Structure Plan (yawn!)

OK. What is it and why should I care?

Most people usually ignore such topics but this plan sets out how Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City will change until 2030.

It proposes a Strategic Growth Area running from the City to Peterhead along the A90 which means the development of 3800 houses from 2007-2030. What does that mean - it adds around half an Ellon to the existing stock.

The plan proposes 800 houses 2007-2016, 1500 houses 2017-23 and 1500 houses 2024-2030

400 of those houses were added on 13th February just 6 days before Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City Councils approved the plan. So much for "widespread engagement and consultation".

So please do go and look at the proposed plan at

And if you want to object, please do so to

You have until 24th April to objection or a comment - so do it now. Please give your name and address with any objection and clearly indicate which part of the plan you object to.

1 comment:

  1. David Kennedy, Chapelfield, Cammachmore11 May 2009 at 17:52

    11 May 2009

    Many thanks for alerting us to the significance of the regional structure plan and why it matters to us all.

    Unfortunately, I have just become aware of the proposals for my own immediate area and it appears now to be too late to lodge objections.

    I am now anxious to know what can be done to influence the planning process and perhaps help to improve matters in a positive way as well as avoiding things that could be disastrous to the future. I would be grateful for your advice.

    I am aware of what might be called 'the juggernaut effect', when things roll in a given direction and everyone jumps on the wagon and seems impervious to arguments that aren't consistent with the chosen direction.

    This happened in the seventies when the falling birthrate seemed to hit planners like a thunderbolt, even though the longterm effects of a falling birthrate ought to have been obvious.

    The planning failure was later compounded in the eighties when it came to estimating demand for postschool education. The 'juggernaut' suggested that there would be a corresponding decrease in demand for postschool education, whereas the very opposite turned out to be the case.

    I refer to these failures simply to exemplify my point about the fallibility of the planning process and reliance on 'experts', not least statisticians.


I am happy to address most contributions if they are coherent. Comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will be posted.

Please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.