Combinedrepresentations_Redacted
Renfrewshire Council · 26 March 2024
Back to Local Review Body. — 26 March 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
FURTHER REPRESENTATION
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
No embedded text on this page.
Page 4
No embedded text on this page.
Page 5
No embedded text on this page.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.
Page 7
No embedded text on this page.
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
No embedded text on this page.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
No embedded text on this page.
Page 13
No embedded text on this page.
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
Page 17
No embedded text on this page.
Page 18
No embedded text on this page.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
No embedded text on this page.
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
No embedded text on this page.
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
No embedded text on this page.
Page 27
No embedded text on this page.
Page 28
No embedded text on this page.
Page 29
No embedded text on this page.
Page 30
No embedded text on this page.
Page 31
No embedded text on this page.
Page 32
No embedded text on this page.
Page 33
No embedded text on this page.
Page 34
No embedded text on this page.
Page 35
No embedded text on this page.
Page 36
No embedded text on this page.
Page 37
No embedded text on this page.
Page 38
No embedded text on this page.
Page 39
No embedded text on this page.
Page 40
No embedded text on this page.
Page 41
No embedded text on this page.
Page 42
No embedded text on this page.
Page 43
No embedded text on this page.
Page 44
No embedded text on this page.
Page 45
No embedded text on this page.
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
No embedded text on this page.
Page 48
No embedded text on this page.
Page 49
No embedded text on this page.
Page 50
No embedded text on this page.
Page 51
No embedded text on this page.
Page 52
No embedded text on this page.
Page 53
No embedded text on this page.
Page 54
No embedded text on this page.
Page 55
No embedded text on this page.
Page 56
No embedded text on this page.
Page 57
No embedded text on this page.
Page 58
No embedded text on this page.
Page 59
No embedded text on this page.
Page 60
No embedded text on this page.
Page 61
No embedded text on this page.
Page 62
No embedded text on this page.
Page 63
No embedded text on this page.
Page 64
No embedded text on this page.
Page 65
No embedded text on this page.
Page 66
No embedded text on this page.
Page 67
No embedded text on this page.
Page 68
No embedded text on this page.
Page 69
No embedded text on this page.
Page 70
No embedded text on this page.
Page 71
No embedded text on this page.
Page 72
No embedded text on this page.
Page 73
No embedded text on this page.
Page 74
No embedded text on this page.
Page 75
No embedded text on this page.
Page 76
No embedded text on this page.
Page 77
No embedded text on this page.
Page 78
No embedded text on this page.
Page 79
No embedded text on this page.
Page 80
No embedded text on this page.
Page 81
No embedded text on this page.
Page 82
No embedded text on this page.
Page 83
No embedded text on this page.
Page 84
No embedded text on this page.
Page 85
No embedded text on this page.
Page 86
No embedded text on this page.
Page 87
No embedded text on this page.
Page 88
No embedded text on this page.
Page 89
No embedded text on this page.
Page 90
No embedded text on this page.
Page 91
No embedded text on this page.
Page 92
No embedded text on this page.
Page 93
No embedded text on this page.
Page 94
No embedded text on this page.
Page 95
No embedded text on this page.
Page 96
No embedded text on this page.
Page 97
No embedded text on this page.
Page 98
No embedded text on this page.
Page 99
No embedded text on this page.
Page 100
No embedded text on this page.
Page 101
No embedded text on this page.
Page 102
No embedded text on this page.
Page 103
No embedded text on this page.
Page 104
No embedded text on this page.
Page 105
No embedded text on this page.
Page 106
No embedded text on this page.
Page 107
No embedded text on this page.
Page 108
No embedded text on this page.
Page 109
No embedded text on this page.
Page 110
No embedded text on this page.
Page 111
No embedded text on this page.
Page 112
No embedded text on this page.
Page 113
No embedded text on this page.
Page 114
No embedded text on this page.
Page 115
No embedded text on this page.
Page 116
No embedded text on this page.
Page 117
No embedded text on this page.
Page 118
No embedded text on this page.
Page 119
No embedded text on this page.
Page 120
No embedded text on this page.
Page 121
No embedded text on this page.
Page 122
No embedded text on this page.
Page 123
No embedded text on this page.
Page 124
No embedded text on this page.
Page 125
No embedded text on this page.
Page 126
No embedded text on this page.
Page 127
No embedded text on this page.
Page 128
No embedded text on this page.
Page 129
No embedded text on this page.
Page 130
No embedded text on this page.
Page 131
No embedded text on this page.
Page 132
No embedded text on this page.
Page 133
No embedded text on this page.
Page 134
No embedded text on this page.
Page 135
No embedded text on this page.
Page 136
No embedded text on this page.
Page 137
No embedded text on this page.
Page 138
No embedded text on this page.
Page 139
No embedded text on this page.
Page 140
No embedded text on this page.
Page 141
No embedded text on this page.
Page 142
No embedded text on this page.
Page 143
No embedded text on this page.
Page 144
No embedded text on this page.
Page 145
No embedded text on this page.
Page 146
No embedded text on this page.
Page 147
No embedded text on this page.
Page 148
No embedded text on this page.
Page 149
No embedded text on this page.
Page 150
No embedded text on this page.
Page 151
No embedded text on this page.
Page 152
No embedded text on this page.
Page 153
No embedded text on this page.
Page 154
No embedded text on this page.
Page 155
No embedded text on this page.
Page 156
No embedded text on this page.
Page 157
No embedded text on this page.
Page 158
No embedded text on this page.
Page 159
No embedded text on this page.
Page 160
No embedded text on this page.
Page 161
No embedded text on this page.
Page 162
No embedded text on this page.
Page 163
No embedded text on this page.
Page 164
No embedded text on this page.
Page 165
No embedded text on this page.
Page 166
No embedded text on this page.
Page 167
No embedded text on this page.
Page 168
No embedded text on this page.
Page 169
No embedded text on this page.
Page 170
No embedded text on this page.
Page 171
No embedded text on this page.
Page 172
No embedded text on this page.
Page 173
No embedded text on this page.
Page 174
No embedded text on this page.
Page 175
No embedded text on this page.
Page 176
No embedded text on this page.
Page 177
No embedded text on this page.
Page 178
No embedded text on this page.
Page 179
No embedded text on this page.
Page 180
No embedded text on this page.
Page 181
No embedded text on this page.
Page 182
No embedded text on this page.
Page 183
No embedded text on this page.
Page 184
No embedded text on this page.
Page 185
No embedded text on this page.
Page 186
No embedded text on this page.
Page 187
No embedded text on this page.
Page 188
No embedded text on this page.
Page 189
No embedded text on this page.
Page 190
No embedded text on this page.
Page 191
No embedded text on this page.
Page 192
No embedded text on this page.
Page 193
No embedded text on this page.
Page 194
No embedded text on this page.
Page 195
No embedded text on this page.
Page 196
No embedded text on this page.
Page 197
No embedded text on this page.
Page 198
No embedded text on this page.
Page 199
No embedded text on this page.
Page 200
No embedded text on this page.
Page 201
No embedded text on this page.
Page 202
No embedded text on this page.
Page 203
No embedded text on this page.
Page 204
No embedded text on this page.
Page 205
No embedded text on this page.
Page 206
No embedded text on this page.
Page 207
No embedded text on this page.
Page 208
No embedded text on this page.
Page 209
No embedded text on this page.
Page 210
No embedded text on this page.
Page 211
No embedded text on this page.
Page 212
No embedded text on this page.
Page 213
No embedded text on this page.
Page 214
No embedded text on this page.
Page 215
No embedded text on this page.
Page 216
No embedded text on this page.
Page 217
No embedded text on this page.
Page 218
No embedded text on this page.
Page 219
No embedded text on this page.
Page 220
No embedded text on this page.
Page 221
No embedded text on this page.
Page 222
No embedded text on this page.
Page 223
No embedded text on this page.
Page 224
No embedded text on this page.
Page 225
No embedded text on this page.
Page 226
No embedded text on this page.
Page 227
No embedded text on this page.
Page 228
No embedded text on this page.
Page 229
No embedded text on this page.
Page 230
No embedded text on this page.
Page 231
No embedded text on this page.
Page 232
No embedded text on this page.
Page 233
No embedded text on this page.
Page 234
No embedded text on this page.
Page 235
No embedded text on this page.
Page 236
No embedded text on this page.
Page 237
No embedded text on this page.
Page 238
No embedded text on this page.
Page 239
No embedded text on this page.
Page 240
No embedded text on this page.
Page 241
No embedded text on this page.
Page 242
No embedded text on this page.
Page 243
No embedded text on this page.
Page 244
No embedded text on this page.
Page 245
No embedded text on this page.
Page 246
No embedded text on this page.
Page 247
No embedded text on this page.
Page 248
No embedded text on this page.
Page 249
No embedded text on this page.
Page 250
No embedded text on this page.
Page 251
No embedded text on this page.
Page 252
No embedded text on this page.
Page 253
No embedded text on this page.
Page 254
No embedded text on this page.
Page 255
No embedded text on this page.
Page 256
No embedded text on this page.
Page 257
No embedded text on this page.
Page 258
No embedded text on this page.
Page 259
No embedded text on this page.
Page 260
No embedded text on this page.
Page 261
No embedded text on this page.
Page 262
No embedded text on this page.
Page 263
No embedded text on this page.
Page 264
No embedded text on this page.
Page 265
No embedded text on this page.
Page 266
No embedded text on this page.
Page 267
No embedded text on this page.
Page 268
No embedded text on this page.
Page 269
No embedded text on this page.
Page 270
No embedded text on this page.
Page 271
No embedded text on this page.
Page 272
No embedded text on this page.
Page 273
No embedded text on this page.
Page 274
No embedded text on this page.
Page 275
No embedded text on this page.
Page 276
No embedded text on this page.
Page 277
No embedded text on this page.
Page 278
No embedded text on this page.
Page 279
No embedded text on this page.
Page 280
No embedded text on this page.
Page 281
No embedded text on this page.
Page 282
No embedded text on this page.
Page 283
No embedded text on this page.
Page 284
No embedded text on this page.
Page 285
No embedded text on this page.
Page 286
No embedded text on this page.
Page 287
No embedded text on this page.
Page 288
No embedded text on this page.
Page 289
No embedded text on this page.
Page 290
No embedded text on this page.
Page 291
No embedded text on this page.
Page 292
1 Head of Corporate Governance, Renfrewshire Council, Finance and Resources, Renfrewshire House, Paisley, PA1 1TR. N: Eric C. Bea�e A: 34 High Street A: Lochwinnoch P: PA12 4AA Friday 15th of December 2023. (Will all Individuals please note that the Head of Corporate Governance will ignore your representa�ons/objec�ons if you have not filled in your personal details with your Name and Address, etc, as above). Planning Applica�on: 23 /0179/PP. Erec�on of single storey dwellinghouses and associated works, On the Eastern Boundary Of No. 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch, By Mr. David Johnston. For the Head of Corporate Governance in rela�on to No�ce of Review to this Planning Applica�on. Rela�ng to the mee�ng of the Local Review Body, (LRB) for this No�ce of Review to be held at 2pm on the 30th of January 2024, in Renfrewshire House, Coton Street, Paisley. On the grounds of the Leters of Representa�ons – Council Decision, as noted in the leters posted out to individuals, dated 8th September 2023, who objected to this Planning Applica�on, where; ‘the applica�on together with your representa�ons was considered by the Council on the 8th of September’. Where the decision of the council was; REFUSE Consent subject to the reasons. As noted in the accompanying leter, Ref. 23/0179/PP. CONDITIONS AND/OR REASONS ATTACHED TO THIS DECISION.
Page 293
2 For the Aten�on of The Head of Corporate Governance. Dear Sir / Madam, List of Contents for this Paper of Representa�ons/Objec�ons 1. The Interested Par�es Ini�al statement to the Planning Review Panel. 2. Statements, Ques�ons and Representa�ons from the Objectors to the Johnstons regarding this Planning Review / Appeal?? 3. A Recent History of the Site: How we got to where we are, from 1991 to 2023. 4. Objec�ons and Further Representa�ons to the Original Planning Applica�on. 5. Representa�ons on the Tree Report. 6. No�ce of Review Document. 7. Representa�ons to the Planning Appeal Statement. 8. Our Conclusion to the Planning Appeal Statement 9. Our Own Proposals for the Site at 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch. 10. Final Conclusion to this Paper of Further Objec�ons and Representa�ons in rela�on to this Planning Appeal by the Applicant, Mr David Johnston. 1. The Interested par�es Ini�al statement to the Planning Review Panel. Will the Head of Corporate Governance, hereby abbreviated to HCG, please note that we wish to make Representa�ons/Objec�ons in rela�on to the above Planning Review Appeal by the LRB, as an ‘Interested Party’. Where we hope that the HCG will note these reserva�ons in rela�on to the Review Panel mee�ng on the noted date will also take these Representa�ons into their considera�ons and delibera�ons when making a judgement on this No�ce of Review / Appeal by the Applicants, to the LRB. Where we wish the HCG to note that we do so in the strongest possible terms regarding this Review, not just on the grounds on which the appeal has been based, but across all possible areas of both the original planning applica�on and the associated review. In previous applica�ons by Mr and Mrs Johnston, we, as interested par�es have asked for all previous objec�ons and representa�ons to be taken into considera�on regarding any present applica�on, where historically, as far as we are aware, the Johnstons, have been the only applicants to ever apply for planning permissions for this par�cular site?? Where very importantly, to support our case as the interested par�es, various individuals and groups in Lochwinnoch have shown a consistent patern of objec�ons to the planning applica�ons by this couple over the last 20+ years.
Page 294
3 Where, very obviously we wish the ‘Woodland Garden’ / Area of Woods at 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch, across from / in very close proximity to Auld Simon, as the oldest building in Lochwinnoch, for the woodland to remain in its present state, without any property development by these applicants. Furthermore, after 20+ years of applications by the Johnstons, we strongly and firmly believe that we have reached an impasse in relation to this situation?? Approximately every several years just over the last 2 decades, the Johnstons have put in an applica�on for planning permission, and we, the objectors and interested par�es have responded and objected to these applica�ons for development on this site. Where Renfrewshire Council staff and elected officials have consistently supported us in our objec�ons to these applica�ons, by also consistently refusing planning permission for this valued and treasured site within our village, where we wish to record our gra�tude for these efforts, where we are very grateful to these individuals over the last 20+ years in their con�nued support. For if it was not for this con�nuous support, we would not be here today, where once again we find ourselves having to object and make representa�ons to this Review / Appeal by Mr and Mrs Johnston. In spite of our opposi�on to these con�nuous Planning Applica�ons we therefore acknowledge that this has cost the Johnstons a lot of money, �me and effort in pursuing their case, as well as a lot of corresponding �me and effort on our part as the objectors. To say nothing of the �me that the planning department and to a lesser extent the �me and delibera�ons that Councillors on the review panel spend on this issue. So in an effort to resolve this situation to the benefit of all parties concerned, i.e., applicants, objectors, Renfrewshire Council Planning Department, Councillors on the review panel, as well as the HCG, in his considerations on this issue, we would like to set out alternative proposals for the site, which can already probably be guessed at by all concerned?? We will briefly outline these alterna�ve proposals as noted immediately below and elaborate further throughout this Paper of Further Objec�ons and Representa�ons, and towards the end of this paper in our Conclusion. We acknowledge that this scenario may not be acceptable to Mr and Mrs Johnston in the first instance, as they have held this dream for many years, but as they lived amongst us for many years in our very beau�ful village of Lochwinnoch, where they were friendly and friends with, and well known to many of us, where I personally, (Eric) had mutual friends with them. Where we as the objectors would seriously like to ask them to consider what we propose at some length, as opposed to dismissing our ideas in a knee-jerk type of reac�on?? We also recognise that, as stated earlier, that this couple have put a lot of �me, effort and expense into their planning applica�ons, but a�er 20+ years of objec�ons, we would ask them to finally recognise that as a community / the village / Lochwinnoch does not and will not / never accept their proposals for this site. Whilst some individuals in the village may accept their proposals with their present plans for a property that is visually and aesthe�cally pleasing in rela�on to, and the closeness of Auld Simon,
Page 295
4 many more people will not, especially neighbours in the surrounding vicinity of the plot, i.e., in Johnshill, East End, St Winnoc Road, Gates Road, and various parts of High Street. 2. Statements, Questions and Representations from the Objectors to the Johnstons regarding this Planning Review / Appeal?? All of the above then leads us to ask the following ques�ons of Mr and Mrs Johnston?? When are you finally going to accept that your planning applica�ons for this site are absolutely not acceptable to many of residents in Lochwinnoch?? Otherwise, why has there been 20 odd years of objec�ons to your proposals, every �me you apply?? No mater how nice or pleasing to the human eye your proposed property may look on this occasion, especially in rela�on to Auld Simon, like previous plans, it is s�ll not in any way acceptable to the majority of our community in Lochwinnoch. Where this small woodland area, that has been a precious woodland just off the centre of Lochwinnoch, for approximately for the last 165-170 years, should / could / must remain a ‘Woodland Garden’, enhancing the local environment / surrounding area, to the benefits of the trees, local flora and fauna, wildlife, roos�ng birds of all kinds and especially rooks. Without absolutely any property being built upon it. Where ul�mately all of the above, intangibly enhances and enriches the lives of the human beings who live close by this plot, and any other green spaces, both within Lochwinnoch and outside it. As a rural village in South Renfrewshire, which we feel is the last real village that is separate from other communi�es, which is not a suburb of Johnstone or Paisley, as the build-up area has extended ever outwards over the years. Which is very much obviously why Renfrewshire Council has dependably supported our objec�ons over the last 2 decades, as the benefits of green spaces and closeness to nature are very well, and scien�fically recognised, in regard to both physical and especially, mental health. So really, in this part of our Representa�ons, in our own way we are also lodging an appeal, as we are appealing to your beter natures, Mr And Mrs Johnston?? To let all this go, for your own benefit and peace of mind, as well as ours as a group of objectors. And ul�mately, for the benefit of Lochwinnoch as a community, which you obviously love, and loved, as you lived here for many years. Where for you to try and accept that there will always be a group of interested par�es / objectors in Lochwinnoch, with hopefully, as noted above, the con�nuing, ongoing support of Renfrewshire Council, where some concerned individuals, as individuals or in groups will always object to your plans for this site. Where today it is our group who are objec�ng / making representa�ons, tomorrow it will be someone else, and another group.
Page 296
5 (Personal note from Eric) (Please do not misunderstand me, as there is absolutely nothing personal in all this, along with many others we just completely disagree with your proposals for the ‘Woodland Garden’ and have done so for many years). (Where my / our personal reasons for our representa�ons / objec�ons are completely altruis�c, to the benefits of my / our community, where we represent the wishes our community, in my (Eric’s) personal case my elderly rela�ves live in close proximity to Auld Simon / Johnshill / East End, where I have been asked to deal with this on behalf of all my family, as well as my own very strong beliefs in what we are doing). Ul�mately this situa�on reminds us of the Burnfield Road / Playing field site, with planning applica�ons by Stuart Milne Developers, at the end of Newton of Barr, Lochwinnoch. Where in this case, the Community Council have mounted a very focused, consistent campaign by this developer, sustained over a number of years, where ironically, this is a shorter �me span than the one we have mounted against your own proposals. Where both developers, regardless of size, both own the prospec�ve sites, but cannot do anything with them, due to the number of representa�ons / objec�ons Renfrewshire Council (RC) have received over the years, from Lochwinnoch residents. Where the term ‘Dead Land’ could be used to describe both sites. Where it seems you are stuck with a possible development site that you can’t do anything with?? Hence the nickname of ‘dead land’. To con�nue with these objec�ons and representa�ons, as noted above, we will further outline our proposals for the site towards the end of this paper. 3. A Recent History of the Site: How we got to where we are, from 1991 to 2023. In the early 1990’s S, who has lived in Lochwinnoch for at least 30+ years wanted to further develop the applica�on site into a ‘Woodland Garden’, where the site had and s�ll has to the present day has become naturally overgrown, per the applicants’ paperwork showing the Ordnance Survey Map of 1856, so over approximately the last 135-140 years in 1990-93, plus another 30 years to the present. So in total the site has therefore been undisturbed for approximately the last 165-170 years. The following pages are copied from messages between Ms S and me to show the review panel the ‘more recent’ history of what has happened over the last 30 odd years regarding this plot of woodland at 2 Johnshill / East End. I have only altered the text to �dy it up, and have been very careful to preserve the anonymity of Ms S, even although I’m sure the Johnstons know who / remember who this lady is?? Eric Thanks for ge�ng back to me S. I'm really just looking for the process that was involved, that you went through, and the �me frame /
Page 297
6 dates involved. I didn't realise the lawyers were involved though, I've never really understood why the Johnstons keep on applying to build on the site, but by the sound of it they have legal rights / �tle to it?? Which explains why they have kept on applying to build on it over the last 20 odd years x 3-4 �mes. The situa�on reminds me of Burnfoot Rd then, they own it, but can't use it as locals keep on objec�ng to their planning applica�ons?? As I recall they supposedly fenced it off, supposedly maintained it for a number of years, and then claimed legal rights to it?? If you fill in some gaps for me re how long ago you were at the lawyers, that would help. S 1 I laid claim to the land around 1991/92. My then lawyer did a land search and found no record of ownership, he told me to occupy the land and look a�er it for 10 years and if it was uncontested , it would be mine. I did this at considerable expense, fencing it off, having dead trees felled etc, but only a�er I got council approval. During the 10 years , Louise Johnson started her own claim, but I was told by my lawyer I had prior claim so not to worry. When my 10 years were up, I contacted my then lawyer, I'd changed to a different firm by then to ask how to conclude the claim -she said I didn't have to do anything as it was now mine. However it appears that wasn't the case and Mrs Johnson saw her chance and pursued her claim. By this �me I'd built a shed on the plot and was making it into a woodland garden but basically I had to get off the land, remove the shed and that was it. It was heartbreaking at the �me, but there didn't appear to be anything else I could do. Unfortunately I le� it too long to complain to the Law Society, so I just had to let it go. Eric A quick couple of ques�ons that I men�oned yesterday?? Do you remember more accurately when Louise Johnson put her original claim in during the 10-year period?? Any idea when she further pursued her own claim?? I'm presuming that this was a�er about 2001-2003?? S 2 I've found the "Woods File". I first enquired about the plot in Feb 1993, and it looks like my claim dates from March 1993. I then set to work having it fenced off by Alter Landscapes, employing a Tree Surgeon to assess the plot then paying him to make the plot safe, which included having some dead elm trees felled because they were dangerous. I had to apply for permission from Renfrewshire Council for that work to be done, even providing photographic evidence that one tree had actually fallen in high winds. This cost me a lot of money.
Page 298
7 I was then worried about the spikes on the original iron fence at the front and my lawyer advised me to remove them to avoid public injury, this I did, all 239 with a hacksaw as I recall as I didn't own a S�hl Saw. I also took out public liability insurance. Ironically, the Council refused permission to have the canopy overhanging the pavement to be cut back even though it forced pedestrians to walk on the road in summer, which worried me. When the owner of one of the neighbouring garages expressed concern about overhanging branches I had them professionally removed. I loved the ground, worked on it and my children and dogs shared it with me where I had all sorts of dream for the plot. Anyway Louise Johnston applied for planning permission 2002 and was refused then, they had laid claim to the land. I was advised that I had prior claim so not to worry, the rest is within what I've already sent you. Like I said, I thought all was well �ll Louise approached me when I was gardening at the plot Spring 2009 and told me I had to leave as the ground was theirs and they were "going to build a house ". I've never fully understood what happened, but it appears they did nothing illegal, saw their chance and followed it through. To summarize, their first atempt at receiving planning permission appears to have been made in early 2002 , which I suppose is the main point. I think at least more than one has been made since then. S 3 Ps- I heard Louise had told a friend they'd sold their house in Lade Court and were ren�ng �ll they built their house up at the woods, so she seemed to be confident that it would go ahead. Eric Morning S, No I fully realise that you have not accused them of any illegal prac�ces. Where nothing illegal has been done anyway, as they have included a copy of the land cer�ficate showing ownership. As I've said previously, I’ve never understood why they kept on applying for planning permission for the site, but this is now obvious as they own it. Where this can be very expensive, as they have now applied for planning permission 3-4 �mes over said 20+ years. Considering that the villagers have consistently objected to their proposals over this period, and the council planning department have also consistently upheld the objec�ons by their refusals, I personally think the Johnsons have been, and are being very naive. Again it's similar to Burnfield Rd, they might own the land but can't get permission to build on it, it's "dead land" so to speak.
Page 299
8 I'm not sure if you realise but all the previous objec�ons are very important, where we as the objectors can ask that all of this historical informa�on be taken into considera�on for this present applica�on and appeal, it obviously shows a consistent patern of objec�ons over a long period of �me. I hope some of this reassures you about what happens next, but my apologies if it also brings up painful memories for you, as you very obviously loved this area of woodland years ago, and s�ll do in the present. Personally the Johnsons have actually done me / us a back handed favour, by giving me a wake-up call re all this, & mo�va�ng me to do something about it, to protect this historical, natural site for Lochwinnoch and the villagers. Where if the Review panel are consistent with previous decisions??, I would personally hope to bring this plot back into public ownership by whatever means we can get it back, where we can manage this plot and keep it in the natural state that it has been in for the last 160+ years, for the benefit of everyone in Lochwinnoch, as a beau�ful, natural Woodland Garden. Where hopefully the Johnstons have done us all a big favour by appealing this council decision by setling these issues to the benefit of all par�es, the community in Lochwinnoch, the Johnstons, and Renfrewshire Council ?? S 4 That's reminded of what happened legally, as I understand it my name was entered on the old Land Register, it should also have been put on the new one, that's how I lost the ground because my lawyer didn't do that. Eric All of this hassle over all these years because of one simple legal mistake. Which would probably have taken an hour or two of work to do. The lawyer was lucky that you didn't make a complaint to the Law Society, as you certainly had grounds to do so. When I think about it, I was forge�ng my manners. To ask you for permission to put your story in my own paperwork??? I would be careful to maintain confiden�ality, & reword your text if necessary, & use only leters like WG for Woodland Garden so that you could not be iden�fied in any way. The councillors wouldn't be interested anyway, although the Johnstons will likely remember?? Your story is the basis of all of this & I feel very important to our own appeal, which I / we will use to highlight why the site must be le� in its present state, so that we as a community in Lochwinnoch can maintain and manage it, and really improve upon it, in a similar manner to what the LCDT are doing with Lochhead Gardens. Even to the point of involving the LCDT for help re various aspects of these ideas & asking RC for a Community Asset Transfer, (CAT), to extend the plot with the council owned land to the rear of the garden in a similar way to the applica�on the LCDT have done for Lochhead Gardens.
Page 300
9 Furthermore it fundamentally shows how right from the �me that even before the Johnsons made a claim to this plot, that your plans for it were the founda�ons of all the objec�ons that have followed over the last 30+ years, to the present. And into the future, if / when, as I've said above where we hopefully bring the plot back into common law, common sense, community ownership. Which if you are s�ll interested in, I personally hope that you would s�ll like to be involved in?? This was your dream 30+++ years ago, a�er all. So I am really hoping that you are okay with me using your story. To be honest, personally , I like the sound of S's Garden, L Gardens, or Auld Simon's Garden??? S 5 Well at the �me I was in the process of leaving J, plus a solicitor acquaintance of mine told me she didn't think I had " what it would take", financially or otherwise to fight it, nor was there any point in complaining so I let it go. I'd have loved to have built a �ny wee L- shaped hoose there and see out my days but I always knew that would never be possible without felling healthy trees. (NB from Eric: The fact that S had thought of building a small house on the plot in no way jus�fies the planning applica�ons that the Johnstons have submited over the years. Note the fact that S also acknowledges that healthy trees would have to be felled / sacrificed to build any property). (Where I chose to leave this text in this part of our objec�ons to highlight the fact that S had realised that building a property on the site was not possible). Imagine the joy I felt when I had my wee shed built! Anyway, back to present �mes and I must admit you've now got me interested in the idea of a Community Garden. I also always knew the plot was too big for me to look a�er it properly. There were actually some people who referred to it as S’s Woods!! God moves in mysterious ways I have found and if what I want is right, it tends to happen eventually. I would like to be involved in what goes on in the future. By the way , I'm happy to be named personally in the proceedings as I'm confident I haven't falsely accused anyone of anything, my only worry would be lawyer although I haven't named them in any of my communica�ons with you. There is s�ll a chance that I've misunderstood events! Meanwhile I'll just allow myself to dream of the woodland garden. Oh, btw, there are remains of what appears to be a stone wall / founda�ons within the ground- I used to sit on them while I had my tea break- I'm sure you've examined the history of the area. x S6 Already thinking of projects to open people's eyes to what can be achieved plant wise, there's a lovely " feel" up there. I don't think Mrs Johnston would know what I mean, don't think she would understand my love for the place, but maybe I'm wrong. Just another piece of info which might explain a lot.
Page 301
10 I had the ground professionally valued some�me during the 2000's, as I have the papers somewhere I think. If I remember correctly, it was valued at £65k if outline planning permission was obtained, which of course would involve removal of trees. I did that out of curiosity as I always knew trees would have to go and I wasn't prepared to do that, so it was a dead end. (2nd Note from Eric: As we would obviously not be seeking to build or develop the gardens in this way, on a ‘dead plot of land’, by asking for planning permission, which negates our complete and whole ambi�ons for the site, we would want to have the plot evaluated and priced as a garden plot). Come to think of it, that would be a driving force for other people?? I'll shut up now- things keep coming back to me. Now that I understand your mo�va�ons , I'd be happy to meet with you in the New Year and show you the " S's Woods " files ! Till then ... S7 Ps: I didn't do it before because I thought it would just look like sour grapes, and of course there is a small element of that, that has gone with the passage of �me now that I am older and hopefully a bit wiser, but I can now see beter reasons for objec�ng to their plans. All of this text is rather long winded, but we have chosen to include it to emphasis the recent history of the site and the love and affec�on which many people in Lochwinnoch feel for the ‘Woodland Garden’, especially S, who s�ll dreams of what is possible for ‘her gardens’ 30+ years later. Where paradoxically to S’s, and numerous other villagers’ wishes for the ‘gardens’, like the Johnstons, (where again, within this extremely long paper, again at the risk of repea�ng oneself, we fully acknowledge their wishes to build on the site re their various planning applica�ons), where they have also spent a lot of their own money in trying to develop the site, albeit it we obviously disagree and object in the strongest possible terms to the applicants building a property in this area of woodland. Where we also strongly believe this is the wrong type of development for one of the last areas of woodland within our village, that has taken many years to naturally develop, albeit it is now overgrown, needing care and maintenance from interested par�es. 4. Objec�ons and Further Representa�ons to the Original Planning Applica�on. In the Pre-Applica�on Discussion Details Cont. sec�on of the above, we note that there was “a major change on the site condi�ons”, a�er Mr Weir’s email of the 13.03.23, where the Johnstons thought that a “fresh applica�on with a new approach” could be possible. So per the Tree Condi�on Survey that the Johnstons had requested in May 2022, followed by Mr Weir no�ng changes to the tree plan in his email of March 2023, presumably that 4 of the trees would have to be felled, etc, that the planning department s�ll refused the Johnstons latest planning applica�on. Where if the Johnstons had been more proac�ve with beter conserva�on of the ground condi�ons, soil, tree maintenance and management, obviously these tress would never have needed felling.
Page 302
11 Which makes us wonder just how much care of the plot the Johnstons were inclined towards by looking a�er the site, considering the number of applica�ons they have submited over nearly 2 decades?? Access and Parking. These issues were within our original objec�ons that we submited against the ini�al planning applica�on. Where the site at Auld Simon is o�en used by local groups as a star�ng point for local parades, etc. E.g., Gala Day Parade in June, the Samba band have also this loca�on on occasion, Millenium Walk of Faith. Where a large number of children o�en atend these first two on-going events with their parent(s). Whilst the Johnstons have only applied for 2 parking spaces on this site, and the Health & Safety of these events can be managed by marshalling, this increase in traffic, however small, could pose a risk to both adults, especially children and the disabled, amongst large crowds of people wai�ng for parades to start, if the LRB Review Panel were to uphold this appeal, especially if the applicant had visitors to their home?? These points / risks may seem minor, but we wish to make the Review Panel aware of these risks. Water Supply and Drainage Arrangements. At the �me of wri�ng this sec�on out, (Monday 11/12/2023 @ 14.35) we are wai�ng on council staff replying to queries on these points?? As the refusal was based on tree grounds, where the appeal is also based on the same, we have asked officials if the Johnstons would have been aware of further objec�ons from close-by residents. Where we have since been advised by Planning Department Staff that these objec�ons were available for the applicants viewing, where no atempts were made to do so, therefore the applicants chose not to make themselves aware of any concerns that their prospec�ve neighbours may have on their proposals. Thereby as far as we the interested par�es / objectors are concerned, weakening their case for Review. Alterna�vely, if they had atempted to view these objec�ons and addressed the associated concerns, to our mind, they would have beter prepared for their Review / Appeal process, by having more answers and informa�on with regards to the impact that this property development would have on the surrounding area, and well beyond the development site. This lack of concern regarding other people’s opinions on their proposals seems to consistent in the applicants overall approach to their Planning Applica�on(s) over a long period of �me?? Under this sec�on of the applica�on, new or altered water supply and drainage will be required, where this proposed property will link into the exis�ng drainage system. The planning applica�on document makes no men�on of sewage waste??
Page 303
12 Where the home of one elderly widowed resident is built over one of the main drainage pipes for wastewater or sewage. This resident strongly objected to the planning applica�on re these concerns that the exis�ng system wouldn’t be able to cope with the extra waste from the proposed new build. We acknowledge that this waste could only be for mainly 2-4 people, where this may point may seem unlikely. Nonetheless, we feel that point must be addressed, if only to give peace of mind to this elderly villager, who is very concerned about these issues. Where we wish the Review Panel to note the following ques�ons on these issues?? Ques�ons: 1. Are the applicants aware of these issues regarding this individual property?? 2. If they are aware of them??, what measures have they taken to address these points?? 3. If the applicants are aware of the issues, why have they not highlighted this in their original planning applica�on or even their Statement in Support of their Appeal?? 4. Even if this outside the grounds of both planning refusal and appeal?? 5. Or what advice have they sought on these issues?? 6. Have they followed up on any advice that they have been given?? Furthermore, in a more general sense. 7. Are they aware of the design, layout, and structure of the exis�ng draining system?? 8. Especially as they intend to connect to that system?? 9. Did they make enquiries about these issues?? 10. Were they required to do so?? 11. Were they aware of such issues, but didn’t think that they were relevant to their applica�on?? Where the first 6 ques�ons on the individual property also apply to the more generalised issues of how their new build might affect the surrounding proper�es. Where we believe that there are more generalised issues on drainage and sewage within this locale, where we will make more representa�ons on these issues before the mee�ng of the Review Panel at the end of next month, where these issues are obviously of major concerns concerning raw sewage to this residents in the surrounding area of the applica�on site. Whilst all of this is obviously a specialised area of Civil Engineering, considering the number of applica�ons that they have applied for in the past, how aware of these overall issues are they, in rela�on to this plot of land?? The original RC planning applica�on has an Assessment of Flood Risk. Where they have answered No to both ques�ons in this sec�on. Does this assessment include any possible damage to tree roots in either the short or long term?? With the possible increase in run-off to other proper�es re any possible damage, in any direc�on, e.g., front or back into the gardens at the start of Johnshill or in St Winnoc Rd that are situated below the site of 2 Johnshill?? Schedule 3 Development.
Page 304
13 We note that the applicant �cked the No box in response to this part of the Planning applica�on, where normally for any Planning Applica�on within Lochwinnoch we would see something in the local press?? Some of us as objectors have discussed this point, but none of us can remember seeing any No�ce of Planning Permission within any of the local newspapers, which would normally be weekly in The Gazete. (Covering Johnstone and Renfrewshire). Whilst we would be surprised if this part of the planning process was not adhered to, we wished to query this anyway, for the reasons stated above. Cer�ficate and Notes and the Land Ownership Cer�ficate. We note both the Cer�ficate and Notes and the Land Ownership Cer�ficate sec�ons towards the end of the Planning Applica�on and acknowledge this gives the applicant full legal �tle to the site. We also note that these sec�ons do not give any dates for when Mr and Mrs Johnston gained full �tle to the site, as S has said in her texts if Mrs Johnston was (first) refused Planning Permission in 2002, then presumably they had �tle to the plot before this date. In 2023 it is probably now a moot point, but as the interested par�es / objectors we had a discussion on the �meframe involved, i.e., the �me between the Johnstons first having �tle to the plot, and the �me they first applied for planning permission, and did this comply with the legisla�on of the �me. Where we wish all par�es to note that we are s�ll trying to have this point clarified from other sources, albeit it may not be relevant to this Review Paper for the LRB. Like the points in the Schedule 3 Development sec�on, if the Review Panel are able to have this point cleared up before we act on our alterna�ves for the site, so that any processes have met all due legal process and requirements?? Other than these points, we have no further comments or ques�ons to ask of the applicants for this sec�on of the Planning Permission Document, at this point in �me. 5. Examina�on / Representa�ons of Tree Condi�on Survey. We have listed the Tree Condi�on Survey here as we believe that it has important relevance to the following sec�ons of our Paper to the Review / Appeal and the Review Panel. As laypersons who are certainly not Arborists / Arboriculturists for the management, maintenance, and especially the felling of diseased or damaged trees, we have to abide by the recommenda�ons of Mr Calvey. Although we no�ce that the Tree Condi�on Survey is now presently classed as out of date by approximately 6 months in Mid-December 2023, as noted in his report by Mr Calvey himself in his own report. As the report was only valid for 1 year from the repor�ng date of May 2022, and published approximately one month later on the 14th of June 2022. Without a further tree survey we now are wondering what the overall condi�on or state of the site now is??
Page 305
14 Where for our part as the objectors, only a visual inspec�on of the site would be possible, where that inspec�on would be severely hampered by the large amounts of this, difficult to walk on / passable un-maintained ivy / undergrowth. Where we also note the condi�ons of the trees that required Crown Reduc�on and the trees that needed removal, 6 of for Crown Removal / pruning at the tops of, and 4 for removal. We further note from the accompanying photographs and text on the 1st page of the survey that various trees have very large amounts of ivy growing both around them and up all of the trucks of these large, well-established trees, and at ground level across the whole of the site has been, as stated above un-maintained, even very badly maintained. Which leaves us wondering how o�en, and how much the plot has been regularly, even sporadically looked a�er, in a variety of ways over the last 20 odd years?? Having noted these points in our Paper of Further Representa�ons / Objec�ons where we have deliberately used the full �tle, to object on these points alone, at the way the plot has obviously been neglected over a large period of �me, by the applicants as the legal �tle holders. Where we will say quite a bit more on this subject in the next sec�ons of our Paper to the Review Panel, which we would ask the HCG to con�nue to note on these issues. 6. Representa�ons on No�ce of Review Document. We note that the registered address of the applicants on the 1st page of the No�ce of Review is; Flat 0/2, 174 Clarkston Road, Glasgow, G44 3DN. We will make our reasons known for no�ng this point just very shortly, within this sec�on of our Paper of Representa�ons. This may be an inappropriate point, but as the applicants now live up in Clarkston, Glasgow with this as their registered address on their appeal, we wish to ask the Review Panel why this appeal should be upheld by the applicants when they don’t even live in Lochwinnoch anymore?? Where they have not done so for a number of years. We are sure the applicants had good personal reasons for this move to Glasgow, but this s�ll implies an absence of loyalty to a village and community that they lived in for many years?? These ques�ons would be completely irrelevant if it were not for the fact that the applicants have, once again, applied for planning permission for this site. It is only because of the planning permission appeal that we ask these ques�ons. To think otherwise would be to imply or think that people are not allowed to live where they chose to live, which would be a ludicrous sugges�on, I am originally from the South side of Glasgow, but I (Eric ) personally chose to live, and plan to die in Lochwinnoch.
Page 306
15 Furthermore, the note below is a copy of the text between S and I on Page 7 of this paper. S 3 Ps- I heard Louise had told a friend they'd sold their house in Lade Court and were ren�ng �ll they built their house up at the woods, so she seemed to be confident that it would go ahead. Which considering this ‘house’ has been very consistently objected to and refused by the council over all these years, this piece of gossip seems rather ‘over-confident’ on the part of Mrs Johnston?? On a more concrete note, we also wish to ask the applicants further ques�ons in a similar vein?? A�er all these years of said objec�ons and refusals of your plans for this site, apart from changes to the tree plan per the survey report; 1. Can you give us jus�fica�ons for / valid reasons for why the Review Panel should now uphold this present planning applica�on?? 2. In light of the planning department decision, again for Refusal in 2023. 3. Thereby overturning the present planning department decision. 4. Which would also obviously overturn all the previous decisions made by the same department since your 1st planning applica�on some�me just into the Millenium?? 5. Which would obviously also make Null and Void all the previous Objec�ons over this same �me frame, by mul�ple objectors, of varying age groups including older ones like many of our present group who are now either approaching or in pensionable age, where some of us have been objec�ng over the last two decades. 6. Where even more so, again if this is a relevant point?? All of the objectors, past and present are obviously all Council Taxpayers, who because we choose to live in Lochwinnoch, we pay our Council tax to Renfrewshire Council as the Local Authority. So, with all due respect, as you now live in Glasgow, thereby paying your Council Tax to the Glasgow authority, even more so why should the Renfrewshire Review Panel find in your favour, nullifying the wishes of all of these taxpayers, past and present over 20+ years. This last inquiry might seem a very cheeky, very imper�nent ques�on, where we are most definitely not trying to place undue pressure on the Review Panel, where we expect their decisions will be fully impar�al, but also meanwhile very fair in their judgement. So all these ques�ons are directed solely at the applicants, where we are interested to hear what their responses are in rela�on to all of the above ques�ons, again in addi�on to any other ques�ons we have asked the applicants throughout this paper, including the last one regarding council taxes. Moving on from these possible mooted points, we would also like to ask further ques�ons concerning this Review / Appeal. Considering the level of objec�ons from the community over many years, including the present one, and the fact that the Tree Condi�on Survey Report is now out-of-date, albeit by only 6 months from May this year; Under the Review procedure part of the appeal, the LRB have accepted your sugges�ons that you as the applicants feel “is most appropriate for the handling of your Review”.
Page 307
16 So why have you as the applicants only asked for an Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure?? Where also, you have made no statement in support of your Review for op�ons 1 or 2, or even asked for a further Site Inspec�on. Albeit the last Site Inspec�on was done only 9 months ago by Mr Weir. If you as the applicants, feel that you have such a strong case by going to appeal on the Refusal, would a possible combina�on of procedures, as noted on the No�ce of Review document, of Further writen submissions, another Site Inspec�on, and said Assessment of review documents not have been more appropriate to your case for that appeal?? Surely you, as the applicants want to make your case as strong as possible by exploring all possible avenues to further your case, in asking the Review panel to overturn our objec�ons in favour of your appeal?? Or in an alterna�ve scenario; As the applicants, you are very aware, that you actually have quite a weak case in only asking for an Assessment of review documents with no further procedure. Where you may have been, and we emphasis ‘may have been’, advised by your Consultants that if you wish to go for a Review, this is the best / only op�on, that this is the minimum threshold for a Review, where the Review panel have no op�on but to agree to this ‘paper’ Review at its lowest level under appropriate legisla�on, to ensure that they, the Council are adhering to that legisla�on to ensure that you have been fairly treated within the legal guidelines under planning law. So as we con�nue to ask, we are curious as to what replies to our queries you may give us on all of the above noted ques�ons, under this sec�on of our papers to your appeal?? Where, as we believe you do have a (fairly / very), weak case for appeal, we will outline in the next sec�on of our Representa�ons / Objec�ons, the importance of the condi�ons of the trees, as the main grounds of Refusal by the planning department, where as far as we can see as the interested par�es / objectors who all live in Lochwinnoch, the ground and surrounding growths, and more so the trees on which the grounds are sited, where there is an ‘interdependent rela�onship’ between the two, where the trees are obviously wholly dependent on these grounds, which need to be kept in decent condi�on for the good maintenance and management of the trees, as the main aspects of this woodland area. 7. Representa�ons / Objec�ons to the Planning Appeal Statement. Our representa�ons / objec�ons to the original planning applica�on could be split roughly into 3 areas, i.e., 1. Circumstances affec�ng the site itself, including the presence of the trees, wildlife that live on the grounds, birds that use this environment for feeding, nes�ng, hatching, etc, and various other aspects of a semi-urban woodland site like the one next to Auld Simon. 2. Auld Simon itself, or to give it its original name St John’s Kirk, or the Kirk of St John which was dedicated to Saint John, where the name Johnshill comes from, or St Winnock’s Church within the
Page 308
17 Church of Scotland, dated from 1727-1729, all of which depends on different sites that we at looked at online. The obvious historical significance of the church as the oldest building in the village. Where the bell is an original from 1729 and the clock was added in about 1731. 3. How the development of this property could affect the surrounding exis�ng proper�es, in various ways, of the close-by neighbours. Where we by now all know, the grounds of Refusal were mainly based on the 1st two types of objec�ons, where the trees were all Points 1-5, with Refusal including Auld Simon at Point 4. So our objec�ons were upheld on Points 1 and 2 as noted above, by the planning department, apart from the 3rd category which doesn’t seem to have been included in the Refusal. So the grounds for our original objec�ons and the grounds for the Refusal were both very similar, albeit the Refusal largely quoted points of legisla�on which we expected it to do, as obviously planning officials are beter versed in this type of law making, as opposed to the interested par�es / objectors, who are mainly concerned lay-persons who value the ‘gardens’ for its intrinsic, environmental, and natural values to and for our small community in Lochwinnoch. Which in the main part, is fine by us as the interested par�es / objectors, where a Refusal is a Refusal, on whatever grounds that may be decided on by planning staff?? Where we as the interested par�es / objectors obviously hope that these points of the Refusal will also be adequate to maintain this original decision by the planning department, for this present decision in 2023, which also seems similar to all previous Refusals over the long-term objec�on period. Where the condi�ons of the trees are important to all par�es concerned in this process, whether from an interested party / objector’s, applicant’s or officials point of view. From the Tree Survey Report outlining the most professional opinion on the recent condi�ons of the site, (May 2022), in contrast to the Appeal Applica�on Supplementary (proposed) Plan�ng Plan, and the detailed Planning Appeal Statement, it is obvious that in these parts of your appeal, you have gone into some detail in support of that appeal. In direct contrast to the exis�ng state of the of both the ground that is covered in masses of ivy, with that same ivy growing up many of the trees, to at least average head height. On a personal visit of the site on Wednesday on the 13th of December 2023 / the week of 1st submissions, I (Eric) walked around the iron fence and take a walk on the grounds, which I did at some risk, where I o�en found it difficult to keep my foo�ng, due to the undula�ng ground, which is very uneven across the whole site, which could only be a hinderance for property development, adversely affec�ng the substan�al tree root systems from the various large trees with their founda�ons underneath these hilly grounds. I am 5 � 5-6 inches in height, on tree trunks with ivy, it is well above my head height. Where quite frankly, in all objec�ve, impar�al honesty the plot is in a seriously overgrown condi�on, which is easily visible even from some distance away, and when driving past the site in the car. (Eric: Where I chose to take some videos of the site for my own personal reference).
Page 309
18 (Note from Eric: For all par�es reading this paper, we have chosen not to include these photographs, which were taken my own phone, as we plan to include them in further representa�ons / objec�ons and as part of a much wider photographic por�olio as an ongoing record of the physical condi�ons that exist at the site.) Regarding the present condi�ons on the site, and your plans for the maintenance of the exis�ng trees, as well as new plan�ng on the site, strong contradic�ons of a paradoxical nature seem to exist on the site. Where on the one hand, you claim / imply that you will sensi�vely care for and manage the exis�ng tree outline, presumably pruning back and ge�ng rid of lots of undergrowth, from both across the ground and well up beyond ground level. Also and obviously to do the same regarding the ivy and other overgrown material up all the trucks of the surviving trees within the boundaries of the plot. Yet on the other hand, the remaining trees are s�ll all in a seriously overgrown state, where the ivy is s�ll heavily present, even during the winter months where the ivy and undergrowth has reduced, but only because of the colder weather condi�ons coming up to the winter months within the next 9 days at the Winter Equinox, on the 22nd of December for this year. Where obviously all of this growth that is presently dormant, will return again in the spring and summer months next year and beyond, probably in a worse state that it has been in previous years, as without proper care and management, all this growth is cumula�ve, especially over long periods of �me. Which is nothing to say of the 4 trees that had to be cut down this last summer due to the fact that they were heavily diseased, again per the Tree Survey Report. So very frankly, which is it?? Is it care and maintenance of exis�ng woodland, with new growth and plan�ng?? But only if your appeal is successful?? Or Is it allowing the plot to become more overgrow, requiring more trees to be felled, etc, etc?? If your appeal is refused?? As witnessed by the lack of care for the plot, by yourselves as the Legal Title Owners over the last 20 odd years. Where in fact, as the facts seem abundantly obvious, the trees have actually been your greatest hinderance to building any kind of property on this plot of woodland over all these years. We contend as the interested par�es / objectors, that in fact your lack of care and maintenance of the site has been a very deliberate part of a very long-term plan to build a house on this site?? By knowing and hoping that with the lack of your care of the site, the trees would eventually through �me become diseased, ul�mately requiring felling, thereby allowing you to build some kind of property on the site through extra space being created??
Page 310
19 Where obviously, if the trees come down through said felling, the greater your chances, as the only applicants over 20 years as the only Legal Title Holders. Furthermore, as the owners of the plot, no one else in Lochwinnoch is going to do anything about �dying up the site, where that is your preroga�ve / responsibility and no one else’s. Where all this is witnessed by the fact, that your latest original Planning Applica�on that was submited in May this year a�er, and I quote; “Due to a major change on the site condi�ons, following previous objec�ons in 2015, we met Planning Officer James Weir on site.” “A�er his email of 13.03.23, we came to the conclusion that a fresh applica�on with a new approach could be considered favourably.” So for the HCG and the Review Panel, we ask you to note; The 2 points to note here are; 1. “A major change on the site condi�ons.” 2. “A new approach could be considered favourably.” On Point 1 that yet again we wish to state that these changes had occurred due to lack of care, maintenance, and management of the trees on the site in the long term 20-year period, resul�ng in Point 2, where “a new approach could be considered favourably.” Where this new approach consists of a smaller property, in the form of a small bungalow type cotage, as opposed to the 2-storey house, with up and down stairs, that the applicants thought would pass due to the similar type of brickwork to Auld Simon. Which we s�ll find , as o� stated before, highly objec�onal. 8. Our Conclusion of the Planning Appeal Statement. As our supposi�ons to the Planning Appeal Statement are largely contained in the previous sec�on, the conclusions to us seem very obvious. This situa�on is a ‘Catch 22’ situa�on for both the Applicants and us as the Objectors. As the applicants have never been able to build on the plot, i.e., ‘dead land’ as we have previously men�oned, they have never really been interested in caring for the site as it should be and could be cared for. Even more so now in the present as they presently now live up in Glasgow, with it obviously being further to travel to, as opposed to walking up the street from their previous home in the village. They have only ever been interested in the site if / when they could build a property on it, contradic�ng and overturning the wishes of a long history of objectors within Lochwinnoch, where if they had tried approaching some of the neighbours in the local vicinity of 2 Johnshill, they might have met with slightly more success. Which having spoken to most of the neighbours in the surrounding area, some of whom are elderly long-term residents, we very firmly believe would not have made the slightest bit of difference.
Page 311
20 As far as we are aware this never actually previously happened, again as some of the residents in this area have lived in their homes since before the Johnstons put in their 1st Planning Applica�on in the early Millenium. Where we wish to make it absolutely clear, we do not wish to slander Mr and Mrs Johnston, but we no longer wish to see the plot le� it it’s present state of extremely un�dy, disrepair, when we feel very strongly that it could be put to much beter use. As the local community we have never been able to maintain the site either, which on reflec�on could be described as short sighted on our part, but again in a contradictory manner, it has been suggested that some locals did try to briefly maintain the site, but ironically enough, it has been suggested that the applicants also objected to this work being carried out by concerned local residents, who were upset and concerned about the state of the site a number of years ago. So to the Million Dollar Ques�on?? To try and resolve the Catch 22 Situa�on that both the applicants and we as the community of Lochwinnoch find ourselves in?? 9. Our Own Proposals for the Site at 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch. So to move on to further our own proposals for ‘Our Gardens’. As an Elder and Worship leader in the Church of Scotland, I Praise and Thank the Good Lord that the staff and elected officials of Renfrewshire Council have seen fit to reject the applicants’ proposals for the site over a long period of �me, thereby leaving the possibili�es of our community being able to develop the plot in a careful, considerate, sensi�ve manner that is in keeping with Renfrewshire Council’s Environmental and Sustainable programmes. In a manner that is similar to the proposals / ideas for the Lochwinnoch Community Development Trust, (LCDT), site at Lochhead Gardens, which we as a group of volunteers / amateur gardeners would bring “S’s and Auld Simon’s Garden’s” to a state of a beau�ful, blossoming Woodland Garden. Where, especially with the guidance of S, who loves the ground, in case the LRB Review Panel need reminding of this point?? Where if possible we would also approach Renfrewshire Council to ask about a Community Asset Transfer, (CAT) as we may have men�oned in other previous parts of our Representa�ons, again in a similar manner to the way the LCDT have sought one for Lochhead Gardens. NB: Where we as the interested par�es / objectors have privately discussed this idea of a CAT, I (Eric) casually and briefly spoke to one of the local Councillors for the first �me ever on this issue, on the a�ernoon of Wednesday 13th of December 2023 regarding this idea, who certainly didn’t poo-poo me on it, and who seemed to consider it a reasonable op�on, for a site of council owned land that has lain unused for a long �me, similar to the Lochhead Gardens site. As a group of concerned locals or ‘redevelopment interested par�es’, if we were able to get a CAT from RC for this part of the woodland area, it would obviously and drama�cally increase the size of the area for said redevelopment as the woodland garden. Where we would even consider making enquiries about the plot of land across from the applica�on site, the lane known as ‘Skipper’s Path going down to Gates Road, at the le� side of Skipper’s Path, where the lane as a Public Right of Way that runs from East End to Gates Road.
Page 312
21 This area of land has, like other plots of land in this area of the Lochwinnoch has remained unused for many years in a very overgrown state of ground growth, shrubbery, and trees, which is also very unsightly to the local residents. Like the applica�on site, it could also be described as ‘dead land’. The ‘Skipper’s Path Site’ is enclosed on 4 sides, with no legal vehicular access, where a number of developers have looked at it over a long number of years, and discounted it for any kind of property development, due to the lack of this access. Any of this, in part or whole, RC owned land or Skipper’s Path would obviously drama�cally increase the area of the ‘Woodland Gardens’, which would considerably widen the scope of ac�vi�es that we would be able to undertake within this woodland space. Where if we were given a CAT, we would seek the opinions of the owners of the garages on the council owned land, even if they are mainly run down. Where furthermore, these proposals seems to fit in with Sco�sh Government, (SG) Legisla�on of June 2018, with the; ‘Community right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land, (ANDL). Where we would explore the possibili�es of these proposals and form the necessary and relevant community bodies to allow these proposals to come to frui�on. If all these ideas came together, to bring all this land / these plots into community ownership this would be a huge undertaking for us as a community. Where, very, very importantly the present applica�on site, whilst not physically so, would be a very central and strategic part of these proposals to completely regenerate this whole area of the East End part of the village of Lochwinnoch. Where absolutely, none, none of this area could ever be considered or given up for any kind of property development. Where we would expect to have, if necessary, full Title Deeds drawn up, or some kind of Statement of Intent, where one of the precondi�ons to that �tle / Intent would be the express statement that all of this extended site would remain as ‘green land’ in perpetuity, for the permanent benefits, for both the present and future residents of Lochwinnoch. Where we would take into full considera�on on our part, as we are asking the LRB to do regarding this con�nued Refusal of this appeal, the thoughts and opinions of the surrounding neighbours and residents of the village, if necessary, e.g., by having public mee�ngs to highlight our proposals. As Papers of Further Objec�ons and Representa�ons to the LRB Review Panel were submited last night by email to Mr. Robert Devine as a Senior Official of RC, it is only this morning since these submissions last night that we have thought about these ideas a�er very brief but very hurried discussions on this, where we very importantly feel are central to our Further Representa�ons and Further Objec�ons to the LRB Panel Review at the end of next month. So in spite of / whilst these ideas / proposals have not formed a central plank of our original papers, within Mr Devine’s email sta�ng that any more Further Representa�ons / Objec�ons should be submited to the Head of Corporate Governance before 3.55pm tomorrow Friday 15th of December 2023 as the deadline for paper submissions, we now ask the HCG, the LRB, and the Review Panel of
Page 313
22 Elected Officials, or Elected Councillors to take note of these proposals before and during the LRB hearing on the 30th of January next year. By giving our proposals their full considera�on in rela�on to both the applica�on site, and the wider considera�ons / implica�ons that the Status Quo remains intact, where the decision of the Planning Department from the 8th of September 2023 be upheld by the LRB Review Panel, to allow us as the interested par�es and objectors to explore the future of our wide range of ideas to allow natural development of this area of the East End of Lochwinnoch. Without the detrimental effects of a new property, as proposed by the applicants si�ng within our own enlarged proposed woodland development site, where as we have stated on numerous occasions now during the length of these Papers, to once again ‘strike down’ the proposals by the applicants, which are completely at odds with our own natural development of the area, to the benefits of the complete and whole popula�on of Lochwinnoch and beyond into the wider community in Greater Glasgow, Renfrewshire and North Ayrshire, within Muirshiel Regional Park where this natural ‘woodland area’ or S’s & Auld Simon’s Woodland Garden would be completely open to all sec�ons of all communi�es, thereby hopefully increasing visitor numbers to Lochwinnoch, and Renfrewshire in general. Whereas we are sure, as the Staff / Elected Officials of RC all know, we get large numbers of visitors from across the, e.g., Greater Glasgow area, and from Kilmarnock in East Ayrshire, with School par�es on Castle Semple Loch, Less-Able-Bodied Children in wheelchairs, or more mobile Children / Teenagers with ‘Special Needs’, coming to Muirshiel Regional Park. (Excuse me / Eric as one of the authors and writers of this paper ge�ng a bit caught up in all these proposals / ideas.) In the mean�me, to return to the present issue; As I / Eric and My Wife hope / plan to live close by in the years to come, with my In-Laws presently reside in the vicinity and many of the objectors also living close to the site, it would be wonderful to be living nearby to these ‘gardens’, knowing that we had managed to save them from any form of development, and that hopefully, for many genera�ons to come, all sorts of people would get lots of pleasure and educa�onal benefits from having the ‘gardens’ in this part of Lochwinnoch, similar but different to Lochhead Gardens at the other end of the village. Where, it seems blindingly obvious to us as the interested par�es, some of the most important of these groups would be the local schoolchildren, mainly from Lochwinnoch Primary School, but also from other Primary and Secondary Schools in the area if they wished to come visit (either) site at Lochhead or S’s & Auld Simon’s Gardens’?? Where we personally envisage that our project may have somewhat wilder aspects to it’s development, to differen�ate it from Lochhead Gardens to teach, especially the children, different aspects of flora and fauna, teaching them about the trees, and hopefully / possibly small wild animals who take up residence in a slightly wilder garden site. Where the ideas and possibili�es seem endless, in this bigger ‘garden’ site if we able to get a CAT from RC, where to re-assure council officials and staff, we would wish to naturally develop that piece of land in a similar manner to the site at 2 Johnshill, where we would welcome site visita�ons from council staff to appraise them of our progress on the CAT site, and the whole site generally.
Page 314
23 10. Final Conclusion to this Paper for the LRB and the HCG, of Further Objec�ons and Representa�ons in rela�on to this Planning Appeal by the Applicant, Mr David Johnston. In asking for this No�ce of Review with the LRB, thereby highligh�ng the condi�ons that presently exist on the planning / applica�on site, many of our group felt that Mr And Mrs Johnston have actually done us, our group / our village / our community in Lochwinnoch an unforeseen, unintended, backhanded favour. By bringing to our aten�on, in the “full glaring light of day” to the condi�ons that presently exist on the site of S’s beloved ‘Woodland Garden’. If anyone on the Review Panel doubts what we are saying, then we would like to invite you down to Lochwinnoch for an anonymous visit to examine for yourself the condi�ons on this plot, one of the last plots of woodland in a fairly built-up area, within a rural village. Where it also seems that the site across from the oldest building in Lochwinnoch, and a Holy Place of Worship as the remains of an ancient church, is only / has only ever been any good to the applicants if they were going to be able to build a property on it. At this point in this Paper of Representa�ons / Objec�ons, we as the ‘interested par�es’ wish all other par�es to note that, in case it is in any doubt, that once again we object to any development on this site in the strongest possible terms. With no caveats or compromises on our part re any form of house building or development of any kind, however small or aesthe�c this may be. The site has been a natural woodland for nearly 170 years, can we just leave it that way Please, for the benefits of this community. In spite of the condi�ons that the applicants have le� the plot in, over many years, we also feel compassion for them, where we fully acknowledge, realise and understand that Mr and Mrs Johnston have also held this dream close to their hearts for many years. However, that does not compromise our inten�ons to bring this plot back into community ownership, where this seems to be a very black and white scenario, with very litle grey area in- between their proposals and ours. Where we feel that a�er 20 plus years of sustained upheld objec�ons, within the last 170 years, that the site / plot / gardens themselves have waited long enough for someone to take decent care of them, in a manner appropriate to the surrounding, natural, God / Holy-Spirit Protected Area, where “Thy Will Be Done”, Not my will, But Thy Will, as The Will of God that seems to have keeping them wai�ng for someone to look a�er them. With as we have now stated on numerous occasions, the obvious enduring support of Renfrewshire Council Local Authority. When the LRB Review Panel make a ruling on this Appeal at the end of next month, if the LRB upholds the decision of their Planning Department, we will obviously be very, very grateful. We do not wish to consider the other possibility at this point in �me. If the Appeal is again Refused like previous long-term decisions, Mr and Mrs Johnston obviously have a choice to make, both individually and together??
Page 315
24 If they choose to accept the decision of the Review Panel, then we will enter into nego�a�ons with them as soon as they are ready, to bring the Title Deeds back into Community Ownership. Where we would compromise as much as possible with them through appointed lawyers, short of any future development on the site. Even to the point of entering into financial talks with them regarding the site?? Where we would be prepared to wait an appropriate and discrete length of �me to let them catch their breath, so to speak. However should the applicants refuse to accept the ruling of the Appeal Body, we want them to understand, in no uncertain terms, that we will fight them absolutely every step of the way should they decide to appeal to any higher authority than the one they have already just had a ruling from. Where we in no way wish to look as if we are blackmailing the applicants into withdrawing their case, but we wish them to clearly understand what our inten�ons are for the future?? Where we very, very firmly believe even now, that whilst we are being very, very cau�ous and very, careful, we also believe that we have an excellent chance of winning our case with the Review Panel. Where we also believe, should it be necessary, that we can also win any future case to any higher authority if you should decide to go there?? But we’ll leave this decision up to you, obviously depending on the decision of the Review Panel. In the final part of this text we sincerely hope that we have presented a very strong case to the Review Panel to, once again reject and Refuse the Development Appeal by the applicants, in line with the decision by your associated Planning Department decision in September this year, and the Review Panel’s decision at the end of January 2024. We acknowledge that the applicants will respond to these Further Objec�ons and Representa�ons, and we await their responses to these Representa�ons. Where we will, once again, respond in a similar manner to the Applicants’ own Representa�ons. Considering how very long this Representa�ons Paper is, we wish to thank all everyone who has to read through this document. We as the Interested Par�es / Objectors do realise that this paper is a very, very long read in represen�ng our case, and in some parts the reader may find it a bit boring or losing the thread of our arguments. Or for where the paper, throughout its length is also very repe��ve. If this is the case for anyone, we would like to sincerely apologise. However we have tried to make our case as strong as we can possibly make it, hence the length of it, by going through all of documents provided by both the applicants and Renfrewshire Council and trying to address each of the sec�ons of these documents in very fine detail. Hoping that You all have a Lovely Christmas Regards and Best Wishes From (Eric the Auld Gasbag) and The Team for S’s & Auld Simon’s ‘Garden’s’
Page 316
25 References Other than three brief online references regarding Auld Simon and Sco�sh Government Legisla�on, nothing other than the paperwork / documents provided by the Planning Department, no other documents were used to reference any part of this Paper of Representa�ons. Therefore no Reference List is required in any form of an academic manner. Final Personal Notes: Should anyone wish to contact me for any reason, regarding any of the contents within this Paper of Objec�ons and Representa�ons?? My contact details are below, at the end of this paragraph. I also publicly wish to thank everyone who contributed towards this Paper of Further Objec�ons and Representa�ons, especially S for all the back and forward text messages, and M, for the ideas you gave me / us, and provided a bit of leadership, especially during our mee�ngs, but also generally. We were “lucky” that the right people appeared at the right �me. Where I just happened to be the one who had the �me to word process this very lengthy document, my apologies to everyone reading all this as it is rather repe��ve in some areas. It was a bit difficult at �mes to keep track of what I /we were trying to get down on paper from our discussions and texts, etc. I shall thank you all privately for your input, but for reasons of confiden�ality I don’t want to name any of you publicly. As you will all read this paper I am really pleased that we managed to get together so quickly to form this small group, where hopefully we will be able to enlarge the group further and gain more input from other people. Some of the brainstorming sessions were really good fun and a good laugh, that was the part that I personally enjoyed the most by mee�ng other people that I had never met before, especially with a common purpose in mind regarding this Review / Appeal No�ce. Auld windbag that I am, away I all hear you laughing, you’re not a windbag Eric, Ha! Ha! Ha! I could say more of course, but I’ll leave it there, as I really think I’ve said enough. So I hope you all have a lovely Christmas. Relax and enjoy yourselves a�er all this marathon 2 weeks. My contact details are; M: Email:
Page 317
26 HEAD OF CORPORATE GOVERANCE RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL FINANCE AND RESOURCES RENFREWSHIRE HOUSE PAISLEY PA1 1TR. REGARDING PLANNING APPLICATION 23/0179/PP BY MR DAVID JOHNSTONE. LOCAL REVIEW BOARD NOTICE OF REVIEW 30TH OF JANUARY 2024. PAPERS OF FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS AND OBJECTIONS IN RELATION TO THIS REVIEW. FROM THE (CONCERNED) RESIDENTS OF LOCHWINNOCH.
Page 318
No embedded text on this page.
Page 319
No embedded text on this page.
Page 320
No embedded text on this page.
Page 321
No embedded text on this page.
Page 322
No embedded text on this page.
Page 323
No embedded text on this page.
Page 324
No embedded text on this page.
Page 325
No embedded text on this page.
Page 326
No embedded text on this page.
Page 327
No embedded text on this page.
Page 328
No embedded text on this page.
Page 329
No embedded text on this page.
Page 330
No embedded text on this page.
Page 331
No embedded text on this page.
Page 332
No embedded text on this page.
Page 333
No embedded text on this page.
Page 334
No embedded text on this page.
Page 335
No embedded text on this page.
Page 336
No embedded text on this page.
Page 337
No embedded text on this page.
Page 338
No embedded text on this page.
Page 339
No embedded text on this page.
Page 340
No embedded text on this page.
Page 341
No embedded text on this page.
Page 342
No embedded text on this page.
Page 343
No embedded text on this page.
Page 344
No embedded text on this page.
Page 345
No embedded text on this page.
Page 346
No embedded text on this page.
Page 347
No embedded text on this page.
Page 348
No embedded text on this page.
Page 349
No embedded text on this page.
Page 350
No embedded text on this page.
Page 351
No embedded text on this page.
Page 352
No embedded text on this page.
Page 353
No embedded text on this page.
Page 354
No embedded text on this page.
Page 355
No embedded text on this page.
Page 356
No embedded text on this page.
Page 357
No embedded text on this page.
Page 358
No embedded text on this page.
Page 359
No embedded text on this page.
Page 360
No embedded text on this page.
Page 361
No embedded text on this page.
Page 362
No embedded text on this page.
Page 363
No embedded text on this page.
Page 364
No embedded text on this page.
Page 365
No embedded text on this page.
Page 366
No embedded text on this page.
Page 367
No embedded text on this page.
Page 368
No embedded text on this page.
Page 369
No embedded text on this page.
Page 370
No embedded text on this page.