1st March 2018
Government Letter response to letter written October 2017
Local Government and Communities Directorate
Planning and Architecture Division
Dear Ms Pidgeon,
Thank you for your email dated 20 October 2017 to Mr Stewart, Minister for Local Government and Housing, regarding Park of Keir, Dunblane. I am responding on behalf of Scottish Government and apologise again for the long delay in responding to you. I note your comments and concerns.
As you know, on 30 August 2017 Ministers’ advised thatthey were ‘Minded to Grant’ Planning Permission in Principle for the proposed tennis and golf centre at Park of Keir, subject to conditions and the conclusion of a planning obligation. Planning Permission in Principle has not yet been formally granted. That means this is still a live planning application and it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond what is set out in Ministers Intentions letter.
It is important that those who might be affected by the planning of development have an opportunity to engage in the process. An independent panel concluded that better inclusion and collaboration at the front end of the planning system will bring more positive results than further options for complexity and conflict at the back end. The Scottish Government agrees with the panel on this, and so the Planning Bill currently before the Scottish Parliament is geared towards stronger engagement in development planning – including introducing a right for communities to produce their own local place plans – as a way for local people to have a meaningful influence over future development.
Government Letter response to letter written October 2017
Local Government and Communities Directorate
Planning and Architecture Division
Dear Ms Pidgeon,
Thank you for your email dated 20 October 2017 to Mr Stewart, Minister for Local Government and Housing, regarding Park of Keir, Dunblane. I am responding on behalf of Scottish Government and apologise again for the long delay in responding to you. I note your comments and concerns.
As you know, on 30 August 2017 Ministers’ advised thatthey were ‘Minded to Grant’ Planning Permission in Principle for the proposed tennis and golf centre at Park of Keir, subject to conditions and the conclusion of a planning obligation. Planning Permission in Principle has not yet been formally granted. That means this is still a live planning application and it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond what is set out in Ministers Intentions letter.
It is important that those who might be affected by the planning of development have an opportunity to engage in the process. An independent panel concluded that better inclusion and collaboration at the front end of the planning system will bring more positive results than further options for complexity and conflict at the back end. The Scottish Government agrees with the panel on this, and so the Planning Bill currently before the Scottish Parliament is geared towards stronger engagement in development planning – including introducing a right for communities to produce their own local place plans – as a way for local people to have a meaningful influence over future development.
1st March 2018
Letter written October 2017 to the Scottish Planning Minister
Dear Mr Stewart
I am writing to you on behalf of RAGE (Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion) –a community group opposed to the Park of Keir Development. The full history of this site, the developers most recent ploy to secure planning permission for houses by using a ‘celebrity’ to front the application and the reasons why this was not an appropriate site for the tennis centre were all covered extensively in the Local Public Inquiry.
We are shocked by your decision to overrule Stirling Council, the local community and the Independent Reporter. As well as many inconsistencies in the Notice of Intention letter, there are inconsistencies in your decision on a political level. I am attaching a fact sheet that has been distributed to our members. It contains more detail of these inconsistencies in the Notice of Intention letter as well as other concerns we have.
We consider your cavalier attitude towards local democracy and towards local and national planning policy to be at odds with the respect for local and regional democracy that the Scottish people were led to believe was a key element of the devolution settlement. We understood that you were elected on a manifesto commitment to empower local communities. Please can you explain how this, and other similar planning decisions, where the Scottish government have overruled local councils and the reporter, show that this commitment to empower local communities is being respected by you?
Nicola Sturgeon has stated that the decision has been reached according to planning rules and no other rules and that due process has been followed. Yet surely the basis of planning law is that land use changes should be in the public interest. The Reporter certainly seems to agree with this principle. You have used your discretion/power to overturn this decision and only given very vague reasons for this. This lack of rigour in addressing the serious issues that the Reporter considered makes a mockery of the claim to be abiding by planning rules. How can you justify overturning this decision when you agree with the Reporter on so many of the key issues?
You agree that the funding model is unproven and optimistic. The appellant made clear they will be applying for public funding to build the tennis centre. We question how this proposed tennis centre can possibly meet any of the criteria for public funding. Scottish Ministers accept there could be other more suitable sites, it is not an area where facilities are needed, it is inaccessible to the majority except by car and it does not have a viable business plan. It seems the only financial guarantee here is that the developer will make a hefty profit. We question the morality of manipulating the planning system and public funding for this purpose.
Throughout this appeal process, Judy Murray has gained support for her idea of a ‘Murray Legacy ‘in her ‘backyard’ through her strenuous PR campaign. Her campaign appears to have totally overshadowed any public discussion about what the real Murray legacy should be. A legacy should be enjoyed by many across Scotland and aim to increase participation in the game and honour the Murray name. The £15 million LTA/sportscotland funding is intended to provide this legacy by building or improving tennis facilities across the country in areas that lack facilities. Is this not the legacy that Andy and Jamie Murray would want? Or do you believe they want a legacy that is likely to be a white elephant and which will inevitably tarnish the Murray name, like the Trump Golf course which has failed to produce the economic benefits promised? Is Park of Keir going to be another embarrassment to the Scottish Government?
We also question your decision to alter Stirling Council’s wording of condition 8 which the Reporter confirmed in para 10.202 ‘should be imposed in the event that planning permission in principle is granted for the proposals. ‘The original wording was ‘Prior to the construction of any aspect of the residential units, the tennis and golf centre, together with all associated works, shall be completed and available for use. Construction works on the hotel shall either be commensurate with construction works on the golf and tennis centre or at a later date.’
This gave protection against what we have all feared from the outset i.e. that the tennis centre is a ‘Trojan horse’ for housing and there is no guarantee that the, potentially loss making, sports centre will even be built. The one word change you have made from ’construction’ to ‘occupation’ has completely removed that safeguard. Yet you have given exactly the same reason as the Reporter for this condition. ‘In order to ensure that the construction of the residential units and hotel only takes place as part of a comprehensive package of development and not independently. Furthermore, to ensure that the economic benefits of the development, as outlined by the applicant, are secured prior to development of the houses or hotel’’ Your change of wording makes a complete nonsense of the underlined section of your reason. You are now allowing the houses to be built first which is what the developer has wanted all along. What possible reason can you have for making this change? Are we seriously to believe that the developer has no other access to finance for constructing the sports facilities without first selling the housing plots?
There is only one conclusion we have been able to draw from your decision and the inconsistencies in your Notice of Intention letter. Far from following planning rules and due process in this decision the Scottish government, it seems, has been influenced by ’celebrity’ and the lobbying company Charlotte Street Partners. We know there have been meetings between Nicola Sturgeon and Judy Murray and that Nicola Sturgeon has spoken publicly about the Murray Legacy. Is this opportunity afforded to everyone who wishes to build on greenbelt or whose application is in some other way controversial? We asked for a meeting with you in January 2017 but were denied the opportunity to redress this imbalance. Refusing to consider opposing views is not exercising your power responsibly. If, as you say in your response to our request to meet, it would be inappropriate for any minister to meet with one party or organisation without meeting all other parties why was Judy Murray able to meet with Nicola Sturgeon?
We, as objectors, have been painted as NIMBYs, Murray haters, not concerned with the health and fitness of the nation’s children etc. This is far from the truth. There is so much support for Andy and Jamie Murray amongst objectors to the development at Park of Keir and the general public as well as support for what Judy Murray is trying to do locally and nationally.
What we are saying is that changes in land use, such as the irreversible building on green belt, should be made with care and intelligence. The benefits of any development should be clear and certain to be achieved. Please can you explain how Scottish Ministers can be convinced of the national importance of this proposal, when you admit the financial model is unproven and optimistic and that other sites may be available?
There have been, and still are, other sites that Judy Murray has turned down. In the right location there would be huge support for an affordable tennis facility. In an area that doesn’t already have an abundance of sport and leisure options, in an area that is not as affluent as Bridge of Allan and Dunblane and most importantly in an area accessible to the children and families who currently do not have the opportunity to take part in a sport like tennis. That would be a worthy legacy for the Murray brothers. Taking the above points into consideration, in the absence of a viable business plan and on a site that is inaccessible by public transport why do Scottish Ministers consider Park of Keir to be the right place for a ‘Murray Legacy’?
Local people should be listened to. Projects like this should not be planned and decided on a whim or a ‘dream’ or to help a developer make a profit or because they have a ‘celebrity, name attached to them or the applicant can use a lobbying company. If decisions are made in this way what impact do you see this having on the future of planning in Scotland?
The developer’s financial argument lacks any credibility. Dunblane Community Council pointed out, in their closing submission to the Public Inquiry, that there needs to be provision for at least £20 million capital costs and that the net contribution from the housing will be £1.75 million -less than 10% of the amount required. Alston Birnie, for the appellant, stated in the Public Inquiry that none of the profit from the house builder will go to the sports project. Is the balance to come from public funding?
Why, if this tennis centre had the potential to be successful, would Andy Murray’s own company not want to invest in it. Why did Colin Montgomerie’s management company walk away from the proposals at such an early stage if it had business potential?
We urge you to think again and refuse planning consent for this development on greenbelt and help Judy Murray find a more suitable site to fulfil her dream legacy to her sons Failing that we urge you to ensure that the sports facilities are available for use BEFORE housing is built as Stirling Council and the Reporter intended.
Yours Sincerely
Kathy Pidgeon, secretary Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion
Letter written October 2017 to the Scottish Planning Minister
Dear Mr Stewart
I am writing to you on behalf of RAGE (Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion) –a community group opposed to the Park of Keir Development. The full history of this site, the developers most recent ploy to secure planning permission for houses by using a ‘celebrity’ to front the application and the reasons why this was not an appropriate site for the tennis centre were all covered extensively in the Local Public Inquiry.
We are shocked by your decision to overrule Stirling Council, the local community and the Independent Reporter. As well as many inconsistencies in the Notice of Intention letter, there are inconsistencies in your decision on a political level. I am attaching a fact sheet that has been distributed to our members. It contains more detail of these inconsistencies in the Notice of Intention letter as well as other concerns we have.
We consider your cavalier attitude towards local democracy and towards local and national planning policy to be at odds with the respect for local and regional democracy that the Scottish people were led to believe was a key element of the devolution settlement. We understood that you were elected on a manifesto commitment to empower local communities. Please can you explain how this, and other similar planning decisions, where the Scottish government have overruled local councils and the reporter, show that this commitment to empower local communities is being respected by you?
Nicola Sturgeon has stated that the decision has been reached according to planning rules and no other rules and that due process has been followed. Yet surely the basis of planning law is that land use changes should be in the public interest. The Reporter certainly seems to agree with this principle. You have used your discretion/power to overturn this decision and only given very vague reasons for this. This lack of rigour in addressing the serious issues that the Reporter considered makes a mockery of the claim to be abiding by planning rules. How can you justify overturning this decision when you agree with the Reporter on so many of the key issues?
You agree that the funding model is unproven and optimistic. The appellant made clear they will be applying for public funding to build the tennis centre. We question how this proposed tennis centre can possibly meet any of the criteria for public funding. Scottish Ministers accept there could be other more suitable sites, it is not an area where facilities are needed, it is inaccessible to the majority except by car and it does not have a viable business plan. It seems the only financial guarantee here is that the developer will make a hefty profit. We question the morality of manipulating the planning system and public funding for this purpose.
Throughout this appeal process, Judy Murray has gained support for her idea of a ‘Murray Legacy ‘in her ‘backyard’ through her strenuous PR campaign. Her campaign appears to have totally overshadowed any public discussion about what the real Murray legacy should be. A legacy should be enjoyed by many across Scotland and aim to increase participation in the game and honour the Murray name. The £15 million LTA/sportscotland funding is intended to provide this legacy by building or improving tennis facilities across the country in areas that lack facilities. Is this not the legacy that Andy and Jamie Murray would want? Or do you believe they want a legacy that is likely to be a white elephant and which will inevitably tarnish the Murray name, like the Trump Golf course which has failed to produce the economic benefits promised? Is Park of Keir going to be another embarrassment to the Scottish Government?
We also question your decision to alter Stirling Council’s wording of condition 8 which the Reporter confirmed in para 10.202 ‘should be imposed in the event that planning permission in principle is granted for the proposals. ‘The original wording was ‘Prior to the construction of any aspect of the residential units, the tennis and golf centre, together with all associated works, shall be completed and available for use. Construction works on the hotel shall either be commensurate with construction works on the golf and tennis centre or at a later date.’
This gave protection against what we have all feared from the outset i.e. that the tennis centre is a ‘Trojan horse’ for housing and there is no guarantee that the, potentially loss making, sports centre will even be built. The one word change you have made from ’construction’ to ‘occupation’ has completely removed that safeguard. Yet you have given exactly the same reason as the Reporter for this condition. ‘In order to ensure that the construction of the residential units and hotel only takes place as part of a comprehensive package of development and not independently. Furthermore, to ensure that the economic benefits of the development, as outlined by the applicant, are secured prior to development of the houses or hotel’’ Your change of wording makes a complete nonsense of the underlined section of your reason. You are now allowing the houses to be built first which is what the developer has wanted all along. What possible reason can you have for making this change? Are we seriously to believe that the developer has no other access to finance for constructing the sports facilities without first selling the housing plots?
There is only one conclusion we have been able to draw from your decision and the inconsistencies in your Notice of Intention letter. Far from following planning rules and due process in this decision the Scottish government, it seems, has been influenced by ’celebrity’ and the lobbying company Charlotte Street Partners. We know there have been meetings between Nicola Sturgeon and Judy Murray and that Nicola Sturgeon has spoken publicly about the Murray Legacy. Is this opportunity afforded to everyone who wishes to build on greenbelt or whose application is in some other way controversial? We asked for a meeting with you in January 2017 but were denied the opportunity to redress this imbalance. Refusing to consider opposing views is not exercising your power responsibly. If, as you say in your response to our request to meet, it would be inappropriate for any minister to meet with one party or organisation without meeting all other parties why was Judy Murray able to meet with Nicola Sturgeon?
We, as objectors, have been painted as NIMBYs, Murray haters, not concerned with the health and fitness of the nation’s children etc. This is far from the truth. There is so much support for Andy and Jamie Murray amongst objectors to the development at Park of Keir and the general public as well as support for what Judy Murray is trying to do locally and nationally.
What we are saying is that changes in land use, such as the irreversible building on green belt, should be made with care and intelligence. The benefits of any development should be clear and certain to be achieved. Please can you explain how Scottish Ministers can be convinced of the national importance of this proposal, when you admit the financial model is unproven and optimistic and that other sites may be available?
There have been, and still are, other sites that Judy Murray has turned down. In the right location there would be huge support for an affordable tennis facility. In an area that doesn’t already have an abundance of sport and leisure options, in an area that is not as affluent as Bridge of Allan and Dunblane and most importantly in an area accessible to the children and families who currently do not have the opportunity to take part in a sport like tennis. That would be a worthy legacy for the Murray brothers. Taking the above points into consideration, in the absence of a viable business plan and on a site that is inaccessible by public transport why do Scottish Ministers consider Park of Keir to be the right place for a ‘Murray Legacy’?
Local people should be listened to. Projects like this should not be planned and decided on a whim or a ‘dream’ or to help a developer make a profit or because they have a ‘celebrity, name attached to them or the applicant can use a lobbying company. If decisions are made in this way what impact do you see this having on the future of planning in Scotland?
The developer’s financial argument lacks any credibility. Dunblane Community Council pointed out, in their closing submission to the Public Inquiry, that there needs to be provision for at least £20 million capital costs and that the net contribution from the housing will be £1.75 million -less than 10% of the amount required. Alston Birnie, for the appellant, stated in the Public Inquiry that none of the profit from the house builder will go to the sports project. Is the balance to come from public funding?
Why, if this tennis centre had the potential to be successful, would Andy Murray’s own company not want to invest in it. Why did Colin Montgomerie’s management company walk away from the proposals at such an early stage if it had business potential?
We urge you to think again and refuse planning consent for this development on greenbelt and help Judy Murray find a more suitable site to fulfil her dream legacy to her sons Failing that we urge you to ensure that the sports facilities are available for use BEFORE housing is built as Stirling Council and the Reporter intended.
Yours Sincerely
Kathy Pidgeon, secretary Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion
6th December 2017
The Scottish Planning Bill was put before parliament to be considered over the next few months. Planning Democracy organised a demonstration outside parliament on Wednesday 6th Dec, with representatives from community groups campaigning on planning issues are invited to come along.
The purpose of the protest was to call on our MSPs to amend the bill to create more community rights in planning, such as the right to challenge controversial planning decisions.
The Scottish Planning Bill was put before parliament to be considered over the next few months. Planning Democracy organised a demonstration outside parliament on Wednesday 6th Dec, with representatives from community groups campaigning on planning issues are invited to come along.
The purpose of the protest was to call on our MSPs to amend the bill to create more community rights in planning, such as the right to challenge controversial planning decisions.
Mark Ruskell, our Green MSP attended with campaigners at the demonstration outside the Parliament in Edinburgh. Our group, RAGE, were represented along with other community groups voicing our concern over new Planning bill. Demo organised by Planning Democracy.