First published in February 2014 Kinross Newsletter

Scottish Independence Referendum
The December issue of the Newsl etter carried a copy of a
letter I wrote to Alistair Carmichael MP, Secretary of State
for Scotland, regarding the Better Together Campaign, in
which I expressed the view that the campaign needed to be
more positive about the benefits of Scotland being part of
the UK.
I received a reply from the Alistair Carmichael dated
3 December 2013. Parts of the reply are reproduced below:
“In order to inform and support the debate on Scotland’s
f uture, the UK Government is undertaking a programme of
analysis on Scotland as part of the UK, and how it
contributes to and benefits from being part of the United
Kingdom. And the evidence shows there is a v ery positiv e
argument to tell. As part of the UK we in Scotland benefit
from a stable currency, sustainable pensions, inf luence in
Europe, and a def ence force that keeps us safe at home and
protects the vulnerable abroad.”
“To date papers on the f ollowing topics hav e been
published:
• dev olution and the implications of Scottish
independence;
• currency and monetary union;
• business and microeconomic framework;
• f inancial serv ices and banking;
• macroeconomic and fiscal performance;
• def ence;
• security and
• science and research.”
These papers are available to read online at:
www.gov.uk/scotlandanalysis
The Secretary of State also said that more papers on key
issues will be made available on that web address
throughout 2014.

LDP process not flexible enough
Cllr Barnacle has written to the Scottish Minister for Local
Government and Planning to raise his concerns regarding
the statutory framework whi ch oversees the creation of
Local Development Plans.
On 18 December 2013, Perth & Kinross Council agreed to
adopt its Proposed Local Development Plan as modified by
the Scottish Government Reporter and the Plan has now
been submitted to Scottish Ministers.
Cllr Barnacle wrote to the Minister: “…a number of
Councillors referred on the day of the debate, including
myself, to the apparent ‘democratic deficit’ within the
planning system because we were advised that there was
really no flexibility to depart from the recommendations of
the Reporters appointed by your Government.”
Although Cllr Barnacle was “ reasonably content” with the
Reporter’s conclusions in relation to the Kinross-shire ward,
a number of councillors were unhappy with some of the
Reporter’s changes affecting the Perth area, including
reinstatement of the Almond Valley village proposal.
The Councillor wrote: “The Reporters had more time to
hold hearings on contentious issues and could have done so;
PKC had no opportunity to request such hearings in
response to recommendations.”
Councillor Barnacle asks the Minster for his assurance that
this planning process will be reviewed and changes
considered that may address the concerns set out in his
letter.

Loch at risk from planning changes?
The four Kinross-shire Councillors have expressed their
concern at a change in the way Perth & Kinross Council
handles certain planning applications, which could have an
adverse effect on Loch Leven.
To protect the ecology of Loch Leven, any proposed
development in the loch’s catchment that is not going to be
connect ed to a public treatment works has to include its own
infrastructure to remove a speci fied minimum amount of
phosphorus from waste-water.
Until recently, the Council attempted to ensure that
developers complied with this obligation by using a ‘Section
75’ Legal Agreement when approving such planning
applications. However, Council officers felt that Section 75
agreements caused delays in determining planning
applications and in issuing planning consents. They are also
diffi cult to enforce.
In August 2013, PKC’s Enterprise and Infrastructure
Committee agreed to a different method of obliging
developers to include the necessary mitigation works. This
involves writing certain conditions into a planning consent.
These conditions are laid out in a ‘Memorandum of
Understanding for Planning Procedure for Applications in the
Loch Leven Catchment’ drawn up by Council offi cers in
consultation with SEPA and SNH.
Briefly, condition (1) of the Memorandum requires the
developer to install appropriate foul drainage infrastructure
prior to occupation; condition (2) states that no development
shall commence until the drainage infrastructure has been
installed to the satisfaction of the authority; and condition (3)
states that no development shall commence until the
applicant submits an approved CAR licence under the Water
Environmental (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulation
2011.
In October 2013 PKC’s Development Management
Committee granted a retrospective planning application for a
gypsy site at Crook Moss, which was already partially
constructed. The new Memorandum was not drawn up with
retrospective applications in mind, however, and when
writing the conditions on the planning consent, offi cers
omitted the words “no development shall commence on site
until ..” in relation to the Memorandum’s conditions 2 and 3
(conditions 16 and 17 of the gypsy site planning consent).
As reported in the November Newsletter, Cllr Barnacle
emailed PKC’s Peter Marshall (Planning) to express his
dismay at the failure of the Council to implement suitable
protection for the loch. Dissatisfied with the response, he then
wrote, on behal f of all the Kinross -shire Councillors,
following a Kinross -shire CC Network meeting, to Ian Innes,
PKC Head of Legal Services.
In his reply, Mr Innes admits that: “… the protection which
was intended from the suspensive nature of conditions 2 and
3 is not available in such cases” (i.e. retrospective
applications). Mr Innes continues: “Close monitoring of the
impact of phosphates in the Loch Leven catchment area
continues to be undertaken by offi cers in this Council, SEPA
and SNH. If there is evidence showing that the intended
protection of the Memorandum is being undermined because
of retrospective planning applications, it would be incumbent
upon each of these bodies to respond.”
Cllr Barnacle told the Newsletter that he intends to follow up
the matter of the Crook Moss traveller site with regard to the
way the application was handled and approved by PKC –
contrary, he believes, to a host of policies.