Estates Gazette

21/06/08

Larger-than-life New York developer Donald Trump flew 3,000 miles to urge an inquiry to give consent to his plan for “the world’s best golf course” at Balmedie on the Scottish east coast. It was a bombastic performance. David Quinn reports from Aberdeen

He didn’t really need to say it, but the opening formalities of the planning inquiry into Donald Trump’s proposals for a £1bn golf and leisure resort at Balmedie in Aberdeenshire required him to. “My name is Donald J Trump and I am a real estate developer and investor from New York City,” announced the 62-year-old, worth an estimated $2bn-$3bn.

Trump was the first – and will no doubt be the most memorable – witness at the inquiry, which began on 10 June at the behest of the Scottish government after his scheme was turned down by Aberdeenshire councillors late last year (see below).

Trump emerged just before 10am into the main conference hall, a vast, brightly lit room with hundreds of seats, all empty except for the first three rows. From here, around 30 opponents of the scheme and far fewer supporters stared at a horseshoe of tables at the front of the room, where Trump, flanked by his legal team, sat to the right of the three recorders, headed by James McCulloch. For the cross-examination, Trump had to traverse the room, passing in front of hundreds of files of evidence stacked behind the speakers.

Opponents claim Trump wants to flout the agreed development proposal for the Menie Estate with his plans to put 500 private houses and 950 holiday homes on the site. And conservation groups want him to change the design because it takes in a site of special scientific interest, a coastal dune system, called Foveran Links. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Scottish Natural Heritage believe the dunes would be irreparably damaged by the scheme.

Last week, Trump claimed that, far from damaging the “doons”, his plans “will have environmental benefits”. He even claimed that the golf course would improve on nature itself: “That can happen.”

Modesty is not Trump’s forte, and so far as this development is concerned, nor is compromise. The SSSI forms a central part of the proposal and moving the golf course to avoid it would be to pursue what Trump called a “half-assed” development. “If we were to be refused permission to develop on the southern end of the SSSI, I would withdraw from this development because it would not, and could not, fulfil my vision of doing something outstanding,” he said.

Trump spoke in a permanent bellow and bragged that the scheme was “fully financed”. “If we got permission today, I could start it this afternoon,” he said, with typical hyperbole. “The banks are in very bad shape at the moment but I’m using my own money. I don’t even have a mortgage on the property.”

And if the housing market does not pick up quickly, the residential element could be postponed, since the overall development is not dependent on house sales.
Despite his belligerence, Trump was occasionally caught off guard by his interrogators. At one point, he claimed that the development site was a “total mess, with garbage all over it”, and expressed confusion over the environmental lobby’s objections. This prompted an acerbic response from David Tyldesley, a town planner representing the RSPB, who asked Trump during cross-examination: “As the owner of the land, did you not feel compelled to clear it up?”

Liberal Democrat councillor Martin Ford – who threw the casting vote against the scheme last November – also tried to tackle the man dubbed The Donald by ex-wife Ivana.

Ford accused Trump of displaying ignorance about the environment – it turns out that Trump bought the site without visiting it, and was unaware of its SSSI-status. “Nobody’s ever told me how to buy property before. I think you’re the first person. I’ve done pretty well out of property, but thanks for your advice,” Trump retorted.

The billionaire is not a man to bother with the fine detail, preferring to rely on his legal team, led by Colin Boyd QC and representatives from law firm Dundas & Wilson. Trump openly acknowledged that he had not read key documents presented to the inquiry, including evidence put forward by his own environmental advisers. “I perused them, but I had so much to read. You can only read so much,” he later told journalists.

Trump admitted he was frustrated that his plan was being taken to public inquiry, but claimed not to resent the process. “Any time you build, you have opposition,” he said. “I could do without the fight. I’d love not to have it but I don’t resent coming here to give evidence.” He believes “the craziness” surrounding his visit to Aberdeen is “a liability for me, although it’s an asset for Scotland”.

Whatever cynics might say to that, Trump is clearly committed to the development of “the greatest golf course anywhere in the world”. Whether he will be allowed to build it in Aberdeenshire is another matter.

The inquiry is scheduled to run until the start of July, at which point the Scottish government will make its judgment. Following his charismatic performance in Aberdeen last week, few would bet against Trump getting his own way.

“World’s Best Golf resort”

“The best golf course in the world” includes:

• Two 18-hole links
• A clubhouse and facilities
• A hotel, conference centre and spa
• 36 “golf villas”
• 950 holiday homes in four blocks
• 500 private houses

But even Trump – who made the 3,000-mile journey from New York to Aberdeen in his private Boeing 727, emblazoned with Trump in gold letters – is at the mercy of rising construction costs.

He claims that the scheme will cost 25% more to build this year than it would have done last year.

In the hearing, he stressed that he would walk away if the inquiry went against him, and would recoup the value of the undeveloped land by selling it on.

Potential developers of tall buildings inLiverpool have a right to feel a little confused about the city’s rules on planning. Many in the property industry argue that recent episodes illustrate a lack of consistency over what is and what is not acceptable.

At the start the year, planners turned down Beetham Organisation’s plans for the 40-storey West Tower on Old Hall Street, but this decision was reversed in March when Beetham threatened a legal challenge to the refusal.

Now Maro Developments, which wants to build a 50-storey, Ian Simpson-designed tower at Brunswick Quay on the Liverpool waterfront, appears to be considering a similar approach to lever approval for its own scheme. Planners turned down its initial proposal in January but, in April, the developer resubmitted slightly revised plans featuring fewer flats and more commercial space. Its appeal against the council’s original decision will be heard in July 2006.

Some in the city suggest the council’s unpredictability on planning issues could repel potential developers and investors. “It doesn’t give a good impression of the city. There’s a confused message,” says Steve Moule, managing director of Liverpool developer Albany Assets, which is itself planning a 44-storey tower in central Manchester.

Chris Ives, development director of Maro, agrees. “The message is quite confused,” he says. “We know of arguments used to support the Beetham scheme, as well as Kings Waterfront, which have been rejected when used by us.”

In order to allay the confusion, the council is drawing up a policy document for the development of tall buildings in the city. The consultation process is now complete, and a final report is likely to go before the council’s executive board next month.

According to the draft document, there are three areas where skyscrapers will be most suitable. One is the commercial district of central Liverpool, another the so-called “southern approach” around the junction of Sefton Street and Parliament Street, and the third around Lime Street.

Importantly, however, the council says the policy document will not provide an automatic planning green light for all tower developments proposed in these areas. Each scheme will be examined on its own merits within the city’s wider planning framework.

This means Rumford Investments’ Unity scheme, under construction but arguably outside all three zones, would not necessarily be turned down under the new regime. Nor would Maro’s proposed scheme at Brunswick Quay. Conversely, Chieftain Construction’s proposed 32-storey mixed-use tower at the junction of Skelhorne Street and Bolton Street, adjacent to Lime Street, would not automatically be approved.

Planning application

As Peter Millea, the council’s executive member with responsibility for regeneration, puts it: “Each planning application will be treated separately. Some applications for tall buildings in these areas may not be acceptable and, conversely, others outside these areas may be approved in exceptional circumstances.”

Given these disclaimers, critics might query what the purpose of the policy document actually is. Others, however, believe that it is only right that some attempt at zoning is carried out. “The Liverpool skyline is revered, and rightly so,” says Steve Unwin, head of the Liverpool office of architect AFL, which is designing the 26-storey Alexandra Tower for Millennium Estates and the 20-storey City Lofts tower, both on the waterfront.

He continues: “There’s a lot of regeneration money coming into Liverpool, and it’s a difficult task making sure quality prevails. To zone things is a good philosophy. Sporadic development would not be good for the city.”

Developers, however, are slightly less enthusiastic in their support. Moule warns: “A policy document is a good idea, but it needs involvement from everyone, including developers. There needs to be a consensus.”

Ives adds: “I agree some strategy needs to be proposed, but it’s dangerous if you draw a red line and say tall buildings are only acceptable in certain areas. Each application needs to be judged on its merits.”

An added difficulty for policy makers comes from heritage body UNESCO, which is believed to be considering a ban on tower development in world heritage sites. Much of the waterfront and commercial core of Liverpool attained this status last year.

Unsurprisingly, developers and agents believe development should be allowed to go hand in hand with preserving Liverpool’s heritage. Ian Tomlinson, head of residential at Jones Lang LaSalle’s Manchester office, which is advising several clients on tower development in central Liverpool, says: “The World Heritage Site shouldn’t prohibit development per se. But it does mean that architectural quality needs to be raised above the normal level.”

Ives agrees. “Look at Berlin and Madrid,” he says. “A blend of old and new buildings can be achieved within a world heritage site as long as it’s well done.”