Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th July 2008

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.

Sign In
Register

June start for inquiry into Trump's £1bn golf resort bid



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: 27 March 2008
By Frank Urquhart
THE planning inquiry into Donald Trump's controversial application to build a £1 billion golf resort on an unspoiled stretch of Aberdeenshire coastline will begin on 10 June.
And evidence in the inquiry could be completed as early as 4 July – American Independence Day – it emerged yesterday.

Last night, the Trump Organisation remained tight-lipped over the possibility of the billionaire property tycoon appearing a
t the Aberdeen inquiry.

An estimated 30 witnesses, both for and against the massive golf, leisure and housing development at the Menie Estate near Balmedie, are expected to give evidence at the inquiry which is scheduled to last three weeks.

Legal representatives of the Trump Organisation told the inquiry's reporter, James McCulloch, that they expected to call up to ten witnesses to give evidence on environmental issues and the economic case for the development, and one possible witness from the Trump Organisation.

But George Sorial, Mr Trump's right-hand man, said as he left the pre-inquiry hearing that no decision had been taken about Mr Trump's possible appearance.

He added: "Let's just see how things go in the next month or two.

"We are happy that the process has started and we are very much looking forward to 10 June.

"It would appear that we will have a tight, well-structured inquiry which will focus on the real issues. This should then allow for a faster decision-making process.

"We will prepare diligently for the public local inquiry, when we will be able to put forward a case that supports our application and underlines why Aberdeenshire and, indeed, Scotland cannot afford to lose this development."

Earlier, Mr McCulloch, Scotland's most senior planning appeals official, said the inquiry would focus on the main issues in dispute in the Trump development plan – the proposal to site part of the main championship golf course on sand dunes which are designated as a site of special scientific interest, the housing element of the plan, the financial case for the development and public access to the site.





The full article contains 346 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 March 2008 9:42 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Donald Trump
 
1

E300,

Tomich 27/03/2008 07:30:16
The bill for this sham ought to be sent to Martin Ford the twerp responsible for this fiasco!
2

IanW,

Ottobrunn 27/03/2008 09:26:13
E300 #1 - How is Martin Ford responsible? He was only one member of the planning board that took the decision to reject the proposal. If I remember correctly the board was equally split and he, as chairman, used his casting vote to decide on the proposal.

Don't make him a scapegoat for a flawed proposal. If the golf course and housing complex was so well thought out then the planning would have been almost a formality. Clearly since the board was split this was not the case. Martin Ford did his job and that's that.

You may try and accuse him of having a green bias, and perhaps that is true. However don't forget the people of Aberdeen appointed him and the other councillors appointed him to the planning board and then as chairman of the same. Who is then to blame for this 'fiasco' as you put it. I would argue that it is not Martin Ford's fault.

3

Nomada,

27/03/2008 10:33:47
#1 E300. The recent report (13 March) by the Scottish Parliament Local Government and Communities Committee, para 139, states:

'The Committee accepts the evidence that the decision making process of Aberdeenshire Council was appropriate and valid, and that the decision of the Infrastructure Sub Committee, albeit highly controversial, was both competent and represented the decision of the Council under its then Scheme of Delegation'. That conclusion was based on a statement by the Chief Executive of Aberdeenshire Council, who gave evidence that the decision 'was fully in accordance with the Council’s Standing Order 17(d)'.

In other words, you might not like it, but there was nothing inappropriate about the decision or the behaviour of Martin Ford.
4

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 27/03/2008 11:37:47
Technically and legally, the procedures of Aberdeenshire Council may have been followed to the letter, but after the prejudiced vote by Martin Ford, to thwart the Trump project, the Council was very quick in changing its procedures to ensure that a divided Infrastructure Services Committee could not again take a decision that ran counter to the wishes of the full council and against the overwhelming expression of public opinion.

Councillor Ford was at that time removed by his fellow councillors from chairmanship of the ISC and replaced by another Libdem councillor.

Because of the controversiality of the project, Ford should have refrained from exercising his casting vote and remitted the matter to the full council to decide. But he had his own agenda, and still considers he did nothing wrong. The electors in East Garioch will pass their judgement on him in a few years time. I know already what that is likely to be.
5

Nomada,

27/03/2008 12:44:19
#4 Huntly Loon - That is a very long-winded way of telling us you did not like a decision that was reached by a process (in your own words) 'technically and legally ... followed to the letter'. Welcome to the real world of democratic politics.
6

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 21:23:44
Nomada

Actually Nomada, the decision that was reached (by Martin Ford,) did not follow normal custom and practice. As Chairman, his second, or casting vote should have been used to accept the status quo, which at the time was 'defer for further negotiation'. He chose not to do so and as a result has since been removed from the ISC.

The paragraph you quote from the Fishing Expedition Committee Report fails to take account of the changes Aberdeenshire Council made to decisions on future planning applications of regional or national importance, where the full council will now sit to decide on the outcome. These changes were made primarily because the elected representatives of the Council felt that the existing process failed to take account of all of the factors of the aforesaid application.
7

overton,

Balmedie 28/03/2008 06:32:53
It is interesting to note that the meeting was attended by Martin Ford and two other Lib Dem Councillors all who voted against the Trump Proposal as part of the ISC and who now have advised that they will be attending the Inquiry as objectors.

Debra Storr, who did not attend the meeting because she was walking her dog, will also be attending the Inquiry as an objector.

The question that I would ask is are these Lib Dem Councillors objecting with the full support of the Scottish Lib Dem Party or are they representing either of the following:

1. Themselves
2. The electors of Aberdeenshire
3. 'Sustainable Aberdeenshire'
4. Aberdeenshire Council?
5. RSPB
6. Ramblers Association
7. Dynamic Dune Association of England

The Scottish Lib Dem Party surely can't be presenting objections to this development but if they are the electors of Scotland need to know.

If it is not the case that the Scottish Lib Dem Party is presenting these councillors as objectors then surely they can be representing no one but themselves?

What is the position of Aberdeenshire Council with regard to this mavrick behaviour on the part of its employees?

8

Nomada,

28/03/2008 07:52:14
# 6 - You are wrong again. Clearly you think you know better than the CE of the council who wrote of the conventions of the casting vote in his evidence (para. 75 of the report):

'There is no such convention. It is interesting to speculate on that because some organisations hold that the convention in use of a casting vote is to vote for the status quo. However, that raises all sorts of questions about what the status quo would have been. Would it have been the Formartine area committee's decision? Would it have been to allow no development, because that is what is currently on the site? Sometimes it has been assumed that the officials' recommendation might be the one that would be approved. Even if there was a convention, it would be quite difficult to have applied it in this context without there being some element of controversy or review. There is no such convention.'

Seems clear enough to me!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


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.