THE Scottish Greens have launched an attack on SNP and Conservative members of the Local Government Committee at Holyrood after they blocked an amendment that would have clamped down on landowners creating unregulated tracks for grouse shooting and deer stalking.
Scottish Green MSP Andy Wightman’s amendment to the Planning Bill would have required landowners to seek planning permission for tracks on land used for stalking and shooting, and on land in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and national scenic areas.
Wightman, land reform spokesperson for the Scottish Greens and MSP for Lothian, told the meeting it was a long-running issue and added: “Tracks constructed for agriculture and forestry do not currently require full planning consent. Tracks built for field sports and shooting are in theory required to be subject to full planning consent but all too often are not.”
He said his amendment restated the law as it should be at the moment, but Local Government Minister Kevin Stewart did not accept the amendment which he said would have “unintended consequences” and the vote went against Wightman.
He said afterwards: “The campaign against bulldozed hill tracks has been long-running, and I want to thank the numerous membership groups who helped build huge public support for my amendment, including Ramblers Scotland, RSPB, the National Trust and Mountaineering Scotland. It’s disappointing that SNP and Tory MSPs have bowed to vested interests in blocking this move. They should be ashamed.
“The current system whereby landowners notify planners of a bulldozed track rather than seek detailed permission is clearly a sham. Hillsides both Highland and Lowland are visibly scarred, often ruining environmentally sensitive habitats, and usually in the interests of stalking and shooting, which the public have little sympathy for.
“I have no doubt that the huge numbers of Scots who enjoy the outdoors and value our hills as a natural landscape will judge the SNP and Tories harshly at the next opportunity. Our hills should be managed for nature and for the common good, not the bloodthirsty pursuits of a privileged few.”
The Local Government Committee was holding its fifth meeting in which it is discussing the Planning Bill. Labour’s Claudia Beamish and Monica Lennon both attacked the “culture” of developers refusing to accept defeat on planning issues.
Currently a second application for the same site should only be considered if there is significant change from the refused application. Beamish suggested the Government should consider issuing guidance on what constitutes a “significant change”.
An amendment to the Bill would allow local authorities the right to refuse consideration of plans submitted after permissions had been denied, or to charge what Beamish termed “a fine” for submitting a fresh similar application.
Highlighting a case in Kilmacolm in Renfrewshire, Lennon said the local residents association had e-mailed MSPs to mention a situation in which “a volume housebuilder has tried three times to get planning permission on a green belt site”.
She said: “It’s been refused twice by the planning authority and an appeal has been dismissed by a reporter, but they talk about that culture of repeat applications until developers get what they want.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel