To ask the Scottish Executive when an announcement will be made on the proposed superquarry at Lingerbay.
The report on the proposed superquarry at Lingerbay raised a range of complex issues. My consideration of one issue in particular has been complicated by recent policy developments, in the light of which it has become necessary for me to seek further information before I can make a substantive decision on this planning application. I have come to the view that I cannot make a decision without clarifying the position, with the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, as to whether or not any part of the proposed development area should be proposed as a Special Area of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).
A planning application by Redland Aggregates Limited (now Redland Lafarge) was submitted to the then Western Isles Island Council on 25 March 1991. On 24 June 1993, the Islands Council informed the then Secretary of State that they were minded to grant planning permission and, on 6 January 1994, a Direction, calling in the application for the Secretary of State's determination, was issued. A public local inquiry was conducted by the former Chief Reporter between 11 October 1994 and 6 June 1995. The Reporter submitted her report and recommendations to the Secretary of State on 29 April 1999.
The report comprises four volumes totalling about 800 pages and is extremely complicated. It has therefore been necessary for my officials to consider it in some detail. They must ensure that, when I come to take a decision, I am properly informed on all the relevant matters. Only then can I reach a proper decision.
Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Ministers are, therefore, required by law to consider the statutory development plan for an area and all material considerations. An important material consideration is the nature conservation interest in the site. In Part 1 of her report, the Reporter recognised that there were botanical interests of national and international importance on the site, but she was unclear on whether the site merited designation as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
The requirement to designate SACs derives from the EC Habitats Directive. This establishes a system for the selection of sites containing certain species and habitats. This involves national Governments proposing sites to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSACs).
Following the proposal of cSACs to the European Commission by Member States, the Commission conducts a "moderation process" to determine which sites are to be designated as SACs. The first stage of this process took place between September and November 1999. The Commission decided that, in common with other Member States, the UK had proposed an insufficient number and range of sites as cSACs. The UK was therefore invited to propose further cSACs. Moreover, the alleged insufficiency of the UK's list of cSACs has, since January 2000, been the subject of reference by the Commission to the European Court of Justice. The Commission intends to consider proposals for further sites at a second moderation seminar in early 2001. To meet its international obligations in relation to nature conservation, the UK Government therefore intends to propose additional cSACs.
In the light of the European Commission's judgement that the UK had proposed insufficient cSACs, I commissioned scientific advice from Scottish Natural Heritage and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee about what further sites should be selected. I published, on 14 June, a list of sites which had been recommended to me as cSACs (Official Report, 14 June 2000, S1W-7913). That list did not include any site within the Lingerbay application area.
There is, however, a question arising from evidence in the report of the public local inquiry, which has not been resolved by the advice referred to above, about whether part of the application area may merit selection as a SAC. The report indicates that the site at Lingerbay hosts several natural habitat types for which the EC Habitats Directive requires the selection of cSACs and for which the UK has been found by the Commission to have proposed too few sites. These include North Atlantic wet heaths (whose conservation interest is increased by the presence of internationally important bryophyte communities noted in the report), European dry heaths, Alpine and boreal heaths, siliceous Alpine and boreal grasslands, and blanket bog.
The evidence in the report raises the question of whether the area merits selection as a cSAC, but does not provide sufficient material which would allow me conclusively to reach a view on that without expert advice. As the nature conservation status of the site is a material consideration in determining the planning application, I need to be clear about that matter. To take a decision on the planning application, taking into account, among other factors, partial or out of date information on the site's status for nature conservation purposes would, I believe, be wrong. I am aware that further delay in reaching a substantive decision on this planning application will cause considerable disappointment among both proponents of the proposal and objectors.
A decision as to whether or not to propose an area as a cSAC must be properly informed. The Scottish Executive relies on Scottish Natural Heritage and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for advice on nature conservation. I have therefore instructed SNH and JNCC to consider whether the site at Lingerbay should be proposed to the European Commission as a cSAC. I have asked SNH and JNCC to let me have their views as quickly as is consistent with the integrity of the detailed consideration they will now need to undertake.
I have asked my officials to write to the parties to the original inquiry to inform them that this is being done. We will also inform them when we receive the scientific advice which I am commissioning. One issue which may, of course, fall to be considered when we have this advice is whether or not the inquiry should be re-opened. That issue, and related issues about the remit of any such re-opened inquiry and how best to expedite its proceedings will, of course, have to be determined by reference to the advice received from SNH and JNCC and the circumstances obtaining at that time. However, should it prove necessary to re-open the inquiry we would take care to ensure that the remit of the re-opened inquiry is no wider than is necessary to enable me to reach a properly informed decision. There would be no question of simply rehearsing all of the matters which the Reporter has already carefully considered.
In view of the quasi-judicial function which I must exercise in reaching a final decision on this application, I cannot go further in this response lest this be interpreted as prejudicing my consideration of the case. I do, however, give a commitment that, subject to ensuring that I have all the necessary information, and that I in no way compromise the fundamental planning system principles of openness, fairness and impartiality, the determination of this application will be expedited as quickly as possible following receipt of the scientific advice I am commissioning.
The circumstances of this case are by any standards exceptional. However, I am determined to ensure that we learn from the process which has been followed on this application and that we adapt our procedures to reduce the possibility of substantial delays in the future
