http://www.scottishdemocracy.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=...

http://www.scottishdemocracy.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=224

4. Goldmine
John reported briefly on his meeting with Chris Sangster and Shane Sadleir, Scotgold Directors and Bruce Crawford MSP, in his constituency office on Friday 10th September. We discussed the grounds for an appeal, which were related to the existence of planning permission for a goldmine when the National Park [NP] was formed and when the mine was acquired by Scotgold in 2007. Also, it could be reasonably claimed that the applicant had cooperated with the National Park Authority [NPA] and the environmental bodies in every way through a long process of consultation. As a result SEPA had withdrawn and SNH has withdrawn objections except for visual impact. Accordingly, both Scotgold and the CC reasonably expected a recommendation to ?accept? and were devastated by the recommendation to ?refuse?. The effect of the refusal was that a $5 million investment is in jeopardy and Scotgold?s share value has dropped by 60%.
We also discussed the timing and cost of an appeal. Apparently, Scotgold have 3 months after the hearing to lodge an appeal; until 18th November, and this would be very expensive; costing about ?1000/hour for a QC.
We questioned whether an appeal could be lodged in principle, to fulfil the 3 months restriction; a detailed appeal being lodged later.
John suggested that future key meetings between Scotgold and the NPA should be chaired by Bruce Crawford to ensure equanimity.
This issue was then discussed by the Community Council:
Owen McKee stated that meetings were ongoing between the NPA and Scotgold to find a commercially viable solution to the problem of the tailings which would enable the planning team to recommend approval of the application.
Shane Sadleir, a non-executive director of Scotgold Resources, attended the CC meeting. He said he was pleased to report that preliminary informal discussions that day between himself and John Bentley [Chairman of Scotgold] and Fiona Logan, Chief Executive and Gordon Watson, Director of Planning and Rural Development of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park [LL&TNP] had proven very positive. He said he was encouraged by the willingness of the Park to work with Scotgold in progressing the Planning Approval.
Shane Sadleir said that the report from the NP had highlighted the visual impact of the Tailings Management Facility as the main issue needing resolution before the proposal could proceed. Scotgold are currently investigating various ways to reduce the visual impact to a more acceptable level. He said that at this stage it was still unclear as to how Scotgold could re-enter the planning process and was awaiting further advice on the matter.
John took questions and comments from the floor.
Angela said that she came from a country [South Africa] that has grown financially through mining. In these bad economic times is important to put Scotland on the map ? it is important for job creation because without prosperity in the country we will see the same situation as in the clearances ? people leaving Scotland, and all for some ideology. A way must be found to allow this mine to develop.
Jimmy asked if it was necessary to have a barrister, couldn?t Scotgold just ask the Government to ?call it in??
Owen said that although the Ministers have this option, it would have the potential to become a political football, and it is better that people are working to overcome the problems.
Angela asked if the cultural heritage, mining, of the area had been taken into consideration.
This was asked at the hearing and the view is that landscape has to be taken into account and the tailings dam needs to be modified.
David said that he thought that Scotgold could have come up with a more acceptable plan during the 3 years that the application has been on-going. He was also concerned about the effect of the price of gold dropping.
Owen replied that funds are set aside for restoration.
The CC then discussed issues arising from the meeting between Fiona Logan and John Riley at NPA Office Callander on Friday 3rd September 2010:
1) Tourism statistics
John explained that the tourist industry, which is the prime local employer, was suffering from the recession and that the opening of a goldmine would therefore be particularly beneficial. Ian Cleaver, the MD of Highland Heritage Ltd, has a vast experience in tourism; he was a director Argyll and the Isles Enterprise Company from 2002 to 2008 and during the same period he was seconded to AILLST Tourist Board where he was vice chairman. He states that the only reliable and provable measurement is bed nights and trade had dropped by 10% last year and by 20% so far this year. Fiona admitted that business was affected by the global recession but stressed that there was contrary evidence; some businesses reporting encouraging trends.
Since the meeting, John had obtained statistics from a local stocktaker who reported that the businesses in his portfolio, which covered a wide area from Stirling, Perth and Glasgow to Oban, including Strathfillan, were experiencing a reduction in sales, this year of between 8 and 12%. John also showed the meeting a newspaper cutting, which reported a downturn in new business start ups of 8%.
2) Number and opinions of walkers and climbers on Ben Lui
Fiona insisted that her estimate of 15 to 20,000 per year of people walking to Ben Lui was correct and based on reliable statistics. We strongly refute this and believe that the number is considerably less than 5000. Some days there are as many as 50 people but there are many days, particularly in bad weather, when there are no visitors. In the context of Ben Lui being a popular winter hill, John pointed out; the tailings dam would be covered with snow during these times. We have discussed the existence of the mine and its proposed reopening with many walkers in the glen and opinions have varied between neutral and very interested. Nobody thought that the presence of the mine would detract from the experience of the wonderful scenery. Our information is of course subjective and anecdotal but surely local people have a pretty good idea and such information is much better than statistics based on average trends. Fiona would like us to meet her local team and discuss gathered information, which substantiates their estimates.
3) The size and shape of the tailings dam
From the perspective of the NPA this is the most contentious issue. They claim that this would permanently disfigure the most beautiful scenery in the whole National Park. If the massive amount of tailings, created by the refining process, could be removed from the NP, the goldmine would certainly get the go ahead. John mentioned this would entail approximately 300 tons/day being removed, amounting to about 10 large lorry loads, which would be detrimental to the environment and be strongly opposed by many critics. Fiona pointed out that the tailings could be pumped out to a railway siding/storage site and then transported outside the NP. The key issues are where to, what for and at what cost. Owen McKee hopes that Bruce Crawford will raise these questions with Scottish Enterprise. Could the material be utilised in the construction or other industries? Alternatively, could a suitable site be located in which the material could be dumped? Samples of the material can be provided by Scotgold. Consideration of the size, shape and design of the tailings dam(s) is ongoing
4) The planning recommendation to refuse the application
John?s impression was that Scotgold and Dalgleish Associates had co-operated with the planners over the many months since the planning application had been submitted. He was under the impression that the great majority of issues raised by the NPA, SEPA, SNH and others had been addressed, in effect dotting every ?I? and crossing every ?T?. Due to great diligence by Scotgold and Dalgleish Associates, SEPA had totally withdrawn its objections and the only remaining SNH objection was ?visual impact?.
Also, he believed that the planners had been closely involved with the application throughout this time. In this context therefore, he found it not only surprising but also hypocritical that after all this effort the planners recommended refusal. Fiona explained that the issue of visual impact, in terms of the massive size and shape of the tailings dam, had not been satisfactorily addressed; as discussed in item 3.
The only additional point made by Fiona was that there are other considerations for the NPA which include the fact that the NPs have 4 statutory aims, a National Park Plan and a Local Plan and their recommendation for refusal and reasons for it are adequately outlined in the planning report.