OK - we all had good fun about this. But now we have the final proposals for change. Do look and respond - you can do it online and it's well presented to make it easy.
I'm pretty comfortable with most of it except
MPs should not be allowed to "exploit" the system for personal gain. Much damage was done by the "but it was within the rules" whinging of MPs. It needs to be clear that claims should be within the spirit of the rules.
And all details must be published by the authorities as they are submitted (or as reasonably practical thereafter). This is the best assurance that we can have that claims in future will be reasonable.
I think that the transitional arrangements are too long - up to 5 years. MPs jobs should be insecure and if they make long term arrangements, they should take the risk. Over to you ....
Main Issues: Flooding and Erosion, Hazardous Development, Contaminated Land, Carbon Neutrality in New Developments, Developer Contributions
Hopefully last but one lap - comments by 20/1/10 appreciated.
Flooding and Erosion : Stronger policy for both coastal and watercourse threats. 1:200 years limit for residential, commercial and key infrastructure. 5m and 10m countours considered for Flood. Impact of hardened surfaces on flooding elsewhere considered.
Hazardous Development: talks about pollution, flooding, nuisance and hazard - restricting such new sources and development sround existing sources.
Contaminated Land: Talks about assessement and remediation.
Carbon Neutrality in New Developments: 30% below 2007 standards increasing to 60% by 2012, 90% by 2014 and 100% by 2016. Lots of additional information re definitions and methods to achieve.. Off site permissible for Conservation Areas etc.
Developer Contributions: Appendix will include details of specific contributions required against major sites. Individual sets talking about Access, Water and Drainage (cf SUDS), Waste Management.
Often pretty technical stuff but useful to be specific about Access (maintenance of such can be an issue), water but I can;t see anything that will help us ensure maintenance of SUDS schemes. It'll be interesting to see how Carbon Neutrality pans out!
Flooding and Erosion : Stronger policy for both coastal and watercourse threats. 1:200 years limit for residential, commercial and key infrastructure. 5m and 10m countours considered for Flood. Impact of hardened surfaces on flooding elsewhere considered.
Hazardous Development: talks about pollution, flooding, nuisance and hazard - restricting such new sources and development sround existing sources.
Contaminated Land: Talks about assessement and remediation.
Carbon Neutrality in New Developments: 30% below 2007 standards increasing to 60% by 2012, 90% by 2014 and 100% by 2016. Lots of additional information re definitions and methods to achieve.. Off site permissible for Conservation Areas etc.
Developer Contributions: Appendix will include details of specific contributions required against major sites. Individual sets talking about Access, Water and Drainage (cf SUDS), Waste Management.
Often pretty technical stuff but useful to be specific about Access (maintenance of such can be an issue), water but I can;t see anything that will help us ensure maintenance of SUDS schemes. It'll be interesting to see how Carbon Neutrality pans out!
Aberdeenshire Council now honest - no action on climate change
Aberdeenshire Council today decided not to sign up to 10:10. My colleague Cllr Paul Johnston could not even get a seconder for other LibDems, the Tories or the SNP. I understand that members of Policy and Resources felt that the Council couldn't make the minimum commitment of a 3% reduction in 2010 - and a reduction of 10% from their own baseline.
This is disappointing.
Aberdeenshire Council made good progress in reducing CO2 emissions in the early years of its commitments but reduction have since slowed. A report to Scrutiny and Audit in December showed
Now one of the reasons I left the Liberal Democrats and joined the Greens was the gross disparity being saying and doing. It looks like I was right. LibDem* controlled Aberdeenshire likes to sign Climate Change Charters but when it comes to making commitments to deliver - nothing.
*Cllr Paul Johnston is a LibDem but not part of the ruling Administration. He is therefore excempt from criticism.
This is disappointing.
Aberdeenshire Council made good progress in reducing CO2 emissions in the early years of its commitments but reduction have since slowed. A report to Scrutiny and Audit in December showed
- the reduction in emissions over 3 years for Building and Property has been 3%, of which 2.9% was in the first year.
- the reduction of emission from waste to landfill has decreased by 15.4% but only 1.4% reduction has been achieved in the past year.
- emissions from street lightling were static or slowing increasing initally but have grown by 5.2% over the past year
- emissions from business mileage has increased every year and are now 5% higher than the base year.
Now one of the reasons I left the Liberal Democrats and joined the Greens was the gross disparity being saying and doing. It looks like I was right. LibDem* controlled Aberdeenshire likes to sign Climate Change Charters but when it comes to making commitments to deliver - nothing.
*Cllr Paul Johnston is a LibDem but not part of the ruling Administration. He is therefore excempt from criticism.
Haiti Earthquake appeal
This poor country has now been devastated by and earthquake. The Red Cross has launched an appeal - More details.
Union Terrace Gardens
I have carefully looked at all the material on The City Square website and also the Peacock Arts Proposals. A useful comparison can be found at CompareTheSquare. You may also be interested to read the Supplementary Planning Guidance Aberdeen City Council has already agreed for Bon Accord Quarter and put this in the overall context of the City Centre. The Masterplan proposals had over 70% approval ratings.
My initial reaction to the Ian Wood suggestion for UTG was fairly open minded with some concern that this was another grand project. However I recognise that Union Terrace Gardens are under-used but the Peacosk Arts proposals seemed set to take care of that.
The actual details of the Ian Wood proposals are rather thin. £50m from Sir Ian (presumably his investment not a gift). But what other funds would be needed and from where. The City Square website says it would not be taken from public services. I assume that means no on-going revenue commitment but it leaves open the question of capital. And just what does it consist of? Parking, shops, public art, public open space. My other job is in the IT industry and we have a term for stuff that sounds like a good idea but doesn't exist - vapourware.
And how much does Aberdeen need more car parking and shopping with Union Square just opened and the general proposals in Bon Accord? I also worry that the Union Square to Bon Accord axis is killing the shops on Union Street and George St.
So we have a choice - the Peacock Arts proposals in the hand - or Ian Wood's proposals in the bush.
I think that the way forward is Peacock Arts - This Time, This Place, This Generation - delivered.
Please do complete the CitySquare consultation questionnaire and if you want to save Union Terrace Gardens and the new Arts Centre, also complete the online petition. I was the 4276th signatory.
Main Issues: Masterplanning; Layout, Siting & Design; Public Open Space; Public Access; Community Facilities
This is all about building in quality design to new developments - all the way from how a development relates to its surroundings to the deatil of individual buildings. This is a hugely complex subject ....
Masterplanning of large developments : New requirement for development frameworks, masterplans and/or development briefs for large and medium sized developments. Community engagement highlighted. Differing requirements according to scale. Very large < 600, Large 50 to 600 houses, Medium 5 -49 houses.
Layout, Siting and Design of New Development: Reference to masterplans and designs briefs and also assessments against Urban Design Toolkit (PAN 67), Manual for Streets, and Index 21. Design Panel to advise on important design cases.
House Extensions: protection of amenity of area.
Infill development: OK subject to protection of character and amenity of area and important open space/woodland.
Public Open Space: Reference to Open Space Strategy and specific requirements for hierarchy of developments: 40% Major, 120m sq per dwelling, or 40 m sq for land previously allocated. Protection of open space from development with exceptions.
Public Access: Connection to existing non motorised access routes highlighted. If Core path or existing path, maintenance of it or replacement. Mention of access to water.
Community Facilities: Principles governing adequate provision and requirements for developer contributions towards such.
I like the emphasis on masterplanning and design. I strongly believe this leads to better development but it all depends on the "teeth" given - will we refuse purely on such grounds and will it stand up on appeal?
Not sure why developments in the Local plan have lower requirement for Public Space than others in Local Plan. Rules change all the time ....
Good to see Public Access higher up the priorities. Would like more emphasis on encouragement for walking/cycling rather than car use as part of the Design principles.
Comments by 20th Jnuary, please ...
Masterplanning of large developments : New requirement for development frameworks, masterplans and/or development briefs for large and medium sized developments. Community engagement highlighted. Differing requirements according to scale. Very large < 600, Large 50 to 600 houses, Medium 5 -49 houses.
Layout, Siting and Design of New Development: Reference to masterplans and designs briefs and also assessments against Urban Design Toolkit (PAN 67), Manual for Streets, and Index 21. Design Panel to advise on important design cases.
House Extensions: protection of amenity of area.
Infill development: OK subject to protection of character and amenity of area and important open space/woodland.
Public Open Space: Reference to Open Space Strategy and specific requirements for hierarchy of developments: 40% Major, 120m sq per dwelling, or 40 m sq for land previously allocated. Protection of open space from development with exceptions.
Public Access: Connection to existing non motorised access routes highlighted. If Core path or existing path, maintenance of it or replacement. Mention of access to water.
Community Facilities: Principles governing adequate provision and requirements for developer contributions towards such.
I like the emphasis on masterplanning and design. I strongly believe this leads to better development but it all depends on the "teeth" given - will we refuse purely on such grounds and will it stand up on appeal?
Not sure why developments in the Local plan have lower requirement for Public Space than others in Local Plan. Rules change all the time ....
Good to see Public Access higher up the priorities. Would like more emphasis on encouragement for walking/cycling rather than car use as part of the Design principles.
Comments by 20th Jnuary, please ...
More awards for Donald Trump
"toupeed tycoon Donald Trump and his lackey George Sorial" for asking Aberdeenshire Council to use CPOs to remove local residents "to make way for a vulgar housing development and golf course which will forever ruin a pristine stretch of sand-duned coast".Particular congratulations to George for featuring - part of the title of this blog is his gift to me. Don't worry, Neil, Sarah, Ann, etc - I recognise your contribution.
Donald Trump will have been disappointed by his 98th place in the BBC's "Most Annoying People of 2009" awards also given in recognition of his demands for CPOs.
Also belated congratulations for Donald's place in the New Stateman's Top 20 Green Villians list. The citation runs: -
"Money bags The billionaire Donald Trump attracted the ire of conservationists when he set his sights on remote Aberdeenshire in Scotland. In 2006 he announced plans to build a 2,000-acre, $1bn golf course and luxury resort, billed as the "greatest" in the world, on a coastline featuring sand dunes protected as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. He claimed that "environmentalists supported us" and "the locals were ecstatic", but faced opposition from the RSPB and the local council, which initially rebuffed his advances. After much legal wrangling (and a personal intervention by the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond), Trump gained planning permission in October."The decision to allow the development was awarded a Pock Mark for Worst Planning Decision in Scottish Architecture's 2008 Carbuncle Awards.
Is there a trend here?
Will Donald ever get back to the dizzy heights of when in 2007, the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., was the first recipient of the Metropolitan Golf Association Environmental Award (best on six criteria from around 280 MGA members)?
Snow
We have had a long period of very bad weather and it is set to continue for another week at least. Aberdeenshire Council has quite rightly concentrated resources on keeping the main routes clear and gritted. After all, there is little point in being able to get out of your street/side road if the main routes are blocked. So can we please say a big thank you to the staff who have been working long hours to keep routes open - and re-open blocked roads.
And can I also thank drivers for being sensible and the police for ordering road closures when necessary. In contrast to stories from England of motorists getting stuck and abandoning cars, drivers have been pretty sensible and this helps keep the roads clear (imagine driving an HGV plough/gritter through a chicane of abandoned cars).
Council workers have also been trying to keep pavements clear - and as with roads this has been a uphill battle. Most people have realised that the council workers are doing their best. But with this amount of snow, a little bit of help from frontagers would be appreciated. Please try to break up hard packed snow/ice and put sand, ashes, salt, - even cat litter - on it to give a little grip and help break up the surface further.
And finally, please do look out for each other. If you can pick up a few things for the shops for your neighbour, then that is a nice thing to do and may save an unpleasant trip out. If your neighbour is struggling with getting out in these conditions, you could be a life saver.
Useful numbers:
Elderly or vulnerable and afraid to turn your heating up during this cold spell? Call the Home Heat Helpline for advice 0800 33 66 99
For help in reducing future bills call Energy Saving Trust on 0800 512 012
And can I also thank drivers for being sensible and the police for ordering road closures when necessary. In contrast to stories from England of motorists getting stuck and abandoning cars, drivers have been pretty sensible and this helps keep the roads clear (imagine driving an HGV plough/gritter through a chicane of abandoned cars).
Council workers have also been trying to keep pavements clear - and as with roads this has been a uphill battle. Most people have realised that the council workers are doing their best. But with this amount of snow, a little bit of help from frontagers would be appreciated. Please try to break up hard packed snow/ice and put sand, ashes, salt, - even cat litter - on it to give a little grip and help break up the surface further.
And finally, please do look out for each other. If you can pick up a few things for the shops for your neighbour, then that is a nice thing to do and may save an unpleasant trip out. If your neighbour is struggling with getting out in these conditions, you could be a life saver.
Useful numbers:
Elderly or vulnerable and afraid to turn your heating up during this cold spell? Call the Home Heat Helpline for advice 0800 33 66 99
For help in reducing future bills call Energy Saving Trust on 0800 512 012
Main Issues: Housing, 2007-2016, 2017-2023 and early draw down, Affordable Housing, Other Special Housing incl Special Needs, Residential Caravans, Traveller and Gypsy Sites.
In terms of the volume of housing, most of the decisions have already been made in the
Housing Land Supply : follows Structure Plan but "to assist in long term masterplanning of development areas beyond 2023 ... may bring forward site specific supplementary planning guidance for periods beyond 2023". 20% housing due to be delivered in via Countryside policies with other 80% in allocated sites in settlements. Attempt to address an issue that has arisen of plots being developed for more houses than originally envisaged via masterplanning/design briefs and justifications. Provision to bring forward to maintain 7 year supply.
Affordable Housing : The plan maintains 25% requirements for affordable (read subsidised) housing and encourages a mix of house types and integration with non affordable housing. (Hurrah!) However there are some get out clauses which could mean less provision or provision off site or provision via Low Cost Home Ownership rather than for rent.
Special Needs : there are new policies to deal with 3 type. Residential caravans are discouraged except as temporary arranagements. Special needs housing is accepted and most types are encouraged to be within or at edge of settlements. However there is explicit provision for "continuing care retirement communities" (CCRC) outside settlement. The need for Traveller and Gypsy sites is recognised.
There are no great surprises as this has to follow the Structure Plan which is available as a pdf, in rtf or as an MP3 audio file. I was worried about the sheer scale of the allocation overall and in particular in the Blackdog - Ellon corridor but we are where we are. I can understand why there is concern about over-development of sites but in general, if the design is good, it is better to try to achieve higher densities which mean more people can live closer to shops, bus routes and other services - and we lose less valuable farmland to development.
While there is some progress for improvement in affordable housing, I still worry that some developers will try to get out of on-site provision and there is enough wriggle room in policy for this. I also note that the rule allowing the additional of 3 houses at the edge of rural settlements is just below the 25% threshold - perhaps making slightly larger extensions that gave more scope for some affordable housing provision would be better.
Continuing care retirement communities outside settlements does not fits well with other policies. Visitors, staff and others servicing such facilities will need to travel and this seems to me to go against other policies aimed at reducing the need to travel and encouraging use of public transport. I also worry about isolating groups from the wider community.
The policy on Gypsy and Traveller site indicates that there will be sites allocated specifically for this need. We will see later where these sites are. Other sites could be allocated according to need. In all cases, there are requirements for sites not to "appreciably detract from the character and appearance of the area" not "significantly detract from the amenity currently enjoyed." This will be a challenge to us all to achieve but I see no need for such sites to be a blot if we work with the users on design to fit everyone's needs.
Over to you - comments back by 20th please.
Housing Land Supply : follows Structure Plan but "to assist in long term masterplanning of development areas beyond 2023 ... may bring forward site specific supplementary planning guidance for periods beyond 2023". 20% housing due to be delivered in via Countryside policies with other 80% in allocated sites in settlements. Attempt to address an issue that has arisen of plots being developed for more houses than originally envisaged via masterplanning/design briefs and justifications. Provision to bring forward to maintain 7 year supply.
Affordable Housing : The plan maintains 25% requirements for affordable (read subsidised) housing and encourages a mix of house types and integration with non affordable housing. (Hurrah!) However there are some get out clauses which could mean less provision or provision off site or provision via Low Cost Home Ownership rather than for rent.
Special Needs : there are new policies to deal with 3 type. Residential caravans are discouraged except as temporary arranagements. Special needs housing is accepted and most types are encouraged to be within or at edge of settlements. However there is explicit provision for "continuing care retirement communities" (CCRC) outside settlement. The need for Traveller and Gypsy sites is recognised.
There are no great surprises as this has to follow the Structure Plan which is available as a pdf, in rtf or as an MP3 audio file. I was worried about the sheer scale of the allocation overall and in particular in the Blackdog - Ellon corridor but we are where we are. I can understand why there is concern about over-development of sites but in general, if the design is good, it is better to try to achieve higher densities which mean more people can live closer to shops, bus routes and other services - and we lose less valuable farmland to development.
While there is some progress for improvement in affordable housing, I still worry that some developers will try to get out of on-site provision and there is enough wriggle room in policy for this. I also note that the rule allowing the additional of 3 houses at the edge of rural settlements is just below the 25% threshold - perhaps making slightly larger extensions that gave more scope for some affordable housing provision would be better.
Continuing care retirement communities outside settlements does not fits well with other policies. Visitors, staff and others servicing such facilities will need to travel and this seems to me to go against other policies aimed at reducing the need to travel and encouraging use of public transport. I also worry about isolating groups from the wider community.
The policy on Gypsy and Traveller site indicates that there will be sites allocated specifically for this need. We will see later where these sites are. Other sites could be allocated according to need. In all cases, there are requirements for sites not to "appreciably detract from the character and appearance of the area" not "significantly detract from the amenity currently enjoyed." This will be a challenge to us all to achieve but I see no need for such sites to be a blot if we work with the users on design to fit everyone's needs.
Over to you - comments back by 20th please.
Main Issues : Development in Countryside, Energy, Minerals, Coastal development, Green belt
Again, I try to summarise the policy proposals and give my comments on these. Your feedback, especially before 20th January, would be appreciated.
Development in Countryside: divides Aberdeenshire into 3 : Accessible (around Aberdeen and the A90 and A96 corridors), Regeneration priority (Peterhead-Fraserburgh and the Moray coast) and Rural (everything else). In Accessible, small scale developments suitable for Green Belt will be allowed plus refurbishment/replacement of existing. For Rural, add economic development proposals, max 3 houses close to edge of existing settlements, or single house for retirement succession of viable farm holding. (Rural includes Regeneration).
Wind Energy: technical rules re roads/railways, flights, TV reception, ice throw shadow flicker, noise, visual intrusion. Impacts on Core Paths and Cumulative Impact. Reference to existing Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Other renewable energy: sympathetic if well sited and designed.
Minerals: Reference to maps indicting area of search (not published in these documents - I will ask for copy), sand and gravel - 15 years supply maximum, cumulative impact considered if 3 more more consents for landfill for mineral extraction within 5km of a settlement, explicit reference to buffer zones etc.
Coastal Development: similar to existing policy - limited to developments requiring coastal location and where social and economic benefits outweigh adverse environmental impacts and no alternative site. List of other hurdles - coalescence of settlements, character and amenity, flooding, water quality, coastal processes or habitats. I make no comment!
Green Belt: extensions to existing; agri/forestry/horiticulture/nature conservation; recreation use compatible with countryside; sensitive restoration; worker in primary industry rerquired on-site; National Priority; Safeguarded resources in Areas of search (see Minerals above). Comment that development in Green Belt may reduced travel compared to development beyond.
The 3 houses on edge of rural settlements seems a pragmatic way to allow organic growth - but it will be interesting to see what happens with the maximum 20% in any 5 year period limit. It seems odd to allow retiring farmers in Rural but not in Accessible - the social factors are similar. I'll need to see the maps for Minerals areas of search. Coastal and Green Belt - very similar to existing. However, we were also expecting a review of the Green Belt maps in this local plan and as a result of the AWPR. We need this.
Development in Countryside: divides Aberdeenshire into 3 : Accessible (around Aberdeen and the A90 and A96 corridors), Regeneration priority (Peterhead-Fraserburgh and the Moray coast) and Rural (everything else). In Accessible, small scale developments suitable for Green Belt will be allowed plus refurbishment/replacement of existing. For Rural, add economic development proposals, max 3 houses close to edge of existing settlements, or single house for retirement succession of viable farm holding. (Rural includes Regeneration).
Wind Energy: technical rules re roads/railways, flights, TV reception, ice throw shadow flicker, noise, visual intrusion. Impacts on Core Paths and Cumulative Impact. Reference to existing Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Other renewable energy: sympathetic if well sited and designed.
Minerals: Reference to maps indicting area of search (not published in these documents - I will ask for copy), sand and gravel - 15 years supply maximum, cumulative impact considered if 3 more more consents for landfill for mineral extraction within 5km of a settlement, explicit reference to buffer zones etc.
Coastal Development: similar to existing policy - limited to developments requiring coastal location and where social and economic benefits outweigh adverse environmental impacts and no alternative site. List of other hurdles - coalescence of settlements, character and amenity, flooding, water quality, coastal processes or habitats. I make no comment!
Green Belt: extensions to existing; agri/forestry/horiticulture/nature conservation; recreation use compatible with countryside; sensitive restoration; worker in primary industry rerquired on-site; National Priority; Safeguarded resources in Areas of search (see Minerals above). Comment that development in Green Belt may reduced travel compared to development beyond.
The 3 houses on edge of rural settlements seems a pragmatic way to allow organic growth - but it will be interesting to see what happens with the maximum 20% in any 5 year period limit. It seems odd to allow retiring farmers in Rural but not in Accessible - the social factors are similar. I'll need to see the maps for Minerals areas of search. Coastal and Green Belt - very similar to existing. However, we were also expecting a review of the Green Belt maps in this local plan and as a result of the AWPR. We need this.
Local Plan: Main Issues: Employment, Offices, Homeworking, Tourism, Town Centres and Retailing
See below for details of the process and please get back to me with comments by say 20th January - else your concerns may not be raised. I'll just post here very quick summaries and my comments - do see the original documents for the full version.
Employment land - existing employment land protected for employment purposes (rather than silence in current local plan)
Office development - new specific policy allowing in employment land, existing derelict, despoiled or underused, with encouragement for accessible by public transport, cycling or walking, and a sequential test.
Homeworking - new policy saying it's OK so long as it doesn't interfere with the neighbourhood.
Tourist facilities - new specific policy encouraging if well related to existing settlements or there is a locational requirement. Resistance to converting tourist accommodation to other uses.
Town Centres and Retailing - retains (but does not strengthen) sequential approach to new retail. Specifies some sites for bulky comparison outlets. In Rural HMA allows new retail to support tourism.
Retail in Countryside - new policy allowing farm shops or ancillary to tourist or recreational use.
I'm generally supportive of the direction of this. I want to encourage more employment in Aberdeenshire and recognise that the fastest growth and maximum employment is usually from small enterprises growing.
I have some concerns that there may be a few loopholes opened. I find the identification of specific sites for bulky retail odd - the onus should be on the developer to find a site and make the case. I am wary of the rules for converting tourist accommodation to residential use - it's the weasel word "reasonable". And "the erection of a farm shop in the countryside does not require planning permission" seems a step too far to me.
Employment land - existing employment land protected for employment purposes (rather than silence in current local plan)
Office development - new specific policy allowing in employment land, existing derelict, despoiled or underused, with encouragement for accessible by public transport, cycling or walking, and a sequential test.
Homeworking - new policy saying it's OK so long as it doesn't interfere with the neighbourhood.
Tourist facilities - new specific policy encouraging if well related to existing settlements or there is a locational requirement. Resistance to converting tourist accommodation to other uses.
Town Centres and Retailing - retains (but does not strengthen) sequential approach to new retail. Specifies some sites for bulky comparison outlets. In Rural HMA allows new retail to support tourism.
Retail in Countryside - new policy allowing farm shops or ancillary to tourist or recreational use.
I'm generally supportive of the direction of this. I want to encourage more employment in Aberdeenshire and recognise that the fastest growth and maximum employment is usually from small enterprises growing.
I have some concerns that there may be a few loopholes opened. I find the identification of specific sites for bulky retail odd - the onus should be on the developer to find a site and make the case. I am wary of the rules for converting tourist accommodation to residential use - it's the weasel word "reasonable". And "the erection of a farm shop in the countryside does not require planning permission" seems a step too far to me.
The cost of destruction
If the Menie development didn't after all go ahead, there is a bond to pay for the restoration of the dunes. So how much do you think it will cost to undo the marram grass planting, remove fencing, remove hessian sheet and fences and let the dunes revert to their natural dynamic state?
I have a copy of the legal agreement between Aberdeenshire Council and Trump so I know the answer. But I'll let you guess for a day or two ....
A prize of some tablet for the nearest guess - and we will do this to the nearest pound. Think of it as an Xmas quiz!
The restoration bind is for the princely sum of £157,752 so congratulations to Sue Edwards who guessed £2,000. I owe you some tablet.
I have a copy of the legal agreement between Aberdeenshire Council and Trump so I know the answer. But I'll let you guess for a day or two ....
A prize of some tablet for the nearest guess - and we will do this to the nearest pound. Think of it as an Xmas quiz!
The restoration bind is for the princely sum of £157,752 so congratulations to Sue Edwards who guessed £2,000. I owe you some tablet.
Next Local Plan
At our meeting on 27th January, we will only discuss the contentious areas so I need to read the report carefully over the next two weeks and highlight areas that worry me. If you want to flag your concerns to me also - or indeed tell me that you think that any particular policy has got it spot on - do let me know. I'll probably post more here as I digest the "heap".
There will be a further set of paper relating to settlements so I'd ask you to hang fire on comments about our towns and villages for now if possible.
AWPR
The Scottish Government has announced that the AWPR is to go ahead but that the Aberdeen Crossrail project will not proceed. All this just a few days after the close of Copenhagen at which Alex Salmond trumpted the Scottish Government commitment to reducing CO2 emissions.
I have always been a skeptic re the AWPR: the major problem with Aberdeen is peak hours commuter congestion. And public transport and better planning could deal with these without building a dual carriageway around the city.
I will be fascinated to see hear any arguments detailing how this road will reduce CO2 emissions - and please don't just say that congested traffic is inefficient: high speeds are inefficient too and journey lengths may be longer. Every new road built has generated more traffic and the planned developments in the Blackdog-Peterhead corridor will guarantee this.
But what is vexing me is how this road will be paid for. The current estimates for the road are £295-395m of which about £100m has already been spent. Now no-one believes the bill be simply be the £395m by the time it is built. But let's take the £395 figure, in which case Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City Council will each need to find £37.5m.
Both councils have funding pressures and this will only get worse over the next 5 to 10 years.
How is the Scottish Government going to fund this? Can the councils afford it?
I have always been a skeptic re the AWPR: the major problem with Aberdeen is peak hours commuter congestion. And public transport and better planning could deal with these without building a dual carriageway around the city.
I will be fascinated to see hear any arguments detailing how this road will reduce CO2 emissions - and please don't just say that congested traffic is inefficient: high speeds are inefficient too and journey lengths may be longer. Every new road built has generated more traffic and the planned developments in the Blackdog-Peterhead corridor will guarantee this.
But what is vexing me is how this road will be paid for. The current estimates for the road are £295-395m of which about £100m has already been spent. Now no-one believes the bill be simply be the £395m by the time it is built. But let's take the £395 figure, in which case Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City Council will each need to find £37.5m.
Both councils have funding pressures and this will only get worse over the next 5 to 10 years.
How is the Scottish Government going to fund this? Can the councils afford it?
Copenhagen - it up to us.
It seems the politicians have failed to deliver the necessary actions at Copenhagen. There are some fine words - but there is a world of difference between good intentions and long term promises and the concrete action needed.
So we need to do, without the help of the policies and initiatives that would help, what we can. So please sign up to 10:10 and encourage everyone you know - individuals, organisations, and businesses to sign up to.
Hopefully this is a setback - the fine words may yet turn into the real action needed. But the clock is ticking away and the longer action is delayed, change will then have to be harder and faster.
The planet will survive - but without action, the lives of almost everyone on earth will be affected and for some that impact will be deadly. The Scottish Government's recent Climate Change Adaptation document makes interesting reading. The kind of floods that we had in November may become normal.
So we need to do, without the help of the policies and initiatives that would help, what we can. So please sign up to 10:10 and encourage everyone you know - individuals, organisations, and businesses to sign up to.
Hopefully this is a setback - the fine words may yet turn into the real action needed. But the clock is ticking away and the longer action is delayed, change will then have to be harder and faster.
The planet will survive - but without action, the lives of almost everyone on earth will be affected and for some that impact will be deadly. The Scottish Government's recent Climate Change Adaptation document makes interesting reading. The kind of floods that we had in November may become normal.
P&J says it will not report anti-Trump stories.
The Press and Journal has thrown away all pretence of balanced reporting on Trump today. In a series of articles, it claims that Tripping up Trump has tenuous links to the NE of Scotland and finally says
Read all four articles for yourself.
"This newspaper has given a voice to all those who have wished to become involved in the debate about Donald Trump’s plans. That courtesy was extended to Tripping Up Trump in the belief that it was bona fide group of local environmentalists. Today, it has been withdrawn."This is sad day for freedom of speech and good journalism in the NE of Scotland.
Read all four articles for yourself.
Councillor Risk
This is an extract from Aberdeenshire Council's Corporate Risk Register. I noticed this amongst 240 other risks as it was "Increasing".
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
| Risk No | Risk | Risk Type | Potential Impact | Inherent Risk | Mitigants & Controls | Residual Risk | Risk Status | ||||
| Probability | Impact | Risk Rating | Probability | Impact | Risk Rating | ||||||
| C019 | Councillor objective may be at divergence from Council Vision and Objectives. | Political | Reduction in ability to deliver Council's Vision | 2 | 4 | 8 | Council:CMT communication CPP process Committee processes | 3 | 2 | 6 | Increasing |
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Should Holyrood rule?
Fiona Hyslop has threatened to take education away from local councils - because they haven't delivered smaller primary class sizes. And now the SNP government is apparently considering removing social care from local councils too. That would centralise about three-quarters of local government spending.
I happen to believe in local people making local decisions. And if that means that government manifesto policies are not delivered so be it. It's local councils that run schools so Holyrood may ask for smaller class sizes. But they can not demand it.
And it worries me that people who want independence for Scotland, don't understand that democracy at council level matters too.
Update:
Fiona Hyslop has been removed from post.
I happen to believe in local people making local decisions. And if that means that government manifesto policies are not delivered so be it. It's local councils that run schools so Holyrood may ask for smaller class sizes. But they can not demand it.
And it worries me that people who want independence for Scotland, don't understand that democracy at council level matters too.
Update:
Fiona Hyslop has been removed from post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)