INTERNAL friction at Stonehaven Recreation Grounds was revealed this week when councillors learned the Tennis Club does not have the backing of trustees for their inflatable tennis arena.
On Tuesday, Stonehaven Tennis Club successfully gained planning permission for the structure – with a condition restricting its use to six months of the year.
But as the tennis club’s proposal came under consideration at the meeting of the Kincardine and Mearns Area Committee, their management came under fire.
Norman Mackay spoke in objection to the application. He said he was addressing the meeting as a committee member of both the Indoor Bowling Club and the Outdoor Bowling Club – but he is also a trustee of the Recreation Grounds and responsible for financial matters.
And, while it was the Tennis Club who were seeking planning permission for the inflatable arena, he said it would be the trustees who were ultimately responsible for it.
So who runs the Recreation Grounds?
The grounds first opened in 1884 and have been managed by trustees since 1902. In 2015, with the enactment of the Long Lease (Scotland) Act, the title of the recreation grounds land passed from the local authority to the trustees. They are now, in effect, owned and managed by the community.
Three clubs have their home at the grounds and trustee representatives – Tennis, Indoor Bowling and Outdoor Bowling.
And, on Tuesday, Mr Mackay criticised the tennis club’s management for not respecting the tripartite nature of the Recreation Grounds.
He said: ”Unfortunately, that we find ourselves in the position we are in today is down to an egotistical tennis committee who have shown no respect for the governance of these recreation grounds, and who have not considered any of the other stakeholders’ issues, just their own agendas throughout the process.”
Mr Mackay said the proposal before the councillors had not been presented to the trustees or to any of the membership for approval – but that the majority of the trustees had confirmed they would reject it. He added trustees had requested a business plan for the facility but this had not been provided.
Trustees’ permission not planning concern
At the Area Committee, councillors heard from senior planner Gregor Spence, who said the granting of planning permission was a permission in principal for the proposals – independent of any other ramifications or any other permissions required, which were outwith the scope of planning.
That a planning permission existed, he said, did not ensure the development would take place if there were other limiting factors.
”The actual facilitiation, if it is part of a wider operation, would be something for the applicant and those other interested parties to negotiate and reach agreement – or not,” he said.