wellsider
Posts:2
 |
| 23 Jan 2007 10:44:01 |
 Alert
|
| Just wondering as just about every development/project that comes close to Kingswells seems to be universally opposed especially by the newsletter.
Does nobody see any potential benefits or are they truly the silent majority?
While I am totally opposed to the proposed new housing developments - Kingswells needs more housing like a hole in the head others appear to have both merits and disadvantages.
For instance I feel that if the Bellfield Stadium plan had gone ahead it would have given the local youngsters a local recreation facility which might have reduced the amount of vandalism/loitering in the area.
This plan was almost uniformly condemned.
Maybe its time for the silent majority to stand up!! |
|
|
|
|
Saxon
Posts:21
|
| 23 Jan 2007 12:05:56 |
Alert
|
| Here are the votes of the Saxon jury :
AWPR - Yes, but please divert it to the other side of Brimmond Hill.
Bellfield - No, wrong place for a stadium to far from train station.
Cove / Portlethen much more appropriate sites.
More Housing - Yes if it would justify building a Kingswells Academy, then we wouldn't have to put so much energy into avoiding sending our kids to Bankhead.
Helicopters - Hold them over the sea till cleared for landing.
There nothing like the occasional controversial opinion to spice up the BB ! |
|
|
|
|
johnny
Posts:0
|
| 23 Jan 2007 12:52:10 |
Alert
|
| I get the impression that anything that the KCC did not think of,they oppose.
The WPR will be the best thing thats happen to Aberdeen since the discovery of oil in the North Sea,as for the sports complex at Bellfield,a lot of cities throughout the UK have built sports stadiums because the existing ones became too small for purpose.In my humble opinion Aberdeen missed a big chance to have a sports facility
that would have been the envy of the country,but hey ho,why should anyone want Kingswells to be in anyones envy,especially not the KCC. |
|
|
|
|
Saxon
Posts:21
|
| 25 Jan 2007 10:21:24 |
Alert
|
| Johnny,
I think a lot of people fell for the builders (SMG) advertising Kingswells as the village by the city and are trying to hold on to that ideal.
We now have helicopters using us as a training area, the previously civilised airport open all hours and extending its runway so more and bigger planes can use it
and the prospect of a 4 lane highway half way up Brimmond hill. Plus new housing planned all the way down the (now closed) lang stract.
The prospect of a football stadium with 10,000 Rangers fans milling about pushed residents a little to far.
Still the Christmas Tree was very nice and at least it wasn't vandalised like at Cove Bay.
|
|
|
|
|
Maddie
Posts:0
|
| 26 Jan 2007 05:27:34 |
Alert
|
| AWPR - all for it although I would have preferred it a bit further away. At least it will be easy to reach.
Can't always say not in my back yard to everything. The park and ride turned out ok. My opinion is that we should think ourselves lucky that things like the stadium at Bellfield (though I think proximity to train stations makes more sense than trying to push the traffic through the town) and AWPR is type of thing the council earmarked for our area.
At least we didn't get the prospect of sewage works, landfill sites and prison re-integration homes on our doorstep (yet anyway). Hopefully I don't have to eat my words!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
wellsider
Posts:2
|
| 26 Jan 2007 10:27:07 |
Alert
|
| Totally agree with the sentiments Maddie and its nice to see my topic has encouraged some good natured banter and delighted that I am not the only one welcoming the AWPR and anything else to Kingswells which will improve the level of amenities.
Its called progress - its ironic that the majority of those opposing these schemes are directly or indirectly employed in the industry which has brought prosperity and the need for new housing and improved roads - you cant have your cake and eat it!
I really do dread what will happen when the multitude of toddlers are teenagers - I certainly hope they have more to occupy them than todays teens.
I love living here and dont
As for the "village by the city" its the biggest village I have ever seen. |
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 30 Jan 2007 18:45:53 |
Alert
|
| I think you will find that in Kingswells about 33% are for the AWPR, 33% are against and 34% don't care. These figures are probably represent the views of KCC.
The reality is that Kingswells is one of the communities that had no choice of route. All the alternative routes pass Kingswells. The road will go ahead unless the funding disappears.
Another reality is that the road will adversely affect Kingswells and the best we can expect is for the road designers to take account of the adverse effects and provide suitable mitigating features in the design.
When asked what action should be taken a AWPR team member responded “People should express their concerns in writing in this consultation process, and then HASTLE the AWPR team”. It looks as though those that are content to sit back will get the minimum and those who hastle or stand up for their views will get more than their share of mitigating measures.
Please don't be complacent because you think this will not affect you. The maps are presented in such a way that most of Kingswells is not shown. Please do not be fooled - the AWPR will be built high in the surrounding countryside and noise and air pollution will carry.
All the proposed routes considered in the consultation go past Kingswells. The largest community affected by the AWPR has had no real alternatives. In reality the best Kingswells can do is to mitigate the effects of the AWPR. The most serious effects of the new road are pollution by noise, air and light. There also implications for the wildlife around Kingswells being effectively cut off by the new road. There is also a significant threat by rat running through Kingswells and congestion of the road network around Kingswells.
The advice given by the AWPR team is to express your concerns in the form of an objection, and to continue to hastle the AWPR team itself. It would appear that if you sit back and say nothing then any mitigation on offer will go elsewhere.
The whole project will be under extreme pressure to save money. This can be illustrated by the policy to be adopted on mitigating noise. The response by an official at the road show when asked about how noise would be mitigated - the response was:
"The noise levels have been measured at various places along the route. AFTER the road is built the levels will be measured again and compared to the original measurements. If there is a problem then compensation will be paid."
Don't start counting the pennies!!! The payout is likely to be small and the effects WILL BE long lasting and will become worse as the traffic and noise levels increase with time. The best solution for Kingswells is to minimise the noise at source BEFORE the road is built. To facilitate this YOU MUST EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS.
Formal feedback on the Draft Road Orders should be submitted in writing by Friday 9th February to:
Chief Road Engineer
Transport Scotland
Trunk Roads: Infrastructure and Professional Services
Buchanan House
58 Port Dundas Road
Glasgow
G4 0HF
If you want to send an objection by email you can do so from the road sense website.
See Kingswells.com or kwells.org for links to the various sources of information
|
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 31 Jan 2007 18:29:36 |
Alert
|
| Greenvoe,
These are the words of our councillor, Peter Steven, when asked what his impression was on this topic. He based the statement on the veiws expressed to him by residents.
Ian |
|
|
|
|
Frank
Posts:21
|
| 31 Jan 2007 22:59:11 |
Alert
|
| Coxy
just get on with it... build the bloody thing.
then plant some trees around it & you will never notice it's there.
it's well overdue
a short cut to my new golf course !!!!!! |
|
Frank |
|
|
fatlad
Posts:19
|
| 01 Feb 2007 08:14:40 |
Alert
|
| "then plant some trees around it & you will never notice it's there."
Having lived 400 yards from a bypass for a number of years, I can assure you that a few trees and a wooden fence won't do much to deaden the noise. A considerable swathe of houses nearest to the road will be blighted, and the traffic is going to be almost round the clock with trucks heading to/from Peterhead and places north.
I'm about as far away from the proposed route as could be, however with the location half-way up the hillside, the noise is going to carry right over Kingswells, especially in a westerly wind - which isn't exactly rare here. A bit of banking might help the issue, but short of putting the road in a tunnel you can say bye-bye to your quiet afternoons in the back garden, never mind leaving your windows open at night.
Fortunately we'll be long gone by the time it's built - primarily as we also dread what will happen when the place is overrun with bored teenagers. Witness B.O.D. |
|
|
|
|
Maddie
Posts:0
|
| 01 Feb 2007 08:52:05 |
Alert
|
| Ian - you said
"The most serious effects of the new road are pollution by noise, air and light. There also implications for the wildlife around Kingswells being effectively cut off by the new road. There is also a significant threat by rat running through Kingswells and congestion of the road network around Kingswells."
For most of us, it might help cutting down the blurp and telling us exactly what kind of mitigating factors that you are talking about to see if we think they make sense or not. My attention span isn't the greatest and I get lost after about 4 paragraphs.
|
|
|
|
|
Frank
Posts:21
|
| 02 Feb 2007 00:36:57 |
Alert
|
| so true........
just go up Elrick hill & experience the noise polution from Tyrebagger.
Blackburn was a very quiet village until the "raised" bypass went in.
I was only joking about the trees. |
|
Frank |
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 03 Feb 2007 07:07:07 |
Alert
|
| Frank,
I think you missed the point. The road will be built if funding is available. All we can do is make it less intrusive in our lives.
Maddie,
I don’t think we need to be too specific about what is done. We are not the professional engineers.
Noise can be deadened by building baffle walls in areas of fill. Low noise road surfaces can be used. As has been suggested planting trees can assist.
Lights will be installed at junctions and all the way along slip roads. They will argue in terms of safety, but many of the existing trunk road network junctions are unlit. Surely only dangerous junctions need be lit. These junctions are huge, and lighting them along the whole length is excessive.
Future new housing at the Lang Stracht will require access into Kingswells via the Lang Stracht or a new junction off the Lang Stracht.. The North Junction will give access to the north, and access from the north into Kingswells. Given that the South Junction is at the Five Mile garage and the existing road network will be more congested than it is at the moment there is a serious threat of rat running through Kingswells.
We can only express concern about increased air pollution and the effects on wildlife.
|
|
|
|
|
Saxon
Posts:21
|
| 13 Feb 2007 06:59:26 |
Alert
|
| I was parked at the shops this morning and looked over to Brimmond Hill it looked great in winter sunshine, then I tried to imagine what it will look like with a 4 lane highway, complete with lights, half way up the hill and the traffic noise.
Whether you are for or against the road there is no denying that the Kingswells environment will be negatively impacted.
When (if) its built I will save 10 minutes on my journey to work. I would rather keep the view and continue to sit in queues.
|
|
|
|
|
marcyboy
Posts:32
|
| 17 Feb 2007 10:43:54 |
Alert
|
| I suspect this will Increase our house prices as we are half way between Peterhead and Stonehaven and right on the access to Dyce and Altens on this route (y) think its a good thing people... and there will be noise studies done... so it wont effect us that much |
|
|
|
|