from Sunday Herald, 15 November 2009
An investigation has been launched into allegations that one of Scotland’s senior planners has breached her professional code of conduct by “colluding” with the American property tycoon, Donald Trump.
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), which represents 22,000 planners in the UK, is examining a complaint that Dr Christine Gore, director of planning for Aberdeenshire Council, failed to act with integrity and independence while handling Trump’s application for a £1 billion luxury golf resort.
But the council has strongly defended Gore’s behaviour and promised full co-operation with any investigation. It accused Trump’s critics of promoting “misinformation” to win publicity for their cause.
The investigation comes as a new opinion poll released today shows that three-quarters of Scots are opposed to any plans Trump might have to use compulsory purchase to evict families to make way for his luxury leisure and housing development. This contrasts with the strong local support that Trump claims for his scheme.
Trump’s plans for two championship golf courses, 950 holiday homes, 500 luxury homes and a 450-bed hotel were narrowly rejected by an Aberdeenshire Council committee in 2007. Council leaders tried to reverse the decision, but then the application was called in by the Scottish government, and approved after a public inquiry.
The complaint against Gore has been made by a former member of the RTPI, Bob Marshall from Glasgow. He alleged that Gore had brought her profession into disrepute by not informing homeowners that they were facing eviction and by appearing to side with Trump.
He pointed out that internal council documents released under freedom of information legislation showed that Gore learnt about Trump’s plan to evict homeowners in February this year. The owners only learnt of the plans later “from other sources”, he said.
Trump’s lawyer, Ann Faulds, drafted a four-page report in Gore’s name justifying the evictions for submission to councillors, though it was never used. An email from Gore to Faulds in April requested at least a week’s notice of Trump’s application to help manage media interest.
Thereafter “close liaison” would be required, Gore wrote, “in order that we can have a managed approach to what is inevitably going to be a difficult and emotive reaction given that this new application will involve land outwith the applicant’s ownership.”
Marshall alleged that Gore “appears to have colluded with the developer’s solicitor”, and argued that her use of the word “emotive” was pejorative. Her behaviour was in breach of the RTPI code of conduct requiring planners to act with integrity and to exercise “independent professional judgement”, he claimed.
Aberdeenshire Council, however, insisted that its officers had always acted with integrity and independence in an extremely complex and controversial planning application.
“If the RTPI choose to investigate these accusations we will co-operate with them fully, confident that the director of planning and environmental services will be found to have acted in the best interests of the council at all times and in line with the highest professional standards,” said a council spokesman.
“Early discussion of planning matters between prospective developers and the planning authority is encouraged through government advice and indeed is common practice. Such dialogue is an important part of the planning process.”
The spokesman stressed that the council had tried to be as open as possible about its handling of Trump’s application. Gore had no control over what documents were sent to her, and the draft report to councillors on evictions had been “unsolicited”.
The spokesman added: “It is very easy to throw around accusations in such a highly publicised case where misinformation by a number of parties always grabs the news headlines.”
The RTPI declined to comment on individual cases, but the Tripping Up Trump campaign group accused Aberdeenshire Council of “secretly pampering” to Trump while turning their backs on homeowners. Last month the council refused to rule out evicting people to make way for Trump’s development.
The anti-Trump group, along with the Scottish Green Party, commissioned the pollsters, YouGov, to ask over 1,100 Scots last month whether or not they supported evicting local residents to accommodate the Trump development. Only 13% said they backed the move, with an overwhelming 74% opposed.
LibDem voters were most opposed to the idea, by 86% to 7%, followed by SNP voters, by 73% to 14%. Aberdeenshire Council is controlled by a coalition of LibDem and Conservative councillors.
“The administration on Aberdeenshire Council should be ashamed of itself for not having stood up for local residents before now, but perhaps the prospect of a public revolt will change their mind,” said the Green MSP, Patrick Harvie.
“Donald Trump has been unwilling to leave protected areas of countryside alone, and has threatened to force local people from their homes. His style is to bully people rather than to negotiate with them, and Scots surely won't stand for it.”
Harvie argued that it was now increasingly unlikely that Trump’s “gated community for the rich” would ever be built. Trump International Golf Links Scotland did not response to a request for comments on Friday.
I don't think Trump has any interest in co-operation to achieve biodiversity, despite all his rhetoric, although there are far more issues than simply that one to consider when opposing his plans for a massive new development.
If there has been collusion, then it requires investigation. It's in the interest of democracy and fairness in local government that a chief planner is impartial. It may be that she has merely been imprudent in her choice of words, but it's a warning shot to all in her position. This is an especially sensitive case, involving as it does individual people and their homes. If a CPO is enacted by the council, the ramifications for that are wide. It would be a change in the accepted use of CPO's by stealth. This is something which should not set a precedent without a national debate.
The Trump development is a private development, and claims regarding the wider public benefits for the area are unproven. Even if the development does go ahead, then it can happen without taking people's homes and land from them.
So no, not petty, a small part in a wider jigsaw.
Posted by: twitter.com/NemesisRepublic | 15 November 2009 at 10:58 AM
Clutching at straws.
Wouldn't the effort be betetr placed trying to help Trump achieve higher levels of biodiversity by getting involved with the design team at this stage rather than trying to knock out planners that did their job under difficult circumstances?
All seems a bit petty.
Posted by: Wardog | 15 November 2009 at 09:59 AM