Not relevant to request
From: Councillor Barbara Vaughan Sent: 09 September 2014 16:39 To:38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i) Subject: FW: T in the Park at Strathallan
Councillor Barbara Vaughan Strathtay Ward
Office Tel: 01738 475088 Home Tel: 01738 710287
38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i) From: Sent: 25 August 2014 15:11 To: Councillor Douglas Pover; Councillor Mac Roberts; Councillor Gordon Walker; Councillor Alan Grant; Councillor Dennis Melloy; Councillor Ian Miller; Councillor Lewis Simpson; Councillor Bob Ellis; Councillor Kate Howie; Councillor Michael Williamson; Councillor John Kellas; Councillor Grant Laing; Councillor Barbara Vaughan; Councillor Rhona Brock; Councillor Ann Cowan; Councillor Anne Younger; Councillor Ann Gaunt; Councillor Tom Gray; Councillor Murray Lyle; Councillor Michael Barnacle; Councillor Dave Cuthbert; Councillor Joe Giacopazzi; Councillor William Robertson; Councillor Henry Anderson; Councillor Alan Jack; Councillor Alan Livingstone; Councillor Bob Band; Councillor Alistair Munro; Councillor Alexander Stewart; Councillor Willie Wilson; Councillor Dave Doogan; Councillor John Flynn; Councillor Callum Gillies; Councillor Elspeth Maclachlan; Councillor Peter Barrett; Councillor Jack Coburn; Councillor Archie MacLellan; Councillor Heather Stewart Subject: T in the Park at Strathallan
Councillors, Since the announcement of the proposed move of T in the Park from Balado to Strathallan Castle I have been in contact with a number of senior employees at Perth and Kinross Council raising my concerns in the way the proposed event at Strathallan Castle matter has been handled. This has include members of both the Planning Department and the Chief Executives Office. I now feel I have no option but to raise this matter with yourselves, the elected Councillors of Perth and Kinross, to ensure you are fully aware of a number of additional factors I believe are relevant. 38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i) 1) I attach a copy of an e mail that was sent by which covers a number of issues relating to both the current works at Strathallan and the Scottish Government involvement and an e mail from38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i) also to PKC Planning department. 2) I attach a copy of the initial screening document that was prepared for the event organisers by Bell Ingram and which appears to have omitted any reference to both asbestos dumped on the site and the presence of nesting ospreys. Surely PKC would verify the accuracy of this information rather than simply rely on data produced by the organisers. 3) I attach a copy of a recent letter from Savills (agents for Strathallan Castle) 38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i) which is in part a response to a letter from Planning Enforcement Officer. The letter from Savills fails to make any mention to the groundworks being carried out on the site which include the construction of over 2 kilometres of what appears to be roadways. These roadways form a perimeter road around the area which was designated by DFC in a meeting as the area for the main stage at T in the Park. I have photos of the works taken several weeks ago which has progressed significantly since that date which can be provided if required. 4) PKC Planning Website webpage on T in the Park http://www.pkc.gov.uk/article/9480/T-in-the-Park makes reference to financial benefits of T in the Park as £2.7m to Perth & Kinross area. Again these figures were produced by the festival organiser. Has there been any form of quality assurance by PKC on the accuracy. As far as I can see , the direct fees and costs paid to PKC by DF Concerts over last few years has amounted to around £37,000 per year. Given total revenues generated of over £40m this appears to be an insignificant amount to charge DF Concerts given they made over £5 million profit in 2013. In addition, it is obvious that over 95% of the total revenues are not spent in Perth & Kinross area and are in fact spent in other regions or outwith Scotland. The £2.7m may well include the rent paid to farmers and landowners rather than to other P&K business. To put it into context, £2.7 million means that each of the 85,000 attendees spends about £7 per day in Perth& Kinross, but spends at least £200 on a ticket for the event , so not much of a return to PKC for the disruption. In addition the Public Entertainments License paid by DF Concerts is £1,600 for 3 years....whereas I believe the rent paid by stallholders is around £3,000 per stall...... 5) Is it not strange that DF Concerts have held T in the Park at Balado but have never established a permanent office in the area. Instead they are based in Glasgow where they are paying £50,000 in business rates to Glasgow Council. Have you never requested that the organisers make a more permanent contribution to PKC rather than operating on a temporary basis?
I am extremely glad that the Scottish Government has intervened to ensure a proper review process will now take place, however I am extremely disappointed that Perth and Kinross Council had to be told to take this course of action and were unable to do so themselves. I am surely you have the utmost faith in the way your employees have dealt with this matter and will continue to support them in ensuring the planning application will follow the appropriate level of scrutiny that is expected.
I would like to hear your views on how you feel this matter has been handled. Best Regards 38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i)
Subject: Concerns over potentially illegal construction work at Strathallan Date: 25 August 2014 11:18:58 BST To: David Littlejohn
Dear Mr Littlejohn
This letter addresses two concerns:
Ongoing works at Strathallan Castle PKC and DFC's response to the Scottish Government's decision to reverse PKC's decision that an EIA is not needed for the relocation of T in the Park to Strathallan
Ongoing works at Strathallan Castle
I note and welcome the decision taken by the Scottish Ministers to require an EIA for the move of T in the Park (TiP) to Strathallan and the subsequent need for the event to be required to seek full planning permission.
I also note that ground works have been progressing for a matter of weeks on the Strathallan Estate, I believe, under the guise of "forestry work" that have been applied for and approved by the Forestry Commission. This work is extensive in its nature - I estimate that the road itself is more than 2km in length and there are several areas of, what looks like, "aprons" that have been cleared (in specific locations) displacing several thousand square metres of soil in total. The above seems somewhat overkill to extract logs from such a small wooded area…..(I don't confess to be an expert in these matters - but I am sure that you, as an leader in the planning community, would have a more informed view).
In addition to the above - I note that, in a letter that you sent to DLA Piper on 27th June (obtained under an FOI request), you say:
"Permanent Works
Any permanent works required for a festival to operate at Strathallan would require consent, for example new access arrangement, roads and hard standings. Where such works are proposed then the 28 day rule could not be invoked as the use, because of the infrastructure, would become permanent"
I understand that the landowner has been served with a notice (a week ago) requiring them to detail to PKC, amongst other things, the purpose of the current ground works within 21 days (i.e. another 2 weeks from now)…
I also understand that PKC are now in possession of a "potential site plan" for TiP @ Strathallan… that details the potential location of the various stages, areas, etc.
Please can you answer the following questions by return (FYI - the above groundworks on the Estate have been continuing over the weekend. Could they possibly be trying to complete the work before the expiry of the 21 days that you have given them to respond…..?).
1. Are you in communication with the Forestry Commission with regard to the legitimacy of the groundworks at Strathallan? 2. What is your view of the legitimacy of the work relative to what the Forestry Commission(and yourselves) have been informed regarding the purpose that the work, taking into account the "proposed site plan" that is in your possession? 3. Will PKC issue a Stop Notice relating to this work immediately? 4. If the work is found to not be as described in correspondence from either the landowner or their agent will the council require the land to be returned to its original state? 5. How will you, as a council, respond if, YET AGAIN, you are found to have been mislead by the organisations involved with TiP (landowner, concert organisers and their agents)? 6. What is the legal position if an applicant if found to have provided misleading or false information to the council or forestry commission relating to the purpose of works to be undertaken? As you will be aware, there is a considerable (and growing) level of public concern about the potential environmental impact of TiP at Strathallan. You will note that the recent petition that was put in place asking the the Scottish Government to review PKCs actions now has almost 800 signatories - these are people who, I'm sure, will be concerned to know that work is continuing on the site despite the Scottish Governments decision.
In relation to the above, I request that the council issues a "stop notice" immediately and brings this work to a halt whilst its legitimacy (or not) is established and before more destruction of the environment is allowed to take place.
PKC and DFC's response to the Scottish Government's decision to reverse PKC's decision that an EIA is not needed for the relocation of T in the Park to Strathallan
In addition to the above, I am concerned about the public statements that both the Council and DFC has been making following the announcement by the Scottish Government regarding the requirement for an EIA.
In terms of PKC, I see no reference in your public statements to the fact that the Scottish Government has reversed your decision regarding the need for and EIA, you simply focus on the subsequent requirement for planning.
Please can you answer the following:
1. Why did it take a huge effort by the public and also a referral to the higher authority of the Scottish Government to ensure that the appropriate environmental considerations were put in place to support the reallocation of this national event? 2. What action are PKC doing to ensure that, in the future, this will not happen again?
I also have significant concerns over the publicly stated position of DFC:
"The fact that the Scottish Government have decided that full planning permission is required will not change how we operate the event and we are all looking forward to moving to our new home at Strathallan Castle in 2015."
I consider this statement to very naive (at best). Firstly - it is my understanding that the Scottish Ministers have decided that an EIA is now required to address concerns over the impact of the event on the environment and that it is PKC who require full planning permission. It is also my understanding that an EIA and its related studies may reveal further possible impacts of the event on the environment. In my view, the statement from DFC goes further to undermine PKC's authority in this matter. One interpretation of their statement could be that they somehow know the outcome of the EIA and its related studies and that they do not believe that any additional works will be needed to address, as yet unforeseen, environmental concerns. Im sure that this is NOT the case but I question how DFC can be allowed to publicly state that The Scottish Ministers' decision "will not change how (they) operate the event" without a response from PKC stating that the completion of an EIA may have a significant change to how the concert was proposed to be operated.
Thank you for your time, I await your response to the above points
38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i)
Dear38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i)
I was extremely pleased to hear the Scottish Governments decision that an EIA and planning permission will be required for TITP. I am however extremely concerned at the rate at which works continue at Strathallan Estate, indeed they have ramped up activity, possibly in an attempt to complete the works before the end of the 21 day period, as specified in your notice.
A friend mailed me a copy of the response from Savills (whom I note are also DF Concerts land agents). The letter makes no reference to the extensive network of roads being excavated at site and whilst I am hearing rumours that the roads are require to “extract logs”, it is not economically viable to build such an extensive road network to extract such small quantities of wood. Also, why is it necessary to level and drain a field simply to house sheep? I am in no doubt the works currently taking place at Strathallan are infrastructure for TITP, indeed DF Concerts have confirmed to me, in person, the location of the main arena and it is precisely where the works are being carried out. Could you please advise if you have received a copy of the TITP site plan?
DF Concerts and the landowner continue to demonstrated a blatant disregard of the planning process. Indeed their comments in last Thursdays Courier where they stated “The fact that the Scottish Government have decided that full planning permission is required will not change how we operate the event” are both ignorant and arrogant.
Could you please advise what course of action will be taken when the works at Strathallan are linked to TITP? Will the landowner be required to reinstate the land?
Should the works be allowed to continue given they are taking place in close proximity to the Osprey?
Given the Scottish Government have requested an EIA I am calling on PKC to issue an immediate stop notice to prevent further destruction of the environment.
Thank you for your ongoing assistance in this matter.
Regards 38(1)(b), 38(2)(a)(i)