Oil Leak 66 The tale of the Highland Councillors

A bit of a long tale but worth hanging in there – this relates to our Black Isle councillors – if you haven’t done so already we recommend contacting your councillors wherever they may be in the Highlands – it is clear at least half of our four Black Isle councillors at disengaged with the issue and could not care less about their constituents. We are very happy to make this an election issue.

This story all started when Cllr Liz MacDonald passed on the following message to us a few weeks ago:

She spoke with Cllr Isobel McCallum recently – she’s the convener of the Highland Council and she told Cllr MacDonald that she had received not one single objection from her constituents. (We understand that Cllr McCallum is in favour of STS).  Cllr MacDonald also spoke to Cllr Jennifer Barclay (Fortrose) who indicated she is not objecting because she’s not received any objections from her constituents.

Lets unravel this tale a bit more – Black Isles resident John Paterson has been kind enough to share his correspondence with us so we can show you the response to this issue by some of our elected representatives.

Now let’s consider Cllr McCallum’s assertion that she has not had any objections:

From: John Paterson
Sent: 18 November 2016 13:09
To: Isobel McCallum – Member
Subject: Knockbain Community Council meeting 15 November 2016

 

Dear Councillor McCallum

 As the only non elected member of the community at Tuesday night’s Knockbain Community Council meeting I feel compelled to write to you.

 I found your behaviour arrogant and rude and unbecoming of an elected and paid member of Highland Council let alone the Convenor.

 You sat with your back to myself and Councillor Craig Fraser throughout the meeting which was unnecessary.

 When I wished to discuss the Port of Cromarty Firth’s Ship to Ship Oil transfer application under AOB you made it plainly obvious that you had no interest in listening. You left before discussions concluded with I believe you saying to the Chairman “I’ve heard it all before, I’m leaving”

 If this is how Councillors behave then I am truly disappointed in you and in local democracy.

 

 

Dear Mr Paterson,

Those are the normal seating arrangements at the CC if everyone cannot sit around the table they sit on the seats  you occupied.

I left the meeting as it was clear you were trying to coerce the Community Council into a particular point of view.  You were very pushy and that is unacceptable when the chair clearly stated they would not take a position without knowing all the facts.  I wish other CCs had taken such a responsible stance, then you may not have been able to accuse them of being the only one in the Black Isle not to support you as if that was in some way wrong.

I considered the way you put your case as seriously flawed in terms of persuading people to your point of view.

Isobel McCallum

 

Well, there you go, Cllr McCallum doesn’t think that the other Black Isle Community Councils have behaved responsibly in objecting. However, the point is that one of her constituents from Munlochy clearly objected to the STS plans and spoke publically at the Knockbain November CC meeting – interestingly, although the meeting minutes suggest that Mr Paterson did not speak, Cllr McCallum clearly acknowledges that he did speak.

Anyway, Mr Paterson felt so aggrieved that he thought he would write to all the Black Isle councillors (9th December 2016). Initially, ONLY Cllr Fraser responded –  however, it does make a mockery of Cllr McCallum and Barclay’s claims that they have received NO objections. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with STS – do we want councillors representing us that seem unable to respond to their constituents? Here’s the letter:

 
Dear Isobel McCallum, Jennifer Barclay, Craig Fraser and David Alston,

I write on behalf of my family who are residents of the Highlands and specifically the Black Isle.

We are extremely concerned about the Port of Cromarty Firth proposal to conduct Ship-Ship Oil Transfers.

There are numerous flaws in their application but the main points of objection for us are –

1:    The proposed area is in the Moray Firth not the Cromarty Firth. It is within the Ports jurisdiction but they are not consulting with Moray Firth residents who are very much stakeholders.

2:    It is AT SEA at anchor off a very rocky coastline. The Port claim they have 30years + of experience of conducting this activity but they haven’t. They have conducted operations alongside a jetty. The RISKS are significantly different.

3:    The proposed area is covered under numerous EU habitat directives, protections and conservation measures covering wildlife, fossils and a war grave. How can these be ignored?

4:     The Port Authorities economic arguments do not stack up. The use of private investors within subsidiary companies directed by Port Authority Board members raises grave concerns regarding Corporate Governance and potential impropriety.

5:     Should there be an oil spill (minor to catastrophic) where oil released goes beyond the Port Authorities boundary I understand that the resources and costs of the clean up will fall to Highland Region. Please confirm whether or not Highland Region have the skills, physical
resources such as ETVs, tugs, booms and the skilled manpower and the finances to deal with such an occurrence.

This is a direct and unacceptable transfer of risk to the people, the livelihoods and the environment of the Highlands for short term greed with no additional employment. I understand 23 Community Councils bordering the Cromarty and Moray Firths have expressed their objections to this application being granted, whilst one is neutral and only one is in favour.

As Councillors, we implore you to listen to the overwhelming majority of Highland residents and OPPOSE this disgraceful threat.

Further details can be obtained from the independent web site
www.cromartyrising.com or feel free to contact ourselves

Yours sincerely,

John, Joanne, Jenny, Molly and Annabel Paterson

 

RESPONSE (1 only):

Dear Mr Paterson,

As you may have noticed over the past months I have been very vocal in my opposition to the STS (at sea) oil transfer application being proposed by the PoCF. Nothing I have seen or heard over the past months as had me question my opposition to this ludicrous license. The MV Hilda Knutsen (shuttle carrier) is currently offloading 700,000 barrels of oil at Nigg Jetty this ship docked sometime Wednesday and I was advised this would happen by a spokesperson from Repsol-Sinopec the owners of the jetty. To date I have had no adverse comment either by telephone or e-mail from concerned residents.

Cromarty Rising local opposition group have stated throughout the year that there are suitable facilities at Nigg to allow for ship to ship operations to be carried out safety within these calm waters. To my mind this illustrates the unfounded position held by the Port Authority that the facilities at the Nigg terminal are unsuitable for these operations.

Best regards

Craig
Highland Council
Black Isle
Ward 10

craig.fraser.cllr@highland.gov.uk

www.craig-fraser-snp.com

Not satisfied with having received only 1 response, Mr Paterson resent his letter to Cllr’s McCallum, Barclay and Alston on the 11th January. Cllr Barclay has so far failed to respond completely. Clllr McCallum may as well have said nothing and wrote on the 15th January “I acknowledge receipt of your e mail”.

On 17th January Cllr Alston wrote:
“I am happy to acknowledge receipt. As you know the decision will be made by the Marine Coastguard Agency who answer to the UK Parliament (personally I believe this should be a devolved matter). Those best placed to influence the MCA directly are Members of Parliament.
 
The role of the Council – and the way it can be most effective – is by response as a consultee to the renewed application by the Port of Cromarty Firth. That response will be effective by being detailed and considered. Simply saying ‘We oppose this’ may play well politically – but it does not actually do much to change the outcome. In fact, I think it can be counter-productive because it lets the MCA off the hook, enabling them to say that the Council has adopted a political position without dealing with the details of the case.
 
So, the Council will deal with this as it should in a response to the application as a consultee, with the approval for that response given by committee or full Council. 
 
I should add that we have a track record of trying to influence the MCA, which is not easy, on the issue of emergency tugs in the North. Working with other
Councils we had some success – and it was based on detailed argument.
 
I hope this helps to explain the position.
 
Best wishes
 
 
Cllr David Alston
Black Isle Ward
Highland Council

At least Cllr Alston provided a considered response. Do Cllr’s Barclay and McCallum only choose to listen the views of constituents that they agree with?

We mentioned that Mr Paterson attended the Knockbain CC meeting so what about that? Afterwards Mr Paterson pressed the chair as to whether they would consult the local community. It would appear not? Why?

 
On 30 Nov 2016, at 15:32, John Paterson wrote:

Dear Mr Stott 

The above open meeting was organised by the above CCs to inform their communities about the POCF ship to ship oil transfer application.

 I understand that all the members of the Knockbain Community Council were invited to attend but disappointingly no-one did. I know this as I asked the audience.

 There were a number of the Knockbain community present all of whom expressed objection to the licence application.

 Please advise what you intend to do as a Community Council to gather the feeling and representation of the community.

 Kind regards

 John Paterson


On 30 Nov 2016, at 19:57, John Stott wrote:

Dear Mr Paterson,

 You are well aware of Knockbain Community Council”s position on this matter and I do not intend to repeat it.

Yours sincerely,

John Stott

Chair

Knockbain Community Council

Sent by John L. Stott

 

Dear Mr Stott

Thank for your reply. 

Am I to take from this that you and the CC refuse to consult with the Knockbain community and that you are happy for this non consultative stance to be made public?


Yours sincerely

John Paterson 

Knockbain community resident

 

No reply was received! Going back to our local councillors – it is interesting to note the Commission on Highland Democracy – https://highlanddemocracy.wordpress.com/about/

It would appear that Cllr’s McCallum and Alston are both commissioners.

Commissioners are expected to bring their perspective to the process; scrutinise evidence; listen to the will of Highland communities; and challenge the current state of democracy in the Highlands.” All 4 Black Isle councillors were specifically invited to the Avoch public meeting, but only Cllr Fraser turned up and although some may have had other commitments, none have sought further information. It would appear that all councillors McCallum and Barclay in particular could do with listening to the will of Highland Communities. Cllr Alston is standing down but may of course not have retired before this application hits the council for debate – from his reply it is unclear whether he will represent the wishes of the communities he serves.  

If this is the current state of democracy in the Highlands then there is a clear deficit in local politics. How can we have any faith in their ability to represent their communities when 50% of our Black Isle councillors can’t even manage to provide a considered reply to said communities & one of those is a commissioner on the Commission on Highland Democracy – anyone see a problem? 

Lets leave the last word to Cllr McCallum speaking about the Chanonry point improvement works – she obviously recognises the importance of dolphins for tourism – why is she in favour of STS then? – the communities of the Black Isle that she represents would like to know. If you live on the Black Isle, please ask her. 

Commenting on the Chanonry project, The Highland Council Convenor and local ward Councillor, Isobel McCallum said: “Coastal tourism and wildlife watching represent a very substantial sector within the Highland tourism industry and Chanonry is one of the jewels. It is a victim of its own success and congestion has become a problem. There are land ownership constraints which preclude the provision of additional parking, but overall the proposals should improve the way in which the site functions and the improvements will contribute to our aspirations for the continued development of Highland as a high quality tourist destination.”