Ex-MP hits out at spy cameras
Canavan says privacy is being breached
A former MP and MSP has accused a controversial Stirling area landowner of breaching his privacy.
Dennis Canavan was one of the objectors to the siting of a CCTV camera pole erected near the gate of Sauchieburn Mansion House, near to the ex-parliamentarian’s home.
The surveillance equipment was put up by Sauchieburn Estate owner William Roddie who has been embroiled in a series of planning rows with Stirling Council over the estate between Bannockburn and Carron Valley.
He previously hit the headlines in 2014 after issuing Riding for the Disabled with a notice to quit their established base within the estate.
At a meeting of the council’s planning panel last week, members refused a retrospective application for the CCTV pole, deeming it to be contrary to the Local Development Plan.
It was felt the pole would “significantly compromise the amenity and integrity of the landscape” and no social, environmental and economic benefits had been submitted.
Mr Canavan, a Falkirk West MP and later MSP until 2007, and Carron Valley Community Council objected to the device.
In a written submission to planners Mr Canavan said: “If the application was for a pole and camera in close proximity to the applicant’s house, I would have no objection, but it is situated about a mile from the applicant’s house and less than 20 metres from my house.
“The CCTV camera is an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of family members and visitors to my house as well as people exercising their legal right of access to the estate.
“Furthermore the site lies within a designated landscape area, the character, scenic interest and quality of which will be adversely affected by the pole and camera.
“The camera is not and never has been required for genuine security purposes. There are already more than adequate security measures in the area.
“I have lived in my present house for more than 25 years, more than twice as long as the applicant has lived in the area, and I have never experienced any security risk or incident during that entire period.”
Planning consultants for the applicant had argued that the application was only for the pole and that the camera fell within permitted development rights and was therefore of no material relevance to the determination of the application.
The pole was already subject to an enforcement notice issued by Stirling Council earlier this year telling Mr Roddie to take it down. It was served after officials claimed attempts to engage with him over the need for a planning application for the camera pole had failed.
Mr Roddie’s planning consultants argued the enforcement notice should have been shelved given he had finally submitted the retrospective planning application, citing “regrettable oversight” for not having done so previously.
Last week, the Scottish Government’s planning and environmental appeals division, however, rejected Mr Roddie’s appeal against the notice and gave him three weeks to remove the pole. In a further twist, however, they pointed out if the pole had been slightly shorter it would not have needed planning permission in the first place, leaving it open to him to replace it or cut a section off.
In early 2012 Mr Roddie claimed people had been driving on to the estate to have sex in their cars and on one occasion his daughter had been followed into the estate by a car late at night.
He has also previously said some measures taken had been required for public liability insurance.