New Petitions

I fully accept that the committee is not an appeals court for planning applications and that there has been a previous petition. Against that background, I refer specifically to the issue of non-referral to Historic Scotland and the Royal Fine Art Commission. Although there is one signature on the petition, there have been many more signatories since. I do not know whether the convener is aware of whether e-mails have gone to the committee clerk and to committee members about the background to the petition, because—

So you know about the background of the historic St Mary's church, which is at the centre of the matter. I have been at the locus. We are talking about the royal burgh of Haddington which, to some extent, has avoided the planning blight that has occurred elsewhere in Scotland, when builders develop luxury houses similar to the ones that are planned. Fifty luxury houses are to be built, with the carrot of 10 social houses. I am sure that the committee has seen such developments. I take the view—and I hope that the various bodies that I have referred to also take the view—that that is a serious matter when planning applications are being considered. I refer members also to the 1997 planning advice note "Planning in Small Towns" and the document, "Designing Places: A Policy Statement for Scotland", which are not strictly related to this matter, but which indicate that there should be a bottom-up approach to planning. Such an approach is not being taken to the application that we are considering.I refer also to a document that 74 residents of Briery Bank signed, paragraph 7 of which says that if the development goes ahead, "the landscape to St Mary's Church will be completely spoiled."We are talking about the thin end of the wedge in relation to luxury developments, because it is suspected that if the development goes ahead, the next step will be to build to the west of the site, across the road. The new houses will not be for the people of Haddington, because there are not many jobs in the town, so we can set aside the idea that the development would benefit the community. Developments will encroach and grow like a carbuncle—as somebody once said of a building.The petition is also supported by the Haddington and District Amenity Society, which makes it plain that the development would blight the amenity of the area. Members might have a copy of the letter from HADAS to Mr Peter Collins, the head of environment at East Lothian Council.

I will provide the committee with a copy of the letter, which is dated 22 December 2003—it is fairly recent.

I am coming to that. The letter refers to the statutory requirement to consult. It says:"As a statutory body for this brief, the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland (RFACS) requested to be consulted at every stage of planning and design, as indicated in a letter from them to ELC (Roy Hannah, 2 Sept. 2002). We wonder therefore why ELC did not automatically send RFACS a copy of this current planning application by CALA."The letter is very pertinent.

I will provide a copy of the letter, but I am not clear about which documents the committee has.Finally, both the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and HADAS oppose the development because it will spoil the setting and change the view of St Mary's church. People feel strongly about that—at one stage 1,500 people signed a petition.The development needs to be considered in the context of the aesthetics of the landscape of the royal burgh of Haddington. The petition does not suggest that houses should not be built in Haddington—there are sites in the area where social housing could be built—but the development should be considered carefully, because once the houses are up, they will be up for good.

I understand that the planning application is still under consideration and that there has been no decision on it. I see that people are nodding from off stage, so I take it that that is correct.I take it that you are looking at the faxed letter from Haddington and district community council that is dated 28 March 2004. The community council seems to be giving out mixed messages, as it also says:"The objectives of the Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015, currently under review, are set out in para 2.16 of the March 2003 Finalised Plan",bullet point 2 of which is the objective"to reduce commuting to Edinburgh from the landward Council areas".That is not happening. The submission continues:"The proposed development at Briery Bank is"not"a product of ‘bottom up' planning",so the community council objects to the development.The submission mentions social housing, but the development was never about social housing. The builders want to build very expensive, luxury houses, because that is where the profits are. Social housing was never an issue.

No.

That is quite right. First, I point out that I did not address pressure on roads, transport or congestion because they are not pertinent to the petition. I tried to speak to the narrow issue.

Secondly, the answer to your question is that the bodies that you mentioned have not been involved in the matter in the way in which the previous Public Petitions Committee directed.

I will not take long, as Mike Watson covered one of the points that I wanted to raise. I am concerned that lots of developments are going ahead against the wishes of local communities, and sometimes against the wishes of local councils. Has there been a public inquiry, or has that idea been mooted? As Mike Watson said, the ministers said that Historic Scotland and the Royal Fine Art Commission should be consulted, but the letter from Margery Clinton mentions that there has been no contact with those bodies. Therefore, I assume that we must write to either the minister or the councils to find out exactly what is happening. I would have thought that a shadow would be put over the development if the developers have not spoken to the people to whom ministers stated they should speak.

I just asked; sorry.

Yes. No problem at all.

There has been no public inquiry on the matter. Its history is given in the fax from the community council, which states that the first proposals to build on the site were made in 1976. There has been a battle to preserve the area for a considerable period of time. Proposals for development recurred in 1998 and they were turned down, but on appeal the site was zoned for housing. The community has been fighting to protect the area for a considerable number of years. Indeed, there was an attempt to raise lottery funds to buy the land to preserve it for the community for all time. However, one cannot compete against major developers.

I have been very good and have spoken exactly to the remit of the petition. I have every sympathy with what you say, but that might be another route for petitioners to take.

Can we send a copy of the petition to the council, just as we are doing with the petition on harbours in Aberdeenshire?