Complainants ."..had failed to make the case..." re West Link Option 6

West Link Road - Latest News Release  from THC - More here:

Extracts:

An investigation into complaints about the way The Highland Council chose the preferred line for the Inverness West Link has found that the Council  followed the proper process in compliance with national guidance.


Depute Chief Executive Steve Barron was asked by Council Leader Drew Hendry to review issues raised by five members of the public, who complained about the process and decision of the Council in relation to the West Link Options.  Mr Barron’s investigation included meetings with the complainants, a review of previous correspondence provided and additional information submitted by the complainants.  He found the complainants had failed to make the case that the process was flawed or needed to be revisited in any way.


...Council Leader Drew Hendry said: “I would like to thank Mr Barron for his thorough review of the issues raised by the five members of the public, who complained about the process followed in this important matter.    I appreciate that the complainants do not agree with the Council’s preference for option 6 but I am satisfied with the conclusions of Mr Barron’s review and am ready for the Council to proceed with this important project as quickly as possible.”




Quite frankly this news release makes no sense to me.  


The release  appears to state  a conclusion that the process was sound based solely on the investigation of matters raised in one  particular set of complaints.   One set of complainants failing to make a case with their points does not mean that a case could not be brought indicating there were flaws, surely?



I am particularly bemused by point 2 and 3 of Mr Barron's below:

Mr Barron concluded: “Having considered all of the material, I have reached the conclusion that the Council has followed proper process in compliance with national guidance and it reached a unanimous conclusion on the basis of good advice, clearly presented.”
He added:

1. I do not believe that there are any valid issues to be addressed arising from the complaints;
2. It is my view that the number and range of options presented to the Working Group and the Council were appropriate.]
3. I consider the process to be compliant with relevant guidance. With the innovations included, it may be considered to be exemplary.

And I am also bemused by Councillor Hendry's statement - in the context of Mr Barron's - given that I received the following email on 27 Feb 2012 from the 'Oppostion group' - just before the Councillors considered the options:

Dear 

Thank you for your email and in depth attachment, you have obviously given this issue some serious consideration.

As an Opposition Group we currently do not set policy in the Highland Council, but more so hold the ruling Coalition – the Lib Dems/Labour/Independent Councillors to account and ask pertinent questions, arguing the case for you and others like you.

Firstly, can I say we agree that this consultation was far from complete and lacking several other potential options.  When we attempted to have other options included we were told by the Administration Coalition, that they would not consider other options.

We will fully debate our point of view on Thursday in Full Council, which you may watch on webcast or in the Chamber.

Can I add finally though, that this is Highland Council’s remit and has nothing at all to do with the Scottish Government.  This is a Highland Council road and NOT a trunk road, which will be reflected by the change of name.  On this road improvement, all matters are referred to Highland Council only and it is up to the ruling Coalition, as to what is actually done here.

It is such a pity that they did not extend the consultation and take more considered views from the public, to which end we have criticised them considerably, as the whole process was indeed flawed.

Kind regards,

Councillor Maxine Smith

Transport Spokesperson for the SNP Group

In Highland Council

(Opposition)