Cairdhillock and AFC: the rules don’t apply to them…

Several weeks ago we shared the information that the dumping of soil from the AFC Kingsford Development, on land at Cairdhillock Farm, and the raising of the land as a result was an unauthorised development.

The required planning application, to allow this land raising, had not been submitted to Aberdeen City Council. This application was a requirement of the 1990s’ planning consent for the Cairdhillock Farm Landfill Site.

We noted at time that pipe work was being laid from the stadium site, across the field towards the road.  It appears that this pipework was being laid to connect to the water main that was installed on the Brodiach Road (see letter below).

On Friday we received an update from Aberdeen City Council in which they say:

  • they agreed that the works were unauthorised,
  • that they did issue a s33A notice (which requires that a planning application be lodged retrospectively for the land raising),
  • that no subsequent planning application has been made by the landowner, the club or their agents
  • and finally, that Aberdeen City Council have decided to take no action as a result of this.

ACC have taken the view that the works “have not resulted in serious or irreparable harm to amenity or the environment in the surrounding area.”  However, it is the principle that is important here; this has without doubt given the green light to AFC and their contractors to ride roughshod over planning requirements.

Call us cynical but seems that companies linked to the Kingsford development can do exactly what they want and that the normal rules regarding planning do not apply to them.

Imagine if a resident had raised their land by several feet and then ignored an instruction to apply for retrospective consent for the works? Yes, it doesn’t sound like that would go by without consequence.

And surely this disregard for a planning notice issued by the council is an indication that AFC and their contractors are happy to side step planning regulations in order to get what they want regardless of the cost to the community and regardless of the rules.

This makes it even more important that everything they do is scrutinised and rejected if it doesn’t protect the community who never wanted this development in the first place.

2 thoughts on “Cairdhillock and AFC: the rules don’t apply to them…

  1. Surely decisions like this should be open to a higher authority for adjudication particularly where there is suggestion that those making the decision are biased towards the developer and the development? Quite clearly if there are rules that they are there to be applied and enforced! Could I argue with a traffic policeman that my traveling at 70 mph on a country road should not be subject of conviction as my speeding on the road with no other traffic adversely affected no one? I don’t think so!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.