No people victory in 3G pitch battle
The beautiful game can sometimes get a little bit ugly. The Italians fixed referees, Marseille FC fixed whole teams . . . and FIFA president Sepp Blatter fixed the World Cup in Qatar after £400 million changed hands.
I doubt if the Great Girvan Football Pitch Stitch-Up will make the same international headlines . . . but the stench of duplicity and deceit are no less pungent.
The story so far?
Well, let’s start with South Ayrshire Council agreeing to spend £850,000 on a new all weather football pitch for Girvan.
The fact that Girvan is home to Alec Clark, the ‘independent’ councillor whose votes have helped keep the SNP in power for four years – is merely a coincidence.
The only other SNP supporting ‘independent’ councillor is Brian Connolly who is also chairman of the Ayrshire Golf Trust. The fact that SAC approved £250,000 to the Ayrshire Golf Trust’s proposed golf academy is, of course, a completely separate coincidence. But they both have an . . .er . . . “common” link!
Anyway, back in Girvan, locals were delighted at news of their new football playing surface. An initial consultation showed that it received 83% approval. And why wouldn’t it?
Where it all starts to go pearshaped is when SAC consulted Girvan on the location of the new pitch.
At a level of naughtiness beyond bottom spanking – SAC just happened to throw in the site of Victory Park – land gifted to Girvan’s Common Good over a century ago and historically invulnerable to radical change or development.
Why? Because SAC has plans for other Common Good properties – including councillor Connolly’s golf academy at Ayr’s Seafield golf course and even Ayr’s cherished Low Green.
Where better to test the legal complexities of “appropriating” Common Good land than sleepy old Girvan?
Well, Girvan might well be sleepy . . . but it isn’t dopey.
The moment beloved old Victory Park appeared in SAC’s sights – public opinion changed.
Concerned locals were becoming awakingly aware that SAC was telling them their new pitch could go wherever they liked . . . as long as it was Victory Park! No matter how hard SAC tried to juggle the numbers and carefully redraft their findings
– a SAC Leadership Panel convened on October 29 2019 and heard the bad news.
Final consultations revealed that only 41.5% were in favour of the controversial site – and 56.9% were against.
There was a long silence. Then one councillor was heard to say “How do we get round this, then?”
Not helping was a section of the agenda titled “Legal and Procurement Implications”.
Any changes Common Good Land required approval at Sheriff level.
Item 5.1 read: “The Panel is being asked whether a petition to the Sheriff should be progressed.
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 is a new piece of legislation.
It would appear that South Ayrshire Council is the first local authority to proceed with a petition contrary to the outcome of Common Good consultation”.
And there you have it. New laws say councils can’t tinker with Common Good land without public approval.
SAC implicitly didn’t have that approval. But what the heck, it voted to petition anyway. SAC is – apparently- a law unto itself.
So what would it do about this pesky consultation that didn’t go the way it wanted?
Quite simply – they’d trash it! Only in South Ayrshire could you organise a public consultation. And then hire an expensive QC to legally slaughter it. It’s first trickery was to body swerve the up-to-date 2015 Community Empowerment Act and petition against a section of property law that’s dated 1973. The rest of the document made grim reading to the Victory Park traditionalists. It claimed the pitch had community council approval. That was true
. . . initially. But when the same community council asked for a second vote after discovering the controversial site – they were denied on the grounds that they had already voted! It gets worse.
“The views of consultees are not, in law, determinative” it told the
Sheriff.
And it invited him to consider “other evidence, including the knowledge and impressions formed by Councillors”.
And then the classic – “The number of objectors is not a proper basis for accepting that any objections should have determinative weight”.
It beggars belief!
But SAC hadn’t finished. It’s final “crave” to the Sheriffdom was a thermo-nuclear strike that reduced the opposition to dust.
In a simple seven words it read: “TO AWARD EXPENSES AGAINST ANY OPPOSITION HERETO”.
And South Ayrshire Council’s intimidation, oppression and bullying was complete.
The Victory Park campaigners were ordinary householders with no funding or legal representation. They were now threatened with costs of thousands of pounds . . perhaps even tens of thousands. Is this the price of being “consulted”? They asked for written assurance from SAC that the “crave of expenses” would be removed. It wasn’t . . . and their entire case was withdrawn! Sheriff Desmond Leslie – reportedly with some reluctance – granted in favour of South Ayrshire Council. Their petition was unopposed.
I am no advocate. Perhaps Sheriff Leslie’s hands were tied. But to grant a summary petition that drives a coach and horses through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 has me bewildered.
The SNP- led administration behind all of the above were elected in May 2017 with a manifesto that included:
“We commit to full consultation and engagement with the people of South Ayrshire. We commit to enabling people and communities to have a say in the decisions which affect them by ensuring they are consulted, engaged and involved”.
Missing is any reference to being threatened with legal fees for daring to be an “objector”.
That manifesto was handed to me personally by its chief architect and councillor at the time, Ayr MP Allan Dorans.
As the MP I voted for – and a friend
- I respectfully ask Mr Dorans if our elected SNP councillors have, in this case, honoured that manifesto “commitment”. The next step in this process is the Girvan All-Weather Pitch going to SAC for planning permission. I wonder how it will fare? Planning applications are open to objections from anyone – not just residents of Girvan. I wonder if any will mention the Community Empowerment (Scotland Act). And if there are 100,000 objections, will SAC argue that “The number of objectors is not a proper basis for accepting that objectors have any determinative weight”.
It’s also an appropriate moment for SAC to re-visit their ancient motto of “Ne’er Forget the People”.
Now would be the perfect time to replace it with . . . “How do we get around this, then?”
If there are 100,000 objections, will SAC argue on that?”