mysite blog

Issue 154 Retraction

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:10:00 -0500

In MBC News Issue 154 it was suggested that the "big house at the top of Baillieswells Road" was to become a hotel. We have now had it confirmed by Mr Milne's solicitors that this suggestion was untrue and without foundation or merit and MBC News apologises unreservedly for having printed and perpetuated this groundless rumour. We warmly welcome the fact that this house will remain a home for Mr Milne and his family.

Police Reports

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:06:00 -0600

Grampian Police Crime Reports are now available to view on our Neighbourhood Watch page.

LDP Response

Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:09:00 -0600

Following the Local Development Plan (LDP) consultation period, the Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber Community Council (CBMCC) submitted their response on 14th December 2010. You can read the response below:

Dear Sirs,

Response to the Consultation on the Local Development Plan

I write on behalf of the Cults Bieldside and Milltimber Community Council. Detailed below are our comments on the local development plan, which have been divided into the following sections.

•   Overview of the Local Development Plan
•   Masterplanning and Developer Contributions
•   Schools
•   Transport and Accessibility
•   Affordable Housing
•   Greenbelt and Protection of the Environment
•   City Centre Development
•   Site Developments in our Community Council Area
•   Countesswells
•   Oldfold Farm
•   Friarsfield
•   North Garthdee Farm

We apologize for not submitting our comments on the suggested form. To facilitate transcription to your electronic records we have highlighted in bold the specific changes that we want to see in the plan for each subject section and have included the required personal detail information at the end of this letter.

Overview of the Local Development Plan
We support the need for a Local Development Plan and recognise that it needs to be integrated with the Structure Plan. However, the Structure Plan was based solely on a highly aspirational growth forecast which, in 2008, we thought lacked credibility. The Local Development Plan is now being formulated in a climate of unprecedented economic austerity. The Chief Economic Advisor to the Scottish Government has indicated that it is likely to last for the rest of the decade. No attempt has been made to assess the impact of the changed economic environment on the number of houses that are likely to be built in the short to medium term. Nor is there any visible analysis on the implications for the provision of the infrastructure across the city. We regard these as major deficiencies in the plan.

We believe that proper risk assessments are required on
•   the timing, location and scale of housing developments
•    the sequencing of infrastructure projects
•    an evaluation of the ability of developers to pay for new schools, roads and other facilities

We believe that the Local Development Plan should include an outline city wide delivery plan for the next 5 years (to 2016) that gives a reasonable estimate of the number and type of houses that are likely to be built, a forecast of new affordable homes, the timing and sequencing of infrastructure projects to match the housing supply, all supported by cost breakdowns indicating the split between public and private financing. More rigour is needed in the evaluation of the short-term capability of the council to deliver the plan to allay public concerns about unrealistic housing forecasts and widespread scepticism about their ability to deliver the infrastructure.

Masterplanning and Developer Contributions

We support the concept of masterplanning for 50 homes or more. As a result we are particularly concerned to see that planning briefs will be used for some sites of more than 50 homes. We seek reassurance that local communities will be engaged in the detail of these planning briefs, as well as masterplans, to ensure that the appropriate challenges can be made on housing design, affordable housing, provision of the infrastructure and any traffic management issues.

The above is indicative of the concern of the community council about the process surrounding masterplanning. We recognise that community councils, ward councillors and local residents are acknowledged as key stakeholders in the masterplanning process but we are concerned that our views with be marginalised in the discussions between the developers and the planning gain team. We see this as more likely in a climate of limited house building and pressure on developer costs.

We wish to see a clear two-stage process written as procedures into the plan.

1. The planning gain team acts as a facilitator between the developer and local residents (led by the community council and ward councillors) to review and agree the content of the masterplan/planning brief. This includes more detail than the outline infrastructure plans for masterplan zones currently in the LDP proposed on utilities, schools, road and cycle paths, public transport and community/retail facilities. It would also include discussions on housing design, affordable housing and landscaping of the site. A further significant part of the discussion would be on infrastructure provisions outwith the immediate site necessary for the development to go ahead i.e. secondary schools, trunk sewage systems, and city road projects such as the AWPR.
2. This would be followed by a negotiation between the developer and planning gain team in the full knowledge of the expectations of local residents. The community council does not expect to be involved in the detailed financial agreement between the developer and the local authority. However, we do expect the subsequent delivery plan for the site to be shared with local residents to enable challenge and support.

We believe that the process above needs greater clarity with the roles and responsibilities/accountabilities of all stakeholders involved being clearly articulated. We recognise that local residents cannot place impossible demands on a developer but we are concerned that the planning gain team will compromise on the infrastructure provisions unless they feel accountable to the local community.

Schools

There is widespread concern in our area about the delivery of new schools. It is exacerbated by current problems in finding places for children living in the area at Cults Academy and some of the local primary schools. There is little confidence in the forecasts for future school rolls. The overwhelming feeling is that existing schools in our area cannot cope with the current demand and, in the foreseeable future, it is difficult to see how children from new housing developments could be absorbed. The infrastructure plans identify the need for new schools but with the likelihood of less housing being built than forecast we question whether there will be sufficient funds to finance them. The schools need to be in place before the houses are sold. We understand the FIRS group (Future Infrastructure Requirements for Services) are considering these issues recognising that varying levels of new housing will alter the triggerpoint for a new school to be built. However, the alignment of different scales of house building with the provision of new schools has no visibility in the plan. This is particularly significant for new secondary schools that cover more than one masterplan zone where the costs will be met by multiple developers with the possibility of some public funding.

We want the plan to include an overview of schooling that sequences the school building programme against different scales of house building and provides a proper forecast of private and public spending. The current constraints on public funds and limited house building must impact on the number of schools that can be built, particularly at the secondary level. To get more focus on delivery we believe that a short-term plan is needed for the next 5 years (to 2016) that will prioritise the school building programme in a project plan with critical milestone dates.

Transport and Accessibility

Included in the LDP under cumulative transport infrastructure proposals are projects for new roads in the north, northwest, west and south of the city with a new bridge over the river Dee. We welcome these proposals that seek to enhance the existing road network. However, there is significant uncertainty about the timing and delivery of most of the major transport infrastructure projects in the city.

•   The proposed AWPR is unlikely to be completed by the end of the first phase of the plan. The council does not know how it is going to pay for its proportion of the bill given that the cost is likely to exceed £1bn based on other recent road building projects.
•   The Haudagain roundabout project will be built sometime after the completion of the AWPR but the timing is not specified.
•    The 3rd Don Crossing is in dispute, where many believe that traffic congestion will just be moved from one part of the city to another.
•   In addition we have the strategic transport projects review with a range of road and rail projects affecting the Northeast, none of which have a cost, a prioritisation or any timing.

It is difficult to identify any part of the transport strategy for the city that is on track. It is inevitable that many will see the cumulative transport infrastructure proposals as another range of projects to add to the wish list.

Across the city there is concern about the impact of new house building on increased traffic congestion. The public are seeking reassurance that new house building will not proceed in their area until the necessary transport infrastructure is in place. We understand that the FIRS group is looking to identify trigger points to align housing construction with the completion of transport projects. However, there is nothing in the public domain. Indeed there is little confidence in the traffic modelling on the impact of the road projects in reducing congestion.

At the heart of this should be the desire of the council to bring forward compelling evidence to present to the public to show that the necessary improvements in the transport infrastructure have been put in place to enable a housing development of a particular scale to begin.

We see no indication of a modal shift from cars to public transport. In many respects public transport is stagnating with a reduced frequency of service and fare increases above inflation. The infrastructure plans for master plan zones refer to frequent public transport services but nothing of any substance is shown as to what that means and how it will be delivered.

We want to see a transparent city-wide transport delivery plan with critical milestone dates over the short to medium term that shows how the size and scale of housing construction will be aligned to transport infrastructure projects coming on stream.

Affordable Housing
We recognise that affordable housing is a significant issue. Although the supplementary guidelines recommend quotas and mechanisms to make housing affordable there are no forecasts on the number of new affordable homes that are likely to be provided in the first phase of the plan. The consequence is that instead of promoting a proper debate on the overall provision of affordable housing the issue is hidden because the likely shortfall between the demand and supply is not properly quantified.

A city-wide delivery plan is required for affordable housing over the next 5 years (to 2016).

Greenbelt and Protection of the Environment
The LDP refers to a number of land designations and strategies, greenbelt, green space network, urban green spaces, landscape strategy, open space strategy. Instead of providing clarity the plethora of designations and strategies create confusion. The public see the erosion of the greenbelt and want to understand what will be protected to maintain a green environment. In our view the green belt policy was one of the most imaginative and successful pieces of town and country planning instrumentation over the last 60 years. At the moment there seems to be a void as greenbelt land gets swallowed up.

We want to see these land designations and strategies integrated into more simple and transparent policy that can be readily understood and which is focussed on the protection of Green areas rather than on possible ways to use them for development. In the meantime we look to the City Council to protect the greenbelt by trying to avoid the rezoning of land for development and putting land back to greenbelt wherever possible.
City Centre Development
We support the need for a master plan for the city and welcome the development and integration of the 9 character areas. A long-term vision for the city centre is needed but it must be accompanied by short-term objectives against which progress can be measured by the public. In this context we would like to see a focus on Union Street to restore it as the prime shopping area for Aberdeen akin to Princess Street in Edinburgh and Buchanan Street in Glasgow. The expectation is a range of high quality shops running the length of Union Street with all other retail developments in the city centre such as Union Square, Bon Accord Centre and the Green being complimentary.

We believe it is critical to attract a greater range of high quality shops to make Union Street the focus and the first point of call for shoppers coming into Aberdeen. It is generally acknowledged by the media, business leaders and the public that Union Street has a ‘tired’ feel. We see no real strategy to transform Union Street; indeed the LDP is mostly a collection of statements of good intent with no substance behind them.

As acknowledged in the LDP the use of public transport and the management of traffic are critical to the success in developing the city centre. In principle we support the pedestrianisation of Union Street but the lack of a comprehensive traffic management plan to ensure the efficient flow of traffic around the city centre breeds negativity. The plan refers to public transport hubs for the city centre but there is no detail about how they will operate.

We need to see more short-term plans on actions to restore Union Street and address the traffic management issues in the city centre.

Site Developments in our Community Council Area

General
We are pleased that the settlement strategy acknowledges the constraints on extensive development across lower Deeside. The Dee Valley is an important part of the natural landscape setting of the city that needs to be protected. In this context we particularly welcome and support the exclusion of sites for development south of the North Deeside Road in Milltimber, Bieldside and Cults. We welcome the exclusion of the homes at Loirsbank from the previous local plan.

Although we have concerns about the sites that have been selected in our area, which we will cover, we understand why they have been chosen and we don’t want to see other sites being substituted for them. For example, we don’t see the site at Contlaw Road in Milltimber (given its topography, access to woodlands, wildlife and its use for recreation) as an alternative to Oldfold Farm in Milltimber.

We appreciate the recognition that developments in Aberdeenshire will have a significant impact on the local road network in our area. We anticipate significant increases in traffic on the North Deeside Road, which is already running at capacity. We believe this constrains development in Lower Deeside in terms of site selection and the volume of houses proposed for a site.

Countesswells

The creation of a new town at Countesswells has no support in the structure plan, there being no provision for a new settlement. A new development of the size proposed would create a ribbon of near continuous development north – south from Kingswells to Cults causing coalescence of three major urban areas. The green belt at Countesswells was recognised in the Aberdeen Green Belt Review (2002) as having a high landscape value that contributed fundamentally to the landscape setting of the city.

There is a tendency to look to the AWPR as the solution to all the city’s transport problems. The concept previously of a new town at Countesswells was rooted in the presumption of an AWPR passing adjacent to the area. The change in alignment of the AWPR about 1.5 miles to the west makes that premise redundant. A connection to the AWPR from this site will have a minimal beneficial impact on traffic flow reduction. Most of the commuting traffic will travel east towards the city. The existing road from Countesswells towards the city will not cope with the increased volume of traffic. A connection to the A944 would alleviate some traffic but this road is already stretched and there is new housing proposed for Kingswells too. The likely outcome is that commuter traffic will seek to travel into the city on the North Deeside Road via Kirk Brae compounding the congestion problems in Cults. In addition the new employment offices proposed at Kingswells (OP40) will create further traffic heading north. In essence the development will cause immense traffic congestion on what can only be described as country lanes.

We feel it is unrealistic to believe that new homeowners in Countesswells will see a road dedicated to bus services as the solution. We recognise that new roads are proposed in the west of the city as part of the cumulative transport infrastructure proposals. As these are still at the feasibility stage with no indication about how they will be paid for and timing, we do not know their impact.

Given the problems with roads, coupled with the potential need for two new primary schools and a secondary school, we are not convinced that such a large-scale development of 3,000 homes is possible in this location. We believe that constraints on providing the infrastructure challenge the viability of this development particularly given the scale of housing proposed.

Oldfold Farm

The addition of 400 houses at Oldfold Farm will change the character of Milltimber. A sense of place is rightly seen as important criteria in the assessment of sites. There is also the issue of coalescence of communities and the loss of identity. We believe these are significant issues for this development.

We don’t believe that the availability of employment land will have any noticeable impact on commuting traffic. A small retail store similar to the one in Bieldside in walking distance for local residents may have some benefit but this would be the extent of the employment opportunity. The reality is this development would be a base for residents who would commute to other parts of the city.

We understand that utilities in Milltimber are at maximum capacity and the sewage system will require upgrading.

We question whether the developer and the council will be able to deliver the funding to pay for the upgrade of the trunk sewage system and the schools. We do not believe that we should see any development of this site until we see the impact of the AWPR on traffic along the North Deeside Road.

Friarsfield

We welcome the council’s decision, prior to the start of this consultation, to remove 185 homes from the plan so that no additional houses are planned for this site through to 2023. This leaves 280 homes that are still to be built as part of the current local plan. We are pleased that a masterplan will be prepared for this site enabling a better focus on more detailed infrastructure issues e.g. the link of core footpaths. As indicated in the section on schools, the capacity of Cults Academy is a major issue and maybe a continuing constraint on the development of this site particularly if Oldfold Farm is approved and a new secondary school at Countesswells is not built.

Similarly the traffic issues for the North Deeside Road and Kirk Brae will be significant if the house building at Friarsfield goes ahead in addition to the approval of the development at Countesswells.

North Garthdee Farm

We support the development of this site but we do not know what is planned for the infrastructure, as there is no masterplan. We believe that a masterplan should be prepared for the site, as there are more than 80 homes. A critical feature of the plan should be the traffic management of new occupants on this site and other road users connecting between the North Deeside Road and Garthdee and vice versa. This development provides the opportunity for a link road between North Deeside Road and Garthdee to reduce the traffic on the residential roads of Pitfoldels Station Road and Westerton Road.

The plan for the site should enable traffic to flow between the two main roads without passing in front of a resident’s main entrance. Local ward councillors, the community council, business leaders and local residents all support the need for a link road. It is imperative that no decisions are made for North Garthdee Farm, which could preclude the availability of land for a future link road.

Your sincerely,

For the Cults Bieldside and Milltimber Community Council

Guus Glass
Secretary

ACCF Speech

Sat, 02 Oct 2010 10:56:00 -0500

The Aberdeen Community Council Forum (a body representing all the community councils in Aberdeen) sought to address the full council on the 18th August 2010 about the robustness of the Local Development Plan. Despite being within their standing orders, Aberdeen City Council voted 29 to 12 not to hear the views of the ACCF.

Apart from being an affront to local democracy, we don’t believe that the issues that the ACCF sought to raise are being properly addressed. We thought that local residents might be interested to read what the ACCF planned to say as it provides a more widespread perspective on the plan for the whole city.

The deputation to the Council was made up of

Andy Finlayson Chairman of the ACCF and Chairman of the Cove & Altens CC
Peter Reiss Chairman of the Cults, Bieldside, Milltimber CC
Ross Grant Chairman of the Tillydrone CC

The text below is written in a format to help deliver it as a 10 minute speech:

The Aberdeen Community Council Forum is a body that comes together every 2 months to discuss issues of mutual interest across the Aberdeen Community Councils. It is unprecedented for representatives from the Aberdeen Community Council Forum to seek to address the City Council but it reflects a frustration that the community councils feel about the extent to which their views are not being properly listened to on a variety of subjects but not least the Local Development Plan.

The Strategic Development Planning Team in developing the Structure Plan in 2008
•   used a high growth scenario
•   a high inward migration factor
•   and an additional aspirational element
•   to arrive at a housing allowance of 36,000 homes for the city over the 20 years of the plan to 2031.

We recognise that we all have a responsibility to
•   promote job opportunities in the North East
•   encourage diversification
•   and celebrate business successes

But we would like to remind the council that this forecast was seen, at the time, as very optimistic based on a very bullish view about growth in the North East economy.

Since September 2008 we have had the worst financial and economic crisis in living memory.
•   Housing completions have dropped drastically in Aberdeen.
•   Getting a mortgage is very difficult, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, particularly with the requirement for increased deposits.
•   And the Chief Economic Advisor to the Scottish Government has indicated that we are likely to experience a period of austerity for the rest of the decade.

AND YET a housing allowance of 16,500 houses has been left in the Local Development Plan for the period through to 2016. Over the past 10 years the highest number of houses to be built in any one year in the city was 1002, the average number over the 10 years was 680 and last year it was 258. The majority of these houses were built in a period of relative prosperity. To meet the housing allowance in the plan, starting next year, you would have to build 2,500 houses each year for the next 6 years, in a relatively depressed economy where mortgages are difficult to get.

You have to question whether this is realistic. We don’t believe it is. We haven’t spoken to a planning official or indeed a developer who has indicated that this number of houses is likely to be built between now and 2016. Indeed the only rationale that we have heard for this number is that it is in the Structure Plan and reflects our long-term aspirations.

It is important to emphasise that we are talking about a short-term plan through to 2016. It is not about aspirational direction or statements of good intent. It is what we understand the Council is committing to deliver to the people of Aberdeen by 2016.

And you are going start off with probably the most critical element of the plan, the housing allowance, which is fundamentally flawed and yet has a major impact on the viability of the rest of the plan.

---------------------------------------

We suggest that to get a better handle on this, there is a need to look at key aspects of the Local Development Plan based on a more realistic forecast of the number of houses that will be built by 2016.

Affordable Housing

Clearly, affordable housing is a significant issue. We need a forecast of how many new affordable homes are likely to be provided by 2016. It should include an estimate of different types of housing, flats, family accommodation and homes designed for the elderly. We need an assessment of what can be provided directly by the public sector, (i.e. council houses funded by the council, housing associations and the Scottish Government). And an assessment of affordable homes supplied by developers recognising that it will be dependent on the overall number of houses they can sell.

We need to gain some consensus about what can be delivered by 2016 for inclusion in the plan.

Infrastructure

On the infrastructure, the requirements have been recently published; 12 new roads; 4 secondary schools and 13 primary schools; 5 health centres; In addition there are new sewage systems, new community centres and walking and cycle paths. Some community councils feel there is insufficient attention to the infrastructure requirements of existing communities, with masterplans mostly focused on new housing developments.

The major concern, reflected in the public meetings, is the ability of the council to deliver the infrastructure given the financial constraints on the council, the Scottish Government and developers. The plan has no real details about the overall costs. The allocation of funding between the private and public sectors is rather vague, except for an assumption that developers will meet most of the costs. Nor is there any integration in terms of infrastructure priorities, sequencing of projects between developments and timing.

To allay public concerns we need plans where the emphasis is on the infrastructure being laid down first with appropriate binding and enforceable contracts for all the parties involved.

We don’t believe you can have a reasonable level of confidence that the infrastructure requirements will be delivered over the life of the plan. We suggest that the infrastructure plans should be subject to a more detailed risk assessment surrounding timing, delivery and affordability.

Indeed we think it will probably require more phasing of housing and commercial developments over a longer period of time to enable a more focussed targeting of infrastructure projects.

Traffic Management

The final key aspect of the plan we wish to highlight is the need to understand the impact of any housing developments and infrastructure changes on traffic management and the provision of public transport. We seem to stagger from one traffic management crisis to another.

We need an overview on the management of traffic across the city, which shows the impact of increased volumes from the proposed new housing developments on the existing road network. Thereafter, we can then look at any proposed new roads and how they will meet increased congestion. To build public confidence there should be better communication on the traffic modelling through public meetings to get input from local communities. Good examples are engagement with
• The public in Tillydrone on traffic from developments in the north of the city and the shire coming through their area into the heart of the city.
• And, an involvement of communities in the south of the city from proposed developments at Loriston, Cove and the shire on traffic coming into the city down Wellington Road.

------------------------------------------------

OUR purpose for being here is that we don’t believe you have a robust Local Development Plan.

•   Our view is that you need to significantly modify your views about the scale of the housing allowance to reflect what is likely to be built by 2016.
•   We suggest you should get a better grip on what can and will be delivered on affordable housing by 2016.
•   We want to encourage you to vigorously challenge the proposals on the infrastructure in terms of timing, delivery and affordability through a more detailed risk assessment.
•   We expect more rigour and transparency in assessing the impact of the local plan on traffic across the city.

We hope that these issues will be addressed before the plan is put out for consultation. We believe that more time spent getting the planning right will save money in the long-term.

We also want to encourage you to consult through public meetings on affordable housing; the delivery of the infrastructure and traffic management because the insight you might receive from communities may improve the quality of your decision-making.

These views have the united support of the community councils on the Aberdeen Community Council Forum and we believe reflect the views of our local residents. There is real concern that the local development plan will lead to piecemeal housing developments, a fragmented infrastructure and traffic chaos. In the interests of your own credibility and having a robust Local Development Plan we can all support we hope you will take on board these comments.

City Council Consultations

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:53:00 -0500

The current list of Aberdeen City Council Consultations is available at:
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Consultations/cst_CurrentConsultation.asp

Current items of specific interest to the Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber area are:
- Stakeholder Engagement on the Secondary School Estate (ends 13 September 2010)

Transition Aberdeen

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:15:00 -0500

Aberdeen Forward is running a project called Transition Aberdeen, which aims to help communities deal with the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil, by taking simple, constructive action. The main aspects of the project are providing sustainability training, getting derelict allotments back into production and establishing a 'landshare' scheme and community growing areas within Aberdeen.

We provide information on environmental topics and run eco-friendly community workshops, such as upholstery, arts and crafts and composting. In addition to this, we run fully serviced office suites and provide mail box and virtual office services to the business community. We also sell second hand office furniture and stationery through our Creative Waste Exchange project to both the general public and business community. All of our work is in-keeping with our ethos to protect the environment, minimise waste and reduce landfill. If you want to find out more about any of the above, contact 01224 560360 or visit http://www.aberdeenforward.org/workshop-events.

Local Photographs

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:43:00 -0600

This website's masthead image was provided by local resident Martin Slowey. If you like it, you may also like some of his other work - see www.redbubble.com/people/mjs67.

If you have any local photographs which we can include in the website, or MBC News - we'd love to see them. Email us at mbcnews@cbmcommunity.org.uk.

Welcome

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:51:00 -0500

This website is funded and maintained by volunteers from the Community Council and MBC News team. Please feel free to submit events and suggestions for information that you would find useful. Click the Contact Us link in the top right hand corner.