I think many planning professionals will be querying the legal basis whereby Scottish Ministers called in the Trump golf development in Aberdeenshire (The Herald, December 5). This was not a "live" planning application but one which had been determined and as such ceased to exist after the decision date. The call-in legislation only refers to applications that have yet to be determined. A right of appeal to Ministers does exist for the applicant after determination - but only to query the decision or parts of it. Mr Trump has chosen not to exercise this right.

We are told the reason for intervention was that it was an issue of national importance. But that was the case when the application was submitted. Yet Ministers declined to intervene then. One is left to conclude that the reason for this latest development is the pressure exerted by the business community after an unexpected council decision against.

However, by their actions Ministers have effectively conferred third party rights of appeal on those business interest groups in favour of the development. This is especially ironic when you consider that these same interest groups were prominent in objecting to such rights when the new Planning Bill was out for consultation. Their main argument then was that it would hinder decision-making and add delay. Yet here, after a quick decision by committee, we are witnessing increasingly desperate attempts to delay its implementation.

What this does is drive a coach and horses through the whole planning process and in particular the mantra of community involvement. As the committee chairman commented, Trump's engagement with the wider community has been an all-or-nothing stance, with no compromises. If Trump had resubmitted the application to the whole council and had it passed, do you seriously believe these Ministers would have intervened and given the objectors' stance the same consideration on grounds of national importance, ie, that a nationally designated site was being destroyed?

Ministers have to act impartially, collectively and in the interest of natural justice. But we are told the final decision will be taken by the Finance Minister, not the planning minister as many would have expected. What does that tell you?

Robert Menzies, 2 Burnbrae Gardens, Falkirk.