Inquiry told of bid to offset family’s carbon footprint
Bypass ‘will destroy park of 50,000 trees’
Published:
A father-of-two who planted around 50,000 trees to offset his family’s carbon footprint yesterday claimed his work would be destroyed unnecessarily if the proposed Aberdeen bypass wins approval.
Chartered accountant Ken Stewart said an alternative route he created would fulfil the aims of the scheme and cost around £50million less than the current proposals.
He also claimed the potential destruction of his peaceful living conditions to make way for the “wholly unnecessary and arbitrary” Fastlink was a breach of human rights legislation.
In his evidence to the public local inquiry into the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, Mr Stewart said his family had moved to Greens of Crynoch, Blairs, in 1999 to escape the noise and air pollution of Aberdeen.
The following year they planted thousands of trees on 70 acres of land to “create a park-like environment for our family and to negate our carbon impact”.
Mr Stewart said it was “ironic” the tree planting would be destroyed by the proposed Fastlink and claimed the carriageway would come within 230ft of their garden and 400ft of their home.
He also said he had failed to find other suitable properties on the market – meaning his family would be forced to stay where they were.
“Our next best alternative would be to build a house further away from the carriageway. But we’re faced with a situation where planning restrictions on the land mean we’re not allowed to build in a more remote part of it which we think, in the circumstances, is rather unfair,” he said.
He said his proposed alternative route would be shorter, cheaper and better for the environment.
Ailsa Wilson QC, representing Transport Scotland, said decisions on the route were “not simply a question of capital cost” but stressed the alternative would cause a four-year delay on the road, meaning it would be more expensive anyway.
Mr Stewart then questioned the accuracy of figures provided by the promoters which deemed the noise increase at his property as acceptable under World Health Organisation guidelines.
He claimed the information was flawed and insisted his family would suffer unacceptable noise pollution as the line of the road would be elevated 32ft above the ground level of his home.
“There will be nothing to break the noise,” he said.
