Jan 102021
 

 Further to Part I of these two articles, when a stone wall in Wellington Brae started to crumble, Aberdeen City Council decided to arrange the repair work. The city went to SUSTRANS representing ‘we have a problem’ and it secured £200,000. By Suzanne Kelly.

In Part I of this series a timeline showed different stories as to who owned the land in question. Lawyer, and then councillor and finance committee convener Willie Young said at different times he didn’t know who the landowner was, or that his dad was the landowner.

The press reported that Young and his wife were the owners according to Registry documents.

In this part of the story, Aberdeen Voice comments on emails recently released by ACC as well as those previously leaked and published.

We also acknowledge the huge amount of work done on this issue by others including the Stop the Desecration of Marischal College Facebook page, and we include their recent synopsis of this bizarre tale.

The emails:

Below are images of some of the emails and commentary, both officially released and leaked, on ‘Wallgate’. Aberdeen Voice will be happy to receive further material and is continuing its Freedom of Information efforts.

I) ‘WE have a problem’ – on 3 February 2016 someone at ACC wrote to SUSTRANS to say ‘we have a problem’ and ‘our head of maintenance has advised there is no budget to carry out these repairs which could be £250,000…’

The recipient at SUSTRANS would have concluded that as the council says it has a problem, it has no budget, it is the party seeking repair funds, etc, that the responsibility for fixing the wall was the council’s.

The council keeps a spreadsheet showing every single property it owns; Aberdeen Voice has a 2012 copy and can confirm no entries exist on it for 2012 concerning Wellington Brae.

Was even this quick, simple search conducted before an email was sent to SUSTRANS from Aberdeen saying ‘we have a problem?’ Did anyone use the council tax rolls and contact the people living at the property to ask them about ownership?

It would be good to know how the author of this email to SUSTRANS decided to word their appeal- its tone is that the problem is Aberdeen’s.

There was no uncertainty over ownership expressed, just the assumption Aberdeen needed to find the money rather than a private landowner. It is also worth noting that the report brought to councillors to accept the money that was solicited from SUSTRANS in February was not presented to them until 24 May 2017 – fifteen months after the money was requested.

Will the email author’s line manager go back and check whether or not similar representations have been made to seek funds from external sources to repair properties that the city did not own?

How was the decision made to conduct the survey, to commission the in-house 12-page detailed Bill of Quantities report made in May of 2016 (which conveniently matches precisely the estimate for repairs presented to SUSTRANS in February), and who approved this budget to pay for a survey of benefit to private landowners?

II) Leaked email – Young is well aware of, and is briefed on, the approach ACC made to SUSTRANS. At least three different ACC personnel have, according to this email, been in touch with Young.

The writer says Young gave the verbal go-ahead for the project in his council role. Young is being asked for written confirmation.

We are still not at all certain why, with his legal background, Young apparently did not caution those on the project to cease any work until it was determined who was responsible for paying for the work at the moment he was approached for his permission.

Young asked for information to be re-sent to him in a paragraph: as the scheme involves SUSTRANS paying for the stonewall work, Young will have been in receipt of correspondence/data/reports/financials concerning SUSTRANS funding in the form of documents sent by email on a matter that concerns his family’s property.

Even if you disbelieve the authenticity of this email, Young later confirms officers approached him about the scheme – wouldn’t he have asked for some detail and background then, not least to find out why it was decided he was the landowner.

III) leaked email – According to this Young, who is addressed as Councillor, has the plans and is checking with his solicitor as to whether or not he owns the land.

IV) Leaked email – indicates Councillor Young issued a verbal instruction to proceed with the works at Wellington Brae 28 October 2016.

Many public and private entities have ethics charters and anything that could be a conflict of interest or potentially fraudulent or reputation-damaging must be raised, and if a decision to proceed is taken, this must be formalised and approved.

We note that Willie Young contacted ACC’s Monitoring Officer for advice – more on that appears later in this piece.

The question here is did no staff member or officer working on this project who were asking Young for approval as a private landowner think to raise any ethics/conflict of interest concerns?

Did no one question whether it was appropriate that ACC staff and resources were deployed to help private landowner Young (or his family) to obtain the SUSTRANS grant? Would this help be given to other private landowners who weren’t on the council?

We asked SUSTRANS to comment on the city’s ARS report which said:

“Sustrans funding would have been made available irrespective of who owned the affected land…”

We have have had no response as yet; this piece will be updated when they respond.

V) ACC recently-released email – The landowner has verbally given permission.

From mid-September 2016 it appears the city acted as if it were aware who owned the land – quite possibly they knew earlier looking at the leaked emails. Who is going to do the ‘rubber-stamping’ at ACC to approve this?

In a private organisation, seeking external sources of funding, issuing tenders and evaluating bids are meant to follow strict protocol, and any expenditure over a certain threshold is meant to be carefully scrutinized for internal control as well as external legal requirements.

Representatives of legal, finance and executive teams would all be expected to read detailed reports then either object or sign off before any such moves were made. This would extend from the first email sent to SUSTRANS through sealing the deal.

It is also noteworthy that the company initially appointed after the tender for the wall work went out of business and did not have much if any relevant experience. Perhaps Audit Scotland needs to visit Aberdeen’s procedures – again.

One further thought: a verbal agreement, in legal circles, is said to be ‘worth the paper it’s written on.’

VI) ACC recently-released emails from the latest FOI – How could the Head of Maintenance be ‘adamant’ there weren’t any funds? Couldn’t they have applied to Finance for either guidance on what to do or for more funds?

The path could have been closed until the new fiscal year opened – not ideal, but April was not that far off, either: during which time the mystery of who was responsible for the repair could have been determined.

Finance could have authorised emergency finance or an advance on the next quarter’s budget; You can think you have no funds for your department for important projects – but how can you be certain – or even ‘adamant’ you have no possibility of getting any finance without asking Finance to confirm?

In the private sector, such an approach would certainly lead to a member of the finance team asking the relevant questions – such as who owned the land.

VII) ACC recently-released email shows SUSTRANS awarding £200,000 on 25 November. Formal paperwork is coming – this will presumably require the landowner(s)’ signature(s). Who signed/approved for the landowner?

Young says:

Asked to comment to Aberdeen Voice on 14 October, Willie Young wrote (which was not received on the day, but re-sent when requested on 22 November):

“You ask if it was an ethical use of my position at ACC. As the freedom of information report and the Council enquiry report shows officers of the Council did not act within agreed protocols and this led to a situation where a report that should have come to committee did not appear.

“As for my position I was convener of the Finance committee and any report would have gone to the Communities, Housing and Infrastructure Committee not my committee so in answer to your question my ethics was never questioned by the Council nor was a matter ever passed to the Ethical Standards Commission, the monitoring officer for ACC is on record as saying that I did not have a conflict of interest.

“You ask when I disclosed to SUSTRANS that my family owned the wall, the answer to that is I never disclosed that my family owned the wall to SUSTRANS indeed this was not a matter for a Councillor it is a matter for the Council Officer.

“As the FOI shows the officer moved forward with discussions with SUSTRANS without involving Councillors. The Councils own report and the FOI clearly shows that the Council requested that this work was undertaken without speaking to the owner of the land and without being in a position to know who owned the land.

“Disappointingly this matter was not even discussed by Officers with the convener of Communities Housing and Infrastructure.  It was not for me to determine who owned the land it was for the Council to determine who owned the land and contact the land owner requesting permission.

“The report which went to council confirms the council failed both those tests.”

“In respect of your final question regard complaints I can categorically say without fear or favour that not one single person complained to me about the wall before or after Storm Gertrude.” 

The City’s Report should they have closed this case? Details hidden from public.

The Audit Risk and Scrutiny Committee reported on 26 September 2017 decided Young was ‘placed in a vulnerable position’; the Chief Executive apologised for this. This internal exercise resulted in a decision which reads in part:

6.18 “Sustrans funding would have been made available irrespective of who owned the affected land…”

4.67 “It was appropriate for Councillor Young to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer in order to address any perception that he was conflicted in his interests.”

4.68 “The Monitoring Officer has stated that based on the information available to him at the time, Councillor Young did not require to declare a conflict of interest because he had not been asked to make a decision as a Councillor on the works or the grant, but rather to provide his consent as a landowner.”

and paragraph 7.9 “Councillor Young’s actions did not contravene the ICT Acceptable Use Policy as the emails did not concern any confidential information, were not protectively marked, and had been addressed to Councillor Young.”

Questions arise:

6.18 quotes a claim that ‘SUSTRANS would have made the grant whoever owned the land’: Aberdeen Voice awaits SUSTRANS’ comment. Was a repair notice served on the land owner, if so when? Would a land owner approaching SUSTRANS have had to commission and pay for a detailed survey such as the one ACC had deployed resources to?

4.67, 4.68 – At what point did Young approach the Monitoring Officer – when did Young decide the perception of conflict existed and why did it exist for him? What did Young tell the Monitoring Officer that led to the conclusion there was no conflict of interest to address?

Did the Monitoring Officer proactively look at all the angles of this situation or just what Young presented to them? Why does the MO feel they have to say their conclusion was based on the information available to him at the time – has more information come to light, and if so, did it change this position?

7.9 – How is it ‘acceptable use’ of ACC computers, office and equipment to conduct business as a private landowner? These lines between councillor and landowner should never have been blurred. It is risible to think that using the address ‘Councillor’ automatically absolves Young.

Section 2 of the Audit Risk & Scrutiny report is withheld from the public for ‘data protection reasons.’

On the case: The ‘Stop the Desecration of Marischal College’ Facebook page.

AV notes the Facebook page Stop the Desecration of Marischal College has been instrumental in researching the Wellington Brae saga. In the past it has shown that claims Mr Young made concerning the Marischal Square development were unfounded.

Young once claimed that if the unpopular project went ahead, the city would be penalised by developer MUSE to the tune of £100 million. Summoned to appear before the Standards Commission, he was cleared of lying on grounds the information given to him by officers was inaccurate.

Déjà vu. (Young apparently did not find the concept of a £100 million penalty to be extreme, and did not question the information he passed on to the public).

The ‘Stop the Desecration of Marischal College’ posted this summary on 22 November:

“Willie stated on Twitter today that no one from the council contacted the Wellington Brae landowner until August 2017. He added that it was shocking.

“What’s shocking Willie is between March 2106 and April 2017 you were aware the council had checked the land registry and believed (as per the records they obtained) that you were the landowner.

“What’s shocking is you were asked numerous times by various officers to confirm that you were the landowner and for whatever reason decided not to even though – as you said last week on this page – you were a lawyer by trade and skilled in commercial negotiations.

“What’s hard to believe, particularly after August 2016 when you were told Sustrans had agreed to fund £200,000 of repairs and after you were shown and asked to approve the landscaping of the land above the wall, that you didn’t mention this to your father over Sunday lunch.

“Knowing the wall’s maintenance was the landowner’s responsibility one might have thought a saving of £200,000 might be worth mentioning.

“What’s more the August 2017 contact date Willie assured is right, is in fact wrong. In April 2017 he confirmed to the BBC that his father owned the land in question.

“What is most interesting though is when asked if anyone was sacked Willie said ‘no, but they should have been.’

“There is little doubt the council’s governance could and should have been better but Willie has no one to blame but himself for not realising £200,000 of public funding to fix and landscape a wall and land his family owned would come back and bite him.

“To now publicly say officers should have been fired is not only a cheap shot but serves to minimise his own culpability in this whole sorry affair…”

  “You can’t help but feel if this had been anyone else’s wall the outcome would have been rather different.”

Nov 302020
 

When a stone wall in Wellington Brae started to crumble, Aberdeen City Council decided to arrange the repair work.

Rather than identifying the property owner and troubling them with a repairs notice, the cash-strapped city mysteriously decided to look to its own maintenance budget, and decided somehow that there were no funds.

Did those involved approach anyone connected with Finance to ask for emergency funding? Apparently not. Did they decide to determine who owned the land at that point and issue a repairs notice? Suzanne Kelly presents part one of a two part investigation.

As many Aberdeen homeowners can attest (including the writer), even a few slates falling off a roof or a damaged front garden wall can result in a warning letter from the city that repairs must be done.

The wall in question sat on privately-owned land and the stone wall collapse spilled over onto Wellington Brae cycle path: all the more reason why, some might think, a repairs notice should have been swiftly sent to the owners, who should have been identifiable from the Land Registry records.

This is the origin of ‘Wallgate’, a tale of council procedures being ignored, a simple matter of land ownership being hopelessly (unnecessarily) confused, leaked emails and more.

ACC officers first tried to identify and contact the property owners AFTER the money was sought from SUSTRANS the cycling/walking charity, on 3 February 2016.

Why didn’t ACC do what they have often done – identify the owners and hit them with a repairs notice?

The email author asserted that the cause of the wall crumbling was Storm Gertrude; others claim that the wall was in bad repair before then (Aberdeen Voice will try to find out whether any repair notices were served on the property, or whether any complaints had been made prior to the storm).

The city’s version of events can be found in this FOI (heavily redacted) and with comments in the Appendix to this two-part article.

As it transpired, then Finance Chief Councillor William Young apparently owned the wall – or maybe his dad – or maybe his wife – or maybe someone else.

For reasons hard to fathom, ‘Wall I Am’ was uncertain who owned the wall despite telling the press on 3 May 2017 he had sold property at Wellington Brae to his father in 1992, and despite apparently giving verbal permission for the repairs.

All will become clear – or not – shortly.

Whose Wall is It Anyway? – A time line.

Mr Young is adamant that he acted properly throughout. Would a lawyer and Councillor acting as Finance Chief/convener be expected to know whether or not he owns a property – or to act swiftly to find out whether he did if asked for permission to do with it?

If you sold your father land, would it slip your mind?

Here is a partial timeline showing dates of statements, sources, and who is apparently being treated as the landowner.

Much of this information has been published before, such as the leaked emails, but assembling this timeline illustrates how problematic all the conflicting ownership claims are, and the issues arising.

DateQuoteWho is said
to be the landowner?
IssuesSource
03/02/2016









‘WE have a problem’








EMAIL WORDED AS IF ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL WERE RESPONSIBLE




Someone at ACC writes to SUSTRANS to ask for £250,000, wording the email as if the responsibility for repair had already been determined to be Aberdeen’s. The city’s later report does not appear to address this misrepresentation – a serious failing one might think. FOI-released email from ACC to SUSTRANS.






28/10/2016










“Following your conversation with our XX yesterday (27th October) re your verbal instruction to proceed with the works at Wellington Brae.”
WILLIAM YOUNG









Why did Willie give verbal instructions to proceed if he was as he said in 2017 unsure who owned it? Would a lawyer remotely risk acting like this? If he knew he was the landowner and was free to give these instructions, then he ‘misspoke’ in 2017 when he said officers ‘mistakenly believed’ he was the landowner.28/10/2016 Leaked Email 1.








00/00/00






















“A couple of months ago XX and myself [came] to see you about Wellington Brae. Please find attached. These show the extent of the works to be undertaken. My understanding from our meeting was that you would forward the plans to your solicitor to confirm whether you owned the area?”UNSURE






















Willie was to have checked with his solicitor and knew about the scheme ‘months ago’. If he acted promptly – and who wouldn’t to find out if they owned land or not? – then why is there still uncertainty to ownership implied in this email?














Leaked Email 2.





















00/00/00









“…we are looking for written confirmation that the works can proceed – can you reply with this confirmation?

WILLIAM YOUNG








How is the public supposed to know for certain which hat Young is wearing here, not least as he is taking meetings about privately-held land in his office by now according to the ACC report – land he is at points denying ownership of or expressing uncertainty whether he owns it?Leaked email 3. (To Cllr Young)







00/00/00









“… you would continue to be the legal landowner…”






WILLIAM YOUNG








AV has to ask why aren’t all the involved parties asking for complete cessation of negotiations until the question of ownership is 100% settled? If Mrs Young is also an owner as was claimed in the press subsequently, there is scarce evidence to show her approval was ever sought.Leaked email 3. (to Cllr Young)







26/04/2017














“The Land Register for Scotland lists William Young and his wife as landowners of the site.
Cllr Young said he was unsure who owned the land despite council officers telling him he was the land owner.
MR & MRS W YOUNG













Willie says he’s not sure who is the landowner; Land Register apparently says he and his wife are. Was Land Registry advised of the sale Willie made to his dad in 1992? What was the sale price? Were there any tax/stamp duty implications from the sale? Why was the Council not able to get this information?




Probe into £200,000 of public cash used ‘to fix Willie Young’s boundary wall’ – Evening Express






03/05/2017





















“The land in question does not belong to me. I sold land at Wellington Brae to my father, David Young, in 1992, and land in this area remains in his ownership.
“Late last year, I was approached by officers of the council, who mistakenly believed that land at Wellington Brae belonged to me.”
DAVID YOUNG





















This sale does not appear to be reflected in Land Registry records. We are meant to believe a man with a law degree did not know he owned the land and/or somehow the title transfer was not made.
Why would council officers have approached Young – through his councillor email/office – as being the owner?
Why didn’t Young immediately tell the officers he either wasn’t the owner or was unsure who was?






Willie Young confirms land at centre of row belongs to his dad
– Press and Journal
















03/05/2017



























“I told them I would ask my solicitor to check the title… and I have since confirmed that none of this land belongs either to Deeview Homes or to me personally.
“All I actually did was to respond to council officers who mistakenly believed I owned land there, to say that I was not sure of the position, and that I would ask my solicitor’s advice on the matter.
UNSURE



























While stating he sold land at Wellington Brae to his father in 1992, Young is simultaneously unsure about the title. ‘All he actually did’ also includes (according to ACC emails) giving verbal permission for work.




















Willie Young confirms land at centre of row belongs to his dad
– Press and Journal






















24/05/2017




















“The Council is in the process
of contacting the landowner to discuss the necessary agreements to access
and facilitate the works.”











UNSPECIFIED




















Eric Owens, Fraser Bell and Stephen Whyte reported to councillors requesting scheme approval. Councillors were presented with their report – without the ownership issue or Cllr Young’s potential ownership getting a mention. In private institutions this omission might be taken extremely seriously. As an aside, it is likely now a new fiscal year for ACC: would Maintenance still have had no budget? Why didn’t the report authors suggest getting the landowner to pay as an option? Councillors are often slated by the public, but they are only allowed to vote on what officers put before them.Wellington Brae – report to Communities, Housing & Infrastructure.















26/09/2017



















“Councillor Young did not require to declare a conflict of interest because he had not been asked to make a decision as a Councillor on the works or the grant, but rather to provide his consent as a landowner”



WILLIAM YOUNG
Willie Young referred to as landowner in this Audit Risk & Scrutiny report












Back to Square One: NB Willie had told the P&J on 3 May “Late last year, I was approached by officers of the council, who mistakenly believed that land at Wellington Brae belonged to me.”
Some would say the conflict arises precisely because Young is both a councillor and a private landowner, benefitting from council help with the estimate and securing finance as meetings were held in his council office and correspondence conducted through his council email. His title of Finance Convener, his position as a councillor all carried weight.
Aberdeen City Council ARS report

















14/10/2020



































“You ask when I disclosed to SUSTRANS that my family owned the wall, the answer to that is I never disclosed that my family owned the wall to SUSTRANS indeed this was not a matter for a Councillor it is a matter for the Council Officer. As the FOI shows the officer moved forward with discussions with SUSTRANS without involving Councillors.”










UNSURE



































If we accept the ARS finding that Willie was being contacted via his council email as the private landowner, it is unnecessary to talk about what his role was as a councillor. As a private landowner whose permission was required for the scheme (perfect word for it) went ahead, at some point SUSTRANS must have been made aware whose land it was they were putting c£250k of their money to work on and whether via intermediaries or not, Young must have been in the loop. Willie is right – councillors were not involved – but the landowner was – whoever that actually was. The landowner is mentioned in the 26 September email as having given verbal consent. The leaked emails show that Young was in the loop; the ARS report says he was giving his consent as landowner. If he never disclosed that ‘my family owned the wall to SUSTRANS’ it was nevertheless disclosed to the staff within ACC that ‘his family’ owned the land or they would not have sought his permission – permission which perhaps should have come from his father.Email to Suzanne Kelly from Willie Young 14 October 2020 (re-sent Nov 2020)





























Mr Young told AV:

“As the FOI (the most recent answered by ACC) shows the officer moved forward with discussions with SUSTRANS without involving Councillors.”

AV accepts this: what we have been questioning is who owned the land, why ACC was not pursuing the land owner to pay for the repairs, why Young was uncertain whether or not he owned land, and why he was being contacted as a private landowner (mistakenly or not) via his official ACC councillor email rather than a private one.

Aberdeen Voice continues this story in Part II – examining recently-released emails and leaked emails in further detail.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Feb 082013
 

By David Innes.

The Office of National Statistics report of 23 January shows that unemployment in Scotland among those aged 16 to 24, reduced by 23000 (4.8%) from September to November 2012. 19.9% of our young people remain unemployed. The UK rate is 21%.

John Swinney, Finance Secretary was delighted:-

“These figures show that unemployment in Scotland has continued to fall for the second monthly release. The strong performance in youth unemployment over the year is particularly welcome. This month’s release sees the largest annual drop in the youth unemployment rate since the data series began in 2006.”

Angela Constance, Youth Employment Minister agreed:-

Youth unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level since March to May 2011. Our actions to improve youth employment rates have included a guarantee of a place in education or training for every 16-19 year old through Opportunities for All, funding 25000 Modern Apprenticeships in each year of the current parliament and £8.5m to create 1400 jobs in the third sector through Community Jobs Scotland.”

An Employer Recruitment Incentive will be launched to support small companies willing to give young people jobs, backed by £15m of Holyrood funding and by £10m of European Structural funding.

Reinforcing the views he expressed in a Voice interview earlier this year, Anderson Construction Managing Director, Kenny Anderson, commented:-

“We are lucky that the self -financed Construction Industry Training Board screens potential apprentices for interview and recruitment thereafter, but demand for places outstrips supply even in Aberdeen.

“As a small company we do our bit, but it’s harder for the larger companies who used to recruit substantial numbers of apprentices annually, as they are now competing with management contractors who generally do not recruit site staff but use agencies and sub-contractors to provide the labour.”

Yet, whilst the youth unemployment rate sits at 20% and the overall rate is nearly 8%, one boss of a growing national company is frustrated at his business’s inability to fill vacancies in Aberdeen.

Jeremy Miles, Edinburgh-based Managing Director of the Edinburgh Bicycle Cooperative declared:-

The big problem we have is in recruiting mechanics. It seems the oil and gas industry hoovers up anyone who has all their fingers in place.

“At present we have a couple of co-ordinator roles for senior shop floor staff and in sales. We’re desperate to recruit staff for our workshop and will soon be looking to bump up our head count for summer, but filling the current vacancies is already proving difficult.”

It was Norman Tebbit who made the notorious comment about the need for the unemployed to get on their bikes and look for work during the austerity years of the 1980s. Maybe in Aberdeen, which remains largely prosperous there’s are opportunities to take the Chingford Skinhead’s advice and kill two birds with one stone.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/lmsjan230113
www.andersonconstruction.co.uk
www.edinburghbicycle.com/comms/site_about/job-vacancies.htm

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Dec 152011
 

Are you feeling inspired to do something for charity this festive period? Maybe cycling, walking, running – maybe not ? At least you can go along, show your support for an amazing fundraising effort and hand over some of your hard-earned cash for a great cause. Voice’s Stephen Davy Osborne caught up with cyclist Kyle Hewitt.

An Aberdeen man is cycling 1000 miles through the Bon-Accord Centre this week to raise funds for charity. Perched atop a stationary bicycle, Kyle Hewitt, 25, is undertaking the marathon mission to help raise funds for local charity Inspire and national children’s charity Barnardos.
He began peddling on Monday morning, with much support from friends, family and passersby, and hopes to reach his goal of 1000 miles by closing time on Sunday evening.

Still peddling hard, Kyle took some time to speak to the Aberdeen Voice:

“Inspiration is the biggest reason that I am here. I was inspired to get out there and do something different by people that have done something different, enduring and challenging in the past. It is really about me doing what I was inspired to do, but instead of just being inspired and doing it, I’m hoping to keep the inspiration chain going. So from one person inspiring two others, two others will inspire four others and so on.”

However, this event is just a mere warm-up for a significantly more arduous challenge which faces Kyle in the New Year. On February 18th, he will be cycling out of London’s Greenwich Park on an 18,000 mile circumnavigation of the globe, aiming to be back in London within 160 days in time for the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics.

With less than nine weeks to go until he sets off, Kyle’s enthusiasm remains high.

“Time is ticking away, and even the weeks are into single figures now! It’s a whole years planning coming to a head and it’s really exciting to watch it all click in the last worrying few months!”

Kyle can be found in the Bon-Accord Centre atrium until Sunday evening.

For further information check out: www.inspired2inspire.org.uk

Sep 152011
 

By Richard Pelling.

In Town Without My Car Day takes place every September in cities across Europe (and beyond) is an event designed to promote awareness of alternatives to the car for accessing city centres and serves to promote sustainable transport that can help reduce pollution in the urban environment.  It forms an element of European Mobility Week – but will we see In Town Without My Car Day in Aberdeen this year? NO.

http://www.mobilityweek.eu/-Introduction-to-EMW-

‘What about Getabout’s Belmont Bike Festival ?’,  you say – well; few would consider that an ITWMC Day and the sorry tale of how this event came to be held onBelmont Street serves to highlight Aberdeen City Council’s commitment to sustainable transport and the environment.
http://www.get-about.com/news_full.asp?id=167&curpage=&search=clear&section=news

For background, lets consider Report EPI/11/140
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=13852&txtonly=1

This was presented at the Aberdeen City Council Enterprise, Planning & Infrastructure (EP&I) Committee Meeting on 24th May 2011, which suggested thatAberdeen host an ITWMC event in 2011 and requested that Union Terrace be the venue :

“Union Terrace remains the optimum location given the nature of the space required, the potential to use Union Terrace Gardens for some elements, the visibility of the event and the significant footfall that will be attracted and the fact that the Council already has special event temporary traffic management measures in place for the regular closing of Union Terrace for the International Street Market, and members of the public and transport operators are familiar with such diversions.”

Sounds great – Union Terrace is, of course, regularly closed for the commercial streetmarket that runs Friday – Sunday, so there should surely be no issues with closing it to hold this important one day environmental event and the proximity of Union Terrace Gardens gives extra space for say, cycling demonstrations, discussions of the visionary proposals for a Denburn Woonerf etc.
http://otheraberdeen.blogspot.com/2011/04/woonerf-for-denburn-valley-proposal.html

Union Terrace is also ideal as it is itself part of National Cycle Route 1 which in addition to being a popular commuter route in town, runs all the way from Dover to John o’ Groats (then on to Orkney and Shetland via the ferry). Sounds like it should be a done deal, but, EPI/11/140 goes on to say :

“Should the Committee feel that the impact on the road network and the travelling public will be such that they cannot support such an event on Union Terrace, officers will instead initiate proceedings to hold a smaller-scale event on Belmont Street on Saturday 17th September (although September 24th is the preferred date for the event, Belmont Street is hosting the Aberdeen Country Fair that day).”

So if the optimum location at Union Terrace – which can be shut on a weekday and all weekend for the street market – can’t be used the event will be held on Belmont Street … but not on the ideal date as that street is already closed for a regular street market then.

In fact, not only is Belmont Street already pedestrian-dominated (so it’s hardly a major concession to close it for a day), the council’s website notes that Belmont Street will beclosed at regular intervals throughout 2011 – indeed 24th September, 29th October, 26th November, 3rd, 10th, 17th & 24th December are already listed (no mention of 17th September yet though ??).

This point is noted in the original report which states :

“Although this would not strictly qualify as an In Town Without My Car Day event, as it would take place on a predominantly pedestrianised street, and would be of a significantly lesser scale, the space available should be such that some of the proposed attractions could still take place and the event should still be visible enough to attract a large number of visitors.”

Yes indeed, having the event on Belmont Streetwould not constitute a true ITWMC event.

In fact, looking at Section 4 of EPI/11/140 we see just how little commitment to the event there is. In Section 4.1 we read

“the closure of Union Terrace will involve the temporary rerouting of motor vehicles”

Well yes, isn’t that the whole point of closing off a street FOR ONE DAY a year?

“Public transport operators have been consulted on this proposal and they have significant concerns, stating the location is inopportune because of the disruption this will cause to bus services”

Disruption? That’s rich coming from First Aberdeen – look how they just closed the Bridge of Don Park & Ride site from 5th – 10th September. On another note, do you think bus operators want people to get into the habit of cycling into town?

(4.2) “The closure of Belmont Street would have minimal impact on traffic movements as vehicular access to Belmont Street is restricted and no public transport services use the street”.

(5.6) “… Closing the road on a weekend day should also limit any inconvenience to commuters and businesses.”

The minutes  of the EP & I Meeting of 24th May 2011,record that the committee resolved:

 “to support Aberdeen City’s participation in the European Mobility Week and In Town Without My Car Day 2011” – though evidently just as long as it didn’t inconvenience them too much! They also resolved to “instruct officers to initiate proceedings to close Belmont Street for a smaller scale event on Saturday, 17 September, and that the Head of Planning and Sustainable Development clarify whether this would still meet the requirements for participation in the European Mobility Week and In Town Without My Car Day 2011“. 
 http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=15637

So we end up with the Belmont Bike festival.

I hope the event is a great success but think it could have been so much more. Keeping cars off what is an effectively pedestrianised street for a few hours on a Saturday really sums up Aberdeen City Councils level of commitment to the whole notion of cycling as a form of urban transport.

Sep 092011
 

With thanks to Carl Gerrard and Grampian Police.

Bicycle theft in Aberdeen is on the increase and police say it’s largely because people are not taking simple precautions. As bicycle use increases it appears that opportunities for thieves is also on the rise.
Grampian Police are delighted to be working with The Aberdeen Cycle Forum to try and remind all cyclist across Aberdeen to take proper security precautions to look after their bikes.

Constable Kevin Murray of Aberdeen Division Crime Reduction Unit Advised:

“I would ask all bike owners to take a little time to think about the exact location you are going to, how you will secure the bike and what you are going to secure it to in the street.

“This thought process can assist in preventing the bike from ever being stolen in the first place.  Most thefts are still opportunist and even if you are just going into a shop for just a couple of minutes that is sufficient time for someone to steal your bike.”

Constable Murray continued:

“A simple but effective method of securing your bike in the street, is to lock it, using a good quality lock such as a ‘D’ lock, at the dedicated bike bars found in and around the city centre. Also consider securing it to immoveable street furniture which is in line of sight of a public space CCTV camera.”

Carl Gerrard, secretary of the Aberdeen Cycle Forum told Aberdeen Voice:

“Since 2008 cycle use has increased 20% inAberdeen. It’s a sad fact that cycle theft has also increased.  The good news is that by following a few common sense tips on the ACF website (www.aberdeencycleforum.org.uk) cyclists can both greatly reduce the chance of becoming a victim and increase the chance of getting their bike back should the worst happen.”

“Having your bike stolen results in both financial costs, and the inconvenience of having to use another mode of transport.  We are delighted to be working with Grampian Police to raise awareness in this area.”

Only 10% of the bikes recovered by Grampian Police are returned to their owners due to the poor descriptions, however, owners can ensure their chances of having their vehicle returned is increased.

Constable Murray added:

“In an effort to improve descriptions provided to police  I would like to remind all bike owners to utilise the Bike Passport form which can be found on the Grampian Police website under the crime reduction pages of the advice centre section.

“It is difficult to give the police or your insurer an accurate description of your bike once it has been stolen, however if once you purchase your bike you security mark it, complete this form, which includes an image of your bike and keep it safe, it will provide a more accurate description of your bike to increase the chance of officers being able to reunite you with your stolen pedal cycle if recovered.”

For more advice on bike and shed security visit The Aberdeen Cycle Forum website at www.aberdeencycleforum.org.uk or contact your local Crime Reduction Officer on 0845 600 5700.

 

Sep 092011
 

By Bob Smith.

Noo the AWPR,  
Jist a ribbon o tar
Is bein built so fowk can gyang faister
Fae Stoney ti Dyce,
27 minutes they’ll slice
Aff the time on the clock fit’s oor maister

We maun get there quick,
Some spoot oot real slick
Time is money ye surely can see
Some steerin wheel huggers,
Are aa silly buggers
Fleein aroon fae the Don ti the Dee

We’ve aa heard the notion,
Aboot time an motion
Far fowk staun an peer at watch face
Ti see fit wye’s quicker,
Ti damage yer ticker
As fowk jine the bliddy rat race

The warld his geen mad,
Iss is affa sad
In a car some growe horns an a tail
Wi great bulgin een,
Rude signs ti be gien
Feenished aff wi a rant an a rail

Time ti slow doon,
Dee awa wi the froon
Live life at a less frantic pace
If ye maun drive yer car,
Ower iss ribbon o tar
Hae an attitude fit’s less “in yer face”

Een o life’s sins ,
Nae hae use fer yer pins
Can ye think o onything sadder
So git on yer bike,
Or gyang fer a hike
Or ye micht slither aboot like an adder

Some tak things ower far,
An worship the car
Car showrooms are noo the new kirks
Div the salesmen aa kneel,
At the eyn o each deal
Syne waak aboot wi satisfied smirks

A micht tak the piss,
Bit jist think o iss
A car’s only a box on fower wheels
We’re layin doon a tar bed,
Ti tak a  muckle tyre tread
Costin millions o poonds-we’re aa feels

 ©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2011
Image Credit: © Morteza Safataj | Dreamstime.com 

Jul 082011
 

As Voice reported previously, the Get-About Commuter Challenge 2011 ran between 18 and 26 June as part of National Bike Week. Its successes are highlighted by Carl Gerrard, Secretary of Aberdeen
Cycle Forum (ACF).
                  

During National Bike Week, thirteen companies participated in the ACF/Getabout Commuter Challenge.

During the Challenge, now in its seventh year and its fifth in partnership with NESTRANS Getabout, a total of 958 return journeys were logged totalling nearly 5,000 miles. The majority took place between Monday and Friday, with a median distance of 4.2 miles.

With many participating saying that had they not cycled they would have driven, that’s a significant reduction in traffic congestion, a saving of an estimated 800 litres or £1000 of fuel and a considerable contribution to alleviating parking problems in the city.

Carl himself said,

“The Forum has run the Challenge for a number of years now. Every year participation increases as employers realise the benefits to both themselves and staff from cycling to work. The mean distance shows that cycling to work is a viable alternative for many, and as transport costs and congestion increase, more and more are making the shift to two wheels”

This is the first year it has been a totally corporate challenge and twelve employers ranging in size from 12 staff to 15,000 competed in four categories, Small (12-50), Medium (51-300), Large (301-3000), Mega (3001-15,000).

Points were scored for the numbers cycling, journeys undertaken and for encouragement to people to cycle to work for the first time. Distance travelled did not affect the scores.

Once the scoring was totalled, the results were:


The calculation and a worked example can be seen on the Challenge website

Statistics don’t tell the whole tale, of course, and anecdotes from some who enjoyed commuting solely by their own efforts show that cycling can be a fun, safe and healthy addition to the working day.

“Many of our staff already choose to cycle to work, but challenges such as this have encouraged
those that haven’t previously done so, to give it a go. Some of this year’s participants told us that they first started cycling during last year’s challenge [as the Macaulay Institute, they came second],  and have been regularly cycling to work ever since”  – Ben Watt, James Hutton Institute

“We’re delighted to have won a trophy in the Cycle Challenge. It’s the first time I’ve cycled to work in Aberdeen and I was amazed at how quick the journey was. I’ll definitely be cycling to work again”. –  Pauline Innes, Aberdeen Office of the Scottish Government

We were delighted with the response we got from so many diverse companies and hope we can build on the progress we’ve made in future events.Donald Kent, Getabout Coordinator

I’m delighted that our campaign of encouragement has paid off and we now have more bike commuters than ever. The benefits for cycling to work speak for themselves – our staff are leaner, greener and keener than before.” –  Paul Hasting, Shell’s Bike User Group Coordinator

Aberdeen Cycle Forum began in 2003 as a voluntary organisation campaigning for better facilities for cyclists in Aberdeen and has worked with stakeholders to deliver improvements for cyclists in the city, such as advances stop lanes at junctions on Union Street, and on capital projects such as the upgrading of the Deeside Line.

It now has 250 members and is recognised by the Scottish Parliament, local authorities, police, other governmental bodies and the media as representing Aberdeen cyclists; its recent count showed cycling levels in Aberdeen have increased in the last 12 months in line with national data.
http://www.aberdeencycleforum.org.uk

NESTRANS is the regional transport partnership for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. Its objective is to develop and deliver a long-term regional transport strategy and strategic transport improvements to support and improve the economy, environment and quality of life across the region.
http://www.nestrans.org.uk

Getabout, operated by NESTRANS, is a consortium working to promote a healthy and sustainable transport choice for everybody travelling within the region, and beyond.
http://www.get-about.com

 

Jun 242011
 

“Which of our conflicting transport demands are most important?” asks Jonathan Hamilton Russell in this edit of his longer article, written to encourage debate on the future of personal and freight travel in NE Scotland.

Scotland has extremely ambitious climate change targets, yet we prioritise airport expansion and roadbuilding.

The NE economy needs transport infrastructure to allow movement of goods; people have to get to work with few holdups.

Meeting climate change targets means embracing sustainable transport usage by reducing car, road freight and air travel yet Aberdeen Airport has the fastest-growing passenger numbers in Scotland; public transport is the only option for many, but the majority are wedded to car use. Among Scottish cities Aberdeen car count is highest; Aberdeenshire has the highest rural area car usage; increasingly, Aberdeenshire residents drive to work in Aberdeen, exaggerating traffic bottlenecks.

Public spending cuts mean local and national governments face stark financial choices affecting resources for maintaining and enhancing transport infrastructures.

The days of cheap petrol have passed. Prices will continue to rise.

Bus fares are higher here than throughout Scotland.  Southbound buses are often of poor quality although local buses are of a high standard, and Aberdeen citizens, on average, are nearer bus stops than other Scottish cities’ residents.

Bus use in Aberdeenshire can be problematic, but could be increased by driving to stops and transferring to buses – less stressful than car travel. Council cuts to services for the disabled and elderly have made travelling significantly more challenging for such socially-excluded groups.

What can we do?

There’s general agreement that people should be encouraged to travel more sustainably. Cycling activity is increasing, although levels are lower than elsewhere in Scotland, and it needs to be encouraged as a healthy, environmentally-friendly activity.

Cycle pools, common in many European cities, could be created. Cycle routes to school, given priority, would provide more fun and health benefits for children than car travel. Cycle safety measures would need to be put in place, particularly at roundabouts, to make them less dangerous.

Park and ride schemes, particularly at Kingswells, are less successful than envisaged but remain a commuting option. Car-sharing, whilst becoming more common, is far from the norm. NESTRANS, responsible for planning and transport implementation, has suggested piloting car-share lanes.

Laurencekirk railway station has re-opened, but more stops are needed, possibly at Kittybrewster and Altens. The Haudagain roundabout obviously needs improving, with priority for cyclists, buses and car-sharing.

A new Bridge of Dee is needed – contribution to its cost from that area’s large retailers might have been written into the conditions when planning consent was agreed. Any new development should prioritise cycles, buses and car-sharing.

Aberdeen is a fairly small city and walking should always be marketed as a healthy, cheap and quick transport option.

Traffic lights in pedestrian high-use areas should give priority to pedestrians. 20 mph restrictions have improved safety, although limits are regularly broken by a minority of drivers.

Offering flexible working hours is effective in reducing peak-time traffic levels. Salary benefits for those cycling or car-sharing could be introduced, with car pools for staff who have to drive during  work time. Working at home, for at least part of the week, is an option as is business conferencing rather than travelling to meetings. Both would reduce business costs.

it is well-documented that increased road space leads to increased traffic

Will the increased price of petrol reduce car use enough, or do we need to introduce road pricing, viewed as the single measure most likely to effect change to how we travel? The increased motoring costs would make drivers consider alternatives.

Aberdeen would almost certainly benefit, reducing the numbers moving to Aberdeenshire as extra travel costs outweigh housing cost savings.  It is a hot potato, however, and would be unpopular due to the high levels of car use locally. Few politicians would have the courage to suggest its introduction, despite being effective in reducing car  dependency.

We also need to identify new means of financing transport developments and to maintain the current deteriorating infrastructure. Road pricing could raise those funds.

Some planning decisions have encouraged car use. Union Square adjoins both bus and rail terminals but it has also provided increased parking opportunities.

 It has had a detrimental commercial effect on Union Street, George Street and Bon Accord Centre shops, all more accessible by bus.

The proposed Union Terrace development would increase city centre car parking availability, flying in the face of the need to reduce car travel and move towards more sustainable transport methods.

All measures have advocates and opponents. The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) for example, highlights conflicting views and interests.  Newton Dee Village fought an effective campaign to stop the road encroaching on that community; Road Sense has successfully raised legal objections, forcing public inquiries, even if of limited scope.

The AWPR has both advantages and disadvantages. It would help take freight off Aberdeen’s roads although significant volumes still have to come in and out of Aberdeen.

It would reduce travel times although there are other bottlenecks further south. It would reduce congestion at the Haudagain roundabout and Bridge of Dee, but it is well-documented that increased road space leads to increased traffic. Roads in general will become more congested.

The AWPR would help businesses. It will allow more people to live outside Aberdeen as it will be quicker, at least initially, to travel into Aberdeen but will lead to an increasingly-ageing city population.

Such demographic change will leave Aberdeen City Council with less money and greater demands on resources. An excellent deal has been negotiated in terms of local authorities’ contributions, with the Scottish Government meeting 82% of costs. These, however, have already escalated and impending substantial expenditure cuts will leave less money in the overall pot.

The low level of rail freight uptake is a national scandal. Road freight transport’s perceived flexibility sees it preferred.  Historically, there were conflicts with rail unions, who, however, are now keen for freight to move to rail. This will need increased public and private investment, less likely in a period of reduced public spending, although in terms of providing work and kick-starting the economy this option should not be ruled out. This also applies to the AWPR.

There would need to be contracts developed between the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, rail companies, unions and government at all levels.

The replacement of the freight terminal by Union Square was a setback for future local rail freight capacity.

New freight facilities have been introduced at Craiginches and at Rathes Farm but this has not increased capacity. There are sea/rail links at Waterloo Quay and freight yards at Inverurie and Huntly. NESTRANS strategy states that development of new open-access freight terminals could be explored and if transferring freight to rail becomes reality, new depots would be needed.

Aberdeen harbour is an excellent freight facility and passenger transport gateway to Orkney and Shetland, with potential to expand both services. Currently five million tonnes of freight are exported through the harbour, but the loss of rail freight infrastructure in the station interchange area was a lost opportunity to link sea freight with rail.

We have to decide on our priorities.

Are we really concerned about climate change?

Can we move towards more community-based forms of travel from those currently privatised?

Do we want a more healthy society that walks and cycles more?

Can our business needs dovetail with our environmental needs?

Is it possible to think more holistically when making planning decisions?

Aberdeen Voice would welcome contributions to this debate.

Image credits:

RAILWAY JUNCTION © Davidmartyn | Dreamstime.com
CAR INTERIOR © Li Fang | Dreamstime.com
BICYCLE PARKING LOT © Chris Mccooey | Dreamstime.com
UTG DENBURN © Mike Shepherd