In the minutes of the January Community Council (see Link to Houston Community Council) it is reported that the sale of the land was objected to by HALL.  The minute goes on; “Although HALL believes there are good legal grounds to proceed with this objection the cost of this would become too much.   No one could be able to underwrite legal action”. 

HALL says:

We are full of praise for members of the Community Council who give up their time without payment.

We are pleased that the Community Council also object to the idea of destroying valued open space.  We appreciate the efforts of Chairman, Douglas Kirkwood, in trying to get something done about Gryffe Valley sewers. But we feel that we must correct them in respect of their minute, as it could give the impression that we feel the fight is a waste of time. 

• HALL haven’t objected to the sale of the land.  They have sought to buy it under the Land Reform Act; 
• HALL withdrew their appeal because they were advised by their advisors that the costs would be huge and that they should concentrate on objecting to a change of use if it ever came up; 
• HALL objects to development of the Land for reasons other than open space; HALL decided not to appeal against the Scottish Ministers’ Decision against them under the right to buy provisions in the Land Reform Act; 
• HALL has made six detailed representations in objection to Mactaggart & Mickel’s application; 
• HALL has commissioned an Ecologists Report;  
• HALL has commissioned a report on the need for homes suitable for elderly people; 
• HALL has appointed leading Counsel; 
• HALL is in the process of appointing leading experts in sewerage systems;
• HALL is establishing a web site which will inform the public. 
• HALL is doing all of this to respond to the proper framework of planning procedure. 

The Community should be aware that objectors have no right of appeal.  There is a right of any third party to seek a Judicial Review in the Courts of any decision made by the planning authority.  But, this only applies to points of Law or maladministration. 

The Community should know that as the Council owns the Land and there is a substantial body of objection the application should be referred to Scottish Ministers if the Council is minded to approve.  The costs of HALL having Counsel’s representation at an Inquiry arising from a reference to the Ministers can be underwritten.  

HALL have already incurred tens of thousands of pounds and they are pleased to see that visitors to the Community Council Meeting voiced their objection to the application.   

HALL is prepared to see this fight through to the bitter end and are grateful for the Community Council's support.