THE Scottish council overseeing the controversial development of Taymouth Castle has withdrawn three key documents from three different planning applications amid concerns they were “unlawful”.
Perth and Kinross Council said it had “formally withdrawn” its screening opinions on the three applications – all of which related to the development of houses along the River Tay – after allegations lodged by the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS).
A screening opinion is a formal decision from a planning authority that states whether a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
READ MORE: 'Abominable': Fresh concerns for Loch Tay plans over US firm's track record abroad
Schedule 2 planning applications, like the ones in question at Taymouth, cannot lawfully be approved without a valid opinion or assessment in place.
Locals have raised particular concerns around the environmental impact of the Taymouth Castle development both because it sits within the River Tay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and because the American firm behind the development has been found to have violated environmental laws in the US on multiple occasions.
In a nine-page letter to Perth and Kinross Council sent on September 30, the ERCS – acting for the local campaign group Protect Loch Tay – said that the local authority’s screening opinions on whether an EIA would be necessary “are unlawful”.
“B: they do not contain a statement of reasons to justify the council's decision that ElAs are not required.
“C: the council erred in screening in isolation three planning applications which together form one larger development.
“And D: the council failed to discharge its duty to take into account the relevant screening criteria.
“Each of the above reasons provides grounds for judicial review. Our view is that a court would likely quash the screening opinions if a legal challenge proves necessary.”
READ MORE: Police visited Taymouth development amid ‘concerns about wildlife crime’
In a response seen by The National, Perth and Kinross Council said they had “formally withdrawn” their screening opinions.
The letter, dated October 18, goes on: “While the planning authority does not necessarily agree with the entirety of the concerns or content of your correspondence, the decision has been made to withdraw the current screening opinions and to provide new screening opinions in order to provide greater clarity on the screening process under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations.”
Perth and Kinross Council did not respond to The National’s request for comment.
The National understands that local concerns were triggered about the council’s handling of the Taymouth development after it was noticed that many of their screening opinions had been nearly or exactly copy-and-pasted from other applications.
The US-based firm Discovery Land Company (DLC) is looking to develop Taymouth Castle, the neighbouring Glenlyon estate, and other parcels of land into a luxury resort aimed at the mega-rich.
Similar DLC-owned compounds – which the company calls “worlds” – charge initiation fees of up to $300,000 and follow-up annual fees of as much as $37,500.
On top of those charges, house prices on DLC land are well into the multi-million-dollar bracket, with some going as high as the tens of millions for a single property.
As well as Taymouth and Glenlyon, DLC has taken ownership of the Moness Resort in Aberfeldy, the Kenmore Hotel, the Kenmore shop and post office, Taymouth Trading, Brae Cottages, Am Fasgadh and Gatehouse, the Paper Boat restaurant, the Boathouse cottages, and further properties.
READ MORE: Why we want to prevent Loch Tay from being a billionaires' playground
In September, the council issued a statement on its website addressing its role in the Taymouth development.
It said that the council’s position was that there “are no potential new significant environmental impacts as a result of the changes which are occurring on the site that weren't originally covered by the EIAs undertaken in 2003 and 2011 [when planning permission for development was granted to the estate’s previous owners]”.
In September, Protect Loch Tay stated that DLC had 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.
A letter urging First Minister John Swinney to intervene said: “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.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel