NKRCC - News

In respect of the Announcement from Tavish Scott on the route of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route

Local residents, both those remote from, and those close to, the latest AWPR “line on a map”, remain angry at the casual arrogance both of the way in which the Transport Minister’s ‘Twin Route’ preference was originally chosen and how it continues to be progressed without meaningful consultation or public evaluation.

The Minister may have been advised that with the announcement of either a narrower corridor or, indeed, the line on the map that we now have, the tumult and the shouting will disappear, but we could tell him, if he is interested, that this is wrong.

Since December 1^st we have seen published in rapid succession......’just a line on a map’.........a corridor.............a wider corridor.......a new PR agency contract.....5 routes within that corridor......and now another line on a map. What is manifestly lacking, however, in all this frantic presentation and re-presentation is any real information. The Scottish executive’s own guidance requires in-depth and comparative analysis. They have changed the criteria for the route by now promoting so-called “congestion issues” on the A90. However, no alternative solutions to these “issues” appear to have been evaluated and local suggestions pointedly ignored.

Apparently some minimal, sporadic and often unannounced survey work has been done, but no explanations given and no coherent answers published. We can see the borehole rigs out around the area even on the day of the latest announcement so that work is quite obviously not completed and most of the environmental surveys have hardly started. What happens to the latest line if anyone of the numerous consultants and contractors actually finds anything ? Our experience of the process with the Murtle route ( even after years of development work ) convinces us that what little costing, engineering or environmental surveying work has actually been done since the December pronouncement will not give certainty and the many changes of plan which we saw with Murtle may well continue to be the norm.

The reliance on spin, the aggressive approach to local community concerns and the total lack of meaningful consultation, consistency, and published or planned assessment leaves NKRCC with little confidence that the Minister will ever produce the right answer through the process he has chosen, meanwhile a lot of public money will be wasted as a result.

The trail of errors and omissions will make for an interesting Inquiry, be it public, judicial, parliamentary or European. With that in mind the respective council leaders should perhaps not leap so readily to Mr Scott’s side. We note their support is again made in the absence of public debate within their own Councils and without their tax payers knowing what it will ultimately individually cost us.

Proponents of the scheme have come up with a ridiculously small number of “affected houses” by squeezing their line of route through and round gaps between the various peat bogs and other sensitive areas leaving many more homes yards from their line of route but with no details of how high up (or otherwise) the road embankment is. Uncertainty and construction for many more years and then noise and pollution for the rest of your life is hardly a definition of “unaffected”. No mention either of the inadequate and outdated so-called “compensation deals” that apply in Scotland especially for tenant farmers.

Many people including ourselves have tried to contribute to the debate in a constructive manner – very few have had the courtesy of an acknowledgement let alone a reply. It will not stop local people trying to continue to be heard though !

We expected the minister to be no more interested in what we think about this announcement than anyone else in the Scottish Executive has been so far and were proved right when he snuck out the back door of the AECC rather than meet the people from Kincardineshire who had, quite easily it has to be said, travelled across Aberdeen to meet him.

Note:

North Kincardine Rural Community Council covers an area which includes all 5 route options that were proposed in Spring 2005 and both legs of the December 2005 announcement for that part of the route between the River Dee to the A90

(excepting for the southernmost 2km of the Maryculter/Stonehaven “spur”)


North Kincardineshire Community Council Press Release 2nd May 2006
In respect of the Announcement from Tavish Scott on the route of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route Local residents, both those remote from, and those close to, the latest AWPR “line on a map”, remain angry at the casual arrogance both of the way in which the Transport Minister’s ‘Twin Route’ preference was originally chosen and how it continues to be progressed without meaningful consultation or public evaluation. The Minister may have been advised that with the announcement of either a narrower corridor or, indeed, the line on the map that we now have, the tumult and the shouting will disappear, but we could tell him, if he is interested, that this is wrong. Since December 1^st we have seen published in rapid succession......’just a line on a map’.........a corridor.............a wider corridor.......a new PR agency contract.....5 routes within that corridor......and now another line on a map. What is manifestly lacking, however, in all this frantic presentation and re-presentation is any real information. The Scottish executive’s own guidance requires in-depth and comparative analysis. They have changed the criteria for the route by now promoting so-called “congestion issues” on the A90. However, no alternative solutions to these “issues” appear to have been evaluated and local suggestions pointedly ignored. Apparently some minimal, sporadic and often unannounced survey work has been done, but no explanations given and no coherent answers published. We can see the borehole rigs out around the area even on the day of the latest announcement so that work is quite obviously not completed and most of the environmental surveys have hardly started. What happens to the latest line if anyone of the numerous consultants and contractors actually finds anything ? Our experience of the process with the Murtle route ( even after years of development work ) convinces us that what little costing, engineering or environmental surveying work has actually been done since the December pronouncement will not give certainty and the many changes of plan which we saw with Murtle may well continue to be the norm. The reliance on spin, the aggressive approach to local community concerns and the total lack of meaningful consultation, consistency, and published or planned assessment leaves NKRCC with little confidence that the Minister will ever produce the right answer through the process he has chosen, meanwhile a lot of public money will be wasted as a result. The trail of errors and omissions will make for an interesting Inquiry, be it public, judicial, parliamentary or European. With that in mind the respective council leaders should perhaps not leap so readily to Mr Scott’s side. We note their support is again made in the absence of public debate within their own Councils and without their tax payers knowing what it will ultimately individually cost us. Proponents of the scheme have come up with a ridiculously small number of “affected houses” by squeezing their line of route through and round gaps between the various peat bogs and other sensitive areas leaving many more homes yards from their line of route but with no details of how high up (or otherwise) the road embankment is. Uncertainty and construction for many more years and then noise and pollution for the rest of your life is hardly a definition of “unaffected”. No mention either of the inadequate and outdated so-called “compensation deals” that apply in Scotland especially for tenant farmers. Many people including ourselves have tried to contribute to the debate in a constructive manner – very few have had the courtesy of an acknowledgement let alone a reply. It will not stop local people trying to continue to be heard though ! We expected the minister to be no more interested in what we think about this announcement than anyone else in the Scottish Executive has been so far and were proved right when he snuck out the back door of the AECC rather than meet the people from Kincardineshire who had, quite easily it has to be said, travelled across Aberdeen to meet him. Note: North Kincardine Rural Community Council covers an area which includes all 5 route options that were proposed in Spring 2005 and both legs of the December 2005 announcement for that part of the route between the River Dee to the A90 (excepting for the southernmost 2km of the Maryculter/Stonehaven “spur”)

North Kincardineshire Community Council Press Release 2nd May 2006

North Kincardineshire Community Council Press Release

2nd May 2006