Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th 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.

Sign In
Register

Trump 'ignored own expert on golf plan'



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: 17 June 2008
By ANDREW HAMILTON
AN ECOLOGIST advising Donald Trump on his £1 billion golf resort yesterday admitted he did not believe the course should be built on environmentally sensitive land.
Dr Tom Dargie said his initial advice to avoid building on delicate sand dunes was rejected by the Trump organisation, but he decided to continue to offer his advice to the group.

Environmentalists are opposed to the course being built on protecte
d sand dunes, designated a site of special scientific interest (SSSI).

Dr Dargie, a self-employed ecologist, was speaking as a witness for the Trump organisation on the fifth day of a public inquiry into the US billionaire's proposed development.

When cross-examined by David Cockburn of Scottish Natural Heritage, Dr Dargie admitted his advice to the Trump organisation to build away from the dunes was rejected.

Mr Cockburn asked: "Mr Trump, in his evidence, asserts that he took the advice of his environmental team. Isn't this one example of him rejecting the advice?"

Dr Dargie said: "I had no communication with Mr Trump as part of this. The actual decision to ignore my advice and move the development to the dunes was already under way.

"I could walk away from the development or I could continue to offer my expertise."

Mr Cockburn asked if Dr Dargie had changed his opinion about building on the dunes.

Dr Dargie replied: "No."

Mr Cockburn said: "My recollection when Mr Trump gave his evidence was that he said you think it will be environmentally enhanced.

"He said that Dr Dargie had become a 'big fan'. Is that true?"

Dr Dargie replied: "If the development gets permission to go ahead and we are allowed to undertake mitigation, we would have habitat conditions that would be better overall than what we have at the current time."

He added that the term "big fan" was "not a phrase I recognise".

The inquiry earlier heard from Professor William Ritchie, an independent coastal geomorphologist, who said the course construction would have a negative impact.

Prof Ritchie said: "The construction of the golf course would undoubtedly reduce the dynamism which is the central issue in why the SSSI was designated."

Prof Ritchie stopped short of saying the development would lead to the destruction of the dunes.

He said: "In terms of the land form, in some way or other the dunes are still there, under the grass."

Mr Trump's proposal was rejected by an Aberdeenshire Council committee last year before being called in by the Scottish Government.

The inquiry, at the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre, is expected to last up to four weeks.





The full article contains 439 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 June 2008 12:12 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Donald Trump
 
1

,

17/06/2008 00:10:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 00:12:45
(From the previous thread)
Some interesting links/info about these 'SSSI' golf courses....

Richmond Park in London
http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/richmond_park/

Freshwater Bay Golf course situated on the Isle of Wight
http://www.freshwaterbaygolfclub.co.uk/golf_course_ecology.html

Thorpeness Golf Course in Suffolk
http://www.suffolkcoastgolf.co.uk/golf_default.aspx

The development of a Nicklaus designed golf course in the Millennium Coastal Park, South Wales will incorporate SSSI areas, and newly developed 'wetlands' into the scheme.
http://www.southerngolf.co.uk/page.aspx?name=activities

Saunton Golf Course is situated on Braunton Burrows, a sand dune system which is the largest in England and vitally important for its plants and animals. In recognition of this the Burrows, and hence Saunton Golf Course, have been designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Unesco Biosphere Reserve.
http://www.sauntongolf.co.uk/index.php
3

Blue Tooner,

Aberdeenshire 17/06/2008 00:26:43
To Aberdeenshire’s Coastal Dunes. . . .

I like the way you support an eco-system of microorganisms that sit at the foot of the food chain and make the whole thing happen.
I like the way you provide a safe haven for numerous common and less common avian species.
I like the way your behaviour provides geomorphology with the information necessary to further our knowledge of coastal erosion, tidal activity and climate change.
I like the way you act as a barometer of CO2 release effects on plant and food crop growth.
I like the way you shine and shimmer on a haar free summer daybreak, inspiring artists and soothing the troubled souls of stock market crash victims,
But most of all. . . .
Yeah most of all. . .
I LIKE THE WAY YOU MOVE!
4

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 00:48:54
Blue Tooner

Very refreshing and poetic.

Can I add:
"I like the way you inspire golfers from all over the world to come to Menie and share a wonderful links experience."

However, the plan only proposes developing 10% of one SSSI in the whole coastal region.
5

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 17/06/2008 00:57:13
Sounds like Lord Comb-over is about to boil in the fat of his own bullspit.
6

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 01:04:45
5 Usual repugnant troll-trash
7

Beth Boyle,

NY 17/06/2008 02:08:55
When is comes to pure arrogance there is none in the world to Match my own dear Donald Trump. The Donald thinks Scotland is a desperate, sad, little, third world nation and that he can just walk in a do what ever he wants.
8

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 17/06/2008 05:29:26
#7 Beth Yes, and bring 1 Billion pounds with him.....
9

Pilrig.,

Livingston 17/06/2008 05:48:37
He also ignored his barber...
10

TM,

LA, USA 17/06/2008 06:14:07
I wish just one person could give an example of a real estate development project that Trump has been behind that actually fits in harmoniously with it's surrounds and isn't ugly, tacky and crass. You should send a group of experienced golfers to Los Angeles to see Trump's monstrosity of a golf course here. Then you would never allow him to touch a blade of Scottish grass. The man is a D@ucheb&g, honestly...
11

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 17/06/2008 06:48:06
Is this dr Argie yet another one of those english placemen to upset SCOTTISH Asperations of EXCELLENCE??????
12

overton,

balmedie 17/06/2008 07:33:39
Slightly different headline from the Evening Express:


‘Trump’s golf plans won’t destroy this protected land’
Expert says dunes will stay an SSSI
By David Ewen chief reporter

Published: 16/06/2008


DONALD Trump’s golf course would not destroy a protected landscape, a leading scientist said today.

Professor Bill Ritchie told a public inquiry that enough features would remain for it still to be designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

And Trump’s QC Lord Colin Boyd said his client would be opposed to any attempt to downgrade it.

Geomorphologist Prof Ritchie – a consultant on coastal management – said the planned golf course would leave a “sufficiency” of shifting sand dunes intact.

He said: “What remains in the SSSI is the beach, the beach-dune interface, the coastal dune, a lot of areas between the holes ... these to a greater or lesser extent remain.

“Secondly, we should be reminded that Menie is only one third of the SSSI and some of the forms and the processes are replicated in the northern two-thirds.”

Mr Trump wants to build two championship golf courses, a 450-bed hotel, 950 holiday homes and 500 houses.

Objectors, including Scottish Natural Heritage, oppose plans to stabilise some dunes with marram grass.

Prof Ritchie said a revamp of the main course earlier this year preserved more of the dune landscape than the original layout.

He said: “Considerable areas of existing links and dunes will not be altered due to the wide separation between fairways and to the design, which normally requires clearance for the first drive from tee to fairway.

“The most recent design requires much less cut and fill operations and avoids several dynamic dune zones.”

Prof Ritchie, a former chairman of the advisory committee for SSSIs, told how in the past the area was under heavy pressure from the Ministry of Defence and tourists, with up to 100 cars present a day.

He explained how a hole in the dune ridge, leading to
13

overton,

balmedie 17/06/2008 07:35:28

I suppose its just 'the way you tell them' eh?
14

HughB,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 07:49:45
I would like to know how many of the so called "objectors" were born in the area?

I've not seen any of the local people interviewed on television yet. All I've heard are either people who have moved to the area from down south, or have just gone there to protest.

Lets get the local opinion, rather than the opinion of those who like the sound of their own voices.

And another thing, I would like to expect that Scottish Natural Heritage is actually run by Scots, and the people making statements on their behalf are also Scots.
15

A big boy dun it an ran away,

17/06/2008 07:56:20
Fur aw the scrapit vyces thrawn agin the yankee plot,
Is wir greetin an wir gurnin promotin whingin Scots?
16

an interested party,

17/06/2008 08:14:30
i dont understand it myself
if a foreign investor want to build anything in scotland why on earth take a contentious route, it is scotland he want to build in for some strange historical family reason, and not specifically on an sssi

does the guy just like an argument or what?

or is it notoriety he seeks? and not as his expense either

like him or not he is a clever manipulator

17

HughB,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 08:23:31
We all know that there is still a deep resentment from areas south of the border that America got independence from Westminster a while ago, and it hurts even more that America is one of the most powerful nations on Earth.

There is every reason to assume that certain cliques would try to block anything American on soil of the "British Empire".
18

donald,

glasgow 17/06/2008 08:50:45
This saga is longer than Southfork
19

an interested party,

17/06/2008 08:55:19
except weapons
20

Nomada,

17/06/2008 10:03:15
#14 Hugh - You seem to have missed the important point that Our Great Leader has declared this a matter of *national* importance, therefore anyone with interests in Scotland can express an opinion.

If you have not seen any local people interviewed on telly, you have not been watching the right programmes.

And you can be assured that SNH has a Scottish Chairman, a Scottish CEO, and a very large number of Scottish officers and board members. You will be able to find out many details of them on their website www.snh.org.uk. Not that it matters where they originate as long as they are the best people for the job. Have you noticed that (for all his PR attempts) Trump himself is no Scot? Or that a considerable number of the UK cabinet are Scottish?
21

kinneucher,

17/06/2008 11:14:31
#16 "an interested party": My thoughts exactly. Not all of Scotland is of special scientific interest, so why here? Maybe all the Trump lovers are just too eager to bend over and let Trump have his churlish way with them.
22

Neil,

Glasgow 17/06/2008 11:25:46
"Dr Dargie, a self-employed ecologist"

And Trump didn't give him a veto over investing £1 billion in Scotland. Well gosh what a major story.
23

GavinA,

17/06/2008 11:28:57
What on earth is the point in a country having a system of environmental monitoring and protection, in this case SSSIs, if we then go weak at the knees and see fit to sacrifice that same environment when someone comes along with a big wad of cash? Do people realise how much time and money and expertise go into the research, identification, legal classification and protection of such sites? Are we, as a country, doing this for fun? Don't we want people to take us seriously in what we say are our environmental priorities? Do we want people to assume that they too can get a bit of protected environment? Why do we bother having national parks?

Protected areas of the environment, by their very nature, become more and more unique as the rest of the country around them is developed. Which of course makes them more attractive for developers. This should come as no surprise, indeed it should be expected, and we should therefore be prepared to resist offers of money in return for them. That is the whole point of environmental protection, stupid!

As in so many other cases, it is the environment that has inspired the developer to come to the place in the first instance. Then it is the developer that destroys it. Environments such as this have existed and evolved for thousands of years, but they can only be sold and developed once. Then they will NEVER exist again. But the developer doesn't care, because they got there first, and they made their money. There are SO many places like this in the world (eg coast of Spain).

As for the economy of the north east of Scotland - Donald Trump has said that his development will help to secure the economic future of this region. This is a joke. It is a very well-off place already, largely because of oil. After initial construction, most of the employment will be through service jobs. And most of the service jobs throughout rural Scotland are taken up by people from other countries. While they are most welcome to our beautiful coun
24

GavinA,

17/06/2008 11:29:54
- country (which is often why they come here), let us not kid ourselves that a develoment is going to provide jobs for the people of that area, or indeed of any great value at all. Most importantly, any big profits from the scheme will go into Donald Trump's pocket. And he doesn't live here, but in the USA.

I would like to comment on Donald Trump's comments to the effect that he has particular feelings for Scotland and that is why he wants to come and create his development here. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that he can think we are so gullible. If he did care in any way about Scotland, surely he would have visited his mother's house and his own flesh and blood relatives on Lewis at least once over the last 50 or more years? He stopped off there on his way over and, when asked why he hadn't come before, stated that he had been busy and also having fun in New York. In my view his (2 hour) visit was a pure publicity stunt to give the impression that he has some emotional attatchment to the country. Sorry, but we're not that gullible Donald.

Donald Trump is a businessman. He wants to come here to create a development that will a) make him lots of money, and b) bring him some glory. Everything he says about why he wants to do it is simply designed to maximise his chances of getting aproval for the scheme. He doesn't actually care about Scotland or stabilising sand dunes at all. He is a businessman. It is purely a business venture by someone that is over here only for that reason. If it fails, he'll just sell up and leave again.
25

mobocaster,

Aberdeen 17/06/2008 11:34:37
#8 #22

And anyone else still banging-on about the "size" of Trumps "investment"

Did you miss the evidence given by his own economist?

Here:
http://news.scotsman.com/donaldtrump/Golf-resort-is-high-risk.4177035.jp

There is no way he plans to invest anything like that.

26

IanW,

Ottobrunn 17/06/2008 11:38:38
The are those who say that the inward investment would be good for Aberdeenshire, in principle I agree. I am not convinced yet of the long-term benefits to the area such as employment. I have a feeling that any jobs created will be menial. However that is by and by.

My concern, and I am by no means a great support of the greens or tree-hugging community (sometimes they can be a real pain) is that the site chosen is clearly designated as being an SSSI. This means that there is something unique about it which needs to be preserved for the next generations, etc.

What is the point of boasting about Scotland's great natural heritage if the first time someone comes along offering a quick buck those mercanaries amongst us don't stop to think. In the near future Scotland's natural heritage will be raped and thrown aside for the mighty dollar.

The same applies for those other monstrosities that are a blight on the landscape Wind Farms, and the windmills on them. Don't people realise the damage they do?

Just imagine in 20 years time trying to take a walk in the countryside - forget it you will get your head chopped off by some giant vane, etc.

Invest in Scotland YES, but do it with some taste please.

27

mobocaster,

Aberdeen 17/06/2008 11:45:50
You also find that the windfarms don't go out of their way to encourage anyone to walk near them to begin with. I've see a number of formerly nice walks closed or significantly diverted by them.

But yes, I also agree that this scheme might set a very worrying preecedent for other future developments.
28

,

17/06/2008 11:47:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Over the rainbow,

17/06/2008 11:52:34


There was a case a while ago where a local councillor poured public money into a (personal) project (£1 millon). There was a suggestion in that case that the councillor should be held to be personably liable. Perhaps that should be the case here?
30

Nomada,

17/06/2008 11:59:59
#28 OTR - You are clearly a bit slow-witted or have just not read the many explanations of the scientific interest of the dunes. They are a feature of the SSSI precisely because they are mobile and dynamic, a natural state of existence for dunes. Stabilise the dunes and you destroy the main reason for the SSSI being designated.

SNH is fully accountable to Scottish Ministers, and they are fully accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and that is fully accountable to the electorate. SNH can do nothing that the Minister does not want, or if they do, the chain of accountability will deal with it.
31

HughB,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 12:06:51
#20 Nomada,

Sorry, I must have been watching the BBC. They tend not to interview locals if they are Scottish.
32

overton,

balmedie 17/06/2008 12:15:16
30 Nomada,

Well the sooner that pair are withdrawn from the inquiry the better because they are just full of hot air.
33

overton,

balmedie 17/06/2008 12:15:21
30 Nomada,

Well the sooner that pair are withdrawn from the inquiry the better because they are just full of hot air.
34

Jock Wilson,

17/06/2008 12:20:37
30,

All sand dunes are dynamic and mobile, ergo according to your logic all dunes ought to be encompassed within SSSIs.

Not so, of course. There are far more criteria applied than the two you have mentioned.

Nobody who supports the Trump plan is suggesting that the SSSI will not be affected. It all depends in the end on how you balance competing benefits.

35

Big Jock McDoc,

Scotland 17/06/2008 12:36:33
Must be down to the distraction of constantly worrying about his hairpiece when that wind starts blowing in from the North Sea.
36

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 13:03:29
23 & 24 Gavin A

You have a problem with golf courses on SSSIs. You make a wild assumption that they destroy the environment and drive wildlife away.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A precedent has already been set.

I have already cited 5 English golf courses that are on SSSIs (See post 2). Some were SSSIs before the golf course was ever there, some have become SSSIs AFTER the golf course was built. Incredible eh?

In fact, Saunton Golf Course, situated on Braunton Burrows, is on a sand dune system which is the largest in England and vitally important for its plants and animals. In recognition of this the Burrows, and hence Saunton Golf Course, have been designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Unesco Biosphere Reserve.
http://www.sauntongolf.co.uk/index.php

Not even just a lowly SSSI.
37

Nomada,

17/06/2008 13:17:32
Jock #30 thinks that according to my all dunes ought to be encompassed within SSSIs. No, Jock they should not. Before you write such tripe make yourself aware of the policies and guidelines on SSSI selection which are as old as the SSSIs themselves.

He also writes: 'Nobody who supports the Trump plan is suggesting that the SSSI will not be affected'. If that is true, there are lots of folk who appear to be supporters who have suggested exactly that in these forums over the past 6 months or so. They have even denied that the SSSI exists. Check them out.

Andrew #36 still has a problem understanding that different SSSIs have different qualifying features. They are not all going to be affected by stabilisation or development. This SSSI, with this application, is the only relevant case.
38

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 13:24:13
Nomada

You are back to your old tricks again. Please give examples of people who have denied that the SSSI exists and where they have denied it.

And I'm not talking about 'stabilisation'. I never mentioned it. You seem confused. I merely pointed out that Golf courses already exist on SSSIs. And anyway, who says that Menie Links SSSI is any more special than any other? You'd like it to be, but it's not.
39

GavinA,

17/06/2008 13:36:15
Andrew BOD (36)

I don't have a problem with golf courses per se. I do have a problem with developing (and hence destroying) bits of the environment which have been designated special, rare, interesting, beautiful or valuable because of their natural state. I agree that man-made environments can become some or all of these (for example, some of the coal-bings in Fife which have rare plants on them). However, the special characteristics of these man-made environments are special in different ways to the natural land which they replaced.

Some of the golf courses down south that you mentioned may very well have special designations, but if they were built on land already designated and protected, none of them will have improved on what was already there, rather they have replaced it with something else.

In the case of the Menie Estate, building a golf course on the dunes would involve bulldozing and re-landscaping parts of the dunes. It would involve spreading thousands of tonnes of topsoil on top of the sand. It would necessitate stabilising the dunes which have survived to prevent them from advancing across the fairways and greens.

This, whichever way you pitch it (no pun intended) is destruction. Bulldozing one thing and turning it into something else. (See the mid-construction pictures at your example: http://www.southerngolf.co.uk/page.aspx?name=activities).

Now, just supposing that Donald's development did come up Trumps in the conservation world and became a haven for rare birds and animals. This would be loudly lauded but wouldn't make a single bit of difference to the original (unique and different) environment that was destroyed.

And if this did happen, would his golf course receive new designations which would bind him forever to manage it in the same way for the benefit of the new, better plants and animals there? I think not. If the money stopped rolling in he would sell up and leave it.
40

Nomada,

17/06/2008 13:47:38
Andrew 38 - just go back through the numerous Trump links on this site and see what Clarry (the star denier) and others equally impervious to the truth have been writing in the threads, and the attempts of me and others to correct them.

As to your non-point about stabilisation, at the risk of being repetitive, just read *all* of what I have written and *think* (if such an activity is within your abilities) about it before you come out with your usual knee-jerk irrelevances.
41

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 14:03:22
39 Gavin A

Some of those golf courses are designated SSSI because they have managed to live side by side with the NATURAL environment. They've not been designated SSSI for their man-made qualities, and those who run those courses are very proud of the fact that much of the land is natural. In fact a course that has natural environmental credentials appears to attract much more golf tourism.

The picture you refer to at the Southern Golf course may not be anywhere near the SSSI. All it stated was that it would include part of an SSSI and some wetlands.

Now bearing in mind that, as Jock says, ALL dunes are mobile, we are talking about 10% of an SSSI that is part of a much larger collection of dunes stretching down the whole East coast of Scotland and along the Moray Firth. Based on that fact, it would appear to many people, especially to those who know the area well, that development on that small area is well worth the risk. It would also enhance the rest of the Menie Estate and actually showcase a part of Scotland that is most often missed by visitors to our shores.


42

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 14:15:22
Nomada

Clarry doesn't deny that the SSSI exists. She just gives you a deserved hard time.
You said: "They have even denied that the SSSI exists". You have written yet another untruth and can't substantiate it.

I'll make my simple point again to see if it will register: "I merely pointed out that Golf courses already exist on SSSIs." Nothing more.

And "kneejerk"? That would be a distinct case of 'coffee pot...'

No, YOU need to have a **think** about what you write before you click post.
43

Nomada,

17/06/2008 14:34:43
Andrew #42. She has, repeatedly, and it is on the record. You want the proof? I have told you where to find it. Do the next bit yourself.

The 'simple point' you made is certainly simple - to the point of imbecility. Your post at #36 is there for all to read, and the implications you make are apparent to anyone - except it seems, to yourself.
44

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 17/06/2008 16:12:40
#27 Mobocaster.

You have to understand! You are prevented from walking around wind-turbines for your own good! The owners must prevent you from becoming traumatised by the sight of bits and pieces of birds and bats scattered over the site! They are acting responsibly and in the interests of the mental health of the community!
45

Jock Wilson,

17/06/2008 16:36:04
37,

Nomada,

I frequently spout tripe, but unusually not this time. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your logic and trying to draw attention to the fact that a large number of criteria are applied in the designation of an SSSI.

Of course everyone agrees that the SSSI will be affected in some way or another. The questions posed are 'In what way?': 'To what extent?' and finally 'Does a negative impact on this particular SSSI outweigh all other considerations?'

The Inquiry is wrestling with these points. Hopefully with more lucidity than we are.
46

Nomada,

17/06/2008 16:47:50
Jock #45 - there is no flaw in my logic (although there was a flaw in that I omitted inadvertently that very word). The problem is your inability to understand simple English. Go back and read the thread and you may see the error of your ways.

As to your 3 questions, the only answer to the first is that the effect is negative (even Trump admits freely that the work will destroy the mobility of the dunes, as do the council officials in their papers to the Planning meetings). The others will, as you rightly say, be examined at the PLI. (There you are - we agree on something!)
47

Jock Wilson,

17/06/2008 16:56:07
Thank you, Nomada, or may I call you Plato?

I will endeavour to brush up on my comprehension skills before next I take you on in a verbal joust.
48

Neil,

Glasgow 17/06/2008 17:17:38
A few days ago I, on 3 threads, aske any "environmentalist" opponent of this investment to say what the SSSI was actually about. Not one of them, on any thread had any idea what this, the principle they are allegedly defending, was. In the end an opponent said & it really isn't remotely important.

Those waving "environmentalist" flags are rarely actually interested in it - they are merely Luddites under false colours.
49

JR Ewing,

Aberdeen 17/06/2008 17:37:55
Martin Ford with his gimmicks and cronies is no more of a friend to the environment than Donald Trump
who most of the ecotypes brand as the devil incarnate.

No AWPR, no Airport Extension or no golf resort. Some of you lot will eventually wake up to the fact that Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe restricted in development by having the infrastructure of a "home counties" market town. WE produce more oil than Kuwait and contrary to Lielabour propaganda there is at least fifty more years of the black stuff out there at present production rates.

Trump is willing to put £1 billion into our economy Ford and his cronies offer nothing more than "green" projects subsidised to the hilt with public money and of questionable efficiency.

Their silence over Darling's betrayal of the carbon capture plant in Peterhead was deafening but not surprising. Carbon capture is highly efficient but isn't “cool” green.

Ford a person who is content to allow the destruction of 6 kilometres of some of the most beautiful scenery in Scotland but kicks up a fuss about a few hundred metres of dunes a stones throw from a couple of landfills has no credibility in my eyes
50

Blue Tooner,

Aberdeenshire 17/06/2008 18:14:05
Andrew #42 I clearly remember Clarry writing on a thread some time ago that the course was not going to be on the SSSI, but to the north of it. When I had a quick look back through the threads I found lots of reference to her but, as far as I can see, ALL of her many, many posts have been removed. Strange.
51

Blue Tooner,

Aberdeenshire 17/06/2008 18:22:00
#50 Sorry, meant to the SOUTH of the SSSI. I'm not usually this fussy but I don't like to see anyone accused of lying unfairly.
52

Nomada,

17/06/2008 18:31:39
Thanks, BT #50. I did not know that Clarry had been deleted from the history of the topic. A pity - she was so entertaining.
53

Myosotis,

17/06/2008 20:47:04
Over the Rainbow (28):

Virtually everything you say is wrong.

9 councillors on the Infrastructure Committee voted against, 5 in favour of the development.

Conservation bodies were not alerted by Martin Ford, but have been alarmed about the proposal since autumn 2005. More details were sought, and it has gradually emerged that the environmental damage and loss of amenity would be very serious.

The second championship course was very unclear at first, but in 2007 we learnt it would run to the Balmedie carpark and stop people walking north from this popular place.
54

Myosotis,

17/06/2008 21:03:34
12:

That Prof Ritchie considered the Menie site would still be worthy of SSSI status after losing many of its special qualities proves just how special an SSSI it is.

Bill Ritchie admitted that stabilisation of mobile sand was damaging to the geomorphological interest. David Ewen doesn`t tell us this, in line with EE policy.

But it is implicit in Ritchie`s phrases "a sufficiency of" dunes "would remain".

As for the marram grass, this is a very minor part of the stabilisation that will use largely turf grasses, so did David Ewen or his assistants misunderstand?
55

Pilrig.,

Livingston 17/06/2008 21:34:33
28 -"ramblers (no case). There WILL be a case if hikers are barred from the Trump development area.
56

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 22:02:40
55 Pilrig

"No case" is correct. Hawtree, Trump's course designer, has already stated at the PLI that the course was designed with the vast majority of the existing public footpaths in mind. So "no case" it is.
57

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 22:14:13
Blue Tooner 51&52

If Clarry said this once then it is certainly not etched in my memory. Even if she did, Nomada's assertion that lots of Trump plan supporters deny that the SSSI exists is way off the mark.

Don't know what happened to Clarry. Strange that all posts have been removed.
58

Blackwater,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 22:36:07
I keep hearing about this "£1 billion" development, mostly from the moist lips of The Donald himself. Where does this suspiciously large and round number come from? The accountant Iain Webster testified that the firm would have to spend £600 million over six years, including a whopping £12 million of Trump's "own money".

(Some cynicism is generated in this writer, after having read a lengthy report in the New Yorker a few years ago concluding that Trump's wealth is largely on paper and in his own dramatically egocentric mind.)

But where does the £1 billion figure come from?

"He's not an accountant, and he doesn't play one on TV."

59

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 22:58:14
58 Blackwater

This is a good question to which I only know part of the answer.

The figure which was quoted recently by long-standing objector Martin Ford, was £750 million. I have no reason to doubt this, but know that along with everything else, this figure is rising by the day. Bearing in mind that this development will not go up overnight, I think £1 billion is probably a fair guesstimate. Another thing which will reduce the accuracy of this figure is that much of the detailed planning has still to be agreed. This PLI will only determine whether or not outline planning will go ahead.
60

Myosotis,

17/06/2008 23:06:32
Andrew BOD (2):

You rightly point out that the Saunton Golf Course is on the Braunton Burrows SAC/SSSI.

What you don`t copy out, the next sentence on their web site, is that the set up is totally different to what Donald Trump wants at Menie.

I have pasted:

"The effect of this designation is that Saunton has to obtain consent from English Nature whenever we wish to carry out any significant works on the courses, which could be in danger of damaging the Burrows. We have had to agree a Course Management Plan with English Nature, which dictates exactly how we manage the land."

At Menie, if DPEA or Aberdeenshire tried to impose such conditions, TIGLS would abandon.

They have said repeatedly that the MEMAG (Menie Management Group) will be purely advisory. And I believe even if the Scottish Government writes stronger powers into MEMAG`s constitution, they will be simply for decoration.

There is plenty of evidence that Donald Trump does not even take notice of his own paid consultants, let alone any outside group.

And from the way our councillors have been cowed by the local press controlled by TIGLS, there is no prospect they would intervene to see that MEMAG functions as the Scottish Government would want.

When councillors are scared, due to a hostile press that can print TRAITORS as a banner headline and encourage intimidation, there isn`t much hope of wise actions.
61

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 17/06/2008 23:46:27
Myosotis

I believe the point I was making @ 2 was that golf courses and SSSIs are compatible. I have already stated this on several occasions on this thread alone, but no objector will accept that point.

On the course at Saunton, I believe it was there BEFORE designation. (If I didn't want people to find out about the course I wouldn't have pasted the web address.) Isn't it incredible that a golf course can be included in not just an SSSI designation, but also as a SAC, a Unesco Biosphere Reserve, and an Area of Outstanding NATURAL Beauty.

Donald Trump's paid consultant said a number of things. He was being open and honest. Something many objectors should heed. The Scotsman chose to sensationalise one angle. Remember, he also said "If the development gets permission to go ahead and we are allowed to undertake mitigation, we would have habitat conditions that would be better overall than what we have at the current time."

Your point about the local press has been well made dozens of times. There is no conspiracy theory.
62

overton,

balmedie 18/06/2008 07:34:00
57 Andrew BOD,

I suspect the involvement of Martin Ford and his free issue PR person here.
Strange that Nomada should bring Clarry posts up at this time.
63

Myosotis,

18/06/2008 08:52:06
Andrew 61:

I and most other objectors accept that often golf courses and SSSIs are compatible.

But it depends entirely on what features the SSSIs are designated for.

If for vegetation types that exist between the fairways, absolutely no problem.

But at Menie we have a big problem because a major reason for the SSSI, the shifting sands, is not compatible with golf at close quarters. Golfers don`t want sand in their eyes, the course managers don`t want holes blown over.

I have talked elsewhere on these threads of a 300m distance between major areas of blowing mobile sand and golf holes, and that could be achieved at Menie by keeping most holes outside the SSSI, not all as on the RSPB/SWT/BSBI plan.

There is ample room for compromise on the Trump ground at Menie, and I have no doubt the professionals involved could achieve that. But several major forces will wreck, including Donald Trump himself and the local press.
64

Buttress,

18/06/2008 10:12:20
48 - Neil - who here do you describe as an 'enviromentalist'?

Also simply becauae you demand does not mean anyone has to answer, particularly in the light of so many of your posts simply being the same repeated offensive nonsense. A large number of them have been removed.

A refusal to do as you demand does not mean ignorance.

I do recall you not answering qusetions put to you however...


65

RJ,

18/06/2008 10:40:49
Most (all?) SSSIs that overlap with golf courses will have been designated long after the golf courses were built, in order to protect whatever scientific interest remaining in spite of golf development.

Maintaining this residual interest may be entirely compatible with golf. That's not what we're talking about at Menie, where the issue is whether to allow part of an entirely new development (the Trump course) to go ahead on an SSSI with no pre-existing golf. It is agreed by those involved in the inquiry that this will have a large effect on the interest of the SSSI.

This is largely because the interest of the SSSI at Menie is sand dunes. Not all golf course SSSIs are on dunes - many are inland and maintaining the scientific interest may conceivably be compatible in some circumstances even with building new golf courses.

It is even concevable that some type of dune SSSI that are in poor condition because they are being damaged by current activity could be improved by certain types of golf development, if this results in the damaging activity being stopped, along with proper management being adopted by the new golf managers.

This is not the case at Menie, because: (1) the dunes involved here are "mobile" and this is not compatible with golf (golf requires "stabilisation"); (2) the dunes at Menie are in "favourable" condition; (3) the dune management offered by the Trump organisation would damage the dune SSSI interest, not make it better.

If Trump were a reasonable man (and the "environmentalist" he claims to be), he would not have adopted the all or nothing position he has. But instead he's adopted the blagger's stance of a spoilt child - to paraphrase: "give me exactly what I want, or I throw the toys out of the pram." Ministers ought not to fall for it.
66

Buttress,

18/06/2008 10:41:09
The RSPB Blog continues to be interesting reading.

Monday:

"Before we left it was the opportunity for the Reporters (the 3 individuals appointed by Scottish Ministers to examine the evidence) to question the last Council witness. From this we learnt that there is going to be an affordable housing element to the development - just not located on the site, somewhere else - away from the executive housing. We also learnt that the Council would like to see the 'promotion of sustainable transport', which it transpired, meant a bus stop.

The Reporters know their craft and took the Council rep down a series of pretty testing questions which revealed that the Council believe there will be an impact on the integrity of the area and particularly the SSSI, that the Council accept this but think that economic and social benefits outweigh this impact and that the social benefits are hard to pinpoint but basically came down to money.

The Reporters also asked the Council rep to speculate about how she would feel if all that was eventually built was a golf course and clubhouse given that Mr Trump had mentioned he might wait some time to build the houses until the market was right.....the conclusion was 'pretty disappointed'. "

http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/trumpinquiry/default.aspx

67

Buttress,

18/06/2008 10:50:24
Extract from Tuesday:

"Last week we found out that Mr Trump wasn't content with building a word-class golf course - it had to be the best in the world and in order to do that he must have the SSSI, without it he didn't want any consent at all. We then found out he had to build 500 houses as part of the development in order to pay for the golf course and that the cost of building the houses accounted for a significant part of the development value. When these looked like becoming a bit of a liability we were told that they might not be built straight away, or in fact for many years and that Mr Trump was going to fund the construction of the golf course himself. We were told this was an outline application but that they had a detailed plan for the championship golf course which was just about perfect, it had to be in the SSSI and provided enough information to allow a decision to be made.

Today we found out that although they've provided a detailed layout for the golf course they'll move it around once they get their permission to make sure it's just what's needed. Given that we also found out that all the design changes made so far were made to benefit golf and not the environment this doesn't fill you full of hope.

Listening to some of the longest answers I've every heard at a public inquiry we eventually found out that, and I should stress it took the best part of a day to winkle this out of the witness, stabilising a dynamic sand dune by covering it in vegetation and turning it into a golf course will probably mean that it's not dynamic any more. Given that it's designated because it's dynamic this is not a good thing. After about 4 hours getting that sorted out we had a brief opportunity to hear from the habitat expert working for the developer who is very happy to point out what a valuable and important site this is and how much it will be damanged by the proposal. Phew - however, he also seems to think that the problems can be overcome by digging up
68

Buttress,

18/06/2008 10:51:10
some of the more vulnerable bits and planting them elsewhere. Translocation is a tricky business, but when part of the translocation is onto the dynamic thing you want to protect it starts to err on the side of lunacy.

69

Buttress,

18/06/2008 10:55:17
A further Tuesday entry:

Tuesday 17th June -

"Today was pretty much entirely devoted to habitats and by 4pm I was starting to feel quite sorry for the Trump witness who had really given it his best shot. In an introduction worthy of Monty Python we had an initial discussion about whether the SIN he had selected was the right SIN and if not why was his SIN different from other SINs? For those not entirely up on such things that's a Site of Interest to Natural Science and after a fair amount of huffing and puffing we all agreed that he'd used the wrong boundary and that a bigger one was better.
We talked about buckets and translocation for a while - turns out they'll need a lot of buckets (more than 114,000) to do what they want to do, and designing a new bucket is also apparently an option. All in all they need to relocate more than 35 hectares of habitat.
To be fair the witness said, more than once, that in his view the development should not be on the SSSI - this can't be an easy standpoint to stick to in these circumstances and perhaps explains why none of his colleagues would sit with him at lunch.
Another nice answer came from the final witness of the day on ecological issues. First he spent some considerable time outlining the many environmental benefits that would arise from the development such as bat boxes and bird boxes. However he agreed, when asked by Councillor Ford, that considering the profit and loss in terms of biodiversity from this site we are actually talking about taking something that is unique and irreplaceable (the dynamic dunes) and providing other things that, while valuable, are more widely distributed across the country.

It will perhaps not surprise you to note that audience figures hit a new low today - a grand total of 3 at one point."


70

overton,

balmedie 18/06/2008 13:10:44
70 Buttress,

Still not sure why the RSPB are at this enquiry - their blogg says nothing about their reasons for objecting - it's just so much insulting, juvenile
guff by some very pompous bloggers.

Presumably their presence is to do with wild birds and not buckets of sand?

71

Buttress,

18/06/2008 13:21:59
Overton 72 - I think we have gone into this in detail in previous posts. I think possibly you should seek those out and re-read.

All papers for the inquiry are available on the internet.

I understand the blogger to be a highly skilled planner, and actually attending the inquiry, (unlike you?) and so much 'juvenile guff' seems to be being removed from this site, as with La La Lands post above. Simply name calling makes your case no stronger, and demeans any credibility you may have had.

72

overton,

balmedie 18/06/2008 13:41:55
73 Buttress,

I'm afraid this isn't coming over very well. The 'skilled' planner you mention does not argue the case for wild birds but discusses everything else but the subject that these people are supposed to represent.
It's no good objecting to the Trump proposal without reasonable cause and I suggest that the RSPB are at this Inquiry as a red herring because quite frankly no case has been presented by that charity
that indicates that any damage will occur to any species of wild bird if the project goes ahead.

From the Inquiry as well, it now looks like Menie Links are not even included within the Foveran SSSI!
Discuss.
73

Buttress,

18/06/2008 13:55:10
Th RSPB, as I have explained previously, as you seem to have ignored, is about wildlife habitats. It is not simply about birds. It is perfectly entitled to be at the inquiry, and perfectly entitled to raise issues and cross examine witnesses.

I find the blog raises several interesting issues.

What in much of this debate I have found not to come over well is yourself - either you really have little grasp of so many of the intricacies of the planning angd environmental and economic debate, or you are simply trying to be manipulative and block any sensible discussion, and put off those who might be able to add to it from posting.

There are those who post here who clearly have a wider grasp than yours. I have not time to waste explaining the basics of the case.

Re-read all the threads for that.

74

overton,

balmedie 18/06/2008 14:26:49
75 Buttress,

Yet again you only come over as arrogant, abusive and and say nothing which pertains the real concerns of either party.

Your pretence at having an interest in, and knowledge of, planning matters is a joke.

The grasp of facts is something that can only be achieved with the avaiability of good information.

Your high handed attitude is symptomatic of the green zealotry that you adhere to.
No other opinions are acceptable to you especially on the matter of this development.
You have continually changed your argument to suit the thread and indeed when shown up as lacking in substance always resort to personal abuse and ignorance.

My interest here is in the creation of business opportunities in my area - your interest is purely to undermine the Trump Organisation even although you have nothing to do with the area and indeed I would suggest that Menie Estate is the area of your least interest.
75

Buttress,

18/06/2008 14:34:57
I have been involved with planning matters and inquiries for many years. I have given evidence to parliamentary select committees on such matters. You have no idea to all, but it suits your purpose to try to throw incorrect and low level abuse in the way of those who have far greater knowledge than you appear to have.

Your interest may be for the area, possibly a vested one, mine is to see that all issues are fully explored. That is the purpose of this inquiry.

I am no 'green' zealot, but you are simply an abusive and vexatious poster, with little ability to debate issues logically, alongside a few others.




76

overton,

balmedie 18/06/2008 14:43:21
77 Buttress,

You certainly don't come over as someone who is able to debate logically or objectively on any matters far less the 'purity' of planning matters.
Your arrogance only becomes more apparent when you try to give your arguments credibility by suggesting high level 'experience'.

I doubt if your self opinionated approach would be of benefit to any Inquiry at whatever level and your complete inability to back up your bias with fact is a glaring flaw in all of your many, many, many abusive posts.
77

dianne13 ,

aberdeenshire 18/06/2008 14:53:05
Hey, what happened to the lovely Clarry? she seems to have vanished without a trace.

Perhaps La La Lands knows?








78

overton,

balmedie 18/06/2008 15:08:28
Dianne - I thought you'd left the bloggosphere for good!
Been to any good Inquiries lately?
79

mobocaster,

Aberdeen 18/06/2008 15:09:37
Yes I was thinking the same myself. The style & tone of those two was too similar.

80

Buttress,

18/06/2008 15:12:24
Overton - I think my case has been made by your post at No 78.


Clearly, you really have not a lot of idea, I have followed so many of your posts and still say your only objective seems to be to abuse anyone who disagrees with the development. It's not a credible manner of arguing, and I point to to the abuse removed from many threads - calling people 'eco-fascists' and 'Luddites' repeating the same low-level abuse against those who have objected, trying to mud sling at people perfectly entitled to attend the inquiry. Points which have been answered - as with the RSPB - you have either not taken on board, or wilfully ignored.

You could have been there. You could have put forward your views in written form, and could have been cross examined at the inquiry.

Planning matters are far from 'pure'. They are about balancing many conflicting interests against national and local policies.





81

overton,

balmedie 18/06/2008 15:22:56
82 Buttress,

Yet again you produce words and say nothing and even go as far as mis-quoting.
You keep your mind clear and do not make the mistake of confusing me with anyone else.
Factual answers are still not forthcoming with regard to the RSPB and I must say that now I am even more convinced that they have no place at this Inquiry and that they have no real reason to be there and have been unable to present a case for either habitat damage or effects on any wild birds whatsoever.

82

Buttress,

18/06/2008 15:30:32