At the Planning Application Committee meeting of 30 September 2020 they were discussing the Planning Application to alter the use from a house to shop units.



Interesting comments from INDEPENDENT Mr Miller at 14:45 minutes.

He says the developer comments on the new housing in Clarkston by saying "A displacement of Commercial activities will be helped by all the new housing in Clarkston".

In my personal opinion a typical Miller rant ensues "THEY ARE TELLING LIES".

He states that the Planning Application Committee are aware, as is he as a Clarkston resident, and the only one on the committee, that there are no housing builds in Clarkstion in the LDP2. (Local Development Plan)

Therefore he ends by making reference to the developer by saying "THEY ARE TELLING LIES"

The developer did not reference or mention the LDP2, so whay has Miller, it has no relevance.

Seres Drive, CLARKSTON a new estate was built only six years ago, does that not count as a new build.

ERC sold the land at Drumby Cresent, CLARKSTON and an application has been submitted to build residential houses, does that not count.

I know he will say that they are in Williamwood, however Williamwood is recongised by all as a sub area of Clarkston.

He resides in Greenbank, which is recognised as a sub area of CLARKSTON as other areas like Carolside etc.

Do you know I have always felt that it would be very helpful if elected members knew what they were talking about.

Parking - none. 'Cllr Miller, Convery, Cunningham, Swift and Chair Cllr Ireland'

Historic building Cllr Miller

Size of the plot - its a wee hoose and not big enough for four retail units. 'Cllr Cunningham'

Impose orders to have defective / dangerous conditions of the house rectified.
(It wisnae me, it wis objectors) 'Chair Cllr Ireland'

Why are roads not objecting and refering to conditions, I have read the papers and cannot see any conditions. 'Cllr Convery'

Nothing in planning terms to stop this going through. 'Provost Fletcher'
In my view the only Cllr who spoke from actual knowledge, planning legislation and with unbiased honesty.

This case went to appeal and whilst the reporter upheld the refusal by ERC, just wait to hear what was said about some of the reasons put forward by our representatives as fact, to support the initial refusal.

Before that let us look at Cllr Convery's comment "Why are roads not objecting and refering to conditions, I have read the papers and cannot see any conditions."

A member of council staff had to inform her that it was always considered that Town Centres had 'off street' parking.

Also that the recommendations were on Page 15 of the Cllrs report and that one of the recommendations was that a 'pedestrian guard rail' be placed on the footpath.

Cllr Cunningham took this opportunity to say that would mean no cars could park because of the barrier, the only person who would be able to leave the car would be the driver.


Unfortuently not one of the drivers on the committee corrected her rather silly comment.