[Sean_A]

Sean , I have yet to meet a "local" that was against it .

Brian

Perhaps you haven't met some of the local Council Members. 

The really ironic aspect of this is I bet the course itself will be a stunner.

Ciao

 

Sean
No never met any of them .

I am against it , because I am against golf being used as an excuse to build more housing .

But I am in the minority .

Brian

Rightly or wrongly, district and county local plans are devised expressly for the purpose of maintaining rational development.  When money and time is spent on producing these plans (which are often used to fight against central government development), elements of which go out for public consultation, and the government chooses to ignore them, it clearly demonstrates how the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and the result is wasted tax money.  Furthermore, there isn't much point in having paid local politicians who  adhere to the local plan (which they are obliged to do if they want to avoid expensive court proceedings) only to have higher paid politicians over rule them when it suits their political ambitions.  These sorts of decisions fly in the face of the concept of local government.  The entire ordeal is disgraceful.

What should have happened, like it does for everybody else, is the planning applicant goes back to the drawing board and figures out a solution for his plan that doesn't break the local planning regulations.  Or, he lobbies the Council for a change in the local plan.  Instead, the system was rigged for the rich guy.  As I say, its a disgrace.  

Ciao

[Brian_Ewen]

  Maybe The Donald is trying to get a British Open.

Anthony , I dont think that comp. exists ?

[Jim Nugent]

Sean, going on memory, which may not be correct, I thought a pretty big majority of locals there did approve Trump's project.  The council, I thought, was a different matter, and was going against the wishes of the people.  Am I wrong? 

[Rich Goodale]

Based on what I have seen and read down here in Fife, Jim, you are right.

[Sean_A]

Sean, going on memory, which may not be correct, I thought a pretty big majority of locals there did approve Trump's project.  The council, I thought, was a different matter, and was going against the wishes of the people.  Am I wrong? 

Jim

Unfortunately, sometimes hard decisions have to be made and they shouldn't be based on public opinion polls.  The elections already took place.  If folks disagree with the Councillors following planning regulations set up by  paid employees of the Council which have to adhere to all sorts of rigmorel, they should exercise their right to vote at the next election and/or strive to alter the local plan.  It doesn't do much good to ignore planning regulations or admonish the Planning Delegation.  The precedent this sets could lead to all sorts of problems down the road.  What has more or less happened is that a principle was sold out for £1 billion quids worth of development.  As they say, once it is established that someone is a whore, the rest is just haggling over price. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

In Scotland, unsuccessful planning applicants can always appeal the decision.  Trump was fully within his rights to do so, as was the Scottish Government in declaring the project one of "National Interest," thus putting the authority for deciding the appeal at the Ministerial level.  Roughly 1 in 50 appeals in Scotland are dealt with in that way.

You may not like the decision, but it was and is fully above board.  Check out the link below if you want to learn something about the Scottish planning process.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/decisions-appeals/Appeals


Rich

[Rich Goodale]

Those of you interested in what the course might look like, check out the link below:

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/planning/inquiry/Golf%20Masterplan%20(Hawtree%20Layout)%20-%20Document%20T2.PDF

or, even better, this one:

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/planning/inquiry/Revised%20hole%20by%20hole%20analysis%20of%20Golf%20Course%20Master%20Plan...Docuement%20T4.pdf

[Adam Clayman]

Has anyone here on GCA been to the site - is it as good as Trump has been touting for years.  I read about this 3 years ago and he was saying then that they would build the best course in the world.

I know it is just Trump being Trump, but I'm interested in someone else's opinion how good the property is.

Shane, One of our undercover operators has determined that the site is infested with every bug in Scootland.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I cannot seem to open those PDF's Rich... Anyone help me out.... Very keen to see this layout

[Rich Goodale]

Ally

Try the second one, which has the 1st one embedded in it.  Both load, but the first one is very slow.

Rich

[Sean_A]

Sean

In Scotland, unsuccessful planning applicants can always appeal the decision.  Trump was fully within his rights to do so, as was the Scottish Government in declaring the project one of "National Interest," thus putting the authority for deciding the appeal at the Ministerial level.  Roughly 1 in 50 appeals in Scotland are dealt with in that way.

You may not like the decision, but it was and is fully above board.  Check out the link below if you want to learn something about the Scottish planning process.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/decisions-appeals/Appeals


Rich

Rich

Of course Trump could appeal.  However, so far as I am aware, he didn't.  My recollection is that the government took the highly unusual step of intervening on Trump's behalf.  Of course, the government is within its rights to step in, afterall, who can stop them?  However, that doesn't mean this sort of governing is prudent or best practice.  The government was hoping to get what they wanted without being seen to step on necks.  It didn't work out that way as they ahd to do some dirty work in public. 

Additionally, there is still the sticky point of planning regulations.  It was inconceivable that a local planning authority would vote against its own policy - they would look rather foolish, no?  So far as claiming national interest, why go through the farce of local planning delegations?  The government should have stepped in immediately when the application was placed if it truly is a matter of national interest.  Its not like it was a big secret.  Stepping in at the appropriate time would have saved a lot of headaches and money for Trump.  It would have saved strife on the Council and the community.  It also would have cut to the chase about how government really operates.  This decision was always in the bag so far as the government was concerned.  

Where do you think Scottish Planning Regulations were derived?  You have essentially the same process as south of the border so there is no point in chucking the Scottish card about.

Ciao  

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

In Scotland, unsuccessful planning applicants can always appeal the decision.  Trump was fully within his rights to do so, as was the Scottish Government in declaring the project one of "National Interest," thus putting the authority for deciding the appeal at the Ministerial level.  Roughly 1 in 50 appeals in Scotland are dealt with in that way.

You may not like the decision, but it was and is fully above board.  Check out the link below if you want to learn something about the Scottish planning process.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/decisions-appeals/Appeals


Rich

Rich

Of course Trump could appeal.  However, so far as I am aware, he didn't.  

Not true, Sean, as far as I am aware.  Stop reading the Independent......

Update:  oops, looks like you were right that Trump didn't formally appeal, and the decision was made by the government to scrutinize the application themselves.  I agree it was a relatively rare action, but certianly within their right and probably justified by the fact that the Aberdeenshire Council had already voted to not only repudiate the decision of their Infrastructure Committee (which made the original decision) and oust the Chair of that Committee from his post.  As Brian and others have said, there was very weak support (local or otherwise) for the rejection of the application, and you can be assured that if this were not the case, Alex Salmond, who is probably the sharpest politician in Britain today, would have known that and not taken the action he did.

[Kalen Braley]

This whining always puzzles me..

Hundreds and hundreds of miles of coast line, completely untouched by man, wide open for anyone to go out and explore, yet everyone gets thier knickers in a twist when someone wants to put a golf course on a mile or so of it.

[Rob Rigg]

Ally

My fear is worst case - ie - a Machrihanish type setting is turned into Shadow Creek.

Hawtree is a very good architect and I hope the Donald gives him carte blanche to build a course that is worthy of the incredible setting.

Kalen

Not sure if you what whining you are talking about specifically (in the news or on this thread) - I think putting a golf course on this land is a brilliant idea. I just hope the course is not an eyesore. From the pictures it is hard to argue that this course could/should not be incredible. If the hand of man is evident in apartment buildings, cart paths, condos, etc etc. it would be sad.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Houses and apartments? The Old Course comes to mind - especially that hideous Old Course Hotel. Who ever allowed that carbuncle (to borrow a royal description) to be built?

The British Open? When Trump has bought the R&A he can call the tournament whetever he likes.

[Sean_A]

Sean

In Scotland, unsuccessful planning applicants can always appeal the decision.  Trump was fully within his rights to do so, as was the Scottish Government in declaring the project one of "National Interest," thus putting the authority for deciding the appeal at the Ministerial level.  Roughly 1 in 50 appeals in Scotland are dealt with in that way.

You may not like the decision, but it was and is fully above board.  Check out the link below if you want to learn something about the Scottish planning process.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/decisions-appeals/Appeals


Rich

Rich

Of course Trump could appeal.  However, so far as I am aware, he didn't.  

Not true, Sean, as far as I am aware.  Stop reading the Independent......

Update:  oops, looks like you were right that Trump didn't formally appeal, and the decision was made by the government to scrutinize the application themselves.  I agree it was a relatively rare action, but certianly within their right and probably justified by the fact that the Aberdeenshire Council had already voted to not only repudiate the decision of their Infrastructure Committee (which made the original decision) and oust the Chair of that Committee from his post.  As Brian and others have said, there was very weak support (local or otherwise) for the rejection of the application, and you can be assured that if this were not the case, Alex Salmond, who is probably the sharpest politician in Britain today, would have known that and not taken the action he did.

The actions of the Council after the fact of a rendered decision are meaningless.  The Council does not have the power to over-ride the Infrastructure Comm as it is akin to over-riding themselves.  Popular opinion has nothing to do with Planning which is what this case was about. 

I know the government can step in.  However, there are ways to go about this sort of thing. The government got greedy and thought they would get what they wanted without stepping on necks when they should have bit the bullet and moved in much quicker.  What they didn't count on was chap who was going to follow planning policy no matter how much money was talked about.  The Aberdeenshire Council should be ashamed of themselves for voting Martin Ford him out of the position for following planning guidelines, but I do see that something 40% abstained from this vote - which speaks loud and clear.  This action has essentially stripped similar Planning Comms of their power to make decisions based on planning regulation and I am amazed that you can't or won't understand this.

At best, the government was incompetent in this case and at has left themselves open to charges of being in the pocket of Trump.  At worst, they are in the pocket of Trump. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

If you really believe that "Popular opinion has nothing to do with Planning......" you are living in a dream world.

Cheers

Rich

[Brian_Ewen]

This whining always puzzles me..

Hundreds and hundreds of miles of coast line, completely untouched by man, wide open for anyone to go out and explore, yet everyone gets thier knickers in a twist when someone wants to put a golf course on a mile or so of it.

Kalen ,as I keep pointing out , its not about golf .


The £1bn coastal resort north of Aberdeen, which covers 2,000 acres (809 hectares), is to have two 18-hole championship courses, four blocks of 950 timeshare flats, 500 "exclusive" homes, 36 villas, a golf academy, and housing for 400 staff. There will also be a coast road, named Trump Boulevard.

Trump will be also required to build a 225-pupil primary school, shops, 98 low-cost houses and 50 starter homes (on land provided free by the council) in return for the 500-home estate, chalets and timeshares that will fund the development. [/b]


I have not burnt my kilt yet !


It is the ramshackle eyesore standing in the way of Donald Trump's great dream: a 23-acre spread of rambling farm buildings and rusting tractors sitting beside the future site of the world's greatest golf course. But despite offers as high as £450,000 from Trump for their home at Mill of Menie, and now the threat of living in a £1bn construction site, Michael Forbes and his wife Sheila are refusing to sell.

"They reckon the construction will last 10 years, but I'll never, ever sell to that loudmouth bully," Forbes said last night.

"As I said before, I would rather give my land away to travelling people than sell to Trump, if it comes to that."

Yesterday's decision by Scottish ministers to approve Trump's resort made him feel "sick", he added. Once a Scottish National party voter, he would never be one again. "I used to be proud to be a Scotsman, but I'm going to take both of my kilts out and burn them after this," he said.

Forbes, a salmon fisherman and quarryman, shot to global fame last October - echoing the film Local Hero, in which an elderly beachcomber blocks Burt Lancaster's planned refinery - after Trump branded his land "disgusting".

Trump claimed Forbes's land was in "total disrepair ... Rusty tractors, rusty oil cans - I actually asked him, 'Are you doing this on purpose to try and make it look bad, so I have to pay some more money?'"

Forbes said Trump would just have to build around him now. "His biggest mistake was having a rant about me and calling me names on the TV," he said.[/b]

[Sean_A]

Sean

If you really believe that "Popular opinion has nothing to do with Planning......" you are living in a dream world.

Cheers

Rich

Rich

You have obviously never dealt with a planning authority.  The sort of stuff they enforce which the vast majority of people could care less about (or even be against) is a long list indeed.  

Cases like Trump's come up all the time, only with much smaller numbers attached.  People don't get involved because they don't care.  Jeepers, I bet if polled, most people wouldn't care about the site Trump is about to ruin.  You see, its all about the "my back yard mentality".  Politicians won't get very far in their careers banking on popular opinion where planning is concerned.    

I would bet dimes to dollars that if this were just about building a course on the exact same spot it wouldn't have stood a chance in hell of passing.  Why - because the site was protected.  What the government did was turn this from a planning issue into a economic issue.  Hence the only reason why more than a relatively small number of people even bothered to voice an opinion.  

Ciao  

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

I was in the real estate development business for two years.  I know a bit about planning.  People do care.  A lot.  Maybe it is different in England than in Scotland or the USA.

Rich

[Craig Van Egmond]

oops.....

[Kalen Braley]

Brian,

Fair enough, not just about golf, but.....

The majority of the folks were in favor of it as indicated, with the notable exception of the council and 1 PO'd land owner.

What makes thier voice any more compelling?  Its the lunatic fringe that rants and cries and eventually gets thier way and rules made for everyone else to follow, even though the vast vast majority never agree with them.

If the majority agree upon it, then what is the problem?  Are citizens supposed to be subject to the govt?  Or should the gov't be accountable to the citizens who put them in power?

So someone goes thru the appeals process,(whether you like him or not), legally...and guess what...they're still ranting and crying.  Surprise, surpise. 

[Sam Maryland]

I put the over/under at 40 months before the first ball is in the air...

...and I'm taking the over.

SM

[SPDB]

Steve Lapper:
Who provided/is providing the equity? It seems like these days Trump is a relatively minor equity player in his projects (if he's even invested at all) and is mostly in there for the name cache (to the extent he adds that in the first place).
Not sure if the same goes for his golf properties.

[Ally Mcintosh]

This whining always puzzles me..

Hundreds and hundreds of miles of coast line, completely untouched by man, wide open for anyone to go out and explore, yet everyone gets thier knickers in a twist when someone wants to put a golf course on a mile or so of it.

But it's this particular mile that is slightly sore... As much as I'm pro-building good to great golf courses on fantastic land (obviously), I believe this particular piece of coastline needs a tender touch more than almost any other I've seen...

Apart from the SSSI aspect, Balmedie Beach provides an absolutely wonderful amenity for people enjoying many other forms of recreation in the area... I fear that the proposed development will trample all over what is one of Grampian's most prized natural possessions...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()