Letter: Planning votes

In the decision just taken in Aberdeen (your report, 19 May), some councillors were barred from voting because they were on the committee of the local organisation opposing the bid. This principle is now widely applied in Scottish local government.

One example I know of was of councillors blocked from voting on development in the local harbour because they were also members of the Aberdeen Harbour Board. Another is of a councillor barred from voting on a licence for a fish and chip van which had been parking next to a local school at lunchtimes because she'd previously commented publicly on the issue.

Do we really think that councillors should have to withdraw from engagement in their communities before they can be allowed to make decisions?

The problem is that councillors making decisions about planning, development and licensing are treated as if they are acting in a judicial capacity rather than a political one. They should not be.

Councillors are elected to represent the interests of their constituents, and any process which falls within the remit of the council should allow them to act in that capacity. If the law stops councillors from representing their electorate, it is time to reform it.

PROFESSOR PAUL SPICKER

Aberdeen Business School

Aberdeen

The citizens of Aberdeen have been left a little confused and mighty angry at the decision to back the Union Square development as proposed by Sir Ian Wood who was prepared to put up 50 million of his own money simply to get what he wants.

The proposal was voted out by the citizens of Aberdeen in a previous poll but this has been totally disregarded and we are now to proceed with a 140m project without any proven funding and managed by a city in real financial dire straits having to cut back on essential services.

Aberdeen was bankrupted for eight years after the Union Street development and this could well be a case of history repeating itself.

DENNIS GRATTAN

Mugiemoss Road

Aberdeen