Residents of Scotland’s first conservation village have voiced their concerns over plans to build 660 new houses on East Renfrewshire’s greenbelt. 
Over 300 Eaglesham locals turned out to voice their opposition to the council’s controversial local development plan (LDP) at a meeting in the Eglinton Arms on Monday night.
In just five days a petition garnered 1200 signatures ahead of plans being proposed publicly to councillors voting it through to the consultation stage on September 9.
If approved as many as 660 homes could be built across three sites spanning nearly 90 hectares of Eaglesham green fields - suggesting the rural village could take up to a third of the 1955 houses planned for the entire constituency. 
The upcoming public consultation starts on Tuesday, September 29.
The village was identified as a ‘growth area’ that could accommodate “a significant proportion of planned housing growth” for East Renfrewshire over the next decade. Other growth areas identified for the LDP3 are Busby, Clarkston and Barrhead where development will be focused.
East Renfrewshire Council (ERC) say they used an “infrastructure-first model” when drawing up the proposals, which locals heard had been in the pipeline for over two years before their publication.
The report read: “Eaglesham has a unique role within the plan. While it remains a rural village with distinctive historic character… it will accommodate a significant part of East Renfrewshire’s planned housing growth. Unlike other rural settlements, Eaglesham has been identified as capable of supporting strategic growth due to existing services, accessibility, infrastructure capacity and ability to accommodate coordinated expansion through development frameworks. 
“Future development will be centred on the delivery of the Eaglesham North Growth area. Additional strategic locations are identified at Holehouse Road and Waulkers Loan.”
At Monday’s meetings the audience heard from Jane Bond and Ewan Henderson, both of Holehouse Road, who are part of the NO2LDP3 group leading efforts to rally those in opposition to the proposals.
Their presentation described the impact of the sizeable proposals on the village’s existing infrastructure, green fields, and natural heritage.
The pair said: “Our objection is to the disproportionate concentration of approximately 660 homes in Eaglesham and the release of substantial greenfield land around a rural and historically important village. This would be a 60 per cent increase in houses in Eaglesham.
“ERC has not adequately demonstrated why 660 homes need to be in Eaglesham whilst not making greater use of brownfield, regeneration and previously developed land elsewhere in East Renfrewshire.
“The proposed development also raises significant cumulative concerns regarding transport, infrastructure capacity, landscape character, the historic setting of Eaglesham, biodiversity and ecological connectivity.
“These impacts should be considered together rather than treating each allocation independently.”
The presentation identified 10 areas of concern that could be considered by those wishing to object to the proposals during the consultation period which closes on December 22.
Those areas included:
  • What is the evidence to suggest Eaglesham has to take 660 homes?
  • Why not maximise brownfield and regeneration alternatives before releasing greenfield land?
  • The ‘infrastructure-first- model has not been demonstrated for Eaglesham
  • Detailed transport assessments have not yet established the full impact of 660 homes on the village
  • There are significant infrastructure and road safety constraints around the identified development areas
  • A development on this scale would change Eaglesham’s historic character and landscape setting
  • Greenfield development has not been sufficiently justified against alternatives
  • Biodiversity, wildlife and ecological connectivity must be protected
  • Reports have not demonstrated why 660 homes in Eaglesham is the best reasonable option
 
Councillors Jim McLean and Andrew Anderson attended the meeting, with the former addressing the audience at length. Cllr. McLean told the audience how the development had been “under consideration for two years” and that the sizeable brownfield Shanks site near Barrhead had been identified as “too expensive to develop”.
He told the audience how an extension of Eaglesham Primary had been identified at a cost of £5.6m, with a budget of £61m needed for similar extensions across East Renfrewshire.
When asked about the value of a community council for the village, the Conservative Party member encouraged locals to start one, which Cllr. Anderson backed up, pointing out that ERC would be “statutorily obliged” to liaise with such an organisation regarding planning matters of this scale.
Cllr McLean added: “The people that can stop this are in this room – that’s you. Making yourself heard during the consultation process is the best, and only, way to do it.”
When asked if the proposals would be considered alongside plans to redevelop Whitelee Windfarm over the next 10 years, or the proposed build of five 200m wind turbines at Dunwam Dam, Cllr. McLean confirmed that they would not, adding that all planning applications are dealt with “in isolation”.
Issues raised included the area becoming “sub-urban rather than sub-rural,” road safety and the lack of appropriate traffic assessment, the lack of infrastructure and services in place, the impact on the village primary, and the impact on the doctors’ surgery.
Having spoken with the medical practice, Cllr. McLean said they advised him they would be unable to cope with the volume proposed and would have to close their books to new patients.
One audience member said: “If we look at what Jackton has become, to quote Billy Connolly, it’s a desert with windows and we’re in danger of Eaglesham following suit.”
ERC’s consultation period over the LDP3 proposals starts on Tuesday, September 29, and runs for 12 weeks until Tuesday. December 22.
Residents can make their representations, whether for or against the proposals, via the council’s planning portal from next week.