New Petitions

May I read from my script?

The document that was presented to our community can only be described as disgraceful. At a public local inquiry, the Scottish Executive denied local people the right to express their views and unacceptably restricted the views of others. Fundamental freedom of expression and the right to a fair and public hearing were removed while an important breach of rules by a developer was condoned. The community was also denied the right of achieving fairness in representation and relevance, by the refusal to allow an expert witness to take part. It was not a reporters' inquiry and it was not an appellants' inquiry; it was a public local inquiry involving local people.When a local plan is left without credibility and a structure plan does not give general support; when an existing established resource can meet 1.65 times the necessary reserve; when national planning policy guideline 1 principles of social justice are refused a weighting; when there is evidence to suggest the possibility of a Pictish burial site that could be destroyed; when reporters and the minister responsible fail to ensure that expert advice is obtained; when the public bodies responsible for archaeology refuse to take up the question; when 601 non-spurious objections can be removed in an irrational manner over an issue that did not previously exist; when a poorly maintained single-track country road is not twin-tracked and therefore not fit to take thousands of heavy goods vehicles, compromising the safety of all local users of the road; when reporters take on the role of experts and dismiss the tourism concerns of a local community—a situation made worse by tour operators threatening to seek alternative routes; when people's amenities, environment, quality of life, property values and business enterprises are compromised; when testimony is misrepresented; and when ministers know all that and refuse to grant a ministerial review, then something is seriously wrong with a planning system that allows such manifest errors of unfairness and injustice to remain so remotely detached from challenge or redress.If planning permission is granted, local residents will face an impoverished quality of life and financial loss. If the Scottish Executive is prepared to allow such decisions by its officials, it must accept responsibility and grant compensation for the injustice caused. We cannot afford redress to the Court of Session. Even if we could, it would be only to take issue with matters of legal or procedural defects. Unfairness or inaccuracy in the assessment of the planning merits of the case are excluded from such a challenge. The present planning system does not offer a means of fully allowing the proper reviewing of improper planning decisions. That necessitates the urgent creation of an independent method of assessment and adjudication.The ombudsman's office should be given the necessary power to intervene and reverse decisions where necessary in order to maintain some degree of public confidence, to promote fairness, to provide justice and to give credibility to the planning system. If it is not within the committee's remit to recommend that, we would ask for consideration to be given to the creation of some other independent body to address these specific concerns.When Scottish ministers permit an uncorrected document, littered with flaws, to go out in their name, we believe that it is of significant national importance. However, ministers do not agree. We identified many serious flaws in the reporters' letter of intention and collected them in our critique. We sent copies to the First Minister and to other relevant ministers. "Not of significant national importance," was the reply. The papers were passed to the reporters who said, "We'll look at new evidence only." Who monitors the reporters' mistakes and calls them to account? Nobody.The perpetration of such injustices is why Parliament should be empowered to monitor the decision-making process and should be able to hold the Executive accountable for the errors of its actions. The present system is neither just nor democratic—hence our petition.

You are talking about people with modest or meagre incomes, who will only be given legal aid. Going to the Court of Session would not achieve the aim of our petition. If we went to the Court of Session, we could only challenge on legal or procedural matters. We could not challenge on the unfairness or injustice of how the planning decisions were made.

Yes, we have. I recently wrote a letter to the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland in response to a letter that caused us considerable concern. It was a Dr Fojut at Historic Scotland who first prompted us to believe that the site was a Pictish burial site. When Dr Fojut visited the site, a local archaeologist suggested to him that perhaps it was an iron age burial site, but Dr Fojut indicated that it was more likely to be Pictish. I had a conversation with Dr Fojut five or six weeks ago, in which he addressed that point again. He advised me that there was every possibility that Wester Lairgs was the site of a Pictish burial. In spite of that, Historic Scotland, the RCAHMS and the minister responsible will not pursue the matter. They will not carry out any investigations to establish what lies there.

No, the problem was nothing to do with that. I will be blunt. The public local inquiry that took place was nothing more than a farce. One would find the answer if one were to compare the letter of intention with the critique that we prepared, which consists of 99 pages outlining the flaws of the local public inquiry. There is a strong supposition in the community that a determination was made before the public inquiry took place.

No. The critique resulted from the letter of intention.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

No, that is not the case. The community formed a representative joint group that was made up of the action group and the community council. The first part of our petition relates to the fact that individual members of the community were not given the opportunity to speak.

The community was represented at the public inquiry through the joint group.

Absolutely.

There were more than 601 objections. The community council objected and the Strathnairn Action Group, which was formed to fight the proposal, objected. Highland Council turned down the application by 21 votes to 11 or 12. Four MSPs—three at the local public inquiry—represented us. Our MP represented us—his representative spoke at the local public inquiry. Yet the reporter still went against the views of the local community.

Yes.

The reporters have flown in the face of all the principles that are written down in documents such as NPPG 1 and our local plans. The Scottish Executive appears to be saying that there should be local public involvement in planning decisions, but as far as we are concerned, we were ignored.

The closing date has been extended to next month.

Yes. I asked the civil servant who is dealing with the consultation whether I could e-mail my comments, because I was so involved in various bits and pieces such as writing my speech. I was advised that the consultation period would be extended.

The planning consultation document does not specifically address some of the issues that we raise in our petition.

In view of what has happened and the discord that exists in our community, we must make use of every means available to bring the situation to people's attention.

No. The developer submitted the appeal.

Yes.

Yes.

The Executive is saying that there is no issue of national importance. However, our argument is that it is an issue of national importance, because if the reporters could release a document that was so flawed, similar documents in relation to many other communities could be released. If that is not an issue of national importance, I do not know what is.

Yes. We are not against quarrying. That point must be established. However, we have two major quarries that have supplied the growth of Inverness for more than 50 years—that adds up to more than 100 years between the two of them. Both quarries are substantial, but are situated at the head of the glen. They do not interfere radically with people's daily lives or with the amenities and environment of the local communities. The proposed quarry will do all that. The existing sand and gravel quarry applied for an increase to 6.4 million tonnes in February 2001 and a public inquiry took place in August 2001. Little or no cognisance was taken of the fact that the existing quarry could meet easily any shortfall in reserve, which is likely to be minimal.