A Gurn from Nurn

Time 2020-12-14 19:03:46

Web Name: A Gurn from Nurn

WebSite: http://www.gurnnurn.com

ID:134147

Keywords:

Gurn,from,Nurn,

Description:

Below are extracts from a Highland Council Participation request form submitted by Nairn West and Suburban Council: 4 The outcome that your community participationbody want to improve (Note 3)(Proposed disposal of) Nairn Common Good Fund landat Sandown Nairn5 Please tell us the reasons why the communityparticipation body should participate in an outcome improvementprocess: (Note 4)The Trustees of the Nairn Common Good Fund are allthe members of Highland Council. Statute has placed them in anegregious conflict of interest situation which they clearly cannotreconcile. The evidence, outlined in section 8 ante, supports theconclusion that they are incapable of discharging their duty astrustees for the exclusive benefit of the fund as distinct from thebenefit of the wider electorate of the HC.6 Please note the knowledge, expertise andexperience the community participation body has in relation to theoutcome: (Note 5)One of the elected NW S Community Councilmembers is a Chartered Accountant and experienced InsolvencyPractitioner with extensive practical knowledge of Trust Law,Fiduciary Duty and the practicalities of disposal of assets in astatutory Trustee capacity.We also have members with a broad range of otherqualifications and technical experience who have proven abilities toresearch, reveal and articulate evidence, which the evidence ofprevious transactions supports, may be at variance with that providedby the officials on whom the Trustees rely.7 How will the outcome will be improved because ofthe involvement of your community participation body: (Note 6As we have no conflict of interest, we can assistHighland Council Trustees overcome their conflict of interest so thatthe outcome of the proposed sale of the land/ best use of NairnCommon Good Assets, complies with the law and is for the exclusivebenefit of the Common Good Fund.9 Additional Information (Note 8) 1. There was aprevious attempt to sell the Sandown land in the years up to 2013.This revealed a number of serious anomalies. The first is thediscovery that the Trustees or their predecessors had allowed anannual grazing lease to become a Protected Agricultural Tenancy. TheHC appear to have accepted that this was a consequence of negligencerather than intention. The Statutory to protect Common Good funds hadnot been applied by the trustees. The HC then set about recoveringthe Tenancy and a sum of 390k that was paid to the tenant torelinquish the tenancy. The 390k was originally charged to theCommon Good Fund and interest charged. Following intervention by theAudit Commission the interest that had been illegally applied wascancelled. The Council alsoresolved in July 2013 to cancel the debt which they had charged onthe CGF. It is believed that this was not a function of benevolenceon the part of HC but a function of the fact that it was anticipatedthat when the facts were exposed there would a call for restitutionto the CGF on the grounds of negligence. The minutes of the HCmeeting held on 27 June 2013 shows that the resolution was carried by32 for 29 against and 5 abstentions. The evidential value here isthat nearly half of the Trustees show their priority is to insulatetheir constituents from the financial consequences of the allegednegligence to the detriment of the Nairn CGF. It is evidence of thealleged conflict of interest. There were other costs and expenses associated with the previous attempt to sell the Sandown lands. These total 344k. The minutes of the June 2013 meeting affirmed that these costs should remain as a charge on the CGF and that, for undisclosed reasons, the council should take a proportionate share of the value of the lands based on a valuation of unknown provenance. The minutes show that this land value was subsequently transferred as an asset into the Councils General Fund account. The evidential value here is that it is accepted that the Sandown lands were part of the Royal Charter of 1589. There is no doubt they fall into the inalienable category of assets and have Statutory protection in sec 75 of the CEA. The Trustees have failed to comply with the Legislation and no Court approval has been sought or given for any such charge on the NCG In addition, we have a concern that Trustees acquiring part of their wards assets offends Common Law. It is prohibited by Statute in other Trustee situations. It is unclear how the Trustees can defend themselves from the accusation that will undoubtedly be made that the principal reason for the proposed current sale is to facilitate the realisation of the Trustees hoped for investment in the Sandown lands. The Trustees need our assistance to identify and verify, without conflict of interest, the real reason the land is to be sold at this time. Within the 344k costs is an item of legal expenses to McLure Naismith totalling 61082. This information was revealed following a Freedom of Information Act request. No detail was supplied. Given the costs that would be expected to be incurred in recovering the Agricultural Tenancy noted in para 1. above and the absence of any other identifiable cost that could be the anticipated legal fees we believe that the McLure Naismith costs were incurred in recovering the Tenancy and should be dealt with in accordance with the principle established in para 1. Apart from the possibility of litigation if the Trustees should yield to the conflict of interest and resist applying the principle, the primary evidential value is that the Trustees cannot rely on their officials to fully inform them of the facts. As a Community Council we are alarmed by the public statements made by certain HC Councillors that represent the wider constituency in which our Community Council is part to promote the notion that because Nairn has a Common Good Fund it should be used to support the funding of the General Fund of the rest of the Highland Council electorate. This manifests itself in the proposed use of other CGF land to create a licence to occupy land, where no HC access exists at present e.g. for the purpose of imposing fund raising parking charges. Whilst raising funds for the HC is the stated objective of parking charges no regard or research has been offered for the damage that will inflict on our community nor the long term sustainability of the CG. It is believed that the role of the elected HC Councillors may be conflicted in their role as CG trustees over their perceived duty to the HC priority of their Fidiciury Duty administration. The concern we wish to consider and possibly expose is that the NCG assets are not been maximised to the exclusive benefit of the NCG and the community of Nairn. A notice for planning permission was lodged by HC in the previous year to utilise part of the Sandown land for state subsidised housing through a Housing Association. Representations were made to us by constituents that survey works were apparently being undertaken. On being challenged to explain what was happening at a CC meeting a HC Councillor advised that the planning application was raised in error, and was subsequently withdrawn. The evidential value here is that something was clearly being planned which puts us on enquiry that the reason the sale proposal is being pursued at this time. This is not an appropriate use of CG assets without prior consultation and agreement by trustees without bias. We have not yet recovered from the effects of the 2008 recession and we have not yet experienced the potential effects of the 2020 recession which is undoubtedly lurching towards us. In 7 above it is noted the involvement of a Housing association. It is unclear if the HC has any conflict of interest in promoting a CG land disposal and their role as trustees in this situation. Selling land during a recession where there is an impaired market and a significant investment risk in the utilisation of the proceeds requires reasoned financial modelling. We are alert to the possibility that the Trustees conflict of interest may allow them to promote the sale of CG land at a time of significant market weakness and value impairment to facilitate the purchase by a Housing Association on terms that may not be acceptable when the market improves. Part of the Sandown site has been appropriated for allotments. These allotments together with a further area for further allotments are to be excluded from the proposed sale. It is understood that the lease is to HC who pay rent and sublease to the allotment holders. The lease was entered into at or about the time of the 1st sale attempt. The challenge as to why the income yield bore no resemblance to the perceived value of the land for housing we were informed that this was to be a temporary lease and the lease contained termination provisions that would allow it to be sold. There is concern that the practicalities of recovering allotments would prevent recovery and that now appears to be the case, hence the possibility that the CG assets are not been utilised to the betterment of the Community. It should be noted that the provision of allotments is a Statutory HC function not a CGF function. Appropriation of land for allotments may be a further example of a conflict of interest and as Sandown is inalienable land the failure to apply Sec 75 of the act to a long-term lease puts it into the misappropriation category. As part of the outcome improvement of the sale proposal we will be seeking information as to how the Trustees are going to repair the impairment to the value of the CGF. 10. Returning to item 5 above. Excluding the McLure Naismith costs there remains some 284k or so that is still a potential charge to the CGF. We are of the opinion that incurring this level of costs in selling 35ha of land of very obvious housing potential is wildly excessive and does not reflect best value, and in commercial setting let alone a Trustee administration, could not be justified. Running charrettes etc to try to dictate to the purchaser what they can do with the land post purchase is not a function of the management of the CGF. Placing feudal burdens on land is no longer enforceable. There is also the fact that this is inalienable land and that the law had protected its ownership by the community since 1589 was being addressed fully and prior to any discussion or costs been incurred by Any party. It is felt that proper process with respect to management of CG assets and the CEA has not been followed. Our participation will improve the outcome to the CGF by ensuring that does not happen again and require that the information presented to the Trustees is verifiably accurate, and that the final outcome of any decisions about CG assets are robust..The path along the Auldearn Burn beside the field below the cemetery flooded with the volume of water over the weekend and the first part of the week. Thanks to Murray MacRae for image. A new planning application for Café Lavender is now live on the Highland Council e-planning website:"A design and access statement for the change of use of existing guest house to form cafe reads: "The proposal seeks change of use of two rooms within an existing guest house to form a café. The premises is located on Cawdor Street, Nairn and has operated variously as a hotel (some 20 years ago) and more recently as a guest house. The application replaces an earlier proposal for part use of the premises as a café and that has been withdrawn. This revised proposal has reviewed the scope of the development and taken into account the concerns raised by local residents. The main changes proposed are: No hot food takeaway facility proposed Reduced outdoor seating area Restricted menu serving predominantly home made cakes, bread and pastries Hot food is limited to soup, grilled food and a limited range of German produce which requires only reheating.The existing use is defined as Class 7 Hotels and Hostels. This use allows consumption of food on the premises by residents. The proposed use intends to use the existing guest dining facilities as a shared facility. This means that guests will continue to be served breakfast and coffees within the existing dedicated dining and lounge areas but during the daytime between 11am and 6pm, the facilities will also operate as a café open to the public." More information here on the Highland Council e-planning pagesThe scene earlier this morning (Tuesday 8th of December).The river is now in it's official "high" mode according to the data on the Firhall recording page.SEPA also posted the following information on their flood warning page:"A FLOOD WARNING has been issued for Nairn.Heavy rain overnight has affected the River Nairn catchment. There is a risk of flooding to agricultural land and low lying properties along the River Nairn between Broadley and Fishertown in Nairn. Areas along the Auldearn Burn around River Park and Balmakeith Park are also at risk.The worst of the rain has passed though some heavy showers are still in the area. River levels are expected to peak during the morning."Link Below will take you to the facebook page.Rosebank Primary Parent Council30Novemberat19:47 Rosebank Christmas Lucky Squares!There are 100 Squares up for grabs, and they are 10 each - amazing cash prizes! 1st will be 300, second 150 and 3rd 50.This will leave us with 500 towards much needed school parent council funds. In order to claim your square(s), please pay the money into the parent council bank account: ACCOUNT NUMBER 00191651 SORT CODE 83-25-23Then, message us through here with your number choice - or if you're happy to have a lucky dip, just say that! Numbers will be drawn on December 18th. Thank you for your ongoing support!Readers can find part 1 here and part 2 here.Themeeting continued with Brian Stewart asking a third question: Itis a practical one, it follows on from the question about marketvalue and best value where the trustees have a formal obligation.Legislation on developer contributions has recently changed. Brian'ssound was then breaking up slightly and Sheena asked him to keepcloser to his microphone. He restarted: My point was a purelyoperational one about the financial implications of a proposed sale.The legislation now requires the owner, in this case the Common Good,to be liable for developer contributions on the land that is disposedof. That could represent a substantial proportion of any saleproceeds. It's going to reduce the proceeds of the sale whenever ithappens by a significant amount. So my question was, if you like, asupplementary one - have councillors taken account of this indeciding on the position that the land be sold? But it is asubordinate question which I think is less important than thefundamental one which is about... Brianwas cut out by Sheena who warned about the length of time left in theZoom session. She said : Basicially what Brian is saying is ifthis land was sold for six or seven million pounds and then thedeveloper came along and built on it and if x number of houses werebuilt and the developer's contribution was one and a half or twomillion pounds that would have to come out of the Common Good saleproceeds so the net figure would be, we'll say, four or five millionas opposed to six or seven million. So that was the question, asregards, or the reason he was saying it did you want anyexplanation from that Brian or are happy that that is just placedplaced?Hereplied: No I'm fine with that [ ] I'm content with that. Sheenaasked Tom if was happy to leave the question there.Tomreplied: Just leave that one because developer contributions is avery active debate at the moment and in fact in ten days time theCouncil will, or a group in the Council will be debating thatfurther. Sheenasaid: That's good to know. Right, we've not got much time left butis everyone happy now those questions have been answered and thatpeople have had a chance to speak? JoanNoble then spoke: We still seem to be hanging onto this idea thatit is going to be marketed as a whole and I think we have toemphasise Brian's point. There are a whole lot of different patternswe can do. We don't have to flog this land as whole at a time thatthe economy is tanking. Basically we have all sorts of patterns ofleasing, of selling for plots, volume housebuilding is the leastamount we will get for this land partly because of the developercontributions but also because volume housebuilders do not pay asmuch as selling plots. We could make a million pounds from ten plotsfor this land at local prices. Now why are we talking about the onlyshow in town being flogging the entire area for volume housebuildingfor six or seven million minus two and a half developercontributions. It's outrageous and the trustees are supposed to getthe best consideration that they can in reasonable circumstances andthat is not happening. And that has got to go to court and really Ido think that at this stage we have to iron out these issues beforeit goes any further. Cllr Tom HeggieTomHeggie spoke: Madam chair, could I come in on that point? Therewas a couple of years ago an initial thought which went public beforeit was actually fully formed which included some of what Doctor Noblehas just said. It included a bespoke development that met housingneed in Nairn. It brought in money from the city deal, thecity-region deal from Inverness. It brought in money from theScottish Government. It had plots included in it. We were at theinitial stages of that. It went public, it became a matter of publiccontroversy. It became obvious that we wouldn't be able to achieve itwithin the time-scale of funding that was available. It would havemade significant funding and investment available within Nairn but wewere not able to achieve that. So we did try that.There isnothing, there is absolutely nothing in this proposal that says wehave to do anything for the whole project. It will be for thetrustees, as and when, and if, indeed there is an if in there aswell. And Brian used the word pig in a poke. That was used in e-mailsthat were exchanged by some councillors who are in this meeting atthe moment. At the beginning of my time as a councillor, believingthat I would be sold a pig in a poke over another project in Nairnwhich I found quite insulting at that time. I have not got to the ageI am to be sold any pig in a poke. As a responsible trustee andothers as responsible trustees who will look carefully at anything,as and when and if, this project develops and make sure it is thebest value for the people in Nairn. I have lived long enough inNairn, not all my life, but long enough in Nairn to feel that I havethat responsibility as imperative. I was not elected to do anythingless than that. So I do not take it lightly that I am told I will besold a pig in a poke. Either at the beginning of my time as aCouncillor or at this stage either. Time onthe zoom session was running out and there was just enough time forJimmy Ferguson to comment: The point I want to make and I makethis to my fellow councillors and to Tom in particular. The questionthat is being asked is wrong Tom. The question that should be askedis what is the best way for us to be managing our Common Good Funds,in particular, Common Good assets, in particular the Sandown Lands.The answer might be sell for development or lease for development orwhatever it is. It's the wrong question that is being asked. Weshould step back a bit and debate and get agreement within thecommunity, what is the best thing that we should be doing. That wasthe end of the questions for Tom Heggie and almost the end of themeeting. Greens Lead Candidate for next year s Scottish Election, Ariane Burgess, has renewed Green calls for Highland Council s Pension Fund to stop investing in fossil fuels after research revealed that it lost 11,650,109 over the last three years. The fund, which administers pensions on behalf of Highland Council, is one of ten local government pension funds which new research reveals saw investments in oil companies collapse between April 2017 and November 2020. Ariane BurgessAriane Burgess said: Public pension funds invest millions in bankrolling oil companies, the arms industry and big tobacco every year. Not only are these investments unethical, but as this research shows they are actually losing pension funds substantial amounts of money. I don t believe that most people who have chosen a career in public service want to see their pension funds funnelling cash into these companies when it could be invested in socially responsible endeavours like clean energy production, house building and public transport improvements. I urge Highland Council s Pension fund to divest its stake in fossil fuels now and call on Highland Council to bring to bear its influence to make this happen. Continuing the record of the questions asked of Tom Heggie at the Nairn West and Suburban Zoom meeting last Monday night. Brian Stewart asked the second question: Thank you chair and it does connect very much with the discussion or the dialogue that has just happened because I think, of the point about the whole debate right now, as Sheena said, is why now? I welcome the fact that Councillor Heggie has said there is no firm proposal on the table, that there is no developer about to start, that there is nothing immediately in prospect. That actually reinforces the question of why in that case proceed now. As he has rightly said the question of the possible sale of Sandown has been ebbing and flowing for nearly a decade. Moving it forward at this point when we are all facing these kind of dire difficulties in virtual meetings is almost the most difficult time to get a collective collaborative consensus agreed. We could hit something very difficult to manage.My other point is this, I note what Councllor Heggie says about putting submissions into the consultation and the view expressed this evening can be conveyed to officials. There is a very important point here, the responsibility does not rest with officials, this is a matter where Common Good Trustees are fully bound, as trustees, to take decisions which are in the public interest of the borough they serve. This leads into my second question which is this one: We know this Sandown saga has been running for years. Years ago Highland Council officials provided formal written evidence about the idea of selling off Sandown then this is 2013. They said, [and I quote] ....Current market conditions would not attract a fair value for the land, and sale proceeds, if a sale was achieved, would be significantly lower than previously anticipated.....A sale at significantly below previous estimates of market value would not be acting in the interests of the Common Good Fund, and the Council could be deemed to be breaching its legal and feduciary responsibilities. The point about that is that timing matters. Market conditions matter. There is now no argument that our local and economy is on its knees. There is no argument that land prices are depressed. It therefore follows that this is not the appropriate time to be trying to sell the land. So I welcome Cllr Heggie's comment that there is no real prospect. Then it does raise the fundamental question, in that case why are you asking the question? The Sandown Common Good LandTom Heggie then stated: Well the question is usually asked for an answer and if the answer is that it is permissible to sell then it would then be to the trustees to decide when the market was appropriate and at the moment the market is not appropriate, but the lead time is extensive and there are particular issues around at the moment, and you are quite correct, going forward I am not entirely sure whether the market would be up or down. It would be in the interests of everyone to monitor the market and then if the market did become appropriate then the trustees at that point of time would have permission to seek to market Sandown but at the moment that is not a possibility. So in the future, if the market value does increase, depending on what happens and at the moment nobody knows what will happen, then there is no imperative, no imperative for anyone to market it but if the permission is there it then allows the trustees to make a judgement in time as to what is appropriate. And I would suspect that is not in our immediate future. That would be a long term plan. Ally MadDonald then spoke: I noticed though that in the paper there were quotes from yourself and Cllr Saggers about that, it would realise x amount of money, there would be a certain amount of money that would then go into the Common Good Fund and all that sort of stuff, but again, it doesn't appear to me that not only have you not taken into account the low value of the land currently but also the fact that the stock market has collapsed or crashed it's not doing very,very well so any kind of investments of the Common Good Fund are not going to be useful. So that is again another reason for not proceeding with this at this time. Tom Heggie intervened: We are not proceeding with a sale, that is the point, there is no imperative for a sale. What we are doing is clearing the groundworks so, if and when, if and when, it is appropriate then a sale can go ahead reasonably effectively. At the moment it would take, well this process would probably take at least 12 months I would imagine before we are at a point before there is any real clarification of all the issues once we have gone through the consultation, once we have gone to court, all the rest of it. So at the moment there is no immediate sale being thought about. Ally returned to the discussion: So can I ask why that wasn't made clearer in the newspaper article? Tom responded: Well in the article people ask questions, we've had all kinds of things said in newspaper articles in the last few months, some of which have not been based on facts and some of which have been interpreted and so on. The imperative is not for a sale at the moment, all we are doing is clarifying if a sale would be possible and there are all kinds of factors in the value of land, particularly for development at the moment. There are various things that are being thought about through Her Majesty's Scottish Government as it is, which would affect the price of development land going forward. So it would be then for a judgement you are referring to Cllr Saggers, he's more than aware, in fact he is more than aware of all these investment things than I am and guides us very well and asks the correct questions on our behalf. So at the moment we are simply asking for a first step along the road, that is all that we are asking for. Ally thanked Tom. Sheena Baker then spoke: Well now I'm really confused. Really, really confused because the document that I have been given is headed up proposal to sell for development Common Good Property , proposal to sell the Common Good property and then it moves on, further on to say, well lots of things but, all the things I highlighted. It would provide significant funds for fresh investment in the town, for potential development of existing Common Good assets. Well I heard what you said and I also heard what you said about Peter Saggers. All I can say is I hope nothing goes wrong because pour old Peter is going to have this hanging round his head forever and a day. Tom Heggie was very quick to respond: Not at all, not at all, the proposal to sell doesn't mean we are selling tomorrow. It could mean we could be selling in five years time... Sheena intervened: We know that, we know that Tom. We do realise that it is not tommorrow but the principle is that you want agreement to sell and it could be that as soon as that came through you could do it or you could leave it a year or two years. It's a lot more than.... She was cut out by Tom who said: There are still significant, there are significant steps to be taken and there has to be judgements made. Sheena responded: Well how about the judgement and I just throw this in because there are people that do believe in this. We have had this land for 420 years and your forefathers (not my forefathers because I am Welsh) but forefathers from Scotland in this area all thought it quite wise to hold onto it as an asset, as the family silver and then suddenly Highland Council is very short of cash and it seems to be more important for us to consider getting rid of it. Now, all I can say is we are already through Covid and all other things not leaving an awful lot to the children who are coming up and are going to be coming up in the future and we are also now talking about selling off the family silver. I hope...I have not seen or heard anything said to me or in the papers that have been distributed that have persuaded me that this is a good idea. Tom continued: Well, I repeat what I have said, it is up to people to make their views known in an appropriate manner. Brian Stewart drew attention to the Chair that he wished to contribute further. He said: I want to just to pick up the point that Cllr Heggie made here. I quite understand the point that he, he the council, are seeking permission to sell. What I find disturbing or worrying is that, in effect, what he is saying is that we want carte blanche, we want a blank cheque. Part of the point of the Community Empowerment Act is that the Community needs to be consulted on the proposal for change of use or disposal and that requires that there be clarity over exactly what for and why. And the difficulty at the moment that I have is that if the request is will the community give consent to an unspecified proposal for unspecified development at an unspecified time, then I think that that is not acceptable. That reinforces our key argument which is that this debate should not happen until we are in a position where we can have free, open and comprehensive discussions on exactly what, how and why. At the moment, there is in effect, Hobson's choice on the table: Can we sell the land for development? - fullstop. There is no business case set out, there are no alternatives explained or evaluated. There are no options set out. This request and this consultation is for, crudely, a blank cheque and like Sheena I feel that we as a community have a responsibility to our fellow residents and to future residents of this town to not to acquiesce to a pig in a poke. Thank you chair. The meeting then heard the third question to Cllr Heggie. (more on that later this weekend if time permits). Time was allocated at Monday's NWSCC meeting for questions to local Highland Councillors on the subject of the Sandown Common Good Lands sale. Tom Heggie and Peter Saggers were the only Highland Council members participating in the Zoom meeting but Tom was the only one to reply to questions. Brian Stewart was asking the questions for NWSCC, Brian began: Sandown has I think, as we have all realised, is a hugely significant issue for the town. The plan to sell it off was announced with just a few weeks for public comment, and over the festive period. We now know that the sell-off proposal has been actively discussed within Ward Business Meetings for over a year. My first question is why was it that Councillors did not inform Community Councils when they were invited to provide briefing and updates at successive meetings during the past year? This would have given us a far better opportunity and far more time to consider and reflect on the very significant issues that it raises. I think it is reasonable to ask, given that it has been on the table in those meetings for over more than a year. How is it that we were not alerted to it earlier than a few weeks ago? That's my first question."Tom Heggie replied: The issue of Sandown has been on the table, it was on the table over two years ago when we first discussed the possibility of a bespokeCllr Tom Heggiesolution to an issue and that was 2018 I believe. We laid that aside and we revisited it. The initial discussion about Sandown took place about 8 years ago as far as I understand. And all we were doing was simply discussing the rationale and so on that...we are not of an opinion that this was any surprise to anybody. The time period as has been noted, is 12 weeks which is beyond the 8 weeks which is proposed under the Community Empowerment Act and that was to take account of the period over Christmas and New Year. That period can be extended if people feel there is a need for wider consultation, that is not fixed in stone. Therefore we feel it is appropriate. Consultations over using the Community Empowerment Act have been ongoing throughout Highland over the last year even during the comment. There is no immediate, we are talking as if we are going to be selling Sandown next year, there is no plan for that. This is simply a first step which would enable the whole issue to be considered. So that is where we are at the moment." Sheena Baker then asked if any NWSCC members wished to comment. Ally MacDonald then said: I think actually Tom has answered my question which was about the extension, because I did read in the Community Empowerment Act that it is a minimum of 8 weeks. So that that is a minimum, so the 8 weeks consultation process can be significantly extended if it is required, which I think it certainly... Tom Heggie intervened: Well it has already deliberately extended to the 12 weeks as the minimum which you have pointed out and that is as you have highlighted, the minimum. There have been other consultations where a number of issues have been raised. There is a possibility that that can be extended. So that is dependent on the issues that are raised. Ally thanked Tom and Sheena asked if the meeting were ready to move on to the next question. Joan Noble wished to comment however. She said: It's just to say that this consultation against a background of not being able to have any public meetings or proper public discussion is really very concerning. I mean if you were not going to sell it immediately what on earth is the point of consulting during a time when people aren't able to get together and discuss this properly?I cannot see why and I have to say that from the ward business meetings it looks like you were quite keen to sell it very quickly and that a developer is waiting in the wings to buy it. So I think we are getting very mixed messages here and I think it is extremely unfair on the population of Nairn that they can't go to exhibitions, they can't have workshops, they can't really take any active part in this at all. They can put in letters with a few points but how much do they know about it? How much are they able to know about it? We've been given four extremely flimsy bits of paper to sell a six to seven million pound asset with no proper figures, no proper financial outcomes , no options. It's pretty shameful, sorry. Tom replied: The first point is there is no definitive offer on the table, there is no developer on the horizon and if you want to call me a liar fair enough, I can state that categorically with full integrity and full honesty. There is absolutely no possibility that there is anyone in line or in any way. This is step one that would allow us the ability, if we wish, and it still has to go to court, it still has to go to full consultation. At the end of the day there is absolutely no immediate one...we are simply saying that at this particular stage there is the possibility that at some stage the market will be appropriate...and at the moment if, if someone were to say that they would wish to purchase that piece of land, it would take again, 18 months, possibly two years to get to the point where we could offer it for sale. This process is not minimal, it takes quite a long time and there is absolutely no person in mind, no developer in mind whatsoever and I will state that on any oath you wish. Sheena then said: Can I just come in then because I am a simple soul, as we all know I have some things explained to me but I normally get the gist of it. I don't understand why there is any need for it to even be discussed at the moment if there is no proposal on the table, no developer looming and we know that the value of the land is absolute sweeties. That's really fundamentally where I am coming from and nothing I have heard has come to explain that to me. I just don't even know why you are bringing it up in a time when we can't have a public meeting. I can't listen to another 50 people in a room and that 50 people can't listen to me or to someone else. So Zoom meetings are OK but you only get half the story. We all know that the best way to hear or speak and have a public consultation is when get the actual body language that comes from people and I think that makes such a huge difference to your understanding of the urgency or whatever it is of the point that the person is getting across. If there is, and I'm accepting what you say Tom, if what you are saying is there's nothing on the table...well I would say...well please, let's take it off the table at the moment now and stop this consultation. Let's work together to try and work out how we go about this best for the future of Nairn with the Common Good. There's no need for people to be fighting about this, we are all adults, we can have varying ideas and compromise ultimately does happen. It's not just right at this time so basically you've answered all the things I'm wondering by saying it's nothing there going on at the moment. So if there's nothing there going on at the moment let's take it off the table. Let's plan to put it back on the table some time in the future when we can all get into public halls, have discussions and in the meantime get together and hear your opinion, hear the Community Council's opinion and we'll work some way towards it. I do believe, I don't know whether I am right or not, but I do believe this is being driven by housing and I don't understand why in the new Inner Moray Firth Development Plan that is now on the Highland Council website why, only, and I say that, only Sandown Land is the preferred site. We all know that there are other sites around Nairn and, magically, and I'm saying that again, and magically the only preferred site is going to be Sandown on the new Inner Moray Firth Development plan. It just doesn't sound right, it doesn't smell right, I'm just not happy about the whole thing. Tom then said: Quite content for the Community Council to make that point forcefully to the officers concerned and that will be considered along with other points that have been made which are not quite aligned with what you are saying but there is a wide range of views that will be taken aboard and...as I say there are three options. I've made that plain in a short piece I did in the Nairnshire Telegraph : One, it will go ahead as proposed depending on submissions, secondly it may be amended significantly and thirdly it may fall. It all depends on the Community's contribution. Sheena then Said: Well we are coming back Tom and I don't want to keep labouring this point. We're coming back to, and your final point says it all, to the community's contribution. The Community's not in a situation at the moment to properly to consult and to then, from a wide range of knowledge, contribute. I think it is just the wrong time and I really do...I'm not speaking for myself, there are a lot of people out there who say why now, why now? I've just voiced it. Tom continued: And there are a significant number of people who have said why have we waited so long, given the initial consultation on what was it, eight years ago now, with great debate and controversy as well. So at the end of the day I simply say it is up to each group and community councils as significant groups to make their views known. Sheena thanked Tom and then asked Brian for the second question. More from the NWSCC Zoom meeting if time permits this week.

TAGS:Gurn from Nurn 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Hot Websites