council’s Vacant and Derelict Land Strategy (2024) identifies 4 areas in Bridge of Weir as being vacant and/or derelict, as follows: The Strategy identifies a number of priorities including: ■ Local Living – supporting development in and around our town and village centres in such a way that people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable walk, wheel or cycle from their home. ■ Supporting nature positive places that are more resilient to the impacts of the climate emergency. ■ Supporting the recovery and restoration of our natural environment. It’s also worth noting that there are at least eight empty shop/business premises in the village at present. SITE CODE ADDRESS SITE SIZE (hectares) OWNERSHIP 350823 FETLAR ROAD 0.39 Private (approved for housing) 8510248 KILMACOLM ROAD 0.15 Private 8510621 MILL BRAE 0.68 Private 8510640 GORSE CRESCENT 5.10 Private (for environmental purposes only) 10 Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 8510640 8510621 350823 8510248 Site designated for Environmental purposes only. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. Page 70 of 280
Page 75
11 Fetlar Road Mill Brae Kilmacolm road Gorse Crescent Page 71 of 280
Page 76
Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 OUTPUTS FROM RESIDENT ENGAGEMENTS May 2024 ‘Have Your Say’ Facebook survey of BoW residents – summary of resident responses with respect to place-related topics ISSUE POSITIVES NEGATIVES Moving around. National cycle route going through village. ■ Quality of pavements and pathways. ■ Impact of vehicle traffic on walking and cycling. ■ Lack of cycling route network in village. Public Transport. Bridge of Weir to Glasgow bus service. ■ Very limited bus destinations from the village. ■ Parts of the village seem cut off from public transport, e.g.. Moss Rd area, top of the hill. ■ Buses are not frequent or flexible enough to deal with commuter needs. ■ A new train line would be very welcome! ■ There are no direct bus services from Bridge of Weir, to the Royal Alexandria Hospital or Paisley. Traffic and parking. Electric car charging points in village. ■ Speeding on main roads through the village. ■ Inconsiderate parking. ■ No park and ride areas. Streets and spaces. ■ Number of areas in the village that are well maintained. ■ The Heritage Garden. ■ Three main parks. ■ Streets and pavements not well-maintained. ■ Street lighting poor in some parts. Natural spaces. ■ Natural spaces in and surrounding the village are of high value. ■ Waterways. ■ Pressure on green spaces from housebuilding. ■ Poor access to countryside and local parks . ■ Lack of non-vehicle connectivity to nearby communities. ■ Need improved areas for wildlife. Play and recreation. ■ Golf courses. ■ Local parks. ■ Lack of affordable local recreation facilities, particularly for younger people. ■ Lack of accessibility for non car owners. ■ No football pitch at Houston Rd park. ■ Limited car parking at parks. Work and local economy. Small businesses in the service sector have a strong presence. Recent number of shop closures. Housing and community. Mix of housing types. Lack of smaller rented accommodation. Identity and belonging. Still a strong rural village identity. ■ Not an attractive place for young people to live in. ■ Shoddy appearance of village centre due to lack of maintenance. 12 Page 72 of 280
Page 77
13 The chart below shows the results of the votes cast on the seven draft Ambitions that were derived from the first stage of resident engagement: Appendix F lists the action ideas submitted via the online survey to take forward each of the draft Ambitions. The village enhances its contribution towards net zero and circular economy goals. More local people have the opportunity to remain in the village as they build careers and families or when their circumstances change (e.g. retirement). People can access more services in the immediate area than at present. Young people have a range of facilities that enhance their enjoyment of the village. The village attracts and retains a range of successful small businesses, particularly in growth sectors such as tourism. The village retains and enhances its existing green spaces and natural habitats. People find it easier to travel within and beyond the village without using a car. February 2025 Online survey re. draft Ambitions and ideas for action: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Page 73 of 280
Page 78
June 2025 LPP Development workshop to augment and refine the LPP Objectives and Place Actions Following the online survey, the Ambitions were refined to reflect resident feedback – a mixture of streamlining and amalgamation – and action ideas submitted during the survey were used to derive draft Supporting Objectives and Place Actions associated with each of the (now) five Ambitions. The LPP Development Workshop was used to augment and refine the draft Objectives and Actions through small group discussion amongst resident attendees. The result was a LPP Framework which is summarised at a high level below: Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 AMBITION SUPPORTING OBJECTIVES People find it easier to travel within and beyond the village without using a car. Enhance and develop pathways for pedestrians and cycle users connecting various parts of the village and also neighbouring towns and villages. Enable better bus services connecting the village with Paisley, Erskine etc. The village retains and enhances its existing green spaces and natural habitats. Create wildlife-friendly areas on the fringes of the village, including re-wilding. Create new nature corridors within existing green spaces. Establish upgraded and clearly-marked walking routes, particularly along the river. Protect and increase green belt around the village to prevent future development. Enable the village to become more sustainable in its food provision. The village attracts and retains a range of successful small businesses that service local needs. Improve the village’s tourism offering. Enable local businesses and services to develop in the village. Young people have a range of facilities that enhance their enjoyment of the village. Create a youth hub for indoor recreation and education. Create more outdoor sports facilities. More local people have the opportunity to remain in the village as they build careers and families or when their circumstances change (e.g. retirement). Enable the development of one- or two-bedroomed houses, including bungalows, for rent or purchase in existing brownfield spaces. Improve run-down areas to make the village more attractive. Create new opportunities for low-carbon living. 14 Page 74 of 280
Page 79
September 2025 Consultation exercise The feedback received on the draft final LPP from the consultation exercise was generally very positive and there was no stated opposition to the overall aims and objectives. However, there were a few comments from individuals that challenged the focal elements of the LPP and the process employed to create it. These are outlined in Appendix B. One comment concerned the relatively small number of people in the village that engaged with the LPP development process when compared with the village population. This is a perfectly legitimate concern and indeed participation is likely to be a challenge faced by many communities in developing their LPPs. In our view, the process of developing the LPP generated a substantial amount of input across all topics relevant to place planning and hence provided a rich content for deriving the LPP structure, priorities and action areas. However, clearly this is the first ever plan for Bridge of Weir and it’s likely that the content will evolve over time as we look to engage a bigger constituency during the implementation process. One particular point of (minor) divergence concerned housing. Although we had very strong evidence about the local requirement for housing being focused on smaller rented accommodation, backed up by many comments from the survey work, some of the feedback from individuals was that we shouldn’t ignore the potential for larger market housing developments in the locality to boost the local economy through population growth. At the same time there was a recognition that any future housing development may be constrained by the lack of school capacity and constrained road infrastructure. On balance we feel that the LPP’s focus on smaller rented housing takes priority as a means to unlock bottlenecks in the local housing market – a point made at the June workshop by participants. 15 Page 75 of 280
Page 80
BRIDGE OF WEIR LOCAL PLACE PLAN Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 16 The following text sets out the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan It describes the five main place- related Ambitions that have emerged from the engagement with residents and, for each of the Ambitions, identifies key Supporting Objectives and specific Place Actions to realise the Objectives, together with some first steps in the implementation process, an indication of stakeholders that will need to be engaged and initial thoughts on implementation timescales. (Note however that these elements of implementation are only likely to be firmed up once local groups are assembled to drive forward Place Actions). It also provides some commentary on the links between the Place Plan Ambitions, the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (LDP), the current National Planning Framework (NPF4) and other key regional policies. Finally, recommendations are made on how the current LDP should change to meet the needs of this Local Place Plan. Page 76 of 280
Page 81
17 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 1.1 – Enhance and develop pathways for pedestrians and cycle users connecting various parts of the village and also neighbouring towns and villages. Timescale – within 3-4 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 1.1.1 Create a proper dedicated cycleway between Bridge of Weir and Houston. Engage Houston CC to understand how the villages can best work together on taking forward their cycleway proposals. 1.1.2 Create a pathway/cycleway between Bridge of Weir and Kilbarchan. Discuss the potential with Kilbarchan CC. 1.1.3 Upgrade the bottom end of the path leading from Mill of Gryffe Rd to Bankhead. Identify ownership of the land. 1.1.4 Install better lighting on cyclepath from Shimla Restaurant to Kilbarchan Rd. Discuss with Sustrans. 1.1.5 Create a safer connection from the cycle track to shops. Set up a village focal group to explore options. 1.1.6 Upgrade Crosslee Rd to make it more pedestrian-friendly. Discuss with Council Roads & Transport. 1.1.7 Enable better traffic management for Warlock Rd/ Primary School. Engage Primary School PTA. AMBITION #1: People find it easier to travel within and beyond the village without using a car. This Ambition emerged as the most important to Bridge of Weir residents. The main issues that emerged from the initial survey spanned a broad range of movement modes, i.e. walking, wheeling, public transport and private vehicles. Villagers have some real concerns about the lack of public transport and cycling options as well as dissatisfaction with local path networks, both in terms of quality and quantity. In particular it was highlighted that there were parts of the village that have no pavements or very poor quality ones that need upgrading and adoption by Renfrewshire Council. It was felt that the village was poorly served by bus transport (routes, timing and access), making it difficult for villagers to travel to work and access regional services without using a car. It was recognised that because of this, road congestion within the village and at key external junctions was an increasing problem. 1.1.1 1.1.3 1.1.7 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 1.1.2 This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 1.1 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. LOCAL PLACE PLAN BRIDGE OF WEIR 2026 – 2036 Page 77 of 280
Page 82
Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 18 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 1.2 Enable better bus services connecting the village with Paisley, Erskine etc. Timescale – within 2 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 1.2.1 Create a dedicated park and ride car park in the Kilmacolm Rd site (or Mill Brae site as 2nd option) to stimulate demand for buses and also provide a safer drop-off point for the primary school. Engage the current owner of the Kilmacolm Rd site to explore potential options. POLICY CONNECTIONS FOR THIS AMBITION LDP2 NPF4 Other Policies Ambition #1 supports the LDP2 Infrastructure Theme, in particular Policy I1 – Connecting Places. Ambition #1 supports NPF4 Policies 4, 13, 20, 21, 29 and 30. Ambition #1 supports Renfrewshire Council’s Vacant and Derelict Land Strategy (Local Living), Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero and the Renfrewshire Biodiversity Action Plan. It also supports the Well and Fair themes of the Renfrewshire Community Plan. Changes to LDP2 to be considered for LDP3: A specific Action is required within the Infrastructure Theme aimed at improving public transport-related and pedestrian/cycle infrastructure in Renfrewshire’s Villages. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 1.2 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. 1.2.1 Ambition #1 (con.) Page 78 of 280
Page 83
19 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 2.1 Create wildlife-friendly areas on the fringes of the village, including re-wilding. Timescale – within 1-2 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 2.1.1 Create a wildlife pond in the corner of Houston Rd Park. Set up a village action group to explore options. 2.1.2 Create more hedgerows, initially in public parks but then in coordination with farmers. Engage expertise to advise on best approach. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 2.1 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. Again, this Ambition was of high importance to village residents. Survey respondents articulated that the essential character of Bridge of Weir was strongly connected to the quality of its green spaces, including the designated green belt. There was a strong desire that the village does not attract the kind of large-scale housing development that has been seen in Houston, for example, and that the existing green belt should be preserved and indeed enhanced for the benefit of biodiversity. The improvement of existing green walking routes and the creation of new ones was also something that people felt would enhance village’s quality of life. There was also a view that existing green areas, such as parks, would benefit from better maintenance and also that there needs to be more encouragement of residents to explore the village’s natural environment. AMBITION #2: The village retains and enhances its existing green spaces and natural habitats. 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.2 2.1.2 Page 79 of 280
Page 84
Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 20 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 2.2 PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS Create new nature corridors within existing green spaces. 2.2.1 Plant hedges and trees which will encourage birds etc, such as hawthorn and dogwood, along cycle track. Discuss with Sustrans. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 2.2 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 2.3 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 2.3 Establish upgraded and clearly-marked recreational walking routes, particularly along the river. Timescale – within 2-3 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 2.3.1 Repair the Barnbeth pond bridge. Identify ownership of the bridge. 2.3.2 Create a path on both sides of the stream leading up to the Glen waterfall + seating. Identify ownership of the land adjoining the Glen waterfall. 2.3.3 Establish a well-graded circular walking route around the periphery of the village (to include the Lade Walk). Create an initial proposal for the walking route. 2.3.1 2.2.1 2.3.3 2.3.2 BRIDGE OF WEIR BRIDGE OF WEIR HOUSTON HOUSTON KILBARCHAN Ambition #2 (con.) Page 80 of 280
Page 85
21 This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 2.5 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 2.4 PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS Protect and increase green belt around the village to prevent future development. Timescale – within 1 year 2.4.1 Re-designate West of Thriplee Rd site as Greenbelt (currently ‘White Space’). Await outcome of current housing planning application. SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 2.5 PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS Protect and increase green belt Enable the village to become more sustainable in its food provision. Timescale – within 1-2 years 2.5.1 Create allotments, potentially in land adjacent to Loch Place/Loch Rd junction. Liaise with Creating a Sustainable Gryffe. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 2.4 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. POLICY CONNECTIONS FOR THIS AMBITION LDP2 NPF4 Other Policies Ambition #2 supports the LDP2 Place Theme, in particular Policy P5 Green/ Blue Network. It is also strongly aligned with Policy ENV1 Green Belt within the Environment Theme. Ambition #2 supports NPF4 Policies 1, 3, 4, 8, 20, 21 and 29. Ambition #2 supports Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero and the Renfrewshire Biodiversity Action Plan. It also supports the Well and Fair themes of the Renfrewshire Community Plan. Changes to LDP2 to be considered for LDP3: Restore the West of Thriplee Rd site’s place in the Greenbelt as part of Policy ENV1 2.4.1 2.5.1 Page 81 of 280
Page 86
Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 22 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 3.1 Improve the village’s tourism offering. Timescale – within 1-2 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 3.1.1 Use Kilmacolm Rd site for additional car parking. Engage the current owner of the Kilmacolm Rd site to explore potential options. (as per 1.2.1). 3.1.2 Improve entrances to the village, e.g. replacing signs. Contact Renfrewshire Council. 3.1.3 Re-instate public toilets in village centre. Contact Renfrewshire Council. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 3.1 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. Of high importance to villagers, this Ambition reflects recent concern over the closure of local shops and supporting services such as bank branches. As mentioned previously, at time of writing there were at least eight vacant shop premises. A strong theme coming through from the resident surveys was the need to establish a clear identity for Bridge of Weir in relation to its business environment, i.e. what should the village be renowned for (perhaps building on its long- established leather industry)? This would then enable the encouragement of particular niche businesses that align with that identity, together with measures such as loyalty cards to encourage local shopping. Overall, it was felt that village business premises needed to have a more unified look, particularly in the village centre, to aid business growth and potentially tourism. There was a recognition that the village needed to coordinate any development in its tourism product with neighbouring villages such as Houston and Kilbarchan. It was also recognised that local farm businesses had a key role to play in enabling tourism growth and hence it was important to engage them in any new strategic development. 3.1.2 3.1.1 3.1.3 3.1.2 3.1.2 AMBITION #3: The village attracts and retains a range of successful small businesses that service local needs. Page 82 of 280
Page 87
POLICY CONNECTIONS FOR THIS AMBITION LDP2 NPF4 Other Policies Ambition #3 supports the LDP2 Economy Theme, in particular Policy E4 Tourism. It is also strongly aligned with Centres Theme, pertaining to Local Service and Village Centres. Ambition #3 supports NPF4 Policies 14, 15, 25 and 30. Ambition #3 supports the Renfrewshire Economic Development & Tourism strategies. It also supports the Thriving theme of the Renfrewshire Community Plan. Changes to LDP2 to be considered for LDP3: A specific Action is required within the Economic theme of the LDP to support the development of tourism across Renfrewshire’s villages. Also there is a need for a specific action within the Centres theme to develop Visions, Strategies and Action Plans for the villages. At the moment the LDP Delivery Plan in relation to Tourism and Centres appears to focus entirely on major centres of population. 23 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 3.2 Enable local businesses and services to develop in the village. Timescale – within 1-2 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 3.2.1 Create an area within the Cargill Hall to encourage small businesses to develop. Contact OneRen to explore what might be possible. 3.2.2 Establish Farmer’s market on the Kilmacolm Rd site for local producers to offer fresh farm produce. Engage the current owner of the Kilmacolm Rd site to explore potential options. (as per 1.2.1). 3.2.3 Shared workspace in the Cargill Hall for DIY projects running alongside the repair cafe and a Men’s Shed. Contact OneRen to explore what might be possible. 3.2.4 Split the old Viano into smaller units to be offered for pop-up shops. Contact the letting agents to ascertain potential. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 3.2 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. 3.2.4 3.2.2 3.2.1 3.2.3 Page 83 of 280
Page 88
Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 24 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 4.1 Create a youth hub for indoor recreation and education. Timescale – within 1-2 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 4.1.1. Use the Lochnager building to create a youth club (games hub etc.), including music and skills learning. Contact the letting agents to ascertain potential. AMBITION #4: Young people have a range of facilities that enhance their enjoyment of the village. A significant proportion of survey respondents highlighted that recreational facilities for young people in Bridge of Weir were particularly poor. To access sports and other leisure facilities young people very often have to travel to Houston or further afield. Other than the golf courses, the village has no formal sports facilities. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 4.1 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. 4.1.1 Page 84 of 280
Page 89
POLICY CONNECTIONS FOR THIS AMBITION LDP NPF4 Other Policies Ambition #4 supports the LDP2 Place Theme, in particular Policy P6 Open Space. Ambition #4 supports NPF4 Policies 15, 21 and 29. Ambition #4 supports the Renfrewshire Children Services Partnership Plan. It also supports the Well, Fair and Safe themes of the Renfrewshire Community Plan. Changes to LDP2 to be considered for LDP3: Currently there is no mention of how the Places element of the LDP will be pursued for the benefit of younger people. We believe this is a serious omission which should be addressed. 25 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 4.2 Create more outdoor sports facilities. Timescale – within 2-3 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 4.2.1 Establish a football pitch in Houston Rd Park + car parking. Engage Renfrewshire Council and local football clubs to explore the potential. 4.2.2 Build a padel court on the site of the old curling rink in the Glen. Establish ownership of the site. 4.2.3 Establish a MUGA outdoor multi-use sports facility in the Houston Rd park. Engage Renfrewshire Council to explore the potential. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 4.2 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.1 Bridge of Weir Utd 2013 pictures courtesy of Laura De Pieri. Page 85 of 280
Page 90
Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 26 This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 5.1 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 5.1 Enable the development of one- or two- bedroomed houses, including bungalows, for rent or purchase in existing brownfield spaces. Timescale – within 5-10 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 5.1.1 Remediate the Mill Brae site and improve access for housing. Engage Renfrewshire Council to explore how this site could be made more attractive for housing development. To a large extent this Ambition reflected villager experience in trying to secure a larger or smaller property in the village as part of their ‘life journey’, e.g. in retirement or ‘starting out’. The housing demand analysis detailed in Appendix E supports the view that there is a need for new one and two bedroomed houses in the village and indeed more rented accommodation in general, which in turn could free up larger properties as, for example, retirees downsize. This Ambition also captures a perception that the quality of the village infrastructure needs to be improved to make it a more attractive place for people to live. Alongside the physical development needs identified in this section, many felt that there was a need to create new networks in the village to support, for example, elderly people combat loneliness and also new infrastructure to support low- carbon living. AMBITION #5: More local people have the opportunity to remain in the village as they build careers and families or when their circumstances change. 5.1.1 Page 86 of 280
Page 91
27 This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 5.3 (NB indicative only in some cases). Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. This map shows the location of the Place Actions for Objective 5.2 (NB indicative only in some cases) Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2026 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 5.3 Create new opportunities for low-carbon living. Timescale – within 3-7 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 5.3.1 Install a low-impact, no-dam, hydro power plant in the Gryffe to generate sustainable energy. Engage local stakeholders to explore the potential. 5.3.2 Install EV chargers on streets for households without driveways. Engage Transport Scotland to explore the potential. 5.3.3 Create a collaborative/shared workspace in Vianos to allow local working. Contact the letting agents to ascertain potential. 5.3.4 Create a tool library, toy library and library for other items in the Cargill Hall. Contact OneRen to explore what might be possible. SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE 5.2 Improve run-down areas to make the village more attractive. Timescale – within 3-5 years PLACE ACTIONS FIRST STEPS 5.2.1 Improve the village centre such that it has a unified look and is pedestrian-friendly. Set up a focal group in the village to explore how the centre could be enhanced. 5.2.1 POLICY CONNECTIONS FOR THIS AMBITION LDP2 NPF4 Other Policies Ambition #5 supports a number of LDP2 Themes, including Place (Policy P3 Housing Mix and Affordable Housing), and Infrastructure (Policy I4 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments). Ambition #5 supports NPF4 Policies 1, 9, 15, 16, 17 and 27. Ambition #5 supports Renfrewshire Council’s Vacant and Derelict Land Strategy and Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero. It also supports the Fair theme of the Renfrewshire Community Plan. Changes to LDP2 to be considered for LDP3: Policy P3 in the LDP needs to be much more specific in relation to the types of housing required for villages such as Bridge of Weir. In particular there needs to be a recognition that there is little requirement for larger 4- or 5-bedroom private houses and much more emphasis placed on the need for 1- or 2- bedroom rented properties to meet local needs. A specific Action is required within the Infrastructure theme of the LDP to explore the potential for local renewable energy in the villages. 5.3.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.2 5.3.2 5.3.4 Page 87 of 280
Page 92
INTRODUCTION The following text represents a collation and summary of responses gathered from residents of Bridge of Weir to the 14 topic questions contained within Renfrewshire Council’s 2024 ‘Have Your Say’ Survey, a component of the process of developing a new Local Development Plan for Renfrewshire. The process of eliciting responses involved the use of local Facebook pages to enable ratings and comments in relation to the key questions posed in the survey, on a topic-by-topic basis. Use the link below to see an example: https://www.facebook.com/ share/p/fjrEbwWwrX958Tag/ The number of respondents for each topic is indicated within each of the following sections. The figure in brackets within the ‘overall rating’ element was calculated using a rating scale where 1 = ‘worst’ and 5 = ‘best’. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 APPENDIX A: ‘HAVE YOUR SAY SURVEY’ 2024 RESIDENT’S RESPONSE REPORT 28 ‘Have your Say’ Survey responses Topic 1 – Moving around How easy is it to move around and get to where you want to go? Overall rating: Below average (1.99) – 130 respondents What is good now? ■ Fortunate that there is national cycle route going through the village. How could we make it better in the future? ■ General need to improve the quality of pavements and pathways, particularly where streets have not been adopted. Navigating walkways with wheelchairs and prams is difficult at present. ■ There is a need to reduce the impact of vehicle traffic on walking and cycling in the village. Cars dominate many routes and make navigating the village on foot, in a wheelchair and by cycle difficult and sometimes dangerous. ■ Need to create a much better network of cycle routes connecting different bits of the village and also linking to neighbouring villages such as Houston and Kilbarchan. ■ Improve path and street lighting, including the cycle track. ■ Need more bins installed, including the cycle track. Topic 2 – Public Transport What is public transport like in your place? Overall rating: Poor (1.23) – 161 respondents What is good now? ■ The weekday and Saturday bus service from Bridge of Weir to Glasgow. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Very limited bus destinations from the village. ■ Parts of the village seem cut off from public transport, e.g. Moss Rd area, top of the hill. ■ Buses are not frequent or flexible enough to deal with commuter needs. ■ Buses need to start earlier and finish later to be useful for some occupations. ■ A new trainline would be very welcome! ■ At the current time there are no direct bus services from Bridge of Weir, to the Royal Alexandria Hospital or Paisley. This should be reinstated to allow direct access for work, public services, hospital appointments and visits, for students attending West of Scotland University and Paisley College and for social activities. ■ The current timetabled connectivity of bus services fails to operate on many occasions as services are withdrawn without notice. ■ At school times the buses from Bridge of Weir to Gryffe High are often overcrowded with students unable to get onboard. Page 88 of 280
Page 93
0229 Page 89 of 280
Page 94
Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 Appendix A: ‘Have your Say’ Survey responses Topic 3 – Traffic and parking How do traffic and parking affect how you move around your place? Overall rating: Very affected (1.27) – 144 respondents What is good now? ■ Electric car charging points in main village car park. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Tackle speeding in main roads through the village – a long- standing issue. ■ Tackle dangerous and inconsiderate driving and parking at schools – a long-standing issue. ■ Introduce bike and car sharing schemes in the village. ■ Need park and ride areas to encourage more use of buses across the village. ■ More and safer bike parking at Johnstone train station to reduce car use. ■ More generally there’s a need to improve public transport and walking/cycling routes to help reduce vehicle traffic in the village. ■ Need signs confirming blue badge spaces at Livery Walk are now enforceable. ■ Need traffic wardens to visit Bow on regular basis to enforce parking restrictions. ■ Generally a need for more parking spaces in the village. 30 Page 90 of 280
Page 95
Topic 4 – Streets and spaces How do streets and spaces affect how you move around your place? Overall rating: Somewhat affected (2.00) – 43 respondents What is good now? ■ There are a number of areas in the village that are well maintained and provide a distinctive look for the village, but this is generally down to the individual shop owners or volunteers, specifically in the Main Street. ■ The Heritage Garden provides the village with a distinctive and unique spot to celebrate the history of the area. ■ There are three main parks with open spaces for the community to enjoy, including play areas for children and space for exercise / dog walking. ■ There are a number of benches in both the parks and in the village centre for resting / meeting neighbours. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Ensuring that the streets are better maintained to prevent excessive weeds which are not only unsightly but also block gutters in the street causing blockage during heavy rainfall. ■ Street lighting is very poor in some areas of the village making it difficult to see house numbers and / or broken pavements. ■ Parking is also a concern in some parts of the village, with the village centre car park very full due to, in part, commuter parking. The new parking regulation being implemented will help this but it’s not clear where commuters will park thereafter – has this been thought through by the Council? Topic 5 – Natural spaces How easy is it for you to regularly enjoy natural space? Overall rating: Okay (2.54) – 70 respondents What is good now? ■ The natural spaces in, and surrounding, Bridge of Weir are of high value although this has been eroded over the years by housebuilding, particularly in the Houston area. ■ Our waterways contain a diverse range of wildlife and habitats. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Curtail further housebuilding on green sites. ■ Improve access to countryside and local parks – not easy for prams or wheelchair users. Poor condition of pavements and walkways are a particular problem. Also need to stop people blocking park entrances with their cars. ■ Improve non-vehicle connectivity along green corridors to nearby communities such as Houston. ■ Improve areas for wildlife. Too many of the parks are just big grass fields – needs more imagination and decisive action from the Council to promote biodiversity. We need to move away from just trying to keep our green spaces ‘neat and tidy’. Topic 6 – Play and recreation How good are the spaces and opportunities for play and recreation in your place? Overall rating: Below average (1.69) – 84 respondents What is good now? ■ If you play golf you are well catered for. ■ Local parks are attractive and reasonable well equipped for young children. ■ Access to cycle track. How could we make it better in the future? ■ In general the village could benefit from a broader range of affordable recreation facilities, particularly for younger people who don’t have access to a car. ■ A proper football pitch at the Houston Road Park would be good to have. ■ Need something for older kids to do such as a youth club, an all-weather pitch and basketball courts in the local parks. This would benefit both Houston and Bridge of Weir as lots of the kids attend Gryffe High School so already mix in that environment. ■ Moss Rd Park has no lighting. It needs accessible paths and the provision of outdoor gym equipment would be welcomed. ■ Improve car parking at the parks. Currently there’s only street parking on unsafe or narrow roads. 31 Page 91 of 280
Page 96
Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 32 Appendix A: ‘Have your Say’ Survey responses Topic 7 – Facilities and services How well do facilities and services in your place meet your needs? Overall rating: Not well (1.39) – 61 respondents What is good now? ■ The local schools offer a high quality of education. ■ The Cargill Hall plus local churches offer a broad range of meeting and activity spaces. ■ Organised social activities for older people. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Enable the provision of more local services such as banking and advice. ■ Increase the choice of GP services. ■ Enable the Cargill Hall to be better used through reducing letting fees. ■ Create more facilities and services that cater for younger people. ■ Gryffe High School needs some investment to improve conditions there. Topic 8 – Work and local economy How active is the local economy in your place? Are there good opportunities for work, volunteering and training? Overall rating: Inactive (2.41) – 44 respondents What is good now? ■ Scottish Leather Group is a highly successful business in the village and a major employer. ■ Still a reasonable number of independent traders despite a spate of recent closures. ■ Small businesses in the service sector have a strong presence, e.g. dog walkers, gardeners etc. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Need more local employment and education opportunities. ■ Improve public transport to enable better access to the job market and education. ■ Develop a strategic approach to developing the local economy and enabling vacant business premises to be taken up. Leaving it to the market is unlikely to reverse the current downward trend. Topic 9 – Housing and community How well do the homes in your place meet the needs of your community? Overall rating: Below average (2.27) – 11 respondents What is good now? ■ Mix of housing types. ■ Generally attractive residential areas with access to the countryside. ■ Some local events. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Focus any future house building on brownfield sites. ■ As per the recent Renfrewshire Housing Need and Demand Assessment, focus any future housing development on providing smaller 1-3 bedroom houses to meet local demand as opposed to the 4+ bedroom homes that have been promoted in recent times by developers. Topic 10 – Social interaction How good is the range of opportunities which allow you to meet and spend time with other people? Overall rating: Okay (2.51) – 37 respondents What is good now? ■ Range of local clubs and churches that enable sections of the community to socialise. ■ Number of well-run village social media sites. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Need a social club for teenagers to give them something to do other than hang about the streets. Topic 11 – Identity and belonging To what extent does your place have a positive identity that supports a strong sense of belonging? Overall rating: Below average (2.06) – 30 respondents What is good now? ■ The village, in the main, has avoided the very large-scale house building that has changed the character of many rural villages in Scotland. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Get Renfrewshire Council need to take a more active interest in the future development of the village and also invest in improving infrastructure. ■ Make the village a more attractive place for young people to live in. Page 92 of 280
Page 97
Topic 12 – Feeling safe How safe does your place make you feel? Overall rating: Okay (3.06) – 49 respondents What is good now? ■ Living in a village environment with plenty of open space and parks. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Overall improve Police presence in the village. Cutbacks have essentially resulted in no community policing in Bridge of Weir. ■ Improve pavements and remove encroaching vegetation on paths. ■ Improve street lighting in many areas of the village, including the cyclepath. ■ Deal with youth disorder especially around the village centre in the evenings. To alleviate provide more youth facilities and more Police and Warden presence. ■ A long outstanding issue in the village is unadopted pavements and paths leading from residential areas to the village centre often flooded and poorly lit. The Council need to adopt and make safe. ■ In some residential areas pavement access can be a safety issue with refuse bins left out and cars parked on pavements resulting in pedestrians having to walk on the roads. ■ Provide marked spaces for cars. Topic 13 – Care and maintenance How well is your place looked after and cared for? Overall rating: Below average (1.89) – 28 respondents What is good now? ■ There is strong recognition that the local volunteers who maintain garden areas, planters and flower baskets, with the community recognising that the efforts of a few local people make a tremendous difference to the way the village looks. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Improve the maintenance of pavements and footpaths which are often is a poor state. ■ Public area grass cutting is particularly poor, with areas being left untidy / unkempt, and when grass cutting does occur, the areas are not tidied leaving grass cuttings over roads and pavements. ■ The appearance of the village centre could be greatly improved by some general maintenance and cleaning, including soft washing of buildings. Topic 14 – Influence and sense of control When things happen in your place, how well are you listened to and included in decision-making? Overall rating: Below average (2.00) – 25 respondents What is good now? ■ There are a number of local organisations such as the Community Council, Tenant and Residents Association plus active social media groups that enable local people to raise concerns and ideas for village improvement. How could we make it better in the future? ■ Ensure that Renfrewshire Council acts promptly on requests for help and action – this doesn’t always happen. ■ Renfrewshire Council need to ensure that services are delivered consistently across all of the area, e.g. Crosslee Rd has no garden waste collection. ■ Generally there’s a feeling that Bridge of Weir is largely ignored by Renfrewshire Council, particularly in relation to basic infrastructure and facilities, e.g. pavements and paths, youth facilities. 33 Page 93 of 280
Page 98
List of consultees ■ Local Councillors: – Councillor James MacLaren – Councillor Colin McCulloch – Councillor Fiona Airlie-Nicolson ■ Creating a Sustainable Gryffe. ■ Local Parents’ Council. ■ Bridge of Weir Tenants and Residents Association. ■ Houston Community Council. ■ Kilbarchan Community Council. ■ Kilmacolm Community Council. ■ Brookfield Community Council. ■ Lochwinnoch Community Council. Notices were placed on local Facebook pages inviting feedback on the LPP from residents. Text of consultation communication (typical) “Please find attached the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan (LPP) consultation draft for your review and comment. The document is also being sent to other local stakeholders for their review and will be published on the Community Council’s Facebook Page for public feedback. Please note that, following this consultation, the finalised version of the LPP will be professionally produced prior to submission to Renfrewshire Council, so any issues with layout and formatting will be addressed at that stage. Renfrewshire Council had reviewed an earlier draft and were content that, in general, its format and content would meet the requirements of an LPP. I think it’s also worth noting that this is the very first LPP that’s been developed for the village and I would say that it’s probably more ‘pragmatic’ in nature as opposed to ‘strategic’, reflecting perhaps the type of input and discussion at this stage. Some of the listed action areas are perhaps quite ambitious but I believe provide a decent ‘starter for ten’ for groups looking to take things forward in an implementation phase. Anyway, I look forward to your views on this by the 10th October please.” Notices were placed on local Facebook pages inviting feedback on the LPP from residents. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 34 APPENDIX B: DETAILS OF LPP CONSULTATION PROCESS Page 94 of 280
Page 99
Evidence of support for LPP from the development process and consultation exercise As described in the ‘Outline of Process’ section – page 8, the response to the two public surveys carried out during the development of the LPP was substantial and the detail of responses indicated that villagers were engaging in a meaningful way with the development process, i.e. there was good evidence of support for the idea of developing an LPP for the village. The following text is a sample of the supportive feedback obtained during the consultation phase: ■ “The Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan is an ambitious positive vision from the local community as to how to make Bridge of Weir a more sustainable and attractive place in which to live. I welcome this ambition and stand behind the local community in their vision for the future, and further hope that many of their goals come to fruition in the months and years to come.” ■ “The draft LPP is a good working document that will hopefully enable its main themes to come to fruition over the next few years.” ■ “I’ve had a look over the Draft LPP and congratulate the team on their efforts. A good piece of work.” ■ “Clearly a lot of effort gone into preparing, it’s a great document, well done to you and the team.” ■ “Overall I think this is an excellent document, well put together, clear and actionable. The inclusion of maps, and presentation of survey results, is particularly useful.” ■ “What a very thorough document.” ■ “Clearly a huge amount of work pulling that together as well as the work involved in collating and summarising resident’s inputs. Well done and thank you for that.” ■ “I am very pleased to see a Local Place Plan for Bridge of Weir and appreciate all the work that has gone into the making of this. It should help enormously for both the Council and representatives to know just what the residents are looking for in their village. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this.” 35 Page 95 of 280
Page 100
Compendium of opposing views with respect to the LPP content from consultation feedback ■ A MUGA might be better at the Primary School rather than Houston Rd Park. ■ The Cargill Hall is sometimes used for an event, e.g. Blood donors, young farmers, etc and hence wouldn’t be suitable as a permanent base for businesses. ■ Suggest beefing up the content around Bridge of Weir town centre and in particular public realm, place making opportunities and perhaps design to help retain more local spend at the core of the community. Consider for example S75 opportunities for investment in the town centre, losing some on-street parking for mobile urban greening units (rain garden troughs) generally making the town centre greener and attractive. ■ The thing that troubles me about this plan is how representative it is of local people and that significant future plans can be based on only a small proportion of the population participating in their development. ■ I have seen this a few times in the plan about the lack of demand for larger new build properties in the village but personally believe that supply would create its own demand. This would need to be coupled with significant infrastructure improvements, better transport links, maybe long term a dedicated Bridge of Weir Secondary school and a redesigned village centre. Bringing more wealth into Bridge of Weir would have to be accompanied by something that kept that spending power in the village which in turn helped to generate employment for others so service sector, retail and tourism would be the main focus. ■ Is it feasible for somewhere like the old Lochnagar building to be used as the starting point for a visitor centre for all things leather with a bit of cotton thrown in too given Bridge of Weir’s history, similar to the Walsall Leather Museum or Northampton’s but with workshops etc as well as displays. ■ A sizeable supermarket wouldn’t go amiss, even with the introduction of the new small Sainsbury in the village, and it’s a shame that this wasn’t acted upon a few years ago in my opinion before the current Sainsburys was approved. The Co-op and Sainsbury are all right for small shops, but for a large shopping a drive to an out-of- BoW supermarket is required. ■ To me the biggest problem BoW has with regards to a centre is that it doesn’t actually have a centre. The retail units we do have are spread out along the length of the main road from Castle Terrace to the far end of the village and for some people they just aren’t prepared to walk the distance so I guess a lot of people drive to the Co-op or to Sainsburys and don’t attempt to walk anywhere else. 36 Page 96 of 280
Page 101
37 Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 APPENDIX C: BRIDGE OF WEIR LPP CONFORMANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1997 AND THE LOCAL PLACE PLAN REGULATIONS 2021 STATUTORY REQUIREMENT COMMENTARY A statement identifying the Community Body that has prepared the plan and its written constitution. Bridge of Weir Community Council is identified as the Community Body. The Community Council’s constitution is defined by Renfrewshire Council’s Scheme of Establishment. Map of the Boundary of the Local Place Plan. Map provided within ‘Profile of Bridge of Weir’ – Pages 6-7. A statement of the Community Body’s proposals. Contained within ‘Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan’ – Pages 16-27. An additional Map identifying specific sites/locations detailed in the Community Bodies proposals. Maps provided for each Supporting Objective within ‘Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan’ – Pages 16-27. A statement explaining how the Local Place Plan has regard to the Local Development Plan, National Planning Framework and any applicable Locality Plans. Analysis provided for each Ambition within ‘Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan’ – Pages 16-27. A statement explaining how the proposals in the LPP align with, or differ from, the relevant policies and development proposals in the plans in the section above, and why it considers that the Local Development Plan should be amended in light of this. Statement provided for each Ambition within ‘Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan’ – Pages 16-27 and a summary provided within ‘Summary of Key Elements’ – Pages 4-5. A copy of the pre-submission Information Notice. Ref. the consultation process adopted, the text of the notice is set out in Appendix B. Records of when and to whom the Information Notice was sent (required local councillors and community councils). Contained within Appendix B. Documents confirming the status of the Community Body, and a statement showing compliance with the definition of a Community Body. Not required for a Community Council. Contact details. Provided at the end of ‘Summary of key elements of the LPP’ – Pages 4-5. Evidence of level of community support for the Local Place Plan and how CB reached that view. Provided within Appendix B. Copies of additional relevant documents as appropriate. Only Renfrewshire Council documents are referred to which are excluded from the conformance requirement. Page 97 of 280
Page 102
Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero – key points for LPP ■ Currently transport is responsible for 34% of total Renfrewshire CO2 emissions and both commercial and residential energy usage contributed 29% each. ■ Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero has five key strategic themes: – Clean energy – Sustainable transport – Circular economy – Connected communities – Resilient place ■ Clean Energy: Aim is to minimise energy demand, maximise energy efficiency and transform energy systems to deliver clean, affordable energy for all. ■ Sustainable transport policies include: – Maximising active travel opportunities – Increasing public transport patronage – Enabling shift to Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) ■ Circular Economy: – Support local partners to expand existing models of sharing libraries and repair cafés and workshops. ■ Connected Communities: – Work with communities to identify opportunities for land and assets within their local area to develop projects which benefit those who live there, e.g. community energy, food growing, wild flowering and tree planting. ■ Resilient Place: – Supporting, developing and creating 20-minute neighbourhoods/rural hubs so that citizens can access the services they need locally. Renfrewshire Biodiversity Action Plan – key points for LPP ■ Reflecting national policy guidance, the development of nature networks across Renfrewshire will be a key focus in the Biodiversity Action Plan. ■ Support opportunities to increase the number of allotment and community growing sites/ as a key step in the process of reconnecting people with nature. ■ Expand and connect protected areas and improve their condition. ■ Support nature-friendly farming, fishing and forestry. ■ Recover and protect vulnerable and important species. ■ Develop and deliver the Greener Greenways Project in Renfrewshire, creating and enriching corridors for wildlife along the National Cycle Network. ■ Support the efforts of community organisations to create or enhance biodiversity-rich habitats within existing publicly accessible greenspaces. ■ Develop, deliver and promote tree planting activities in privately owned Upland Birchwood, Oakwood and wet woodland sites in Renfrewshire. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 38 APPENDIX D: REGIONAL POLICIES – SUMMARY OF PLACE-RELEVANT DETAILS Page 98 of 280
Page 103
39 Renfrewshire Economic Development & Tourism strategies ■ The demographic challenge for Renfrewshire’s economy is to achieve a continued growth in the working-age population. This means retaining and attracting talent to support Renfrewshire’s economic ambitions. This growth will largely be driven by migration from outside the area, a process affected by factors such as opportunities for work, for housing, for education and on the perception of the area as a place to live, learn and work. ■ While manufacturing and transportation and storage are traditional strengths of the Renfrewshire economy, new sectors are emerging. The creative industries, tourism and care sectors are ones that are playing increasingly important roles in creating a more diverse and inclusive economy. Key strategic actions include: ■ Increasing the number of business start-ups and their rates of survival and attract more businesses to locate in Renfrewshire. ■ Offering land and premises with the variety of scale and characteristics to meet the aspirations of the strategy to attract new businesses and to meet the needs of local businesses and growth sectors. ■ Identifying and delivering opportunities for new collaborative workspaces such as co-workspace, studios and makers spaces. ■ Developing and promoting Renfrewshire as a thriving tourism, leisure and cultural destination. ■ Increasing local and community tourism – encouraging residents to be visitors in their own area. ■ Supporting villages’ tourism offer through utilising the area’s green assets, with increased capacity to attract and accommodate visitors. Renfrewshire Community Plan The main aim of the Renfrewshire Community Plan is to ensure that: ■ Renfrewshire is Thriving: maximising economic growth that is inclusive and sustainable. ■ Renfrewshire is Well: supporting the wellness and resilience of our citizens and communities. ■ Renfrewshire is Fair: addressing the inequalities that limit life chances. ■ Renfrewshire is Safe: protecting vulnerable people, and working together to manage the risk of harm. For the Thriving theme the areas of focus are: ■ Provide opportunities and support to enter, sustain and progress at work. ■ Tackle the barriers to work for people with disabilities and health conditions. ■ Create good green jobs and a green skills pipeline everyone can access. For the Well theme the priorities are: ■ Promoting wellbeing and good mental health, particularly in our children and young people. ■ Tackling isolation and loneliness, by connecting people to their communities, and to services. ■ Promoting lifestyles that help people live heathier for longer. For the Fair theme the priorities are: ■ Tackling and mitigating poverty and ensuring financial security for all. ■ Reducing the number of people that use alcohol and drugs in our communities. ■ Addressing inequalities in outcomes for children and young people. For the Safe theme the priorities are: ■ Protecting children and young people from the risk of trauma and harm. ■ Protecting vulnerable adults, ensuring they can live safely and independently. ■ Tackling domestic abuse and gender-based violence. Page 99 of 280
Page 104
SUMMARY The following analysis makes use of Renfrewshire Council data to estimate Bridge of Weir future housing needs. The main conclusion from the analysis is that, even without considering constraints imposed by service and infrastructure capacity in the village, there is no need for any additional market housing proposals for Bridge of Weir. However, there remains a gap for small social, below market rent and market rent houses. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 40 APPENDIX E: ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE OF WEIR FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS From Renfrewshire Council Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA) research 2023: Within the West Renfrewshire area, the HNDA research identifies a requirement in the region of 475 new homes over the 10-year period 2023 – 2032, or around 47 per annum. The split by tenure is shown in the top table at 78% market housing and 22% affordable housing (social housing and below market rent). A relatively high proportion is for market rent housing at 22%. The affordable housing requirement from the study is in the region of 10 units per annum. The indicative size requirement for all tenures (NB based on household survey responses for all tenures, and not on demand from social housing waiting lists/ homelessness pressures). WEST RENFREWSHIRE HOUSING ESTIMATES 2023-2032 No. % Social Housing Estimates 56 12% Below Market Rent Housing Estimates 47 10% Market Rent Housing Estimates 105 22% Market Housing Estimates 267 56% Total Housing Estimates Year 1 – 10 475 100% INDICATIVE HOUSING MIXES WEST RENFREWSHIRE % Size Required No. of Houses Bedroom 1 21% 100 Bedroom 2 42% 200 Bedroom 3 24% 114 Bedroom 4 13% 61 Bedroom 5 0% 0 Total 100% 475 Page 100 of 280
Page 105
0541 Housing requirements reflecting recent housing construction Renfrewshire Council’s HNDA research used Council tax and other data available up to the end of 2022. Since then the following housing developments have been completed or commenced: (source: Renfrewshire Council Housing Land Audit 2023). INDICATIVE HOUSING MIXES WEST RENFREWSHIRE (as of 2024) % Size Required No. of Houses Bedroom 1 26% 100 Bedroom 2 46% 177 Bedroom 3 15% 56 Bedroom 4 13% 48 Bedroom 5 0% 0 Taking the above into account, revised estimates for housing needs in West Renfrewshire are as follows: The indicative size requirement for all tenures is now as follows: WEST RENFREWSHIRE HOUSING ESTIMATES 2023-2032 (as of 2024) No. % Social Housing Estimates 42 11% Below Market Rent Housing Estimates 47 13% Market Rent Housing Estimates 105 29% Market Housing Estimates 178 47% Total Housing Estimates Year 1 – 10 372 100% MARKET HOUSES SOCIAL HOUSES RENTAL Howwood – Carsewood House 10 houses 4 bed – 10 0 0 Brookfield – Merchiston 46 houses 3 bed – 46 0 0 Lochwinnoch – Church St 13 houses 3 bed – 4 2 bed – 9 0 0 Bridge of Weir – Bracken Place 9 houses 5 bed – 9 0 0 Houston – Woodend House 0 14 houses 2 bed – 14 0 Bridge of Weir – Torr Farm 11 houses 3 bed – 8 4 bed – 3 0 0 Page 101 of 280
Page 106
42 INDICATIVE HOUSING MIX BoW (as of 2024) No. Required Bedroom 1 24 Bedroom 2 43 Bedroom 3 14 Bedroom 4 12 Bedroom 5 0 VILLAGE POPULATION FROM 2022 CENSUS Bridge of Weir 4924 Brookfield 1246 Houston 6221 Lochwinnoch 2769 Kilbarchan 3344 Howwood 1636 TOTAL 20140 Estimating the housing requirement for Bridge of Weir West Renfrewshire is made up of the following settlements: Bridge of Weir therefore constitutes 24.4 % of the total West Renfrewshire population. Hence on a ‘pro-rata by population’ basis (i.e. Bridge of Weir taking its ‘fair share’) we can estimate that the future housing requirement for Bridge of Weir is as follows: Split by size: BoW HOUSING ESTIMATES 2023-2032 (as of 2024) No. % Social Housing Estimates 10 11% Below Market Rent Housing Estimates 11 12% Market Rent Housing Estimates 26 28% Market Housing Estimates 43 45% Total Housing Estimates Year 1 – 10 94 100% Page 102 of 280
Page 107
In conclusion, even without taking consideration of the limitations of service and infrastructure capacity in the village, on the basis of the estimates calculated above there is no need for any additional market housing proposals for Bridge of Weir. However, there remains a gap for small social, below market rent and market rent houses. 0543 Gap analysis Currently the following housing developments in Bridge of Weir are proposed or are in the process of being delivered: The four approved proposals will deliver 31x3 bedroom units, 14x4 bedroom units and 5x5 bedroom units effectively meeting all the 10 year requirements for these size of houses. Moreover, these approved proposals will provide more than 100% of the total 10 year requirement for market houses. The current planning applications being considered total 38 market houses, i.e. at least 38 too many for the stated 10 year requirement. Hence the West of Thriplee Road proposal is not required and planning permission should not be granted. Note that there are no proposals for affordable or market rent houses. MARKET HOUSES SOCIAL HOUSES RENTAL PLANNING SITUATION Station Rd 39 houses 3 bed – 30 4 bed – 9 0 0 Approved on appeal 2022 Maxwell Place 4 flats 4 bed – 4 0 0 Approved 2023 Fetlar Rd 5 houses 5 bed – 5 0 0 Approved 2006, given go-ahead 2024 Clevans Rd 2 houses 3 bed – 1 4 bed – 1 0 0 Approved 2024 Thriplee Rd 23 Flats 2 bed – 17 3 bed – 6 15 Houses 3 bed – 11 4 bed – 4 0 0 Application submitted 2024 Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 Page 103 of 280
Page 108
44 Page 104 of 280
Page 109
Ambition: The village retains and enhances its existing green spaces and natural habitats. ■ Work with landowners and farmers to create wildlife-friendly areas on the fringes of the village. ■ Create a wildlife pond in the corner of Houston Rd Park. ■ Create new nature corridors within existing green spaces. ■ Better lit pathways in green spaces. ■ Clearly marked walking routes. ■ Rewilding, particularly of dormant areas unsuitable for development. ■ here are lovely walks along the river that could be enhanced by better foot paths at parts. ■ Repair of the Barnbeth pond bridge. ■ Allotments. ■ The village suffers from overgrown trees which block light, need better maintenance of existing areas. ■ Create a path on both sides of the stream in Glen park leading from Amaretto up to the waterfall with possibly a bridge back over near the falls and a seating area on the left side as you look at the falls. ■ Explore the possibility of solar lighting on the cycle track through centre of village, from Behind Shimla restaurant to Kilbarchan Rd to be more accessible at night for walkers, dog walkers and youths. ■ Better maintenance is all that’s needed of the current spaces – too many cutbacks have caused areas of beauty to be neglected and unusable. ■ Work with landowners and residents to parcel land around the village to prevent future development which will have an overall negative effect on the village’s green spaces. ■ Dog walking opportunities/ dog friendly spaces. ■ Support farming. ■ More footpaths around the village there are lots of fields but landowners and farmers don’t like you walking through them. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 45 APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF THE IDEAS FOR ACTION SUBMITTED BY RESIDENTS DURING THE FEBRUARY 2025 SURVEY Page 105 of 280
Page 110
46 Ambition: More local people have the opportunity to remain in the village as they build careers and families or when their circumstances change (e.g. retirement). ■ Enabling the development of one- or two- bedroomed houses for rent in existing brownfield spaces. ■ The village must be appealing to young people and families of all income groups or it ends up being a retirement and gentrification hub. ■ Better transport links to airport and, train stations. ■ Think more housing for elderly, but not yet care home stage is also needed. No afterschool/out of school care options in BoW though there are quite a few options in Houston. ■ Create social housing for people who have lived there entire lives there but are being priced out of affordable housing because there is zero social housing available. ■ Real affordable rented accommodation so that people can afford to live and stay in the village. ■ I would suggest more affordable private housing, not rental housing. ■ A leisure centre. ■ The site of the old dump should be rehabilitated and turned into housing asap. ■ Affordable properties to buy for young professionals not interested in renting. ■ I think housing should be better and more closely connected to a means to continue to participate in active lifestyle e.g. sports and leisure activities. ■ Bungalows for older people so they have options to move out of larger houses suitable for families. Also not everyone wants to live in retirement flats. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 Page 106 of 280
Page 111
47 Ambition: People find it easier to travel within and beyond the village without using a car. ■ Enhance and develop pathways for pedestrians and cycle users. ■ Work with bus companies to enhance local bus services. ■ Explore how a dedicated park and ride space could be created in the village. ■ The safety for people walking to and from Brookfield could be better – i.e. lighting, and footpath/ pavement. ■ Create a proper dedicated cycleway between Bridge of Weir and Houston. ■ Bring back train service. ■ Better bus services connecting the villages round about e.g. Bridge of Weir to Kilbarchan then on to Johnstone. ■ Having some / more signed walks /routes might help. More (proper) cycle paths, could a network of routes connecting ‘Renfrewshire villages’ (linking in with Houston, Bishopton, Kilbarchan). ■ Increased ‘safe’ cycleways with dedicated cycle parking at Johnstone Train station and any future park and ride facilities. ■ More buses in later evening. ■ An actual bus service where people can get to early/late shifts. ■ Park and ride connecting to Johnstone Station and the airport. ■ Better walkways / pavements connecting various parts of the village. ■ Make safer connections from the cycle track to shops. ■ Also walking is difficult with narrow or no pavement, very dangerous could we have a pavement bow to Kilbarchan for example. Page 107 of 280
Page 112
48 Page 108 of 280
Page 113
Ambition: Young people have a range of facilities that enhance their enjoyment of the village. ■ Create a youth hub, potentially within one of the current vacant premises. ■ Establish a dedicated football pitch in one of the parks. ■ Rent one of the vacant premises to create a youth club and start from there. ■ Ask young people what they would like. ■ A gym for young and adults. ■ Swimming pool. ■ Develop sports park with football (maybe 5-a-side size), basketball etc. ■ Restore the tennis court in the Glen. ■ Create a youth skills learning centre. Trade, craft and artistic skills included. Ambition: The village enhances its contribution towards net zero and circular economy goals. ■ Explore the potential for green energy in the village area. ■ Create a collaborative/shared workspace, potentially within one of the current vacant premises. ■ Shared workspace for DIY projects running alongside the repair cafe and Men’s Shed in Houston. A recycle network with shared knowledge where people can learn from each other. Maybe on a small annual fee which allows access via QR codes. ■ A hydro dam in the Gryffe would be one idea to generate local sustainable energy. ■ Additional EV chargers. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 Ambition: People can access more services in the immediate area than at present. ■ Identify the types of shops local people would welcome in the village. ■ Work with estate agents to enable vacant shops to be utilised. ■ The parking in the village is a huge issue. We definitely need a parking layout more like Johnstone Railway Station with a double level parking area. ■ Larger parking area for villagers and visitors. Have went to visit the local shops only not to get parked and went to Linwood or Johnstone instead. ■ Stopping vehicles that speed. ■ Introduce some parking restrictions in the village similar to Sainsbury’s with 30 mins max Parking. ■ Support for local charities including affordable spaces to rent. ■ Healthy living initiatives – holiday clubs for kids. ■ A banking hub. ■ A good chemist offering more make-up. ■ Potential village loyalty card, Bridge of Weir loves local, you shop local you get points towards discounts or a prize draw. ■ Fresh farm shop. ■ Recycle shop, village shops to work together – buy a coffee at Bernie’s and get a discount at home hardware for example – and vice versa. 49 Page 109 of 280
Page 114
50 Ambition: The village attracts and retains a range of successful small businesses, particularly in growth sectors such as tourism. ■ Define and develop the village’s tourism offering. ■ Identify what Bridge of Weir’s business strengths are and build clusters of small businesses. ■ Transport links to the city are crucial for the continued survival of the village, mass rapid transit is the best way to secure the villages future. Alongside this more must be done to attract hospitality to the village. In areas such as the Lake District small high quality restaurants ensure the health of the local economy. the village severely lacks any vision for the future. ■ Prevent anymore duplication of current services i.e. we now have enough barbers, hairdressers, estate agents. We could benefit from nice shops selling nice things. This could make the place more attractive. ■ Need to create a zone specifically for industry to encourage small businesses to develop. ■ Give small businesses an incentive to operate in the village, cutting costs to get them started. ■ We need more cafes, restaurants and bars, and other commercial services to fill vacant units. ■ Pop-up spaces in empty shops. ■ Traffic often gets bottlenecked outside the vets. it is a very wide pavement there and could do with the pavement being narrowed to accommodate the parking for the residents and making way for better flow of traffic. ■ Glamping / eco camping sites. ■ Golf clubs should offer tourist packages. ■ Bridge of weir has a strong academic heritage and long list of successful entrepreneurs in many industries, who should be contacted to provide guidance/ support to up and coming kids. ■ The tannery has a long history in the village - perhaps fine leather small business. ■ Tourists want somewhere to stay so village needs a hotel also decent restaurants and shops. Bow also needs to join up with Houston, Kilbarchan etc for tourists and advertise why come here. ■ Market Hub for local producers. ■ Car parking for tourists. Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan 2026 – 2036 Page 51 – Brighter Bridge of Weir (wooden reindeers) picture courtesy of Gary Montgomery, Bernie’s Cafe Deli picture courtesy of Pamela McLauchlan and The Village Kitchen & Pantry picture courtesy of Klinta. Page 110 of 280
Page 115
51 Page 111 of 280
Page 116
Designed and produced by SK Studio | www.skstudio.co.uk Prepared by Bridge of Weir Community Council bowcommunitycouncil@gmail.com Scan the QR code or visit bowcommunitycounci.wixsite.com/bowcc to access the digital version of this brochure. Page 112 of 280
Page 117
Version 3 - Issued Feburary 2026admin@houstonvillage.co.uk Local Place Plan Houston 2050 Appendix 4 Page 113 of 280
Page 118
Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary 3 1.1 About 4 1.2 Key Policy & Strategy Links 6 1.3 Executive Summary 7 Chapter 2: Contextual Study 9 Chapter 3: Community Engagement Summary 21 3.1 Audit of Past Studies and Community Input 22 3.2 Summary of Engagement Activities 23 3.3 Summary of Engagement Findings 25 Chapter 4: The Houston 2050 Local Place Plan 29 4.1 The Vision for Houston 2050 30 4.2 Vision Story One: Safe, Practical and Low-Carbon Travel for Everyone 31 4.3 Vision Story Two: A Village in Relation with Nature 34 4.4 Vision Story Three: A Village with Community Life and Social Space 37 4.5 Vision Story Four: Appropriate Housing at Appropriate Scales 40 4.6 Vision Story Five: A Future with Resilience 43 Appendices 44 Appendix 1: Public Survey Results 45 Appendix 2: Youth Engagement Designs 81 Table of Contents Page 114 of 280
Page 119
3 Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Page 115 of 280
Page 120
Houston Houston is a village in Renfrewshire first recorded as Hugh’s Town in the 12th century. The village developed around a 16th-century castle and parish church dedicated to St Peter with a planned new village established in 1781 replacing earlier buildings and using stone from the original Houston Castle, which became Houston House. The adjoining settlement of Crosslee emerged around a mill from the 19th century. Historically, the economy of Houston and Crosslee was based mainly around agriculture and weaving. Houston’s historic village core was designated as a Conservation Area in 1968. Today, Houston, Crosslee and the housing estate of Craigends make up one large commuter village with a large rural hinterland to the north. For the purpose of this plan the area will be referred to as Houston, unless otherwise differentiated. It first expanded as a dormitory suburb for Paisley, and now benefits from ease of access to Glasgow and Inverclyde from the M8. Additionally it is close to Glasgow airport. The nearest railway station is Johnstone, around 3-4 miles away by road. Among the population of around 7000, there is a high proportion in higher-income professional employment. Home ownership is high. A large proportion of the population are over 45, and many are retired. Home and car ownership is high. Houston lies within the Gryffe Valley. The Houston Burn runs through the village, and the River Gryffe through Crosslee and Craigends. The natural setting for these settlements is interspersed with large sections of woodland, some of which is accessible through walks and trails. The surrounding environment is largely agricultural, with large farming plots separating the Houston, Crosslee and Craigends cluster from neighbouring settlements. In the Local Development Plan for the area, this agricultural and field land comprises the majority of the green belt. About Local Place Plans Local Place Plans have been introduced by the Scottish Government to bring local community voices into the planning processes of their local areas. A Local Place Plan seeks to create a cohesive vision and identity for an area, incorporating the aspirations of its residents. Plans should also be action focussed, presenting a series of actions that accompany this community vision. Focussing on themes related to planning, such as buildings, land use, access to services, movement and greenery, the contents of a Local Place Plan is read alongside wider planning strategies for an area, and centres community voices in considerations and changes for its future. Once validated and registered by the Council, Local Place Plans are taken into account in the preparation of the Local Development Plan. About The Houston Place Plan The Houston Place Plan has been commissioned by Houston Community Council (HCC). HCC represents a series of communities including the historic Houston Village, Crosslee, Craigends and the properties and land making up its rural hinterland. The Houston Place Plan is jointly funded by HCC and Renfrewshire Council. The ‘Houston 2050’ Place Plan will describe community ambition for development over the next 25 years, covering both short and long term aims. The Glasgow based architecture practice New Practice were commissioned in 2025 to assist HCC with community engagement and develop this Houston Place Plan document. Acknowledgements Houston Community Council would like to thank the residents, businesses and landowners in their area for the engagement and support provided in the preparation of this plan. They would also like to thank Renfrewshire Council’s councillors and officers for their support and advice during the process and New Practice for their engagement, enthusiasm, professionalism and patience throughout. In preparing this document, New Practice would like to thank Houston Community Council for their support and enthusiasm in assisting with on-the-ground engagement and promotion. 1.1 About 4 Page 116 of 280
Page 121
Houston Community Council Boundary This map indicates the boundary of the Houston Community Council, which included the historic Houston village as well as Crosslee, Craigends and the rural area to the north. Where ‘Houston’ is used in this document, it is referring to the full area within this boundary. 5 Page 117 of 280
Page 122
National Planning Framework 4 What is it? NPF4 is Scotland’s national spatial planning framework, which sets out policies and priorities for land use, development and infrastructure across the country. This policy guides local authorities in developing their own local planning strategies. NPF4 replaced NPF3 in 2023, placing greater emphasis on community, placemaking, sustainability, greenery and healthy, liveable neighbourhoods. How does it relate to the Place Plan? NPF4 encourages community-led Local Place Plans as a key tool to bring resident community voices into the local authority planning decisions for their area, and to ensure that national planning goals align with local development plans. NPF4 will provide the bulk of the policy guidance to support any suggested changes based on the current and/or future LDP (Local Development Plan). Renfrewshire Local Development Plan What is it? This Local Development Plan - last published in 2021 (for 5 years) - is prepared by Renfrewshire Council. It sets out the vision, spatial strategy, objectives and updated policies for Planning in Renfrewshire. The spatial strategy and placemaking proposals are structured around five themes: economy, centres, infrastructure, places, and environment. How does it relate to the Place Plan? The Local Place Plan must have regard to the spatial strategy and policies within the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021. Once the Houston 2025 Place Plan is validated and registered by the Council, it will be taken into account in the preparation of the next Local Development Plan which will run for ten years. Renfrewshire’s Community Plan What is it? ‘Our Renfrewshire’ is the region’s Community Plan for the 10 year period of 2017-27. It acts as Renfrewshire’s Local Outcome Improvement Plan, as required by the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The content is the result of conversations with partners and local people about opportunities, challenges and aspirations, informed by a comprehensive data and evidence set. It has been signed up to by key public, private and third sector organisations. The core vision is: “working together to make Renfrewshire a fairer, more inclusive place where all our people, communities and businesses thrive.” The priorities are for Renfrewshire to be thriving, well, fair and safe. How does it relate to the Place Plan? Linking the Place Plan with this wider Locality Plan creates efficiencies, reduces duplication and prioritises resources to areas where there could be benefits for communities and inclusive growth. The process of preparing a Local Place Plan can support and stimulate community action. The plan can provide a framework for actions which are delivered by the community with assistance from partners and in turn help to secure funding. Local Place Plans must have regard to key legislative documents. For the Houston Place Plan this is NPF4, the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan, and Renfrewshire’s Community Plan. The ways in which the proceeding proposals in this Place Plan generally align with the relevant policies and development proposals in these documents will be highlighted in Chapter 3. 1.2 Key Policy & Strategy Links 6 Page 118 of 280
Page 123
Vision Story Four: Appropriate Housing at Appropriate Scales Ensuring new homes respond to real local need (particularly downsizing options, supported living and affordable entry-level housing) while safeguarding settlement boundaries and the character of the village. Vision Story Two: A Village in Relation with Nature Protection and enhancement of the green assets residents prize most, with better access to woodland, upgraded parks and play spaces, improved biodiversity and safe, enjoyable routes along the Gryffe. Vision Story One: Safe, Practical and Low-Carbon Travel for Everyone A village where walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport provide safe, reliable and attractive alternatives to driving, supported by improved links to neighbouring areas, and safer crossings and paths within Houston. Vision Story Three: A Village with Community Life and Social Space Strengthening social connection by expanding community facilities, improving spaces for youth activities, supporting local groups and creating more opportunities for everyday gathering, culture and events. Vision Story Five: A Future with Resilience Preparing Houston for long-term environmental and social resilience through climate-adaptive greenspace, improved drainage and flood mitigation, better stewardship of land and infrastructure, and a balanced, thriving population. Houston’s Local Place Plan brings together community insight, local knowledge and policy context to shape a shared vision for the village to 2050. It reflects what residents value today and sets out how future change can be managed to protect Houston’s character while meeting emerging needs. This Local Place Plan for Houston has been developed through a combination of contextual analysis, policy review and extensive community engagement carried out in 2025. A contextual study considered existing settlement patterns, movement networks, local services, natural assets and development pressures, alongside the strategic direction set by National Planning Framework 4 and Renfrewshire’s emerging Local Development Plan. However, the foundation of this plan is the community’s own insight into the daily experience of living, working and growing up in Houston. Over 300 residents participated in the online survey, alongside follow-up sessions with young people, discussions with local groups and review of previous community- led studies. The survey highlighted strong appreciation of Houston’s setting and atmosphere: residents rated general village environment 4.3/5, greenspace access 4.3/5, and access to the wider countryside 4.3/5. At the same time, the data revealed significant concerns. Public transport was rated just 2.4/5 (and 2.0/5 by disabled respondents), while connectivity to neighbouring areas was only 2.8/5. Housing affordability and appropriateness scored 2.7/5, and access to diverse housing options scored 2.3/5. Opportunities for skills, training and jobs for all ages also scored low, ranging from 2.2–2.4/5. Young people reinforced these issues, identifying unsafe crossings, outdated parks, poor-quality pitches and a lack of indoor spaces for socialising. Across all engagement, people spoke passionately about protecting the village’s rural identity, managing development sustainably, improving active travel routes, addressing ageing infrastructure and supporting community life. When asked for improvement priorities, residents placed Greenspace and Nature first (38%), Movement second (35%), and Wellbeing and Services third (19%), with housing ranking lower but still recognised as a critical issue when considering ageing population needs. These findings inform five Vision Stories for Houston in 2050. Each story sets out aspirations, planning strategy amendments and potential project opportunities to guide both local decision-making and future development proposals. Taken together, these five stories set out a shared ambition for Houston in 2050: a village that is safe, green, well-connected and socially vibrant, protecting what residents cherish about the village now, while planning thoughtfully for the needs of its future. 1.3 Executive Summary In 2050, Houston will remain a distinctive, welcoming village - connected to nature, rich in heritage, strong in community spirit. Improvements in infrastructure, transport and housing will support residents and allow them to thrive. A green, safe and connected Houston will support walking and wheeling, protect green spaces and ensure services grow sustainably, celebrating what makes Houston special. 7 Page 119 of 280
Page 124
Ammendment Relevant Policy or Strategies No. Description Mapped NPF4 Other Vision Story One: Safe, Practical and Low-Carbon Travel for Everyone 1A Establish a ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ style “active-travel- first” settlement strategy 1, 2, 13, 14, 15 LDP Placemaking, Sustainable Travel; LTS 1B Safeguard and prioritise strategic active-travel corridors to Bridge of Weir, Johnstone, Linwood and NCN75 ü 1, 13, 20 LDP Green Network, Infrastruture Delivery; LTS 1C Designate and improve primary pedestrian spines within the village ü 13, 14, 21 LDP Placemaking, Access; LTS 1D Treat access to NCN75, the cycle track and Gryffe Valley paths as core green–blue infrastructure ü 3, 20, 21 LDP Green Network; Renfreswhire Community Plan 1E Introduce a movement hierarchy and village-wide traffic-calming framework 1, 13, 14 LDP Placemaking, Sustainabilt Travel; LTS 1F Strengthen public-transport safeguarding and long-term enhancement 13, 15 LDP Infrastructure Delivery, Connctivity; LTS 1G Require new development to be “car-lite by design” and contribute to active-travel and PT infrastructure 1, 2, 13, 14 LDP Placemaking, Developer Contributions; LTS Vision Story Two: A Village in Relation with Nature 2A Protect and consolidate the entire existing greenbelt around Houston and Crosslee 1, 3, 8, 14 LDP Greenbelt, Countryside 2B Designate a Connected Green Network linking parks, woodlands and the River Gryffe corridor ü 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 Renfrewshire Green Network Strategy 2C Improve and formalise key nature and walking routes, focusing on accessibility and safety where appropriate and ecologically safe ü 3, 12, 13, 14 Renfrewshire Outdoor Access Strategy 2D Require all new development to contribute to biodiversity enhancement and nature-based flood mitigation 1, 3, 12 2E Protect and reinstate former play spaces, prioritising provision for older children and teenagers ü 11, 14 Vision Story Three: A Village with Community Life and Social Space 3A Designate a Distributed Network of Local Community Hubs across Houston, Crosslee and Craigends ü 6, 27 LDP Network of Centres 3B Protect and Expand Multi-Use Community Facilities, Including Repurposing Underused Buildings ü 9, 15 LDP Community Facilities 3C Establish a Network of Everyday Social Spaces in Public Realm Locations ü 9, 8 Renfrewshire Public Realm Strategy 3D Protect and Enable Indoor Social and Cultural Space for Teenagers and Young Adults ü 4, 14 Renfrewshire Youth Srategy 3E Support Small-Scale, Low-Impact Commercial Uses that Strengthen Village Life 6, 27 Renfrewshire Economic Development Strategy Vision Story Four: Appropriate Housing at Appropriate Scales 4A Prioritise small-scale, needs-led housing for downsizers and assisted living within the existing village footprints 4, 9, 16 LDP Meeting Housing Needs, Green Belt 4B Protect the green belt and prevent ‘development creep’ merging Houston, Crosslee, Brookfield and Bridge of Weir 3, 8 LDP Green Belt, Landscape Character 4C Establish a ‘brownfield-first’ policy and a clear development hierarchy for the area ü 8, 9 LDP Meeting Housing Needs, Green Belt 4D Prioritise modest, design-led infill in locations that are well-connected to shops, services and bus routes ü 14, 15 LDP Infill and Design Quality 4E Introduce a requirement for all new homes to demonstrate low-carbon, energy-efficient design with minimal impact to existing landscape, services and infrastructure ü 1, 2, 14 LDP Infill and Design Quality Vision Story Five: A Future with Resilience 5A Requiring climate-adaptive design and nature-based solutions in all new development 2, 6, 20 5B Limiting development that increases pressure on already overstretched schools and healthcare 9, 27 5C Embedding maintenance and stewardship obligations in development proposals 6, 15 Summary Matrix of Ammendments to Planning Strategy NPF4 - National Planning Framework 4 LTS - Renfrewshire Local Transport Strategy LDP - Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 8 Page 120 of 280
Page 125
9 Chapter 2: Contextual Study Page 121 of 280
Page 126
Houston’s population is approximately 7,000. A large proportion of the population are over 45, and many are retired. According to the 2022 census, 96% of residents identity as White. A large proportion of residents are in high income professional employment. Home ownership is high. Overall Houston is an affluent community, with the majority of households having no deprivation indicators (these include unemployment, minimal education qualifications, ill health and overcrowding) 2.1 Local Census Demographics HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION OCCUPATION (16-75 y/o) AGE 20% 0-4 5-10 10-15 16-24 % POPULATION 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ 40% 20% one person married married w/ children cohabiting cohabiting w/children lone parent w/children multiperson 40% 50% 25% 75% student retired house inactive employee self-employed unemployed % POPULATION DEPRIVATION DIMENSIONS % POPULATION 50% 100% none 1 2 3-4 10 Page 122 of 280
Page 127
2.2 SIMD Demographics According to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), the Houston area is generally ranked among the least deprived across indicators such as income, employment, health, education, and housing. Crime levels are low overall however, areas around Houston House, Houston Burn, and Houston Cemetery fall within SIMD crime rank 5 and 6. This may reflect the extensive surrounding woodland, which can influence reporting patterns and perceptions of safety. Geographic access is a key concern, with Crosslee and Craigends performing poorly and ranking within SIMD access category 2. This is particularly evident in areas surrounding the River Gryffe, where travel times to essential services are longer and both public transport and road connections are limited. This highlights a need to improve accessibility and strengthen transport links between these communities. 11 Page 123 of 280
Page 128
2.3 Asset Mapping B 5 min walking 5 min walking 10 min walking 10 min walking B790 BRIDGE OF WEIR RD BAROCHAN RD B789 B789 HOUSTON RD CROSSLEE RIVER GRYFE HOUSTON CRAIGENDS RIVER GRYFE TO KILMACOLM TO BRIDGE OF WEIR TO LANGBANK 1 6 2 3 5 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 1 2 3 4 B Conservation Area 5 min walking 5 min walking 10 min walking 10 min walking Cycling routes Walking radius Listed Buildings 1. Gryffe High School 2. Houston Primary School 3. Strawberry Field Nursery 4. Gryffe Manor Nursery 5. Abbey Nursery 6. St Fillan's Primary School EDUCATION 1. Strathgryffe Tennis Squash & Fitness Club 2. John G. Fleming Bowling Club 3. Ardgryffe Park SPORTS, LEISURE & RECREATIONAL SPACES 1. Houston & Killellan Kirk 2. Houston Scout Hall 3. Carrick Centre Room Hire & Cafe 4. Catch Scotland Ltd Youth Organisation CHURH HALLS, FAITH & COMMUNITY SPACES 1. Houston Cemetery 2. Houston House 3. St Peter’s Well 4. Muirfield Hatchery HERITAGE, LOCAL LANDMARKS, TOURISM 1. Ardgryffe Park 2. Houston Park 3. Crosslee Park 4. Playground South St GREEN SPACES Car parks 12 Page 124 of 280
Page 129
B 5 min walking 10 min walking 10 min walking B790 BRIDGE OF WEIR RD BAROCHAN RD B789 B789 HOUSTON RD CROSSLEE RIVER GRYFE HOUSTON CRAIGENDS RIVER GRYFE TO KILMACOLM TO BRIDGE OF WEIR TO LANGBANK 7 1 2 6 2 3 4 1 5 12 345 6 B 5 min walking 10 min walking 10 min walking Cycling routes Walking radius 1. Co-Op 2. The Village Shop - Newsstand Retail and Supermarkets 1. Blonde Roasters Cafe 2. Fox & Hounds 3. The Houston Inn 4. The Wee White Playhouse 5. Cafe at the Carrick Centre 6. Paul’s Chippy 7. The River Inn Restaurants 1. Kirk Road Eye Care 2. Houston Dental Surgery 3. Boots Pharmacy 4. Strathgryffe Medical Practice 5. 5. Brite Dental Houston 6. 6. Phoenix Wellness Health 13 Page 125 of 280
Page 130
Strathgryffe Medical Practice Houston Opticians maybe remove this because our asset map is more up to date? This map has been used with the permission of Benton Scott-Simmons et al., and has been referenced from the ‘Connecting Houston: A Community Led Active Travel Plan’ report (2021). 14 Page 126 of 280
Page 131
2.4 Movement & Connectivity Access roads to Houston are ‘B’ class and maintained accordingly while carrying a high volume of traffic for this class of road. They link directly to the wider trunk road and motorway network which makes the area popular with commuters. Bus routes connect to nearby towns such as Johnstone and Linwood, as well as to Glasgow. Bus services can be poor, infrequent, and often cancelled. These include the 1A/1B, 2A/2B, X6A/X6B, and X7. There is no direct public transport link to the nearest town, Paisley, or to health facilities and hospitals in Houston, Paisley or Glasgow. The local rail station closed in 1983, and the closest rail access is via Johnstone. This is approximately 3.4 miles from Houston village and can be reached using the 1A/1B, 2A/2B or X6A/X6B buses. The village is strategically located with convenient access to Glasgow Airport, the M8 Motorway, Glasgow City Centre, Loch Lomond and The Trossachs. National Cycle Network Routes 7 and 75 are within about a ten-minute cycle from the village, providing active travel options to Paisley, Greenock, and Lochwinnoch. Within Houston there are currently no properly segregated cycle routes. Walking routes within the community do not always follow the road system, there is a network of older lanes and newer paths but not up to modern accessibility standards. 15 Page 127 of 280
Page 132
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION 2.5 Local Development Plan The Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021 (LDP) sets the strategic framework that will directly shape how Houston can grow in the area. For Houston, this means aligning projects and ambitions with a planning system that prioritises sustainable, inclusive, and well-connected development. The Plan emphasises opportunities within designated economic investment zones such as the Advanced Manufacturing and Innovation District Scotland (AMIDS) and supports business activity in transition areas where mixed-use regeneration is encouraged. Houston’s developments will benefit from policies promoting innovation, low-carbon design, and digital connectivity, particularly around the City Deal infrastructure projects linking Paisley, Renfrew, and Glasgow Airport. There is a clear policy drive for developments that demonstrate community benefit, environmental protection, and design quality through the placemaking and sustainability principles of the Plan. This means Houston can position itself as a partner in regeneration, contributing to Renfrewshire’s economic growth agenda while meeting its social and environmental commitments. The Plan offers a roadmap for investment in housing, energy efficiency, and infrastructure that supports modern business operations. By aligning with the LDP 2021, Houston can secure long-term viability, public support, and planning certainty for projects that deliver value to both people and place. 16 Page 128 of 280
Page 133
2.6 Green & Blue Infrastructure Houston and its surrounding area have significant green-infrastructure assets, including woodland clusters around Houston House and the former Craigends estate, as well as the wooded banks of the River Gryffe and Locher Water which form key habitat and wildlife corridors. The existing path network has links to the National Cycle Network Route 75, providing active-travel opportunities. Houston’s blue infrastructure includes the River Gryffe, connecting to Locher Water and Houston Burn, which provide important natural drainage, habitats, and flood management functions. Parts of the River Gryffe corridor are designated as a Local nature Reserve, supporting biodiversity and recreation. 17 Page 129 of 280
Page 134
2.7 Surface Water and Small Watercourse Flooding The surface water map identifies several areas of concern across Houston, with purple shading indicating locations more vulnerable to surface water accumulation. Notable areas of concern appear along Houston Burn, Peter’s Burn, Barochan Burn, and around Houstonfield Dam. Areas of highest concern occur where Houston Burn meets Houston Road, indicating a localised flood risk that may require thought in future development. Additional risk zones are present around existing communities and facilities, including Strathgryffe Tennis, Squash and Fitness Club and the John G. Fleming Bowling Club, as well as nearby housing at Fleming Road and Houston Park. These locations should be considered when assessing drainage capacity. The adjacent map and above information is gathered from SEPA. Each year this area has a 0.5% chance of flooding. Each year this area has a 10% chance of flooding. Each year this area has a 0.1% chance of flooding. 18 Page 130 of 280
Page 135
2.8 Built Form The historic village core of Main Street, North Street, South Street and Kirk Road was designated as a Conservation Area in 1968. The village includes a number of important listed buildings including Houston House, St Fillan’s Church and Houston & Killellan Church. 18th - 19th century housing Housing from 20th century onward. Gryffe Wraes RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPE HERITAGE 19 Page 131 of 280
Page 136
2.9 Housing Developments Several housing proposals have emerged across the Houston area, within last decade. 1. West of Barochan Road - Proposed 100 homes (cottages, flats, terraces and detached, from 1-5 bedrooms). Submitted in September 2022 and rejected in September 2025 due to over-development, pressure on local services and infrastructure by Renfrewshire Council but under appeal to the Reporter. 2. Quarry Brae & Manse Crescent - Proposed 14 houses, 16 flats, and 3 self-build plots, with new access roads, parking and landscaping. Submitted in 2007 and refused in 2009 for over-development, inclusion of flats not keeping with surrounding housing, and poor site accessibility. This is now listed in the LDP as public open space. 3. Between Lonend Cottage & Woodend Lodge - proposal for 20 houses with roads, drainage and landscaping. Submitted in 2014 and approved in 2015, despite objections regarding Green Belt loss and limited local infrastructure capacity. 4. 160m South of Woodfoot - Mixed development of detached homes and blocks of affordable cottage flats, including access and landscaping. First submitted in 2017 and a non-material variation was then later approved in 2023 to allow for minor changes. 5. Crosslee Poultry Farm to Crosslee Bridge - Residential development with supporting infrastructure and landscaping, proposed pre-application consultation procedures approved August 2018, but never progressed. 1. 2 3 4 5 Rejected proposals Approved proposals 20 Page 132 of 280
Page 137
21 Chapter 3: Community Engagement Summary Page 133 of 280
Page 138
3.1 Audit of Past Studies and Community Input Rural Safe Walking Initiative – Houston Report (2023) This report provides an audit of walking conditions on the rural approaches to Houston and Crosslee. It documents physical constraints such as narrow verges, blind bends, insufficient lighting, drainage problems, and the absence of continuous footway provision. It proposes targeted upgrades, such as verge widening, surface improvements, safer crossings, and potential ‘rural quiet lane’ designations, to improve everyday walkability and enable safer connections between Houston and neighbouring settlements. Connecting Houston: Community-Led Active Travel Study (2021) Prepared for HCC by external consultants led by Benton Scott-Simmons, this study maps barriers to movement within and around Houston and recommends a programme of improvements. It highlights poor connectivity to NCN75, the absence of safe links to Johnstone and Linwood, limited underpass accessibility, and traffic- dominated village streets. The report proposes a strategic framework of active travel corridors, rural link upgrades, and safer junction designs. Planning Application Report: Barochan Road Residential Development (2025) [Report B - 22-0647-PP] A formal planning report for a proposed residential development that received significant community objection and was subsequently refused by Renfrewshire Council but has been appealed to the Scottish Government Planning Reporter. It contains assessments of transport impact, access arrangements, landscape and greenbelt concerns, and settlement pattern issues. Planning Application Report: Houston Solar Farm (2025) [Report C - 23-0622-EB] A planning submission for a large solar energy installation near Houston. It outlines land use impact, landscape sensitivity, biodiversity provisions, and evaluation against climate and energy policy. Summary of Community- Authored Strategic Input HCC has provided several formal written submissions to Renfrewshire Council strategies, including the Transport Strategy consultation and the Council’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan. Across these submissions, HCC consistently argues that strategic planning must be grounded in the specific needs and characteristics of Houston’s population, landscape, and infrastructure. Transport-related input emphasised chronic speeding on rural roads, dangerous bends, limited footway provision, and the absence of safe active-travel links to Johnstone, Linwood, and St Benedict’s High School. They advocated a “Liveable Neighbourhoods” approach that prioritises safer crossings, continuous pavements, traffic calming, and non-car access to schools and the NCN. They also criticised the Council’s historic support for car-orientated retail locations, arguing that such decisions undermine public transport viability and draw economic activity away from town centres. In relation to housing investment, HCC highlighted that Houston’s ageing demographic is poorly reflected in current policy, with an acute shortage of downsizer homes, accessible accommodation, and assisted-living provision. They urged a shift away from high-volume market housing toward whole-life place-making, brownfield reuse, and the support of residents wishing to downsize from under-occupied family homes. They also stressed that large developments should demonstrate inclusion through Equalities Impact Assessments and be designed with strong active-travel connectivity rather than car dependency. They argue that it is important to recognise housing investment must be nuanced and reflective of the existing and projected demographics of Houston and West Renfrewshire. There is a tendency to prioritise large family homes for a mobile affluent demographic rather than the downsizer, accessible and affordable homes required. A “Have Your Say” survey was also carried out by HCC across 2024. The key responses to this survey were provided for this audit by the Community Council. It includes place- based feedback on safety, greenspace, housing, community life, and active travel. The responses provide additional qualitative context to the Place Plan consultation regarding narrow pavements, unsafe road crossings, perceived threats to greenspace, and dissatisfaction with youth facilities and public transport. In a review of businesses operating in and from Houston, HCC identified that Houston is home to significant entrepreneurial talent and expertise. Key Learnings » Active travel links unsafe or incomplete, especially toward Johnstone, Linwood, Bishopton and Bridge of Weir, and access to NCN75 is poor. » Narrow pavements and rural road speeds consistently undermine walking and wheeling safety. » Public transport connectivity is weak, particularly to Johnstone Station, Paisley and the RAH, reinforcing car dependency. » Recent development has not met local housing needs, prioritising large family homes instead of downsizer, accessible or affordable options. » Strong community opposition to greenbelt expansion, with clear preference for brownfield reuse and better stewardship of existing assets. » Youth highlight gaps in safe crossings, park quality and cycling provision, especially near schools and main routes. » Past planning decisions contributed to car-oriented patterns, weakening town centres and limiting sustainable travel. » Business operating in and from Houston should be engaged and supported to create high quality sustainable jobs. Access to and sharing of information on training and networking opportunities can help nurture businesses as will improved Wi-Fi to support remote working and reduce commuting. 22 Page 134 of 280
Page 139
3.2 Summary of Engagement Activities Engagement Promotion Engagement promotion was carried out across both physical and digital mediums. Physical promotion comprised flyers delivered to every property within the HCC boundary and posters in public places, with digital assets delivered via paid advertisement tools. A website was produced for the project by New Practice, to act as a central ‘hub’ of information. This used the same artwork as all other promotional tools, to ensure recognisability across the engagement programme. The website included an FAQ on the project, the teams involved and a general overview on place plans, as well as a ‘noticeboard’ where dates and details on activities for community involvement were posted; while it was live, the website hosted the online version of the public survey. All promotional tools, both physical and digital, directed to this website as a central point of information. Artwork for posters and flyers were produced by New Practice, with the distribution of these materials throughout the project area being carried out by HCC. In total, 15 posters and 3,000 flyers were commissioned from a local printer for distribution, however this does not account for any additional flyers or posters which may have been independently printed by community members. An online advertisement was developed and circulated by New Practice via Meta’s advertisement platform. This ad was targeted to an audience within a 5km radius of a geographic point at 55.812000, -4.572500, nearby Kilallan Road, covering the entire HCC boundary area. The advertisement campaign ran for 29 days, from the 7th August to 6th September. The closing figures for the campaign are as follows: » 18,859 total views of the advertisement » 5,558 unique user accounts reached » 337 clicks through to the website link » The majority of the audience were aged over 45 and women (see adjacent figures). HCC posted weekly on Facebook across all local pages to promote the plan and opened a crowd funding page which was also use as a promotion tool. Word of mouth and direct communications were also important tools in promoting the engagement activities. HCC facilitated promotion via direct communications, sharing key details on the engagement programme with the following: » 17 local businesses » One key local landowner, informing all their farmers and employees » All elected representatives for the area (councillors, MSPs and MP) » All adjoining community councils: Bridge of Weir; Langbank; Bishopton; Inchinnan; Linwood; Brookfield; Kilmacolm. » Local clubs (i.e. Rotary, Scouts, Boys Brigade and History Society) » All local churches. There has been no opposition to the plan, which has received widespread support across the community. Support was received from neighbouring Community Councils and elected representatives with no opposition submitted. Bridge of Weir Community Council commented on Above left: Promotional poster. Above right: Reverse of promotional flyer (front facing used same artwork as poster). Above: Demographic breakdown of online advertisement audience. Houston 2050 Houston Place Plan www.houstonplacplan.co.uk We want your ideas for Houston’s future! Houston Place Plan New Practice To complete our survey and find out more visit: www.houstonplaceplan.co.uk What is the Houston 2050 Place Plan? The ‘Houston 2050’ Place Plan will describe community ambition for development over the next 25 years, covering both short and long term aims. It is being delivered by the architecture studio New Practice, on behalf of the Houston Community Council. What is a Place Plan? Local Place Plans were introduced by the Scottish Government as a means of bringing local voices into the planning system, allowing community- led ideas to influence decision making. Local Place Plans focus on themes that relate to planning policy (e.g. building use, land use, access to services, movement). They identify the key opportunities for impactful change. We want your ideas! admin@houstonvillage.co.uk the issue of economic development and the differences between neighbouring communities. Their comment is valid and has been incorporated in Section 3.3. Public Survey The core engagement activity was a public survey, developed by New Practice. This was hosted online, via the project website, and available for the public to complete from the 6th August to 5th September. A paper version of the survey was also developed, using the same questions, and distributed by HCC at key community spaces and 23 Page 135 of 280
Page 140
events. In total, the online survey received 231 complete submissions, with 85 partially complete recorded. A suite of completed worksheets were returned to New Practice by HCC, documenting a number of conversations with residents; no full paper surveys were returned. The public survey was structured into six sections: » An introduction outlining the place plan project and recording demographic data through introductory questions » Part One: General Thoughts » Part Two: Services and Housing » Part Three: Locations with Potential » Part Four: Biodiversity and Sustainability » Part Five: Final Thoughts Questions within each section were focussed on ‘star ratings’ in response to prompts. This ensured that the majority of the data was quantitative for streamlined analysis by New Practice. Open comment questions were positioned throughout the survey where their input would be most meaningful, and to focus in-depth qualitative analysis. Engagement Events HCC hosted and attended a number of events to gather views from the general public, and to promote the project in person. These were: » 9th August - Six HCC members engaged attendees at the Houston Agricultural Show explaining the LPP, and issuing worksheets and over 300 flyers. » 17th August - Pop-up engaging shoppers at Crosslee Crescent Co-Op. » 30th August - Pop-up at the Carrick Centre. New Practice developed a worksheet to quickly record useful information and organise notes during discussions and engagement events. Findings recorded using these sheets were subsumed into the survey analysis. Youth Engagement On 10th October, New Practice delivered a young person’s workshop at Gryffe High School with twenty S2 students living within the HCC area boundary. This workshop ran for approx 1.5 hours, and after a short presentation by New Practice to provide background and context, worked through a number of group and individual activities to understand the perspectives, experiences and aspirations of young people in the area. The first exercise asked young people to map the different assets of the local area within key categories (i.e. heritage, greenspace, leisure), in groups. The second exercise had groups collectively consider where in the area would be ideal for a new youth-focussed space, to map this, and explain their reasoning why. The final exercise was individual, and invited the students to imagine their own youth- focussed space, to draw it, and describe its design using a worksheet. Completed in-person engagement worksheet (recorded personal information redacted). 24 Page 136 of 280
Page 141
3.3 Summary of Engagement Findings Public Survey The full survey data is presented in Appendix 1. Overall Themes Across almost every topic, the survey highlighted three dominant themes: 1. a strong desire for safer active travel and reduced car dependency, 2. a firm commitment to preserving greenspace and protecting the greenbelt, and 3. a need for more diverse, smaller, and accessible housing without expanding the village footprint. These themes were reinforced by quantitative data showing low satisfaction with public transport, cycling conditions, housing diversity, and access to training or job opportunities, while satisfaction remained higher for atmosphere, greenery, and general sense of place. Atmosphere, Greenspace and Natural Environment Respondents rated Houston’s overall atmosphere positively (4.3/5), consistently praising its greenery, access to nature, and rural character. Greenspace and wider natural environment access were also highly rated (4.3/5 each), though disabled residents rated greenspace slightly lower (3.8/5), citing uneven paths and overgrown vegetation. Many comments stressed the importance of protecting greenbelt land and avoiding further encroachment on agricultural countryside. Specific areas repeatedly mentioned for enhancement or better stewardship included Ardgryffe Park, Craigends Woods, and the Gryffe Waterway, often with requests for improved paths, lighting, tree planting, and biodiversity measures. Several people suggested a new or upgraded country park connection via Bishopton/BAE (ROF) lands, emphasising the desire for more connected, high-quality natural landscapes. “Don’t build on any more green space.” “Make sure that all the current green space is left as green space and not available for developers.” “Much of the green areas through Craigends are cut grass and underutilised. These areas could easily be rewilded.” Movement, Safety and Connectivity Movement scores reveal a mixed picture: walking (3.9/5) and driving (4.2/5) were rated moderately well, but cycling rated poorly (3.2/5) and public transport was rated lowest (2.4/5, dropping to 2.0 for disabled respondents). Open comments consistently identified dangerous pavements, narrow verges, and speeding traffic as barriers to safe active travel, especially on key routes such as Barochan Road, Magnus Road, Houston Road (B790), and the route to Bridge of Weir and Bishopton. A major recurring theme was the lack of a safe, direct connection to National Cycle Route 75, and the absence of secure walking or cycling links to Johnstone, Linwood, St Benedict’s High School, and Gryffe High School. Areas around the River Inn crossing, St Fillan’s roundabout, and Fox & Hounds junction were repeatedly identified as unsafe for young people and pedestrians. Public transport was widely viewed as poor, especially connections to Paisley, Johnstone Station, and the Royal Alexandra Hospital. “There is no safe, direct access to the cycle path.” “The road from Houston to Johnstone is dangerous… walking there is taking your life in your hands.” “Crossing at the Fox and Hounds is dangerous.” “We need a safe cycle path from Houston to Bridge of Weir and to Linwood.” Play, Recreation and Community Facilities Residents rated play and recreation moderately (3.6/5), with many comments highlighting a shortage of facilities for older children and teenagers. Houston Park, Crosslee Park, and the Helicopter Park were repeatedly described as outdated, under-equipped, or in need of safety improvements. The youth session echoed this strongly, calling for skate parks, improved football pitches at Gryffe High, better equipment at Helicopter Park (e.g., trampolines and zip lines), and safer infrastructure around parks. The community expressed appreciation for groups like Bee Happy, Men’s Shed, and Scouts, but felt Houston lacks a central, non-pub social space; many referenced the loss or underuse of venues like the Village Hall and suggested cafés, youth hubs, or creative spaces. “Houston Park is outdated and needs more for older kids.” “Crosslee Park is on a main road, we need traffic lights or a zebra crossing.” “We are missing a really good café, bakery or delicatessen.” “There are lots of clubs but many meet in licensed premises which don’t suit everyone.” Housing Need, Appropriateness and Scale Housing was consistently rated poorly for affordability (2.7/5) and diversity (2.3/5), and many comments emphasised the need for small homes, flats, accessible housing, and downsizer options. The vast majority opposed new development on greenbelt land, arguing that population growth has already outpaced school and GP capacity. Repeatedly mentioned potential housing locations (in the minority of comments supporting limited, targeted development outwith central infill housing) include land south of Gryffe High, the rhubarb fields near Ardgryffe Crescent, land near Fulton Drive/ Craigends, and the Village Hall for retrofit. However, these were always framed as alternatives to greenfield development, and primarily for retirement, assisted living, or first-time buyer homes, not more large houses. “Stop building large family homes and consider sheltered housing.” “Houston badly needs smaller properties for downsizing and starter homes.” “Green belt should be saved at all costs.” Affordable housing and smaller homes... everything being built is 4–5 bedrooms.” 25 Page 137 of 280
Page 142
Local Economy, Services and Daily Life Respondents gave low scores for job opportunities and training for both under and over-25s (2.2–2.4/5), reflecting Houston’s limited local employment base and high reliance on commuting. Shopping and hospitality access scored around average (3.1/5), with frequent calls for a café, bakery, deli, or small shops, especially to reduce the reliance on pubs as the only local meeting spaces. Community life was rated relatively positively (3.6–3.7/5), but many said activities were hard to find and tended to cluster around churches or pubs, leaving gaps for families, young people, and non- drinkers. There were repeated references to the lack of services in the Crosslee area and the desire for more welcoming, multi- purpose spaces comparable to those in neighbouring towns. During the consultation process Bridge of Weir Community Council also identified the limited scope for economic development within Houston. With limited properties and land available for such development, but a relatively high population in comparison to neighbouring communities, this highlights the need for improved connectivity between Houston and neighbouring communities to support the economic development of the wider area by improving accessibility for the Houston population. There is scope for inter community working to drive projects which will enhance the whole area as a destination for leisure and tourism based around the wider community’s distinctive heritage. “Better access to doctors and dentists is desperately needed.” “We need a central café and better quality gym facilities.” “Lovely bars and restaurants but extremely overpriced compared to neighbouring villages.” “Public transport is a joke; people are forced to use cars.” Youth Engagement Young people in Houston highlighted safety, quality of parks, and the need for better places to be active and social as their biggest concerns. They stressed unsafe crossings near Crosslee Park and poor maintenance along Houston Road and Kirk Road, noting that overgrown hedges, damaged railings and narrow pavements make getting around feel unsafe. They also felt current parks are either outdated or poorly maintained, especially Houston Park, the Helicopter Park, and play areas around Gryffe High. They expressed enthusiasm for more imaginative outdoor spaces (i.e. fairy trails, stepping stones, trampolines, and ziplines) as well as practical improvements like resurfaced paths, repaired potholes, and more cycle routes. Across all discussions, they consistently emphasised missing opportunities for teen-friendly recreation, including a skate park, better football facilities at Gryffe High, and more reliable public transport to help them get to activities elsewhere. “There could be a community outdoor space with shelter.” “Make a fairy trail through the barley fields.” In the activities to locate and design a youth space, the following areas were selected: » Community Orchard west of Quarry Brae: this was seen as practical land far enough away from houses for noise but still safe and centrally located. » Helicopter Park: this was also seen as being in a good location to accommodate both noise and passive security, while also centrally located and doubled with park improvement investment. » Houston Park: positive comments were on the view and its sense of calm, and the vast amount of open space. » Woodland east of Quarry Brae: a less popular option, but was seen as a natural space nearby dwellings. In designing individual locations for their youth spaces, favoured locations were (in order of priority) Ardgryffe Park, Helicopter Park and the Community Orchard. The key elements which featured consistently in their individual spatial designs, and indicating their own priorities for youth and community space, were: » Inclusive, Accessible Spaces with paths and play areas that everyone can use, with smooth, wide routes for prams and wheelchairs, plenty of seating, and spaces that balance active play with quieter, calmer areas. » Play, Activity and Social Space with modern, varied equipment, sheltered places to gather, and upgraded parks that offer everything from active play and sport to informal performance and relaxed social time. » Nature, Biodiversity and Storytelling with playful natural features—trees, stepping stones, fairy trails and wildlife habitats—that create imaginative spaces rooted in local character. » Comfort, Safety and Maintenance with good lighting, secure crossings, tidy and well-kept surfaces, and facilities such as bins, toilets and water points that make outdoor areas welcoming and safe to use. » Connected, Active Travel Routes with wider paths, dedicated cycle provision, safer crossings and better links between parks, schools and neighbourhoods, supported by more reliable public transport. A selection of designs produced by the young people, and a map highlighting the areas they discussed, is presented on the following pages. The full set of youth designs is contained in Appendix 2. 26 Page 138 of 280
Page 143
27 Page 139 of 280
Page 144
Areas for potentional youth hub 1 Community orchard west of Quarry Brae 2 Helicopter Park 3 River Woodland east of Leeburn Gardens 4 Houston Park 5 Woodland east of Quarry Brae Areas that need specific improvement or have opportunity A Proper stepping stones over water so nobody falls and so it doesnt overflow B Crosslee Park is on a main road, make traffic lights or zebra crossing. Railings at Houston Road Main Road by the River Inn need upkeep. C Kirk Road hedges need cut and pavement needs improvement as it’s very bumpy and narrow. D Make a fairy trail to go through the barley fields E Wider footpath - only wide enough for one person and it’s right outside Gryffe High F Traffic lights needed G Zebra crossing needed for Gryffe pupils 28 Page 140 of 280
Page 145
29 Chapter 4: The Houston 2050 Local Place Plan Page 141 of 280
Page 146
4.1 The Vision for Houston 2050 In 2050, Houston will remain a distinctive, welcoming village - connected to nature, rich in heritage, strong in community spirit. Improvements in infrastructure, transport and housing will support residents and allow them to thrive. A green, safe and connected Houston will support walking and wheeling, protect green spaces and ensure services grow sustainably, celebrating what makes Houston special. The Houston 2050 Local Place Plan is based upon the aspirations, experiences and expectations of the local community who live and works within the area boundary. While there is an overarching Vision for Houston 2050, as summarised above, the Local Place Plan structures and builds depth into this through the telling of five Vision Stories. These Vision Stories organise aspirations and actions, and streamline routes forward within practical project themes. The five Vision Stories are as follows: Vision Story Four: Appropriate Housing at Appropriate Scales Future housing in the area needs to meet local needs (now and in the future) first, while protecting village character, conserving greenspace and ensuring growth is in proportion and commensurate to local liveability and infrastructure capacity. Vision Story Two: A Village in Relation with Nature Rather than just be in nature, Houston should be better connected to nature. Greenspaces should be safeguarded and diversified, river corridors and woodlands improved, play and leisure within the outdoors expanded, and biodiversity enhanced across the entire project area. Vision Story One: Safe, Practical and Low-Carbon Travel for Everyone Houston needs safer walking, wheeling and cycling routes throughout the village, and with improved public transport, better connecting it to neighbouring settlements and the wider active travel network. The area and its atmosphere should feel less like it’s made for cars, and instead for people. Vision Story Three: A Village with Community Life and Social Space The social landscape of Houston must be strengthened through supporting volunteer groups, improving the availability of gathering space, and enriching the everyday life of all residents, to make Houston a village to belong, stay in or return to. Vision Story Five: A Future with Resilience There are important foundations to get right for any future vision to be a success. Investment and better provision in key services is needed, along with sustainable improvements and maintenance to green and blue infrastructure for a confident, climate- resilient and adaptive future. 30 Page 142 of 280
Page 147
4.2 Vision Story One: Safe, Practical and Low-Carbon Travel for Everyone Vision Summary Houston needs safer walking, wheeling and cycling routes throughout the village, and with improved public transport, better connecting it to neighbouring settlements and the wider active travel network. The area and its atmosphere should feel less like it’s made for cars, and instead for people. What the Community Said... In a Nutshell Movement emerged as one of the strongest themes in the consultation. While people value Houston’s generally peaceful atmosphere, many described challenges in getting around safely and conveniently without a car. Public transport was consistently rated poorly, pavements were often described as narrow or overgrown, and several key road-crossing points were raised as unsafe, particularly for children and disabled residents. Cycling infrastructure was seen as fragmented, with no safe or direct routes to neighbouring settlements or to the national cycle network. Many residents explained that they would walk or cycle more if routes were better connected, wider, and protected from fast-moving traffic. Meanwhile, driving remains the easiest way to travel, yet congestion, speeding, poor road maintenance and increasingly frequent flooding on approach roads are all growing concerns. Across many responses, residents expressed a desire for Houston to become safer, better connected, and less car-dependent, with routes that enable people of all ages and abilities to move confidently around the village and reach nearby towns without relying on private vehicles. “Quality roads, pavements and cycle tracks are needed before cycling feels safe.” “Public transport in the area is a farce and forces people to use their cars.” “If people walked and cycled instead of driving, they would become better connected to nature.” General Aspirations 1. Safer streets for all ages, with slower traffic, better crossings and safe routes to schools, shops and parks. 2. Better pavements and paths, free of overgrowth and accessible for wheelchairs, prams and those with limited mobility. 3. A joined-up walking and cycling network that connects the whole village and links easily to the National Cycle Network and neighbouring towns. 4. A meaningful alternative to car dependency, with more reliable buses and safer options for everyday walking, cycling and wheeling. 5. Stronger connections to neighbouring towns for work, education, leisure and healthcare without needing to drive. 6. A reduction in speeding and road danger, especially on approach roads and around schools. 7. More attractive and climate-resilient travel routes, with improved lighting, better drainage and design that supports nature as well as people. 8. Travel choices that allow young people, older residents and disabled people to move independently, safely and confidently. Amendments to Planning Strategy [1A] - Establish a ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ style “active-travel- first” settlement strategy Make walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport the default basis for all future planning and development decisions Embed the 20-minute neighbourhood approach into the spatial strategy so new development strengthens local connectivity. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 13, Policy 14, Policy 15 • Renfrewshire LDP: Placemaking Policy, Sustainable Travel Policy • Renfrewshire Local Transport Strategy (LTS): Investment Hierarchy, 20mph Programme Basis for Amendment Residents consistently reported unsafe roads, poor public transport, and weak local connectivity, despite high satisfaction with the village atmosphere. With very low scores for public transport (2.4/5) and cycling (3.2/5), NPF4’s strong emphasis on climate-aligned settlement patterns, 20-minute neighbourhoods and the sustainable travel hierarchy provides a robust national rationale for shifting Houston’s LDP strategy away from car-led growth and towards compact, connected local living. [1B] - Safeguard and prioritise strategic active-travel corridors to Bridge of Weir, Johnstone, Linwood and NCN75 Identify and protect the main movement corridors linking Houston/Crosslee to neighbouring areas for future walking, wheeling and cycling upgrades. Regularly referenced routes include links to Bridge of Weir + NCN75, Johnstone / Johnstone Station, and Linwood via the B789. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 1, Policy 13, Policy 20 • Renfrewshire LDP: Green Network Policy, Infrastructure Delivery • Renfrewshire LTS: Strategic Active Travel Improvements Basis for Amendment These corridors were repeatedly identified as unsafe, incomplete or overly car- dominated, limiting access to jobs, healthcare and the wider transport network. NPF4 requires LDPs to plan for connected, low-carbon movement networks, and safeguarding these strategic alignments ensures Houston can deliver the regional links essential for reducing car dependency and improving everyday accessibility. [1C] - Designate and improve primary pedestrian spines within the village Identify key streets and paths where footways and crossings must meet higher standards for safety and accessibility. Areas most frequently highlighted include Main Street/Kirk Road, Magnus Road, the Crosslee–Houston corridor, and Old Bridge of Weir Road (specifically by young people). Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 13, Policy 14, Policy 21 • Renfrewshire LDP: Placemaking & Access Policies • Renfrewshire LTS: Safer Streets / 20mph Programme Basis for Amendment 31 Page 143 of 280
Page 148
Walking scored relatively well (3.9/5), but comments showed widespread problems—narrow pavements, poor lighting, overgrowth and unsafe crossings, especially for children and disabled residents. NPF4 mandates inclusive, walkable street design and requires places to support everyday activity. Formalising pedestrian spines provides a plan-led basis for directing developer contributions and prioritising Council investment. [1D] - Treat access to NCN75, the cycle track and Gryffe Valley paths as core green–blue infrastructure Elevate key access routes into the regional path and nature network to a protected status within the LDP. Priority areas include access to NCN75 at Crosslee Road, Craigends Woods paths, and the Lade Path between Houston and Bridge of Weir. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 3, Policy 20, Policy 21 • Renfrewshire LDP: Green Network Policy • Renfrewshire Community Plan: Access to Nature & Wellbeing Basis for Amendment Although greenspace access scored highly (4.3/5), residents stressed that the routes to these spaces are poor, unsafe or inaccessible. NPF4 treats green-blue networks as essential infrastructure, not amenity extras. Designating these access corridors gives statutory weight to their protection and improvement—critical for climate adaptation, biodiversity enhancement and safe everyday recreation. [1E] - Introduce a movement hierarchy and village-wide traffic-calming framework Embed a place-based approach to managing vehicle speeds, prioritising safety and reducing car dominance. Regular concerns focus on Barochan Road, Bridge of Weir Road, Main Street, and junctions at St Fillan’s roundabout and the Fox & Hounds. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 1, Policy 13, Policy 14 • Renfrewshire LTS: 20mph Streets, Safer Routes • Renfrewshire LDP: Placemaking & Sustainable Travel Basis for Amendment Speeding is one of the most frequently mentioned safety concerns, with many residents requesting village-wide 20mph and better crossing points. With NPF4 prioritising healthy, people-centred streets and reduced emissions from transport, an LDP-embedded traffic-calming framework strengthens the policy basis for future interventions and sets clear expectations for developers. [1F] - Strengthen public-transport safeguarding and long-term enhancement Protect land and corridors that support improved bus access and long-term rail potential. Repeated issues include poor services to Johnstone, Paisley/RAH, and dependence on the X7. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 13, Policy 15 • Renfrewshire LDP: Infrastructure Delivery & Connectivity • Renfrewshire LTS: Public Transport Improvement Basis for Amendment Public transport received the lowest rating in the entire survey (2.4/5, and 2/5 for disabled residents). Residents frequently described bus access as unreliable or impractical, limiting independence for young people, older residents and those without a car. NPF4 strengthens the requirement for public-transport-oriented settlement planning, and safeguarding corridors gives Houston the statutory footing to support future service improvements. [1G] - Require new development to be “car-lite by design” and contribute to active-travel and PT infrastructure Ensure all major development helps deliver the mapped walking, cycling and public- transport network. This applies particularly to edge-of-village or expansion sites where car-dependent layouts have previously dominated. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 13, Policy 14 • Renfrewshire LDP: Placemaking & Developer Contributions • Renfrewshire LTS: Reduce Need to Travel Strategy Basis for Amendment Residents were vocal about the cumulative impact of new housing on traffic, safety and accessibility, particularly without supporting travel infrastructure. NPF4 is explicit: development must demonstrably reduce emissions and support the sustainable travel hierarchy. Requiring contributions to the active-travel and PT network ensures new development supports community priorities and national climate obligations. Other Target Projects 1. An Improved ‘School Street’ Corridor on Old Bridge of Weir Road, with wider pavements, pedestrian crossings at the Main Street roundabout, and traffic lights at the High School. 2. A Houston–Bridge of Weir Active Travel Project as a collaborative project to fully resurface, widen and light the Lade Path, making it a safe all-weather commuter and leisure route. 3. Public Transport Improvements with a coordinated campaign for a direct bus to Paisley, improved evening/weekend services, reinstatement of links along Georgetown Road, and extension of X7 into key neighbourhoods. 4. Youth Mobility & Skills Initiative for programmes such as cycle proficiency, bike maintenance workshops, walking buses, and youth involvement in route audits. 5. Reopening or Reimagining Access to Houston House Grounds as a community engagement project with landowners to restore (or negotiate alternatives to) historic walking routes blocked in recent years. 6. Lighting & Safety Enhancements on Key Routes with targeted interventions (e.g. LEDs, sightline trimming, repairs) on River Gryffe paths, Crosslee-Houston links, bridge over Gryffe at Crosslee Park, Paths near Fox & Hounds intersection, local churches and St Fillan’s Roundabout. 7. Community Mobility Hub Feasibility Study exploring EV charging, shared bikes, e-bike hire, bike repair, cargo bikes, or local shuttle models to reduce car dependency. 32 Page 144 of 280
Page 149
Fulwood Moss Houston Wood Crosslee Strip Law Hill Bogston Hill Brierie Hill Linwood Moss B789 B790 Chapel Farm Steading West Yonderton Girthill Farm Gryffe Wraes Cottages Barfillan Farm Cleaves Farm Greenhill Farm Woodland Gardens Houston House Gryffe Wraes Turningshaw Farm Knowes Coalbog Kaimhill Farm Crosslea Farm The Stables North Mains Farm Cottages Loanhead Cottages Wester Fulwood Cottages Waterlea Farm South Mains Cottages Ardgryfe Manor Goldenlee Farm Lochermill Auchans Farm Barfillan Cottage Houstonhead Houston Crosslee East Fulton Craigends Bridge of Weir North Clippens 60 [1B] - B790 active travel corridor [1B] - Access to NCN75 [1B] - Access to Johnstone Station [1B] - Back route to Linwood [1B] - Future active travel corridor to ROF/Dargavel Park Priority active travel alignment Indicative active travel alignment Priority safe pedestrian alignment Key safety improvement needed School street alignment [1C] - Safe Main Street / Kirk Road Loop [1B] - Safer back route to B789 [1C] - Safer routes between Crosslee, Craigends and Houston Primary [1D] - Connection to NCN75 [1B] - B789 active travel corridor [1C] - School Street 33 Page 145 of 280
Page 150
4.3 Vision Story Two: A Village in Relation with Nature Vision Summary Rather than just be in nature, Houston should be better connected and have a richer holistic relationship with nature. Greenspaces should be safeguarded and diversified, river corridors and woodlands improved, play and leisure within the outdoors expanded, and biodiversity enhanced across the entire project area. What did the community say? Houston is well-served by greenery and surrounded by beautiful countryside, but there are concerns about biodiversity loss, poor maintenance of existing green areas, and a lack of diverse or inclusive spaces (particularly for teens, families without gardens, and disabled residents). Respondents strongly emphasised protecting greenbelt land from further development, improving access to riverside and woodland environments, upgrading tired parks, and increasing opportunities for community growing and rewilding. It was noted that green areas exist but are often fragmented, underutilised or poorly connected. Maintenance issues, such as overgrowth, invasive species, unsafe paths and limited accessibility, were repeatedly raised. Young residents asked for new forms of nature-play such as “a fairy trail through the barley fields,” and creative additions like a “ground trampoline or zip line,” reinforcing the desire for more diverse, imaginative and intergenerational green spaces. “Stop allowing building on green areas and cutting down trees.” “Much of the green areas are cut grass and they could be rewilded.” “Protect the green belt, it is what makes Houston special.” “Make a fairy trail through the barley fields.” General Aspirations 1. Protect all existing greenbelt and maintain a clear landscape buffer between Houston, Crosslee, Linwood and Bridge of Weir. 2. Improve the quality, safety and managed accessibility of all parks, woodlands, riverside paths and informal greenspaces. 3. Strengthen and prioritise biodiversity through tree planting, wildflower corridors, the restoration of degraded habitats, and sustainable and managed access for residents to natural sites. 4. Establish more inclusive, intergenerational outdoor play and leisure spaces, especially for older children and teenagers. 5. Create more community growing opportunities such as allotments, orchards and community gardens. 6. Improve access to the countryside through safe, visible, signposted and circular walking routes. 7. Enhance flood resilience through nature-based solutions, particularly along the River Gryffe. 8. Ensure that greenspace improvements consider disabled users, with clearer paths, resting points and reduced barriers. Amendments to Planning Strategy [2A] - Protect and consolidate the entire existing greenbelt around Houston and Crosslee Maintain and strengthen the green buffer between settlements; no new housing allocations on agricultural or surrounding open land. Ensure strong policy protection for the green edges between Houston– Bridge of Weir, Houston–Linwood/ Brookfield, and Houston–Inchinnan. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 1, Policy 3, Policy 8, Policy 14 • Renfrewshire LDP: Green Belt and Countryside policies Basis for Amendment The consultation showed overwhelming, repeated concern about loss of greenbelt, with hundreds of comments warning that further expansion would erode the character of Houston. Respondents repeatedly stated that green areas “are what make Houston special” and that “we do not want to become another Dargavel.” The volume of anti-development feedback was unmatched across the survey, making greenbelt protection one of the strongest community mandates in this Place Plan. [2B] - Designate a Connected Green Network linking parks, woodlands and the River Gryffe corridor Formalise a continuous greenspace system that secures habitat corridors and enables safe recreation. Designate connected corridors between Ardgryffe Park, Craigends Woods, the River Gryffe and the wider countryside to form a continuous multi-functional greenspace network, inclusive of the community orchard adjacent to Quarry Brae. Access to these sites must be managed and tempered with the prioritisation of biodiversity measures and wildlife wellbeing. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 3, Policy 6, Policy 8, Policy 9, Policy 11 • Renfrewshire Green Network Strategy Basis for Amendment Residents described existing greenspaces as fragmented and under-connected: “beautiful areas, but no safe way to reach them.” The River Gryffe corridor, Craigends Woods and Ardgryffe Park were repeatedly named as highly valued assets but difficult to navigate due to missing links, unclear routes, or unsafe road edges. Many called for “joined-up paths”, “circular walks”, and “better access to woodland and riverside areas.” Others highlighted the need for spaces that improve biodiversity and climate resilience, noting degrading woodland edges and the opportunity for wildlife corridors. [2C] - Improve and formalise key nature and walking routes, focusing on accessibility and safety where appropriate and ecologically safe Secure safe, all-weather paths including circular walks and connections between neighbourhoods and the countryside. Prioritise well-used and repeatedly mentioned routes at Lade Path, Craigends Woods and River Gryffe for targeted improvement, including surfacing, lighting, drainage and vegetation management. Access to Houstoun House grounds could be reinstated and improved, with agreement and engagement with property owners. Access to these sites must be managed and tempered with the 34 Page 146 of 280
Page 151
prioritisation of biodiversity measures and wildlife wellbeing. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 3, Policy 12, Policy 13, Policy 14 • Renfrewshire Outdoor Access Strategy Basis for Amendment The most common greenspace complaint was poor accessibility: overgrown paths, muddy surfaces, lack of lighting, and no safe off-road alternatives to narrow, fast- traffic routes. Many respondents (especially disabled residents) scored accessibility lower than the general population and highlighted barriers like steep steps, missing drop kerbs, and the inability to avoid busy roads to reach parks or countryside. The Lade Path, routes along the Gryffe and links through Craigends Woods were each repeatedly described as “impassable”, “overgrown”, or “unsafe for children.” The desire for safe, circular walking routes was one of the most frequently stated ambitions. [2D] - Require all new development to contribute to biodiversity enhancement and nature-based flood mitigation Embed tree planting, SuDS, riparian planting and habitat restoration as mandatory for any redevelopment. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 1, Policy 3, Policy 12 Basis for Amendment Respondents explicitly asked for nature- based solutions such as tree planting along the Gryffe, riparian restoration, and better management of stormwater. Many framed climate change impacts as already visible: “It floods constantly now”; “we need to protect the river corridor.” Calls for improved biodiversity were equally strong, with frequent suggestions for wildflower planting, rewilding of underused grass, and tree corridor creation. [2E] - Protect and reinstate former play spaces, prioritising provision for older children and teenagers Reinstate derelict or removed play spaces for reuse, and designate space for teen- appropriate outdoor activities. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 11, Policy 14 Basis for Amendment Respondents repeatedly mentioned the removal or dereliction of play spaces in Craigends and Oilfields, as well as a lack of facilities for older children. While Houston’s access to nature is good, its play provision scored only moderately (3.6/5), with many calling for reinstated or modernised spaces, sport facilities, pump tracks, and accessible play equipment. The repeated request to safeguard remaining greenspace specifically for play is a strong indicator of community priority. Other Target Projects 1. Community-Led Rewilding Programme with wildflower corridors, tree planting, riverbank restoration, and “adopt-a-plot” volunteer schemes. 2. A Houston Community Allotment or Growing Network, including orchard planting near schools or unused public land. 3. Ecological Survey And Woodland Restoration focused on Craigends Woods, river edges and other degraded natural areas. 4. Upgrade Of Existing Parks (Ardgryffe & Crosslee) with better play equipment, inclusive design for disabled children, enhanced landscaping, and outdoor gym extensions. 5. “Houston Nature Trails” Project for wayfinding, signage, interpretation boards on ecology and heritage. 6. A Community ‘Fairy Walk’ being established in an accessible and appropriate natural area. 7. Key Youth-Identified Safety Upgrades at Crosslee Park with pedestrians crossings. 35 Page 147 of 280
Page 152
Fulwood Moss Houston Wood Crosslee Strip Law Hill Bogston Hill Brierie Hill Linwood Moss B789 B790 Chapel Farm Steading West Yonderton Girthill Farm Gryffe Wraes Cottages Barfillan Farm Cleaves Farm Greenhill Farm Woodland Gardens Houston House Gryffe Wraes Turningshaw Farm Knowes Coalbog Kaimhill Farm Crosslea Farm The Stables North Mains Farm Cottages Loanhead Cottages Wester Fulwood Cottages Waterlea Farm South Mains Cottages Ardgryfe Manor Goldenlee Farm Lochermill Auchans Farm Barfillan Cottage Houstonhead Houston Crosslee East Fulton Craigends Bridge of Weir North Clippens 60 Key green network asset area Green network links (illustrative only, not walking routes) Priority walking route path Walking route path for improvement or reinstatement Outdoor leisure asset area Potential ‘fairy walk’ site Outdoor asset ideal for community expansion [2C] - Improved woodland access in consultation with owners [2C] - Lade Path walk [2E] - ‘Sledge Hill’ Park [2E] - Crosslee Park [2E] - Ardgryffe Park [2E] - Houston Park / Bogston Hill [2E] - South Street Playground [2C] - Community orchard site [2C] - River Gryffe walk [2B] - Connected Green Network 36 Page 148 of 280
Page 153
4.4 Vision Story Three: A Village with Community Life and Social Space Vision Summary The social landscape of Houston must be strengthened through supporting volunteer groups, improving the availability of gathering space, and enriching the everyday life of all residents, to make Houston a village to belong, stay in or return to. What did the community say? Houston has a strong sense of community spirit, supported by dedicated volunteers, active church groups and well-used pubs, but the range and distribution of social spaces is narrow, and much of everyday community life relies on a small number of venues. A major theme was the lack of neutral, indoor community spaces that are not tied to alcohol, faith groups, private membership or specific age groups. The closure of the Village Hall has left a noticeable gap, and some said the Carrick Centre, while valued, doesn’t cater for everyone. There is a strong desire for everyday, drop-in spaces, from cafés to flexible halls and shared social rooms. Many highlighted the opportunity to make better use of under-used buildings and public-realm pockets. The village core has most of the activity, while Craigends and Crosslee feel overlooked, with limited places to meet, limited youth facilities and very little indoor provision. This unevenness shapes where people can gather informally. There is also an absence of safe, indoor places for teenagers to socialise, particularly in winter evenings. This lack pushes young people to gather at shopfronts or informal hangouts. Young people emphasised the need for a youth-appropriate indoor space, noting that Crosslee and Craigends lack places to socialise that aren’t weather-dependent or adult-oriented. “We need more for teenagers and older children.” “There is no coffee shop and the village hall has been closed.” “Most places to meet are licensed premises, which don’t suit everyone.” General Aspirations 1. A village with inclusive, neutral, shared spaces, not only pubs or faith- based venues. 2. A stronger network of community facilities distributed across the settlement, including Craigends and Crosslee. 3. More informal meeting spaces: cafés, seating areas, small squares, and indoor social rooms. 4. Youth-friendly facilities: places to gather safely, especially in bad weather. 5. Support for community-led groups already operating within the area. 6. A community life that feels welcoming, connected and visible, not something accessed “only if you know where to look.” 7. Spaces and facilities that reflect Houston’s identity as a village with strong heritage and strong social bonds, not an overscaled commuter settlement. Amendments to Planning Strategy [3A] - Designate a Distributed Network of Local Community Hubs across Houston, Crosslee and Craigends Use the LDP to recognise multiple ‘local centres’ where social, cultural and community uses can cluster across the neighbourhoods throughout the area, reducing over-reliance on the village core and supporting everyday life across all neighbourhoods. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 6, Policy 27 • Renfrewshire LDP: Network of Centres Basis for Amendment Survey data shows that places to meet and gather received 3.7 stars, indicating reasonable provision but clear scope for improvement. Comments showed that most facilities are clustered in the village core, leaving Craigends and Crosslee under-served and reducing walkable access to social spaces. Consolidating multiple ‘local centres’ across the settlement would respond directly to this imbalance and meet NPF4’s ambition for 20-minute neighbourhoods. [3B] - Protect and Expand Multi- Use Community Facilities, Including Repurposing Underused Buildings Use the LDP to recognise multiple ‘local centres’ where social, cultural and community uses can cluster across the neighbourhoods throughout the area, reducing over-reliance on the village core and supporting everyday life across all neighbourhoods. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 9, Policy 15 • Renfrewshire LDP: Community Facilities Basis for Amendment While community activities scored 3.6 stars, residents stressed that space availability is a limiting factor. Strengthening and diversifying community-use spaces also directly supports households who rated health/leisure access just 3.1 stars, indicating gaps in accessible facilities for wellbeing and social connection. [3C] - Establish a Network of Everyday Social Spaces in Public Realm Locations Introduce policy support for formal and informal gathering places, including seating areas, small civic spaces, pocket parks and improved public realm around the village centre and Crosslee shops. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 6, Policy 8 • Renfrewshire Public Realm Strategy Basis for Amendment Although Houston’s general atmosphere scored 4.3 stars, this strong baseline masks the lack of small-scale social spaces, a gap reflected in comments calling for more benches, places to sit, and informal meeting areas. The average score for shopping and hospitality (3.1 stars) supports the need for well-designed public places that encourage people to linger locally rather than travel elsewhere. [3D] - Protect and Enable Indoor Social and Cultural Space for Teenagers and Young Adults Ensure the LDP encourages the creation of youth-friendly indoor space, either within other community initiatives, as standalone facilities, and as a key requirement in any new development schemes. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 4, Policy 14 • Renfrewshire Youth Strategy 37 Page 149 of 280
Page 154
Basis for Amendment Provision for play and recreation for young people scored 3.6 stars and comments consistently emphasised that teenagers have almost no indoor space. Young people currently spend time at shopfronts or informal spots that are not designed for this purpose, reflecting unmet need despite reasonable baseline ratings for younger children’s play. [3E] - Support Small-Scale, Low-Impact Commercial Uses that Strengthen Village Life Enable and eases change-of-use or planning for small commercial and social enterprises ( i.e. cafés and co-working space) within designated centres and neighbourhood hubs. Any new developments should contribute to this provision. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 6, Policy 27 • Renfrewshire Economic Development Strategy Basis for Amendment With shopping and hospitality scoring 3.1 stars, and numerous comments calling for more cafés, independent shops, and everyday services, there is support for enabling small commercial uses within neighbourhood centres. The lower 2.9- star rating among disabled respondents highlights accessibility and distribution issues that could be alleviated by more localised, walkable provision. NPF4 encourages such mixed-use and community-serving development in local centres, with modest-scale commercial spaces embedded in neighbourhood hubs. Other Target Projects 1. Creation of a community-led café or social enterprise hub as a welcoming, everyday meeting place offering low- cost food, social space and potential training or volunteer opportunities. 2. Commission an audit of potential assets for community use to identify potential buildings and sites across the wider area which could be considered for conversion, retrofit or rehabilitation for community use. 3. Youth club or youth-led indoor social space as a safe, warm and supervised venue where teenagers can meet, learn skills and participate in youth-designed activities. 4. Seasonal markets, art events, or shared-use programmes between church halls as regular community events that make better use of existing buildings and bring people together throughout the year. 5. A community-wide “What’s On in Houston” platform to reduce barriers to participation with a centralised calendar (online and physical) promoting local activities, clubs and opportunities to get involved. 6. Public seating programme with local sponsorship by adding benches, resting spots and social seating in key locations, potentially supported by local families or businesses. 38 Page 150 of 280
Page 155
Fulwood Moss Houston Wood Crosslee Strip Law Hill Bogston Hill Brierie Hill Linwood Moss B789 B790 Chapel Farm Steading West Yonderton Girthill Farm Gryffe Wraes Cottages Barfillan Farm Cleaves Farm Greenhill Farm Woodland Gardens Houston House Gryffe Wraes Turningshaw Farm Knowes Coalbog Kaimhill Farm Crosslea Farm The Stables North Mains Farm Cottages Loanhead Cottages Wester Fulwood Cottages Waterlea Farm South Mains Cottages Ardgryfe Manor Goldenlee Farm Lochermill Auchans Farm Barfillan Cottage Houstonhead Houston Crosslee East Fulton Craigends Bridge of Weir North Clippens 60 Neighbourhood centre zone Improved local links to neighbourhood centre Building for community use if vacant in future Public realm priority and improved youth gathering area Potential site for secondary community hub node [3B] - Old Smiddy [3A] - Houston Main Street [3C] - Houston Centre [3A/C] - Crosslee Shops [3A] - Craigends Local Strip and Park [3C/D] - ‘Sledge Hill’ Local Community and Youth Hub Node [3C/D] - Community orchard Community and Youth Hub Node [3D] - ‘Helicopter Park’ Community and Youth Hub Node 39 Page 151 of 280
Page 156
4.5 Vision Story Four: Appropriate Housing at Appropriate Scales Vision Summary Future housing in the area needs to meet local needs (now and in the future) first, while protecting village character, conserving greenspace and ensuring growth is in proportion and commensurate to local liveability and infrastructure capacity. What did the community say? Across the consultation, the community presented a strong assertion that large- scale growth is not appropriate for Houston. There was recognition, however, that targeted, small-scale, needs-led housing (particularly for older people and young adults) would help sustain the village long- term. Residents expressed strong concern about the impact of recent developments on roads, GP access, school capacity and the character of the village, with Housing ranked the lowest overall priority for further intervention, but still identified by many as an area needing better balance and diversity, not expansion. While opinions varied, several themes were consistently repeated: • A shortage of downsizing options, especially bungalows, small cottages, assisted living and retirement flats. • A lack of affordable starter homes, contributing to young people leaving the area. • A view that green belt should be protected and that any housing must fit within the existing settlement edge. • A desire to prioritise brownfield reuse, infill and the re-purposing of existing buildings before any new land release. • Very strong sentiment that public services cannot accommodate additional growth without prior investment. “Stop building big houses. Build a few retirement flats so older people can stay in the village.” “We need smaller affordable homes so young people don’t have to move away.” “Protect the green belt at all costs.” General Aspirations 1. Preserve the village scale, rural setting and separation between settlements by retaining the green belt as the default position. 2. Prioritise homes that meet locally demonstrated needs, particularly downsizing, assisted-living, smaller homes and options for young people 3. Enable ageing in place, allowing older residents to free up family homes while staying close to services, friends and support networks. 4. Support modest, design-led infill, renovation and reuse of existing buildings and homes over land release. 5. Ensure infrastructure and services are improved before any additional housing is considered. 6. Promote energy-efficient, low-carbon, accessible homes that reflect Houston’s vernacular architectural characteristics. Amendments to Planning Strategy [4A] - Prioritise small-scale, needs-led housing for downsizers and assisted living within the existing village footprints Focus future housing allocations on small, accessible units that allow older residents to remain locally, freeing larger family homes. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 4, Policy 9, Policy 16 • Renfrewshire LDP: Meeting Housing Needs, Green Belt Basis for Amendment Consultation responses overwhelmingly request downsizing and age-friendly housing, with many stating they cannot remain in Houston due to a lack of suitable homes. The low rating for diverse housing options (2.3/5) reinforces this need. NPF4 emphasises meeting local needs first, delivering accessible, smaller homes, and ensuring compact, low-carbon settlement patterns. [4B] - Protect the green belt and prevent ‘development creep’ merging Houston, Crosslee, Brookfield and Bridge of Weir Maintain clear settlement edges and resist proposals that would visually or physically merge Houston with neighbouring communities. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 8, Policy 3 • Renfrewshire LDP: Green Belt, Landscape Character Basis for Amendment The most common statement across all housing submissions was “No more housing” or “Protect the green belt.” Respondents strongly value the village setting and fear losing identity or green buffers. Greenspace was rated 4.3/5, and people wish to protect this strength. [4C] - Establish a ‘brownfield-first’ policy and a clear development hierarchy for the area Prioritise brownfield development sites, with a ‘retrofit > infill > edge-of-settlement’ decision gateway process of returning vacant or underused buildings and small sites to productive use before considering any outward expansion. Key areas are indicated on the map, however would require further consideration, particularly by Gryffe High School in relation to historic monuments. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 8, Policy 9 • Renfrewshire LDP: Meeting Housing Needs, Green Belt Basis for Amendment The consultation raised several candidates for re-purposing (namely the Old Smiddy and car park areas) and repeated preference for reuse over expansion. With housing appropriateness rated only 2.7/5, but resistance to new estates, the community clearly supports change via re-purposing. NPF4 gives strong weight to brownfield-first development and circular use of assets. [4D] - Prioritise modest, design-led infill in locations that are well-connected to shops, services and bus routes Ensure any small-scale housing integrates into the historical pattern and supports walkable neighbourhoods. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 15, Policy 14 • Renfrewshire LDP: Infill and Design Quality 40 Page 152 of 280
Page 157
Basis for Amendment Residents object to additional estates but recognise that small, sensitively designed central homes could meet real needs. [4E] - Introduce a requirement for all new homes to demonstrate low-carbon, energy-efficient design with minimal impact to existing landscape, services and infrastructure Ensure future homes reflect Houston’s character while embracing modern sustainability and climate-readiness. Any future housing must also comply with movement and active travel requirements outlined in Vision Story One Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 14 • Renfrewshire LDP: Infill and Design Quality Basis for Amendment Community respondents explicitly requested zero-carbon homes, passivhaus principles, and better water management. Other Target Projects 1. Commission an audit of potential assets for residential conversion, alongside or as an option in second preference to community use (see Target Project 2 in 3.5). 2. A joint campaign with Renfrewshire Council for GP and school capacity upgrades before accepting any new housing. 41 Page 153 of 280
Page 158
Fulwood Moss Houston Wood Crosslee Strip Law Hill Bogston Hill Brierie Hill Linwood Moss B789 B790 Chapel Farm Steading West Yonderton Girthill Farm Gryffe Wraes Cottages Barfillan Farm Cleaves Farm Greenhill Farm Woodland Gardens Houston House Gryffe Wraes Turningshaw Farm Knowes Coalbog Kaimhill Farm Crosslea Farm The Stables North Mains Farm Cottages Loanhead Cottages Wester Fulwood Cottages Waterlea Farm South Mains Cottages Ardgryfe Manor Goldenlee Farm Lochermill Auchans Farm Barfillan Cottage Houstonhead Houston Crosslee East Fulton Craigends Bridge of Weir North Clippens 60 Potential brownfield housing site outwith greenbelt Priority infill and retrofit zone Priority retrofit building if vacant in future Potential future housing site with future carpark disuse Housing in existing LDP only after smaller sites developed, and with upgrades to key services and infrastructure for increased resident capacity [4E] - Current LDP housing site [4C] - Old Smiddy [4D] - Infill Priority [4C] [4C] [4C] [4C] [4C] 42 Page 154 of 280
Page 159
4.6 Vision Story Five: A Future with Resilience Vision Summary There are important foundations to get right for any future vision to be a success. Investment and better provision in key services is needed, along with sustainable improvements and maintenance to green and blue infrastructure for a confident, climate-resilient and adaptive future. What did the community say? Houston’s residents desire their village to remain safe, well-maintained and environmentally responsible, which actively prepares for future challenges such as climate change, flooding, ageing infrastructure, and pressures on public services. Many community members highlighted worsening flood events, the strain on GP and school capacity, lack of support for older residents, and the need for better environmental stewardship beyond volunteer-led efforts. Concerns also emerged around the village becoming “overdeveloped”, with infrastructure unable to cope, and a wish for Houston to retain the qualities that make it feel secure and neighbourly. “Our GP surgery and schools are already at breaking point.” “The village looks fabulous. . . but only because of volunteers. . .” “We need better support for older people so they don’t have to leave the village.” “Keep our green space protected, this is why people want to live here.” “Flooding on roads leading in and out of Houston is a serious issue.” General Aspirations 1. Ensure Houston’s infrastructure and key services keep pace with population needs. 2. Safeguard green spaces, natural assets and biodiversity as part of climate adaptation. 3. Reduce flood risk through landscape- led solutions and better maintenance of watercourses. 4. Ensure older residents can remain in the village with appropriate housing and support. 5. Maintain and improve essential council services, from road sweeping to tree management. 6. Sustain the village’s sense of safety, low crime and overall quality of life. 7. Build long-term resilience into transport, energy, and environmental systems. 8. Strengthen the support for community groups while not relying solely on volunteer labour. 9. Support business, entrepreneurial talent and expertise providing training opportunities, networking and connectivity. Amendments to Planning Strategy [5A] - Requiring climate-adaptive design and nature-based solutions in all new development Future development must incorporate SuDS, tree planting, permeable surfaces, and design measures that reduce flood risk. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 2, Policy 6, Policy 20 Basis for Amendment Residents consistently raised concerns about flooding, overdevelopment and loss of tree cover, with multiple comments describing “roads becoming impassable after heavy rain,” fears about “future flooding along the Gryffe,” and repeated requests to “stop building on green areas and cutting down trees.” [5B] - Limiting development that increases pressure on already overstretched schools and healthcare New housing should only proceed where demonstrably matched with expanded or improved public services. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 9, Policy 27 Basis for Amendment Survey scores showed low satisfaction with access to healthcare (3.1/5), job opportunities, and skills training, all indicating existing pressure already on local services without pipelined development sites in the existing LDP. Many comments described the GP practice and schools as “at capacity” or “overwhelmed”. [5C] - Embedding maintenance and stewardship obligations in development proposals Require long-term management plans for paths, landscapes, drainage features, and public spaces in new schemes. Relevant Policies • NPF4: Policy 6, Policy 15 Basis for Amendment While Houston’s general atmosphere scored highly (4.3 stars for noise, cleanliness, greenery and safety), this positive baseline is fragile and heavily dependent on volunteer labour rather than formal maintenance. Numerous free-text responses emphasised poor upkeep of overgrown paths, unmanaged vegetation, deteriorating pavements, flooding on approach roads, and lack of road sweeping. Residents repeatedly noted that many local parks, paths, and green corridors are maintained “by volunteers, not the council,” signalling community concern that without structured stewardship obligations on developers, future green and active travel infrastructure may decline. Other Target Projects 1. Commission Audit of Surface Flooding on Approach Roads to lobby drainage and/or road improvements. 2. Houston Resilience Working Group to coordinate climate adaptation, drainage issues, and environmental improvements. 3. Community Energy or Heat Network feasibility study exploring wind, solar, heat pumps or shared systems with potential community benefit contributions. 4. Tree-planting and woodland restoration programme with local schools, farms and estates. 5. Volunteer resource centre supporting groups such as the Community Council, Bee Happy, Men’s Shed, Scouts and environmental groups. 6. Health & Wellbeing engagement with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to address GP and mental health access issues. 43 Page 155 of 280
Page 160
Appendices 44 Page 156 of 280
Page 161
Demographic Data 1. What is your relationship to the area defined as ‘Houston’ on this map? 2. What best describes your gender? 3. What is your age group? 4. What best describes your ethnic group? 5. Do you have a physical disability that impacts your ability to move around (to any degree)? 6. Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more? 7. How did you find out about this survey? Appendix 1: Public Survey Results I live in this Houston Area 94% 14% 14% 12% 3% 3% 3% 1% I work in this Houston area I regularly visit friends or family in this Houston area I regularly visit this area for business, leisure or other activities I own a business in this Houston area I go to school in this Houston area I live in the surrounding wider area I have no relationship with or rarely am in the defined area 32% 25% 10% 7% 4% 3% 3% A promotional flyer delivered to my address A post shared in an online community group etc. An online advertisement A promotional flyer handed to me by a community member A promotional flyer at a venue A poster in up in Houston Word of mouth 1% 2% 8% 17% 16% 24% 29% 3% Under 16 16 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 55 56 - 65 66 and over Prefer not to say 84% 10% 2% 1% White Scottish White Other British Prefer not to say Any other White Background 0% White Polish, Black Scottish, Any other Black background, East Asian Scottish, Any other East Asian background, Scottish Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi, Any other Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi background, Arabic Scottish, Any other Arabic background. 93% 4% 3% No Yes Prefer not to say 83% 13% 4% No Yes Prefer not to say 61% 36% 2% Woman Man Prefer not to say 0% Trans woman, Trans man, Non-binary. Map used for reference of ‘Houston area’ in Question 1. 45 Page 157 of 280
Page 162
Part One: General Thoughts on Houston Theme One: General Atmosphere 1. How would you rate the general atmosphere of Houston (i.e. noise, congestion, litter, greenery and sense of safety)? Theme Two: Moving Around 2. How would you rate moving around Houston as a pedestrian? 3. How would you rate moving around Houston on a bicycle? 4. How would you rate moving around Houston with your own vehicle? 5. How would you rate moving around Houston using public transport? 6. How would you rate Houston’s connectivity to neighbouring areas? 7. Do you have any quick thoughts on Theme Two: Moving Around? » Need better public transport links » Safe cycling routes are needed. Pavements on main routes impacted by narrow walkway due to hedgerows. » Better bus service would be good. » Very bad driving at school pick up and drop off causing danger to cyclists and pedestrians. Avoid these times » Need more frequent and reliable public transport. This would limit car use and resulting pollution. Re opening a rail link would be the ultimate achievement for public transport. » For the size of the village, traffic is far to heavy and increasing. Noise from excessive speeding and loud exhausts is a big issue » It is relatively easy to get from one area of Houston to another by knowing the path network. Getting out of Houston be any other means than car is very limited » As I get older I would not stay in Houston as it’s too difficult to get to amenities without a car or good mobility. » Moving around in vehicles is too easy. There is not enough deterents to slow down traffic in areas busy with children such as main street and Magnis road where vehicles travel far to fast. » Almost non existent connection to Johnstone station » Ok if you have a car. I worry about how I will get around if I have to stop driving. » Certain areas of the town lack a bus stop and certain areas lack a crossing, more zebra crossing or traffic lights would help, particularly along the Houston Rd, more frequent busses to Johnstone train station would help as well » Bus service should connect to Paisley and other villages » There is a lack of connection between different parts of Houston and neighbouring areas. This is particularly difficult for cyclists who must use very congested B class roads. » Roadworks on certain roads - e.g. river Inn - can create significant congestion and issues. There are far too many private cars being drive to and from school in the morning. There needs to be greater encouragement or even dictation that walking, cyc!ing, buses into these areas are the only option. Houston is not that big that able bodied children require driven to school. » The funding for bus travel is poor, especially to nearby towns like Paisley and Johnstone. Certain roads have very thin pavements unsuitable for walking. » Poorly connected to national cycle network, poor bus connections, overly reliant on private car ownership. Key active travel connections missing and quality footpath network (See Connecting Houston Study 2023) » There is no cycle lane that connects houston to bridge of weir or houston to inchinnin to the cycle routes » Bus links are very bad can’t get to paisley from Houston. » Need safer connectivity to cycle track. Regularly have to walk my kids when younger to the start of Crosslee Road before getting on bikes. » Pavements are terrible , overgrown hedges from private properties on main street is shocking meaning having to go on the road sometimes if passing others or with pram. The pavements aren’t wide enough if hedges are overgrown (barrfield ) » Extend X7 bus route to include more of the village » Dreadful pavements to johnstone and linwood » Public transport links to the local train station is poor. » Public transport is not good. » Public transport is shocking, not everyone drives and the buses can be unreliable » No direct transport to Johnstone, car required » A lot of traffic for a small village and surrounding areas » Buses to Glasgow are great, but there could be more buses to different places. » Limited public transport » Shortage of pedestrian crossings » Safe cycle route to bridge of weir and inchinnan » Buse service terrible » Woeful public transport » Walk around the village, alot of paths could do with being cleared of overgrown plants and resurfacing for use with a buggy » Very poor connections to Paisley. No train also. » Reopening Kilmacolm branch line would 4.3 Stars Majority: 4 stars (51%) 1 2 3 4 5 2.8 Stars Majority: 3 stars (29%) 1 2 3 4 5 3.9 Stars Majority: 4 stars (43%) 1 2 3 4 5 3.2 Stars Majority: 3 stars (34%) 1 2 3 4 5 4.2 Stars Majority: 4 stars (44%) 1 2 3 4 5 2.4 Stars Majority: 2 stars (31%) Demographic trend: disabled respondents rated 2.0 Stars 1 2 3 4 5 46 Page 158 of 280
Page 163
improve links » This question is irrelevant » Improve pavements. Develop cycle paths. Provide a user friendly bus service. » Very poor bus service » Safer cycle routes are required. I am not at all confident cycling on the road given the speed cars drive at. Adding speed bumps is not the solution » totally dependent on public transport and drivers of all transport behaving within the highway code. » The roads in Houston and surrounding villages were not built for the volume of traffic we now have. Too many new houses are being built. » Roads are not fit for purpose » Fine if you drive but poor if relying on public transport. This is an issue for elderly and staffing at my business » No decent public transport links » Public transport very poor except bus link to Glasgow » For the pensioners, a regular mini bus to either take to bus stop or better still to the local supermarket....they will then have a little independence. » I would love to see more cycle paths and reduce the number of cars going to the schools. With good cycle and pedestrian paths, we don’t need cars driving about Houston. Also I’d like to see a one way system in the village or even ban cars » Bus service is very limited in terms of areas accessible directly from Houston without having to change buses. » Need more crossing places on main road. Paths getting increasingly overgrown with nettles and himalayain balsam » Bus service to Johnstone/Paisley terrible » Lack of local bus services » Better bus links between Houston and Paisley and Houston and Johnstone Station would be helpful. » Better public transport » Public transport is very limited. » Some areas have no paths for families to walk on, no points to cross busy roads and over grown paths that prama can’t get passed. Very difficult to walk to parks with no path to walk on! » Pavement and crossing required on bridge of weir Rd which is habitually used by schoolchildren from Gryffe High. » Getting to and from cycle track difficult. Terrible congestion st school times and if there is road closures or accidents. Ability to get to Johnstone on public transport poor. » Not enough public transport to Johnstone and none to Paisley directly » No direct bus service to Paisley » Houston needs cycle tracks and options for pedestrians » Shuttle bus to/from train station would be very useful. » The area is very geared to the car and could be better serviced for other users. Public transport is a joke. » There is a lack of public transport. In order to visit Paisley you need 2 buses, one to Johnstone then onto Paisley. The X7 provides a reasonable service but at times of the day there are gaps if travelling to Braehead. No public transport in the other direction ie Port Glasgow. Again limited timetable. » Pedestrians and cyclsts are put at uneccessary risk due to Renfrewshire Council’s repeated delays to implement 20 mph speed limits. Public transport to Johnstone, Paisley, Inchinnan is very poor, especially to Royal Alexandra Hospital. » A 20mph zone will protect our most vulnerable road users, including children, pedestrians and cyclists, and significantly decrease the risk of being injured in a collision. » AS A PEDESTRIAN, MY CONCERN IS THAT CARS DRIVE TOO FAST IN SEVERAL AREAS OF THE VILLAGE. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE TRAFFIC CONTROL TO PREVENT A SERIOUS ACCIDENT ESPECIALLY WITH CHILDREN » Bus services poor, train station too far away. No easy access to cycle tracks. » Too much traffic, paths becoming overgrown » Better pavements & designated walking routes to connect other villages like Bishopton, Dargavel & Langbank » More need to be done to address the speeding issue in Houston - increasingly noticing speeding at all times of the day and there’s no consequence for drivers » Limited public bus services. » The pavements are not good for walking/cycling. Especially for walking to school where woods are only options. » I use a car and think the road system is good » Pathways are overgrown and very narrow in many parts of Houston, hopeless for navigating with young children, prams or any wheelchair or mobility accessories. » The pavements are in a shocking state of repair. This is egregious negligence by the Council, and a health and safety hazard. I ahve trpeed up and hurt myself runnign on the village pavements. I ran on the road instead and a driver shouted and beeped their horn, trying to run me off the road. The council has spent money on an underused cycle path aroudn the airport, at tax payers expense, and entirely neglected Houston village pavements. This is irresponsible management of tax payers money, and the Council should be taken to task over this. The volum of cars in and around Houston due to recent over development of new housing is also an egregious error of irresponsibility, the centre of Houston village is now virtuall a narrow one way street, and the surrounding country lanes are dangerous with too much traffic, travelling too fast. The proposed housing scheme near the cenotpah, and further development by Capper Enterprises is shocking, and there I believe there may be an issue around corruption within the Council, which is allowing unchecked development. » Bus service to Paisley may be desirable for some » Able to get to school, bu not a warhammer shop (there isn’t one) » ANSWERED TO ALLOW US TO PROGRESS BUT QUESTIONS NOT RELEVNT TO NON RESIDEN » It’s fairly easy to glasgow, although the last bust home is 10.30 which is a bite at.y for a night out. It is more difficult to get to Johnstone, and you can’t get to Paisley without changing buses » Need traffic calming near schools » I would love to see a safe connection to the cycle route between Johnstone/ Paisley and Bridge of Weir. I know there are roads, but they’re narrow and I would 47 Page 159 of 280
Page 164
not feel safe cycling there with children on bikes. A bus to Paisley would be good. » A direct link to cycle path would be great. A crossing/ suitable pavement at back entrance to gryffe high school to allow easier access to primary school/ back o hill area. » Limited public transport - sone drivers exceed speed limits thus putting pedestrians at risk » Problems with walking and driving are caused by the large number of cars driving far too fast. Particularly in the village itself. Bus transport doesn’t run often enough. » We need routes that are not on or beside main roads » Challenging traffic around schools, busy main road, poor access to bike track » Need walkways away from or at least screened from roads. Need dedicated safe cycle routes. Need traffic to drive safer and slower and more people to walk instead of using their cars for short journeys. Need pavement ban to be enforced and dogs kept under control and On leads in public spaces. » Very poor public transport options, Barochan road unsafe for bikes and Barochan road footpath hedges not cut back making difficult for walking » The inevitable result of fifty years of car- centric design (or no design) is fat people driving half a mile to drop fat kids off at school. » Highly caring dominated. I like to cycle or use the bus for local travel but this is problematic » Kirk Road gets blocked when something on at Houston and Killellan Kirk. No public transport to Paisley where the banks are. » There are still some areas that are not pedestrian friendly but on the whole it is pretty accessible. We could have more bus route options in an ideal world but I recognise the financial challenges of this. » No bus links to johnstone station, busy routes for children on bikes, busy roads for children to cross without adequate crossings, particularly for the school routes » Too many houses for the roads » No direct connection to Paisley or Renfrew » More frequent bus service, direct bus to Paisley » Better public transport » New housing estates don’t seem to have pavements all the way through. Public transport connections are very limited and awkward. » Roads too busy and surface poor » Train station would be great » Lack of railway line and bus services. Cycle track not connected safely to Houston » Need to be better pedestrian connectivity along to Georgetown road and better transport to glasgow airport, paisley and Johnston train stations » Regularly use bus to Glasgow and Braehead, it’s often standing room only, one per hour, limited evening service. This could be developed. The hedges need cut back, it feels unsafe for pedestrians (as a pedestrian and driver) when the already narrow footpaths mean people having to walk too close to road in single file. A shuttle bus between johnstone station and Houston village would be great. » Pavements could be wider & cars are driving too fast » Poor public transport links » No train station is a big drawback. Proper cycle lanes would be good. » There are no reliable forms of transport to promptly to the next town. We don’t have any direct bus service to Paisley or the nearest hospital - RAH. The bus service to Glasgow has been reduced to the point where it’s better to drive to Johnstone and get a train. » A direct bus service to RAH would be useful » Terrible public transport » Reduce speed limits » I do not have a vehicle so mainly walk but I really like the informal network of paths around Houston and would hate to see these formalised into gravel or tarmac paths. » Public transport not great » Little public transport » No. » Transport links in and out of Houston are terrible. » Safer cycle routes. Reduce speed limit to 20 for motor vehicles. » Pavements seem to end rather abruptly for no reason. In some areas it is not remotely safe to walk on the road. » Community Council progressing “connecting houston” plan. » roads can get very congested when schools finish. could be better paths for pedestrians in the craigends area; connecting to ardgryffe and linwood. better car parks; the coops one is awful, the bowling club needs better parking as all the cars block the way to fleming road and houstonfield quadrant » Poor transport routes which make it difficult for you be people and non drivers. » All areas could improve but mainly walking, wheeling and public transport. » The local bus service needs to be improved. It takes three buses to get to the RAH in Paisley. Cyclists really need to be more considerate when cycling all around the roads in & out of the village. Cycling two & three abreast really isn’t fair on all other road users. » Cycle path extension and better bus routes » Bus service locally could be better. » Traffic and tractors travelling far too fast through Houston especially Main Street and Old Bridge of Weir Road » Roads unsuitable and dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. » Direct bus to Paisley should be reinstated » The roads and pavements could be improved and the bus service is poor. i have no knowledge of the bicycle related question » More bus routes » Poor local connectivity » I think that pavements and public transport are very well managed in Houston, but a lot of areas quickly become overgrown. » Poor bus service » There is a severe lack of bus services. No bus to Paisley where I work. » The conditions of the pavements is 48 Page 160 of 280
Page 165
extremely poor for wheelchair users- there is a lack of safe drop kerbs and road crossings. » Lack of footpaths and the ones we have are dangerous as I broke my arm as the footpath uneven. » Better bus service » Public transport is limited with poor access to Paisley Theme Three: Greenspace and nature 8. How would you rate Houston’s access to greenspace (i.e. parks, community gardens etc.)? 9. How would you rate Houston’s access to the wider natural environment (i.e. countryside, country parks etc.)? 10. Do you have any quick thoughts on Theme Three: Greenspace and Nature? » Community garden/allotments would be good » Our farmland and village green areas need strong protection from housing. » Protect these areas before they get built on » Proposed solar farm being built on productive agricultural land(cereals).tive farming land (cereala) other fields would seem to me far more appropriate invited of » Would be devastating to lose any more green space. It would ruin what Houston is » Access to green spaces has diminished over the years with more housing developments so I would strongly oppose any further development. » The greens pace is central to Houston’s identity » The pockets of woodland throughout the area could be better maintained. Pathways through these wounds could also be maintained to encourage walkers. These woodlands are a community asset and should not be left to deteriorate » Looking at the map provided of the wider Houston area you can see where we live in the village is fairly disconnected from the countryside and woodland areas. We walk & cycle occasionally in Wraes Wood, or explore the old ruined Killalan church, but it is not easy to access, and lacks clear waymarkers. Word of mouth is how I have discovered most of these over the years. » Efforts should be made to maintain access and green space, once it’s gone you will not get the space back » Much more could be done for biodiversity and for green transport » Houston has good green spaces but there is room for improvement and better use of some areas. » Keep the green spaces/borders between Houston and other towns and villages. There will soon be nothing more than a dotted line between Houston and BoW, Linwood, Johnstone. Our footprint requires protection from housebuilders. » We need to take control of the woods and crest proper paths » Certain areas near Fulton Drive have a limited access to the countryside compared to the rest of Houston. » Significant pressure on local greenspaces over the last 15 years. Good countryside but poor access and information on what could be explored ( not open to the public ... privately owned) Given climate change there is an opportunity to explore further biodiversification, core path development, tree planting opportunities particularly between Houston and Dargaval and also on the river valleys. » Beautiful place to live and why I moved here for the village and natural surroundings » With the amount of houses being built there will be no green belt shortly » Too many houses in area, overcrowded » Lack of kids play parks in oil fields / craigends area of houston. Also, the football facilities are very poor, no investment in area, whilst Linwood had a state of art facility. Houston United still need to manually setup goals for each game. » There is so much space and walking paths. I love that about the village. » Stop building housing on woodland and open fields » Stop building new houses taking away green space » Needs to be maintained and kept clean » Doesn’t need change of any sort » Need to adopt tree management to improve and maintain our green areas. » Could do with more trees » One of the best things about Houston is the green space and country feel » There is a risk that our greenspace will be filled with new builds. » Greenspace is being taken over to build more houses in an already overcrowded village » The options we have are deteriorating as more land is being used for new builds » T he erdcc c won’t be any left if houses continue to be built » The parks are often empty and could be used more. Not sure why children aren’t using them more. » Obviously surrounded by countryside, but would benefit from more signage so that people can access walks. » It wood be nice to have more seating in wooded areas etc » We need to have more protected green spaces and not have excessive house building destroying these green spaces. » Park required within oilfields. » No parks for children in Craigends area. Have to drive there with younger children. » Rural areas are underused » Council cutting of grassy areas in Craigburn area is appalling and messy. » Sitting in a rural area is lovely but facilities in green spaces could be better. » There have been fantastic playoark additions around Houston but none around the Craigburn/Hillside area, thus disadvantaging children from that area. Actually all the Gryffebank/wood area have no play parks. » There should be a 30 mph speed limit on the local Leisure Trails » N/A 4.3 Stars Majority: 5 stars (50%) Demographic trend: disabled respondents rated 3.8 stars 1 2 3 4 5 4.3 Stars Majority: 5 stars (53%) 1 2 3 4 5 49 Page 161 of 280
Page 166
» Access to local greenspace only. » Lack of direction signs to these types of areas. » We dontl need more green spae, we just need less development. » Enough greenspace, not enough warhammer shops » I think we are extremely lucky with access to lovely green spaces. I would like to see more fruit trees and also areas left to be overgrown to support insects/ birds. » The greens pace is one of the main reasons we love living here. We partake in countryside hobbies which would not be possible should more houses be built on the fields. » Opportunities exist to provide better footpaths to take pedestrians off busy highways » Hope the green spaces continue » Nice rural environments and setting with tremendous help from the Bee Happy tram » Need to preserve our green spaces, parks and woodland and make sure dogs are kept under control and On leads in these areas to make them accessible and safe for all » The access on foot to nature is great and one of the main attractions of living here » Houston has some nice green space, but the wooded areas are over used. The parks are mostly grass “deserts” and it lacks community gardens, apart from the orchard. Houston is in close proximity to lots of lovely places but cycling access is limited and you probably need a car. » This is reasonable for now but is threatened by excessive building on the green space. » Great parks, but safe walking or cycle access could be improved » We keep destroying local green space for new estates and it ruins the village and country feel » No further residential developments should be permitted » Houston has amazing green spaces and I worry that more houses will be built and destroy these beautiful areas. » Love the greenery and nature all around Houston. Really value the community orchard. Concerned that green belt land could be reclassified/built on. » Local walks from your door to green spaces are not commonly known or promoted. » Bee Happy Houston are phenomenal. » Too much green space has been given over to housing » Keep as much as possible » The country feel is a major attraction. We need to maintain that and limit greenfield building. » We are very lucky but need to understand how to use rural areas responsibly. Peri-urban interface is difficult for farmers/rural businesses. » I really like the informal network of paths around Houston and would hate to see these formalised into gravel or tarmac paths. » Public travel from Houston poor » No. » Allotments and or community garden would be a good addition. » There is plenty green space but could be better maintained and utilised. » Housebuilding needs to be pulled back as the roads, sewage & infrastructure of the village cannot continue to have its boundaries pushed beyond the limit. » None of the parks are well maintained, no grass cutting etc » The existing greenspace is good and well maintained. Any more house building in the area will impact this dramatically. » None » More could be made of Houston’s open spaces » I think that the access to local parks is good, and there are many wooded areas to explore. » We have some lovely green spaces but they are becoming smaller due to continued, unwanted, housing developments. » Limited public transport for local areas Theme Four: Wellbeing and Services 11. How would you rate Houston’s provision and access to play and recreation for young people? 12. How would you rate Houston’s provision and access to health and leisure facilities? 13. How would you rate Houston’s provision and access to shopping and hospitality? 14. Do you have any quick thoughts on Theme Four: Wellbeing and Services? » What is available here reflects the village atmosphere » Need more health care services esp Doctors. » A local butcher/ , there are probably enough small shops where you can get essentials.. » Provisions by Renfrewshire council are dreadful » There is decent provision for a village our size but due to poor connectivity, more limited access in the wider area. You really need to drive to access things. » If you arent in the center of the village shopping and hospitality is quite far away. » Strathgryffe tennis club is a great resource. Most other options involve leaving Houston e.g. One Ren swimming at On-X or Johnstone. A car is mostly needed to access these. » Better links to BoW / Linwood would solve the majority of the shopping issues » There is green space which helps with well being but gyms are limited and shops is somewhat limited » Recent efforts have been by community council and volunteer groups to improve play areas and provide outdoor gym equipment but it is not readily accessible to everyone in the area. » The parks are ultimately poor. There is fairly a football pitch to play on and the only option for adults is the private tennis club. All other local facilities need driven to. » We need a proper gym with PT and spa » Houston doesn’t really need to be a 3.6 Stars Majority: 4 stars (39%) 1 2 3 4 5 3.1 Stars Majority: 3 stars (37%) 1 2 3 4 5 3.3 Stars Majority: 4 stars (33%) Demographic trend: disabled respondents rated 2.9 stars 1 2 3 4 5 50 Page 162 of 280
Page 167
place full of shops and eateries. But more local shops instead of big name stores would be nice. » Facilities are too spread out - sports cluster at Ardgryffe which is very car centric due to lack of footpath network, ‘Health Cluster ‘ on Kirk Road, again car oriented. Crosslee Shops.. tired requires a refresh, public realm improvement, EV Charding, disabled parking and investment like Dargaval Village shops. » There is not enough walking paths to get around and most of the paths have been overgrown with weeds which leads to grass verges which you cant walk on » Under 5s have play parks but older children have very little to do. » The village has enough shops , pubs so those facilities are very good » There’s lots for younger children but not do much for teens. » Plenty of access to hospitality not so much for stopping. » Not much for young people » We need more areas for sports, compared to other less affluent areas we really fall down in this area » Public would benefit from Community Council thoughts and actions i.e.the council do great things but unless you are ‘into’ this type of thing the residents would be surprised at how much they should realise if there was more interaction e.g. member surgeries or similar. » Limited play spaces and playgrounds for kids living in Craigends area. » We don’t need any further changes we have not asked for. Building continues despite opposition as somewhere palms are greased and favours made by persons who do not care about or village. » Need to split out shopping and hospitality. Great pubs etc but only 2 shops. » Acecess to shopping is abysmal » Plenty for young children. Local council run leisure facilities are dire » Provided you have transport and money, there are many sporting clubs available here and in the surrounding villages. » Local shop is excellent. Should be supported more. » I would include Medical Practice, Dentistry in this and at the moment a nightmare to get an appointment at the surgery, schools filled to capacity with a lot not coming from the area, so surely first thoughts should be schooling, surgery » It would be great of it was easier to cycle to the Onyx in Linwood. I would not cycle on the roads around the area. » More provision for older children would be beneficial. Leisure facilities very limited apart from tennis & bowls. » Could do without a 3 mile walk to the Co-Op and back. All the shops/pubs concentrated in one area. » Houston could do with a better gym, swimming pool and a better variety of shops. We could do with a refill shop - please see https://www.tgchoice.co.uk/ » Need more local shops, more local cafes, not very thriving apart from a couple of pubs » Park required in oilfields. » Have to drive to local leisure facilities mostly. Shopping non existent except food but again have to drive from Craigends or get transport. » Not enough swing parks in craigends as taken them away and more children in this area than ever » It would be great to see more local shops in the village but recognise that they would need to be supported by the local community » More doctors required at the local surgery. » All areas could be improved. » Hopitality is good, shopping is OK. The loss of the post office was a blow. Current provision is inadequate » Hospitality good , shops poor. » There are health & well being facilities but location necessitates the use of a vehicle to get there » Limited health facilities and the nearest I’m aware of is Onyx Linwood. More facilities could be made available for young adults (play parks are for younger children - what about teens?). Seeing an increasing number of young adults hang about around the coop area and littering - can we provide them with access to amenities that will actually be fun and safe for them » Public transport to other than Glasgow Braehead is virtually non existent despite proximity of Johnstone and Paisley and the essential services there. Not sure hospitality and shopping should be crack » Needs a local health centre covering Doctor, Dentist, Pharmacy, and ancillary professions with large car parking facilities » More varied shops » Strathgryffe Medical centre leaves a lot to be desired. Not as it used to be. » The parks are fantastic for younger children but nothing for youths and teenagers » We dontl want more development. If people cannot manage life in a country village, then don’t move here! We don’t wan commercialisation, gyms, shopping malls, playgrounds and so forth. Go back to the city/towns if that is what you want! » There should be a warhammer shop built » ANSWERED TO ALLOW US TO PROGRESS BUT QUESTIONS NOT RELEVNT TO NON RESIDEN » We’ve got play parks, Co-op stocks basic groceries. I will miss the Coop when it changes to Sainsbury’s... » Hospitality is good via the pubs. Shopping is marginal » A coffee shop cafe at co-op area would be beneficial for craigend/crosslee residents. Ideal for parents after/before schooldrop off etc » Houston could use a good cafe that has easy access. » Private clubs provide tennis and bowling facilities » There is not much in the way of small premises provisionfor small businesses. For example when Sainsbury’s opens up the Whispers Chinese takeaway has no alternative option for a new premises in Houston ay » Need smaller units to provide takeaway food options. We will be losing our Chinese takeaway » I would love to see community growing areas and allotments. Compared to other areas in Renfrewshire eg Glenburn/ Erskine Houston does not have this and I feel this would be a great way to include 51 Page 163 of 280
Page 168
the community in sustainability » Original modern (>1973) developments provided outdoor amenity space (e.g., Ardgryfee Park and river side) but susequent developments have been permitted without similar provision, putting pressure on these. » Play parks are good, but not a lot for teenagers to do. Pubs are good ( but no decent vegan food so I wouldn’t eat there). Strathgryffe Tennis club is good but I use OnX in Linwood, which is cheaper and easier for me. Not many shops and like Houston they are dissected by the main road. » Hospitality is good. Shops small but that’s ok as I like the village atmosphere » The leisure facilities in nearby towns such as Linwood are accessible and reasonably priced. They do need some upgrading (eg On X) but are on the whole decent. » Services are currently under pressure further development would be detrimental » No real unique shops or selection of shops. » Tennis club is our main health/leisure facility but quite expensive. Pubs are great. A couple of shops other than conveniences would be nice - gifts etc. » I’m not part of these demographics, there are no clubs for the elderly that I know of, and no youth initiatives that I know of. All public leisure facilities are in Linwood and Johnstone. » Would benefit from more pitches for children to play football, basketball » Needs to be a space for a Astro pitch for Houston United » Linwood, Braehead and Johnstone are within reach if you have a car. Most leisure activities at Onx Linwood, needing car to drop off. A dedecated cycle path between Houston and Linwood Onx and Tesco would be helpful. Cinema at Linwood Phoenix is good to have locally. Doctor service is difficult to access. Boots Houston, Houston Dental very useful. » For a small village it is pretty good » In particular the all-weather facilities for youth football are very poor in Houston compared to most other local areas. Other less affluent areas have cleared had the benefit of government investment. » There are no local reasonably priced sports facilities and limited transport to access these in Linwood. Craig’s could do with more children’s parts with play equipment. Ardgryffe and the centra of the village are great thanks to local fundraising but Crsigrnds could do with help. » Stop building homes » We are a village and do not need any more leisure facilities or shopping facilities. » Several community activities but concerned about length of time to get doctors appointment » Lack of facilities in village combined with poor public transport » Refurbishment of old/tired kids playparks are needed (e.g. Craigburn area) there are no kids play facilities at all in the Oilfields and Craigends areas » the car park at the coop is shocking, awful layout and the road is in bits. » For most of these it is really necessary to leave Houston, normally by car » Trying to get an appointment at the local surgery is a nightmare. Any further house building will make things worse. Unless you have your own car access to sports centres & leisure facilities outwith the village is almost impossible to do. » Well served with cafes & pubs but one supermarket that is quite expensive is restrictive. » Doctors surgery is struggling » Very difficult to get a doctors appointment : leisure facilities limited » I do believe that outdoor parks are very accessible here, when the weather is glimpse there is a lack of options for young people to meet up. Circumstances often denote that particular individuals are unable to host eachother during rainy weather, leading to lackluster socializing. I believe that more indoor facilities for young people should be fostered, where you can simply go and sit in a room with your friends and chat. » The village is not very accessible if I leave the car & depend on buses. » It is a nightmare trying to get an appointment with a GP. I’ve been trying for over a month to get one, and I’m still waiting- and I need a heart medication altered. Theme Five: Local Economy 15. How would you rate Houston’s access to skills and training for those under 25 years old? 16. How would you rate Houston’s job opportunities for those under 25 years old? 17. How would you rate Houston’s access to skills and training for those over 25 years old? 18. How would you rate Houston’s job opportunities for those over 25 years old? 19. How would you rate Houston for ease of starting a business? 20. How would you rate Houston for access to digital skills and connection? 21. Do you have any quick thoughts on Theme Five: Local Economy? » I’m retired and dont have a connection with the above » There is no industry to speak of for 2.4 Stars Majority: 3 stars (35%) 1 2 3 4 5 2.3 Stars Majority: 3 stars (34%) 1 2 3 4 5 2.3 Stars Majority: 3 stars (33%) 1 2 3 4 5 2.2 Stars Majority: 2 stars (31%) 1 2 3 4 5 2.4 Stars Majority: 3 stars (35%) 1 2 3 4 5 2.7 Stars Majority: 3 stars (35%) 1 2 3 4 5 52 Page 164 of 280
Page 169
training apprentices. Main over 25 opportunities would mainly be hospitality » The broadband is slow. I work outside of Houston » No knowledge to fill this in but since had to put one star so false survey » These questions I found difficult to answer as I have no experience of any of the queries. » I personally havent tried to use or access any of the services mentioned in this section, however with the lack of a N/A response option I’ve entered my perceived thoughts generally » When you live in a village, you do not expect all 9f these educational and job employment opportunities to be available!! Therefore, it’d be a real shame to allow building & expanding the village on this basis » There is no direct bus access to Paisley where the nearest college is. Most young people move away and then many return to start a family. » Can’t answer any of the above as haven’t had to access » The only skills for under 25s would be Gryffe High School. Not sure if that was what was needed here. My children both under 25 have been job hunting in Houston for years and have never succeeded in even an interview. » With limited business ie its a village then opportunities become more limited especially as more houses are built » There simply aren’t enough units that can be used for business and there is no scope for training with companies in the immediate area. » Aside from local self employed contractors, there is little in terms of spaces that would be considered suitable for business start up. The ‘local economy’ is based around 3-4 pubs, restaurants all vying for a slice of the same £. There are no butchers, fishmongers, bakers. Look at the difference between Houston and BlW, Kilmacolm. » Apart from the schools anyone has to travel for further training or education » As someone who has grown up in Houston, the skills and training given both inside and outside of the area are pretty slim when it comes to real world opportunities, money skills, or manual skills like carpentry and metalwork. » GHS is a high performing school but requires replacement and further work on ‘the left behind’ perhaps they could do more at a community level in practical projects like tree planting, historical research. Houston is difficult for under 25’s who do not own a car and is reliant on parents supporting their access to part-time jobs and study eg; Saturday entry level jobs in the city. Bus services are poor for young people. Unable to comment meaningfiully on over 25’s but note without a car accessing jobs in Inchinnan or by train to Johnstone is a problem. Nice environment for home working though. Many entrepreneurs live in the Renfrewshire villages but the Council need to do more to support them perhaps via business development events and cowork spaces, networking events. Need to ensure top quality digital connectivity as many people work remotely here and there is an opportunity for ‘super commuter ‘ long distance working given proximity to the airport eg; London job but based in Houston.. y » Not enough shops » It provides little in terms of training and jobs because it’s a village and there is limited businesses to work. However ensure good services such as internet speed and phone signal is critical » Internet exceptionally slow in Houston » I am an entrepreneur, there is a definite lack of availability to space to start a business, nevermind the red tape of approval if youve managed to source some. I opened businesses in Glasgow and Paisley due to lack of available commercial property » Naively, o unaware of any local economy starting points as I believe anything is initiated regionally. » Limited broadband and mobile connectivity » Irrelevant I started a successful busines from my back room which could have been on the moon. We don’t need a drop in centre or anything similar. » Economy is mainly agriculture and hospitality. Otherwise a commuter area with very poor public transport links. » Can’t comment » all areas not covered regarding strong reliable internet availability » Many small businesses have started through social media / wfh since Covid. For training and job opportunities you need to leave the villages and head into nearby towns Paisley Glasgow Greenock Johnstone etc » Houston doesn’t have a huge number of people to support a large number of businesses which impacts on job opportunities for all ages » I don’t know the answer but I’ve never heard anyone talk about this theme. I wouldn’t expect there to be such things in a small village » Training & job opportunities extremely limited unless you know someone. Pretty non-existent for young people. » Still really poor internet in village centre » I don’t think there are a lot of job opportunities in Houston. » Can’t really comment on the above questions but it made me answer them to move on » Can’t really comment re training, job opportunities and businesses. » It’s a pretty Scottish village and not an industrial or retail centre and never should be.. » It is very much a commuter town with few local opportunities. » Don’t feel qualified to answer any of these questions, hence 3 stars for each » No real knowledge of these » There is no work in the immediate area! » N/A » Limited businesses in Houston other then pubs and cafes which are okay for young people, though not much in place to support broader skillset learning for a wider audience » Houston is a dormitory village with a high proportion of elderly people » Non existant. » Houston is a dormatory town,employment must be saught outwith the village » Broadband speeds are fairly slow in certain areas and regular power cuts cause issues 53 Page 165 of 280
Page 170
» This is a country village for heaven’s sake. Why are these questions being asked? We don’t want business/industry here! » Apart from secondary school education I’m not aware of any information relative to most of the questions » You can get a job, but not at a warhammer shop » ANSWERED TO ALLOW US TO PROGRESS BUT QUESTIONS NOT RELEVNT TO NON RESIDENTS » I really have no idea about this but the survey wouldn’t let me skip the section so I’ve given a middle score » I do not know enough about starting a small business etc, but I know there are dog walkers, dog groomers etc and so on who are doing well. The primary school is bursting in its seams, the open plan classrooms are outdated, not enough space, playground has only tarmac. So the primary school could do with a total upgrade. The high school is quite old too. » RC planning policies need to recognise the importance of living and working in the same place » Not aware of any projects or incentives » As a commuter village all of Houston’s training and job opportunities are located outside the confines of the settlement » I believe there are a number of small businesses in Houston but don’t have any experience of starting one » I can’t really comment on this as have no experience of this » Questions are vague and from a standardised form and not tailored to this area. » I don’t really know much about this from personal experience. My 5 children were all desperate to leave and I haven’t tried ato start a business, but it feels like such a dormitory town I can’t see too much evidence of successful businesses apart from some hospitality. » Tricky one asi am out of the direct jobs market but have answered based on working with local Renfrewshire charity - I think there are opportunities generally available and business are supported. The public purse is no doubt under significant pressure though and services to the less well off in particular are threatened in the current climate. » Few opportunities but close to Glasgow and other areas » I think it could sustain a co-working initiative, with many people working from home. » understanding insufficient to answer the questions hence lowest mark » Poor WiFi connections in some areas of Houston. Apart from pubs, cafe, optician and pharmacy » Difficult for young people to access training someone unless they have someone to drive them. free bus travel is good but bus service is limited to Braehead and Glasgoe and is very crowded at peak times. » Many jobs lie outwith the local area and Houston is definitely a commuter village » More local businesses equals more local jobs. Planning should help enable small businesses. » Plenty of jobs in the rural economy. Hopefully farmland is not lost to further housing development. » Houston is a village, not a huge city with a draw of endless amenities. » The only employment is the 3 schools and 3 pubs. It is not enough. » It is a dormitory area so no opportunities for young people to develop within the area. » Unless you want to have a career in working in the pub industry or local nursery you can forget employment opportunities in the village. » There are limited retail units available there is a primary school & high school. butbno other further education establishment » I’ve no experience of the above so questions should have a Not Applicable option Theme Six: Housing 22. How would you rate Houston for appropriateness & affordability of housing? 23. How would you rate Houston for access to diverse housing options (i.e. families, single professionals, assisted living etc.)? 24. Do you have any quick thoughts on Theme Six: Housing? » The lack of social housing is a real issue to prevent further gentrification of Houston » We don’t need any more and what we have tends to be expensive » Already too many houses in the area » Far to many large 4,5,6 bedromm homes being built. The area needs small starter and down sizing homes and also need facility for our elderly population. Our shelterd home / housing was sold out to house dvelopers! No replacement built. » Not enough houses are being built for the younger generation, affordable housing or assisted housing.. too busy building 5 bedrooms housing » For any proposed new housing facilities (health, schooling, etc must be planned in advance. » There is no need for further housing » No more housing to be built on green spaces! » No housing for older folk wishing to downsize and stay in the area. Many are trapped in large family homes due to a lack of smaller houses. Building seems to target large family homes which are expensive. Houston would benefit from a retirement village style of housing. » For the size of village, there’s a range of housing. Nearby BoW & Kilmacolm provide a bigger range for people wishing to live/ downsize closeby » There is a severe lack of housing that meets needs of older and young people. » I think there is a lack of assisted living for an aging population » There are not enough houses in Houston which drives house prices up. Younger people wanting to stay here are pushed out. » Too many big luxury 5 beds being built on green field sites. » New builders all driving the market with four bed detached houses. It will be catastrophic years down the line when downsizers and retirees are looking 2.7 Stars Majority: 3 stars (37%) Demographic trend: disabled respondents rated 2.3 stars 1 2 3 4 5 2.4 Stars Majority: 2 stars (28%) 1 2 3 4 5 54 Page 166 of 280
Page 171
for smaller accommodation. Does anyone make accessible, sustainable accommodation? I wish they would. » There are options with a new houses being built already for larger families, the key is to move the existing housing stock and promote local ownership » Need more down sizing opportunities and affordable housing » Houston is mainly geered to large family homes which are no longer relevant to the area. Many existing properties are occupied by people who wish to downsize but there is no opportunity to do so and stay in the community. At the other end, there are no affordable and suitably sized properties for young people to stay in the area. All developments completed or planned have handed the affordable housing to social housing agencies who bring in people from outside which does not cater for the local people who would buy these properties if they came to the market. » Don’t need anymore.stop building on every patch of land available. » Get us good bungalows with storage, garages and gardens. Empty the big houses and let people move to there forever home » Houston has a severe lack of access to affordable, sustainable and diverse housing options. Homes nowadays are always too big, too expensive, and even these 4 bedroom, £500,000 homes are built to greenwash sustainable design as they often cut down previous old woods and wildlife habitats. » Housing is a major problem. The Council continues to enable large £500k homes in the community with lack of emphasis on homes which address the elderly downsizer population. If this was addressed this woudl actually free up affordable second hand homes that could be restored by young families and those wanting to live nearer ageing parents. Developers seem to be able navigate the planning process when its abundantly clear Gryffe High School has no capacity. So we should have no new development until this is resolved. Another key issue is housing design. Some in the community believe a better solution would be a private plot approach or a Places for People solution to deliver less generic designs. ..A place based approach like Tornagrain, Hope Homes West Kilbride, Polnoon or Longniddry Village. Houston should not become another Dargaval Village but rather a complementary destination similar to Strathaven v East Kilbride which can capitalise on its historic and economic development assets...such as food & drink, cycling, walks and trails. Currently the layout of local roads particularly to Linwood and Johnstone no longer have the capacity for additional large SUV vehiclesre » All new builds are mostly for 4&5bed homes » Affordability driven by market conditions, expensive area to live due to desirability of Gryffe so no surprises. » There isn’t access to a great deal of housing , but I feel strongly that more housing shouldn’t be built as the people of Houston choose to live here for the most part due to the natural beauty and village feel. I certainly don’t want it to grow like bishopton as we don’t have the infrastructure and services to support it ...village number of houses = village services » Too many large houses, more bungalows, flats single person houses needed » Not enough affordable houses ie council and housing associations » Too many houses not enough green space » No more big houses.. » Don’t know of any assisted living in the area » Stop building overpriced large homes. » Too many expensive large detached houses » Too many large expensive homes not enough starter homes » I feel the village is now at capacity for housing, the education and commercial sector won’t be able to take more people moving in » I think the attraction is the lack of “diverse” housing. If I wanted to live somewhere that had more, if move to a council estate. » It is a natural occurrence for any desirable area to be pricey to reside in. But, it must be serviced with all the necessary facilities to maintain the desirable level. » Inflated house prices due to good schools price out many people whoHave grown up here and want to return with their young families. » The latest builders “we couldnt care less just give us money “ scheme is in direct violation of any traffic. It claims there will be less car journeys for the amount of houses they are building. a nonsense » Any proposed developments should be aimed at young people getting onto the housing ladder and allowing older residents to downsize within Houston. We do NOT need any more 4/5 bed exec houses. » Not enough houses for single parents and young people » Further building will stop Houston from being Houston » The current building trend is for large expensive family homes and affordable rental property sold. There are few suitable for downsizing or first time buyers. » Could do with flats/bungalows/small houses for the young and infirm » Far too many large expensive new builds being constructed in village » Not enough new smaller houses » Stop building four and five bedroom houses » All recent planning app. Are for on the green belt and for 5/6 bedroom houses. No thought is given to smaller houses or shelter housing (which we used to have) so. old people who were born and live in houston, and would be glad to give up their too large houses if there were any 2 bedroom or shelter acc. Tto keep them living in the village. » Housing is very expensive because people want to send their kids to Gryfee High. A bigger school that can be accessed by more people from the wider area would reduce the need to buy a house in Houston » Recently built homes have been predominantly aimed at the higher end. Very little is available for lower income households / single people. Accessible housing doesn’t seem to exist unless people fund their own alterations. » Most new houses built are big in size. 55 Page 167 of 280
Page 172
» More affordable housing is required to enable youngsters who loved growing up in the village to be able to stay hear. Also small bungalows required for people wishing to downsize » Housing is very expensive especially for young peole looking to get on the housing ladder. » Any bigger houses are very expensive » Insufficient houses at reasonable prices for those starting out. » House prices are very high in this area » There should be no more new housebuilding as much of the green areas are gone. The houses are out of reach financially for most young people. » There are plenty of houses in Houston, ranging from affordable rental to higher end detached properties. » Very limited availability for starter homes & affordable housing for single adults/ young families » Very much set up for family living in large expensive houses with no facility for down sizers or young people. » Far too many new-build large houses and far too few starter homes for local young people and downsize homes for the elderly. The latter need appropriate housing close to their support structures » Stop building big houses for rich people who spend NO money in the village! » Too many new big houses being built, outwith the affordability of lower income people. » Council allow houses to be built without considering the local area, village » Limited affordable availability for adult children ‘leaving the nest’ & for adults to ‘downsize’ @ that particular time. » The new housing estates are ridiculously priced and definitely not “affordable”. Housing more suited to families than single people in Houston » Urgent action on affordable accessible housing (not same as assisted living) required. No lore big exec villas! » Limited affordable rental housing with no facilities for assisted living or elderly care » Lots of residents who want to downsize in area but total lack of appropriate properties. » Expensive housing is springing up, too many for the available facilities » We don’t want more development. Its inappropriate. » Houston has been a growing community for over 50 years and many of the incoming residents were young with families. There will be a need for suitable housing for older people who wish to downsize and remain in the Houston area. » Can go home, but not to a warhammer shop » ANSWERED TO ALLOW US TO PROGRESS BUT QUESTIONS NOT RELEVNT TO NON RESIDEN » I think if there were more wee bungalows and assisted living, some more larger homes would free up for families. » Government hostility to and legal burden on the private rented sector will reduce options » Not enough affordable properties & locals being priced out of the area. » All new houses large and thus expensive » Not enough smaller houses or bungalows being built » Housing generally expensive relative to neighbouring areas with more high end houses being built and planned rather than affordable rented / social housing » We are under too much pressure from house developers who want to continually build new housing. This is unfair and risks turning Houston into a sprawling urban mass with very few services and inappropriate supporting infrastructure » Recent developments have prioritsed large, expensive, detached single family homes in the ‘Noddy Box’ street style. Future developments must include lower density streets, differenet house styles/ sizes/materialality and affordability. A good (but not perfect) example are the streets/houses around Ardgryffe Crescent. Housebuilders are selling the idea of a ‘quiet village lifestyle’ whilst effectively spoiling it with their naf developments. » There seems to be a lot of executive style 5+5 bedroom houses going up. I know you g people struggle to buy/ rent in Houston and may be forced toove away to find an affordable home. I also know that there is a dearth of small houses/flats for people to downsize to. I would like to see more social housing and smaller homes, some of which would be available to local people. Given the aging population we may need additional assisted living accommodation. It would be nice if people with disabilities had facilities here too. It’s important to be close to family if you need support. » New build housing seems to be only large 4 and 5 bed detached » There is a lot of family sized housing but probably not enough single person affordable options for younger people leaving the family home and perhaps older people downsizing. » Very expensive housing » Far far far too many 5 bedroom houses. Completely unaffordable for any young person from Houston to remain in Houston without living with parents. » I believe Houston needs more social and affordable housing particularly » Limited social housing » Provision of quality flats would permit downsizing within our community » I think the area is now very expensive » Need smaller single level homes » Not enough housing suitable for older people to downsize to do they stay in bigger family homes. » Lots of 4+ bed expensive homes but not so much in the way of affordable starter homes. Don’t want people who grew up here to not be able to afford to raise their families here. » There are zero affordable housing initiatives, shared ownership, but Cala seemed to have had no problem greasing the wheels for top end housing planning. » Housing limited for certain demographics. Lack of starter homes and retirement / bungalow / assisted living for those who want to downsize but stay in the area. Housing very expensive, reflecting location. We have compromised on the size and style of home to be in Houston. » Most recent new builds have been 4/5 bedroom homes. No more land should be 56 Page 168 of 280
Page 173
given over to these builders unless they cater for those wanting start up homes or bungalows » Care for older residents is lacking » Houston has enough houses now. If it keeps growing it will lose everything that makes it special. » Sadly the new builds are all large and high cost there’s little affordable housing for out children or people on lower wages. More one, two or affordable 3 bedroom options would be good. We have a lot of wonderful young people in our midst and it would be good if we could retain them. » Build no more housing » Affordable housing and smaller housing shoukx vdcavailable for local. Affirdable housing bringing people in from other villages isnt ideal. s. » There are many older people in overly large houses which restricts what young families can buy. However this is well understood and keeps things peaceful. » Too many large houses. Not enough affordable ones or retirement ones » Sick of new housebuilding constantly building new 4 and 5 bedroom homes, when we already have an abundance of these. We need bungalows so that Houston’s older community can downsize and then free up the 4 & 5 bedroom houses. » Needs more smaller accessible properties to prevent the need to move away from the community when having to downsize. » Social housing areas need to be looked after more closely. » We need more small homes for older people to downsize and young people to start. » provision of smaller more affordable properties for 1st time buyers and to allow older residents to downsize. » houses are getting less and less affordable especially for people living on their own or a couple trying to start a family. » Not much in the way of affordable housing for first time buyers. » Two many big houses and not enough for young or downsizers » Too many houses that are built now are unaffordable to your general middle earners. They don’t want or need 4 & 5 bedroom houses costing half a million pounds upwards. I am against any further houses being built as the roads, schools & Doctors can’t handle what we currently have. » Housing in Houston is above average for the area, houses are more expensive than in neighbouring Linwood or Brookfield » Insufficient smaller properties available for first time buyers and downsizers » There is not enough affordable housing or one/two bed homes » Too many big houses with kids departed ...not enough downsizing houses » Not enough small houses for retirement or starter houses, all very expensive » There is enough varied housing in Houston. We do NOT need anymore housing built. » Very limited diverse and affordable housing Theme Seven: Social Life 25. How would you rate Houston’s community activities and connection? 26. How would you rate Houston for its places to meet and gather? 27. Do you have any quick thoughts on Theme Seven: Social Life? » Unless you like alcohol or food, you’re short of recreational activities » No council infrastructure but the village works hard to accomodate socialisation with churches / halls and HOST. » There are clubs for all ages around the Houston area » There if you want to to » There is no coffee shop and the village hall had been closed again I think there is more community in the centre of Houston » Lots for children, at the Carrick and connected with the Church. Pubs, coffee shops and restaurants excellent. A lack of things for older teenagers, but probably replicated everywhere. » Some improved bus networks (longer time table would help) » There aremany options for clubs, etc but restricted by size and availability of premises. Places to meet are mainly licensed premises which do not suit everyone. » Options are fairly consistent by small. » More places near Magnus Road/Fulton Drive to meet up would be nice. The best place to go, sledge hill, has no play park or benches or anything to foster community. » Very pub and faith oriented needs to develop more of a cafe culture and arts scene » Mostly pubs. » Christmas light switch on , tractor rally, Houston show , beer fest all amazing events » Activities during day not accessible to people who work » Lovely bars restaurants albeit extremely over priced in comparison to others in neighbouring villages » I feel there are social cliques, if you’re not in them then you’re not informed or invited. » Plenty of hidden gems but they should be better marketed for residents to be aware of their existence and not simply word of mouth. » We have plenty of places to meet in Houston if you want to we don’t need anymore » Introduce more activities » Sadly a lot of houses are now bought to rent, so tenants have no interest in the The social life of the village, heck they don’t even bother keeping the gardens tidy » There are a few pubs but I get the impression they are quiet and struggling. The village is missing a really good cafe, bakery, delicatessan etc. Main ship is a Coop. » Pubs or church halls seem to be the only 3.6 Stars Majority: 4 stars (41%) 1 2 3 4 5 3.7 Stars Majority: 4 stars (41%) Demographic trend: disabled respondents rated 3.4 stars 1 2 3 4 5 57 Page 169 of 280
Page 174
options. » Really appreciate being part of Bee Happy / Litter Crew / Foodbank collection. Have met more than 40 new friends via these groups. Activities like the Men’s Shed also great. » There could be more opportunities for meeting others. More community activities etc. Many seem to centre around the church and if you are not interested in the church you would not attend these. » It would be good to see more small social areas like a coffee shop but it’s difficult for business to survive anywhere at the moment. » Houston is well served by pubs/eating places. A few meeting areas are also available. » There are many clubs, etc but restricted by size and availability of premises. Places to meet are mainly licensed premises which do not suit everyone. » Community activities are sought & desired but younger generations do not committ or volunteer to sustain facilities which have been historically available leaving current volunteers frustrated » There are efforts to host community events such as the beer festival and agricultural show, though it would be nice to have the likes of dance classes / art classes / markets brought back to Houston » More sport facilities required » Carrick centre and neighbouring building could be put to better use » There are lots of Clubs, Rotary, Men’s Shed, Pubs, Churches and centres to meet » Its fine for a country village. We don’t want more development! If people want town/city amenities, go and live in Glasgow or Paisley! » Would be nice if I could go to a warhammer shop » My life centres around schools and it is a lovely community. The church halls are great, also the Carrick and the River Inn. » The pubs are good » Variety there » Plenty of opportunities for meeting and gathering although many people are not aware of them or unwilling to join in. » Communities » I have lived in Houston for 30+ years, but I felt quite disconnected to it until family recently. It’s a dormitory town and like other people, I spent my life away from Houston and came back to eat and sleep. Houston has to work hard to create social cohesion. I have felt a lot of improvements recently. I am not sure if this is because I semi retired then retired and spend more time here or because things have improved. Groups like Bee Happy etc have had an impact. I believe the Church is also very active. The main other community space is Carrick Centre, which doesn’t have a particularly welcoming feel. We lack an appealing community centre. The pubs of course are nice. » We are lucky to have thriving high quality pubs and community centres in the village and at Crosslee. » Good » We are so lucky there are 3 pubs which are the cornerstone of mutiple activities, and the Carrick for example. » Good local pubs with outdoor areas. » Carrick Centre a useful venue. Community theme. Men’s Shed and Bee Happy Houston and Cinema nights great community initiatives. Fox and Hounds and Houston Inn Great to have on our doorstep. Village Shop and Coop very handy too. » I feel Houston lacks a community heart like Kilmacolm and Bridge of Weir have. A pedestrianised zone would be great. » Houston community groups/kirk/mens shed have done great job. Tennus club,/ bowling club are great assets to village. have done » Plenty of clubs and societies » Great pubs! » I gain from activities in the Church. » houston has lots or great pubs and restaurants! » There are specific interest clubs but meeting is generally licensed premises » I think that nice weather often arises opportunities for socializing, but if the weather is bad then your options are extremely limited. » I like the pubs in Houston, they are all a very good standard. Overall Priorities 28. Of the themes listed in the previous questions, please rank your highest priority for improvement in Houston. 29. Of the themes listed in the previous questions, please rank your lowest priority for improvement in Houston. 38% 35% 19% 16% 7% 3% Theme Three: Greenspace and Nature Theme Two: Moving Around Theme Four: Wellbeing and Services Theme Six: Housing Theme Five: Local Economy Theme Seven: Social Life 30% 27% 27% 15% 8% 5% Theme Six: Housing Theme Seven: Social Life Theme Three: Greenspace and Nature Theme Five: Local Economy Theme Two: Moving Around Theme Four: Wellbeing and Services 58 Page 170 of 280
Page 175
Part Two: Services and Housing 1. Are there any particular neighbourhood services that are lacking? If so, where/ how do you think these could be delivered? » Community gym/ pool / free tennis courts » A community centre with activities/skills for adult and young people learning. The carrick centre focuses on specific groups but something the whole community can be involved in » There is no provision for the older community needing nursing care. Our sheltered housing / home was sold to housing developers and never replaced. » A decent bus service to surrounding villages » More frequent and late night buses. » Better public transport » Lack of shops that dont require a vehicle to access » Train line to Glasgow. I have always felt opening up the disused railway line will help commuters and be better for the environment. » Post Office and bank are not really avaliable locally. I usually drive to Johnstone for both of these. At the very least, a post box positioned at the coop row of shops would be helpful with a teatime collection. » Post office. » Community and social activities for teenagers and younger age groups » Re establishing the post office. Advertising the mobile post office service more widely. Improve bus services, public transport around village, connectivity to Paisley would be transformational (access to shops, work, transport links, train services). » It would be good to develop further around the catarick centre for more community and social gathering space » There is a lack of retail options which requires that people travel from the area. There is scope to provide a couple of extra units at the Co-op/Sainsbury site in Crosslee as mentioned in a previous planning application. or to develop another site nearby which could be accessed by walking. Another suitable site would be south of Bridge of Weir Road and west of the access to Houston Primary School. This site has the advantage of direct access to the main road through the villages, ease of access from all areas and proximity to the conservation area to attract people there without encroaching on it. » More bus services to cut out the need for so many cars on the roads » Public transport options for Johnstone. » Public transport to Johnstone direct » Regular bus services without the x 7 we would be gone. » A money management class for young people, especially those in high school would be super important and really helpful. Perhaps having a free session at the Carrick Centre once a month, it is an important life skill but is very neglected in the curriculum. » Coherent and well connected footpath network to allow people to walk and cycle around more easily- links to the National Cycle Network could be improved from Magnus Road to Crosslee Rd, Fulton Drive to Linwood & Johnstone. More community spaces up at Craigends as it looks like a bit of a desert up there and could breed social isolation particularly as people get older, better path network to the Crosslee Shops ...bridge a problem for example lack of adherence to DDA. » Not enough buses and the b790 houston rd/georgetown rd is totally cutoff with no transport » Post Office. » Bus reliability, » Too many new houses mean schools, roads and access medical care are negatively impacted. » Lacking in access to gyms etc and also public transport » Grass cutting » Define neighborhood services, what does this mean in plain English rather than consultant speak » Retail services. A good mini supermarket is needed. » Buses » GP services » Very bad public transport, bring railway to bridge of weir and link with a local bus service, open up moss road to Linwood from George Town road » Community centre, library, post office in the village » Lack of crossing patrollers in the Crosslee area, especially when there are an abundance of them in a small space in the village » There would be a community centre, library or even a pool. » Public litter bins for hot spots. For example, popular dog walks off road and common youngster dens. » GP surgery is oversubscribed hence this is needed to be enhanced » No » Easier access to healthcare services, including GP. » The bus service could be improved, although I don’t know how that could be done. » Better bus service » Council leisure services » neighbourhood watch, Crosslee » No gritting of roads in winter. Poor public transport links » District nurse to visit the elderly, a lot of the villagers are 70+ » Leisure facilities. A fitness gym with classes would be welcomed. » Sheltered housing. Expanded health centre » We should have affordable, sustainable shopping options such as a refill shop https://www.tgchoice.co.uk/. Perhaps this could be located in the cafe in the Old Smiddy in the village. » No bus link to nearest town of Paisley. Where hospital is. » Not enough doctors. Not enough buses. Not enough school places. » Crossing on busy road outside cala new builds, all the school children cross here. Lack of footpaths for walking to get to ardgryffe park » Park within oilfields. » More bus routes. » Anything for the people of Craigends that can be easily accessed. » Renfrewshire council don’t sweep roads away from main roads , street lighting is deplorable, grass cutting and pavement 59 Page 171 of 280
Page 176
weeds can lead to a danger as people resort to walking g on roads, also walking with a pram is dangerous as cars parked on pavement, also Magnus road needs traffic calming as cars drive too fast » Bus service could be improved » Youth services. There is no youth clubs etc for our young people » More local shops, community meeting places » Regular, decent bus service accessing surrounding areas » Street and kerb de-weeding and cleaning » Bus service locally is really bad. You need a car. » Medical. » Provision of homes for the elderly » We need more housing for elderly people. Most elderly residents in Houston moved here with young families decades ago and are currently sitting in 4 or 5 bedroom houses. As there are not enough smaller bungalow style houses for them to move to they sit in these large houses which are too much for them to manage. They won’t sell their property for young families to move into because they don’t want to move out of the area as there are not enough bungalow style properties available. » Volunteers have upgraded playparks and community council have provided an outdoor gym but they are not easily accesible from the main population areas. Better leisure facilities could be spread across the area. » Public transport to larger shopping facilities within a five mile radius. A circular bus route taking in Johnstone supermarkets, the Phoenix Centre and Linwood would be very useful. » Grass could be collected when cut in parks and not left untidy. Road sweepers to clean all streets include side residential roads. » Services are overwhelmed by the unmanaged increase in the population. » Lack of residential home for pensioners/ assisted living » Policing! Or lack of..... » Like all neighbourhoods the Strathgryffe Medical Practice is difficult to navigate & access ... this facility has deteriorated over the almost twenty years I have lived in Houston » Speed cameras / traffic control » All other than basic or private health are lacking » Podiatrist and physiotherapist services could be provided in a new combined health centre » The Dr Surgery has lost it’s way. Thought could be given to improved shopping » None. It is a village, not a town! » LIMITED AWARENESS OF SERVICES AS NON RESIDENT » Youth services - almost every young person activity is delivered and funded by volunteers » Improved local transport » Most services are provided for adequately at present. No further suggestions » neighbourhood policing and a local post office have both been lost and are missed. Public transport off the single bus route is non existent. Walking routes could be improved to get people off unsafe highways. The retail offer is limited but finances weigh against it. » Post office & banking facilities. Cafe near co-op. » Policing on streets , pavenment maintenance, play areas and parks safety measures need upgrading park patrol. » Council maintainance of wooded areas » More regular bus services. Especially to Johnstone. » schooling » Better medical services,very difficult to see a doctor » A few more shops with a wider range of types » Post office, barber, real gym » Permanent post office and a permanent library. More small business premises » Services do not keep pace with increasing population. » I would like there to be some community owned energy systems to provide community benefit. I would love a community solar park/ wind farm and district heating systems.Not exactly a service, but we would like to have allotments or a community garden ( my preference) . Some of us have been trying for community growing space for over 10 years. Houston Farms offered us some land, but there is a huge mismatch with expectations and it’s unlikely to go ahead. The council have now suggested the area beside Manse crescent where the orchard is. We think there may be community resistance to this. The field opposite Gryffe High is council owned, but I think a farmer has grazing rights so this doesn’t seem to be available. We are also looking in Bridge of Weir. Our group is currently called Houston Community Growing Association but it’s purely aspirational! I’m d like a little shuttle bus to Bridge of Weir and back. It may have to be run by a community group » Given the rapid growth of the area, as a serving police officer I believe a patrolling Community police officer would be beneficial. » Cafes rather than pubs » Gp surgery is inundated. Schools are overflowing. » Sport facilities » Movement of certain medical services to Linwood seen as detrimental » The schools and nurseries are overflowing. Stop building so many houses to reduce numbers of people here. » Doctor surgery only serving Houston » Local individual shops and variety of shops » Street cleaning, side of road maintenance, community centre » Youth social areas, to provide decent interesting places to be together after school, avoiding the usual hangouts like near the Coop, encouraging litter and grazing on junkfood » Safe youth community spaces for young people to meet, have adult support and not be wandering the streets » Street cleaning » Transport » Bus service and cycle lanes » Housing providing care » All weather football pitches. A proper cycle lane to Bridge of Weir, and a cycle lane adjacent to the Georgetown Road. » GP, dental, schooling to accommodate future housing plans » A better variety of shops 60 Page 172 of 280
Page 177
» None at all, we don’t need anything more. » More frequent bus service to Linwood enabling use of Onex leisure centre and Johnstone » Better shopping and transport options and tra » Safe road crossings near Gryffe High school » Paths always over grown. » More shops » We should have a direct bus to Paisley. I miss the 19. I live in the Neuk. » better bus service to the airport and paisley » Very little retail outlets which requires people to travel to other areas. There are spaces near the primary school which could possible be suitable for reasonably central retail units. » Carers organisatiom » Public transport is poor » Bus transport » I’d like more buses to connecting villages and towns. I’d like more frequent buses but » There is a lack of GP appointments due to the increasing population 2. Do you have any suggestions on where housing would best be located, or on the type of housing that would be appropriate to be developed? » It’s time for some of the green belt to be given up for new affordable housing. Everywhere was green belt once and I see no reason why Houston should be confined to a time capsule where no further development beyond that of the 1990s / 2000s is tolerated » We don’t need any more housing » Anywhere but in the village » Need to build housing for older people, to free up larger family homes. » SHeltered housing / nursing home and down sizing homes. Sadly all the sites that could have been used like Woodend now sport massive large executive homes that were not needed! Perhaps the field across from the High school could be used or even the Blaze pitches of the high school. » Bungalows and 4 bed family homes with sufficient parking » Bungalows, assisted living, affordable housing. » Family homes however schools health and traffic a big issue » No need for extra housing » I would strongly object to any further housing developments in Houston as this would continue to ruin it as a conservation village and would completely overwhelm the already stretched school and GP services. » More cheaper/social houses needed » Building affordable homes with 1-2 bedrooms for people downsizing within Houston given priority. This would release the MANY large family homes being occupied by 1/2 people who wish to remain in the area. » More affordable housing and smaller properties, majority of new builds are 4 plus bedrooms and really expensive » I do not feel the village should endeavour to meet the needs of every type of personsl circumstances for housing. Neighbouring villages provide more diverse housing - we live in a loval authority area, therefore it’s not solely down to Houston alone to meet these needs. Collectively across the neighboring villages, housing provision is good in such a small, semi-rural area. Roads are already unsuitable for the present volume of traffic » Housing yo need to needs of older generation, bungalows. More affordable housing. » Assisted living housing near the center where any amenities like shops, restaurants and local events are. » A mixture of 2/3 bedroom housing. Located possibly on Georgetown road side of Houston. » Too much more housing will change the feel of the village so I don’t really want to see any more developments. » Houston is definitely full. The schools are bursting and they keep building on green fields with no investment in the schools first. » This would be a challenge due to private developers getting the lions share of potential housing development areas » Always looking to see housing which is accessible, properly eco friendly, passiv housing. » Adding housing will impact the local areas with more cars, school strain and amminties strain, there could be scope to keep the green space. » Houston badly needs smaller properties for downsizing and starter homes, which would in turn free up larger houses for families wishing to move to the area. One area which could be developed is that mentioned above for retail premises but also beside Fulton Drive where it enters Craigends from the south or to the north of Ardgryfe Crescent, land already owned by a developer. » Houston doesn’t need more housing. The schools, roads, surgery, cannot cope. Houston doesn’t need to get bigger. » Houston cannot support more housing. The village boundaries should be secure. » Smaller houses but no space for them » Bungalows and assisted care for elderly and should be in the village near shops and ameneties » Smaller homes, such as bungalows or flats would be greatly appreciated in the area. As for location, I can only realistically thing of the area south of Gryffe High school, next to Goldenlea Farm. A lot of other areas either feel like important greenspace or countryside. I think allowing houses to be upzoned to higher densities rather than building new ones could be more beneficial. » This is a chicken and egg situation as there’s no capacity at Gryffe High School and the school needs replaced . This could be addressed perhaps with a focus on two types of homes 1) Homes for downsizers over 55 or 60 2) Private plot development so less actual homes but lower density so less school places required. I have a rfadical thought which I’ll outline in part 3. » B790 hoiston road / georgetown road » On the outskirts of village and more bungalows to free up larger homes. » I feel that Houston doesn’t need more housing. We need our Green space too. That was what attracted me to Houston. » I don’t think there should be any additional housing, iwt’s big enough for the services provided. » Don’t build anymore , the village is going 61 Page 173 of 280
Page 178
to loose its attraction having anymore growth. At best 1 bed bungalows for the elderly should be considered and 1 bed starter homes but not more family sized as there isn’t enough Dr , dentist, school places etc . The nurseries have 1 year minimum waiting lists ! » Some of the older estates have a number of houses (7 out of 17 in Birchgrove) occupied by single people as there are too few bungalows or flats available for single people and we do not wish to move away from the area » Improve the infrastructure » Smaller housing for families looking to downsize. » I would prefer no more housing of any kind » Very little green belt left in Houston » One and two bed houses but not in green belt » More diverse housing, especially high quality homes for younger and older people. All within existing footprint of Houston. No more mass market development of public or private owned green space » I don’t think we need more housing built » Not in Houston, there has been enough new builds and green space devleoped on. Protect our green spaces. Ayrshire has lots of fields and open space to build on. » There are more than enough houses. » Too many houses » More affordable housing for younger adults » No more housing should be built in Houston » No more housing, schools and doctors etc are already struggling with over capacity » We need smaller homes and bungalows for people starting out and downsizing. » Perhaps I/2 bed flats for elderly » Enough housing already, schools cannot cope with anymore » The village is at capacity, if more housing is built ‘the village’ will be lost » I don’t think there should be anymore housing being built. » Any new housing should be combined with a commitment to improve infrastructur. Particularly roads to deal traffic volume and family essentials such as places for GP and Dentist and schools. » Housing suitable for older people eg bungalows thus potentially freeing up existing housing stock for families. » Knock some down » Location would probably be on the Crosslee side outwith Houston to save strain on conservation area. Housing should be 2/3 bed especially bungalow. Allows young residents to get a start and elderly residents to downsize in their area » Low cost housing » Houston as a village is at its limit. Current services are adequate but would not be sufficient with further properties. Renfrewshire as a whole does not have sufficient services e.g. children’s swimming lessons to meet current need. » if more housing is required it should be in keeping with village life and built with the natural wild life in mind » Houston is being over developed. We do not have or want the infrastructure to support more houses. This once beautiful little village is losing its identity. » I don’t think any more housing is required, the village is past capacity, the road, doctors, school cannot facilitate any more people » Village hall » Green belt should be saved at all costs » Suggest that development stops as the infrastructure and schools cannot support any more housing » Any brown sites, but as we are a rural village space is limited and if there is any it is captured by the big house builders who are not interested in building 2 bedroom houses or flats for elderly » I don’t think location is the issue. The issue is can the schools support the increase in population. » Fill in existing gaps. Prioritise avoiding development of green spaces,particularly natural habitats such as woodland. » Small but luxury apartments/bungalows for elderly people wishing to downsize, would be great. Nearly all new housing is 4/5 bedrooms » Retirement and first time buyer housing is required. Maybe even a care home. » Do we really need more housing? If we constantly build more houses, there will be no more green space so, no, I think no more housing please. » I don’t think the village can accommodate more housing. » Think there is already enough housing. » There is no room for more housing developments. » Family housing , although would need a new school with more children in the area » None, already too many houses. » Stop building large family homes and consider areas for sheltered housing or care home for people who live in Houston and want to stay in Houston. » More flats for young and old. If there were better retirement flats more older people may give up their larger homes for young families. » Not really » Thought has to go into the style of housing. New built housing could mimic that of the old charm of the main village to blend in. » On any brown field sites, not green belt! » Houston is overdeveloped as it is » None. There has been enough housebuilding in the whole area . There are very few green spaces left. » Several new developments have taken place over the years. Any more will destroy the nature of the area. » Houston has enough housing. Dont want any more crammed in. Especially do not want any housing for immigrants with anti-christian values. » 1/2 bed housing » Houston doesn’t need anymore new housing estates going up. It would spoil the overall village feel and currently both the primary and high school and the GP surgery are at full capacity. » The area north west of Ardgryffe Crescent has long been available for development but the need is for smaller houses adhering to places for people principles and taking account of the local environment. » There is a lack of housing for people who are wishing to stay in the area. The 62 Page 174 of 280
Page 179
market displays this with offers over bring excessive. Also young people/ couples just starting off on the pretty market struggle with finding homes without paying excessive amounts. I am aware more housing changes the appeal and the local service will be stretched (although these are already fully stretched). Building on the Langbank round is not suitable as this would increase traffic through a conservation village. George Town Road would allow traffic to by pass the village of Houston but would maybe cause traffic to pass through the village of Crosslee. However good transport link to other areas along this road to airport, Inchinnan, new Renfrew Bridge etc » Small developments sold to local young people to enable them to get on the housing ladder. Also small developments for local elderly, allowing them to downsize and have easier-to-manage homes close to their support structures - family, GP, shops, bus routes. Smaller developments would increase the number of locations that they could be sited on. All applications for large housing developments should be refused. » No » Do not develop more housing. » No more Houses, the village is being destroyed! » Wherever available » ADDITIONAL PROPOSED HOUSING NEEDS TO BE VARIED ENOUGH TO ENCOURAGE YOUNG COUPLES AS WELL AS FAMILIES TO THE AREA. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF NEW HOUSES BUILT OVER THE PAST 2O YEARS BUT NOT MANY THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FIRST TIME BUYER HOUSES OR FLATS. HOWEVER ANY NEW HOUSING WOULD NEED TO BE MATCHED WITH IMPROVED OR ENLARGED SCHOOLS. HOUSTON PRIMARY IS A BURSTING POINT AND GRYFFE HIGH SCHOOL NEEDS UPGRADED AND ENLARGED IN SEVERAL AREAS. » Smaller houses and purpose built flats for old and young single people. » No more housing until there are other amenities provided! » Starter flats for first time buyers & downsizers ... smaller bungalow type accommodation » Affordable housing that actually fits in with the Houston aesthetic and character, which importantly does not compromise access to green spaces. If new developments are proposed - what will this mean for school placements, infrastructure (eg roads) and services (GP, dentists, etc) as these are already stretched? » Smaller properties suitable for downsizing. » Low unit, accessible housing near amenities and transport links » A mix of affordable rental, over 50’s and assisted living property could be provided either adjacent to the roundabout where the B790 and B789 meet, or on land opposite Griffe High School on the Crosslee side. » Appropriate over 50 housing developments to allow older residents to stay in area and free up lafge houses for families to move into. » More flats or smaller dwellings required for first time buyers, homegrown or otherwise, or older downsizers. » Too many houses The Village is big enough. Facilities are not keeping abreast. » PLEASE NO MORE DEVELOPMENT » Possible need for housing for the elderly. Possible site adjacent to roundabout near shops. » AVOID GREENBELT, USE BROWNFIELD SITES » Smaller properties for those will to downsize » I don’t think there is the infrastructure to support more housing development » No high rises or houses over two storey and continued mix of high value and smaller starter homes for young families. » I’d say bungalows or some passive environmentally firneldu houses. Not sure where though... » There is no requirement for further housing in this area, doing so takes away from the village and green space which is so important to community life. » There are a number of potential sites around the village periphery which are promoted as part of the LDP. Important that any such sites connect into the village and do not infil the space between Houston and the other Renfrewshre villages. A range of housing is required for all ages and social groups, private and public. » Retirement properties to free up family homes. » Housing is becoming over crowded and already using all spaces » Mixed size houses preferably on outskirts » Paisley » starter homes. Bungalows for elderly » Smaller houses to free up larger properties » With the recent builds and planned builds there is no need for large scale development. Any planned development should have a balance of house types rather than high end housing » No more housing » No more housing developments in the next 25 years. » Houston’s services especially primary care and education do not have space for more housing. I feel the focus for Renfrewshire should be development of brown field sites elsewhere not building for profit on green land » Small houses and flats for older people or for young singles or couples. » Due to stretched infrastructure there should be no further housing developments in Houston » No further housing should get permitted until the infrastructure and amenities are improved around Houston are improved. » Council houses for rent. These should be mandatory in any new development (mixed in with the noddy-boxes, not hidden at one end of the site). The field approximately adjacent to Houston Primary, St Fillans and Gryffe High would be ideal since its is within easy walking/ cycling distance of the schools. » I have been trying to think about this. I really want to avoid urban sprawl and would like to avoid expanding the overall footprint of the built up area as much as possible. I am very concerned about the climate emergency and do believe that we should keep unbuilt up areas for nature, for carbon sequestration or for growing plants to eat. I also think 63 Page 175 of 280
Page 180
keeping urban areas compact should help encourage active travel/ 20 min neighbourhoods etc In terms of in fill, there is land between Neuk and Hallcraigs on the East side of the Orchard area which could be a possibility. I think it is currently owned by the occupants of Hallcraigs though. There is some scrubby woodland which would be a loss. I think we need a better housing mix. No more executive outsize homes and more cottage style, smaller homes, with a good proportion for social rent, but with some of these available to young or elderly from the local area. We are going to need more assisted living homes. It would be good if the young or elderly aren’t forced to leave the area if they don’t want to go. I would like all houses to be zero carbon homes. Sustainably built, with heat pumps, insulation, solar panels and battery storage. District heating systems which benefit the community not profiteers. I would like all homes to have water catchment systems to minimise flooding and preserve water. » 2 bed houses and bungalows » Local communications/educatinal/ health infrastructure is at a point where further housing development is unviable without seriously compromising the quality of service . » In the area covered by this survey I think we are close to saturation point with new housing if we are to retain the green spaces which are essential to quality of life. If new houses are to be built they should be in the affordable and smaller (couples, single person) end of the market. Those that need 2/3/4 bedroom family homes will find them in the current stock/market. » More affordable housing, but feels like its already pretty big and school very full » Stop building more houses. Absolutely no need for this. » I believe that housing could be provided anywhere in Houston/crosslee/ craigends. It’s the type of housing that matters. More social housing particularly 1 and two bedroom houses, elderly accommodation would also be advantageous in n Houston » The housing market is saturated » No large developments should be permitted, some quality flats to permit downsizing and thus releasing family homes could be useful. The area I would suggest is opposite (S) the high school. » There are too many houses being built and it is destroying the feel of Houston being a village. » No more houses » Do you not think Houston is big enough it,a village ?,? » Rather than big more big expensive family homes would be great to have some retirement cottage bungalows or similar. » Houston’s already stressed public services and infrastructure cannot cope with any further housing developments » No more housing- will loose village feel and there is not the infrastructure to support it- especially roads » Housing for older people or those trying to get foot on the property ladder » New housing estates should be limited to preserve Houston’s village character and green space/wildlife. Myself and neighbours noticed a marked reduction in wildlife in the community orchard field when the estate at Hallcraigs was built. » Smaller 2/3 bedroom homes required. » Social housing, affordable housing, first time buyer, sheltered housing. » First time buyer flats and houses between Linwood and houston » Too many houses currently in Houston as presently insufficient services etc » Affordable housing.. the prices in Houston are so high because of the area and school name » No new developments as schools already at capacity and will ruin the feeling of being a small town » Bungalow and cottage style traditional looking housing, mirroring the village, would be nice. 2 bed good quality downsize homes. Some retirement / assisted living accommodation. Four bed homes needed. Seems to be lots of 3 or 5 bed homes, feel a bit stuck with options to move within the village. Retirement homes need to be near amenities – bus, local shops, coffee shop for socialising, gentle walk, access to doctors. » Small affordable homes & bungalows » No more big houses....provide smaller and residents may downsize leaving bigger houses for growing families » I don’t think more housing should be developed » I do not support more house building. » There is no more for homes every green space council/ government are allowing housing and infrastructure cannot take it » I dont wish there to be any further housing development » Some blocks of flats suitable for downsizers would be good » Retirement housing, starter houses for local youngsters. » No housing is needed. If anywhere it should be north of the village. » First time buyer homes and 1 and 2 bedroom flats » Retirement flats or bungalows » Bungalows » Limit the development of social housing in established areas. The residents also not look after their space in these areas and it causes concern due to hygiene and safety reasons. » We need housing for older people (flats) and sheltered housing. » assisted living accomodation » No more housing » A massive need for smaller properties for young people and downsizers from Houston, which would in turn free up larger homes. The are known locally as the rhubarb fields east of Ardgryyfe Crescent would make a uitable location. » House prices for younger people to live in the area. » I think that forests and fields and parks need to be left alone, because these places are often refuges for young people and it would suck to see the village be industrialised. » No more new housing please we do not have the amenities to meet more housing » We DO NOT NEED any more housing in the village. 64 Page 176 of 280
Page 181
Part Three: Locations with Potential 1. Do you know of any vacant or derelict sites with potential for development? » Plenty of sites are vacant but are jealously defended by NIMBYs » The ground beside the High school. Possibly the field opposite the High school. » No » No » No » Plenty in Johnstone, Erskine, Linwood, Renfrew. Houston cannot & should not be expected to meet all these future needs » No » Village hall » The village hall has never really been used much and could become some form of business. » No » Unsure if there is any land available within Elderslie estate? » Sorry no. » There appears to be limited derelict sites » There are no vacant or derelict sites, any development would involve use of land presently used for farming. » NO » No » No » The Village Hall is empty for the time being, it could be used once again as a community space or leisure centre. » The focus should be on successfully completing Dargaval Village. Making it too easy for developers in Houston will prolong the period over which this imprtant site remains vacant and contaminated. There is an opportunity for active travel connections to Bishopton Station from Houston via Dargaval and also the creation of a country park which both communities can share. » Georgetown road /Houston road » No » No » No but I’m sure there will be plenty around Linwood or paisley » Unfortunately it, it would be a shame to eat into the green spaces and farms » No » Health care » Plenty sites not in Houston » No » No. Hence the lack of opportunities » There is no shortage of potential sites-the issue is ensuring compulsory infrastructure upsizing. Not simple and meaningless assurances about fringe benefits like community support projects or affordable houses or jobs - none of this is actually permanent or long term beneficial. » Shops at Crosslee; playpark spaces at Craigburn and Hillfoot that could be reclaimed as playspaces » Yes there is one called Linwood » Rhubarb field on Georgetown road. Field opposite O’brien offices in Crosslee. » No » No » Village hall » No » No » Space beside Gryffe High? » Not in Houston. However I think Paisley Town Centre could be upgraded to be a nice place to live as there. » No. » No. » No » Green space near to Claymore drive than could house a park. » Blacksmiths on Fulton Drive possibly. » Only the Old Smithy that has become vacant last week » Grass area Craigends estate » No. » no » No » No » No » No » NO » Linwood! » N/A » Please cab some of these sites be used for amenities other than housing - social clubs, allotments, etc? » Anywhere but green space or peripheral » As stated above, the land between Crosslee and Gryffe High School should be available provided suitable sewerage infrastructure can be provided. » No » NO SEE ABOVE » Do not want Houston to expand further into the Green Belt. Content that new house building to be contained within the existing urban envelope. » NO » No » No » No. » No » Empty units at co-op. » No » Not aware » No » None that I am aware of » No » Not for housing but there are sites eg opposite the high school, that are not farmed that could be used for community growing » The old village shop in South Street has been empty for years. » No » No. » See above, ask local farmers » No » No » No » The old play park in Craigends and the entirety of the area around the ‘red bridge’. Also entering the village from Inchinnan and also from Linwood » No » Ardgryffe park- possibility of a small cafe. Busy park and at football games time. » No » Village Hall on Main Street should be purchased by the local community! What an amazing space that could become. » No » Please no more development without infrastructure to support...schools shops 65 Page 177 of 280
Page 182
public transport » The blaze pitch at Gryffe High is an eyesore and is the ideal place for all weather football facilities. » NO » no » No » Paisley » No » No » None. 2. Do you know any buildings or sites which could have a better/different use? » The old Church Hall would have made cracking flats. » Quarry Brae park could be allotments/ community garden » The land across from the health centre on Kirk Road. Make it more of a feature with seating » The Village hall could ahve been converted into starter homes. » Church halls. The old cross key public house could be renovated » No » No » Village hall has been shut down and would make nice flats or make it a sheltered housing complex. » No » The old middy on access to Craigends Road » No. » There is scope for a small museum to highlight the history of the area but that would require to take space in an existing building such as the Carrick Centre which is already fully utilised. Should any property become available, it is one the community should consider.. » The Village Hall. » No » The place next to the Carrick and the carrick could be flats. » The car park outside the Pharmacy could be shrunk. There used to be a food van there, it could really benefit from some eatery or another building, as the car park is never full. The co-op building should retain the local businesses instead of kicking them out. » In thinking out the box I have a few suggestions for the next 25 years. Council or community should acquire Bogston Hill and absorn this into the existing park to create a new larger village park with amazing vantage point. Could this be negotiated with the owner as compensation for residentila development on land owned by them on the edge of the village. With a new park this would allow Houston Village to consider developing Helicopter Park on Fleming Road/Houstonfield Quadrant for affordable downsizer homes. This site could also potentially accomodate a new health centre thus enabling the existing site on Kirk Road to be developed for downsizer amenity homes in a courtyard design beside Houston & Killellan Church. These moves would then bring the key community faciities together in the village core. Alternatively Gryffe High School could be replaced via a pitch and ditch approach and a higher density design and this could include additional facilities such as a communty theatre, meeting space to complement the Carrick Centre. Rather than develop North Mound in future a more logical site for housing would be between Gryffe High School and Brierie Hills ..currently there is no footpath network between the community and the school so this would be the most logical step if the capacity issues could be resolved ...it would also require a new surgery which is also at capacity and is failing in meeting patient demand. o l » No » No » What’s happening with town hall? » No » No » Sports centre » No » ARDGRYFFE park could be developed into a better sports facility » The Carrick centre and the big building next door that was sold could have been utilised by many business as it could have been divided into different commercial units. » Grot spots like witches or north mound or any of the many young team hideouts could be openedTo be actual picnic or workshop locations. Use them rather than letting be abused. » See above. Play equipment has been removed at these sites in areas with families needing additional play spaces. » Yes the Houston Inn » Not » No » Smiddy shop. Return its use to a post office » No » The Old Mill, which currently rents out offices to companies such as Alvic Sliding Wardrobes, always looks quiet and could be better used as a small shopping center containing a cafe, bakery, deli » Village Hall. Been bought and roof work done but has been sitting looking sad ever since. » See above. » No. » No. » More coffee shops and more activities for children » The old village hall, but sadly this has been sold » Village hall » No. » no. Definitely do not want any buildings converted into mosques or HMOs for anti-christian migrants » No » No » No » No » NO » No » The primary schools should be amalgamated to make better use of educational facilities. Houston Primary School could accommodate say P1-4 & the St. Fillans building P5-7 ... separating younger children due to religion only encourages division ... both schools generally ‘feed to’ Gryffe High School which is non denominational » The Carrick / church next to the Carrick surely have potential » Old village hall » No 66 Page 178 of 280
Page 183
» Nothing springs to mind. » Yes, leave the fields green, let our countryside be!! » No » NO » The old post office which has recently closed as a cafe. This was very handy and affordable » No » No. » No » More sports/recreational classes in local halls. » No » More facilities » No » The site at the top of the village » No » No. » Presently vacant village hall could be repurposed » Not sure if this is a good idea really but although there is a hairdresser adjacent to the car park on North Street, the units there always seem to struggle. Not sure what would be a better idea? Turn them round so it looked more like a high street or turn them into something else? It should be the heart of the village, but it’s very unappealing. I am honestly not sure how well they are used and they belong to the church, but West Halls seems to be under utilised and not very pleasant. » No » No » No » The area behind the war memorial » No » dditional land beside alvic wardrobes, old mill site » No » See above about blaze pitch at Gryffe High. » NO » no » No » Lots of land owned by Elderslie Estates / Houston Farms is fenced off and would be great for exploring my nature if public were allowed access. » No » None. Part Four: Biodiversity and Sustainability 1. Do you have any suggestions of how to improve or expand the quality and access to open space, biodiversity and outdoor play/leisure? » Houston is green enough » Community garden/allotments » A “pump” track or skills park for scooters and bikes at Ardgryffe. » We have plenty of this type of space and its easily accessed. » Don’t build on an more green space. » No » Improvements in cutting back over growth of weeds around Gryffe river some paths becoming almost impassable » Better joined up paths » Turn the red blaze football pitches at Gryffe into astro turf pitches which will help community groups find access for training. Currently some of the kids teams are having to train and play away from the village » We’re very lucky to have so many beautiful outdoor spaces but there’s not much for young people to do indoors. » Kill the Japanese knotweed and Balsam plants infesting the River at Ardgryffe » Not really » The map shows the wider countryside area which is not widely advertised as accessible. Although there are leisure lanes, the access to e.g. woodland areas (such as Wraes wood) is hard to locate without instructions from someone who knows. I walk many routes around Houston, but have never done the Gryffe Way (too long and not circular). Could we promote some user friendly circular walks with suitability ratings alongside this walk? There was talk of a country park being established around turningshaw road/reilly road. This would be a wonderful resource for our community if it is in the planning stages. » Stop allowing building on green areas and cutting down trees » 🌿 Sustainability & Biodiversity Improvement Ideas – Houston, Renfrewshire 1. Habitat Creation & Biodiversity Enhancement 🌿 Wildflower meadows in parks and verges to support pollinators. 🌿 Wildlife corridors linking green spaces to help hedgehogs, birds, and insects move safely. 🌿 Community pollinator gardens with native Scottish plants. 🌿 Install bird, bat, and insect boxes in public parks and school grounds. 🌿 Tree planting schemes with native species to increase canopy cover and carbon sequestration. 2. Community Involvement & Education 🌿 Eco clubs in schools focused on local biodiversity and climate education. 🌿 Volunteer days for litter picking, tree planting, and habitat maintenance. 🌿 🌿 Sustainability workshops or speaker events in the community hall. 🌿 “Nature walks” with local guides to educate about native flora and fauna. 3. Greener Infrastructure 🌿 Encourage walking and cycling by improving safe paths and promoting “car-free” days. 🌿 Use recycled and natural materials in playground and park upgrades. 🌿 🌿 Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in new developments to reduce flood risk and support wetland wildlife. 4. Local Food & Waste Reduction 🌿 Community garden or allotment spaces, encouraging local food production. 🌿 Promote permaculture or no-dig gardening for sustainability. 🌿 🌿 Food waste reduction campaigns and composting workshops. 🌿 Install more recycling bins around the village with clear signage. 5. Policy & Collaboration 🌿 Encourage the community council to adopt a biodiversity action plan. 🌿 Partner with local environmental groups (e.g. Renfrewshire Council, TCV, or Scottish Wildlife Trust). 🌿 🌿 Work with developers to include green roofs, hedgehog highways, and bird-friendly design in housing plans. 6. Monitoring & Citizen Science 🌿 Launch a local wildlife survey (e.g. frogs, birds, butterflies). 🌿 Use apps like iNaturalist or PlantNet to involve residents in recording species. 🌿 Create a biodiversity noticeboard or webpage with local sightings and seasonal updates. More » Kerbside wildflower refuges. As seen in Denmark. They provided traffic calming, water management and biodiversity » Musch of the green areas through Craigends are cut grass and 67 Page 179 of 280
Page 184
underutilised. These areas could easily be rewilded or planted with wildflowers to improve biodiversity. » Access to bishopton rof if/when it becomes a park » Ardgryffe with indoor gym and spa making use of outdoors too. » Planting more wildflowers and native trees, opening up the old ammunitions factory near Reilly Road to become a country park/museum. Adding a play park to Sledge Hill at the end of Claymore Drive would be great! » We need to plant more trees in and around Houston we should encourage the schools to embark on a acrorn and seed growing initiative in conjunction with the community and work in partnership with Houston Farms and others to iderntify suitable sites. This is critical in addressing climate change. We should also focus on the river corridors to help address issues of future flooding. » More outdoor areas to encourage children to play and socialize » A village park with seating, planting » Develop local walking routes » Less houses » Allow walking round Houston house, access has been blocked with electric gates » Council to look after the areas we have at the moment. » Pavements are lacking or two small to safely walk in parts especially if you have a wheelchair or pram » No » I think surveillance cameras are great as a deterrent. Similar to dash cams, they would be great for follow up but more importantly as a deterrent. » See above - reclaim derelict play space sites » Stop building houses » Quality roads, pavements and cycle tracks » No » Better dog control in local parks such as secure areas for children » No » Defined country walks so people can access countryside without walking on the road. » Reopen access to Houston house grounds. Right of way blocked by nursery and main gate at the Kirk » Continue the wild flower planting that Bee Happy have started. Create a butterfly garden. » Make sure that all the current green space is left as green space and not available for developers for more housing. » Update and maintain public play parks for children. » Hedges need cut back as can’t see traffic coming. » No. » No » Build a playpark as stated. » A skate park could be added to Helicopter Park where the jungle is! Used to be a football park I believe. » Develop green space mentioned into usesble community space » No, cut the grass » Yes, just leave things as they are. » Much of the green areas through Craigends are cut grass and underutilised. There is little connectivity between the areas that do exist right across this Houston area. » Provide play park for children living at Hillside/Craigburn area. There were facilities there previously and sites remain derelict » No » The construction of paving through Craigends Woods would be beneficial for the residents to enjoy woodland » Get the kids away from their play stations » N/A » Please can we support nature based solutions and have green spaces for people to access such as allotments, gardening groups, etc. » Play park in the Oilfields » Make them accessible. Plans for Helicopter park indicated accessibility but they were not installed/not installed to standar » A pedestrian/cycle route between Linwood and Bishopton via the Georgetown Reception Centre access on the B790 » No » Stop development » Access to the countryside could be improved by creating a system of walk routes with landowners’ consent. » Turn Ardgryffe Park into a actual football facility for Houston United - it supports so many young people yet it is left to the goodwill of volunteers and is still subjected to vandalism » No » Plant more trees in open grassy areas. Leave some larger grassy areas grow wilder, cut less often. » No » Waling trails around the village in a map or by following route signs. » Safer paths for walking and cycling, better and safer ( patrolled play parks , better street lighting , seating. » Think the parks at Crosslee and the public park could have more- public nothing for older children and crosslee not catered well for younger ones » Less housing development » Id like to see a dark skies initiative to cut down the amount of artificial light at night » we are well provided in this area » Better connections with the bike track » Build a CrossFit gym and athletics track » Low lights/down facing building lights to reduce light pollution. Dogs on leads » Access to community growing space. Rewilding of smaller patches of land. » Switch off the internet, build a Greggs in the park? There are no quality or access issues, there are cultural and lifestyle issues created by 50+ years of car-centric design and a general disengagement with nature amongst the populace. If people walked and cycled instead of driving they would tend to become better connected to nature without need any further prompts. » There is a lot of grass in Houston, much of it needs to be maintained and has low biodiversity. All along Magnus Road the wide grass verges could be planted with trees and/or wild flowers. We could have increased areas for trees and nature 68 Page 180 of 280
Page 185
in the parks, particularly along River Gryffe in Ardgryffe Park. Apparently the LLP doesn’t address the need for adaptation and mitigation to the Climate Emergency, but we all know that the risk of flooding is increasing. Planting trees along the river in the park could help. I would also plant trees along footpaths and streets to provide shade cover. We basically need to come up with a comprehensive plan. It would be nice to have an ecological survey done of all the degraded antient woodland around Houston, with a proper plan to restore it ( difficult when it is all so over used). It would be good to have tree corridors up to Glenmosd woods in Kilmacolm and along to the BAE site which is ecologically very rich and is being developed into a country park by the bastards profiting from the war in Gaza, but hey ho. The biggest thing we could do to address biodiversity is address land inequality. The area surrounding Houston is very nature deprived because it is owned by large landowners whose only motive is profit. Most agricultural land is farmed for livestock and in terms of what is grown, it is mostly fodder crops, and barley for the whisky and beer industry. His other source of income is of course selling land for housing. All of these activities are terrible for biodiversity. Short of having a revolution, our only avenue is to have a Community Land Trust and start using the community empowerment act to start putting options on land. Land inequality is a huge factor in biodiversity loss and I would really like to see us doing what we can to address this. » Houston is a small enough place that I don’t see this as an issue except to say that allowing any more of these spaces to be developed is a mistake . » Better changing facilities around the pitches areas we do have (rather than tin containers). » I proving safe routes to walk to cycle to them » Funding to improve local parks and make these desirable places for people to go to » No » Protect the green belt and stop building. Plant more trees in appropriate areas. » Prevent more house building » Better grass cutting. Grass spaces not cut often enough and are left with clumps of grass. » Perhaps a focus on protecting the local wildlife, sewing wildflower seeds in available spaces » Allotment spaces near the schools, also encourage learning. The outdoor gym initiative at Ardgryffe Park has been great, but it is not very central. The Bee Happy group are also a fantastic contributer locally. » Cycle route alongside Houston rd towards Glasgow airport, or connection between Houston and bishopton and Greenock- very busy roads- improve old Greenock road for access and back roads to Kilmacolm, lots of green spaces could be improved with walkways like at Foss » A regular clean up of pavements for access to open areas and also clean up the latter » Gryffe high school has blazed area needing resurfaced and would allow kids someone to play » Access to Gryffe football pitch for teens to play football on weekends and holidays. Nice woodland walk would be good (Houston house is closed to public) as currently walk a circuit on footpath around the outside. A mountain bike trail loop through woodland along the Gryffe would be a nice addition. » All weather football pitches and cycle lanes. » stop building houses » No » Responsible access. Awareness of farming operations and negative impact of dog walking/defecating in silage fields. » Allow access into Houston House grounds » Complete pavements and drop kerbs. Create safe cycle paths to connect with established cycle routes » No » None. » Better active travel routes to give access to the countryside and to the existing routes to allow healthy access. » Less focus on housing developments and more focus on preservation of our natural evanrioment. » No I believe that Houston has great access to these facilities. 2. Do you have any suggestions of how to improve active travel mobility, i.e. walking, wheeling and cycling? This could be to get around Houston locally, or to travel between neighbouring towns. » Cycle lanes would be advantageous but not to the detriment of pedestrian access, which take priority over all else » Cycle path to BOW along Houston Road » Wider paths for cycling to Bridge of Weir, path isn’t wide enough and cars go past too fast on the road. Lots of paths are overgrown especially on Houston Road across from Magnus. Better lighting on this road too. » A proper cycle lane to BOW would probably be used but the previous efforts and waste of our money was dire! How about bringing the rail line back! it would take a lot of traffic poff the roads. » Published safe cycling routes segregated from the road. Although the cycle path links Houston with kilmacolm, bow, Linwood and Johnstone, there is no safe, segregated access to it from Houston. » Cycle paths to be upgraded. Cycle lanes, pavements upgrades and lighting. » Better bus services. Cycling too risky » Better path surfaces as identified in recent communication review » Increase frequent and reliable bus services. This would reduce car usage if the service was reliable . Look at reopening the railway line. » Cycle path needs renamed to ensure the safety of pedestrians as well as cycle speed limits , segregated walking and cycling » Our roads around Houston encourage cars/ vehicles to drive at unbelievable speed, meaning it’s unpleasant & unsafe feeling as a pedestrian » Off road cycle links to bow/cycle track/ Johnstone. Bus service to paisley. Better lighting of key pedestrian routes. routes. Pedestrian priority along Main Street, including better streetscape, pavement size and condition and a crossing at the fox and hounds. » Better cycling provision and the 69 Page 181 of 280
Page 186
monitoring of speed through all parts of the village » Designated cycle and walking routes » Ensure the pavements in and around the village are well lit and not overgrown. Some paths are currently about half the width they should be. » Better access to the cycle path or decent cycle path to Bridge of Weir. » Utilise the old rail track on the Barochan road, with suitable walking, and cycling paths, also to include adequate lighting. » Easier access to the sustrans cycle route would make cycling safer for families. We spent many years cycling round Houston with children and it never felt safe, roads too busy, no integrated dedicated cycleways. Bus service to Paisley would be so beneficial. » Local bus. Better footbridge over gryffe » 1. Improve Local Infrastructure Upgrade and maintain pavements to ensure they are accessible for wheelchairs, prams, and mobility aids. Install dedicated cycle lanes where space allows, particularly on busy roads like Barochan Road and Houston Road. Widen shared-use paths and improve signage for multi-user routes. Add safe crossing points at key areas such as near schools, parks, and the village centre. 2. Better Connectivity with Nearby Towns Improve and promote traffic-free routes to Johnstone, Linwood, and Bridge of Weir – for example, enhancing links to NCN Route 75. Introduce wayfinding signage with distances and walking/cycling times to key destinations. Create green corridor routes along former railway lines or river paths, where possible, to offer scenic, safe alternatives to roads. 3. Promote Safe and Confident Travel Offer cycle confidence sessions for adults and children via schools and community groups. Establish a “walking bus” or bike-train system for school children. Install more bike racks at shops, schools, and bus stops to encourage short cycling trips. 4. Supportive Local Policies and Initiatives Work with Renfrewshire Council to prioritise active travel in transport planning. Apply for funding from Sustrans or Paths for All to support local infrastructure projects. Organise community active travel events, like “Car-Free Days” or “Walk to School Weeks”. 5. Accessibility & Inclusion Ensure all routes are inclusive, considering needs of wheelchair users and people with limited mobility. Create resting points with benches on longer walking routes or hilly paths. » Keep the current walking routes clear of overhanging vegetation. Provide cycle routes to local villages and towns. Change priorities at pedestrian crossing so pedestrians don’t have to wait so long. » I believe the community council produced a previous report on active travel which highlighted many areas for improvement but has not been implemented. There are serious difficulties for people who are wheeling, particularly wheelchair access. It would also be useful to implement plans for an active travel connection to Bridge of Weir and look at similar connections to Linwood, Bishopton and from the end of Fulton Drive directly onto the national cycle network.s » Exclusion zone for cars around the cars. more zebra/pelican crossings on busy roads, Magnus Road, Main Street in the village. » Owners should not be allowed to allow their garden hedges and trees to grow outside their property. i.e. some hedges on Main St Houston do not allow safe and clear use of the pedestrian pavement. This should be addressed asap before someone is hurt or injured when having to walk off the pavement to pass or address pushing a pram. » Better access to the cycle path » More cycle lanes » Get some cycling lanes in and reduce the speed limits from Linwood to Craig’s and beyond » Actually add protected bike lanes, especially along the Georgetown straight aka the B790 to Inchinnan. Having a link through the stone wall from Fulton Drive to Craigends Road as a shortcut to Clippens Road would be great, as currently the way to Linwood is very dangerous as the majority of it has to be on the busy main road. » Active travel corridor between Houston and Bridge of Weir, new link to National Cycle Network from Fulton Drive and also route to the Onyx. Straighten out and fix bad bends and junctions from Crosslee to Deafhillock Roundabout. Introduce footpath network from St Benedicts to Houston and from Linwood and Brookfield as these are extremely narrow and unsafe at present. » If there was a walking path on the b790 houston road / georgetown road this would connect bridge of weir to houston to inchinnin or a cycle route on tbis road as there is always lots of cyclists on this road every day » More regular bus service that links with other towns like Paisley/ Glasgow. » Cycling lanes would be great. » Safe direct access to bike track via dedicated cycle option to Crosslee Road bike track. Must be suitable for families to access safely. » Some pavements in village need looked at and resurfaced, some too narrow and struggle to push pram. » Cycling to neighbouring communities is less than easy. » The X7 should be rerouted to go straight over the roundabout by the police house to turn right onto Houston road ( there are already 2. bus stops on Houston road left from a previous route) » Better bus service » Better access to the cycle track » Safe access rout to cycle path going to Bridge of Weir from Houston » Better public transport to neighbouring villages and Glasgow especially at weekends. » Less money wasted on poor quality cycle lanes. If developing more do it properly through widening roads » Invest in cycle path to link with Houston » Improve buses service » Connecting Houston to nearby cycle lanes, meaning you don’t have to use busy roads » Upgrade pavements and improve road crossings. » Push for electric scooters to be legal, create cycle routes to bridge of weir and inchinnan allowing safer and more appropriate movement » We need more accessible walk ways around the village. » Improve the footpaths around the village 70 Page 182 of 280
Page 187
» Create and maintain pavements. » We have some of the biggest cycling clubs in Scotland here , we have time trials most weekened on the Houston road and we add 30 minutes to car journeys to and from work because of cylclist. They have the cycle track that connects Hosuton to Bridge of Weir they have the Lanes and the Likmacolm back Roads no more needed » Actyal cycle tracj between Houston & Beidge of Weir. Improve pavements between Houston and Linwood. Also Johnstone, including cycle paths. » We need more and better cycle routes. » Dedicated cycling and walking paths » Dedicated cycle lanes. Get cyclists off the roads coming into the village, particularly the stretch after sandholes » direct buses to Paisley it is mostly unafordable to get 2 buses to a town less than 3 miles away » Some private hedges could be doing with getting but Bach to allow better access to pavements i » Get better bus access » Yes, better bus service. Specifically a bus service direct to our nearest big town i.e PAISLEY » Build more cycle paths. I lived in Germany for 5 years and all the schools, parks and sportcentres are connected by cycle paths. Also in terms of travel to other towns, the National Cycle Route 75 is close to Houston but you have to cycle on the main roads to access it. The village has many paths which could be expanded and upgraded to a continuous cycle path. The new Cala housing development near Woodend House build ridiculous cycle paths which only run for a few hundred meters and then stop. I assume it was a legal requirement. » Better provision for cyclists. » Cut down the overgrown weeds. More dropped kerbs. Crossing point between neuk and Leeburn » Better bus service to Johnstone and Paisley. » Improved bus services. » There could be better cycle lanes covering the whole of Houston and Crosslee. There could be speed bumps and other traffic calming measures for all roads to reduced speeding. There should be better bus links. There is one bus per hour going to Glasgow. Could that be increased to perhaps 2 per hour. There is no bus to Paisley and there should definitely be a bus to Paisley at least once an hour. Also, while there is a bus to Johnstone Station, it is not frequent, so it should be more frequent - at least once an hour, all day every day. There should be more frequent busses to Bridge of Weir, especially as there are more shops in Bridge of Weir and that would encourage people to shop locally. » Better walking and cycle routes. » Bus service to Paisley direct. » Need more buses particularly the reinstatement of the bus route along the Georgetown road. » More footpaths and footpaths that aren’t overgrown » Build a pavement and crossing as stated. » Improved pathways and crossings. » We need more public transportation to surrounding areas as no direct transportation to Paisley and not enough to Johnstone » Restrictions to on street and on pavement parking » A metal fence erected on the road between Bridge of Weir and Houston, so our young people can walk/circle to school safely. » The cycling network needs improvement to connect it to the existing tracks - access to cycle lanes ( not temporary) would enhance the area and allow better connectio » A better local bus service would be good. Better security on the cycle path. » The pavements and paths are in a terrible state. » Section of public path around Houston House (major’s old land) is very muddy and could do with some gravel » Cycle pathway to Johnstone to connect with rail services » There is a lack of connection between areas for people walking or wheeling. Access for wheelchairs is woefully inadequate in some areas. » Provision of cycle lanes. Problem is access from Houston to the fabulous cycle track. Access has to be along Fireork Road which is long or Sandholes. However you have a main road to reach there. The disaster of putting plastic bollards along the Bridge of Weir Road was a complete waste of money and anyone could have predicted that. A cycle lane is needed to be installed properly to allow access to Bridge of Weir. There is also a speeding problem. Even walking from Crosslee to Brookfield is scary due to traffic. Also there is a danger trying to cross the road to Brookfield/Linwood at the 90 degree corner. If walking to Johnstone you are taking a risk with your life there. I once pushed a pram to Johnstone for a toddler Bookbug session and couldn’t cross. » The cycling path between Houston and Bridge of Weir is years behind its original schedule. This should be addressed urgently. Local paths should be upgraded to increase their accessibilty - path along River Gryffe between Houston and Bridge of Weir (The Lade Path) Full length of the path through the woods in Craigends between Gryffebank Avenue and the B789 Barrochan Road. » 20 mph zone to protect our most vulnerable road users, including children, pedestrians and cyclists, and significantly decrease the risk of being injured in a collision. » Put in speed cameras to enforce speed limits. » Possibly creating a cycle track to link to nearby greater cycles tracks might be beneficial » MORE TRAFFIC CONTROLS TO SLOW DOWN CARS, VANS AND LORRIES TRAVELLING THROUGH THE VILLLAGE. AS A PEDESTRIAN WITH YOUNG GRANDCHILDREN IT IS VERY CONCERNING THAT THEY CANNOT WALK TO SCHOOL SAFELY » Direct cycle access from Craigends to Br of Weir cycle track. More pavements everywhere. » Some pavement areas cannot be walked along due to overgrown borders, barochan rd for example » A programme to install proper connecting pavements everywhere in Houston is required; some established streets do not have proper connecting 71 Page 183 of 280
Page 188
pavements. Designated safe walkways should be established between the likes of Langbank, Bishopton & Dargavel providing health benefits to all & further economic prosperity to local Houston businesses » Please made our roads safer in the first place so that we feel more comfortable crossing / walking next to main roads. Please may we explore more bus routes and services » Connectivity from main roads to cycle path. » Sort underpasses (unsafe) and traffic calming » The footpaths on the B789 are too narrow and the road itself is not wide enough for the amount and speed of the traffic, it does not meet modern design conditions. » You could start with improving existing pavements which have uneven surfaces and numerous defects. » Gryffe Valley Way to Bridge or Weird is overgrown and barely walkable. Not cyclable. Walking to Johnstone or the cycle path network near Brookfield involves narrow overgrown pavements next to busy roads. » A better local bus service would help those who don’t drive/ can’t drive » Pathways could be cleared and repaired, some of the paths and lanes are in terrible conditions and haven’t been cared for in a long time » Stop development. Stop people parking in the streets in Houston e.g. houtside the new playhouse, and around the Kirk area. Speed limit for traffic on country roads reduce from no limit as it is currently, to 30mph.. » No » IMPROVED ACTIVE TRAVEL NETWORK AND LINKS TO NEIGHBOURING VILLAGES » Simpler walking routes from Crosslee to village. Nothing direct all via steep hills » Improve the pavements and roads » Ensure safe movement over main roads for children to access the parks and play areas in existence by traffic calming and crossings controlled by traffic lights » Connect to main cycle path. » Better footpaths to get pedestrians off highways. » Safe, direct route to local cycling path. Further pedestrian crossing especially behind gryffe high school. Speed bumps & 20mph zones. » Better roads, pavement lighting. » Better public transport » A small bus service in Houston Crosslee would be excellent for elderly residents who have no access to a bus service » more traffic calming in areas where the car drivers are breaking the speed limits » more lowered kerbs » Put pavements n the roads which don’t have them and make narrower roads one way » Dedicated cycle lanes but road widths do not make this practical. » Dedicated and safe cycle paths. Walking routes away from busy roads. Enforced speed limits » Strong speed controls on baraochan and bridge of weir road to allow saferCycling » Make it clear to drivers that the roads are for everyone not just those in huge family cars. » Local bus transport is not viable due to proliferation of cars in the area. » Ban cars from areas around schools at the start and end of the school day. Build segregated cycle lanes with right of way at junctions on all roads. This is not hard, it has been done successfully in the Netherlands and Scandanavia with resulting improvements in population health and wellbeing. » I have lots of ideas for how to improve active travel mobility and would happily cycle around with you to show you. I know there are plans to put a cycle track between Houston and Bridge of Weir. I would like to put a pump track ( BMX) track beside it to encourage you g people to get on their bikes. I would quite like to go on it to. They do this in the Netherlands as a way of getting children on their bikes from an early age. One way to improve cycling is to slow down all the traffic and I would like traffic calming measures through the village, and along BoW road by Gryffe. The cycle tracks should be extended into the village. I would like a cycle track beside the road along Magnus road and linking through Craig’s Road to get to Linwood. Something needs to be done about the bus stop ahead of the Craig’s Road exit as it obscures the vision and makes it very risky to pull out. There needs to be a plan for addressing the fact that the community is divided by the Houston/ Bridge of Weir Road and we are all so disconnected. Either you decide to go Overland and add a cycle track to the main roads, or you stick with the underpasses and link them properly. It’s possible to get from Oilfields, over the wooden bridge in Crosslee Crescent and up to the Traffic Crossing up from the River Inn on a bike, but it involves going on a pavement which is not a shared path. Bizarrely the crossing is a bike crossing too, but then back onto a pavement up up around the back of the Primary School..also not officially a shared path and involves bumping up and down a lot of pavements which is hard work. Then when you get to the second underpass, there are wide steps all the way up, or you can bump down onto the entry road to the school and cross the main road that way. It feels like it would be cheaper to do it this way, if you could widen this route a bit and make it a shared path rather than a cycle path up the main road, as it’s nearly there. To get to the National Cycle Route Craig ends Road is the obvious route but the cars go fast and don’t always stop when it is very narrow. They keep resurfacing and every time they do the tarmac section gets higher and narrower. It needs a lot more passing spaces or something. Cars think you can just dive over into the side, buts there’s quite a drop in places. One of the first things I would do is get ride of the “car lanes” going out East of the roundabout along the Houston Road. They are just a way of keeping the bikes in the gutter and are very unsafe. There should be a cycle path all the way out the Houston Road, connecting with the BAE Country Park entrance and along to the Red Smidfy roundabout and the cycle path to the technology centre and over the Renfrew/ Clydebank Bridge. Once the Country Park is open there is meant to be a cycle path through to Bishopton. This will open up the Country Park for the community and possibly create some tourism type employment and opportunities. 72 Page 184 of 280
Page 189
» Proper cycle lanes to make it safer for cyclists » Better public transport. Keeping vegetation cut back on paths and better maintaining the surfaces. » This is not something I’m involved in . » More crossings to allow safe routes. Particularly at the back entrance to school and magnus road. Traffic calming from lights to river inn would also help » Not without removing cars from the road » Connecting Houston to the main cycle path via either Bridge of Weir or Linwood » Cycle path that are completed » Footpath from Crosslee to Bridge of Weir via the Lade should be upgraded » Keep the pavements clear of obstructive hedges, widen roads to add decent cycle lanes » There is a great cycle network AROUND Houston but we’re not safely connected to it. This would be a real bonus. » Better link to cycle path ( old rail line) » Maybe publicise the walking routes and footpaths more that people might not know about. A map online/leaflets in local venues » Active travel routing is a problem from Houston. I cycle to Johnstone station to get the train. The stretch from Crosslee to Barrochan Road is fast and dangerous (but unavoidable), also the first part past the River Inn the pavement is dangerously narrow, for pedestrians also, and on Road to Linwood. » See above » Without a vehicle access to paisley and Johnstone is very poor, difficult conundrum as to increase buses or not. » Need safe link from Houston to bridge of weir via separate cycle track, not along pavement of road » Pedestrian connections on Georgetown rd » Id like to cycle more with the family but don’t feel safe on the roads. Feel we need a cycle path to join Houston to the bridge of weir cycle path, and also a safe cycle path between Houston and OnX and Linwood » Fix potholes, enforce speed limits & widen pavements. » Public transport at affordable cost and regularity » Improve access to the cycle paths , with proper, dedicated cycle lanes to BOW » Cycle lanes. A train line would be transformational. » More frequent bus links. Add cycle paths connecting to Houston to Johnstone train station » make pavements wider and repair where needed » Access roads to Houston are poor. New access road would be good » Provide protected pathways. Pavement outside GryffexWraes not safe for school children. Other areas could ve developed to create walking/cycle paths better than the markings on Houston Rd which provide jo protection for cyclists and justc end at Georgetown road. » Keep things the way they are, too many improvements to mobility will cause us to lose the village feel. » Create SAFE cycle paths drop kerbs and highlight rights of way » A bus service direct from Houston to Paisley would be an advantage to older residents » More buses. Safe cycling routes to Bridge of Weir and along the Georgetown Road » Better bus links » Proper cycle routes connecting all parts of Houston with Bridge of Weir. » Extend footpaths around the village. » better public transport service. better connectivity for cycling. » better paths in the craigends area; connecting to ardgryffe and linwood. more lighting on paths around houston, specifically the bridge going over river gryffe from crosslee park to ninian avenue, kirk road and the all parks around houston » As above, there is a need to join up the paths in Houston and to connect them to the national cycle route and routes from Bishopton and Inchinnan. » Widen pavements for wheelchair users. Part Five: Final Thoughts 1. Looking ahead to Houston in 2050, what are the main changes that you would like to see? » A population that isn’t ageing and a vibrant young community of creativity and modernised housing and amenities » Fewer cars more cycling/walking/public transport. Vibrant community growing space. » Local government to put some of the money received from council tsx bsck into maintaining the roads and infrastructure » More community events like fun days, better transport links, opportunities for young people to learn a skill » No more housing unless the type we need and bring the rail line back. » Refurbished non dom primary school, new build high school » Local bus service more often. Affordable housing, assisted living. No bulding on green spaces. Leave your nature otherwise our children won’t care about nature. » If there were to be further development then expanding local schools is an absolute basic necessity » The schools need updated especially Gryffe. » Better public transport. Complete ban on further housing development. » Better school provision. More local shops and food options » No more housing, new school, safeguarding of greenbelt » Better public transport. Also the road infrastructure needs to improve due to increase in volume of traffic due to continuous house building. » An additional general shop for groceries would be beneficial » Protect the character of this delightful village, including protecting its green spaces » No further housing developments. » I doubt I will stay in Houston, it’s been an excellent place to bring up children and commute to Glasgow but looking forward to future years it is too spread out, with poor transport for us to stay. Which is a shame as we have lived here for over 35 years. » Railway line reinstated. » Improvement in public transport links to surrounding towns and villages, 73 Page 185 of 280
Page 190
particularly in the evenings. » Less change, no more building. » Improve the local community with more local leisure and community centre areas » Continuing the wonderful community spirit we have with for example, Bee Happy & the Litter Crew, for example, we should have developed a stronger reputation for a welcoming, accessible, sustainable, inclusive village, » Protect greenspace. Limit building » A greener village with housing suitable for all and good public transport service to all local towns and villages as well as Glasgow » Houston was designed for everyone to use cars which is no longer sustainable. Many who came here as young families are now elderly and wish to use other means of transport which are not available or poorly provided. The area must become more sustanable and welcoming to people who wish to move about without using cars. » Community greenspaces, small business local shops, quieter roads, a focus and encouragement towards healthier life styles. Community fan veg areas. » More school buses and buses between Houston and neighbouring villages » Better public transport » Hedges cut back to owners building feudal lines rather than allowing them to grow over public accesses. » Less cars » A connected village that all ages can enjoy not just a can I get my kid in Gryffe » By the year 2050, Houston would have excellent bus services to nearby areas such as Johnstone, Kilmacolm and Paisley. There would be lots of biodiversity, a thriving food forest behind the roundabout. There would be a variety of different housing, where people could afford these places, including some social housing too. There would be easy access for cyclists travelling from Houston to other areas, without needing to drive in vehicular traffic. » I would like to see Houston maintaining a strong role and purpose. It needs to meet the housing needs of its growing elderly population. It needs to be rethought as a place to live in terms of ‘how the Dutch or Scandanavians would have planned it ...so capitalise on heritage, green spaces and active travel. It needs to become a great community to live in for those who are working remotely. It cannot become a mini Dartgaval Village so needs to differentiate itself to become a ‘whole life community. It needs to focus on besoke eco homes and downsizer ‘Places for People Homes’ rather than volume off the shelf development. It can build on its attractiveness as a cycling destination, it can capitalise on its proximity to Glasgow Airport as a comparatively affordable village that attracts supercommuters. It also needs to attract more people from the creative industries and those who work from home and develop a compelling arts and cafe culture. It should be a socially diverse community that provides a quality semi-rural suburban choice for 2nd & 3rd stepper households from wider Renfrewshire and the west of Glasgow housing sub market. It should become a ‘premium destination;’ for those currently living in Dargaval but should manage its village scale and qualities. It should provide unrivalled access tot he countryside for walking and cycling and a quality food, drink and cafe culture. » More houses on the b790 houston road and a path to walk on which connects houston road to bridge of weir and inchinnin » Keeping the village as it is and not building new home in a conservation village centre. » I don’t think I’d want it to change except for transport. » Landowners cutting back bushes and trees to provide clear access to pavements. Better cycling provision. New high school with quality sports provision. » Council supporting the mandatory maintenance or surveys of trees within Houston as so many fall during storms which could kill and they damage property. This shouldn’t be an exception for trees on private property. If it could affect puic safety it should be mandatory. » More bus routes. Safer cycling routes. » improved public transport connections. It is almost impossible to get to the RAH on a bus » Improved road/pavements connections » Sports facilities are lacking. Tennis club is a fantastic facility however Gryffe High should have much better sports facilities for community use. » Better bus service, more social opportunities for teenagers, no more houses being built, school class sizes being reduced, less pressure on GP surgery and schools. » No more trees or green space sacrificed for housing as there are not enough facilities to accommodate » Stop housing development, village is over populated » Village park, safe cycle routes around village and linking to national cycle routes. No more houses built as too many cars and people currently for local services » Less development other than if high quality for particular needs. More space for local lifestyle businesses » Stop buiding new houses and start to devlop the roads, parks and schools. » Housing plan » Better cycling routes through the village, connecting to national routes; improved public transport options; more diverse range of housing other than 5 bed detached ones; expanded GP capacity » Railway brought back to the local area, a stop on large house building » No more big housing estates with large family housing. More infrastructure for existing residents. » Better provision for primary and secondary education. Vast improvement in the doctors surgery, that is appointments being available much sooner . Traffic calming the the area. » Better transport and more affordable housing » More sports facilities for our children, severely lacking in this area compared to less affluent areas where kids seem to get more » Improving the services we already have rather than expanding » Better networking including bus and rail. More commercial business opportunities. » Community spirit and community service 74 Page 186 of 280
Page 191
Levels shouldNot be left to volunteers. Recognised monitoring and policing must come from official authorities. I strongly believe in a regular community policeman on a regular beat. We all reminisce about how the local Bobby kept everything in shape and it actually does. Community Policing works. It is a gateway for all other services and wellbeing to thrive ... » None » We need to find a way of protecting the culture and heritage of the village that makes it the desirable area that it is without placing even more demand on the local infrastructure that is at breaking point. Doctors can’t take on more patients, schools are at capacity and tired. Mainly poor quality B roads that provide access to and from the village. » I’d like to see a beautiful village with plenty of shrubs and trees on display and which provides the infrastructure to safely cycle/ walk around. » Train service to Paisley and Glasgow. Direct bus service to the RAH » Gryffe needs rebuilt » Dependable public transport with active plans to maintain village life » I’d like there to be a ban on building more housing so that the roads / doctors / schools do not get busier. » Improved roads and public transport links, school refurbishment, accessible services that meet the needs of residents » I would like to see due consideration given to keeping the identity of the village. I see the biggest threat to this as unlimited housing being erected as Houston has a reputation as a nice place to live Surgeries and schools are full. If we could utilise buildings such as the village halls as new flats accessible by lifts. Some of the elderly who have lived in Houston all their lives would move and free up housing for families. Building massive houses is not the answer » Less large new houses being built How about 2 bed apartments or terraced houses. » I would hope that those that were born and lived their lives in HOUSTON, and kept it such a lovely respectful village could end their time in the village, any newcomers to respect the village, instead of ripping up front gardens and trying to turn it into a concrete jungle » Housing for older people like us. We’ve lived here for 40 years, want to downsize which would give the younger people a chance to move into a family home. Always building 4/5 bedroom houses. Also affordable housing should mean houses our children can buy not always about bringing prople in to rental properties. Our young people want to buy in Houston but not all have £500k » Cycle paths and safe access to the National Cycle Route 75. A safe cycle path to Bridge of Weir. This would lead to less cars on the road. Children should be walking and cycling to school in such a small village. » I do not want more big houses built in this area. Any plans to build anything that invades the green space we have between Houston and other areas like Bridge of Weir, Linwood, Brookfield. Houston and Crosslee are already joined, let’s not join anymore areas. » Improved choices of housing and care. Better sports facilities at the schools. Gryffe High’s facilities are an embarrassment » Better bus links to Glasgow, Paisley, Johnstone train station, Bridge of Weir and Kilmacolm. Traffic calming, better cycle lanes, keeping all green space, opportunities for meeting up with others in the community - community organised events, making it easy to find out about community events, sustainable and affordable living such as a refill shop https://www.tgchoice.co.uk/ » More frequent and expanded public transport » Direct bus link to Paisley. » Footpaths and shops » More bus routes » Houston has been my home for the last 37 years. I consider myself fortunate to have been able to access education, medical and vocational services within Houston . However , with the regular applications for new housing within Houston , I fear for the future of these services . Instead of 5 bedroom houses what about bungalows or sheltered housing which could free up some of the older housing stock of family homes which are being occupied by two or one elderly occupants who wish to remain within the community of Houston . » Better road structure to assist with road capacity. » Better transport options » More youth provision, more classes like art classes, pottery classes etc for the younger older adults. » Better provision for cycling and walking. Village to be more established » Better transport links to/from glasgow. Re surfacing of roads » Bigger GP surgery, stopping irresponsible and inconsiderate parking near schools. » No more expensive housing developments » I would like to see Houston maintain its character and have better links with the surrounding towns. » Very little, if any. It’s a pretty and sleepy Scottish village which should not be destroyed by further development. » No change. No expansion. Just modest maintenance (eg of roads) as required. » Schools require some investment so that the infrastructure matches their performance » A balance between the population numbers & availability of services eg health care & schooling. To ensure infrastructure can cope with demands required of it, drainage to prevent flooding, sewage system, reliable internet access & protection of the green spaces in & around the village to keep Houston as a village » Perhaps more accessible bus services to the surrounding areas of Erskine and Johnstone. » Meeting the asperations for 20 minute communities with suitable housing and services available locally or easy access provided to those in adjoining villages. » Conservation of the village » Provision for active travel, including cycling and walking routes. Better public transport to neighbouring towns and the Royal Alexandra Hospital. » A cleaner and tidier Houston. Roads swept by council including side residential roads. Grass cuttings lifted and removed from parks and green spaces. Refuse collection to be done 75 Page 187 of 280
Page 192
properly and not just leave spillage from bins on roads. » 20 mph zones They are very effective at protecting our most vulnerable road users, including children, pedestrians and cyclists, and significantly decrease the risk of being injured in a collision. » Safe pedestrian crossing for all housing estates to protect pedestrians from unrelenting speeding vehicles that pass enter at Houston boundary points » ALL NEW HOUSING IS DIVERSIFIED TO ENCOURAGE FIRST TIME BUYERS AS WELL AS FAMILIES TO THE AREA. BETTER TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SPEED CONTROL. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PRIMARY AND SECONADARY SCHOOLS THAT ALLOW FUTURE PUPILS TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO MATCH THE OUTSTANDING RESULTS THAT THE SCHOOLS DELIVER. INCREASED OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT I.E. MORE BUS ROUTE OPTIONS. MORE CYCLE PATHS OR CYCLE PAVEMENTS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS. » Better public transport. More diverse housing. More shops, amenities. » Control of traffic and in particular speed of traffic, the drivers who speed in Houston, live in Houston, get the police to do something about it! » Better walking connectivity & smaller housing options for those approaching their ‘older years’ » More life and vitality in Houston through the provision of social spaces and green spaces (not necessarily more housing developments) » A 20mph speed limit throughout Houston and Craigends . Other areas do it very successfully. » More community initiative/capacity/ coproduction and less villa building on green sites and more public transport » Better and safer connectivity on roads and a better public transport system. Affordable housing for the younger generation and also housing for the elderly along the lines of McArthy and Stone types. » More shops of different types and better ways if moving around » Improved public transport its absolutely unacceptable that to visit nearest town Johnstone requires three different buses and at least one hour of travel time. » More social spaces like cafes. Improvement transport such as buses going to Erskine, Renfrew and the airport. » Consolodation of what we have, an improvement in school facilities. No new Homes » Local orchards & allotments, maybe community hives and coops? » Stop developemnt and ruining the village and countryside. » Protection of the Green Belt and limited new housing in the existing village envelope. Improvement to junctions/ sharp corners on road between Crosslee and Linwood. Consideration of low density specialist housing for the elderly. » A warhammer shop built » IMPROVED ACTIVE TRAVEL AND PUBLIC TRANSPRT LINKS TO NEIGHBOURING VILLAGES » Greater access to local services - doctors/healthcare. A new high school - Gryffe High School is in dire need of improvement in both facilities and teaching resources » Traffic calming measures in place on the longer roads in residential areas. Better standard of pavements and roads » Not many to maintain the village status » Definitely the primary school and the highs school will need upgrading by 2050. More active travel. More biodiversity. Local groups maintaining grass areas to avoid spraying with pesticides which the council do. Better primary school building. » I hope there remains soace for the current catchment area to still attend school in this area. » An acceptance that Houston has to have a pro development attitude to new housing to provide good local services. Commercial and convenience services require plentiful customers able and willing to spend money. The current offer hangs on by its financial fingertips. » Less housing . It’s becoming overwhelming and taking the aesthetic look of Houston away. If we continue to build and or introduce new people, we have ensure we expand our GP and healthcare/local services at the same time » A central cafe and better quality gym facilities. » Limited new housing. Better doctor access. Enough school places for the catchment area. More food shopping eg the proposed m&s at the morar care home site that fell through. » Maintaining village atmosphere- development of more sporting facilities both indoor and outdoor » maintaining green spaces but I realise people need houses » Better medical care and more public transport » Maintenance of its rural setting and character and the avoidance of overdevelopment » A reduction in sales of land for housing developers » To stop constant new housing. Preserve existing green spaces and woodland. Enforced speed limits » Less cars. Less huge , expensive houses » Develop infrastructure to support existing population. » Improved services » More people on bikes, less artifical turf. » I would like the community to be serious about the need for climate adaptation and mitigation. I would like the surrounding land to be managed regeneratively to allow the soil to better absorb water and carbon. A significant reduction in livestock...woods, some crops for humans to eat, tree cover and flowers for biodiversity, all homes with heat pumps, solar, insulation and water catchment systems to minimise risk of flooding. I would like Houston to be safe and not on fire. » A more resononed and less commercial attitude to building planning, the area cannot support more large scale housing development . » Seems like a contrary answer but I think to some extent not having change would be better in the sense of keeping the green space we have. » Better safe cycle routes to allow the different areas within Houston to feel more connected » The return of the village feel. » More social and affordable housing in 76 Page 188 of 280
Page 193
the village » More integrated sports facilities » A stop to developers applying to build on adjacent agricultural land » I would like to see us creating more protected green belt house and reject any more houses being built. Another nursery would be good. » Well maintained area with no more houses building, decent A class road into Johnstone & Linwood » An extra park at the Locher side of Houston. More shops, cafes for all ages in more areas. » Keep it a village ,walks green places ,places for people to meet » Keep the character of the village. It didn’t need lots of business/employment within Houston but better public transport and biking links would enable people to access employment in the surrounding area in a more eco friendly manner. Plus see previous housing comments! » Better public transport, a new primary and high school and no more housing » More opportunities for young people to volunteer/ work experience.better transport links to train station. Some sort of sports centre/ swim facility. Schools refurbished. Wider range of activities to develop skills or learn something new. Have something like a gala day to celebrate the whole of Houston, not just the Kirk carnival (look at Linlithgow Marches- fantastic community event) Allotments- but for all the community. Library or some sort of book lending facility. » Houston is a unique place and should remain unspoilt. » Improve active travel and local transport options, affordable housing, park and ride, under 25 opportunities. » Better connections to green spaces for walking and cycling, safe spaces for young people where they can also access adult support for health and wellbeing » No more building : Open up Georgetown Road as alternative route particularly for high and heavy vehicles. » Train station » Accessibility to open up access between Houston and surrounding areas, for young and old, without reliance on cars and an alternative to the limited bus service. A shuttle bus between johnstone station and village would be nice. Trim back hedges to make footpaths safe for pedestrians and drivers. A ´sandwich´ van option for the high school as my son has difficulty accessing the canteen at school (too busy) and alternative is ice cream van or noodles every day at the village shop. th » I would still like to live in a village with some fields left untouched. Constant building is ruining the village » Better dedicated cycling routes, not half-hearted effort like previous bollards placed along pavement to BOW » Doctors surgery needs to accommodate more appointments. A train connection would be brilliant. » Better transport on more affordable housing. » Protection of rural feel and more links to sustainable travel » No more housing- schools, roads are cramped already thus village is being ruined- we have more than enough housing - too much » Improvement in access to GP, dental and schooling for those already resident » Better access roads, better choice of shops and better public transport » Better funding for Gryffe High we have a fantastic school which appears to get v little financial support compared to others in area, , reduced speed limits, country roads should be 20/30mph not 60! » Local residents buy all surrounding land to prevent development by house builders and / or Elderslie Estates » More frequent bus services reduction in waiting time for doctor appointments more pavements. Community hub open each day for pensioner meals warm space » Some thought put into access and egress. At the moment concentration seems to be on building more houses without consideration being given to increased transport in the area. Maybe time to reinstate rail links ? » More affordable housing. Safer cycle routes. » More suitable housing so that older people dont have to move out of the village to get appropriate housing. And better bus links. » Safer cycle and routes and widening of pavements between Houston and Johnstone. Smaller houses for existing residents to downsize too freeing up large homes for families instead of building more new large homes. Community growing or allotments for food security. Community energy project. » Better upkeep of foot paths, overgrown areas and roads. » Better public transport » A more balanced community, including more less well off people. » » better community event, beer festival is great however agricultural show and houston light switch on have been lacking recently. » More linked up routes for walking/ cycling to the wider Renfrewshire area. The lack of safe route for walkers/ cyclists down the George Town Road is sorely missing » No more building houses. Inprove all current facilities » A greener more sustainable community which is not geered to the use of personal vehicles. » I would like to see more indoor spaces for young people 2. Before you go, did you have any other comments, ideas or important information you think we missed? » Houston will not make it to 2050 if it opposes all development or change. Village life must change or it’ll end up like in England where rural life is increasingly one for those in poverty or old age. » Houston has the village at its centre & I would like it to keep that village feeling. » We need to stop the greedy house builders who have vast amounts of land banked around our village. We neither need nor want more of the tpe of homes thehy build. We need infrastructure, better roads, bigger schools (just for current load) and some Police input. Local Police station and better health facilities. 77 Page 189 of 280
Page 194
» Provide better health care. Access to doctors/dentists. If you allow builders then they must put back into the community. It can’t be all take take take. » You should have a don’t know option. The star system is flawed unless you can not answer. Decisions should not be made on this information » Flooding on roads leading in and out of Houston is a serious issue with drivers having to plan routes avoiding flooding after heavy rain. The road infrastructure is inadequate for the volume of traffic now that the area has such a large population. There is a bottle neck at Deafhillock roundabout at most times. To avoid this, drivers can leave Houston through Linwood and this increases traffic volume in Linwood where the road infrastructure is also inadequate. Add flooding to all of this and you have a badly managed/maintained road network.r » I personally think that over the coming years there is a risk of proposed new housing devlopments risking a change in the general feel of the area and placing an additional burden and strain on the existing infrastructure (roads, traffic, doctors, schools etc). Should this happen it would fundementally change how i feel about living in the area and directly conflict with the main reason we moved have chosen to live and raise a family here » School buildings are not good and severely lacking in maintenance. » No » Continue encouraging local groups such as Bee Happy, Mens Shed etc » Public transport in the area is a farce and forces people to use their cars. An effective and dependable public transport system would allow people to leave and return without having to use cars. » The Blaze in Gryffe High School is a key area that has potential for both the school and the community. It is used well but there is not much in the space at all. Having better connections to the countryside on a bike or by foot would be great too, there is too much of a car friendly atmosphere within the area itself. » I think the Place Plan should be firmly rooted in the key trends which are already emerging in Scotland so 1) Ageing population 2) Cultural and Racial Diversification 3) Climate Change Impacts 4) Gravitation of people to the East Coast of Scotland 5) Digitisation of work 6) Growth in AI 7)Increasing dependence in active travel 8) Potential arrival of Clyde Metro 9) Flexible working 10) Falling birth rates, deferral of families 11) Delays in career prgression 12) Increasing social isolation and loneliness to highlight a few. » I live on the b790 houston road / georgetown road and there needs to be a walking path on tnis road or cycke lane » We definitely don’t need more housing! » Keep Houston as it is , a village with a beautiful charm . No more giant houses being built for to line the pockets of the council with council tax. If absolutely necessary build small, not for large families as we simply don’t seem to have the nurseries and school places to support. We don’t want huge class sizes for our children. Keep our green space protected » The extension of the x7 bus route along Houston road would takei in both of the new housing estates and Craigends » Craft or hobby classes in evening would be good for people who work » Poor quality questionnaire. Hopefully this exercise is not the usual faux consultation aimed at justification of existing plans » Reduction in traffic speeds through Houston. Increase number of speed limit signs. » Our village looks fabulous due to a lot of volunteer effort. » I feel the lack of infrastructure is a driver for the cease of “diverse” house building. Schools are bursting. No need to add to it. » Schooling is a huge concern for many families who fear rezoning of their properties due to increased housing. Smarter housing strategies should ensure that Renfrewshire Council recoups money from big developers to enhance existing school provision to ensure future sustainability. » I didn’t vote for this Scottish Goverment and see no need for anyone outwith the viallage to interfere in Houston now or ongoing. The grandgrabbing builders and do gooers who want to interfere with a village we have stayed our lives in are not welcome. All because you get a grant. Go to deprived areas and work with them. We have enough churches , chapel , chip shops , take aways, shops , open areas for kids who i brought up here, junior football teams , opportunities for youngsters you name it we have a great place to live and need no outside help. » Better footpath along the river Gryffe » The village is kept immaculate by volunteers. » The council spends all its money in Paisley. » I have lived here 50 years and seen it grow from a smallish village in to a large village with not many amenities and hardly any bus service. We dont all want to drive into town to large stores and we would rather take the bus » Your questionnaire could do with a few N/A boxes, at my age how can I rate the ease to get about the village on a bicycle, but as a gran I can tell you haw nigh impossible it is to to out with a pram and stay on the pavements, either cars parked or most of the stones from the ‘car park’ front gardens are littering the underfloor making in very trip hazardous. » Having lived in Houston for nearly 30 years, I can truthfully say that I love doing so. The well being initiatives in existence are superb. » Thank you for caring about Houston and all who live/work/go to school here. » Don’t need to keep building housing developments out into our countryside » You should also ask people if they are happy to leave things as they are. » Houston is a lovely peaceful place with next to no crime because of its homogenous Christian community - please keep it that way. » Public transport is a joke and people are forced to use cars. This is a trend that must be reversed to meet targets for climate change. » This survey shouldn’t be just about change. Houston doesn’t need a firm of consultants coming in and saying, 78 Page 190 of 280
Page 195
“This is great, so let’s fix it!” Our village is a national treasure and all efforts to improve it should be made in the context that its beautiful character is preserved. The biggest threat to this comes from housing developments. » The whole point of a rural village is that it is not an urban conurbation; someone seems to have forgotten this.! » Concerned about the potential for more housing developments in / around Houston and the impact on access to infrastructure and services for people who already live here as a consequence » Thanks » Make sure you take into account of the potential takeover of the shops at Crosslee Crescent to form a new Sainsbury’s supermarket » Council services could improve,Grass cutting Street sweeping. » I am deeply saddend by how busy and over developed the village and surrounding area has become. It is appalling. » You should have a section on whether or not a warhammer shop should be built » THE QUESTIONS WEREN’T VERY RELEVANT TO NEIGHBOURING COMMUNITY COUNCIL » The village is considerable beneficial to the other nearby communities as its reliance on local resources is continually reduce due to an active volunteer network. That reliance should never replace the actual support out taxes pay for and Houston has to push back on the lack of direct support from local government, especially for youth services and an almost nonexistent social care provision for our older residents. Local Gov want our older generation to stay and contribute but have done nothing to provide the support services they will need in the future » Personally I like the village feel of Houston and my children and grandchildren were raised in a generally safe and pleasant environment. More affordable low rise housing and high end value houses would be an asset in and around the area as long as there is adequate schools and Health facilities. » Thank you for your hard work on this. Much appreciated. » Promotion of planning flexibility to cater for flexible working and small scale commercial development. Legislative light touch especially in the housing sector » More policing on the beat. » Support of local sports facilities to expand » Several answers I was required to make should have had a N/A option. Eg, I don’t cycle around the area so have no knowledge or relevant opinion. » more houses require more services eg doctors, schools » The data collection (this survey) is important but whomever is working on this (New Practuce, Community Council?) should go to the parks of Houston and walk around the streets (especially during evening/at night). It’s a very strange place, there are lots of houses but very little evidence of people (other than those zooming around the roads in three-tonne tractors). The people you do see rarely say hello. » I think the area needs to do more to support and advertise youth organisations . Not just in Houston immediately but where they are available locally such as the Air Force and Army cadets in Johnstone . » No » This is a suburb and residents don’t want industrial developments. If house building continues we need better infrastructure such as schools, GPs and decent transport links » I feel strongly that new housing developments should be limited as much as possible to retain Houston’s character and avoid placing further strain on services particularly schools and doctor’s surgery. We need to focus on protecting the wildlife and green spaces and remember that these are the things that make people want to live here in the first place. » Thanks to all the Community Groups and volunteers who help keep Houston a great place to live. » I think there is a potential to further appreciate the agricultural backdrop and history of the area, also explaining that heritage, both cultural and economic. » Invest in youth education, employment and training opportunities, apprenticeships and intern opportunities into local business, connect our generations with youth council, business planning, connect schools more with communities and activities and open school buildings for community connections in evenings and weekends or other community spaces, church, local business, develop employment opportunities » It seems to me the council planning ignore comments from the community particularly at local meetings with the council. It would be good to see what the community thinks. » There was talk of the BAE systems site on the Georgetown rd turning in to a walking area, bike track etc. this does not seem to be progressing » The high school facilities need upgraded. We have some great clubs like Scouts, Men’s Shed, Bee Happy that are driven by local people. Very lucky to have these people making a difference and opportunities for the community to come together. The high school could perhaps provide more opportunities to link with the community, whilst developing their skills in teamwork, communication, leadership, vocational. For example, a local history club, creating a woodland walk, crowd funding or accessing funding for a mountain bike trail. The community could also recognise and share its history and heritage more. There used to be information boards at carrick centre, something like this to celebrate and share awareness of history from South and North Mound, early beginnings, famous residents eg engineer Aarol. » Kids crossing the road at St Fillians roundabout (north side), and crossing the road at Fox and Hounds is dangerous. Pedestrian crossings would be beneficial. » Stop building big houses, build a few retiral type flats. A proper Health Centre like Johnstone and Linwood would be usefulnwood » The strength of feeling against further development of the green areas surrounding Houston cannot be overstated. » Houston does not need more 5 bedroom detached villas 79 Page 191 of 280
Page 196
» Could the mill loaded between Houston and Bridge of Weir be converted to a cycle path? » I live in the new development in Houston with the social housing section. The residents here promote violence and drug use. The housing association has been contacted but are unable to do anything. Restrict the amount of social housing in Houston to keep the village safe. » 40 years ago my mother lived in sheltered housing here. Now my son lives in Johnstone because he could not afford Houston. » Public transport in the area is unreliable and poorly thought out, forcing people to use cars for every journey. This is a trend that must be changed to meet climate change targets and allow people to live a healthier life.ndable public transport system would allow people to leave and return without having to use cars. 80 Page 192 of 280
Page 197
Appendix 2: Youth Engagement Designs 81 Page 193 of 280
Page 198
82 Page 194 of 280
Page 199
83 Page 195 of 280
Page 200
Page 196 of 280
Page 201
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 17 March 2026 Supplementary Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 22/0178/PP Application Type Planning Permission Proposal Residential development comprising fifty-seven dwellinghouses and eighteen flats, including access, drainage, landscaping and associated works Location Site Between Sandieland Wood and Florish Road, Erskine Ward 12 - Erskine and Inchinnan Community Council Inchinnan Community Council Applicant Trustees Of the Blyswood 1969 Trusts & Stewart Milne Group Ltd. Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions & Legal Agreement All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=R8IQ8OMWFLB00 This supplementary report should be read together with the original report of handling considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board on the 20 January 2026. Appendix 1 details the original report of handling. Background The Planning and Climate Change Policy Board at its meeting on 20 January 2026 considered the attached report of handling. Councillor Nicolson, seconded by Councillor Adam, moved that the application be continued to provide the developer the opportunity to reposition the playpark out of Sandieland Wood to a location elsewhere in the development. Planning Assessment Following discussions between the Planning Authority and the applicant the playpark has been repositioned so that it would sit to the south of Sandieland Wood. The location of the playpark and the equipment provided is now the same as it was when the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board previously approved the application in November 2022. The repositioned playpark would comply with Policy 21 d) of NPF4 and the Council's supplementary guidance on Open Space Provision in New Developments. The proposal as a whole continues to comply with all other relevant provisions of the Development Plan and all associated guidance. A detailed assessment of the proposal is included in the attached report of handling which was presented on the 20 January 2026. Representations The revised layout has been the subject of appropriate statutory re-notification, re- advertisement and re-consultation alongside additional courtesy notifications to those who previously commented on the application. The following representations were received: ▪ Object – 9 ▪ Support – 0 ▪ Neutral – 0 The issues raised can be summarised as follows: ▪ Privacy concerns ▪ Works to trees would be unacceptable Item 6(a) PACC170326 Page 197 of 280
Page 202
▪ Overshadowing concerns ▪ Increased traffic would negatively impact residential amenity ▪ Construction would harm residential amenity ▪ The area should be left as greenspace ▪ The site boundary is incorrect ▪ The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on wildlife ▪ Increased noise disturbance ▪ Local services could not cope ▪ Road safety concerns ▪ The development would harm visual amenity Most of the issues are addressed in the report of handling that was considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board on the 20 January 2026. The updated plans submitted by the applicant further minimise the number of trees that would be removed to accommodate the development and address a minor discrepancy with the location plan. The repositioned play equipment would not raise any noise or amenity concerns for properties in the development or existing properties in the surrounding area. The applicant has also advised that they would enter into a Section 75 legal agreement to secure the £414,400 contribution in respect of the education estate and the delivery of 18 affordable units for Bridgewater Housing Association. Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations. Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to conditions and an appropriate form of legal agreement to secure the planning obligations discussed above. Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions and the provision of a form of Legal Agreement/mechanism to secure planning obligations. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposal accords with the provisions of the Development Plan and there were no material considerations which outweighed the presumption in favour of development according with the Development Plan. Condition(s) 1. That the development hereby permitted must be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To be in compliance with Section 58 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by Section 32 of The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. 2. No development shall commence on site until written approval of: a) a Site Investigation report (characterising the nature and extent of any soil, water and gas contamination within the site); and, if remedial works are recommended therein b) a Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan identifying the proposed methods for implementing all remedial recommendations contained with the site investigation report prepared in accordance with current authoritative technical guidance, has been provided by the Planning Authority. Page 198 of 280
Page 203
Reason: To ensure that the site will be made suitable for its proposed use. 3. Prior to the occupation of any unit within an identified phase of development, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority: a) a Verification Report confirming completion of the works specified within the approved Remediation Strategy for that phase of development; or b) if remediation works are not required but soils are to be imported to site, a Verification Report confirming imported soils are suitable for use on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing Reason: To demonstrate that the works necessary to make the site suitable for use have been completed. 4. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The approved Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented prior to development commencing and remain in place until the development is complete. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 5. The vehicular and pedestrian access into the development shall be constructed in line with the requirements of the National Roads Development Guidance. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 6. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the following offsite upgrades that are identified in the Florish Road Walkover report (October 2025) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority: ▪ Provision of a dropped kerb crossing across Torran Drive ▪ Resurfacing of the Florish Road roundabout ▪ Provision of a zebra crossing to the west of Wrightlands Cresent ▪ Installation of a dropped kerb on the footway between 17 and 18 Sandielands Avenue Thereafter, all offsite upgrades shall be completed prior to the occupation of the final dwelling to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To improve pedestrian connectivity. 7. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Page 199 of 280
Page 204
Reason: To ensure appropriate consideration of any archaeology given the possibility of such interest within the site. 8. Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority: a) plans detailing all soft landscaping, formal play equipment and the finish to all footpaths b) a timetable for the implementation of all soft landscaping, footpaths and formal play equipment as approved under a) c) a strategy for the future management and maintenance of all landscaped areas, footpaths and play equipment, including provision for replacement planting if individual plants were to become diseased, die, become seriously damaged or are removed within 5 years of being planted All landscaping, footpaths and the formal play equipment shall thereafter be implemented in line with the approved drawings and the agreed timetable, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The landscaping, footpaths and the formal play equipment shall also be maintained in line with the approved management statement for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a robust landscaping strategy is implemented in the interests of visual amenity. 9. Tree removal shall only occur in line with approved drawing 0321-PL-006D (Tree Retention - Tree Removal Plan) and no additional trees shall be removed unless agreed in writing in advance with the Planning Authority. All existing trees to be retained as part of the development shall be protected in line with the recommendations of the approved October 2025 Arboricultural Impact Assessment. For the avoidance of doubt, any retained trees which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation. 10. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority, a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan that sets out how the development would enhance biodiversity at the site in the long term. The plan shall set out timescales for the implementation of all measures identified in the report. Thereafter, all measures identified in the report shall be implemented to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority in accordance with the agreed timescales, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To ensure appropriate provision is made for the long term enhancement of nature at the site. 11. Prior to the occupation of the final dwelling, all biodiversity measures shown on drawing 0321-PL-005C (Biodiversity Layout) shall be implemented to the Page 200 of 280
Page 205
satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To ensure appropriate provision is made for the long term enhancement of nature at the site. 12. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the design and finish of all retaining walls, substations and pumping stations to be erected across the development shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter, all retaining walls, substations and pumping stations shall be constructed in line with the approved details to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity 13. Prior to occupation of any particular dwellinghouse or flat, any fence or wall to be erected in association with that plot shall be erected in accordance with approved drawing 0321-PL-003G, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity. 14. Prior to occupation of the final dwelling, all fencing, walls and pillars to be erected in communal areas shall be erected in accordance with approved drawing 0321-PL-003G, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity. 15. Prior to the commencement of development, a Drainage Strategy shall be submitted to, and approved by, Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. The Drainage Strategy shall accord with the 'Council's Drainage Assessment - Notes for Guidance'. Thereafter, the approved Strategy shall be implemented in full prior to the completion of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for drainage associated with the development. 16. The development shall be implemented in line with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (August 2025). Reason: To ensure the site is not at risk of flooding. 17. Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The submitted plan shall include details of: a) monitoring of any standing water within the site temporary or permanent earthworks, soil stripping or excavation works b) sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS) c) maintenance of planted and landscaped areas The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved, on completion of the development and shall remain in force for the life of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first Page 201 of 280
Page 206
submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. Reason: It is necessary to manage the development in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport. 18. No development shall take place until full details of soft and water landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, details must comply with Advice Note 3 ‘Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping & Building Design’ (available at www.aoa.org.uk/publications/safeguarding.asp). These details shall include: a) The species, number and spacing of trees and shrubs b) Drainage details including SUDS – Such schemes must comply with Advice Note 6 ‘Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) (available at www.aoa.org.uk/publications/safeguarding.asp ). No subsequent alterations to the approved landscaping scheme are to take place unless submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site. Advisory Note(s) 1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Mining Remediation Authority on 0345 762 6846 or if a hazard is encountered on site call the emergency line 0800 288 4242. 2. Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant's attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, 'Cranes and Other Construction Issues' (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/policy-safeguarding.htm For further information please contact James McCafferty, Development Standards Team, Email: james.mccafferty@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 202 of 280
Page 207
Appendix 1 Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 20 January 2026 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 22/0178/PP Application Type Planning Permission Proposal Residential development comprising fifty-seven dwellinghouses and eighteen flats, including access, drainage, landscaping and associated works Location Site Between Sandieland Wood and Florish Road, Erskine Ward 12 - Erskine and Inchinnan Community Council Inchinnan Community Council Applicant Trustees Of the Blyswood 1969 Trusts & Stewart Milne Group Ltd. Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions & Legal Agreement All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=R8IQ8OMWFLB00 This report fulfils the requirements of regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The report is presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in line with the Council's Scheme of Delegation. In this instance, the application relates to a major development as defined within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Proposal This planning application for this site was initially lodged in March 2022 by Stewart Milne Homes (SMH), who subsequently entered administration in 2023. The application for the erection of an 83 unit residential development was previously considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in November 2022 where it was decided that the Board were minded to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the conclusion of a Section 75 legal agreement. However, the legal agreement was never concluded, and the consent never issued, due to Stewart Milne going into administration. In 2025, Cala Homes assumed control of the site, with confirmation from the appointed Administrator that the company was authorised to progress the planning application. Cala Homes has submitted a revised site layout (amending the number of units and housing mix) and a package of updated supporting documentation, which has been the subject of appropriate statutory re-notification, re-advertisement and re-consultation alongside additional courtesy notifications. Concurrently, the Council sought legal advice to determine whether a new round of statutory pre-application consultation activity (associated with the Proposal of Application Notice process) would be required, and were advised that no additional requirements applied, as the existing application was being progressed. The application has been assessed based on this updated information. This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a residential development comprising of fifty-seven dwellinghouses and eighteen flats with associated infrastructure and landscaping. Pedestrian and vehicular access would be taken from Florish Road to the west, with the development structured around a permeable road layout. Page 203 of 280
Page 208
A mixture of two storey detached and terraced dwellinghouses would be located across the site. Two blocks of three storey flats and associated parking would be located towards the entrance of the development. The flats would be designated as affordable homes. A SUDS basin and children's play area would be located to the east of the site while soft landscaping would be found throughout the development. Site Description The application site extends to approximately 3.7 hectares and is located to the east of Erskine. Residential properties are found to the north, south and west while agricultural land is found to the east. The land is relatively flat but falls away gently to the east. The site is predominantly comprised of grassland or former farmland while trees are found along the northern and western site boundaries. A small portion of Sandieland Wood, which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), is located within the eastern corner of the site. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers The Scottish Government strongly encourages constructive pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the planning authority. Pre-application discussions seek to identify key planning considerations at an early stage and help inform what supporting information is required to support a subsequent application. Discussions have taken place since CALA Homes assumed control of the site, focusing on the position of individual dwellings within the layout, securing improved landscaping, softening of the eastern site boundary and improving access arrangements into the play area. Negotiated Improvements Following CALA's submission, changes have been made to further reduce the extent of the 1.8 metre high timber fencing that would run along sections of the eastern site boundary while additional improvements to the surrounding road and footway network have been secured. Changes were also made during the assessment of the previous Stewart Milne submission, with three revised layouts submitted throughout its consideration. Most notably, the blocks of flats were repositioned from the south of the site to the entrance and a children's play area was incorporated into the development. Site History The planning history for the site is as follows; if no history is listed then planning has no record of previous applications for the site. Application No: 21/1587/PN Description: Erection of residential development including access, drainage, landscaping and associated works Decision: Accepted Application No: 21/1647/EA Description: EIA Screening Opinion Decision: Environmental Assessment Not Required Page 204 of 280
Page 209
Application No: 23/0146/PP Description: Installation of surface water drainage outfall pipe to serve residential development Decision: Grant subject to conditions Consultations ▪ The Mining Remediation Authority (formerly The Coal Authority) - no objection, subject to an advisory note relating to potential coal mining related hazards. ▪ National Air Traffic Services (NATS) - no objection. ▪ West Of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) - no objection, subject to conditions. ▪ Scottish Water - no objection. ▪ Glasgow Airport Safeguarding - no objection, subject to a condition requiring the submission of a Bird Hazard Management Plan. ▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) - no objection, subject to conditions relating to the remediation of potentially contaminated land. ▪ Chief Executive's (Roads Development) - no objection, subject to conditions and offsite improvements such as the provision of a zebra crossing on Florish Road. ▪ Education (Children's Services) - no objection, subject to a financial contribution in respect of the impact the development would have on Park Mains High School and Trinity High School. ▪ NatureScot - no objection. ▪ Inchinnan Community Council - object on procedural grounds and ecological impact. In addition, the proposal has insufficient information to allow it to be fully assessed and does not meet the requirements of various policies. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received following the initial notification and advertisement process undertaken following the submission of the application by Stewart Milne: ▪ Object – 54 ▪ Support – 0 ▪ Neutral – 0 The following representations were received following the re-notification and re- advertisement process carried out after the amendments to the application by CALA Homes: ▪ Object – 7 ▪ Support – 0 ▪ Neutral – 0 The issues raised across all representations can be summarised as follows: 1. Nearby facilities such as schools, GPs and dentists are at capacity 2. Loss of greenbelt land 3. Negative impacts on biodiversity and wildlife 4. Loss of carbon sequestered at the site Page 205 of 280
Page 210
5. Loss of native woodland and trees 6. The ecological information provided by the applicant is insufficient 7. Noise pollution from the development 8. Air pollution issues caused by an increase in vehicles 9. Air pollution issues caused by the airport 10. Poor public transport connections to/from the site 11. Inadequate shopping and community facilities nearby 12. Lack of police presence 13. The roundabout is designed for cars, not active travel 14. Impact on views 15. The housing would not be affordable 16. Impact on privacy afforded to nearby houses 17. Construction would negatively impact residential amenity 18. The blocks of flats are too big for the location 19. The submitted plans are incorrect 20. The surrounding road network cannot accommodate additional vehicles 21. There is no demand for flats in the area 22. The proposal does not incorporate an adequate greenbelt buffer 23. The development would increase the risk of littering/dumping of waste 24. The development would increase the risk of fire setting 25. The cumulative impact of recent residential developments has not been considered 26. A new EIA screening opinion should be issued 27. The proposal would fragment existing habitats 28. No guarantee mitigation measures will be maintained in the long term or be effective 29. Compensatory planting would be insufficient and contains non-native specimens 30. The development should be set back from woodland habitat 31. Construction may damage nearby properties 32. The condition of the road surface at the roundabout is poor 33. Reports submitted by the applicant are out of date 34. Overshadowing concerns 35. The proposal would breach neighbouring resident’s human rights 36. No meaningful civic space within the area 37. The development is close to housing that is being built in Dargavel Policy Context In making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The following provisions of the Development Plan are considered relevant to the determination of this application: National Planning Framework 4 ▪ Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises ▪ Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation ▪ Policy 3 - Biodiversity ▪ Policy 4 - Natural places ▪ Policy 6 - Forestry, woodland and trees ▪ Policy 9 - Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings ▪ Policy 11 - Energy ▪ Policy 12 - Zero waste ▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 14 - Design, quality and place ▪ Policy 15 - Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods Page 206 of 280
Page 211
▪ Policy 16 - Quality homes ▪ Policy 18 - Infrastructure first ▪ Policy 20 - Blue and green infrastructure ▪ Policy 21 - Play, recreation and sport ▪ Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage ▪ Policy P1 - Renfrewshire's Places ▪ Policy P2 - Housing Land Supply ▪ Policy P3 - Housing Mix and Affordable Housing ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Policy I4 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments ▪ Policy I5 - Waste Management ▪ Policy I8 - Developer Contributions Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Connecting Places ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Renewable and Low Carbon ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Provision for Waste Recycling in New Developments ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Developer Contributions ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy - Creating Places ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy - Open Space Provision in New Developments ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Trees, Woodlands and Forestry ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Biodiversity ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Natural Heritage ▪ Renfrewshire Planning and Development Tree Policy ▪ Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Biodiversity ▪ Renfrewshire's Places Residential Design Guide ▪ Site Development Brief: Land East of Florish Road, Erskine ▪ National Roads Development Guidance ▪ Renfrewshire Strategic Housing Investment Plan 2026 to 2031 ▪ Letter from the Chief Planner and Minister for Public Finance - Planning for Housing (June 2024) ▪ Letter from the Chief Planner and Cabinet Secretary for Housing - Housing Emergency Action Plan & the Planning System (September 2025) Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Affordable Housing Statement - Sets out details of the affordable housing provision within the development. ▪ Arboricultural Impact Assessment (October 2025) - Provides justification for the works required to implement the development and details how existing trees should be protected during construction. Page 207 of 280
Page 212
▪ Bridgewater Housing Association Letter of Support (July 2025) - Outlines Bridgewater Housing Association's support for the inclusion of 18 affordable flats within the development. ▪ Design and Access Statement (August 2025) - Explains the development parameters, design concepts and principles that have shaped and informed a detailed layout for the site. ▪ Drainage Strategy Report (August 2025) - Examines existing drainage arrangements at the site and sets out how the proposed drainage strategy would meet the requirements of Renfrewshire Council, SEPA and Scottish Water. ▪ Ecological Appraisal (July 2025) - Considers the impact the development would have on the natural environment. ▪ Education Planning Obligations Appraisal (August 2025) - Provides the applicant's response to the Council's Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance and the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. ▪ Flood Risk Assessment Report (August 2025) - Explores whether the development would be at risk of flooding or increase the risk of flooding to others. ▪ Florish Road Walkover (October 2025) - Presents the results of a walkover survey that explored possible upgrades in the surrounding road and footway network. ▪ Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (August 2025) - Considers the impact of the development on the wider landscape. ▪ PAC Report (March 2022) - Provides details of the Pre Application Consultation process and its outcomes. ▪ Planning Statement (August 2025) - Provides justification for the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. Includes the applicant's Statement of Community Benefit. ▪ Report on Site Investigations (January 2022) - Considers the condition of the land in respect of potential contamination and historic coal mining. ▪ Transportation Assessment (August 2025) - Examines the impact the development would have on the wider road network, explores possible active travel links and details how the proposal would comply with relevant policies and guidance. ▪ Tree Survey Report (October 2025) - Details the condition of trees found within the application site boundary. Scottish Ministers Direction In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. Page 208 of 280
Page 213
None. Planning Assessment Introduction The application site was allocated as a Policy P2 housing site with an indicative capacity of 90 units by the Scottish Government as part of their assessment of the adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (LDP). In response to the Council's previous concerns around the weakening of the greenbelt boundary, the Scottish Government Reporter who examined the LDP noted that "given the low lying nature of the site, together with a lack of visibility of the eastern edge of the site, the potential for a loss of containment should not be a significant concern". The Reporter subsequently concluded that the site would be "suitable for development from a greenbelt perspective". The recommendations of the Scottish Government in respect of allocating the land as a Policy P2 housing site were accepted by the Council at a meeting of the Communities, Housing and Planning Services Board in April 2021. A planning application was subsequently submitted by Stewart Milne Homes in March 2022 for a residential development comprising of 59 dwellinghouses and 24 flats. This application was considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in November 2022 where the Board was minded to grant the application subject to conditions and the conclusion of a Section 75 legal agreement. However, Stewart Milne went into administration before the legal agreement could be concluded and the consent was never issued. CALA Homes have subsequently taken control of the site from the appointed administrator. CALA Homes have submitted a revised site layout and a package of updated supporting documentation that has been the subject of appropriate statutory re-notification, re- advertisement and re-consultation alongside additional courtesy notifications. As outlined earlier in the report, the Council sought legal advice to determine whether a new round of statutory pre-application consultation activity (associated with the Proposal of Application Notice process) would be required but were advised that no additional requirements applied as the existing application was being progressed. The assessment of the application has been based on this updated information. The housing emergency declared by the Scottish Government in May 2024 is relevant to the assessment of the application. Letters from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Planning Minister and Chief Planner in June 2024 and September 2025 have reiterated the key role the planning system has to play in the delivery of new housing that will help address the emergency. In particular, the Ministers and Chief Planner have emphasised the importance of the proportionate assessment of applications and reiterated that applications must be assessed against the Development Plan as a whole. Contradictions between individual policies are to be expected and must be weighed up by the decision maker. Assessment Policy 16 a) of NPF4 provides support for new homes on land allocated for housing in the LDP. As the land is allocated as a Policy P2 housing site in the LDP the erection of a 75 unit residential development would comply with both Policy 16 a) of NPF4 and Policy P2 of the LDP. The site is also covered by Policy P1 of the LDP. Policy P1 supports the continuance of built form, where the development would be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding Page 209 of 280
Page 214
uses. Similarly, Policy 14 of NPF4 provided support for proposals that are consistent with the six qualities of successful places. To consider whether the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and complies with other relevant policies and guidance such as the Site Development Brief, it is appropriate to assess the application against the five criteria for creating successful place that are set out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance. Access and Connectivity Pedestrian and vehicular access into the development would be taken from an existing roundabout at the eastern end of Florish Road. No concerns have been raised by Roads Development with regard to the suitability of the access or the roundabout's ability to cope with increased traffic, subject to a condition ensuring the junction is formed in line with the requirements of the National Roads Development Guidance. Upgrades completed by CALA Homes as part of their adjoining development would provide direct connections from the site to the existing footway network and would help ensure the junction is safe for pedestrians. A Construction Traffic Management Plan can be requested via condition to ensure the delivery of the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the existing road network. All properties would engage positively with the road network within the development, creating a well defined streetscape that would benefit from passive overlooking. Parking would be provided in line with the requirements of the National Roads Development Guidance. The permeable layout would allow both vehicles and pedestrians to move easily through the development, with 2-metre-wide footways found on both sides of the carriageway across the site. Raised tables and the selective narrowing of the carriageway in specific locations would help reduce vehicle speeds, contributing to the creation of a pleasant place to live in line with the requirements of Policy 14 of NPF4. The proposal would also comply with Policy 21 e) of NPF4 in that the public realm has been designed to enable children and young people to move around safely and independently. Roads Development requested that the option of providing a pedestrian link between the application site and the existing CALA development to the west be explored. However, this was considered disproportionate as the link would have sat in close proximity to the proposed pedestrian access and would not have resulted in a significant reduction in journey times for those walking between the two developments. Roads Development also requested that a pedestrian footpath through Sandieland Woods be provided to connect the site with Greenock Road to the south. This was also considered to be disproportionate relative to the benefit such a link would provide, with it considered that it would be more beneficial to focus connectivity enhancements on the existing adopted road network to the west of the site. The applicant has agreed to provide a formal crossing point in the form of a zebra crossing on Florish Road, approximately 350 metres to the west of the application site. The crossing point would link into the existing footway and footpath network in the surrounding area, providing active travel connections from the development towards local schools and Erskine Town Centre. Additional offsite upgrades identified by Roads Development, such as the provision of the dropped kerb crossing across Torran Drive and the resurfacing of the Florish Road roundabout, can be delivered via condition. Existing residential properties would also benefit from the provision of a formal crossing point and the other offsite upgrades. The Page 210 of 280
Page 215
permeable layout and offsite upgrades would help allow the occupants of the development to benefit from, and contribute to, local living in line with Policy 15 of NPF4. Following comments from Roads Development, discussions were held with the applicant with a view to providing additional subsidy to allow bus route 521A to operate for a longer period. However, the applicant was not agreeable to providing additional funds, noting that there is no policy within the Development Plan that requires a financial contribution to be made for a development of this size. Such a position is accepted and it is therefore not reasonable for the Planning Authority to pursue the matter further. In respect of public transport provision more generally, the development would be within easy walking distance of existing bus stops on Newshot Drive, with the offsite upgrades discussed above encouraging the use of existing services. Furthermore, the addition of fifty seven dwellings and the gentle increase in density provided by the eighteen flats would help support bus services in the area and would help make services viable in the long term without the need for time limited subsidies. Given the above, the proposal complies with Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policy I1 of the LDP in that transport requirements have been considered in line with sustainable travel hierarchies. The site has been designed, and offsite enhancements secured, to improve active travel and public transport connectivity and reduce reliance on private cars. Environment and Community Policy 1 of NPF4 requires development proposals to give significant weight to the climate and nature crises. Policy 3 b) of NPF4 states that major developments will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. Policy 3 b) goes on to state that proposals should be based on an understanding of the existing characteristics of the site and its ecological context prior to development and that potential negative effects should be fully mitigated in line with the mitigation hierarchy prior to identifying enhancements. Policy 3 d) of NPF4 also requires adverse impacts on biodiversity, including cumulative impacts, to be minimised through careful planning and design. Policy 4 of NPF4 requires consideration to be given to the impact the proposal would have on designated sites and protect species while Policy 6 supports the retention and enhancement of tree cover. Similarly, Policy ENV2 of the LDP seeks to minimise the impact developments would have on the natural environment while the associated Supplementary Guidance states that proposals should not significantly affect existing species or habitats and should be appropriately designed to improve habitat connectivity. The applicant has submitted a suite of documents that examine the current condition of the site in respect of biodiversity. These have been used to inform the development proposal and any mitigation and enhancement measures required. The Ecological Appraisal submitted as part of the application has been reviewed by the Council’s external ecologist and, subject to conditions relating to the provision of an overwintering bird survey and Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan, found to be acceptable. The majority of the site is comprised of habitat that is not uncommon in the surrounding landscape, such as modified grassland and arable farmland, while higher quality features such as the tree belts found along the northern and western boundaries and mature specimens covered by the TPO would be retained. The retention of the tree belts is of particular importance given they would allow wildlife to travel through the site and across the wider landscape. The retention of the majority of tree Page 211 of 280
Page 216
cover would ensure potential negative impacts on wildlife, and in particular species such as birds and bats, are avoided in line with the mitigation hierarchy. The proposal would then enhance conditions for wildlife via the creation of a SUDS basin and native tree and hedge planting. The creation of a SUDS basin that would incorporate planting suited to the location would introduce standing water into the site, creating a new type of habitat that would be beneficial for species such as birds and bats that would make use of the retained tree cover. Integrating the SUDS basing with existing and proposed green infrastructure would comply with Policies 20 b) and 22 c) of NFP4 and would contribute towards the creation of a pleasant residential environment in line with Policy 14 of NPF4. While no bat roosts were found at the site and only three trees were identified as being suitable to host roosts, the installation of 170 bat boxes across the development would increase the likelihood that bats would roost at the site and take advantage of the new and retained habitats. The installation of 170 bird boxes would perform the same role for birds. Openings would also be created in the bottom of fences to allow animals such as hedgehogs to move across the site via the retained tree belts. In addition, no lighting would be installed around the SUDS basin or play area in line with the recommendations of the Ecological Appraisal to help to prevent disturbance to bats and other wildlife at night. A condition can be added to ensure compliance with the aforementioned measures. As such, the proposal would comply with Policy 4 of NPF4 and Policy ENV2 of the LDP in respect of protected species. In respect of designated sites, Teucheen Wood SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) is located approximately 100 metres to the south while the Inner Clyde SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and SPA (Special Protection Area) is located 500 metres to the north. The Black Cart SPA is located approximately 1 kilometre to the south. Given the separation distance between the development and each designated site as well as the fact existing housing and roads are found in between it is not considered that the proposal would have a negative impact on any designated site. NatureScot have not objected to the proposal, noting that the development is unlikely to have a significant direct or indirect effect on the Black Cart or Inner Clyde SPAs. NatureScot have also advised that an Appropriate Assessment is not required given the development would not negatively impact on any designated sites. An overwintering bird survey was recommended by the Council's external ecologist in order to understand how the proposal would impact species, such as Whooper Swans and redshank, that could use the land for overwinter grazing. However, NatureScot's consultation response takes into account habitat and overwinter grazing provision across all land in the vicinity of the designated sites and they have not requested any additional surveys. As such, it is not considered proportionate to request an overwintering bird survey. The development would therefore not have an unacceptable impact on nearby designated sites in line with Policy 4 of NPF4, Policy ENV2 of the LDP and the associated supplementary guidance. The Tree Survey Report and Arboricultural Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant have also been reviewed and found to be acceptable. The outer edge of the trees found along the northern and western site boundaries would be thinned as the development would infringe upon these specimens. The reduction in tree cover would be small in relation to overall tree cover found along the boundaries and Page 212 of 280
Page 217
carrying out the works in a controlled manner is preferable to the trees being damaged during construction. Small pockets of trees would also be removed around the entrance to the site and along the southern site boundary as they would be incompatible with the layout of the development. The removal of these trees to facilitate the creation of an acceptable layout is accepted and would be compensated for as part of the proposed landscaping strategy. 6 mature specimens would be removed from Sandieland Wood which is covered by a TPO. Of those to be removed, some are severely damaged, others display signs of ash dieback while one is dead. No high quality mature specimens would be removed and the majority of the woodland would not be affected by the development. Several self seeded understory trees would also be removed to facilitate the formation of the SUDS basin and children's play area. The specimens that would be removed are unlikely to grow into high quality, mature specimens due to overcrowding. The wider benefits of creating space for the SUDS basis and children's play area are discussed elsewhere in the report. Overall, the majority of trees at the site would be retained and would be incorporated into the design of the development. A condition can be added to ensure no additional trees are removed without the approval of the Planning Authority and to ensure those that would remain are adequately protected during construction. 89 trees would be planted across the development to compensate for those that would be removed and to increase overall tree cover as part of a broader landscaping strategy. The use of standard and heavy standard specimens would help provide instant impact while the use of a variety of native broadleaf specimens is welcome from a biodiversity perspective. While all planting would be beneficial to biodiversity, the planting along the eastern site boundary is of particular importance. The rear curtilages of plots 42 and 44 have been set back from the site boundary by a minimum of 2 metres at the request of the Planning Authority to create space for tree planting. 11 standard or heavy standard specimens consisting of native species such as whitebeam, maple and birch would be planted while an understory would be created using species such as willow and hazel. As no trees are currently found in this part of the site, the planting would create a corridor that would connect Sandieland Wood to existing trees on the northern and western site boundaries as well as provide a link from the woodland to the SSSI and SPA to the north. As this land would be located outwith the curtilage of the residential properties it would be allowed to establish over time and would become a key corridor for wildlife within the landscape. Overall, the proposal would comply with Policy 6 of NPF4, the New Development Supplementary Guidance on Trees and the Council's tree policy in that the majority of tree cover at the site would be retained and enhanced to the benefit of biodiversity. The proposal is also consistent with the approved Site Development Brief in respect of tree cover. The retention of the majority of tree cover across the site and the proposed landscaping would also contribute to the creation of a pleasant built environment, in line with Policy 14 of NPF4. In particular, the way planting has been used to break up areas of hardstanding is welcome. Given the site's proximity to Glasgow Airport, a condition can be added requesting the submission of a Bird Hazard Management Plan. This would allow the airport to ensure the species planted would not attract significant numbers of birds that could impact their operations. Page 213 of 280
Page 218
Overall, the proposal raises no concerns in respect of its impact on wildlife or the natural environment. The retention of the majority of tree cover across the site combined with measures such as the formation of a SUDS basin, additional native planting and the installation of bird and bat boxes would ensure the development would help enhance biodiversity at the site. As such, the proposal complies with Policy 3 of NPF4 and the Scottish Government's Planning Guidance on Biodiversity as well as Policy ENV 2 of the LDP and its associated supplementary guidance. Policy 22 of NPF4 as well as Policy I3 of the LDP and its associated supplementary guidance state that proposals must not increase the risk of flooding to others or be at risk of flooding themselves. A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report have been submitted in support of the application which conclude that the development would not be at risk of flooding and could be drained in a sustainable manner. The report has been reviewed by the Council’s external flood and drainage consultant and, in principle, it is accepted that all aspects of the Council's guidance can be fully complied with. The drainage strategy has also been designed to cope with the impacts of heavier rainfall brought about by climate change, in line with the requirements of Policy 2 b) of NPF4. As such, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy 22 of NPF4 as well as Policy I3 of the LDP and the associated supplementary guidance. A condition can be added to ensure a full drainage strategy is submitted for approval prior to the commencement of development and that all drainage measures are in place prior to the occupation of the first dwelling and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Foul waste would connect to the existing sewer while drinking water would be provided from the mains supply in line with the requirements of Policy 22 d) of NPF4. Scottish Water have not objected to the proposal. Environmental Protection have requested that conditions are applied in respect of potentially contaminated land while the Mining Remediation Authority have not objected to the proposal. As such, the site could be made safe for development in line with the requirements of Policy 9 of NPF4. The West of Scotland Archaeological Service has requested that a programme of archaeological works is carried out prior to the commencement of development to ensure any historic artefacts buried at the site are recovered and recorded. A condition can be added to ensure compliance. Context and Character The application site is located on the western edge of Erskine, with the site bound to the north, south and west by existing residential properties. The proposal would not significantly extend the settlement boundary beyond its current maximum extent and the proposal would represent a small addition to the existing settlement. The development would not introduce a new use into the area that would disturb the amenity of neighbouring properties while the density of the development would be in keeping with the surrounding built environment. The development would not look out of place when viewed from the existing settlement or from individual neighbouring residential properties given the site is bound by the existing built environment on three sides. No concerns have been raised by Environmental Protection in respect of noise from the nearby airport or possible air pollution caused by increased traffic on the road network. Page 214 of 280
Page 219
Although the land immediately to the east of the site is designated as greenbelt, the erection of a residential development would not impact on the greenbelt designation and the proposal would not fragment the greenbelt, limit its use or otherwise harm its environmental qualities. The development would share a 345 metre long border with the greenbelt which, for privacy and practical reasons, would be marked with fencing. 1.8 metre high timber fencing would be used to screen the rear curtilage of properties found along this boundary. However, only 95 metres of the boundary would be comprised of timber fencing and the longest continuous stretch would measure only 57 metres in length. The remaining 250 metres of boundary would be marked with a post and wire fence. The post and wire fencing would, when combined with landscaping that would be comprised of native species, soften the appearance of the development when viewed from the land to the east. A section of 1.8 metre high timber fencing that would have been located between units 20 and 21 has been replaced with post and wire fence at the request of the Planning Authority to help break up the extent of timber fencing and to allow for views out into the greenbelt from within the development. In addition, the road and parking area that would serve the electricity substation and wastewater pump station have been finished in grasscrete at the request of the Planning Authority. Reducing the amount of hardstanding in close proximity to the boundary would further minimise the visual impact the development and would increase the amount of permeable surfaces in line with Policy c) 22 of NPF4. It is therefore considered that the development would be compatible with the greenbelt designation and would not have an unacceptable visual impact when viewed from within the greenbelt. Children's Services have no objection to the proposal, subject to the developer paying a financial contribution for the following schools as they are operating at above 85% capacity. The contribution has been calculated in line with the Council's Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance and works out as follows for each school: ▪ Park Mains High School - £285,600 ▪ Trinity High School - £128,800 The applicant has agreed to pay the contribution and an appropriate legal agreement can be entered into to ensure compliance. As such, the proposal complies with Policy 18 of NPF4 and Policy I8 of the LDP in that the impacts of the development on infrastructure can be mitigated. Overall, the proposal would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would be consistent with the adopted spatial strategy. Buildings and Design The proposed development would create a varied streetscape, with a variety of detached and terraced dwellings as well as flats found across the site. The mix of house types and sizes means the proposal would comply with Policy P3 of the LDP and Policy 16 c) of NPF4 in that it would help widen the choice available to those looking to live in the area. 18 elderly amenity flats would be erected as part of the development and would be used by Bridgewater Housing Association to allow older tenants to reside independently with an element of support. Bridgewater Housing Association have written a statement in support of the application and this has been lodged as part of the package of the revised planning submission. Funding for the construction of these flats would be provided through the Renfrewshire Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) that was approved by the Page 215 of 280
Page 220
Communities and Housing Policy Board in August 2025. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy 16 of NPF4 as well as Policy P3 of the LDP and the associated supplementary guidance in that up to 25% of the units on the site would be affordable homes that would help diversify housing stock provision within the area. All buildings, including the blocks of flats, would be of a size and design that is acceptable for the location and would not result in the overdevelopment of the site. The proposal raises no privacy or overlooking concerns and an acceptable amount of garden ground would be provided for all dwellings. Both the dwellings and blocks of flats would be finished in a combination of white render and stone while each of the buildings would have a pitched roof finished with grey roof tiles. The use of a common palette of materials is welcome. Both Policy 21 d) of NPF4 and the Council's supplementary guidance on open space provision require new developments to incorporate good quality, accessible play provision into their design. Policy 21 f) of NPF4 goes on to state that, as far as possible, new play provision should: ▪ provide stimulating environments ▪ provide a range of play experiences including opportunities to connect with nature ▪ be inclusive ▪ be suitable for different ages of children and young people ▪ be easily and safely accessible by children and young people independently, including those with a disability ▪ incorporate trees and/or other forms of greenery ▪ form an integral part of the surrounding neighbourhood ▪ be well overlooked for passive surveillance ▪ be linked directly to other open spaces and play areas A play area featuring both formal play equipment such as a slide and agility trail and pockets of open amenity space would be formed on the edge of Sandieland Wood, in the space created following the removal of trees discussed earlier in the report. The formal play equipment would have a natural timber finish that would not look out of place when viewed against the backdrop of the woodland. Children would also benefit from the opportunity to play in the portion of woodland that sits within the existing site but a post and wire fence would prevent access to the wider woodland and farmland beyond. Although the children's play area would be located in close proximity to the SUDS basin, a post and wire fence would prevent unauthorised access. The play area and open space would benefit from passive overlooking from housing to the west but would not raise any amenity issues for those living in these properties. The chosen location would ensure the woodland forms an integral part of the development layout while pillars on either side of the footpaths that lead into the area would create a gateway feature that further contributes to the overall quality of the layout. The construction of the sections of footpath that would connect the play area to the wider site would involve the installation of a no-dig cellular system on top of the existing land to avoid ground disturbance. Although the route of the paths has been designed to avoid the root protection zones of existing mature specimens, the cellular system would further protect the trees as well as the surrounding landscaping as it grows and matures. These sections of footpath would be finished with a recycled rubber and natural stone aggregate mix that would be appropriate for the setting. A condition would ensure the footpath is delivered to the approved specification. The provision of formal play equipment and open amenity space within a woodland setting is considered to comply with Policy 21 d) and f) of NPF4 and would contribute to the creation of Page 216 of 280
Page 221
a pleasant and distinctive environment in line with Policy 14 of NPF4. A condition can be added to ensure the play provision is constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The choice of finishing materials for all areas of hardstanding would be acceptable and a condition can be added to ensure all areas are completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The applicant's sustainability statement notes that the development would exceed the requirements of current Building Regulations while technologies such as solar panels, air source heat pumps and EV charging facilities would be installed across the development. As such, the proposal would comply with Policies 1, 2 and 11 of NPF4 and Policy I4 of the LPD in that the proposal makes use of low and zero carbon technologies to reduce emissions. Provision for the storage and disposal of waste across all properties is considered acceptable in line with the requirements of Policy 12 of NPF4 as well as Policy I5 of the LDP and the relevant supplementary guidance. As such, the design of the development and the appearance and impact of the buildings contained within it are considered acceptable. Layout and Form The form of the proposed development would reflect the surrounding built environment. Properties would be built around the edge of the site while two small blocks would be located in the centre, creating a well-connected, permeable layout. The height introduced by the blocks of flats would help define the entrance to the development when viewed from the roundabout and existing streetscape. Hedging, standalone trees and small pockets of landscaping would be located across the site. The landscaping would soften the appearance of the development and would assist in the creation of a pleasant place to live in line with the requirements of Policy 14 of NPF4. The extent of boundary treatments visible from the streetscape would be limited while the sections that would be visible would be constructed using both timber fencing and stone pillars to improve the overall visual quality. A condition can be added to ensure all fences and boundary walls to be erected across the development are completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Retaining walls that would reach a maximum height of 2.45 metres would be located in several of the plots and would be used to provide level garden ground and an acceptable level of privacy for all properties. There are no concerns in respect of the height of the walls and a condition can be added to ensure full details of their design is provided prior to the commencement of development. Overall, the layout and form of the development raise no concerns. Representations All drawings and supporting information submitted by the applicant was considered sufficient by the Planning Authority and all relevant consultees to allow the application to be assessed in line with both The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and the Development Plan. In respect of the claim that the proposal would result in the loss of greenbelt land, the site is not within the greenbelt. Instead, the land is an allocated housing site within the LDP. Page 217 of 280
Page 222
The limited environmental impact from the loss of sequestered carbon would be more than offset by the compensatory planting proposed by the applicant. Furthermore, the majority of tree cover at the site would be retained. In respect of the claim that facilities such as schools, GPs and dentists cannot cope with additional housing, the site is allocated as a housing site within the LDP. Through the preparation of the plan relevant consultees and interested parties would have been consulted and given the opportunity to raise concerns. In addition, a financial contribution from the developer would mitigate the impact the development would have on the education estate. The cumulative impact of recent residential developments in the area have been assessed through the LDP, as has how the allocation of the site for housing would interact with ongoing housebuilding in Dargavel. The risk of fire, risk of fly tipping, lack of a police presence in the area and potential impact on views are not material planning considerations. The potential for damage to occur to existing properties or for construction to harm the amenity of nearby properties are also not material planning considerations. The affordability or need for the housing is not a material planning consideration. However, it is noted that the proposal would increase supply in the area and 18 of the units would be taken on by Bridgewater Housing Association who have provided a bespoke statement as part of this application and indicated that there is a need for such properties. The existing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion issued when the application was first received is still valid and the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. It is not accepted that the erection of a residential development in a residential area on a site that has been allocated as a housing site in the LDP and is consistent with all relevant criteria in the adopted Development Plan would breach anyone’s human rights. All other issues have been addressed in the above report. Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation(s) and any associated legal agreement(s) and/or mechanism(s) required to secure them including those provisions under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development. As detailed above, an appropriate form of legal agreement/mechanism would be required to secure the following planning obligations: ▪ £285,600 financial contribution towards Park Mains High School ▪ £128,800 financial contribution towards Trinity High School ▪ The provision of 18 flats that would be used as elderly amenity accommodation by Bridgewater Housing Association Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations. Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to conditions and an appropriate form of legal agreement to secure the planning obligations discussed above. Recommendation Page 218 of 280
Page 223
Grant Subject to Conditions and the provision of a form of Legal Agreement/mechanism to secure planning obligations. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposal accords with the provisions of the Development Plan and there were no material considerations which outweighed the presumption in favour of development according with the Development Plan. Condition(s) 1. That the development hereby permitted must be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To be in compliance with Section 58 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by Section 32 of The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. 2. No development shall commence on site until written approval of: a) a Site Investigation report (characterising the nature and extent of any soil, water and gas contamination within the site); and, if remedial works are recommended therein b) a Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan identifying the proposed methods for implementing all remedial recommendations contained with the site investigation report prepared in accordance with current authoritative technical guidance, has been provided by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site will be made suitable for its proposed use. 3. Prior to the occupation of any unit within an identified phase of development, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority: a) a Verification Report confirming completion of the works specified within the approved Remediation Strategy for that phase of development; or b) if remediation works are not required but soils are to be imported to site, a Verification Report confirming imported soils are suitable for use on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing Reason: To demonstrate that the works necessary to make the site suitable for use have been completed. 4. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The approved Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented prior to development commencing and remain in place until the development is complete. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 5. The vehicular and pedestrian access into the development shall be constructed in line with the requirements of the National Roads Development Guidance. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Page 219 of 280
Page 224
6. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the following offsite upgrades that are identified in the Florish Road Walkover report (October 2025) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority: ▪ Provision of a dropped kerb crossing across Torran Drive ▪ Resurfacing of the Florish Road roundabout ▪ Provision of a zebra crossing to the west of Wrightlands Cresent ▪ Installation of a dropped kerb on the footway between 17 and 18 Sandielands Avenue Thereafter, all offsite upgrades shall be completed prior to the occupation of the final dwelling to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To improve pedestrian connectivity. 7. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Reason: To ensure appropriate consideration of any archaeology given the possibility of such interest within the site. 8. Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority: d) a timetable for the implementation of all soft landscaping and the footpaths through the area of open space shown on approved drawings "Landscape Proposal - Sheets 1-6 (June 2025)" e) a timetable for the implementation of the formal play equipment shown on the approved drawing "Play Area Design (June 2025)" f) a strategy for the future management and maintenance of all landscaped areas, footpaths and the play equipment, including provision for replacement planting if individual plants were to become diseased, die, become seriously damaged or are removed within 5 years of being planted All landscaping, footpaths and the formal play equipment shall thereafter be implemented in line with the aforementioned drawings and the agreed timetable, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The landscaping, footpaths and the formal play equipment shall also be maintained in line with the approved management statement for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a robust landscaping strategy is implemented in the interests of visual amenity. 9. Tree removal shall only occur in line with approved drawing 182348-GIS002 (Tree Protection Plan) and no additional trees shall be removed unless agreed in writing in advance with the Planning Authority. Page 220 of 280
Page 225
All existing trees to be retained as part of the development shall be protected in line with the recommendations of the approved October 2025 Arboricultural Impact Assessment. For the avoidance of doubt, any retained trees which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation. 10. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority, a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan that sets out how the development would enhance biodiversity at the site in the long term. The plan shall set out timescales for the implementation of all measures identified in the report. Thereafter, all measures identified in the report shall be implemented to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority in accordance with the agreed timescales, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To ensure appropriate provision is made for the long term enhancement of nature at the site. 11. Prior to the occupation of the final dwelling, all biodiversity measures shown on drawing 0321-PL-005C (Biodiversity Layout) shall be implemented to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To ensure appropriate provision is made for the long term enhancement of nature at the site. 12. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the design and finish of all retaining walls to be erected across the development shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter, all retaining walls shall be constructed in line with the approved details to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity 13. Prior to occupation of any particular dwellinghouse or flat, any fence or wall to be erected in association with that plot shall be erected in accordance with approved drawing 0321-PL-003G, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity. 14. Prior to occupation of the final dwelling, all fencing, walls and pillars to be erected in communal areas shall be erected in accordance with approved drawing 0321-PL-003G, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity. Page 221 of 280
Page 226
15. Prior to the commencement of development, a Drainage Strategy shall be submitted to, and approved by, Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. The Drainage Strategy shall accord with the 'Council's Drainage Assessment - Notes for Guidance'. Thereafter, the approved Strategy shall be implemented in full prior to the completion of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for drainage associated with the development. 16. The development shall be implemented in line with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (August 2025). Reason: To ensure the site is not at risk of flooding. 17. Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The submitted plan shall include details of: d) monitoring of any standing water within the site temporary or permanent e) earthworks, soil stripping or excavation works f) sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS) g) maintenance of planted and landscaped areas The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved, on completion of the development and shall remain in force for the life of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. Reason: It is necessary to manage the development in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport. 18. No development shall take place until full details of soft and water landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, details must comply with Advice Note 3 ‘Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping & Building Design’ (available at www.aoa.org.uk/publications/safeguarding.asp). These details shall include: c) The species, number and spacing of trees and shrubs d) Drainage details including SUDS – Such schemes must comply with Advice Note 6 ‘Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) (available at www.aoa.org.uk/publications/safeguarding.asp ). No subsequent alterations to the approved landscaping scheme are to take place unless submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site. Advisory Note(s) 1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is Page 222 of 280
Page 227
encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Mining Remediation Authority on 0345 762 6846 or if a hazard is encountered on site call the emergency line 0800 288 4242. 2. Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant's attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, 'Cranes and Other Construction Issues' (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/policy-safeguarding.htm For further information please contact James McCafferty, Development Standards Team, Email: james.mccafferty@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 223 of 280
Page 228
Page 224 of 280
Page 229
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 17 March 2026 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 24/0516/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Major) Proposal Erection of residential development comprising 10 dwellinghouses and 23 flats with associated infrastructure and landscaping Location Site on Western Boundary of No 24, Thriplee Road, Bridge of Weir Ward 11 - Bishopton, Bridge of Weir and Langbank Community Council Bridge of Weir Community Council Applicant James (Glasgow) Ltd Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions & Legal Agreement All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SH7Y58MWJ3H00 This report fulfils the requirements of regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The report is presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in line with the Council's Scheme of Delegation. In this instance, the application relates to a major development as defined within the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a residential development comprising of 10 dwellinghouses and 23 flats with associated infrastructure and landscaping on land to the west of Thriplee Road in Bridge of Weir. Access would be taken from Thriplee Road to the east, with a new road forming a loop around the centre of the site. Provision for active travel would be made across the development. A mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings would be located across the site, as would three blocks of flats that would reach a maximum height of three storeys and associated parking. Areas of greenspace would be formed in the centre of the site and along its northern boundary while a SUDS basin and associated landscaping would be created in the northeastern corner. Pockets of soft landscaping would be formed across the development. Site Description The application site is bound to the north, east and south by existing residential properties. An area of ancient woodland and the Threeplands Wood SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) are found to the west. The site measures approximately 2.5 hectares, with 0.7 hectares of the southern portion located in the Ranfurly Conservation Area. The land slopes from south to north before dropping off along the northern boundary. The site is predominately comprised of grassland while deciduous tree cover is found along the Item 6(b) PACC170326 Page 225 of 280
Page 230
northern boundary and a group of both evergreen and deciduous trees are located in the southern portion. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers The Scottish Government strongly encourages constructive pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the planning authority. Pre-application discussions seek to identify key planning considerations at an early stage and help inform what supporting information is required to support a subsequent application. Pre-application discussions have taken place, focusing on the principle of development, the consenting process, impact on the education estate, impact on the Conservation Area and access and connectivity issues. Negotiated Improvements Following submission, five dwellings have been removed from along the northern boundary. This has allowed for the retention of additional trees, compensatory tree planting and the creation of an area of species rich meadowgrass that would be beneficial to wildlife and would help ensure the requirements of the Development Plan in respect of biodiversity, tree cover and habitat connectivity are met. The removal of these units also avoids the need for an engineered solution to the change in levels along the northern boundary. In addition, the following changes and improvements were negotiated between the Planning Authority and the applicant: ▪ Installation of formal play equipment in the centre of the site ▪ Improved pedestrian connectivity across the development and out into surrounding areas ▪ Provision of secure cycle storage for the blocks of flats ▪ Formation of an offsite footpath connection between National Cycle Route 75 (NCR75) and Kilmacolm Road ▪ A £10,500 financial contribution towards lighting a section of NCR75 ▪ A £3,200 financial contribution towards upgrading road markings at the junction of Prieston Road and Bridge of Weir Road ▪ A financial contribution of £240,240 to mitigate the impact the development would have on the education estate Site History The planning history for the site is as follows; if no history is listed then planning has no record of previous applications for the site. Application No: 23/0696/PN Description: Erection residential development Decision: Accepted Application No: 24/0053/EA Description: Screening opinion on need for an Environmental Assessment for erection of residential development Decision: Environmental Assessment Not Required Application No: 25/0133/TC Description: Felling of 29 trees (in part retrospect) Decision: No Objection Consultations ▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) - no objection, subject to conditions relating to the remediation of potentially contaminated land. Page 226 of 280
Page 231
▪ Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) - no objection, subject to conditions and the provision of offsite upgrades. ▪ Children's Services - no objection, subject to a financial contribution in respect of the impact the development would have on Gryffe High School and St Benedict's High School. ▪ Ironside Farrar Ltd (Council’s Independent Ecological Consultants) - no objection on ecological or biodiversity grounds. The Preliminary Ecological Assessment and Bat Survey are considered to be comprehensive and comply with best practice guidance. ▪ Scottish Water - no objection. ▪ Dougal Baillie Associates (Council’s Independent Drainage Consultants) - no objection. ▪ West of Scotland Archaeology Service - no objection, subject to conditions. ▪ Bridge of Weir Community Council - object on the grounds that the village does not want or need the housing, that local schools and healthcare facilities could not cope and that the proposal would erode the village boundary. The Community Council also believe that the development would have an unacceptable impact on biodiversity, trees and the existing road network, that insufficient strategies to reduce emissions are proposed and that the application and supporting information are deficient. The Community Council also are of the opinion that the proposal is contrary to the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan, specifically Ambition 2 which supports the reinstatement of a greenbelt designation on the land. The Community Council also note that those who wrote in support of the proposal do not live in Bridge of Weir. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: Object - 395 Support - 63 Neutral - 0 The issues raised by the objectors can be summarised as follows: 1. Loss of trees and impact on those that would remain. 2. Loss of habitat and negative impact on biodiversity. 3. Impact on local school capacity. 4. The surrounding road network could not cope. 5. Impact of healthcare facilities. 6. The existing sewage network could not cope. 7. Additional traffic would negatively impact existing residential properties. 8. Construction would negatively impact residential amenity. 9. Active travel connections onto Torr Road would be unsafe. 10. The proposal would increase the likelihood of flooding. 11. Bridge of Weir has enough housing. 12. The proposal does not include social/affordable housing. 13. Existing public transport provision is inadequate. 14. The Transport Assessment is inadequate. 15. An Environmental Impact Assessment is required. 16. A bat survey should be undertaken. Page 227 of 280
Page 232
17. Construction traffic would cause problems on the road network. 18. Trees were felled prior to the submission of the application. 19. Those who support the application do not live in Bridge of Weir. 20. Local amenities are not sufficient to support the development. 21. The applicant also plans on developing land to the west. 22. Too many houses have already been built in Bridge of Weir and in Renfrewshire. 23. The SUDS basin is poorly located and potentially unsafe. 24. Construction may destabilise the land. 25. Additional large homes will not help affordability. 26. Loss of greenbelt/agricultural land. 27. A connection to the electricity grid would be required. 28. A lamppost blocks access into the site. 29. Insufficient information has been submitted to assess the proposal. 30. Flats are out of keeping with the character of the area. 31. The proposal is of poor design and would have an unacceptable visual impact. 32. Internet/telephone connections are at capacity. 33. Negative impact on the Ranfurly Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. 34. Loss of greenspace. 35. Brownfield sites should be developed instead. 36. Renfrewshire Council would need to spend money to upgrade infrastructure. 37. The development would upset older residents. 38. Submitted plans are incorrect. 39. The site, in its current form, should be better maintained. 40. The drainage strategy is insufficient and potentially unsafe. 41. Unacceptable impact on privacy. 42. The proposal does not incorporate sufficient strategies to reduce emissions. 43. The development would overshadow existing properties. 44. The land is used by walkers. 45. Local residents do not want the development. 46. The development would be cut off from the rest of Bridge of Weir. 47. The development would breach burdens on title deeds. 48. The proposal is contrary to the Development Plan. 49. The applicant has not communicated their plans to local residents. 50. The proposal would breach neighbouring residents’ human rights. 51. Approval would open the door to more development elsewhere in the village. 52. The topography of the site makes it difficult to develop. 53. A rail link towards Glasgow should be provided. 54. The development would undermine the character of the village. 55. No EV chargers are proposed. 56. Trees at the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. 57. Gradients on active travel routes are too steep. 58. Noise from the pumping station serving the flats would harm residential amenity. 59. Insufficient parking within the development. 60. Negative impact on house prices. 61. Behaviour of the applicant. 62. Invasive species are present at the site. 63. Loss of sequestered carbon. 64. The proposal has been varied since it was submitted. 65. The time given for public comment on the revised proposal was insufficient. The issues raised in support of the application can be summarised as follows: 1. The development would help younger people stay in Bridge of Weir. 2. Bridge of Weir needs more housing. 3. Local businesses would benefit from increased footfall. 4. The development wouldn't unacceptably impact local infrastructure. Page 228 of 280
Page 233
5. Pressure on services is for others to sort (but the developer should contribute). 6. The proposal would enhance conditions for wildlife. 7. The proposal would help reduce flood risk. 8. The development is well designed. 9. A more diverse range of house types available in Bridge of Weir is welcome. 10. Traffic levels in the village are fine and could cope with extra properties. 11. The provision of housing outweighs any possible negative impacts. 12. Construction would boost economic growth. 13. The development would help improve infrastructure/amenities in the area. 14. Property values will rise as a result of the development. Policy Context In making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The following provisions of the Development Plan are considered relevant to the determination of this application: National Planning Framework 4 ▪ Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises ▪ Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation ▪ Policy 3 - Biodiversity ▪ Policy 4 - Natural places ▪ Policy 6 - Forestry, woodland and trees ▪ Policy 7 - Historic assets and places ▪ Policy 8 - Green belts ▪ Policy 11 - Energy ▪ Policy 12 - Zero waste ▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 14 - Design, quality and place ▪ Policy 15 - Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods ▪ Policy 16 - Quality homes ▪ Policy 18 - Infrastructure first ▪ Policy 20 - Blue and green infrastructure ▪ Policy 21 - Play, recreation and sport ▪ Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management ▪ Policy 27 - City, town, local and commercial centres Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy C1 - Renfrewshire’s Network of Centres ▪ Policy P1 - Renfrewshire's Places ▪ Policy P3 - Housing Mix and Affordable Housing ▪ Policy P5 - Green/Blue Network ▪ Policy P6 - Open Space ▪ Policy ENV1 – Green Belt ▪ Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage ▪ Policy ENV3 - Built and Cultural Heritage ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Policy I4 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments Page 229 of 280
Page 234
▪ Policy I5 - Waste Management ▪ Policy I7 - Zero and Low Carbon Buildings ▪ Policy I8 - Developer Contributions Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Connecting Places ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Flooding and Drainage ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Renewable and Low Carbon ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Provision for Waste Recycling in New Developments ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Developer Contributions ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy - Creating Places ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy - Open Space Provision in New Developments ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Trees, Woodlands and Forestry ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Biodiversity ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Natural Heritage ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Built and Cultural Heritage ▪ Renfrewshire Planning and Development Tree Policy ▪ Renfrewshire's Places Residential Design Guide ▪ Renfrewshire - A Guide to Development in Conservation Areas ▪ Site Development Brief - Thriplee Road, Bridge of Weir ▪ NatureScot: Standing advice for planning consultations – Bats ▪ NatureScot: A guide to understanding the Scottish Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) ▪ National Roads Development Guidance ▪ Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance ▪ Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Biodiversity ▪ The Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal ▪ Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan ▪ Report to Renfrewshire Council on the Proposed Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2 Examination (February 2021) ▪ Opinion of the Court of Session - Cosmopolitan Hotels Limited v Renfrewshire Council (November 2021) ▪ Letter from the Chief Planner and Minister for Public Finance - Planning for Housing (June 2024) ▪ Letter from the Chief Planner and Cabinet Secretary for Housing - Housing Emergency Action Plan & the Planning System (September 2025) Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Arboricultural Survey Report (February 2024) - details the condition of trees found within the application site boundary. ▪ Archaeological Desk Based Study and Walk Over Field Survey (January 2024) - outlines the findings of a desk study and walk over survey in respect of potential archaeological remains at the site. ▪ Bat Survey (November 2025) - details bat activity at the site and in the surrounding area, outlines possible measures for their protection and ways to enhance habitat. ▪ Design, Access and Sustainability Statement (January 2026) - explains the development parameters, design concepts and principles that have shaped and informed the layout. Page 230 of 280
Page 235
▪ Drainage and Flood Risk Assessment Report (January 2026) - examines existing drainage arrangements at the site and details how the proposed drainage strategy would meet the requirements of Renfrewshire Council and Scottish Water. The report also explores whether the development would be at risk of flooding or would increase the risk of flooding to others. ▪ Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (April 2024) - the LVIA considers the impact of the development on the wider landscape surrounding the site. ▪ Method Statement for Archaeological Work (April 2024) - outlines how archaeological works at the site should be conducted in respect of the findings of the Archaeological Desk Based Study and Walk Over Field Survey. ▪ PAC Report (February 2024) - provides details of the Pre Application Consultation process and its outcomes. ▪ Planning Statement (July 2024) - provides the applicant's justification for the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. ▪ Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (June 2024) - provides details of the ecological condition of the site and the surrounding area. The report also outlines the findings of targeted bat and badger surveys that have been undertaken at the site. ▪ Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (January 2026) - identifies measures that can be implemented at the site for the benefit of nature. The report also outlines how these measures should be managed in the long term. ▪ Site Investigation Phase 1 Desk Study Report (December 2023) - considers the condition of the land in respect of potential contamination. ▪ Transport Assessment (May 2024) - examines the impact the development would have on the wider road network, explores possible active travel links and details how the proposal would comply with relevant policies and guidance. Scottish Ministers Direction In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. None. Planning Assessment Introduction The application site was recommended for allocation as a Policy P2 housing site with an indicative capacity of 30 units by the Scottish Government as part of their assessment of the now adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (LDP). The Scottish Government reporter who examined the LDP noted that the "site is well contained. It is bounded on three sides by existing housing, thus creating a small infill Page 231 of 280
Page 236
between existing houses" and that woodland to the west provides a “strong and defensible green belt boundary”. The reporter also noted that the "impact of the development on the visual character, landscape character and setting of the village would not be significant". However, the Policy P2 designation was rejected by the Council following a decision by the Communities, Housing and Planning Policy Board in April 2021. This decision was subsequently quashed by the Court of Session in June 2022 and as the Court of Session is unable to allocate sites, the land is now white space and sits outwith the spatial strategy that forms part of the adopted LDP. The housing emergency declared by the Scottish Government in May 2024 is relevant to the assessment of the application. Letters from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, the Planning Minister and Chief Planner in June 2024 and September 2025 have reiterated the key role the planning system has to play in the delivery of new housing that will help address the emergency. In particular, the Ministers and Chief Planner have emphasised the importance of the proportionate assessment of applications and reiterated that applications must be assessed against the Development Plan as a whole. Contradictions between individual policies are to be expected and must be weighed up by the decision maker. Assessment Although the application site is not allocated for housing, Policy 16 f) iii) of NPF4 provides qualified support for smaller scale housing developments within an existing settlement boundary. As residential properties are found on three sides the site presents an opportunity for a small scale infill development which would form part of Bridge of Weir and would not extend beyond the woodland to the west that provides a defensible greenbelt boundary. Policy 16 f) also requires such proposals to comply with the following criteria: ▪ the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out ▪ the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods In respect of the first criteria, the applicant has advised that once works start they would complete the development within three years. Given the number of units proposed such a buildout rate is realistic and is therefore accepted. In respect of the second criteria, despite the Court of Session judgement the "spatial strategy" that covers Renfrewshire as a whole continues to exist. Within the spatial strategy, the land immediately to the north, east and south is covered by Policy P1 which provides a general presumption in favour of a continuance of the built form while the land to the west is covered by Policy ENV1 greenbelt designation. The Policy ENV3 Conservation Area designation that covers a portion of the site and the land beyond is also relevant. To consider whether the proposal is consistent with the spatial strategy and all other relevant considerations set out across NPF4 and the LDP it is appropriate to assess the application against the five criteria for creating successful place that are set out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance. Access and Connectivity The development would be accessed via Thriplee Road, with the existing carriageway and footways continuing into the site. No concerns have been raised by Roads Development with regard to the suitability of the access or the ability of the wider road network to cope subject to the upgrades detailed below. A condition can be added to ensure streetlighting provision at the access is sufficient for the increased pedestrian and vehicular activity. Page 232 of 280
Page 237
A Construction Traffic Management Plan can be requested via condition to ensure the delivery of the development would not have an unacceptable impact on existing roads. The road network within the site would take the form of a single loop, with all properties fronting onto the road to create a well defined streetscape that benefits from passive surveillance. A 2 metre wide footway would be found on both sides of the carriageway across the development. Parking would be provided in line with the requirements of the National Roads Development Guidance while coverage cycle storage would be provided for the flats. Raised tables and pockets of landscaping designed to narrow the carriageway would reduce vehicle speeds, contributing to the creation of a pleasant place to live in line with the requirements of Policy 14 of NPF4. The proposal would also comply with Policy 21 e) of NPF4 in this regard in that the public realm has been designed to enable children and young people to move around safely and independently. The footpath that would run through the central area of greenspace would improve connectivity within the site and help encourage the use of the greenspace. The footpath in the northeast corner would connect to existing paths that lead onto Torr Road. This would provide active travel connections towards the village centre, public transport options, local schools and NCR75. Active travel connectivity would also be provided via the main access onto Thriplee Road. Although the gradient of sections of the path network is acknowledged to be greater than would ordinarily be encouraged, the applicant has agreed to install steps, handrails, non-slip surfacing, lighting and carry out maintenance to the existing sections of path to improve safety and accessibility. Levels across the development would not be dissimilar to those found across existing residential streets to the east. The applicant has also agreed to provide the following offsite improvements following discussions with the Planning Authority: ▪ formation of a footpath at the Morar Living Care Home that would provide an active travel connection between Kilmacolm Road and NCR75 ▪ provision of £10,500 towards lighting NCR75 between the proposed connection discussed above and Livery Walk ▪ provision of £3,200 to alter road marking to improve sightlines at the junction of Bridge of Weir Road and Prieston Road It is considered that the request from Roads Development that the northbound lane at the junction of Main Street and Houston Road be widened would be disproportionate to the benefit provided and would result in the loss of a pocket of greenspace. All the above measures would, when taken together, ensure the development is served by active travel and public transport options in line with the requirements of Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policy I1 of the LDP. The developer contributions would also help improve active travel provision in Bridge of Weir more widely and would comply with Ambition 1 in the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan. The proximity of the site to the village centre means the development would contribute to, and benefit from, local living in line with the requirements of Policy 15 of NPF4 as well as contribute to the vitality and viability of Bridge of Weir Village Centre in line with Policy 27 of NPF4 and Policy C1 of the LDP. In particular, the gentle increase in density provided by the 23 flats would help improve the viability of businesses and services and would align with Ambition 3 of the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan. Overall, it is considered that, subject to conditions and an appropriate legal agreement, the access and connectivity arrangements would be acceptable. The site has been designed, Page 233 of 280
Page 238
and offsite enhancements secured, to improve active travel connectivity and reduce reliance on private cars. Environment and Community Policy 1 of NPF4 requires development proposals to give significant weight to the climate and nature crises. Policy 3 b) states that major developments will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. Policy 3 b) goes on to state that proposals should be based on an understanding of the existing characteristics of the site and its ecological context prior to development and that potential negative effects should be fully mitigated in line with the mitigation hierarchy prior to identifying enhancements. The mitigation hierarchy requires developers to avoid and minimise any negative impacts, restore damaged habitats and then offset any impacts that cannot be avoided. Policy 3 d) also requires adverse impacts on biodiversity, including cumulative impacts, to be minimised through careful planning and design while Policy 4 requires consideration to be given to the impact the proposal would have on designated sites and protected species. Similarly, Policy ENV2 of the LDP seeks to minimise the impact developments would have on the natural environment while the associated Supplementary Guidance states that proposals should not significantly affect existing species or habitats and should be appropriately designed to improve habitat connectivity. Given existing tree cover, Policy 6 of NFP4 and the Supplementary Guidance on Trees, Woodlands and Forestry as well as the Council's Tree Policy are also relevant. These seek to enhance, expand and improve existing woodland and tree cover and encourage the planting of new native specimens. The loss of any existing tree cover requires to be compensated for in line with the mitigation hierarchy. The Site Development Brief also seeks to protect tree cover, with compensatory planting required for any trees that are removed. These points are expanded upon in the Scottish Government's Planning Guidance on Biodiversity. The applicant has submitted a suite of documents that examine the current condition of the site in respect of biodiversity. These have been reviewed by the Council's external ecologist and found to be satisfactory. The findings of the reports have been used to inform the development proposal and any mitigation and enhancement measures required in line with Policy 3 d). There are no environmental designations in place at the site. Although the Threeplands Wood SINC is located approximately 40 metres to the west the development would not impact the designation given the separation distance. The integrity and ecological condition of the area of Ancient Woodland would not be affected by the development given it measures 6.5 hectares. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) finds that in terms of habitat, the grassland which covers most of the site is of low ecological value. Leylandii that have been planted as a windbreak are also of low ecological value but the deciduous trees found along the northern boundary and in the southern portion of the site are of high value. The PEA notes that the trees along the northern boundary play an important role in allowing wildlife such as birds and bats to move across the wider landscape. The PEA found no badger setts within 100 metres of the application site. Although badgers may be active in the area, the woodland, farmland and golf course to the west provide a vast Page 234 of 280
Page 239
area of habitat that is better connected and less likely to be the subject of human disturbance. As such, it is not proportionate to request additional surveys. A full bat survey was submitted at the request of the Planning Authority. The survey finds that the site's overall suitability for bats is high but no bat roosts were found within the site boundary. The area of ancient woodland and SINC to the west is identified as a likely location of bat roosts. NatureScot’s standing advice in respect of bats requires developers to compensate for any negative impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated before going on to enhance conditions for the species. The initial site layout retained 15 deciduous trees in the southern portion of the site but would have resulted in the removal of almost all trees along the northern boundary. Given the findings of the ecological surveys, the resulting loss in tree cover and habitat would have been unacceptable in relation to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. Following discussions between the Planning Authority and the applicant a revised site layout that better protects existing tree cover and retains habitat connectivity has been submitted. Five detached dwellings that would have sat along the northern boundary have been removed to allow for the retention of 22 deciduous trees, compensatory tree planting and the creation of an area of species rich meadowgrass to ensure the existing foraging and commuting habitat is retained and enhanced. The proposal would still involve the removal of 31 deciduous trees along the northern boundary, 26 deciduous trees in the southern portion of the site and all leylandii. However, the applicant's Arboricultural Survey notes that almost all the deciduous trees to be removed are either low quality Category C trees or Category U trees that are unsuitable for retention even if the use of the land does not change. Several of the trees to be removed have ash dieback while no Category A, ancient or veteran trees would be felled. The removal of trees across the site to implement the revised layout is therefore acceptable given their poor condition. However, in line with the mitigation hierarchy the tree loss and corresponding ecological impact must be offset. The 22 retained trees along the northern boundary would be complemented with 60 newly planted specimens while an understory would be created along the length of the boundary using smaller saplings. An area of species rich meadowgrass would also help compensate for any foraging habitat that would be lost. The 15 trees retained in the southern portion of the site would be complemented with 23 specimens. The use of standard, heavy standard and extra heavy standard specimens would help provide instant impact while the use of native specimens such as birch, alder and Scots pine is welcome from a biodiversity perspective. In total, 123 trees would be planted across the development, with the overwhelming majority found in communal areas where they will be afforded the opportunity to establish and grow over time. This would ensure woodland habitat that provides connectivity into the site and across the wider landscape from the ancient woodland and SINC to the west would be maintained for species such as birds and bats in the long term. Conditions can be added to ensure all proposed planting takes place and is maintained thereafter, that no additional trees are removed without the approval of the Planning Authority and to ensure the trees that would remain are adequately protected during construction. The Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan also recommends that bat, bird and habitat boxes are installed across the site to compensate for any loss of nesting habitat. A condition can be added to ensure compliance. The proposal therefore satisfactorily mitigates the negative impacts of the tree and woodland habitat loss in line with the requirements of the mitigation hierarchy. The Development Plan then requires conditions for wildlife to be enhanced. Page 235 of 280
Page 240
The compensatory tree planting would, when combined with the retained tree cover, create habitat that features deciduous and evergreen specimens of varying ages. Given the poor condition of many of the existing trees and the number of specimens that would be planted, the proposal would therefore ensure tree cover is enhanced and expanded in the long term. The replacement of non-native species such as Lawson Cypress with native specimens would also help improve conditions for wildlife. In addition, the creation of a SUDS basin that would incorporate planting suited to the location would help introduce standing water into the site, creating new habitat that would be beneficial for species such as birds and bats that would make use of the tree cover. The applicant's bat survey and Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan both highlight the benefits of the SUDS basin in respect of improving conditions for wildlife. Integrating the SUDS basin with existing and proposed green infrastructure would comply with Policies 20 b) and 22 c) of NFP4, Policy P5 of the LDP and would contribute towards the creation of a pleasant residential environment in line with Policy 14 of NPF4. A condition requiring any lighting in communal areas to be sensitive to bats and other wildlife can be added to ensure the new and retained habitat can be used by nocturnal species. Finally, components of the broader landscaping scheme such as native hedging and shrub planting would diversify the variety of species found at the site to the benefit of wildlife. Overall, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal would enhance conditions for wildlife. Given the above, the proposal is considered to comply with policies 1, 3, 4 and 6 of NPF4, Policy ENV2 of the LDP and all relevant guidance. The revised proposal has sought to avoid, minimise and then compensate for tree and habitat loss before going on to enhance conditions for wildlife using nature based solutions targeted to the species found at the site. Given existing tree cover was found to be in poor condition, the proposal would ensure native tree cover is secured in the long term in line with the aims of the Council's Tree Policy and the Site Development Brief. Notwithstanding the above it should be noted that the results of the PEA were only valid for 18 months, until October 2025. As any planning consent granted for the site would remain valid for 3 years it is not considered reasonable or proportionate to request another survey prior to the determination as its findings may be dated by the time the consent is implemented. The bat survey completed in November 2025 also provides an up-to-date picture of the most common protected species found at the site and is valid until November 2027. Instead, a further PEA can be requested via condition to identify if any additional measures are required in respect of protected species prior to the commencement of development. Policy 22 of NPF4 as well as Policy I3 of the LDP and its associated supplementary guidance state that proposals must not increase the risk of flooding to others, be at risk of flooding themselves and that surface water runoff must be managed sustainably. Following discussions with the Council’s external drainage consultant, it is accepted that all aspects of the relevant policies and the Council's guidance can be fully complied with. A condition can be added to ensure a full drainage and flood risk assessment are submitted for approval prior to the commencement of development and that all relevant measures are in place prior to the occupation of the first dwelling and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. As such, the proposal would comply with Policy 22 of NPF4 as well as Policy I3 of the LDP and the associated guidance. The drainage strategy will also be designed to cope with the impacts of heavier rainfall brought about by climate change, in line with the requirements of Policy 2 b) of NPF4. Page 236 of 280
Page 241
Foul waste would connect to the existing sewer while drinking water would be provided from the mains supply in line with the requirements of Policy 22 d) of NPF4. Scottish Water have not objected to the proposal. Environmental Protection have not objected, subject to the application of conditions in respect of potential contaminated land. As such, the site can be made safe for development in line with the requirements of Policy 9 of NPF4. The West of Scotland Archaeological Service has requested that a programme of archaeological works is carried out prior to the commencement of development to ensure any historic artefacts buried at the site are recovered and recorded. A condition can be added to ensure compliance. Context and Character As the application site is bound on three sides by residential properties, the proposal would represent a small infill development that would be consistent with surrounding Policy P1 designations and the extent of existing housing found to the north and south. The development would not look out of place when viewed from the surrounding landscape or from neighbouring properties given the residential character of the area. Environmental Protection have raised no concerns in respect of noise. The proposal is therefore consistent with the Policy P1 designation within the spatial strategy in that it would represent the continuation of the existing built form found to the north, east and south. Although the land immediately to the west is designated as greenbelt, the erection of a residential development would not impact on the designation and the proposal would not fragment the greenbelt, limit its use or otherwise harm its environmental qualities. The area of woodland to the west provides a defensible greenbelt boundary and would help screen the housing from land within greenbelt. The southern portion of the site would be located within the Ranfurly Conservation Area while the rest of the site would sit adjacent to it. Policy 7 d) of NPF4, Policy ENV3 of the LDP and the relevant guidance require proposals to preserve the character of Conservation Areas while Policy 7 e) encourages the retention of natural features such as trees that contribute to the character of the Area. The Council's Conservation Area guidance characterises the Ranfurly Conservation Area as containing "large houses in various styles set in well wooded grounds". The land that sits within the Conservation Area is small relative to the area of the site as a whole and is somewhat detached from the main body of the Conservation Area. The development would not be accessed from the Conservation Area itself. The density, layout and scale would all be acceptable and the historic character of the Area would not be undermined. The blocks of flats, which would reach a maximum of three storeys in height, are of an acceptable design and would help diversify the range of housing stock available in the area. The majority of the trees to be removed from the Conservation Area are leylandii that do not contribute to its character while the retention of deciduous tree cover, proposed tree planting and the broader landscaping strategy discussed above would all ensure compliance with Policy 7 e). The use of stone and zinc cladding to complement the white render finish to the buildings is welcome and would ensure the appearance of the buildings is of an appropriate quality. In addition, planning permission for 4 dwellings of a similar scale, design and finish was approved off Prieston Road in 2017 (16/0770/PP). These dwellings sit within the Conservation Area but do not detract from its character or overall quality. Page 237 of 280
Page 242
As the development would be approximately 60 metres from the B and C listed buildings found to the south their setting would not be negatively affected. Given the above, the proposal is consistent with the Conservation Area designation within the spatial strategy and would not have a negative impact on nearby listed buildings. Overall, the proposal would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would be consistent with the designations contained within the plan spatial strategy. Ambition 2 of the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan and the desire to see the land returned to the greenbelt and remain as greenspace in order to prevent development is noted. However, the land is not identified as greenbelt in the current plan spatial strategy and compliance with the plan spatial strategy as a whole has been demonstrated above. Children's Services have no objection to the proposal, subject to the developer paying a financial contribution in respect of the following schools as they are operating at above 85% capacity. The contribution has been calculated in line with the Council's Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance and works out as follows for each school: ▪ Gryffe High School - £166,320 ▪ St Benedict's High School - £73,920 The applicant has agreed to pay the contribution and an appropriate legal agreement can be entered into to ensure compliance. As such, the proposal complies with Policy 18 of NPF4 and Policy I8 of the LDP in that the impacts of the development on infrastructure can be mitigated. The provision of infrastructure such as a connection to the national grid as well as telephone and internet services would be a matter for the applicant to pursue with the providers of those services. Buildings and Design The proposed development would create a varied streetscape, with a mixture of flats as well as detached and semi-detached dwellings found across the site. The mix of house types and unit sizes mean the proposal would comply with Policy P3 of the LDP and Policy 16 c) of NPF4 in that it would help widen the choice available to those looking to live in Bridge of Weir. The provision of flats in particular is welcome and would comply with Ambition 5 of the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan in that they would diversify house types and help allow more young people to continue to live in the village. All buildings, including the blocks of flats, would be of a size and design that is acceptable for the location and would not result in the overdevelopment of the plot. The proposal raises no privacy or overlooking concerns and an acceptable amount of garden ground would be provided for all dwellings. Both the dwellings and blocks of flats would be finished in a combination of white render, stone and zinc cladding while each of the buildings would have a pitched roof finished with grey roof tiles. The use of a common palette of materials is welcome. The choice of finishing materials for all areas of hardstanding, including footpaths, would be acceptable. Residents living in the development as well as residents in nearby properties would benefit from the proposed areas of open space. These have been incorporated into the layout in line with Policy 20 b) of NPF4 and Policy P6 of the LDP. Following discussions with the Planning Authority, the applicant agreed to provide formal play equipment within the central area of open space in line with the requirements of Policy 21 d) of NPF4 and Ambition 4 of the Bridge of Weir Local Place Plan. The central location means the play area would benefit from passive overlooking but would not raise any amenity issues for residents. A condition can be added to ensure the play equipment is delivered in line with the approved plan. The Page 238 of 280
Page 243
broader provision of greenspace and opportunities for informal play would also align with Policy 21 f). The applicant's sustainability statement notes that solar panels and air source heat pumps would be installed across the development while EV charging facilities would be provided for each property. The proposal would therefore comply with policies 1, 2 and 11 of NPF4 and Policy I4 of the LPD in that the proposal could make use of low and zero carbon technologies to reduce emissions. Provision for the storage and disposal of waste across all properties would be acceptable in line with the requirements of Policy 12 of NPF4 as well as Policy I5 of the LDP and the relevant supplementary guidance. As such, the design of the development and the appearance and impact of the buildings contained within it are acceptable. Layout and Form The form of the development would reflect that of the surrounding built environment. The layout of the road and footpath network within the site would create a well-connected, permeable layout that links to the existing settlement. The change in levels across the site would not be a barrier to development and the topography of the wider area has not prevented the continued occupation of the existing housing to the north and east. The proposal works with, rather than against, the topography of the land with many of the buildings lower at the front that at the rear to avoid them appearing over dominant in the streetscape and to avoid the need for a significant under build. The removal of the five units along the northern boundary discussed above avoids the need for an engineered solution to allow development to come forward in this portion of the site. Areas of open space, pockets of landscaping and significant tree cover would be found across the site. These would soften the appearance of the development and would assist in the creation of a pleasant place to live in line with the requirements of Policy 14 of NPF4. The retention of existing mature trees would help integrate the development into the surrounding landscape. The extent of boundary treatments visible from the streetscape would be limited. A condition can be added to ensure all fences and boundary walls to be erected across the development are to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Overall, the layout and form of the development raise no concerns. Representations Whether too many houses have been built in Bridge of Weir and across Renfrewshire, whether the applicant intends to build more housing and the fact that there are brownfield sites elsewhere that could be built on are not relevant to the assessment of this application. In respect of the claim that approving this application would make it easier to build elsewhere in Bridge of Weir, it should be noted that each application is assessed on its own merits. There is no policy requirement for the proposed development to contain social or affordable housing. Whether the applicant has adequately communicated their intentions to residents is not a material planning consideration. The requirements for pre-application consultation set out in legislation have been met and the application has been widely publicised by the Planning Authority. The time given to allow individuals to comment on the revised plans exceeds the Page 239 of 280
Page 244
21 day period set out in regulation 18 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations. Whether trees were felled prior to the submission of the application, the current condition of the land, the behaviour of the applicant, the potential for older residents to be upset, the fact the land may be used by walkers and the potential for construction to destabilise the land are all not material planning considerations. The contents of title deeds, the impact of construction activity and the potential for house prices to decrease are also not material considerations. All drawings and supporting information submitted by the applicant was considered sufficient by the Planning Authority and all relevant consultees to allow the application to be assessed in line with both The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and the Development Plan. Section 32A of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 allows Planning Authorities to agree to the varying of a planning application after submission, provided it does not consider there has been a substantial change to the development proposed. Given the revision involves the removal of five units to accommodate additional retained trees, compensatory tree planting and habitat creation with no changes to the wider layout it is not accepted that the changes negotiated constitute a substantial change. In respect of the claim that the proposal would result in the loss of greenbelt land, the site is not within the greenbelt. There are no TPO designations in place at the site and the limited environmental impact from the loss of sequestered carbon would be offset by the compensatory planting proposed. The limited nature of public transport in Bridge of Weir is acknowledged. However, it is considered that the provision of 33 additional units, including the increase in density provided by the flats, would support the existing public transport offering and would help make improved services more viable. The existing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion issued before the application was received is still valid and the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. The affordability of the housing is not a material planning consideration though the proposal would increase supply in the area and would widen the range of house types available. Infrastructure upgrades have been provided in line with the requests of consultees and the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. It would be unreasonable for the applicant to make a financial contribution to a rail link given no such project exists. In respect of the claim that healthcare facilities could not cope, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde were consulted as part of the preparation of the adopted LDP. This included an invitation to comment on the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan that both discussed the possibility of allocating the land as a housing site. No comments were received. GPs and dentists operate as private businesses and it would be for them to respond to the housing as they see fit. It is not accepted that the erection of a residential development that is found to comply with all relevant provisions of the Development Plan would breach anyone's human rights. All other issues have been addressed in the above report. The points raised by those supporting the application are noted, as is the geographical spread of these representations. Page 240 of 280
Page 245
Conclusion Policy 16 f) of NPF4 provides support for smaller scale housing developments within an existing settlement boundary provided the following criteria are met: ▪ the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out ▪ the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods The above assessment has found that the erection of a residential development at the site would be consistent with the plan spatial and all other relevant policies and guidance. The timeframe for delivery suggested by the applicant is also acceptable. The proposal therefore complies with Policy 16 f) of NPF4. Compliance with all other relevant provisions of the Development Plan has been demonstrated above. Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation(s) and any associated legal agreement(s) and/or mechanism(s) required to secure them including those provisions under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development. As detailed above, an appropriate form of legal agreement/mechanism would be required to secure the following planning obligations: ▪ the formation of a footpath at the Morar Living Care Home that would provide an active travel connection between Kilmacolm Road and NCR75 ▪ the provision of £10,500 towards lighting NCR75 between the proposed connection discussed above and Livery Walk ▪ the provision of £3,200 to alter road markings to improve sightlines for traffic turning right at the junction of Bridge of Weir Road and Prieston Road ▪ a £166,320 financial contribution towards Gryffe High School ▪ a £73,920 financial contribution towards St Benedict's High School Conclusion In view of the above, the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations. Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to conditions and an appropriate form of legal agreement to secure the planning obligations discussed above. Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions and the provision of a form of Legal Agreement/mechanism to secure planning obligations. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposal accords with the provisions of the Development Plan and there were no material considerations which outweighed the presumption in favour of development according with the Development Plan. Condition(s) 1. That the development hereby permitted must be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To be in compliance with Section 58 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by Section 32 of The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. 2. No development shall commence on site until written approval of: Page 241 of 280
Page 246
a) a Site Investigation report (characterising the nature and extent of any soil, water and gas contamination within the site); and, if remedial works are recommended therein b) a Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan identifying the proposed methods for implementing all remedial recommendations contained with the site investigation report prepared in accordance with current authoritative technical guidance, has been provided by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site will be made suitable for its proposed use. 3. Prior to the occupation of any unit within an identified phase of development, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority: a) a Verification Report confirming completion of the works specified within the approved Remediation Strategy for that phase of development; or b) if remediation works are not required but soils are to be imported to site, a Verification Report confirming imported soils are suitable for use on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing Reason: To demonstrate that the works necessary to make the site suitable for use have been completed. 4. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (including, but not limited to, details of the location of the compound, contractor parking and the route construction traffic would take to the site) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The approved Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented prior to development commencing and remain in place until the development is complete. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 5. The vehicular and pedestrian access into the development shall be constructed in line with the requirements of the National Roads Development Guidance. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 6. Prior to the commencement of development, an assessment of street lighting provision between the access into the site and the junction of Thriplee Road and Carruth Road shall be undertaken and submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The installation of any additional or upgraded lighting columns identified as necessary by the survey shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and installed by the applicant prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of safety. 7. Prior to occupation of the final dwelling, all bin and cycle stores detailed on approved drawings 1418-23/MP03 (Rev K), 1418-23/MP16 (Rev C) and 1418- 23/MP17 (Rev B) shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, Page 242 of 280
Page 247
unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of connectivity and the appropriate storage of waste. 8. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the design of all footpaths and footways, including upgrades to existing footpaths, within the application site boundary shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Information to be submitted shall include, but not be limited to, repairs and resurfacing to existing footpaths as well as the installation of steps, barriers, handrails, non-slip surfaces and lighting across the development. Thereafter, the all works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the final dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of connectivity and safety. 9. Prior to the commencement of development, a Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment shall be submitted to, and approved by, Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. The Drainage Strategy shall accord with the 'Council's Drainage Assessment - Notes for Guidance'. A maintenance plan covering all aspects of the Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment shall also be submitted to, and approved by, Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment shall be implemented in full prior to the completion of the development and maintained thereafter for the lifetime of the development to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure potential flood risk is appropriately managed and to ensure adequate provision is made for drainage associated with the development. 10. Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority: a) a timetable for the implementation of all soft landscaping shown on approved drawings "Landscape Proposal - Sheets 1-4 (April 2024)" b) a timetable for the implementation of the formal play equipment shown on the approved drawing "Landscape Proposal - Play Area (Jan 2025)" c) a strategy for the future management and maintenance of all landscaped areas, footpaths and play equipment, including provision for replacement planting if individual plants were to become diseased, die, become seriously damaged or are removed within 5 years of being planted All landscaping and play equipment shall thereafter be implemented in line with the aforementioned drawings and the agreed timetable, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The landscaping, footpaths and play equipment shall also be maintained in line with the approved management strategy for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a robust landscaping strategy is implemented in the interests of visual amenity. Page 243 of 280
Page 248
11. Tree removal shall only occur in line with approved drawing 1418-23/MP02 (Rev B) (Site Plan as Existing) and no additional trees shall be removed unless agreed in writing in advance with the Planning Authority. All existing trees to be retained as part of the development shall be protected in line with the recommendations of the approved drawing "Landscape Proposal - Sheet 1 (April 2024)". For the avoidance of doubt, any retained trees which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation. 12. Prior to the commencement of development, details of any external lighting to be installed in communal areas shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The lighting shall be designed and operated in accordance with bat-friendly lighting principles, including the avoidance of light spill beyond the site boundary and the prevention of lighting on key habitat features such as trees, hedgerows and watercourses. Lighting shall accord with the Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 08/23 (Bats and Artificial Lighting). Thereafter, the approved strategy shall be implemented in full and maintained for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the natural environment. 13. Prior to occupation of the final dwelling, all bird, bat and habitat boxes detailed in section 5.1.7 of the approved Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (SLR, January 2026) shall be installed across the site and shall remain in place for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure appropriate provision is made for the long term enhancement of nature at the site. 14. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit an updated Preliminary Ecological Assessment for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Should any protected species be discovered, no development shall take place until suitable mitigation measures are submitted to, and approved in writing by, Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter only proceed in full accordance with these approved measures. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and site management. Page 244 of 280
Page 249
15. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the design and location of all fences, walls, boundary treatments and retaining walls to be erected across the site shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Prior to occupation of any particular dwellinghouse or flat, any boundary treatments any retaining walls to be erected in association with that plot shall be erected in accordance with the approved drawing, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Prior to occupation of the final dwelling, all boundary treatments and retaining walls to be erected in communal areas shall be erected in accordance with the approved drawing, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: These details have not been submitted. 16. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Reason: To ensure appropriate consideration of any archaeology given the possibility of such interest within the site. Advisory Note(s) 1. None required. Schedule of Plans Reviewed Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title 1418-23 / MP01 Location Plan 1418-23 / MP02 B Site Plan as Existing 1418 - 23 / MP03 K Site Plan as Proposed, Key Plan & Roads Layout 1418 - 23 / MP04 K Landscaped Site Plan as Proposed 1418 - 23 / MP05 Plots P1-P3 Plans & Elevations 1418 - 23 / MP06 C Plots P4, P5, P6, P14 & P15 Plans & Elevations 1418 - 23 / MP07 B Plots P7 & P8 Plans & Elevations 1418 - 23 / MP09 Plot F1 Plans 1418 - 23 / MP10 Plot F1 Elevations 1418 - 23 / MP11 Plot F2 Plans & Elevations 1418 - 23 / MP12 Plot F3 Plans 1418 - 23 / MP13 Plot F3 Elevations 1418 - 23 / MP14 D Proposed Presentation Sections and Views 1418-23 / MP15 F Design, Access & Sustainability Statement 1418 - 23 / MP16 C Garages & Flat Refuse Stores 1418 - 23 / MP17 B Cycle Shelters 1418-23 / MP19 A Adoption Plan 677-01-11i Landscape Proposals (Sheet 1 of 4) Page 245 of 280
Page 250
677-01-12i Landscape Proposals (Sheet 2 of 4) 677-01-13i Landscape Proposals (Sheet 3 of 4) 677-01-14i Landscape Proposals (Sheet 4 of 4) 677-01-15b Landscape Proposals – Play Area 60710-T-01 Topographical Survey 60710-T-02 Topographical Survey 60710-T-03 Topographical Survey 60710-T-04 Topographical Survey 60710-T-05 Topographical Survey 60710-T-06 Topographical Survey 60710-T-07 Topographical Survey 60710-T-08 Topographical Survey 60710-T-09 Topographical Survey - Method Statement for Archaeological Work - Archaeological Desk Based Study and Walk Over Field Survey - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - Planning Statement - Arboricultural Survey Report - Transport Assessment 15539-GOO-ZZ-XX-DR-C- 07 Access Road Longitudinal Section - Pre-Application Consultation Report - Update Preliminary Ecological Appraisal - Bat Survey Report - Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan For further information please contact James McCafferty, Development Standards Team, Email: james.mccafferty@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 246 of 280
Page 251
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 17 March 2026 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0361/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Local) Proposal Erection of a petrol filling station (Sui Generis) with kiosk (Class 1A retail), electric vehicle charging station, restaurant/cafe (Class 3) with drive-thru facilities, access, parking and associated works Location Land To North West of Junction with A726, West March Road, Paisley Ward 4 - Paisley Northwest Community Council Paisley North Community Council Applicant EG On The Move Ltd Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SW8OVEMWI4Y00 This report fulfils the requirements of regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The report is presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in line with the Council's Scheme of Delegation. In this instance, the Chief Planning Officer has declined to exercise delegated powers in light of the previously withdrawn application (25/0236/PP) being requested by elected members to be determined by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board, rather than officers on the basis that there are concerns around pedestrian access, loss of amenity, increase in traffic, parking, road safety and non-compliance with NPF4 and Renfrewshire Local Development Plan. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a petrol filling station (sui generis) with kiosk (class 1A), electric vehicle charging station, restaurant/café (class 3) with drive-thru facilities, parking and associated works on land to the north west of junction with A726, West March Road, Paisley. The petrol filling station (PFS) would comprise of two HGV filling terminals together with four pump terminals, which could also facilitate general traffic. A filling bay for receiving deliveries would also be located directly between the vehicle entrance and exit. The shop (kiosk) that would serve the PFS would extend to 509sqm with retail floorspace of 305sqm. The petrol filling station would be located within the eastern half of the site with the principal elevation facing west into the site forecourt. The building would have a shallow mono-pitched roof with a mixed palette of glazed panels with timber cladding. The drive-thru restaurant/café would be located within the north-west corner of the site and would comprise of a rectangular flat roof building with a floor area of approx. 323sqm. The principle (south) elevation of the building would also face into the forecourt of the site with the server's booth being located on the north elevation. The building would comprise of a mixed palette of render with cement and timber panels. The proposed development would be served by 52no. parking spaces for the use of staff and customers, this would also be inclusive of 7no. electric vehicle charging and 5no. disabled parking bays. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be via West March Road to Item 6(c) PACC170326 Page 247 of 280
Page 252
the south. The existing adopted footpath that connects West March Road to St James Avenue would also be resurfaced and cleared to improve pedestrian access. Site Description The application site relates to a 1.55ha area of brownfield land on the north side of West March Road, Paisley located approximately 100m south west of St James Interchange. The site is bounded to the north by the A737 and sits below the flyover. Vehicular access to the site would be from an existing road spur to the south at West March Road. There is an existing airport parking facility to the south west of the site and the A736 is located to the east. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers The Scottish Government strongly encourages constructive pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the planning authority. Pre-application discussions seek to identify key planning considerations at an early stage and help inform what supporting information is required to support a subsequent application. Pre-application discussions have taken place, focusing on the principle of development. Negotiated Improvements No changes have been negotiated. Site History The planning history for the site is as follows; if no history is listed then planning has no record of previous applications for the site. Application No: 22/0331/PP Description: Erection of Roadside Services, comprising Petrol Filling Station (PFS) & Ancillary Retail Unit, 2 x Class 3 (Food & Drink) Cafe/Restaurant Units with Drive-Thru Facilities, Access, Parking and Associated Works Decision: Withdrawn Application No: 18/0171/PP Description: Erection of petrol filling station, ancillary retail unit, cafe/restaurant drive-thru, coffee shop drive-thru, formation of parking, access and associated works. Decision: Withdrawn Application No: 08/0840/AD Description: Display of 2 advertising signs Decision: Grant subject to conditions Consultations ▪ NATS - No objections. ▪ Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) (Councils Independent Ecological Consultants) – No response at the time of writing this report. ▪ Network Rail - No objections. An advisory note should be attached with regards to construction works. ▪ Transport Scotland - No objections subject to conditions. ▪ Glasgow Airport Safeguarding - No objections subject to conditions. Page 248 of 280
Page 253
▪ Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) - No objections subject to conditions. ▪ Chief Executive's (Roads Development - No objections subject to conditions. ▪ Councils External Drainage Consultant (Fairhurst) - Request that further information is provided with regards with regards to runoff from roof areas, greenfield runoff calculations, downstream drainage system, off-site sewer route and final surface water connection. This information can be secured through the imposition of an appropriate condition. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. Four representations were received where concerns were raised with regards to: 1. Traffic congestion and safety; 2. Incompatible with character of the area; 3. Noise impact and anti-social behaviour; 4. Impact on biodiversity; 5. Upgrade of footpath adding to traffic on St James Avenue; 6. Impact on air quality; 7. Contrary to health policies; Policy Context In making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The following provisions of the Development Plan are considered relevant to the determination of this application: National Planning Framework 4 Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 3 - Biodiversity Policy 9 - Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings Policy 13 - Sustainable transport Policy 14 - Design, quality and place Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management Policy 27 - City, town, local and commercial centres Policy 28 - Retail Policy 15 - Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan Policy E3 - Transition Areas Policy C2 - Development Outwith Renfrewshire's Network of Centres Policy I1 - Connecting Places Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage Policy I7 - Zero and Low Carbon Buildings Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Page 249 of 280
Page 254
Other relevant policies and guidance New Development Supplementary Guidance 2022 Delivering the Centres Strategy: Hot Food; Public Houses; Licensed Venues and Amusement Arcades; Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy: Connecting Places; Flooding and Drainage; Delivering the Economic Strategy: Transition Areas Material Considerations Chief Planner's letter of 8th February 2023. Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Planning Assessment - Contains details of the application site, context, the proposal, planning policy context and a planning assessment. ▪ Drainage Strategy Report - Provides details on the proposed development, foul water discharge, surface water discharge and attenuation. ▪ Phase I and II Geo - Environmental Assessment - Contains the findings of a combined Phase I Desk Study and Phase II Intrusive Investigation undertaken to determine ground conditions. ▪ Transport Assessment - Contains details relating to the transportation considerations related to the proposed development. ▪ Preliminary Ecological Assessment - Provides details on the preliminary ecological assessment including likely impacts and suitable mitigation measures. ▪ Biodiversity Enhancement Plan - Contains details of the biodiversity enhancements that would be integrated into the development. Scottish Ministers Direction In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. None. Planning Assessment NPF4 provides a basis for the high-level management of drive through locational choices and sets out a planning policy approach whereby new drive-thru developments which do not meet certain locational criteria will not be supported. Criterion (d) of Policy 27 (City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres sets out that drive-thru developments will only be supported where they are specifically supported in the LDP. The adopted Local Development Plan does not have a policy on drive-throughs. Nevertheless, the Chief Planners letter of the 8th of February 2023 confirms that Policy 27 (d) was not a moratorium on such developments and that the intent of the policy was to ensure that this type of development is considered as an integral part of the wider development plan. The letter Page 250 of 280
Page 255
reiterates that in situations where the adopted LDP does not have specific drive-thru sites allocated, decisions will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and regard should be given to wider policies within NPF4 and the statutory development plan. The Planning Service has taken into consideration the Chief Planners letter when assessing this development in relation to Policy 27 of NPF4. Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) relates to the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings and states that proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land will be supported. The principle of the proposal, redeveloping a vacant, previously used site in the middle of an existing place, would be in line with Policy 9 and the Spatial Strategy outlined in the Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan, ensuring that brownfield land in Renfrewshire's existing places was used before green field land or green belt. The application site is located within an E3 (Transition Areas) as identified within the adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021. Policy E3 states that Transition Areas aim to support a mix of uses and that development proposals require to be able to co-exist with existing uses, having no significant impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. Policy 26 (Business and Industry) also seeks to encourage development proposals for business and industry uses where they are compatible with the primary business function of the area. The petrol filling station would be open on a 24 hour basis with the restaurant/café operating between the hours of 0600-2300. There is also 24/7 airport parking within proximity to the site and an electric bus charging hub was recently approved under planning permission 25/0083/PP, both of which are also served by West March Road. Planning permission in principle for a mixed use development including hotel, pub/restaurant, long stay car park, storage and distribution and residential amongst other uses has also been approved within the surrounding area (18/0638/PP). Given the variation of existing commercial uses either currently operating or consented with the Transition Area, it is considered that the nature and scale of the proposed development is considered to be compatible with the surrounding area. Additionally, the New Development Supplementary sets out the range of uses that could be considered acceptable within the Candren Transition Area subject to the consideration of other policies within the Development Plan. This includes commercial uses of an appropriate scale in relation to the Network of Centres. In relation to this guidance 'appropriate scale' would relate to the potential impact on the vitality and viability of a centre within the network. The submitted planning statement identifies that the core purpose of the proposal is to deliver petrol filling station provision in west Paisley. Given the size of the proposed retail use at (305 sqm sales floorspace) it is reasonable to conclude that this would be ancillary to the petrol filling and electric charging use. While the need for the class 3 use with drive thru is less clear, this unit and the retail use are of a scale which would not have a detrimental impact on the network of centres such that it would not be at odds with Policy C2 (Development outwith Renfrewshire's Network of Centres). In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with policies E3 and 26. Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) also seeks to ensure that proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and requires development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area and be consistent with the six qualities and placemaking policy framework set out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance which set out a range of considerations that form the basis of good places design. Each consideration will be assessed in turn. Page 251 of 280
Page 256
Context and Character As detailed above, the application site relates to brownfield land where there is a mix of existing and consented commercial operations including a 24/7 airport parking within proximity to the site and an electric bus charging hub which was recently approved under planning permission 25/0083/PP, both of which are also served by West March Road. Planning permission in principle for a mixed use development including hotel, pub/restaurant, long stay car park, storage and distribution and residential amongst other uses has also been approved within the surrounding area (18/0638/PP). Given the variation of existing commercial uses either currently operating or consented with the Transition Area, it is considered that the nature and scale of the proposed development is considered to be compatible with the surrounding area. Access and Connectivity Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) Policy 15 (Local Living and 20-minute Neighbourhoods) and I1 (Connecting Places) seek to ensure that development proposals provide appropriate provision and accessibility including the ability to connect to active travel and public transport networks. Development proposals which give priority to sustainable transport modes of travel and have no significant impact on the safe efficient operation of the local or trunk road network will be supported. Policy 28 (Retail) also seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate retail investment to the most sustainable locations that are most accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes. A Transport Assessment was submitted in support of the application which contains details relating to the transportation considerations of the proposed development. The location of the development site allows it to serve the A726, A737, the M8 and also neighbouring residential areas within a 20-minute walking journey. The Transport Assessment also provides details on access to the site by non-car modes, including walking, cycling and public transport. New footways would be provided along the internal access road and also linking into the existing footway provision adjacent to the site. An existing footpath to the south of the site would also be cleared and upgraded to improve pedestrian access to the nearest residential area at St James Avenue. Transport Scotland were consulted on the proposal and advise of no objections subject to conditions. The Council's Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) also advise of no objections subject to conditions with regards to the upgrading of the footpath to St James and the upgrading of West March Road. It is also requested that the applicant should demonstrate sufficient right turn queuing capacity with no detriment to Greenock Road. It is considered that these matters could be addressed with the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. The other matters raised by Roads Development with regards to drainage, a Drainage Strategy Report was submitted and reviewed by the Council's Drainage Consultant who advise that further information is provided. However, these details could be secured through the imposition of an appropriate condition. Whilst the issue of a chemical waste disposal point would be desirable, this is not essential to the development and this could not be insisted upon as part of the planning application. In view of the above it is considered that the development would comply with Policies 13, 15, 28 and I1. Layout and Built Form The general layout of the site is dictated by the functional need to service vehicles. The simple form of the café and retail unit, and the proposed materials, consisting of timber and concrete cladding and glazing, are not considered to be particularly ominous. Landscaping around the edge of the site would soften the impact of the proposal and would include native broadleaved Page 252 of 280
Page 257
saplings along the north and east boundaries and a native hedgerow. Overall, it is considered that the layout and built form of the proposed development would be acceptable. Environment and Community The nearest residential properties at St James Avenue are located in excess of 100m to the south-east of the site with trees, vegetation and scrub separating the development site and the residential area. It is considered that given the brownfield nature of the site and the distance from the residential properties, there is a distinct character differentiation and physical separation from the site and the residential properties of St James Avenue. Furthermore, the Council's Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) were consulted and did not comment on the potential impact on residential amenity with regards to noise, fumes, odour etc. In response to Policies 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and 13 (Flooding and Drainage), a Drainage Strategy Report was submitted and reviewed by the Council's Drainage Consultant who advise that further information should be provided with regards to runoff from roof areas, greenfield runoff calculations, downstream drainage system, off-site sewer route and final surface water connection. However, these details could be secured through the imposition of an appropriate condition. Policy ENV 2 (Natural Heritage) states that development proposals should consider the potential impact on natural heritage. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was submitted with the application which contains details of appropriate mitigation. It is considered that this could be addressed by the imposition of an appropriate condition. Policy 3 (Biodiversity) also seeks to enhance biodiversity. A Biodiversity Enhancement Plan was submitted in support of the application which contains details of proposed landscaping which includes tree planting, grassland habitat creation and native hedgerow planting. Full details of this can be secured via an appropriate condition. Buildings and Design As detailed above, the general layout of the site is dictated by the functional need to service vehicles. It is considered that in line with Policy 14, for the reasons detailed above, the design, scale and finish of the development would be acceptable and would not have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would ensure an acceptable re-use of brownfield land within a visually prominent location. With regards to Policies 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis) and I7 (Zero and Low Carbon Buildings), the applicant's agent advises that due to air permeability insulation, the buildings would achieve an EPC rating of A. It is also accepted that the electric vehicle charging points are being provided for in-line with this policy. Representations The majority of the matters raised in the letters of representation have been addressed in the foregoing assessment however a summary of the points raised is also set out below with a response below each highlighted in bold. 1. Traffic congestion and safety; Transport Scotland and the Council's Chief Executive's Service (Transportation) were consulted and have no objections subject to conditions. Concerns around traffic congestion and safety on the road network were not raised. 2. Incompatible with character of the area; Page 253 of 280
Page 258
As discussed above, Policy E3 states that Transition Areas aim to support a mix of uses and that development proposals require to be able to co-exist with existing uses, having no significant impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. For the reasons detailed in the foregoing assessment, it is considered that this is a compatible use without a detrimental impact on character and amenity. 3. Noise impact and anti-social behaviour; The Council's Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) were consulted and have no objections with regards to noise impact. The issue of anti-social behaviour is not a material planning and would be a matter for the operator and or Police Scotland. 4. Impact on biodiversity; A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was submitted with the application which contains details of appropriate mitigation. A Biodiversity Enhancement Plan was also submitted in support of the application which contains details of proposed landscaping which includes tree planting, grassland habitat creation and native hedgerow planting. 5. Upgrade of footpath adding to traffic on St James Avenue; It is considered that the upgrade of the existing footpath would be welcomed to improve pedestrian connectivity to the site and surrounding area. 6. Impact on air quality; The Council's Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) were consulted and did not comment on air quality. 7. Contrary to health policies; These matters would not be a material planning consideration in the assessment of the proposal. Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation(s) and any associated legal agreement(s) and/or mechanism(s) required to secure them including those provisions under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development. None. Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations. Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to conditions. Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposal accords with the provisions of the Development Plan and there were no material considerations which outweighed the presumption in favour of development according with the Development Plan. Page 254 of 280
Page 259
Condition(s) 1. That the development hereby permitted must be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To be in compliance with Section 58 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by Section 32 of The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. 2. Prior to the commencement of any construction works on site the developer shall provide for the written approval of the Planning Authority: a) a Site Investigation Report (characterising the nature and extent of any soil, water and gas contamination within the site); and, if remedial works are recommended therein. b) a Remediation Strategy and implementation Plan identifying the proposed methods for implementing all remedial recommendations contained within the Site Investigation report and including (where relevant) a materials management plan, a monitoring and maintenance plan and a phasing plan showing how the site is to be subdivided for the purposes of remedial implementation and/or verification reporting, prepared with current authoritative guidance has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site will be made suitable for its proposed use. 3. Prior to the development hereby approved becoming operational: a) a Verification Report confirming completion of the works specified within the approved Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan; and/or b) where remediation works are not required but soils are to be imported to site, a Verification Report confirming imported materials are suitable for use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To demonstrate that the works necessary to make the site suitable for use have been completed. 4. Prior to commencement of works on site, a comprehensive Construction Management and Risk Assessment Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland. Thereafter all construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan. The Construction Management and Risk Assessment Plan shall include, inter alia, details relating to: a) Construction programme and phasing; b) Construction methodology c) Proposed construction plant d) Details of all proposed earthworks, excavations and foundation works; e) Working practices to ensure viaduct foundations are not surcharged or subjected to adverse vibration effects. This shall include a ground movement analysis; f) Confirmation that no overloading or undermining of the viaducts foundations during construction and/or on completion; Page 255 of 280
Page 260
g) Lift plans for all proposed lifting operations; h) Identification of risks to the M8 St James Viaduct and mitigation measures i) Full Construction Drawings and Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) Reason: To ensure there is no adverse impact on the trunk road and to ensure the future structural integrity of the M8 St James Viaduct. 5. Prior to commencement of works on site, a detailed geotechnical assessment shall be provided to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland, that the construction and operation of the development will have zero effect on the foundations of M8 St James Viaduct. The geotechnical assessment shall include details of all temporary and permanent loading and ground movement analysis associated with the proposed earthworks, excavations and foundation works, and shall include consideration of the effects of heavy goods vehicles during both the construction and operation of the development. The geotechnical assessment shall be undertaken by a Chartered Engineer with appropriate expertise and experience. An independent check of the analysis must also be undertaken by a Chartered Engineer with appropriate expertise and experience and submitted as part of geotechnical assessment. Reason: To ensure there is no adverse impact on or load transfer from the development to the M8 St James Viaduct foundations. 6. Prior to commencement of works on site, details for the provision and maintenance of a minimum of a 10 metre exclusion zone from the outermost part of the viaduct, in the form of a physical barrier, along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the M8 St James Viaduct, generally as illustrated on Drawing 'Existing and Proposed Site Plan' Dwg. Ref: 634-AP-101, Revision L, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland. The exclusion zone shall then be implemented and maintained during construction in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure there is no adverse impact on the structural integrity of the M8 St James Viaduct, and also to allow for the future operation and maintenance of the viaduct. 7. Prior to commencement of works on site, details of the proposed permanent boundary fence along the north boundary of the site, adjacent to the exclusion zone referred to in Condition 6, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland. The boundary fence shall incorporate a lockable gated access into the exclusion zone to provide maintenance access to the M8 St James Viaduct. The developer shall liaise with Transport Scotland to agree the size of the lockable gate access to ensure it is large enough to provide access to the required maintenance vehicles. Thereafter the permanent boundary fence shall be erected in accordance with the approved details and maintained by the applicant. Reason: To ensure that access to the M8 St James Viaduct is maintained. 8. Transport Scotland and / or their agents shall be provided immediate access from the development, in the case of an emergency, and within 7 days' notice normally, to undertake inspection and maintenance work, at the M8 St James Viaduct. Reason: To ensure that access to the M8 St James Viaduct is maintained. Page 256 of 280
Page 261
9. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the lighting within the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland. Reason: To ensure that there will be no distraction or dazzle to drivers on the Trunk Road and that the safety of the traffic on the Trunk Road will not be diminished. 10. Prior to commencement of the development, details of the landscaping treatment along the trunk road boundary, including any landscaping proposals within the exclusion zone referred to in Condition 6 shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland. All landscaping shall be located such that it can be installed and maintained from within the development without requiring access to the trunk road. There must be no load transfer to M8 St James Viaduct from temporary or permanent ground works / landscaping works. The exclusion zone must be maintained to ensure it remains free from invasive species which could encroach within the trunk road boundary and cause damage to the M8 St James Viaduct structure. Reason: To minimise the risk of uncontrolled access underneath the M8 St James Viaduct, and to ensure there is no adverse impact on the structural integrity of the M8 St James Viaduct. 11. There shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system. Reason: To ensure that the efficiency of the existing trunk road drainage network is not affected. 12. Within three months of completion of the development, or such other time period subsequently agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with Transport Scotland, a set of as-built records and a copy of the operator's Health & Safety file, including a fire & risk management strategy for all elements, shall be provided to Transport Scotland. Reason: To ensure the ongoing structural integrity of the M8 St James Viaduct. 13. That before any development of the site commences, a scheme of landscaping, for the site, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority; the scheme shall include: (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) details of the phasing of these works; (d) details on how retained trees will be protected through the construction phase and future use of the site. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall take account of the approved 'BOWS17.184 Paisley EG Biodiversity Enhancement Plan.' Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 14. That the details of the landscaping scheme approved under the terms of condition 13 above shall be carried out in the first planting season and seeding seasons following the occupation of the replacement dwellinghouses or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a Page 257 of 280
Page 262
period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area. 15. That, prior to the commencement of development, a detailed schedule of the proposed external finishes for the buildings, together with a plan and schedule of the surface treatments to be used on the roads and footpaths within the site shall be submitted for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter, the buildings, roads and footpaths shall be constructed only in accordance with such details as may be approved to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area. 16. That the mitigation recommendations detailed in Ch4 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 'BOWS17.184, Paisley Proposed Petrol Filling Station' (contained in 8. Conclusions) shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, during the course of the development, details demonstrating the implementation of the recommendations shall be submitted for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the natural environment. 17. Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The submitted plan shall include details of: - management of any flat/shallow pitched/green roofs on buildings within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and "loafing" birds. The management plan shall comply with Advice Note 8 'Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design' - physical arrangements for the collection (including litter bins) and storage of putrescible waste, arrangements for and frequency of the removal of putrescible waste - signs deterring people from feeding the birds. The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved, on completion of the development and shall remain in force for the life of the development. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. Reason: It is necessary to manage the development in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport. 18. No development shall take place until full details of soft and water landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, details must comply with Advice Note 3 'Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping & Building Design' (available at www.aoa.org.uk/publications/safeguarding.asp). These details shall include: Page 258 of 280
Page 263
- The species, number and spacing of trees and shrubs No subsequent alterations to the approved landscaping scheme are to take place unless submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Glasgow Airport. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Glasgow Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site. 19. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the planning authority, full details of: a) West March Road upgrades including at the junction with Greenock Road. For the avoidance of doubt the upgrades shall be to an adoptable standard. b) Upgrades for the existing footpath between West March Road and St James Avenue. Thereafter, all upgrades as may be approved, shall be implemented to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority prior to the development becoming operational. Reason: In the interest of the amenity and road safety of the area. 20. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the planning authority, a plan/drawing to demonstrate there is sufficient right turn queuing capacity with no net detriment to Greenock Road. Reason: In the interest of the amenity and road safety of the area. 21. That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Drainage Impact Assessment shall be submitted and approved by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. The Drainage Impact Assessment shall accord with the 'Council's Drainage Assessment - Notes for Guidance'. Thereafter, the Assessment as approved shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for drainage associated with the development. Advisory Note(s) 1. Due to the proximity of the railway, the applicant is advised to contact Network Rail Asset Protection Engineers with regards to safe construction works: - Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer, 151 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, G2 5NW. E-Mail: AssetProtectionScotland@networkrail.co.uk. 2. The applicant should be aware of the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult with the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity, of the aerodrome. 3. The applicant is advised that the Bird Hazard Management Plan must ensure that flat/shallow pitched roofs be constructed to allow access to all areas by foot Page 259 of 280
Page 264
using permanent fixed access stairs ladders or similar. The owner/occupier must not allow gulls, to nest, roost or loaf on the building. Checks must be made weekly or sooner if bird activity dictates, during the breeding season. Outside of the breeding season gull activity must be monitored and the roof checked regularly to ensure that gulls do not utilise the roof. Any gulls found nesting, roosting or loafing must be dispersed by the owner/occupier when detected. The owner/occupier must remove any nests or eggs found on the roof. The breeding season for gulls typically runs from March to June. The owner/occupier must obtain the appropriate licences where applicable NatureScot before the removal of nests and eggs. Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Stamped Drawing 634-AP-100 B Site Location Plan 634-AP-110_B Existing Site Levels and Site Sections AA BB CC 634-AP-111_E Proposed Site Levels and Site Sections DD 634-AP-101_L Existing and Proposed Site Plan 634-AP-300_B Drive Thru 1 Floor Plans 634-AP-301_B Drive Thru 1 Proposed Elevations 634-AP-400_B Petrol Filling Station Proposed Ground Floor Plan 634-AP-401_B Petrol Filling Station Proposed Elevations 634-AP-402 Petrol Filling Station Proposed Elevations 634-AP-402 Proposed Petrol Filling Station Canopy and EVCP 634-AP-405 Ancillary Details 634-AP-103_I Proposed Site Plan with Bin Locations 500 Proposed Drainage Layout P15025-520-D Proposed Drainage Layout Supporting Documents 634-AP-501_B Aerial CGI1 634-AP-503 Artist Impression Page 260 of 280
Page 265
Biodiversity Enhancement Plan EG190 Topographical Survey Planning Statement Preliminary Ecological Assessment Transport Assessment Geo Environmental Assessment Drainage Strategy Drainage Calculations Drainage Maintenance Report Pre-Development Enquiry Response Drainage Strategy Peer Review Sewer Connection Details 15025-GOO-XX-XX-RP- 501 Drainage Maintenance Report P15025 Drainage Strategy Report For further information please contact Fiona Knighton, Development Standards Team, Email: fiona.knighton@renfrewshire.gov.uk. Page 261 of 280
Page 266
Page 262 of 280
Page 267
PUBLIC Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 17 March 2026 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0706/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Local) Proposal Change of use to site self-storage containers (Class 6) and associated administration hut, external yard, access, parking, lighting, and landscaping Location Land at, Arkleston Road, Renfrew Ward 2 - Renfrew South and Gallowhill Community Council Renfrew Community Council Applicant Sterling Sinclair Removals Limited Recommendation Refuse All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=T1WE7SMWKTE00 This report fulfils the requirements of regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The report is presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in line with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. In this instance, Councillors, Paterson, Hughes and Shaw have requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board due to concerns about the impact of the development. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the change of the use of a currently vacant site for the siting of self-storage containers (class 6). The site extends to approximately 0.76 hectares and comprises naturally established vegetation, including a diverse mix of trees, shrubs, and grassland species. The development would provide 2,595sqm of storage space, comprising 173, 8ft x 20ft storage containers, with a separate 15sqm administration container, external yard area, lighting, and access from the existing road leading to the David Lloyd Health & Fitness Club and car park. The storage containers are proposed in a linear layout extending from the north to the south and separated by 4.5m circulation aisles. A small number of containers are located on the southern boundary of the site. Customers would enter the site in their vehicle and progress to their specific storage container through a one-way system, where they would lock/unlock their container through a personal coded locking system, prior to navigating the one-way system to the exit. The administrative hut would be located on the northern boundary of the site, to the east of the junction. Two parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the hut to accommodate staff parking. Site Description The site is bounded by the David Lloyd Health & Fitness Club and its associated car park to the northeast and St Columba's Church to northwest. The M8 motorway lies immediately south of the site, with vehicular access taken from Arkleston road, which also serves the adjacent David Lloyd Health Club. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers Item 6(d) PACC170326 Page 263 of 280
Page 268
PUBLIC The Scottish Government strongly encourages constructive pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the planning authority. Pre-application discussions seek to identify key planning considerations at an early stage and help inform what supporting information is required to support a subsequent application. Pre-application discussions have taken place, focusing on potential impacts on the surrounding area. Negotiated Improvements Following submission, no changes were sought or negotiated. Site History The planning history for the site is as follows, if no history is listed then planning has no record of previous applications for the site. Consultations Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) - No objection subject to the submission and approval of a survey to determine the impact of floodlighting prior to the development being brought into use. Chief Executive's (Roads Development) - Have submitted a holding objection highlighting concerns over road network capacity, junction configurations, relationship of proposed junction to vehicle charging points opposite, sightlines and road widenings. Further details have been requested to address the concerns raised. Dougall Baillie Associates (providing flooding/drainage advice) – Have submitted a holding objection requiring confirmation of the location and nature of the private surface water discharge location within the David Lloyd car park, demonstration that storage containers will not impede runoff from carriageway and information on how modelled storage volume will be achieved. Further details have been requested to address the concerns raised. West of Scotland Archaeology Service - No objection Transport Scotland - No objection. Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) (Councils Independent Consultants) - Confirm acceptability of Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Tree Survey. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: Object - 16 Support - 0 Neutral - 0 The issues raised can be summarised as follows: ▪ Incompatible with character of the area and more appropriate locations are available. ▪ Impact on amenity and character of the surrounding area. ▪ Impact on bio-diversity, trees and green space which provides wildlife corridor. ▪ Traffic congestion and safety. ▪ Flooding and surface water drainage issues. ▪ Impact of high intensity flood lighting, noise, and disturbance. Page 264 of 280
Page 269
PUBLIC Policy Context In making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The following provisions of the Development Plan are considered relevant to the determination of this application: National Planning Framework 4 Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 3 - Biodiversity Policy 4 - Natural places Policy 6 - Forestry, woodland, and trees Policy 13 - Sustainable transport Policy 14 - Design, quality, and place Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management Policy 23 - Health and safety Policy 26 - Business and industry Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan Policy P6 - Open Space Policy P1 - Renfrewshire's Places Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage Policy I1 - Connecting Places Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage Policy I7 - Zero and Low Carbon Buildings Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance New Development Supplementary Guidance 2022 Delivering the Places Strategy - Creating Places Delivering the Places Strategy - Open Space Material Considerations Renfrewshire Planning and Development Tree Policy 2022 Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Tree Survey - Undertaken to assess the quality of the tree canopy within the site. The survey concludes that the overall condition of the majority of the trees on site is reasonably good with many specimens indicating a significant life expectancy. ▪ Traffic Statement - The report examines the key transportation issues and access opportunities associated with all modes of travel and documents the walking, cycling and public transport connections in the area. It concludes that the site will be accessible by sustainable modes of travel and integrate effectively with the existing transport network. Page 265 of 280
Page 270
PUBLIC ▪ Preliminary Ecological Appraisal - The appraisal has reviewed the proposed development in relation to pre-development biodiversity value, taking into account the base line habitat types, species supported and ecological connectivity within the site and to the surrounding area and recommends mitigation measures to minimise potential impact of the development. ▪ Drainage Impact Assessment - The report sets out the surface water drainage strategy for the new-build hardstanding. Scottish Ministers Direction In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. None. Planning Assessment The principal considerations in the assessment of this application are the sites', the existing biodiversity and amenity value of the land, and the potential impacts of the proposal on amenity, the character of the area, the natural environment and local infrastructure. The use proposed falls within class 6 (storage and distribution) of the Use Classes, Scotland Order. Under NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry), proposals for business, industry, and storage and distribution uses on sites not allocated for such purposes in the Local Development Plan will only be supported where it is demonstrated that no suitable allocated alternatives exist, including those identified in the Employment Land Audit, and where the scale and nature of the proposal are compatible with the surrounding area. Compatibility must be assessed with regard to impacts on amenity, sensitive uses, and the natural and historic environment. In this respect, the application site is not allocated for business, industrial or storage and distribution uses within the Local Development Plan. Instead, it lies within an area, designated under LDP Policy P1 where neighbouring and adjacent uses include a leisure centre, church and a care home. Furthermore, the LDP identifies a supply of land within Renfrewshire's Economic Investment Locations specifically promoted for the development of Class 4 (Business), Class 5 (General Industry) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) uses. The applicant has not demonstrated that an allocated site would not be capable of accommodating the proposed development. In addition, and consistent with the requirements of Policy 26 of NPF4, Policy P1 seeks to ensure that development proposals are compatible with and complementary to existing uses and character, and that they make a positive contribution to placemaking, in accordance with the New Development Supplementary Guidance and the Renfrewshire places Design Guide. The proposed storage container facility is commercial and utilitarian in character and does not reflect the character and nature of the surrounding area. The development would not reinforce the function of the locality nor contribute positively to its sense of place. While it is recognised that the David Lloyd Health & Fitness Club is located to the northeast of the application site, the nature of their impacts differs. A sports centre is generally regarded as a community- focused use that serves local residents, designed to integrate with and provide easy access in residential environments, with activity levels and operating hours capable of being managed Page 266 of 280
Page 271
PUBLIC to reflect the wider residential environment. In contrast, the operational characteristics of storage container facilities including vehicle movements, periodic loading and unloading activity, and extended access hours have the potential to introduce activity levels and disturbance that are not typically associated with the existing environment. In addition, the utilitarian appearance and operational layout of rows of metal containers, security fencing and hardstanding can appear stark and industrial in form and character, contrasting noticeably within the setting resulting in negative visual impact and limited contributions to placemaking objectives. In this regard, Policy 14 of NPF4 seeks to ensure that development proposals are designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. Given the context and for the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the development proposed would not enhance and would not be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 and 14 and to Policy P1 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and associated supplementary guidance. In terms of environmental considerations, NPF4 Policy 9 supports the reuse of vacant brownfield land, where the biodiversity value is appropriately assessed and considered. In this regard, the site is characterised by grassland, shrubbery, and established trees, and therefore possesses ecological and amenity value. The submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal identifies a large area of plantation woodland within the centre of the site, which provides a stepping stone to surrounding habitats and the dense nature of the planting offers opportunities for small mammals and birds. The tree survey for the site confirms that the tree canopy forms elements of a designed landscape and provides a screening function from the adjacent road network and M8. Notwithstanding some exposure and the presence of disease affecting certain ash trees, the majority of trees are assessed as being in reasonable to good condition, with a significant remaining life expectancy. The canopy also contributes positively to visual amenity and ecological enhancement within the urban area. It is therefore evident that the site makes a positive contribution to the environmental quality and amenity within the surrounding area. While the proposal incorporates a landscaping scheme, this is not considered sufficient to compensate for the loss of the sites existing ecological and amenity value, nor would it adequately replace the established visual screening and character contribution currently provided by the site. Policy P6 (Open Space) states that any development proposals which would result in the loss of an area of open space not identified on the Proposals Map will be assessed in relation to the criteria set out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance. The Supplementary Guidance states that all areas which includes amenity space, will be protected from development, unless a number of criteria can be satisfied including that the benefit of the proposed development to the public clearly outweighs the present open space value of the site; that there is no significant adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the surrounding area will not be significantly affected by the loss of open space and by the nature of the proposed development. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposed loss of the open space and its development as a storage container facility would have a significant detrimental impact on amenity, character and appearance and would not be compatible with the surrounding area. As such it is considered that the proposal would not comply with Policy 6 of NPF4. Given that the benefit of the development to the public does not outweigh the impacts of the development on this area of open space as outlined above, that it would impact the amenity of surrounding area, the development proposed would not adhere to the requirements as set Page 267 of 280
Page 272
PUBLIC out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance. As such it is considered that the proposal would not comply with Policy P6. In addition, it is considered that development of the site does not comply with Policies 3 and 9 of NPF4 as well as Policy ENV2 of the LDP in that the site has ecological value in its current condition and that the development proposed is not acceptable at this location. Access and Connectivity Policy 13 (Sustainable transport) and I1 (Connecting Places) seek to ensure that development proposals provide appropriate provision and accessibility including the ability to connect to active travel and public transport networks. Development proposals which give priority to sustainable transport modes of travel and have no significant impact on the safe efficient operation of the local or trunk road network will be supported. A transport Assessment was submitted in support of the application concluding that the proposal satisfies policy requirements in this regard. However, the Council's Chief Executive's Service Roads Development team were consulted on the application and have raised a variety of issues through a holding objection which notes concerns relating to the road network capacity, junction configurations, relationship of proposed junction to vehicle charging points opposite, sightlines and road widenings. Further details addressing the matters raised have been requested however no further information has been provided. In light of the concerns raised and lack of further details addressing the concerns in question it is not possible to conclude that the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policy I1 of the LDP. Notwithstanding this, given the more fundamental concerns and issues in relation to the principle of the development, the roads requirements are not being pursued in this case. The applicant's agent has been provided with a copy of the consultation response from the Council's Chief Executive's (Roads Development) and as such, the applicant is aware of these issues. Environment and Community NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and LDP Policy I3 (Flooding and Drainage) require development proposals to demonstrate the sustainable management of water providing suitable drainage infrastructure, including green infrastructure, and ensuring that there will be no unacceptable flood risk associated with the development. A Drainage Impact Assessment, submitted in support of the application has been reviewed by the Councils drainage consultants who have raised issues which require resolution. Further details addressing the concerns of the Council’s drainage consultants have not been received and in this regard it is not possible to conclude that the proposed development complies with Policy 22 of NPF4 and Policy I3 of the LDP. The Council's Environmental Protection service has been consulted on the proposal and offered no objection subject to the submission and approval of a survey to determine the impact of flood lighting prior to the development being brough into use. It is considered that the request from Environmental Protection could be secured via appropriate planning conditions. Representations The majority of the matters raised in the letters of representation have been addressed in the foregoing assessment however a summary of the points raised and the response to each is set out below; ▪ Incompatible with character of the area and more appropriate locations are available. Page 268 of 280
Page 273
PUBLIC As discussed above Policy 26 states that proposals for business, industry, and storage and distribution uses on sites not allocated for such purposes in the Local Development Plan will only be supported where it is demonstrated that no suitable allocated alternatives exist, , and where the scale and nature of the proposal are compatible with the surrounding area. It is considered that there are alternative sites available to accommodate the proposed use within Renfrewshire's Investment locations and it has not been appropriately demonstrated that the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. ▪ Impact on amenity and character of the surrounding area. Given the character of the surrounding area and both the physical and operational characteristics of the proposal and after assessment against the requirements of the development plan it is considered that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. ▪ Impact on bio-diversity trees and green space which provides wildlife corridor. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Tree Survey and Landscaping Scheme have been submitted in support of the application which demonstrate that the site has ecological and landscape value. Given that this location is not designated for an industrial type of use within the LDP and that the use proposed is not compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding area, the landscaping scheme proposed is not considered sufficient to compensate for the loss of the sites existing ecological and amenity value. ▪ Traffic congestion and safety. The Council's Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) were consulted on this proposal and have submitted a holding objection highlighting a number of issues relative to congestion and traffic safety which require to be satisfied. ▪ Flooding and surface water drainage issues. The Councils flooding and drainage consultants have raised issues regarding the appropriate drainage of the site and therefore the policy requirements of the LDP have not been achieved. ▪ Impact of high intensity floodlighting, noise, and disturbance. The Council's Environment, Housing & Infrastructure Service (Environmental Protection) were consulted and have no objection subject to the submission and approval of a survey to determine the impact of floodlighting prior to the development being brought into use. Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation(s) and any associated legal agreement(s) and/or mechanism(s) required to secure them including those provisions under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development. None. Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations which would indicate support for the proposed development. Planning permission should therefore be refused. Page 269 of 280
Page 274
PUBLIC Recommendation Refuse Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 26 of National Planning Framework 4 in that the application site is not located within an area identified for business and industry uses within the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan, it has not been demonstrated that alternative allocated sites within are unacceptable and the nature and scale of the proposed development are not considered compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the Development Plan and is unacceptable in principle. 2. By reason of its location, siting and impact on the surrounding area, the proposed development is contrary to Policies 14 of National Planning Framework 4 and P1 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and the associated New Development Supplementary Guidance in that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact on the natural heritage, character, appearance and amenity of the surrounding area 3. That the proposal is contrary to Policies 3 and 9 of National Planning Framework 4 and ENV2 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan in that the application site currently exhibits ecological value in its current condition, that the development proposed is not acceptable in this location and would not adequately replace the established visual screening and character contribution currently provided by the site. 4. That the proposal is contrary to Policy P6 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and the associated New Development Supplementary Guidance in that the loss of open space would have a detrimental impact on amenity and the proposed development would not be complimentary or compatible with the surrounding area. Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Stamped Drawing LOC-01 Location Plan PL-SP-03 Existing Site Plan PL-SP-03 B Proposed Site Plan PL-SP-03 As Proposed Site Plan 25093_001 Internal Layout Vehicle Swept Paths 754.01.01 Landscape Proposal 2507-06-700 A Hardstanding Layout Page 270 of 280
Page 275
PUBLIC For further information please contact Clare Murray, Development Standards Team, Email: clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 271 of 280
Page 276
Page 272 of 280
Page 277
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 17 March 2026 Supplementary Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0834/PP Application Type Planning Permission Proposal Use of land for open storage (Class 6), erection of fencing and associated works Location West Lodge Road, Renfrew, Ward 1 - Renfrew North and Braehead Community Council Renfrew Community Council Applicant Ewan Mackay Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=T3V86NMWLOI00 This supplementary report should be read together with the original report of handling considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board on the 20 January 2026. Appendix 1 details the original report of handling. Background The Planning and Climate Change Policy Board at its meeting on 20 January 2026 considered the attached report of handling and decided to continue the consideration of the report to allow a site visit to take place. Site Visit A site visit took place on 5 March 2026 and those members attending viewed the application site and its surroundings. The site visit was conducted in accordance with the Protocol for Site Visits and members attending did not discuss the merits of the proposal. Recommendation It is recommended that the application is granted subject to conditions for the reasons set out in the report of handling which was considered by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board on 20 January 2026. Item 6(e) PACC170326 Page 273 of 280
Page 278
Appendix 1 Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 20 January 2026 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0834/PP Application Type Planning Permission Proposal Use of land for open storage (Class 6), erection of fencing and associated works Location West Lodge Road, Renfrew, Ward 1 - Renfrew North and Braehead Community Council Renfrew Community Council Applicant Ewan Mackay Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=T3V86NMWLOI00 This report fulfils the requirements of regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The report is presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in line with the Council's Scheme of Delegation. In this instance, Councillors Shaw, Hughes and Campbell have requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board to ensure the proposal fully aligns with NPF4's emphasis on sustainable, well- designed places and the need to minimise adverse environmental effects. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the use of land off West Lodge Road in Renfrew for open storage (class 6). Approximately 7,000 square metres of land would be surrounded by a green mesh fence and would be used to store caravans, campervans and similar equipment. Site Description The application site, which is located within the Meadowside Street/Blythswood Transition Area, would be accessed from West Lodge Road to the north. A retail park is found to the north, on the opposite side of West Lodge Road, while Inchinnan Road is found to the south. A similar storage facility borders the site to the west while Renfrew FC's stadium is found to the east. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 50 metres to the south. The trees found in the southern section of the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The site was previously part of the adjacent retail park and housed a unit and associated car parking. The site has been derelict since the demolition of the retail unit, with only the concrete base of the unit and car park hardstanding remaining. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers The Scottish Government strongly encourages constructive pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the planning authority. Pre-application discussions seek Page 274 of 280
Page 279
to identify key planning considerations at an early stage and help inform what supporting information is required to support a subsequent application. No pre-application discussions have taken place. Negotiated Improvements No changes have been negotiated. Site History There is no planning history for this site. Consultations ▪ Environment, Housing and Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) - No objection, subject to a condition relating to lighting. ▪ Chief Executive's (Roads Development) - Objects on the grounds that an existing footpath connection linking Inchinnan Road to West Lodge Road would be lost. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: ▪ Object - 1 ▪ Support - 0 ▪ Neutral - 0 The issues raised can be summarised as follows: 1. Drawings and supporting information are incorrect or insufficient 2. The development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment 3. The proposal would be a fire and explosion risk 4. Fencing would harm tree roots 5. Additional permissions are required to implement the consent 6. The proposal would increase non-retail floorspace at the site 7. Impact on amenity 8. Impact on views 9. Impact on biodiversity 10. The ground is contaminated 11. The fencing would be overbearing 12. The cumulative impact of the storage areas is unacceptable 13. Planting is required to screen the development 14. The development would negatively impact built heritage/archaeology Policy Context In making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The following provisions of the Development Plan are considered relevant to the determination of this application: National Planning Framework 4 ▪ Policy 3 - Biodiversity ▪ Policy 9 - Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings Page 275 of 280
Page 280
▪ Policy 13 - Sustainable transport ▪ Policy 23 - Health and safety ▪ Policy 26 - Business and industry Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan ▪ Policy C2 - Development Outwith Renfrewshire's Network of Centres ▪ Policy E3 - Transition Areas ▪ Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage ▪ Policy I1 - Connecting Places ▪ Policy P2 - Housing Land Supply ▪ Policy P1 - Renfrewshire's Places Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance ▪ Delivering the Economic Strategy - Transition Areas ▪ Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy - Connecting Places ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy - Creating Places ▪ Delivering the Places Strategy - Open Space ▪ Delivering the Environment Strategy - Trees, Woodlands and Forestry ▪ Renfrewshire Planning and Development Tree Policy ▪ Site Development Brief - Blythswood, Inchinnan Road, Renfrew ▪ Housing Land Audit 2023-2024 Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: Planning Statement - sets out the applicant's justification for the proposal. Scottish Ministers Direction In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. None. Planning Assessment Under the provisions of Policy E3 of the LDP, the application site is located within the Meadowside Street/Blythswood Transition Area. The relevant supplementary guidance lists business as well as commercial uses of a scale appropriate in relation to the Network of Centres as acceptable within this area, provided they are appropriate for the location. Similarly, Policy 26 of NPF4 provides support for business and industrial uses in areas allocated for such a use within the LDP. Policy C2 of the LDP states that proposals outwith a Centre should demonstrate that they do not have a significant negative impact on Renfrewshire's Network of Centres. Given the Page 276 of 280
Page 281
nature of the proposal, a Town Centre location would not be acceptable. The proposed location is therefore acceptable in relation to Policy C2 in that siting the proposal outwith a Centre would help protect the viability and vitality of nearby Centres. The proposed use of the land for the open storage of caravans and camper vans is therefore acceptable in principle but the impact on neighbouring properties and surrounding land uses must also be considered in line with the requirements of Policy P1 of the LDP. As the retail park has several empty units and has its own accesses and parking, the use of the land for open storage would not have a detrimental impact on the operation of the retail park or otherwise weaken retail provision in the area. The nature of the proposal means it would not have a negative impact on the Normandy Hotel or the nearby football club. The retail park as well as the football stadium and associated floodlighting would prevent the proposal from appearing as an incongruous addition to the landscape. Given the application site sits within a Transition Area that has a long history of commercial use it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact either on its own or cumulatively when combined with existing and established sizeable storage facilities found nearby. In addition, the land has been in a degraded state since the demolition of the retail unit and detracts from the character of the area. Items stored on the land would be screened from Inchinnan Road to the south by existing mature trees. The applicant has submitted a plan that indicates that the parking zone would be set back from Inchinnan Road by at least 32 metres, helping to minimise the impact on the streetscape in this location. A condition can be added to ensure compliance while another condition can be added to ensure the fence line is also a sufficiently distance from Inchinnan Road. Given the significant setback distance no planting would be required to screen the development from Inchinnan Road. Equally, no planting is required to screen the development from West Lodge Road given it only provides access to the football stadium and retail park as well as to existing storage facilities. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 50 metres to the south, on the opposite side of Inchinnan Road. However, the nature of the proposal, surrounding land uses, the presence of mature trees that would help screen the development and the fact Inchinnan Road is a busy route to and from Renfrew Town Centre means the proposal would not have an impact on the amenity afforded to these properties. Conditions can also be added to limit when the site can be accessed and to limit the height of the items stored on site to further protect the amenity of the area. The TPO designation would prevent unauthorised works being carried out to the trees to the south while a condition can be added to ensure these trees are protected while the consent is implemented. The proposed green mesh fence that would surround the site is considered acceptable and would not appear out of place in the location. This would also tie into the existing fence that has been used by the applicant for their adjacent storage site. Environmental Protection have not raised any concerns in respect of potential land contamination. As such, the site is safe for development in line with the requirements of Policy 9 of NPF4. In addition, Environmental Protection have raised no concerns in relation to noise, smell or air pollution. Environmental Protection did request that a condition be added in respect of lighting but the applicant has confirmed that they do not plan on installing lighting. A condition can therefore be added to prevent the installation of lighting at the site. Page 277 of 280
Page 282
Given the nature of the development and the current condition of the land there are no concerns in respect of drainage or flood risk. No historic designations would be affected by the development and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service do not wish to comment on the proposal. Roads Development have objected on the grounds that the development would block access from Inchinnan Road through to West Lodge Road along an existing informal path that was created to provide access to the retail unit. However, the path is narrow, is poorly maintained and does not provide a continuous route between the two roads, with pedestrians having to walk across the derelict car park to complete their journey. In addition, a post and wire fence erected under permitted development rights already severs the connection and there is no formal Council strategy that requires this link or the delivery of a link in this location. Given the nearby signalised crossing on Inchinnan Road and active travel upgrades along Argyll Avenue (such as improved crossing points and the provision of a 3 metre wide shared footway and cycleway) that were delivered as part of the Renfrew Bridge project it is not considered that the loss of the informal path would have an unacceptable impact on active travel provision in the area or unacceptably restrict those who live to the south of Inchinnan Road and wish to travel to the retail park. The proposal is therefore consistent with the aims of Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policy I1 of the LDP. Given the above, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in line with the requirements of Policy P1 of the LDP and would comply with both Policy E3 of the LDP and Policy 26 of NPF4. While the main designation of the site is as a Transition Area, the site is also an allocated Policy P2 housing site within the LDP. A Proposal of Application Notice relating to the possible erection of a residential development was submitted in 2017 but was never progressed. In the most recent Housing Land Audit the site is within the established land supply, but not the effective land supply, due to the lack of interest. In addition, the limited alterations to the site required to implement the consent means the possibility of the land being brought forward for housing at some point in the future would not be precluded by the granting of this consent. Therefore, the loss of the site as housing land would not impact on the overall 5-year effective housing land and the proposal would not be contrary to Policy P2. A development brief has been prepared for the site. Given its status as a Housing Land Supply site the brief sets out the parameters for a possible residential development. Given the nature of the development, many of the details set out in the brief are not relevant. However, the wider themes contained in the brief, such as the retention of trees, are relevant and the proposal does not conflict with any of these criteria. Policy 9 of NPF4 supports the reuse of vacant brownfield land, provided the biodiversity value of the land is considered. Most of the site is covered in concrete hardstanding that has no value to wildlife. The trees to the south of the site, which are of higher value to biodiversity, would remain and would be protected by both the TPO designation and the aforementioned condition. The proposal therefore complies with Policies 3 and 9 of NPF4 as well as Policy ENV2 of the LDP in that the ecological value of the site in its current condition is low, trees of higher ecological value would be retained and the proposal would result in the reuse of a brownfield site in an urban area. Although the unit sits within the vicinity of a major accident hazard site, the Health and Safety Executive do not advise against the granting of planning permission given the nature of the proposed development. As such, the proposal complies with Policy 23 of NPF4. Representations Page 278 of 280
Page 283
In respect of the claim that the proposal should be the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion, the proposal was screened and it was not considered that the storage of equipment such as campervans at the site would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required. The drawings and supporting information are considered adequate to assess the application in line with both The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and the Development Plan. In respect of the claim the proposal would increase the amount of non-retail floorspace at the site, the proposal would involve the change of use of existing land and would not increase the amount of land available for commercial purposes. The risk of fire and impact on views are not material planning considerations. The possibility that the landowner may also have to obtain additional consents before operating the business is also not a material planning consideration. All other issues have been addressed in the above report. Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation(s) and any associated legal agreement(s) and/or mechanism(s) required to secure them including those provisions under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development. None. Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations. Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to conditions. Recommendation Grant Subject to Conditions. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposal accords with the provisions of the Development Plan and there were no material considerations which outweighed the presumption in favour of development according with the Development Plan. Condition(s) 1. That the development hereby permitted must be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To be in compliance with Section 58 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by Section 32 of The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. 2. Storage shall only take place within the indicative parking zone shown on approved plan BP-PZ-001, unless otherwise agreed in writing with Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To define the terms of the consent. Page 279 of 280
Page 284
3. Prior to the commencement of development, a plan demonstrating the alignment of the proposed fence line around the perimeter of the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the fence line shall follow the indicative parking zone shown on approved plan BP-PZ-001. Thereafter, the fencing shall be implemented in line with the approved plan and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: These details have not been submitted. 4. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit for the written approval of Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority, a management plan covering the open storage area, including maintenance of its appearance. The plan shall set out how this area will be managed and maintained including the items that will be stored, and how long they will be stored for. The open storage area shall thereafter be managed in strict accordance with the approved management plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the open storage area is managed appropriately in the interests of visual amenity. 5. The development and use hereby approved shall only operate between 7am and 8pm Monday to Friday and between 10am and 6pm on Saturday and Sunday. Reason: To control operating hours in the interests of residential amenity. 6. No lighting shall be installed within the site, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 7. The maximum height of any vehicles, structures or other items stored within the site shall not exceed 4 metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Renfrewshire Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 8. All trees within the application site and adjacent to its boundary shall be fully protected in accordance with BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction and BS 3998: 2010 Recommendations for Tree Work. Reason: In the interests of the protection of existing trees. Advisory Note(s) 1. None required. For further information please contact James McCafferty, Development Standards Team, Email: james.mccafferty@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 280 of 280