Railway Investment Must Be Maintained

An efficient, reliable and quality transport infrastructure is one of the cornerstones of a civilised society and essential for economic growth. The recent pledge by Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, to radically improve the most neglected major railway stations is a welcome sign of a commitment to investing in Britain's rail infrastructure. Adonis recently conducted a tour of the 10 major stations most in need of upgrading as identified in a report for the DfT. Importantly, it was stressed that this will involve not only more reliable timetables and newer trains, but more modern and comfortable stations. If the UK is to meet its ambitious carbon reduction targets, persuading people to switch from their car to the train will be crucial. Other European countries are already well ahead of the UK. In Spain, for example, the report notes that "high speed lines offer consistent world class travel from modern stations to modern trains and regenerated cities". Railway stations are vital transport interchanges, providing access to key retail centres and enabling urban regeneration.

The input of local communities, particularly where there is currently a lack of provision, should be actively encouraged by politicians and planners alike. The key point is that railway stations should not be planned in isolation, but should form part of an integrated strategy incorporating the street networks around the station. They should be pleasant spaces in which to wait, with adequate access to all forms of public convenience. This should form the basis of emerging local development plans, with the overall aim of allowing smaller stations to become safer centres of activity which people will be more inclined to use. Railway stations serve a much greater purpose than merely allowing commuters on and off trains. Amidst all the public sector spending cuts, this Goverment and the next must not forget the important role of the railway infrastructure in promoting sustainable economic growth.

Trump's Golf Plans Hit the Rough

American tycoon Donald Trump's £1 billion plan to build the "world's best golf course" at the Menie Estate north of Aberdeen has caused considerable controversy amongst the planning fraternity and environmental bodies in Scotland. Predictably, opinion is fiercely divided on whether the economic boost to the local economy would be outweighed by the environmental impact. The application was initially backed by Aberdeenshire Council's planning committee, but subsequently refused at the Infrastructure Committee. Incidentally the Head of that Committee, Martin Ford,has since been sacked. The Scottish Government have now announced that there is to be a Public Inquiry to decide whether the plans should indeed go ahead. This has led to a great deal of confusion surrounding the planning process and the legitimacy of Ministerial intervention into live applications.

On the one hand, certain members of the public are sceptical as to why the SNP Government had to intervene, with suggestions of sleaze and dodgy dealings. The Trump Organisation meanwhile have expressed their "disappointment" that the application will come under the scrutiny of an inquiry. This will no doubt be an lengthy process, and it could take up to 2 years for the Inquiry to take place and the Reporter to make a final recommendation. But it is entirely appropriate and normal that such a scheme is 'called-in' and handled in accordance with planning law. Mob rule from over zealous environmental lobby groups should not distract planners from their duty to make a fair and reasonable assessment of the application. As the head of the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland, Alistair Stark, recently observed:

"There was a substantial body of opinion that the planning authority should have reached a decision that reflected the majority opinion in the area. This is not an acceptable way to take a planning decision"

Stark's comments reflect a wider public misconception that planners should 'do whatever the prevailng public opinion' is. This is plainly not the case. Whilst public objections must obviously be considered, ultimately, it is the planners role to use his or her professional judgement to determine whether any proposal is beneficial.

No doubt the residents of North Antrim in Northern Ireland will be watching the outcome with keen interest, since Trump has stated that he will take his scheme to the Giants Causeway should his Aberdeen plans fail! I wonder how that would go down at Stormont?