HAS THE TRUMP APPLICATION SHOWN THAT SCOTLAND PUTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AHEAD OF THE ENVIRONMENT?
Andrew Jones (AJ): Let me suggest that that is the wrong question. I think we in the media tend to polarise these issues too much. We like to deal with personalities, and this has how the Trump issue has been portrayed. Here we have one big personal
ity in Trump and then the media saw Martin Ford as the personality on the other side of the argument and the story quite wrongly centred on them.
The Trump issue, like so many others, is not as clear cut as that and it is one I change my mind on quite regularly. What we need to look at is what lies behind the issue.
Jayne MacLennan (JM): I think the planning system is disproportionately weighted towards the environment. I say this as somebody who is a strong supporter of the environment, but, like everything in life, there has to be a balance. Citing the Trump case, we clearly have to put this into the context of what the government wants to do in terms of economic development. We are talking about a development that represents a £1 billion investment in the North-east economy. Currently, Scotland has a growth rate of 1.8 per cent per annum compared to a UK growth rate of 2.3 per cent. So, as things stand, we are never going to compete in the global economy. We have to get over the message that Scotland is open for business which we are not doing at the moment and that is a problem with the planning system.
If you look at consultations, a handful are to do with economic development while many more are to do with the environment. How can we balance anything when we are faced with that sort of disparity?
Martin Ford (MF): I have been only too well aware of how the story centred on me in the immediate aftermath of the decision by the committee. I always tried to depersonalise it and I never mentioned the developer by name. I don't think that the Trump application has yet shown whether economic development has won over environment, simply because the final decision has not been taken. I don't agree that the balance is too much in favour of the environment, as you might expect. This is because we live in a very interesting time. If everybody consumes at the same rate as the West, then we will need three times the world's resources to survive – and it doesn't take much to realise that is unsustainable and something has got to change. So we need to take a collective responsibility on this issue and it needs to inform our decisions.
Ken Thomson (KT): This is not a simple question. This is because it is difficult to quantify things. For example, there are rates of GDP quoted, but there are different things damaging the environment. The one thing we can say is the economy is much stronger than the environment, despite the current problems. But we need to attract people in to invest for the future, as well as protecting the environment. The sort of questions we should be thinking of is how big our population should be, how many jobs do we want here, what sort of quality of life do we want?
Anne McCall (AM): It is right to say that we don't know about the effect of the Trump question because we don't know what the decision is yet. Just to put this in context, Aberdeenshire Council has dealt with 17,000 planning applications in the last few years and the RSPB has objected to just three. The reason why this application was one of those is that it would permanently damage an important Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which could not be replaced. The moving sands on the Menie Estate are very unique. The decision by the government will send a strong message to developers about what happens in Scotland. All those developers who have invested a lot of time and energy in finding a positive solution to environmental issues will be watching with interest. If the decision goes in favour of Trump, it will tell them that they have wasted their time and energy.
IF THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT GET THE GO-AHEAD, DOES IT SEND OUT A SIGNAL ABOUT SCOTLAND BEING CLOSED FOR BUSINESS?
MF: That's absolute nonsense. The decision did not say that Scotland is closed for business at all. George Sorial (Donald Trump's representative] went out of the meeting and said that after the decision was made, and the press seem to have bought that view without even questioning it. The committee's decision was made for good planning reasons. The planning system exists to ensure private individuals and groups can develop their land and make money but also is there to strike a balance and make sure that other elements, such as the environment, are properly protected. We are in danger of looking as though we are planning for some kind of banana republic, where somebody can get what they want simply because of who they are.
IF IT GETS THE GO-AHEAD, DOES IT SEND OUT A MESSAGE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT?
JM: There has to be an equitable balance in these things. With this application, we have to remember we are only talking about 10 per cent of the SSSI. It is not destroying a whole ecosystem. People are talking about this application and how it was handled all around the world, and it is not going to suggest to them that Scotland is open for business. You have to remember that this would be a championship-class course which could hold the Open, which would be a huge bonus for the North-east. For it to hold the Open, it needs to be a links course, so it needs to be next to the sea.
IN THE END, WILL THERE HAVE TO BE A COMPROMISE?
KT: Most things end in a compromise. But it is clear which side most local opinion in the North-east has been on, and that has been in favour of the development.
AJ: It has been interesting that the local media coverage has very much based on the courage and power of Donald Trump, a messianic like figure who will save the North-east from disaster. It has been a PR victory for his organisation and I don't think poor Martin Ford stood a chance against that. But my impression of this application is that it is a housing development dressed up as a golf course, and we have to ask if that really will provide the economic development we need.
AREN'T WE UNDERESTIMATING THE ABILITY OF BIRDS, AND NATURE IN GENERAL, TO ADAPT?
AM: Just to get this right, we are talking about one third of the SSSI. It is a massive part of a unique area. You can create biodiversity, as the developer has suggested, by simply putting out bird tables, but you can't replace what is lost. When we approached the developer, it became quickly apparent to us that he was not willing to compromise on this stretch of sand, which affects just nine of the holes on the course. So we commissioned a leading expert on golf-course design to come up with an alternative, which he did. That would have satisfied us, even though it would have still involved some environmental damage and we may take this to the inquiry.
ORIGINALLY THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WORTH £250 MILLION BUT SUDDENLY BECAME £1 BILLION. SHOULD WE BELIEVE ITS REAL VALUE? (Marie Boulton, (Independent councillor)
JM: You have to think about the pulling power of the development. Also you have got to think about our creaking infrastructure, which has been underinvested in. This development and others will bring planning, but you have got to get them here to get that sort of investment.
I KNOW PLENTY OF DEVELOPERS WHO ARE WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS. DOES THE PANEL THINK THIS IS THE THIN END OF THE WEDGE? (Jenny Watson, former Aberdeenshire councillor and planning convener)
AJ: I don't think this particular case is the thin end of the wedge because it is very unusual.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW MR FORD'S VIEW OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WITH THIS APPLICATION. IT WAS PASSED BY THE AREA COMMITTEE, THEN DEFEATED BY ONE VOTE ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE AND SUPPORTED BY 90 PER CENT OF THE COUNCIL (Albert Howie, Aberdeenshire councillor)
MF: There was nothing wrong with Aberdeenshire's planning process, with a committee looking at the particular planning issues involved and making a decision based on good planning reasons. It is worth noting that the decision of the council is still to refuse the application and the meeting of the full council has no weight. What has happened since by giving responsibility for major planning applications to the full council is the wrong decision. It is not the correct forum to discuss complex planning issues, it is far too political.
AS SOMEBODY WHO EMPLOYS PEOPLE AND HAS AN INTEREST IN THE AREA'S ECONOMY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK WHAT YOUR VISION IS FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS REGION'S ECONOMY WHEN OIL RUNS OUT? (John Cox, (Aberdeenshire councillor)
MF: With the decline in oil, I think we are on the verge of a new industrial revolution in renewable energy.
KT: It's a fool's game to predict what the economy will be like in ten or 20 years. It's worth looking at the draft Aberdeen City and Shire structure plan, which says the population will have to grow by 10 per cent in the next 20 years. We have to ask whether we are happy with that.
Alastair Stark (retired planning officer): I was involved in writing all the structure plans for this area except that one. I always found that when we went out to consultation it was very hard to get more than a handful of responses and most difficult to get people interested in economic development to respond. How does the panel think we can generate more interest?
JM: The government needs to put in the resources to back the recent changes in the planning system that have made it much better than it was. Local authorities need to have the resources to deliver a good system, but they are struggling to recruit people of sufficient quality and quantity.
AJ: I think we need to look at a web-based approach to get to people and communicate to them in a way that engages them and holds their interest so that we can tackle these issues before we come to controversial planning applications such as this.
• The Trump Organisation was invited to participate in the debate but declined. A spokesman said: "We believed it would undoubtedly focus on our live planning application. The place for debate of our application is at the public local inquiry."
WHAT NEXT?THERE are six more events in the ScotsmanDebates series, supported by research and consultancy company Blake Stevenson. They are:
FUTURE OF THE ISLANDS, Sgoil Lionacleit, Benbecula, 24 June, 7pm. (chair Lesley Riddoch, panel includes Mike Russell, environment minister)
THE ARTS IN SCOTLAND, Traverse Theatre, Edinburgh, 28 August, 7pm. (chair Joyce McMillan)
FUTURE OF THE MILITARY IN SCOTLAND, Victoria Halls, Helensburgh, 24 September, 7pm. (chair Ian Stewart, deputy editor of The Scotsman)
IS SCOTLAND MAKING A MESS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY? Town Hall, Jedburgh, 14 October, 7pm.
THE MEDIA SCOTLAND WANTS, Mitchell Library, Glasgow 24 Oct, 7pm
PROGRESS BEYOND POLITICS, Albert Halls, Stirling, 4 December, 7pm (chaired by Blake Stevenson)
To order tickets, go to
www.scotsman.com/debates or write to David Lee, ScotsmanDebates, The Scotsman, 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AS. State which debate(s) you wish to attend, number of tickets and give a phone number.
