Jan 2006 Newsletter2

THE MILLTIMBER WPR ACTION GROUP

CHALLENGING THE ABERDEEN WESTERN PERIPHERAL ROAD ("AWPR")

Dear Milltimber resident

THE ABERDEEN WESTERN PERIPHERAL ROAD ("AWPR")

Most of you will be aware that the Scottish Executive announced that the Milltimber Brae route is the preferred option for the AWPR. Several Milltimber residents have been working hard over the last few weeks to investigate the situation and consider various options that may be open to us to protect our interests.

Following some initial neighbourhood meetings, a Milltimber AWPR Action Group has been formed with a view to planning, co-coordinating and actioning activities from a local perspective.

The purpose of this letter is to communicate with as many local residents as possible and to explain our understanding of the current position.

THE CURRENT ROUTE IS INDICATIVE ONLY

Many of you will have attended the roadshows held as part of the consultation process in spring 2005. The Milltimber Brae route which was publicised then has been wrongly interpreted by the local press and many local people as being the definitive route for the AWPR. The Scottish Executive has announced only that the preferred route for the AWPR will be a combination of the Milltimber Brae route and the Stonehaven Spur. The map published by the Scottish Executive and reproduced many times in the local press is Indicative Only. The preferred alignment within a corridor between Peterculter and Milltimber will only become clear some time in late 2006 when the AWPR roads team has completed detailed route assessments, ground investigation, topographical surveys, environmental impact assessments etc.

Other affected parties in the corridor may seek to lobby hard for the road to be moved East or West of the indicative route. At this stage it is conceivable that the route ultimately selected could be anywhere between Binghill Road (Tor na Dee) and the Eastern boundary of Peterculter (BP Garage). This was confirmed by a member of the AWPR team at a recent meeting with some residents. The AWPR may therefore impact many more people or many different people than is currently envisaged.

WHY HAS THIS ROUTE BEEN SELECTED?

Many people who have investigated this have come to the view that the decision process resulting in the Minister’s announcement has been badly flawed. The Murtle Route, which has, for many years had the backing of Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council was abandoned, we believe, as a direct result of the Save Camphill Campaign which threatened legal action (including the European Court of Human Rights). After the consultation process the Milltimber route was selected largely because it received a much lower number of objections than the four other southern options. Peterculter Golf Club alone raised 500 individual objections against the Peterculter route all of which were taken into account by the Scottish Executive.

Incredibly 70% of the objections received in relation to the Murtle Route were not from Aberdeen postcodes.

Equally remarkable is the fact that of all the responses received that indicated a preference for any route only 4% selected Milltimber Brae (compared with 40% for Murtle and 42% for the two routes West of Peterculter).

We must accept a degree of indifference shown by Milltimber in 2005 has cost us. Let’s make absolutely sure that our voice is heard this time.

THE PROCESS FROM NOW ON

The AWPR roads team has now started an engineering process to assess various detailed route options within the preferred corridor. We understand that a preferred route may be announced in late 2006 together with draft “road orders”. Compulsory purchase orders will be served on relevant parties thereafter. It is anticipated that the various challenges will result in a public enquiry. We must ensure that before such times as a public enquiry takes place we have developed a strong and convincing basis for a challenge against the route.

There is already huge doubt that the decision is the right one for the North East of Scotland:

1. There is an unproven cost/benefit and environmental analysis;

2. The route is too far from the City Centre to relieve traffic congestion;

3. There is a high likelihood of a significant escalation in costs;

4. There was a lack of appropriate analysis and evaluation of the route options before the announcement was made;

5. The Scottish Executive has already spent £11,000,000 on work done to date on the Murtle Route.

LINKS WITH OTHER ACTION GROUPS

Over the last few weeks action groups have been established along much of the Southern section of the AWPR. We are currently in the process of co-ordinating our efforts with the other action groups to ensure we pool resources and work together where appropriate. An Umbrella Group has been formed with involvement of representatives from each individual action group.

POTENTIAL FOR LEGAL ACTION

The Umbrella Group has already appointed a solicitor and QC to review the legal position and consider when and on what basis there may be grounds for a legal challenge.

FINANCIAL PLEDGES

Already over 60 local residents have pledged cash to meet the costs of this initiative and a bank account has been opened for this purpose. It will ultimately cost a great deal of money to run a meaningful campaign. For those of you who have already shown your support in this way – thank you very much.

It will prove immensely valuable if a large number of people agree to contribute financially to this campaign. Attached to this letter is a pledge form. Please consider offering your support in this way.

THE ROLE OF OUR MSP

Nicol Stephen may have a significant role to play in any final outcome. As many of you will know he was the Scottish Transport Minister at the time the AWPR was first approved. At that time the Murtle Route was widely anticipated to be the preferred route and was in fact the only route that has been subject to any site work and detailed surveying. The intense lobbying by Camphill resulted in Nicol making the decision in early 2005 to open this up to consultation along with four other options including the so called Milltimber Brae route. Tavish Scott succeeded Nicol Stephen as the Scottish Transport Minister in June 2005 and it fell to Mr Scott to make a decision on the preferred route in November 2005.

Nicol has apparently stated that he made the personal decision that he would play no role in the route selection in order that he could focus his efforts on protecting those of his constituents who would be most affected. A very large number of Nicol’s constituents and voters will be directly affected by the route.

Mike Rumbles, the MSP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, has already been very active and vocal in his challenge of the decision. We should expect nothing less from Nicol Stephen.

Many local people have met or corresponded with Nicol in recent weeks. He is willing to listen and has given assurances that he will lobby Tavish Scott with any properly considered, consensus views. We would encourage anyone who feels strongly about the AWPR to make their views known as soon as possible to Nicol. His contact details are as follows:

Nicol Stephen MSP
173 Crown Street

Aberdeen

AB11 6JA
Tel: 01224 252728
Fax: 01224 590926
Email: mailto: Nichol.Stephen.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

You may want to make contact with Tavish Scott and his team at the Scottish Executive. We can expect them to take into account the level of public response in any final decision they make. Contact details for Tavish Scott are as follows:

Tavish Scott
Minister for Transport
Victoria Quay
EDINBURGH

EH6 6QQ
Tel: 0131 244 7005
Email: ministerfortransport@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

Many of the Milltimber residents who attended the Spring 2005 consultation agree that this process was misleading. False assurances were provided by many representatives of the Scottish Executive and AWPR Roads Team that the Milltimber Brae route was a very unlikely option based on the limited work done on it to date, the compelling cost/benefit analysis favouring the Murtle and Pitfodels routes and the fact that so many houses would face demolition.

These misrepresentations will have reduced the level of challenge from those on the Milltimber Route and is likely to have given a false impression to the decision makers.

It also appears inconceivable that government ministers can offer 5 routes for consultation (each with a published cost/benefit analysis) and then select a 6th route as their preferred choice.

If you agree with these sentiments we would urge you to raise this with Nicol Stephen and the Scottish Executive.

CAMPHILL

We understand that many Milltimber residents were supportive of Camphill's Campaign to prevent the Murtle Den route being selected. Informal feedback from those who talk to the Scottish Executive has confirmed that it was the very public outcry in support of Camphill and the alleged threat of an entrenched legal challenge that convinced Nicol Stephen to re-open the various other route options and for Tavish Scott to ultimately select Milltimber. We do not wish to reopen the Camphill debate. However many of the people most directly impacted by the Milltimber Brae route have been surprised to learn the following:

1. Camphill own only a small part of the land where the proposed route was to run;

2. The route would have run no closer than 100 metres from the edge of any accommodation at Murtle Estate;

3. The Camphill lobby campaign was significantly strengthened by many influential local people who live close to the proposed Murtle Route and who used the Camphill Campaign to strengthen the defence of their own position. Significant sums (allegedly over £1,000,000) were pledged to support a long legal challenge;

4. There were 31 children in the Murtle Estate at the time of the impact studies in September 2004;

5. Newton Dee villagers comprise 88 people but the western side of the Newton Dee village is over 500 metres from the nearest point on the AWPR Murtle route;

6. Camphill was offered funding to relocate facilities within the existing sites to mitigate any impact but this was declined.

None of these comments are designed to do any more than question why the public debate on the merits of the Murtle route was not a little more balanced. If it had been perhaps Tavish Scott would have reached a different conclusion e.g tunnelling under Camphill.

Camphill, of course, are still likely to be impacted because their Milltimber site sits immediately west of the current Indicative Route. We understand that Camphill is monitoring the situation before making any decision on how active to be in relation to these new proposals.

LIAISON WITH ORGANISATIONS IMPACTED BY THE ROAD

Members of the Action Group are in contact with Camphill, Aberdeen Petroleum Club and the International School to understand their respective positions and to ensure we involve them in this process. At this stage we are very encouraged with the level of access we have had to these organisations and plan to work together to coordinate activities and maximise the resources available.

THE COST OF THE AWPR

If this road is ever built it will not be cheap. Given the limited work actually done to date any initial indication of costs is highly subjective. Initial estimates suggest the road might cost £400,000,000. However several well-informed sources are already predicting this is wildly optimistic and that costs could double. When the concept of the AWPR was first conceived (based on the Murtle route) Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council agreed, between them, to meet 19% of the cost. This presumably seemed justifiable when this was seen as a £120,000,000 project. Given current cost estimates, however, this places a huge financial burden on the local councils and can only lead to unacceptable increases in council taxes in future years.

Tavish Scott’s announcement introduced the concept of a PPP scheme (Public Private Partnership). However the private finance element i.e. the amount not paid by tax payers, is only in relation to the long term maintenance costs of the road – not the £400,000,000 to £800,000,000 capital costs.

PUBLIC MEETING

We have arranged a community meeting for everyone in Milltimber to meet, listen and discuss some of the issues and plans. Several local politicians, including Nicol Stephen, have agreed to attend this event. This meeting will be held at the International School at 7.30 pm on Monday 20th February 2006.

Please make an effort to attend and please encourage other people you know to attend. We must ensure that we all participate in this campaign.

WHAT CAN YOU DO ?

A strong and united challenge from the Milltimber community will be listened to by the Minister. Let's make sure that the majority view gets properly communicated to the decision makers.

If you want to get involved you can:

. Attend the community meeting on 20th February

. Write to Tavish Scott

. Write to or meet with Nicol Stephen

. Pledge financial support to a legal challenge and the campaign in general

. Lobby your neighbours to be proactive

. Write to the local or national press to express your views

. Offer your time and input to support activities of the Action Group

CONTACT DETAILS FOR THE ACTION COMMITEE

A website (this website) has been set up to support this campaign.

www.CampaignOn.com/Milltimber

This website also provides information, links and facilities to help you correspond with our politicians, press and the local community.

In addition a group email address has been created for the Action Committee participants. If you would like to make contact with us please use this email address.

email: Milltimber.WPR@btinternet.com

Thank you.

The Milltimber WPR Action Group

January 2006