IN LENNOXTOWN, the long, slow decline of its once thriving Main Street bears witness to the crosswinds of economic change.
This handsome village, lying 12 miles to Glasgow’s north-east, is surrounded by some of the most charismatic countryside to be found in west central Scotland.
Just behind it lie the Campsie Hills and Campsie Glen and on the other side, the bleak beauty of the ancient Lennox Forest. The families who have lived here for generations are fiercely proud of its working-class identity.
READ MORE: Legal challenge could scupper £600million flagship superfast broadband plan
Lennoxtown has encountered many of the social iniquities that have harrowed similar small communities across west central Scotland. In recent times it’s witnessed the dismantling of a once-thriving industrial base that provided steady, skilled and well-paid employment. Lennox Castle Hospital, the local nail-works and the pulp factory in neighbouring Milton of Campsie have all disappeared and with them the jobs and local businesses they sustained.
Its busy main street was once a thrumming commercial hub of local food-shops. One by one they all vanished. Lennoxtown is also in dire need of good affordable housing to relieve a chronic shortage apparent across the whole of East Dunbartonshire. But a proposed small housing development planned for a small, two-hectare site on the eastern approach to the village encapsulates why Scotland still has a persistent shortage of social housing, despite the best efforts of the Scottish Government.
The development comprises nine houses of between three and five bedrooms and 40 one and two bedroomed flats. Of these, 85% are intended for affordable housing to be managed by Clyde Valley Housing Association. Scottish Government rules compel all housing developments to provide a minimum 25% of affordable housing.
The site is home to an unremarkable cluster of largely non-native trees which have grown to an inordinate height. Thus, when you turn into Lennoxtown from its main approach road you are greeted by a small clump of overgrown woodland which blocks out the hills and one of the most magnificent vistas in west central Scotland.
Yet, the proposed development has met fierce resistance from residents in adjacent streets. These are part of a larger private housing estate comprising some of the most expensive houses in the area. Ironically, these were built on a large area of woodland which itself had been a much-loved recreational space for local families.
Johnny Leslie, a pensions adviser whose family is embedded in this community is angry at the prospect of a much-needed social housing development being obstructed by what he regards as “pure nimbyism”.
“We’ve witnessed the steady disappearance of all our community shops: the butcher’s, the bank, the baker; the fishmongers. When someone offers to build good, solid, affordable housing, bringing with it the chance to stimulate the community you grab it. Yet I went to a public meeting and it was clear that some people just didn’t like the idea of it being built near them.
“This development will also create a significant number of well-paid skilled jobs for a couple of years. An opportunity such as this would be a real lifeline to this community.”
Opponents of the development have cited environmental and bio-diversity concerns. You’re left with the impression that this is some kind of Scottish Serengeti and that Sir David Attenborough might soon be pitching up in the neighbourhood.
This, by one resident, reflected many of the concerns: “I believe that mentioned damage to existing woodland, construction work and long-term use of this area will generate significant increase in localised road traffic and increase in CO2 emissions.”
Another said: “The drawings show that the new development is standing on relatively flat surface. I am assuming that to achieve this, there will be a need to remove significant amount of the trees (in fact the current area of 18946m2 covered by trees will be reduced to around 7390m2) and significant amount of soil. I am assuming that the removal of the trees and soil could consequently affect the hillside stability and its current ability to retain water.”
An Ecological Impact report by the respected EnviroCentre concluded: “No statutory designated sites or ancient woodland are present within the site.” It added that “one tree located in the south of the site is considered to offer low Potential Roost Features for bats” and that “a potential squirrel drey, considered to be that of a grey squirrel, was identified in the south of the site.” There was one wood pigeon’s nest and that “no field evidence of badger, red squirrel, West European hedgehog or brown hare was identified”. You’d find more wild animals in a window-box, in a manner of speaking.
The council planners have thus far chosen to pursue a blocking strategy, citing concerns about the validity of the consultation and the familiar bio-diversity concerns. Depute Chief Executive, Place, Neighbourhood & Corporate Assets, Thomas Glen, said: “The planning service has a duty to consider the pre-application consultation carried out by applicants on receiving a major planning application. The national guidance is clear that concerns about pre-application consultation should be raised as early as possible by planning authorities. In this case the planning service raised concerns at a suitably early stage to allow the applicant to rectify the situation.”
The developers though, point to advice from the Council before the application which states: “The woodland also has limited biodiversity value due to the dominance of non-native conifers.”
The Pre-application Consultation Report runs to 12 pages and was much broader in scope and scale than a four-question Facebook survey organised by the local community council which showed that an incredible 92% of social media respondents opposed the development. Yet, the developers’ survey indicated a clear majority in favour of affordable housing and the increased recreational space envisaged by the development.
READ MORE: Opinion: Iain Macwhirter: Sturgeon's economic recovery won’t be about de-growth but jobs, jobs jobs
A spokesperson for the developer rejected all objections by opponents: “The proposed development at has progressed on the basis of advice received from the Planning Department during pre-application discussions. East Dunbartonshire Council’s Planning Department clearly set out the measures expected from the development to ensure a policy compliant application was submitted. It is our opinion that we have exceeded the requirements asked of us, in writing, by East Dunbartonshire Council.”
Local SNP councillor, Paul Ferretti is also opposed to the development following representations by concerned residents. He said: “Having attended every Community Council meeting, where this issue was on the agenda, and having received a large volume of correspondence on the issue, I would disagree with the premise that the reason why nearby residents are up in arms is due to the potential of social housing being on the site. Their concerns have centred on biodiversity, the height of the flats, loss of woodland, access roads etc.”
The Herald though, has an audio-recording of a conversation between the architects and a senior council planner in which the official is clearly heard to suggest that if the affordable housing element were to be removed it might have a chance of proceeding. A nearby resident vociferously opposed to the development suggested to the architects that perhaps “some bungalows” would be acceptable, an idea which would feature in a subsequent email exchange. In 2019 Shelter Scotland reported that there had been 36,465 homeless applications during the previous 12 months and that 29,894 households were assessed as homeless by their local authority. This equates to a household losing their home every 17.5 minutes. If some local residents and the local planners prevail no relief will be found in Lennoxtown any time soon.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel