Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Trump plan against latest policy, say opponents



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 August 2008
A NEW war of words erupted yesterday between Donald Trump's business empire and the three councillors leading the local opposition to the tycoon's £1 billion golf resort development in Aberdeenshire.
The row broke out after the councillors claimed the entrepreneur's plan to build 500 luxury homes to help finance the project at the Menie estate should be thrown out because of newly revised Scottish Government planning policies.

The three Libera
l Democrat councillors – Martin Ford, the former convener of Aberdeenshire Council's planning authority, and colleagues Paul Johnston and Debra Storr – appeared together at the Menie estate inquiry to oppose the tycoon's ambitious development plans.

They now claim in a letter to the inquiry reporters that new planning policy guidelines, published by the Scottish Government after the inquiry ended, mean that the housing element of the Menie resort near Balmedie should be rejected.

But last night George Sorial, the Trump Organisation executive in charge of the Menie development, rounded on the three and claimed their continued opposition to the plan "smacked of desperation".

Earlier Mr Ford said that the new guidelines – the Scottish Planning Policy 3 Planning for Homes – advocated the development of sustainable mixed communities, and that decisions on where new housing allocations were located should be taken through the development plan system.

He said: "On the basis of newly published Scottish Government planning policy, the housing element of the Menie planning application should be refused. Contrary to what is advocated in SPP3, the 500 open market houses proposed at Menie do not meet any definition of a sustainable mixed community. And, of course, the proposal continues to be entirely outwith the development plan."

He was backed by Mr Johnston, who recently claimed Mr Trump was offered a £5 million land-deal "sweetener" by Aberdeenshire Council.

Mr Johnston, referring to the affordable housing element of the Trump plan, said: "The applicants said they were directed by the council to a site supposedly within Balmedie. While this is not only bad value for the taxpayer, it is also clearly against SPP3, which the minister should take into account.

"Allowing for 500 houses was not right in the first place, and the subsequent deal on another site further contradicts the new government housing policy."

Mr Sorial hit back, saying: "Repetition of the same old messages by these councillors is becoming tedious and, frankly, if I was the Reporter I would take exception to their tactics, which smack of desperation."



The full article contains 413 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 August 2008 10:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Donald Trump
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 13/08/2008 01:34:55

A 'Walk-Over'! Scotland is not, Mr Trump!

I am not against what you are trying to do, if it is for the right reasons, but don't expect to come,..

'Barging-in' and to receive the , Red Carpet!

You are Not Presedent Bush! and we are Not Tony Blair!
2

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 13/08/2008 01:49:18
Mr Sorial said, "if I was the Reporter I would take exception to their tactics".

But you are not the Reporter, Mr Sorial, you are a corporate lawyer from New York. I don't think the Reporter requires any advice from you as to how to conduct himself.
3

East Coast Chick,

13/08/2008 02:34:26
With the global down turn in the real estate market, I'm surprised that the Donald is still willing to move forth with this project. Who would be willing to sign a puchase agreement, when before the ink is dry the house is worth less then ten minutes before?
4

Beth Boyle,

NY 13/08/2008 06:26:34
Since Trump loves Scotland so much he should give all that land he bought up for the development to Aberdeenshire as a national park to keep forever the unique dunes and landscape on the coast. He could be a hero not a hure!
5

Richard Taylor,

Aberdeen 13/08/2008 07:32:39
Morning Beth :-)
6

donald,

glasgow 13/08/2008 07:52:50
Lib Three Stooges to bring attacking burdz frae Hoy tae save the Twitcher's isolation,
7

,

13/08/2008 07:56:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Monorail,

Aberdeenshire 13/08/2008 08:08:56
The Scotsman spares all in its research "Martin Ford, the former convener of Aberdeenshire Council's planning authority"

Nope, he was not, now i could start by explaining what a planning authority in detail but that probably won't be necessary. Only the Scottish Government or a Council can be a planning Authority. Aberdeenshire Council was the planning authority for the Menie House Development, the planning authority has been the Scottish Government since late last year when the development was called in.

Martin Ford was convenor of the Infrastructure and Services Committee in Aberdeenshire Council.

Anyway hopefully a decision will be made soon, i'm sure builders from Romania will be keeping a close eye on developments (a pun?).
9

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 13/08/2008 09:31:58
#7 E300

You clearly have little understanding of what happened during the planning process. I suppose it's much easier just to throw mud around than to concern yourself with awkward matters like the truth.

As Monorail points out, Martin Ford was convenor of the Infrastructure and Services Committee in Aberdeenshire Council. That committee was formally appointed by Aberdeenshire Council to determine this issue.

Having debated the issue at length the 14 member committee took a first vote on the 29th November 2007, whether to grant consent to the Trump proposal as it stood, or not. The vote was 9 to 5 against granting consent. At that point, it was the committee's vote, not just Martin Ford's, that refused consent. Got that?

Having thus decided NOT to grant consent for the proposal before them, the committee then voted whether to simply refuse consent for the application before them or to negotiate with Trump to change the application. Trump had previously stated that he would not negotiate to change his application. The Committee voted 7:7 on this.

As Chair, Martin Ford was then required to cast another vote to break the tie. Standing orders required him to vote in such a way as to maintain the status quo ante. The status quo ante was that there was NO planning consent and Ford voted accordingly.

To summarise, Trump's application was thrown out by the nine members of the committee legally appointed to make that decision. Not one of those nine members has since resiled from his/her decision.
10

Buttress,

13/08/2008 09:53:31
9 But come on - you can't think these people want the truth? No, much better to demonise and smear Martin Ford than consider the facts!
11

E300,

13/08/2008 10:03:18
9Slioch
You can wallow in all the minutiae you like! The rejection of Trump's project was so perverse that the Scottish Government had to call it in. The reality is, it was not called in to rubber stamp the Ford inspired rejection. By the end of this year the project will be under way assuming that Trump still considers it to be viable in the changed economic climate. A change which will have dented Trump's enthusiasm and enhanced the government's.
12

Buttress,

13/08/2008 10:14:42
The rejection was more to do with the fact it's against public policy than perversion.
13

JACOB BLAIR,

ABZ 13/08/2008 10:54:20
Trump is more right than anyone else. His devolpment is a golf course with some Houses attatched (fair enough 500+). Revise the Housing design then!? The guy is investing a BILLION. Every single person I know wants it. If anything this has shown what a sham our and every council operates in and under. ABZ council have always been self serving oafs. Where is indivdual pride, major corprate & public investment for all the high salaries paid via the Offshore industry. ABZ must have more money than Edinburgh/Glasgow combined.

Yet, we have significantly lower external investment or internal devolpment. I would much rather see a Private council operating for profit based on performance. I mean have you ever seen a skinny council offcial? Everyone else wouldnt dare to oppose such a trump plan, let alone be embarrassed to have it have it `called in`. Fords rejection is based on own opinion and not those of the people he serves, simple! Already there exists adequate (in my architectural eyes) suitable infrastructure to cope. The lack of past investment for ie: 3rd Don crossing/tunnel/impending bypass is more a reason why he declined it. Its laughable these clowns actually are in charge of our money & voice.
14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 13/08/2008 11:18:54
#11 E300 claims, "The rejection of Trump's project was so perverse"

The decision was not remotely perverse. The application was contrary to the local plan and numerous planning conditions. Had the Infrastructure Committee granted consent the application would still have had to go before Scottish Ministers because of the impact on the dunes SSSI.

What Trump has done is to secretly purchase a piece of land for a minimal price. The price was low because the land was not, and could not conceivably have been, zoned for development. He then orchestrated a vigorous public relations campaign, accompanied by falsehoods such as "I'm investing a billion pounds, and 93% of people are in favour" to force local and national decision makers to toe his line.

If he is successful he will walk away with a huge profit, aided and abetted by people like yourself don't like to consider "the minutiae" because that requires critical thought rather than ignorance.
15

mobocaster,

Aberdeen 13/08/2008 11:20:10
#13 Jacob.

Check the enquiry reporting in this topic. Trump's proposed investment is nowhere near a billlion - The sum given in evidence to the PLI was a mere 12 million.

16

mobocaster,

Aberdeen 13/08/2008 11:28:56
Here is the link.

http://news.scotsman.com/donaldtrump/Golf-resort-is-high-risk.4177035.jp

Fourth paragraph.
17

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 13/08/2008 13:25:36
This application damages our environment and it also brings the planning system into question by the unprecedented nature of the call-in procedure adopted by the Scottish Government.

If you wish to urge the Scottish Government to refuse this application, write to:

The Planning Minister, Scottish Government,Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ

and copy your letter to your local MSP.

For more information, see:

www.rspb.org.uk/scotland
18

Jock Wilson,

13/08/2008 13:37:30
Slioch,

You were constructing a decent argument, until your last post.

Every project 'damages' the environment. Before Venice there were lagoons and small islands teeming with wild life.

Secondly, our planning system is desperately in need of an overhaul. Championing the present system suggest that you, not E300, need to hone your critical faculties.
19

E300,

13/08/2008 13:42:51
14
So all the details were correctly assessed, procedural requirements followed,"critical thought rather than ignorance" applied and planning consent rejected, leading to an almost immediate "calling in" by the Scottish Government.
Because the decision blatantly and deliberately departed from what is normal and reasonable(perverse) and the decision was unreasonable, awkward, stubborn or wilful(perverse) except to a motley minority collection of anti-American, anti-business, anti- progress, anti-profit and so called environmental activists, the government were left with no alternative but to assume responsibility for the decision. Needless to say it has to be dressed up in a politically acceptable uniform to satisfy the "critical thinkers"

20

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 13/08/2008 14:24:23
#18 Jock Wilson

So, let me get this right, Jock. Because building Venice damaged lagoons, we should allow developments that destroy our Sites of Special Scientific Interest ...

Well, it's point of view. And one that would sanction the approval of any scheme however environmentally damaging. Basically, it values the environment at zero. If that is the value system that guides the supporters of the Trump proposal, then, thank you, Jock, for making that clear.

As for the planning system. I'm not championing it - I'm well aware of its imperfections. But when the First Minister meets with the representatives of the applicant a few days after the decision and then the application is called in by the Government, then serious questions need to be asked about whether that system is being corrupted and brought into disrepute.
21

Jock Wilson,

13/08/2008 15:59:06
20

No, Slioch, that is not my position. All developments 'damage' the environment, so you are not saying anything when you portentously declaim this fact.

My point is that the environment is valuable but as humans we often have to weigh the benefits of man-made developments and their impact on the environment. If the position of the anti-Trump brigade is that Venice should not have been built, then, thank you Slioch, for making that clear.

You have shifted your position with respect to the planning system by implying impropriety which of course cannot be proved, only insinuated. This is different from fully acknowledging that the process of investing such a large decision in the hands of so few was deeply disturbing to the majority. It was appropriate that the full Council took action and that subsequently the proposal was called in by the Scottish Government who recognised the full importance of what was at stake.
22

Richard Taylor,

Aberdeen 13/08/2008 20:47:22
Of course, every house in every village, town & city ever built has "damaged the environment".

If we followed that argument to the very start, we'd all still be living in caves...

Fortunately, we have many people who are forward-thinking, not backward.
23

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 15/08/2008 00:11:30
Desperate measures from the usual suspects.

They have had their say, like everyone else. What is not reported here - tut, tut Hootsman - is the response of the Scottish Government. Here is the response from a paper with less tabloid-esque aspirations:

"A Scottish Government spokesman said a letter had been sent to Mr Ford explaining the standpoint of the inquiry reporters.

The letter reads: “When closing the inquiry on July 4, Ms Heywood made it clear that any material submitted after that date would be before Scottish ministers as post-inquiry correspondence, but would not be taken into account by the reporters in their report. That is what the inquiries procedure rules provide for.”

We could go round in circles forever, and I suspect this is what Ford & co are hoping for. What we need is for Swinney to make a decision, one way or another, as quickly as possible.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.