A case of karma before the storm?

First topic message reminder :

So then, Trump finally finds himself potentially on the receiving end, so to speak ...

http://news.scotsman.com/aberdeen/Donald-Trump-takes-a-swing.6836555.jp

Unfortunately, the karma bit could be short-lived because I seem to recall Trump threatening to withdraw his act of vandalism because of plans to build a wind farm off (another part of?) the Aberdeen coastline. Now, I don't exactly know what transpired or how the issue to not proceed with the original wind farm off the Aberdeen coast was resolved but, presumably, Trump must have been given assurances it wasn't going to go ahead or he wouldn't have proceeded with his act of vandalism?

I can certainly see his point. I wouldn't want to see to those ugly things pollute my view and pay mega bucks for a house in a gated community not to mention £200 for a round of golf for the privilege.

If indeed he had been given assurances that no wind farm would be built within 'eye polluting' range, surely he will sue ... either Abderdeenshire Council, Scotland or both! When all said and done, the course is now built and he has already spent millions on it so there's no going back.

I guess it will all come out in the small print. Donald, dear, you did get it in writing ... didn't you?

oldparwin wrote:The main Buckie area is my old part of the country Coatbridge at a recent visit to Buckfast Abbey, one of the monks almost confirmed that they shipped more to that area than any other

Me personally cant stand it.

I absolutely love it, and live close to Buckfast Abbey, I was like Rab C Nesbitt and Jamsey when I took my brother to see it a few months ago.

I made a soverign ring out of a bottle top and it is one of my most prised posessions that will be passsed down to my son on his 15th Birthday.

I also nearly crashed my car one morning taking a photo of a buckfast tanker lorry on the motorway

This debate really does makes me chuckle; these developments are all subject to the formal planning process and at the end of the day go before the representatives of the local area, region and, in some cases where there is a national interest or policy, Government. Objections and support will be made from interested parties from a range of groups and individuals and as part of the process they will be considered. Of course, Mr. Trump is going to object and try to put his considerable weight behind such an objection but he will have no more or less influence than anyone else, including the objectors to his own 'Trumptown' development.

As long as it follows the policies determined by those elected to represent the electorate/constituency the local planning authority would have great difficulty and very expensive liability issues should they go against these policies. A case of trump being trumped I feel. Hypocrisy in action - marvellous.


Ironic int it!

McLaren wrote:Mav

I do not really need to prove the status quo scenario do i. But either way I think you should stop throwing around claims of great economic benefit without having any facts at hand.

If such a report exists it may well prove me wrong, so please I ask again where you are getting your evidence?

I seem to remember old LJ had similar issues with assuming his opinion was proven to be factual.

Mac I have just had to pick myself up off the floor at laughing at your argument over the status quo. From what your saying I have to prove the economic growth this may produce but you do not have to prove it will not do so....

So to ask me where i'm getting my evidence, where are you getting yours could equally be argued. Do you honestly think planning permission for this would have been given without a proper remit and DT giving evidence to the local commisions and governments that it's not going to help local economic growth so if you want your evidence pop down to whichever is the local records office and you can find it for yourself but as i;m not a local to Scotland much harder for me to do...

And where did I say my opnion was fact........ Oh thats right i didn't

drive4show wrote:No, pic isn't showing, maybe one of the mods can help you post it? Would be good to see it

Commiserations on a poor day, still great to play those big courses though.

i have PM'd Mav hopefully this he can show me how to do it

one more try:
https://picasaweb.google.com/117651297299877988508/20110909AllianceHealthCareGOTY?authkey=Gv1sRgCPzu8pqXh932JA&feat=email

I am the bald guy without a hat in navy Galvin green wind top

Mac, care to show me anything which shows that the setting up of any large amenity doesn't benefit the local economy? Look at what Castle Stewart and Kingsbarns has done for the local economy.


To suggest that Trump is the only person to benefit is complete madness. Also unlike you, i've been on the site several times.

Why else would the council allow it to be built if there wasn't going to be a great economic benefit. You'll be saying the oil industry has done nothing to enhance the local economy of the old fishing port of Aberdeen soon.

Could you be any more moronic and myopic. We get that you don't like Trump (who does) but be realistic. Any development that is worth $750m is going to bring in a lot of money locally, you'd be retarded to think otherwise.

super_realist wrote:Gael, you don't understand psammoseres do you? They are all mobile until the vegetation becomes mature enough, whereupon that area becomes stable. Whether this is natural or artifically done is irrelevant. Once there is a golf course on it, those parts that are vegetated are no longer motile.
Trumps course will not be engulfed by a marauding mobile dune.

You just need to look at St.Andrews for that. The non golf course areas change year on year, the golf courses hardly change at all.

S_R ... links courses tend to be built beside dunes (as is the case with the St. Andrews courses) not on top of them.

The only reason I suggested such a scenario was because the vandals had been experiencing problems with the turf proving difficult to 'take'. It peaked my curiosity because I had previsouly read an article stating it was a theoretical possibility there could be such problems in siting a golf course on top of a mobile dune.

Of course, only time will tell.

Gael, come on. As you probably know dunes grow outwards towards the sea, meaning that the courses appear further away from the MHW (mean high water). 100 years ago the courses would have been much closer to the sea.
You just need to look at courses like The Jubilee and Dornoch (lower part) to see that they have been built amongst the dunes. The sandy soil is proof of that.

Super

I concede you are obviously of a much higher intellect than me as I cannot compute in my head the impacts of a major project in my head with no facts or figures, or in your case an understanding of economics. So well done mate.

Mac, it's really very simple. If someone puts in 3/4 of a billion. How can you argue it won't benefit the local economy. I could go into detail about how it would if you like.

Ok a Golf Course with Hotel & 1500 houses may bring a bit to the area, but possibly not as much as a poundland !!

Super

Of course instinct says it might, but without a proper analysis how can you know for sure. Then in reality any number of interactions you did not even consider may not turn out to be good, or some things may not produce positive results in all time periods.

But hey if you think you can explain it got ahead.

super_realist wrote:Gael, come on. As you probably know dunes grow outwards towards the sea, meaning that the courses appear further away from the MHW (mean high water). 100 years ago the courses would have been much closer to the sea.
You just need to look at courses like The Jubilee and Dornoch (lower part) to see that they have been built amongst the dunes. The sandy soil is proof of that.

It doesn't alter the fact they weren't built on top of those dunes.

This is taken from the St. Andrews Links Trust website ...

"As the 600 year history of the Links has unfolded, one simple track hacked through the bushes and heather has developed into six public golf courses ..."

Perhaps not as close as you think.

Mac, are you really that naive. Let's just look at it from a construction point of view. Now I don't know if you've ever been involved with an engineering project, but I have many times.

Just to set up the site office requires the hire of a portacabin/s, then you need a toilet and someone to come round and empty it and refuel the cabin generator.
Then you need Heras fencing and H&S signage around the site. Presumably you'll need security guards and banksmen too.
You'll need to hire earth moving equipment and people to operate them. Also these will need to be fuelled.
Of course this is going to come from a local source as you can't import it all from Poland, therefore just to set up the site before you've even put a spade in the ground you have to invest heavily in the local economy.

Raw materials need to fit in with the surroundings. So stone is probably going to come from Leiths quarry at Cove or perhaps the one at Rubieslaw, extra work for the local employees which in turn recirculates in the economy.
You'll need tons of grass seed that can grow on the area? Where is that going to come from.

So just looking at the initial stage it seems Mac that there is a heavily reliance on local trade and the benefits are mutual.

Once it's complete people need a place to stay so local hotels will benefit, they need to eat so will spend money in town.
The laundries, meat suppliers, drinks, food, etc all benefit from an increase in trade.

I struggle how you fail to realise that it is of great benefit. I haven't even touched on the local employment it will generate.

Perhaps with your superior knowledge you can demonstrate exactly how it won't benefit the local economy seeing as you seem so sure.

Gael, the ground on which they are built ARE the mature dunes where organic matter has got to such a level where gorse and heather are able to grow. The dunes you are talking about are the embryo dunes, fore and intermediate dunes, but make no mistake the courses are built on and not beside the dune system, just a different stage of maturity.
Those embyo, fore and intermediate dunes imediately east of the jubillee will in time become more mature if allowed, and will gain enough organic matter so that in time bushes and heather and even birch trees could get a hold. It's quite conceivable that in another 3-400 hundred years there is enough ground to build another course on. After all, this area around the North Coast of Fife is the fastest aggrading area of coastline in the UK.

Dig down a few feet and you'll see. In fact just the other week I was on the Old and behind the 11th tee they've dug down a few feet to excavate some sand and clear excessive gorse from the area. All they've had to do is strip off the mature layer of soil and take the sand out. They are literally on top of the dune, just not the commonly perceived idea of a dune.

Super

You are looking at an economy as if it is a business.

How wonderful it would be if life was as simple as your little analysis above.

Actually no, it is good that reality is a little more complex than that.

Trump received promises there would be no wind farm from the previous adminstration? A few spoken promises and letters wont really cut it surely. It really would be a case of karma if the windfarm plans 'bulldoze' through any of Trumps rejections. And I was pretty much for the course to begin with. There are processes to go through when building on SSSI and as long as they were followed then I suppose we cant complain too much. People get moved by compulsary purchase all the time so I worry less about them!

As much as I don't think wind turbines are there yet I dont see them as a big eyesore as many. I think they are quite an impressive site and a sign of mans motivation to improve but, unlike the installation, the innovation isnt quite there yet with turbines functionality. They tick a few political boxes and make a few folk rich but thats about it for now.

I think a bunch of rich Americans would actually be quite interested in the turbines anyway...

With major development proposals the developer (s) will, as a matter of course, be required to submit:

Economic Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment
Transport Impact Assessment

These are generally made available to the public during the planning process either online through thier websites or by request but some LA's do charge.

Mac, you are making no sense. You still haven't explained why this is bad for the economy, care to enlighten us. After all you've informed us you read The Economist so presumably you know everything about why £750m developments do nothing for local economies.

I'd be interested to know what you do for a living by the way, if indeed you actually work.

It is easy to make little stories that sound convincing. Imagine the local quarry does do quite well from supplying trump with some raw materials. The profits for the quarry are good and so they make an investment in machinery, from a US firm, which allows for more automation. 50 workers are now looking for work, but hey lucky them they can get a job washing pots or changing bed sheets in trumps hotel. Sadly the wages are not quite so good in kingdom trump and these guys families start to struggle. They don’t for obvious reasons spend so much locally, in fact they spend less and save less full stop.

The quarry however is doing better than ever and the top execs and banks who invested in them are doing rather fine. Even at quarry HQ back in London some more management types are hired just to make sure this new cash is spent well. This helps the local economy how?

Well you may argue that the quarry pays more taxes, but given Aberdeen is not particularly deprived all that happens is a transfer to poorer areas. Not bad, but not exactly the great for the local economy story you told.

All that has happened is the bank of trump has transferred some dough from his pockets to those of the quarry execs, who then buy a home on trumps estate. Win win, right super?

Now back to the poor fellows who lost their jobs, well its not that bad actually as they managed to buy houses while the times were good. Oh Poopie though, they are now in negative equity and unable to meet mortgage repayments.

Now this may sound a lot like bull, hell it is, but so was the rubbish that you came out with.

Mac, you are clearly incredibly naive. Quarry working is about as machinery heavy as it can be. Do you think there are guys there with picks and shovels?
If the quarry expands with new workforce as you suggest then there will be a requirement for housing. Plus more people around to use local services. Who say's they'll buy a Trump home.

The way you talk it seems that you believe that every foreign investment in an area is bad for the local economy. You are a naive fool Mac.

So have BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Marathon, Subsea 7, OHM, etc etc been bad for the local economy, or have they helped transform a dying fishing village into a thriving city?
Trumps development is just another cog in that wheel of inward investment.

Still haven't told us what you do for a living.

As I said it was bull, I dont believe that but it shows how you can spin little tales without really using any evidence. The very thing I asked Mav for.

I was not even trying to be difficult I was just interested in the economic aspect of the case.

But if this does not exist I cannot see how we can even begin to imagine what the impacts might be.

As for what I do, how does that matter?

If you really want to know I will tell you.

McLaren wrote:As I said it was bull, I dont believe that but it shows how you can spin little tales without really using any evidence. The very thing I asked Mav for.

I was not even trying to be difficult I was just interested in the economic aspect of the case.

But if this does not exist I cannot see how we can even begin to imagine what the impacts might be.

As for what I do, how does that matter?

If you really want to know I will tell you.

Mac, i wasn't spinning tales. That's what happens when you develop on such a scale. Of course I can't put a figure on it, as I'm not an economist, I just can't understand how you can say it won't be of benefit to the local economy. What you are suggessting is communist economics and if we all thought as negatively as you no one would ever build or develo anything and we'd all be forced to join municipals and get our golf balls from jumble sales.

So what do you do then that qualifies you to know so little about the economy?

Super

I come from a maths/statistics/economics background so coming up with such grand theories without numbers to back you up is just alien to me. There are always surprises in proper analysis so just don't see why you are so sure.

I wonder how Doak rates holes with windmills

I think there is a hole on NGLA with a windmill, that course scored a ten I think.

You mean you did something like that at University? What do you actually do with a job.

Funny then that you criticise me and Mav for not backing up theories with figures when you don't provide any yourself.

Even political disasters like the SCottish Parliament and Edinburgh Tram fiasco have benefited local economies. How can you claim Trumps course wouldn't also.

I continue to work in that area.

I am not saying it wont provide economic benefit I just want to see the evidence one way or another.

How for example did they put a cost on the destruction of an SSSI, that is something that should be of interest to us all. The last time I looked the valuing of areas of natural beauty was difficult and not well understood. Even a large well funded case like the exxon valdex law suite could not nail it.

super_realist wrote:Gael, the ground on which they are built ARE the mature dunes where organic matter has got to such a level where gorse and heather are able to grow. The dunes you are talking about are the embryo dunes, fore and intermediate dunes, but make no mistake the courses are built on and not beside the dune system, just a different stage of maturity.
Those embyo, fore and intermediate dunes imediately east of the jubillee will in time become more mature if allowed, and will gain enough organic matter so that in time bushes and heather and even birch trees could get a hold. It's quite conceivable that in another 3-400 hundred years there is enough ground to build another course on. After all, this area around the North Coast of Fife is the fastest aggrading area of coastline in the UK.

Dig down a few feet and you'll see. In fact just the other week I was on the Old and behind the 11th tee they've dug down a few feet to excavate some sand and clear excessive gorse from the area. All they've had to do is strip off the mature layer of soil and take the sand out. They are literally on top of the dune, just not the commonly perceived idea of a dune.

The point is the courses were built on land that had already been stabilised and not, as is the case with Menie, right on top of what is an actively mobile dune.

I daresay you will come up with a link to prove me wrong but the remaining (noticeable) St. Andrews dunes (lining the beach) were very much larger when I played on them as a child and, no, it's not a case of mistaken perception on account of the fact I was shorter! Besides which, didn't they have to plant marram grass on top of transplanted sand to shore up the eroded Old Course end of the West Sands just a couple of years or so ago? There is also an ongoing problem with coastal erosion in the Eden Estuary. In, short, aggradation is no match for rising sea levels!

Gael, The erosion of the Eden Estuary is different from the aggradation of the dunes.
For starters there has been no appreciable rise in sea level in you or I's lifetime in this area. Secondly the erosion of the Eden Estuary is not related to the sediment transport system of the west sands as erosion in that area is due to the changing weather, wind and wave patterns. The greatest source of sediment along the West sands, comes not from the Eden estuary, but from the North.
Erosion of your childhood dunes is purely anthropogenic especially near the golf courses, although the further you head out to the point at the 8th/9th of the Jubilee, the lesser the impact and the larger the area of the mature dunes.
That is to say that it is people's feet that have eroded the vegetation causing sand to be lost in that locale, however around the rest of the area the dunes continue to grow outward and the stability of the dunes is greater, the vegetation more mature because it isn't being worn away by the Tabitha's and Perrin's of StAndrews University Picnic Club.
Beach management to control this erosion has come rather too late and they really need to fence the area off completely to allow it to recover. The duck board pathways go someway to controlling the traffic but don't go far enough.

Just so you know the last project i worked on in my previous job was coastal defences in the Tay estuary.

Super

Sounds like very interesting work. I noticed they were putting up more fencing on the dunes near the new/jubilee car park when I was there the other day. Does that mean things are getting worse or is it just to renew the fencing?

Imagine TOC fell into the see, now that would be an economic disaster.

McLaren wrote:
Imagine TOC fell into the see, now that would be an economic disaster.

More like good riddance to a pretty poor golf course... and would create a space on the open rota for a decent links

Given the amount of time they spend on here every day arguing I'm just shocked to realise that Mac and Super probably dont work in IT

Whilst I take on Mac's warnings about having proper analysis I think any money coming into this country is a good thing right now. Particularly on such a construction project. Who did the construction work though?

Mac, Take it from me the erosion is not an issue anymore (or at least not for 30 or so years) due to the type of defence they have put up. In any event the 4th of the Eden and 8th of Jubilee are the holes most likely to be affected. I wouldn't have chosen the type of defence they did, but it was cheaper and less intrusive than what would be better in the long term

Since you were last at the Jub Mac, they've closed the big area up by the 9th, which is now a mature meadow. I anticipate considerable aggradation here in the dune area due to the marine source and frequent easterlies, with further protection afforded to this potentially vulnerable point, should weather patterns change, defences might have to be extended, but not increased in height.

"Erosion of your childhood dunes is purely anthropogenic"

Oh aye, so it's my fault they're half the size they used to be!

Anyway, we haven't got any further with what Trump's next move is likely to be. If he doesn't get his way, will he sue? Even without anything in writing, he did make it very clear via the media that he wouldn't go forward with his act of vandalism if an 'eye pulluting' off-shore wind farm was built.

Gael, there is also more sand on the beach, giving the impression that the dunes are lower.
As for trump course, I personally don't have a problem with how a turbine looks, despite them being woefully inefficient, they are quite elegant. Certainly less intrusive and ghastly than aberdeens multi storey blocks which loom on the horizon from royal aberdeen.

Would love to see Trump and Salmond in a court of law, arguing who's ego was the biggest, but I doubt if that would happen, Trump will not go before the courts, in case a lot of shady deals might raise their ugly heads, and the same will apply to Salmond, so I would imagine between the 2 wheeler dealers some deal would be reached: Arise Sir Donald Trump or something like that

I do wonder how much of the resistance to this development is actually anti development or just anti-Trump dressed up as anti-development. I mean, if say the idea had been Arnie's or even Seve's would there have been the same resistance?? Also... let's take the SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest?). Before Trump first indicated he wanted to build his development there...were there busloads of people saying "Oh lets go and have a day out at the sssi just north of Aberdeen, it's a really interesting day out"...I would suspect not so to trot it out now is desparate nonsense!!

Quite frankly Aberdonians don't deserve any economic benefit from it if it comes. What he actually should have done was buy Dondonald Links in Ayrshire and put a new 2nd Course and hotel on the land there (there's plenty of room).

JAS wrote:I do wonder how much of the resistance to this development is actually anti development or just anti-Trump dressed up as anti-development. I mean, if say the idea had been Arnie's or even Seve's would there have been the same resistance?? Also... let's take the SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest?). Before Trump first indicated he wanted to build his development there...were there busloads of people saying "Oh lets go and have a day out at the sssi just north of Aberdeen, it's a really interesting day out"...I would suspect not so to trot it out now is desparate nonsense!!

Quite frankly Aberdonians don't deserve any economic benefit from it if it comes. What he actually should have done was buy Dondonald Links in Ayrshire and put a new 2nd Course and hotel on the land there (there's plenty of room).

Clearly to explain that? The vast majority of people up here wanted Trump to build the course. Im pretty sure that most of the people complaining were actually people who had moved up here from elsewhere.

Re employment and economic benefit, yes it should help Eastern Europe and Australia quite a bit.

Dr Peeps is the only one to nail this post.
What on earth are they doing to even consider a windfarm off Aberdeen bay.

I am surrounded by windfarms and I quite like them,
They produce over 30% of Scottish leccy now.

On a semi serious note I would like to see them in mixed pastel colours.

Sand wrote:

JAS wrote:I do wonder how much of the resistance to this development is actually anti development or just anti-Trump dressed up as anti-development. I mean, if say the idea had been Arnie's or even Seve's would there have been the same resistance?? Also... let's take the SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest?). Before Trump first indicated he wanted to build his development there...were there busloads of people saying "Oh lets go and have a day out at the sssi just north of Aberdeen, it's a really interesting day out"...I would suspect not so to trot it out now is desparate nonsense!!

Quite frankly Aberdonians don't deserve any economic benefit from it if it comes. What he actually should have done was buy Dondonald Links in Ayrshire and put a new 2nd Course and hotel on the land there (there's plenty of room).

Clearly to explain that? The vast majority of people up here wanted Trump to build the course. Im pretty sure that most of the people complaining were actually people who had moved up here from elsewhere.

Now that wouldn't surprise me Sand...maybe I was a bit harsh in lumping all Aberdonians into the NIMBY category.

Doon?

"On a semi serious note I would like to see them in mixed pastel colours."

Have you been in the Abbotsford this afternoon??

Jas

Any landscape architect will till you if you want to hide something into the countryside you paint it black. I think that the white of the windmills show up too much. I can understand the 'cloud' argument to make it grey/white but it does not seem to work.

Lairdy wrote:Trump received promises there would be no wind farm from the previous adminstration? A few spoken promises and letters wont really cut it surely. It really would be a case of karma if the windfarm plans 'bulldoze' through any of Trumps rejections. And I was pretty much for the course to begin with. There are processes to go through when building on SSSI and as long as they were followed then I suppose we cant complain too much. People get moved by compulsary purchase all the time so I worry less about them!

As much as I don't think wind turbines are there yet I dont see them as a big eyesore as many. I think they are quite an impressive site and a sign of mans motivation to improve but, unlike the installation, the innovation isnt quite there yet with turbines functionality. They tick a few political boxes and make a few folk rich but thats about it for now.

I think a bunch of rich Americans would actually be quite interested in the turbines anyway...

I would be interested to know your theory on exactly how Aberdeenshire Council (having overturned the sub-committee's recommendations not to build on the SSSI) justified this by allowing part of this rare mobile dune to be stabilised.

As for cpos, Trump has gone on record as stating he will not apply for them to remove the homeowners. Twould have been interesting though to see which way those councillors would have jumped had they been put on the spot for, had they approved them, I think this would have resulted in a precedent being set as it would have been the first time (in Scotland?/UK?) that folk had been thrown out of their homes to benefit a private developer.

Wee Eck is obsessed with renewable energy and he doesn't care if he destroys the tourist industry in the process. But, if it came to a choice between land or off-shore wind farms then I would prefer them to be off-shore on the basis that the wind is less likely to drop at sea than on the mainland. Does anyone remember last winter when it became so cold that Scotland was effectively becalmed for weeks. Nae wind ... nae power!

There is another problem. More pylons will be needed to serve the output from those wind farms which means yet more of the landscape will be blighted. Scotland has already kicked into touch running the cables underground on cost grounds. England is now faced with having to take a decision on this as well.

Innovation has become the norm in this high tech era. I don't think we would have had to have waited too long for alternative and more aesthetically pleasing alternatives to be created. For example, the development of wave power is evolving every day. Unfortunately for Scotland, wee Eck has an oversized ego to feed and sees himself as some kind of EU green energy messiah ...

http://www.sdi.co.uk/news/2011/05/scotland-to-become-the-green-energy-powerhouse-of-europe.aspx

... sacrificing on the altar of his own impatience, Scotland's beauty in the process.

oldparwin wrote:Arise Sir Donald Trump or something like that

"We are not amused"!

JAS wrote:I do wonder how much of the resistance to this development is actually anti development or just anti-Trump dressed up as anti-development. I mean, if say the idea had been Arnie's or even Seve's would there have been the same resistance?? Also... let's take the SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest?). Before Trump first indicated he wanted to build his development there...were there busloads of people saying "Oh lets go and have a day out at the sssi just north of Aberdeen, it's a really interesting day out"...I would suspect not so to trot it out now is desparate nonsense!!

Not everything in this life that is worth preserving has to be a tourist destination or, for that matter, a bleedin' golf course, does it?

Assessment of the Geomorphological Interests at Foveran Links SSSI
Commissioned Report No. 232 (ROAME No. F05AC701) Contractor: University of Glasgow Year of publication: 2007
Background
Foveran Links SSSI contains a remarkable collection of blown sand landforms, comprising Foveran Links, Drums Links and Menie Links. The purpose of this study is to identify and assess these landforms and to evaluate their geomorphological significance at a regional, Scottish and Great Britain level. This assessment is placed in the context of the Geological Conservation Review (GCR), the process through which the most important earth science sites are identified for conservation purposes in Great Britain. Currently, the northern part of Foveran Links SSSI is recognised as an integral part of the nationally important Forvie GCR site to the north. The southern part has not previously been assessed.
Main findings
1. Together, the dune systems of Foveran Links SSSI are of great scientific and natural heritage interest and represent a valuable geomorphological asset.
2. The most striking feature at Menie Links in the southern part of Foveran Links SSSI is a large unvegetated sand sheet complex, over 600m long and over 400m wide. This vast sand sheet has remained active for most of the 20th century.
3. Menie Links are nationally (and probably internationally) unique on account of the scale and dynamism of the sand sheet, the rate of inundation of adjacent dune features and the lack of human interference. It is one of the least disturbed sand dune systems in Britain. One notable element is the long-lived nature of the bare sheet of sand that dominates the area. The lack of vegetation colonisation suggests a vigorous aeolian environment hostile to the establishment of pioneer species and dune grasses that flourish on adjacent dunes.
4. Amongst the very small number of comparable dune sites containing sand sheets in Scotland and elsewhere in Great Britain, the undisturbed sand sheet at Menie Links is the most extensive, dynamic and demonstrably systematic in its mode of transit of any such feature. Furthermore, in view of the relatively unique north-west European context of the north-east coast of Scotland, the Menie sand sheet is also of great interest and scientific value in an international context.
5. The southern part of Foveran Links SSSI, and Menie Links in particular, should be fully recognised as a GCR site in its own right.

For further information on this project contact:
Alistair Rennie, Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Inverness IV3 8NW Tel: 01463–725000
For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact: The Advisory Services Co-ordination Group, SNH, 2 Anderson Place, Edinburgh EH6 5NP. Tel: 0131–

Quite frankly Aberdonians don't deserve any economic benefit from it if it comes. What he actually should have done was buy Dondonald Links in Ayrshire and put a new 2nd Course and hotel on the land there (there's plenty of room).

I suppose it is possible he took a peek but, if he did, was probably put off by yon eyesore of a factory.

Gael

Thank you for that post, I hope super as a man employed in the industry will admit his error in claiming that these dunes were so common that destroying them was of no consequence.

What a surprise that it comes from SNH. A particularly tiresome organisation that are incredibly difficult to deal with.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about a few dunes. He isn't even bulldozing them, just creating a golf course amongst them. There are bigger things to worry yourself about.

English heritage ,National trust,Woodland trust,CPRE,National Forest,all have a tendancy to say NO.
SNH were hardly likely to say 'Its just a few piles of sand blown onto the coastline'

Gael
Really interesting post.

I would imagine Gullane sands would have been recognised as a shifting dune in the 1950's. There was an area of unvegitated shifting sand much larger than para2 of that report
Trouble was that most of the sand was shifting onto the bottom end of Muirfield.

I think it was SNC who stabalised the sand and built up the dunes much closer to the sea edge. This involved a lot of work and expense over many years.

The results 50 years later is quite splendid IMO and the finished area of approx 2 sq miles works well for species count and of course the many folk who use the beach. Footfall is well channeled onto the now normal looking crescent of the beach front. I would say that 90% of the area is unkept and looks natural.

Doon

I often go to gullane beach and enjoy the walk east along the coast from there to some of the quieter beaches towards North Berwick. I did not know the landscape was the result of stabalising the dunes. The dunes behind the main beach at gullane are huge, there are also the ones sort of back towards the city from the gullane golf courses where the bird sanctuary walk is. It is so windy out that way.