These articles were first published in March 2014 in the Kinross Newsletter.

Budget farce continues
Last year I rais ed the signifi cant concerns I had for the way
the minority separatist SNP Administration (surprisingly
aided and abetted by the so-called opposition Tory Group)
are running PKC. (See p.17, March 2013 Kinross
Newsletter.)
The Budget debate [13 February] followed a familiar
depressing pattern. The Group of Independent Councillors
decided to continue their approach of not pres enting a
budget, given the political arithmetic in the chamber and the
fact that our repeated request for earlier di alogue with the
other groups had again met with such a disappointing and
mixed reaction. Subsequent events were to again prove the
wisdom of that decision.
Given that Scottish Local Authorities under the Nationalist
Government have little choice but to accept the continuing
council tax freeze (by 2015/16 it will have been static for
nine years, during which time the rate of inflation has
consistently been above government targets, leading to a
real terms reduction in funding) and act as mere agents of
government policy, it remained imperative that PKC’s
decision on use of its limited resources, in a continuing
diffi cult climate, be given careful decision on use of its
scrutiny. All four political groups put forward their budget
proposals for the years 2014/16, meaning examination of
eight papers in under one hour (it would have been ten
papers i f we had presented our proposals and up to last year
I have never known such complexity in previous budget
examinations). In our view this is not a good way to set up
£325,000,000 budget.
Our Independent Group had spent considerable time on the
budget process and we had a balanced budget amendment in
place for possible use, having circulated our thoughts in
advance to all the other Councillors on areas where we
believed more money needed to be spent. These mainly
concerned the Environment Service, featuring new
footpaths, extra road gulley cleaning, more bus shelters,
increas es in grounds and roads maintenance, roadside verge
cutting at junctions, additional brown bin collections and an
increas e in the community waste fund. As I had said in an
earlier debate on the budget situation, we would support
whichever group incorporated most of our suggestions in
their proposals. It was interesting the number of areas where
additional expenditure or reject ed savings found common
ground amongst all four political groups.
There followed a highly political debate on the various
proposals which culminated yet again in the Tory Group’s
amendment, that was to be set against the SNP motion,
being withdrawn; hence for the second year running no vote
took place and the Administration’s budget, with minor
changes, was effectively passed. In reality, I again did not
have the opportunity to vote on it and asked, amongst other
opposition members, to be disassociated from this process.
In fact, our Group had decided, in the short time allowed to
digest the various papers, that ‘on balance’ we could
support the Administration’s proposals.
I maintain, along with Councillor Robertson, that the whole
procedure is a ‘farce’ and there must surely be a way to
allow more time to examine the relative merits of each
budget proposal in order to reach a better consensus and
proposal to take forward on behalf of the people of Perth
and Kinross we seek to represent; especi ally since all groups
accept the terms of the Local Government settlement and
council tax remains frozen. This year’s debate again
highlighted more than ever the iniquitous position of the
largest so-called opposition Tory Group that do not engage
with the rest of the opposition and openly attack them,
whilst happy to take the paid convenorships of audit and
scrutiny (I have resigned from this latter committee because
it is so ineffective) traditionally reserved for the leading
opposition. (The phrase taking money under false pretences
again springs to mind.) In effect, the actions of the Tory
Group mean that there is no effective way in which the SNP
minority administration is held to account. It would be
interesting to know if the Tory leader at Holyrood is aware
that her party in giving such succour to the Nationalists in
PKC in this referendum year? (I shall not bother writing to
her since she remains the only party leader who did not
respond to my request letter on the Referendum issue.)
Turning now finally to the Council’s Capital Budget for
2020/21 presented on 13 February 2014, our Group’s
amendment last year to allocate an extra £2 million from
uncommitted reserves was dismissed by the administration
when they chose to accept a Tory amendment relating to the
A9 improvements only (part of our amendment which had
also included money for major mitigation measures needed
on the A977 and core paths). I was dismayed when the
preparation of an outline business case for the A977
measures was put on hold last November and our Group had
proposed again an increase in the Capital Budget by £3
million by using recurring loan charges of £180,000 per
annum from revenue; it is disappointing that this suggestion
was not taken up by an Group’s proposals.
Given that we are in an unprecedent ed era of low minimal
interest rates, not expected to increase signi ficantly before
2017, it is surely wise in the medium term to identify
options (from the Capital Fund Reserves or Revenue) for
creating an increase in the loan charges budget (I suggested
an extra £200,000 per annum) from 2015/16 to restart the
Capital Programme. I sincerely hope that the administration
will look at this in the coming year and that my fellow local
members in Kinross-shire will support the request I made
during the debate.
Councillor Mike Barnacle
Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Council “laissez-faire” over gypsy
sites, says Councillor
Cllr Barnacle has written to members of the Council’s
Strategic Policy and Resources (SP&R) Committee on the
subject of Gypsy/Traveller sites.
The SP&R Committee was due to discuss a report
recommending the approval of a Perth and Kinross Gypsy/
Traveller Strategy at its meeting on 12 February.
Cllr Barnacle, who does not sit on the SP&R Committee,
wanted to warn the committee members of the dangers of
what he regards as PKC’s “ laissez-faire” approach to gypsy/
traveller planning applications.
He wrote: “ It is my view .… that we are faced with a
proliferation of sites capable of expansion and inadequate
planning control. Local communities view all this activity
with anger, concern and dismay. They want a level playing
fi eld and not positive discrimination on behalf of gypsy/
travellers in the planning system, as currently clearly
apparently operated by PKC.”

A Flawed Democracy and Procedures at PKC
by Councillor Mike Barnacle, Independent Councillor for Kinross-shire

Two recent crucial and important debates at PKC on
23 January 2013 re the Proposed Local Plan and
14 February 2013 on the Budget have brought out
significant concerns I have for both the present and the
future in relation to the way the minority separatist SNP
Administration (surprisingly aided and abetted by the socalled
opposition Tory Group) are running PKC. I feel it is
imperative that my constituents and residents are made
aware of this.

Local Plan
Dealing first with my concerns over the handling of the
Proposed Local Plan, readers of the Newsletter may recall
the article in the November 2012 issue outlining my letter
of 2 October 2012 to Jim Valentine, PKC’s Executive
Director (Envi ronment) on this. As predicted, all previous
references in PKC documents to the possibility of a
modification to the Plan in November 2012 for a six-week
consultation were ignored by planning offi cers, who
directed councillors make no notifiable modifi cations,
citing delays in the adoption of the Plan if any other course
were followed, despite the fact that over 1,500
representations were made on the Plan by the deadline of
10 April 2012.
My letter of 2 October 2012 requesting surgeries between
senior planners and ward councillors did result in two
detailed discussions taking place on Kinross -shire aspects
of the repres entations received. The planners suggested
responses and your ward councillors proposed amendments
or modifications (taking note of community
representations) prior to the full debate on 23 January 2013.
At that debate, I was prevented by the Provost from raising
with the officers who ran it any concerns about why they
had not kept to their Development Plan scheme timetable
and as a consequence were pressing councillors to agree the
Plan for submission to Government Reporters without any
material changes (making a ‘joke’ of so-called
consultation). It quickly became clear that the officers’
agenda was shared by the administration. This should not
come as a surprise since the Nationalist Scottish
Government’s “ smart, successful, Scotland” project
depends on fast-tracking the planning system, democracy
being the loser.
Notwithstanding these diffi culties, in a full day’s debate,
your Kinross-shire councillors (having agreed strategy
earlier) managed to put forward 10 of around 17
amendment motions to the Plan, which we thought we may
have a chance to secure agreement on.
In summary these were as follows, with the outcome viz:
1. Remove housing site H46 in Kinross. A modification
we lost the vote on.
2. PKC suggest to Reporter that H46 be considered for
removal (no shortfall in effective land supply).
Amendment agreed.
3. New site proposed in Milnathort (site A on map 31 of
Main Issues Report at Old Perth Road) should not be
considered for development by the Reporter and PKC
propose no modification to the Plan, which excludes it.
Amendment agreed.
4. Extend Site H54 in Scotlandwell eastwards, in order to
ensure a reduction in the original housing density, no
increase in numbers, limit the height of properties and
provide footpath links to south and west. Amendment
agreed.
5. Plan should show an additional zoned housing site in
Blairingone (H71) which represents site B in the Main
Issues Report for 30 houses, although it would not
contribute to the effective land supply. Amendment
agreed.
6. Modify Plan to change Opportunity site 12 at former
Kinross High School to a housing allocation.
Amendment withdrawn (following offi cer advice).
7. Since Housing Site 53 in Powmill is largest landward
area proposal for Kinross-shire at 120 houses (less 23
with existing permissions therein), request the Reporter
extend the Masterplan requirement to cover the whol e
village. Amendment agreed.
8. Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) to remain in
force until Local Landscape Designations for the Local
Plan are in place. Amendment withdrawn when officers
and convener of Enterprise and Infrastructure agreed to
prioritise landscape guidance, which I had previously
requested.
9. Advise Reporter that PKC think Plan should reflect
need for further mitigation measures on the A977
between Blairingone and Kinross, noting community
aspirations for a possible by-pass of the former. (See
later comments on capital budget.) Amendment agreed.
10. Amend Policy CF2 to provide further protection to
former railway lines from development, thus enabling
either restoration or footpath/cycle usage. Amendment
agreed.
Planning Officers have now finalised the Proposed Plan and
associated documents, along with amended Schedule 4
documents (containing numbers of representations, the
planners’ summary thereof, changes sought and PKC
response on each of the 46 topic issues) and made
submission to the Government Reporters. I have
reservations that all representations have been included and
correctly summarised, intending to write to the Reporters’
Unit in due course in relation to my own submissions. It is
the Reporters’ Unit that decides i f they want further written
clarity on unresolved issues or whether there should be a
public hearing. In relation to previous local plan
development and procedures, this is a major change and, in
my view, a definite reduction in the democratic
involvement of communities, constituents and residents in
what shapes their future to 2024.

Budget
Dealing secondly with my concerns over the Budget debate,
the Independent Group chose not to present their own
Revenue budget, given the political arithmetic in the
Chamber and the fact that our request for earlier di alogue
with the other groups had met with such a disappointing and
mixed reaction. Subsequent events were to prove the
wisdom of that decision.
Given that Scottish Local Authorities under the Nationalist
Government have little choice but to accept the continuing
council tax freeze (by 2014/15 it will have been static for
eight years, during which time the rate of inflation has
consistently been above government targets, leading to a
real terms reduction in funding) and act as mere agents of
government policy, it was imperative that PKC’s decision
on use of its limited resources, in a very difficult economic
climate, be given careful consideration and s crutiny. All
four political groups put forward their budget proposals for
the years 2013/15, meaning examination of eight papers in
under one hour. (I had not known such complexity in
previous budget examinations.)
The Independent Group had its own areas of concern, which
we had shared with officers, in particular regarding the
disproportionate cut in the Environment budget and
unacceptable savings proposed in education, housing and
community care. We therefore moved deferral of budget
decisions until the next PKC meeting set for 27 February to
allow for the dialogue required to examine the relative
merits of each budget proposal in order to reach a better
consensus and proposal to take forward on behal f of the
people of Perth & Kinross we seek to represent. Since PKC
had already accept ed the terms of the Local Government
settlement and all groups agreed this, council tax bills
would not be affected by the deferral. Unfortunately, this
responsible approach was ruled as not competent when we
had been earlier advised it was in order.
There followed a highly political debate on the various
proposals which culminated in the Tory Group’s
amendment, that was to be set against the SNP motion,
being withdrawn; hence no final vote took place and the
Administration’s budget, with minor changes, was
effectively passed. In reality I have not voted for it and will
continue to highlight its effects in the next two years. As
Cllr Robertson said during the debate, the whole procedure
was a ‘farce’ and there must be a better way of doing
things. I wholeheartedly agree but, when you have an
administration that is not interested in dialogue and the
largest so-called opposition Tory group that do not engage
with the rest of the opposition and openly attack them,
whilst happy to take the paid convenerships of audit and
scrutiny traditionally reserved for the leading opposition
(the phrase taking money under false pretences springs to
mind), I have little faith that things will change over the
term of this Council. It would be interesting to know if the
Tory leader at Holyrood is aware that her party is giving
such succour to the Nationalists in PKC as we approach
their separatist referendum?
Finally, the budget debate also covered PKC’s Composite
Capital Budget 2017/20 and I moved our Group’s
amendment to allocate an extra £2 million from
uncommitted reserves, which still left reserves of
approximately 3% of net revenue expenditure, in line with
Council reserves strategy.
£500,000 of this extra capital was sought for major
mitigation measures on the A977. I reminded councillors
that PKC officers had supported the community on the need
for £1 million to be provided for this at the Kincardine
Bridge Public Inquiry in 2004 and again in support of the
failed petition to the Parliament, signed by the vast majority
of residents in the Kinross-shire villages straddling the road,
in 2009. Apart from the £250,000 I managed to secure from
Tavish Scott, Transport Minister in the previous Labour/
Liberal Government at Holyrood, which was clearly not
suffi cient given the subsequent arguments over how best to
use it, PKC have consistently refused to allocat e any capital
funding for this ‘forgotten road’, despite my repeated
requests.
The major measures envisaged in 2004 were effectively
four large roundabouts and two can now probably be
delivered through planning gain at Turfhills and Powmill.
The amendment would have delivered progress on the two
others sought at Blairingone and Drum and I used the
opportunity in debate to remind members of our Local Plan
amendment on 23 January 2013 (see motion 9) reflecting
the need.
PKC’s Project Matrix had ignored this issue and also left
three projects below the cut off for priority funding that I
felt should be included, namely Road Improvements Due to
A9 Dualling £750,000, Tay Regeneration and Fergusson
Gallery £140,000 and Core Paths £600,000. This
amendment was dismissed by the administration, and they
chose to accept a Tory amendment relating to the A9
improvements only.
I am dismayed that, as a result, there will be no provision
for A977 mitigation measures before 2020 and I have no
way of addressing the concerns continually expressed to me
from residents along this strategic route, in relation to the
increasing speed and volume of traffi c, particularly HGVs
using it.