Mar 042011
 

Dough, or deer. That’s the Council’s dilemma. Old Susannah muses on an extraordinary response from our elected representatives.

I’m afraid it’s another long introduction this week.

There seems to be a little confusion about what our City Council has been up to lately, so let me leap to its defence as usual, and try to dispel some misunderstandings. Peacocks and Deer seem to be in the firing line – deservedly so of course. Firstly, we had a potential grant to house Peacock Visual Arts in UTG, and Peacock put itself into ACSEF’s hands. ACSEF somehow turned this plan around and the Sir Ian Wood car park/street level UTG scheme was favoured over the Peacock plan.

It seems Sir Ian’s plans then took a chunk of the Peacock money, and the Peacock plan was overtaken by the UTG car park/shops plan. Grant money, hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, was spent on a splendidly-unbiased consultation persuading us that we need parking more than trees. Obviously, the consultation was ignored for not reaching the desired conclusion.

The City was allegedly told by Scottish Enterprise that the grant money had to be used towards a cunning plan of some sort or other, and as the City wisely didn’t want to rush into anything, it has instead cleverly handed back £1.2 million to COSLA. I might be confused, since Scottish Enterprise had a hand in helping Peacock, had a hand in helping Sir Ian’s scheme, and had a member on ACSEF who would have known all about grant deadlines – or should have known. I’ll work that out eventually. Still, what’s £1.2 million to us anyway? And thus the Peacock was carved up.

At the same time as Aberdeen City Council lost £1.2 million by killing off the Peacock, we were going to keep a £200k grant by killing the deer on Tullos Hill to prevent them eating. I’m sure that’s clear, but just in case it’s not, we are getting £200K to plant trees in a scheme called A Tree for Every Citizen

COUNCILLOR AILEEN MALONE, PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT CALLED ‘ALMOST ONE TREE FOR EVERY CITIZEN’.

Alternatives such as planting elsewhere, waiting until fencing could be afforded to separate tree from deer, keeping the deer safe in a fenced area and using plastic to protect the saplings so that the deer couldn’t eat them would be too expensive. We have to keep saving money like we always do, or we wouldn’t have enough money left for consultations and hospitality. It seems like the councillors involved are now passing the buck.

So the deer were going to be shot and killed, or culled if you are of a sensitive disposition and it sounds much better. They’re tame deer, mind, who are sometimes handfed, although the pesky beasts keep breeding and eating, and don’t seem to have taken notice that we’ve encroached on their land.

By killing the deer now, you see, the trees will grow. When the trees are grown, then we have a habitat suitable for squirrels and, er….deer. This sounds like we are keeping a close eye on finances, acting humanely and doing business in an honest fashion.

The P&J is becoming increasingly critical of the Council, a most welcome trend

I was going to tell them where to put their saplings when, all of a sudden, Wednesday’s Evening Express announced that the deer can live. Perhaps the city councillors got a bit squeamish at the thought of killing all those beautiful votes they hope to see next spring?

Whatever the motive was for sparing the deer, it seemed briefly that the City had listened to the people. The moon was blue and lightning struck twice.

I personally was ready to fawn over the councillors.

Well, I should have known better. The current version of the story appeared in the P&J on Thursday morning. Its headline accurately reflected the Council’s current position – animal lovers, stump up £225,000 for fencing or we kill the deer. The P&J is becoming increasingly critical of the Council, a most welcome trend

The Council explained it had no spare money for fencing, and Councillor Aileen Malone helpfully told the P&J that only ‘about one’ person from Aberdeen had written to her protesting against the cull; the rest were from out of town. Obviously, people in different countries have no business being interested in animal rights issues. I hope any interfering ‘outsiders’ who troubled our Ms Malone will write to apologise, acknowledging that animals in Aberdeen are only the concern of Aberdonians. Honestly!

Poor Ms Malone was apparently so shocked to get any e-mail at all that she lost the ability to count. ‘About one’ is the phrase she used to describe the number of e-mails received from Aberdeen people wanting to save the deer. Readers, I will confess that as Old Susannah sent her an e-mail around February 22, including my home address, asking for the cull to be abandoned, I am that solitary person who constitutes the ‘almost one’ person who wrote to her. I like to think of myself as a whole person – but will bow to Ms Malone’s superior grasp of numeracy.

I would ask that if anyone else thinks they wrote to the Council protesting against the cull, they check that they actually did write. If so, tell Ms Malone – and be sure not to bother this busy woman unless you live in Aberdeen!

Anyone who insists on being addressed as ‘Doctor’ who is not a medical doctor runs the risk of looking like a jumped-up, insecure, power-hungry, title-fixated, inflated, self-important nonentity

Finally, I am looking at a report from the Council dated 25 May 2010 which spells out the benefits of the ‘Tree’ scheme.

It will be carried out in such a way as to ‘… value and enjoy our built and natural environment and protect it and enhance it for future generations…’ Obviously not for future generations of animals mind, and if we get rid of the deer, so much more room for us to enjoy the great outdoors.

This proposal also explains how important it is to get the community involved  – not to listen to them, just get them involved – and says that Tullos School children can help plant the trees. I personally think it would be much more educational if the children could help kill the deer as well; this would be a great lesson indeed.

And on to this week’s dictionary corner….

Are you feeling well? The following definitions come with a warning that they may cause queasiness in the reader and headaches for the champions of good health and responsibility at Grampian National Health Trust. For the record, my grandmother was a nurse as was her sister, back in the day when wards were spotless, patients were cared for, even listened to, and hospital staff were seen as the most important part of a healthcare delivery service. Yes, that was a very long time ago indeed.

Doctor: (noun)  title given to an individual awarded a doctorate by a university; a professional in the healing arts; eg a physician, dentist or veterinarian who holds an advanced degree and is licensed to practise.

The title ‘Doctor’ is applicable to anyone who has successfully obtained a doctoral degree from a recognised, accredited university. The use of the title ‘Doctor’ as in ‘Dr Marcus Welby’ is most often only limited to doctors of medicine, although in universities it may be used to address any holder of a doctorate.

Anyone who, say, donates tons of money or is a wealthy tycoon with a wig, can wind up with an honorary doctorate, but would probably not insist on being addressed as ‘Doctor’. ‘Dr Donald Trump’ for instance, would sound just a wee bit naff.  Anyone who insists on being addressed as ‘Doctor’ who is not a medical doctor runs the risk of looking like a jumped-up, insecure, power-hungry, title-fixated, inflated, self-important nonentity. That is why nobody at, say, the Council, and involved in planning for instance, would insist on being referred to as ‘Doctor’. Now let’s look at the health of our medical sector.

Maggots: (noun – plural) type of insect; soft-bodied legless larvae from for instance the fly family

In superstitious medieval times, wounds and illnesses were often treated using leeches and other bloodsucking creatures (but not councillors as far as I know) to suck away excess blood. As it turns out, the use of leeches does have some medical value – they take out dead tissue and possibly promote healing.

This made her ill, made her extremely upset, and had nothing to do with what was actually going on with her health

How extremely far-sighted then, of Grampian NHS to be using maggots. Well, they had maggots in ARI back in 2009. It seems they were found in an operating theatre area or two in the not very clean ventilation system. You might think this shows a scandalous lack of concern for hygiene, but I am sure it was a well-intentioned experiment in healing.

Consent: (verb) To agree to a condition or set of conditions, to affirm assent.

When you go to hospital, if you are not in possession of your mental faculties or cannot speak, then you are unable to give consent when required. Recently, a woman in her 70s found herself having a stroke whilst in the care of Grampian NHS.

What apparently happened was rather than realise that a stroke was the problem, the (dis)orderlies treating her decided that as a tube had come out of her arm, the best thing to do with this conscious, communicating woman was to hold her down. This took three of them and she was apparently bruised, but you know how strong these old women are. As she pleaded against any injection, they gave her an anti-psychotic medication. This made her ill, made her extremely upset, and had nothing to do with what was actually going on with her health.

You can’t expect someone in a hospital to know all the rules of course, and the patient’s wishes should not be as important as what the staff feel they should do. About a year after this charming incident, I read in the news that she was given an apology. I am sure any one of us would have been more than satisfied with that.

Hospital parking: (noun) a place to leave a motor vehicle where the price charged for doing so can be astronomical.

If you can’t afford the taxi fare to a hospital for non-emergency treatment, if you don’t have the hours to spend when you’re ill taking a number 12 bus from the town centre to a hospital – forget it on a weekend – then please arrange to be ill when you have sufficient £££s to spend on hospital parking.

If you have a sick relative – a child or older person perhaps – who is in long-term care, either ask them to chip in for the parking or taxi money, or ask them to be ill after you’ve saved up enough to be able to afford to go to the hospital. Planning ahead makes everything so much easier to afford.

A note on mental health – anyone who is experiencing an episode of depression or suicidal feelings should be treated immediately at an NHS location of their choice. A man died last month – a man who had expressed a need for immediate help, as had members of his family, but he had not gone through the proper channels when thoughts of suicide overtook him and the NHS turned him away. So, members of Grampian NHS Board, who exactly is responsible for this tragedy? Please feel free to explain it to me as I don’t understand it.

 

What is Urban Sprawl and Why Should I Care?

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information  Comments Off on What is Urban Sprawl and Why Should I Care?
Mar 042011
 

The Aberdeen City and Shire landscape today bears little resemblance to the landscape of the past.  Voice’s Suzanne Kelly asks – Is this progress, or is this progress towards ill health, lack of biodiversity, and urban sprawl?

Back in the late 1950s, NASA (the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration) started its missions  and started photographing our planet from space.

Over the decades a major change in our planet became apparent to the NASA scientists:  we were rapidly destroying green areas, quickly expanding the surface area our cities, and covering previously green areas with non-porous material – usually asphalt and concrete.
The face of the planet was visibly changing, and the term ‘Urban Sprawl’ came into being.

Urban Sprawl is not just an ambiguous catchphrase – it is a very real phenomenon recognised by scientists and environmentalists from NASA through National Geographic.

If any of these items sound familiar to you,  you will understand Urban Sprawl and why it has to be slowed if not halted:-

  • increased air pollution and ‘particulates’ from car use, and associated health problems (asthma, heart disease, effects on unborn, types of cancers)
  • Increases in other forms of pollution, including light pollution
  • Inadequate facilities, e.g.: cultural, emergency, healthcare, and so forth for population size
  • Inefficient street layouts
  • Inflated costs for public transportation
  • Lost time and productivity due to time spent commuting; less personal time for relaxation and recreation
  • High levels of racial and socioeconomic segregation; deprived neighbourhoods
  • Low diversity of housing and business types (identikit houses packed closely together)
  • Health problem increases e.g. obesity due to less exercise and more time in cars
  • Less space for conservation and parks
  • High per-capita use of energy, land, and water
  • Loss of biodiversity

Urban Sprawl is changing Aberdeen and the Shire – and it is virtually irreversible

Last week I received an email from J Leonard, an Aberdeen Planning official.  He explains that we need to kill (or cull if you prefer) the small number of deer on Tullos Hill in order to protect trees the City has a grant to plant (£200k value in total).  He explained that when the trees are grown, deer and squirrels can then live in the area (thankfully the deer have been spared), and that Tullos Hill is ‘in the heart of an urban environment’.

This is what Urban Sprawl does – it takes over the greenbelt land bit by bit, until there is only a bubble of natural land left here and there, or what builders euphemistically call ‘wildlife corridors’ – small areas of land connecting remaining green areas. I was speaking to an older Aberdeen resident who distinctly remembers a time before the Altens Industrial Estate existed, and tells me of a green paradise teeming with many types of wildlife.

Now we have a few open areas but notably south of the city centre, we have turned part of the coast into a waste tip we had to cap just recently, and we added a sewage plant to the coast and are planning hundreds of houses in this sensitive area. Aberdeen Football Club intends to put a 21,000-seat stadium on land adjacent to Loirston Loch in the River Dee SAC (Special Area of Conservation).

We are failing to listen to the residents in these areas who currently enjoy a relatively rural area and whose lives will change greatly

The area holds remaining pockets of creatures such as (apparently protected) otters and bats as well as rare plants and animals (as per the Council’s own sign on Loirston Loch).  There will be no real environmental benefits associated with this stadium (indeed the pre-planning reports come up with about 40 negative permanent environmental impacts – but says we will get a ‘wildlife corridor’ where we now have open fields and an uninterrupted SAC).

However, we are told we will get ‘job creation’ and an ‘iconic building’ by Margaret Bochel of Aberdeen City Planning who endorsed the stadium plan.  Somehow, the only place the Council and AFC are willing to put this building is on greenbelt land, which we will never get back and which will never be the same.

We are told that Aberdeen needs to ‘ensure its future prosperity’, and our elected officials, builders, planners and business organisations tell us we must keep building and expanding.  The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, a new runway / airport extension, the 21,000 seat ‘community’ stadium, and of course transforming the Victorian gardens of Union Terrace Gardens into a ‘public square’ are large examples of proposed new structures — structures which we are meant to believe equate to economic prosperity (despite costing the taxpayer tens of millions or more per project).

The housing developments springing up like mushrooms are, we are told, going to be ‘modern’, ‘competitive’, and ‘attractive to inward investment’.  We are failing to listen to the residents in these areas who currently enjoy a relatively rural area and whose lives will change greatly:  they have resoundingly said they do not want development.  We are told there is a housing shortage (although many homes and office buildings in the city centre are vacant), and these developments are needed from Stonehaven to Inverurie and throughout the shire – on any bit of ground available.

Whether or not such building works will ensure future prosperity (can you ensure future economic success at all?), there is one truth about all of these projects:  they are all examples of Urban Sprawl.

What’s so important about Air Pollution, Light Pollution, and Biodiversity? Air Pollution

The link between air pollution and forms of heart and respiratory disease is now well acknowledge and documented.

There are cities such as Los Angeles and Hong Kong which issue daily air quality reports – recognising that bad air quality can directly cause illness such as asthma attacks.

Vehicle exhaust is a considerable factor in creating air pollution; ‘particulates’ created as a product of combustion engines are a part of the air pollution cocktail as are carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur.  A brief search of the British Medical Journal yields results such articles as:

And a quote from ‘Air pollution and daily mortality in  London:  1987-92 reads:

“The 1952 London smog episode was associated with a twofold to threefold increase in mortality and showed beyond doubt that air pollution episodes could be harmful to health.”

Car parking lots are coated with various chemicals associated with vehicles; these get into the soil with rain and snow.  And thus these pollutants can enter the food chain.

Light Pollution:  Really?

Until the Industrial Age, the planet was dark at night.  Now (as satellite photos demonstrate) city areas emit light all night long.  The problem with this is it is definitely affecting the breeding cycle of birds, insects including butterflies and moths, bats and other creatures.  We are changing an integral part of our ecosystem.  These creatures are largely responsible for pollinating our crops and keeping other insect pests in check.

Light pollution is a real and worrying phenomenon, and we need to reduce night-time lights.  If nothing else, saving electricity and energy will help save cities money, and global warming certainly is not helped by lighting up large portions of the night sky.  There is also research to show that light pollution can slow down the way in which air pollution breaks down.

It is safe to say that having a red, glow-in-the-dark football stadium on what is now greenbelt open land in Loirston will be detrimental to creatures that can currently live and hunt there.

each new housing estate is eating up our greenbelt land and urban sprawl threatens our health and well-being on several fronts

Mark Parsons, Mark Shardlow and Charlotte Bruce-White are all experts in the fields of insect life and conservation; they have authored an article ‘Light pollution – a menace to moths, and much more for Butterfly Conservation.  In it they present strong evidence from around the world that manmade light pollution is interfering in a very negative way with insect ilfe cycles.

Recommendations the article makes include:

  • Light should be kept to a functional minimum in all areas
  • Lights that emit a broad spectrum of light with a high UV component should be avoided
  • Aquatic environments and areas of high conservation value are potentially particularly sensitive to light pollution.  Lighting schemes in these areas should be carefully planned to avoid negative impacts

This last point is totally contrary to what is proposed at Loirston Loch.

Biodiversity

Again, the ecosystem is being changed at an alarming rate.  We are removing habitat – and without land to live and forage in, we will continue to lose animal populations and whole species.

What alternatives are there to continuous building and more urban sprawl?

How accurate are these assertions we have to keep building and using up the greenbelt?  The stadium for instance – how necessary is it?  The existing stadium at Pittodrie could be modernised.  Norwich FC recently rebuilt its stadium – the same is most definitely possible for Pittodrie.  Cities across the UK have lost millions bidding for, and hosting international competitions; prosperity is not automatic with a stadium.

We have to keep pumping money into the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre.  As to reported housing shortage, we know that there are thousands of empty houses both in the public and private sectors, and rather than new builds, using some of our vast quantities of unused offices and converting these to homes would be the more economical and more ecologically sound way forward.

Aside from the tens millions of pounds of taxpayer money any one of these new structures will drain from the public purse from consultation through to design, execution, use and maintenance, there is another price to be paid.  Each of these projects, and each new housing estate is eating up our greenbelt land and urban sprawl threatens our health and well-being on several fronts.

Wildlife tourism could be encouraged – as it is, the RSPB estimate that Scotland is visited by thousands who want to see our unique birds and other wildlife – perhaps we could preserve habitats, encourage our existing wildlife, and promote our natural resources more widely?

The EU is taking this very real problem seriously, and the US is realising the ramifications as well – perhaps it is time for Aberdeen’s planning and development professionals to wake up to urban sprawl’s threats as well.

Further resources:

  • EU Environment Agency publication, “Urban Sprawl in Europe – the ignored challenge”
  • Butterfly Conservation (Magazine of the Butterfly Conservation) Issue No. 106 ‘ Light Pollution – a menace to moths, and much more’

Want to take action?: Write to your local community council, city council planning department, MSP and MEP to express concern Visit your local wildlife sanctuaries, the city’s coastal areas, Loirston Loch Support conservation charities such as the RSPB, Butterfly Conservation, the John Muir Trust

Speak Out For Tullos Hill Deer – City Council Favour Cull

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Environment, Featured, News, Opinion  Comments Off on Speak Out For Tullos Hill Deer – City Council Favour Cull
Feb 212011
 

By Jeanette Wiseman.

Aberdeen City Council is planting 100,000 trees at various sites in Aberdeen including Tullos Hill as part of their Tree for every Citizen scheme. On paper this looks like a modern, progressive move. However a large number of deer inhabit the hill and to protect the young trees a cull has been advised by Scottish Natural Heritage.

On 1st March 2011 Aberdeen City Council will meet to discuss the issue and make a decision.

Animal welfare groups and others across the country are voicing their opposition to the cull as they believe that a decision to proceed with it would not only be unethical and barbaric, but would be ineffective. There is a wealth of evidence showing that culling deer to ‘keep down numbers’ only works if done repeatedly and that alternative methods such as simple tree sleeves, fencing to protect trees, supplying alternative browse or other deterrents are both humane and effective.

When culling has been carried out previously, the remaining animals have flourished because less competition for food exists, resulting in a higher reproductive rate. In this way they replenish their numbers. Even if the cull drastically reduces numbers in the herd, this is short term as it allows other deer to move into the vacant areas. The inevitability of increased deer numbers means that a cruel cycle of repeated killing begins.

Advocating taking this action, Director of Housing and Environment, Pete Leonard of Aberdeen City Council states,

“The established normal practice is to cull the deer during the establishment period of the trees, during the first 5 years or so after planting.”

In their ‘North Sea Trail’ leaflet, they promote the roe deer on Tullos Hill as an attraction!

Mr Leonard’s department is proposing a cull primarily on the basis that it is the most cost effective method of managing deer, but the costs set out for alternatives in the proposal are not transparent and detailed costing for the cull is not presented, making any reasonable long term cost / benefit analysis impossible.

Inevitably, this just gives the impression that the proposal is biased in favour of the cull.

The city’s Tree for Every Citizen scheme has the potential to be wholly positive – the planting of native species of trees, cutting carbon emissions, transforming the city and creating habitat are all to be commended and would still happen if the deer were left alone. It is likely that the deer at Tullos Hill have roamed there for generations, long before the council marked the hill for tree planting, and interaction with the deer has long been enjoyed by the Aberdeen public and visitors to the area, as the council well knows. In their ‘North Sea Trail’ leaflet, they promote the roe deer on Tullos Hill as an attraction!

It is hypocritical that a scheme which claims to deliver benefits to citizens’ health and well-being, as well as providing specialised habitats for nationally important species and enhancing the environment, could begin with the brutal slaughter of one of our most beautiful native animals, following a trend that has become far too commonplace in ‘wildlife management’.

Take action against this needless persecution and ensure that it doesn’t take place.

If you are a citizen of Aberdeen, tell the Council that you don’t want a tree planted in your name if a deer has been killed for it.

Click on the link below and let them know that this slaughter is unacceptable and that the Tullos Hill deer should live.

http://www.ethicalvoiceforanimals.org.uk/shownotice.php?articleid=162