Supporting documents - Renfrewshire Council

Knockhill Park 

Pre-Planning Application 

Community Consultation Report 

On Behalf of 

Renfrewshire Council 

Environmental Services 

Regeneration Solutions (UK) Ltd Tel 07747 447756 

59 Craw Rd Email: ronnie.saez@sky.com 

Paisley 

PA2 6AE

Knockhill Park Pre-Planning Application Consultation Report 

Content 

1. Introduction 

2. Previous Consultations 

3. Background to the Pre-Planning Application Community Consultation 

4. Public Exhibition Event 

5. Renfrewshire Council residents meeting 

6. Comments submitted by e-mail 

7. Comments submitted by mail 

8. Appendices 

Regeneration Solutions (UK) Ltd 

2


1. Introduction 

1.1 This Pre-Planning Application Community Consultation Report has been prepared in support of a 

full planning application for the proposed upgrade of the recreational park at Knockhill Park, 

Knockhill Road, Renfrew. This will include the formation of sports pitch and associated changing 

facilities building, children's play areas, exercise areas, hard and soft landscaping and formation of 

public events area. In keeping with the TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 Notice under regulations 7 (2) (b) 

1.2 This report will provide an overview of the public exhibition event held at The Cherrie Centre, 5 

Birch Place, Renfrew PA4 8FD from 10 am till 4 pm on Saturday 5th May 2012. 

1.3 This report will provide an overview of the meeting between Renfrewshire Council and residents 

of the Stuart Ave, Marjory Rd and Birmingham Rd held at the Glynhill Hotel at 7.30 till 9.15pm on 

Monday the 21 st May 2012 

1.4 This report will also provide an overview of any written comments (either by mail or e-mail) 

submitted to Renfrewshire Council, Department of Environmental Services 

2. Previous Consultations 

2.1 During the summer of 2010, a programme of community consultation was undertaken by CEiS 

(Community Enterprise in Strathclyde) and RCVS (Renfrewshire Council for Voluntary Service) across 

the Renfrew West area to explore the development opportunities for which the Our Place 

Programme could be utilised. This consultation exercise identified Knockhill Park as an ‘area of 

opportunity’ and this was expressed in the Community’s Vision Statement 

As a result of the priorities identified by the community, Knockhill Park was selected to make a Stage 

One application to the Our Place Programme. This application was in respect of a capital project 

which aims to contribute to the regeneration of Knockhill Park – including upgrading of children’s 

play equipment, football pitch and installation of a jogging path. This project fitted with the 

Community Vision by providing: 

• Improved local facilities and amenities. 

• Activities for children and young people. 

• Activities for families. 

• Improved Community Health. 


3


• Improved Local Environment. 

Further to the submitted stage one application the Scotland Committee of the Big Lottery Fund 

invited the steering group to submit a stage two application. To facilitate this stage two application 

the committee also awarded the applicant development grant funding in respect of costs relating 

to architectural fees; drainage impact assessment; project management; business planning; 

contingency; and consultation events with the wider community. 

2.2 During February and March 2012 Regeneration Solutions (UK) Ltd where appointed to work with 

the management of the Cherrie Centre to investigate the need within the wider Renfrew community 

for the redevelopment of Knockhill Park and to identify the type of activities and amenities people 

would like to see delivered within an upgraded park facility. 

The consultation exercise targeted a range of public spaces, projects and public service delivery 

locations across the wider Renfrew area in order to elicit as wide ranging a response as possible both 

in terms of geography and population demographics. These included services in relation to health, 

education, leisure and sporting activity as well as community and childcare facilities. During the 

consultation period, survey work was undertaken across seven venues in the Renfrew area with 300 

people having been interviewed and completing a questionnaire. These venues were chosen to 

attract the widest cross section of the local communities as possible and to include individuals who 

are not currently part of any organised groups, as well as those who are. 

The venues referred to above were: 

• Renfrew Library 

• Renfrew Health Centre 

• Renfrew Leisure Centre 

• Local Community Facilities 

• The Cherrie Centre and Football Clubs 

• Renfrew High School 

• Trinity High School 

In addition an event which involved residents taking part in a more detailed prioritisation exercise 

undertaken at an open day within the Cherrie Centre on Saturday 10 th March from 11am till 2pm. 

The completed report on these consultation events are attached as Appendix 1 

3. Background to The Pre-Planning Application Community Consultation 


4


As the proposed development is classified as a Major Development, a period of pre-planning 

application consultation was required prior to the submission of a full planning application to 

Renfrewshire Council. This period of consultation was considered an opportunity not only to inform 

the community of the proposed development as part of the statutory duty but also to update the 

community and local businesses on the work of the Knockhill Park steering group. 

3.1 The exhibition was advertised in the Paisley & Renfrewshire Gazette prior to the exhibition. A 

copy of the advert text is at Appendix 2. 

3.2 A Letters was sent to Renfrew Community Council enclosing the Proposal of Application notice 

and inviting members to the public exhibition. 

3.3 Further an email was sent to various public buildings to help advertise the event, Appendix 3. 

This was followed up by a visit from the consultants to ensure Posters were on display. These 

buildings included; 

• Renfrew Library 

• Renfrew Health Centre 

• Renfrew High School 

• Trinity High School 

• Renfrew Sports Centre. 

3.4 Additionally Posters were displayed, Appendix 4, in several local shops and community facilities 

• Top Cut Hairdressers 

• Lifestyle Express 

• Moorpark Post Office 

• Shopsmart Porterfield Road 

• The Cherrie Centre 

• The McMaster Centre 

4. Public Exhibition Event 

The exhibition was held in The Cherrie Centre, 5 Birch Place, Renfrew PA4 8FD from 10 am till 4 pm 

on Saturday 5th May 2012. The venue was chosen due to its close proximity to the application site 

and its capacity for accommodating visitors. 


5


4.1 Consultants along with members of the Friends of Knockhill Park where in attendance to help 

attendees to answer the public on any aspect of the proposed development. 

4.2 Various presentation boards were displayed around the room allowing people to view the 

proposal before being invited to ask questions or making comments. 

4.3 Attendees were invited to make comment on the plans and several methods for recording 

comments were made available at a “Have Your say Area” this included a talking wall, post-its and 

consultants to write the comments down. 

4.4 Below are several images from the day; 

a) Play Equipment b) The Hub Building c) Overall Plan 


6


d) Talking to the e) Attendees discussing f) Councillor McEwan 

Community Councillor the development looking at the Plans 

4.4 A Total of 41 people attended the event. Appendix 5. A breakdown of the statistical information 

shows; 

Fig 1 Age Group 


7


Fig 2 Area/Street Name 

Fig 3 Post Code 


8


Fig 4 Gender 

4.5 General comments 

How will the park be sustained and will there be ongoing support for the Group to get further 

funding and general support. It was felt that this support should be independent, to help encourage 

people to get involved. 

This is an excellent opportunity to change the area but that might also mean changing the name. 

More independent consultation on area plans 

The following are comments from a Mrs Burns Marjory Road 

Mrs Burns had no issue with some of the plans and that she did feel the area was underused. She 

felt that the Football, youth area and the dog area where a good idea. 

Her concerns where around the Events Area and the toddlers play area. She felt youths will gather in 

this area and as has happened in the past this will result in anti social behaviour, alcohol being drunk 

and vandalism. With the potential of making the toddlers area unusable. 

Mrs Burns was keen to highlight that this is based on previous experience; 

- Her garden fence has been vandalised 

- The area has lots of broken glass 

- Youths hide bottles in the garden hedges 

- When Police do come the area at Bruce Road is a blind spot 


9


- The main issue is around the substation, even with people camping out all night 

- It can be very noisy with youths congregating at the substation , with foul and 

abusive language and urinating against the fences. 

- Childs bedroom window overlooks the park and people have couples have been 

having sex at the substation 

- on the few occasions that they have tried to use the park for walking or the play 

area we have been abused by drunken youths 

Mrs Burns did offer solutions to some of this as she was not totally opposed to the plans; 

- At present the council houses have a large fence as a boundary- this could be extended to 

the houses at Marjory Road, with shrubbery acting as a boundary garden. 

- Security, lights, cameras, wardens, police and volunteers will be needed 

- Move the events area away from the toddlers play area 

- Move the events area further away from the houses 

The final issue was to do with Traffic; 

- Would 15 places be enough? 

- There were already issues to do with cars speeding in the area. Marjory Road and Stewart 

Street are used as a “rat run” to avoid traffic lights. With increased footfall to access the park 

this could be a real issue to pedestrians. 

Marjory Road resident 

No Objections, good idea. It needs to be properly controlled and not abused, security main concern, 

more shrubbery and fence between park and back gardens in Marjory Rd. Lights and camera and 

more police. Already concerns about cars already using Marjory Rd as a shortcut. 

Ross Rd Resident 

Need for locked gates to stop youths hanging around at night. How will this be maintained, once you 

get the money for the park what then? Who runs it and pays for it? 

Stewart Avenue Resident 

Traffic calming needed, Have closing gates at night, Bins that can’t be set on fire, Security cameras, 

and park wardens. 



10


More trees, flowers and plants to attract wildlife, birds and butterflies 

Stewart Avenue Resident 

Wardens need in the park 

Ross Rd Resident 

Seating and events area needs to be moved away from housing 


Impressed with plans, it’s a real park! Security will be an issue, did anyone consider an area for other 

sports not just football i.e. Tennis. There is an issue with youths fighting and they can be really noisy 

will there be locked gates like other parks. 

Comments on the “Have Your Say” area 

o Fitness trail marked with distance as you go round 

o A very good proposal 

o Who will be in charge of the Park and how will it be paid for in the future 

o Maintenance and fence- keep out anti social element 

o Dog exercise area needed not an agility area 

o WICKED!!! Great Idea Looking forward to it being made !! xx 

o I like the dog area idea 

o I think it would really benefit the area. More people increases security in the park 

o Don’t really think a dog agility area is needed 

o Not keen on extensive development 

o Very positive 

o Does it need a hub building, the Cherrie Centre is nearby 

o Already a maintenance issue, grass cuttings not getting collected, dangerous when wet, who 

would be responsible for new park. 

o Investment would be better spent on upgrading Robertson Park which has deteriorated to 

such a degree it is hardly used. 

o Security cameras and lighting needed 

o Will there be enough money to pay for it all 


11


o This is a change of mindset, people only see what is there and concentrate on past issues. 

Change the name. Get different people involved....to clique 

o Dog area is a good idea. 

o What about the resident’s gates into the park, will they still be there? 

o Really positive plans 

o All for it. Do something to encourage children to get out and play 

o Is there going to be locked gates 

o Love the idea of the Park although there is no need for central performance area 

4.6 Two of the Renfrew Community Councillors Effie McGachie and Gordon Burges attended the 

event and took part in an interview with one of the consultants 

This is a transcribe of the interview (confirmed as accurate by email 9 th May 2012 by Gordon Burges) 

It was felt that overall this was good idea and an positive opportunity 

There where issues’ relating to past negative history of the Park and it was suggested that a new 

name be given that has less geographical significance and one that would relate to the wider 

community in Renfrew. “A new name a new beginning”. There could be a competition for all the 

schools to rename the park. 

There were several issue/concerns; 

• This event should have been held in a more neutral venue to encourage others to attend. 

The library was suggested. 

• Ownership of the Park needs to be encouraged in the wider Renfrew area. The Park group 

has only 3 members at the moment this needs to be extended. The Community Council can 

be used as a support through their previous experience, history and objectiveness. 

• Football area 

- Who would take the bookings? 

- Who would set the charges? 

- Where would the money go? 

- Would this come through the Cherrie Centre or Friends of Knockhill Park or the 

council? 

• General park Hub Building 

Would there be a caretaker/janitor? 


12


- Who would pay insurances and maintenance for both the building and the park 

- What about maintenance of ground and shrubbery, who’s responsible, who’s 

paying, where is the money coming from. 

- Where would the funding come for this 

- 15 Parking spaces would this be enough? 

- There would need to be lots of bins? 

- Refuse collection- has an environmental method been looked at i.e. centralisation of 

waste collection through a vacuum system? 

- Security Cameras and increased lighting? 

- No graffiti wall; detracts from the look of the area and only encourages further 

graffiti. 

5. Renfrewshire Council residents meeting 

The following is an account of the meeting between Renfrewshire Council and residents of the Stuart 

Ave, Marjory Rd and Birmingham Rd held at the Glynhill Hotel at 7.30 till 9.15pm on Monday the 21 st 

May 2012. 

5.1 Over 50 residents from the above area in attendance, and was chaired by chair of the local 

Community Council. Renfrewshire Council was represented by Councillors Edward Grady and 

Margaret Devine. 

5.2 The format of proceedings was an initial presentation of the draft proposals and then a question 

and answer session with attendees. The meeting was very eventful with a high level contribution 

from local residents and closed at 9.15pm. 

5.3 Residents were keen to have the proposals explained in greater detail and took the opportunity 

to seek further clarification of the proposals as they considered that the planned development 

would have a significant impact upon their local environment and potentially their quality of life. 

5.4 Residents raised serious concerns regarding the lack of consultation to date on the park 

development proposals with the majority of attendees claiming that they had never heard of the 

proposals until the awareness raising efforts recently undertaken by a few of the residents, which 

had resulted in this meeting being arranged. The Lead Consultant from Regeneration Solutions 

(UK)Ltd explained The details of the depth of the community consultation exercise carried out to 

date which was undertaken at various locations within Renfrew which had resulted in the return of 

over 300 completed survey questionnaires, as well the provision of 2 well attended 

consultation/exhibition events.. 

5.5 Residents were of the view that as they lived closest to the park and therefore that they would 

be most affected by the proposals, that each resident should have should have been consulted 

individually to ascertain their views. It was also explained that an exercise of this type was not 

fundable within resource limits. 


13


5.6 The residents divided into 2 groups the first, which was the smaller group probably accounting 

for 10 to 15 residents, did not wish to see any proposed regeneration of Knockhill Park. This group of 

people reasoned that as the Park had a long history of attracting groups who indulged in anti social 

behaviour, that any increase in usage would lead to an increase in the incidence of anti social 

behaviour with an associated reduction in the quality of life of local residents. It was discussed that 

the proposals would markedly improve both the facilities and usage of park by people of different 

age groups, and hence there would be greater vigilance by user groups and this would assist in 

reducing the level of and opportunities for anti social behaviour. This contention was not accepted 

by the group. 

5.7 The remainder of the residents were of the opinion that they could see some merit in the 

regeneration proposals but unless there were robust management proposals developed to ensure 

that the regenerated park was adequately protected and maintained and measures were taken to 

minimise the opportunities for anti social behaviour, then they could not support the proposals. I 

The group were informed that the Council, the Police and the steering group were currently 

considering management arrangements as detailed proposals were required to be submitted as part 

of the Stage 2 Lottery Application. However the group reiterated that they would not support the 

proposals until they were given details of the planned management arrangements. 

5.8 The ownership of the land comprising Knockhill Park. Several residents were of the view that 

when land was donated to ‘the people of Renfrew’ it was done with restrictions and therefore the 

Council would be breach of these restrictions by undertaking such a significant project within the 

park. It was explained that this matter would be referred to the Council’s Legal Team for 

clarification. 

5.9 Several residents expressed concern regarding the increased traffic on the streets surrounding 

the park caused by the increased usage that the regeneration programme would bring. They raised 

such issues as the need to install traffic calming measures and introduce parking restrictions to 

protect their local environment. It was discussed that the Council would probably instruct a survey 

of the area by their roads staff as an element of the ongoing development of the project. 

5.10 Several residents expressed concerns regarding some of the proposed activities and facilities 

planned for the park. Some residents were concerned about the proposed 7 a side football park 

which is currently to be sited 20 yards away from domestic dwellings, and they were concerned 

regarding the resultant potential for noise and bad language. Other residents raised concerns 

regarding the planned performance area as the seating to be used for young people to congregate 

with the resultant potential for anti social behaviour. 

5.11 Several residents expressed a concern over the incidence of criminal behaviour currently taking 

place in the park, mainly fire raising and drug dealing, and remarked that an increase in usage, 

particularly by young people, would result in an increase in these activities. It was remarked that this 

was a matter which could be directed to police and community safety staff. 

5.12 Residents enquired into the role and composition of the project steering group and several 

residents requested that membership be extended to include a representative of the residents of 

the area immediately surrounding Knockhill Park 


14


5.13 The final 20 minutes of the meeting comprised of a discussion and further questions to the 

Councillors and consultant in attendance. The Councillors then having listened to concerns of the 

local residents took view that there been ‘a breakdown in communications’ between this group of 

residents and Renfrewshire Council and undertook to organise a follow up meeting with residents in 

order that further inform them. 

6. Comments submitted by e-mail 

The comments below are exact copies of emails sent to Mr J. Waclawski, Renfrewshire Council, 

Department of Environmental Services by the published date of 26th May 2012 

Patricia Sweeney Resident ( e-mail received on 08/05/2012 19:15) 

As a resident whose property backs on to Knockhill Park I agree with the concerns raised by other 

residents. In the past Ive suffered greatly from all the points mentioned, in particular underage 

drinking, which resulted to vandalism to my car & property, not to mention the park it'self, ive had 

to phone for the fire brigade as vandals have set the play equipment on fire fuelling it with several 

wheelie bins stollen from our street.Ive had to call the police on numerous occassions, day & night 

as when the suns out the underage drinkers meet in the park from lunch time onwards making it a 

no-go zone for others, then, subjecting us to antisocial behaviour going on for hours resulting to 

vandalism to cars & property. About two years ago it was particulary bad,I myself was on a few 

occasions verbally threatened, residents had meetings with the police resulting in 

our area being giving a high police presence which was very successfull in chasing these people away 

and it's still working now, last summer was so peacefull which made a great difference to all of us. I 

therefore conclude that i oppose the development. 

Alan Meldrum, Site Manger, GVA Facilities Management (e-mail received on 03 May 2012 14:09) 

could register our security concerns in that we have security issues with children/teenagers throwing 

items such as golf balls, bottles etc.into the site. As the proposed development will no doubt be a 

magnet for young people to congregate and hangout perhaps you can advise what security 

measures are proposed for the area. 

Ms Roslyn Burns 22 Marjory Rd Renfrew. ( e-mail received on 04/05/2012 08:46) 

I am writing to express my concern over the proposed developments that have been put forward to 

take place in Knockhill Park. As my property backs on directly to the park we have suffered from 

extreme anti social behaviour in the 6 years we have lived here. Our back fence has been destroyed, 

we have had youths trespassing on to our property and also committing indecent acts in full view of 

our daughter's bedroom. As a resident of the area on the few occassions that we have tried to use 

the park for walking or the play area we have been abused by drunken youths or the play area has 

been littered with broken glass due to under age drinking. The idea of a larger area for youths to 

congregate in or use as shelter in my opinion is not positive and developing the park I fear will cause 

higher incidents of anti social behaviour. As it is, our back garden is unuseable on summer evenings 

as groups of teenagers drink, swear and urinate directly behind our property. I understand that The 

Cherry Centre has campaigned for this funding but the residents of the Moorpark area will not be 


15


directly inconvenienced by this development. As a working mother of two small children I am greatly 

concerned that excess traffic, disruption of the quite residential area that I chose to buy a property 

in and possibly even more incidents of anti social behaviour will occur because of this development. I 

am dissapointed that all residents of the area backing or adjoining on to Knockhill Park have not 

been consulted before this. We campaigned for improved lighting due to a large number of 

secondary fires a few years ago and have campaigned over the road traffic that currently uses 

our road as a shortcut to avoid the traffic lights at Wright St. As residents I feel that we should be 

given a bigger say in what happens in our area. I will be contacting my local councillors of this issue 

as well. Thank you for your time. I hope that perhaps by the all parties who have an 

interest in this development working together that we can come to a mutually beneficial resolution. 

7. Comments submitted by mail 

On the 25 th May 2012 at 3.30pm a letter was hand delivered to Mr J. Waclawski, Renfrewshire 

Council, Department of Environmental Services. Appendix 6. From 34 residents in the vicinity of 

Knockhill Park. This main content of centres around issues raised at the meeting between 

Renfrewshire Council and residents of the Stuart Ave, Marjory Rd and Birmingham Rd held at the 

Glynhill Hotel at 7.30 till 9.15pm on Monday the 21 st May 2012. The main body of this letter states; 

7.1 That residents closest to this development state that they are irate as found out about it by 

default and that the proposal should not go ahead without consultation with those who would be 

greatly affected. The residents who live in the vicinity. 

7.2 The residents feel that they have been given so many conflicting reports including whether there 

would be CCTV, gated and locked, dedicated wardens, extra lighting and increased policing. 

7.3 The residents also felt that they have already experienced previous attempts to upgrade the park 

and this has led to vandalism, which has spread on to the streets and they have then suffered from 

this 

7.4 The residents are requesting that the consultation is extended beyond the 26 th May 2012 to 

allow further for further consultation 

7.5 The residents state that the councillors where arranging another meeting with Environmental 

Services another meeting to answer the questions that could not be answered at the meeting. 

7.6 Further to this the letter contained a supplement signed by 34 residents, this supplement states; 

Anti Social Behaviour 

Over the previous 18 months, there has been very little anti social behaviour within or surrounding 

the park, for which the residents are very grateful. The proposed plans for the park causes me to 

have serious concerns, that the behaviour previously experienced may resume. I can see the benifits 

of some of the proposals on the plan, but envisage the MUGA, Events Area and Youth Area as areas 

which could cause problems due to youths congregating. In my experience, when young people 

congregate in the park, alcohol is consumed, the noise becomes unacceptable and on exiting the 


16


park, it is the residents in the area who suffer. The windows of surrounding properties have been 

broken, cars damaged, tyres slashed and gardens defaced. I have no desire to be subject to this 

again. 

Car Parking 

On The proposal there are 16 allocated parking spaces at Knockhill Road. Currently, Stewart Avenue 

is used as an entrance to the park by dog walkers, who arrive by car. I do appreciate that you can 

park in any public highway, but have concerns that the entrances to the park at both Stewart Avenue 

and Bruce Road will become congested and access to driveways obstructed. In view of the 

aforementioned, I cannot see that the allocated spaces provided will be used, as Knockhill Road is 

not easily accessible as the areas mentioned previously. 

I hope you take the above points into consideration before this application is submitted to the 

Planning Department, which I understand meets on 29 May 2012 

7.7 The table below contains the details and additional comments made by the 34 residents parking 

(Please note that some of the names and comments handwriting was difficult to understand) 

Name Address Further Comments Attended the 

public event 

at the Cherrie 

Centre 

M Howcutt 4 Ross Avenue x No 

S Howcutt 4 Ross Avenue x No 

Vincent Webb 5 Ross avenue As a retired member of the 

emergency services, I have great 

concerns over access for the 

emergency services for residents. If 

there are a couple of 5 a side 

matches the additional parking 

would block Stewart avenue, Bruce 

road and Marjory Road 

No 

Jean Robb 6 Ross Avenue x No 

James Moira 13 Ross Avenue The money could be better spent in 

making the life better and safer to 

the residents nearest Knockhill Park. 

In my experience over many years 

thousands of pounds have been 

spent on the park and within a few 

months the vandals have wrecked it 

making it unfit for children to play in 

it. This plan could devalue our 

houses. 

No 


17


Sandra Reid 13 Ross Avenue As above No 

J Waddell 16 Ross Avenue Your lack of attendance at this and 

the previous meeting is regretted by 

those at the meeting 

Yes 

Jane Smith 26 Ross Avenue x No 

W Smith 26 Ross Avenue x No 

James Shearer 32 Ross Avenue Concerned about the affect on 

house prices in the area 

No 

Kimberly Shearer 32 Ross Avenue x No 

Theresa Hamill 34 Ross Avenue x Yes 

Vincent Hamill 34 Ross Avenue x Yes 

Dr J Hamill 34 Ross Avenue x No 

Patricia Sweeney 40 Ross Avenue x No 

Margaret Rodgers 1 Marjory Road x No 

Ian Rodgers 1 Marjory Road x No 

Mrs MJ MacIver 4 Marjory Road I have had windows broken fences 

broken and taken away for bonfires 

as well as having to listen to bad 

language if you as much as 

remonstrate with them. Recently 

things have much improved so I 

would hate to see a return to the 

bad old days. If this development 

goes ahead there will be a need for 

supervision 24 /7 guaranteed. 

No 

Helen Douglas 17 Marjory Road The entire area will become a huge 

carpark and block driveways 

No 

M Glassford 20 Marjory Road This proposed development will be 

a magnet for vandals who will 

attempt to destroy and graffiti 

anything above ground level. The 

existing infant play are which is 

rarely used and the football 

changing rooms are witness to this. 

Yes 

Eleanor Glassford 20 Marjory Road x Yes 

Matthew Woodland 22 Marjory Road x No 

Roslyn Burns 22 Marjory Road I have to question the statement of 

little anti social behaviour in the last 

18 months. I had to phone the 

neighbourhood wardens & the 

police due to incidents last 

Summer/autumn 

Yes 

Margaret Caughey Marjory Road x No 

George Caughey Marjory Road x No 

Mary Tunstead 39 Marjory Road x No 

Mrs Edna McIver 8 Stewart Avenue In addition to the above, I would like 

to point out that on two occasions 

my wheelie bin was removed from 

my drive way and set on fire. I had 

to twice pay £20 , making a total of 

£40 to replace these bins 

Yes 


18


Karen Reid 10 Stewart Avenue x Yes 

John Reid 10 Stewart Avenue x Yes 

David Laird 12 Stewart Avenue Although the instances of drug 

dealing, underage drinking, 

vandalism and fireraising have 

eased off these plans with no 

maintenance & supervision will only 

make the situation worse. Residents 

of this area where not consulted 

with the proposal and it seems 

things have been done in an 

underhand way. 

No 

Fiona Laird 12 Stewart Avenue I have had to pay twice to repair my 

car after it was vandalised sitting on 

my driveway. This proposal will raise 

the level of anti-social behaviour 

and may result in more criminal 

damage. 

No 

? Laird 12 Stewart Avenue I have been the victim of burglary on 

two occasions, have had windows 

broken, planters stolen, garden 

defaced, cars vandalised on 

numerous occasions been 

intimidated by young people 

standing looking directly in my 

window and ignoring request to 

move on. These are some of the 

things I do not want to experience 

again and feel the current plans for 

the park would encourage more anti 

social behaviour into the area which 

as has been said is already is 

reasonably quiet 

No 

Margaret Dunlop 14 Stewart Avenue Your lack of attendance and the fact 

that you sent no other 

representative to the meeting, was 

more than disappointing. Your 

department are the only ones who 

can answer the questions raised. 

No 

Robert S Dunlop 14 Stewart Avenue x No 

Rachel W Paterson 16 Stewart Avenue x No 

7.8 One further piece of written correspondence Appendix 7, was received. This came from Mr M 

Glassford 20 Marjory Road. Mr Glassford also signed the group letter and attended the event in the 

Cherrie Centre. Mr Glassfords letter stated that; 


19


I viewed the proposed development at the Cherrie Centre on Saturday the 5th May 2012 and spent 

about 2 hours discussing the project with the various people in attendance. 

I am of the opinion that the proposed development is over ambitious and would increase anti social 

behaviour in this area. Such as 

Underage drinking 

Excess Litter 

Vandalism 

Problems with Parking 

Which would be a major disruption to our quiet respectable area. I am therefore strongly opposed 

to the proposed development 

8. Appendices 

Appendix 1 Community Consultation Report 

Appendix 2 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 

PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 Notice under regulations 7 (2) 

Appendix 3 email to various public buildings 

Appendix 4 Poster 

Appendix 5 Attendance at exhibition event 

Appendix 6 Group Letter 

Appendix 7 Individual letter 


20

Supporting documents - Renfrewshire Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?