Blogs

Today was the last day of the inquiry. After this we wait for the Reporters to write up their recommendations, give them to Ministers and for Ministers to decide what to do. It became utterly apparent over the last couple of days that the decision they have to make is actually a fairly simple one. We heard from 32 different witnesses and yet the key points remain very straight forward.
 
Trump International agree that the coastal site is of huge importance and even signed an 'Agreed Statement' which said that the whole coastal area should probably be a Site of Special Scientific Interest. They also agreed that the existing SSSI is extremely unusual and not found anywhere else in Scotland. They were candid in their closing submissions that building the golf course would mean that the designated interest of the SSSI would no longer exist, that the environmental advisors to Trump International had asked for the golf course to be removed from the SSSI and that the only reason for wanting to build in the protected area is because this is Mr Trump's personal ambition.
 
The site visit made it clear that early attempts to translocate bits of habitats had completely failed and the Trump International witnesses agreed that even attempting to do so was a 'measure of last resort'.
 
Critically, multiple witnesses for Trump International agreed that there were many alternative golf course layouts which would allow a development to proceed but which could avoid some of the most sensitive areas and, in particular, the SSSI.
 
Which I think, brings us to the core of the question - if Ministers decide that this development should proceed because of the economic impacts it might bring then they can decide to issue a consent which allows development but not on the SSSI. We would urge them do to exactly that and in doing so consider what is best for Scotland, not just what is best for Trump International.
 
As you can imagine the Inquiry ended, as it began, in a bit of a media frenzy. Although managed a personal first by doing an interview with Al Jazeera news network.
 
Thank you to everyone who has been involved in supporting our work on this inquiry and I hope you can find the time to write to Scottish Ministers asking them to make the right decision given all the evidence that has now been presented to the Inquiry. If you would like more information on how to do this please visit
 
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/sites/scotland/menie.asp

Today was the beginning of the end but first things first. Yesterday's entry was written by my colleague Pete Gordon who together with a few other members of our team spent the last two days tramping round the dunes with the Reporters.

Pete, along with everyone else on the site visit, turned up with what might be termed a healthy glow due to the fact the site visit coincided with a mini-heat wave in Aberdeen. So thanks to Pete for keeping the blog up-to-date.
 
One of the Reporters is unfortunately sick and unlikely to be back at the inquiry before we finish. We've been reassured he's on the mend but wish him all the best for a speedy recovery.
 
Having completed all the evidence last week, today and tomorrow are devoted entirely to what are called 'closing submissions'. It's a little bit like the summing up you see from lawyers at the end of a court-room drama - but not quite so dramatic. Our advocate, David Tyldesley was fantastic - clear, punchy and right on the money. However, I'm not sure that the 8 year old daughter of one of our witnesses was totally enthralled - dad might need to think up a few more exciting activities for the school holidays.
 
For the benefit of those who have expressed concerns about my hotel I can reassure you I've now moved, it's much better and tonight I even got to visit some of the red kites that will shortly be released near Aberdeen - absolutely amazing.

Friday morning update

I see the Scotsman's report of Thursday's proceedings leads on what it calls an "astonishing personal attack" on Mr Trump by our advocate David Tyldesley.  Sensitive soul that he may be, I'm sure that even Mr Trump wouldn't think that "being carried away by his dream" could be deemed an astonishing personal attack.  Journalists...

See for yourself at The Scotsman

Yesterday and today were devoted to site visits – not the usual huddle of Councillors and Officials in the rain in front of a controversial house extension but more a film set for Lawrence of Arabia.

An army of proponents and objectors to the application accompanied the planners and Reporters on an exhaustive – and exhausting – trek over the whole site.  We looked from prospective tee to site of future green eighteen times and tried to imagine how the sand dunes which were blinding us from an azure sky might become sterile, manicured fairways. 

Every butte and hollow seemed to sport a TV camera or stills photographer, pressmen would scribble down every word which was said (although we knew their reports would be tweaked to suit their editors’ take on the rights or wrongs of the case). Live filming of the proceedings of a public inquiry is not permitted and the Chief Reporter’s irritation at a film crew who ignored his instructions to stop grew as the sun beat down on us.

The vast sands of the domes, to be “stabilised” by golf course proposals, scarcely needed pointing out as we wished for camel-taxis but we had to send out scouts to locate the threatened rare plants for which you have to search on hands and knees.  We assisted the pressmen to take their snaps and carefully spelled out the names of ferns and sedges.  It was less easy to say of the big picture of the value of the dune system as a whole which is at stake “There it is, that’s what we were talking about”

The rules for site visits are that you can direct the Reporters’ attention to features you want to be noted but may not discuss the arguments.  This may seem straightforward but, in practice, it is often difficult to abide by such a rigid line when you want to say “look at this bit of vegetation damaged by trampling, what would be the impact of 10,000 people passing this way?” without straying into repeating evidence given last week in an airless hall.  Both sides were chastised occasionally but relationships remained business-like and even cordial between people who only last week were denying the truth of what the other was saying (and, by proxy of their advocates, will do so again tomorrow at Closing Submissions.)

That's what will take up the remainder of the Inquiry over the next two days.