McGrigor follows up on North Argyll business signage row
published this on 10:13 pm, Wednesday, 18th November, 2009Business| Community News| Local Government | Comments (rss) | Respond | Ping |
Jamie McGrigor is the political equivalent of a truffle hound. He has an unerring nose for issues that really matter to people – and he’s in there, tirelessly digging them out, giving them the oxygen of publicity.
The Highlands and Islands MSP was quick off the mark on the current row over Argyll and Bute Council’s sudden taking against business road signs in remote rural areas and threatening the owners with quartering on Ballachulish Bridge if they didn’t take them down.
Today he followed up on responding to constituents’ concerns by attending a meeting between a lot of local businesses and Argyll & Bute Council planning officials and Councillors.
The controversy is centred on the Council’s attempt to force the businesses to remove their road advertising signs on the A85 and A828 roads. The Council officials present were:
- Howard Young, Area Team Leader, Oban Planning Office;
- Daniel Addis, Enforcement Officer;
- Adrian Jackson-Stark, Strategic Planning.
Even the title ‘Enforcement Officer’ betrays a mindset and a world view that seem strangely archaic – Dickensian. It’s the sort of job title Billy Connolly would make hilarious and possibly one that Max Mosley might find rather thrilling. It’s terribly unevolved, though – an echo of times which should be gone.
However, speaking afterwards at the Castle Stalker View Café where the meeting took place, Jamie McGrigor said: ‘It was quite obvious from the passion expressed to me by local businesses how strongly people feel about this issue. Local businesses are finding it hard enough to survive this recession without extra hurdles being put in their path – such as being told to take down their advertising notices.
‘Many of these have been in place for 30 years and I fully understand why this has become a burning issue. I was pleased that the council and planners came to the meeting having already written to businesses apologising for being too heavy handed and I feel that their attitude during the meeting was conciliatory and they have agreed to look at the matter in a lot more detail.
‘The point was made very strongly at the meeting that, on this issue, enforcement is a discretionary power and the Council is not bound to act where there is a wider public interest.
‘Let us hope there will be a happy outcome for the North Argyll businesses already affected who are after all probably only the tip of the iceberg in terms of all the other businesses who could be affected at a later stage. As any businessman knows, advertising is absolutely vital and we must all try to encourage the small private sector businesses which keep the economy of Argyll and Bute afloat’.
Christopher Cox, Operations Director at Inverawe Smokehouses, – one of the affected businesses and perhaps one of the hardest to find without good and descriptive roadside signage, says: ‘Whilst it was refreshing to be able to put our views to the planners and to hear what they had to say, I am left with the feeling that they are making arbitrary and subjective decisions that if left unchallenged will have an unfortunate effect on jobs. I urge the planners to think again’.
In terms of the McGrigor nose for the core issue, it may be worth taking note that the matters which have most exercised him recently are the Bank of Scotland’s withdrawal of its Business Manager from Islay; the threat to the secure future of the Mid Argyll Swimming Pool on a firm footing, on which his supportive Parliamentary Motion is attracting cross-party and cross-Scotland suport; and the self-mutilating damage the Council has done in taking this sudden action against North Argyll business road signs.
Related Posts
The Latest News from ForArgyll delivered via email, weekly or daily. You know it makes sense!
Comments (rss) | Respond | Ping | | Print This Post
Loading...
November 19th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
A benefit of the planning department are that if you submit for a consent and it is refused you can appeal it so what difference does it make what the planners say if the decision can be brought into the political arena where, judging by the level of interest to date, it is likely to be supported?
Don’t be fooled by the “truffle hound” he is merely a ‘vote hound’ sniffing out issues where he can get with the majority, gang up on the minority, and secure his political position. The only thing on Jamie McGrigor’s agenda is votes and power.