The need for impartiality

Thirteen and a half litres of paint later the livingroom is finished - except for sealing the floor. I can relax now, though freshening up one room makes every other place look shabby. The Forth Bridge ain't nothing compared to this.

Had a very busy constituents' surgery at Muirhouse - 9 people along which pleased me if only because it means people have seen the notices and know that Lesley (who was well known) is no longer their representative - the problems they brought were very typical. All good folk, though.

I notice today that Jenny Dawe and Jim Lowrie are beginning to change their mind about Meadowbank - their game of hokey cokey is not amusing. I also note that last week both made clear their resistance to plans to redevelop Tynecastle High. I am perplexed, though. Jim is Chair of Planning and I am sure he will have been advised of the legal need for impartiality in the planning process. In a way, he is behaving in pretty much the same way that brought Trevor criticism - only in reverse. Leaving aside Trevor's rash gesture, if it wasn't acceptable for Trevor to attend a reception by Mountgrange since it implied public support for their development, then it surely can't be right for Jim to be issuing warnings in the press against another? Ok - he isn't accepting a glass of wine and a canape from the developer to say no, but he is accepting a pretty substantial responsibility allowance from the public to make sure the system is observed and conducted correctly. It is, I think, acceptable for him to set down guidelines for what he would prefer to see but to come right out against before a drawing is even laid before his eyes seems a little premature. And Jenny's very full statement of opposition rather implies there is a political agenda here, rather than simply dealing with the issue as part of the planning process which is where it should now properly lie.