Jagerdeen Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgowdon Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 fae bee bee see Good. Now he will buy our team and sign Sergio Aguero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizer Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Good. Now he will buy our team and sign Sergio Aguero. Good to see the government sticking to their rules and listening to their own civil servants......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Good to see the government sticking to their rules and listening to their own civil servants......... Aren't the SNP good though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Yes Yes. They aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
??? Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Good to see the government sticking to their rules and listening to their own civil servants......... If you're talking about the boy Martin Ford... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Moi? I am not religious. You are a self confessed fenian. How you are old enough to be a legendary Irish warrior is beyond me. He's got the ginger hair . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 west coast jealousy that we've got the oil and a premium golf resort on it's way... you can keep yer call centres and sectarianism! Sorry, I had no idea slagging the SNP meant I was jealous of the NE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 hi-jacking a thread about our new golf resort for a political agenda? You could have congratulated the people of Aberdeenshire? It's ok - we appreciate the benefit that the golf resort will bring to the whole of Scotland - so congratulations too, west coasters The politics were introduced by the poster previous to myself. I would rather congratulate the people of Scotland, the people of Aberdeenshire voted for the wanksticks that blocked the move in the first place. I also think this was a very rare but very good decision by the government. As I said, the political nature of my post was more in response to Mizer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 finally - a true fact! Fucking fenians, useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Makaveli Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Brilliant news - this is exactly what Aberdeen needs Just a shame the way it has happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbobaggins Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 There was no way such a venture could be blocked when the UK is nearly in recession especially considering it could create 6000 jobs. This decision is almost Keynesian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fatshaft Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Good to see the government sticking to their rules and listening to their own civil servants......... As the civil servants weren't listening to the overwhelming majority of their public, I'd say the govt have righted a wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizer Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 As the civil servants weren't listening to the overwhelming majority of their public, I'd say the govt have righted a wrong. The council threw out the application correctly as it was breaking the law. Swinney has overruled that and is ignoring the law. Whether you agree with the law or not, its still the law. Trump et al could have easily moved a couple of holes South out of the SSSI and not had any of this problem...but for some reason they wouldn't budge one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizer Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 breaking the law? Ok not following guidelines set in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbobaggins Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Guidelines set in law? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil-stellaartois-mcguire Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 guidelines by definition are for guidance. rules are for adherence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fatshaft Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 guidelines by definition are for guidance. rules are for adherence Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizer Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Does this help you guys The law protects the interest features of SSSIs from development, from other damage, and (since 2000) also from neglect. Protection is not necessarily absolute—generally it requires the SSSI interest to be considered properly against other factors. Local planning authorities are required to have policies in their development plans which protect SSSIs. They are then required to consult the appropriate conservation body over planning applications which might affect the interest of an SSSI (such a development might not be within or even close to the SSSI itself). The effect of this is to prevent development which harms the interest—except where the value of that interest is over-ridden by some more important factor, for example a requirement for a major road or port. The requirement for consultation covers any development which might affect the interest, not just developments within the SSSI itself—for example, a development a long way upstream of a wetland SSSI might require consultation. Note that some developments might be neutral or beneficial, even if they are within the SSSI itself—the critical point is whether they harm the interest features. The owners and occupiers of SSSIs are required to consult the appropriate conservation body if they want to carry out (or permit) activities on the land. Activities requiring consultation are listed in the notification, and are called Potentially Damaging Operations (PDOs), or more correctly Operations Likely to Damage the SSSI interest (OLDs)(in Scotland these are known as Operations Requiring Consent - ORCs). In practice, there is a standard list of OLDs which is almost the same for each SSSI—the list for an SSSI will only omit activities impossible on the particular SSSI (such as fishing where there is no water), and things requiring planning permission (which are covered by the local planning authority consultation process). Purely geological SSSIs often have much shorter OLD lists. The OLDs are not "banned" activities—the list includes activities which would damage the interest, but also many which might be beneficial. For example, "grazing" (a standard item on the list) would require consultation, even on a chalk grassland or heathland where grazing is an essential part of management. Not exactly covering the matter but its the best I could find on wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbobaggins Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Protection is not absolute. I stopped there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Good to see the government sticking to their rules and listening to their own civil servants......... Martin Ford can fuck off. Brilliant news that it has finally been approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fatshaft Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Protection is not necessarily absolute—generally it requires the SSSI interest to be considered properly against other factors.Seems like Martin Ford didn't read that bit, but Holyrood has? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caledonia Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I am all for it because of what it will bring to the north east and scotland Maybe aberdeen should try and get Donald Trump to sponsor them in some form or other as he has plenty cash. And lets face it Stewart Milne will do little is he is a tight fisted arse.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownyBrown Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 ^ Oh for god sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizer Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Seems like Martin Ford didn't read that bit, but Holyrood has? Nothing like a witch hunt is there......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
️ Come on you Reds! 
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.