Kingask report praised by council as 'full and balanced'

Gordon Berry and Bruce Fegen, The Courier, 15 October 1999

An independent report has found no evidence to justify allegations that council officials in Fife were forced to “trim their’ reports, come in line, or stay silent” during the planning process involving the controversial £50 million Kingask development, near St Andrews.

The report, though, criticised aspects of Fife Council’s handling of the matter, and has called into question the fact that the authority hosted a reception for the developers before a planning application had even been submitted.

Mention is made of pressure being applied by the developers and their agents to councillors and officials, of inadequate communication in the transportation department, and of council officials being given unrealistic time scales for formulating reports.

The report from former Glasgow City Council chief executive John Anderson has singled out the chairman of the East area development committee, Peter Douglas, for criticism.

While emphasising his respect for Mr Douglas’s honesty and integrity, Mr Anderson has said that the councillor should take more care to exercise neutrality as chairman, should ensure respect is shown to the opinions of officers and councillors, and should avoid making “throwaway remarks.”

Mr Anderson said that councillor Douglas should raise matter of concern through the chief executive, make use of normal channels of communication, and exercise more care in framing allegations.

The application, eventually approved by the centrally based strategic development committee, had a stormy passage through the planning processes of the council.

Questions were raised over recommendations for approval in the face of objections from almost every relevant national and local conservation body. Support, on the other hand, came from bodies such as Fife Enterprise and the Fife Chamber of Commerce.

In the aftermath of the plans being passed Mr Douglas said publicly that he had been telephoned at his home by officials who said that they feared for their jobs and had been under pressure to trim reports, come in line, or stay silent.

Mr Anderson has made it clear in his report that he had perceived a general desire at the political centre, as well as possibly at officer level centrally, for the development to proceed.

This, he said, was due to the undoubted benefits which would flow not only to St Andrews and surrounds, but possibly to the whole of Fife.

“Having said that, various pressures did surround this application, including, it has to be said, considerable pressures on members and officers throughout the process from the developers and their agents. I am satisfied that these pressures did not in any way prevent the proper statutory process being carried through, although various officers complained about the imposition of unrealistic time pressure in formulating reports.

“I would have to suggest however that the decision to hold a public launch of the Kingask project, including a reception hosted by he council prior to the submission by the developer of the planning application, could have contributed to a view held by some members that there was pressure from the centre to approve the application.

“However genuine the motives may have been I would suggest that in any future similar situation the implications of a decision to hold such a reception should be given serious consideration.”

He has made it clear, however, that he has found no evidence to suggest that officers had been put under pressure to trim reports, come in me, or stay silent.

It was clearly established that one report from a transportation official - which concluded that the application should be refused - was trimmed when included in another report, said Mr Anderson.

He has made it clear that while the manner in which this had been done could be criticised, it seemed to him that the action had been taken quite legitimately by senior management who had not agreed with the views expressed.

Mr Anderson also said that issues had arisen which clearly impact on good relations between councillors and officers, and that there was a lack of “mutual trust.”

Yesterday’s full meeting of Fife Council unanimously approved a motion welcoming the “full and balanced report” submitted by Mr Anderson. The council has accepted the findings of the report and has agreed recommendations based on them.

Councilor Peter Douglas said, “As I sought the independent investigation, it would be utterly perverse of me not to put on record my appreciation of the investigation and my acceptance of it. I will take on board John Anderson’s conclusions and recommendations,” he said.

Administration leader Christine May, who recommended acceptance of all the points and recommendations made in the report, said, “John Anderson’s findings that there was no impropriety should make it beyond question that the Kingask decision was taken other than for proper considerations.”

Of the criticism of the Communications Unit, Councillor May said that although she considered it had been acting in good faith, Mr Anderson’s conclusions should be accepted, including the recommendation that procedures to be applied by the Unit on matters of a quasi-judicial nature should be given detailed consideration.

Moving the motion of acceptance of the report, the leader said, “I think it is now time to put this matter behind us and move on, and learn the lessons from any imperfections in the decision-making process by taking further action in a number of specific ways.”

On behalf of the SNP, Peter Grant pointed out that Mr Anderson had not established there had been no impropriety because this had not been part of his remit.

“We all think the report is the way forward,” he said, calling on officers and members to sit down and re-establish “mutual respect”.

He referred to the report’s criticism of the action taken by the Communications Unit and said, "They have gone beyond any remit they were given. It’s a serious issue. The SNP are going to ask for this to be investigated in some depth with a degree of urgency"

Mike Scott-Hayward for the Tories said it was time to look ahead. He told councillors that the East Area committee “must take steps to restore public confidence” in it, although he felt It could be a long haul.

Lib Dem leader Elizabeth Harris said that there were lessons to be learned for officers and councillors, and this had been accepted by every Lib Dem member of the East Area Development Committee.

There were also lessons for the council and for the Communications Unit, although it was accepted that no pressure had been put on staff, and with hindsight things could have been dealt with differently.

Councillor Harris added, “The Lib Dems are well aware that many people feel bruised by this process and that bridges must now be built. We will work together to build these bridges.