»

[daveofficer]

Originally Posted by Chris

Before I answer that I'd just like to point out that I'm not a NIMBY, I'm not particularly green (I'm pro-bypass for example) and I like golf.

There are a few good reasons why I'm against it, most of them have been mentioned by others in this thread.

Part of the development is on an area designated as an SSSI. These areas are given that special designation for a reason, to protect them. This shouldn't be ignored just because someone throws enough money at the area.

Then there's the houses and the hotel. The houses are not included in the local plan and are not going to be inhabited by local people. At all. They are holiday homes and luxury mansions. They are also the main purpose behind the site (I don't believe golf or a love of his mother's homeland to be Trump's main motivators here). If you look at the plans on the Trump site they're also fucking hideous things, and that's before we even get to the monstrosity that is the hotel. A mammoth, disgusting looking thing that will be seen for miles and isn't in keeping with any other building in the area. Again local plans are in place for a reason, to curtail unnecessary building and strain on local infrastructure. This shouldn't be ignored just because someone promises money and a nice golf course.

Finally there's all the lies being told by Trump and the EE. I can't stand the way the local press have bent over and presented themselves to Trump without even a hint of balance or respect to their own readership that might object to the proposals. They've been constantly complicit in spreading Trump's lies about getting the Open (never going to happen), the number of jobs for the area (vastly exaggerated), how environmentally friendly the site is (just saying it doesn't make it true, show us the details), how much money will be generated etc.

If it gets built I'm sure it will be a brilliant course and probably world class. The best course in the world? Unlikely. The only chance like this we're going to get? Definitely not. Another golf development at Stonehaven has already been approved by the same council and is set to redevelop an important local building and provide a course similar to Gleneagles and Loch Lomond.

the stonehaven course also provides affordable local housing as part of it's plan as well as more expensive homes and the hotel.

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by Bigsby

Something funny about this, 64 councillors yet the vote was 26-10?

Also, it was just a montion of no confidence, I'm not sure he actually has to do anything as a result.

Nothing funny about it - the others abstained.

Originally Posted by Hugh_Jazz

Suggest you stop believing everything the EE writes.

This is shite news for anyone that wants a democratic council. If you cant vote for what you believe in, (and more to the point, what a large proportion of the electorate believe in), for fear of being sacked then the whole system is fucked to the core.

Erm, isn't this democracy in action? People have voted in their councillors, who have proceeded to sack someone from the chairman post on a committee that they felt undermined the planning process. Entirely democratic and fair - and if you ask me, people should be questioning why there was so many councillors abstaining.

Anyway, doesn't one of the articles on the BBC News website state that councillors have *backed* the Trump plans? I'm a bit confused why they couldn't just overturn the Committee decision - anyone elaborate?

[jester1470]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Nothing funny about it - the others abstained.



Erm, isn't this democracy in action? People have voted in their councillors, who have proceeded to sack someone from the chairman post on a committee that they felt undermined the planning process. Entirely democratic and fair - and if you ask me, people should be questioning why there was so many councillors abstaining.

Anyway, doesn't one of the articles on the BBC News website state that councillors have *backed* the Trump plans? I'm a bit confused why they couldn't just overturn the Committee decision - anyone elaborate?

If the council just planned to overturn the decision because they have decided they dont like the outcome then it would make a mockery of every committee there is. I don't have any opinion of the Trump development, except that i feel he's railroaded his way through with the nmy way or nothing else viewpoint.

Basically with the sacking they havent shown that he's incompetent and fiot to lead, they've shown they are.

Cheers

Stuart

[Bigsby]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Nothing funny about it - the others abstained.

Wasn't stated on the BBC website at the time.

Originally Posted by Cloud

if you ask me, people should be questioning why there was so many councillors abstaining.

So you think it was a bit funny that they all abstained then?

The rules were set up so that the committee took the final decision on planning applications. Once that's done, they can't go back and overturn it. What they plan to do now is change the rules so that "major" planning applications go to the full council for the final decision, though how they decide what is "major" and what isn't is not entirely clear.

[lepeep]

It's a sad day indeed for Scottish "politics".
Piss poor behaviour on both sides.
the level of professionalism in this shitstorm is depressing.

Trump will no doubt get his way, all because of greed.
When we have this fantastic spread of empty holiday homes, inaccessible play parks for the rich, more Milne-esque 5 bedroom mansions pushing the house price sky high and towering gothic nightmare hotel to compound that metaphor, I am sure Aberdeen will be proud that it got what it wanted.

Once it's implemented, and turns into a ghost town (as it no doubt will), I am convinced mr trump will walk away, chalk it up as a tax break and move to sunnier climes.

I'm all for sustainable development, affordable - well planned housing in Aberdeen, who wouldn't be? but to be lead by the nose with the smell of money that's not going to have much real impact here, is frankly sad. I look forward to seeing the tailbacks on the Ellon road, when they build a roundabout after the Dual Carriage way on the already stretched to the limit A90....(Trump won't pay for that to be turned into a dual carriage way with a smooth and wonderfulflyover, you know!)

if trump wanted to "make a dream golf course" (and ONLY that), could he not have bought Royal Deeside, and restored that? - Hence, fishy reasons lurk behind "good intentions". We've all been conned.

[Stripey]

sacking martin ford for doing his job is an appalling decision, it completely undermines the planning process as a whole and IMO the legitemacy of the entire council. How can there be any validity in a "motion of no confidence" when the majority chose to abstain?

It is bullshit like this that really makes aberdeen look like a grotty dysfunctional backwater being run by thick country bumpkins.

[Larsen B]

Originally Posted by Stripey

sacking martin ford for doing his job is an appalling decision, it completely undermines the planning process as a whole and IMO the legitemacy of the entire council. How can there be any validity in a "motion of no confidence" when the majority chose to abstain?

It is bullshit like this that really makes aberdeen look like a grotty dysfunctional backwater being run by thick country bumpkins.

Damn right, I'm glad so many people on here are of a similar opinion. I've found it a real struggle to explain to my friends that regardless of whether or not Trumps resort should go ahead, it's a disgrace that Martin Ford should be sacked, totally undemocratic.

[idol_wild]

Originally Posted by Stripey

sacking martin ford for doing his job is an appalling decision, it completely undermines the planning process as a whole and IMO the legitemacy of the entire council. How can there be any validity in a "motion of no confidence" when the majority chose to abstain?

It is bullshit like this that really makes aberdeen look like a grotty dysfunctional backwater being run by thick country bumpkins.

I heartily agree with this. I also think Cloud was on the ball when he mentioned that the main point of focus should be why so many people chose to abstain.

[jester1470]

Originally Posted by idol_wild

I heartily agree with this. I also think Cloud was on the ball when he mentioned that the main point of focus should be why so many people chose to abstain.

Now hey, we dont want to start saying Cloud was right, thats not a good precedent

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by Stripey

sacking martin ford for doing his job is an appalling decision, it completely undermines the planning process as a whole and IMO the legitemacy of the entire council. How can there be any validity in a "motion of no confidence" when the majority chose to abstain?

The majority didn't abstain - 36 voted, 29 abstained. There was a 26-10 vote in favour of removing him as chairman.

Can someone explain why this isn't democratic? The rules stated that Councillor Ford's committee had the final say on planning developments. The council then decided (as is their democratic right) to hold a vote on removing him, along with a vote on backing the development and a vote on ensuring that planning developments go to the full council.

If anything, it's *less* democratic for a committee to decide on major developments rather than the full council. The council have recognised this and changed the policy for the future - and let us remeber, this was voted for by the full council. It could actually be argued that in light of the (apparent) overwhelming endorsement of the plans by the full council, Councillor Ford wasn't even acting in accordance with the wishes of the council, let alone the people of Aberdeenshire. And remeber - he was appointed to the chairmanship by the full council. It is thus surely their democratic right to remove him from the same post if he didn't act in accordance with the wishes of the full council?

Another point to consider is that if the planning department had recommended that the development be passed, Councillor Ford was actually *not* doing his job properly by using his casting vote against the development.

As for the voting breakdown - this is the makeup of the council.

Lib Dems - 24
SNP - 22
Tories - 14
Independent - 8

I'd be very interested to see who abstained on the vote - the Herald says that the motion to remove Councillor Ford was made by an independent and seconded by an SNP member. So...who abstained, and why? Councillor Ford is a Lib Dem - why didn't they oppose his removal? The voting figures alone show that at least 14 Lib Dems didn't vote to save his position - so clearly his own party wasn't too happy with him. It also transpires that his wife used to work for the RSPB - so what business did he have in being able to make such an important decision? It would've been prudent, given the conflict of interest, for him to refer the decision to the full council given the extraordinary interest in the issue.

There is a point that Councillor Ford did what the tradition is here and voted with the status quo - ie, no development until there is a majority in favour, and then vote to preserve that. But given that the vote was deadlocked, he should've held his hands up and admitted a conflict of interest and allowed the full council to debate/vote on it instead. The fact that he didn't do that is the reason why he should've been sacked.

Finally, if you ask me, I'm not sure what business councillors have doing making important planning decisions anyway. Shouldn't these be left to..well..professionals?