The online system for submitting objections is now CLOSED, but if you want to have your say on the developments you can still post or email your objections to EDC, up until noon on the 22nd March. If there is any change to extend this time, we’ll update you here.
If you need help with your objection, see our Resources section where we have a template letter, and before you send your objection use the checklist in the How to Object section to ensure you’ve got all that is required.
On 24th February 2017, East Dunbartonshire Council had their ‘Local Development Plan’ approved which means we can hold them to keep the points they state as requirements for this site, namely:
(CALA’s plans are for a smaller site than in the local development plan, therefore it should be 95 homes for this site… not 136).
C. Enhance setting of the Forth and Clyde Canal and integration of the Wildlife Corridor and Green Network in to the design AND D. Trees within the northern part of the site should be retained and, where possible, enhanced as a buffer between the town and the wildlife corridor, in order to prevent fragmentation of important conservation habitats in the wider area.
(we argue that the Wildlife Corridor is not adequately provided for, with homes next to a narrow strip of the site for 1/3 of the length – see our Grounds for Objection document for more evidence of this).
F. Species survey prior to development to include otter, water vole, badger, bat and nesting birds, and appropriate mitigation plans produced as required.
(there has been no species survey for otters or water voles, and while badgers and bats have been identified as present on the site there is no apparent mitigation for these in the plans submitted).
G. Any development which increases traffic and activity across the bridge should account for its use by wildlife, especially badgers.
(we have not identified any mitigation for the increased traffic that a development of 136 homes with 430 bedrooms would bring; plus flaws have been identified in the stats upon which the Traffic Plan will be based, again, see our Grounds for Objection document for more).
H. The design of any development should take account of the canal, its setting and species and habitat connectivity, through a well-designed low density development and enhancing tree belts along the northern border to reduce the impact of any development while retaining the importance of the site for species and habitat connectivity.
(a development that includes 3- and 4-storey housing will have a negative impact on the setting of the canal; and the development is NOT low density, for example the number of homes for the ‘former cadder sewage works’ should be 35, in CALA’s plans there are 59 homes, an increase of over 65%).
I. Evaluate and mitigate potential contamination, in particular pollution to watercourses.
(there is concern that pile-driving could cause potential problems with pollution, not to mention a car-park and 3-storey building built in the vicinity of a known mine shaft).
K. Unless there is a clear excess in outdoor sports facility provision in the area (as justified in the Pitches Strategy and accepted by sportscotland) then replacement outdoor sports facilities or satisfactory off-site contributions will be required
(we argue that the children’s playground is not a suitable replacement outdoor sports facility: and any replacement facility should be FREE given that local football pitches are £30 per hour).
In addition to the Local Development Plan, the council also has to adhere to a number of other policies, eg. ‘Design and Placemarking,’ which says: ‘New development should normally reflect dominant building styles in the surrounding area and the scale and density of the development should be compatible with the established character locally.’
(we would argue that 3- and 4-storey blocks of flats, and 25 3-storey townhouses, are quite evidently out of character for this area, which is next to the canal, the busy towpath used by residents and visitors for their enjoyment, and next to green fields).
All the above points, and more, are detailed in the Grounds for Objection document.