27/6/2008ING plans to go ahead
ING's controversial plans to build hundreds of new homes as part of a multi-million pound regeneration of the waterfront will go ahead.
Falkirk councillors voted in favour of the proposals - which had been under review - on Wednesday, June 25.
But most of us are still split in opinion over this, with many annoyed that the original plan to build new restaurants, bars and shops, a 90-room hotel, yacht club and new homes, has been put on the back-burner.
The original plan was to create a new marina and commercial centre first, with the hope of creating more tourism opportunities in the area.
Now, the homes will be built first, in order to fund the other parts of the plan.
The recent economic slowdown and rising construction costs led to ING reviewing their strategy.
All of this has proved to be a long, drawn-out process for everyone in Bo'ness.
Work was originally meant to begin last year, but the viability of the project was repeatedly questioned.
Falkirk Council will now work with ING to progress and deliver the regeneration masterplan, and finalise a development agreement.
A recent online poll run by Falkirk Council showed over half of us aren't in favour of these new plans going ahead - what do you think now? Tell us here on s1bo'ness.
- I quote from this article "A recent online poll run by Falkirk Council showed over half of us aren't in favour of these new plans going ahead" and yet the politicians that are supposed to represent us seem to be able to just ignore us? I must be missing something but it seems to me that the whole consultation was just to show that they had gone thorugh the processes and they had little intention of acting on the results.
- This consultation exercise has been a farce from the very beginning. Why go to all these lengths then ignore what the people of Bo'ness had to say. Falkirk Council had made a decision long ago to proceed with the development as they saw fit. This was just a way of creating more housing in the area.
-
Councillors haven't ignored what the people of Bo'ness have to say.
This was a consultation - not a referendum - and the views and opinions of local people did matter.
However, it's worth clearing up some misapprehensions.
Two sets of newsletters were delivered to people in Bo'ness. In response to the first lot, 50.9 per cent of respondents said "yes" to the ING scheme proceeding. Because of delivery problems, the newsletters were delivered again - this time by Royal Mail. The responses from this set of newsletters (which had identifying marks) saw a 51.9 per cent response in favour of the revised scheme proceeding.
So a majority of those who completed the newsletters said "yes" to the revised scheme.
Local community groups involved with the town centre were also consulted. Bo'ness Community Council, Bo'ness Means Business, Bonnie Bo'ness, Bo'ness Real Ale Appreciation Society, Bo'ness Enterprise, the SRPS and the local Town Centre Management, all sent letters supporting the revised scheme. The Community Council - which is part-elected to represent the views of people in the town - voted 10 to 2 in favour of the revised scheme, after having a public meeting which people spoke "for" and against the scheme.
There were concerns against the revised scheme offered by representatives of Bo'ness Residents Harbour Group and Bo'ness Retailers Association.
So the majority of community groups who responded also said "yes" to the revised scheme.
We then come to the online poll - which had a majority voting "no" to the revised scheme. While other consultation responses were coming purely from the local community, the web poll was open to anyone.
In fact, one pundit from Falkirk went onto the Glasgow Herald website and encouraged anyone to "vote NO to the harbour plan and stop one of the Liebor Cooncills last attempts to rob us". You then have to question how many real local people expressed their point of view online.
I would encourage residents to read the full report that went to the council, summarising the consultation responses and make up their own minds. There's no doubt there has been splits in the community - but the people of the town haven't been ignored.
bonesslabour.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ingfullcouncilreport1.pdf
I would also encourage people to read a letter from ING to the leader of the Council, which aims to respond to some of the community concerns from the "no" lobby. This was all taken into account before councillors made their decision.
http://bonesslabour.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ingletterjune081.pdf
I hope this is helpful to readers of s1boness.com
COUNCILLOR ADRIAN MAHONEY, Falkirk Council
-
My attention has be drawn to yet more dishonest and misleading statements surrounding the Bo'ness Harbour Development. I have a professional background (20 years) in economic development.
The choice that the Falkirk Council had was whether our town was to be left to wither for the next 10 years with no development or whether it was to be allowed to make progress, harnessing the development to restore our harbour and attract additional investment as a result.
The Polls
We have now seen the various poll results and I have set out a little reality check for people to consider, remembering that this was not actually a vote but simply a consultation exercise. The results from the consultation polls were as follows :
First delivered form - Yes: 290 No: 280
Postal delivered form - Yes: 205 No: 190
Internet Poll - Yes: 709 No: 742
A few things to bear in mind and I am sure that people are aware of these when putting them into context.
The internet poll could have included many people not living in Bo'ness as they could have voted from anywhere in the world and indeed people could have gone round Internet Cafes if they were motivated and determined enough. Equally, there are still people on both sides of the argument who do not have access to the internet.
I am aware that people on both sides of the argument voted online at home and at work.
Quote from one Bo'ness Business 'My IT guy who fixes our computers at work said that it was easy to manage - all you have to do is reset the broadband and you automatically get a new IP address.'
The first delivered form did not go to every house and in some cases people received two or three deliveries, so this poll is fairly inconclusive as a fair and even test of opinion.
The second delivered form did get delivered by the Post Office to every house (as far as we know) so it probably gives the best indication of a fair and more robust view.
The same people may have voted in the Postal delivered poll as voted online and in the first manual delivered poll, so the probability is the that maximum portion of the population that voted is 560 people - perhaps 700 people allowing for some level of additional people. Bo'ness has around 7,500 households and a voting poulation of around 12,000 people, I am advised, so potentially no more than 5% of the population has expressed its view in this way.
None of the processes are fullproof. The Internet poll is the least safe as a guide while the final postal delivery probably gives the best guide as every household would have received the information and it was delivered at the end of the publicity, when more people would have reached a conculsion.
At best, the small sample indicates that those who have taken part in the poll are split pretty much 50/50.
The wider support
The core community, business and tourism groups in Bo'ness support the development. These are groups that are open and can evidence proper management, accountability, governance and a track record of active work and engagement over several years.
Bo'ness Means Business, Bonnie Bo'ness, Bo'ness Community Council and the Scottish Railway Preservation Society have all supported this project. Other smaller groups, I understand, have also indicated that they support this development. These groups have all taken the trouble to get the facts and base their decisions on facts and economic realities - and they all want Bo'ness to develop positively. Would they all have taken these decisions if they did not feel this was right for our town?
These groups work week in, week out for our town and have a very good grasp of the challenges and realities that our town faces - and have been doing this over several years. These are not reckless 'groups' that have just sprung up. These groups have integrity and do not lie to get their way. These groups are accountable and governed by things like charity law and company law.
Local businesses have indicated independently that they favour the Harbour Development, even in its present form. Are all of these businesses living in a fantasy land?
Can anyone really believe that these businesses - who remain committed to our town - do not have a grasp of economic realities? These are people who work in the real world and have considered the realities that are around now and in the next few years.
Local community activitists who have worked hard over many years to help progress positive projects have indicated their support. Indeed, a few have taken the time to ask people in the town centre their views and it seems that most people want to see the development happen so that the harbour works can begin.
And people already know that once the money is released for each plot of land to start each housing phase, more harbour works can be carried out. We could see the first of the phased harbour works in the next 2 years. If we wait 10 years for any harbour works, the costs are likely to have more than doubled and our town will have lost huge opportunities for employment, training and economic activity.
Two 'groups' who have not held open meetings, do not even seem constituted, have sought to peddle lies, engender greed and misrepresent the facts - and they are still doing it. The decision has been made and it is now time to get on with the task of maximising the benefits for our town. The jobs, economic activity, housing more localised to the town and further investment that this can lever into regeneration is vital.
Stop the development and we would have been left in limbo for years to come, with our young people forced to go elsewhere for jobs and opportunities and businesses declining as footfall continues to drop.
I am delighted that that Falkirk Council did not make their legacy the destruction of our town centre and the decline of our town by rejecting the development.
Finally, it should be noted that Councillor Malcolm Nicol, who voted with the reckless economic vandals against the development, refused to discuss this major decision or meet with the legitimate groups in Bo'ness, choosing instead to swallow the lies and misrepresentation peddled by the anti 'groups' and choosing ignorance as the basis of his decision. Is that really representation? Is this how some of our Councillors see their role? Ignore the community and wear blinkers given to them by their mates?
Lets now put all this aside and live in the real world. We have a town to be proud of but one that needs us to work together to maximise the opportunities that the Harbour Development will bring.
- As was said at the Council Meeting, two small groups of concerned residents without the benefit of glossy brochures won both the argument and the vote and that vote was NO. The Labour Leader read out a letter from the Developer ING, I thought she was meant to represent the community, not big business. However, she ignored the democratic process as evidenced by the vote and Malcolm Nicol voted to reflect the wishes of the people who had voted No. I think his grasp and understanding of the issues relating to this matter far outweigh some of the pundits writing above who attach more legitimacy to charitable status rather than facts. The fact is that this is still two blocks of housing, half a mile from the Town Centre and there is no timescale for anything relating to the harbour other than a bund which will keep water in the dock at all states of the tide. ING have said repeatedly, the cost of total refurbishment would be £40 million. Where is such a large capital sum to be found? The money from the first phase is going into the Flood Alleviation Scheme shortfall. The dock will have water, it will be re-pointed and tidied up. This will not turn Bo'ness into a tourist attraction or help footfall in the town.
- At the Council meeting it was said that two groups of concerned residents had won both the argument and the Vote and the vote was NO. However the Administration chose to ignore the democratic process, with the exception of Malcolm Nicol who believed that having consulted, they should listen to what local people had said which was No. The Leader of the Council read a letter from the Developer, when her role is clearly to represent the public rather than big business. There is no doubt that this is still a long way from what was originally proposed and in no way provides what Bo'ness needs which is a thriving town centre.
- As was indicated during the consultation and clearly evidenced from the above comments there was and still is considerable misinformation being presented and misunderstanding of the consultation process. As highlighted above, it was a consultation not an election or referendum and as such was to be used as an indication of public opinion not a decision made by it. The decision was always going to be taken by the full council with a vote based on both the consultation, opinion of officers regarding the viability of the revised plans and, of course, the views of councillors. There is a clear issue surrounding the online poll (the only poll being used as evidence of a no vote by the detractors) and the ease of manipulation of its results. Given these concerns setting aside the online vote there was a majority showing a Yes. How does the 'two small groups' reconcile the paper vote with their assertion that public opinion was against the proposals or are they simply setting them aside as also flawed. Overall the consultation was roughly split on a 50/50 basis. The council meeting reflected the split of opinion of residents, who made the effort to participate and returned their delivered foms, and voted accordingly. In almost all controversial issues those against are generally more vociferous and active in their opposition giving a perception that there is a groundswell of feeling in their favour. Given the actual returns it could be argued that even with their campaign of misinformation and scaremongering they were unable to show a clear majority against the proposals. In the end sense prevailed and the casting vote of the Provost reflected the true opinion of the majority of Bo'ness residents.
-
Why do some people have such a problem accepting that not everyone shares their view? Because my opinion differs from yours does not mean I am wrong. It certainly does not mean I am lying or being dishonest - terms I find offensive; especially when the accusation is made in open forums!
Facts:
1. The voting process was flawed with all methods open to abuse. It should actually be of more concern for all involved the small numbers replying; it demonstrates either a lack of understanding or a lack of interest by the majority of the town.
Please also note figures quoted in responses above relating to the online voting differ from the information I have seen? The online numbers I believe to be YES = 214 and NO = 272. The figures of 709 / 742 are the totals of all three votes. This would suggest to me that abuse was actually minimal, if any, and that quite probably the same interested people responded to all three forms of the vote.
2. Many of the YES votes included qualifying statements directly linking the housing to the harbour development. (Noted in the report to the council which listed the comments as well as the results).
3. BRHG is not a small group. With over 200 names it is probably by now the biggest group in the town. It does not have, and does not need a constitution, as it was formed, not out of vested interest, but as a mechanism for many people to make their views known to their elected officials.
4. A number of people who claim to speak for other groups in the town actually belong to several groups and are effectively getting their say twice. The same person signed several letters in favour of the development representing several "constituted" groups which were included in the report passed to the council!
5. The cost of the Master Plan to develop the harbour is currently estimated at £40 to £45 million. Available funds are currently £2.9 million or a little over 7% taken at the smaller estimate. 20 years of any business tells you that is not going to go very far!
Also it should be noted that the greatest misinformation / ambiguity in all of this revolves around the term "Harbour Renewal". Many people I have spoken to regard this term as meaning the delivery of the whole marina plan - not the flood defence works that will take the first £1.5 million of the funds available. The work, I agree, is necessary but it does not constitute work many people are aware of from the council publications.
Opinions:
1. 750 new houses built 0.5 miles from the town are unlikely to increase footfall for those small business operating there. The two supermarkets may well see an increase in trade; I very much doubt any one else will see a significant difference.
2. The town centre needs tourists and a link between its many attractions and the town centre if it is to thrive - new houses and a water filled harbour with no facilities will not bring tourists, or encourage those that already visit into the town.
3. If, and I list this as an opinion because it is an if, ING do not realise their 12% profit on the first phase there will be no overage and so no additional funds for further harbour works and the chance increases that ING will withdraw from future phases.
Note that if ING do withdraw the council are liable to refund the cost of additional infrastructure works to areas beyond those developed to ING.
Nobody in the BRHG is against development as I clearly stated at the Bo'ness Development Group meeting on 2nd July. What we will do is continue to make our concerns known to those elected officials and the council officers working for the town as and when those concerns arise. We will not by quieted by any group with others views just because our opinions differ - and if any group wishes to call me, directly or indirectly, a liar or dishonest they could at least have the decency to highlight the facts they have to counter any arguments made.
- just wondering.. all these new homes mean more people in bo'ness? so the population will rise.? wat will happen with schools? doctors? we dont wanna end up like Linlithgow with no room at linlithgow academy for pupils from linlithgow? wat about Traffic into/out of Bo'ness?? Can bo'ness cope with a population explosion???
-
Would the person trying to post a comment here under the name Shirley Valentine please contact us urgently at content@s1boness.com please.
Thank you, Site Administration.
- Trevor Murphy gives the perfect example of how the democratic vote was over-ruled in our Australian situation. ING is extremely competent at using petition/submissions which give limited choice. For example, here, in Fremantle, Western Australia, people were asked questions via glossy creative brochures, along the lines of, monster shopping centre design do you prefer, with no chance to vote against having any building whatsoever. Hence a slanted vote in the quaint ING petition", despite 79% of citizens already originally voting for NONE. Plus, if you went and viewed their creative petition you got Fifty Bucks. Altho' our history pales into insignifance against yours, it still means a foreign company will demolish heritage buildings in a historic precinct to build an unnecessary and bland shopping centre. It also robs a tourist town of the vista, threatens the closure of old family business' in the town and removes Australian History forever.
- WAS ANY PUBLIC OFFICER PAID A COMMISSION BY ING IN ANY OF THEIR LOCATIONS?