There are a number of things you should know. 

·          The Complaint was made in 2005 – it has taken the Ombudsman over two years to come to a decision;

·          HALL were not a party to the complaint;

·          The Ombudsman isn’t an authority on planning matters;

·          HALL is in broad agreement with the Ombudsman’s conclusions.  

We think that his reasoning is rambling and sometimes not relevant – he got there but for the wrong reasons. 

In their evidence to the Ombudsman the Council had informed him that the Development Brief (20 – 30 residential units to 1 or 2 bedroom units designed primarily to meet the needs of the retired, the elderly or those with special needs) outlined the planning policies covering the site. 

The Council also evinced that the application would require referral to Scottish Minsiters 

HALL agrees with the Ombudsman that planning policies don’t prohibit development – they never do.    Planning policies have to be applied to considering the merits of an application.  Even new development in Greenbelt can be permitted if there is strong justification for it. 

Three of the four items of complaint were directed at the advertising procedure adopted by the Council.  

HALL believes that the Ombudsman’s findings in this respect contain some questionable reasoning. For example he supports the Council Officers’ action in advertisng the land for sale before they obtained approval.  The argument being that the Council would lose interest and the matter was urgent. This goes to the essence of why HALL is so involved and the public have so many questions. The Board approved the disposal within 3 months of the advert going out.  It could have been put to them earlier and the loss in interest would have been inconsequential.  The supposed urgency was to obtain a capital receipt within 12 months – to meet the budget for year ending 31 March 2006. 

What HALL thinks the Ombudsman should have decided is that the manner in which the Council dealt with this matter only delayed the process.  The Council should have obtained planning consent first and then sold the land with planning consent.  This is the “recommended” way. 

The Ombudsman should have found that the Council failed in its endeavour to dispose of the land before 31 March 2006 and moreover that it wasn’t a realistic endeavour. Why did they fail? – because they didn’t consult with the local people.