Anger over North Lanarkshire Council's Wishaw land deal

Feb 3 2010 by Graham Miller, Wishaw Press

A COUNCIL proposal to build 1500 houses on a green belt site in Wishaw has been met with fierce opposition from a residents’ group.

Members of the Overtown & Waterloo Community Forum have this week written to all North Lanarkshire’s 70 councillors detailing their many objections to the proposed development which is due to be decided upon later this month.

The area in question is the land behind Dimsdale and Waterloo heading down towards Overtown and includes the council-owned Pather Farm site.

A recent mineral stability report seen by the Wishaw Press states that the proposed development area is riddled with mine shafts. To stabilise these for just the northern part of the site alone would cost an astonishing £15million.

Among the multiple complaints detailed in the letter, the members of the forum claim that the hard-up local authority are desperate to sell the Pather Farm site in an attempt to raise some much-needed revenue.

They point out that the Pather Farm site was “temporarily removed from its green belt protection” to “sway the selection process” prior to the site being chosen for development.

The forum claim that, as recently as last month, North Lanarkshire Council (NLC) confirmed the area’s green belt status.They say NLC has “conveniently contradicted its own rules as the entire proposed area is green belt and environmentally sensitive”.

Another issue the forum’s letter highlights is that NLC have repeatedly used the generic term ‘South Wishaw’, which they claim is a deliberately vague reference to the locus. They state that by omitting place names like Overtown, Waterloo, Dimsdale and Pather, people were less likely to be aware of the proposal and less likely to raise objections.

Consequently, the group also feel the council have failed to “engage” with the residents and make a “serious attempt” to inform them of the plans. Only one person turned up at a consultation meeting in Overtown.

The forum insist this is down to NLC’s planning department’s communication strategy and point out over 100 residents objected within days of learning of the proposals for the first time.

Overtown and Waterloo Community Forum have also claimed the council unfairly “reclassified objectors as petitioners” which means over 100 people who signed a statement objecting to the proposal will be denied the right to make further comment in support of the formal objections.

Another concern outlined in the letter is that “NLC have entered into a contract with a prominent architect’s company to take the process of developing Pather farm forward”. The company – Anderson, Christie and Bell – are openly advertising the contract on a website.

The group state that this would indicate the council have entered into a contract before the planning process has been completed and approved – thus “confirming they are predetermined to dispose of Pather Farm for an enhanced price”.

The letter concludes that “should the proposals go ahead it will be seen as confirmation the choice of site was manipulated to maximise the benefit to NLC ... and it is evident where Pather Farm is concerned, a fair and democratic process does not apply”.

Wishaw councillor John Taggart said: “This area is totally unsuitable for development. The extreme costs associated with stabilising the land before even a foundation is laid should be enough to make it financially unviable.

“The premature introduction of a development firm is yet another example of the council jumping the gun in an attempt to force through proposals.

“The strength of opposition to this plan is such that, if it does go ahead, it could result in serious repercussions for elected members of the community when people come to cast their votes.”

David Jones, local plans team leader at NLC, said: “The land associated with the South Wishaw Community Growth Area is green belt in the adopted Southern Area Local Plan.

“This factor was considered when we were seeking appropriate areas for development. At no point has the status been changed.”

In response to the claim of using ambiguous terms, Mr Jones said: “The area in question has been thoroughly detailed in the consultation document and is clearly shown on accompanying maps. The term ‘South Wishaw’ is from the approved structure plan and is used to encapsulate the location in which the council want to promote community growth. North Lanarkshire Local Plan, which incorporates proposals for community growth areas, has been extensively consulted on and widely publicised. Anyone wishing to see the plans relating to their area can find them on our website or request copies from their local planning office.”

Explaining the introduction of an external development agency, Mr Jones stated: “The development company are helping the council prepare proposals for the suggested areas. The proposed sites will be considered as part of the local plan examination process, which is conducted and administered by the Scottish Government’s Directorate of Environmental and Planning Appeals. Specific site development proposals will only be taken further if the sites are confirmed. Such proposals will be subject to the usual planning process.”