Council Rejects Affordable Housing Construction Plan

Recently, Springfield Properties proposed a development project on Station Road between Abbeyfield House and Ivy Gardens, specifically designed for ambulant disabled people. However, with majority agreement from elected members, the planning and climate change policy board rejected this proposal.

The key reasons cited in the rejection of the application were concerns about its height, scale, and design, as well as its potential intrusive impact on the existing built environment and residential amenities. The board considered a report outlining these issues before making their decision.

Councillor John McNaughtan of Paisley East and Central supported these findings. He stated, "I agree with the planning officers' assessment... Clearly, in terms of its height, scale, and design, it's not appropriate... It's quite clearly not an appropriate design for this location."

However, there was some disagreement among councilors regarding this matter. Councilor Ben Smith from Paisley Northwest felt differently about Springfield’s proposal. He argued that it offered continuity with existing structures in the area due to similarities, such as the color scheme, with another block of flats across the road.

Smith also raised concern over what he referred to as a housing emergency, stating, “What should be on our minds at all times when we're making decisions on planning... is that we do have a housing emergency... I don't think we're in a position o luxury to spuriously refuse... planning applications.”

Despite Smith’s stance, ultimately nine out of fourteen councillors voted against approval, which led to a refusal of Springfield’s proposed development plans.

Tom Leggeat, Managing Director at Springfield Partnerships, expressed disappointment following Renfrewshire Council’s rejection, saying, “Since submitting our designs over 18 months ago, we are thoroughly disappointed and confused that our proposal has been refused."

Leggeat pointed out how crucial these 45 affordable apartments would have been, particularly considering they form part of a dementia-friendly living complex—something greatly needed within local communities. He also mentioned that the area already has the necessary infrastructure to support such a development.

Leggeat further criticized local authorities for blocking applications for good-quality and energy-efficient homes, highlighting Scotland’s national housing crisis. He suggested that they should be working more closely with developers in order to deliver these much-needed properties, rather than rejecting proposals outright.

This case underlines the ongoing tension between the need for new housing developments, especially those catering to specific needs like ambulant disabled and dementia-friendly accommodations, and maintaining existing environmental aesthetics and residential amenities. As Scotland continues to grapple with its housing crisis, it remains crucial for both developers and local authorities to find a balanced approach to addressing these issues.