CLYDEBANK councillors have demanded an urgent meeting with the Scottish Government as they maintain their fight to protect the Duntiglennan Fields from development.

Councillors who sit on West Dunbartonshire Council’s planning committee unanimously agreed to reject the government’s recommendation that the Duntocher greenfield site is ripe for a 100-house development.

The decision, made last Wednesday, saw West Dunbartonshire become the only local authority to ever challenge the Scottish Government’s recommendations on a local development plan.

It came two months after councillors rejected the national planner’s recommendation to designate the Duntocher Fields as a housing development opportunity.

The Scottish Government now has the power to forcibly include the Duntiglennan Fields as a site for housing and adopt the local development plan itself.

But local councillors are however hoping to convince ministers to listen to the Clydebank people, who are fiercely opposed to any development in this picturesque location.

Lawrence O’Neill, chairman of the planning committee, is now seeking an urgent meeting with Alex Neill MSP, cabinet secretary for social justice and communities, to discuss the matter further.

Councillor O’Neill told the meeting that the Scottish Government’s decision flies in the face of its recent community empowerment bill, where greater emphasis is placed on local decision making.

He said: “I have no problem with the company wishing to build on sites across West Dunbartonshire, however I have major difficulty with the erosion of our greenbelt.

“The Scottish Ministers say the effects of any potential development could be mitigated against. I question how that is even possible. If permission is granted and these 100 houses go on that site, there’s no way back. I move that we reject the Scottish Government’s direction.” Provost Douglas McAllister, who has vowed to protect the Duntiglennan Fields, added: “Never in my 12 years of being elected to the council have I experienced an issue that has evoked such interest from the local community.

“I will not agree to the recommendation coming from the Scottish Government.” Just one day after planning meeting Taylor Wimpey, the company seeking to build on the Duntiglennan Fields, held a public consultation last Thursday in Clydebank’s West Park Hotel where it outlined its plans to residents.

Paul Hughes, strategic land manager for Taylor Wimpey, said the event was well attended, and added: “Around 40 per cent of the people who attended told us they were in favour of the development and, in fact many of those indicated they would be interested in purchasing a house — so we’re delighted to have received such positive feedback at this early stage.” Mr Hughes said: “It is unprecedented for the council not to accept the direction from Scottish Ministers and modify the plan accordingly. We will continue to listen and positively engage with the community.” THE Scottish Government has completed a u-turn on its stance regarding the Duntiglennan Fields.

In the 2009 review of the local development plan, the Scottish Government reporter was against building houses on the site, stating: “The housing development would have a significant and adverse impact on the landscape setting of the western edge of Duntocher. This adverse environmental impact significantly outweighs any contribution that the site would make to the effective housing land supply.” Sam Gibson, chairman of environmental campaign group Clydebelt, said: “The Scottish Government recently passed a Community Empowerment Bill with emphasis on people’s views being heard. It seems that this does not mean their concerns and local knowledge will be acted on by our non-resident top officials, both at local and government level.

“Clydebank has plenty of available brownfield sites, several council owned, which could be built on instead of impacting on the landscape of the Kilpatrick Hills, or adding further congestion to the roads and services around Hardgate and Duntocher.

“I’m glad to see the councillors, who should reflect the wishes of their electorate, have challenged these officials — they should do so more often.”