Breaking News - New Stadium and Training Facilities

[notinmyname]

So you're all for it and that's fair enough. There is a lot of passionate dons fans out there. But here's the thing.
If you are employed by ACC in the planning department, and you are in complete command if your remit and have a fundamental and deep understanding of the planning laws and standards - you are now expected to 'waive' the green belt issue ( as enshrined in your organisation's long term planning lookahead document) because the people currently running the local football club really want another football stadium. Are these professional guys just supposed to openly contravene Scottish government policy and push it through?

I WOULD APPRECIATE IF SOMEONE IN THE 'PRO' CAMP COULD GET BACK TO ME ON THIS AND PROVIDE ME WITH REASONS WHY THE COUNCIL ARE TO GOING TO GO AGAINST THEIR OWN GUIDANCE AND POLICY DOCUMENT.

...because it is a high profile project and rather than behaving like it's a reality show, they will be have been working with the club. Guindance is just that and policy exists within a political realm and is therefore subject to compromise / change... it's more unprofessional to be a rigid jobsworth I'd say. Everyone has views I guess...

[Leopardman1983]

...because it is a high profile project and rather than behaving like it's a reality show, they will be have been working with the club. Guindance is just that and policy exists within a political realm and is therefore subject to compromise / change... it's more unprofessional to be a rigid jobsworth I'd say. Everyone has views I guess...

Yes true.
I don't envy them.

[afc1903mad]

Westhill (Arnhall etc) is in the shire. Prime4 was never City greenbelt - so those precedents don't stand up to scrutiny.

I believed Prime 4 was Greenbelt as designated as the area betweenWesthill and Kingswells.
This was to safeguard the spread of residential properties from the City to the Shire.
Time changes, The AWPR goes through the Greenbelt as was Prime 4.

Putting in the stadium still maintains a sustained gap between the city and shire residential properties.
I hope they take this into consideration when they approve the plans.

#AllForAurora

[LED]

It's not about aesthetics. There are rules regarding building on green belt land. I am against this location, and I'm not from westhill. I am genuinely interested in how you think the planning committee are going to address this issue.

Yes there are rules but it cleary states in the scottish office policy document that if no other suitable site can be found for a development such as something of national importance ( and you could cleary make a case that afc are creating one of the best sporting complexes in scotland) then planning consent should be considered.

You can find this document at the scottish parliment website.

[LED]

I should add that jusst because land is greenbelt it does NOT mean nothing can be built on it. Greenbelt land is there to shape planning decisions. Greenbelt can also be designated as brownfield if it is felt that there is no other suitable areas for development. The present local plan for the city had greenfield areas turned to brownfield at the last minute.

[Mek]

So you're all for it and that's fair enough. There is a lot of passionate dons fans out there. But here's the thing.
If you are employed by ACC in the planning department, and you are in complete command if your remit and have a fundamental and deep understanding of the planning laws and standards - you are now expected to 'waive' the green belt issue ( as enshrined in your organisation's long term planning lookahead document) because the people currently running the local football club really want another football stadium. Are these professional guys just supposed to openly contravene Scottish government policy and push it through?

I WOULD APPRECIATE IF SOMEONE IN THE 'PRO' CAMP COULD GET BACK TO ME ON THIS AND PROVIDE ME WITH REASONS WHY THE COUNCIL ARE TO GOING TO GO AGAINST THEIR OWN GUIDANCE AND POLICY DOCUMENT.

How much did the allforaurora.com website cost you and who filled it with all the lies?

At least try to be truthful when campaigning against these facilities for the North East.

[Leopardman1983]

How much did the allforaurora.com website cost you and who filled it with all the lies?

At least try to be truthful when campaigning against these facilities for the North East.

What?🤔

[notinmyname]

Yes true.
I don't envy them.

...sorry I think you maybe mis-understood my point. if I were in the planning dept. i think that working on a high profile project that brings benefits to the region, and where you can to consult and advise with the applicant, whilst interpreting complex and overlapping issues of policy and guidance. - well surely that is why you do that job? (rather than signing off an extension....). And in taking on that role they are showing high degrees of professionalism rather than being forced to compromise...

[fatshaft]

So you're all for it and that's fair enough. There is a lot of passionate dons fans out there. But here's the thing.
If you are employed by ACC in the planning department, and you are in complete command if your remit and have a fundamental and deep understanding of the planning laws and standards - you are now expected to 'waive' the green belt issue ( as enshrined in your organisation's long term planning lookahead document) because the people currently running the local football club really want another football stadium. Are these professional guys just supposed to openly contravene Scottish government policy and push it through?

I WOULD APPRECIATE IF SOMEONE IN THE 'PRO' CAMP COULD GET BACK TO ME ON THIS AND PROVIDE ME WITH REASONS WHY THE COUNCIL ARE TO GOING TO GO AGAINST THEIR OWN GUIDANCE AND POLICY DOCUMENT.

William Lippe posted on the Westhill FOR Kingsford page (or the Kingswells one) explaining that, and quite simply, when a major project comes before the planners, they can over-ride the LDP if it's in the local interest.

[Getintaethem]

William Lippe posted on the Westhill FOR Kingsford page (or the Kingswells one) explaining that, and quite simply, when a major project comes before the planners, they can over-ride the LDP if it's in the local interest.

Which one is more likely? The LDP should never be changed OR the LDP is a plan, not a policy and can change based on new information or changes in circumstances.

The westhilliers would have you believe that if it is not in the Local Development Plan then it should not happen. But, just look at HS2. Not in any local authority LDP.

If this is the best the westhilliers can come up with, then they are doomed. Good.

The reality is the LDP is open to consultation. However, so is this planning application and therefore the westhilliers can make their case (however bad) against it.