Ally McCoist brands council’s reason for rejecting luxury housing plans ‘very loose’

Ally McCoist has branded the reasons Renfrewshire Council gave for rejecting his plans for a luxury housing development as “very loose” in an appeal to the Scottish Government.

The Rangers icon is embroiled in a row with the local authority over proposals to build 33 houses and flats on a vacant site in Bridge of Weir.

The 64-year-old pundit’s plans include building four detached houses, six semi-detached houses and 23 flats split across three blocks.

The application, launched in July 2024, received nearly 400 objections due to concerns about damage to the area caused by the development, as well as 60 letters of support.

Planning officials recommended the plans for approval, but Renfrewshire councillors threw them out at a meeting in May.

Councillors said it would have a “detrimental impact” on the local conservation area and raised concerns about traffic.

Now, McCoist has taken the fight to the Scottish Government, arguing that councillors should’ve backed his plans.

As part of a 205-page planning appeal document, his appeal states: “Whilst the appellant does not suggest that councillors were legally bound to accept the recommendation of the chief planning officer, there remains an important distinction between departing from an officer recommendation on identifiable and reasonable planning policy grounds based on technical evidence and departing from a substantial body of professional and technical evidence without a sufficiently robust evidential basis for doing so.

“The appellant accepts that members were entitled to exercise their own planning judgment and were not bound by the recommendation of their professional officers.

“However, that judgment is required to be founded upon identifiable and reasonable planning considerations, assessed against the evidence before the board.

“The appellant maintains that the council has not demonstrated why the particular design, landscape and conservation area concerns relied upon justified departing from the comprehensive assessment supporting approval.”

The document added that: “The appellant’s position is that the decision to refuse planning permission was not based on or supported by sufficiently reasonable planning grounds or a robust evidential basis for doing so.

“The reasons for refusal stated were very loose, not complete or precise, not tied to technical evidence, and with a failure to state a comprehensive reason for refusal supported by relevant planning policy.”

Renfrewshire Council previously wrote to the Scottish Government urging it to uphold its decision.

Government reporter Ailie Callan was assigned to the case, but the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) confirmed that she is no longer involved.

Documents show that it emerged that Ms Callan’s husband knows a man called John Russell, who represents a residents’ group called the Hammerhead Trust, which has opposed the development.

She was said to have an “indirect connection” to Mr Russell, but it was confirmed on Monday that she will no longer be involved in the case.

A new reporter will be appointed in due course, and a decision will be issued.