Author: The Friends of Granton castle Walled garden

The Friends of Granton Castle Walled Garden made a deputation at Edinburgh Council’s Planning Committee and called on councillors to withdraw the current ‘minded to grant’ planning application for 17 townhouses.

Kirsty Sutherland, horticulturist and a member of the 80-strong community group, says it is vital that the “horticultural history” associated with the site is treasured and that the forgotten garden is given a new lease of life.

“Our group was really heartened by the chance to speak openly at Planning Committee, about our dreams for this garden’s restoration & safeguarding in the future. It’s rarity, age and regional significance seemed to be taken on board by the planning committee members,” Kirsty told STV.

“We felt the issues raised regarding the planning ‘loophole’ resulting in this situation will be remedied in the future.

“Our hope is that when the individual planning application to demolish and build within the walled garden is reviewed, the ‘minded to grant’ status given in 2003, will finally be withdrawn. Indefinite planning permission isn’t the norm and is problematic when circumstances change or new information comes to light.

“This would allow our Friends Group to open a genuine dialogue with the owners Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd, our wish to continue the horticultural use of this ancient garden, restoring it and opening it to the community, instead of it lost to luxury housing.”

As part of the written briefing to councillors, the community group stated their reasons for why the garden is a green space worth preserving.

It read: “Recent evidence pieced together shows the garden’s use in the Stewart era by owner Sir Thomas Hope, first Lord Advocate of Scotland.

“The 2012 publication by RCAHMS, aptly named Scotland’s Lost Gardens, highlights the fact that very few gardens survived from this time.

“Granton Castle Walled Garden is near miraculous in its survival from late medieval times to the present day.

“It offers the opportunity for genuine community led restoration, planning, management and operation of a ‘living link’ to the past.

“Our history and culture are entwined in this ancient walled garden, and we feel it deserves a chance to survive.

“Quality openspace of such historic and environmental significance is very rare on the industrialised waterfront at Granton.”

It is over ten years since planners first gave the green light for 17 residential units to be built on the garden.

Despite planners attempts to conclude a deal with Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd, final terms on the planning application have, to date, not been agreed.

A spokesperson for Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd confirmed to STV that the firm remains committed to preserving the listed wall and dovecote on the site, but still plan to build on the two-acres of garden, despite growing local opposition to proposals which are now more than ten years old.

“Discussions have been ongoing with Friends of Granton Castle Garden, and we recognise the historic significance of this site,” Mark Harris, Senior Development Manager, Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd, said.

“Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd is thoroughly committed to the preservation of the listed wall and dovecote on the site, through our plans that would complement this historic asset.

“The plans have the regeneration of Granton at their core and will provide much-needed family housing and help deal with the city’s housing shortage.

“Our plans also aim to provide open public green space in a prominent location, which will benefit the whole community.”

Speaking at the Planning Committee, David Leslie, Edinburgh Council’s acting head of planning, explained the current planning position: “An application was made in December 2003. That was considered at Development Management Sub-Committee in October 2004. The decision then was ‘minded to grant’ planning permission for 17 residential units within the walled garden and form a new access.

“That was subject to a legal agreement being signed. That legal agreement has never been signed by the applicant so the correct status is, as the deputation said, a live planning application at minded to grant consent stage.

“Legacy applications are planning applications which are in the system and, in our view, nothing has happened for a year. We are encouraged by the Scottish Government to undertake a periodic review of all application that are sitting without any live action within our system.

“What do we do in carrying out that exercise? We write to all applicants asking if they wish to progress the application or can we consider it to be withdrawn.

“They can do a number of things. One, they can agree that its withdrawn. Two, they can totally ignore our request and we put a time limit on that, and, if they ignore it, we will consider it by default as withdrawn.

“But, in this case, as in many cases, the applicant indicated they wanted to keep it as a live application.

“We then asked what action would keep it live and we were told, in this case, they would like to continue to agree the terms of the legal agreement.

“Obviously, that’s not yet completed because its still a legacy application. A legacy application can be taken off the books either by being withdrawn or being decided.”

In this way Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd has kept the gardens in a kind of planning system limbo.

And although Waterfront Edinburgh Limited is wholly owned by the the council, a spokesperson for the council would not comment on the position taken by the firm because the site is subject to a ‘live planning application.”

An official at the Royal Commission for Ancient and Historical Monuments Scotland (RCAHMS) confirmed that the listed structures on the site had been nominated for inclusion on the Buildings at Risk Register, with a formal assessment likely to be undertaken by heritage experts within months.

‘One of the lost gardens’

For Kirsty Sutherland, the two acres of walled garden has too much history and heritage to not be restored and carried on its original use.

“It is so precious to us and people in the area – It is a living link with over 500 years of horticultural history and we would like to see that horticultural history preserved,” Kirsty said during the Planning Committee on February 26.

 “There’s many other brownfield areas on the waterfront that are ripe for development for housing which obviously is needed but we don’t think this gardens should be lost to housing – it is one of the lost gardens.

“It is very neglected and overgrown because it has been left locked up for the last eight years.

“In terms of health and wellbeing, green spaces are vital.”

Author: Martin Hannan, The National

SCOTLAND may be on a collision course with football’s governing bodies if the Scottish Parliament passes a law requiring fans to be given “first refusal” on buying their clubs.

The National has learned of fears within both the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League of Fifa intervention should the so-called “Fans Law” go on the statute book.

If the law is passed, the fear is that the SFA will be punished for allowing “political interference” The worst-case scenario in that event could see the SFA suspended, meaning Scotland would not be allowed to compete in either the

World Cup or the European Championships, nor would Scottish clubs play in Europe.

Both the SFA and SPFL were astonished when Alison Johnstone MSP of the Scottish Green Party introduced a late addendum to the Community Empowerment Bill calling for the right-to-buy clauses to be extended to football clubs.

The proposal was unanimously supported by the local government committee and will become part of the Bill to be put before the full Parliament at Holyrood.

Fifa has a long history of challenging what it has long called “political interference” in football.

Article 13.1 (i) of the Fifa statutes states explicitly that members are “to manage their affairs independently and ensure that their own affairs are not influenced by any third parties.”

For good measure the rule is repeated at Article 17.1 using very similar terms.

The penalties for a breach of either article can be draconian, and numerous associations have been suspended over the years, usually because Governments directly interfere in the running of national associations, something that is not contemplated in Scotland.

Fifa’s Executive Committee can then “suspend a member that seriously violates its obligations as a member with immediate effect” while “other members may not entertain sporting contact with a suspended member.”

Last night it emerged that the Scottish Government had been made aware of the possibility of a breach of Fifa statutes and issued a statement that mentioned “working with” rather than legislating.

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government is committed to the principle that supporters should have a role for decision-making, or even ownership when the opportunity arises, of their football clubs.

“We’ll be working with fans’ representatives, football bodies, and MSPs to ensure that appropriate mechanisms and oversight are developed to ensure that the fans’ voice is heard, and that the final proposals are fully in line with the requirements of the domestic and international football authorities.”

The SFA and SPFL’s fury over the Greens’ intervention is not only because of the threat of Fifa’s intervention.

They had both been working with the Government and other organisations to increase supporter involvement in ownership.

The SFA said: “This included a clear statement that ‘a legislative approach was not considered desirable or necessary at this stage’.

Privately the SFA are hoping that once the impact of the possible law is realised, the Government will step in and go back to joint working to improve supporter ownership.

The National asked the Scottish Green Party for a statement on the possibility of suspension should the law be passed.

Instead of commenting they passed us this : “A spokesman for Fans First said: ‘This is nothing more than a crude attempt to spread unfounded fears amongst Scotland’s long-suffering fans.

‘It’s simply absurd to say that these proposals would in any way affect Scotland’s ability to take part in the World Cup.

‘Just look at Germany, where the law requires almost all clubs to be majority fan-owned, a significantly more radical rule than will apply in Scotland. And then look at Germany’s World Cup record.

‘These Green proposals, endorsed by every party in Parliament, won’t guarantee Scotland a place at the World Cup, but just look at how the current model has worked for us. We haven’t qualified this century, and since we played in France 98 the list of Scottish clubs which have gone bust is extraordinary. Hearts, Rangers, Dunfermline, Dundee, Gretna, Motherwell, Airdrieonians, Clydebank, Greenock Morton, and Livingston – twice!

‘The current model of ownership is failing the national game, it’s failing the club game, and it’s failing the fans. Parliament trusts the fans to know when it might be in their clubs’ best interests to take over, and the SFA and SPFL should do the same.’

The National has established that no law was passed by the German government to control the ownership structure of German clubs. Rather it was decided by the clubs themselves that there should be supporters’ representatives on board and there must be a limit of 49 per cent on individual ownership.

SFA sources called the Greens’ response “absolutely laughable” while another insider said it “reads like a fans’ response rather than a politician’s.”

An SFA spokesman declined to comment on the possibility of Fifa intervening.

He referred The National to the joint statement by the SFA and SPFL which stated: “We are astonished, by the impractical and unworkable amendments put forward by the Scottish Green Party – and approved by the Scottish Parliament earlier today – which effectively disregard almost a year of constructive partnership by all organisations represented on the working group.

“We will consider our position along with our working group colleagues.”

It is understood Fifa is aware of the Scottish Parliamentary vote but it made no comment .

Author: GWSF

Sir Harry Burns, Professor of Global Public Health, University of Strathclyde (and formerly Chief Medical Officer for Scotland) contributed this forward to the publication :

 Still Transforming Local Communities

Sir Harry Burns There are over 160,000 people now living in affordable homes owned by members of GWSF

·         The 1,000 committee members control assets of over £7,000 million and employ over 2,000 staff

·         They are hugely trusted locally based organisations that have been transforming their communities for more than 40 years

For many years, I have been promoting the importance of asset based approaches and the health benefits that come from people having control over the decisions that affect their lives. Because of this, I am delighted to have been asked to write a foreword for this brochure produced by the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum, which represents 63 community controlled housing associations. CCHAs are voluntary organisations which operate in many of the areas of the West of Scotland where social and economic outcomes are poor.

 They are run by local people and work in discrete geographic areas providing and maintaining affordable housing and, more generally, improving the community and providing opportunities for local people. CCHAs are a real success story. For more than 40 years, local residents have been responsible for major building programmes, owning and maintaining significant housing and community assets, and taking strategic decisions about creating sustainable communities. Glasgow would look completely different were it not for the initial pioneers (the residents who challenged the wholescale destruction of communities and imagined a different way forward through the improvement of their neighbourhoods) and their successors, who have tirelessly sustained their approach.

 The landmark Victorian tenements in much of the inner city would not be here – and the streets that people ran and cycled through during the 2014 Commonwealth Games would have been decidedly less photogenic. Local residents in CCHAs took control of local assets long before we all started talking about asset based approaches, the Christie Commission, co-production and community empowerment. But there can be no doubt that they demonstrate the characteristics that we now aspire to in Scotland and have been doing this successfully since the early 1970s. This is a story that is well worth telling. And we can all learn from the powerful change that can come from giving residents the opportunity to take the important decisions about what happens in their area. 

Coastal Communities Fund

Click here to view an interactive map illustrating which community is receiving how much funding.

Author: The Fife Diet

Here’s a short video offering ten tips from The Fife Diet on how to build your own sustainable food movement

Click here :    Fife Diet

Author: BBC

Residents of the Black Isle have narrowly voted against the development of plans for three community-owned wind turbines. Results of the ballot held to assess community support for the idea were released this morning and showed that 57% of the electorate voted and of those, 46% were in favour, narrowly missing the majority needed to secure the proposed site from the Forestry Commission.

Martin Sherring, chairman of Black Isle Community Energy, the group behind the scheme, said, “Obviously it’s disappointing for the volunteers on the working group to have put so much work into this, and then fail to get community support by such a small margin. On the positive side, it was good to have engaged with so many people on the important issues of securing funding for community development, and of course reducing our carbon footprint. It was particularly encouraging that even the opponents of the project accepted the need to act on climate change.”

Asked if there were plans for alternative proposals, Mr. Sherring said “There are no plans to re-visit the Millbuie Forest turbines, but given the level of support for the idea it would be good to explore other ideas for either green energy generation or for reducing energy waste.”

The working group will now need to consider whether there is any prospect for developing alternative schemes to address the key aims that have motivated the partner organisations, namely local action to address climate change and revenue raising projects to fund public good projects on the Black Isle. It is not expected that any quick decisions will be made on new projects.

The full results of the ballot were:

56.7% turnout (4,884 votes);

4 invalid votes;

45.6% of valid votes were Yes (2,225 votes)

54.4% of valid votes were No (2,655 votes)

This was the largest community ballot which has been held under the National Forest Land Scheme and the largest mainland community renewables ballot.”

Nicholas Gubbins from Community Energy Scotland commented “The scale of support for the proposal indicates a high level of awareness and interest in renewable energy and its value, very good base to build on. The climate change and energy issues we face are not going to go away – they will get worse. Transition BIack Isle and Black Isle Community Energy will dust themselves off and actively develop alternative means of addressing these, helping people on the Black Isle to play their part”.

Anne Thomas, spokesperson for Black Isle Community Energy and Green candidate said, “We are hugely thankful to all those that voted ‘Yes’ for the chance to empower the communities of the Black Isle. We are also very appreciative of the grant funding from Scottish Government through Local Energy Scotland grant, funding of the ballot by Highland and Islands Enterprise and invaluable advice of Community Energy Scotland. All those who have volunteered time and support from the area and the wider network of community led projects around Scotland have helped bring the concept through to the ballot. It was encouraging to see the high level of engagement with it. We hope that the people of the Black Isle can now come together and work to make the Black Isle a better place”.

Author: Andrew Learmonth, Common Space

Scotland’s councils should look to use “citizens’ juries” when it comes to planning, according to the Common Weal, the Scottish “think and do tank”.

The call comes as campaigners in Aberdeen demand a massive overhaul of planning in Scotland in the wake of the city council’s decision to go ahead with the controversial Marischal Square development.

The campaigners say that decision was evidence the current system does not work.

Recent planning decisions taken by councillors in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Argyll and Bute have also led to massive, vocal campaigns.

“The process is broken,” said Commonweal Aberdeen’s Bob Taylor. “If the politicians are working inside of something that favours a particular behaviour then we have to change that process so that that behaviour is no longer allowed. It’s irrespective of [which political party] you have, you get that behaviour because the process is broken.”

Under the group’s plans for citizens’ juries, two groups of 12 people would be selected from across local authority areas much in the same way as the current jury system works in the courts. The juries would be presented with detailed information on planning proposals and would then ultimately make a decision. This would feed into the planning process.

In Aberdeen, it was not until unofficial images of how the Marischal Square development would looked were released to press that campaigners started to mobilise. At the resulting extraordinary meeting called by the council, councillors voted 22-21 against halting the development. Before the meeting 8,500 people had signed a petition calling on the councillors to think again.

The meeting was decidedly party political, with the Labour administration voting for the development and the SNP opposition all voting against.

This weekend saw organisers of the Reject Marischal Square Development organise a “mourn-in”. Campaigners were asked to leave cards and flowers in memory of the site and to symbolise the “death of democracy”.

In Glasgow, vocal protests around the demolition of the steps in front on the city’s Royal Concert Hall had no impact on the council’s decision. Campaigners point out that both this development and Marischal Square in Aberdeen are in non-residential areas, meaning it can be easier for the planning processes to go past unnoticed.

Although local authorities must include consultation when it comes to planning, Taylor believes that the process excludes people. “The people that turn up are generally elderly people who have time,” he said.

“They’re often held in the middle of the day, that precludes a lot of people from turning up. A lot of people are so busy just clinging on to managing to eat that they don’t have time for that. The consultations are quite a laissez faire idea. They’re not scientific and I don’t think they’re rigorous. The thing about a people’s jury is that it is extremely rigorous.

“The people’s jury are the demographic in the city because you choose them for that. For planning issues this a relatively quick way of getting a decision.”

Although they have never been used for planning decisions in Scotland, a number of organisations and government bodies have used citizens’ juries as a form of focus group. Scottish research body ClimateXChange recently established temporary citizens’ juries to look into wind farms in Scotland.

The body put together three groups of 15 to 20 people who would listen to speakers before being asked to discuss the “key principles for deciding about wind farm development”. The juries were held in three locations; Aberfeldy, close to an existing wind farm, Helensburgh, close to a proposed wind farm, and Coldstream, which has no existing or proposed major wind farms nearby.

According to the group’s report: “The majority of the jurors thought the citizens’ jury format is ‘a good way to find out how citizens feel about issues that affect them’ and agreed that it should be used to guide decisions ‘about issues that affect communities’.”

The report concluded: “These positive evaluations suggest that citizens can engage with enthusiasm in deliberation about complex topics such as wind farm development, despite the considerable effort required by the job”

In 2007, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown unveiled citizens’ juries as Labour’s big idea.

Author: Magnus Gardham, The Herald

Scotland’s allotment holders are facing an anxious wait after ministers refused to back down over plans that could reduce the size of their fruit and veg patches.

Growers believed they had scored a vital victory when opposition MSPs voted to guarantee the standard size of a plot and put councils under greater pressure to reduce waiting lists.

But the government indicated they could overturn yesterday’s decision by Holyrood’s local government committee and use the SNP’s majority to force through their original legislation when it comes to a final vote later this year.

Allotment holders have been campaigning for changes to the Community Empowerment Bill, fearing it could spell the end of the standard 250 square metre plot.

They have claimed the proposed legislation would encourage councils to cut lengthy waiting lists by simply cutting plots in half.

They also fear it would allow local authorities to impose steep rent rises, potentially forcing some growers off their prized plots.

At Holyrood yesterday, Labour, Conservative and Independent MSPs voted for amendments that would oblige councils to offer a 250 square metre plot, seen by enthusiasts as essential because the size is required to feed a family, while letting new holders accept a smaller allotment if they wished.

They also backed a plan forcing councils to make more land available if people faced a five year wait.

The changes satisfied the Scottish Allotment and Garden Society, which also welcomed a government amendment legally obliging councils to charge a fair rent.

But the Scottish Government spokesman said the Bill was still being considered and ministers may reject the changes when it returns for its final ‘stage three’ vote.

Environment Minister Aileen McLeod said: “There is cross party agreement about the broad aims of the Bill’s provisions on the size of allotments, and we have listened closely to the views of the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society.

“The committee actually agreed a mixture of both Government and Labour amendments, resulting in a hybrid of approaches, which we will carefully consider in advance of Stage 3.”

Mark Thirgood, of the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society said: “We are delighted with the amendments the committee accepted.

“If, when the bill comes back to the chamber for stage three, the government has kept all those amendments in, this will be a piece of legislation that will serve the allotment community well going forward and for the foreseeable future.

“But we’ll see what the government comes back with. We are not in a position to say the bill is fit for purpose until then.”

SNP MSPs on the committee were outvoted by four to three on the key amendments.

Scottish Labour’s shadow social justice spokesman Ken Macintosh said: “It is only fitting that a Bill designed to empower local communities has been amended to reflect the wishes of those communities rather than reflect the authority and power of government.

“It is clear that many allotment plot holders felt threatened by some of the measures proposed in this Bill, particularly those which may have resulted in the ever increasing sub-division of plots into smaller and smaller sizes.

“Labour MSPs were proud to speak up for the allotment community and to support further proposals to ensure people living in deprived areas have access to their own plots.”

He added: “I would ask the Scottish Government to also accept the reasoned arguments presented and not to use their Parliamentary majority to overturn this decision at stage three.”

The number of allotments in Scotland has plummeted since the Second World War.

During the days of “dig for victory” there were between 50,000 and 70,000 plots but the figure has now shrunk to around 8000.

Those hopeful of securing a plot have to wait more than 10 years in some parts of Scotland.

In Glasgow on Saturday the seeds were sown for a food justice movement in Scotland.

Hear some of the voices from the event here

Govan, birthplace of people’s political activism in this country, hosted a Church of Scotland organised event – in collaboration with the Centre for Human Ecology and Faith in Community Scotland – exploring how sustainable food equality can be achieved.

Over 200 people – community food growing experts, activists, food bank volunteers – shared their experience of tackling the growing crisis of food access decline in one of the richest countries in the world.

Rev Sally Foster-Fulton, Convener of the Church and Society Council, said: “This has been an incredible day. It is the beginning of a movement. It was not about coming together and just talking about food banks. It was about finding ways for sustainable food justice in Scotland. We have brought a lot of people here who are on the ground day in day out. They have expertise on how we can move this crisis response forward and achieve fair access to food for all. Change has begun.”

The keynote speaker at the conference was Rachel Gray, executive director of The Stop Community Food Centre in Canada.

She shared the experience of over 35 years of food banks in Canada and how her organisation has evolved the food bank format to help people increase their dignity, health and challenge inequality.

She said: “We know that food banks don’t work at addressing poverty. We hope very much that Scotland will take a firm stand on this issue. That it will look at the consequences of not investing in food security and see the devastation that poverty will cause to the health of the nation.”

Community food growth, political activism, enshrinement of the right to food in Scots Law, alternative food production systems and ensuring the word ‘food bank’ did not become entrenched in the national consciousness were among the array of ideas being shared.

The task now is to channel this desire for change into action. In the second half of 2015 the Church of Scotland will convene a follow-up event – Beyond Foodbanks 2 – to further root the movement and focus on the details necessary for success.

PUBLIC trust in the planning process around major infrastructure developments is at an all-time low.

And it’s not just about wind farms; a snapshot of letters pages and online media on any given day reveals angst and suspicion stemming from the sacrifice of areas of wild land, natural heritage, historic landscapes and greenbelt to commercial priorities.

It is understood that difficult decisions need to be made for the good of the nation and the planet. Yet, at a time when community empowerment is supposed to be in the ascendant, it is ironic to see the honest concerns expressed by local communities, and those united by the desire to conserve our most important natural and cultural assets, swept aside in an unequal battle with powerful commercial interests. As has recently been observed, even the Scottish Government itself has been shown to disregard its expert advisors.

This situation cannot continue and it is in everyone’s interests to find a way forward.

If we are to rebuild public confidence in the planning process and in the objectivity of Scottish Ministers responsible for making such decisions, then we must find a way to demonstrate absolute transparency, impartiality and fairness. Doing so would help those affected by planning outcomes to accept unpalatable choices.

We propose that fresh impetus be given to revisiting the current planning system with a view to improving existing procedures, potentially through the creation of a body or process that is truly independent of government. The goal would be to ensure clear, neutral adjudication over controversial planning applications where there could be significant impact on important landscapes, natural heritage interests or local communities.

We accept that there are many questions to answer over how any new arrangements would be established, who would oversee them and so forth; but it is a discussion we must have soon if we are to find a way out of the morass of confusion and recrimination that characterises the present system.

Change would obviate the need for ill-funded individuals, communities and charities to take on lavishly-subsidised developers in the courts where they can rely upon the best advocacy money can buy. It would also create a level playing field on which the needs of nature and communities can be weighed alongside other priorities.

We invite the Scottish Government to join with us in an open discussion based on our suggestions.

John Mayhew, Director, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland; Stuart Brooks, Chief Executive, the John Muir Trust; Brian Linington, President, Mountaineering Council of Scotland; Peter Willimott, President, the Munro Society; Sir Kenneth Calman, Chairman, the National Trust for Scotland; David Thomson, Convener, Ramblers Scotland; Stuart Housden OBE, Chief Executive, RSPB Scotland; George Menzies, Chairman, Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society; John Milne, Co-ordinator, Scottish Wild Land Group,