Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSP faces vote of no confidence over housing question

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 March 2008
By Eddie Barnes
Political Editor
A SENIOR SNP MSP is facing a vote of no confidence after she blocked parliamentary questions about a housing development run by a party donor.
Roseanna Cunningham, who leads the parliament's Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, prevented a fellow MSP from asking about the plans in a stormy committee session.

The development by Aviemore Highland Resort has been steeped in controversy after it emerged ministers had intervened to speed up the planning process last year after accepting a £30,000 donation from the hotel's owner Donald Macdonald.

At the meeting last week, Cunningham prevented Lib Dem MSP Mike Rumbles from asking about the development, insisting that the subject was not in order. Sources say that Rumbles now has the support to force a vote of no confidence in Cunningham, which could result in her removal from the committee.

Cunningham said last night: "This is a matter for (Rumbles]."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 March 2008 7:19 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Scottish National Party
 
1

Jimmy the Pie,

09/03/2008 00:03:04
Is this the best you can do Eddie???
2

Resolutions,

09/03/2008 00:11:32
Why does the Rumbles not raise this in the correct place and not intrude on a flooding committee?

He is so out of order.

Why does the media not point that out?
3

Jeeemy,

St Andrews 09/03/2008 00:42:20
Oh! Dear last week oor Eddie was all over the place in this “paper”.
This week he is reduced once-more back in his old haunting ground the local sewerage works.
This is a load of sh**e, a non story, a non starter, a nothing; but Eddie is stuck for a subject and what do we get? The usual nothing.

4

Rossmcl,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 00:51:28
#2 this is not a 'flooding committee.' It's the Rural Affairs and Environment committee. It is perfectly in order to raise planning issues there. You really should try to understand the system a bit better before commenting.
5

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 03:32:12
Rossmcl, and as you and everyone else in Scotland know, the SNP Government got involved as a result of requests in writing by Labour and Liberal MSP. It had nothing to do with election contributions, and certainly isnt a platform for Rumbles to try score a point by avoiding the facts, like the poor excuse of a journalist who wrote this few paragraphs merely to try sell a few papers.

Perhaps it might be better if the Scottish Peoples elected officials got of their bumms and actually concentrated on their jobs, rather than waiting for an opportunity to shaft each other.
6

donald,

glasgow 09/03/2008 08:26:43
A Typical Barnes Heading.
7

Derick fae Yell,

The Hoose 09/03/2008 08:55:27
Terrible Whinger this Barnes guy, eh?

A True SEPA Story:

A local authority approached the housing association I work for as they had a site occupied by ghastly substandard flats that nobody wanted to live in.

Agreed the Council would demolish the flats, sell the site to the association, and we would develop nice new energy effecient, affordable, low rise houses for rent. People from the Council waiting list would get the houses et voila win/win/win.

Demolition done. Site transferred. Scheme for 28 houses designed and approved by Planning (and that included formal approval from SEPA that there was no flood risk). Stay with me.

But - A 28 house scheme with nice gardens, was just outwith Communities Scotland cost rules.

Affordable rented housing schemes have to meet Communities Scotland 'Indicative Costs' rules - these are supposed to measure value for money but are very difficult to conform to and at best result in lots of delay, at worst prevent otherwise perfectly good schemes from going ahead.

So it was redesigned to get another 4 houses on - makes it more viable under the NIC. More sh*t scheme but it meets the funding rules.

This required an amendment to Planning.

Which SEPA then objected do on the basis of 'flood risk'.

So you can build 28 houses with no flood risk, but if you build 32 that is a flood risk ooooooh scarey. SEPA then (completely exceeding their remit) demanded that flats be built, or houses with high underbuildings. If we recall there was no demand for flats in this location, and high underbuildings would a)be too expensive to meet the NIC, and b) not be 'barrier free' as they would have steps, and therefore not be funded by Communities Scotland.

This nonsense has wasted 4 years and a LOT of money. SEPA's flood risk map is highly questionable according to independent experts we have talked to, but the Planning department is too spineless to challenge this.

Site now considered 'undevelopable' due to flood
8

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 08:58:14
Steeped in controversy????
Because opposition MSPs have tried to use it as a diversion away from their own sleaze scandals???
NOBODY else has questioned the validity of this project so where is the controversy????
Its a no where contrived scandal with no substance the perfect story for this excuse of a newspaper.
9

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 08:59:31
You can see the committee via the internet on Holyrood TV archive.
Rumbles laid out a question which was in two parts, the first part was fine but the second on Aviemore was not. He would have needed to have given advance notice to the SEPA witnesses before they could have been expected to answer that part of the question.
The chair told SEPA that they should answer the first general part of the question but were not to be put on the spot to answer the specific second part.
Rumbles then walked out without waiting to hear the response from SEPA. Maybe their man would have thrown in the answer regarding Aviemore as an aside for all we know.
10

A Scott,

Glasgow 09/03/2008 09:05:00
As I understand it the SEPA officials were there to discuss flooding in general and had no specific knowledge of the site Mike Bumbles( what is it about the Fib/Dems that they always run off in a hissy fit)was going on about and therefore could not give any information on the question (or non-question)
11

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/03/2008 09:17:57
#4 It was totally inappropriate to raise the Aviemore issue at that particular meeting. You have obviously never attended a formal meeting with a proper agenda. You don't raise this type of issue under "Any Other Business".
12

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/03/2008 09:23:24
Rumbles is paid to attend this type of meeting, NOT to walk out of it in a childish huff.

Eddie, Roseanna Cunningham will not face a vote of no confidence, just wait and see.
13

subrosa,

09/03/2008 09:39:04
If anyone needs a vote of no confidence as convenor of a committee at the Scottish Parliament it's Duncan McNeil. He aso requires urgent social skills as to how to address people with respect. Disgraceful advert for Scotland he is and so pompous he can't see it. Possibly sits and watches himself on Holyrood TV thinking how wonderful he is.
14

Bridged and tunnelled,

09/03/2008 09:40:46
SEPA's concerns related to Aviemore being a known flooding areas, so although Rumbles is a plonker and the questioning would have been weak and ineffective, it was perfectly in order for him to broach the matter.

15

Nikostratos,

09/03/2008 10:13:51
Roseanna Cunningham was just trying to 'cover up' or silence any discussion of the snps 'Aviemore' scandal.


so very democratic...so very snp........stifle debate stifle public interest..........

You stand up to them Eddie Barnes the people need to know
16

Shiltrum,

09/03/2008 10:18:59

Dear Oh Dear........how much longer do we have to tolerate this apology for a journalist.The Hootsmon stables interview processes badly need review...he's been serving tosh for what seems like forever.
Eddie....away an' work, ya mug ye !!
17

subrosa,

09/03/2008 11:09:29
# 15

I've decided you're a labour cooncillor and not a happy one either :)
18

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/03/2008 11:12:12
#17 subrosa - game, set and match to you.
19

Nikostratos,

09/03/2008 11:23:45
#17

Umm vote for niko..........i could be chief hog of the pig pen...yea.
20

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 11:27:16
15

There is no scandal so how can there be a cover up????
Or maybe you know something the rest of the country doesnt???
Na you know this already your just that sh*t stirring troll that posts under various logons.
21

Nikostratos,

09/03/2008 13:38:31
#20

you mean monikers dear boy and no i don't use any other one's.........

#18

snp drone supports other snp drone and then cheer each other...........

snp cybernat rule (14)
22

Hamish Scott,

09/03/2008 16:48:43
If we had a readers vote of confidence in Eddie Barnes I wonder what the result would be.
23

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 19:59:30
21

No monikers are what posters use trolls use logons dear boy ie AM2, English voice, Chairman gordon, etc.
24

subrosa,

09/03/2008 22:16:33
# 21

Really you don't read posts do you? I'm no drone - physically impossible :)

But what can be expected of snivelling unionists like yourself...
25

Strathturret,

montrose 09/03/2008 22:49:06
Sounds like a non-story from a non-journalist to me.

Last week Barnes was telling his readers that Salmond's LIT was dead.
26

Rossmcl,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 23:14:23
#11 I attend and chair business meetings almost every day of my working life, and have done for about 20 years. I also used to work in the Scottish Parliament, and attended/serviced many parliamentary committee meetings over that time. Thanks. RM

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.