Jump to content

Next Match:

Scottish Premiership: St Mirren v Aberdeen

Stand Free!

x


Jagerdeen
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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  :thumbsup:

 

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. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fatshaft

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fatshaft
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...