[Closed] Abergeldie Castle - could it be saved from the Dee?

Which particular assumptions of mine do you think are idle prejudice? Just wondering what facts you're basing that statement on...

All about how you see the £100k isn't it:

1) To protect a building 400 years old of cultural significance or

2) Money thrown at a rich old tw*t

To put the money into perspective Aberdeen council spent somewhere between £60-80 Million on the redevelopment of Marischal College 😯

The difference is that spending £x million pounds on flood defences for a town or community benefits everyone equally. It prevents transport links from vanishing and ensures that the town business don't suffer undue disruption and fail.

Our baron mate here "benefits" from flood defences up and downstream same as everyone in the nearby area.

This is £100,000 to protect one private residence, culturally significant or not don't pretend its the same thing.

It's normal for the owners of buildings of cultural significance to pay for stuff to stop them falling down - that's the cost of living in such a place. Arguably for a listed building the council could have stepped in and done the work required and then charged him for it - though doubtless that would have required lengthy court proceedings.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of the amount spent on a building which is effectively publicly owned.

This is £100,000 to protect one private residence, culturally significant or not don't pretend its the same thing.

You're right. It's absolutely not the same thing, because the billions spent on flood defences and restoration work for "pleb" houses comes from the public purse.

Whereas the £100,000 this guy has been given/lent/granted is private money from a charity that specifically aims to help [i]"businesses, of all sizes and in all sectors, to operate more sustainably and responsibly to improve the economic, social and environmental outcomes for Scotland"[/i].

You're right. It's absolutely not the same thing, because the billions spent on flood defences and restoration work for "pleb" houses comes from the public purse.

The EA apply a fairly ruthless cost / benefit analysis for flood defences. Your pleb house only gets protection if it meets nationally agreed criteria. How a charity managed to do this in a day just after the New Year break is just amazing.

Controversially the best thing economically would be to let it fall down. The clean up and construction of new sustainable dwelling would a be a boon for the local area.

Whereas the £100,000 this guy has been given/lent/granted is private money

The EA apply a fairly ruthless cost / benefit analysis for flood defences. Your pleb house only gets protection if it meets nationally agreed criteria

Criteria which includes [i]"Historical environment: No. of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and listed buildings affected"[/i] (from Table 6.4 of "Evaluating a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) methodology for application to flood management and coastal defence appraisals")

Abergeldie is a Grade A listed building:
http://portal.historic-scotland.gov.uk/designation/LB3005

I wonder if tipping some big rocks and small rocks in the river is part of a properly scoped engineering plan? Looks a bit knee jerky to me.

[quote=GrahamS ]You're right. It's absolutely not the same thing, because the billions spent on flood defences and restoration work for "pleb" houses comes from the public purse.

Which is an interesting point of discussion - though one I think we've already done, the question being whether helping to preserve a private dwelling correctly comes under the aims of a charity which purports to help business (charities can't do whatever they like - this one also gets public funding - that's a fact BTW). From their "about":

We form a vital bridge to help make the right difference in communities all over the country by:

Helping to tackle poverty and getting vulnerable, disadvantaged people into work – and back on their feet.
Working with children and young people to gain skills and have aspirations that can change the course of their lives.
Making workplaces fairer, more productive and more sustainable.
Improving our civic spaces through harnessing the effort, expertise and commitment of Scotland’s workforce.

Which of those aims do you think this comes under?

Though it doesn't directly address the question of the amount of money being spent on protecting a single residence, compared to the amount spent on protecting thousands of residences.

[quote=gallowayboy ]I wonder if tipping some big rocks and small rocks in the river is part of a properly scoped engineering plan? Looks a bit knee jerky to me.

Well to be fair, it might not be a long term solution, but right now they just need a short term solution and I suspect that's a method which has a sound engineering basis in that it's worked before. Simple methods are sometimes quite effective and they've probably not had time yet to go through a complete engineering design cycle.

You know for a fact that all their income comes from private sources and not as grants from taxation/lottery money?

Some of each if you look at their website (not too dislike most charities / companies).

NB: Lottery money shouldn't be lumped with taxation, it up to you whether you want to play the lottery and it is run by a private company.

Which of those aims do you think this comes under?

I think it comes under the one on their [url= http://www.sbcscot.com/about-sbc/ ]About SBC[/url] page that I quoted:
"SBC's vision for businesses, of all sizes and in all sectors, to operate more sustainably and responsibly to improve the economic, social and environmental outcomes for Scotland"

I freely admit it seems a bit of a stretch, but losing a 450-year old listed building is certainly a bad social outcome.

Depending how it would affect estate business it may well be a bad economic outcome too.

Ultimately none of us know any real details of the deal the charity did with the estate - but it's their money and they have their own board and members to answer to.

Though it doesn't directly address the question of the amount of money being spent on protecting a single residence, compared to the amount spent on protecting thousands of residences.

Well according to this BBC article Cameron says "We are going to spend £2.3bn on flood defences in this parliament".

I dare say that mobilising the fire service, police, army, ambulance crews, emergency road repairs etc etc has cost a pretty penny too.

I suspect 100k would be a drop in the ocean, [i]even[/i] if it had come from the same purse. Which it didn't.

Some of each if you look at their website (not too dislike most charities / companies).

NB: Lottery money shouldn't be lumped with taxation, it up to you whether you want to play the lottery and it is run by a private company.

GrahamS that's all fair enough then.

My interpretation of this

businesses, of all sizes and in all sectors, to operate more sustainably and responsibly to improve the economic, social and environmental outcomes for Scotland

wouldn't fit here though.

In fairness it seems so loosely worded that the trustees can do whatever the **** they want so long as its in Scotland.

Whether its the best use of the money is another question, as is whether or not it would be made available so quickly to someone in a less prominent position is another.

As I said before, if someone was rattling a bucket for this charity, the name of the charity would suggest a different use of the money and I am fairly sure that if you asked them, different examples would be given.

Don't think I'd throw money in a bucket for any charity whose primary goal is to help businesses.

But then I suspect such charities don't rely on bucket rattling.

Has anybody managed to work out where the funding of that charity does come from? Their largest income item is "grants and trusts" which suggests mostly public money, though it's not explicit. Otherwise there is subscription income, though that is less than the amount spent on "member services" suggesting members are a net drain, and there is sponsorship and event income (there are other income items, but those are the only ones larger than this expenditure).

For year ending April 2014 total turnover was less than £1m, so this expenditure is more than 10% of that, and grants paid were £160k, so if this comes under that category it is more than half the amount previously paid out in grants in a year.

All from latest annual report

I'm sure there is more detail in there, but I've only skimmed the accounts.

edit: there does seem to be a breakdown of the grants - mostly either lottery or public funds, all with specific purposes which are presumably ringfenced, none of which would appear to cover this expenditure, and none of which are individually large enough.

aracer - I don't have the time or inclination to go into that detail to confirm what is patently obvious anyway! Its quite interesting though. The words dodge and tax would appear to fit quite neatly in the same sentence here.

It was kind of a rhetorical question - I wasn't really expecting anybody to go through that in more detail than I had. It does appear that unless their funding model has changed that most of their money is in fact public money - though it is of course possible that this expenditure has been funded from their private sponsorship income.

LOL at the charity Patron

businesses, of all sizes and in all sectors, to operate more sustainably and responsibly to improve the economic, social and environmental outcomes for Scotland".

I'm struggling here, unless the house is essential to the business.

My guess is the charity trustees won't challenge it!

I'm struggling here, unless the house is essential to the business.

Its a hunting estate, what do you think? Its all part of the pomp and drama that convinces folk to part with ridiculous sums of money just for the opportunity to shoot something never mind the extra should they actually kill it.

Hunting rights are leased out to Balmoral. I don't think the neighbours will be that fussed about the "grandeur" of Abergeldie.

Public money/ public access.

Bizarre as it may seem, I have building and contents insurance for this sought of thing or perhaps I've been paying all these years when I don't really need it, obviously the county council will pay.

Squirrelking, you are really struggling to keep your head above water 🙂

Obviously 100k spent in the local area will trickle down to some extent whatever it is spent on. But if it is spent on repairing the houses of 100 locals who have been flood damaged (or a bridge used by the community etc) then the community also benefits by having 100 more housese fixed up or a bridge they can use in their daily lives, on top of any trickle-down. If on the other hand it's spent on saving some gentry's castle then said gentry benefits by having a castle. I think the difference is pretty clear.

Cockermouth Castle too.
they've piled flood gravel deposits up in a protective bar along the base.
[img] [/img]

Still hoping it falls over before they Spunk too much cash on one old git.

I'm struggling here, unless the house is essential to the business.

I'll post this 1948 Canmore photo again because it makes the size of the place more apparent than close up photos that only show the old tower part:

[img] [/img]

Obviously we don't know much about the daily workings of the estate there but I'm guessing those buildings hold more than the Baron, his wife and their favourite armchairs.

Those other buildings don't exist anymore. Any colour photos of the castle have trees where the other buildings were.

https://goo.gl/maps/72cYYjgLK152

Those other buildings don't exist anymore. Any colour photos of the castle have trees where the other buildings were.

Bloody STW pedants

As an aside, according to that document the ceo of virgin money is the duke of rothsay's ambassador for Scotland.

WTF?

Scone ?

[quote=squirrelking ]Its a hunting estate, what do you think? Its all part of the pomp and drama that convinces folk to part with ridiculous sums of money just for the opportunity to shoot something never mind the extra should they actually kill it.

I don't know - is that a fact, or just wild speculation? I'm sure there are hunting estates without castles doing just fine (that's my wild speculation BTW - feel free to try and refute the idea if you want).

Any word/s from Ms Sturgeon on this?

Those other buildings don't exist anymore. Any colour photos of the castle have trees where the other buildings were.

Fair enough - it was hard to tell in the colour photos I looked at whether the buildings were gone or just had mossy roofs and trees in front of them.

[url= https://canmore.org.uk/collection/1095642 ]The colour Canmore photos from 2007[/url] certainly show the roofs of the steadings to the left, but you are right the main building seems to have been reduced back to the tower house and a small adjacent single storey building.

In the drone footage posted earlier you can see that some of the buildings to the left of your pic are still there, but they don't appear to have been under threat of collapse due to the erosion.

I know it's hard to tell from the black and white photo, but it doesn't [i]look[/i] like there is 60 feet of garden between the tower and the river there.

Any word/s from Ms Sturgeon on this?

Should there be? It's a charity giving out its own money.

eckinspain - Member

I know it's hard to tell from the black and white photo, but it doesn't look like there is 60 feet of garden between the tower and the river there.

A 60 foot section of riverbank collapsed, rather than it being 60 foot from the river. But still a big ol chunk

A 60 foot section of riverbank collapsed, rather than it being 60 foot from the river. But still a big ol chunk

v8ninety - Member

I wonder what his thinking was in NOT doing some serious bank reinforcing work to save his home was then?

Presumably that the river bank hadn't collapsed for at least 68 years?

I wonder what his thinking was in NOT doing some serious bank reinforcing work to save his home was then?

Presumably that the river bank hadn't collapsed for at least 68 years?

a GCSE level understanding of river hydrology says this scenario has been inevitable for at least 68 years

edit: I wonder where the river was when the it was first built?

sharkbait - Member

(although it's already a mere shadow of what it was in the '48 photo )

The other buildings were later additions so you could probably look at it as part of the restoration tbh. (I'm no expert but they look a [i]lot[/i] more recent, 19th century? Certainly not in keeping with the original tower.)