Consultation Archives - Page 6 of 6

This Generation, This Time, This Place – I Think Not

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 082011

Sixteen year-old Kenneth Watt, born and bred in Aberdeen and a friend of Union Terrace Gardens, tells Aberdeen voice of his sadness at the apparent disrespect for the city’s youth in consultations by Aberdeen City Council and ACSEF, particularly in relation to the City Gardens/Civic Square Project.

It was my intention to make my voice heard. I had invested considerable time in research and preparation of a presentation I hoped to make to the Aberdeen City Council at today’s meeting.

Throughout this sorry saga I have had few replies to e-mails sent to councillors and frequently found my phone calls not returned.

I should not have been surprised that they decided not to allow deputations, including mine, to be made at the meeting.

Councillors instead argued about the politics of the motion put before them. No action was taken, and it just became more and more apparent how out of touch our representatives are with their electorate.. It would appear a distinct lack of financial knowledge was displayed during the session, along with sweeping statements, one example being a claim that Peacock Visual Arts were never fully financially secure. It should be noted that they only needed a further £3.5 million from the Council as the rest was already secured.

Conversely, the cost of the City Gardens Project has not been calculated. The proposed method of funding (T.I.F.) has not been used in the UK to date, and reports of successful use has been confined to areas in the United States of considerable deprivation: a description which does not fit Union Terrace Gardens.

It would appear to me to be significantly disingenuous for ACSEF to invest/ promote Youth Matters when the input of the younger generations have been ignored on so many occasions. This I find unacceptable.

It’s not Council leader John Stewart’s generation that will have to face the brunt of what seems like a modern design for the City Square Project in 2011. It is my generation that in twenty year’s time will have to support the council repaying debts, should the project over run, and address possible service cuts and traffic problems invariably associated with the project – not to mention the loss of unique green space in the city centre because of a naive decision taken today.

Taking the views of only 1% of the city’s future tax payers is disgraceful, and completely dispels any myth that we are the forefront of this project.

Not only have our elected representatives seemingly ignored our offers of dialogue, but I feel that there has been inadequate consultation with Aberdeen’s youth in general, and little or no engagement with Aberdeen’s youth in the decision-making process. The consultation, such as it was, was invalid, too narrow and did not reflect the views of the youth of Aberdeen.

In the City Square Project public consultation amongst Secondary Schools, a total of 113 pupils were consulted out of over ten thousand children studying in Aberdeen City. It is, surely, essential in such a major development like this, that my generation is consulted properly, using a large, valid and representative sample. Taking the views of only 1% of the city’s future tax payers is disgraceful, and completely dispels any myth that we are the forefront of this project.

Aberdeen City Youth Council has released a new consultation named ‘Hear My Voice’ which was launched late last year. By 2015, they aim to distribute this survey around all schools in Aberdeen and get a minimum of 5,000 returns. Respondents have to indicate whether they agree, disagree or are unsure about 64 statements covering a wide range of issues in the city concerning them.

Statement nine in the Transport and Open Space category reads:

“Union Terrace Gardens should be kept and invested in as they are now. Lighting, cleaning and upkeep should be improved to make the gardens more attractive and more events held there to increase usage.”

So far there have been 165 ‘pilot’ responses. 161 of these agreed with the statement.

Another statement is that:

“Young people should be more involved in decisions about how budgets are spent as they are not listened to enough.”

A unanimous 165 agreed with that.

I recently found out that over 60% of cuts planned in the council’s budget will have direct implications on under-25s in Aberdeen.

I struggle to understand how the city Council can afford to commit to such a large project, the funding of which is not yet secure. It would appear that not only will 60% of cuts have such a direct impact on Aberdeen’s youth, but we will now be the generation who may very well have to pick up the bill in the future for something we don’t want.

“This generation, this time, this place.”

ACSEF’s catchy public relations campaign sound bite may appear promising but it is more likely to be nothing more than another hollow gesture.

It’s not your generation. It’s my generation and that of my peers, if not our children, that will have to face the consequences of a decision made today.

It’s not this time. It is in ten or twenty years’ time that the city will really suffer from problems caused by decisions made in 2011. Look at the Bon Accord and St Nicholas Centres – they’ve caused countless traffic problems and have isolated George Street, which was once a prosperous and vital artery into the city centre.

It is now largely abandoned and crime has reportedly increased since the development. The council’s decision in 1985 to support the plan was one pushed through by business interests in the face of a significant level of opposition. The voice of the people was ignored. That is clearly echoed by the council’s actions today. Just because Sir Ian Wood has pledged £50m funding does not mean that the City Square Project is viable and worthwhile.

It’s not this place. It’s a commercialised business venture that will see countless years of history and heritage destroyed, and very likely, at a vast expense to the taxpayer.

If the council wish to represent the views of the people, then they need to conduct a fair consultation, involving Aberdeen’s citizens in the decision-making process.

My main proposal to the council is as follows: Leave Union Terrace Gardens alone.

It is reasonable to assume that the council will have vacated St Nicholas House by the end of this year, and it’s quite apparent that it would cost them vast sums of money to demolish it. Why not hand the area of land that St Nicholas House covers over to Sir Ian Wood, allow him to demolish it and create a fantastic green space around Provost Skene’s House and opposite the beautiful building that is the Marischal College.

Not only will it attract more visitors to the area, it will get rid of the eyesore tower block at no cost to the public and preserve hundreds of years of history and heritage that exists in Union Terrace Gardens today.

Diageo Deer Cull – Lessons To Learn?

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 082011

Chris Gough, of Kennoway in Fife was moved to comment on the recent Aberdeen Voice article about the proposed deer cull on Tullos Hill and the revelation that the cull had been planned in advance of the public consultation regarding Phase 2 of the ‘Tree for every citizen scheme’.

What an excellently presented article by Suzanne Kelly. She has hit the nail on the head so many times and it has sad echoes of our fight to save the deer at the Diageo plant in Fife a year ago.

These deer had been part of the local wildlife scene for more than twenty years and were loved equally by the general public and the staff at the Diageo plant.

Indeed they were fed by members of the staff of DCL (an earlier occupier of the site) for many years and the company had a vet carry out visual checks on the condition of the deer. Photographs of the deer were even displayed on the boardroom wall.

All this came to nothing when the present company, Diageo, decided to extend their plant. The Deer Commission for Scotland ( DCS) was consulted and came up with the “only humane solution” of a cull to remove the deer that had now become an embarrassment.

Untruths about the health and condition of the deer were published through the local media to justify the decision for a cull on “animal welfare” grounds. Advice and assertions that there were alternatives to a cull were rejected, so sadly our beloved Diageo deer were not saved in spite of valiant efforts by so many agencies.

At least the Tullos deer are still with us and so they should remain. The SNH hide their true colours behind their name- Scottish Natural Heritage – which implies to the general public that they CARE for all things natural when in truth they are in league (indeed they are now merged under one flag) with the Deer Commission for Scotland.

They in turn are in league with the land owners who want their land “managed” to suit their own purposes e.g. grouse moors, deer forests etc.

The SNH seem obsessed with the idea that there are far too many deer in Scotland and that for their own good they must be culled. As someone who has holidayed in rural Highland Scotland for the past 35 years I ask one question – Where are all the deer?

the deer should be left to come and go and the trees protected with biodegradable tubing as happens in many places around us in Fife

I regard myself as lucky and privileged if I see more than half a dozen wild deer – Red or Roe in a summer.

The SNH would have us believe that every rural community is over run by deer and heaven forbid they are now invading city centre parks as well.

The very fact that they use behind closed door meetings to discuss their strategies is an indication of how aware they must be that their actions are at odds with the public’s perception of what should be happening. Aberdeen City Council clearly must also be aware of this in their complicity. ACC are now going to take the line that they have taken advice from the ‘experts’ and have made their decisions on the basis of this information.

The easiest, although not an ecologically sound solution, is without doubt a deer cull but this will not be a “one off”, but a repeated exercise over the next three to five years to allow the trees to become established. I also concede that deer are determined creatures of habit and will not be easily kept out of what has become a customary feeding ground. Roe deer are particularly good at lifting fences to gain access, so fencing the area is probably not a viable option. Unless the cull could then be justified on the grounds that the deer are causing damage to the fencing as well as eating the trees!

The truth of the matter is that the deer should be left to come and go and the trees protected with biodegradable tubing as happens in many places around us in Fife.

Biodegradable means no litter problem. The tubes just disintegrate and disappear. As for the damage by vandalism I think this is a very large red herring.

In my experience vandals have much more entertaining targets than some trees planted on a hillside in Aberdeenshire.

As long as the Tullos Deer are alive there is hope. The one point which ACC would take well to note is the irreparable damage the destruction of these deer will cause to their (apparently) already tarnished reputation.

The public will not easily forget – just ask Diageo!
The world is watching.

Old Susannah’s Journal No. 30 – Six Month Review

Articles, Community, Creative Writing, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Apr 072011

Voice’s Old Susannah casts her eye over the events of the last 6 months and the stories, and terms and phrases familiar as well as freshly ‘spun’, which will be forever etched in the consciousness of the people of Aberdeen and the Northeast.

As there are so few interesting local, national or international developments in the news lately, (earthquakes, wars, radiation, armed robberies, Aberdeen Council wheeling and dealing notwithstanding), this looks like a good time to look back at some of the terms and issues covered in Old Susannah’s Dictionary Corner over the last six months.
The column looked at Change Managers, Continuous Improvement, Climate Change and Dangerous dog owners and dogfights. What has happened to the heroes, villains, good, bad and the ugly? Well, let’s see…

Animal Crackers

Let’s Go Clubbing:
Cast your mind back – do you remember Donald Forbes, golfer and fox batterer extraordinaire? What’s become of him? First he told us he had clubbed the fox (which was later found in such a horrible state it had to be put down, to the disgust of 99.95% of the members of Forbes’ golf club).

Then Forbes said he was in ‘mortal danger’ from the fox and therefore swung his club near the fox, but did not hit it. How this tame, well-known fox was going to harm Forbes other than stealing a sandwich from him remains unclear. How the fox was injured fatally also remains a mystery, as Forbes says he did not do it.

Sources tell me Forbes will soon have his day in Court – keep your eyes on the Aberdeen court circular during the month of April. Truth will out. Maybe.

Licensed to maim:
Like-minded animal lover, top oilman, and gunslinger Mr Mervyn New, you will remember, took his gun to work and quite rightly shot some horrid gull chicks that had the nerve to be in a nest near him. One bird was dead outright, the other suffered in agony until the SSPCA could have it put down.

Maybe we should all bring guns to work? On the plus side I bet Mr New looks quite macho with a gun. It would be cruel to suggest he might have a complex against his parents for naming him ‘Mervin’ so I shall say nothing on that subject. My emails to his local and head office have gone unanswered or have been returned marked ‘delivery failure’. It is almost as if Marine Subsea UK do not want to set the record straight or answer any questions on their guns-at-work policy. Maybe some of you readers can get an answer out of them. I will try again when I have made progress on…

…The Tullos Hill Roe Deer:
In a style that would make Highwayman robber Dick Turpin blush, the City have told animal lovers to pay up £225k by 10 May, or the deer get shot. It was all most democratic; they voted on it, except they did not bother to mention the cull to the citizens. Scottish Natural Heritage point out unwillingly (see articles elsewhere in the Voice) that alternatives to gunning the deer down do exist. During this ongoing saga

It is heartbreaking to see these dumb animals going about their usual routines, visiting their favourite drinking holes, unaware of the doom awaiting them

Cllr Aileen Malone proved she could not count; she announced that ‘about one’ person in Aberdeen wrote to her against the cull. She later apologised for this understandable mathematical error – but I do not believe her apology was as public as her P&J statement about there only being ‘about one’ objector. I can however say that at least 500 people have signed various petitions and that is a conservative figure (like me).

It is heartbreaking to see these dumb animals going about their usual routines, visiting their favourite drinking holes, unaware of the doom awaiting them. Nevertheless, at the next possible election, there will most definitely be a cull of Councillors.

The Council had handled the proposed tree planting in its time-honoured way; it held a consultation.

Democracy Inaction

Consultation:
That’s right – the City asked us mere citizen taxpayers what we thought of the tree planting on its lovely website, and gave us until the end of this past January to comment. Just because the City forgot to mention the cull is no reason for the consultation not to be valid, after all, without consultation we would not have our design competition coming up for…

…Union Terrace Gardens:
Back at the time how exciting it was – ACSEF were visiting shopping malls and businesses, giving presentations on a wonderful new way of re-imaging the gardens – turning them into a concrete slab with underground parking. Despite producing a brochure (costing about £300k of our money), which showed exactly that type of outcome – large squares of concrete, one or two tiny trees in planters, and happy people walking around in nice weather, the public vote was against it.

Who would have guessed that the public simply did not understand how important this was to Ian Wood’s future, sorry – to our economic prosperity. So, we will get a design competition instead. Someone already got money earmarked for the rival, earlier, clearer, subtler Peacock plan – money which was intended to be used by Peacock.

I was concerned just last week about the coalition as they are fighting at the National level. However, Councillor Irene Cormack wrote to me to say that this is perfectly normal at elections

No one knows anything about how the money was approved for expenditure; no one knows what goes on inside ACSEF (the online minutes do not give any history or details on this saga worth having). And the worst part is, people have actually organised to protest against having shops and parking.

How else will Stewart Milne’s lovely plans for Triple Kirks work? Answers on a postcard please.

The Press & Journal on 6th April continued a welcome new trend – they are questioning the handling of the UTG situation in an excellent editorial well worth reading.

Public Image:
In a past Old Susannah Dictionary Corner, I was heartened to hear that Kate was going to get an image and publicity makeover by the LibDem team who gave the world Nick Clegg. Here we are about three months later, and I think the results speak for themselves. What do you think of the new Kate? I think the results of Nick’s influence speak for themselves.

Kate’s complaint at the time was that people always complain when things are going bad, but they never compliment the City Council when things are going well. I asked readers for examples of things that went well, but have received not so much as a line.

Coalition:
You might remember some months back when I was worried about our local LibDem / SNP Coalition arguing about how many Council jobs to cut. Nine hundred with no consultation? Six Hundred? Ask for ideas? Cut nothing and then keep quiet? Those must have been exciting times for the staff at St Nick’s. I was concerned just last week about the coalition as they are fighting at the National level. However, Councillor Irene Cormack wrote to me to say that this is perfectly normal at elections. I hope nothing will interfere with how things are working here. In fact, soon all will be perfect, once everyone moves into…

…Marischal College:

In fact, she is known to have sent out e-mails claiming victory, because no one has complained/objected to the stadium lately (hint hint!) But it is not over yet, watch this space

Charities are short of funding, schools are closing, and elderly and vulnerable people are at risk from a host of problems. No matter: we saved Marischal College. The Council told us that they will not disclose what the alternatives were or what they would have cost – it is copyrighted so they claim. We saved Marischal by gutting it entirely, throwing Victorian books into a skip (I have a source who confirms this), and we’re putting in brand new furniture. £60 to 80 million well spent I say.

Loirston Loch – a nice place for a game of football:
Despite lack of consultation with the relevant local Councils, little support from Football fans, and opposition from local residents, follically-challenged Stewart Milne (of ACSEF and AFC fame) got the green light to build a red-light stadium in the Greenbelt land of Loirston.

Scottish Natural Heritage weren’t bothered (despite SAC land status, protected species and RSPB objection); Brian Adam MSP was ecstatic, and Richard Baker MSP was ignored.

Kate Dean was the impartial convener of a marathon hearing on the matter, which was always going to end favourably. In fact, she is known to have sent out e-mails claiming victory, because no one has complained/objected to the stadium lately (hint hint!) But it is not over yet, watch this space. If there has not been too much dialogue at present, it is because of the massive legal points being researched prior to the battle royale.

Conclusion – A Brighter Outlook:
The most important thing to remember when considering the recent past is that we now all have A Brighter Outlook. I know this, because the City Council put it in their literature. It is an ACSEF slogan, it is how the City does business, it is all brighter. After all, how much darker can things possibly get?

Next week:
Since ACSEF benefited so much from its new logo and ‘A Brighter Outlook’ slogan, Old Susannah is getting a makeover. I do not know exactly what to expect and what the Voice editors have in mind, I just hope I will come out looking as cool, modern and with it as ACSEF does.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for the very nice/interesting/excellent e-mails and comments.

Shhh! – Don’t Mention The Pre-planned Deer Cull

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 052011

Planting trees, creating habitats, using trees to clean the air: no one could be against such a plan, particularly if it would be ‘cost neutral’ and the citizens of Aberdeen would wind up with forests to enjoy down the road. However, in light of new information, Voice’s Suzanne Kelly takes a different view.

What probably started out as a good idea is now a contentious web of extremely poor advance planning, politics, blackmail, vandalism and international outcry at a secret, but long-planned deer cull.

It is time to examine what should have happened, what went wrong, and what should and could be done.

The initial scheme

An Aberdeen City news release of 29 October 2010 explains that 210,000 trees will be planted in several stages, that this programme had funding for the first phase, and was winning awards. The news release goes on to explain how important trees are – they will such up pollutants and CO2; they will provide habitat for animals (presumably there should be a tree planting near Loirston Loch, but a stadium is to be planted there instead). This news release, stored on the Council’s website, also explains that funding is being sought for Phase 2.

It is a bit more difficult to find any record on the Council’s website of the deliberate vandalism which destroyed trees planned in Torry and elsewhere. There is no report on how vandals will be prevented from destroying further plantings. But within a month or so of this news release appearing, certain people in the Council involved with the tree scheme were already scheming some destruction of their own – and they certainly didn’t want either you or me to find out about it until it was too late for us to do anything about it. I refer to the plan to keep us in the dark about how Phase 2 of the scheme was being deliberately led: people behind the scheme were actively steering deliberately towards the cull of the Tullos Hill Roe Deer.

Scottish Natural Heritage: A view to a cull

On 25 November 2010 (while citizens were being ‘consulted’ on Phase 2’), Scottish Natural Heritage wrote a letter to a member of the arboreal staff at the Council. (See letter in full below this article). This letter raises a number of serious questions as to how the scheme was handled. The letter certainly seems to be replying to a briefing of some sort. The writer – James Scott of Scottish Natural Heritage’s Wildlife Operations Unit – is addressing issues which should have been made known in the consultation.

At the time of writing, Mr Scott has been informed that someone in Aberdeen Council has already taken several decisions.

an advantage of using contracted deer shooters is that it might distance the Council from the act

Fencing – It has somehow been decided by someone that fencing would be impossible, as there is a public footpath. The UK is covered with such paths and suitable gates are used. Fencing might not have been perfect – but oddly that is part of the blackmail offer the council now proposes.

Deer population – If the fencing controversy is not confusing enough, the letter admits that the number of deer is unknown. How many would be culled is apparently to be decided after SNH personnel visit the site under cover of darkness and make counts. It is not known if such a count has taken place yet, or what the results are. SNH say that tranquilising deer to move them doesn’t work (50% success) and then inexplicably says this would probably be illegal to do. If the law says that killing creatures is better than moving them, then it is time to change the law.

Humane options – the SNH suggest ‘frustrating’ deer – remove gorse, implement other measures, yet our officials rejected these proposals. Again, no recourse to the citizens here.

‘Visual Impact’ of tree protectors they are ruled out – The City told SNH that it would not be using tree protectors on the grounds that they might blow over, creating litter – and because they ‘have visual impact’. The visual impact of something is a personal, not a scientific, issue. It is not sufficient grounds to condemn a population of deer to death.

“there is the issue of reducing available habitat for deer and the fact that we would consequently expect a reduction cull. You have also decided not to use tree guards due to the visual impact and the likelyhood of these being blown away, possibly damaging trees they are meant to protect and creating a littering issue.” – James Scott , SNH

The word ‘deer’ does not get so much as a single use – yet it is now clear that a cull was in the cards

Without any regard to consultation, someone at the City has given this and other reasons leading SNH to conclude the deer should be culled. No one wanted to ask the citizens if we’d rather look at tree protectors (which cost money), or have the trees elsewhere in order to save deer. But the City and SNH were interested in keeping us in the dark….

Keep them in the dark – SNH actually says that an advantage of using contracted deer shooters is that it might distance the Council from the act:

“it may be preferrable to be seen to be doing it in house and have greater control rather than using contractors, or it may be preferable to utilise the distance between instruction and deed that comes from using contractors” – James Scott , SNH

The Aberdeen citizens should also be managed with care – with a ‘robust communication plan:-

“Having visited the site I am content that appropriate deer management can occur in a safe manner. Communicating this to access takers and the wider public may be more of a task which will require a robust communication plan. I would suggest that a suitable deer management plan will help in this regard and I am more than happy to offer assistance in this” – James Scott , SNH

It seems as if the ‘robust communication plan’ is an indication that some people might not like deer shot to save money. If a cull were needed for welfare reasons, a reasonable person might not like the idea, but they would understand. It seems that as no logical reason except cost savings exist for this cull – otherwise there would be no need to keep it out of the consultation or to have a ‘robust communication plan’.

Phase 2 Consultation: No options given

The Consultation which resides on the Aberdeen City Home page gives the reader no idea whatsoever that any of the above plans and processes were in place.
See: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Consultations/ArchiveConsultations/cst_tree_every_citizen.asp

There is no mention of the vandalism – only of the success of Phase 1. The word ‘deer’ does not get so much as a single use – yet it is now clear that a cull was in the cards. The trees are meant to start ‘making money’ in three years’ time – if there is a plan to turn Tullos into a timber yard, we haven’t been told.

A mix of private and public money is paying for this. Public money is your money and mine – this makes it doubly scandalous that the City chose to deliberately hide mention of the deer cull. We missed our chance to object to the consultation because of this omission – and as the petitions circulating attest – there are thousands of people who would have liked to have had the choice.

Questions for the Council

It is up to the Council – In particular, Aileen Malone, The Housing and Environment Committee, and whoever else was involved in the details of the Tree Planting scheme – to supply answers to a few questions arising:-

Who made the decision to leave any deer cull out of the public consultation?
Who took the decision that non-lethal measures would be discounted and then communicated to SNH?
Who precisely decided to plant the trees on Tullos Hill, and why wasn’t the deer population immediately identified as a reason to find another location?
Who decided tree guards’ visual impact was preferable to a deer cull?
Whose aesthetic judgment decided the tree guards were unattractive?
How many trees were vandalised in Phase 1?
How much public money was spent in Phase 1, and how much is planned to be spent in Phase 2?
Was a consultation with Torry Community Council taken, and if so, were the deer discussed?
How many deer were counted by SNH, and how many are to be culled?

Rays of hope

Thankfully animal activists, citizens of Aberdeen and people around the globe have become involved in campaigns and petition creating to stop this senseless slaughter. Concerned people should contact their local Community Council members, the Housing and Environment Committee, Committee convener Aileen Malone, and other elected representatives to ask for answers to these questions, and to demand an inquiry into the consultation’s management, and to request a new, honest one.

A civilised government would want to put any cull on indefinite hold until this affair is cleared up. Deer should not be slaughtered because people in government don’t want to spend money – and given the involved Councillors’ amazing ultimatum: raise funds for fencing, or we shoot animals – is it time for some changes in their number?

– Letter from James Scott ( SNH ) to Richard Nicholson ( ACC ).

– Further reading: Critical Society quarterly e-journal.

Reduced Tax Office Hours Will Hit Pensioners Hardest

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Information, Opinion Comments Off

Mar 042011

With thanks to Mark Chapman.

HM Revenue and Customs proposals to cut the days the tax enquiry centre in Aberdeen will open, will drastically reduce frontline services, the Public and Commercial Services union warns.

The enquiry centre is currently open each weekday offering face to face tax advice but from May HMRC is proposing to reduce this to only 3 days a week. The PCS, which represents staff at the office, is concerned this will hit pensioners and those claiming tax credits the hardest as they are the centre’s most frequent callers.

They have also warned it will lead to more problems for people with enquiries caused by the PAYE computer system fiasco.

Mark Chapman, PCS Aberdeen & Inverness Revenue & Customs Branch Chair said.

“Enquiry centre users often travel miles to visit the office to sort out their tax problems. We are worried that when they get here, they will find it closed, and have to come back another day.

“We are also concerned that with opening times reduced, customers may have to wait some time for an appointment. Many of these people rely on tax credits or are pensioners and cannot afford to wait or spend more to get here. They will be inconvenienced by these plans.”

The enquiry centres also provide telephones and internet access. This saves people the cost of ringing from home and they feel more confident as local staff are available to give advice if needed.

HMRC aims to persuade more people to use the internet or telephone but many people still do not have access to the internet or do not feel comfortable using it to get advice about financial matters. Staffing has been reduced in HMRC contact centres and they are currently only able to answer less than 50% of calls.

PCS is urging people to email mailbox.f2fchangeteam@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk to respond to HMRC’s consultation on the reduction of opening times.

Notes

– For more information contact Mark Chapman on 0798 447 9628

– The Public and Commercial Services union represents civil and public servants in central government. It has more than 300,000 members in over 200 departments and agencies, and in parts of government transferred to the private sector. PCS is the UK’s sixth largest union and is affiliated to the TUC. The general secretary is Mark Serwotka and the president is Janice Godrich

– Follow PCS on Twitter http://twitter.com/pcs_union

ACSEF In Wonderland

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Dec 252010

By Mike Shepherd.

Here’s a game for your Xmas party – spot the odd one out in this list:
Smersh, Spectre, the Black Hand, the Priory of Sion, Acsef.

The correct answer is of course Acsef. The others are sinister, shadowy organisations bent on world domination, while Acsef is Aberdeen city and shire economic future, the unelected body charged with promoting business development in the Aberdeen region.

Acsef‘s greatest moment has been the long-running saga of Sir Ian Wood’s city square project. The show has been on the go for over two years and looks set to run and run and run. Although whisper this quietly: just like the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, it doesn’t seem to have gone anywhere yet.

Acsef helped with the consultation for the scheme and we were all assured “This public consultation aims to find out if you would like to go ahead with the proposal to redevelop Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley to create a new civic space and gardens.” Ha!

We were also told that we could get a modern city square that looked like the ones in Melbourne, Chicago and Houston. “Acsef believes the city needs a centre that will reflect that aspiration and attract future talent and businesses. This is about jobs for today’s secondary pupils and undergraduates – our children and grandchildren.” You could call this the Nora Batty argument: The Grand old lady of Aberdeen needs a brand new mini-skirt to exert her charms on potential suitors.

The consultation went ahead and it looked as if Acsef could not lose. Even the header for the poll questionnaire gave you a prompt if you didn’t know how to vote “Have Your Say: We believe Aberdeen needs a large, vibrant, cultural and civic space and gardens in the heart of the city for today and for future generations.”

The results of the consultation were reported on the 13th April 2010; a majority of 1,270 said no to the city square project. Oops.

Local businessmen were not happy with the result of the consultation and wrote a letter to the Council urging them to go ahead

An analysis of the vote was published by Acsef. “The consultation results show that the public were nearly evenly divided over the City Square Project as proposed, although overall more were against the project than for it.” Don’t you just crack up at that “nearly evenly-divided” bit when a majority of 1,270 said no.

http://cdn.activecommerce.net/content/csp/CSP_Consultation_Report_FINAL.pdf

More of that wacky humour was to follow. Acsef provided a break-down of the comments made by people online during the consultation.

“I value having in the heart of the City this secluded amphitheatre with its mature trees and think it would be an act of vandalism to sweep it away.” Recorded as voting yes to the city square.

“We don’t want Aberdeen to turn into a concrete jungle” Recorded as voting yes to the city square.

“The prospect of a huge square in place of the gardens is a terrible prospect and I have yet to understand the contention that this is necessary for the future well economic welfare of the city…. do not support the project.” Recorded as voting yes to the city square.

There are over 200 responses like this in the report.

http://cdn.activecommerce.net/content/csp/Appendix2a-Feedback_Forms-Sorted_YesNo.pdf

Local businessmen were not happy with the result of the consultation and wrote a letter to the Council urging them to go ahead with the city square project and ignore the no vote, ‘due to misunderstanding of the project among the public’ and an ‘inability’ to appreciate its impact. Cheeky, cheeky!

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Reject-city-square-at-your.6275672.jp

Acsef now had the tricky matter of keeping the city square project going despite the public vote against it.

This was because as Ascef minutes record, “There is a mandate from the business community to proceed to the next stage”. There was also the unfortunate position of the Labour party who had come out against the plan. They had to be dealt with. The minutes of the Acsef meeting on the 13th April mention that:

“Following discussion amongst private sector members of the ACSEF Board after the Special meeting on 22 March a letter had been drafted to senior members of the Labour Party expressing disappointment at the Party’s stance in relation to the project. Private sector Board members approved this for issue.” http://www.acsef.co.uk/uploads/reports/21/13%20April%2010.doc

The Labour party were very upset at these comments, given that this was a publically funded organisation taking a political stance on a highly-controversial issue (both Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire councils fund Acsef with £230,000 a year each). Nevertheless, they were puzzled as to why no letter had ever arrived and further curious as to why Acsef had stated that it had received no reply from any of the Labour politicians it had been addressed to. It later transpired that due to a mix-up within Acsef, no letter had actually been posted. Labour MSP Richard Baker wrote in a scathing letter to the Press and Journal: “When Acsef is confused about how this letter was sent, and when it certainly has not been seen by its intended recipients, how on earth can they comment on a lack of a response? This typifies the shambolic way this organisation has handled this crucial issue for the future of Aberdeen.”

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1821147?UserKey=

The time had come for creative thinking if the project was not to be lost. The original report on the consultation had stated “11,943 people went on to submit formal responses that have been recorded in the statistics. This is a huge response rate when compared to similar style consultations. For example, the Edinburgh Tram consultation had just under 3,500 direct responses.” This was not good enough though. The board met on the 22nd of March and hatched a cunning plan “If views are roughly split there is an opportunity to say that although the public has spoken this is only in relatively small numbers.

Shangri-La would be rebuilt in the centre of Aberdeen and people would come for miles to see the giant concrete slab

Those wishing to see the status quo are in the minority compared to those who wish to see change such as updating and modernising the gardens.” Brilliant! As the great polemicists would say, it’s not the logic of your position that matters, it’s how you frame the argument that is all important. Or putting it another way:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

This perspective was the key to moving forward, especially in view of Sir Ian Wood’s position expressed at the same meeting:

“A negative outcome from the consultation would be accepted graciously as the voice of the people having spoken. If the outcome is split, one of the key conditions would be Aberdeen City Council support and resource to take the project forward to the next stage. “

http://www.acsef.co.uk/uploads/reports/21/22%20March%2010.doc

The Council decided to pre-empt the consultation and vote on the issue. This they duly did on May 19th, 2010 and they agreed to progress the city square project (or the city garden project as they now wanted it to be called).

Acsef clearly like a challenge and they had a whopper. The scheme was not only highly unpopular but given the grandiose scale of the city square (it would be just slightly smaller than Red Square in Moscow), the costs were likely to be vast, reasonably £200 Million or more. Sir Ian Wood had promised £50 Million towards the cost of the project.

Where was all the extra money coming from?

Aberdeen Council had the utterly bonkers idea that they would borrow up to £200 Million from central government funds largely to pay for the square and then wait for the money to be paid back by revenue from extra business rates. Shangri-La would be rebuilt in the centre of Aberdeen and people would come for miles to see the giant concrete slab (earlier this year Acsef had ran an advert in the Press and Journal describing the city square as “a unique opportunity to put the city on the must visit list”).

City-centre traders would be making so much extra money that the rateable value for their businesses would go through the roof. An extra twist to the saga came from the September Council Finance Committee. Consultants were to be asked “to make it clear that they are required to produce a business case that ensures zero financial risk to the Council.” So the Council borrows up to £200 Million with no risk at all. Hilarious! Aberdeen Council could potentially put the makers of Xmas cracker jokes out of business. In fact, ‘crackers’ just about sums it all up.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1940121?UserKey=

Yet the Council would have everybody think that the city square is a done deal; it is anything but. It is at least 18 months away from planning submission, everything is running at least 4 – 6 months late and very little of the project plan has actually happened yet. There is much that could go wrong with the scheme before long and it probably will.

In the midst of the word he was trying to say,

In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away—
For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see.

I wish you a Merry Xmas and I reckon that a happy new year for everyone will see the back of the city square folly. Join Friends of Union Terrace Gardens through our website and help send it out of the way: www.friendsofutg.org

Old Susannah’s Dictionary Corner No 2

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Creative Writing No Responses »

Jul 302010

Aberdeen Voice’s Old Susannah opens her heart and her dictionary to define these tricky terms.

Consultation: to ask members of the public what they want, then to tell them what you had already decided they are going to get. Expensive brochures and infallible experts are used to steer people towards the desired conclusion during the consultation process. If the citizenry somehow does not come to the correct conclusion, it can later be told that it did not actually understand the consultation. Continue reading »

Newer Entries