Planning General

Planning objection petition – River Lane, Leatherhead, Surrey

May 16th, 2011

The residents of River Lane, Leatherhead, Surrey, are in a legal battle over the inappropriate use of Green Belt land.

There has been a temporary gypsy and traveller site on the land for the past 8 years, having been granted temporary planning permission twice, under the grounds that Mole Valley District Council had the legal obligation to find an alternative site. The council failed to do so, having done no research at all until November 2010, and are now allowing the gypsy families to apply for permanent planning permission.

The site has been deemed by the Government Planning Inspector as “inappropriate development in the Green Belt” and it is paramount that this development is rejected in order to stop this becoming an example for the allowance of future similar developments.

This has been an ongoing battle for the last 8 years and it is coming to a conclusion this year, so PLEASE can you sign the petition and preserve the green belt of River Lane.

THIS IS A SERIOUS PLANNING ISSUE. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF PREJUDICE. IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE.

THE LAND IS DESIGNATED GREEN BELT AND IT HAS BEEN AGREED BY THE PLANNING INSPECTOR THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS “INAPPRORIATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT.”

The petition can be found at the following address: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/riverlaneleatherhead/

If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact us at claracuffe@aol.com

Thank you so much for your support,

The residents of River Lane

Share and Enjoy:

Peverel ripping off more home owners – Daily Mail

Oct 27th, 2010

by Editor.

2 comments

Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees

By Lauren Thompson
Last updated at 10:51 PM on 26th October 2010

A million homeowners in flats and retirement homes are being left at the mercy of managing agents who charge exorbitant service fees while providing poor maintenance.

These property owners are being exposed to a multi-million-pound rip-off by an unregulated industry.

They range from more vulnerable elderly residents in sheltered accommodation to wealthy businessmen in multi-million-pound riverside flats.

People power: Neil Healey successfully fought a two-year legal battle against Solitaire Property Management, now owned by Peverel, and got £156,000 in unfair service charges refunded to residents

Complaints include:

Overcharging.

Fees that rise inexplicably every year.

No explanation of what charges are for.

Managing agents using their own companies to provide hugely expensive insurance and maintenance services.

No regulation to protect people from shoddy practices.

Michelle Mitchell, of charity Age UK, says: ‘These companies have a free rein to ride roughshod over residents and hold them hostage to a range of unfair practices due to the sector’s lack of regulation.’

Some of the worst examples are seen in sheltered accommodation, where vulnerable older people can pay huge charges for wardens and alarm systems.

Age UK has serious concerns about managing agents failing to obtain competitive quotes and instead using subsidiaries of their own company to provide insurance and maintenance work. This, in turn, leads to unnecessarily high service charges.

More than two million people are thought to own leasehold properties, with just over half being those who bought former council homes under the Right to Buy scheme.

It can be difficult for residents, whether in sheltered accommodation or normal flats, to know if the same company runs their managing agent and the firms they use to provide services.

For example, the biggest player, Peverel Limited, owns dozens of managing agents, including OM Property Management, Solitaire Property Management and Pembertons Residential.

Peverel and its subsidiaries manage 200,000 leasehold properties across the country, from million-pound apartments in central London to modest retirement flats.

Peverel also owns Kingsborough Insurance Services, which arranges building and contents cover; Cirrus Communication Systems, which installs CCTV; and CarelineUK, which provides emergency alarms in retirement homes.

All of these are used to provide services in Peverel-managed properties — although Peverel says it carries out a ‘strict tendering process for all contracts’.

Residents have complained that insurance premiums, in particular, are kept artificially high because of large commission fees. For example, Kingsborough obtains buildings cover but only acts as a middleman bet-ween Peverel and Oval, the insurance broker.

In return, it adds commission fees of up to 33 per cent on insurance premiums and this cost is passed directly to residents.

A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘Kingsborough receives a commission from the insurer and Leasehold Valuation Tribunals have determined that this is reasonable.’

Residents at Stow Court in Cheltenham, a block of 44 flats managed by Solitaire (owned by Peverel), became so fed up with sky-high insurance that they got a quote from an independent broker to compare costs.

Solitaire had been charging them £7,057 per year — but similar cover could be obtained through local firm Lansdown Insurance Brokers for just £2,165 — saving a staggering £4,892.

A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘Oval compared the two premiums and found the alternative quotation provided substantially less cover. Oval was, however, able to reduce its premium to £4,062 — a 42 per cent reduction on the previous year.’

A group of angry residents have set up a website called The Truth About Solitaire (soon to be OM Property Management) & Peverel Group Companies (including Consensus Business Group Companies), which has a wealth of information for leaseholders wanting to take on their managing agent.

James Butler, of Landmark Leasehold Advisory Services, says: ‘Several pieces of legislation, including The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, make it a legal requirement for managing agents to openly tender contracts.

‘Sadly, some agents routinely flout the law by using firms owned by or linked to them to provide services. Ultimately, it is the residents who end up paying the increased costs.’
Charities such as Age UK have lobbied the Government for years to enforce regulation of managing agents and are confounded by the lack of protection for residents in leasehold properties.

Leaseholders can club together and boot out their managing agent under a process known as Right to Manage. The agent’s consent is not needed and there is no need for residents to prove mismanagement.’

It can be a lengthy and complicated process. Go to www.lease-advice.org for more information.

Bob Suvan and his neighbours exercised their Right to Manage a block of flats in Regent’s Park, central London. Mr Suvan was fed up with the way Peverel managed his three-bedroom flat and was being charged almost £5,000 per year in service charges.

So he set up a management company, BlocNet, and has reduced service charges in his building by 20 per cent. Find out more about leaseholds at www.thisismoney.co.uk/leasehold.

CASE STUDY

Neil Healey, 33, successfully fought a two-year legal battle against Solitaire Property Management, now owned by Peverel, and got £156,000 in unfair service charges refunded to residents.
Mr Healey (pictured) took the property giant to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT), the dispute resolution service, on behalf of 165 apartments at City Heights development in Mapperley, Nottingham.
He was fed up of Peverel’s poor management and service charges of £1,600 per year on his two-bedroom apartment, as well as extras.
Mr Healey says: ‘From the minute I moved in, I had problems.’
And from January 1, 2011, the entire estate will be managed by Mr Healey’s new company, Mapperley Property Management.
A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘The LVT related to service charges levied by Solitaire Property Management between March 2004 and March 2009. Solitaire became part of the Peverel Group in mid-2008.’

Share and Enjoy:

New Cairngorms National Park community decision due

Jun 11th, 2010

by Editor.

No comments yet

The Cairngorms National Park is the largest park in BritainThe Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) is to consider a proposal to create a new community on the outskirts of Aviemore.

Park officials have recommended that the CNPA’s planning committee approves the project in principle.

Rothiemurchus Estate’s project would see 1,500 homes and business and community facilities built in phases at An Camas Mor, close to Coylumbridge.

The CNPA said it would be one of the “biggest developments in a generation”.

The Cairngorms National Park is the largest national park in Britain.

Duncan Bryden, CNPA planning committee convener, said the proposal required a rigorous examination.

He said: “This is the largest and most complex application to come before us – indeed it is the only proposal for a new community in a UK National Park.”

Objectors to the project include Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group.

It said the site was home to a large population of slender groundhopper, a rare invertebrate, and other species of wildlife.

The An Camas Mor project team sees the 259-acre (105-hectare) development as a solution to the area’s “chronic shortage” of housing, business and community facilities.

If approved, the scheme would be built in phases and completed by 2027.

Link to original BBC article

Share and Enjoy:

Residential Planning Application on Amenity Site causes further local conflict

Apr 3rd, 2010

by Editor.

No comments yet

Tulloch Homes, Inverness, Scotland hit the headlines again over controversial plans to build residential properties on land allocated for community amenity purposes.

Some nine years after the first property was built on the large development, residents are still waiting for their first real amenity facility following years of campaigning. A solitary post box has been featured in a number of press articles and underpins the failure of Highland Council to build integrated serviced communities.

Properties were sold on the basis of provision of a Primary School, shops and other essential services.
Property owners who live on the periphery of Inverness have been forced, until recently, to drive three miles to get a bottle of milk or loaf of bread, yet the developer has seemed determined to achieve a residential planning precedent on land reserved for community purposes

Communities across the greater Inverness region are questioning the failure of Highland Council to provide jobs and infrastructure within new development after development covering thousands of new homes.

Homes for Heroes Ltd was set up on 15th Oct 2008 by Ken McMillan & Ewan McAuley.
The initial aim was to procure affordable housing for members of the Armed Forces while they are still serving.
The initiative is aimed at providing a home for when the serviceman actually leaves the service and so preventing them from being subjected to the “mercy of Council waiting lists”

A whole lot different to what Mr Sutherland is portraying when he implies the housing is required to house servicemen with disabilies!

Editor

Gavin Norton, Chair of Milton of Leys Residents Association said:

Residents are desperate to see community facilities at An Inverness development, but have grave concerns that the developer is putting profit above much needed amenity space for this growing community, as well as paying lip service to planning regulations.

“When outline planning permission was given residents expected any residential units on the site to be service flats above shops. Instead we have been bombarded with differing indicative housing layouts finally culminating in approx 12 properties being sold under the Homes for Heroes Scheme.”

“As a serviceman myself I fully support the Homes for Heroes scheme, however Milton of Leys is a vast site, and these units can easily be accommodated elsewhere rather than taking up valuable amenity open space”.

“A Nursery is being sought on land outside that zoned for amenity land on Green Open Space, it is clear the developer knows this but wants to press ahead regardless of the planning regulations to the contrary.

“Should permission be given we fear the precedents that would be set by allowing building on Green open space, as well as residential properties in future amenity areas”.

“Milton of Leys has precious few play areas for children, and as a result of reshuffling the site an area of 1.9 acres for play equipment already passed by Highland Council has been compressed into almost half its original size. Once again the community and the children lose out”

“Despite years of consultation and work on forums with elected members regarding what Residents wanted to see on the site it is becoming clear that we will get what we are given and have to be thankful for it”.

“The responsibility lies on Highland Councils Planning department to ensure communities as large as Milton of Leys maximise the little amenity space they have in the best way possible to the benefit of the residents, not the developer”.

Residents are desperate for facilities and it is clear the parties concerned are using that to their advantage.

Residents hit out at Tulloch over their Homes for Heroes ‘ploy’

locals say builders playing emotional card to get scheme support

Published: 03/04/2010

SPEAKING OUT: Chairman of the residents association Gavin Norton says all previous plans have been for houses for profit

The north’s largest developer has been accused of “playing the emotional card” to try to win support for a housing scheme for disabled and injured service personnel.

Tulloch Homes wants to include 12 properties under the Houses for Heroes scheme in its plans for amenity land at Milton of Leys on the south-east edge of Inverness.

Residents have consistently opposed the Inverness-based firm’s proposals to build houses on the land, which has also been earmarked for a care home, nursery, school and shops.

The latest plans drawn up by Tulloch include houses for armed forces veterans, a move residents claim is a “good ploy” to try to win over opponents and Highland Council.

Milton of Leys Residents Association chairman Gavin Norton said: “All previous incarnations of the plans have been for residential houses for profit, not for Houses for Heroes.

“We think they are playing the emotional card by using Houses for Heroes to garner support for a residential development.”

Residents say they are not opposed to ex-service personnel living in the 600-home development, but are campaigning for the houses to be built elsewhere on the estate.

Tulloch Homes chief executive David Sutherland said he was “taken aback” by the opposition and insisted his firm would “certainly not be backtracking” on its decision to allocate land for Houses for Heroes on the amenity site.

Milton of Leys resident Barrie Haycock, who is chairman of the campaign group Planning Watch, said: “I am supportive of building Houses for Heroes, but the issue in Milton of Leys is, now that the link road has been built, Tulloch can build another 300 properties up here, taking the estate up to the original planning consent of 900 homes.

“Houses for Heroes can be built in these areas. Tulloch is using the emotional playing card with this application.”

The Houses for Heroes scheme was established in 2008 after it emerged that 5,000 ex-service personnel were homeless in Britain.

Mr Sutherland said Houses for Heroes planned to build five homes in a first phase within two years.

He said: “We have donated the site for 12 homes at Milton of Leys to Houses for Heroes out of sympathy for young injured servicemen and women, many with young families.

“I’m completely taken aback that the residents’ association has an objection to us housing these people, who have been wounded or suffered disabilities in the service of their country. They should be very proud to have them in their community. In this respect, I certainly don’t think the view is at all representative of the majority of Milton of Leys residents.

“Locating these homes beside the neighbourhood centre meets the charity’s requirements. People with disabilities need to be close to shops and services as often they cannot drive.”

Share and Enjoy:

Government’s Heathrow Expansion Plans In Tatters As Judge Slams Runway Policy

Mar 26th, 2010

by Editor.

No comments yet

The Government’s Heathrow policy is in tatters this morning after the High Court ruled that ministers’ decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway does not hold any weight. The judge dismissed the Government’s claims to the contrary as ‘untenable in law and common sense’.

If the Government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.

The implications of today’s ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country – is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.

The judge expressed real concern over the “hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty” over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the Government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.

The judge ruled that:

• If the Government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.

• The Government’s entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that “the claimants’ submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement.”(1)

• On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be ‘surprised’ if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have ‘a significant effect’ on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that “it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003.”

• On the issue of surface access he said the claimants’ case – that there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow – was ‘justified’. Significantly, he noted that the Government was “unable to provide a convincing answer” in court when it was pressed about over-crowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.

The judge is now inviting the Government to sign a legally binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the Government’s response to the judge’s request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the Government.

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said:
“The Government said there could be no argument about the need for a third runway. This was undemocratic and it was wrong.

“We were forced to bring this legal case to give people the right to challenge the expansion of Heathrow. The High Court has now made clear that a fundamental review of aviation policy is needed. This not just a victory for people living around Heathrow or around other airports, it is a victory for everyone who wants a tranquil countryside and a democratic planning system.”

Cllr Ray Puddifoot speaking on behalf of the local councils said:
“This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The Government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.

“Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The Government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.

“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.

“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the Government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the Prime Minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”
Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NoTRAG, said:
“As local residents, we now demand that the Government drops all plans for a 3rd runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow so that we can cast off the 8 years of blight and start to rejuvenate our communities.”

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:
“This ruling leaves the Government’s Heathrow decision in tatters. Ministers will now have to go back to the drawing board and conduct a broad consultation on key issues where their case is extremely weak. The third runway was already on life support, but with this ruling it’s hard to even find a pulse. This shows that David Cameron and Nick Clegg backed the right horse when they pledged to scrap the third runway, and it makes any Conservative U-turn after the election all but politically impossible.”

David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF-UK, said:
“We are delighted with today’s judgement. It deals a body blow to the third runway, but more than that it makes it clear that the Government’s whole policy of airport expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change Act.

“Today’s landmark ruling has implications that could resonate far wider than the aviation sector. For a judge to tell the Government that it cannot build huge pieces of carbon-intensive infrastructure without considering the long-term consequences is a resounding win in the fight to tackle climate change. It is also a further indication of the need for the UK to make a swift transition to a low carbon economy. WWF would now urge the Government to focus on green investment, encouraging alternative ways of connecting with people wherever possible, such as high speed rail and videoconferencing, rather than relying on carbon-heavy methods such as flying.”

HACAN Chair John Stewart said:
“This is an utterly damning verdict for the Government. It not only raises very serious concerns about a third runway at Heathrow, it also calls into question the Government’s entire aviation policy. This really could be the final nail in the coffin for a third runway.”

Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Head of Sustainable Development, said:
“Right from the start, we have argued that building a third runway at a time when we are battling to reduce our carbon emissions made no sense.

“Climate change threatens many species with extinction and we are already seeing its impacts with catastrophic declines in seabird numbers in parts of the North Sea.

“Concerns about climate change are at the heart of today’s judgement. The clear message from the High Court is that Government must now take those concerns into account.”

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS
1.) National Policy Statements (NPSs) are a key part of the new planning system that was established by the Planning Act 2008. They are strategic planning documents will set out the national need for major infrastructure developments such as power stations, ports, airports, roads and transmission lines. When an application is submitted for such a development above a certain threshold, there will be a presumption in favour of granting permission. The Government has said it intends to publish a draft Airports NPS next year.

2.) Six local authorities in West London (Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are claimants to the challenge, alongside the local residents group (NoTRAG) and the national campaigning group against airport expansion HACAN. WWF-UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace are also claimants. Transport for London is an independent party supporting the claim. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is an expert witness. The challenge is also supported by Kensington and Chelsea and the Mayor of London. The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.

3.) The legal challenge was launched in April 2009 and the case was heard in the High Court at a rolled-up hearing on the 23rd – 25th February 2010.

4.) In February 2007, Greenpeace won a Judicial Review against the Government’s energy review which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result the government was forced to re-run the public consultation.

5.) If a third runway at Heathrow airport were to be built, the airport would become the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport expansion would make it impossible for the UK to play its part in tackling climate change. The Government has committed the UK to cuts of at least 80% in CO2 emissions by 2050. Research from the respected Tyndall Centre shows that if the industry is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation emissions alone would make it impossible to meet this target.

6.) Aviation has a number of high-altitude impacts that increase its total warming effect on the climate. The Committee on Climate Change has recently suggested that aviation has a Global Warming Potential of around two, meaning that its total warming effect is twice that of its CO2 emissions alone.

7.) In December 2009, the Committee on Climate Change published a report with recommendations of how the Government target to reduce aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 could be met. The Committee recommended that aviation growth needs to be limited to around half of that planned in the White Paper, but warned that the target may need to be further tightened in the future.

8.) All the claimants are represented by Harrison Grant (solicitors) instructing Nigel Pleming QC of 39 Essex Street, Nathalie Lieven QC and David Forsdick of Landmark Chambers.

Share and Enjoy:

Feltham Lakes – Concorde Village fiasco hits the headlines

Mar 17th, 2010

by Editor.

5 comments

Green Belt housing scheme promoted by footballers leaves investors in the red

Investors from the Far East have been left without a penny gain in four years after putting money into a “get rich quick” property scheme promoted by two former England football players.

By David Hencke – Telegraph.co.uk
Published: 9:00PM GMT 13 Mar 2010

A marketing campaign fronted by Bryan Robson, the former England captain, and Steve McMahon promised a 250 per cent return in three years if a gravel pit near Heathrow airport was developed for housing and leisure.

However, the site is on green belt land where housing development is banned.

While Profitable Group, the Singapore-based property company behind the scheme, has made at least £47 million from the deal, nothing has yet materialised at the site – not even a planning application to build a single house.

The two former footballers, now living in the Far East, used their celebrity status to market the scheme on television across south-east Asia in 2006.

Profitable changed the name of the tract of land from Lower Feltham Lakes to Concorde Village for the purposes of the marketing drive.

But no development can take place unless a planning inspector can be persuaded to overrule the site’s green belt status against the wishes of Hounslow council, the local planning authority, which firmly opposes building there.

A spokesman for the council said: “We would only develop green belt land if there were very special reasons. We see no special reasons for doing so on this site.”

Profitable, of which Mr McMahon is commercial director, has bought four sites in Britain for a few million pounds and divided them into thousands of tiny plots which have been offered to investors, bringing in tens of millions for the company.

The Feltham site was bought from Taylor Woodrow (now Taylor Wimpey) for £3.2 million, then resold in small plots at £8,000 to £13,000 each to overseas investors, a practice known as “landbanking”.

The sales raised something between £50 million and £55 million. Investors will realise the cash when and if the land is redeveloped.

To try to develop the Feltham site, the company has now brought in two British lobbying and consulting firms to market the scheme and draw up plans for the development.

Chelgate, a Westminster lobbying company, has sought to counter the council’s opposition by devising a public consultation procedure, including the staging of an exhibition with five different ideas to develop the site for housing and leisure, to which 5,500 households were invited.

Chelgate’s deputy chairman is Nick Wood-Dow, an adviser to David Cameron and deputy chairman of the Conservative party’s environment council.

The other company working for Profitable is DLP Planning in Sheffield, which is seeking to make changes to a London-wide land-use plan in a move that would increase Hounslow’s housing target, forcing the borough to accept more new homes within its borders. However, the final plan will not be drawn up until 2012.

Mr Robson told The Sunday Telegraph: “I was paid to do a commercial TV advert to be shown on Singapore TV five years ago for Profitable Plots.

“I have not done anything for them since and I was unaware of any controversy over development of the land.”

Profitable declined to take questions and instead asked Chelgate and DLP Planning to reply on its behalf. Chelgate confirmed that a television campaign featuring the footballers had been used to promote the deal. The advertisement is still on Profitable’s website.

A Chelgate spokesman said: “Circulation of a TV advertisement showing land at Feltham… as offering an estimated return of 250 per cent in three years, was aired for a short period in 2006… such advertising has long since been withdrawn. Investments have been sold on a minimum 7 to 10-year horizon.”

Chelgate also said the company would repay anybody who wanted to drop out of the scheme. Its spokesman added: “No investors in the Lower Feltham land have exercised their right to sell.”

Link to original Telegraph Article

Share and Enjoy:

Towns and Cities – UK Carbuncle awards 2010

Jan 25th, 2010

by Editor.

1 comment

Inverness up for ugly award

The Highland capital is on a shortlist of the UK’s worst eyesores

Inverness has emerged as a surprise contender to be shamed as the country’s most dismal city in the inaugural UK Carbuncle awards.

The Highland capital could earn the dubious honour after a panel of UK architects and designers singled it out for its “monstrous” city centre design and “mushrooming suburban sprawl”.

The awards panel has also nominated Methil, in Fife, for the “hulking Soviet-style” power station that dominates its docks.

Until now, the awards have been open only to Scottish towns and cities, but this year a number of English locations are being suggested as possible winners, including Corby, in Northamptonshire,, Bradford, Sunderland and Salford.

Previous recipients of the unwanted gong include Glenrothes, Coatbridge and the two-time winner Cumbernauld.

As the competition now covers the UK, the title will be even less coveted.

“Inverness has been called the fastest-growing city in Europe but at what price?” said a spokesman for the Carbuncle Awards.

“It has been dubbed ‘Tulloch town’ by critics due to that developer’s dominance over an ever-mushrooming suburban sprawl.

“In addition, the historic centre has been blighted by box-like monstrosities dating back to the 1960s.”

The buildings that caused greatest offence to the panel of judges, which includes Wayne Hemingway, a fashion designer, are the twin concrete tower blocks that dominate the city’s skyline.

One of the edifices previously housed the headquarters of Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) but has now been turned into flats. The other houses the offices of the Crofters Commission.

Both structures were exposed to international derision by the American travel writer Bill Bryson in his book Notes From a Small Island.

He described them as “two sensationally ugly modern office buildings that blot the town centre beyond any hope of redemption”.

“They weren’t just ugly and large, but so ill-designed that you could actually walk round them twice without ever finding the front entrance,” he wrote.

While Alex Graham, the deputy provost of Inverness, conceded that the city’s appearance was not perfect, he said it was ridiculous to single it out as one of the ugliest in the UK.

“It is unfortunate we have inherited some particularly unsightly buildings that were put up in the 1960s near the River Ness,” he said.

“Sadly they have spoiled what should be a terrific view of the city’s skyline.

“Despite this, Inverness is an attractive city with tremendous charm and we have recently spent £7m transforming the old town.

“The population has continued to grow throughout the recession and that just wouldn’t happen if it really was a dismal place to live.”

Professor James Hunter, a former chief executive of HIE, said that urban planners were to blame for the city’s poor appearance. “Inverness has the great natural advantage of having a dramatic, fast-flowing river going right through the middle of it,” he said.

“However, planners seemed to turn their back on it and even today not enough is being done to capitalise on it.”

Hunter, who is director of the UHI’s history department, described his former workplace and its sister building as “completely horrible and repulsive”.

While the judging panel said Methil had suffered from decades of deindustrialisation, Arthur Robertson, an SNP councillor in the Fife town, said measures were being taken to arrest its decline.

“The power plant is not the most attractive of buildings, but it is planned to be removed in the very near future,” he said. “We are working hard on regenerating the seafront and I’m confident the negative headlines will be reversed in years to come.”

John Glenday, of Urban Realm, the architectural magazine that runs the Carbuncle Awards, rebutted criticism that they were too negative, insisting that they were a “force for good and a real motivator for change”.

“Our agenda is not to kick a town when it’s down, but to offer constructive help and advice,” he said. “We want to help turn cities around and for them to use the Carbuncles as a springboard for future growth.”

Glenday also denied that the awards tended to single out poor communities.

“The point is to highlight locations which have potential that local leaders are failing to exploit,” he said.

“Truly depressing places are the ones stifled by a lack of attention, creativity and ambition.”

Members of public are being invited to nominate their contenders for the award. The winner will be decided by public vote later this year.

Salford, in Greater Manchester, was nominated for its “placelessness” and grim tower blocks, Corby for its mishandled attempts at regeneration and Sunderland for failing to stop a “steady drain” of facilities and people to nearby Newcastle.

Bradford was chosen after plans for a new shopping precinct were aborted, leaving a muddy cavity in the heart of the city centre.

Last year’s winner was the Fife new town of Glenrothes, which was lambasted for its “drab and dismal” centre and “woeful” 1980s shopping centre.

Link to original article – Timesonline

Share and Enjoy:

Architects and designers include highland capital in nominations for 2010 carbuncle awards

Jan 25th, 2010

by Editor.

1 comment

Inverness in the running to become UK’s ugliest city

By Iain Ramage – Press and Journal

Published: 25/01/2010

The Highland capital is a contender to be named the UK’s ugliest city. A panel of architects and designers included Inverness in the nominations for the UK-wide Carbuncle Awards.

It makes the list for the “monstrous” design of the city centre and “mushrooming suburban sprawl”.

Cumbernauld, Glenrothes and Coatbridge are among past recipients of the award, which used to be restricted to Scotland.

People in Inverness greeted the nomination with a mixture of anger and acceptance last night.

An awards spokesman said the Highland capital had been dubbed “Tulloch town” by some critics due to the local developer’s dominance and highlighted earlier “box-like monstrosities” in the city centre.

There was a degree of acceptance of the criticism yesterday – but optimism that things would change.

City provost Jimmy Gray said: “The 1960s Bridge Street buildings are probably not the most attractive, but to say Inverness is anywhere near the ugliest in the UK is utter nonsense. Most people who visit think it’s an extremely attractive place.”

His deputy, Alex Graham, agreed, insisting Inverness was an attractive city with tremendous charm.

Local SNP councillor John Finnie was equally surprised.

He offered to escort panel members around the city to show them “the many wonderful historic sites” Inverness has to offer.

Labour councillor John Holden said the council had inherited a lot of poorly designed buildings but had attempted to redress that.

Barrie Haycock, of local pressure group Planning Watch, said it was only a matter of time before Inverness was singled out for such an award. He said: “Unfortunately, Highland Council seems to have adopted a policy of chasing planning gain monies rather than developing integrated communities for the benefit of those who choose to live in the area.”

He added that millions of pounds were spent on the Inverness Streetscape project while surrounding streets remained pockmarked with decaying buildings.

Inverness South community council member Liz Gilchrist added: “In the haste to make Inverness a city, it has been developed into a sprawling mass, losing its identity.”

Thomas Prag, another Lib Dem city councillor, disputed the carbuncle tag but urged planners and colleagues to be more imaginative.

He said: “A lot of estates were built in a hurry because the demand was there. But we’re beginning to put that right and the Housing Expo is a hugely positive sign that we now know better.”

Urban Realm, the architectural magazine behind the awards, promotes the event as “a force for good and a real motivator” to transform cities. The winner will be decided by public vote.

Share and Enjoy:

Tories to give “struggling locals the chance to build own rural homes”

Dec 11th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Grant Shapps, the shadow housing minister is off to Cornwall today – a Tory/Lib Dem battleground county at the next election where the Lib Dems defend all six seats, most of which are pretty high on the Tory target list.

Mr Shapps will be there to announce a policy seeking to address the problem of local people being priced out of the housing market in rural areas.

According to today’s Daily Telegraph:

Under the Tory plans, local authorities will be asked to set up a register of families who want to join a self-build scheme. The council will then assess how much land needs to be put aside for a self-build community to be set up. Grant Shapps, the shadow housing minister, said he wants to tap into the vast number of people who are now willing to build their own homes.

He said: “Whilst house-building in general has been suffering, the self-build community has been growing. Most people will be surprised to learn that last year the second largest home builder wasn’t one of the big household names, but an army of individuals who call themselves self-builders.

“Across the country they’re creating affordable homes in the very places where young families struggle with sky high house prices. Under the next Conservative Government there will be an unprecedented shift in power back into the hands of local people.“

“We want to see a self-build movement spread across the country and particularly come to the rescue in rural areas. Local authorities will use the assessment of interest in self-build to help kick-start this rural housing revolution.”

This comes on a day when the Housing minister, John Healey, has said that he is not worried about the fact that fewer people are now unable to afford to become home owners. Read about his lecture to the Fabian Society in today’s Independent.

Jonathan Isaby

Original article link

Share and Enjoy:

Highland Housing Fair – Scotland’s Housing Expo – 2009 – 2010 – 2011 or Never?

Nov 18th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Taxpayers may face Housing Expo bill in the event of cancellation

Council chief makes clear public will pick up the tab if event does not go ahead

By jonny muir – Press and Journal

Published: 16/11/2009

The taxpayer will pick up the tab if a multimillion-pound exhibition showcasing environmentally friendly homes is cancelled, it has emerged.

Scotland’s Housing Expo is due to be held at Balvonie Braes, Inverness, in August 2010, but contingency plans have been prepared in case the event is abandoned or delayed.

In a report to councillors, Geoff Robson, Highland Council’s head of environment and development, said cancellation would lead to the liquidation of the Expo company, with “any outstanding debts being met from public sector resources”.

Identified risks that could lead to postponement of the 55-home event, which has already been delayed by a year, include failure to complete houses on time, low ticket sales or insufficient sponsorship.

Expo board chairman Jean Urquhart yesterday predicted “success, not disaster” and said a risk assessment had to be prepared to “reassure all our partners in the event of disaster”.

She said the prospect of cancellation was “simply not being contemplated”, but conceded there was a chance that the homes might not all be completed in time.

Despite the assurance, there were calls at the weekend to scrap the event, believed to be costing about £5million, to avoid it becoming a “white elephant”.

Barrie Haycock, a member of Inverness South Community Council, said: “There would be uproar from everybody if the event had to be cancelled.

“That money could have built a new school in Milton of Leys.”

Questioning the Expo’s potential to generate a budgeted £180,000 in ticket sales, he added: “Where they think these people are going to come from – given that large annual exhibitions with free admission are held in Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and London – is a mystery to anyone who has an understanding of marketing.”

Liz Gilchrist, who sits on a community liaison group of councillors, Expo representatives, residents and ward managers, said organisers had been upbeat about the event’s prospects at their last meeting on October 14.

She said: “They were very positive and hoping to get the site up and running by April. The public sector is already peeved at cuts, and having to carry the can for this would rub salt in the wound.”

Inverness South councillor John Holden added: “There is a great danger of it not happening, and I fear the public purse will have to pay for what is someone’s badly thought-out dream.”

In a report to Wednesday’s planning, environment and development committee, Mr Robson said the Expo would be promoted by a 10-month travelling exhibition.

Budget forecasts indicate that, as well as generating £180,000 from ticket sales, the Expo must make £80,000 from sponsorship, £27,000 from parking charges and £20,000 from brochure sales.

The Expo, previously called the Highland Housing Fair, aims to showcase modern low-energy housing designs, stimulate the wider use of timber construction and promote the “creativity and quality of lifestyle” in the Highlands.

Read more: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1484194#ixzz0XCmXpbQn

Planning Watch pictures of the forlorn and neglected site taken on 15th November 2009:

Entrance to the site

No evidence of house building commencement

Share and Enjoy:

Companies House: Greenbelt Group Ltd – Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off

Nov 10th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Greenbelt Group Ltd., face new threat, with Companies House public records now indicating that there is a proposal to strike off the company, presumed due to failure to file accounts.

Companies House records detailed below indicate that accounts should have been filed no later than 30th July 2009.

In a meeting attended by the Editor of Planning Watch UK, in a private capacity, with Neil Cameron of Tulloch Homes and Richard Hartland, Head of Planning, Highland Council, on Thursday last, Mr Middleton, Managing Director Greenbelt Group Ltd., continued to state that it was business as usual, giving no indication of the threat to the Greenbelt Group Ltd., company.

Thousands of home owners throughout the UK are tied to maintenance contracts with this company, put in place by developers and signed off by council planning authorites as “fit for purpose”, with both UK and Scottish Government continuing to refuse to put consumer protection regulations in place demanded by home owners.

Complaints have been made to Trading Standards, a number of Police Forces, numerous Members of Parliament, both MP’s and MSP’s and directly to the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing MSP.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have indicated that they seem to think that the Maintenance industry concerned should regulate itself and the Office of Fair Trading continues to sit on the fence, despite receiving numerous complaints from many different areas of the UK.

Surely it is now time for MP’s and MSP’s to collectively take action to represent the electorate who have elected representataives to protect the interests of their communities?

Editor

Notes:

Fergus Ewing MSP – Scottish National Party

Fergus Ewing MSP – Scottish Government bio:

Fergus was first elected in 1999 as the MSP for Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber. He was re-elected in 2003 and again in the 2007 elections. Prior to being elected he ran his own law practice and developed SNP policy on small business as well as serving on the national executive of the SNP.

He is the son of Winnie, formerly the MSP for Highlands and Islands and MEP for Scotland, and brother of Annabelle, formerly MP for Perth.

His constituency is the second largest in Scotland, and is about 5 times larger than greater London which has around 90 MPs. Fergus campaigns on a wide variety of matters of vital importance to the area.
He seeks to represent everyone, irrespective of their own political views, and is keen to try to offer help to all constituents when they seek it.

***************************

Herald Scotland:

Closure looms for land firm over late accounts

West Myerton housing development where Greenbelt was contracted to maintain the open spaces

Exclusive – Chris Watt – Published on 7 Nov 2009

A controversial land management firm embroiled in thousands of disputes across Scotland has been threatened with closure, The Herald has learned.

Glasgow-based Greenbelt Group Ltd has been warned by Companies House that it will be struck off if it doesn’t produce its overdue accounts.

The firm failed to file records for 2006-07 by the July 2009 deadline, and it could now have its assets seized and handed to the state if it doesn’t comply. The registrar has formally proposed to strike off the firm, freezing its bank accounts and transferring all assets to the Crown.

Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton said the outstanding documentation had been sent to Companies House, but he claimed that “it may have been delayed by the postal dispute”.

Sources close to the company told The Herald that Greenbelt had faced problems with its auditors, one of whom had resigned its position after disagreements over accounts.

However, Mr Middleton strenuously denied the difficulties, and insisted: “There is no question of the company being struck off.”

Greenbelt has been subject to thousands of complaints from councils, businesses and homeowners since it was incorporated in 1999, and a UK-wide campaign group now lists complaints from more than 130 housing estates.

The firm, originally established in the public sector by bodies including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Scottish Enterprise, was recently criticised for its work at the Black Cart Water, near Glasgow Airport, where it was paid £170,000 to maintain the area as a whooper swan reserve.

Greenbelt has since sold the SSSI to a local farmer at profit, without passing on grant money.

The firm has also been accused of failing homeowners who are tied into contracts for it to manage shared areas on housing estates. Aberdeenshire Council received so many complaints about work paid for but not completed that it wrote to developers urging them not to use Greenbelt.

Article website link

***********************************

Greenbelt Group Action

***********************************

Companies House Search:

Company Details – Name & Registered Office:
GREENBELT GROUP LIMITED
ABBOTSFORD HOUSE
ABBOTSFORD PLACE
GLASGOW
G5 9SS
Company No. SC192378

Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 04/01/1999
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
9305 – Other service activities
Accounting Reference Date: 30/09
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/09/2007 (SMALL)
Next Accounts Due: 30/07/2009 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 01/02/2009
Next Return Due: 01/03/2010
Last Members List: 01/02/2009

Previous Names:
Date of change:
8/04/2003
THE GREENBELT GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED
10/05/1999
COMLAW NO. 495 LIMITED

**************

General Companies House Information:

You could be penalised up to £5000 if you fail to send us your Annual Accounts by the due date.

And if you are late filing your Annual Return as well, your company may be struck off and you could face a criminal charge.

Winding up a company
A company may be wound up voluntarily if it cannot pay its creditors. It may also be wound up by order of the court on the petition of a creditor. In either case, relevant documents need to be sent to Companies House.

The following guidance is provided to help you understand how to wind up a company and the legal requirements that you must adhere to.

Share and Enjoy:

Greenbelt Group – Policy on open spaces unresolved

Jun 19th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Mixed response on maintenance move

Policy on open spaces unresolved

By Leanna MacLarty – Press and Journal

EFFORTS by Aberdeenshire Council to prevent a land maintenance company from gaining control of public open spaces has received a mixed response from housing developers.

The local authority wrote to all big developers in the north-east asking them to reconsider transferring land to the Greenbelt Group.

Councillors backed the move after the private firm received a string of complaints from Aberdeenshire residents about the quality of work being carried out.

Housing firms were asked to reconsider any agreement with the Greenbelt firm and discuss management of the land with the council instead.

Only seven of the 19 firms responded to the council, members of the infrastructure services committee heard yesterday.

One unnamed developer was happy to opt for local authority control but another raised concerns about the level of red tape and lack of resources that may be involved.

Councillors agreed that policy on the management of open space should be included in the upcoming local development plan which is currently out for consultation.

The local authority will have the opportunity to bid for maintenance contracts for public open spaces.

If a developer chooses not to work with the council, a bond must be lodged against satisfactory completion of landscaping work.

A letter from Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton acknowledged a problem with services last year and says that issues have been rectified.

“There is a group of residents intent on fighting Greenbelt but there is also a majority of residents satisfied with our arrangement,” he continues.

“Some of the land which has been in question does not even belong to Greenbelt and therefore Greenbelt is wrongly being accused of not undertaking its responsibilities.”

Head of planning and environmental services Christine Gore rejected the firm’s concerns about the “anti-competitive nature” of the council’s efforts.

“All we are saying is the council should be given the opportunity to bid for the work,” she said.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1269566

Share and Enjoy:

Probe call over North Lanarkshire council land deal

Jun 16th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

The land at the centre of the controversy

The land at the centre of the affair currently has a golf course on it

A council is set to launch an internal inquiry amid fears that millions of pounds have been lost through insider trading over a land deal.

North Lanarkshire Council sold 84 acres of land near Cumbernauld.

But the day after the new owners assumed control, the land was rezoned for housing, causing its value to soar.

In a confidential report obtained by BBC Scotland, the council said there had been a lack of transparency over property deals it had conducted.

The land involved in the controversial deal, which lies close to Palacerigg Country Park, was originally zoned for leisure use and currently has a golf driving range and nine hole course on it.

A company called Multi Link Leisure had been leasing it from the council under an agreement that included an option to buy.

The company opted to exercise the right to buy on 8 October 2008 – before the land was rezoned for housing under the council’s Local Plan the following day.

BBC Scotland understands the value of the land is now estimated at between £5m and £10m.

The affair led to fears that someone in the council may have passed information informing Multi Link Leisure that the land was about to rezoned.

The deal is now at the centre of a legal battle after the council attempted to either have it struck down or renegotiated.

As a result of the Palacerigg deal, the council commissioned a review group to look at number of other land deals involving the council.

The review group’s report said: “Concerns were raised about the ability to identify a clear audit trail for some decisions and recommendations being made and which officers were involved at each stage”.

It also called for a review of both the people and procedures involved in the Property Services Department, and added: “This review should be carried out as a matter of urgency”.

A spokesman for North Lanarkshire Council said it would be “inappropriate to comment” because of the ongoing legal action.

Multi Link Leisure, which has their registered office at a lawyer’s firm on Douglas Street in Glasgow, did not respond to telephone calls or e-mails from BBC Scotland.

Link to BBC article

Share and Enjoy:

Donald Trump using bully tactics, claims Aberdeenshire estate resident

Jun 15th, 2009

by Editor.

3 comments

Homeowner refuses to sell to make way for tycoon’s golf resort

By Gillian Bell – Press and Journal

DEFIANT David Milne is refusing to sell his Hermit Point home to the Trump Organisation.
The angry homeowner lives in the middle of Donald Trump’s Aberdeenshire estate and has accused the tycoon of using “bullying” tactics.

David Milne, 44, who lives at Hermit Point, is a former coastguard lookout at Menie Links, which has views of the billionaire’s north-east empire.

The house and land is one of a number of plots Mr Trump has said he needs to produce the “best possible design” for the £1billion project.

The Trump Organisation recently submitted a planning application to add five privately-owned plots to his golf resort, which includes Mr Milne’s house and land.

He said: “He’s been a real pain in many ways, the most recent one is this application for planning permission on my land. It may be legally acceptable to apply for planning permission on someone else’s land, and in certain cases it’s understandable.”

But he said the move, coupled with the potential use of compulsory purchase – raised by Aberdeenshire Council in a briefing note to members – is “immoral, unethical and a bullying tactic”.

He said he has had “practically no contact” with the organisation, apart from a “derisory” offer for his home in 2007 for a sum which would have bought him a “two-bedroom flat in Dyce”, and a recent letter to tell him the organisation was applying for planning permission for his land, which said if he wanted to sell he was to phone.

But the HSE consultant insisted last night he would not sell to Mr Trump “under any circumstances”. He said he has invested 17 years of his life in Hermit Point, which he converted from a former coastguard station into his home, which he shares with his wife, Moira.

The Menie resort project director Neil Hobday said he has sent Mr Milne an invitation to talk to the team and stressed the door was “always open”. He dismissed claims the Trump Organisation was using immoral, unethical and bullying tactics as “inaccurate on all counts”.

And he added: “The mechanism for compulsory purchase exists but we very much hope we won’t get to that.”

Mr Trump’s aide, George Sorial, said Mr Milne’s assertions were “disingenuous” and talk of compulsory purchase “very premature”. “We did make offers in the past, which were based on market value,” added Mr Sorial.

The council has said it would expect applicants to have exhausted “every possible opportunity open to them” before it would require to consider compulsory purchase powers.

The golf resort would include two championship golf courses, a hotel, 500 homes and 950 holiday homes north of the beach on the Menie Estate.

Editors comment:

Councillors who voted for this Trump development need to seriously consider how they can justify representing the interests of the community in this planning fiasco – a sign of the times…

Bottom line… It will be interesting to see just how much economic benefit will result to local residents and businesses from this development.

No doubt any profits will be used elsewhere in the globe and not for the direct benefit of Scotland or Scottish tax payers.

Share and Enjoy:

Campaign Success – Go Ape drops Pollok Park, Glasgow, treetop park plans

Jun 13th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

The plans would have seen treetop walkways and zip slides

Campaigners succeed as controversial plans to build a treetop adventure playground in Pollok Park in Glasgow abandoned.

The Go Ape facility was given the go-ahead by dotty Glasgow councillors last year, despite a large campaign against it.

Now the firm behind the adventure course in the park’s north wood, behind the Burrell Collection, is pulling out.

Glasgow City Council has called it a “major disappointment” but the Save Pollok Park group said it was delighted with the move.

The proposed Go Ape adventure play area would have seen platforms and zip slides placed in the trees near the Burrell Collection.

Our main objective was to secure an additional attraction for park users

Robert Booth
Glasgow City Council

In March 2008, members of the planning committee at Glasgow City Council voted in favour of the plan after a special meeting and visit to the site.

Despite a continued campaign from objectors, the Scottish National Party Government decided it would not issue any restriction or call in the plan.

The scheme was referred to Scottish ministers because the council had a financial interest in the scheme.

Go Ape are understood to have now decided the venture would be too expensive to pursue.

Inquiry call

Robert Booth, Glasgow City Council’s executive director of land services, said: “Obviously we regret Go Ape’s decision not to proceed with their facility at Pollok Park.

“Our main objective was to secure an additional attraction for park users at no cost or financial risk to the council.”

Save Pollok Park campaign said it was “delighted” with the decision of Go Ape to abandon its plans.

A spokesman added: “However, the council’s failure to consult and respond to the real legal and operational issues resulted in over two years of unnecessary work and a waste of taxpayers’ money which could have been avoided.”

“We call for a detailed inquiry into the council’s futile posturing and mishandling of the Go Ape affair.”

Campaign Information Background:

We are a group of park users and many others (over 5000 signatures) who are concerned about Glasgow City Council’s proposal to give a 21 years lease covering a large part of the North Wood of Pollok Park to Adventure Forest Ltd to develop a “GO APE ” facility

Go Ape and Glasgow Council are bogged down in a legal mess

It is now established that Pollok Park ( and Knowehead Lodge ) are part of the Common Good and they will haveto go to court to remove them

This will cost either Glasgow Council tax payers or Go Ape tens of thousands of pounds – and legal precedents are such that it is likely they will lose (and the case could take several years)

The NTS has not yet given its required consent for the proposals as they presently stand. The dicussions to use Knowehead Lodge have got nowhere

There is no chance of a lease being signed in time for the Go Ape proposed start date of 2010. If one is signed now it will be subject to a legal challenge

It is clear that Glasgow Councillors (and Go Ape) contiune to be misled by Land Services

We suspect they are all now trying to find a way to wriggle out of this without accepting that they have made a total mess – no doubt they will try to put the blame on the 5000 objetors and those of us who have been telling them since 2007 that they got it wrong in the first place

Oposition to Go Ape’s agressive tactics and flouting of local agreements is growing across UK

Go Ape and Glagow Council thought we would just go away- but we have shown that we undestand the legal status of Pollok Park better than them – and contiuue to win round many politicians at local and national level through our reasoned arguments and independent legal opinions . We are stronger than ever .

The Council , Go Ape and its PR company have produced no counter arguments or evidence to what we have been saying – in fact Go Ape tried to libel us in the press (Oct 2008) - a tactic which back fired as nobody believed them and made Glasgow people even more angry

So watch this space

UNDER PRESURE GLASGOW COUNCIL HAS FINALLY CONCEDED THAT POLLOK PARK BELONGS TO US – IT PART OF THE COMMON GOOD

IT CANNOT BE LEASED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER AND ANY INCOME BELONGS TO THE COMMON GOOD AND NOT COUNCIL SERVICES

WE SAY THAT AS IT WAS A GIFT TO US IN PERPETUITY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THE USE OF ANY PART OF IT

It is now officially established that the Park belongs to us – we have a right to use it freely without hindrance or cost as the people of Glasgow have been doing for over half a century - it is inalienable. Depite this the Council and Go Ape are still pursuing the idea of fencing off areas ( for example the land on the right of this photo identified as the Go Ape ” training area” ) and charging us £25 to go into it

I have been using the Pollok Park since I was knee high, and have been out running and walking in the park early morning very frequently over the last few weeks, and have been regularly spotting groups of six to eight deer grazing in the very spot that Go Ape propose to masacre. These deer have probably already been trapped within the park due to motorway and continuing developments around the park, but if Go Ape were to go ahead these deer will have a substantial amount of their habitat taken away. I can’t describe what an amazing site it is to see these deer and it elates me every time to see such beautiful wildlife so close to home. I am very much saddened by the fact that Glasgow Council disregard such an asset to the park and just want to fill their greedy pockets by collaborating with whoever it takes, they seem to have no shame.
I am 32 years young and would like to have enjoyed this park just the way it is, it’s a ‘little piece of peace’ just moments away from the hustle and bustle of the secular world

We exposed Glasgow Council’s flawed public consultation process, their cavalier treatment towards the National Trust for Scotland and that the Council and Go Ape’s statements that they would only come to Pollok Park if the people of Glasgow wanted them as a con

We exposed the the fact that Councillors were misled when they approved the proposal in 2007 – because they were not told of the legal agreement in place which mean that NTS consent is needed to certain developments – nor were they told that Pollok Park is Common Good Land – it cannot be alianated and anyway the projected commercial deal to raise money for Council services is a non-starter

We exposed the “offer ” by Go Ape of 450 free places to Glasgow schoolchildren as a con – head teachers were not asked if they would agree to the health and safety requirements or to virtually shutting schools down to enable enough teachers to accompany the pupils- we did ask and we have not found one school who said they would take up the “offer”

We have exposed the poverty of the planning application- the lack of public toilets, no parking survey was done, no study of the flora to be affected was done, the less than truthful assertion that ” we would have to look up to notice anything at all ” the visual and noise pollution of the fences and zip wires in an area of national landscape importance . Despite this 14 Councillors voted through the application – but now the Council has recognised the flaws and is trying to get round them – see News and Updates

We rallied over 5000 signatures , held public meetings of 700+ and a vigil of 1000 people . We have shown that we are not a small group of “NIMBYs but people from all over Glasgow and beyond who value the gift to the “Nation and the Citizens of Glasgow “ that is Pollok Park and are determined to safeguard it as it was intended even if the Council seems to have abandoned its obligations under the terms of the original gift

We have supported other campaigns in UK fighting GoApe proposals in equally unsuitable sites and exposed that they cannot be trusted – eg they have illegally felled trees in Chorley

Save Pollok Park supporters in Feb 2008 on the occasion of Pollok Park being awarded “European Best Park”

1000 people turned out to a silent vigil – to mark the site of the Go Ape development (we could only mark part of it) - here is the proposed site of a 120 metre mechanical slide across an area created by the Maxwell family in the 18th century, described by Scottish Natural Heritage as of National Landcape importance, home to several roe deer, and gifted to the city ” to be preserved in its orginal state. Go Ape says ” we will have to look up to notice anything at all”

See News and Updates for result of a debate with Glasgow Scouts and young people from Greater Pollok

See News and Updates for news of a campaign similar to SPP in Lancashire

See News and Updates

Find out why this will make the Council’s attempt to use money from Go Ape for Land Services unlawful - and what you can do about it - Go to The Common Good section of this website

Another successful public meeting on 28th October heard expert views affirm that Pollok Park is part of the Common Good of Glasgow and confirm our views on the Legal Agreements – See News and Updates for Details

Almost 300 people attended the meeting on 28th October at Pollokshaws Burgh Hall- they unanimously endorsed 2 new resolutions

A separate meeting was also held on 28th Oct to start the setting up of a Friends of Pollok Park

The National Trust for Scotland has publicly re- affirmed its opposition to the present proposal for the Go Ape development although at persent it remains neutral on possible alternative suitable sites in Pollok Park - Go to news and Updates for Details

An Archaeological dig has just finished on the Go Ape Site – see News and Updates for more details

A lovely view of Pollok illustrating why people feel that we need to conserve it as was intended in the gift to the people of Glasgow – as a country estate – and not an urban theme park - sent in by supporter Christopher S. Walton (thanks)

Cick on this Link to Gerry Fletcher’s website which has additional photos and videos (with sound ) of the Park and of some of Save Pollok Park’s actions to date

http://www.gerflet.co.uk/savepollokpark2008/

A packed meeting of 200 people vowed to continue to challenge the proposal . Representatives of 4 political parties were there- all of whom gave their support – Nicola Surgeon, the constituency MSP spoke as did Jackson Carlow MSP and Patrick Harvie MSP. Others were Robert Brown MSP and Bashir Ahmed MSP. Glasgow Councillors Danny Alderslowe and Paul Colsehill also spoke and Cllrs David Meikle , George Roberts and Margo Clark were there in support of the next stage which is to persuade Scottish Ministers to call in the application and overturn the Glasgow Council planning decision

THE REAL FIGHT TO SAVE OUR PARKS HAS JUST BEGUN – our main strength is in our numbers- already over 5000 petition signatures Can we all be wrong?

To find out more about what is proposed go to The Development
To find why we think it is a bad deal for Glasgow go to The Proposed Lease
To find out about why Pollok is unique go to Historic Pollok
To see photos of Go Ape and of the areas of the Park it will affect go to Photos- Go Ape/Park
News and Updates includes some new and older pieces of news of the campaign

Here is a mock up of a the Zip wire going across the Glade – a Conservation Area and designed landscape of national importance (Historic Scotland)-and yet Go Ape says it will have little impact and ” we will have to look up to notice anything at all” - are these people serious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3FFT-Qt1Q

http://www.vimeo.com/1232652

A soundtracked slide show of the Planning Commmitte’s visit to the Park on 25th March – thanks to Geery Fletcher (and Joan Baez – make sure you turn your speakers on)

http://cid-07bf495138080875.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/SPP/080414%20Save%20Country%20Park%20%202008%20by%20Gerry%20Fletcher.wmv

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
Put ‘em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see em
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got-till its gone
Joni Mitchell – Big Yellow Taxi- written in 1970 but the message is timeless

Pollok Park was gifted by the Maxwell family in 1969 “for the enjoyment of the citizens of Glasgow” and the “enhancement of the beauty of the neighbourhood” This development will restrict the use and enjoyment of parts of North Wood to ordinary users, walkers etc

It will cost £25 per adult and £20 for a teenager to use – that is not the meaning of the word “Gift”

There are agreements in place form 1939 and 1969 with the Maxwell family and National Trust – they have to be consulted and if they say no – then the Council cannot do this. Representatives of the family and the National Trust have formally objected – so why has the Council told the Company to put in a planning application?

The red lines mark are the activity areas with some fenced off bits adn zip wires – but the planning application area is the whole area within the yellow line – there is no guarantee that these sites may not move over the next 21 years – and we believe there is evidence that the sound of users and zip wires will carry across much of it. The blue dots mark the 2 new buildings – the Burrell Museum is botttom right- this area is 30% of North Wood and 50% of North wood outside the mountain bike track area

Share and Enjoy:

An Camas Mòr – A new town by Aviemore which could eventually become home to up to 4,000 people is a “done deal”.

Jun 10th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Fears over ‘done deal’ town

June, 2009

CLAIMS have been made that plans for a new town by Aviemore which could eventually become home to up to 4,000 people is a “done deal”.

The remark made by Mr Robert Maund, chairman of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, came a day after the Scottish Government revealed An Camas Mòr had been chosen as one of 11 “exemplar” low-carbon communities of the future backed by £400,000 of public money.

Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing Nicola Sturgeon said the communities would lead the way in the drive to make Scotland greener and healthier.

Mr Maund highlighted his concern that the cart was being put before the horse at the public inquiry into the Cairngorms National Park Local Plan.

It allocates land for the first phase of the new community on Rothiemurchus Estate which is expected to comprise 1,500 homes by 2028.

Mr Maund said: “I was concerned when I read about Nicola Sturgeon announcing that – it could compromise this hearing and the outcome of it.

“Here we have a Local Plan which is the subject of a hearing with nothing approved, we have a planning application for the development come in a couple of days ago and pretty much the same day the Minister stands up and says this is one of 11 schemes the government is putting £400,000 into to further the aims of the Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative.

“I wonder if I should just go home and do some gardening and put in an application for costs.

“At every level judgements seem to be being made in advance of the Reporter’s recommendations to the park authority.

“It is as if it is a done deal and that would be very worrying for the planning process and for the democratic process.”

Mr Maund asked for “some kind of reassurance” from Reporter Jill Moody leading the hearing on An Camas Mòr that Ms Sturgeon’s announcement would not colour proceedings.

She responded: “I can say in absolute honesty that I have not a clue about any announcement by Nicola Sturgeon.”

Ms Moody said that her involvement was “absolutely objective” and she would be applying “normal planning judgement”.

The SSCI encourages the creation of places which are designed and built to last, where a high quality of life can be achieved and which demonstrate how to reduce ecological footprints.

Other winning exemplar projects include Craigmillar, Edinburgh, PARC Craigmillar; Lochgelly, Fife, Fife Council; Maryhill Locks, Glasgow, Glasgow Canal Regeneration Partnership and Tornagrain, near Inverness, Moray Estates Commenting on them, Ms Sturgeon said the Scottish Government was committed to creating an enduring legacy of high quality, distinctive new places.

“The projects selected include innovative design and building principles but they also promote environmental solutions which communities across Scotland can adopt.

“It is vital for our long term economic and social success that we create communities which provide new homes in the right place, of the right type and which contribute to reducing energy demand and impact on the environment.”

Moving Aviemore across the River Spey was first mooted at a meeting of the village’s community council in 1989.

Speaking at the public inquiry on Thursday, Mr Don McKee, the national park’s head of planning, said: “The park authority has acknowledged that An Camas Mòr is different. It is a new community in a national park and presents both a challenge and an opportunity.”

Explaining the need for the site to be allocated for housing, he said: “We are trying to respect the character of the established communities. We have reached a point where we can no longer add infinitum to the volume of housing. It is increasingly difficult to justify.”

He added that An Camas Mòr could be developed in a co-ordinated way: “This will relieve some of the pressure on other communities but we will be looking at them on an on-going basis to ensure that they remain viable.”

However, Dr Gus Jones, chairman of the Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group, claimed An Camas Mòr was unsustainable and would seriously damage the natural heritage. “This development within a National Scenic Area has long been viewed as unacceptable,” he said after the hearing. “Apparent ministerial support seems to be based on wishful thinking that ignores widespread opposition.

“Realistically the last thing the Cairngorms National Park needs is another flawed and over-ambitious development, especially one riding roughshod over landscape, conservation and significant community interests.

Mr Johnnie Grant, owner of Rothiemurchus Estate and applicant for the development, said An Camas Mòr was subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and well-supported by planning policy.

He commented: “As there are more than 1,000 pages of detailed work to be understood and the proposal is to be tested against pages of planning policies it is very far fetched to describe it as a ‘done deal’.

“There is an immense amount of work to be carried out by a wide range of hard working, qualified and experienced public officials. “Furthermore the granting of outline consent would be only the start of the consent process.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said of the “done deal” claims: “The awarding of the SSCI status to a project by the Scottish Government is completely separate from the process of planning approval.

“The Scottish Government is supportive of the SSCI exemplar projects in their vision to create sustainable communities.

“All proposals have to go through the relevant planning process and SSCI exemplar status does not in any way influence or compromise this process or the considerations of the local authority.”

Share and Enjoy:

High Court Legal battle against Heathrow expansion launched by Green Groups

Apr 14th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Legal papers have been lodged at High Court by coalition representing millions

April 2009

Leading green groups, together with local councils and residents’ groups, today launched a legal challenge against the government’s controversial decision to expand Heathrow airport.

The thirteen organisations backing the challenge – representing millions of people – will argue that the consultation process was flawed and that the decision was irrational.

Lawyers representing the coalition argue that a third runway means that the UK risks breaching legal limits on noise and air pollution, that it will seriously undermine our climate change targets and that the costs of the project have not been properly assessed and will not benefit the economy.

Greenpeace, WWF-UK, RSPB and CPRE will claim that expanding Heathrow will massively increase carbon emissions and that this is completely incompatible with the urgent need to tackle climate change.

Lodging the documents at the High Court is the first step in a process which is expected to lead to a Judicial Review of the government’s decision on Heathrow.

If the challenge is successful, the decision would be quashed and the government would have to re-run the consultation. If the Court agrees that the decision was irrational then the government may also be forced to review its entire aviation policy, which supports expanding nearly thirty airports across the country.

Greenpeace Executive Director, John Sauven said:

“The government’s decision to expand Heathrow is completely at odds with the urgent need to slash emissions and stop runaway climate change. This is why we are launching a legal challenge.

“Brown and Hoon know that the sums on Heathrow don’t add up. That’s why, at the last minute, they knocked together a handful of half-baked proposals in an attempt to ‘green’ the runway.

“But however much the government try to dress this decision up, the simple fact is that this runway can not be built if it is serious about tackling climate change.”

David Norman, Director of Campaigns at WWF-UK said:

“The decision to allow a third runway at Heathrow blows the chances of setting the UK onto a low carbon pathway completely out of the water. If the targets set in the Climate Change Act are to be meaningful, the government must stop adopting policies that undermine them.

“Nor does it make sense financially – why expand a carbon intensive industry such as aviation, which will make it incredibly difficult and expensive for the UK to meet the government’s carbon targets – when there are green alternatives such as video conferencing and high speed rail available instead? Every other part of the economy will have to cover the carbon costs created by a third runway.”

Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB’s Director of Conservation, said:

“The RSPB believes climate change to be the biggest threat to life on Earth. We are already starting to see its impacts on wildlife here in the UK, including catastrophic declines among seabirds in parts of the North Sea.

“Against this backdrop, the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow is perverse. We are not opposed to flying, and indeed recognise that for many people international travel is a vital part of their life and work. But encouraging a massive increase in flights, just at the time when we need to reduce our emissions dramatically, shows a reckless disregard for the well-being of our planet, and our future.”

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said:

“Britain’s aviation policy is badly out of date and lacks democratic legitimacy. It takes very little account of the urgency of climate change or the impact on people’s quality of life of ever more noisy flights and car journeys to airports.

“The decision on the third runway was stitched up behind closed doors, and the Government seems less and less prepared to subject its decisions on aviation to proper public scrutiny. Aviation policy has become so democratically challenged that a legal challenge is the only way for groups like us to influence it.”

ENDS

Contact details:

On behalf of green groups:

Greenpeace press office

T: 0207 865 8255

On behalf of all councils:

Emma Marsh, London Borough of Hillingdon

T: 01895 556064/ 07780 913334

E: emarsh@hillingdon.gov.uk

On behalf of local residents

Geraldine Nicholson

T: 07710 523369/ 01895 556903

Notes to Editors:

1.) Six local authorities in West London (Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are claimants to the challenge, the local residents group (NOTrag) and the national campaigning group against airport expansion HACAN.

2.) In February 2007, Greenpeace won a Judicial Review against the government’s energy review, which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result the government was forced to run the public consultation for a second time.

3.) If a third runway at Heathrow airport goes ahead, the airport will become the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport expansion will make it impossible for the UK to play its part in tackling climate change. The Government has committed the UK to cuts of at least 80% in CO2 emissions by 2050. Research from the respected Tyndall Centre shows that if the industry is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation alone would destroy any hope of hitting this target.

4.) Aviation emissions do more damage to the climate because they are released at altitude. Scientists multiply aviation emissions (which include other harmful gases not just CO2) by between 2 and 3 to calculate their increased climate impact – a phenomenon know as ‘radiative forcing’.

5.) The government has also set a new target to reduce aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050. Currently, the Department for Transport forecasts that aviation will emit 59.9 MtCO2 by 2050. This new target means that the industry must now halve their emissions to 37.5 MtCO2. The government argues that these reductions can be achieved by advances in technology that make aero planes more efficient. However, this is based entirely on data provided by the aviation industry and has not been subject to independent review and was not consulted on.

6.) Historically small increases in the efficiency of planes have been overwhelmed by an unrestrained growth in flights. There is no evidence to suggest that this will not be the case in the future if action is not taken to constrain expansion. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that the industry’s targets are ‘clearly aspirations rather than projections’ and there are some basic technological restraints that make major improvements impossible to imagine.

7.) The decision on Heathrow is underpinned by the government’s aviation policy, set out in the 2003 Aviation White Paper, which in principle supports airport expansion in the UK. The climate science has changed significantly since 2003, as has the policy context and law – notably the Climate Change Act 2008.

Share and Enjoy:

Massive Housing Threat to Bromsgrove Green Belt

Apr 11th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

The green belt borders of Bromsgrove are under huge pressure to take thousands more houses under plans being drawn up by regional bodies.

The Wythall and Beoley areas face the prospect of thousands of new houses being built on green belt land which traditionally has formed the border between Birmingham and Bromsgrove and Redditch and Bromsgrove.

The threat comes from the Government’s Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which has been given the task of deciding where future houses will be built in the West Midlands having been informed by the now defunct West Midlands Regional Assembly as to how many new dwellings will be needed.

Their conclusions make disappointing reading for residents in the Wythall and Beoley areas who could find large new housing estates being built in their area with no democratic accountability for the decisions which have been taken.

Conservative Party MP, Julie Kirkbride is implacably opposed to these developments and will fight to protect Bromsgrove’s green borders.

Click here for more information and to register your concerns.

****************************

Julie Kirkbride

Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove

Tel: 01527 872135 / Fax: 01527 575019 / House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
Email: julie@juliekirkbride.com / Web: www.juliekirkbride.com

Julie was born in June 1960 and brought up in Halifax, the youngest of three children. Her father was a lorry driver who died when she was seven and her mother worked as a secretary at Rowntree Mackintosh’s. She went to local schools including the local grammar school, which at the time was known as The Highlands and is now the North Halifax High School, followed by Girton College, Cambridge to read economics and history. Whilst at university, she was Vice President of the Cambridge Union Society and active in Conservative politics.

Upon leaving university, she spent a year working for the House magazine in Parliament and then from 1982 to 1983 as a Rotary Foundation scholar studying journalism at the University of California in Berkeley. Between 1983 and 1986, she worked as a researcher for Yorkshire Television in Leeds, between 1986 and 1989 as a BBC News and Current Affairs researcher/producer in London, and from 1989 and 1992 as a producer/reporter for ITN’s Parliamentary Unit. In 1992, she became a political correspondent for the Daily Telegraph and in 1996 Social Affairs Editor on the Sunday Telegraph.

In November 1996, she was selected to fight the Bromsgrove seat which she won the following year. In August 1997, she married Andrew MacKay MP, the Conservative Member for Bracknell, and they have a son, Angus.

Julie Kirkbride’s Experience

Julie’s political career began when she joined the Young Conservatives in Halifax at the age of fourteen and she continued during her time at Cambridge University. When she started working for Yorkshire Television, and subsequently the BBC and ITN, she stopped an active political career due to the potential conflict of interests and likewise whilst she was a political correspondent for the Telegraph.

Her political career therefore resumed in November 1996 when she was selected for the Conservative held seat of Bromsgrove. As a Member of Parliament since May 1997, she has been a member of the Social Security Committee and now sits on the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee. She also sits as a member of the Commons Catering Committee. From November 2003 to September 2004, she was Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport.

Her interests in political issues range across the spectrum with perhaps her highest profile campaign so far being to encourage the Government to introduce single vaccinations alongside the MMR.

Share and Enjoy:

Tulloch Homes announces new facilities for Milton of Leys

Apr 10th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Residents say developer’s original pledges for community services have been greatly watered down

Tulloch Homes announces new facilities for Milton of Leys

By jonny muir Press and Journal

Published: 10/04/2009

Developer Tulloch Homes has revealed plans to build a care home, a church, a primary school and shops on land at Milton of Leys, south of Inverness, which would be the first community facilities in the area.

But residents there have accused the developer of watering down the long-awaited community facilities after it slashed the amount of open space and upped the number of houses.

At present, the nearest school or shop is four miles away, which has made Milton of Leys the butt of jokes as its only existing community facilities are a postbox and a £10,000 “bandstand”.

Despite welcoming Tulloch’s proposals, residents say they are bemused that plans for community facilities mooted a year ago have been scaled down.

A substantial area that was once earmarked for open space with play facilities, including £100,000 of play equipment, has shrunk to a small wedge of land on the site’s periphery, even though it would overlook homes.

It is now envisaged that play facilities and a recreation area will be created within the grounds of the school, prompting concerns that the facilities will not be accessible outwith school hours.

Milton of Leys Residents’ Association chairman Gavin Norton said: “As a growing community of 600 homes, we are thrilled that we are going to get a primary school, but it can’t be at the expense of losing other community facilities.”

Mr Norton said there was also frustration that Tulloch had increased the amount of land allocated for housing on the community site from 1.5acres 12 months ago to 2.5acres now.

Residents learned about the proposals in a letter from Tulloch saying that an application had been submitted to Highland Council seeking permission for a “district centre, including retail, residential, care home, children’s nursery, community facility and primary school”, but it was not until the residents’ association obtained detailed drawings that the full extent of the changes emerged.

Mr Norton said: “Tulloch has done nothing wrong. They have provided all they need to provide. But the first reaction of most people will be: ‘what one earth is going on’?”

Milton of Leys community councillor Barrie Haycock said: “It smacks of Tulloch trying to increase its profit margin by putting as many homes on the plot as possible.”

Inverness Crime Prevention Panel chairman Jim Ferguson said there were signs that antisocial behaviour in Milton of Leys was on the rise, making it vital that community facilities are provided on the estate.

Tullochs were not available for comment.

Share and Enjoy:

Feltham Gravel Pits Hounslow

Mar 12th, 2009

by Hounslow38.

9 comments

Plans to redevelop former gravel pits in Feltham and build up to 1,000 new homes on Green Belt land have received a mixed response from residents.

The results of a public consultation into the ambitious proposals for the Lower Feltham Lakes site, in Chertsey Road, have finally been released.

This story appeared 11th March 2009 in the Hounslow Chronicle

Story Continues

This is a Land Banking site of Green Belt and Nature Conservancy land which used to be a gravel pit. A company called Profitable Plots in Singapore bought the site in 2006. confusingly the company that offers the site now is called Profitable Group also based out of Singapore. Previously in marketing the site was called Concorde Village Hounslow but seems to have been renamed in this article to Lower Feltham Lakes. Profitable Group have chopped the site into 9000 plots and are offering the plots to investors in Asia and Canada. You can see the Singapore TV advert for the land plots here. In the advert they are estimating a 250% return in 3 years for investors.

Presumably this survey and press effort is designed either to influence the local authority in Hounslow or convince investors in Asia that progress is being made. There is nothing in the article about what the Hounslow Planning Authority thinks.

Share and Enjoy:

Highland Housing Fair – Local Community Totally Misled

Jan 23rd, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Housing fair brochure branded ‘fabrication of reality’

HUNDREDS of glossy brochures promoting a controversial housing project on the outskirts of Inverness are to be destroyed after it was discovered they contained misleading information.

By Val Sweeney – Inverness Courier

Copies of the 26-page booklet, showcasing the Highland Housing Fair, were distributed at the Scottish Parliament in a move by the organisers to secure £4.75 million of public money for the event, due to be held next year at Balvonie Braes.

The brochure clearly stated that the site was chosen because it is close to Milton of Leys which has a primary school, church hall, local shops and public house, surgery, day care facilities and playing field.

However, after angry local residents and community leaders pointed out that the only community facility in the area is a postbox, housing fair organisers were forced to acknowledge their error.

A spokesman said that 500 copies were printed in time for a reception held at the parliament on 13th January.

Some had been handed out to those present, including MSPs, but the rest will now be withdrawn and destroyed.

“There was no intention to mislead anyone,” the spokesman said. “It was an error made in the haste of getting the booklet ready for the reception. The error in the booklet will be corrected for future print runs.”

Barrie Haycock, a local resident and chairman of Planning Watch UK, described the document, which contains the Highland Council logo, as “greatly misleading”.

“It is a complete fabrication of reality,” he said. “There are no community facilities with the exception of a postbox at Milton of Leys.

“It is an absolute disgrace that Highland Council could put its name to a document which is misleading to any person who takes the time and trouble to read it.”

The brochure at the centre of the controversy. Alasdair Allen

Bob Roberts, chairman of the Inverness South Community Council, was equally bemused by the publication, which states: “The site is well-located next to the Milton of Leys local centre which is easily accessible on foot.”

The council gave an additional £40,000 to the housing fair’s board last year. The money was to be used for a range of things including ticket and brochure printing plus advertising and promotion of the fair.

“Is this what they are using the money for?” Mr Roberts queried.

“I am absolutely outraged at this. The community at Milton of Leys has been totally misled by this. We have been promised these facilities for years and years and still they never appear — yet they seem to say they exist in this publication. We would love them to exist.”

Such was the concern about the lack of facilities in the rapidly-expanding suburb that a steering group, including Highland councillors, community councillors and other community representatives, was set up last year. A wish-list of priorities included a school and a multi-purpose community hall with sports facilities.

The housing fair, based on a Finnish model, is due to showcase 55 eco-homes which will be sold afterwards. The event, billed as the first of its kind in Scotland, had been due to be held in August but was postponed until 2010 due to the economic climate.

v.sweeney@inverness-courier.co.uk

Share and Enjoy:

West Lothian Council Sleaze charge alleged

Jan 5th, 2009

by Editor.

2 comments

Sleaze charge rocks West Lothian Council

Dec 24 2008 by Alistair Watson, West Lothian Courier

AN award winning council is in turmoil as allegations of corruption and sleaze threaten to tear it apart.

Council leader Peter Johnston faces calls for his resignation after Councillor Gordon Beurskens was reported to police over his role in an £8 million planning application for a mixed development scheme at Whitrigg, Whitburn.

Councillor Beurskens, who helps prop up the SNP administration, was working as a consultant for Aftondale Ltd, the firm who lodged the application, while sitting on the local authority’s development committee.

Councillors on the committee must show impartiality on planning applications but the Action to Save St John’s councillor is at the centre of a row regarding a financial interest in the plan being approved.

Despite the plan being rejected by planning officials the proposal was pushed through by councillors at a meeting last month with the casting vote coming from SNP committee chairman Jim Dickson. Councillor Dickson has since stood down from his post pending an independent inquiry.

Graeme Morrice, Labour group leader on the council, claims the allegations of wrong-doing go straight to the heart of the administration. He has called on Councillor Johnston to step down while the police and Standards Commission investigate.

But the council leader called the complaints a politically motivated campaign from the Labour party to discredit his administration.

He added that he was unaware of any substance to the allegations, which will also be investigated in an independent inquiry.

Councillor Johnston continued: “I think it’s important to recognise that the council has no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claims made by Labour councillors in relation to irregularities by Councillor Beurskens.

“The council has, quite rightly I think, passed them on to the police for them to investigate.

“I would expect any responsible political party to wait for the results of the inquiry before celebrating.

“I am confident that the matters will be fully investigated and he will be completely exonerated.

“The results will be fully published and we will do that in an open and transparent manner and there will be no hiding anything.

“I think the political administration will come out of this clear and clean.”

It has also been revealed that council leader Peter Johnston was copied into e-mails sent to planning staff by Councillor Beurskens in his capacity as a consultant on the Whitrigg plans.

In some he uses choice and threatening language and in one he wrote it would take him “two minutes to change the complexion of a council”.

Councillor Johnston added: “I can’t condone his use of language in the e-mails. It wasn’t appropriate for council officers to be addressed in this way.

“We want the officers working in an environment that they are completely comfortable with.

“I think everyone will learn lessons from this. One of them will be that officers are to be treated with respect and not as political footballs.”

Labour leader, Councillor Morrice, said the council leader couldn’t distance himself from the actions of those members of his administration.

He added: “These actions go to the heart of the administration. It has now been revealed that Councillor Johnston was aware of these alleged wrong doings and did nothing about it. He is therefore complicit.

“Public confidence in the planning system is essential and people need to know that they can trust those who are taking the decisions.

“Before the SNP, Conservative and single issue local hospital councillors took over control of the council from Labour at the election, West Lothian Council was regarded as one of the best politically managed and highly regarded local authorities in Britain.

“Today, this reputation has been left in tatters.”

As the Courier went to press, Councillor Beurskens was unavailable for comment.

A West Lothian Council spokesman commented: “A serious complaint about a planning issue was made to the council. Given the nature of the allegation we have asked the police to investigate. As this is now an on-going enquiry it is not appropriate to comment further.”

Link to original article

Share and Enjoy:

Manchester Congestion Charge – A bittersweet victory for the ‘No’ campaign

Dec 13th, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

It was announced yesterday afternoon that the people of Greater Manchester voted in force against the proposed congestion charge, with the 53.2% (1,030,000) turnout voting overwhelmingly against this additional road tax.No less than 79% of those who voted wanted to reject the charge, and no more than 28% voted yes in one any local authority area. This landslide victory marks the death of the Manchester TIF bid and has hopefully discouraged other areas - not least the West Midlands councils - from further pursuing this unpopular scheme.

Yet, though our congratulations go out to the No campaign, it is worth noting that this is a very bittersweet victory with huge amounts already having been spent on a project that was disliked from its inception. Though families in Greater Manchester will no longer have to pay the hefty £1,200 per year that a congestion charge would mean, a startling £34million has already been spent consulting, debating, drawing-up and promoting the TIF bid according to the Drivers Alliance, all funded by ordinary taxpayers. It just makes it worse that the very residents whove paid for this road pricing ambition seem to have been dead against it from the start, and in the end this £34million bought 218,860 yes votes thats £155 each.

This money has been frittered away by those with a blind commitment to the congestion charge, encouraged by those who stood to benefit. Perhaps, at this very moment the proponents of road charging are busy wondering how to bring its spectre back to life with a different guise and new spin and, if they manage a successful resuscitation, lets hope our councils recognise it for what it is and remember this Manchester vote.

Share and Enjoy:

Scottish government urged to probe residents’ claims over factor

Aug 1st, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

Firm ‘takes money for work it does not do’

By Gillian Bell – Press and Journal

Published: 01/08/2008

The Scottish Government has been asked to launch an investigation into north-east residents’ claims that a factor has taken money for work it has not adequately carried out.

Aberdeenshire councillor Martin Ford said he has been contacted by a “number of people” about the Greenbelt Group, which maintains open spaces in housing estates across the north-east.

A resident of the Redcloak estate at Stonehaven had claimed the company has not cut the grass there in more than seven months, despite having already been paid to do so.

The company disputes the time period, but admits there have been problems with a few of its contractors over the last three to four weeks.

Residents at an estate at Newmachar had also complained about the company halving the frequency of its visits.

In a letter to Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing, Mr Ford said: “It appears that there is a widespread problem of poor or no grounds maintenance when the Greenbelt Group are responsible.

“This seems to be the case both when residents are paying on an annual basis and when the developer has paid a lump sum on completion of the development.”

The Liberal Democrat member for East Garioch added: “I have been a councillor for nine years and I have been aware of recurring problems involving the Greenbelt Group.

“I would ask you to look into the problems surrounding the operations of this company. I would also ask you to examine whether we can revert to the situation prior to 1992 where it was almost invariably the case that public open space passed to the local council.

“In my experience, the local council provides the only reliable and sustainable maintenance solution for public open space.”

Greenbelt’s managing director Alex Middleton said problems with contractors over the last three weeks have caused the company difficulties in the north-east.

He said: “Greenbelt has had problems in the north-east and are trying to resolve them as quickly as possible. We will take a look at the particular problems and value for money.

“We are committed to the sites in the north-east and are committed to giving a good service.”

Press and Journal article link

Share and Enjoy:

Gordon Banks MP backs Mike Marriott in Menstrie Land Maintenance Battle

Jul 31st, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

Government backs residents in land row

By Nicola Findlay

Image related to story, see caption or article text

Gordon Banks MP has been supporting residents in their dispute with Greenbelt.

CAMPAIGNERS on a Menstrie housing estate have welcomed support from the Scottish Government in their bid to oust land management company Greenbelt.

Angry residents say the company is not doing its job properly and recently 251 of the estate’s 300 residents signed a petition to get rid of Greenbelt.

However, the petition was rejected by the firm who said it would carry on to maintain the land around the estate, as was agreed with developer Gladedale.

But an email from the Scottish Government has now been sent to a homeowner on an estate in Livingston, also managed by Greenbelt, stating that under the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 owners within an estate can “dismiss a manager and appoint another” without applying to a Lands Tribunal.

Mike Marriot, who is leading the Menstrie campaign, welcomed the support from the Scottish Government saying it proved the residents were well within their legal rights to submit their petition.

He said their ultimate goal was for Clackmannanshire Council to take over the maintenance of the land.

“We signed the petition in March and, since then, homeowners have been bombarded with letters and demands from Greenbelt Group, saying they don’t recognise this,” said Mike.

“We very much welcome the Scottish Government’s backing in this situation, and hope it will encourage both Gladedale and Greenbelt Group to see sense.”

The email also informed homeowners that Government guidance on the management of open spaces was republished last month and now no longer names Greenbelt Group as a suitable provider for the long-term care of open spaces in Scotland.

Gordon Banks MP has been supporting the residents in their dispute with Greenbelt and has been heading an All Party Working Group in Westminster looking at land management companies.

He said, “It is good news that the Scottish Executive confirmed that the action the residents took in their dispute with Greenbelt has been confirmed as the correct course of action.

“Up until now Greenbelt has tried to ignore the actions of the residents at Menstrie Mains and I hope that it will now take on board the strong legal footing on which the residents have based their campaign, and understand that they no longer want Greenbelt to supply land management services.

“I hope that both the Greenbelt and Gladedale can find a constructive way to bring this long standing problem to a solution which meets the aims and objectives of Menstrie residents.”

However, Greenbelt says that the information on the email from the Scottish Government is out-dated and that the Title Deeds Act is a complicated piece of legislation which residents do not necessarily understand the full implications of.

Managing director of Greenbelt, Alex Middleton, told the Advertiser that following the petition a circular was sent to all residents to give them help and guidance, and that Greenbelt has never purported to offer legal advice to residents but said they should seek independent legal advice.

He went on, “Greenbelt has never considered itself to be a manager of the land but, in fact, the owner of the land, which is a significant difference to what is being said by other parties.

“Soundbites have been taken from a very complicated piece of legislation which needs to be understood as a whole and is very technical.

“There is an agreement in place between ourselves and the developer and that will continue.

“We are obliged to manage and maintain the land and residents are obliged to contribute fully and equally.”

A spokesperson for Gladedale added, “We are aware of the issues between the residents and Greenbelt and are hopeful that an amicable solution can be reached between the two parties.”

Link to original article

Share and Enjoy:

Planning General

Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees

Gavin Norton, Chair of Milton of Leys Residents Association said:

Residents hit out at Tulloch over their Homes for Heroes ‘ploy’

locals say builders playing emotional card to get scheme support

Investors from the Far East have been left without a penny gain in four years after putting money into a “get rich quick” property scheme promoted by two former England football players.

Related Articles

Inverness up for ugly award

The Highland capital is on a shortlist of the UK’s worst eyesores

Inverness in the running to become UK’s ugliest city

Taxpayers may face Housing Expo bill in the event of cancellation

Council chief makes clear public will pick up the tab if event does not go ahead

Closure looms for land firm over late accounts

Companies House Search:

Mixed response on maintenance move Policy on open spaces unresolved

Homeowner refuses to sell to make way for tycoon’s golf resort

Julie Kirkbride

Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove

Julie Kirkbride’s Experience

Residents say developer’s original pledges for community services have been greatly watered down

Tulloch Homes announces new facilities for Milton of Leys

Sleaze charge rocks West Lothian Council

Firm ‘takes money for work it does not do’

Government backs residents in land row

Register & Log In:

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Tags

Authors

Categories

Contributors

Links

Mixed response on maintenance move

Policy on open spaces unresolved