Greenbelt Archives - Aberdeen Voice

Old Susannah No. 52: The Most Hated Man In Scotland?

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Creative Writing, Environment, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Sep 232011

Old Susannah looks back at the week that was. By Suzanne Kelly.

Old Susannah is enjoying a glass of ‘Hello… my name is Ingrid’ (a beautiful brew made with cloudberry) at Brewdog, and is reflecting on another busy week in the Deen.
There was the Periurban conference for one thing. This was announced last minute on the City’s website.
It was an international conference on how cities deal with land on the fringes of the urban areas. I guess people from around the world came to see how wonderfully Aberdeen treats Union Terrace Gardens, Tullos Hill, green space at Westhill and Cove, and Loirston Loch.

The two-day conference was opened by the pioneering champion of all things green: Kate Dean.

I sent in an application, and then found myself invited to the second day’s events. For some reason it seemed they didn’t want me on the first day. I heard lots of important speakers, most of whom said urban sprawl is a problem, and we must all use less resources and re-use what we can. Someone even said ‘planting trees is not a solution’ – Cllr HoMalone please take note.

We heard about city centres emptying out if there is too much urban sprawl, with shops closing and crime and social deprivation becoming a problem. I was just surprised no one from Aberdeen explained how our ‘improving’ Union Terrace Gardens into a car park, ‘cosmopolitan cafe’, the hoped-for monorail and building in the greenbelt were going to save the day. I would have loved to have heard it.

One City Council official kept turning around in their seat to look at me; for some reason they almost looked worried I was there. Could it have been the ‘Save the Tullos Deer’ t-shirt I wore under my suit jacket?

Someone was there from a local green charity, and somehow I brought up the deer cull situation (my t-shirt might have helped). The person had no idea why the Scottish SPCA was against the cull and what the other issues were. I happily explained.

Elsewhere in the Deen, someone has decided to leave a cat in a wheelie bin. Perhaps they want as much media attention as the woman from Coventry got? You may remember Mary Bale who cruelly left a cat in a bin for hours on end and was caught out. Let’s see if we can’t find the Aberdeen copycat cat botherer and do for them what the press did for Bale.

It would likewise be a shame if shamed Banff Brothers David and Colin Reid of 22 Boyndie Street West, Banff, got any bad press for their dogfighting activity conviction and jail sentences.

This is the Scottish SPCA’s first major dogfighting conviction in Aberdeenshire (where officials denied there was a problem, you may recall), and it is cause for celebration. The Reids must know something about other dog fighters – let’s hope they roll over. Thankfully, some of the dogs they were abusing have been rescued.

But anyway, here I am in Brewdog wondering what to write about this week.

I am looking at a recent Press & Journal headline which screams in giant letters: ‘IS THIS THE MOST HATED MAN IN SCOTLAND?‘ As I am always happy to follow where the P&J leads, so let’s skip definitions this week and take a look at the most hated man in Scotland instead.

Imagine one man using the legal system to the maximum for his own self-interested ends. Imagine him standing alone, unwilling to listen to the thousands of people who want him to abandon the battle.

Imagine for a minute how much taxpayer money and court time he is willing to use up.

Yes, Mr Milne may well be the most hated man in Scotland. For openers there is the legal battle which he’s taking all the way to the highest court in the UK. For those who don’t know, Milne bought land from the City Council – 11 acres in Westhill – for some £335,000. (By the way, who do the rest of us have to know to get deals like that? Jane – can you help?). The land is worth millions.

Apparently Milne agreed with the City to pay a portion of any sale/rental profit to the City. In a really sharp, not at all transparent move, the land was sold from one arm of the vast Milne empire to another Milne company. As you’d expect, such a deal cost over £500,000 to do. Or so Milne claims when his companies say there was no profit left after the sale. Seems pretty clear to me.

Yes, Milne is appealing (but not to most of us).

You’d have thought that our very generous Council wouldn’t go bothering Stew for a mere 1.7 million pounds (goodness knows the City can waste that much with ease), but it seems the City will be trying to claw back the money.

The courts found in the City’s favour – but Milne would rather drag us on through the legal system and cost the taxpayer more money than shell out.

Yes, Milne is appealing (but not to most of us). Of course if you weigh this against all the associated costs, then there probably won’t be much financial gain. Here’s a clever idea: let’s stop selling our assets at less money than they are worth. Who knows? We might wind up less than the £50 million in debt we currently are. But back to Milne.

We come to the subject of the once-beautiful game. Someone’s decided it’s much better to do land deals than try and win matches.

Milne will develop Pittodrie (which could have been rennovated – this has been done elsewhere in the UK) and build in the greenbelt well out of town. Loirston Loch will be greatly improved by the new stadium. What the remaining wildlife will make of the lack of land, the cars, the additional pollution and inevitable trash is another matter.

I wonder what it’s like to be less popular than the Donald? Will the Dons become the Donalds?

The bottom line is the stadium will glow in the dark (!) and we can have Elton John and Rod Stewart concerts!. (Who cares that two BBC stories this week prove another link between ill health and car exhaust fumes, and Scotland’s wildlife continues to diminish?)

You would have thought that AFC fans would be jumping for joy at the chance to drive/bus/walk to Loirston. Instead, many of them want Milne to jump ship. Things are so desperate that some fans are actively inviting Donald Trump to invest in the club. Ouch.

I wonder what it’s like to be less popular than the Donald? Will the Dons become the Donalds? Mr Milne might want to stay away from Facebook or AFC fan sites for a wee while, where there is just a hint of dissatisfaction. Such ingratitude – and after all he’s done to us. Sorry – I mean ‘for us’.

Stew’s not very popular in the city centre either. In his proposal for Triple Kirks, he’s promised us more office buildings. Result!

So who’d have thought that putting two glass box buildings next to the Triple Kirk spire (and probably chasing those pesky peregrine falcons away in the process) could make you unpopular? There will be office space – and who wants anything more than more office space?

I’m afraid to say Mr Milne is now as popular with golfers as fox-batterer Forbes would be at an animal rights meeting.

The only problem is parking (not that that is hindering him developing Pittodrie or in creating the stadium – neither has adequate parking in their plans). Where on earth will Stew find any parking solutions close to Triple Kirks? If only there was some empty, under-used space nearby – maybe something that ‘only has grass’ in it. He could have car parking, the offices would go ahead without a hitch, he’d rake in some money.

People would be amazingly grateful: we would get parking, shopping and ‘cosmopolitan cafes’ – where we can sit and drink coffee year round and be, er, cosmopolitan. If only Stew or his pal Ian could think of some solution to the problem, it would mean more money for Milne. There are some people who think the consultation should have been handled by the city with a lengthy consultation, and that the listed status of Triple Kirks carried a bit of weight. These people were of course wrong.

And let’s face it: Milne could be low on cash. Am I alone in thinking he’s short? He’s chasing a mere 1.7 million through the courts (when he’s supposedly worth about 60 million). He’s about to lay off workers up and down Scotland – he says he can’t afford them.

Perhaps he expanded a bit too quickly? Perhaps he thought new building would continue for ever? Well – with our City Council it just might.

It seems a little ironic that the City is giving Milne contracts (some recent ones total over ten million) while he is both dragging the city through the courts and firing Aberdonians in the building trade. But the people who are in charge know best.

For reasons of space, I’ll limit this to just one more aspect of the man’s popularity. I’m afraid to say Mr Milne is now as popular with golfers as fox-batterer Forbes would be at an animal rights meeting. It seems that the Portlethen community council and those who use Portlethen Golf Club are up in arms over Milne’s plans to build 153 houses so close to the course that there may be a few problems. Safe to say, people are teed off.

There you have it. The Press & Journal had their own front-page suggestion for ‘the most hated man in Scotland.’ Some of us have a different candidate for that title.

Last word: City Council employees: stop criticising your wonderful employers and managers on the Intranet. First: they don’t like it and are drafting all kinds of means to stop your free speech. Second: that’s my job. I understand they may participate in a 24-hour ‘tweeting’ session to say what excellent services they’ve got going. You are cordially uninvited to tweet back.

Tullos Time: What’s Happening On The Hill? – Part 2

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Jul 222011

Last week in the first of this two part investigation, Suzanne Kelly described how The City Council and its officials were dealing with the Tullos Hill roe deer cull and tree-planting issues. Part 1 also covered the decades of arson on ‘The Gramps’, the excellent quality of Tullos Hill as it is, local community councils’ opposition to the cull, and the considerable public anger at the City’s refusal to even consider modifying its plans.

The hill itself is a wildlife haven; the very important gorse providing homes to bees and birds. There are fields of wildflowers (the spectacular Dame’s Violets for instance), and it is a recreation area.

This is why our City Council – as a LibDem election pledge – want to turn it into some gargantuan 40,000-tree profit-making (ie lumber-producing) forest.

We now look at other important aspects of this issue, challenge the government to comment, and propose some actions.

The Gorse is always Greener

‘Kissing is out of fashion when the gorse is not in bloom’ goes an old saying – based on the fact gorse virtually always has blossoms. This is an extremely useful plant for bees. If you’ve not been made aware, bee populations around the world are in serious trouble.

As long as we still want our plants to be pollinated so we keep eating, we are well advised to do all we can to encourage bees. My research leads me to conclude that gorse is far better for bees and several other species than trees are (particularly trees which will be cut down for profit when the Council chooses).

Don’t take my word for the importance of gorse. Do take Dr. Ian Rotherham’s word:-

“Gorse is an incredibly valuable habitat for wildlife – supporting a diversity of invertebrates and many birds and mammals. It provides dense cover plus abundant nesting sites, invertebrate food associated with the gorse, and of course the blaze of flowers during much of the year. Butterflies, bees, hoverflies, spiders, badgers, whinchats, stonechats, yellowhammers, chaffinches, linnets, greenfinches, meadow pipits and skylarks for example, all thrive in gorse-rich areas.

“As the biomass of gorse builds up it loses vigour and beings to die back. If there is a fire then the gorse is reduced to ground level and will quickly regenerate for the next 30-40 years or so. Clearly fire risk can be a problem but not for the gorse or the associated wildlife (except at the immediate time of a conflagration).

“Cyclical cutting of gorse, grazing, and cutting of fire-breaks are positive ways to reduce risk and damage but to maintain what is a rich but often unappreciated wildlife habitat. The establishment of a friends group to watch over the area would also help reduce risk. The gorse in bloom is also a wonderful landscape feature. A plantation wood does not provide a biodiversity resource or a landscape feature to match this. Trees are often planted at the expense of the wildlife habitats and landscape features because of the misconception that they are inherently better for wildlife – which they are not – and because money is available as grants to do this.”

( Dr Rotherham is a Professor of Environmental Geography, Reader in Tourism & Environmental Change, International Research Coordinator, associated with universities around the world. He is editor of several important academic publications including International Journal of Urban Forestry, Journal of Practical Ecology & Conservation, and International Urban Ecology Review )

I would be interested to hear from any City Council officer, ranger or pro -Tullos Hill tree plantation consultant wishing to comment on Dr Rotherham’s statement.

In the meantime, Ian Talboys, Countryside Ranger for Aberdeen wrote to me on 6 June:-

“The amount of gorse on the site will be substantially reduced to make way for the tree planting
which again reduces the risk of wilful fires”.

Why should a countryside ranger particularly be keen to change an ecosystem such as Tullos to a profit-making, lumber-producing forest? Where is the evidence that replacing gorse with saplings and trees will reduce wilful fire risk?

City Council ‘austerity’ and ‘budget’ cuts

I spoke to a person connected to the countryside services for the Council. They advised me that like virtually every branch of our local government, they are now expected to find income streams and do all they can to make money.

It is not enough that our environment is under threat from over-development, pollution and loss of biodiversity – our environmental conservation activities are supposed to make money for the City. Would our rangers’ time be better served in patrolling the fire-prone areas, educating people and engaging in active conservation, or are we asking them to look for grants such as the tree-planting ones and to make money at all costs?

If I get an answer to this question, I will share it with you. Again, I invite comment from the City.

I still await a reply as to how this timber business is going to be set up, and for a copy of the business plan. Should any of this information ever be forthcoming from our elected officials, I will share it with you. Again, should any City proponents of the scheme like to come forward and (finally) explain how the timber business will work, I invite them to do so.

It has just been announced that despite negotiations with Unions being incomplete, the City has signed an agreement with external consultants to make £120 million worth of budget savings over a five-year period (cost of these consultants has been estimated at between £500k to £600k). Perhaps they will have their own opinion as to the viability of a timber business venture on an arson hotspot which has already resulted in the City returning £43,800 to the Forestry Commission…

Failed Tree Planting, Failed Open Government, Failed Freedom of Information Requests

In a ten-point complaint I clearly asked for clarification of a £44,000 debt for a failed tree plantation which I had heard of. The City’s Chief Executive Valerie Watts wrote in early June to deny any money was owed.

Proof that this payment was made was given to me almost immediately after Watts’ denial – but as of 21 July,Wattshas not explained the failure to disclose the repayment.

The proof is a letter the Forestry Commission sent to the City earlier this year which was copied to Ian Talboys. The question is whether Watts knew of the letter when she wrote to me or not. Until she explains her answer, the whole planting programme should be put on hold. It is not just returning money for the past failure (we had to pay interest) but the implications for this new planting that need to be considered, which could be significant for the cash-strapped council’s taxpayers.

Watts was made aware of this repayment by me, and possibly earlier by others. What is beyond the pale is that Freedom of information Officers continued for some weeks afterward to advise that no debt was owed. All of the requests I have seen referenced the £44k figure; mine specifically asked for clarification of the matter.

If the City tries to use the excuse that since the debt was paid in March and the questions arrived in June, then that would be the most disingenuous logic coming from Town Hall in memory. I am sure it is beyond the Council’s lowest standard to try and make pretence of using such a childish defence. When we will get the truth is crucial – they must not be allowed to stall this matter until cull season opens. If anyone trying to prevent the cull could ask their elected officials to have these issues addressed and investigated fully as an urgent matter, it will help. I have asked the FOI office to explain whether or not it discovered this letter in its search to answer my question. I have asked it to advise whether or not it made a deliberate decision to not disclose this letter. I await the outcome of the investigation.

Yet another Freedom of Information anomaly exists regarding Grampian Fire.

Fire power

The previous article covered the problems of arson. Confusion emerges as to the number of fires. There was a FOI request response from Grampian Fire which shows a nominal number of deliberate fires. At the time of writing I await permission to share or reproduce these figures, as they are apparently ‘copyright’. I have officially applied to print them, but cannot do so until Grampian Fire’s officials approve my written request.

However I came across an internet document which shows a rather different, substantially higher number of fires than the FOI request revealed, entitled ‘Grampian Fire and Rescue Service Category 2 – Advancing Community and Citizen Well-being’ . This document states there were over 70 fires for 2006, and claims the figures were going down; it had partial 2008 figures and said only 11 fires started that year. It is worth mentioning that there have been at least half a dozen fires in the Gramps since May of this year. In any event, the paper’s numbers are not the same as the recently supplied figures, which are lower.

I will try to discover an explanation for the discrepancy, and will cover whatever explanation Grampian Fire sends in another article. Both email addresses for the FOI officer and the above paper’s writer are at the address ‘@grampianfrs.org.uk’, which leads me to conclude the same organisation might be responsible for distributing contradictory figures.

I add this to the ever growing list of things I am trying to discover, and yet all the while a cull remains the City’s goal, and the clock is ticking.

SNH – Natural Heritage as long as it’s not inconvenient

Scottish Natural History have been taking great pains to gain media coverage recently (BBC and local press), saying in effect that deer are great, but to stop them being killed in road accidents and over-populating, they have to be ‘managed.’ They launched a consultation, which many animal groups felt had a strong bias towards hunting and culling red deer and roe deer equally. First, what kind of animal are we talking about exactly?

What are roe deer?

Recognition: Small deer, reddish brown in summer, grey in winter. Males have short antlers, erect with no more than three points.

Height: Average height at shoulder 60-75cm (that is less than 3 foot tall). Males slightly larger than females.

Weight: Adults 10-25kg

Lifespan: The maximum age recorded for wild roe is 16 years, but most die before 7 years.

Diet: Their diet is varied and includes buds and leaves of deciduous trees and shrubs, bramble, rose, ivy, herbs, conifers, ferns, heather and grasses.

By permission, the Mammal Society,
http://www.mammal.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&id=228

So in short these tiny creatures, of which we seemingly have 30 on Tullos Hill alone jeopardise a 40,00 tree plantation. (The Council has made absolutely no mention of how they will tackle the weed problem cited by the Forestry Commission as a partial reason for the previous expensive failure – again, I have asked for this information with no reply).

Glasgow has made a strong statement against these types of culls which can be found at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/291204/0089678.pdf and the relevant section starts on page 5.”

Here are some relevant extracts:-

“….collaborative deer management is not necessary for Roe deer in urban environments as there is no scientific justification for this.

2.4 There is no mention of the positive role of wild deer on natural habitats. Large herbivores help to create and retain glades and rides within woodlands, which provide habitat for a range of other species.

2.5 This section of the Bill has the potential to perpetuate and reinforce the perception of deer as pest species. Whilst this will promote the interests of a minority who have a vested interest in deer management principally through culling, it goes against the reason for the inclusion of native wild deer on the Scottish Biodiversity List, Le. the appreciation of these animals by the general public who wish to see them left unharmed.

2.6 Glasgow City Council believes that this section in its present form promotes an unbalanced view of the rationale behind deer management, whilst acknowledging that there is scientific justification for the management of red deer in parts of the Highlands.

Deer in Scotland – General Comments.

2.7 GCC object to the blanket statement that ‘Deer therefore need to be managed … ‘ for the following reasons:

• The terms manage/managed/management are not defined but appear to relate to culling deer, which is not the usual definition of management. This needs to be clarified.

• If the above is the case, then deer do not always require to be culled because in some areas an increase in population size could be beneficial.

•Red Deer and Roe Deer are quite different animals not only in size but also in habits etc. Why are they covered by one piece of legislation and why do they both have to be managed?”

The various animal charities I’ve communicated with all remain against this cull and have their own experts who explain the flaws in the entire premise.

Can we have some urban trees please?

A personal observation. The section of Aberdeen I live in, Torry, has fewer trees on its main streets than any other part of the world I’ve lived in, city or suburb. The streets are however covered with cars and trucks 24/7, and the exhaust fumes have air quality implications.

A few trees would do a good deal to clean the air. It would be costly and difficult to plant and protect them. But it would not be impossible. We know from the Council’s websites that parts of Aberdeen (Wellington Road in particular) have serious air pollution issues. We also know trees help reduce vehicular pollution. In the course of my research I learned that the indigenous fir trees for the Grampian area have been greatly depleted over time – yet there is no plan to replace these native species.

Conclusion: Stop this destructive, unwanted plan now and cancel any deer cull. Plant fewer trees. Plant in other locations

Unanswered questions

Regarding the business plan for the proposed forest. How much will it make? How disruptive would this plantation be to the area residents and businesses?
Why does the City insist only a ‘minority’ of people are against this cull when elected bodies have objected on behalf of their communities? If the Community Councils are lining up against this scheme – which started life as a Liberal Democrat election pledge – is it not just time to dump it?
Why didn’t the City disclose the £43,800 failure when asked to clarify whether a £44,000 debt existed?
As the failure was due to deer and weeds – what are we doing about the weeds? What kinds of pesticides will be used? What are the risks and implications?
If the scheme is ‘cost neutral’ – who exactly pays the (low-seeming) estimate of some £2,500 per year for ten years to shoot the deer?
Have council employees been discouraged from expressing opinions against the cull? (My sources tell me this is the case).
Why take the scheme up at all if it must be done at the lowest cost – which is shooting the deer? Who is hold a gun to the City’s head and forcing it to change Tullos Hill into something it is not? What is the reluctance to just stop this scheme now? Has the City made any effort at all to get sponsors to pay for the non-lethal options? (Note: BAA and Wood Group have contributed for the phase 1 scheme – neither seem keen to be associated with this deer-culling phase 2. Concerned people may wish to contact these and other companies to state opposition to phase 2).
What are the real arson risks once a forest is established on this windy hill (if indeed it is not too windy for trees to be established in great number)? Is it possible the situation could be as severe a problem as the forest fires that plague the US and Europe? What are the correct figures for the arson attacks?

A final summary

Last week a media contact asked me to supply the statement below, which sums up my conclusions and reflects the opinions of the vast majority of the people I have spoken with:-

The public have in no way given up on stopping the deer cull on Tullos Hill. Tullos is an important and beautiful ecosystem as it is, and the deer population has been stable for many years.

Putting up signs to warn motorists that deer are in the area is sensible; putting 40,000 trees on this arson hotspot is not sensible. Four Community Councils have told the Council they do not want the trees if it means a cull – these elected councils represent thousands of people.

The City had to repay £43,800 for a planting on Tullos that failed due to deer browsing AND weeds. The City initially omitted this when I asked for clarification- and I patiently await sensible answers to this and other questions. The tree planting was a Liberal Democrat election promise – it is amusing that it is this unpopular promise they are so stubborn about keeping.

Finally, Peter Leonard has written to say that the Community Councils don’t understand the issues and they only know what they got from the media. I find his remarks unbelievably patronising and insulting, particularly when it was down to the Council to communicate the details of its scheme in the first place.

The Council kept the deer cull out of the phase 2 public consultation and is now claiming people don’t have the facts. This is wholly unacceptable, and I am pleased that my sources tell me there is a great deal of unrest, with an official calling the situation ‘a hot potato’.

Unfortunately the lack of timely, sensible answers looks to many people as if the City is stalling and hopes to get away with a cull. There will be no cull without repercussions at the ballot box in May.

I am creating a presentation to give to any community council that wants it, particularly aimed at those councils which will have the City’s experts present their side. Direct action is being considered by some animal rights/concern groups.

If you have any feelings one way or the other, then I urge you to contact your elected representatives (you may also wish to contact Scottish Representatives Roseanna Cunningham and Stewart Stevenson who are backing the proposal).

Good luck to the roe deer and the wishes of the people of Aberdeen in the face of our government.

Image Credit: Roe Deer Standing Still © Catalin Pobega | Dreamstime.com

Tullos Time: What’s Happening On The Hill? – Part 1

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Jul 152011

In the first of two parts, Suzanne Kelly offers an update into what is and is not happening on the hill.

There may have not been much about the controversial Tullos Hill Roe Deer Cull in the media of late; therefore it’s time for an update.

The relative quiet in the media is not for lack of investigation, protest and anger on the community’s part.

As for the City and its LibDem councillors and officials, they are either spreading incorrect information (denying the past failure and £44k debt which resulted), or not answering questions at all (I eagerly await overdue answers on a number of fronts).

The question is: are they trying to stall a proper investigation until they start shooting in September? It looks as if stalling might indeed be their strategy.

There are so many outstanding issues, questions and problems with the Tullos Hill deer cull that this article needs to be split into two parts. This part will look at the location chosen for the trees, Community Council’s stances and the small matter of arson.

Next week will cover issues including the SNH, the unanswered Freedom of Information requests and formal complaints, the importance of the gorse-covered hill as it exists (an expert writes), and the curious case of the £43,800 Forestry Commission ‘repayment.’ This repayment Ms Watts either forgot about or didn’t know about when last she wrote to me.

Interestingly, Freedom of Information requests on this point are still being answered that no such debt exists.

Either the council is being very very accurate (the debt was repaid late this March, but it most definitely existed), or someone was keen to keep the repayment quiet. If so, they failed just as they failed in their bid to keep the cull quiet).

Before we get into the details, a small ray of hope: unnamed sources confirm that there is unease within the corridors of power over this ridiculous plan, with officials calling the situation ‘a hot potato’ and a ‘can of worms’. Take heart from that, but please continue reading this article.

If at the end of it you decide you don’t want the cull, then write to your elected officials and Aberdeen City Chief Executive Valerie Watts, making it clear you will vote against anyone in May who has voted for this cull.

See: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1

Deer have lived in relative security (bar the arsonists and Aileen Malone) on Tullos Hill for many decades; they delight the residents of Torry and Kincorth as well as people visiting from further afield.

The hill is a wildlife haven as it is with the very important gorse providing homes to bees and birds, fields of wildflowers (the spectacular Dame’s Violets for instance).

It has bronze age cairns set dramatically on its summit (currently un-obscured by trees), and it is a recreation area. This is why our City Council – as a LibDem election pledge – want to turn it into some gargantuan 40,000-tree profit-making (i.e. lumber-producing) forest.

Of all the Liberal Democrat promises, killing the deer and planting the trees is about the only one in the UK they are adamant about sticking to.

They told the community councils and the public at large what a great thing this forest would be – but as previously demonstrated, they and SNH deliberately sought to keep a cull of the Tullos Hill roe deer secret. Without a cull, there is no money for planting all these trees (although we could have had experts advising us – for free – how to plant trees without culling deer: it just would have cost money). Why then we are insisting on a forest of this size or a forest at all, and why on Tullos Hill?

Location, Location, Location

If we accept without question that trees must be planted because we can get grants for doing so as long as they reach growth targets, then where to put them?

The easily-accessible Loirston Loch greenbelt area has several young trees on it – all in tree protector sleeves (the same sleeves which the SNH November letter tells us are rejected because they have ‘visual impact’ among other reasons – someone at ACC took this decision to reject tree protectors for us all with no recourse to the public or local councils). There was a splendidly suitable area for these trees – but we are putting a football / community stadium on this piece of ground now.

This virtually flat land is easily reached by car (Tullos at present has no parking and is mainly reached by several footpaths), is not on a windswept hill, and is not as remote as Tullos – therefore less desirable to arsonists. It is a largely open field with grasses and some vegetation in very moist, nearly marshy ground.

Loirston was not the only option either. But this is Aberdeen: Tullos Hill is apparently the only choice we have, according to our Council. They are happy to sacrifice greenbelt at Loirston and elsewhere for stadiums, offices and housing – but are adamant that an existing, stable ecosystem must become a forest: and they will not answer us why.

Fire on the Mountain

For all the City rangers’ and Grampian Fire’s attempts to be ‘down with the kids’, the arson issue remains the burning question: why put 40,000 young trees on a windswept hill with access issues which is next to settlements and industry when we can’t keep the arsonists out?

Ranger Ian Talboys is at pains to play down the arson issue. In an email to myself, 6 June 2011 he states:

“As the trees to be planted are mainly broadleaved species which do not readily burn in the way gorse does the risk of fire is reduced. The conifers in the scheme will be mixed in with the broadleaved species again reducing the risk of large scale fire damage….. The recent statistics have shown a substantial reduction in wilful fire raising on the site, despite the recent incidents.

“It is however encouraging that the Police have charged a number of youths in connection with these fires as a result of intelligence gained from the local community and following the work we have been doing with the local schools over the last 5 years. In the last couple of years there have been very few fires on Tullos Hill, a total of some 11 fires were reported for 2010 on Kincorth Hill and Tullos Hill combined….”

Mr Talboys also talks about getting rid of the gorse, which:

“reduces the risk of wilful fires”

Gorse is a vital part of the ecosystem, particularly on Tullos Hill which we will look at later. However it is disappointing that the attitude is to get rid of a natural feature which supports wildlife because it is more flammable (allegedly) than trees – rather than to simply stop the arsonists.

Who are the arsonists, and is Talboys right that the fires are decreasing? So far this year there have been at least a dozen fires. Two men aged 27 and 23 are being charged with starting fires on 3 July: so much for the idea of stopping the schoolchildren starting fires, which is the strategy Talboys promotes.

American studies identify half a dozen types of arsonists; these two would fit into the ‘excitement-motivated’ arson category, often men between 18-30. Blaming children was the favourite option; it is now discredited. The Council may wish to do more research on this one.

You may be interested to know that Talboy’s figures are slightly at odds with figures supplied by Grampian Fire. Then again, media reports would seem to say there have been more fires than either of these sources. I would love to tell you what Grampian Fire had to say: but they have qualified that their statistics are subject to copyright and are for personal use and not publication! I await clarification and will report once they explain themselves.

At least someone in power loves Tullos. When the fires were blazing in May of this year, Fraser Burr of Grampian Fire (Risk Reduction) told the BBC:

“It would be a shame to see such a beautiful area of the city, enjoyed by hundreds throughout the year, ruined by wilful fire raising”. – (BBC News 22 May 2011)

I spoke to a New York-based former fire department captain; he seriously disputes Talboy’s contention that young or mature trees are relatively safe from fire. California for one example habitually fights forest fires that are vast in area; the size of the trees makes the fire considerably more dangerous than a few burning gorse bushes. Wind makes the problem far worse.

Fact: Tullos Hill is extremely windy at times. People often need to be evacuated from their homes when the fires rage (also seen in Europe) – who will promise this will not happen here with 40,000 trees virtually on top of residential and industrial areas as Tullos is? My fire-fighter source said ‘there is no magic plant that doesn’t burn’.

He also posed a hypothetical question and asked me why these people are so fixed on planting these trees in this location. I have asked, but I have no answer. He then jokingly said ‘who’s getting kickback?’ We both laughed.

Your Community Councils at work

When the truth came out about the secret cull plans, community councils and citizens (in their thousands) condemned the plan and the way the City handled the public ‘phase 2’ consultation. How did your local community council react?

I am writing this piece on the 13th of July. The Minute of the Housing & Environment Committee meeting of May 10 is still not available on the Council’s website a mere 2 months after the fact. It was at this meeting that Andy Finlayson and I had both put in delegations to speak about the deer cull and Tullos Hill, for all the reasons that had emerged since the cull was first brought up.

It was because there was no written report on the deer – only a verbal one which had been requested by Malone – that we were not automatically allowed to speak. Abuse of process springs to mind. In the event, the matter of our delegations was put to a vote and only a handful of councillors supported letting the truth be heard.

I have been waiting to check the accuracy of these Minutes; for one thing I admit I got confused as to whether Andy Finlayson was from Nigg or rather from Cove (which I now understand to be the truth). Finlayson was the other would-be speaker. Maybe after another two months have passed, the Minutes will be published and I can double-check this point.

But take note: in another two months it will be the season for the cull: could our City be deliberately stalling us until it is too late for the deer?

Community Councils are your elected local representatives. The City has a duty to consult with them on local issues – something sadly lacking on this issue, let alone the massive Loirston AFC football ground which will fragment the greenbelt. Nigg CC is very busy with this important issue.

The City is not consulting, and it is certainly not listening. Here are what the Councils are saying – how did yours react?

Kincorth (population 8,300) – ‘Abhorrence’

Kincorth Community Council resolved at its May 2011 meeting:

“Item 10.1 The City Council has agreed to the killing of the deer on Tullos Hill but have stated it will be done as humanely as possible. The Chair asked the Secretary to write indication our abhorrence at this decision”.

Kincorth spokesperson Graham Bennett, quoted in the Press & Journal, 13 May:

“We are all united. We deplore the willingness of the City Council to cull the deer. We all agreed we didn’t want a tree planted for every citizen. These are defenceless animals. We would rather do without the trees and have the deer.”

I spoke to a member of Kincorth CC; they are all outraged and want the hill to remain as it is, with the deer continuing to live there. My contact cites the fact that the ‘phase 2 consultation’ said nothing about the deer cull, yet mentioned rabbit fencing.

This is one of the strongest points of contention – the public and community councils were deliberately kept in the dark about the deer cull. This is proved clearly in the 25 November letter the SNH sent to the City Council, stating the need to ‘manage’ the public over the cull.

It seems SNH are fully aware that culling these animals in general is an issue – but to kill animals in order to protect non-existent trees is ‘abhorrent’. (More about the SNH and its recent deer consultation next week). The word ‘abhorrent’ is also how the Scottish Society for the Protection of Animals and Kincorth Community Council describe this LibDem plan.

Torry (population c 9,400) – Unanimous condemnation of the cull

Torry Community Council allowed me to speak at its meeting in May on the cull; they had been informed about the trees in some detail – minus the crucial detail of the deer cull.

The 14 members present voted unanimously to condemn the cull and to write to the City to protest the cull and the lack of consultation. Talboys specifically communicated with Torry about the trees, without ever mentioning a deer cull.

To put it mildly, the Council and the residents of Torry are Not Happy.

Cove & Altens (population 7,100) – Chairman gagged by Malone

On 10th May Cove’s Chairman Andy Finlayson attempted to address the Housing & Environment Committee over the cull and all the issues which had arisen (lack of consultation with CCs, no reference made in the public consultation documents, etc.).

Aileen Malone initially referred to him as the ‘gentleman from Cove Community Centre’ as opposed to his status as duly-elected Council member. On the technicality of there being no written report on the deer – only a verbal one – Cove’s representative was unable to raise the many points which the Council had kept out of the public domain which were relevant to the tree scheme.

“We are totally against it, basically… the community council is unanimous and everyone in the area we speak to is against it…the message is, stuff the trees – we would rather have the deer.” – Andy Finlayson, Chair, Cove & Altens CC, Press & Journal 13 May 2011

Nigg (population 8,200) – a history of concern for animal welfare

“I think the majority of the Community Council are against it (the cull)” – James Brownhill, Nigg CC – Press & Journal, 13 May 2011

Nigg is committed to preserving its greenbelt land as its actions and its website attest. It is doing all it can to stop the ridiculous AFC stadium plans which will see a 21,000 seat stadium plunked in the middle of the greenbelt to its permanent injury. A year ago, the Nigg Community Council April Minutes had this entry:

“Lochinch Visitors Centre Deer- thanks to activity of Cllr Cooney, Nigg CC, Jenny Gall and Vivienne McCulloch, deer had been saved from culling and will live out their lives in their current (but reduced) enclosure.”

Before the furore broke out over Tullos Hill, Councillor Neil Cooney and others from Nigg were already going to bat against needless slaughter of our indigenous animals when tame deer were earmarked for needless slaughter.

One year later at its 14 April 2011 meeting, Nigg CC resolved:

“Proposed Deer Cull Tullos Hill – Majority against proposal. Lack of deer management policy holding up planting of trees under ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme.”

Nigg’s Council met again on 12 May 2011 after the Housing Committee’s undemocratic debacle over the deer and would-be speakers. Nigg’s minutes read:

“Proposed Deer Cull Tullos Hill. Decision to cull deer city-wide approved by ACC Councillors. SNH recommended cull to save deer from starvation. Nigg CC still not happy with this decision”.

I disagree with the comment about starvation, and wonder if SNH have actually said the deer at Tullos will starve – they are in no present danger of that as things stand. But this is a very minor point concerning the minutes. When it comes to accuracy in Minute taking, Cults has managed to create an interesting document indeed.

Cults: (population 10,824) – An important debate with Cllr Aileen Malone

I spoke to Cults Bieldside Milltimber Community Council on 26 May where Aileen Malone and I finally had the debate she had so far resisted (again, she would not let me speak to the Housing committee which she convenes; and she was too busy one Sunday morning in May to spare 20 minutes to debate the issue with me on Northsound).

In my initial request to speak to Cults, I sent them newspaper cuttings that Torry, Kincorth, Nigg and Cove & Altens Community Councils were opposed to the scheme, as well as the Scottish SPCA. I sent them articles on the SNH letter which shows the City wanted to keep the cull quiet. In these circumstances I was asking Cults CC to let me address its May meeting and specifically to follow suit.

The community council meeting that ensued was interesting (and heated) on several points. Mike Shepherd of Friends of Union Terrace Gardens was there to discuss the future of the gardens, and Aileen Malone stated that there would definitely be a public vote on whether to go ahead with any scheme for Union Terrace Gardens.

At my request she repeated this was the truth, and that the only question unresolved was whether residents in the shire as well as the city would get a vote.

I wrote an article on this Cults BM CC meeting. I wrote it that night and the next day with my own shorthand notes taken on the night (amongst other things, I have been a secretary minuting meetings for some 25 years, and like to think I have some skill and experience in this area).

My notes reflect that Cults BM CC was going to write to Aberdeen City Council to express a position opposed to the Tullos Cull; I asked the secretary on the night if I could have a copy of any letter they sent; the secretary agreed.
See: you’re-shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-cults-cc-tells-malone

This is what came out in the Cults BM CC Minutes for that meeting:

“Tullos Hill Deer Cull (Peter Reiss)

The Community Council had been made aware of resentment in parts of the city towards the plans to cull some of the local roe deer, seemingly triggered by the need to limit damage to new trees to be planted on Tullos Hill. Suzanne Kelly a Torry resident had written to CBMCC to ask if the CC would take a position on this matter.

In discussion the following points were made:

– The tree planting drive is an election commitment of the current LibDem administration

– Funding from EU and other sources requires best practice and best value for money.

– Due to problems with earlier plantings, City will not get any more funding for tree planting unless a robust roe deer management programme is in place,

– Deer have no natural predators in Scotland. Aberdeenshire, Moray and private estates have a deer cull policy in place. Aberdeen City has management programmes for several other wild animals – e.g., rabbits – but not one for deer.

– A management programme that includes an annual deer cull of about 30 animals has been agreed recently by the City’s Environment Committee. This is a city wide programme but will help to reduce damage to new plantings in Tullos where some 10 to 15 deer will be culled.

– Objectors say that there has been insufficient consultation on this programme. They would prefer fencing or other positive tree protection rather than killing deer. They are extremely unhappy about the Committee’s request to them to raise £225 000 for 10 years deer fencing as there is no council money to pay for that alternative.

The CC resolved that the deer culling policy appears to be a separate issue not just related to the planting of trees.

Post –meeting note: City tree specialists have been invited to speak in the next community council meeting.”

(Cults Bieldside Milltimber Community Council Minute 26 May 2011)

I have added italics to the excerpt above where the minutes have gone back to repeating verbatim the City Council’s double-speak, sweeping statements about deer culls in general. Readers of previous stories or Council documents will find a familiar ring to the Cults minutes.

General tree planting issues aside, the Tullos Hill deer have survived in the existing ecosystem – an ecosystem enjoyed by the public as well which the neighbouring Community Councils have clearly said they want kept as is.

I have also italicised the ‘post meeting note’ wherein someone has invited tree specialists to speak at the June meeting (I would have gone to that had I been informed or had I seen these May minutes in time). So, without any counterpoint some ‘tree experts’ were called in to explain the City’s perspective on killing deer and planting trees. Again, who was there to explain all of the issues specific to Tullos?

I will look at those minutes when they are issued.

It now transpires that Peter Leonard, council officer, is deploying council tree experts to speak to the community councils. This is what Leonard has to say (I have put the particularly objectionable phrases in bold) in a Freedom of Information Request answer:

“The Community Councils who have objected have not been in possession of the full picture of the project, some who have no planting areas within their areas will have had no information about the project from the team delivering the project as there was no requirement to consult on a project that was not within their area.

“Officers from Housing and Environment have offered to attend the community councils who have written in opposing the cull (Kincorth & Leggart and Cults Bieldside and Milltimber, Cove and Altens Community Councils) to present the full picture about The Tree for Every Citizen Project including the deer management proposals so they can make an informed decision.

“To date any decision they will have made will have been based on the information published in the media which has not given the full and balanced picture. Officers will be prepared to undertake similar presentations to other community councils covering areas where there are sites proposed for tree planting if invited.”

Personally, I find his comments about the community councils’ decision-making process extremely patronising: how does he know where these elected groups got information from and why does he assume it is only from the media? If people are not in full possession of all the facts this is the Council’s fault – they launched the ‘phase 2 consultation’ over six months ago, and it was a very flawed document. I certainly have been asking for information since then, largely without any real answer.

There is currently no plantation of young trees on Tullos requiring a cull. The whole point is that there do not need to be this number of trees there, and the local community councils representing some 25,000 people said they do not want the trees.

Attention city officials and councillors:

These two reasons alone should be enough to stop your plans. But if this is not enough for you, then we will examine your past planting failure and your cavalier attitude towards facts as well as other issues next week.

Do feel free to weigh in – remember, Aberdeen Voice wants articles from all points of view. Nothing is stopping you from making your point.

Loirston Loch – What The P&J Didn’t Tell You

Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Jan 212011

By Suzanne Kelly.

An epic eight plus hour public hearing was held on Friday 14 January at the Town House to discuss the future for the greenbelt land and wildlife at Loirston Loch. Will the wildlife haven continue to exist or will a 21,000 seat football pitch for Aberdeen Football Club be built?

The Press & Journal covered this matter the next day with two articles on Page Two, and an editorial. No prizes will be given for those who guessed the P&J are fully behind the AFC Stadium scheme.

Before going further I will put my cards on the table: I am against building in the greenbelt in principle, particularly when such a giant scheme is proposed, which clearly will have a negative effect on the whole area. I will explain my opinions more later – but they are based on environmental and social concerns. I do not stand to either gain or lose a cent if it is built or not. Sadly, there is no hint in the Press & Journal pro-stadium articles that a source of stories as well as advertisements are AFC and Mr Milne, whose homes are often featured or advertised. You might ask yourself if their support of their advertisers is wholly based on journalistic integrity.

Ms Kate Dean convened the meeting. At least one Community Council had formally objected to her taking this role (as did I by e-mail). A list of facts and allegations at the start of the hearing were presented which seemed to imply she would carry a bias towards the planning application going through.

The City (it was alleged) had favoured the Loirston site; City money had been spent towards the proposal’s investigation, a possibility of land ownership conflict may have existed, and Kate’s connection to Cove Bay were all cited as grounds for her not to act as convener or even attend this hearing.

Indeed Ms Dean had declared her interest at a different ACC meeting, and decided on that occasion she would not be able to take part.

At this hearing she merely said she was not and had never been on the Cove Rangers Board (although she did not take the opportunity to clarify her role in the Cove Rangers Supporters’ club).

Having said she would show no bias, how did she do?

At some points Ms Dean allowed questions that called upon the individual objectors to make conclusions. It was clear that most objectors had never been in such a formal situation before. For instance, community council representatives were asked to explain how they concluded that there was little or no support for the stadium.

this document did not mention that MSP Richard Baker had written in opposition to the plan, or that MP Anne Begg had forwarded correspondence from her constituents against it.

Some of those questioned said that they had asked at their community council meetings for opinions, had canvassed the wider community, and that they had received many comments against and found a solitary comment in favour. Some mentioned apathy, and were asked to expand on this term. It was repeated at different points that there exists a view, rightly or wrongly, that Mr Milne seems to get his own way in Aberdeen.

Ms Dean offered that this was untrue. Well, maybe he doesn’t win 100% of the time with planners – but his goal average so far looks impressive.

One of the points raised by objectors concerned traffic and pedestrian safety. This issue had also been one of many raised by the police. Some of the councillors who seemed in favour of the proposal asked whether any objections from statutory consultees had been received. The answer to this in black and white was no.

The real answer was that the fire services had chosen to abstain from giving an opinion, and that the police had raised at least half a dozen serious safety/policing concerns. Not saying ‘No’ is not the same as giving approval. Also, the Council document prepared for the hearing stated that MSP Brian Adams had given the project his blessing. For some reason, this document did not mention that MSP Richard Baker had written in opposition to the plan, or that MP Anne Begg had forwarded correspondence from her constituents against it.

The RSPB was not a statutory consultee. It wrote to me – which I quoted at the meeting – to say that from an early stage it had been against the Loirston site’s selection. They used the phrases in writing to me that “no real mitigation was possible” and that “no sensible person” could favour building this stadium on Loirston.

How was this summarised in the Environmental Statement (which taxpayers seem to have contributed to – the Council spent £180K so far on investigating the stadium)? The RSPB position was summarised as ‘not to build too close to the Loch’. Ms Dean as convener did not seek to clarify how such a disparity could occur. Nor did she seek to investigate how the environmental council expert and the environment survey said that there would be no significant air pollution risks. My speech to the hearing referred to the City’s own data which clearly say that Wellington Road already has air pollution problems. I asked how getting 21,000 people into 1400 car parking spaces and using 80 buses (the applicant’s estimate of how many buses would be needed) down to the site would result in no increase in pollution. Ms Dean did not express any interest.

Ms Dean described her experience at the Thistle. She said she was there, and a man near her ‘nearly put his hand up’

On the subject of danger to pedestrians on Wellington Road, Ms Dean asked the objector ‘What is the difference between Wellington Road and King Street – current home of Aberdeen FC?’ The objector was able to explain the obvious difference in terms of speed limits, road type and presence of HGVs on Wellington Road.

Three community councils jointly held a meeting the previous evening at the Thistle Hotel, Altens. Everyone was welcome; it was standing room only. (See Aberdeen voice article published 14th Jan. )

When a show of hands for or against the proposal was asked for, virtually all present voted against it. When this was brought up at the hearing, Ms Dean described her experience at the Thistle. She said she was there, and a man near her ‘nearly put his hand up’. She said that he seemed to be afraid to do so, and ‘only half put his hand up’. Dean also felt that there were probably a few more present that likewise felt afraid to vote in favour of the stadium.

I cannot quote her verbatim on this point – but the objective, impartial convener clearly concluded that people were for the stadium in her mind, but afraid to say so. So – a meeting room filled with hundreds of residents might have had one or two people afraid for some reason to vote in favour – this obviously still shows the majority were against it. Whether or not you are for or against this proposal, does anyone think that a convener of an important hearing should add her personal conclusions as to how someone might or might not have wanted to vote, which coincidentally favours her perceived bias?

charleston-p1-p2-trip-to-lochinch-march-2010

This meeting had many eye-openers.

I for one had taken it for granted that Pittodrie could not possibly have been remodelled or improved: the papers said it, and I made the mistake of believing it.

One of the 23 opponents gave an excellent speech stating how Norwich FC managed to improve its facilities one side at a time. Why Pittodrie can’t do the same was back as a legitimate question – no one had an answer for it.

Amusingly, along with 80 buses to be supplied by First Bus to whisk people to Loirston, we are apparently given some sketchy parking options – Businesses in Altens take note: approximately half of the 1400 spaces are promised to club officials and employees. Since there is not sufficient car parking on the actual site, the plan seems to now include either making Cove and Altens open season for parking and making residents buy parking permits, then having parking spaces for rent at the oil industry sites and sites of other users of Altens Industrial estate.

I do not know how the oil companies will react, but considering the commercial and strategic value of their property, I doubt having concert goers and football fans coming and going at all hours of the weekend will be seen as a security bonus. No obvious risks to the oil companies there then – just hundreds of happy, well behaved people parking at all hours of the nights and weekends on normally secured oil industry premises.

Yes, I personally don’t want the stadium on Loirston: I intend to profit instead by having owls, buzzards, osprey, various other birds, protected species such as otters and bats, badgers and wild plants including orchids flourish there instead. The question is where do your elected representatives sit? If they are not representing you, then perhaps it is time to get new representatives.

The press is meant to be ‘the fourth estate’ – an impartial witness to what goes on in the branches of government and business. I have admitted I am partial – but I’ve read both sides and made a conclusion not based on what I can gain from it financially or otherwise.

Did the P&J tell you this development is planned for legally protected greenbelt land?

Did the P&J explain how crowded the Thistle Hotel , Altens meeting was with virtually no supporters for the plan?

Did the article mention the wildlife that depends on the site for food?

Not a bit.

It’s editorial page was only slightly more openly in favour than the ‘articles’ – it accused opponents of the AFC scheme of ‘nimbyism’ – i.e. ‘not in my back yard’ as the reason for the objections.

Those of us at the hearing (and I didn’t see a single person in favour of the development at the hearing in the public gallery of the 20+ people present) do not want the greenbelt destroyed – which is a far cry from ‘nimbyism’. But when have the P&J let facts get in the way of a good story or indeed of revenue.