THE First Minister has been challenged on whether Scottish Government ministers will “call in” a controversial planning application after approval was granted to build a golf course on a protected site.
On Wednesday, Highland Council’s planning committee voted to give the green light to a development on Coul Links, at Embo near Dornoch in Sutherland.
The Coul Links site forms part of the Loch Fleet Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet Special Protection Area (SPA).
While the decision to approve the golf course was welcomed by developers Communities for Coul Limited (C4C), environmental charities urged ministers to step in to block its progression – as they previously did in 2020.
At First Minister’s Questions on Thursday, Green MSP Ariane Burgess raised the issue with Humza Yousaf.
READ MORE: SNP ministers take direct control over controversial fish farm planning appeal
The Highlands and Islands MSP said: “Yesterday, Highland Council granted planning consent for a golf course on Coul Links, an internationally recognised Ramsar site and site of special scientific interest.
“This was despite an objection from Nature Scot and planning officers recommending refusal on the basis of conflict with National Planning Framework Four policies three, four and 10.”
Burgess finished: “Will the First Minister confirm that the decision will now be called in to Ministers and reaffirm the Scottish Government’s commitment to respecting all international treaty obligations, including the Ramsar convention?”
A Ramsar site refers to the international Convention on Wetlands, which is named after the city of Ramsar in Iran where it was signed in 1971.
The Ramsar Sites Information Service provides details of some 2500 protected wetland areas across the globe, including at Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet covering Coul Links.
Responding, the First Minister (above) said he would not comment on a specific live case, but urged local authorities to respect their statutory obligations.
He said: “These are of course local decisions to be made and I won’t comment on a live application and whether ministers will call it in and what that decision will be.
“What I would say … is of course the issues which [Burgess] raises in relation to the environmental impact of any planning application are incredibly important. Of course the impact any planning application could have on our nature and natural environment is of the utmost importance.
“I expect local government, local authorities, to take account of these matters and make sure they’re meeting their statutory obligations.
“In terms of a live application, she’ll forgive me that I won’t be able to comment any further.”
READ MORE: Met Office issues severe weather warnings across Scotland as floods alerts in place
On Wednesday, C4C director Gordon Sutherland said: “We are absolutely delighted that councillors have voted in favour of our application after careful consideration of all the information presented to them.
“Our plans, which have had the backing of local people from the outset, offer a genuine chance to create much-needed new employment opportunities in an area where the working age population is falling, threating the future viability of fragile communities.”
In 2020, the Scottish Government rejected plans to develop on Coul Links, saying: “The Scottish Government has considered the reporter’s findings carefully and agree with the recommendation that planning permission should be refused.
“The likely detriment to natural heritage is not outweighed by the socio-economic benefits of the proposal.”
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