Why Graham’s appeal is far from ‘a blow’

Dear Editor I was surprised to read in Friday’s Observer (August 3 , 2018) that campaigners fighting the housing development at Airthrey Kerse had been “dealt a blow”.

This was as a result of the decision by dairy firm Graham’s to lodge at Court of Session an appeal against the decision by Scottish ministers in June to refuse consent for the 600 homes planned.

Why is the Graham family wasting their money a blow? It was expected that they would appeal.

Their main contention that the minister’s findings were based on irrelevant information is indeed interesting as Graham’s and their agents are masters of using what I would say is irrelevant information – and the article mentions some of it.

Planning policy is quite clear that any third party development connected to an original planning application has not to be considered in deciding the original application.

On the first occasion a Reporter found against Graham’s, it was followed within weeks by a claim that planning permission was dependent on a new dairy going ahead. This was never mentioned prior to the initial application being refused and that was over four years ago.

The new dairy was to be the saviour of the Scottish dairy industry and four years down the line there isn’t even a planning application in principle for the phantom dairy. Even the Reporter in his recent report questions whether a dairy would ever be built.

We have also had reams upon reams of reports to try and satisfy the drainage proposals – all based on what I would consider to be irrelevant information.

For seven years the applicants maintained that the clay cap on the Kerse, sitting on billions of litres of water, was 6-10 metres thick, even after the very first report by a consultant stated that in some areas it was only 80 centimetres thick.

It was maintained they could excavate a loch, essential to their drainage scheme, to a depth of four metres without breaching the cap.

The applicants’ final submission to the Reporter (following Network Rail’s test drills) admitted that the clay cap was in fact only 1.6 -1.9 metres thick, so how can they dig their four metre deep loch?

I’m sure the Court of Session judges will not consider as irrelevant that every Local Development Plan and three Scottish Government Reporters have all emphasised the importance of the Kerse as an area of green belt with significant landscape value that prevents the merger of Bridge of Allan and Causewayhead.

Dealt a blow? Not at all.

Duncan McDougall Bridge of Allan