All those serious students of Sandown Common Good matters may wish to make a cuppa or pour a dram and have a browse of a letter from the town's two Community Councils that has appeared in the public domain. Copies have been sent to all the area's MSPs too:
Nairn
West and Suburban Community Council
4th
October 2021
Dear
Councillor and Trustee of Nairn Common Good
By email:
NAIRN
COMMON GOOD: CONSULTATION ON DISPOSAL OF SANDOWN LANDS
At
our regular meeting on 27 September, the Community Council discussed
the latest position regarding consultation about possible disposal of
the Sandown Lands.
It
is widely accepted that decisions on the management and use of the
Sandown lands, the largest and most valuable asset within Nairn’s
Common Good, are hugely important for the town and the community. As
a Community Council we are acutely aware of the significance of the
decisions being made. For that reason we have reflected very fully
on the present situation and the proposals that are now being put
forward.
We
are firmly convinced that a further, or “additional” consultation
exercise is inappropriate, unjustified and unacceptable, especially
if it is to be steered, managed and directed as proposed.
This
letter sets out the basis for our carefully-considered view.
1)
The consultation already conducted was fair, and conclusive
It
is on record that both Community Councils expressed concern about the
holding of such an important consultation at a time last winter when
the community and the whole country were under Covid-related
restrictions, public meetings were prohibited and normal social
contact not possible. However when the Council decided nevertheless
to go ahead, we did our utmost to ensure that the information was
disseminated as widely as possible; and we welcomed the decision to
agree our requests to extend the period for responses.
The
consultation conducted over 15 weeks from Nov 2020 to Feb 2021, in
line with the requirements of the Community Empowerment Act (CEA),
was a well-publicised, widely-reported and extensively-discussed
exercise. It was publicly announced and promoted and given
significant coverage in the press, on websites and in social media.
Briefing material was circulated and posted online. The subject was
vigorously debated at online community council meetings and in other
forums. So there was ample, full and fair opportunity for all
sectors of the community and all local residents to reflect and
respond.
The
response (for a survey-exercise of this kind) was substantial. The
outcome – set out in Council report NC/12/21 – was unequivocal.
86% (85 out of 96 respondents) were opposed to disposal, with 10
making comments for and against, and just 3 in support. Equally
relevant, in reviewing the report at their 23 June meeting,
Councillors accepted the validity of the exercise:
“…..
Members highlighted that this was a very comprehensive consultation
with a good extension of time to it that allowed as many people to
participate in it as possible.”
In
our view, this is a conclusive result. It has delivered a clear
verdict (not, for example, a close-run 51/49% split which might
justify a re-run). It has been endorsed by Councillors as allowing
and reflecting comprehensive participation.
2)
A further round of consultation is unacceptable, manipulative and
intellectually dishonest
Against
that background, the subsequent proposal to conduct a second round of
consultations is not only unjustified: it implies – contrary to
the evidence and Members’ own views – that the exercise already
conducted was somehow unsatisfactory. More seriously, it gives rise
to concerns that the proposal is a cynical exercise motivated by a
desire to secure a different verdict.
The
arrangements now proposed for a further round of consultation are
fundamentally undemocratic. The essence of a consultation is that
there should be a level playing field: an open opportunity for all,
on the same basis, without fear or favour, and without any selective
prompting, to offer their views freely. This was indeed the approach
last year, and it produced a clear outcome.
The
approach as now outlined – in report NC/15/21 and in further
official briefing at the recent Community Planning Partnership
(NNCPP) meeting – is clearly intended to manipulate the process in
particular ways. It represents a deliberate strategy to mobilise and
encourage comment for the proposed disposal plan by prompting and
soliciting feedback from selected and targeted groups who have thus
far shown neither knowledge nor interest. This is selective and
discriminatory. It is profoundly disrespectful of all those –
including the Community Councils – who devoted thought and time to
understanding the issues engaging with constituents, and responding
to the consultation in December 2020. To assert that people
“misunderstood” is a patronising insult.
As
a matter of basic principle, it cannot be right to target or canvass
for views on a matter of community-wide importance from particular
groups on the basis of social or economic status, personal
circumstance or indeed any other such criteria. The rationale for
choosing whose views to seek, and how, is unclear. The idea (in
Council report NC/15/21) that “...trusted
individuals…”
might be expected to “…
assist with the completion of responses…”
is quite extraordinary. And it is particularly inappropriate to
identify specific client groups of the Council (such as tenant
associations) or of the CAB, or schools and nurseries (!) as having
a privileged or preferential right to comment.
Scrutiny
of this notion reveals how absurd it is. It could reasonably be
asked why other groups or categories of local residents should not be
similarly targeted – whether care-home residents, commuters,
retirees and pensioners, schoolchildren, shift workers, churchgoers,
social security claimants, university students, second-home owners,
Gaelic speakers or any other arbitrarily-chosen sector of the local
community!
The
only credible alternative to an open, free and fair consultation such
as that which has already taken place, is to arrange a mandatory,
compulsory, referendum vote in which all residents irrespective of
social or economic status and personal circumstance, are obliged to
respond. This has indeed already been mentioned by one Councillor.
It is however unrealistic in both political and practical terms. It
would not only be a major logistical and administrative exercise, and
expensive in time and resources; it would also be at odds with the
principle of democratic expression and freedom of choice which
underpins our political system and is embodied in the Community
Empowerment Act.
3)
the NNCPP has no remit on Common Good matters
The
suggestion that somehow the NNCPP should provide the mechanism for
conducting or advising on this further extended and selective process
– by means of a ‘reference group’ whose membership and terms of
reference are totally undefined – is entirely inappropriate.
The
NNCPP has no remit to manage, intervene in, or administer any matters
relating to Common Good. It is not qualified to do so. It is not an
elected body. Its members are appointed or ex
officio
representatives – mainly of service-delivery public agencies and
funding bodies. Most of its members are not residents of the burgh
of Nairn. The idea that a ‘reference group’ involving people
from outside the burgh should manage, direct or “massage” the
process of local consultation about Sandown or any other Common Good
matter is a nonsense.
4)
the invocation of the 2013 development brief is misleading
The
argument that people should be consulted or asked to respond on the
basis of the 2013 development brief for Sandown is misleading and
dishonest. The question that was – and is – being posed in the
consultation is only
on the principle of disposal of the land.
Nothing further. The consultation does not set out (and cannot
ensure) specific uses. Nor does it present options for comment on
how the land might at some point be developed or by whom.
The
2013 development brief is indeed on the table. But it is
out-of-date. Moreover it has no legal or binding force. It is not a
“manifesto” or a policy document. It is no more than guidance
for potential developers, and is susceptible to change. So to imply
that the consultation is seeking consent for what is outlined in that
development brief is wrong. It is only one illustration of
development potential. To use that document to incentivise people or
promote a specific response is political arm-twisting. If the land
is disposed of, there is no assurance – and certainly no guarantee
– that whatever is indicated in any development brief will in the
event be realised.
It
would perhaps be reasonable – and desirable – to have a
wide-ranging public debate about how the Sandown Lands might best be
used, managed and developed for the benefit of the people of Nairn.
But this has not happened. And it is not what the current
consultation is about.
The
consultation seeks an absolute and simple “Yes or No” answer to
the core question as to whether this “inalienable” land should be
disposed-of. It seeks to grant the Council absolute power and
discretion to apply to the Sheriff Court to dispose of the land as
and when they see fit at some unspecified time in the future and at
whatever price and for whatever purposes they choose. Effectively it
is giving consent to the Council’s appropriation of the asset. It
amounts to granting Councillors a ‘blank cheque’ . That is
unacceptable.
If
indeed a further consultation were to be launched, and if the aim is
to promote debate and collate views on the eventual use of the land
rather than just its disposal [by sale], then this would have to be a
new and separate exercise. It could include – but should not be
limited to – the elements indicated in the 2013 development brief.
If change of use is envisaged, court consent would be required. But
any such exercise should as a very minimum set out, objectively and
dispassionately, a full range of possible options – each one
supported by a carefully worked-out business case.
These
could range from retention as a capital asset, to long-term lease to
generate an income stream (as with the Inverness CG land at the
Longman Estate), to partial and phased disposal for specified
community facilities, to creation of a recreational area, a wetland
reserve, a green corridor, a range of housing units, or indeed any
other possibilities that the local community might regard as
beneficial. But this is an entirely different proposition which
would have to be tackled separately.
5)
ConclusionOur
view is clear: the consultation required by the CEA has been carried
out. A clear outcome has been delivered. There is no case for a
“re-run” or a second round, or further canvassing of particular
sectors or categories of residents on a selective or arbitrary basis.
We therefore oppose any such proposal.
There
is one more point which emerges from this and previous discussions:
6)
The need for a proper, local, representative, Nairn CG management
structure
This
entire saga has underlined the case, which we have long argued, for a
properly representative, inclusive, local Common Good management
group or committee – consisting of elected representatives from
community bodies within the burgh of Nairn. It should have a
formally-defined responsibility to comment, advise and make
recommendations on all aspects of the management and administration
of Nairn’s Common Good. It would not be an “economic” entity.
Nor is it about delivery of services. So the idea that the NNCPP,
or some kind of ill-defined or self-appointed “reference group”
within it might fulfil such a role is misguided.
There
are models and examples of best practice elsewhere in Scotland. We
therefore also urge early action aimed at establishing such a group.
This
letter is copied to relevant Council officials; to the Chair of the
NNCPP; and to our MSPs. It will be published on our website as a
record of action decided at our 27 September meeting, and so will be
available to the press and the wider public.
Yours
sincerely,
Sheena
Baker Hamish Bairn
Sheena
Baker Hamish Bain
Chair,
NW&S CC Chair Nairn River CC
Distribution:
Cc:
Cllr Tom Heggie, Leader, Ward 18 Highland Council, Cllr Laurie
Fraser, Cllr Liz MacDonald, Cc: Cllr Peter Saggers,
Cc: Fergus Ewing
- Scottish National Party - Fergus.Ewing.msp@parliament.scot
Cc:
David Haas in the absence of Acting Ward 18 Ward Manager,
David.Haas@highland.gov.uk
Cc:
Sara Murdoch,(Corporate
Finance) sara.murdoch@highland.gov.uk
Cc:
Alison Clark,
(Policy and Reform) Alison.Clark@highland.gov.uk
Cc: Ariane
Burgess - Scottish Green Party - Ariane.Burgess.msp@parliament.scot
Cc: Donald
Cameron - Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party -
Donald.Cameron.msp@parliament.scot
Cc; Rhoda Grant -
Scottish Labour - Rhoda.Grant.msp@parliament.scot
Cc: Jamie Halcro
Johnston - Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party -
Jamie.HalcroJohnston.msp@parliament.scot
Cc: Edward
Mountain - Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party -
Edward.Mountain.msp@parliament.scot
Cc :Emma Roddick
- Scottish National Party - Emma.Roddick.msp@parliament.scot
Cc: Hamish Bain,
Chair Nairn River Community Council
Cc:
NW&SCC – Community Councillors
