Here are the letters sent to us this week that can be seen on page 10 along with some comment highlights from our Facebook page. If you have a letter you can e-mail it to email@example.com or mail it to 12 Ann Street, AB39 2ER.
A937/A90 -Laurencekirk Junction
Sir- This junction seems to have gone wrong in the planning of the dualcarriage way bypass at Laurencekirk approx three decades ago.
It would seem the planners had not forseen the dangers of this junction at the time and as the years go by the traffic incrwases and the junction gets more dangerous crossing either way.
I have read and noted all that has been said about it over the years, all talk, talk and report, after report and visits to the junction, money wasted in the end and not a lot visibily been done.
At the recent display on the junction in the Dickson Hall in Laurencekirk there were seven plans on show, of them all I would go for Plan Seven, but I don’t think that’s enough. I would rather see a flyover at both North and South Junctions with a ring road west of the railway.
No building can be done until this junction situation is resolved. What about lighting up the bypass?
Thank You - Kenneth Leslie
Sir - Many thanks for the excellent item in your February 6 edition after the death of my father, Kenneth Leslie.
We are also extremely grateful for the lovely comments from his friends that you forwarded to us.
The thoughts were very much appreciated.
Dad would have been delighted by the words but also by the fact that there was a photo of him not only on the cover of The Leader but also on pages two and 12!
Even Madonna’s publicist would have been ecstatic with achieving that sort of coverage.
Dad lived the family motto “Grip Fast” to the full.
Therefore, he would also have been delighted with his elder son’s shameless attempt to avoid paying for an advert in the paper by writing to the editor, saying that dad’s memorial service will be held at Holburn West Church at 1100 on Monday March 9.
Family flowers only, donations to St Catherine’s Hospice, Crawley.
Misleading - Response to Ms Burns
Sir - For the following reasons, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the comments made by Mrs Burns on STP’s Planning for Real update is that they were deliberately misleading.
What she fails to reveal is that, prior to publishing the update, STP issued a copy to its member groups for information and comment. Mrs Burns responded to a comment about the allotments, querying the validity of the consultation and attributing the suggestion to STP.
In correspondence over a period of a couple of weeks, the Planning for Real exercise was explained in some detail to Mrs Burns.
It was made clear to her that the people of Stonehaven had been informed well in advance when and where the Planning for Real events were to take place through adverts in the Mearns Leader, fliers in local shops, posters in the library, etc and that the events were well signposted on the day.
Also, we explained to her that the comments were made by people like herself, individual residents of Stonehaven and not the STP.
Yet despite knowing this, Mrs Bruce claims that the three Planning for Real exercises were not well advertised. Furthermore, on three occasions she attributes to STP suggestions which were actually made by those who participated in the Planning for Real events.
The first of these is that caravans on the recreation ground site be replaced with a hotel. The actual suggestion was: “Remove caravans from the Recreation Grounds and release for a hotel function, conference centre, new sports facilities and employment” and it was made by a resident and not STP.
The second is the view of at least one participant that outdoor drinking should be limited. This is a perfectly valid view and, as with the other comments made by residents who took part in the PfR consultation, it was passed on to the relevant organisation.
So, when Mrs Bruce wrote: “Surely STP were not serious in their “comment” to prohibit this” she knew perfectly well that it was not our comment and in doing so she is also attacking the people who actually made it.
The third was when she says: “I wondered when the Open Air Pool would hove into STPs view. So a retractable roof on the Art Deco building – hmm”. Mrs Bruce was well aware that this was a suggestion expressed by a Stonehaven resident yet she chooses to attribute it to STP. What Mrs Bruce omits to mention is that, in relation to the open air pool and the recreation grounds respectively, the following comments were also made by residents at the PfR sessions: “Retain” and “Keep Area as leisure”.
Your readers might like to know that all the comments made by the residents who participated in the PfR public consultation were collated, an “issue owner” eg community group or department of Aberdeenshire Council, identified and the relevant suggestion/comments passed to them for response and/or action. Member organisations were kept informed as the process continued. The recent document is an update on progress and shows just how many of the suggestions have been implemented proving to the people of Stonehaven that it is worth their while participating in public consultations such as Planning for Real.
Another piece of relevant information is that, under the section on community engagement of the service level agreement STP had at the time with Aberdeenshire Council, it was the council that asked STP to conduct a Planning for Real or similar public consultation.
Finally, perhaps Mrs Burns would like to respond to the following comment made by a Stonehaven resident at one of the PfR public consultation events: “More allotments”.
From our Facebook - Ury golf development
Colin Esslemont: “People need to go onto the council planning website and submit their support otherwise those who don’t want this will win and it will never happen.”
Belvedere Stonehaven: “As a local hotelier I can tell you that the demand for accommodation still outstrips supply - even in winter, and I for one, welcome this development. There’s enough business for everyone and the whole town will benefit.”
Ian Milne: “Anything that brings ideas, money, fun to stony should be welcomed. We dont want to be seen in the same negative and commercially destructive vein as aberdeen city council.”