Anne McCall writes:
Today Aberdeenshire Council got the chance to set out their evidence and for at least one member of the public. it was clearly aggravating enough for them to demand a chance to cross-examine one of the witnesses.
Unfortunately, for him at least, members of the public aren't allowed to do that unless they made their intentions clear weeks ago at the pre-inquiry meeting. I know the procedures, but I'm a planner, and I've got a degree of sympathy for the chap who looked pretty crestfallen when he was told that although it was a public inquiry, partly paid for with public money and he was a member of the public, he wasn't allowed to say anything.
The Council's session contained a few suprises. Probably the biggest came from their independent economic consultant who finished off her evidence by stating that while her work was sound and undoubtedly better than that of the Trump International consultant who gave evidence yesterday - she'd made a few errors which it would be good to correct. This was clearly news to the Council, and to her lawyer, but they needen't have worried - she managed to pull an extra 300 jobs out of the bag which had inadvertantly been forgotten. Not hugely reassuring.
I admit to being distracted for a while due to a nosebleed, most of which I think went into my handbag, but I'm sure nobody noticed......anyway, it had thankfully stopped when we were issued with what I think might best be called 'The Ultimatum'.
It's normal practice in these inquiries for all the parties to come up with suggested conditions which would be attached to any consent - it's not taken as an indication that you think something should go ahead but it makes sure that if it does then the right sort of restrictions are in place. We did this a while ago and included a suggested condition, not surpisingly, that meant there could be no development on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
The Trump International advocate announced this afternoon that he had received very clear instructions from Mr Trump which stated that if Scottish Ministers wanted to grant a consent with a condition that no development take place on the SSSI then they should simply issue a refusal because a consent with that condition wasn't a consent he wanted to have. Whatever the reasoning behind the announcement, it makes the choices for the decision-makers fairly stark and provides no room at all for compromise.
I should finish with a special mention for the reporter from Original FM, the local radio station, who is sticking in there after the big boys have left town.