Hansard

Michael Matheson’s motion is in three parts. The first part asserts that

“there is widespread dissatisfaction among residents in the Denny and Dunipace area regarding the planned Denny town centre regeneration”.

The second part acknowledges what we all know to have been the case for very many years, namely that

“Denny town centre is in desperate need of regeneration”.

The third and final part says that the Parliament

“would welcome regeneration plans that carry widespread support in the local community.”

No one could disagree with that—we all want the best possible rejuvenated town centre for the Denny community. It seems that the only point to be debated is whether there is widespread dissatisfaction among Denny residents about the plans for the town centre’s regeneration.

The project has been an aspiration for many years under local government administrations of different political persuasions, so it can only be good news that the regeneration is finally in progress—although it is, perhaps not surprisingly, likely to be a long, drawn-out process as various issues, some foreseen and some unforeseen, are resolved.

To put it into perspective, resolving those issues and gaining the necessary consents take time and can be frustrating for the local community and everyone else. Reasonable people only become dissatisfied when they are not kept advised about why there are delays—unforeseen or otherwise. The question is, therefore, whether the local community has been sufficiently consulted and kept advised. Denny residents and local businesses have been included in the regeneration plans for Denny town centre at every stage of the process, and plans have been altered to reflect the concerns of the community.

The original master plan for the regeneration was presented to retailers and the Denny community. Following feedback from the public, the plan was revised to address their concerns, particularly those about disabled access. The revised plan was put on open display to the public, who were also informed about the development via a website, a newsletter and a questionnaire. In February 2007, 93 per cent of the questionnaire respondents considered the plan to be satisfactory or better.

During the following few months, a working group—including members of the community council, retailer associations and council officials—agreed to resolve the traffic-management issues. There was also communication with the archdiocese after an access concern was raised. That issue was resolved.

Because of the economic downturn, the plan had to be revised and further consultations were undertaken. Meetings were held with the Denny community and local retailers, displays were erected in public buildings and plans were published online. The feedback from that consultation was positive, with 76 per cent of those who completed the online survey favouring the proposals. Of those who attended the library display, 100 per cent favoured the plans. In addition to that, feedback was also presented at a public meeting in January 2008. Further amendments to the revised plan were presented to the community through drop-in centres that were held over two days in August 2010. Of the 160 people who attended those sessions, 90 per cent found that the proposals were a positive step for Denny.

I could go on, but it is self-evident that there has clearly been extensive consultation of the local community every step of the way. The consultation process is on-going, local people are constantly being asked for their opinions, and their feedback has helped and continues to help to inform the regeneration process.

In those circumstances, the Parliament can be assured that there is no cause for widespread dissatisfaction among the residents of Denny and Dunipace, who will have the satisfaction and pleasure of seeing the regeneration completed and Denny town centre transformed.

12:28