PROTESTERS have made an 11th-hour plea for Highland councillors to reconsider the controversial Inverness West Link road.
Campaigners, who fear peaceful parkland and sports facilities in the city will be “destroyed” by the new road, have called on planning committee members not to ignore the wishes of the people.
Opponents of the scheme such as Donald MacKenzie and John West last night questioned why the council was persevering with its plans in the face of public opposition.
The council has also been accused of failing to provide regular updates on the growing cost of the multimillion-pound project as ordered by finance watchdog Audit Scotland. Councillors will decide whether the West Link – which connects the southern distributor road with the A82 Inverness-Fort William road via new bridges over the River Ness and Caledonian Canal – will be granted planning permission at a planning committee meeting tomorrow.
In a report to the committee, the council’s head of planning and building standards, David Mudie, recommends approving the road, despite 430 objections from members of the public and only one letter in support, from the wife of a former council employee.
Mr Mudie’s report states that the majority of objections are against the chosen route – known as option six – but adds that the councillors should disregard the complaints.
He states: “The planning authority is duty bound to consider only the proposal in front of it and therefore it is not appropriate to debate the merit or otherwise of other options here.”
He said the impact of the scheme would not be “significantly detrimental”.
Donald MacKenzie, of Crown, Inverness, has been leading a campaign for the option six route to be scrapped and has gathered more than 2,500 signatures in support.
He said: “It is unbelievable that what is such a stupid road is still being supported by the council and our money. They say they have followed procedures but it is still possible to follow laid-down procedures and come up with the wrong answer.
“It’s inexplicable to the people of Inverness why they want to build that road on the route. Our politicians are using our money on a road they should not be trying to build. The people don’t want it and it doesn’t make sense.”
In a letter to all councillors he wrote that the application boils down to “a wish to build a road across one of the best green areas of Inverness for no real gain” and claimed it would not solve traffic congestion but would “destroy” the tranquility and beauty of Whin Park, the canal park and the surrounding area.
Fellow campaigner John West, of Inverness Civic Trust, said the council was ignoring public anger at the route choice.
He is also concerned about the lack of information surrounding the escalating cost of the scheme and has written to Audit Scotland about the issue.
The chosen route was estimated at £27.2million in 2010, while the October estimate was £44million.
But the figure did not take account of the cost of providing replacement sports facilities, which could add another £10million.
Audit Scotland said it was important that members were given “regular updates” on costs, after being invited to scrutinise the scheme by the council’s former chief executive.
Leader of the city of Inverness area committee, Councillor Ian Brown, said: “The only people I’ve heard that don’t want the road are the people who are involved in the campaign against it. The majority of the people I’ve spoken to are supportive of it. I believe it will help traffic congestion and help improve journey times across the city. It does affect the park but it’s the outer perimeter of it and there will be the benefit from the new sports facilities which will open up other areas. Personally I think it’s a big benefit to Inverness.” He added that there would be regular updates on the costs once it had gone through the planning process.