[Mark Chaplin]

Personally I cannot see the need for such a huge development and doubt it will be built in the manner proposed. Nearly 1500 properties? That sounds like a very (not) exclusive development, even getting a tee time could be tough in the limited peak months. With so many upmarket clubs in Scotland being developed I do not believe the market is there to sell the properties. Machrihanish had sold less than 25% of the timeshare spaces last time I looked, maybe they will be saved by the exchange rate in the short term.

Finally where is the trailer park? All world class links courses need a trailer park!

[Neil_Crafter]

....and a cemetery!

[Brian_Ewen]

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/History-shows-optimism-over-.4712289.jp

Evidence exists that Donald Trump is conscious of concerns regarding wildlife, and it is apparent all over the world that golf and wildlife can exist in harmony.

We are glad permission has been granted to create this wonderful facility. In the present economic climate, Aberdeenshire should surely be welcoming the opportunity of working with the Trump organisation.

The project is still in the planning stages and we recognise there may be issues and constraints which have to be worked through. However, the economic benefits surely must outweigh potential damage to the area and this will be the biggest boost to the region since the North Sea oil boom.

ROSEMARY PITTENDRIGH
Managing secretary, Cruden Bay Golf Club

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick M,

the fact that Mark Parnisen (Kingsbarnes & Castle Stuart) rejected this site due to the enviromental issues should be a good indication of the problems here.

I would suggest instead of berating Sean you should stop and think about what he is saying. The stupidity of some of yours views views beggars belief even by your standards. I do believe that you might have an inkling about golf and the various facets of the game. It is just a shame you refuse to use it.

[Rich Goodale]

In the Sunday (London) times, the Trumpster had a hack write a piece implying that he was looking at Northern Ireland again due to the burdens of meeting Scotland/Aberdeenshire planning requirements.  He said he was hoping to start breaking ground in the Spring, but implied that if he couldn't he'd start sniffing around Co. Antrim again.  As for me, I smell money.  The lack of it, that is.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

You are quite adept at throwing around useless quips. 

I wouldn't define them as useless.
They're usually on point.

I am not championing Pebble, Sand Pines or TOC - that is why I haven't bothered to look into the matter. 

Besides, there ain't much we can do about these places even if they do prove to have been significant and rare sites.  Furthermore, I would argue that at least TOC is a significant site now because of golf and should be protected if need be. 

Maybe they'll be saying the same thing about "The Donald's" two courses in 50 to 100 years.

If the land is outstanding and the architect does a superlative job at routing and designing, why wouldn't you be saying that ?

Shouldn't you wait until the course is playable before condemning the land use ?

[Sean_A]

You are quite adept at throwing around useless quips. 

I wouldn't define them as useless.
They're usually on point.

I am not championing Pebble, Sand Pines or TOC - that is why I haven't bothered to look into the matter. 

Besides, there ain't much we can do about these places even if they do prove to have been significant and rare sites.  Furthermore, I would argue that at least TOC is a significant site now because of golf and should be protected if need be. 

Maybe they'll be saying the same thing about "The Donald's" two courses in 50 to 100 years.

If the land is outstanding and the architect does a superlative job at routing and designing, why wouldn't you be saying that ?

Shouldn't you wait until the course is playable before condemning the land use ?

Pat

I happen to think that the course will be an absolute stunner.  My qualm isn't with the design.  My point is that the land is useful the way it is, especially considering how close it is to a decent size population centre so it can be enjoyed as an amenity by many people.  Its amazing this area has remained at all intact.  Its a shame that yet another golf course is going to destroy the area when it isn't at all necessary.  There are at least two world class courses very nearby and a few others of high standard as well - how many golf courses do we need?.  To top it all off with a huge housing/hotel complex and how the government is back tracking against its own land/environment protection policies makes it that much worse.  Whether or not folks agree, golf doesn't have a great reputation now for being environmentally friendly and cases like this don't help. 

Ciao

[Jack_Marr]

The land looks great, but how many golf courses does the world need?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I happen to think that the course will be an absolute stunner. 
My qualm isn't with the design. 

My point is that the land is useful the way it is, especially considering how close it is to a decent size population centre so it can be enjoyed as an amenity by many people. 

What's the TOTAL acreage of the two golf courses when compared with the TOTAL acreage of this dune expanse ?

If it's close to a decent sized population centre wouldn't it stand to reason that the nearby population would use the golf course and make the residential units their homes ?

Its amazing this area has remained at all intact.


Why do you say that ?
Is it because the land lends itself so well to golf, a Scottish passion ?
 
Its a shame that yet another golf course is going to destroy the area when it isn't at all necessary. 

How are two golf courses with limited acreage going to destroy the entire area ?

There are at least two world class courses very nearby and a few others of high standard as well - how many golf courses do we need?. 

I guess that's the ultimate question.
I would imagine that the answer will lie in the utilization patterns

To top it all off with a huge housing/hotel complex and how the government is back tracking against its own land/environment protection policies makes it that much worse. 

I can't fault people for wanting a home, especially one with pleasant surroundings.

The hotel may be another matter.
I've been critical of the hotel location at Spanish Bay.
I always felt that the hotel should have been in the Eastern section of the property and not in the donut hole of the property.

I believe that Mike Keiser made a good decision when he recessed the clubhouse at Bandon away from the cliffs/ocean.

Whether or not folks agree, golf doesn't have a great reputation now for being environmentally friendly and cases like this don't help. 

I'd disagree ?
Environmentally, would you prefer the land to be a golf course or a warehouse, apartment complex, single family homes, mall or a parking lot ?

I realize that you'd prefer for the land to remain in its natural state, but, progress, irrespective of how you define it, calls for expansion in order to meet the increased needs of society.

Has the introduction of the multiple golf courses at St Andrews been a bad use of the land, complete with the accompanying hotel and other structures.

Somewhere, there's a prudent balance between divergent interests.
Some side with you, others, including locals, side with "The Donald"
I don't know the "perfect" solution, but, I don't think it's automatic condemnation absent all of the facts.

As I stated earlier, if Manhattan Island were in its natural state today and someone tried to develop it, I'm sure that there would be strenuous opposition to the project and progress, but, that doesn't mean that land can't be put to good use by society, even if it means altering the land's natural state and use.

What harm has TOC done to the environment ?

What harm will these courses do to the environment ?

Time will tell

[Anthony Gray]

  Despite the negativity including from myself this will be a course that most of us on this site would want to play.

    Anthony

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

it amazes me how you can miss a point that is this big. It isn't a question of if the land can be put to good use by society. It is a unique NATURAL site and should be left so. People are not the only creatures on this world and maybe we should be thinking about other animals as we have destroyed enough of there living space already.

Will Scotland benifit from Trump's project, hell yes of course it will. Does it need to be built on the unique SSSI. NO, maybe Donald should visit Kingsbarnes to see what can be done with farmland.

[Sean_A]

I happen to think that the course will be an absolute stunner. 
My qualm isn't with the design. 

My point is that the land is useful the way it is, especially considering how close it is to a decent size population centre so it can be enjoyed as an amenity by many people. 

What's the TOTAL acreage of the two golf courses when compared with the TOTAL acreage of this dune expanse ?

If it's close to a decent sized population centre wouldn't it stand to reason that the nearby population would use the golf course and make the residential units their homes ?

Its amazing this area has remained at all intact.


Why do you say that ?
Is it because the land lends itself so well to golf, a Scottish passion ?
 
Its a shame that yet another golf course is going to destroy the area when it isn't at all necessary. 

How are two golf courses with limited acreage going to destroy the entire area ?

There are at least two world class courses very nearby and a few others of high standard as well - how many golf courses do we need?. 

I guess that's the ultimate question.
I would imagine that the answer will lie in the utilization patterns

To top it all off with a huge housing/hotel complex and how the government is back tracking against its own land/environment protection policies makes it that much worse. 

I can't fault people for wanting a home, especially one with pleasant surroundings.

The hotel may be another matter.
I've been critical of the hotel location at Spanish Bay.
I always felt that the hotel should have been in the Eastern section of the property and not in the donut hole of the property.

I believe that Mike Keiser made a good decision when he recessed the clubhouse at Bandon away from the cliffs/ocean.

Whether or not folks agree, golf doesn't have a great reputation now for being environmentally friendly and cases like this don't help. 

I'd disagree ?
Environmentally, would you prefer the land to be a golf course or a warehouse, apartment complex, single family homes, mall or a parking lot ?

I realize that you'd prefer for the land to remain in its natural state, but, progress, irrespective of how you define it, calls for expansion in order to meet the increased needs of society.

Has the introduction of the multiple golf courses at St Andrews been a bad use of the land, complete with the accompanying hotel and other structures.

Somewhere, there's a prudent balance between divergent interests.
Some side with you, others, including locals, side with "The Donald"
I don't know the "perfect" solution, but, I don't think it's automatic condemnation absent all of the facts.

As I stated earlier, if Manhattan Island were in its natural state today and someone tried to develop it, I'm sure that there would be strenuous opposition to the project and progress, but, that doesn't mean that land can't be put to good use by society, even if it means altering the land's natural state and use.

What harm has TOC done to the environment ?

What harm will these courses do to the environment ?

Time will tell

Patrick

Come on man, the choice of what happens to the Trump site is not a case of a golfing resort/housing estate or a warehouse.  You're throwing up red herrings.  The issue at hand is following through with protection schemes that have been put in place for the land in question.  Any development of the site compromises its value as a place of unusual beauty, as a type of ecosystem and possibly any natural function it may serve.  I am amazed the site has remained well preserved because it is so close to Aberdeen and easily accessed by locals and not so local folks. 

The Scottish passion is for high quality affordable courses that can be enjoyed by locals.  I don't hear many Scots pining for big resorts as a place to play golf, but I could be wrong.  What do you imagine the green fee will be for this Trump deal?  I don't know, but I bet it won't be cheap.  I will guarantee Trump isn't pinning the success of the project on Scots paying the green fee. 

I took the trouble to post the links for you to have look at what Trump proposes so I am not sure why you keep asking how much SSS1 land is to be sacrificed.  Look into the matter if you are curious.   

If its housing you are worried about, there are plenty of other places to build them.  Personally, I am not too worried where rich folks are gonna have their next house, or their 2nd or 3rd house.  Its not an issue I believe is important for the long term health of Scotland.  If its a golf course you are worried about not having, there are plenty of other places to build them.  The business has long had the capability to build something extraordinary from nothing.  If its jobs you are concerned about, well, it would be something to see a proper breakdown of the numbers.  I for one am highly skeptical of numbers thrown around by developers trying to make a case. 

I don't honestly care what harm TOC did to the environment if there was anything worth preserving in the first place.  Its all said and done and there is nothing we can do about it except ensure the Links Trust maintenance practices are environmentally friendly and sustainable.  The site, one of the few in the world imo, has value and significance as a golf course and it should be protected as such.  The Old Course is synonymous with St Andrews and long may it remain so. 

My entire point is what we do from now rather than worry about what happened in the past.  I am all for progress, but it must be sympathetic with our environment.  Part of this is to not place a price tag on sites set aide for protection.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

That place has been perserved largely because nobody found a better use for it, and civilisation rapidly peters out when you move north of Aberdeen.  The SSSI hasn't been in place very long and is based not on any particularly human or other biological reasons but rather on the geomorphology of the area (shifting dunes).  It is one of 6 similar sites in the UK (so is not really "unique" except in the trivial sense that all things are unique).  As far as I can see, the plans are sensitive to the needs of the SSI and the only people who are going to be significantly disadvantaged by the building of the course are a few graduate students in Geology.  This is what I gleaned from reading some of the government reports which I've provided links to on this thread.

I also think it is disingenuous to assume that the Northeast of Scotland doesn't need the development, when a substantial majority of the people who live there seem to believe that they do.  Aberdeen is a relatively wealthy area (for Scotland) but this is based on North Seas oil and gas whose fields are rapdily depleting.  Tourism is weak in that area (particularly golf tourism), and the Trump development, sitting as it does between Royal Aberdeen and Murcar to the South and Cruden Bay, Peterhead and Fraserburgh to the north, is ideally suited to being the catalyst for making the area am attractive destination golf resort, with hundreds of acres of dunes remaining available for the few twitchers, ramblers and even geologists, who currently use the site.

All IMHO, of course.

Rich

PS--edited courtesy of a grant from the Lloyd Cole Anti-Tyop Federation.

[Gary Slatter]

Sean

That place has been perserved largely because nobody found a better use for it, and civilisation rapidly peters out when you move north of Aberdeen.  The SSSI hasn't been in place very long and is based not on any particularly human or other biological reasons but rather on the geomorphology of the area (shifting dunes).  It is one of 6 similar sites in the UK (so is not really "unique" except in the trivial sense that all things are unique).  As far as I can see, the plans are sensitive to the needs of the SSI and the only people who are going to be significantly disadvantaged by the building of the course are a few graduate students in Geology.  This is what I gleaned from reading some of the government reports which I've provided links to on this thread.

I also think it is disingenuous to assume that the Northeast of Scotland doesn't need the development, when a substantial majority of the people who live there seem to believe that they do.  Aberdeen is a relatively wealthy area (for Scotland) but this is based on North Seas oil and gas whose fields are rapdily depleting.  Tourism is weak in that area (particularly golf tourism), and the Trump development, sitting as it does between Royal Aberdeen and Murcar to the South and Cruden Bay, Peterhead and Fraserburgh to the north, is ideally suited to being the catalyst for making the area am attractive destination golf resort, with hundreds of acres of dunes remaining available for the few twitchers, ramblers and even geologists, who currently use the site.

All IMHO, of course.

Rich

PS--edited courtesy of a grant from the Lloyd Cole Anti-Tyop Federation.

Rich, good stuff, good thread.  The area certainly needs the destination resort but in all honesty do you think it will happen in our lifetime?  I think it needed to start 2 years ago.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Rich,

Your stance on this is considered and informed. Patrick seems to be stumbling in the dark a little bit more.

I am not sure that you can say that the plans are sensitive to the SSSI however... Once those mobile dunes are stopped, then they are stopped for good. I would have thought that building should occur where the dunes have already stabilised.

All of that aside, if the whole development was sensitive to the needs and history of the area, I would be very much for it. But I am not so sure that the whole thing isn't one big white elephant. The multiple homes and apartments will be over priced and will just become second homes for the wealthy. Maybe Patrick will be in the market? Going on past history of Trump projects, nothing (other than perhaps the golf course itself because of Hawtree) will receive a subtle touch.... The golf course will however suffer from this approach, regardless of its stand alone quality...

Will it help tourism to the area?... Who will travel to Trump International?... Maybe people will... I'll be travelling to Castle Stuart instead though...

The above is all my speculation of course... I may be wrong on all counts...

[Sean_A]

Sean

That place has been perserved largely because nobody found a better use for it, and civilisation rapidly peters out when you move north of Aberdeen.  The SSSI hasn't been in place very long and is based not on any particularly human or other biological reasons but rather on the geomorphology of the area (shifting dunes).  It is one of 6 similar sites in the UK (so is not really "unique" except in the trivial sense that all things are unique).  As far as I can see, the plans are sensitive to the needs of the SSI and the only people who are going to be significantly disadvantaged by the building of the course are a few graduate students in Geology.  This is what I gleaned from reading some of the government reports which I've provided links to on this thread.

I also think it is disingenuous to assume that the Northeast of Scotland doesn't need the development, when a substantial majority of the people who live there seem to believe that they do.  Aberdeen is a relatively wealthy area (for Scotland) but this is based on North Seas oil and gas whose fields are rapdily depleting.  Tourism is weak in that area (particularly golf tourism), and the Trump development, sitting as it does between Royal Aberdeen and Murcar to the South and Cruden Bay, Peterhead and Fraserburgh to the north, is ideally suited to being the catalyst for making the area am attractive destination golf resort, with hundreds of acres of dunes remaining available for the few twitchers, ramblers and even geologists, who currently use the site.

All IMHO, of course.

Rich

PS--edited courtesy of a grant from the Lloyd Cole Anti-Tyop Federation.

Rich

The difficulty with your position is that there is no line to be drawn.  Everything is for sale given the right price - even if we don't know what the price is in terms growth.  So the debate will always be about the price rather than the value of the land purely as a place with limited human involvement that can just be enjoyed for what it is and perhaps we can learn a bit from it.  Plus, once you muck with a true dune system by stabilizing it the site is compromised.  I understand that many don't care about this sort of issue, but each year we have less and less to care about because there is less and less land of value to care about.  

From my perspective, IF a protected site is up for grabs then the payback better be huge and this is especially true of sites near population centres.  I would like to see the numbers from an independent source concerning what the local citizen is to gain by the project.  For sure, I haven't seen anything from Trump which suggests that I should move up to Aberdeen to take advantage of the great opportunities on offer.  I am afraid Trump is mainly creating low paying service industry jobs.  I also wonder how many locals will take up these jobs or if it will become a haven for foreign workers.  So much of this proposal is guesswork without independent analysis that it makes it very difficult for me to get behind it - especially when I know politicians make decisions based on election cycles and the way the government went about negotiating this deal.  I spose you could say I am not filled with confidence.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Ally

I know that you know the site much better than I do, and I do know that development in the SSSI area will stablize at least part of the "moving dune" system, at least for some time.  However, I am not convinced that retaining this particular system in a more pristine state (let's not forget that ramblers and twitchers and geologists leave their "footprints" too) for the sake of future study is of any great human value--at least in relation to the potential human benefits of the development.  I also like to look at things in an historical perspective, and having lived in and around dunesland for most of the 62 years of my life, one fact that I observe is that all dunes move, some faster than other, but none truly permanently.  Nothing in nature is permanent, as we all should know.  Just a few miles down the coast from Balmedie is Murcar Golf Links.  If you look at their website, the banner at the top fo the home page is their wonderful 7th hole ("Serpentine") at about the time it was opened in 1909.  If you search around the site ther are pictures of the hole today that show how duneland has been created near that hole over the past 99 years, and they omit the most stunning of these, the 100 foot ones which now separate the hole from the North Sea.  The lesson for me?  Whatever man does, Mother Nature will do him one better, if she wants to.

I take and understand your objections to the Trumpish elements of the development.  I, like you and most people of taste, think that the Donald has a complete lack thereof when it comes to building architecture.  IN fact I have made it a point when I took my two girls on separate trips to NYC over the past 4 year to show them the Trump Tower, as the epitome of American excess.  However, there is less compelling evidence regarding his golf courses, and I expect something very good, if not great at Balmedie.  I doubt Hawtree will agree to do anything but.  Yes, one can argue about the need for high-end housing, but as long as Aberdeen is booming, there will be a demnad.  It is also quite clear to me that one thing that Aberdeen is sorely lacking is a high end destination hotel/conference center.  Trump will solve that problem.  And then......

Gary.....

...may be right that the chances of this project actually going ahead are decreasing by the day.  Given the current economic climate I doubt that lenders/investors will be falling over themselves to get the project going, and I wonder how much of his own cash Trump is willing/able to invest.  And also, there are.......

........(the) Sean(s)

....of the world who would weigh the burden of proof favorably towards retaining the status quo, for reasons that seem to be effectively "just because."  That's a valid point of view, but I am not inclined to sign up to it.

Richard

[Ally Mcintosh]

Rich,

I absolutely agree that Aberdeen is in sore need of some top-end hotel / conference facilities and this site, which is fairly near to the airport, seems to fit that purpose... Is Aberdeen still booming though?... I'm not so sure about that... The population of Scotland has been decreasing for years now against trend and long before this current recession... I tend to agree with Sean that it would be nice to see a solid independent study that convinces me that this development would work...

In addition, I would also love to see Aberdeen become a major golfing destination... Add Trump to Balgownie, Cruden Bay, Murcar, Peterhead and Fraserburgh... along with the new Nicklaus signature course at Ury Estate and the new IMG / EGD Paul Lawrie course and the place could be on to something... In a way, I am just bitter that the best site I have ever seen for a golf course is going to be compromised by the nature of the development... Oh for Mark Parsinen or Mike Keiser!...

As for the Environmental side, Dune Systems (if they are accreting sand and not eroding) will always have a mobile dune element between the shore and the stable dunes further inland... But that part of the Dune Succession is usually far smaller and impressive than at Balmedie... The sheer expanse of the White Moving Dunes at Balmedie, taking in the vast sand domes and blowouts are what make it so unusual... They only stop moving in the sense that you are referring to when they are stabilised further inland... That is, unless you build a golf course on them. That area really is quite sensitive...

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Ally, and good points.  I am still sceptical of the value of keeping a moving dune system just so a few people can watch it move (I think you would need extremely fast forward film).  what value is there to it other than the fact that it is there?  AS a minor quibble, I do think that the population of Scotland has been growing slowly over the past 5 years or so, reversing the long term trends.  A lot of this is, I think, the influx of workers from the new parts of the EU (Poland, Lithuania, etc.).  Now if Scotland were to become independent and bring back just a little of that global disaspora, who knows what might happen!

Cheers

Rich

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thanks, Ally, and good points.  I am still sceptical of the value of keeping a moving dune system just so a few people can watch it move (I think you would need extremely fast forward film).  what value is there to it other than the fact that it is there?  AS a minor quibble, I do think that the population of Scotland has been growing slowly over the past 5 years or so, reversing the long term trends.  A lot of this is, I think, the influx of workers from the new parts of the EU (Poland, Lithuania, etc.).  Now if Scotland were to become independent and bring back just a little of that global disaspora, who knows what might happen!

Cheers

Rich

I am not an ecologist but you could argue that Mobile Dunes are home to different plant and wildlife habitats than other parts of the system... And it is not just to watch them move (even in fast forward) - It is the different characteristics that they show.... Still, I can see your point... That said, you could extend the argument to say 'What is the value in keeping anything in nature?'

As for the population trends in Scotland, I am sure you are right... I seem to be eternally out of kilter with this kind of information since I moved away... Stuck in time so to speak...

[Jon Wiggett]

Rich,

I think this is a case of the state should be protecting this site because the site is important. I am pretty well aware of the process of making something SSSI status and they only do something if it is felt of significant importance to the area it is in. The state has the responsibility to protect these sites taking the well being of the site as the top priority.

With the sort of money that Donald is going to through at this project he could take flat farming land and turn it into something outstanding.  Look at KB and CS


It would however have been wise for the council to have found another site, possibly better located for transport links that they would have supported. This way they could have said we want the project but we would prefer it to be here. Trump is an intelligent business man who would have listened to another option if he thought it would be fanincially good. The council however just said no to the project and now it is a case of who is going to win. This isn't about the site this is all about ego now.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks Jon

My opinion is that the designation of SSSI's is just as much a political process as is getting planning permission.  In politics standards and circumstances change.  At some point our elected officials have to decide between the future of a relatively rare dune structure and the future of a regional economy.  If they make a decision which you don't agree with, fight it politically, but do not assume that just because "they" designated something as of special scientific interest it is inviolable.  No matter who "they" are they are not infallible, any more than is Alec Salmond or Donald Ford.

Cheers

Rich

[Lou_Duran]

"The stupidity of some of yours views views beggars belief even by your standards. I do believe that you might have an inkling about golf and the various facets of the game. It is just a shame you refuse to use it."

Statements such as the one above are much too common on this site and revealing of the maker.  You don't agree with someone, rather than offering cogent support for one's position, just call his views stupid and, by extension, him as well.  Not an approach that changes minds, I think.

Rich Goodale is correct.  The whole process of designating properties as "environmentally sensitive" is political.  It is about judgements based less on scientific evidence than value systems.

I suppose I would be more sympathetic toward environmental activists if they at least recognized private property rights, supported compensation for the individual owner whose property was taken for the benefit of the collective, and otherwise participated in the democratic process without such rancor.  It would be nice if these people would at least entertain basic cost/benefit analysis.

While travelling in different parts of the world the connection between economic development and the quality of the environment is readily apparent.  Where economies do not generate jobs and income, the environment suffers.     




   

[Jon Wiggett]

Rich,

sorry for using the word "they" but I did not intend it to be taken as reffering to anybody in particular.

I still stand by what I said in my earlier post. A project should be judged on its values but even if it is of overiding importance to an area that doesn't, IMHO, give it the right to ride shotgun over all other considerations. If there is another site that is equally suited to this project and is less sensitive then surely it would be wiser to use it don't you think? As I said in my last post I don't think it is an issue of the land as with enough money you can do almost anything. There is a lot of know how out there.

Lou,

I normally don't put in such comments but in Patrick's case I make an exception. Its not even a serious thing really, Patrick makes some wild comment. Someone corrects him. He knows he will have to admit he is wrong and so ignores it and goes off at a tangent.

Starting a discussion about your point of view by rubbishing the other person is an old tactic used mainly when you do not believe your point of view will stand up on its own merit (you could have also made some belittling comment about the use of the word "views" twice just for alittle extra effect ).

Also if you read my posts you will find I have made my case. That you have not chosen to address it is your decision but please don't accuse me of not doing something when I have.

Although you are correct that environmental concerns are connect with economic well being it doesn't mean that in times of economic decline that environmental concerns should go out of the window. This is the point that is for me the main stubbling block. If this site was the only possibility then I would be pro project there but I don't think it is.

You know what they say Lou, "don't kick a man when he's down..."

[Sean_A]

Thanks Jon

My opinion is that the designation of SSSI's is just as much a political process as is getting planning permission.  In politics standards and circumstances change.  At some point our elected officials have to decide between the future of a relatively rare dune structure and the future of a regional economy.  If they make a decision which you don't agree with, fight it politically, but do not assume that just because "they" designated something as of special scientific interest it is inviolable.  No matter who "they" are they are not infallible, any more than is Alec Salmond or Donald Ford.

Cheers

Rich

Rich

The aspect you are forgetting about is that the land is unique.  To say the protection of land is merely a political process is a bit unreasonable because this is the system conservationists are forced to operate in - there isn't any other way.  You may as well say that the Yankees only win the World Series because they play baseball.  Its a meaningless conjecture.  The bottom line is the government should be held accountable for going back on its own protection policies and therefore either demonstrate why the land isn't worth preserving and clearly demonstrate how the public will benefit from the sale of the land.  At the very least this requires further research into the value of site and further research into Trump's claims.  From where I am sitting it is impossible to know if the government is fulfilling one of its most basic duties, to ensure it is delivering good value.  In fact, it is quite obvious the opposite is true.  I wonder how much time and money was wasted in getting the land protected in the first place, then going through the charade of letting the Council decide the outcome, then overturning their decision to carry out a sham public consultation to finally taking the decision completely without it seems any regard for the consultation process.  I tell, the Scots have definitely learned their governing techniques from London.  As is many things to do with government, the decision-making process is just as important as the decision.  This is a case study in how not to go about making governmental decisions.  Its been a debacle.

Ciao  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()