JOHN Swinney is being urged to intervene to prevent further changes to the controversial Taymouth Castle development.
The American real estate developer Discovery Land Company (DLC) is seeking to transform the estate on Loch Tay in Perthshire into an exclusive residential resort for the super-rich.
The company maintains several luxury compounds across the globe, with initiation fees alone reaching up to $300,000 and house prices into the multi-millions.
However, campaign group Protect Loch Tay have called on the First Minister to intervene to prevent further changes to the planned development, which was first approved back in 2003.
READ MORE: Taymouth Castle: Sepa objects to housing plans due to flood risk
In a letter to Swinney, the group expresses concern at the “piecemeal” approach taken by Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) in approving amendments to DLC’s plans.
“As you know, the Taymouth Castle development has undergone significant changes since its initial approval in 2003,” it states.
“The scale, scope, and character of the development have drastically deviated from the original consent for a hotel and leisure facility, evolving into what is effectively a private residential community for the super-rich.
“This includes plans for over 127 large permanent residences, significantly exceeding the original scope of ‘Scandinavian-style’ spa that was most recently consented in 2011.
“The piecemeal approach adopted by PKC’s planning department has seen approval of what is an unreasonably numerous number of amendments without conducting a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to replace the one undertaken in 2003.
“The most recent Environmental Statement (2011) and subsequent ecological reviews demonstrate a reactive rather than proactive approach to environmental protection.
“PKC's reliance on ‘embedded mitigation’ – conducting surveys and outlining mitigation measures after granting consent – contradicts the precautionary principle enshrined in Scottish planning law and is inappropriate to a legally protected SAC (Special Area of Conservation).
“Processing the proposed development in this way permits the developer to manipulate the planning system, and raises serious concerns about a "salami-slicing" strategy to avoid a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts.
“This is particularly alarming given the development's location within the River Tay SAC, a site designated for its ecological importance and afforded legal protection under national and EU law.”
It comes after concerns were raised about the accuracy of the “masterplan” published by DLC, which appeared to omit previously included public paths on the land.
READ MORE: Scotland to create one of Europe's largest new woodlands at Loch Katrine
The company has also faced previous backlash from locals over plans to build a nine-metre-high golf garage on land earmarked for affordable homes.
Indeed, DLC withdrew the application for the garage after thousands of objections were lodged with PKC.
Protect Loch Tay state that DLC have repeatedly undertaken work - including the removal of trees and the construction of access roads - without first undertaking an ecological survey or gaining consent for the activities.
The letter continued: “PKC’s continued reliance on the outdated and flawed 2011 Environmental Statement and subsequent ecological reviews demonstrates a failure to consider the development’s evolving nature and adequately apply the precautionary principle enshrined in Scottish planning law.
“Furthermore, their assertion in response to a Freedom of Information Request that no internal discussions have taken place within PKC regarding the development’s cumulative impacts raises serious questions about their compliance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, specifically the requirement to conduct a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
“This is all the more remarkable considering that DLC now owns an area of land equivalent to almost double the size of Perth city.
“What would it take for PKC to question and verify what the true extent of these activities represent for their communities?”
The letter is accompanied by a report written by the group which outlines its specific environmental concerns and calls for Swinney to intervene.
In particular, they want the planning process for any further amendments to the development to be halted and a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be undertaken which considers the “cumulative environmental impacts of the development”.
A new EIA could be triggered by John Swinney via a screening direction, which allows Scottish Government ministers to intervene to ensure a new assessment is carried out.
“We hope that as First Minister of Scotland and MSP for Perth and Kinross, you will use your agency to intervene and spare communities from shouldering this responsibility,” the letter concludes.
“From our perspective, the protection of the River Tay Special Area of Conservation and the surrounding environment is paramount.
READ MORE: Ian Murray forced to retract 'made up' claim against journalist
“Your intervention is crucial to ensure that the Taymouth Castle development proceeds in a genuinely sustainable and responsible manner.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Scottish ministers have not received any request for a screening direction for Taymouth Castle.
“Our planning and consenting systems ensure that local communities can have their say on planning applications.
“Decisions on planning applications and local planning matters are primarily a matter for Perth and Kinross Council as the planning authority, and it would not be appropriate for us to comment on the handling or merits of a live application.”
Perth and Kinross council has updated a statement pertaining to the development published on its website.
While acknowledging that there have been a "number of years" between the original EIA and the current developments, it states that "the Planning Authority is of the view that the original EIA and associated addendum adequately assessed all significant environmental effects of the development."
It adds: "The subsequent applications are not considered to introduce new significant environmental impacts, with the appreciation that some of the detail has changed."
A spokesperson for PKC told The National: “In relation to Planning Enforcement, Perth and Kinross Council recognises that there have been breaches of planning control on this site and we are seeking to enforce and resolve these as quickly and appropriately as possible.
"In relation to the specific environmental concerns highlighted in the PLT report, these are material planning considerations which are subject to assessment through the statutory process for each planning application.
"As part of this process, the local community has the opportunity to provide comments.”
DLC was approached for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here