Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 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.

Trump 'demanded surrender' says his former nemesis Ford



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: 26 June 2008
THE man who vetoed Donald Trump's plans for a £1 billion golf resort yesterday accused the tycoon of "demanding the surrender of the planning system".
Giving evidence at a public inquiry into the scheme, Councillor Martin Ford said Mr Trump had "behaved in a very unusual way towards the council" when lodging his application and that he had not been prepared to compromise.

During a heated exchan
ge, Mr Trump's legal team branded Mr Ford's comments "outrageous" and sought assurances that he would play no further part in deciding the application.

Mr Trump wants to build two championship golf courses, a five-star hotel and hundreds of houses at the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire. The application was rejected last year by Aberdeenshire Council's infrastructure services committee, when Mr Ford, the chairman, used his casting vote.

It was then called in by the Scottish Government, given the scale of the proposals.

Much of the opposition to the plan has centred on the fact part of a golf course would be built on sensitive sand dunes – a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Yesterday, Mr Ford – who was later sacked as chairman of the committee –

said the principle of a golf resort had been welcomed by the committee. But he insisted "the reason advanced for going against environmental and housing policies – economic benefit – was not seen as being sufficient to justify the extremely damaging consequences of granting the application".

Mr Ford said he stood by his decision, as it would "show the council was serious about wanting changes" from the applicant. But he added that "the applicant made it clear that compromises would not be entertained". He said: "The applicant behaved in a very unusual way towards the council and effectively demanded the surrender of the planning system."

Colin Boyd, QC, representing the Trump Organisation, told Mr Ford: "They were entitled to have a decision from you; they got it, and, though they did not like it, they accepted it. That is very far from your suggestion that they demanded the surrender of the planning system.

"That is an outrageous statement … to make."

Meanwhile, Dave Morris, the director of Ramblers Scotland, told the inquiry Mr Trump seemed to have "little knowledge" of Scotland's new right-to-roam legislation. "He appeared to believe that he could establish a gated housing and leisure development with security personnel to keep the public out," he said.

Mr Morris accused Mr Trump of seeking more privacy than the Queen, saying: "Right to roam applies to most of Scotland's land and water, including the Queen's Balmoral Estate and Mohamed al-Fayed's Balnagowan Estate. If these landowners are comfortable with right to roam, then Donald Trump has no business seeking greater privacy on his land."

The inquiry later heard claims that more than 150 helicopter flights a day could be made between Aberdeen Airport and Menie if the resort is built.





The full article contains 490 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 June 2008 10:55 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Donald Trump
 
1

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeenshire 26/06/2008 00:14:14
Come on Hootsman, you can do better than this!

A re-run of "Trump Enquiry: Tycoon wanted planners to surrender" ??

Apart from a couple of paragraphs at the bottom, it's just the same.
2

Blue Tooner,

Aberdeenshire 26/06/2008 00:37:10
#1 Andrew, maybe you would prefer the Evening Express Monday headline "Bond Signs Trump Deal." No spin there old boy! Maybe someone should remind the EE that James Bond is a fictitious character and Sir Sean is actually an actor. So the deal for Sir Sean to strike the first ball on the new Trump course at Menie has already been done, and, if the cover photo is anything to go by, Alex Salmond looks pretty chuffed about that. They could have at least done the gentlemanly thing and waited till the inquiry was over.
3

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeenshire 26/06/2008 01:13:33
Blue Tooner

I don't read the EE in case I'm subject to propaganda that will cause me to say something I didn't mean.

However, I often go back to the P&J for some sanity.

At the moment, the Herald and Hootsman tend to regurgitate or polarize the Trump stories. Kind of what the tabloids used to do. The tabloids themselves seem to have moved onto Soap, Sex & Celebrities.

In terms of Sean and Alex, I didn't think the publicity shoot was appropriate in the middle of the PLI. Sean was a great actor in his day, but he has acquired the American cringe factor, summed up by his lack of knowledge of the Trump development and his pronunciation of the dunes ('the doones') Still, he is a legend.
4

Beth Boyle,

NY 26/06/2008 05:01:27
Ford has backbone! I think he is the only one in this who showed any honour at all.
5

Jimmy Neep,

mintla 26/06/2008 06:58:53
Good to see that the Scotsman regards Ford as a "former nemesis"
6

Alan B,

26/06/2008 09:57:26
#4 Beth

"Ford has backbone! I think he is the only one in this who showed any honour at all."

How can u say that?

He vetoed a development wanted by:

1)the population living in the area
2)all the big parties at holyrood
3)the council at large

He has come accross as a self absorbed idiot that put his own personal views above the prevailing view of all the major players.

(I do not live in areas so do not take a view whether this is a good development or not.)

7

11+failed,

the pans 26/06/2008 10:05:00
2
"They could have at least done the gentlemanly thing and waited till the inquiry was over"
No need to bother pretending, the whole expensive exercise is designed to be seen to democratically reverse the posturing Ford's puerile, perverse decision. Such is the price we pay for democracy.
8

Chris,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 10:11:16
#6 Alan B: Ford used his casting vote... so that means that the committee were tied. How, then, can Ford be solely to blame? Either way, if the committee had passed the application then they would have been in breach of the SSSI regulations.
The other point in the article which puzzles me is Colin Boyd's assertion that ""They were entitled to have a decision from you; they got it, and, though they did not like it, they accepted it." If they had accepted the committee's decision, then we wouldn't be where we are now, with this inquiry. So I agree "That is an outrageous statement … to make." - by Colin Boyd, QC.
9

Myosotis,

26/06/2008 10:31:42
Alan B 6:

We do not know if the development was wanted by the population living in the area.

It was wanted by the two main local newspapers who so slanted their reporting that the opposition case was distorted. Then the papers made very vigorous campaigns for acceptance, tried to take polls and soon withdrew them when the results did not fit their case.

But such a major development has implications to the whole of Scotland, and a much wider check on public opinion should be made than merely east Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen city.
10

Logie Almond,

26/06/2008 10:36:57
They were bought and sold for Yankee gold
Such a parcel of rogues in an nation.
(Or SNP administration).
11

E300,

26/06/2008 10:51:54
#8
"If they had accepted the committee's decision, then we wouldn't be where we are now, with this inquiry"
Of course they accepted the decision, had they not they would have appealed.
Poseur Ford's decision was so unreasonable that Trump and his advisers correctly divined that Ford's decision was so perverse that he would probably be discredited and his decision overturned. We are half way there, Ford has been fired, rejected by his party and likely to lose his council seat. As suggested by #7 11+failed above, we are now going through the expensive proceedings of rubber stamping Trump's scheme in conformity with our democratic process.
12

Jock Wilson,

26/06/2008 10:54:37
9,

"But such a major development has implications to the whole of Scotland, and a much wider check on public opinion should be made than merely east Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen city."

Precisely our point all along but at least we have been consistent in upholding it.

This indeed is a major development and was too important for a small committee of councillors. Hence the decision of the entire council to try to overturn the decision and, following that, the decision taken by the Scottish Government to call in the proposal.

You wax and wane on local democracy depending on the point you wish to make.
13

Neil,

Glasgow 26/06/2008 11:09:19
I think calling Ford, Trump's nemesis is somewhat overstating it. An irritating parasite perhaps.
14

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 11:30:20
It makes me sick that a development which could bring jobs and prosperity to an area that needs them should be stymied by pompous idiots for the sake of some stupid lichens.
15

Myosotis,

26/06/2008 11:38:11
14:

Do you really believe that an area with an unemployment rate of 1% needs jobs more than places with more than 5% unemployment?

That line of argument would move Trump`s course to Ayrshire, which is on his reserve list.
16

Myosotis,

26/06/2008 11:44:39
12, Jock,

As you know well, the Council could not overturn its Infrastructure Committee decision, but did the next best thing given the press bullying. I.e. they sacked Martin Ford.

But why did TIGLS not appeal? Has it anything to do with trying to bypass inquiries, or does it save them money? Do appealing applicants have to pay, whereas when the government calls in an application we all pay through taxes.
17

,

26/06/2008 11:58:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Alexander,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 12:26:02
15
"Do you really believe that an area with an unemployment rate of 1% needs jobs more than places with more than 5% unemployment?"
Just the sort of socialist thinking that brought a doomed to failure motor industry to Scotland.

19

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 26/06/2008 12:37:36
Plenty of personal attacks again here, as usual.

Has there been an informed local referendum on this issue?

If so, with what result? If not, why not. Can the people not speak up for themselves?
20

traprain,

26/06/2008 13:17:47
"Has there been an informed local referendum on this issue?"
They have already elected councillors/MSPs to make these decisions. Martin Ford just abused the system in line with his own warped notions. Fortunately the system is robust enough to have rejected Ford. As others have stated, democracy in action, if somewhat belatedly and costly to the tax payer.
21

John N,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 13:26:15
I do feel for Mr Ford. Seems to me that he was in the Planning Committee and given the task of exercising his own judgement, which he did, and then he gets sacked for doing it coz other folk don't like the judgement they had asked him to exercise...

...In the meantime, all the blame/attention is focused on him and the other half of the Committee who shared his view might as well never have existed...

...and its not helped by reports like this one: "The man who vetoed Donald Trump's plans for a £1 billion golf resort..." - what utter nonsense. He was nothing of the sort. He was one of a majority on the committee who voted against it. We can hardly pin the Committee's decision on him, nor describe his vote as a veto.

22

Buttress,

26/06/2008 13:44:10
Oh, the usual suspects are out making wild and whacky -and of course uninformed - statements about Martin Ford. Chairman - casting vote - votes for the status quo surely?

And you thought witch hunts were a thing of the past!



23

drew 33,

26/06/2008 14:12:59
22 Buttress
"And you thought witch hunts were a thing of the past!"

At least Martin Ford has been spared the personal insults that have been heaped on Donald Trump by that unholy alliance of anti rich, anti American, anti progress,sand dune hugging, anti anything brigade.
24

Buttress,

26/06/2008 14:18:45
No he hasn't - that's simply untrue.

But - you last comment is spot OTT and no-one is against progress - just some planning sanity. That's why there is an inquiry surely, to try to resolve nthe conflict of interests between national protection and policies and this development?

I think he would actually have been better taking this to Ayr, which is is desperate need of regeneration and work.

25

Buttress,

26/06/2008 14:21:55
The latest on the RSPB blog, which will have some here foaming at the mouth very soon I predict: :>)


http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/trumpinquiry/archive/2008/06/26/Wednesday-25th-June_3A00_-Day-9_3A00_-Things-get-a-bit-personal_2E00_.aspx

26

Buttress,

26/06/2008 14:23:42
Extract:

'The issue of democracy and the planning system seemed to be the theme for the day. Following some fairly straight forward evidence from the Ramblers and local access groups it was the turn of the group of four Councillors who are presenting their case separately from Aberdeenshire Council. All four were members of the council committee which finally rejected the application, including the Chairman - Martin Ford.

The cross examination of Mr Ford by the Trump International advocate was not pretty and not particularly pleasant. At least not for the advocate. Rather than an examination of the evidence it felt more like a personal attack on an individual who very clearly explained why he had used his casting vote to reject a planning application that was contrary to Council policy. Fortunately Mr Ford seems to be very capable of handling such situations and continued to provide robust responses despite repeated attemps by both the applicant and the Council to ask him about the procedures that were followed (in the face of several interventions from the Reporters saying this was an inappropriate and unnecessary line of questioning).

He made it clear that the the application had been rejected because of the environmental damage and because the applicant had refused to negotiate or compromise, particularly when solutions were available that would allow some development with a reduced level of environmental harm.'

27

Buttress,

26/06/2008 14:27:02
'Following our evidence session yesterday one of the local papers reports that a spokesperson for Trump International demanded that the Scottish Wildlife Trust witness should resign - apparently because he had taken a 'narrow view of the inquiry process and how democracy works'. Needless to say the individual in question has considerably more experience of both the Scottish inquiry system and the Scottish Parliament than the spokesperson in question and I can confidently predict won't be resigning any time soon.'
28

overton,

overton 26/06/2008 15:41:00
PLI NEWS

Can someone tell me why all the plumby members of the Belhelvie Community Council have resigned and why are they not now appearing at the Inquiry as objectors?
29

overton,

balmedie 26/06/2008 15:42:42
Many people may wonder why, with the majority of people in Aberdeenshire in favour of the Trump Development, we have four maverick Lib Dem councillors attending the PLI as objectors against the wishes of the Council and their party.

Apparently they have not been ejected yet from the Lib Dems because the tenuous hold that that party has up here would be seriously compromised
30

Buttress,

26/06/2008 15:45:18
How do you know the majority of people in Aberdeenshire are in favour? Has there been a referendum on the issue?
31

overton,

aberdeen 26/06/2008 15:47:01
Some people are asking why the four maverick Lib Dem councillors (Storr, Johnstone, Ross and Ford) are attending the PLI as individual objectors today instead of carrying out their duries as employees of Aberdeenshire Council by attending today's full council meeting.

Does this mean we are paying their wages for them to attend an extraordinarily expensive Inquiry that they they instigated?
32

overton,

balmedie 26/06/2008 15:50:55
The massive outcry from the public after Ford abused his position in the ISC by voting out this opportunity was instrumental in his demise.
Opinion polls indicate over 80% of people in Aberdeenshire are in favour of the development as defined by the Trump Organisation.
The sooner the four Lib Dem performers are kicked into touch the better.
33

Buttress,

26/06/2008 15:58:33
Which opinion polls, run by whom? A referendum is the only way to know.

Did people take to the streets, man the barricades?
34

Jock Wilson,

26/06/2008 16:07:33
21,

John N,

Councillor Ford is a minor functionary who is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame. He does not as you say deserve the opprobrium that has been heaped on his head but he has courted publicity ever since the issue blew up - standing for Rectorship at Aberdeen Uni: putting his name forward for the Westminster seat, and then grandstanding at the inquiry this week.

Sympathy perhaps but not too much. There are more deserving cases.
35

Buttress,

26/06/2008 16:21:20
'Grandstanding'? Have you ever been to an inquiry? Dull, tedious, viewed by few, and hardly covering anyone in glory.
36

overton,

Balmedie 26/06/2008 16:27:17
Seems plumby old Paul Johnstone made a complete and utter fool of himself at the Inquiry today because of his lack of understanding of economics and planning.

The Ladybird Book of Town and Country Planning didn't work for him this time and I doubt if it will work for him at the AWPR enquiry either.

I would have probably been better for him to have done the thing he's paid to do and that is attend today's full council meeting.
37

Buttress,

26/06/2008 16:49:00
So at last you attended?

Wow.
38

Blue Tooner,

Aberdeenshire 26/06/2008 17:49:08
#32 "Opinion polls indicate over 80% of people in Aberdeenshire are in favour of the development as defined by the Trump Organisation."
What opinion polls? When and where did they take place?

#34 Jock, totally agree with you regarding the OTT opprobrium that has been heaped on Ford's head. Also like to point out that Ford was invited by Uni students to stand for Rectorship and that speaking to the media and going for a Westminster seat is what politicians tend to do. Can't see what's wrong with that.
39

Nomada,

26/06/2008 18:16:27
What a pity you waste your time dispensing your wisdom through the Scotman website, Overton, when you know so much more than scientists, ecologists, naturalists, planners, councillors, lawyers, and so many others!

Maybe the lack of appropriate recognition is why you have such a parochial, blinkered, jaundiced view of the world.
40

Chris,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 21:09:05
#39 Nomada: Nice post, worth waiting for.
41

Myosotis,

26/06/2008 21:56:00
It`s good news that the inspectors have decided on a 2-day site visit next week. And will range in their itinerary from the far north to the far south of the application site. This including the dunes right down to the Balmedie carpark.

There`s been very little about the second golf course in what has been reported from the Inquiry. Which is probably deliberate on the part of the local press because they don`t want the public to know that they will be barred from walking north from this popular Balmedie carpark; for other papers this is an unimportant detail, even though it means almost half of the area used for walking at the Balmedie park will be unavailable.

So it could be that the inspectors` decision will be only one golf course on the dunes, most of it off the SSSI.

Which will have implications for the size of the clubhouse(s) and hotel.

And if accepted by TIGLS could keep all parties moderately happy. If they haven`t to transplant 35 hectares, and build quite so much property, they will save a few millions!
42

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeenshire 26/06/2008 23:33:38
8 Chris

As Myosotis quite rightly keeps pointing out, the first question to be brought before the committee asked the members to vote for or against the application in it's entirety. They voted 9 to 5 against.

The second vote was to consider outright rejection or 'deferring for further negotiation'. With the vote tied at 7-7, in his wisdom, Martin Ford second-guessed the developer would not negotiate and used his second (casting) vote to kill the application. (His own words were: "the application is now dead".)

As chair, the casting vote should reflect the status quo. Considering it was a live application recommended for approval by planners, had been approved by the Area Committee, and had widespread local support, as chair the status quo would have been 'defer for further negotiation.' This is the point in the development proposal where opinion on both sides became polarized, and it needn't have been if Ford had chosen the negotiation option.

The ball would have been firmly in Trump's court at that point. Instead, the spotlight was turned on Ford and the whole thing became a celebrity contest.
43

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeenshire 26/06/2008 23:52:27
41 Myosotis

Yes, it's good that a site visit is planned. It would have been extraordinary if there hadn't been a visit.

I've done a few 'site visits' myself lately, and it's interesting to note that the wide beach allows plenty of access north. That's on top of the myriad of paths that have been left intact on the design by Martin Hawtree.

It's also interesting to note that you continue to have a paranoia about the local press. Perhaps if you had read the Press and Journal lately you would have seen quite a few letters of objection to the development published on the letters page.

Lastly, your post at 41 seems to assume your line of thought will be followed by the Reporters. I trust they will consider ALL aspects of the WHOLE application and not a narrow or selective view that you have admirably demonstrated.
44

McGinty,

27/06/2008 00:17:48
Useful article http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.2367026.0.Donaldfawners_need_a_reality_check_on_Trumpton.php
45

,

27/06/2008 06:29:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

,

27/06/2008 06:36:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Buttress,

27/06/2008 09:03:07
45 46 Overton - this is just becoming so ludicrous that you are making yourself and your 'cuae' a luaghing stock. try to keep your mind out of the gutter and the tabloid press.
48

overton,

aberdeen 27/06/2008 09:40:31
What's luaghing?
49

Buttress,

27/06/2008 10:07:20
Laughing. And cause. Now that I have my eyes in gear.

Do cease this silly personal vendetta, makes you simply look ever more foolish and desperate.
50

Blue Tooner,

Aberdeenshire 27/06/2008 11:41:07
#42 (close of para 3) ". . .and it needn't have been if Ford had chosen the negotiation option."

Shouldn't that read ". . . and it needn't have been if Trump had chosen the negotiation option." ?

Trump's people had made it quite clear their plans were not negotiable. Why didn't they appeal or adjust and re-submit? Isn't that what you're supposed to do? It worked for Jack.
51

Buttress,

27/06/2008 13:55:03
Overton - did you actually attend the inquiry in person at last then?
52

Blue Tooner,

Aberdeenshire 27/06/2008 14:52:32
#48 Is that the bset yuo can do Otervon? Patethic!
53

JR Ewing,

Aberdeen 27/06/2008 16:00:25
51
Buttress

Have you ever considered that people actually have to work for a living.

It would be fine if we were all employed by the public sector who seem to have no problem permitting people paid for by the local taxpayer to attend this enquiry every day. I would assume they are using their leave allocation.

Maybe contact with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is required to establish if the the City and Shire Councils are paying these people whilst they are not at their posts
54

Buttress,

27/06/2008 16:13:40
So you consider that they are absent without leave, do you, and their employers haven't noticed?
55

Buttress,

27/06/2008 16:15:24
However - 'having to work for a living' - Overton has told us on a daily basis some sort of version of what he alleges goes on at the inquiry. It would be useful to know where he gets his information. Is it first hand, second hand, or out of the ether?
56

Blue Tooner,

Aberdeenshire 27/06/2008 17:25:42

George Sorial (Trump's man in Aberdeen) said at the inquiry today "This will be a particularly beautiful, serene and quiet place."

Yeah, if you ignore all the helicopter take-off and landing noise!
57

Buttress,

27/06/2008 18:12:01
44 The Herald article is indeed interesting.
58

overton,

balmedie 28/06/2008 21:40:31
52

waa dan kat a urn nda cukf ta sleury

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.