Latest News

Audit Scotland’s damning report on last ELC administration (16 October 2007)

In its first report on Best Value and Community Planning at East Lothian Council, published today, Audit Scotland says that while East Lothian Council has many inherent advantages, it has made limited progress in establishing Best Value. The audit (prior to the council elections) found significant weaknesses including:

• There has been informal decision making and a lack of openness and transparency, caused by relationships between political and managerial leaders being unduly close.
• The council has no financial strategy and does not have a systematic approach to the management of assets.
• Elected member leadership capacity has been limited and they have not been well supported to develop this capacity.
• This is combined with a lack of strategic focus and leadership by the Corporate Management Team.

The racecourse is mentioned a number of times in the report. Here are a few examples.

“The decision to invest in Musselburgh Racecourse... [was] not taken in an open and transparent way.”

“Council decisions are not always open and transparent. This includes the council’s interest in Musselburgh Racecourse, an arms length organisation. A number of key council meetings were held in private and this is not consistent with a culture of openness.”

“A report to council in January 2006 requested partial funding for the development of the racecourse... No business plan was prepared or presented to the council to support this decision.”

“The council has yet to develop a systematic corporate approach to managing its assets. It must ensure that the arrangements for managing common good assets, particularly the land on which Musselburgh Racecourse stands, adhere to good practice principles.”

“There is limited evidence of reporting to council on any aspect of the racecourse and there has been no reporting to council on the performance of the Racecourse.“

Certain dubious practices are reported. For example “The council has currently loaned the racecourse company [which some may be surprised to learn hasn’t yet actually been activated] £1.6 million. The annual accounts for the racecourse were first included in the East Lothian group accounts 2005/06. The 2004 and 2005 racecourse annual accounts were signed in April 2007, following a request by the council’s external auditor.”

The report also makes mention of a temporary loan of £1.6 million to East Lothian Council from the Common Good fund. There is no further information on what this was for and when it will be repaid. The report also states that the rent paid by the Racecourse now reflects the market value of the land (£14,000 per annum, up from £5,000 per annum previously).

Lets hope the new administration can sort this mess out.

The full report can be downloaded here.
 

Plans for the new stables published at town meeting (10 October 2007)

The following report on the town meeting held on 3rd October 2007 has been provided by John Caldwell. HOOL has yet to decide whether to support the proposal. 

Present at the top table were: John Caldwell (Local Councillor Chair of the Musselburgh Racecourse Board), Roger Knox (Local Councillor, Board Director), Bill Farnsworth General Manager (Musselburgh Racecourse), Alex McCrorie (Acting Chief Executive ELC), Alan Forsyth (Head of Property ELC), Keith McConnachie (ELC Solicitor), Tom Shearer (Head of Community & Well Being, ELC).

This proposal has nothing to do with Floodlit All Weather Tracks. The new proposal is for stables, housing and a community facility, that can be used extensively by the community on non race days.

The racecourse must now operate with stable facilities that are of a standard suitable for the racing industry, which they currently don’t have. This in itself is not a problem as they can very quickly at a reasonable cost (£400k approx.) upgrade the current stables at Millhill and Goosegreen. This can be done within the time scales the racecourse have been given, which is completion by 31st December this year.

However, the council has identified an opportunity to build Social Housing for rent houses on the Goosegreen site, which would mean the stables would have to move. Social Housing for rent housing is something east Lothian badly needs. So, the need to try to examine this opportunity before proceeding to upgrade the current stables is being explored.

The council has therefore come up with a proposal which is to construct new stables away from the houses, and combine in that construction a community facility which would be available for use by the community and all users of the Links area. The Racecourse would use this approximately 25 times a year, the community could have access all the year round.

The stable layout itself will be similar to the one in the last planning application for the AWT, but, without the overnight accommodation facility. It will include enclosures for housing the racecourse and golf course ground staff, and all their equipment. It will therefore release 2 buildings both the council and the racecourse currently use.

The new building will have another storey built on to it to allow for the additional community facilities.

The site proposed to build on is next to the old gasworks site, which is currently on top of the BMX track. The BMX track would be recreated, therefore no loss of this amenity.

A number of local groups and individuals have already been addressed, and their comments fed into the project. The detailed drawings have changed several times with the current status being displayed at the public meeting. I can say that initial feedback from others is that “it is a good proposal”.

The community facility will not be dominated by any particular recreational activity, but be used equally by all links users.

There are many advantages for the council, the racecourse and the community. Which are as follows:

• The racecourse would benefit from new stables (but not essential)
• The stables, staff and equipment would be on the one site
• No need to lead horses along Millhill and Balcarres Road to the racecourse.
• Horseboxes would not need to travel to Goosegreen or Millhill to load/unload horses. They would park in the stable yard area car park.
• The community and visitors will have the use of a cafeteria.
• Toilet facilities will be available for users of the facility.
• Lockers and changing facilities for lagoon users of various outdoor activities.
• Meeting room facilities for community use.
• The ability to put on permanent/temporary displays in the large foyer area.
• The sites at Millhill and Goosegreen will be sold with the proceeds passing to the Common Good Fund to fund such things as the refurbishment of the Brunton Hall.
• Council would be able to purchase the Goosegreen site from the Common Good and build much needed Social Housing for rent.
• The starter at the Golf Course would operate from the new building rather than the current hut.
• The area would be secure covered by CCTV reducing vandalism on the golf course and racecourse.
• The facility will be owned by the council and run as a community facility on non-race days.
• Hours of operation still to be determined.

Plus any other additional suggestions that may arise.

Timescale and Costs

Because of the situation regarding the stable facility, a decision must be made within a few weeks on whether to refurbish the stables or to construct the new facility.

To be able to decide which option the community had to be consulted then, if sufficient support is gained a report will be prepared along with the costs of the project which will go to East Lothian Council for their agreement. At that time a Planning Application will be submitted. At that stage anyone with concerns can lodge an objection in the normal way or write in a letter of support.

The costs (currently estimated at approx. 2.2 million pounds) would be met from 3 sources:

• The racecourse (money which would have been available to refurbish the existing
  stable)
• The Council (to fund the community facility, gaining benefit for Social Housing for rent)
• The Common Good Fund (contribution towards the community facility).

Drawings will be available at some stage in the Brunton Hall and possibly in the starters hut. If a planning application is lodged people have the right to lodge legitimate planning issues or letters of support. However, they must be planning related objections

All sounds rather familiar doesn’t it...

Ministers refuse to grant the racecourse permission for AWT and floodlighting
(19 August 2007)

Ministers announced on Wednesday 15 August that they backed the recommendation of public inquiry reporter Philip Hutchison to reject the planning application by Musselburgh Racecourse Company Ltd.

In his wide ranging, 99-page report, Mr Hutchison found that environmental considerations outweighed the commercial interests of the racecourse and recommended its refusal on environmental and nuisance grounds. This was accepted by the Executive. “"Perceived safeguards" over protection of the birds and the environment which included monitoring the effect of lighting on birds were "extremely weak, even illusory… I am thoroughly unconvinced that appropriate mitigation is presently within reach."

“The proposed development . . . would be very detrimental to the settings of several listed buildings and would adversely affect the character and appearance of Musselburgh Conservation Area.” "The 25-30m (floodlight) columns would dwarf everything round about and the effects would be overpowering." Additional noise, all of it at night, was “a serious matter for the closest residents" and "the lighting itself is also likely to be detrimental to residential amenity".

He also accepted there would be disadvantages for golfers at the Musselburgh Old Course.

Mr Hutchinson also criticised the business case, saying: "There would doubtlessly be a certain amount of beneficial local economic spin off - albeit for a limited range of businesses… This cannot be satisfactorily quantified but I am satisfied that the level of economic benefit by various routes has been exaggerated." He believed, for example, that the AWT attendance figures had been optimistically pitched.

HOOL is absolutely delighted with the outcome, as this decision shows common sense has finally been applied. The plans would have been too big for the area and showed a lack of respect for surrounding features such as the lagoon nature reserve, the historic golf course and the local residents.

It is understood that currently the racecourse will not challenge the Executive’s decision but has 6 weeks in which to do so. However, with the Labour group’s £9 million loan to the racecourse to finance the project frozen by SNP and Lib-Dem councillors when they seized power at the recent elections, things look bleak for the racecourse as far as the AWT and floodlight development is concerned. (And it seems, according to officials at the Scottish Executive, that the loan breaches anti-competition regulations governing state subsidies of businesses anyway.)

More on the Reporters findings and the reaction of the community as we have it.

Fact: The more races you have, the fewer people who attend (22 May 2007)

Bill Farnsworth, Manager of Musselburgh Racecourse, was moaning in the press today about the low turnout at yesterday’s race meeting (21st May). The numbers who actually paid through the turnstiles was 65 per cent down on last year despite great weather.  "But we have had a lot of racing in Scotland recently. In fact, this is the tenth Scottish fixture in the last 18 days and we also have Ayr and Kelso to come this week as they both race tomorrow." If the numbers attending is inversely proportional to the amount of racing, surely that demonstrates that an extra 30 races a year at Musselburgh would mean fewer and fewer paying race-goers! So much for bringing extra money to the area.

All change at East Lothian Council – and that means the racecourse too (22 May 2007)

[Our apologies for the lack of news on this web site. We have been experiencing some problems which have now been resolved.]

On Thursday May 3rd 2007 Labour’s control over Musselburgh racecourse was broken. After dominating the local council chamber for 30 years, Labour was kicked out of office in the local council elections.

The Liberal Democrats and SNP seized control of East Lothian Council in the wake of major Labour losses and are now vowing to halt the proposed developments. Lets hope they keep their promise.

The Labour party saw its number of councillors drop from 17 at the last election to just 7, picking up the same number of seats as the SNP under a new voting system. And Norman Murray, former East Lothian Council leader and a supporter of the racecourse development, was beaten into second place for the post of MSP for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh. (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh was previously held by Susan Deacon - an opponent of the development of the racecourse – with a majority of 6157.)

Subsequent to all the excitement, the council has chosen four opponents of the development to be on the new board of Musselburgh Racing Company: Roger Knox - the new SNP councillor and former chairman of the Hands Off Our Links campaign - John Caldwell - an independent councillor who chaired the Musselburgh and Inveresk Community Council and had a leading role in the public inquiry arguing against the plans – and Liberal Democrat Barry Turner who was also involved in the inquiry. The other nominee is SNP councillor Kenny McLeod who is also expected to oppose the expansion. These four replace four former Labour councillors who supported the development, including Norman Murray, who were put on to the racecourse board last October.

And let’s not forget that the new council can now refuse to authorise the vital £9m loan to the course. A decision on this will be made on May 29th.

May be Farnsworth and his Labour party supporters should reflect about why Knox and Caldwell and Turner were successful in being elected AND why Labour lost so badly both in the local council elections and for the local MSP. The AWT development was an important local issue and having failed to get the Labour councillors to listen to the views of local people, the local people dealt with those in charge in the only way left open to them - through the democratic process.

For another view on this read an article in the Scotsman Newspaper here.

Racecourse erect building without planning permission (30 January 2007)

Musselburgh racecourse’s frustration with the delays caused by the public inquiry may have led them to find a novel way to get around the local planning process - ignore it.

It emerged last week that a new Tote kiosk has been erected without planning consent. It was only after a sharp-eyed planning officer pointed out to Bill Farnsworth, the racecourse manager, that the structure was within a conservation area and that a planning application was required, that a retrospective application was made. HOOL find it astonishing that this could happen when a number of councillors, including Provost Pat O’Brien and council leader Norman Murray, are members of both the joint racing committee AND the council planning committee.

Despite objections to the kiosk by local residents and Musselburgh Conservation Society, retrospective planning consent was granted.

One wonders if this is some new tactic by which the racecourse propose to move ahead with their development - build it in small bits and then seek retrospective planning permission! And as for the planning officer who brought the matter to everyone’s attention, he should probably not be looking for a promotion anytime soon.

In other news, a recent article on Scottish Golf on the PGA Tour web site noted that East Lothian is home to “Musselburgh, the oldest playing course in existence”.

Kempton Park leads the way in showing AWT is not for race-goers (15 January 2007)

An article in today’s Guardian on all weather racing at Kempton Park makes for interesting reading. The key facts to emerge are

• Since switching all its flat racing to the all-weather track last spring, the Kempton Park track has recorded some embarrassing attendance figures. Last Sunday’s racing saw about 600 paying customers in attendance and this for a racecourse with a catchment area much larger than Musselburgh.
• It's not people through the gate that's driving the profitability of the racecourse but the off-course bookmakers with the bookmaking industry paying £4,200 per race. AWT racing only benefits the media owners and bookmakers.
• To make money Kempton plan to up the number of AWT races so that the course runs 120 race days per year. They are looking to develop a “whole new kind of race-goer”. For example, on any given Wednesday night race-goers will be able turn up for food, drink, live music and maybe a flutter. "Racing will become a cabaret under the lights”. Just the sort of ‘high quality’ event Musselburgh needs.
• Plans for an all-weather track at Newbury have been shelved indefinitely (due to doubts over the future funding of racing and the availability of fixtures).
• AWT as a profitable business for British racecourses is a very doubtful proposition.

It’s a sorry lesson of what is in store for Musselburgh if the development goes ahead.

The full article can be read at
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/01/15/kempton_digs_in_the_dirt_to_ma.html

Letters of support are ‘fakes’ inquiry told  (24 November 2006)

Most normal people know their home address. Obviously many race goers at Musselburgh Racecourse are not normal.

Following a detailed study of the letters submitted by the Musselburgh Racecourse supporting the development it is clear that many are of "dubious origin". This emerged during the first week of the public inquiry.

As reported previously, a "pro-forma", or standard, letter was sent out by Racecourse at the time of the consultation into the proposal. Race goers were encouraged to agree that the development would be positive for the local community, sign the letter, add their home address, then return it to the racecourse, which would send it on to East Lothian Council's planning department. However, an analysis of the letters has shown that

• Over 300 letters had no name or the name was illegible,
• Over 200 had no address or the address was illegible,
• Some letters had postcodes only but these postcodes do not exist,
• Some had postcodes but the address was incorrect (how many people do you know who know their postcode but can’t spell the name of the street they live on or the town they live in?),
• Some had addresses which do not exist.

In other cases the individuals who signed the letters do not exist. One letter, for example, was signed Peter Collins from Musselburgh. But one of the members of the MICC team contacted all five people registered as living in Musselburgh with that name and all denied they had signed it. Worse there was a similarity in the handwriting on the letter submitted by 'Peter Collins' and that of Mr Farnsworth, the course manager. (By the way, Peter Collins is the name of the Director of Environment at East Lothian Council!). Examination of other letters shows that a number of them have been written by one or more common authors.

Talking to a Guardian Newspaper reporter Chris Cook, Farnsworth conceded "I wouldn't say there was a huge groundswell of opinion in favour of it”. So what do you do in such a situation, you create your own supporters!

In the same interview Farnsworth commented “We've spent a lot on it so far, well in excess of £500,000, and we've ended up with a bigger overdraft than we would prefer”. And this from a course that only made a profit of £70,000 last year!

“It’s David v. Goliath”, says Community Council chairman (28 October 2006)

With the start of the public inquiry into the AWT development just weeks away, Community Council chairman John Caldwell has branded the public inquiry a “David against Goliath situation”.

Objectors to the proposal have united under the umbrella of the Musselburgh and Inveresk Community Council to fight the development at the inquiry.

As reported previously it has been estimated that the Public Inquiry will cost the racecourse a six-figure sum. As John Caldwell reported in a local newspaper, “where we are putting in our own efforts on a voluntary basis … the MJRC has spent a considerable sum of money hiring professional people to support their case.

It certainly seems that the MJRC and East Lothian Council plan to ‘drown’ objectors in report and publications. To date, HOOL has received 53 documents from Dundas & Wilson on behalf of East Lothian Council and 78 from Anderson Strathern on behalf of MJRC. Ed Stanley, Chair of HOOL, highlighted to the Reporter at the Pre-Inquiry meeting the significant difference in the resources available to the objectors as compared to ELC and MJRC. The majority of those leading the opposition to the proposal will have to try to fit their work for the inquiry and attendance around their day jobs.

New Venue for the Inquiry

The venue for the inquiry has changed again. Originally planned to be held at the Brunton Hall, it was then moved to the Woodside Hotel. Now it seems that the inquiry will take place at the Ravelston House Hotel. The reason for the move from the Woodside seems to revolve around disabled access. However, HOOL was concerned that the Woodside supported the planned development and therefore wasn’t a neutral venue.

Concerns remain over the choice of the Ravelston. It isn’t as large a venue as the Brunton Hall, and may not be able to cope given the strong local interest in this inquiry. It is still unclear why the the Brunton Hall supper room could not be used. It would make a more suitable venue; it’s central and has good acoustics for sound.

Another change is that Reporter Mike Culshaw, who chaired the pre-inquiry and was set to chair the main hearing, will now no longer take charge. His replacement, Philip Hutchinson, has just a few weeks to familiarise himself with all the documents relating to the inquiry.

What’s it all about Farnsworth?

HOOL have  learnt that the while the primary justification for the AWT proposal was as a means to generate revenue for the improvement of the turf track, the only way the AWT could be made viable was by installing floodlighting. One wonders what other developments will be required to make the whole enterprise viable once the bills roll in? Moreover, it seems that benefits other than to the racecourse were never part of MJRC’s original thinking! The question of benefits to the local economy arose late in the day as a way to convince the people of Musselburgh of the desirability of the development.

The MJRC are determined to destroy the Links with this all-weather track and floodlights, having no regard for our community. And all this, including the not insignificant costs, could have been avoided if the MJRC had only been willing to negotiate and make some compromises.

Attend the Inquiry, give those fighting for you and Musselburgh your support!

Roger Knox, Chair of HOOL, steps down (27 June 2006)

Roger Knox is to step down as chair of HOOL when he is adopted later this month as the Scottish National Party’s candidate for the new Musselburgh East Ward to contest next year’s elections to East Lothian Council

Roger has chaired the HOOL campaign since it was first founded in February 2005 and led the campaign which won the public enquiry into the driving of an all weather race track across Musselburgh’s historic Old Course.

Roger said ‘It’s been an immense privilege to lead such a team of very talented and committed people from across the political spectrum. However, I feel that this role cannot be carried out by someone likely to have a high party political profile. As candidate for the new enlarged Musselburgh East ward, this would be inevitable.

‘Needless to say,’ he concluded, ‘I will continue to oppose this outrageous plan for an all weather track’.

The inquiry will begin later this year in October or November.

Public Inquiry called – but Racecourse to fight on (24 April 2006)

As reported on the home page of Hool web site a few weeks ago, the Scottish Executive has decided that the proposed development of the Racecourse will be considered at a Public Local Inquiry. They want to ensure there is thorough and public scrutiny before they make a final decision on the proposal. The decision has been welcomed by HOOL, the Community Council and the Old Musselburgh Club. The Public Inquiry into the proposal will be held towards the end of 2006.

But the Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee (MJRC) still don’t seem to have got it. Rather than use this as an opportunity to enter into genuine consultation with the community to develop a policy for the entire links area, they have decided to fight their case at the Public Inquiry. A less grandiose scheme would most likely get public acceptance. The local community is not against the racecourse or its development, just not on scale currently proposed, nor to the detriment of the Old Course or the local environment.

It is has been estimated that the Public Inquiry will cost the course a six-figure sum (Ayr recently faced a similar Inquiry over its development proposals and the final bill for preparing its case is estimated at nearly £500,000.) The MJRC are emphatic that the costs involved will be met solely by Musselburgh Racecourse. HOOL understand that no liability will fall to the Musselburgh Common Good. According to Colin Shand, of the MJRC, any costs incurred by the Racecourse in participating in the Public Inquiry will be viewed as expenses incurred in connection with the development of the Racecourse and as such will form part of the overall costs of the proposed development if it goes ahead. If the Public Inquiry finds against the proposed development of the Racecourse, the MJRC will look at reducing expenditure to ensure the Racecourse does not make a loss. In addition they are looking at reducing other expenditure to offset the additional costs of the Inquiry. One option they are considering is cutting prize money in the short term. This would mean that it is race horse owners who are funding the costs of the Public Inquiry. HOOL we will be monitoring the MJRC to ensure that the cost of the Inquiry has no effect on the potential benefit to the Common Good.

News of the Public Inquiry came just days after Newbury racecourse announced it was delaying plans for an all weather track that was due to open at the end of this year.

Expert witnesses and legal costs mean fund-raising is even more important now.
Please send a donation – find out how here.

Demand a Public Inquiry Now (24 March 2006)

“We will ensure that local people are better able to participate in decisions that
affect them, and that no developments will go ahead where community voices
have not been fairly heard.”

Jack McConnell, MSP, First Minister 

“Local people must be properly listened to in a system that considers all issues carefully
without giving too much weight to any one interest.”

Malcolm Chisholm, MSP, Minister for Communities 

(From Scottish Executive White Paper: Modernising the Planning System 2005.)

On March 16th 2006 we saw democracy in action and it wasn’t pretty (report available here). As far as East Lothian is concerned local democracy does not exist when eight persons can vote in favour of something that they know the people of Musselburgh disprove of.  It is clear that East Lothian Council consider the people of Musselburgh second class citizens and we now have to call upon the Scottish Parliament to listen to us. A Public Enquiry is essential.

YOUR part is just as vital.  Everyone – whether you’ve already objected or not - should write to the Scottish Executive as soon as possible demanding that a public enquiry take place.

Address your letter to Andy Kinnaird, Planning Division 1, Scottish Executive Development Dept, Area 2/H, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

Send copies to Jim McKinnon, Chief Planner (same address) and to Malcolm Chisholm MSP, Communities Minister, Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh EH99 1SP. Try to send your letters by Wednesday 5th April.

Now is also the time to lobby your local MSP. Susan Deacon MSP is already calling for a public inquiry. It is now time that John Home Robertson MSP (Member for East Lothian) got off the fence and supported the people of Musselburgh. You should also lobby your regional MSP (find them here - you’ll need to know your home postcode.) If you live outwith Musselburgh, contact your own local MSP and ask for his or her support.

It’s important that at this stage you focus on flaws in the planning process. You must also use your own words. Here are some of the points to stress:

• Lack of consultation with the local community; the way in which proposals crept into local plan proposals; residents told objections to Lagoons Masterplan should be done at planning application stage only to be told later that the application is justified on grounds that it is already in Lagoons Masterplan – this is development through the backdoor.

• The threat to resources of national and international significance - RSPB maintains its objections; Scottish Natural Heritage still concerned – the impact on Special Protection Area/SSSI; the huge and inappropriate changes to the world’s oldest golf course still in use; killing off both a valuable heritage site and tourist attraction; the fact that the Old Course should have been protected before but this required ELC to act which they wouldn’t do because of their vested interests in the racecourse.

• A plethora of untested assertions – the effect of light pollution – travel plan – the economic case – the environmental impact. All this needs further and independent analysis and testing. This is not something that can be done as a desktop study by hard pressed council officers.

• Lack of impartiality in ELC and in the committee decision-making - all 7 Labour councillors supported application; the council has an interest and this needs to be tested; the council’s decision to award a £9m loan to support the development in advance of planning consent showing that the Council had already made up its mind on this issue.

• No weight given to the opinion of Community Council despite evidence from public meeting and other channels of virtually unanimous opposition to proposal; very little acknowledgement of this in officer’s repost or at the planning meeting.

• No extra weight given to the objections of the local people who own the land. It was stated (wrongly!) at planning meeting that ONLY policy considerations could be considered; 745 objections, mostly local, versus 1000  supporters based on pro-forma, mostly anonymous, few local, almost exclusively from race meetings. (One councillor quoted as saying he had no time to read letters of objection.)

• Development on Common Good Land but against evidenced public consent.

• Environmental consequences of the all-weather track - 45 lighting pylons between 75 and 90 feet high adjacent to a residential and conservation area, increased twilight-hour and evening traffic on residential streets etc, loudspeaker noise until perhaps 10 pm, detrimental to character and atmosphere…….

• If the need for an AWT is a national one then it should be considered and tested at a national level. From a national point of view another Scottish racecourse may be more suitable homes for AWT – a course away from residential areas, where the environmental impact is less and where national and international are not irreversible damaged.

“In distinguishing between the public and private interests, the basic question is
whether the proposal would unacceptably affect the amenity and
existing use of the land and building which ought to be protected in
the public interest.” National Planning Guidance SPP1.

HOOL believes the development is not in the public interest and should be halted now.

Expert witnesses and legal costs mean fund-raising is even more important now.
Please send a donation – find out how here.

Community groups petition Scottish Parliament (22 March 2006)

OBJECTIONS raised by community groups to Musselburgh Racecourse's plans for an all-weather track are to be passed to Communities Minister Malcolm Chisholm. Community organizations have joined forces to petition MSPs about the level of local engagement and consultation undertaken during the planning process and the treat the development poses to Musselburgh. A 1100 word document drawn up by the Old Musselburgh Club, backed by the Musselburgh Conservation Society, Musselburgh and Inveresk Community Council and the Rotary and Probus Clubs.

At a meeting of the Public Petitions Committee on 22 March 2006, the Public Petitions Committee heard from Andrew Watt, John Caldwell and Neil Hynd. The Committee agreed to refer the petition to the Communities Committee as part of its ongoing scrutiny of planning issues including the Planning (Scotland) Bill and to forward a copy of the petition to the Minister for Communities.

You can read the petition here.
 

ELC Planning Officer's report now available (12 March 2006)

The ELC Planning Officer's report is now available on the Council's website. [Click here to download a copy.] The Planning Officer's recommendation is to APPROVE the planning application subject to 26 conditions.  At next week's planning meeting (16th March), Councillors will be able to accept or reject the application, with or without amending the Planning Officer's conditions, if they so choose.

The report, the conclusion of which was very predictable, makes rather depressing reading for those of us objecting to the development. As an example, the historic importance of the Old Course is dealt with in one paragraph of 4 lines; and this in a document that is 96 pages long! “The golf course is not a Scheduled Monument and it has no special protection in terms of cultural value or historic importance”, says the report (p. 28). This implies that MJRC can do what the hell they like to it.  Other objections, while getting slightly lengthier consideration, are treated in a similar manner. For example, it is their assessment that “the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the architectural or historic character of the Musselburgh Conservation Area or on the setting of the listed buildings” (p.27). (Yet on page 25 they state that the floodlighting would have a harmful impact on the architectural or historic character of the Musselburgh Conservation Area.) And apparently “the public is not currently able to exercise their access rights over the racecourse” (p.32) – this seems to include the Golf Course and remember all of this is Common Good Land; land granted to the people of Musselburgh from time immemorial for recreation and leisure purposes. On the rather important matter of the proposed development taking place on Common Good Land, the report says nothing. Enough said.

Previous News Items (March 2005 - March 2006) are viewable here.

Last Modified:16/10/07