I FEEL I have to respond to the comments made by Gordon Darge (The Long Letter 17 July). He makes three points about the letter I wrote regarding the poor planning decisions made by Fife planners and the Scottish Government.
Firstly, he makes the presumption that I am ill-informed or have little knowledge of the planning system, along with the others he criticises. He is not to know that I am an experienced lawyer and am likely to know as least as much as he does about the vagaries of planning.
READ MORE: Letters: It’s saddening to read ill-informed criticism of the SNP on planning
The Cupar North development, when it was first put forward by developers and supported by Fife, was opposed by more than 800 objectors from Cupar, all three local councillors, Dundee City Council, the community council, and latterly our MP and MSP. An independent report commissioned by Fife stated that the north side of Cupar should not be considered for development, and Cupar North was rejected by the Fife Area Committee of Councillors, at first instance. It was then called in to a full council meeting. The report by the then head planner made absolutely no mention of the of the genuine concerns of the objectors, and the then Labour administration imposed a “three-line whip” to ensure the plan was passed.
READ MORE: SNP joined forces with the Tories to push Planning Bill through
Although Mr Darge uses frivolous objections to bolster his observations, the objections made all through the process in Cupar have been serious matters and requested answers to breaches of local and national policy made by Fife planners. We are still awaiting answers. The objection made by Dundee City Council was thorough, relevant and detailed. The Fife planners’ response was: “We disagree”, and summed up the attitude that the planners had to the questions asked on all sides.
As an example, one of many national policies (contained in Planning Circular 3/2012 at paragraph 32, if Mr Darge wants to look it up) states: “In drafting development plans, planning authorities should work with infrastructure providers, other local authority departments and consultees to undertake a robust assessment of infrastructure requirements, the funding implications and the timescales involved.” When I raised with Fife Council the fact that no such assessment, robust or otherwise, had been carried out, their response was that this does not apply to them. I can send Mr Darge a large file of instances where the planners in Fife either disregarded questions asked, or misled the public with information provided.
The local plan has twice gone to the Scottish Government for approval. When I, along with many others who are concerned that this is a bad plan for Cupar, pointed out to Kevin Stewart’s planners that the information being provided by Fife was both inaccurate and misleading, we got the brush-off.
Mr Darge then makes the point that there has never been a right of third-party appeal in Scottish planning. This is not strictly true. Anyone can raise an action in the Court of Session appealing a planning decision. There are negative points about this route. It is hugely expensive and time-consuming and the appellant has to prove that the council concerned has acted in a manner that no reasonable council would have. This is a high bar of proof. The reason that a third-party right of appeal was suggested for inclusion to the recent Planning Bill was to allow communities with genuine concerns to have them investigated through mediation in a more user-friendly manner. Other legislation has managed to allow for frivolous matters to be disregarded. Even if Mr Darge was correct, the fact that no right has existed before is no argument that it should not exist now. History is littered with examples – for instance, women would not have the vote now if one followed the logic that they did not have the vote in the past.
Lastly, I am an SNP member, I voted Yes and did my bit for the campaign. I believe that generally the SNP government is beneficial to Scotland and the sooner we emerge from the vassal state imposed upon us by Westminster the better. However, I am not prepared to remain silent when I consider that any government is acting against communities’ interests. This especially so when that government states that it wants to be inclusive and empower communities. In my opinion, to do otherwise would be immoral.
Ceri Williams
Cupar
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 here