| Contents | Paragraph |
| Introduction | 1 |
| Origin and Commencement of Review | 2 - 3 |
| Request for Administrative Review | 4 - 10 |
| The Commission's Provisional Proposals | 11 - 13 |
| Publication of Commission's Provisional Proposals | 14 |
| Consideration of Representations | 15 - 22 |
| Final Recommendation | 23 - 24 |
| Appendix A: | Map illustrating the 3 alternative boundary lines published as the Commission's provisional proposals and the alternative suggested by Capital Shopping Centres. |
| Appendix B: | Map illustrating the area recommended by the Commission for transfer. |
| Appendix C: | Description of boundary of area for transfer. |
| Appendix D: | Consequential alteration to electoral wards. |
1. The Commission has a statutory obligation to consider ad hoc requests for changes to boundaries of administrative areas within Scotland received from Councils, members of the public or other interested parties.
2. The Commission is required under section 14 (3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to consider a request from a local authority, or any other person, to conduct a review under 14 (2) of the Act. Section 14 (2) enables the Commission at any time to review all or any part of the local government areas in Scotland for the purpose of considering whether to make proposals to The Scottish Ministers, subject to direction made under section 15 of the Act. Where the Commission considers that it is desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government to effect changes, it may make proposals to The Scottish Ministers under section 13 of the Act.
3. On 7 June 1999, the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a Direction under section 15(3) of the Act. The Direction stated:
'In exercise of his powers under section 15(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and all other powers enabling him in that behalf, the Secretary of State hereby directs the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland not to undertake a review of any local government area between one day after the date of this direction and 1 April 2004, other than a review which potentially directly affects not more than 50 electors.'
Post-devolution, the functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland under the 1973 Act were transferred to The Scottish Ministers by section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998.
4. A request for a realignment of the administrative boundary at Braehead was one of a number of proposals forwarded by Renfrew District Council to the Commission as part of the statutory review of local government areas between 1985 and 1990. Having considered the proposals relating to Renfrew District we noted the close proximity of areas which were the subject of requests for realignment of the administrative boundary at Braehead and Hillington and concluded that both requests should be progressed together as part of a larger single review of the combined areas concerned.
5. However, following exchanges of correspondence between the Commission and Renfrew and City of Glasgow District Councils, we were advised in October 1988 that an application from a consortium led by Tarmac Construction, seeking planning consent for a retail and leisure complex at Braehead, had been refused by Strathclyde Regional Council. An appeal and local inquiry were pending and it was expected that a decision by the Secretary of State would not be forthcoming before August 1989. We concluded that consideration of any realignment of the boundary at Braehead should be deferred pending the outcome of the local inquiry.
6. Statutory commitments requiring the Commission to undertake statutory reviews of electoral arrangements were the main reason for further postponement of consideration of the administrative boundary in the Braehead area until completion of the third statutory review at the end of 1998. It is a well-established practice of the Commission not to conduct administrative and electoral reviews concurrently.
7. Following completion of the third statutory review of electoral arrangements we wrote in August 1999 to Glasgow City and Renfrewshire Councils (the new unitary authorities with an interest in Braehead). Both Councils were asked whether a review of the administrative boundary at Braehead was still considered necessary.
8. Glasgow City Council indicated support for a review and advised that the recently opened out-of-town shopping centre (which included other business and commercial elements) straddled the current administrative boundary. The Council suggested that, because 80-90% of the Braehead development is located within its area and it is collecting the equivalent percentage in business rates, the Council boundary should be amended to include the whole of the centre (including all access roads and parking areas) within Glasgow City Council. The Council also pointed out that the present boundary runs through Sainsbury's store, requiring the acquisition of 2 licences in order to cover the sale of alcoholic drinks. Further, we were advised that Glasgow City Council undertook a comprehensive building control function in respect of the whole development.
9. In anticipation of the next comprehensive review of administrative boundaries, Glasgow City Council took the opportunity to express its concern that it is under-bounded. The Council considers that the link between the administrative extent of the City and its fiscal circumstances are of great importance to the long-term viability of the authority.
10. Renfrewshire Council advised that a review was unnecessary at the present time. However, the Council indicated that it would wish an opportunity to comment should any boundary change be proposed.
11. We noted that, as claimed, the existing line of the administrative boundary between Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council at Braehead runs through a commercial retail outlet. We concluded that, if possible, such an anomaly should be removed. Representation from the Councils concerned and a site visit to the Braehead area by the Commission's Secretariat identified a number of possible solutions which would locate most or all of the current commercial developments wholly, or largely, within either Glasgow City Council or Renfrewshire Council areas.
12. We also noted the potential that existed for further extensive commercial and residential developments within the immediately adjoining area. These could influence the delineation of any amendment to the existing administrative boundary. Having considered all these matters, we agreed that a formal review of the administrative boundary between Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council at Braehead was desirable. Further, we concluded that 3 options for boundary lines would be published as our provisional proposals. We believed that this would encourage interested parties to make representations and provide the opportunity for a thorough examination of the potential impact of wider changes in the adjoining areas. 13. We established from the Electoral Registration Officer that no electors would be affected by any of the 3 proposals for change being considered. A review under the terms of the Secretary of State's Direction was therefore possible and we agreed that the 3 boundary lines identified should be published as the Commission's provisional proposals. Details of the realignment of the administrative boundary under all three of the Commission's provisional proposals are shown at Appendix A.
14. Public notice of our provisional proposals was given in The Herald and Renfrewshire Gazette on 16 March 2000. Glasgow City and Renfrewshire Councils were asked to make available for inspection at four council offices copies of the provisional recommendation and illustrative maps. Additionally, copies of our proposals were sent to the Electoral Registration Officer for Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Valuation Joint Board, MPs and MSPs for the affected area, the Scottish Headquarters of the political parties, the editors of local newspapers, Ordnance Survey, and Drumoyne and Renfrew Community Councils. We asked that any comments should be made to us by 27 April 2000.
15. Forty-one representations and a petition with more than 1,800 signatures were received by the advertised closing date:
Glasgow City Council wrote in support of proposal A, subject to further consultation on the precise alignment of the boundary line. The Council observed that currently 80-90% of the Braehead development lies within Glasgow and considered that implementation of proposal A would produce a stronger boundary than presently exists, which would result in more effective and convenient local government because:
The City Council considered that proposal B had the same merits as proposal A but recognised that it would bisect phase two of the proposed commercial and residential development.
Proposal C was totally unacceptable to the Council. Under this option the Council recognised that it would lose a large area of land including most of Braehead Shopping Centre and the United Distillers Bottling Plant. It advised that a substantial amount of income from business rates is generated by these properties. The Council believed that it was beneficial to have both properties within the City in the event of a change to the national redistribution system that was more favourable than present arrangements. Further, as under-bounding was widely recognised as a problem for Glasgow, there was no merit in reducing the area of the City by adopting proposal C.
Renfrewshire Council wrote to say that it strongly supported the Commission's provisional proposal C. The Council suggested that Braehead represents a continuation of the Renfrew riverside frontage to a clear physical boundary at King George V Dock and is contiguous with Renfrew's industrial area at Hillington to the south and residential area of Deanpark to the west. The entire area is within 2 km of Renfrew town centre.
The Council stated that historically Renfrew extended into the Braehead area and that this was confirmed by seventeenth century plans of Renfrewshire, which depicted Braehead within Renfrewshire. Early twentieth century Ordnance Survey plans also depicted the Renfrewshire County and Renfrew Burgh boundaries extending to Merlinford, within the Braehead area, some 700m east of the existing administrative boundary. The Council further stated that Braehead is currently located on the western periphery of Glasgow. It is physically separated from the north of the city by the River Clyde, isolated from the adjacent city community of Govan by the King George V Dock area and disconnected from Cardonald by the M8 motorway and Glasgow - Ayr railway line.
The Council also commented that proposal C would bring together under a single Council the Braehead Shopping Centre and an extensive area of land, with identified development potential, lying between the Renfrew Ferry crossing point and King George V Dock. The majority of the vacant land in this area is owned by Capital Shopping Centres, the owners of the Braehead Centre. The company, in collaboration with Renfrewshire Council, had produced a strategy for future development which reflected the Council's interest as the local authority with control over the planning and development of most of the riverside area. Renfrewshire Council suggested that the success of the strategy is reliant on an integrated approach to land use and transportation matters for the whole area and that this would be greatly assisted by being administered by a single authority.
Renfrewshire Council advised that proposal B of the Commission's provisional proposals was wholly unacceptable. It advised that the King's Inch area was an intrinsic part of Renfrew. Therefore, on historical grounds and to maintain an integrated approach to future development within the affected area (reasons similar to those presented by the Council in support of proposal C), the Council opposed the adoption of proposal B.
Renfrewshire Council was also opposed to proposal A, which it considered was unsatisfactory because it bisected industrial development opportunities. Land to the east of King's Inch Road is currently being developed for Class 4 business purposes as part of the Braehead development and further industrial development is anticipated on the western side of the road. Renfrewshire Council suggested that both areas should be included within its council area.
Although opposed to proposal A, Renfrewshire Council considered that it was more acceptable than proposal B. The Council advised that, should the Commission decide that proposal A should be pursued, the proposed realignment of the administrative boundary should be amended. The Council submitted a written description to clarify where it thought the boundary should lie if proposal A were to be implemented.
Wendy Alexander, MSP urged the Commission to take into account that historically Braehead has always been associated with Renfrew, which is supported by 17th century plans of Renfrewshire. She also advised that to take Braehead and the Renfrew riverfront out of Renfrewshire Council's control would, for the first time ever, cut Renfrew town from its historical links with the river. Further, she made reference to the current strong links with Renfrew and the work being undertaken by the planners and Capital Shopping Centres to strongly integrate the rest of the Waterfront into the town of Renfrew itself.
Irene Adams, MP for Paisley North wrote to support the representation made by Renfrewshire Council and endorse the Council's view that proposal C was the best and most practical option. She advised that Braehead had always been part of the town of Renfrew and, as a result, of Renfrewshire. Going back to the seventeenth century there were plans showing Braehead as part of Renfrew. Notwithstanding the historical argument, the MP considered that it seemed sensible to use the River Clyde as the boundary at that point, as this was the natural boundary.
Councillors Mackay, Murrin, McGuinness, McGerty and Mylet of Renfrewshire Council made a joint submission as the local elected representatives for the town of Renfrew. Both individually and collectively, they urged the Commission to adopt proposal C. They considered that, as no electorate were involved, full account should be taken of the historical connections and sense of community which were clearly identified in the Council's submission, demonstrating the well-established links between Renfrew and Braehead. Looking to the future, the councillors believed that the Braehead development would form an integral part of the economic development of the area as reflected in the Area Development Framework produced by Capital Shopping Centres. They also considered that the potential of the area would be more readily secured if it were located within a single authority's area. Further, having all the relevant local authority functions in a single location within ready access of the area was an advantage in facilitating the development with respect to planning and licensing matters.
Renfrew Community Council objected to the proposal to transfer part of its town to Glasgow. The area in question was historically part of the former Royal Burgh of Renfrew and is the site of Salmon Fishing Rights granted to the town of Renfrew at the Merlinford Stone. The Community Council considered that the area was an important historical location in Renfrew and should be protected for future generations. The Community Council stated that part of the affected area had been zoned for residential use in the future, which under the proposal would mean that residents would pay Council Tax to Glasgow while using many services provided by Renfrewshire Council. It also noted that should the distribution of business rates be altered Renfrewshire Council would lose out substantially in respect of revenue from the Braehead Centre. Further, the Community Council stated that historically the area in question had belonged to Renfrew and submitted a petition with 1,806 signatures requesting the Commission to respect the traditional and historical boundaries of Renfrew and to deny further erosion of these boundaries.
Capital Shopping Centres advised that the current administrative boundary had resulted in much duplication of paperwork, particularly when new planning consents had been sought. It was therefore fully supportive of the review and trusted that any revised boundary would reflect the physical infrastructure now in place. It also submitted an alternative proposal similar to option A, which resulted in the Braehead Shopping Centre and Retail Park being located within Glasgow and the Braehead Business Park and hotel being located within Renfrewshire. Details of Capital Shopping Centres alternative proposal can be found at Appendix A.
Four representations were received from businesses that occupied units at the Braehead Centre. All supported proposal C.
Twenty-nine letters were received from various groups, associations and members of the public residing or located in Renfrewshire Council area. Generally these representations called on the Commission to respect the traditional and historical boundaries of Renfrew and stop further erosion of its boundaries. Representations were generally opposed to proposals A and B, but supported proposal C of the alternatives published as the Commission's provisional proposals. The arguments forwarded in support of proposal C were in the main based on historical grounds.
16. Ordnance Survey commented that proposal C followed a simple route along long established features that are easily identifiable on the ground.
17. Annabel Goldie, MSP made representation in support of proposal C. However, as the Commission had met to consider representations received in response to its provisional proposals on 8 May 2000 and her representation was received on 11 May 2000, it was not possible for it to be considered.
18. We carefully considered all the representations received by 8 May 2000 and noted that none had come from members of the public residing in Glasgow City Council area. Of the respondents that made representation, many were under the false impression that Glasgow City Council had made the initial request for a review of the administrative boundary at Braehead in order to take over part of Renfrewshire. It was also clear from examination of these representations that most were the result of a locally co-ordinated campaign within Renfrewshire to support the Commission's provisional proposal C. We noted, further, that the main reasons advanced by the Renfrewshire electorate were based on historical grounds.
19. Both Councils advised that our provisional proposal B would bisect phase two of the development of the affected area and we concluded that adoption of this proposal would not be acceptable.
20. We noted that there was general agreement on the part of both local authorities that in terms of effective and convenient local government the Braehead Centre and approach roads should be under the jurisdiction of a single local authority. Glasgow City's claim that it is more effective and convenient for the affected area to be located within its local government area rested mainly on two grounds: first, the fact that 80-90% of the Braehead Centre is currently located within its local government area; and, second, that a number of administrative functions with respect to the site are presently undertaken by its Council. Renfrewshire Council's claim rested mainly on historical grounds, the close proximity of the town of Renfrew, and the need for an integrated approach to the implementation of the Area Development Framework, which set out the strategy for future development within the area. As Renfrewshire Council had collaborated in the production of the framework document, it considered that it was best placed to oversee its implementation.
21. Whilst such factors merited consideration, we agreed that neither authority had submitted strong arguments to suggest that the location of the affected area within its local government area would result in significantly more effective and convenient local government than location within the other local government area. We concluded, therefore, that, in terms of effective and convenient local government, proposals A and C would be equally effective.
22. Examination of the geography and topography of the area around Braehead led us to agree that the King George V Dock already formed an established and permanent physical division between Renfrewshire and Glasgow City Council Areas. The Dock forms a strong boundary to the east of the Braehead development whilst, to the south, the M8 motorway effectively separates the area from the rest of Glasgow City. We concluded that proposal C would produce a better defined boundary, which would follow an already established and permanent physical break in the geography of the area.
23. Having concluded that, if possible, the anomaly in the administrative boundary between Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council at Braehead should be removed, we undertook a review in accordance with the procedures described above. As a result of that review we recommend that the area shown on the map at Appendix B, the boundaries of which are described at Appendix C, should be transferred from Glasgow City Council area to Renfrewshire Council area. We propose that, as a consequence of the transfer, alterations should be made to the electoral wards of Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council as specified in Appendix D.
24. We make our recommendations on the grounds that the proposed revision to the boundary will rectify the anomalous situation that has occurred on the Glasgow City/Renfrewshire Council boundary at Braehead. Further, we consider that our recommendation will produce a better defined boundary and will result in more effective and convenient local government.
Description of boundary of area of proposed transfer between Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council at Braehead Works
Commencing at a point NG Ref NS 5270 6696 on the northern perimeter fence of King George V Dock; then westward along the said perimeter fence and its prolongation in a straight line to the eastern side of an access road to the east of Braehead Shopping Centre at NG Ref NS 5267 6696; then southward along the eastern side of the said access road to and southward and south eastward along the eastern side of Kings Inch Drive to its junction with Renfrew Road at Hillington Road roundabout; then westward in a straight line to a point NG Ref NS 5261 6588 on the existing administrative boundary between Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council; then generally north westward and northward along the said administrative boundary to the centre point of the River Clyde; then south eastward and southward along the centreline of the said river to an undeterminable point in line with the northern perimeter fence of King George V Dock; then westward in a straight line to and along the said perimeter fence to the point of commencement.
Boundary between Glasgow City/Renfrewshire Councils at Braehead: Review of Administrative Boundary under the Provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973
Consequential alterations to Electoral Ward 51 (Drumoyne) of Glasgow City Council and Electoral Ward 27 (Deanside) of Renfrewshire Council.
| Electorate at 1999 | ||||
| Council | Electoral Ward | Proposed Alteration | Before Alteration | After Alteration |
| a | b | c | d | e |
| Glasgow City | 51 | The shaded area shown on the map at Appendix B and described at Appendix C to this report shall cease to be part of this ward. | 6,077 | 6,077 |
| Renfrewshire | 27 | The area shown on the map at Appendix B and described at Appendix C to be transferred from ward 51 of Glasgow City Council to this ward. | 3,485 | 3,485 |