Minute of the meeting held on Monday 12 December 2005 at Maryculter Community Hall.
|
Maryculter |
Cookney / Netherley |
Banchory-Devenick |
Aberdeenshire Councillors |
|
Bill Fraser Avril Tulloch Jill Greenlees |
Philip Smart (Chairman) Rob Winmill(Vice Chairman) Robert Keeler (Secretary), |
Duncan Petrie Mike Birch
|
Sandy Wallace (Lower Deeside Michael Sullivan (Stonehaven North & Fetteresso)
|
94 Members of the Public
APOLOGIES –Kate Kleppang, Raymond Cowan (Treasurer), Kevin Park and Bob McKinney
MINUTES of the meeting of 21 November were approved.
MATTERS ARISING
New Lairhillock School – 2 Containers had appeared on site. Reported that work to commence 9 January with completion due end 2006, Children start first term of 2007.
Web site – Nothing to report.
Roads – No further news on Solar powered warning lights for Banchory-Devenick crossroads.. We have written regarding condition of rural roads after extra traffic during recent A90 repairs.
Western Peripheral Route – deferred to last item of the meeting with approval of all present.
South Deeside View – We have 100 spare copies.
1. PLANNING
ALP - Public Inquiry. All objections to be in by 23 December.
Blairs – Nothing to report.
2. FINANCE
Chairman reminded all present that 2006 ‘200 Club’ tickets will soon be on sale.
WRVS have requested financial assistance, we will consider this at the next meeting.
200 Club –
December £5 no: 121 R Lumsden - £10 no: 280 F Downie £15 no:157 W Donald
£25 no: 135 K Park
4. CORRESPONDENCE
Police Report – No report.
-
5. AOCB
Notice Board at Hall – Nothing to report
Western Peripheral Route
Philip had asked the WPR management team to attend this meeting but they had declined.
On a show of hands approximately 95% of those present were from our area.
Philip raised the issue of whether there was any potential for conflict of interest pointing out that most of the Community Councillors present were in one way or other affected by the broad corridors of the proposed routes – the previous discussion and guidance that this would not preclude participation of councillors was referred to; The Chair then asked all those present if anyone did not wish us to proceed with all councillors present. There being no objections the meeting continued.
He also clarified the position that the CC had consistently taken to date, namely that as any of the 5 previously proposed individual routes would impact on one part or another our community, we had not favoured any one route but had written on many aspects, in order to minimise the overall impact.
The ‘Fast Link’ ( Stonehaven – Milltimber) was discussed but very little information is at hand, the line of the road is still an approximation – an ‘initial line on a map’. The detail will not be known until well into 2006 which is also when the initial surveying work should begin. Sandy said that traffic volume on the “link” does not merit dual carriageway but as a matter of driver safety it may be dualled (in that from Ellon there would be dual carriageway reducing to single until Stonehaven; or in reverse dual from the South reducing to single at Stonehaven). It was pointed out that dual carriageway would have much greater impact on our area than single or three lane options. He stated that the cost (£295m - £405m) would be shared between Scottish Executive 81% Aberdeen 9.5% and Aberdeenshire 9.5%. Point was made that the City may apparently not be so happy if the WPR route is further west than Murtle. So questions were rasied as to whether the city would remain happy pay its share? who would pick up any shortfall? and would the split also apply to the ‘Link’? Rob queried the cost of the new twin route road, which was now apparently costing very little more than just one road was before and this with very little apparent extra design work.
Rob felt that under the Freedom of Information Act 2002 , we could ask for justification from the Minister. Philip suggested : please provide all the documentation given to you for consideration in your decision.
Henry Irvine-Fortescue stated that Green Wedge has written today on similar lines. (The cost of such information to us would be 10% of the cost of providing it, up to £60 (i.e. 10% of £600) thereafter a charge of £15 per hour). It was agreed that the Community Council would co-operate with other parties seeking similar requests and would spend up to £60 on this. It was understood that the Executive must reply within 20 working days, Mike Birch asked that business interests input (previously deemed ‘confidential’) should also be provided.
WPR Report of Public Consultation Document was discussed Philip read out pertinent parts of the document including the fact that it was supposedly held at Maryculter House Hotel rather than the Old Mill Inn, which did not engender confidence.
The document stated that there were no queries on design matters at the Public Consultation although Philip and other councillors had made many queries between them. On a show of hands 17 other people present also said they had made queries. It was commented by many members of the public that attendees were told by the Consultation Team that there was no need to worry about routes other than the Murtle route. On a show of hands 45 people had been told the same thing. Bill thought that we should concentrate on the common strands within our area and not become splintered. It was thought that we should list design issues with the route and attempt to influence it.
William Walton – planning expert – said there will be a public Inquiry on this route and that as part of this the other route options will be noted, but there will be a WPR. A judicial review could be held when a Minister has acted unlawfully, irrationally or has departed from due process. We could have a review instead of a Public Inquiry. Rob asked if there would definitely be a Public Inquiry. WW stated that the Planning Bill about to be published gave the authorities the right on matters of National importance, i.e. roads, to “steamroller” this through without an Inquiry.
David Davidson said that Tavish Scott had told him there will be an inquiry and that there had been no preparatory work done on the route. It was also understood that the minister wanted to keep the Netherley road intact and would prefer a new two lane road. H I-F had attended the Milltimber meeting and they have funding in place for an initial legal review. The Maryculter group had also met. We will endeavour to keep everyone informed via our Website.
Steve Davis mentioned that the stretch of road through where the ‘Link’ branches off to Milltimber was not even on the map when the public consultation was held, so how could this decision have been justified. Rob pointed out that without a Transport assessment it appeared even less justified. Sandy Wallace suggested asking above what figure will the parties to the cost split not consider paying if the project is over budget. Mention was made of a probably PPP. Co-operation and liaison with all groups from our area was approved.
Chairman concluded by saying that 1) he suggested those interested parties getting together after this meeting to form action groups advise the CC to allow us to liase with other groups and 2) that the CC would not be promoting or attacking any specific route on the basis of what we had so far but would act as information collecting/disseminating and 3) that CC would seek best route/best mitigating measures for all residents affected.
16 January 2006 at 7:30pm
20 February 2006 at 7:30pm
20 March 2006 at 7:30pm
Visit our Website – www.NKRCC.org.uk