These are some of the views submitted during the time that the Bieldside communities were under threat from the "Murtle" route of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route.

nicholas shovlin 22/7/2006
Placements like camphill should continue to exist in an enviroment that is free from roads and the prejudices of the larger world. Community care is fine for many people but for others it leads to isolated lives. The political rehetoric ''same as you etc '' is just that and will never provide a community or ethos as how to lead a fulfilled life in a community that understands.

Jane Brown 13/5/2006
Thank the Lord that ther are some who appreciate the status and are willing to stand up on behalf of others, who may wish to, but in one way or another are unable.

Nicola & Martin Kennaugh 16/12/2005
Fantastic news - my aunt lives in Morvern House and her future is secure - she has lived all her adult life in the wonderful place that is Camphill - to even think of routing a road through the community was appalling but thankfully, common sense has prevailed and the future of Camphill is secured. I must admit, I cried when I found it - it just so fantastic.

Antje 12/12/2005
Congratulations!
I am relieved to hear that people made the right decision in the end! Wishing you all the best for your future.
Antje Kattwinkel

Emily 6/12/2005
I'm absolutely thrilled that the decision has gone in Camphill's favour - the bestest of best news!

Diane Florence 2/12/2005
Wonderful News!
Congratulations on a magnificent campaign.
I was a previous resident of Murtle Den and thus know Murtle Estate and the surrounding area very well. I appreciate that people will be affected wherever the route is built in the area, but it was crucial for humanity to be considered as well as money! You showed how important this was and won!
A few tears certainly flowed when I heard the news…..well done and wish you all a very joyous festive time and glad that 2006 will bring peace and stability to the community

M Nimmo 2/12/2005
Fantastic news, absolutely brilliant.

Natasha Long 1/12/2005
Congratulations Camphill!!
I am overjoyed with the decision, and I read the announcement on this website with tears of joy in my eyes.
Kenny MacLeod obviously has no idea what Camphill does otherwise he wouldn't make such a ridiculous comment. To suggest that it is time for the Camphill communities to "give something back" indicates complete ignorance.

Cults Family 1/12/2005
Words cannot describe our joy at today's announcement. We cried tears of relief when we heard the news.
You've all taken so much verbal abuse from people who've wrongly accused you of 'being selfish' and 'standing in the way of progress' but still you've fought long and hard.
Critics and the local council should hang their heads in shame for ever wanting to disrupt your way of life. Camphill is a wonderful community and you deserve this victory.

Chris Engel 1/12/2005
Kenny MacLeod has a very valid point, the proposed bypass will be a benefit to the NE of Scotland and thousands will benefit.
However he fails to acknowledge that it is actually of irellevance exactly WHERE the bypass is placed in terms of benefit. The Murtle route is just one of several options but it will impact seriously on a large group of vunerable people living in a community that has been developed and cultivated over a 60 year period. It is the peaceful and tranquil surroundings that make Camphill what it is and yet this is the primary attribute that has attracted the planners to selct the Murtle route as the preferable one.
Kenny shows great immaturity in his suggestion of simply relocating. He appears to be unaware of the fact that organic farmland takes years to develop and nurture.
Most domestic householders affected by a compulsory purchase order will have a choice of new homes. The Camphill community does not have this simple option.
As for being selfish. For years Camphill has selflessly been working for the good of the greater community. It has cared for the severely mentally and physically handicapped. It has provided society with a caring environment for the least able of the community. These are people who have no political or democratic voice. It is their home and environment that will be disrupted, degraded and disturbed.
To their great credit, the Camphill campaigners have never suggested or promoted any other particular route. It would have been tempting to counter the argument that the Murtle route is the most cost-effective by pointing out that the Pitfodels route is nearly 2km shorter. They could have argued that the Peterculter route addresses the needs of the long-term future.
As I write this, Tavish Scott is announcing his decision. More later.

Anonymous 1/12/2005
Kenny MacLoed is quite correct & there are plenty of rural options if your residents really need the tranquility you claim. And so far as the list of "business leaders" with their open letter, why not publish their addresses - these make very interesting reading as almost all are personally affected by the proposed Murtle route; please don't allow these Nimby characters to spoil the true value of the Camphill campaign which should be to ensure the best long term future for the residents where-ever that may be.

Kenny MacLeod 1/12/2005
I am sorry but I don't agree with your protest. The by-pass will affect thousands of people in a positive manner..how many residents are there at Camphill? Also, why not simply go somewhere else, there is plenty of land out there...only 1% of Britain is actually classified as asphalt road...hardly something to get hot under the collar about and call roading an "obsession". Think of the greater good for the wider community and stop being selfish..we all have to sacrifice something in our lives and I think you owe something back to the community.
EDITOR'S NOTES:
1. Murtle is not the best route at traffic diversion - the AWPR figures show very clearly that it is not the best at reducing traffic on any of the measuring points (Bridge of Dee, Market, Street, Auchmill Road, Netherley Road). So why the desperation to go for second best?
2. Save Camphill is not opposed to the AWPR (or any road), so your comment about asphalt is irrelevant in this context.
3. Where precisely in Aberdeen would you suggest relocating a community of 300+ people, their homes, farm, dairy, workshops and 200 or so acres of farmland? We await your answer with anticipation.

Gregor McAbery 30/11/2005
One more goodluck message for the people of Camphill from everyone at Firends of the Earth. Keep on going chaps

Natasha Long 25/11/2005
My father was a householder at Newton Dee and I never felt happier than when I would come to visit him in the summer. Newton Dee is an amazing community and the Scottish Executive should be absolutely ASHAMED of themselves for even considering ruining such an important and wonderful place.
This is obviously part of a larger scheme to enable them to sell off the land to developers. The suggestion that the communities can just move, or that the road won't impact the communities is naive at best.
I will do as much as I can to help Save Camphill!

lewis greening 18/11/2005
camphill rules!!!!!!!!!!!! its a great help for people for special needs.there should be more places like this in Scotland and in my view, a real treasure piece of this nation

Chris Engel 14/11/2005
Since their establishment, the Camphill and Newton Dee communities have protected the Aberdeen greenbelt. There has been no intensive building, no land sale profiteering and no ribbon development.
Over the years, the local council as permitted and encouraged development within the green belt to the extent that within the city boundary the only uninterrupted corridor is between Newton Dee and Myrtle. Camphill's reward for this protection and good stewardship is to be the principal victim of the planner's lack of vision and forward provision.
We are now told that the Myrtle route is the 'cheapest and least disruptive' option.
If there is any suggestion of 'smoke and mirrors' it must lie with the planners who have used a wonderful array of virtual reality, graphics and maps to promote their vision. Unfortunately this high-tech form of persuasion completely ignores the reality of how the route will impact on Myrtle and Newton Dee.
With the predictable departure of Nicol Stephen, Tavish Scott has inherited a no-win situation and it is little wonder that he is taking time to make a decision.
Perhaps the best and most honest decision would be to at least CONSIDER alternative routes. Let's face it, the Myrtle route is the only one that has been subject to a full geological and engineering and survey. The Pitfodels route is shorter (and therefore cheaper) by at least 2km and has not been properly assessed.

Ian McGregor 13/11/2005
Can I ask if Aberdeen council offerred to relocate Camphill to a suitable site say further to the west out Deeside would this not be an acceptable alternative?
Am sure land could be found and new 'state of the art' facilities built with no cost to Camphill.
EDITORS NOTE: Quite apart from the emotional concerns about uprooting a, by definitiion, vulnerable community and the practical considerations about the biodynamic farmland, where would you find a "host" community for 300-plus people (including some 200 special needs) and 100-plus acres of farmland, within an established Aberdeen community with transport, community facilities, etc?
In an era when plans to create a small special needs' home in an established neighbourhood results in heated objection, finding a welcoming neighbourhood for 300 seems an impossible task.

Garioch 13/11/2005
What upset me about the Press and Journal coverage was:
(1) the accusation of "smoke and mirrors" about the campaign. What is more 'smoke and mirrors' than suggesting that a membership of 4,200 means that all members (without any consultation) want the Murtle option? That is just rubbish.
(2) The way the AWPR team - or whoever orchestrated this story - have obviously told the reporter that the road went "near" Camphill when it goes right through it, demolishing the driveway the trees and buildings in the process!
(3) The implication that this is the best route at taking non-essential traffic out of the city. Again look at the facts. According to the AWPR figures it is not the best at reducing traffic at ANY of their mesauring points.
How can we have a reasoned discussion when it would appear the AWPR authorities are not telling the truth - (1) implying membership means ascribing to the views without question (2) stating "near" when they mean "right through" and (3) implying it is best at traffic diversion when, by their own figures, it isn't.

david mckay 11/11/2005
This note was sent to Press and Journal yesterday (Nov 10):
I read with interest your article on page 4 in today's P & J and would like to add my business support to opponents of the bypass on several principles.
As a Scottish company with head office in Aberdeen I spend much time traveling between Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Congestion in Aberdeen is nothing like the other two major cities.
When leaving or arriving in Aberdeen delays are approximately 15 minutes at peak times.Anderson Drive is a busy road which flows freely and sensibly although Haudagain can add some minutes to journey times. Edinburgh and Glasgow can take 4 to 6 times longer to exit or enter.
To consider going through Camphill would be a tragedy for the community. Few Aberdonians visit Camphill and Newton Dee to experience for themselves the tranquility and most peaceful environment; to disturb this would be criminal. I think I am correct in saying 60 years of organic farmland would also be lost forever.
Instead of spending vast sums on this proposed route which in my view is simply a means of opening up green belt land for development, would the Scottish Executive not consider spending on a more sustainable transport system and at the same time invest in proper, recognised cycle lanes. Aberdeen is so far behind the rest of the country and in many cases the rest of the world in providing safe cycling routes. Cycle lanes in Aberdeen are an apology for what would encourage individuals, families and children to enjoy our city in a safe and healthy manner.
Yours
David

Where will it end? 10/11/2005
If the route is changed and the WPR is constructed along the Pitfodels route, passing within a few hundred metres of the Camphill community at Beannachar, will you campaign for them too? EDITOR'S COMMENT: Unlike Murtle, any of the other routes do not involve demolition of any part of a special needs facility. They also are all substantially more distant from any special needs facilites.
Save Camphill is quite clear that the option it cannot live with is Murtle and the formal objections to this route have now been on the table for 12 years. Although an absolute decision cannot obviously be made until the details are finalised, Save Camphill does not anticipate a protest about any of the other route options.

David Maclure 7/11/2005
Having visited the Camphill community and spoken to some of the residents, I think it is appalling that their sanctuary is being threatened by the Western Peripheral Route. There are clear alternatives to the proposed routing, which do not involve such inexcusable disruption.

alister 24/10/2005
Please can someone tell me why after 60 years no one from camphill thought to BUY the land between the two site OR if you own it to actually put a path in, or do something with the land?
I'm sorry but if they were so concerned 11 years ago why did YOU not buy/build on it? EDITOR'S NOTE: The Murtle route assumes the compulsory purchase of land currenly owned by Camphill and the demolition of Camphill's existing buildings on that land.
So ownership of the land between the two estates would have provided no defence against this proposal.

Joanna, Poland 22/10/2005
I wish I could help you. But it is difficult now I am studding in Wroc?aw. I am misssing Camphill, very much. So I am thinking of you.

Gregor McAbery 19/10/2005
With the decision on the bypass a couple of weeks away Aberdeen Friends of the Earth would like to invite you to a free debate on the future of Aberdeen City Region Transport Planning.
Come along and join the discussion the pressures facing this area including everything form climate change and the economy to road building
Tackling Transport - Making the right choices for the future of the Aberdeen City Region A free public meeting and panel debate by Aberdeen Friends of the Earth
Monday October 24th, 7.30pm - 9.30pm Aberdeen Music Hall (Upstairs)
EDITORS NOTE: Save Camphill is most appreciative of the long-standing support of Friends of the Earth. But, to avoid any confusion, the Save Camphill campaign wishes to make clear that it is a single issue campaign. A particular strength of the campaign is its support from a broad spectrum including those who support the need for an AWPR, but not at the expense of Camphill.

Asia, Poland 10/10/2005
Thank you the all Camphill Estate people, Expecially to The Camphill Cottage Ones And most of oll To my BIg Breave Man - Jamie Henderson. Happy Birhsday!!!! Your old co-worker, Asia Have a good day

Joanna Celmer, Poland 7/10/2005
I was a Co- worker in Camphill Cottage in 2003; It was a hard work for me, but i enjoy it.
It has to be saved!!!!! Yours sincerely Asia Celmer

Heather Glen 5/10/2005
I believe that the AWPR would have severe detrimental effects on Camphill and this route should never have been proposed in the first place

Jakob Sandoni /A315HH 4/10/2005
It's a shame! The proposed route is shocking and it would destroy such a beautiful community.
Don't they see that it benefits so many people?
So don't let it happen!

Daniel Miller 23/9/2005
I would be EXTREMELY disappointed if the needs of the many are so blatantly to rule over the needs of the few.
My late brother, Gary Miller, was a resident at Camphill between 1966 and 1972. I know he spoke often and fondly of the school and it had a profound influence on him - allowing him to learn skills which he was able to use in the (so-called) wider community.
He had a great deal of love for all the teachers and fellow pupils - his reports bear testimony to this - and, following his sudden death a month ago I have taken an interest in trying to contact Camphill staff from this period.
If anyone can put me in touch with any of the following I would greatly appreciate it. - Meta Koch, Sigrid and Henning Hansmann, K Hannant, RL Warneke, C Hanstein, K von Schilling, Petra Julius. S Elmquist and Marga Schnell.

Emily 7/9/2005
I have written to my MSP, MP, and the Scottish Exective about this issue, and I very much hope that the road can be re-routed. I attended the Edinurgh Steiner School from Class One to Class Twelve, so I understand the value of the Camphill communities. I wish you the best of luck with your campaign. :)

Julie Shipley 2/9/2005
Visiting Aylesford Priory in Kent this summer, I was aware of the noise from the motorway nearby. I hope Camphill will not be subjected to the inevitable disturbance of a by-pass.

Margaret Malcolm 24/8/2005
I am strongly against this road running through camphill. You obviously do such a wonderful job with these vulnerable children and young adults.
They need protection and love, They do not need destruction and noise to upset them when aready life is hard enough for them. I know from having a son who has Autism.
All the best with your campaign.

Katie Fraser, Hertfordshire 23/8/2005
I have just found your website through Martin Mallett's brother Timmy's webpage. I think that your community sounds a great place where people like Martin can have the independence and the right to be indidividuals.
I work in the disability field myself at a charity in Hertfordshire and think that your campaign to save Camphill is great. I hope that things will turn out better for you and that you will be saved from destruction.

HEATHER IVERS 18/8/2005
I foster and work with children with severe behaviour problems and disabilities. I moved from the city a year ago because it was impossible to help or make any progress with these chldren in the city.
It would take me all day to tell you about the impact having this road built 50 metres from my door will have.
All the children i work with have all thrived in this house and I can't begin to tell you how much living here has positively helped.
But all this benefit will be lessened with tha road so close to the house.
Because of behaviour problems some of the children put themselves at great risk, but so far out here i have been able to deal with this as there is no real risk
BUT, WITH A WHOPPING GREAT DUAL CARRIAGEWAY OUT THE FRONT, I AM WORRIED SICK . I HAD TO KEEP ONE CHILD IN FOR HIS OWN SAFETY FOR A whole YEAR IN THE CITY AND I AM NOW FACED WITH THE SAME SITUATION. HEEEEELP.

jonathan t e hall 17/8/2005
Shocking, absolutely unbeliveable...
I can't start to understand the council's idea of road expansion through a place of such fine work and first-class care for people with such fragile life and high dependances.
Another example of faceless corperate business.

Suzanne Kelly 24/7/2005
I have lived in large cities and small towns on two continents, but never have I seen a council display the contempt for its environment and its electorate that Aberdeen does. Camphill must be saved!

Josef Klingele 21/7/2005
Newton Dee ist ein ruhiger und friedlicher Ort. Es wäre eine Schande wenn diese Ruhe durch eine Straße zerstört würde, zu der es bessere Alternativen gibt.
Newton Dee is such a peaceful place. It would be a shame if the people living there lost this peace because a road is built which could be built elsewhere!

Julia O'Keeffe 17/7/2005
I think it is a dreadful mistake to plan to route a road through this wonderful place that does such exquisite work.
This planned road is the perfect example of todays society where people ride roughshod over others and have no regard or feeling for this work, which is so desperately needed.

Gregor McAbery 15/7/2005
Is it not time the results of April's Aberdeen Bypass consultation were made public? Surely the public has a right to see whether the favoured Camphill route was endorsed or largely opposed? Ether way, we have a right to be able to use this information in our campaigns for another more sustainable solution. That is surely what democracy is all about.

B Coggane 4/7/2005
I think we have got to ask ourselves one important question:
Is a road more important than the quality of life of many children and adults?
The answer has to be NO.
For this situation to even come this far is a disgrace. Leave Camphill alone to continue its excellent work.

t gordon 1/7/2005
Please leave the peaceful setting at camphill be.

António Moura 17/6/2005
Mudem a estrada deixem a escola em paz, construam a estrada mais ao lado, o Pedro diz-vos onde deve ser. E faz tambem o favor de traduzir. SAVE THE SCHOOL
EDITORS NOTE: Translation is: "Change the road to leave the school in peace - construct it elsewhere."

Mrs Marie Paterson 2/6/2005
I have a child with Autism my self, he attends St Andrews school in In verurie at the present moment. Camphill would be the nearest specialist shcool for me to send my son to if he required specialist care!
I think building this road through. close to this amazing school would cause a huge amount of stress and potentional dangers for these very vulnerable indivuals!
You have my full full suport and understanding!

Ian Kamp 1/6/2005
This work must absolutely not go ahead. The work of any camphill community should go on ahead undisturbed by such schemes.
The destruction and harm it would do for people with learning difficulties is immeasurable. The peace and tranquility of a place such as this is what makes it unique, and it is therefore able to offer theraputic and social living to people, who can not live in the wild frenetic world which we create and destroy with such gay abandon.
Please consider other alternatives and don`t destroy something which can NEVER be regained.
Life for these people is difficult enough, and this is a haven.

Colin Mckenna 23/5/2005
It is disgraceful to destroy the Green belt and Camphill in particular just so the Property Developers can exploit that situation and build more housing in the Green Belt. The project should be classed / described as a 'bypass' like every other city that has one and NOT a 'Peripheral Route' and should therefore be directed west of Peterculter. The 5 current proposed routes (except the one fron Stonehaven - Peterculter) show traffic travelling North to Aberdeen having to do a long detour back on itself - just to go through the Greenbelt! The recent proposal of a tunnel through the beach area looks a really practical solution including being shorter and less expensive.

MGB 11/5/2005
My interest is that I have a brother (once speechless and classified as ineducable) who was educated at Murtle House. He now lives a fulfilled life in Newton Dee Village, able to speak, read and write. Both Camphill locations, the School and the adult Community, would be adversely affected by the proximity of a highway.
The children and adults in need of special care for the whole of their lives have been well served by Aberdeen for many years, This is the foundation of the Camphill Movement in the UK when it fled Nazi oppression.
The cost to the 200 disabled adults and children at Newton Dee is incalculable and should not be underestimated.

Garioch 11/5/2005
Re Robin's comments. His implication is that Camphill should be the sacrificial lamb and give its life to avoid the possibility of the road going elsewhere (with the veiled threat that he will 'dig the dirt' on Camphill if it doesn't).
Does he not remember it is the Scottish Executive in partnership with Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire councils, which is develolping this road, not Camphill? That is where you should aim your "arsenal".
I can't think of any battles that have been won by ignoring the real objective and attacking your neighbour.

Robin 10/5/2005
So just how far are you prepared to take this struggle?
Your campaign is in danger of rebounding and scoring an own goal as the other people affected by the four alternative routes (potentially a majority) are likely to turn round and deflect it firmly back onto the Murtle route as they generate an arsenal of objections instead of your stance on a single issue.
Your campaign needs to encourage rather than antagonise others in the Aberdeen area with the creation of a 4:1 tug-of-war although maybe that's what the politicians had in mind when they set up the public consultation!
EDITOR'S NOTE: Camphill has objected to the Murtle route for more than 11 years. It has fought for the rights of people with learning disabilities for more than 65 years.
With the very viability of two communities (in which more than 300 people live and work) at stake, you should be in no doubt about the determination to continue the fight to 'Save Camphill'.
It is precisely because Save Camphill is a single issue campaign (with no agenda other than to avoid damaging the lives of some 200 vulnerable children and adults in two special needs commununities) that it retains the support of so many people.

Marco Geider 8/5/2005
Please save this beautiful place of nature. You would save a lot of animals and plants. I was there and i can not belive that you want to destroy this beautiful place.

Gregor McAbery 5/5/2005
We have now passed through another hoop in the process of protecting Camphill and other communities from this road. Please remember to let your councillors, MSP and MP know that you are concerned and consider writing a letter or two to the local and national press highlighting the threat posed by poor transport planning. Aberdeen Friends of the Earth will continue to push for better solutions to our transport problems.

K 2/5/2005
Camphill is a unique community and I find it ludicrous that the suggestion of a by-pass through the community was even suggested. These are special people with special needs, I understand that a by-pass is necessary and understand why people want to see this happen, but at what expense??
I strongly oppose the Murtle route.

Charles G Spence of Biel, Baron of Biel . J.P. 29/4/2005
My daughter was at camphill many years ago and benifited greatly from the tranquil atmosphere. It would be a tradgedy if this was disturbed.

Max Cant, Edinburgh 26/4/2005
A road is just a road. If people have worked hard to establish a functioning community (especially if its against the odds) and its a success - then another collective of people- even council/government officials don't morally have the right to impose thier will on them. That seems extremely unfair to me.
I hope they win and come out stronger in the face of adversity - at least that way it will be a positive experience.

Banchory Devenick parent 18/4/2005
The very real concerns of those supporting Camphill have been extremely well publicised over the last 10 years. However, what appears to be completely ignored is that the WPR will destroy peoples quality of life where-ever it goes. If it is not to be the Murtle route then other schools and communities, which have had neither the time nor resources of Camphill to protest, will be destroyed.
The Pitfodels route will pass within 30 metres (not 100m as at Camphill) of Banchory Devenick school classrooms. This is a successful happy school of nearly 60 pupils serving the local community. Since the gradient of the road would be at a maximum at this point, noise levels within the classrooms will severely damage the learning environment. As a local authority school, upgrades to the facilities are unlikely. Pupils will be unable to use their garden and climbing frames due to their proximity to the road and outdoor lessons - currently a major part of the pupils learning experience, will be impossible.
I would like to ask those people on this site campaigning for the Pitfodels route (which is in effect what you are doing by voting against Murtle) why the wellbeing of my son and his classmates should be ignored.
EDITOR'S NOTE: It is completely untrue to suggest that Save Camphill is campaigning for any route and pure nonsense to then allege that Save Camphill suggests the wellbeing of children at Banchory Devenick should be ignored. The Save Camphill campaign has no agenda other than to oppose the Murtle route and the impact it would have on some 300 people who live and work in the Camphill communities in Bieldside - including 200 vulnerable children and adults.

Frank Thomas 17/4/2005
What is the impact of AWPR Murtle route on Camphill? Professor James Hogg was commissioned to do an evaluation of the impact of the AWPR on the Camphill Communities. I’m afraid I find his assessment verges on the complacent. To illustrate this, take the following on page 38. After discussing how the several risks posed during the construction of the AWPR, he turns to the operation of the road, saying: “It is predicted that the operation of the road, however, would not have such significant effects, though some children may be disturbed by the on-going noise when out-of-doors. Noise in classrooms, however, is unlikely to be disruptive and ambient noise in bedrooms would not, in most instances cause, sleep difficulties. Where individual children do react to road noise emotionally or through sleep disturbance, individual support would be required, as is the case with any present difficulties.” So classrooms and bedrooms would be quiet enough but there would be noise, excessive for some children, out of doors.
This complacency ignores:
• You can’t keep such vulnerable children cooped up in-doors all day. The whole point of the Murtle setting is in its comprehensive environment including contact with the natural environment. At the very least, the calming effect of a walk within the estate is a key part of the child’s day.
• The staff already have a challenging enough job to do without providing the additional “individual support” – whatever this may be - which Hogg implies they can just take in their stride.
A price worth paying? One could say although these children at Camphill have complex needs there are only a few of them. What’s the adverse effect on these children compared with the increased benefit to thousands of Aberdeen motorists and the city’s economy?
I have looked at the figures in the ‘Assessment of Alternative Options’ provided on the AWPR website. The table below contains an extract of the figures in the ‘Traffic’ column for trips across two points of the River Dee: (thousands of trips, rounded to the nearest thousand)
Scenario Bridge of Dee AWPR – A90(S) to A93 Total
No AWPR 32 - 32
AWPR Murtle Route 27 24 51
AWPR Peterculter/Stonehaven (P/S) Route 29 12 41
If the AWPR is meant to supply a route for traffic that is trying to get
• past Aberdeen without entering the city (past-Aberdeen) and
• from one part of Aberdeen to another (within-Aberdeen) then the traffic engineers would want the AWPR as near to the city as possible. This is borne out by the fact that the flow on AWPR across the Dee would be far greater on the Murtle route than on the P/S route. In fact, the AWPR P/S route would carry predominantly past-Aberdeen traffic. If this flow of 12 thousand is a fair assessment of the past-Aberdeen traffic, the 24 thousand trips on the AWPR Murtle route would include at least 12 thousand within-Aberdeen trips. So under the AWPR Murtle scenario, taking the two crossing points together, there would be a total of 39 (27 + 12) thousand within-Aberdeen trips.
Without the AWPR, there are 32 thousand trips across the Dee, some of which will be past-Aberdeen trips. If we assume that, say, 6 thousand of these trips are past-Aberdeen, we are left with 26 thousand within-Aberdeen trips with no AWPR. This compares with the above 39 thousand within-Aberdeen trips with AWPR Murtle. In other words AWPR Murtle will increase the number of within-Aberdeen trips by a half.
An example of saying all of this without the numbers is that, with the AWPR Murtle route, motorists will use it to come north across the Dee and then turn east at the A93 to drive into Aberdeen and join the traffic coming across the Bridge of Dee thus increasing congestion in the city centre. Is Aberdeen ready for this? Is this what the Scottish Executive and the Aberdeen councils and the motorists of Aberdeen want?

14/4/2005
It is difficult to comment on the proposal without a map that shows the impact of the proposal on your estate
EDITOR'S NOTE: There is a map on the home page, scroll down the page and click on the map for a larger scale version.

Linda McGlynn 10/4/2005
This cannot be allowed. It is madness to even think of routing through Camphill. The services to and for those who are vulnerable have been eroded and have all but disappeared. Don't let this happen to Camphill.

KAREN FROM HIGHLANDS 10/4/2005
THE WORK THAT IS ON GOING AT CAMPHILL NEEDS TO BE HIGHLY RECOGNISED AS A SPECIAL WONDER. LET US ALL RALLY TOGETHER,SINGING IN PRAISE, AND REJOICING FOR THE WORK AND SAFE ENVIROMENT.

MAYBE PARENTS ,FRIENDS , CHURCHES AND VOLUNTEERS SHOULD COME TOGETHER FOR A PEACEFUL DEMO.

Rev. Sara Cliff, Chester 9/4/2005
Supporting the campaign, there has to be a re think here !!

Stuart Bain 8/4/2005
Anyone who is not convinced by the arguments advanced on behalf of the Camphill Community should take 30 mins to scroll down this page and read the amount and depth of informed comments which have been made. No right thinking person, in possession of all the facts, could possibly agree with the so-called "preferred route".

It is a matter of great regret that it is our own MSP who is advocating this route. It really is disgraceful .

Susan Moult, Cults 7/4/2005
You have campaigned very publically over the last decade to flag up the impact the proposed route will have on the Camphill community. You have raised some very real issues and it is a pity that more has not been done to listen to your concerns and work with you rather than against you. However, can I ask what is now being done to raise awareness of the other vulberable communities on the other proposed routes, including the Camphill Beannachar community (Pitfodels route), the Linn Moor School and Easter Anguston Farm (Culter route). Surely the impact on these communities would also be significant and there seems to be few voices being raised on their behalf, and only a matter of weeks to make people aware of the issues.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Save Camphill is a single issue campaign focussed on the threat posed by the Murtle route through Camphill. This iroute is now fixed in sufficient detail to assess the impact of a near motorway standard road less than 100 metres from the bedrooms of severely learning disabled and autistic children and less than 50 metres from the fields where special needs adults work. As an organisation which has fought for the rights of special needs children and adults for 70 years, Camphill would be clearly be concerned about any route which would have a similar severe impact on any special needs community.

Hazel Cogganel 3/4/2005
Re K Thompson 23 3 05
Please imagine the distress caused to your daughter only 100 fold to a child with very accute hearing problemsand sensitivity to noise. Imagine your child having no respite EVER from this polution and noise. Imagine you are feeding your daughter from the organic vegetables you grow, polluted by exhaust fumes of as many cars.

Take your daughter round on a mild mannered horse to teach her balance and control. Let your daughter learn the wonders of nature through the noise of birds the russtling of trees when she cannot see as a 10 ton truck rolls by. All of this I do not imagine anyone would want for their child so get behind Camphill and fight with them. Your daughter will grow and florish move on to school and university children of Camphill are there hopefully forever and need your support.

Anonymous 2/4/2005
I just hope that those working so hard at the various campaigns such as Save Camphill do not end up banging their heads off walls in vain. Keep up the outstanding work and effort!!

One would have thought that in the 21st century we would be dealing with more intelligent problems than this.

I would like to think that this entry will get into the forum, but I doubt it. Nevertheless, I am glad to have written it. Best wishes, Anon.

Gregor McAbery 21/3/2005
Friends of the Earth has launched a new website called stopthebypass.com to fight the current road building proposals that threaten Camphill and yet can't cut city traffic problems.

Large scale roads bring more traffic, and Aberdeen's bypass will be no exception.

stopthebypass.com both provides you with background information and allows you to respond electronically to the current informal consultation. Your response goes straight to the Scottish Executive officer responsible and will be recorded.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Save Camphill welcomes the support it gets from Friends of the Earth as well as those who are in favour of an Aberdeen by-pass (but who object to the potential impact of the Murtle route through Camphill). This Friends of the Earth website, with its online consultation, is certainly valuable for those Save Camphill supporters who oppose the principle of building a new road.

H Coggane 19/3/2005
I am extremely angry at the comment made by C Murdoch 12/03/05. Implying my daughter and other residents are being used to fight the save camphill campaign. Does she not have the same rights as anyone else in trying to protect her home and environment. I feel as a parent of someone not able to fight for themselves that not to let her be involved would be a violation of her rights.

How dare C Murdoch deny residents of Camphill a say in what happens to their home.

S Ross Milltimber 17/3/2005
Without wishing to descend into an electronic slanging match I would like to comment on your reply to my original e-mail.Firstly I would not deny that you have been in consultation with all the various agencies over the last eleven years, what I would question is the level of willingness on your part to discuss possible mitigation measures. Secondly, I have no reason for wishing the route to go through murtle other than it makes sense in terms of cost, time of completion, highest uptake of traffic (Pitfodels is too close to the city centre and the further west the route is placed the fewer vehicles would use it) .Clearly there are other options it's just that none fulfill the aims of the AWPR as well as the murtle route. As to the greater good of the community and the fact that you aren't against the AWPR in priniple- except in your back yard or so it would seem -perhaps you could have spent some of the last eleven years considering ways of minimising any upheaval and preparing your community for such an outcome?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Thank you for accepting some of our important points and I can assure you that, contrary to your assertion, there was a great deal of effort expended on discussing mitigation measures.

Do not be duped by the very unrealistic virtual reality model with its green wide-angled empty road view at Murtle. The reality is of six lanes of noisy traffic (some of it grinding in low gear up the steep slip roads closest to the children's residences) in what has previously been a pleasant green belt both linking and giving a healthy breathing space to our separate but closely associated estates and communities.

We remain puzzled by your outright dismissal of other routes. What is it that would "fulfil the aims of the AWPR"? Traffic reduction in Aberdeen and improving the flow of traffic round Aberdeen, I would have thought. Take a look at the AWPR team's figures and you will see that the Murtle route through Camphill is NOT the best for traffic reduction on ANY of the key routes identified by the AWPR team for 2010 traffic flows!

So, if it is not the best, not necessarily the cheapest, and all the experts all agree it carries at least some degree of risk for the well-being of vulnerable adults and children, why continue to insist it is the only viable option?

Mrs K. Maureen McClure 16/3/2005
This would be very damaging to young special needs people who are extremely sentitive. This is their home and it would destroy the work of the community.

As the mother of an autistic man of 46 years in northern Ireland I know exactly how they could react it would really be cruel.

I cannot begin to imagine how the Aberdeen authorities could ever have considered such a scheme.

You really must site this road in a different area. The upheaval for them would be cruel

S Ross, Milltimber 16/3/2005
Having attended one of the many public consultation meetings I was both shocked and surprised at the level of disinformation that Camphill and its agents have seen fit to propagate in its efforts to mislead the public. I feel that the campaign is disingenuous in the extreme and is infact a classic example of 'nimbyism'. You would have us believe that the route 'tears 'the community in half when infact there are already two quite seperate units that use the old railway line to acess each other. The only part of Camphill that appears to be affected is a small triangle which would be redeveloped to accomodate the slip road - the building involved is 100m from the said slip road which I am told would have a false earth hill to act as a sound and visual barrier plus tree screening .From the discussions I had with the various engineers last night it seems to me that there is a complete lack of will on the part of Camphill to enter into any discussion on how to best minimise the impact on this incredibly small part of camphill-certainly not the 'heart 'of the community. I feel that Camphill is attempting to morally and emotionally hi-jack this whole process and many people are wary of speaking out for fear of being seen vindictive and heartless. Nothing could be further from the truth, I am entirely supportive of the community and indeed was a volountary worker there for a time. There is however such a thing as the greater good of the wider community of which we are all a part - we need this road and the Murtle route is the only viable option. Please stop exaggerating the extent of the impact of this route on your communityfor you will inevitably lose support and respect from the wider public.

EDITOR REPLIES: We take issue with your allegations of disinformation and your suggestion that Murtle is the "only viable option"? Save Camphill has had many discussions with Ministers, MPs, MSPs, councillors and numerous other organisations. Not all have agreed with Save Camphill's position, but not one of them has accused Save Camphill of "disinformation".

As to Murtle being the "only viable option" this is clearly untrue. That is precisely what you are being asked to give your opinions on in the current consultation exercise!

Accepting that there are alternatives and that there would be a detrimental impact on Camphill's children and adults (even the AWPR preliminary findings accept that, but believe that it could be manageable), your vehemence that the route must go through Murtle is puzzling. Are there other reasons for wanting this route?

The suggestion that Camphill is not participating in consultations is quite simply untrue. If that is being stated by the AWPR team at the exhibitions it MUST be challenged. Camphill has been involved in discussions for ELEVEN years and these discussions - at many levels right up to the Transport Minister himself - continue to this day.

As to the greater good of the community, let me remind you that Save Camphill is not and has never been opposed to the AWPR. That is one reason why (1) its objection was submitted 11 years ago (giving more than ample time for consideration and due research) and (2) why it has made a point of communicating with the authorities throughout.

Amar 14/3/2005
The environmental impact should seriously be taken into account and studied by more independent professional organisation before any final decision. Money is not all what we hope to leave for our kids, but a safe environment and a decent life for our disabled community. History will judge the responsible for any disaster.

C Murdoch 12/3/2005
I am extremely concerned that the management of the Camphill Community are purposefully pushing their vulnerable residents into the spotlight and using them as a political pawns. It is shameful that the people they have an obligation to protect are being used in this way. Surely the most appropriate strategy is to shield the vulnerable from the controversy and not to wind them up about it by involving them in a media circus. The management should be doing all it can to mitigate the effects of the route - considering interim strategies, short term relocation, the leasing or buying of other local green spaces - engaging with the planners to mininimise the impact. Parading the residents and children in front of the media and emphasising the downsides to them can only be exacaerbating the problem and making them more distressed than they would otherwise be if the route to be chosen were indeed to be the Murtle route.
EDITOR'S NOTE: You seem to forget it is the residents at Camphill who instigated the Save Camphill campaign! Your suggestion that they are being "used" is to demean the very real role that those with learning disabilities can have in communicating and representing their own interests and opinions. This is their campaign and they should front it.
I can also assure you that for more than eleven years since the first objection, the communities have been (and still are) very much involved in discussions with the Minister for Transport, the Scottish Executive, Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council.

Clive Lancaster, South Africa 11/3/2005
The impression I have of the map of the proposed routes is, that it in no way shows to a person looking at it for the first time, just how close to the roads are going to be. They are a lot closer than indicated!

H Coggane 10/3/2005
Like many other residents in Camphill my daughter is extremely noise sensitive. It is well documented noise polution is a serious health hazard. not to mention the constant build up of toxic exhaust fumes,

If her health deteriorated as a result of this road I would not hesitate to pursue her case through the courts.

John Hall 9/3/2005
Hello I have had the pleasure of visiting all of the Camphill estates during my childhood and was always impressed by the tranquil surroundings. Anyone knows the effects of living near unwanted noise upon their own well being. Just ask anyone living in a major city in the work.

Garioch 7/3/2005
Good to see that the Evening Express poll http://www.thisisaberdeen.co.uk/bypasspoll on the proposed route for the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road currently shows that more than 70% of people are not in favour of the Murtle route through Camphill.

Steve Morrison 6/3/2005
I am for this route. However I would like to think that there is scope to accommodate both the community and its undoubtedly valuable work as well as helping the greater economy of the North East. This should be by no means impossible.

Claire B 6/3/2005
I think the road should go ahead through the Bieldside area. The road will be in a cutting therefore the noise and visual impact will be minimal. There many other people affected who will have to move and you should be gratefull it won't destroy the estate.

EDITOR'S NOTE: If you look at the map on the home page you will actually see it very definitely would destroy part of the estate!

Regarding noise and disturbance, you should speak to people who understand the sensory problems of children with extreme learning difficulties such as autism. Until you have done that your judgement is based on your perceptions of noise and disturbance - but autistic children don't have the cognitive function to filter out unwanted noise. Disturbance also causes regressive or challenging behaviour.

In the opinion of the experts, this would, if not destroy the estate, prevent the work continuing as it does. It would be likely Camphill would not be able to take the severely learning disabled children it currently does.

Beverley Ferguson 4/3/2005
We all know, even if we have no direct or in-depth experience of special needs, that roads can be fascinating and the very real dangers of them unrealised by many of those in our communities. I personally don't see the sense in actually creating a danger within a community that is specifically designed for vulnerable people, I mean what would Health and Safety have to say about it! Even Planners would be unlikely to agree to a new community for special needs people being split into two parts and separate by a by-pass!

Perhaps I'm just cynical but in my view its probably down to which route costs less to build. Might it be that to compulsory purchase part of the Camphill estate is cheaper than other route options?

If the people proposing the route are going to have to spend months arguing the case with the community, they are likely to incur some hefty professional fees which means that their profit will be reduced anyway. Why not re-route and reduce profit slightly but create some decent PR?

I hope an agreeable compromise can be made which doesn't endanger the Camphill community.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Beverley you are so right. The authorities are now trumpeting the fact that this is the cheapest route. So financial cost does seem to be over-ruling human cost.

George and Sandra Anderson 23/2/2005
For a 'by-pass', the route needs to be much further west. As usual Aberdeen planners decide a major route must go through the urban area - Anderson Drive and the Inner Ring Road. In the future, assuming Aberdeen is still allowed to grow, this 'by pass' will be going through the middle of Aberdeen, much as Anderson Drive does today. In many, many years, Aberdeen planners will suddenly decide "We need a Western By-Pass!"

Tim Coulter 16/2/2005
Cities and towns through out the world have found alternative solutions to surface transportation by the use of tunnels. This is established technology and has been proven economically viable time and time again when given a proper thorough evaluation with the alternatives.

Tunneling allows for a much greater choice of routing as it is mostly dependant on the local underground geology. Surface impact is minimal.

Astrid Koppernaes 13/2/2005
Several stretches of the AWPR should be constructed as tunnels.

Camphill and the people of Aberdeen deserves a proper assessment of such an alternative, which will have significantly less environmental impact than the current proposal.

Edward Cais 10/2/2005
Article on Professor Brown's report in The Herald, Tuesday 8th February 2005, page 5.

Dr I J Bousfield, Keithhall 10/2/2005
In a TV interview (January 27) about the interim report by Professor James Hogg on the effects of the proposed Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) on the Camphill communities, the leader of Aberdeen City Council, Kate Dean, claimed that Camphill had not been prepared to discuss possible mitigation measures.

This is a distortion of the facts. For many months and until as recently as last October, the Camphill Schools (whom the report states are likely to suffer most from the AWPR) were involved in regular discussion on mitigation measures with the AWPR managing agents, who are directly responsible to Aberdeen City Council.

As a member of the school's council of management, I have seen the details of these discussions myself. Only when the schools realised that no amount of mitigation would be adequate to protect the vulnerable children in their care did they decide that further discussions would of no avail.

Ann O. Walker, Aberdeen 10/2/2005
On the very day on which we mourned the murder by the Nazis of thousands of Jews, gypsies and disabled people, it was incredible that Kate Dean of Aberdeen City Council should advocate moving the disabled residents of Newton Dee Village and the Camphill Rudolf Steiner Schools out of their homes while the bypass, which is to destroy their community, is being built.

When they fled Austria at the time of annexation, the founders of Camphill were welcomed here and supported in what they set out to do. In 1940, they founded a way of life which has meant that thousands of people with disabilities have been able to live meaningful lives.

It is ironic that the needs of disabled people now appear to be less important than those of animals and plants, or the business community.

Aberdeen City Council seems intent on pushing the bypass throug its preferred route before there has been time to evaluate properly the impact it would have on the vulnerable.

We must not allow the council to place greater value on the "needs" of the industrial and commercial communities than on ordinary citizens.

Let us hope there is a willingness to find another route for the road.

Jim Potter, Aberdeen 10/2/2005
My understanding is that most of the children who could end up living just 100m away from a dual-carriageway have sensory problems. With autistic children in particular, I have heard that this has been described as "having loud speakers in your head, with no volume control".

Whereas most of us can generally filter out sounds we do not want, many autistic children do not have that ability. It is therefore obvious that those without sensory control within the Camphill community will risk suffering so close to traffic noise.

First Minister Jack McConnell has rightly said that "Government has a duty to protect vulnerable children". Instead of political rhetoric, let us see him put these fine words into action by protecting the Camphill residents and choosing one of the other identified routes for the Aberdeen bypass.

Leave Camphill to carry on its pioneering work undisturbed.

Graeme Mac, Aberdeen 8/2/2005
Wherever the council decide to put the bypass, SOMEONE will disagree. Even if they decide to build a bridge along the coast from Stonehaven to Balmedie.

So. Why don't we help them, rather than just say "not here matey". I think, if you live or travel through the city, you will agree that something needs to be done.

Is it not possible to just move the rout a few hundred yards away from Camphill?? Or Who else will say. NOT IN MY BACK YARD!!

I do agree that the community shouldnt be disturbed. There must be a fairly simple solution. I hope it comes soon.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Graeme, you are right. There are alternatives that will mean that Aberdeen can have its AWPR, but not at the human cost of the vulnerable children and adults at Camphill. I think most people accept that special needs people need their well being protected, so this is not just a NIMBY argument.

Everyone will have the chance to have their say when the Scottish Executive put five routes forward for opinions in a few weeks' time.

If you want the road and want to protect Camphill, you must make that clear by responding to that consultation.

F Conacher 8/2/2005
There must be another way to get goods from A to B without building more roads.

Gordon McPherson 8/2/2005
I wonder if people would care so much if it wasn't for the fact that Camphill happens to be in the richest and most affluent part of Aberdeen? What about sticking the ring road in, say, Northfield? Oh - it's already there, but then who cares about them...?

EDITOR'S NOTE: We should be clear that the support for Camphill comes not only from all areas of Aberdeen, but from throughout the UK and indeed the world - as a glance down the comments will show.

Rowan and Lynnn Da Silva, Australia 4/2/2005
What are the powers that be playing at? if they can drive a road through the heart of a sensitive community like Camphill, what next?

if this goes ahead as planned, in time,the people responsible will hang their heads in shame.

F.Thorkildsen 4/2/2005
It would be a shame to destroy this place!

Dr Simon Davey 4/2/2005
If this is to be a proper bypass, it must bypass the city not go through it! West of Culter is the only option.

Pamela Jackson, Berwick-on-Tweed 4/2/2005
I can see the requirement for a ring road for Aberdeen, but please do not break up a very important community.

Jim M 3/2/2005
Do local politicians really have to attack Camphill to try to get their way?

I can't be the only one who found the questioning of Camphill's motives in doing its own research distasteful. Worse still, the implication was that because it was paid for by Camphill it cannot be objective. (Presumably by the same logic research commissioned by Aberdeen City Council cannot be objective?)

Then, it may have been the same councillor, popped up on television and lambasted Camphill for not discussing the destruction of their community with the authorities (I understand from letters in the press that this attack was actually totally untrue).

ross anderson 30/1/2005
If so much money is going to be spent tarring even more of this tiny island, then, surely, a little more to avoid destroying an innocent community is the least we can do?

garioch 29/1/2005
Dr Konig and his followers fled to Aberdeen to escape Nazi persecution. They wanted to create a community where children with mental problems could play an active part in the community and enjoy as much freedom as possible.

Sixty-five years on, we are asked to stand by as they are surrounded by three-metre high walls and part of their community is flattened.

Imprisoning special needs children behind three-metre high walls and safety fences is not progress!. It is a return to the dark ages. In some vocabularies it might even be called "persecution".

E.Shoshan 21/1/2005
Newton Dee village is a brilliant jewel in the crown of the city of Aberdeen. An alternative to the WPR/Camphill route must be found

Y.Shoshan 21/1/2005
Should the council not be working to enhance this community and its endeavours rather than threatening it?

S.Kalli 21/1/2005
Rarely will so much have been lost for so little gained - stop it now!

C.Kalli 21/1/2005
Future generations will not understand the apathy of the present one if this tragedy goes ahead.

K.Varney 21/1/2005
This community is much more important than a bit of tarmac.

L.Barclay 21/1/2005
This is not an option and Camphill suggested bypass route should never have been a council option.

Ethel Taylor 21/1/2005
Especially since viewing the recent TV documentary, I feel very strongly that this wonderful community should not be divided or disturbed.

B.Smale, Surrey 21/1/2005
This community is a place of peace and of great civic and communal importance. the road should not bisect it and ruin a social amenity.

A,R and J Horgan 20/1/2005
The road would destroy both the nature here and the community

F.MacLeod 20/1/2005
This is a unique environment. Its ridiculous to stampede over it. Why should developers be supported in the face of deserving others?

J.Ritchie 20/1/2005
There must be an alternative to cutting Camphill in two.

A.Gray 20/1/2005
It would be so wrong to split the Camphill community

Maureen Webb 20/1/2005
This unique place should not be disturbed

S.Strachan 19/1/2005
Don't do it. It's a bad idea

K.Strachan 19/1/2005
Don't destroy a community. Think again, there must be another way

S.Begg 19/1/2005
This must not be allowed.

I. Colville, Dundee 19/1/2005
Try to re-route this road. There must be a better option.

A.L.Jason 19/1/2005
The proposed route is a shocking attack on the Camphill community.

Mariann Rank Juelsgaard, Denmark 12/1/2005
Save the camphill community. The place is very special and it would be very difficult to move the people living there without destroying there quality of live. But maybe that doesn´t matter because they are "just" people with special needs! There must be another possibility to place this road somewhere else. Good luck.

Clive Lancaster, South Africa 11/1/2005
Dear Sir, Aberdeen city definitely needs a bypass. BUT, it DOES NOT NEED TO and SHOULD NOT NEED TO go through Camphill's property.

As a former Co-worker and teacher from Murtle Estate who has lived on the site for over 18 years, I feel I have a fair idea of the needs of the residents, especially the children and young people who are challenged by moderate to severe difficulties. I have recently moved to a Camphill community in South Africa and experienced first hand, the effects of prolonged noise on most of the children and residents in the two adjacent communities here.

Our two communities are partially surrounded by what the South African government and locals call 'alien forests' of Blue Gum Trees. The municipality is well into the felling of these trees by now, with the use of chainsaws.

The effects on the children in my immediate care, of seeing there local environment systematically destroyed has been distressing.

Worse still, was the effect the noise of this work had on the children and other residents, not to mention the co-workers who had also to endure the effects of the noise on the children in their care.

Imagine trying to work in a classroom, or enjoy a meal with the permanent sound of machinery in your ears. The ground shaking as trees are constantly crashing. Like the children living on Murtle estate and the residents in Newton Dee, the pupils here in the Camphill School and residents in the neighbouring village are extremely sensitive to noise and depend on the security of a familiar and safe- environment.

During this period in which our landscape has dramatically changed the children have been more restless than usual. Many have been distraut when on walks in their estate they have lost their bearings, or just experienced that a forest that was once there is no longer. Children who suffer from the challenges of Autism, have had daily upset with the ground constantly trembling. Many children have lost sleep at night, or their sleep has been more disturbed than usual.

Now in South Africa, I have somehow got used to the lack of understanding for those people with special needs outwith the caring proffession. Therefore, I simply cannot understand how it is possible that in a sophisticated society like the UK and especially the caring nation of Scotland-my home for 25 years, a road route can be planned to devastate a community in Aberdeen. How is it possible?

Clive Lancaster

Gayle Cormie 1/1/2005
Please don’t let it destroy our community.

Leigh Cormie, California, USA 1/1/2005
I see little effort being put into finding an alternative by the local authorities. They obviously have no idea of the amazing work that is done by the Camphill Community or this bypass would never have been considered in the first place.

Elizabeth Large, Aberdeen 22/12/2004
Save this community! It is very important to us.

Lindsay Allan, Cults 22/12/2004
Save this community! It is very important to us.

Ethel Taylor, Peterculter 22/12/2004
Especially since viewing the recent TV documentary, I feel very strongly that this excellent community should not be disturbed.

Ian Stirling, Drumoak 22/12/2004
Ill thought out proposal for the bypass for short term gain for a few - long-term major loss to this community, which would be a tradgedy.

Margo Schulte, Banchory 22/12/2004
Save the community, don't ruin it by disturbing the inahabitants with massive building activity and intrusion.

Bernard Smale, Surrey 22/12/2004
This community is a place of peace and great cici and community importance. The road should not bisect it and ruin a social amenity.

Matthew Duncan 1/12/2004
Perhaps Andy from Ellon would care to elaborate on exactly how you can get from Brighton to Inverness using dual carriageways. As far as I am aware you can only get as far as Perth before you hit the A9, much of which is single carriageway and is regularly quoted as one of Scotland's most dangerous roads as a result.

i42 h.h. 21/11/2004
Visiting the Advent Fair today in Newton Dee showed me (ONCE MORE) how special this (ANY) Camphill Community is. To see the "villagers" being fully involved and enjoying what they are doing... this is truly amazing. When talking (and more important LISTENING) to these VERY SPECIAL people I became yet again aware how this proposed routing of the AWPR would DIRECTLY influence anyone in the community i.e. change the lives and way of living of our special friends so drastically that I am uncertain whether they would be able to continue "flourishing and shining" as they do.

Andy, Ellon 18/11/2004
The proposed Bypass would not DIRECTLY affect the good work that you do, but it would DIRECTLY affect thousands of other people who live in Unofficial Bypass areas with constant traffic or commuters from all over the North East who have to travel through Aberdeen City to go anywhere.
In 2004, You can travel from Brighton to Inverness, and it's only when you get to Aberdeen the at you get single lanes and no bypass route. There is enough technology to be able to build the bypass and keep it runing without affecting the daily running of your community.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Save Camphill is NOT against the AWPR. Many supporters, as you will see on this site, believe the AWPR cannot open a day too soon, but not at the risk of Camphill.
Your opinion that it would "not DIRECTLY affect the good work" must be weighed against expert opinions that it would damage or even terminate 65 years of dedicated work with vulnerable adults and children. Is that a risk worth taking when the Minister and the AWPR team assert there are alternative routes?

Ewan Wood 10/11/2004
Before going to Camphill, my wife and I felt we had lost our young daughter to autism. We have rediscovered her through the work and love that Camphill have shown her over the last few years. Of course she is still autistic but now she is a little girl who happens to be autistic NOT an autistic who happens to be a little girl.
This road MUST not be allowed to destroy this community - I consider this not too different from the Nazi's that Dr Karl Konig fled from in the first place (if only he'd known what would happen) PLEASE support the Save Camphill campaign.

Hugo Salgueirinho Maia 9/11/2004
Hi, I'm Hugo from Portugal! I just want to support you the only way I can, through words and at this forum. Go ahed with the fight, the roads you are building are much stronger than theirs. Good luck

Iain H. Hoos 9/11/2004
Did anyone listen to the nice programme on BBC RadioScotland "The Sacred Garden"? Very nice, I can recommend it, "see" (rather listen to it) http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/radioscotland/console/index.shtml?listen=/scotland/radioscotland/media/religion/rs_religion2_sun

M Arthur, Milltimber 8/11/2004
It would be a sin to disrupt the Camphill community.

Cosimo Imperiale 8/11/2004
Please do not destroy this lovely place

F McCulloch, Peebles 8/11/2004
It must be saved

D Baker, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Keep going with your campaign

C McKay, Woodside 8/11/2004
Keep the campaign going

N Rapson, Peterculter 8/11/2004
Keep up the campaign

Simon Korzec, Newbattle Abbey College 8/11/2004
All the best

I Thomson, Glasgow 8/11/2004
Good luck.

Duncan Macpherson, Cults 8/11/2004
No bypass here.

J & PCharlton, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
I think it is disgusting that Aberdeen City Council wants to put the bypass through your beautiful community

Karen Appleby, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
I hope that all your hard work pays off and you get the result that you deserve.

Edith Appleby, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Good luck

Mairi Freeden, Edinburgh 8/11/2004
We're keeping our fingers crossed

Ebony Reid, Craibstone 8/11/2004
Would be a great shame.

K Gove, Cults 8/11/2004
Such a beautiful community which should never be destroyed.

Liz C, Kingswells 8/11/2004
Never let it happen!

Sheppard, Westhill 8/11/2004
Extremely poor decision.

A Cathmuir, Peterculter 8/11/2004
Complete nonsense.

Charlotte Wood, Bieldside 8/11/2004
Should be rerouted.

Alan McKay, Bieldside 8/11/2004
A disgrace.

Ros, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
A disgrace!

Jackie Leith, Newtonhill 8/11/2004
Surely it could be placed elsewhere?

Katy Astell, Edinburgh 8/11/2004
Consider the needs of people!

Dianna O'Neil, Dolphinton 8/11/2004
Think again!

H Stewart, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Totally against proposal

Alan & Pamela Forsyth, Innellan 8/11/2004
Put people before profit.

W Sharpe, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Barbaric

G Taylor, Banchory 8/11/2004
Unbelievably insensitive!

K Raitt, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
To build a road through here would be criminal!

Gillian Clunas, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Apalling idea.

David Hawley, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Camphill is too valuable to disrupt!

Joan MacDonald, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
I'm with you. Good luck!

Kirsten Warrender (age 8), Bieldside 8/11/2004
I think it's terrible. It will spoil so many people's lives

A Korstane, Stonehaven 8/11/2004
Must be stopped!

A, R & J Horgan, Westhill 8/11/2004
The road would destroy the nature and the community.

Tommy Sheridan MSP, Scottish Parliament 8/11/2004
Stunning environment and a community way of life that is worth defending.

R Kirst, Kings Langley 8/11/2004
A unique human settlement for the disabled would be destroyed.

C Taylor, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
It would be a crime to lose such a wonderful place.

F MacLeod, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
This is a unique environment. It is ridiculous to stampede over it.

A Bewick, Bucksburn 8/11/2004
Such a waste to destroy the lovely land and such a valuable resource for vulnerable people

A M, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Inappropriate, insensitive.

Heather Finlayson, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
So unfair.

Ann Whitehead, Angus 8/11/2004
Please leave it alone.

A Newall, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Where is the compassion?

M Travies 8/11/2004
This cannot happen. No way.

Joan Reilly, Elie 8/11/2004
Don't destroy a valuable community.

Suzanne Cassell, Portlethen 8/11/2004
There are not enough places like this - it is a haven of peace and quiet.

Nancy Paul, Westhill 8/11/2004
It's just not on!

Jacinto Birchley, Craigielea Children's Centre 8/11/2004
Can't believe they are even thinking of it.

Frances Lyall, Peterculter 8/11/2004
Spoiling the whole and complete tranquility of this place.

Lesley Newton, Glasgow 8/11/2004
Utter distruction!

Lucy Irvine, Australia 8/11/2004
It saddens me that such a wonderful and inspiring place could be so disregarded.

Fiona Leith, Newburgh 8/11/2004
It would be an awful shame to upset a way of life and it is a lovely setting

Sheila Herfe, Bridge of Don 8/11/2004
Don't disturb the peace

Lesley Mackay, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Would hate to see this community disrupted.

S Pirie, Banchory 8/11/2004
Such a shame to lose a place like this.

Ann Mandsley, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Just say no to this crooked road.

C Chattington, Torness 8/11/2004
This must not go ahead

Bob Helme, Glasgow 8/11/2004
Good luck with the campaign.

E M Strouts, Suffolk 8/11/2004
Leave Camphill alone!

J Hughes, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Don't let them do it

E Stuart, Banchory 8/11/2004
To divide this community would be an absolute disgrace.

K Gordon, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
I hope there is a compromise.

Barbara Strouts, Auchenblae 8/11/2004
Must not put the road through

Martin Waterson, Johnshaven 8/11/2004
Short sighted and shocking.

Ann Verney, Worcestershire 8/11/2004
Don't let this destroy your creation.

Margaret Hodder, Cults 8/11/2004
Not through Camphill. Defend the defenceless.

J Mochtan, Ythanbank 8/11/2004
No way. Keep up the hard work!

C Booth, Dyce 8/11/2004
Keep protesting

Annett Heydenreich, Germany 8/11/2004
You just cannot take people's home away!

Raja, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Stop it

Marianne Knight, Crathes 8/11/2004
The road should be moved - not Camphill!

John Leper, Cults 8/11/2004
Unbelievable that the government wishes to destroy the community.

Linda Wilson, Bieldside 8/11/2004
It could easily be re-routed.

May Wilson, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Government gone mad

L Carroll, Cruden Bay 8/11/2004
Shouldn't be allowed!

Matthew Wickham, Drumoak 8/11/2004
It's terrible.

Annette Ross, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
This is a wonderful place. The road can be rerouted.

Heather Armitage, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
This must not be allowed to happen. It is a scandalous proposal.

Rachel Cruickshank, Aberdeen (age 15) 8/11/2004
I want to help save the school.

Jason Heeps, Woodside (Age 14) 8/11/2004
I don't want this school to be destroyed.

J Middleton, Culter 8/11/2004
The road will split us in two.

June Davidson, Inverurie 8/11/2004
No road here.

Lynn Davidson, Blackburn 8/11/2004
I will protest, if needed.

Jean Littlejohn, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
I'm sure that it could go somewhere else.

Shiona Baird MSP, Dundee 8/11/2004
Fascinating community - so much good work. It must not be destroyed.

Lisa Dawson, Maryculter 8/11/2004
The bypass should not be allowed through Camphill. This wonderful place should not be spoilt.

Kevin Hay, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
What they are planning is a disgrace. I am totally against it.

Joel Geider, Bieldside 8/11/2004
I don't want the bypass to come because I think it will make a lot of noise

Emily Moore, Linn Moor 8/11/2004
There is no way that this bypass should be allowed. It would destroy a beautiful community.

Pamela Jack, London 8/11/2004
It would be sheer madness to allow this to happen.

Dorothy Cryle, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Wishing you every success with your campaign to preserve this wonderful community.

Mary Anne Bailey, Chippenham 8/11/2004
This is too good a community to split and spoil. Please don't do it.

Anne Allan, Cornwall 8/11/2004
Don't spoil such a wonderful place.

Sheila Walker, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Too good to destroy.

Anne MacEwen, Stonehaven 8/11/2004
The special places in this world need to be treasured.

Heather Nicol, Stonehaven 8/11/2004
My brother was a part of Camphill for over half his life. This place must not be compromised for the sake of a road, so that others can benefit from Camphill.

Kathleen Morgan, Maryculter 8/11/2004
It is terrible what they are trying to do. What kind of society do we live in? We should be protecting the vulnerable.

Susan Skinner, Milltimber 8/11/2004
There must be another way to build this road.

Rhylva Clark, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Keep up the pressure. This wonderful place must be saved.

Noah Black, Bieldside 8/11/2004
A mind-blowing proposal!

D Fowler, Bucksburn 8/11/2004
Don't destroy this wonderful community.

Erika Nauck, Bieldside 8/11/2004
Please find another route for the WPR. It would totally destroy the necessary peace and harmony of Newton Dee village.

Laura McGinn, Glasgow 8/11/2004
The road is needed, but not enough to make damaging this area acceptable.§

Martin Weir, Milltimber 8/11/2004
Planning vandalism which must be prevented for the sake of future generations.

J Smith, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Excellent & essential facility.

Matthew Davidson, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Never give in

Graham Morrison, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Essential work here!

Jaqui PHillip, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Leave well alone

Vicki Allan, Ellon 8/11/2004
Why?

R Allan, Ellon 8/11/2004
Leave the place alone!

T Zelenka 8/11/2004
Hope there is a solution.

L Middleton, Banchory 8/11/2004
Is nothing sacred?

Anna Britain, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
No need for this road to come via here.

Kester Lunney, Oldmeldrum 8/11/2004
No WPR here!

G Milne, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Poor planning

Jean Comrie, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
How dare they even think of destroying this cool place?

D & D Fraser, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
What a wonderful area to spoil and upset the community.

C Smith, Cults 8/11/2004
Disappointing it they cannot find a better route.

M Macdonald, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Planning ignorance.

C Mackinnon, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Typical planning ignorance. People before roads!

Brian Dawes, Burn of Benholm 8/11/2004
Children, young people and adulkts in the Camphill communities cannot tolerate noise and pollution which seriously triggers and undermines their mental health and disability. The council should have a duty of care.

Sonia Smith, Bieldside 8/11/2004
In the wrong place. Why spoil beautiful countryside?

David Smith, Bieldside 8/11/2004
Another developers' dream come true. Another Holyrood in the making. Wrong place, wrong time. Stop it!

Gary Hill, Torphins 8/11/2004
Community first!

Mrs G Adams, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Unfair, needless lack of vision in respect of planning.

Gaie & William Tough, Aboyne 8/11/2004
This is an oasis in a mad world and as such should be left alone. HANDS OFF CAMPHILL!

Pascale Pouet-Brown, Wiltshire 8/11/2004
This is a refuge for peace and happiness. Let it be!

Gordon Brown, Wiltshire 8/11/2004
I have known the community for over 40 years. It is of immeasurable value to its residents and an inspirtation to the rest of us.

Irene Leak, Dumfries 8/11/2004
This community has an influence way beyond its geographic boundaries. It has taken 50 years or so of careful development. Could the road lobby take as much careful thought in their planning?

Karen Smith, Cults 8/11/2004
Whilst I support the WPR, I think the position of this section is wrong.

Maggie Fraser, Bridge of Muchalls 8/11/2004
The Council ought to be downright ashamed of themselves.

J Emery, Bieldside 8/11/2004
The interests of the people living here have not been considered, or it would not take place!

Cathy Emery, Bieldside 8/11/2004
It would destroy such a beautiful coimmunity that benefits people who really need it.

Ben, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Should not be allowed.

Alison Shoemork, Kincardineshire 8/11/2004
This should not be allowed. Anyone with any knowledge of this community would never even consider this route. (Never mind anyone with a heart.)

Jo Burns, Edinburgh 8/11/2004
Surely there are alternative routes? PLEASE go on talking it through. The proposed solution is totally disrespectful of the communities involved.

Vivian Paul, Bieldside 8/11/2004
Terrible!

Ann Stewart, Danestone 8/11/2004
It would be a sin.

John Stewart, Danestone 8/11/2004
Don't let it happen!

William Brown, Aboyne 8/11/2004
The interests of those who care for others are paramount.

Max Gouch, Insch 8/11/2004
No!

E Davidson, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
No!

Ann Lena, Cults 8/11/2004
How can they even consider destroying your community?

Rebekka Dansangu, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Roads are secondary to the needs of people here.

Christine Watson, Royal Cornhill Hospital. 8/11/2004
Hope you are successful in your quest. Lovely place for a fisit and to meet the needs of people of our world. Good Luck.

Rob Sargent, Dores 8/11/2004
Newton Dee serves a special purpose for those that require different needs. It is not necessary to even consider putting a bypass through here.

J Bradfield, Westhill 8/11/2004
No way

Family Poortman, Maud 8/11/2004
It's just a stupid thing to do.

Anna Browne, Methlick 8/11/2004
Absolutely disgusted to hear that they could even think of destroying this brilliant and beautiful place.

Vanessa Browne, Ellon 8/11/2004
It would be such a shame to spoil something so nice and beneficial.

Frances, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
Hope this great community is not spoiled.

F Forbes, Banchory 8/11/2004
Don't spoil the tranquility of Camphill.

J Todd, Aberdeen 8/11/2004
You must stop the bypass through Newton Dee. This is a unique community and must be respected.

M Johnston, London 8/11/2004
I hope you manage to prevent this bypass. Good luck.

David & Anne Wakefield, Peterculter 8/11/2004
The peripheral Route should not distupt vital facilities such as Camphill.

Eleonor Hall 8/11/2004
Change the route note to disturb this wonderful place.

Dr Cathryn Glazener 8/11/2004
Please do not disrupt all the wonderful work and atmosphere here. It is unique.

Dr H Al-Sayer 8/11/2004
Norway and Switzerland are full of roads with underground tunnels. Why don't they do that here.

Barbara Lynch, Inverness 8/11/2004
Please - No! No! No!

Lyo & Hyroko Usukebe 8/11/2004
There are other possibilities to make a by-pass. Not this place!

Gillian Sinton 8/11/2004
How can the planners be so obtuse. It proves they hear but they don't actually listen.

Crawford V Keir 8/11/2004
It is all so unecessary!

Simon Ritter, Switzerland 8/11/2004
This proposal would be a catastrophe!

J & E Geddes 8/11/2004
Leave things as they are. Thank you!

June Fleet 8/11/2004
NO!

Mrs Dawson 8/11/2004
People have worked very hard over the years to make a decent place to live. Leave it for them.

M Baker 8/11/2004
Absolutely disgraceful to destroy a place that has taken years to form.

E Baker 8/11/2004
A disgrace to Aberdeen to even think about it!

Patrícia F. 8/11/2004
I’m amazed that a Country such as Scotland is, with its proud history and political leaders can go along with a thing like this. This situation is totally unacceptable. Even for “regular” people this is a nightmare. It’s a shame that someone with a degree (such as those held by the people who are planning this road) can treat a place like Camphill as an obstacle in a map!!! I don’t have enough arguments against brainless actions. I can only appeal to what’s left of those Sirs brain cells to be active NOW before those errors leave the project to the landscape. The bypass is needed I'm sure but I am certain that another route can be easily found, far away from Camphill area. (My English isn’t perfect but I think I made myself clear.) Força!

Frank 3/11/2004
For anyone contributing to this forum who is unacquainted with the local geography, the Ordnance Survey will show you a navigable map at webpage http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/. Entering grid reference NJ877017 into the ‘Search for’ box will centre the map between the Murtle and Newton Dee estates, where the Western Peripheral Route is proposed to run, the exact alignment being as yet unannounced, despite speculation. Who knows, someone may discover a previously overlooked alternative, viable route? Robin, I’m not sure if you have local knowledge, but the ‘unofficial B-road bypass’ that Jock Macgregor speaks of isn’t a linear one, which could simply be upgraded. In any case, the point of contention is the way through the ribbon development along the North Deeside Road. I suppose the point where that present zig-zag ‘bypass’ crosses the Dee is at Maryculter Bridge, from where it passes within a couple of hundred metres of the third Camphill site (Grid ref. NJ856008), so I guess that wouldn’t meet with approval either. As I’ve already pointed out, the old railway track passes close to all three sites, so “re-establishing the line going west” might be clever, but would someone object, I wonder?

Robin P Berger 31/10/2004
I thoroughly object to the planned rout of the AWPR. Is there no way that the ‘B’ roads mentioned by Jock MacGregor could be upgraded to form a safe and convenient passage around Aberdeen.

Whilst building a suitable bypass is necessary, should we not also seek to reduce the number of vehicles driving around Aberdeen. After all, there is a railway line connecting the north to the south (and perhaps re-establishing the line going west to, say, Banchory would be clever).

We need a long term solution for Aberdeen’s transport needs. Convenient public transport is surely however, the way forward. Like all other significant cities, let us invest in a metro system for Aberdeen that can grow with the city.

The impulse behind Camphill Communities is one that I find both inspiring and deeply meaningful, and I take my hat off to all those who live and work there.

Aberdeen should be proud to be home to such an outstanding and internationally acclaimed organisation. Let us Save Camphill and not let short sighted greed ruin over 60 years of outstanding work.

SH 25/10/2004
Following the last update I wrote as suggested to Deputy Health Minister Tom McCAbe and received no reply. After a reminder I eventually had a response from the Transport Department stating that it was not a concern of Mr McCabe. I have written again to Mr McCabe suggesting that, as Newton Dee makes a very positive contribution to Health and Community Care he should perhaps take a more active interest.

Claire 25/10/2004
I am interested in helping to save Camphill - more so now after watching the Grampian TV programme.

Peta Cunningham, Fife 25/10/2004
I watched the Grampian TV programme about the proposed city bypass with a growing sense of horror and disbelief. Have the representatives of the council and the chamber of commerce been to Camphill? Have they taken into consideration the effect the bypass will have on the residents? I doubt it. I work in Fife with vulnerable adults and know full well the results of changes to routine. If there is anything I can do to add my voice and that of my husband to your protest, please let me know.

Stewart Whyte, Conservative Candidate for Aberdeen South 25/10/2004
Well done with Grampian TV's programme. It was noticeable that Kate Dean didn't have anything to say about Camphill and kept emphasising the need for the by-pass - a point that you don't dispute. You have my total support.

DJ 25/10/2004
I think the proposed route of the new road is a case of taking the easy option. Other landowners in the area would have far more financial clout to oppose the road going through their property. The authorities are well aware of this and I believe they decided on this route as the line of least resistance. Keep up the good work.

Ross Flett 22/10/2004
I have just watched with wonder the Grampian TV programme on the proposed road that would divide your community. How horrified I am that this project could be built so near to your wonderful community. I would love to help with any campaign that would remove this threat.

Hazel McIver & Linda Wetherly 21/10/2004
Before the Grampian TV documentary I did not think the bypass would disturb Camphill that much, as I had never been to Camphill or really knew what went on there. But, now knowing what a lovely community you have there to think how the bypass will ruin so many people lives, is unthinkable. I hope other people that watched the program, will join us and help in any way we can the get this ludicrous idea changed and put the bypass somewhere else.

Jock MacGregor 20/10/2004
Aberdeen needs a bypass. Ask the tens of thousands of commuters who are stuck in traffic jams each day on what are in many cases B class roads if the bypass is needed. This trafic congestion is no longer confined to peak hours they are throughout the day.
There is already a bypass which consists of a serious of B class roads which if linked together form the unofficial bypass. How many people have been killed on these minor roads. I myself have been involved in two accidents and had several near misses.
Camphill is being used by many of the communities who will be impacted by the bypass as an emotional weapon against the bypass. Their objective is to have the bypass built but not in their backyard. Where was these communities compassion when they stopped the building of a special needs school for 'problem' youths (their words not mine) at Countesswells a few years back? They would not even permit the building of an animal santuary near Kingswells on the basis it would be too noisey. So much for care and compassion.
These new found supporters of Camphill until recently did not even know it existed until they discovered it could assist them in fighting the bypass. I wonder how many of these new found supporters would be against a Camphill community if one were to be proposed from scratch today?
Aberdeen can be and is proud of the Camphill community and the work it does there and around the world but please do not allow yourselves to be used as a bargaining chip by a group of individuals with ulterior motives. Involving publicity seeking politicians such as Mr Sheridan does no good either. There was even an MSP whose argument against the bypass was by the time it was completed in 2010 the oil industry would be gone so Aberdeen did not need a bypass. Brilliant so in 2010 we all sign on for unemployment benefit and the industries unique to Aberdeen pack up and move. I can't remember her name but would suggest she resigns as being unfit to hold public office. You don't need individuals like these supporting your cause, they may actually lose you support from the Aberdeen community in general whose support you currently do have. Ths bypass is going to be built, the argument for it is undeniable, Aberdeen needs it. Camphill needs to work with the planners to determine a route which will minimise the impact on the community.
EDITOR'S NOTES: Thank you for your comments, can I make the following points for clarification?
(1) As you recognise in your comment but I would like to stress, the Save Camphill campaign is not opposed to the AWPR.
(2) We understand your concern about Save Camphill being "used", but are confident that the vast majority of supporters back the campaign for genuine reasons.
(3) We have cross-party support from Labour, SNP, Conservative, Green, SSP and other politicians, as you can read on this website.
(4) Camphill has tried for ELEVEN YEARS to work with the planners but believes in all that time that its concerns have never been properly heard or understood.

Derek Johnston 16/10/2004
The casual "must have the new road and that's all there is to it" attitude of the authorities quite frankly appals me. There appears to be a reluctance to even seek a solution to this disgraceful situation. I believe an amendment to the route was proposed in response to complaints from residents of Kingswells. Surely if proposed route changes can be considered from other communities along the route then Camphill should be given the same consideration. I sincerely hope this road can be re-routed in order that the excellent work at Camphill can continue in peace.

Rikke Denmark 11/10/2004
Camphill is a magical place and I find it heartbreaking to think that some people are planning on changing that. Greetings to all the people that made my stay in Murtle so wonderful and unforgettable.

José Carlos Mendes, Portugal 8/10/2004
Only ONE Camphill in Bieldside. Not two-half Camphill's

Christoph Scheme, Germany 1/10/2004
I am writing from Germany to express my concerns regarding the building of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. If it is build the way it is planned in the moment, the two Camphill Communities Newton Dee and Murtle in the Bieldside area of Aberdeen would no longer be able to continue with their highly important and aiding work with people with special needs. These Camphill Communities help not only the above mentioned people but set a high moral and motivating example to people all over the world.
It is four years ago now that I worked for a period of 13 months in Beannachar, a Camphill Community located very close to Newton Dee and Murtle on South Deeside. During this time (I was 20 years old at that time) I learned about the importance of the work that a couple of hundred people, about half of them with special needs, are doing every day for more than 65 years. The memory of this work still is a great inspiration for my life, even now, four years after I have left Camphill to go on discovering the world.
The way Newton Dee and Murtle work deserves to be saved.

Alasdair Ross 30/9/2004
I support you whole-heartedly in your opposition to the Western Peripheral Route. The whole project is a disgrace.

Jia Wang, China 27/9/2004
I am an overseas student in Aberdeen and work as a support worker for a disabled girl. I was impressed by the tranquility of Camphill when I first visited there last year, from where I came to understand the importance of a stable environment for people who need special cares. According to its founder Dr. Karl König, Camphill community aims to provide those people 'peaceful love' and 'loving peace'. However, I could not believe the proposal of the bypass suggested by authourities when I saw it. If doing so, where to put the precious peace of Camphill? Please keep it as it used to be.

Edward Cais, Glasgow 23/9/2004
In Aberdeen City Council's advertisement from The Herald for a Head of Physical Development it says Aberdeen wants to support "vibrant participative" communities. The city has a Community Planning Partnership which brings together public, private and voluntary sectors to ensure a balanced agenda is achieved. They are also committed to "sustainable development and social enclusion". How then can they justify the situation with the Western Peripheral Route?

Kenneth S Trush, New York 20/9/2004
I am writing to express my objection to the proposed routing of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route through the Camphill community in the Bieldside area of Aberdeen.
I live in New York City and as a father of a special needs son and a director on the Achilles Track Club http://achillestrackclub.com board (an organization that enables people with disabilities to participate in mainstream athletics) I understand the importance of a stable, consistent environment. Changes to an environment can have a material effect on how a special needs person learns, acts and progresses. It is important to ensure that a special community such as Camphill, which has been around for over six decades, be allowed to flourish and continue to make a difference in peoples lives.
I cannot fathom how the Scottish Executive would consider jeopardizing the physical safety and emotional state of people who need special care in order to maximize their potential. As an alternative, I urge the Scottish Executive to find a different route that would not have such disastrous implications for such a special and vulnerable community.

Karen Lindsay Smith 19/9/2004
I have never been involved with Camphill or the Camphill Movement but have grown up knowing and understanding it. My uncle was one of the first villagers at the Glencraig Community and subsquently lived in Mourne Grange, in Northern Ireland. My uncle died two years ago. He had a happy and fullfilling life within, and because of, these communities. When I read about what was happening I cried because what I had thought would be constant and enduring in our everchanging and often careless world is being threatened. As has been said again and again the people who want this road to be built do not know the Camphill community and the differences it makes to people's lives. But it does not take a strong link or a great understanding to see it for what it is; a wonderful, peaceful haven, which I would truly love to stay that way.

Andreas 19/9/2004
I have visited Camphill 10 years ago and have only good memories about Aberdeen and the Noth East of Scotland. However seeing the arguments about the proposed bypass I from the distance just can't comprehend the reasons of the authorities suggesting this proposel. If the damage to the people and Aberdeen's international image can be ignored than I would suggest to come clear and open to THE HIDDEN AGENDAS which surely must be behind such a conflict.

bilito 18/9/2004
Like a "Força" we are with you....

Mark Annis 16/9/2004
Stop the road building programme altogether

Frank 15/9/2004
Garioch, what you say about “bustle” may be true for a few, but it can’t be the universal norm, for the Camphill-Rudolf Steiner-School introduction, at webpage http://www.crss.org.uk/index.html, enthuses, “The location enables the pupils to benefit from both the beautiful countryside and the hustle and bustle of town life with all its cultural possibilities.” But even for the few, I feel the possible impact is being very overstated, because this road will not go “through” a Camphill community, it could be 200+ metres away, shielded by landscaping, making it virtually imperceptible. I consider that Camphill could be more effectively ‘saved’ by lobbying to ensure that the least intrusive route is taken, within the proposed corridor, and that shielding measures are maximised. That I would support. EDITOR'S NOTE: The position of the drilling rigs at this precise moment will make it clear to anyone who sees them that, not only is the route currently being surveyed not "200+ metres away", it actually would involve demolition of part of Camphill. That IS "through" a Camphill community.

Garioch 14/9/2004
Children, young people and adults with learning disabilities and autism don't relate to the world the same way the rest of us do. You or I may find noise and constant movement annoying and distracting. For some of the people at Camphill noise and bustle is a - literally - terrifying and disorientating experience. For some it even causes uncontrollable, uncoordinated and involuntary muscle movement. Frank, you seem to think of Camphill as some suburban idyll where people don't want the road simply because they want a peaceful life (NIMBYs you might say). No, this is a haven for vulnerable people who simply cannot cope with the stresses of life.

Jan, Germany 14/9/2004
Only those who know the people in Camphill do really know what effect the road would have. Go to Camphill, find out for yourselves, and you will no longer understand how one can even think of constructing this road. Greetings to all the wonderful people who made my time in Murtle an unforgettable experience!

Frank 14/9/2004
Of course Lorna, to the west of Culter is VSA’s Linn Moor Residential School (for children with special needs). So will the route have to go well west of there? At this rate, it will be heading through the Larig Gru!! But I agree that with or without this road, there will be commercial pressures for development around the two Camphill sites. So is it realistic for anyone to expect to retain a rural oasis, in the midst of an expanding city? Garioch, Pedro, I am not biased, either way, I’m simply expressing my opinions, as invited at the top of this page. Many thousands of people live much nearer than 100 metres to a main road, and these must include a proportion who are disabled, vulnerable or have special needs, living in the general community. That’s my point: wherever this road goes, it will be near someone. I am astounded that there appears to be so little dialogue with planners. This route has been on the drawing board for years, so maybe it was unfortunate that “the most sensitive units” were established adjacent to “the indicated corridor”. Incidentally, I can find no mention of an SSSI in the area - the only Aberdeen City ones listed are at Nigg, Cove and Scotstown Moor. EDITOR'S NOTE: The route has only been public for some 11 years and Camphill has consistently objected to it since November 1993 (the earliest possible opportunity). It is wrong to infer that the units "were established adjacent to the indicated corrider" because there was no "corridor" and no road proposal at the time the homes concerned were built.

Paula Benzie, Edinburgh 13/9/2004
Impossible - there is no way this can go ahead. Camphill is one of very few places in the UK where people with special needs can thrive. The road would literally destroy this sanctuary.

Lorna 12/9/2004
Is there an ulterior motive based on money making? The Camphill Community occupies prime real estate. Is the long term plan to drive them away and build executive housing? Just a thought! I strongly oppose the route. Find another way - west of Culter.

JD 10/9/2004
Please have a care! Not through Camphill!

Pedro - Murtle Estate 2/9/2004
Hi there Frank!!! First of all I wonder if that is your real name and second, you can talk because the road is not going to affect your home, or you have (or had) somebody who was in any of the communities, right? So, as Garioch says, go for a visit and feel the views of those who live in these both estates.

Garioch 2/9/2004
Is Frank a roads engineer? I assume he is, the way he states that there is no practical alternative route. Has Frank ever been to Camphill? Has he spoken with the residents? I very much doubt it from his unsympathetic approach. Where there is a will, there is a way. If the road can be diverted for an SSSI, for a listed building, or for endangered species, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be shifted for endangered people. And here is one AWPR supporter who believes the road cannot come a day too soon BUT NOT AT THE COST OF CAMPHILL!

Frank 2/9/2004
Let’s get two things straight. Firstly, the editor has already stated that this is not a protest about the construction of this road as such, only its route. So all those views which lambast the need for more road building are irrelevant here.
Secondly, this road does NOT propose to slice through a Camphill community, but to steer a course between two communities. Look at your own map. On that subject, where did that great red swathe labelled “Proposed Corridor of Western Peripheral Route” come from? Is it intended to convey the impression that the finished road corridor would be that width? I estimate it is almost 600 metres wide!
It is not enough, though, simply to measure lateral distances; the topology of the land must also be considered. Both communities lie in natural hollows; and as it rises from bridging the Dee, wouldn’t this road be in cutting, which, assisted by landscaping and vegetation, would considerably lessen its surrounding impact?
I have no desire to see the Camphill communities ‘damaged, devastated or destroyed’. But I simply don’t believe that would happen, because the difficulties are being deliberately exaggerated, in classic ‘nimby’ fashion. I wonder, for example, if tranquillity is such a prerequisite, why these communities were established where they are in the first place, when steam trains used to belch and whistle high above them along the Deeside Railway?
It is easy to say, “find another route”. But nobody has made any realistic suggestions. And even if there was one, don’t disabled and vulnerable people potentially live everywhere? Should we therefore never build anything, anywhere?
The fact is there is no practical alternative route through the built-up North Deeside corridor. I consider it would be in Camphill’s best interests to accept that, and cooperate to try to minimise any inconvenience, instead of encouraging an anti-road lobby, and highlighting the views of minor TV celebs. Total opposition only turns people’s sympathies off.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The AWPR team will give no more detail on the proposed route other than the corridor (which is marked red on the map). That, therefore, is the only way that we can show the proposed route. Because of an SSSI, we believe the probable routes will be on the extremities of the indicated corridor, therefore within 100 metres of some of the most sensitive units in Newton Dee or Murtle where they will have a devastating effect on the wellbeing of the special needs residents and, it is understood, result in demolition of part of Murtle.

Majorie Falconer 1/9/2004
Here the vunerable in society receive life enabling care: don't diminish their facilities in favour of speed.

Ailsa Reid 1/9/2004
Bulldozing over democracy and moral responsibility to community - literally and metaphorically.

Nicola Kennaugh,Herts 1/9/2004
How anyone could even consider destroying a place like this is beyond me. Surely, quality of life is more important than a road - the planners should be ashamed and I really hope that common sense prevails and they forget this terrible idea.

Martin Kennaugh, Herts 1/9/2004
A shocking, disgusting idea that such an amazing community should face even the prospect of this.

Susan Forbes 1/9/2004
It's a disgusting and obscene proposal to route the Aberdeen Western Route through the people of Camphill's community. THIS IS THEIR HOME!

Jackie Forbes 1/9/2004
What a disgrace even contemplating putting a road through here.

S Miller 1/9/2004
It is so peaceful here, please don't destroy this wonderful atmosphere.

R M Vete 31/8/2004
Like many things in Aberdeen, 30 years too late. Leave this wonderful place alone - soft target?

Marie Boulton 31/8/2004
The people of Camphill can't just up and move if the traffic bothers them - its not just a home but a way of life.

Katy Philip 31/8/2004
This community is too established and provides an excellent environment for all its residents and visitors. We must work to preserve it.

Sheila and John Symons 31/8/2004
Please save this lovely place that means so much to its residents.

Claudia and Allan Reid, Dubai 31/8/2004
I can't believe the coucil can come up with this idea. How stupid can they get? A shame if they build this by-pass!!!

Elizabeth Morris 31/8/2004
The by-pass shouldn't be put in at the expense of this community.

Rosie Smith-Mearns 31/8/2004
It would be a travesty to ruin this unique community.

Claire McGriminion 31/8/2004
This place is an absolute haven. It has to be protected and is a facility to be envied.

Cameron Milne, Bristol 31/8/2004
I have known and visited this community since I was a child. The servi