[JLahrman]

This thread is really making me excited that it's a presidential election year here in the US.

[Jon Wiggett]

When the Aberdeenshire Council Infrastructure Committee came back with their initial rejection it was merely a negotiation attempt to keep the course away from the dunes. Trump played hardball and they blinked first.

Chris,

Your assessment of the initial refusing is probably correct. However, Aberdeen Council did not blink as you put it but rather it was relieved of its decision making powers by the Scottish Executive.

It was interesting that representatives of Trumps company were in the Scottish Executive's Office during supposed confidential discussions between Aberdeen Council and the Scottish Executive without the knowledge of the Aberdeen Council representative's knowledge. The Scottish Executive were not able to explain what Trump's people were doing there.

Like I said, I have nothing against this project and would like to be really behind it. Unfortunately there have been too many things that do not add up and the whole manner of the Trump approach in dealing with many of the affected people has been poor for me to get as excited as say with Castle Stuart.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Sean,


It's very clear from reading the reports that both the local and National governments were going to allow the development to occur. The only real contention was whether several of the holes on the back nine were going to encroach on the protected areas. When the Aberdeenshire Council Infrastructure Committee came back with their initial rejection it was merely a negotiation attempt to keep the course away from the dunes. Trump played hardball and they blinked first.

Chris

No, it isn't at all clear.  In fact, you are mistaken.  Aberdeenshire Council refused the application and that is final at county level unless Trump wanted to appeal.  If not, Trump would have had to re-submit an altered application - probably more scaled down and not in the Menie dunes if this matter was to stay at county level.  This is a normal process of negotiation and it happens with all local planning authorities.  Instead, to keep the then current application alive the government had to call it in and had to do so before the notice was posted.  

This is why I said the entire process was a mess.  The government thought they were gonna keep their hands clean with the environmentalist and claim approval was decided locally and rightfully so.  Instead, AC did the correct thing by following their own development plan by voting this application down.  If you (and everybody else who thinks the Council made a mistake) knew the particulars of their plan and then throw in the SSSI protection, its the only conclusion that was sensible to remain within guidelines and to stymie any appeal on the grounds that the decision didn't agree with the development plan.  Its not the wild west.  There are guidelines in place based on planning guidance from the government, local consultation and the need to develop sensibly.  This plan is updated periodically to meet changing needs and attitudes. 

If the government wanted this application approved they should have called it in years ago and be done with it. 

Ciao

[Chris DeNigris]

Sean,

Actually I'm not mistaken. I don't wish to argue with you but if you click on the link to the Report to the Scottish Minister I provided in an earlier post and go to the Preamble Para 2, you'll find the actual facts. For this particular case. Unless of course, you think that report is somehow ficticious.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Actually I'm not mistaken. I don't wish to argue with you but if you click on the link to the Report to the Scottish Minister I provided in an earlier post and go to the Preamble Para 2, you'll find the actual facts. For this particular case. Unless of course, you think that report is somehow ficticious.

Chris

Yes, exactly.  Read the preamble.  It clearly states outline planning was granted.  That is not final approval.  All sorts of further information and conditions can be placed on granted outline planning.  Trumps outline approval did have many conditions attached.  As I wrote earlier, this isn't the wild west.  There are procedures to be followed.  And to be clear, the Infrastructure Comm was not found to do anything against planning regulation.  Their decision was made properly and following the development plan.

Ciao

[Chris DeNigris]

Sean,

Thanks for helping to clarify. It seems that the perception by many here is that the Big National Government swooped in and unjustly took control of the process with the complete disregard of the local government's position. That, clearly isn't the case. As the report states, the Formartine Area Committee (part of the Aberdeenshire Council) had already voted in favor of the proposed development when the Infrastructure Committee (also part of the Aberdeenshire Council) came in against it. At that point the planning application was "called in" by the Scottish Ministers for their review and subsequent ruling. A week later the full Aberdeenshire Council voted to accept the planning and reaffirmed their acceptance 4 months later. The Aberdeen City Council had already indicated their approval of the development plan.

All facets of local government, with the exception of one seemingly rogue committee, were in favor of the development project as originally submitted by Trump. The only opposition seems to have come from the Environmental groups and some of the local folks that lived close to the development site.

The Scottish Minister's ultimate approval seems to completely support the will of both local government and the vast majority of the local population.

[Sean_A]

Chris


1. The Infrastructure Comm have final say on planning applications in Aberdeenshire.  This is a delegated power.  The Council appointed the members of the"rogue"  Comm.  Once again, this "rogue" Comm was found to be acting properly.  

2. No other local Comm/body has the power to make the planning decision.  So yes, the government did overturn a county council decision - that is a matter of fact.  Other bodies can make recommendations, but it is the job of the Infrastructure Comm to sift through the recos to determine which are relevant to planning regulation and the development plan.  A recommendation on its own is meaningless in planning regulation.  Where it matters is in politics.  If enough people shout, many politicians "change" their minds because they want to keep their jobs. This is in essence, planning policy by polls.  I can't think of a worst way to make a decision when there are clear guidelines in place to help make decision-making a reasoned, clear case.  BTW - it would great if the polls were made public and how they were conducted open to scrutiny.  I highly suspect Trump was behind some of the polls quoted.  I would also like to know who conducted the polls, who paid for the polls, what methods were employed, who was polled, what questions were asked. I am highly dubious of polls because we all know they can be skewed to come out with a desired result.   

3. The entire process was led by Trump and he played the game in the media.  He played a brilliant hand after the application was turned down by saying he wouldn't appeal (meaning he was done negotiating with people willing to enforce environmental and development plan guidelines).  Throwing in the N Ireland deal was the icing the cake.  Salmond bit and the rest was never in doubt.   I doubt there is another guy on the planet who could have won approval without using the strategy Trump did.  Why, because on guidelines, this application had little merit.  Trump did what he had to do and Salmond fell for it from the start.  The problem is, the government has put its faith in a businessman rather than established policy.  We shall see how that works out.  Ironically, all the messing about with the planning process probably saved Trump a ton of money.  He should be thanking the Infrastructure Comm - tee hee.

Ciao

[Niall C]

... Basically it comes down the cost of something and the value of something. What they have destroyed is priceless IMO.

Niall

Could you explain to this relatively ignorant lay person, what is the difference between the dunes where Trumps development sits, and the land at Dornoch, Ballybunion, St Andrews, St Enodoc, etc?

Honest question, thanks in advance for the answer.

-----

To me, the questions that arise from developments such as this are among the most difficult around. The single most important philosophical principle involved, imho, is equality before the law. I don't like seeing anyone treated differently. It's analogous to the Rules of Golf, again imho - like situations require like rulings, or whatever the pithy phrase is. I believe as long as the situation is treated equitably, the proper answer is granted. Trump shouldn't be treated better because he's a billionaire foreigner, nor should he be treated worse because he's a billionaire foreigner. In fact, the fact that it's Trump should have no real bearing on the outcome.

And I realize that's pretty much impossible in today's world. That's how far off course we are...

George

Those classic courses you refer to were laid out on "fairly" stable ground in comparison to Balmedie. Basically the fine turf was already there. I'm saying that based on how the game started and how early courses were simply laid out. At Balmedie you had tracts of sand, with little or no vegetation that shifted about, hence the name. Adam's post sums it up pretty well.

Its interesting that Chris professes love of playing amongst dunes and refers to playing among the dunes at Cruden Bay. Pretty well most of Cruden Bay is laid out behind the dunes and on the flatter links land. Its a shame Trump didn't agree to do the same at Balmedie.

I agree with your comments re Trump, whether he has $1 or $1 billion should have no bearing and in a sense I don't think it did. His application was so out the box in terms of the local plan, both for the housing as well as the development of SSSI land that it should have been a fairly straight slam dunk refusal. I fairly certain no other UK developer would have tried for it, certainly not the way he did. The fact he got it I think is down to going for broke in demanding all or nothing and backing it up with a full on PR campaign, using his celebrity and tapping into politics at every level.

The fact that Salmond swallowed hook line and sinker doesn't bode well for an independant Scotland with Salmond as First Minister.

Niall 

[Brian_Ewen]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-scotland-s-shame-on-the-big-screen-1-2156759

Brian Wilson:Scotland’s shame on the big screen
Published on Wednesday 7 March 2012
A film about Donald Trump’s Scots golf resort is winning awards, yet it has barely been seen here, writes Brian Wilson

I had the unusual pleasure the other night of watching a multi-award-winning Scottish film and then joining a panel to discuss it. For good measure, the director was beamed in from San Francisco, where he was collecting yet another gong.

The words “multi-award-winning Scottish film” are found in conjunction so seldom that you might expect everyone to know about it when one comes along. Not so, for the film in question is called You’ve Been Trumped, and its Scottish outlets to date have been minuscule. That seems a shame.

From Bucharest to Brisbane and Denver to St Louis, festival juries have been lavishing it with awards: 15 at the last count and rising. They are well deserved. Yet the prophet has no honour in his own land. You might almost think Scotland is protecting itself from a guilty feeling – and you might be right.

You’ve Been Trumped has been on the road for more than a year now, trundling round the village halls and arts centres of Scotland, while winning acclaim abroad. But its significance relates to the present and future as well as to past events. Will Scotland ever learn that genuflecting to vulgar wealth demeans us – and rarely delivers what it promises?

The inspiration for You’ve Been Trumped was simple. Its director, Anthony Baxter, has family connections with Brechin. When he heard the residents of Menie Estate being grossly maligned by Donald Trump and his henchmen, his instincts told him that this was far from being the full story. So he went and talked to these people.

You’ve Been Trumped should make a lot of people feel guilty, and not just the obvious ones such as the Scottish Government and Grampian Police. It might cause the Scottish media to take a critical look at itself. And frankly it made me feel a little shabby, merely as a Scottish citizen who has been vaguely aware of what was going on at Menie without taking enough interest.

I now know it is an absolute disgrace that Trump has been allowed to get away with what he has. Forget his solitary golf course for the moment. I am referring to the dreadful way in which the people who got in his way on Menie Estate were spoken of and hounded by him; in particular Michael Forbes, who became the symbol of resistance to Trump’s ambitions.

Repeatedly, Trump used phrases such as “pigs living in a slum” to describe his adversaries. These were faithfully reported and a picture established. Many who had no empathy with Trump bought into the caricature that he set out to establish by means of brutal repetition; a trick from the beginner’s book of PR alchemy. And we failed to defend the people who were the victims of that attack.

Until, that is, Anthony Baxter came along. He found that one of Michael Forbes’s neighbours, whose home was under threat of compulsory purchase and who had been regularly pilloried by Trump, had never been spoken to by a single journalist. And, of course, once she and the other beleaguered residents of Menie Estate spoke for themselves, an entirely different picture emerged.
They were decent people with deep roots in the place – none more so than Michael Forbes – and they had most certainly not chosen this fight. Yet most of Scotland looked the other way while they were traduced and harassed in the most appalling manner because they tried to resist what was being visited upon them. And the PR guff which flowed from the Trump camp was swallowed whole.

Yet where has that led us to today? The dunes that were until three years ago protected by the highest level of environmental designation in Europe have been vandalised to an extent that I am sure would astonish 99 per cent of any audience that saw this film. Hundreds of trees were removed like matchsticks. Huge artificial mounds were built in front of people’s houses. And for what?
The development is stuck at one golf course. The luxury hotel has disappeared into cloud cuckoo land, and the 1,500 houses might or might not ever happen. And now Trump is using the proposed presence of his development to block proposals for the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre – the official designation of this trial wind turbine scheme – that have been around in the North-east for a lot longer than he has.

There is a clip in the film from the early days of his arrival at Menie where he observes: “When I look out on the 18th hole of Trump International Golf Links, to be honest with you, I want to see the ocean. I don’t want to see windmills.” So he was aware of the proposal from the outset, yet went ahead on that basis. That, frankly, is his problem – not Scotland’s.

Already, it seems, the marine consultation process has been extended to accommodate his tantrums. But last week, a report by the Department of Energy and Climate Change put the matter in perspective. The deployment centre will give Aberdeen the lead in a £4 billion industry. The argument in favour of it, long pre-dating either Trump or the current Scottish Government’s rhetoric about renewables, has always been that this was the key to linking offshore renewables to North Sea experience.

Surely there is nobody craven enough to put that prize at risk in order to appease a man whose own promises of jobs and investment are now in urgent need of re-examination. Of course, when he was bulldozing the Scottish planning system with the same efficiency subsequently applied to the Menie site of special scientific interest and the rights of residents, nobody in awe-struck St Andrew’s House was interested in questioning his figures. Maybe they should now.

There are many scenes in You’ve Been Trumped which stick in the memory and the gullet. There are the unctuous images of Robert Gordon University giving him an honorary degree, which leads former principal Dr David Kennedy to hand his back in disgust.

But, worst of all, there is the shocking behaviour of Grampian Police officers who were summoned by one of Trump’s men after Anthony Baxter protested about Michael Forbes’s water supply having been cut off for a week. The film shows one cop making an unprovoked lunge at Baxter before arresting him and his producer on the most spurious of charges. It took 18 months to get a half-hearted apology from Grampian Police and no action has ever been taken against the officer whose act of physical aggression now features at film festivals around the world.

If you don’t believe that these things happen here, then insist on seeing the movie. And if you live in hope that Scotland has learned anything from an experience which has, I believe, already truly humiliated us, then pay close attention to what happens next. Even Trump’s facilitators in Edinburgh – Alex Salmond and his administration – may eventually agree that this is one blowhard and one golf course that Scotland could have done well without.

[Tim Pitner]

Showing tonight at 7 in DC as part of the Environmental Film Festival.

[Niall C]

Very interesting article by Brian Wilson. While I agree with an awful lot of what he says it should be pointed out that he is having a pop at Salmond and the SNP as well as Trump, and unless I am mistaken, this is the same Brian Wilson who used to be a prominent Labour politician. Some may recall that before Salmond, there was Labours Jack McConnell as First Minister, and he did as much kissing of Trumps backside as Wee Eck.

Niall

[David_Tepper]

Michael Bamberger's very interesting take on the film and the Donald:

http://rss.golf.com/tour-and-news/donald-trump-more-complicated-bully-portrayed-new-documentary

[Brian_Ewen]

Richard,

will it playing in Aberdeen or Inverness?

Jon

Dear Friend,
Coinciding with Donald Trump’s invitation-only opening of his golf course in Aberdeenshire next week, the award-winning documentary You’ve Been Trumped goes on national release this month beginning 6th July.

You've Been Trumped is a blistering big-screen account of the destruction of one of Britain's last remaining wilderness areas.

The film is playing in all major Scottish centres, in London, and in selected other theatres across the UK.

St Andrews - Inverness - Stirling - Leeds - London - Edinburgh - Glasgow - Aberdeen - Dundee

Here is a link to a complete list of screenings.
http://www.youvebeentrumped.com/youvebeentrumped.com/UPCOMING_SCREENINGS.html

And the film will open in New York, not far from Trump Tower, on August 3, and in Beverley Hills on September 28.

Also showing in Aberfeldy, Brentford, Brighton, Brixton, Brodick, Fort William, Hackney, Lerwick, Lochgilphead, Tobermory, Torrington and Warwick

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thanks Brian, it's in the Dairy for the 15th and the good news is the Picurehouse is walkable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Bamberger's very interesting take on the film and the Donald:

http://rss.golf.com/tour-and-news/donald-trump-more-complicated-bully-portrayed-new-documentary

David,

Thanks for the link.

As Michael Bamberger stated, the film is not a "balanced" piece.

Likewise it doesn't appear that Brian's views are balanced.

What I found interesting is that Brian had no objections to all the names Trump has been called, nor to those calling Trump those names.

Brian clearly has an agenda..... And that's OK, but let's not promote the film as anything other than a political piece.

I would hope that the golf course will be extremely well received, getting accolades from even the harshest of critics, and that the entire project will proceed as originally planned.

A successful project with a world class golf course would appear to be in almost everyone's best interest.

[Brian_Ewen]

Just waded through 9 pages to see what views I have being accused of now.

And never found one !

Mr Mucci, at least you are consistent on this site, of posting about stuff you have not a fucking clue aboot !

[Jud_T]

Attending the Aberdeen showing after a few pints would be fairly entertaining...

[Niall C]

Patrick

I don't know which Brian you are referring to, whether it was Brian Ewen who posted or Brian Wilson who's article Brian Ewen posted. From what I can see neither have resorted to name calling with regards to Trump. Brian W's piece dealt with how Trump has used that device as part of a PR campaign to get his way and while Wilson's piece might be politically motivated, doesn't mean that what he's saying isn't correct.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just waded through 9 pages to see what views I have being accused of now.

And never found one !

Mr Mucci, at least you are consistent on this site, of posting about stuff you have not a fucking clue aboot !

Brian, I have more than a clue.  You have an agenda/bias.

You revile Trump for calling others names, but remain silent when others call Trump names.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

I don't know which Brian you are referring to, whether it was Brian Ewen who posted or Brian Wilson who's article Brian Ewen posted. From what I can see neither have resorted to name calling with regards to Trump.


I didn't say that they called Trump names, I said that they criticized Trump for calling others names but never criticized others who called Trump names.  Hardly seems like equal treatment.  I get their intent to portray everything about Trump as bad, and everything about those opposed to Trump and the project as good.

Brian W's piece dealt with how Trump has used that device as part of a PR campaign to get his way and while Wilson's piece might be politically motivated, doesn't mean that what he's saying isn't correct.

It also doesn't mean that what he's saying is correct.

When an independent reviewer states that it's not a balanced piece, it indicates it's a biased piece and based on the writer's/producer's particular perspective.  When that happens, it's not unusual to see additional facts and reasoning that contradict the writer's/producer's perspective omitted from the piece.

Biased presentations rarely include valid counter arguments, facts and/or reasoning, and as such,  their ability to present an OBJECTIVE, intellectually honest presentation is compromised.  Don't we see this in nearly every political ad ?
Two extremes, one good, the other, bad.
Where's the objectivity ?

[Sean_A]

Just waded through 9 pages to see what views I have being accused of now.

And never found one !

Mr Mucci, at least you are consistent on this site, of posting about stuff you have not a fucking clue aboot !

Brian

There is a lot posting about this issue by people who don't have the faintest idea about planning practices in the UK and what the facts of this issue really mean.  Most pro Trump folks are short sighted enough to only think about golf and consequently take Trump's word for how much economic impact this development will have.  So far, Trump is miles behind his claims/projections.  Folks shouldn't be too upset at themselves, a lot of bright people were duped.  Trump didn't get to where he is today without being a great PR man.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean & Brian,

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the people who gave or provided approval weren't duped ?

[Sean_A]

Sean & Brian,

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the people who gave or provided approval weren't duped ?

Pat

Based on the evidence to date, no.  The wind farm deal is a convenient talking point to take the heat off this guy.  The government made a huge mistake in not getting some guarantees for trading away such an important piece of land.  They were lulled into talk of 6,000 jobs and a £1billion economic impact.  So far as I can see, the SSSI land was traded so rich people could play golf.  Hopefully it will pan out a bit better than this because a lot was given up for Trump's dream.           

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

So according to you, everyone, at every step along the way was...... duped.

Wouldn't that cause you to question the intelligence of every elected, appointed and career official that had a hand in the approval process ?

And if you elected these officials who were so easily duped, doesn't that speak to your stupidity, your inability to choose intelligent individuals to represent you ?

[Brian_Ewen]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jul/08/youve-been-trumped-review?newsfeed=true

You've Been Trumped – review
Jason Solomons
The Observer, Sunday 8 July 2012
Another British documentary with a sporting connection looks at the outrageous shenanigans involved in the US property tycoon Donald Trump constructing a golf course near Aberdeen, in the constituency of Scottish leader Alex Salmond, no less.

You've Been Trumped
Production year: 2011
Country: UK
Cert (UK): PG
Runtime: 115 mins
Directors: Anthony Baxter

The links will open later this month, but Anthony Baxter's film charts the ecological and political destruction wrought during its years of planning. Sentimental, angry and sad in the manner of Michael Moore's early films, it could also be a terrific feature, a John Sayles movie maybe, although it's possible no one would believe a character as odious as the villain of this piece.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()