Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance acts for a number of communities in and around Aberdeen with the specific brief to protect and enhance the living environment in the Greenbelt.
Objectives
--Protect, preserve and enhance Aberdeen's greenbelt and living environment.
--Resist plans for a WPR in the Greenbelt.
--Minimise the effect of major road schemes in the Greenbelt.
--Promote sustainable transportation systems and routes.
--Resist sizeable housing developments in the Greenbelt.
--Promote alternative housing outside the Greenbelt near established settlements.
Union Terrace Gardens vandals or 'BUILDING on the PARK'
Union Terrace Gardens, the only green space in the heart of Aberdeen, is in danger of being built-over by a Council funded Art Centre for Peacock Visual Arts (Spring 2008).
The Victorians and Edwardians bequeathed Union Terrace Gardens to the citizens of Aberdeen. They knew the meaning of ‘Noblesse Oblige’. They returned to Society something for future generations to enjoy.
We may live in times of commercial hedonism, however, the City Council is not free to destroy what our forebears gave to future generations. The Gardens are protected under the Council's own rules.
The proposed ‘Arts Centre’ would virtually obliterate Union Terrace Gardens, taking away half of the Gardens. It would necessitate the felling of a large proportion of the mature and protected trees in the Gardens , trees that are absolutely integral to the park, the backdrop of the Union Terrace facades and the views from Union Bridge and Rosemount viaduct. It would irrevocably spoil the character of the centre of Aberdeen.
The Council, who are to take part of the Centre for office space themselves(!), are providing a grant of £3m to Peacock and plan to charge a peppercorn rent of £1 per year.
The Centre is supposed to attract 200,000 visitors per year (there is no car parking facility). How many visit the existing Art Centre in Schoolhill?
In summary, another irresponsible act of a Council in debt, flouting their own environmental rules and creating another (likely) loss-making venture in a time when Glencraft is under threat.
Is it any wonder that the bus shelters are graffitied, when the Councillors themselves behave like vandals.
If you are upset, you might want to let them know.
Planning an AWPR while the oilprice ....
The first half of the age of oil is at an end. Mankind has consumed about half of conventional oil (that is oil 'easy to produce'). Conventional oil production is at a peak. The remaining half will be extracted at ever slower pace. Demand from countries like China and India is increasing sharply. High oil prices are a result (see life chart above, New York time (enable javascript)). Higher prices are to follow.
Aberdeen above all should know about oil !
But the day-to-day changes around us are the ones which are the most difficult to see: as certain as the glaciers are melting, so will car useage decrease. Unfortunately, the road planners have only one (false) model: similar growth as before. Thus, they are planning a road that is not needed: not now and certainly not in 10 years time, when the oil price will be $300.
Aberdonians would still be paying very handsomely for this White Elephant, if it were to go ahead, however empty it would be (see also 'Bypass: the real cost' below)
Unobtrusive motorway tunnels
On the continent the environment is worth more than in Scotland, is it?
Objections to AWPR Draft Road Orders
Some 8000 objections had been submitted by the 9th Feb 2007 to the draft road orders which were published on 14 Dec 2006. Some food for thought ! For the arguments against this road, we may refer you to the various discussions below, which in our opinion are as valid as before.
The development corridor is looming. Please take stock of what kind of future you want for Aberdeen. You may wish to see our OBJECTIONS (Link). We contend that this proposal is the most costly, the most environmentally damaging and the most ineffective in helping with Aberdeen's traffic future. You may also want to look at our earlier objections, see 28 Objections, and our friends site Road Sense.
Taking Stock (May 2006)
On the 2nd of May 06 the Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott MSP, announced which AWPR route he wants. The soil investigation is in full swing. We have seen it before: millions were spent on the Camphill route investigations. Any decent person knew that the Camphill route was a non-starter. A caring society does not victimise the weak and vulnerable. Now we have a proposed route through one of the most beautiful countrysides in the world.
Devastation of our natural heritage; Click image to see the entire route and then enlarge by clicking the 'arrows icon' in the bottom righthand corner (1.2 MB)
This route still has to go through the entire Planning process: the publication of Road Orders (14 Dec 2006; the final plan, including a full Environmental Impact Assessment, which in it self entails a justification why alternatives are rejected and a comparison of alternatives in the light of the damage done to the environment), objections by 9 Feb 2007, a Public Inquiry, where all these issues will be put to the test, an Inquiry Reporter’s recommendation to the Scottish Executive, followed by a rejection or acceptance of the Inquiry findings by the Ministers.
If the Minister(s) decide(s) to build the road, then, within 6 weeks the aggrieved residents of Aberdeen can ask the Court of Session for a Judicial Review. The Court can overturn the Minister’s decision or endorse it. The aggrieved residents can continue to the House of Lords and ultimately to the European Court of Justice.
The legal argument is basically simple: Is the damage this road does to the environment proportional to the expected benefit to society. There are two issues here: 1) How much benefit does this road bring? 2) Do alternative routes bring more benefit or cause less damage? On both counts a calm assessment of the facts tells one, that this proposed road will be rejected through the legal process.
The facts are before us: This proposed route will take 8 percent of traffic out of the City centre, against a route proposed by Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance, the Eastern Tunnel Bypass, 41 percent ( Scottish Executive figures). The Eastern Tunnel Bypass does little environmental damage (it is mostly tunnelled), whereas the proposed AWPR route cuts through the sensitive woodlands and meadows of the Green Belt, including the beautiful Dee valley.
The Eastern Tunnelled Bypass was costed by Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance’s Norwegian tunnelling experts (NORCONSULT) at £253m (2005 prices), so on the face of it the Eastern Bypass wins hands down. However, when the Scottish Executive analysed the Eastern Bypass, Aberdeen City Council let it be known that they did not want it ! Why ? Because Aberdeen City Council wants a development corridor along the western fringe of the city: a western bypass retail and suburbia belt, - Edinburgh style. The City Local Plan is full of references to the development opportunities created by the AWPR.
Then, of course, we have the second proposal for a tunnel: a direct tunnel under Hazlehead from the river Dee to the airport, altogether 8 km of tunnel, which will cost only £80 m extra than a road on the surface and thus considerably less than the Ministers proposal, which is much longer. Because it is so close to the City centre it will cause much reduced Inner City traffic. But, of course, again it is not a development corridor.
Several other tunnel options are feasible, all without massive disruption. Tunnels cost about £15m per km versus roads £5m per km. Thus, although tunnels are more expensive, they are also shorter since they can be direct from A to B without detours. In practice, a small extra expense will be of massive benefit to Aberdonians for lack of disruption and speed of decison.
Apart for the Council that is: you can not have fast food outlets in a tunnel !
Lastly, with respect to traffic issues, there is the Haudagain roundabout. It is patently obvious, even to the casual observer, that our City Council have deliberately aggravated the traffic problem at the Haudagain roundabout, clearly in the hope of annoying the citizens of Aberdeen and cajoling them into support for their AWPR retail-cum-suburbia belt. The simple expedient of demolishing the half empty block in the NW corner of the roundabout, as well as the empty ex-car sales place to the SW and the empty shop to the NE, would allow the construction of merge lanes and hence much faster traffic flow. All for minimal cost.
Returning to the recurring theme in this whole sorry saga: the couple of special interest groups, such as, mainly the developers, but also the Chamber of Commerce, have managed to push a AWPR onto the agenda; an AWPR which has very little tangible benefits other than for a retail-suburbia belt. That is why the City Council never produced a coherent argument in favour of the AWPR: there is none. Feeble stories that the AWPR is part of a Modern Transport System simply don’t stack up.
This Modern Transport System is mainly explained in the form of a link with the Park-&-Rides. So do we have to believe that somebody from Cove will not use the P&R in Altens (yes, there is one near MACRO), but instead use the AWPR to drive to the Kingswells P&R, and will then take the bus into town? Clearly, linking up the P&R’s by an AWPR makes no sense whatsoever. The main traffic flow is this city are radial.
In the final analysis this City Council is being corrupted by too intimate a link with the developers. Numerous examples abound: the totally inappropriate Bridge of Dee retail sprawl, the Kepplestone development, a disgrace by common acclaim, the First Bus Depot proposal in the Greenbelt, supported by the Council against clear legislation, the Guild Street retail park (against the Council’s own rules to reduce Inner City car use, as well as: Do we need to destroy more of Union Street with more retail parks?), and of course, the AWPR retail-suburbia belt itself.
Audrey Findlay (Head of Abnshire Council) 
and Kate Dean (Head of Abn City Council),
both members of ACSEF (Abn City & Shire Economic Forum) call for the campaign of "misleading information" by protesters to stop, because by putting "in jeopardy the long-awaited bypass" they threaten Aberdeen's prosperity.Cllr Findlay is quoted:"the economic gains [of the WPR] are clear."
Councillors too close to developers; (see also Misconduct of Councillors and the hospitality list of Councillors with First Bus)
The final irony is, as those Aberdonians who work in the oil industry know, that oil supply will run short of demand within the next 10 years. Car use, by necessity, will reduce in 10 years, not increase as the planners would have it. Thus the last thing we need is a hugely expensive white road elephant. Instead, we do need a modern transport solution in the form of light railways, etc. Why not subsidise the heroic Royal Deeside Railway Preservation Society, who are laying track at Drum with very few resources, and reinstate the line into Aberdeen, for a fraction of the cost of a AWPR.
Thus, Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance conclude:
- The Ministers present proposal will not be built. It will not pass the hurdle of proportionality with respect to Environmental law. The Courts will stop it.
- Improve the existing infrastructure (Haudagain).
- If any road would be needed, it would have to be a tunnelled road under Hazlehead from the Dee to the airport, being the simplest of the 2 tunnelled proposals.
- The City Council are being corrupted by developer pressure and lost their sense of purpose and duty to represent all citizens.
- An AWPR would constitute a monumental Waste of Public Resources. It would bring little traffic benefit at a time when fuel would become very expensive.
- Most of the present Councillors need to be replaced at the next elections, because Aberdeen deserves a higher standard of Public Service.
Bypass: the real cost
The VAT issue with respect to the bypass is only minor compared with the extra costs for the Public Finance Initiative.
The actual cost will be at least £ 955 m plus VAT, based on the current £395 m technical cost:
Taken the technical cost of the WPR at £395 m this would bring the total cost inclusive of interest over 30 years to:
Years 30
Interest fraction 0.07
interest year 1 -£ 27,650,000 IPMT in spreadsheet (year 1)
principle year 1 -£ 4,181,629 PPMT in spreadsheet
total/year -£ 31,831,629 x 30 = (equal payments per year for 30 years, PMT x30 in spreadsheet
Abn 9.5% -£ 90,720,144 over 30 years
Aberdeen City Local Plan Inquiry
Aberdeen City Council have republished the Local Plan, misleadingly called, GREEN SPACES | NEW PLACES. This, after the previous Local Plan was withdrawn in furore (the Councillor Maitland corruption affair), and after 3000 objections were lodged against major housing schemes in the Greenbelt. The new Local Plan (Summer 2004), re-categorises the Greenbelt into: Greenbelt [proper] and Green Space (Network). This appears to be a device to escape the full legal protection of Greenbelt. This slight of hand was reportedly dealt by the then Master Planner, Mr Bob Reid, who since left the Council and now works for a planning firm , advising companies such as First Bus on their green field bus depot plan in Woodside, despite the fact that his own Plan designated the area not only as Green Belt, but as "a particularly important component of the Green Space Network." !!
Read more about the First Bus debacle ...
GREEN SPACES, NEW PLACES paints various scenario’s for the Greenbelt, the worst of which almost completely plasters our beautiful countryside with housing, industrial estates, WPR, etc. The Council believe, for example: "...it is vital ... that the [housing] allocations set out in this Local Plan take into acount the opportunities that the WPR brings into play ..."
2099 Objections had been submitted (last day, 30 Sep 2004) and the Inquiry has finally got under way on February 21, 2006. The first hurdle will be that the Plan contains the 'old' WPR route, whereas the Council announced that they "invite the Inquiry Reporters that the indicative [old] route be deleted."
What will happen to the major housing schemes that were planned adjacent to the old route ?? Will they also be deleted ??
Read more about the Local Plan ...
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance objected to a number of issues in the Local Plan (GSNP1929) which will be heard at the Local Inquiry starting on 29 March.
Eastern bypass: 41 % traffic reduction
The AWPR team published the so-called STAG analysis for their 5 route proposals, as well as Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance's Eastern Bypass. As AGA has always claimed the Eastern bypass is a far more sensible solution for traffic issues in Aberdeen. We studied the effect of an Eastern Bypass and claimed a resulting 40 percent traffic reduction in King Street and Market Street. This against a 7 percent reduction calculated by the AWPR team for the western route options.
The STAG analysis published on 24 Jan 2006 confirms the AGA analysis: a 41 % reduction in Market Street for the Eastern bypass (click this link for the full report). The report also deals with the other BYPASS OPTIONS.
Then there is the small matter of cost: AGA engaged a firm of Norwegian tunnel engineering experts: NORCONSULT, who costed the Eastern bypass proposal at £253m. This contrasts with the AWPR team's estimate of £553m, which includes a costly bridge over the Don, where the tunnel can simply continue.
Strangely, the AWPR team's estimate is based on a project length of 10 km, whilst AGA reckon the length to be 8.67 km.
Why don't the AWP team invite the Norwegians to build the Eastern bypass tunnel as a turnkey project for -say- £350m ??
Or is it that Aberdeen Council want a development corridor (see below) to the west of the City and don't have enough imagination to chose the obvious solution for traffic ??
Of course, the reality of all this is twofold: 1) Aberdeen City Council do want the bypass as a development corridor. The new Local Plan Green Spaces | New Places refers to development around transport corridors and the WPR no less than 15 times, and 2) Aberdeen Council are out of their depth: this is the Council that gave us the Denburn project (£30m), the Kepplestone development (nominated for demolition) and the Bridge of Dee retail disgrace, but to name a few.
Ministerial decision
The Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott MSP, has decided (1 Dec 2005) on a route (click for map) for an Aberdeen bypass that saves Camphill as well as most of Aberdeen's Greenbelt.
With the decision of the Minister for Transport on December the 1 st 2005, the WPR has been removed from the so-called preferred route through Camphill. We applaud this. The Scottish Executive have injected some common sense into the equation.
We have always argued that a route through Camphill, which –incidentally- depends for its well-being on the Greenbelt, was not an option that a caring society could contemplate.
It also highlights the blinkered view of Aberdeen Council, who always insisted that the Camphill route was the only option.
Now a new line on the map has been drawn: an indicative route.
New engineering studies have to start, new boreholes to be drilled, new junctions to be designed, new environmental impact assessments to be made. This is not a final plan. It can be said it is only the beginning of some enlightened thinking.
How much traffic reduction in the City Centre does this new alignment create ? Remember that during the Public Consultation in the Spring of 2005, the WPR team produced a blue brochure which contained traffic reduction figures for all 5 routes then on offer. The Milltimber route created only an 7 percent reduction in traffic in Market St and King St, hardly a ringing endorsement.
Does the new alignment satisfy the desire to environmentally protect the Greenbelt as much as possible ? Is its damage to the environment proportional to the benefit to the community ? Is its damage less than for alternative alignments, set against the cost-benefits ratio of alternatives? How does it compare with the Eastern Bypass tunnel project?
Eastern bypass tunnel: A lost opportunity or still the best alternative ? ?
Click image to enlarge
How does this change of route affect the Local Plan with its housing developments which were intimately linked to the WPR, i.e. Countesswells New Settlement ?
Will the Council now try to achieve its stated aim (Green Spaces | New Places, Local Plan) of creating a development corridor around the WPR alignment in its new position, thus shifting the urbanisation to another place in the Greenbelt?
What is to be done about the devastating effect of the proposed alignment on Milltimber and the Kingcausie estate and woodlands just to the south of the river Dee?
So the new route does not address four main issues:
a) A miserly 7% reduction in traffic in the City Centre and does not resolve other City blackspots.
b) With the huge cost involved (approx £955 m plus) - no cost benefit case has been made or benchmarked against other Cities or indeed other job creation projects for the future of Aberdeen without oil.
c) Environmental issues are still a major concern as we appear to cutting vast swathes through the landscape without adopting modern tunnelling techniques as suggested by the AGA with the Eastern bypass or the Pitfodels tunnel.
Environmentally more sensible? Tunnel at Pitfodels or Linn Mohr ? ?
Look-alike tunnel (
image; click to enlarge)
d) Has the recently published report of a massive reduction of 20% of the City's population during the next twenty years being factored into the justification for the new bypass?
Over the coming months Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance will continue its dialogue with the Scottish Executive with respect to questions surrounding the WPR. Similarly, AGA will make representations at the forthcoming Local Plan Inquiry with respect to the preservation of the Greenbelt.
We are not saying "No" to new roads, but with the substantial spend now proposed, sane, sensible solutions should be found to provide a properly integrated transport system for City and Shire. Then future generations will thank us for maintaining the status of the Greenbelt.
City and Shire should also learn from past mistakes regarding preferred routes and pointless spends. The Scottish Executive would be well advised to listen to a wide range of constituents now, before even more taxpayers' money is wasted. The citizens of City and Shire deserve much higher standards from their planners, politicians and quangos.
The questions posed need to be answered honestly without spin or vested interest. The decision-making process must be transparent and provide solutions for the future well-being of City and Shire. Let's not waste this fabulous opportunity and get it right this time.
Bypass Options
The WPR team have produced (Spring 2005) 5 different options for their WPR.
The options include routes through Pitfodels, Camphill, to the west of Milltimber and 2 to the west of Peterculter.
Click on map to enlarge.
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance are opposed to any route through the Greenbelt and this includes all proposals by the WPR Team. We have offered alternative solutions to the WPR through the Greenbelt, including an upgrade of Anderson Drive (Haudigain Roundabout and Bridge of Dee), the Netherley-Westhill corridor and an Eastern Bypass (including a new bridge or a tunnel at the Don).
This crossing at the Bridge of Don, which will alleviate the most pressing traffic problem in Aberdeen (unlike the proposed WPR), could be almost the only visible part of the EASTERN BYPASS.
The rest of the Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance's plan will be below the surface in a cut-'n'-cover with a fantastic opportunity to recreate an attractive new beach (under erosion thread in 2006).
The cut-'n'-cover Eastern Bypass from the Conference Centre to Altens will have connections at the Beach Boulevard and the Harbour, so that traffic in King Street and Market Street would be dramatically reduced (by 41 percent according to the Scottish Exectutive's own studies). Lorries from either Fraserburgh or the South would have direct access to the Harbour without any detours.
Mission Statement
The current WPR plans with all its associated housin
g, industrial parks, etc. drive a coach and horses through the Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen Greenbelt. The Greenbelt is there to be preserved and enhanced. The Greenbelt is one of the elements, which makes Aberdeen such a pleasant place to work and live. The current plans violate most, if not all, established Planning legislation and Guidelines relating to the Greenbelt, as well as those related to the human environment, specifically in relation to Camphill.
We are not -by definition- against a peripheral road, however, it can not be through the Greenbelt.
Indeed, whereas there might have been a case for a WPR through the Greenbelt some 25 years ago, when the oil-industry was in its heyday, we now have the realisation, that we have a responsibility for our environment and our fellow-citizens with learning difficulties.
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance are determined to stop this road and its associated developments in the Greenbelt.
WPR = Waste of Public Resources
The proposed Western Peripheral Route; in its present design and style will be a Waste of Public Resources. Unless some greater sanity and human decency prevails, the present proposed WPR will cause a trio of tears when the truth emerges that it will be Wasteful, Pointless and Ruinous:-
- W asteful of public money;
- P ointless in relieving traffic congestion in the City and
- R uinous of Aberdeen’s Greenbelt, one of the prides of Aberdeen.
In a nutshell, the WPR is coming to represent the lack of common sense and vision of planners, appearing to be influenced by the developers desire for profit. Planners, it seems, are presently outwitting both the Aberdeen public and our genuinely caring, hardworking but time-poor politicians. The planners and developers have dealt a trick with their ‘slight of hand’ over the WPR. There can still be a peripheral road around Aberdeen; but not this particularly expensive one, not in this present design and not on this proposed route through the Greenbelt.
When looking objectively at what the planners and developers presently propose for the WPR, we see waste, pointlessness and ruin to the environment. Planners seem to forget that they are public servants, and should not be at the beck and call of the powerful developers to the detriment of the people of Aberdeen. We do not want them to Waste our money, we do not want them to plan Pointless schemes and we do not want them to Ruin the Greenbelt and despoil an Aberdeen treasure.
W is for Wasteful : We will have to pay for it. As presently designed and proposed by the planners, it will be a very expensive road, with costs climbing ever upwards and a heavy burden on all Council tax payers. Huge extra costs too will accrue from the present dual carriage design– why this design? Why is an upgraded A road with lower costs not proposed.
P is for Pointless : The present route is pointless in terms of relieving traffic congestion in Aberdeen’s city centre; more a road to nowhere. The authoritative Oscar Faber Consultants estimate, that the WPR will only remove 2% of city centre traffic.
R is for Ruinous : The proposed route will ruin Aberdeen’s Greenbelt, one of the prides of Aberdeen. We let central planners ruin our roses –– Anderson Drive’s profusion of flowers is now only a distant memory. Now another jewel in Aberdeen’s crown, its Greenbelt, is threatened. The planners are not putting their efforts into treasuring this protected green heritage, indeed they dishonourably plan to put this dual carriageway right through it.
The present proposals are also Ruinous for CAMPHILL. It will ruin the environment and the ethos of a very special community, that has thrived in Aberdeen for 65 years and have inspired other people around the world. The planners, it seems, are without knowledge of the human importance of the CAMPHILL COMMUNITY to Aberdeen.
Summer 2004 re-drafted City Local Plan
Aberdeen City Council have republished the Local Plan, called, somewhat misleadingly, GREEN SPACES, NEW PLACES. This, after the previous Local Plan was withdrawn in furore, after 3000 objections were lodged against major housing schemes in the Greenbelt. The new Local Plan , now out, re-categorises the Greenbelt into: Greenbelt [proper] and Green Space. This appears to be a device to escape the full legal protection of Greenbelt.
GREEN SPACES, NEW PLACES paints various scenario’s for the Greenbelt, the worst of which almost completely plasters our beautiful countryside with housing, industrial estates, WPR, etc.
2099 Objections have been submitted (last day, 30 Sep 2004) and the Council have announced that these objections raise such complex issues, that the Local Plan Public Inquiry will not be held before the Autumn of 2005 (now Feb 2006).