Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

‘We are now ruled by bureaucrats’ anger at council’s efforts to overturn local planning decision

Post Thumbnail

Democracy in the planning system is being crushed as ”unelected bureaucrats” attempt to overrule decisions taken by local councillors, it has been claimed.

Fife councillor Mike Scott-Hayward said local democracy had been ”turned on its head” after planning officials refused to accept a committee’s decision to approve plans for housing near St Andrews.

There was anger in September when planning chiefs urged elected members sitting on the North East Fife area committee to throw out plans for 15 homes near Lathockar partly due to the presence on the site of a single red squirrel.

A report put before councillors had stated that the application should be refused because the local red squirrel population described as standing at one could ”possibly become extinct”.

Despite the recommendation, councillors eventually voted to approve the application, with Mr Scott-Hayward saying: ”One red squirrel should not stand in the way of mankind’s march of progress.”

However, the unelected officials have not taken the snub lying down, and have issued a fresh report urging refusal. Instead of it going to the North East Fife area committee which meets in Cupar and is composed entirely of local elected members, the new document has been referred to the wider planning committee, based in Glenrothes.

The attempt to once again block the application has infuriated Mr Scott-Hayward.

”This really is a case of local democracy being turned on its head,” he said. ”Councillors are local people elected by the public to take decisions on their behalf. Yet here we have a system, proposed and established by the administration, giving unelected individual officers the power to tell a local committee that they are out of order.”

Continued…

”The elected mandate of the local committee is to be ignored, with the officer having the power over one set of councillors to take a matter to another set of councillors. The councillors who will now decide the application represent wards distant from the site.”

Mr Scott-Hayward branded the situation ”appalling”.

”We are now ruled by bureaucrats,” he continued. ”It will thus fall to the public to make their views evident. Increasingly, as elected democracy is crushed, the electorate has to resort to protest and demonstration.”

The application for the new houses had been approved after members of the North East Fife area committee voted in favour by eight to five.

A fresh report prepared for Fife Council’s planning committee notes that previous concerns lodged by Scottish Natural Heritage have now been withdrawn. However, it still states the application should be refused.

”This application was previously considered by members at the North East Fife area committee meeting on September 21,” it notes. ”The officers’ report recommended the application for refusal … and members adopted the position that the application should be approved.

”In these circumstances members were advised that the head of enterprise, planning and protective services would refer the application to Fife Council planning committee for determination, since the application was contrary to the development plan and the area committee was minded to determine the application contrary to the officer recommendation.”

Despite the wishes previously expressed by local members, the report goes on to urge the planning committee to refuse the application.

”The proposal does not comply with the spatial strategy of the development plan and as such the principle of a development of this nature is not supported,” it concludes.