Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Legal bid over plans for Culloden binned

Legal bid over plans for Culloden binned

CAMPAIGNERS fighting to block plans for houses near historic Culloden Battlefield have scrapped plans to mount a legal challenge to the scheme.

They revealed they had now accepted First Minister Alex Salmond’s “hands were tied” over the permission granted for the 16-home development.

And they announced their decision as the SNP leader ruled out any political intervention in the bitter row over the project at Viewhill.

A government planning reporter’s decision to approve the housing proposals on appeal provoked outrage around the world.

A petition started by the campaign group gathered 16,000 signatures from people across the globe left furious that development would be allowed within the battlefield inventory site. Yesterday, a campaign group spokesman said plans to take their fight to the Court of Session had been dropped.

But they vowed to keep the pressure on landowner David Sutherland to try to persuade him not to build the homes. He said: “We’ve been given legal advice that we will no longer be perusing a case in the Court of Session. We would not be asking the group to contribute to a legal fund.

“Part of that understanding includes an acknowledgement from us that the ministers’ – including Mr Salmond’s – hands were tied due to the position taken by Highland Council’s planning officer and Historic Scotland.”

Campaign group founder, George Kempik, added that their lawyer had advised they had no grounds of appeal which would be looked at in the Court of Session because Historic Scotland did not object, which would make it difficult for ministers or the planning reporter to raise concerns.

Another obstacle was that the council’s area planning officer recommended that members approved the homes – but they still voted 13-4 to reject planning permission.

He insisted the group still wanted to stop the homes being built and would seek talks with Mr Sutherland.

He added: “We would try and persuade him from the point of view of protectors of Culloden Battlefield. It would seem that protection legally isn’t there at the moment.”

Mr Salmond said: “The difficulty has been that the reporter made the recommendations based on what is the protected area around the battlefield.

“As the planning minister has pointed out we are going to look again at the protection areas surrounding battlefield sites.

“I will be making announcements in due course. I have to leave these things to the planning process. One thing I can’t do is intervene in political terms – it has to be done through the planning process.”

Local councillor Jim Crawford said the government “messed up” by not asking for the planning reporter’s findings to be referred to ministers for a final decision.

He added: “Alex Salmond would never have allowed the reporter to have the final say on this if it had been a windfarm. I think they underestimated the mood of the country and the people when it came to Culloden. They’ve now got egg on their face and they will be looking for some way to keep the people happy now they have made a mess of it.”

He said the Scottish Government should back plans to make the wider battlefield area a World Heritage Site.

He said: “That’s the only way we are going to preserve it forever. The government should step in now and undo the wrong they have done.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said the planning reporter had followed the proper appeal process and agreed with Historic Scotland’s view that the development “would not have an adverse impact on the integrity or the significance of this nationally-important battlefield”.