House not place for tennis points

Stirling MP Steven Paterson speaking in the House of Commons on December 8 on the achievements of Andy and Jamie Murray, brought up the subject of Judy Murray’s application for a tennis centre at Park of Keir (Observer December 9, 2016).

He said it would not be appropriate to comment on this but went on to do just that : “…as the MP for Stirling…..I sincerely hope that the academy can proceed….”.

He is thereby clearly inferring his support but does not attempt to address the controversial facts of the case because ‘this would not be appropriate’.

I understand Mrs Murray had visited Westminster the previous day. It is not acceptable or appropriate to bring this matter into a debate in Westminster when it is the subject of a planning appeal heard at Public Inquiry after being rejected by Stirling Council, and is awaiting a decision by Scottish Ministers.

It is bad enough that the Scottish Ministers are going to have the last say in this decision, rather than the Reporter who conducted a thorough examination of the evidence, but it is undemocratic to also have a Westminster MP signalling his support without apparently being fully acquainted with the facts.

The facts are that the landowner Duncan King wishes to build houses on this green belt but that does not comply with Scottish Planning Policies or the Local Development Plan, so he has come up with this plan in ‘partnership’ with Judy Murray.

In reality the partners are members of the King family and Judy has no written agreement with this developer on whom she depends to deliver this ambitious venture.

He, through his agent, made it quite clear at the Public Inquiry that he will not build a tennis centre without houses.

It is totally understandable that Scotland wants to honour the success of the Murray brothers, and to recognise the excellent job Judy Murray is doing for tennis.

The objection here is to the inclusion of housing and to the unnecessary destruction of a prominent greenbelt site. There are many other more suitable sites; a countryside location is not required for a tennis centre.

I trust that in future Mr Paterson will be more circumspect about speaking in Westminster on a devolved matter thereby using Parliamentary privilege to express biased support for a development which is currently under appeal.

Frances Fielding, Pendreich Road, Bridge of Allan