Yesterday we published the text of e-mails from Brian Stewart and John Hart that have entered the public domain via the DPEA website’s South Nairn appeal pages. You can see too from an e-mail from Joan Noble how that concern is gathering momentum throughout the ranks of the objectors to the South Nairn appeal. We also publish the contents of an e-mail, from the appellant’s representative Maclay Murray & Spens LLP, which contains this interesting sentence: “The Appellants are pleased to note that the Reporter is content that no new matters have been raised by the Appellants.”
It looks like this planning battle, led by the town’s three community councils, is getting harder all the time. Now there are obviously ways that the objectors and the community at large see things on South Nairn (those that would agree with Murd Dunbar’s thesis excepted) and the way that the planning appeals system and its procedures consider the affair. We would urge all serious students of these matters to read this material - also 36 pages available listed on the DPEA site itself for those who want to research further). Click the read more tab to see the e-mail texts we mention above.
I am in receipt of the correspondence from Messrs Hart, Harrison and Stewart, and would like to join them in expressing grave disquiet about major changes to this application since it was refused, to the extent of being what I consider a new application.
We are now apparently to be considering a third transport assessment connected with this application, the first being scoped in October 2010. Despite errors in it being pointed out by auditors in October 2010, nothing was done until after refusal in September 2013. This was more than adequate time for the Appellants to reconsider their statistics, which were the subject of numerous objections during the consultation process. This apparent third transport assessment has not even been seen yet by other parties, and is possibly not even completed as I am writing this.
One of the main grounds for refusal by the councillors of the PED in September 2013 was the unsatisfactory Transport Assessment. That is what was on the table on the day, and the appeal is I believe against that decision. If, as I believe there is now to be a third traffic assessment lodged, then the planning application has altered radically from the original proposal, and cannot possibly be considered to be linking back to the original material. We cannot say that transport in it's widest sense was part of the original application therefore it is not new.
I would be grateful if you could please pass this letter to the Reporter, as it is completely unacceptable that upholders of the PED decision are having to constantly review and revise their submissions to address ever changing new material. This material cannot possibly be considered to be old, as the data has apparently just been captured in the past week, and not been the subject of scoping, audit, consultation or any other usual planning process for an assessment of this type.
I have been forwarded your e-mail below. The Appellants are pleased to note that the Reporter is content that no new matters have been raised by the Appellants. The Appellants are simply bringing matters up to date, in light of current Census data and the adopted Highland-wide Local Development Plan, both of which post-date the original Transport Assessment, in accordance with the Reporter’s requirements. I trust this clarifies the Appellants’ position.