Land Archives - Aberdeen Voice

Stonewalling Aberdeen Style Part II

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion No Responses »

Jan 102021

Further to Part I of these two articles, when a stone wall in Wellington Brae started to crumble, Aberdeen City Council decided to arrange the repair work. The city went to SUSTRANS representing ‘we have a problem’ and it secured £200,000. By Suzanne Kelly.

In Part I of this series a timeline showed different stories as to who owned the land in question. Lawyer, and then councillor and finance committee convener Willie Young said at different times he didn’t know who the landowner was, or that his dad was the landowner.

The press reported that Young and his wife were the owners according to Registry documents.

In this part of the story, Aberdeen Voice comments on emails recently released by ACC as well as those previously leaked and published.

We also acknowledge the huge amount of work done on this issue by others including the Stop the Desecration of Marischal College Facebook page, and we include their recent synopsis of this bizarre tale.

The emails:

Below are images of some of the emails and commentary, both officially released and leaked, on ‘Wallgate’. Aberdeen Voice will be happy to receive further material and is continuing its Freedom of Information efforts.

I) ‘WE have a problem’ – on 3 February 2016 someone at ACC wrote to SUSTRANS to say ‘we have a problem’ and ‘our head of maintenance has advised there is no budget to carry out these repairs which could be £250,000…’

The recipient at SUSTRANS would have concluded that as the council says it has a problem, it has no budget, it is the party seeking repair funds, etc, that the responsibility for fixing the wall was the council’s.

The council keeps a spreadsheet showing every single property it owns; Aberdeen Voice has a 2012 copy and can confirm no entries exist on it for 2012 concerning Wellington Brae.

Was even this quick, simple search conducted before an email was sent to SUSTRANS from Aberdeen saying ‘we have a problem?’ Did anyone use the council tax rolls and contact the people living at the property to ask them about ownership?

It would be good to know how the author of this email to SUSTRANS decided to word their appeal- its tone is that the problem is Aberdeen’s.

There was no uncertainty over ownership expressed, just the assumption Aberdeen needed to find the money rather than a private landowner. It is also worth noting that the report brought to councillors to accept the money that was solicited from SUSTRANS in February was not presented to them until 24 May 2017 – fifteen months after the money was requested.

Will the email author’s line manager go back and check whether or not similar representations have been made to seek funds from external sources to repair properties that the city did not own?

How was the decision made to conduct the survey, to commission the in-house 12-page detailed Bill of Quantities report made in May of 2016 (which conveniently matches precisely the estimate for repairs presented to SUSTRANS in February), and who approved this budget to pay for a survey of benefit to private landowners?

II) Leaked email – Young is well aware of, and is briefed on, the approach ACC made to SUSTRANS. At least three different ACC personnel have, according to this email, been in touch with Young.

The writer says Young gave the verbal go-ahead for the project in his council role. Young is being asked for written confirmation.

We are still not at all certain why, with his legal background, Young apparently did not caution those on the project to cease any work until it was determined who was responsible for paying for the work at the moment he was approached for his permission.

Young asked for information to be re-sent to him in a paragraph: as the scheme involves SUSTRANS paying for the stonewall work, Young will have been in receipt of correspondence/data/reports/financials concerning SUSTRANS funding in the form of documents sent by email on a matter that concerns his family’s property.

Even if you disbelieve the authenticity of this email, Young later confirms officers approached him about the scheme – wouldn’t he have asked for some detail and background then, not least to find out why it was decided he was the landowner.

III) leaked email – According to this Young, who is addressed as Councillor, has the plans and is checking with his solicitor as to whether or not he owns the land.

IV) Leaked email – indicates Councillor Young issued a verbal instruction to proceed with the works at Wellington Brae 28 October 2016.

Many public and private entities have ethics charters and anything that could be a conflict of interest or potentially fraudulent or reputation-damaging must be raised, and if a decision to proceed is taken, this must be formalised and approved.

We note that Willie Young contacted ACC’s Monitoring Officer for advice – more on that appears later in this piece.

The question here is did no staff member or officer working on this project who were asking Young for approval as a private landowner think to raise any ethics/conflict of interest concerns?

Did no one question whether it was appropriate that ACC staff and resources were deployed to help private landowner Young (or his family) to obtain the SUSTRANS grant? Would this help be given to other private landowners who weren’t on the council?

We asked SUSTRANS to comment on the city’s ARS report which said:

“Sustrans funding would have been made available irrespective of who owned the affected land…”

We have have had no response as yet; this piece will be updated when they respond.

V) ACC recently-released email – The landowner has verbally given permission.

From mid-September 2016 it appears the city acted as if it were aware who owned the land – quite possibly they knew earlier looking at the leaked emails. Who is going to do the ‘rubber-stamping’ at ACC to approve this?

In a private organisation, seeking external sources of funding, issuing tenders and evaluating bids are meant to follow strict protocol, and any expenditure over a certain threshold is meant to be carefully scrutinized for internal control as well as external legal requirements.

Representatives of legal, finance and executive teams would all be expected to read detailed reports then either object or sign off before any such moves were made. This would extend from the first email sent to SUSTRANS through sealing the deal.

It is also noteworthy that the company initially appointed after the tender for the wall work went out of business and did not have much if any relevant experience. Perhaps Audit Scotland needs to visit Aberdeen’s procedures – again.

One further thought: a verbal agreement, in legal circles, is said to be ‘worth the paper it’s written on.’

VI) ACC recently-released emails from the latest FOI – How could the Head of Maintenance be ‘adamant’ there weren’t any funds? Couldn’t they have applied to Finance for either guidance on what to do or for more funds?

The path could have been closed until the new fiscal year opened – not ideal, but April was not that far off, either: during which time the mystery of who was responsible for the repair could have been determined.

Finance could have authorised emergency finance or an advance on the next quarter’s budget; You can think you have no funds for your department for important projects – but how can you be certain – or even ‘adamant’ you have no possibility of getting any finance without asking Finance to confirm?

In the private sector, such an approach would certainly lead to a member of the finance team asking the relevant questions – such as who owned the land.

VII) ACC recently-released email shows SUSTRANS awarding £200,000 on 25 November. Formal paperwork is coming – this will presumably require the landowner(s)’ signature(s). Who signed/approved for the landowner?

Young says:

Asked to comment to Aberdeen Voice on 14 October, Willie Young wrote (which was not received on the day, but re-sent when requested on 22 November):

“You ask if it was an ethical use of my position at ACC. As the freedom of information report and the Council enquiry report shows officers of the Council did not act within agreed protocols and this led to a situation where a report that should have come to committee did not appear.

“As for my position I was convener of the Finance committee and any report would have gone to the Communities, Housing and Infrastructure Committee not my committee so in answer to your question my ethics was never questioned by the Council nor was a matter ever passed to the Ethical Standards Commission, the monitoring officer for ACC is on record as saying that I did not have a conflict of interest.

“You ask when I disclosed to SUSTRANS that my family owned the wall, the answer to that is I never disclosed that my family owned the wall to SUSTRANS indeed this was not a matter for a Councillor it is a matter for the Council Officer.

“As the FOI shows the officer moved forward with discussions with SUSTRANS without involving Councillors. The Councils own report and the FOI clearly shows that the Council requested that this work was undertaken without speaking to the owner of the land and without being in a position to know who owned the land.

“Disappointingly this matter was not even discussed by Officers with the convener of Communities Housing and Infrastructure. It was not for me to determine who owned the land it was for the Council to determine who owned the land and contact the land owner requesting permission.

“The report which went to council confirms the council failed both those tests.”

“In respect of your final question regard complaints I can categorically say without fear or favour that not one single person complained to me about the wall before or after Storm Gertrude.”

The City’s Report – should they have closed this case? Details hidden from public.

The Audit Risk and Scrutiny Committee reported on 26 September 2017 decided Young was ‘placed in a vulnerable position’; the Chief Executive apologised for this. This internal exercise resulted in a decision which reads in part:

6.18 “Sustrans funding would have been made available irrespective of who owned the affected land…”

4.67 “It was appropriate for Councillor Young to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer in order to address any perception that he was conflicted in his interests.”

4.68 “The Monitoring Officer has stated that based on the information available to him at the time, Councillor Young did not require to declare a conflict of interest because he had not been asked to make a decision as a Councillor on the works or the grant, but rather to provide his consent as a landowner.”

and paragraph 7.9 “Councillor Young’s actions did not contravene the ICT Acceptable Use Policy as the emails did not concern any confidential information, were not protectively marked, and had been addressed to Councillor Young.”

Questions arise:

6.18 quotes a claim that ‘SUSTRANS would have made the grant whoever owned the land’: Aberdeen Voice awaits SUSTRANS’ comment. Was a repair notice served on the land owner, if so when? Would a land owner approaching SUSTRANS have had to commission and pay for a detailed survey such as the one ACC had deployed resources to?

4.67, 4.68 – At what point did Young approach the Monitoring Officer – when did Young decide the perception of conflict existed and why did it exist for him? What did Young tell the Monitoring Officer that led to the conclusion there was no conflict of interest to address?

Did the Monitoring Officer proactively look at all the angles of this situation or just what Young presented to them? Why does the MO feel they have to say their conclusion was based on the information available to him at the time – has more information come to light, and if so, did it change this position?

7.9 – How is it ‘acceptable use’ of ACC computers, office and equipment to conduct business as a private landowner? These lines between councillor and landowner should never have been blurred. It is risible to think that using the address ‘Councillor’ automatically absolves Young.

Section 2 of the Audit Risk & Scrutiny report is withheld from the public for ‘data protection reasons.’

On the case: The ‘Stop the Desecration of Marischal College’ Facebook page.

AV notes the Facebook page Stop the Desecration of Marischal College has been instrumental in researching the Wellington Brae saga. In the past it has shown that claims Mr Young made concerning the Marischal Square development were unfounded.

Young once claimed that if the unpopular project went ahead, the city would be penalised by developer MUSE to the tune of £100 million. Summoned to appear before the Standards Commission, he was cleared of lying on grounds the information given to him by officers was inaccurate.

Déjà vu. (Young apparently did not find the concept of a £100 million penalty to be extreme, and did not question the information he passed on to the public).

The ‘Stop the Desecration of Marischal College’ posted this summary on 22 November:

“Willie stated on Twitter today that no one from the council contacted the Wellington Brae landowner until August 2017. He added that it was shocking.

“What’s shocking Willie is between March 2106 and April 2017 you were aware the council had checked the land registry and believed (as per the records they obtained) that you were the landowner.

“What’s shocking is you were asked numerous times by various officers to confirm that you were the landowner and for whatever reason decided not to even though – as you said last week on this page – you were a lawyer by trade and skilled in commercial negotiations.

“What’s hard to believe, particularly after August 2016 when you were told Sustrans had agreed to fund £200,000 of repairs and after you were shown and asked to approve the landscaping of the land above the wall, that you didn’t mention this to your father over Sunday lunch.

“Knowing the wall’s maintenance was the landowner’s responsibility one might have thought a saving of £200,000 might be worth mentioning.

“What’s more the August 2017 contact date Willie assured is right, is in fact wrong. In April 2017 he confirmed to the BBC that his father owned the land in question.

“What is most interesting though is when asked if anyone was sacked Willie said ‘no, but they should have been.’

“There is little doubt the council’s governance could and should have been better but Willie has no one to blame but himself for not realising £200,000 of public funding to fix and landscape a wall and land his family owned would come back and bite him.

“To now publicly say officers should have been fired is not only a cheap shot but serves to minimise his own culpability in this whole sorry affair…”

“You can’t help but feel if this had been anyone else’s wall the outcome would have been rather different.”

Stonewalling Aberdeen Style Part I

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 2 Responses »

Nov 302020

When a stone wall in Wellington Brae started to crumble, Aberdeen City Council decided to arrange the repair work.

Rather than identifying the property owner and troubling them with a repairs notice, the cash-strapped city mysteriously decided to look to its own maintenance budget, and decided somehow that there were no funds.

Did those involved approach anyone connected with Finance to ask for emergency funding? Apparently not. Did they decide to determine who owned the land at that point and issue a repairs notice? Suzanne Kelly presents part one of a two part investigation.

As many Aberdeen homeowners can attest (including the writer), even a few slates falling off a roof or a damaged front garden wall can result in a warning letter from the city that repairs must be done.

The wall in question sat on privately-owned land and the stone wall collapse spilled over onto Wellington Brae cycle path: all the more reason why, some might think, a repairs notice should have been swiftly sent to the owners, who should have been identifiable from the Land Registry records.

This is the origin of ‘Wallgate’, a tale of council procedures being ignored, a simple matter of land ownership being hopelessly (unnecessarily) confused, leaked emails and more.

ACC officers first tried to identify and contact the property owners AFTER the money was sought from SUSTRANS the cycling/walking charity, on 3 February 2016.

Why didn’t ACC do what they have often done – identify the owners and hit them with a repairs notice?

The email author asserted that the cause of the wall crumbling was Storm Gertrude; others claim that the wall was in bad repair before then (Aberdeen Voice will try to find out whether any repair notices were served on the property, or whether any complaints had been made prior to the storm).

The city’s version of events can be found in this FOI (heavily redacted) and with comments in the Appendix to this two-part article.

As it transpired, then Finance Chief Councillor William Young apparently owned the wall – or maybe his dad – or maybe his wife – or maybe someone else.

For reasons hard to fathom, ‘Wall I Am’ was uncertain who owned the wall despite telling the press on 3 May 2017 he had sold property at Wellington Brae to his father in 1992, and despite apparently giving verbal permission for the repairs.

All will become clear – or not – shortly.

Whose Wall is It Anyway? – A time line.

Mr Young is adamant that he acted properly throughout. Would a lawyer and Councillor acting as Finance Chief/convener be expected to know whether or not he owns a property – or to act swiftly to find out whether he did if asked for permission to do with it?

If you sold your father land, would it slip your mind?

Here is a partial timeline showing dates of statements, sources, and who is apparently being treated as the landowner.

Much of this information has been published before, such as the leaked emails, but assembling this timeline illustrates how problematic all the conflicting ownership claims are, and the issues arising.

Date	Quote	Who is said to be the landowner?	Issues	Source
03/02/2016	‘WE have a problem’	EMAIL WORDED AS IF ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL WERE RESPONSIBLE	Someone at ACC writes to SUSTRANS to ask for £250,000, wording the email as if the responsibility for repair had already been determined to be Aberdeen’s. The city’s later report does not appear to address this misrepresentation – a serious failing one might think.	FOI-released email from ACC to SUSTRANS.
28/10/2016	“Following your conversation with our XX yesterday (27th October) re your verbal instruction to proceed with the works at Wellington Brae.”	WILLIAM YOUNG	Why did Willie give verbal instructions to proceed if he was as he said in 2017 unsure who owned it? Would a lawyer remotely risk acting like this? If he knew he was the landowner and was free to give these instructions, then he ‘misspoke’ in 2017 when he said officers ‘mistakenly believed’ he was the landowner.	28/10/2016 Leaked Email 1.
00/00/00	“A couple of months ago XX and myself [came] to see you about Wellington Brae. Please find attached. These show the extent of the works to be undertaken. My understanding from our meeting was that you would forward the plans to your solicitor to confirm whether you owned the area?”	UNSURE	Willie was to have checked with his solicitor and knew about the scheme ‘months ago’. If he acted promptly – and who wouldn’t to find out if they owned land or not? – then why is there still uncertainty to ownership implied in this email?	Leaked Email 2.
00/00/00	“…we are looking for written confirmation that the works can proceed – can you reply with this confirmation?	WILLIAM YOUNG	How is the public supposed to know for certain which hat Young is wearing here, not least as he is taking meetings about privately-held land in his office by now according to the ACC report – land he is at points denying ownership of or expressing uncertainty whether he owns it?	Leaked email 3. (To Cllr Young)
00/00/00	“… you would continue to be the legal landowner…”	WILLIAM YOUNG	AV has to ask why aren’t all the involved parties asking for complete cessation of negotiations until the question of ownership is 100% settled? If Mrs Young is also an owner as was claimed in the press subsequently, there is scarce evidence to show her approval was ever sought.	Leaked email 3. (to Cllr Young)
26/04/2017	“The Land Register for Scotland lists William Young and his wife as landowners of the site. Cllr Young said he was unsure who owned the land despite council officers telling him he was the land owner.	MR & MRS W YOUNG	Willie says he’s not sure who is the landowner; Land Register apparently says he and his wife are. Was Land Registry advised of the sale Willie made to his dad in 1992? What was the sale price? Were there any tax/stamp duty implications from the sale? Why was the Council not able to get this information?	Probe into £200,000 of public cash used ‘to fix Willie Young’s boundary wall’ – Evening Express
03/05/2017	“The land in question does not belong to me. I sold land at Wellington Brae to my father, David Young, in 1992, and land in this area remains in his ownership. “Late last year, I was approached by officers of the council, who mistakenly believed that land at Wellington Brae belonged to me.”	DAVID YOUNG	This sale does not appear to be reflected in Land Registry records. We are meant to believe a man with a law degree did not know he owned the land and/or somehow the title transfer was not made. Why would council officers have approached Young – through his councillor email/office – as being the owner? Why didn’t Young immediately tell the officers he either wasn’t the owner or was unsure who was?	Willie Young confirms land at centre of row belongs to his dad – Press and Journal
03/05/2017	“I told them I would ask my solicitor to check the title… and I have since confirmed that none of this land belongs either to Deeview Homes or to me personally. “All I actually did was to respond to council officers who mistakenly believed I owned land there, to say that I was not sure of the position, and that I would ask my solicitor’s advice on the matter.	UNSURE	While stating he sold land at Wellington Brae to his father in 1992, Young is simultaneously unsure about the title. ‘All he actually did’ also includes (according to ACC emails) giving verbal permission for work.	Willie Young confirms land at centre of row belongs to his dad – Press and Journal
24/05/2017	“The Council is in the process of contacting the landowner to discuss the necessary agreements to access and facilitate the works.”	UNSPECIFIED	Eric Owens, Fraser Bell and Stephen Whyte reported to councillors requesting scheme approval. Councillors were presented with their report – without the ownership issue or Cllr Young’s potential ownership getting a mention. In private institutions this omission might be taken extremely seriously. As an aside, it is likely now a new fiscal year for ACC: would Maintenance still have had no budget? Why didn’t the report authors suggest getting the landowner to pay as an option? Councillors are often slated by the public, but they are only allowed to vote on what officers put before them.	Wellington Brae – report to Communities, Housing & Infrastructure.
26/09/2017	“Councillor Young did not require to declare a conflict of interest because he had not been asked to make a decision as a Councillor on the works or the grant, but rather to provide his consent as a landowner”	WILLIAM YOUNG Willie Young referred to as landowner in this Audit Risk & Scrutiny report	Back to Square One: NB Willie had told the P&J on 3 May “Late last year, I was approached by officers of the council, who mistakenly believed that land at Wellington Brae belonged to me.” Some would say the conflict arises precisely because Young is both a councillor and a private landowner, benefitting from council help with the estimate and securing finance as meetings were held in his council office and correspondence conducted through his council email. His title of Finance Convener, his position as a councillor all carried weight.	Aberdeen City Council ARS report
14/10/2020	“You ask when I disclosed to SUSTRANS that my family owned the wall, the answer to that is I never disclosed that my family owned the wall to SUSTRANS indeed this was not a matter for a Councillor it is a matter for the Council Officer. As the FOI shows the officer moved forward with discussions with SUSTRANS without involving Councillors.”	UNSURE	If we accept the ARS finding that Willie was being contacted via his council email as the private landowner, it is unnecessary to talk about what his role was as a councillor. As a private landowner whose permission was required for the scheme (perfect word for it) went ahead, at some point SUSTRANS must have been made aware whose land it was they were putting c£250k of their money to work on and whether via intermediaries or not, Young must have been in the loop. Willie is right – councillors were not involved – but the landowner was – whoever that actually was. The landowner is mentioned in the 26 September email as having given verbal consent. The leaked emails show that Young was in the loop; the ARS report says he was giving his consent as landowner. If he never disclosed that ‘my family owned the wall to SUSTRANS’ it was nevertheless disclosed to the staff within ACC that ‘his family’ owned the land or they would not have sought his permission – permission which perhaps should have come from his father.	Email to Suzanne Kelly from Willie Young 14 October 2020 (re-sent Nov 2020)

Mr Young told AV:

“As the FOI (the most recent answered by ACC) shows the officer moved forward with discussions with SUSTRANS without involving Councillors.”

AV accepts this: what we have been questioning is who owned the land, why ACC was not pursuing the land owner to pay for the repairs, why Young was uncertain whether or not he owned land, and why he was being contacted as a private landowner (mistakenly or not) via his official ACC councillor email rather than a private one.

Aberdeen Voice continues this story in Part II – examining recently-released emails and leaked emails in further detail.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

New Action For Threatened Woodlands And Species

Environment, Featured, Information No Responses »

Mar 202014

Pine Marten. © Laurie Campbell www.lauriecampbell.com

With thanks to Richard Bunting.

With concerns over the state of many Scottish woodlands, and fears for the long-term survival of iconic species including red squirrel, pine marten and capercaillie, the conservation charity Trees for Life is marking its 25th anniversary this year with a significant expansion of its forest restoration work across the Highlands, and with new projects focusing on the recovery of endangered species.
Trees for Life is now extending the geographical range of its forest restoration activity, from its previous project area of 1,000 square miles west of Inverness and Loch Ness, and is exploring opportunities to restore neglected and derelict Caledonian pinewoods in other parts of Scotland.

At the same time, the charity is developing a wider range of ecological initiatives to conserve forest species.

New projects will deliver practical field research, habitat assessments and species relocations to aid the conservation of key species such as pine marten, red squirrel and wood ants.

Trees for Life’s Executive Director Alan Watson Featherstone commented.

“Without urgent action, key parts of Scotland’s ancient Caledonian Forest could be lost forever, and forest-dependent wildlife such as the Scottish wildcat and capercaillie could become extinct in the UK,”

“As we celebrate 25 years of pioneering conservation action, including the planting of more than a million trees by our volunteers, and the creation of 10,000 acres of new Caledonian Forest, we aim to increase the impact and scale of our work. We want to ensure that our children and grandchildren also have the opportunity to enjoy Scotland’s wild landscapes and its rare and spectacular wildlife.”

Less than half, 46 percent, of Scotland’s native woodlands are in “satisfactory condition for biodiversity” and much must be done to reverse centuries of damage, according to Scotland’s first complete survey of these important habitats, published by Forestry Commission Scotland last month. The report found that natural regeneration of native pinewoods is scarce.

Following a long history of deforestation, the Caledonian Forest reached a critical point some 200 years ago, with too few remaining trees and too many deer eating seedlings – leaving ‘geriatric’ forests of old trees. Today, only a fraction of the former forest survives, with 35 isolated remnants of native pinewoods.

The need for concerted conservation action, and the lack of young trees to replace mature specimens when lost, is also being exacerbated by the threats posed by climate change and extreme weather, and the risk of disease affecting the Scots pine, which forms the forest ecosystem’s ‘backbone’ and on which many species depend.

“We want people to get involved through volunteering or financial support, to help restore Scotland’s threatened habitats and species. Wildlife tourism generates millions of pounds every year, so bringing new life to impoverished woodlands and barren glens can bring economic as well as environmental benefits,” said Alan Watson Featherstone.

The charity’s plans for 2014 include an ambitious project at Trees for Life’s flagship Dundreggan Conservation Estate, a biodiversity hotspot in Glenmoriston near Loch Ness. They paln to convert a 300-hectare commercial plantation of non-native trees planted by a previous owner back to native woodland. This will involve the felling of the alien conifers and a pioneering mire restoration scheme, funded by a grant from Scottish Natural Heritage. The whole project will take over 10 years to complete.

Dundreggan is also home to one of Scotland’s greatest concentrations of the nationally scarce dwarf birch, Betula nana.

An area will be fenced off for restoration of these ‘wee trees’, as part of a broader plan to create a woodland link between Glen Affric and Glenmoriston, and to expand this habitat for species including black grouse, ptarmigan and golden plover.

A programme of research on forest ecology will also be carried out at Dundreggan, and the estate will host a 25th anniversary open weekend on 24th – 25th May.

Meanwhile, a new tree planting project will begin in a Caledonian pinewood remnant at Culligran in Glen Strathfarrar in the autumn.

Trees for Life has pledged to establish one million more trees by planting and natural regeneration by 2018, creating expanded habitats for wildlife including strawberry spider, wood ants, red squirrels, rare sawflies and ospreys. Over the past year, the charity has expanded its volunteer Conservation Weeks and Conservation Days, offering more opportunities for people to gain conservation experience.

Trees for Life’s story began in 1986 when Alan Watson Featherstone made a commitment to an environmental conference at Findhorn to launch a Caledonian Forest restoration project. Practical activity began in June 1989, with tree guards used to protect Scots pine seedlings in Glen Cannich from being eaten by deer. In 1991, volunteers began planting some of the first new trees to grow in the forest for 200 years.

Trees for Life has grown into an award-winning, leading conservation volunteering charity, with a dedicated staff team and thousands of supporters and volunteers. Wildlife film maker Gordon Buchanan planted the charity’s millionth tree at Dundreggan in 2012, and Trees for Life played a key role in the successful campaign for the Scottish Parliament to name the Scots pine as the country’s national tree.

People can support Trees for Life by becoming a member, carrying out conservation action, sponsoring trees for special occasions or sponsoring an acre of native forest. See www.treesforlife.org.uk.

Trees for Life’s awards include UK Conservation Project of the Year, Millennium Marque, Top 10 Conservation Holidays worldwide, Glenfiddich Spirit of Scotland Environment Award (2012) and RSPB Nature of Scotland – Outstanding Contribution to Nature Award (2013).

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Summerhill Guerrilla Gallery And Garden

Aberdeen City, Featured, News No Responses »

Aug 152013

By Jill Austin.

As I was walking past the old Summerhill Academy site on the Lang Stracht last Thursday night I noticed an amazing open-air gallery adorning the fencing.

It stretched all the way from the bus stop round the corner and down the lane to Gairsay Drive.

There were at least 20 works of art- ranging from 10” square to 5’ square!

They were composed in varying media from spray paint to fine pen-work to collage.

Unfortunately, the evening light was poor.

Therefore the quality of these photographs don’t do the artwork justice.

( Click on the images to enlarge. )

There was also a wee garden further down Gairsay Drive planted in shopping baskets. [Photo- Little Garden2]

Two of the arts contained something of a manifesto and the name of the group who had installed the gallery.

Intrigued, I investigated this group and managed to get a hold of them by email. They sent me the following statement:

“MUSTA BLOKKI [WE : COME]

1.The Creation

An open-air gallery and garden at the old SummerhilAcademy on the Lang Stracht. A place once of education, a place once for community.

2. The Aim

To highlight with beauty the ugly mess that has been left by the supermarket wars of the 21^st Century.

3. The Reasoning

Morrisons have created a pile of rubble taller than the houses whose view it blights.

“This is because Tesco objected to their plans then throw up a supermarket on the site they had left unused for decades as soon as Morrisons acquired the Summerhill site. Tesco must think the people of Summerhill are only worth building a shop for to stop another chain from making profit.

The council may have given Morrisons the green light now, but will they replace the rubble with a store?

No profit in competing with Tesco next door. No profit in cleaning up their mess.

A working class area – No local residents hold shares – no local residents hold sway – no local residents are rich and with power.

Supermarkets buy land and leave it unused to avoid tax.

Around 40 million square feet of land is owned by supermarkets.

The vast majority of it will never be built upon.

Beneath the pavement, the beach!

We encourage people to reclaim their city, reclaim their spaces and make the ugly beautiful.

Fences are for climbing – borders are for crossing – the world is ours but only of we make it so, yes?”

MUSTA BLOKKI are an international incubationist fine ART bloc.

Their previous works include the 2011 installation “Wood”.

Constructed in bronze and granite (effect) it was erected in Union Terrace Gardens, which at the time were under threat.

I would highly recommend a visit to this unusual gallery, but alas, it is no longer there.

Instead, I hope Aberdeen Voice readers can at least enjoy this pictorial record.

Here is a bit more about the group’s ethos – be inspired!

ANOTHER GENERIC ART MANIFESTO FROM MUSTA BLOKKI

Art is accessible and free
Art can be created by anyone
Public space is contaminated by the corporate debris of the 21^st century
Public space should be reclaimed – Beneath the pavement, the beach!
We resist corporate domination and social apathy
We commit to shaping something original despite our culture’s fascination with the disposable
We commit to shaping something original from society’s superficial consumer culture
If we cannot enjoy the process, we cannot enjoy the result

If we cannot dance it is not our revolution

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Old Susannah’s Journal No. 129 – For Argument’s Sake

Aberdeen City, Satire and Humour 14 Responses »

Aug 092013

Voice’s Old Susannah takes a look over the past week’s events in the ‘Deen and beyond. By Suzanne Kelly.

Tally Ho! I hope everyone is enjoying a vibrant, dynamic, smart successful summer with lashings of connectivity. Tartan Day in Aberdeen was good fun, and once again the gardens were used to good effect, even if they are a dangerous, dreary, dark hole filled with criminals.

There was a re-enactment of a highwayman’s trial in the Tollbooth; suffice it to say the accused didn’t get a lesser sentence for pleading guilty, his difficult childhood or drunkenness weren’t hauled up as reasons for leniency, and the sentence wasn’t a few hours of community service.

Old Susannah’s also been to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, which rightfully attracts talent and tourists from around the world.

For the next few weeks Edinburgh’s intriguing private spaces, as well as public areas, will be given over to performances, workshops, a book festival, art/craft, food and drink.

I enjoyed a lovely meal in the Signet Library, which is transformed annually into the Pommery Champagne bar. The public gets to see inside amazing venues like this, enjoy them for social occasions, and at the same time gets to appreciate the spaces Edinburgh has to offer. Would that we could do that here, with our empty shops and interesting spaces.

The atmosphere is friendly; there is something for everyone, and people come from around the world. My hotel, the Caledonian Waldorf couldn’t have been more elegant or more service-orientated; a minor omission of an ingredient in a meal was more than made up for by complimentary dessert wine.

While I don’t often get to live it up, when I do so in Edinburgh, the Pommery and the Waldorf – and the local BrewDog bar for a bottle of new Electric India – are the places to be. Sometimes you just need a little luxury.

It will be hard to write any form of satire this week that would be able to hold its own against the Salmond – vs – Aberdeen Council / Labour prose currently flying around town. In brief, Salmond decided to spontaneously issue invitations to the press to witness his spontaneous visit to local Bramble Brae elementary school, coincidentally where a by-election was taking place.

I’m sure anyone who wants to wander into a school will be just as welcome

He, his team and the press thoughtfully bypassed the head teacher and Aberdeen’s Chief Executive, Valerie Watts, thus saving them paperwork and worry; they just went into the school, into the class and had a lovely visit, posing for photos.

For some reason, Valerie Watt took exception to this school visit, thinking that someone should have asked her first (she probably just wanted to get her photo taken with Alex). She wrote to Salmond, and from there things got a wee bit messy, with accusations of ‘kamikaze’ councils and general name calling coming into it from Alex’s side. Sexism got a look in as well with men only and women only golf clubs adding fuel to the fire.

Barney Crockett and Salmond have locked horns. Watts should have realised that the First Minister can do whatever he feels like doing without checking with anyone; this is perfectly acceptable, and I’m sure anyone who wants to wander into a school will be just as welcome. Clearly if other by-election candidates had been creative, they could have done the same.

Rhonda Reekie of the Greens should have marched into a school for a press call; Willie Young could have found a class full of students, rounded up their parents and the press for some handshaking, and none of the pro-SNP faction would have found anything amiss I’m certain. (What the class teacher thought of this visit and if/how they dealt with it would be nice to know).

Bramblegate reminds me of a lovely pro-granite web visit some school children had back in the day just before that referendum, which also went down well with parents.

Anyway, Alex can go into schools for press calls. In contrast, it is very wrong for Councillor Martin Ford to speak to the BBC as a councillor while on Aberdeenshire Council premises. Word is that the Shire’s Chief Executive is still fuming post Panorama, and straining at the leash to give Ford a dressing down.

No answer is forthcoming yet to my email to Chief Mackenzie about where such a rule is written down, how many other councillors ask for permission for such meetings, and whether Mackenzie would then have an undemocratic power to stop such interviews/press calls as didn’t suit his purposes. Thankfully, Mackinitupashegoesalong makes certain that all councillors follow the code of conduct.

surely no councillor could possibly owe us an explanation

He pointed this out in his letter to the Petitions Committee, saying how unnecessary any public inquiry into the Trump debacle would be.

Quite right too. No doubt should any of the Shire’s councillors be found wanting in terms of obeying the code, they will be dealt with accordingly. But surely no councillor could possibly owe us an explanation for his or her conduct – other than Ford of course.

All these arguments are splashing around the Press and Journal, which has given them another occasion to get comment from UK politics’ most heavy hitters.

Only a month ago they managed to find a window of opportunity in Kate Dean’s diary to do a three page spread, so we could benefit from her words of wisdom over the failure to get the web built (which ‘we will all regret’; ‘we’ll all remember where we were when the web got kicked into touch’, etc. etc.). Now her little dog Toto, aka Kevin Stewart, has given a few words on the Alex Salmond-Barney Crocket-Valerie Watts tag team event.

Where does the P&J get these incisive commentators from? Additionally, another City Council ex, John Stewart, now in Manchester running a parade or something, says “I’m so glad to be out of it now”, demonstrating his gladness by offering to comment from the sidelines in order to snipe at Crockett. Many of us thought he was ‘out of it’ in one sense or another from time to time when he was still here.

All this fighting talk makes me think some related definitions are required, so without any further hesitation, here are some terms for this week’s definitions.

Circular Argument: (compound English Noun) An argument that is flawed by containing, as fact, the same thing it is attempting to prove, e.g. “The story I read in the Press & Journal is true because I read it in the Press & Journal.”

There are no circular arguments to be found in our part of the world, thank goodness. But sometimes I wonder – if MEMAG didn’t exist, would it be necessary to invent it?

MEMAG wasn’t needed at all really; it wasn’t like Trump was going to go against the approved plan or do anything possibly detrimental to our environment.

MEMAG has authority to prevent damaging activities

But thankfully, MEMAG was put under the Trump organisation’s financial control. Arguably, MEMAG was invented to keep the Trump organisation in check.

By holding the purse strings, by not showing up for meetings, and by in effect pulling the plug on MEMAG, the Trump Organisation was in control of several levels of the organisation set up to keep it under control.

The shire council’s Formartine Committee once had a report which read:-

“If permission is granted a section 75 agreement is imposed to ensure that the impact on the nature conservation interest is minimised and that no hard engineering works are involved in stabilising the sand dome and dune system and that MEMAG has authority to prevent damaging activities, that a rigorous landscape evaluation is undertaken and that no commitment is given to either the height of the hotel and holiday apartments or the eventual number of houses for sale, that a minimum of 40% of the energy requirement for the hotel, holiday apartments and homes is generated on site using renewable energy technologies and that the employment benefits are derived locally with preference being given to those living within the North East and those attending the proposed university course.”

In the end, the now evaporated MEMAG group was about as effective in its remit as Father Ted was when holding up placards reading ‘down with this sort of thing’ and ‘careful now’

Old Susannah will find it hard to come up with any circular arguments; but in the mean time I leave you with this thought: in order to prevent the Trump organization committing damaging activities, the Trump organization was in charge of an organisation called MEMAG which was in charge of preventing the Trump organisation committing damaging activities.

What could be simpler?

Self-Contradiction:

Aberdeenshire Council might be a little confused. They’ve twice written to me to say :-

“Aberdeenshire Council have not authorised any restrictions on Menie Estate in relation to statutory access rights afforded under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.” (email to me of 7 August 2013).

Result! Everything’s fine! I’ll have to make sure to tell the Menie residents and visitors this.

However, the Shire’s outdoor access person also wrote to me on 26 March 2013:-

“As noted above we are aware of a number of concerns relating to outdoor access at Menie and are currently working to resolve the issues. It is my preference to utilise my time achieving the formal concerns already raised; I suspect these concerns are shared by the residents you note in your email.

“As I hope you will appreciate the provision of access rights is not always clear and straight forward as much as we will continue to seek acceptable access rights for the residents of Menie and general visitors we also have to consider and balance the rights of the landowner to undertake their business and manage their land.

“On a positive note I would say that the land managers at Menie have indicated they are keen to resolve concerns over public access and as such we are working towards a solution that provides a satisfactory level of access whilst taking into account the concerns of the land manager and their land management activities.”

On the one hand, the council didn’t authorise any restrictions relating to access rights at the Trump estate. On the other hand, they are keen to resolve concerns over public access and want to provide a satisfactory level of access while taking in Trump’s concerns.

So – no restrictions are allowed, but the restrictions that do exist are being looked into, in other words. I trust that this shining example of clarity demonstrates that the council are completely clear, everything’s fine, and there is no need for a public inquiry.

Pre-emptive Strike: (compound English noun) to start an altercation or conflict in order to prevent being attacked.

The best defence is a good offence, and one of the high visibility adherents to this strategy is Alex Salmond. You might say he is very offensive at times. But he is rather good at well-timed pre-emptive strikes.

Trouble over wining and dining wealthy American planning applicants? Outcry at a pre-planned ‘impromptu’ visit to a school where your party is fighting a by election? Scandal over legal advice taken over EU membership post independence? Draw attention away from tiresome trivial problems by launching an attack of your own.

After Watts wrote to Salmond, he hurled in a grenade or two, calling our council ‘a kamikaze council’ for refusing to build his pal Ian Wood’s dream web. If Salmond says we’re looking disreputable, we should definitely take his expert word on the subject, which he knows quite a bit about. So the name-calling began, with Salmond using one of his favourite words ‘ludicrous’ in response to the Watts’ letter.

Old Susannah seems to remember that a Kamikaze pilot was basically a suicide bomber wishing to take out as many of the enemy as possible. I don’t seem to be following Salmond’s use of the word in the context of Aberdeen City not having a web.

The ensuing name-calling and Crockett’s defence of his one-year old council are dominating the printed press. Little issues like Alex’s own failings are being edged out of the limelight by this little contretemps. So, what, if anything, might Alex like to deflect our attention from?

Well, there was that lovely visit to Bramble Brae. Meeting Alex might have swayed people to cast their vote for him, and naturally, no other candidate was given equal time.

I guess the chance to meet Alex drove such concerns away

It might be worth asking which reporters were invited, and if they were more than just people following any story leads blindly and printing any press releases they get without question – whether any recipients to the SNP invitation contacted the opposition candidates to share this event’s details with them.

If, say, the BNP decided to drop in on the local primary children and their parents, and invited members of the press to join them on such a happy occasion, you might be forgiven for thinking that the reporter receiving such an invite might see the story differently, get in touch with the school/Watts and ask what was going on. But I guess the chance to meet Alex drove such concerns away.

Getting back to issues which Alex might be a bit coy about, which his attack might overshadow, we do have the smashing idea of setting up a national body to oversee every child. Not just children from broken homes, children with special needs, or children in need of supervision who have had brushes with the law – every child.

Some people are actually critical of this great scheme, and have foolish questions about cost, legality, human rights, potential for abuse and so on. Better send the ‘Kamikaze’ attack out first.

We still don’t know how Europe would deal with the nascent Scotland; and if Alex has legal advice, we’re not going to get to see it anytime soon. Currency, passport, border control, military issues are not thrashed out yet, and whatever side of the referendum debate you’re on, you should be happy to just trust the government about all these minor details – what could go wrong?

Arguably, these are enough definitions for now. Tally Ho!

PS – it’s not too late to get involved in the Butterfly and Moth count – which is pretty important considering all the green space we’re concreting over or clearing. Details here – http://www.bigbutterflycount.org/

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

North East Follies

Aberdeenshire, Featured, History No Responses »

May 172013

The North East countryside is littered with heritage in the form of architecture from the near and distant past. There are Roman marching camps, castles galore and of course a multitude of Pictish circles and standing stones. Duncan Harley writes.

Most of these structures were built for a purpose. Each night the while on the march the Roman army constructed a temporary camp, complete with rampart and ditch, as a defence against attack while in hostile territory.
Grampian had many of these structures and examples can be still seen at Durno, Kintore and Auchinhove.

The Castles and big houses were in many cases also defensive structures but in more recent history they became potent symbols of the wealth that the area generated through agriculture and trade. Debate of course continues over the true purpose of the standing stones and stone circles.

Places of worship and mystical ceremony say some. Others, including myself, wonder if many of the circles were simply settlements. After all, folk in those distant times needed a place to live.

Then of course there are the follies.

There are various definitions describing follies ranging from, “a building with no practical use whatsoever,” to the rather grand sounding description as, “a building constructed primarily for decoration, but either suggesting by its appearance some other purpose, or merely so extravagant that it transcends the normal range of garden ornaments or other class of building to which it belongs.”

Personally I like the definition used by RCAMS (The Royal Commission for Ancient Monuments Scotland) which says simply and clearly, “a structure with little or no practical purpose, often found in 18^th century landscaped gardens and taking many forms including towers, castles, temples, cairns and hermit’s cells”.

Towers and temples seem to be the most common types of folly, perhaps due to their visual impact both on the landscape and on the viewer who comes upon them for the first time.

However some follies, such as the Shell Hoosie in Dunnotter Woods near Stonehaven, break this rule completely.

This tiny domed building has its internal walls ( pictured top right ) decorated and completely covered with thousands of sea shells. Built by Lady Kennedy of Dunnottar House in the early nineteenth century and restored in 1999, it has the appearance of a large beehive when seen from the outside but from inside it feels very much like a hermits cave.

Banchory of course has Scolty Tower, a 20 metre tall granite monument, built in 1842 to the memory of a General William Burnett who fought alongside Wellington in the Napoleonic Wars.

Also known as General Burnett’s Monument, there is some debate whether this tower is a true folly due to its commemorative purpose and, somewhat like McCaigs Tower above Oban, local opinion is divided as to the towers status.

Following decades of neglect it was restored in 1992 at a cost of £20k using funds raised by the Rotary Club of Banchory.

Then there is the intriguingly named Temple of Theseus, built around 1835 in the grounds of Pitfour House, Fetterangus near Mintlaw.

A real hidden gem, the building is a scaled down version of the 6th century BC Temple of Hephaestus in Athens and occupies a waterside position on the shores of Pitfour Lake.

Theseus of course was the heroic slayer of the Minotaur, a half-man, half-bull monster which lived in the Labyrinth created by Daedalus on the island of Crete. Using nothing more than a ball of string to trace his steps and of course a trusty sword, Theseus defeated the Minotaur in an epic battle in the heart of the Labyrinth and thus saved the youth of Athens from being devoured by the evil monster.

The Temple of Theseus in Mintlaw has, as far as I am aware, no claim regarding the housing a Minotaur, however there is a basement area with a bath like structure which it is said once accommodated the late Admiral Ferguson’s alligators. I am happy to report that the lake seems to have a healthy wildlife population and that there was no indication that alligators still lurk in the shallows on the day of my visit.

The building is in a fairly desperate state of repair however and is currently subject of a planning application which would allow the building of nine houses on the Pitfour Estate with a £900k enabling development element for restoration purposes.

According to a spokesman for Banff and Buchan planning department, the application is likely to be approved within the next few months with funding being made available for not only restoration of the temple and lake area with its associated bridges but also to improve public access.

The Pitfour Estate is well worth a visit if you are in the area although a copy the Ordnance Survey map for Fraserburgh (OS Landranger number 30) will help since the public access routes to parts of the estate are not well marked.

If you are feeling really adventurous and fancy a wee flutter, you might just want to head up to the Forestry car park at Drinnies Wood just north of Fetterangus to visit the site of the Ferguson family private racecourse.

This was complete with an Observatory Tower from which they would take tea while watching the horse racing! The tower, built in 1845 by Admiral George Ferguson 5th Laird of alligator fame, is still in existence and is open to the public, but the racecourse has largely vanished.

There are, no doubt, many more hidden follies in the Aberdeen area. If you know of any please get in touch.

Now where did I put my betting slip and binoculars?

Sources

Roman Camps: http://www.roman-britain.org/military/camps_scotland.htm
Pitfour Estate: http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/pitfour+house+estate
The Shell Hoosie: http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/aberdeenshire/dunnottar
Scolty Tower Restoration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7C2CI5SovE

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Buckingham Palace Reception For Trees For Life

Environment, Featured, News No Responses »

Mar 292013

Trees for Life’s creation of a Diamond Wood in Inverness-shire to celebrate The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 has been recognised at a Buckingham Palace reception this week (27 March), hosted by HRH The Princess Royal. With thanks to Richard Bunting.

The event recognised the creation of 60 new Diamond Woods across the UK, each at least 60 acres in size, to symbolise the Queen’s 60-year reign.

As part of this tree planting campaign, Trees for Life planted a new 60-acre Jubilee woodland of native trees at its Dundreggan Estate, to the west of Loch Ness in Glen Moriston.

Two million trees have been planted across Scotland in a range of locations during this project, which was organised by The Woodland Trust.

Princess Anne planted the Jubilee Woods project’s six millionth tree in London yesterday.

Alan Watson Featherstone, Trees for Life’s Executive Director, said:

“As part of a renewed CaledonianForest in the Highlands, our Diamond Wood at Dundreggan is a truly positive tribute to Her Majesty The Queen – one that will be enjoyed by future generations and will provide an important habitat for wildlife. The Jubilee Woods project is an inspiring example of how people can come together and make a real difference to our environment, and we’re proud to have been involved.”

Trees for Life was represented at Buckingham Palace by its Executive Director Alan Watson Featherstone; acclaimed wildlife cameraman and filmmaker Gordon Buchanan, who recently became a patron for the charity; Rosalind Grant-Robertson, who generously supported Tees for Life’s purchase of Dundreggan; and Steve Morris, Operations Manager for Dundreggan.

The conservation charity’s work at Dundreggan is part of its award-winning restoration of Scotland’s ancient CaledonianForest to a spectacular wilderness region of 1,000 square miles to the west of Loch Ness and Inverness.

Although only a fraction of the original forest survives, Trees for Life has now created almost 10,000 acres of new CaledonianForest at 45 different locations in the Highlands. It has planted more than one million trees, with a million more pledged for the next five years.

People can support Trees for Life’s work by purchasing dedicated trees to celebrate special occasions. The charity’s acclaimed volunteer Conservation Weeks and Conservation Days offer opportunities to gain practical conservation experience in spectacular surroundings. For details, see www.treesforlife.org.uk or call 0845 458 3505.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Eight UK Biodiversity Firsts Discovered Near Loch Ness

Environment, Featured, News 1 Response »

Mar 072013

With thanks to Richard Bunting.

Biodiversity surveys in 2012 at Trees for Life’s Dundreggan Estate near Loch Ness revealed eight new species never recorded before in the United Kingdom, and brought the total number of species recorded on the forest restoration site to over 2,800, it was announced today.

New species for the UK discovered at the 10,000-acre site in Glen Moriston, Inverness-shire are a sawfly (Nematus pravus), an aphid (Cinara smolandiae), two species of aphid parasitoids (Ephedrus helleni, Praon cavariellae), three species of fungus gnats (Brevicornu parafennicum, Mycomya disa, Sceptonia longisetosa), and a species of mite (Ceratozetella thienemanni).

Another key discovery, made by Trees for Life’s Executive Director Alan Watson Featherstone, included the first record in Europe of a biting midge in the genus Atrichopogon feeding on a cranefly (Helius longirostris). Although known in the tropics, this behaviour has never been observed in Europe before.

Alan Watson Featherstone said:

“The surprisingly rich variety of life at Dundreggan highlights the vital importance of conservation work, and of protecting and enhancing habitats across the Highlands. The discoveries are not only demonstrating that the estate is a special site for biological diversity – they are also revealing that there is still much to learn about Scotland’s biodiversity.”

The 2012 surveys revealed a significant and diverse range of organisms, including sawflies, aphids, fungus gnats, slime moulds and mites. The findings, together with those of previous surveys, bring the total number of species recorded on Dundreggan to 2,815. This wealth of biodiversity includes at least 269 plants, 341 lichens, 92 birds, 20 mammals, 354 beetles, 207 moths and 125 sawflies.

A species of note discovered last year is the rare Lapland marsh-orchid (Dactylorhiza traunsteinerioides subsp. francis-drucei), never found in this area of Scotland before and described by the Highland Biodiversity Recording Group as a “botanical gem”.

2012 was the third year of a sawfly study on the estate that is being carried out by a team from Liverpool Museums. The total known sawfly species recorded on Dundreggan has now reached 125. The discovery of Nematus pravus means that there are two ‘new to the UK’ sawflies feeding on the dwarf birch at Dundreggan, with a third species previously unrecorded in Britain found feeding on the downy birches on the Estate.

In another project, Steve and Sarah Burchett from PlymouthUniversity spent two weeks with a team of students, carrying out pioneering research into the biodiversity of Dundreggan’s forest canopy. This included new techniques to survey for lichens, mosses and invertebrates that live in the treetops and the upper branches of oaks, birches and Scots pines, in what is believed to be the first study of its kind in Scotland.

At least 67 priority species for conservation have now been identified on Dundreggan, which has been described as a Highlands ‘lost world’. The 2012 discoveries add to a remarkable range of rare and endangered species found on the Estate – some of which were previously unknown in Scotland, or which were feared to be extinct there.

Previous discoveries include the second-ever British record of a waxfly species; a golden horsefly (Atylotus fulvus) only seen once before in Scotland since 1923; the juniper shieldbug (Cyphostethus tristriatus), thought to be the first Highlands record; and species of spider, cranefly and dragonfly all listed in the UK’s Red Data Book of endangered species.

Other species include black grouse, pine marten, water vole, lesser butterfly orchid, lichen running spider, and small pearl-bordered butterfly. On-going research aims to establish whether the Scottish wildcat is present.

Dundreggan, purchased by Trees for Life in 2008, is also home to some of the best stands of juniper – a priority species for conservation – in the Highlands, and what may be the most extensive distribution of dwarf birch in the country.

Trees for Life is planting half a million trees on the estate as part of its award-winning restoration of the Caledonian Forest to a spectacular wilderness region of 1,000 square miles in the Highlands, to the west of Loch Ness and Inverness.

The conservation charity is also working for the return of rare woodland wildlife, plants and insects, and is conducting scientific research and education programmes. Volunteers are carrying out much of the forest restoration work. For more information, see www.treesforlife.org.uk or call 0845 458 3505.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Conservation Work Gets Lottery Grant Boost

Environment, Featured, News No Responses »

Jan 182013

Vital conservation work, including the growing of rare trees, by award-winning charity Trees for Life has received a welcome funding boost thanks to players of a charity lottery. With thanks to Richard Bunting.

An award of £7,443 to Trees for Life from People’s Postcode Trust, a grant-giving charity, funded entirely by players of People’s Postcode Lottery, has allowed the charity to expand and develop a tree nursery at its acclaimed Dundreggan Estate in Glen Moriston, near Loch Ness, in Inverness-shire.

Trees for Life has been able to invest in a much-needed new polytunnel, tools and equipment, increasing the nursery’s capacity to grow rare trees and plants to restore the Caledonian Forest in the Scottish Highlands.

Volunteers will carry out much of the work in the nursery, allowing them to gain new skills and experience, and to improve their health through outdoor exercise.

Trees for Life executive director Alan Watson Featherstone (pictured above) said:

“The opportunity to expand our tree nursery at a time of widespread concern about diseases from imported trees to the UK is a very positive development.

“Our new facilities will significantly increase the number of trees we can produce, and enable more volunteers to get involved in growing rare Caledonian Forest species, including dwarf birch, juniper, tea-leaved willow and twinflower.

“We would like to thank the Postcode Lottery Trust for its generous grant, which has made this possible.”

The expanded nursery will help the charity meet its target of establishing a million more trees by planting and natural regeneration within the next five years.

Trees for Life is restoring Scotland’s ancient Caledonian Forest to a spectacular wilderness region of 1,000 square miles in the Highlands to the west of Loch Ness and Inverness.

For more details, see www.treesforlife.org.uk or call 0845 458 3505.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

New Year Reesolushins

Aberdeenshire, Creative Writing No Responses »

Jan 032013

By Bob Smith.

A didna mak ony reesolushins
At the stairt o the New Year
Jist in case some o them
Widna be kept a fear
.
If a hid made reesolushins
Tae show a bit o moral grit
A wid mak the extra effort
Tae stir things up a bit
.
Keep opposin the mannie Trump
Ma main aim iss wid be
So fae oor shores he’d bugger aff
Fae his haverins we’d be free
.
A’d fecht tae keep oor kwintra
Safe fae the lan grabbin rich
Chiels fa try tae mak the rules
An democracy try tae ditch

A’d stir things wi the cooncil
Tae see oor money weel spint
An nae lan in the coffers
O fowk faa mak a mint
.
On a far less serious note
Ma gowf a’d try tae improve
So ma handicap it wis cut
An ma swing wis in the groove
.
A’d try tae be aye smilin
Fin fowk an me div meet
An look upon the positives
If the Dons they div git beat
.
Bit ae New Year reesolushin
An on iss a’ll nae bi canny
Is tae wish ye “a the best”
Fae Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie”

Older Entries