Garden Archives - Page 9 of 10

Old Susannah No.58 – The Lie Of The Land

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, History, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Nov 142011

Old Susannah pays her respects, but is unable to maintain her silence as she takes a look around what has been happening in our vibrant and dynamic city and beyond.

Things continue to be vibrant and dynamic this week in the Granite City. On Friday 11 November some 4o-plus people gathered for a minute’s silence to mark those who fell in war. Robert Martin who works nearby in Golden Square told me he first started coming to Union Terrace Gardens for the traditional minute of silence a few years back.
“What better, more peaceful place is there in the heart of the City to have the minute of silence,” he commented.

A gardener tried to tell the group they should be at the war memorial instead – he could not understand that we were all happier in the Denburn Valley.

For the record, this was not a celebration of nationalism, or glorification of war; it was a gesture of respect for those who lost their lives in war. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just stop killing each other, and sort out economic and social problems another way? Maybe that day will still come.

Then there was the enjoyable opening night at Peacock for its winter exhibition. The 400 or so works are on show until 23 December and are all for sale. Alicia Bruce is offering small prints of her iconic photo portraits from the Menie Estate which had such a good reception when she exhibited at Peacock. There are abstracts, portraits, beautiful drawings, and even one or two offerings of mine.

A quick word about litter.

During the week I asked an older man who’d dropped litter to please pick it up. He explained (with some interesting vocabulary words which I must look up) that ‘he didn’t know me’, ‘he didn’t have to’ and ‘I could not make him.’ It was a very impressive display indeed.

Days later I was at Sainsbury’s Berryden, and groups of students (probably just over 20 people in total) had stopped by the store to get their lunch. They had wrappers, bags, papers, serviettes, bottles and so on. And as I waited for a bus, I saw each and every student put their trash in the trashcan near the bus stop.

I am pretty sure they were from St Machar. My appreciation to them and the other people who do the right thing. It’s not difficult, it’s not brain surgery. It does however make a huge difference.

But whatever you were doing this week, everyone’s thoughts were with one brave man who is fighting a valiant struggle of his own. Yes, Stewart Milne’s case went to the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The Press & Journal had no room for this story on the day, due to the breaking news that geothermal energy exists. This astonishing front page special even had a picture of a volcano to illustrate it. I had personally expected a story about a cow with a ladder on its neck, but the geothermal story did the trick, and between it and the massive ads for Milne Homes, no room remained for the little matter of our City being called to the Supreme Court.

Then, Friday, the P&J did run with a story on Milne, which leads neatly to a little definition or two.

Negotiate: (verb, Eng) to settle a conflict or disagreement by compromise.

Those of us who read the Press & Journal story will have felt sorry for Stewart Milne. He claimed the matter could have been settled had Aberdeen City council accepted his offer of negotiation.

According to the P&J, Stewart Milne Group claimed:

“We have offered to go to independent arbitration on several occasions over a long period of time,”

Usually negotiations happen when both sides have a valid argument or case to make. To refresh everyone’s memory, the City sold land at Westhill to Mr M for far less than it was worth – the City’s clever business plan was not to sell the land on the open market, but sell directly to Milne (I am sure there was a great reason).

He got a great price on the understanding the City would eventually get any sale profit. In a really clever and not at all dodgy-looking business manoeuvre, the land moved from one arm of the vast Milne empire to the next, at a cost around £500k –apparently more than what the 11 acres cost in the first place. This was perfectly normal, and could have happened to anyone. Quite truthfully, Milne then indicated that there was no profit to share.

This giant poster in no way looks like a desperate advertising ploy, but it does paper over some cracks nicely.

The City and subsequent courts have disagreed with Mr Milne’s logic (shocking!), and rather than enter ‘negotiation’ over the £1.7 million under dispute, the City decided to see the case all the way through. Milne could have accepted the last court’s verdict, but he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. If you’ve only got £60 million, then you’ve got to hold onto every penny these days.

The trial was televised, and although Old Susannah is no legal expert, it didn’t look all that great for Stew.

Now we just have to wait for the outcome – at which point no doubt everyone’s favourite football club owner will immediately give Aberdeen the £1.7 million it is owed, plus court costs. I think an apology is also due, and hope the City are drafting one to Mr Milne for taking things this far.

This expensive litigation obviously in no way impacts on the role Mr Milne plays in ACSEF, the City and Shire’s invention which is helping us out of economic chaos. Aside from the bang-up job ACSEF has done so far for our city’s shops, it’s created a brilliant logo for itself, and now has a great big vibrant, dynamic mural at McCombie Court. This giant poster in no way looks like a desperate advertising ploy, but it does paper over some cracks nicely.

In light of Stewart’s logic concerning negotiation, the next time you get mugged or have your wallet snatched, don’t go to the law. Just find out who’s got your money and negotiate to get some of it back. Sorted.

Reading this story about how Stew wanted to negotiate, I wonder if I’m not having déjà vu. This sense comes from the P&J article some time back, when Milne and everyone’s favourite forum, ACSEF, were taking over Peacock Visual Art’s project and turning it into the great City Garden Scheme.

Just before the final, decisive and divisive voting on the project took place, ACSEF / Milne said that Peacock had been offered some kind of 11th hour alternative, but were unwilling to strike a deal. Of course if you read the full story, you would have eventually discovered Peacock said ‘we were never contacted about any deal.’

I hope in future any Peacock person, Aberdeen City legal rep, etc. will just ‘negotiate’ when Stewart wants something – it will save the taxpayer lots of money to just go along with him from the start.

In fact, when I think of Loirston Loch, the Triple Kirks glass box scheme, Pittodrie and so on, I wonder if we haven’t just started to say yes to him already.

Geography: (noun) study of terrain, locations, types of environments and areas.

If you are out there, Pete Leonard, Director of Housing, perhaps you might consider a geography lesson or two. Pete insists Tullos Hill is ‘urban’. The hill is next to all the lovely industrial estates which have helped make Aberdeen the profitable centre of the universe it is, but the hill just isn’t all that ‘urban’. It’s covered with plants, grasses, wildlife, pre-historic cairns and so on.

Here in Aberdeen, there is a complete separation of contractors and councillors

On the word of Mr Leonard, I went to Tullos Hill the other day assuming it had been urbanised. I looked for fast food, a coffee or a monorail ride, but there was nothing of the kind to be found.

It struck me that Ms Malone (who has lately been very, very quiet) might want to look for a new initiative to push. Perhaps if she abandoned the ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme and maybe had ‘a monolith for every citizen’ and/or ‘monorail for every citizen’ scheme, it might increase her popularity. As I hear it, an improvement in her popularity stakes is currently the only possible direction.

Aside from Tullos, other urban areas in our city are easy to recognise by the well-maintained roads and footpaths, the general cleanliness, the complete lack of any crime, and all the many open local shops.

Corruption: (noun, English) a state of dishonesty, lack of integrity, self-interested behaviour of a person or body in a position of trust.

Edinburgh has faced accusations of council corruption. (“At least it couldn’t happen in Aberdeen!” I can practically hear you say.)

For openers, according to the BBC, the hospitality records are incomplete. ( This contrasts with our city’s up-to-date, perfectly set out, fully inclusive records which seem to indicate some councillors went to absolutely no events whatsoever in 2009 and or 2010). But that’s the least of Edinburgh’s problems.

Edinburgh’s councillors are in the firing line for ‘possible fraud and serious wrongdoing’ with regard to building works and property.

Audit Scotland could not decide if the city was just a wee bit disorganised, or if there was a whiff of corruption

It also looks like a city councillor had a holiday paid for by a contractor. Here in Aberdeen, there is a complete separation of contractors and councillors. In those rare occasions when a councillor is somehow connected to a contractor, then they stay well out of any possible conflict situations.

Some years ago we had our own little trouble with Audit Scotland, you may remember.

They had a few uncertainties after a detailed investigation of our city’s property selling activities. There were questions as to why so many properties were being sold below value. Audit Scotland did tell the city to stop selling property at knock-down prices, and otherwise pay attention to details – like who is actually buying your property and what it should sell for. In the end, Audit Scotland could not decide if the city was just a wee bit disorganised, or if there was a whiff of corruption. In the end, they invited our local police to look into the issues.

After a completely thorough, detailed investigation, the police found nothing untoward. Old Susannah is not sure when the investigation was conducted. Then again, I’m not sure when exactly Stewart Milne Group started advertising on police cars, either.

Next week: hopefully a Milne court and FOI case update; a fond look back at the careers of John Stewart and Neil Fletcher, who are not going to run for re-election in May.

Stop press: Christmas Gift Solution: Tired of the usual old boring gifts – the handbag-sized bottle of vodka, the city council carriage clock or branded pen? Look no further for your gift requirements: The City is selling photo prints of its greatest moments. Rather than taking a picture of St Nicholas House or the ACSEF logo yourself to make a welcome gift for a loved one, just go to the City’s website.

What is the most popular subject on sale? Why the Lord Provost of course! There are only about 750 photos of him in action this year but fret not: there are two other years of Lord Provost photos as well. Make a lovely print on canvas, or can be sent to an artist to create a portrait in oils. I just might buy a photo of the Lord Provost handing over a gift and turn it into a mug, a mug for some reasons being the first thing that springs to mind.
See: http://aberdeencitycouncil.newsprints.co.uk/

Stop press 2: there will be a further extension for getting your entries in for the Union Terrace Gardens art competition – more news soon!

City Garden Project Bogged Down In A Procedural Mess

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

Nov 102011

By Mike Shepherd.

The next big event in the Union Terrace Gardens saga is the meeting of a Council sub-committee on Tuesday 15 November to discuss the holding of a public referendum on whether or not the City Garden Project should proceed.
Given events to date, it is not surprising that the report for this meeting is proving highly controversial.

An eye-catching statement in the report is that the referendum should be non-binding on Councillors. The report itself identifies an obvious problem here:

“Since the referendum has been proposed as a mechanism for advising Councillors, it should be non-binding. However, it must be recognised that this runs the risk of compromising the credibility of the referendum exercise.”

This was put more forcibly by Ron Campbell in a letter to The Press and Journal on Wednesday 9 November. Suggesting that this left open the
possibility that the project could go ahead even if voted against by the majority, he wrote,

“So, it’s just a re-run of the previous ‘poll’. Heads you lose, Tails you lose. Brilliant. What’s the point of a referendum if you ignore it?”

The report suggests that the reason for the non-binding clause is that there could be conflict with the planning process. What this conflict could be is not clear.

Councillor Kate Dean had a go at explaining this on Facebook,

“It’s not appropriate for me to go into detailed discussion of a Committee report before it is considered by the Committee. However, the problems would arise if the referendum says yes and the resultant Planning Application doesn’t meet the appropriate criteria to be approved.

“Or, if the referendum says yes, would there be a public expectation that the application would be approved regardless of its planning merits? Or would there be a perception among those who would be aggrieved at a “yes” vote that this would happen?

“Please note, I’m not giving any opinion on the answers to any of the above, simply a flavour if the advice which has led to that recommendation.

“Obviously, if the result of the referendum is a “no”, none of these scenarios applies, but surely it would be unwise of the Council to go into anything without exploring the implications of all possible outcomes.”

Somebody on Facebook suggested that you could get round this by making a Keep UTG ‘yes’ vote binding, but the build the City Garden ‘yes’ vote, non-binding.

The credibility of the referendum is clearly an issue. Another concern is that the question asked could be rigged to create a psychological bias. The suggested question in the report is,

“Please indicate whether or not you support redevelopment of Union Terrace Gardens, in accordance with the Aberdeen City Garden Trust Ltd’s preferred design proposal, by ticking one of the following boxes:

YES, I support the proposed City Garden Project

NO, I want to retain the existing Union Terrace Gardens”

There is definite bias in this question. The City Garden Project is the positive option, retaining the existing Gardens is the negative option. It should also be mentioned that neither side actually wants to maintain the status quo. The Friends of Union Terrace Gardens would like to see a sympathetically-restored park.

The report mentions that the wording will be up for public discussion; however the Council has the final choice on wording.

“The proposed wording for any ballot paper be placed on the Council’s website for a period of at least two weeks, so the public have a chance to comment on this, or propose alternatives. The Council would take account of these comments before determining the final question.”

There are good reasons for the Council not to oversee the referendum. The Council report itself indicates clear support for the City Garden Project describing it as “a vital piece of social, cultural and leisure infrastructure”. This is not impartial. The alternative is that the referendum should be run or overseen by the Electoral Commission.

One of the reasons for holding a referendum, probably in late February, is that the Scottish Government has made it clear that TIF funding will not be progressed unless public support has been demonstrated for the City Garden Project.

In a further development, the criteria by which Aberdeen‘s TIF case has been assessed is also under question. An article in last week’s Sunday Herald (6 November 2011) questioned the criteria for including Aberdeen as an additional case, after awarding the three remaining TIF schemes.

“In an interview with the Sunday Herald, the Cabinet Secretary declined to say whether it scored fourth on the SFTs list, stoking speculation that it was moved ahead of other projects for political reasons. If Aberdeen did not come fourth on the list, the council that did is likely to be disappointed to have been turned down.”

Alex Neil said,

“We are not disclosing the ranking because the SFT’s advice was based on the narrower economic conditions, whereas we then applied other criteria, primarily a geographic spread because it would be unfair to concentrate the TIFs in one part of the country. We are not getting into publishing ranking tables at this stage.”

The idea of a geographic spread for the TIF cases is inconsistent with previous statements. The Government web page makes the position on TIF clear:

“The Scottish Government tasked the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) with developing appropriate criteria for the potential application of TIF in Scotland and to work with local authorities in developing their proposals. SFT will need to be convinced, on behalf of Ministers, that the economic case for a particular TIF is clear.”

One other problem for TIF is that Councillors have stated that any loan through TIF should involve no financial risk to the Council. The problem with this was highlighted in a Holyrood Magazine report on TIF:

“Councillors have also insisted that the project must pose “zero risk” to the city’s finances. That is an additional hurdle, admits Brough, but it also acts as a litmus test for the viability of the scheme.

“If we can get someone to provide that guarantee, our business case is solid; if we can’t convince someone to underwrite the risk, then it’s too big a risk,” he says.”

One can’t help feeling that the City Garden Project has turned into a murky, political and economic quagmire. If it’s bogged down in a procedural mess, it’s arguably a consequence of ignoring the vote on the public consultation two years ago.

Union Terrace Gardens Update

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

Nov 042011

By Mike Shepherd.

The design competition for the City Garden Project has just finished at the Pier in Belmont Street and the organisers say that about 15,000 have visited to see the six designs on display.

The Friends of Union Terrace Gardens canvassed outside the exhibition for the entire three weeks it lasted.

We managed to speak to many of the public as they came out and we asked them their opinion. Probably between 10 and 20% liked the designs and at least a half felt uncomfortable with them. Many had spoiled the ballots, particularly as the option to keep the existing gardens had not been included.

Of those that voted, option two (the one with the worm-like greenhouse over the middle of the railway) was preferred as it was seen as the least damaging. A couple of architects told us that this was probably the Norman Foster design. Our general impression is that the Aberdeen public were underwhelmed by the designs, more the woe factor than the wow factor.

I’m not sure it was made plain to those taking part that their vote was merely serving to give an indication to a jury who would actually make the final choice, not them. The jury includes Sir Ian Wood. The jury will come to a decision sometime later in the month.

Option two “the worm” is likely to be a forerunner. The bumph describes it as “Protecting the gardens, transforming the setting”. For some, it has a close resemblance to the Millennium option, which largely preserved the gardens but decked over the road and railway. The Millennium option was proposed for a lottery funded project in the late 1990s but was passed over.

However, option two does change the gardens despite appearances to the contrary.

The balustrades are removed on the theatre side with a wide series of steps leading down to a circular amphitheatre below. The famous crest disappears. On the Union Bridge side, the gardens ramp up to street level. It is clear that many of the trees will be removed.

There are early signs that the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens could be asked to compromise on this option given that it appears to be the least destructive. This will be an attempt to muddy the issue with the public.

However, our constitution is clear. A key aim is to “to campaign for the conservation and improvement of Union Terrace Gardens”. Option two does not conserve Union Terrace Gardens and we cannot support it.

Aberdeen City Council’s plan to use TIF for Union Terrace Gardens project will be progressed if public support for the project can be demonstrated.

The Scottish Government issued a press release on Tuesday about TIF funding. They have proposed six pilot projects whereby Scottish Councils will be allowed to borrow money for regeneration projects and capture the business rates generated to pay off the loan (Tax Incremental Financing).

Two have been approved and another in Glasgow is to be approved pending a local council vote.

Aberdeen was hoping to gain one of the three remaining slots but was unsuccessful. However, the Government did announce that “Aberdeen City Council’s plan to use TIF for Union Terrace Gardens project will be progressed if public support for the project can be demonstrated”.

So the Aberdeen submission did not appear to meet acceptance for one of the six cases on business merits, yet is being given preferential treatment if the public like it.

Behind the scenes, Aberdeen Council have been lobbying hard to get an award.

Given that £70M of public money is involved here, it is alarming that the money appears to have been promised on grounds other than objective business criteria.

This decision has overtones of what Americans call pork barrel politics:

“Pork barrel is a derogatory term referring to appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative’s district.” (Wikipedia).

The instance on demonstrating public support would appear to make a public referendum more likely. This is not supported by the City Garden Project team. One of their members told us:

“I don’t think we should have a referendum because the public is not sufficiently informed to make a sensible decision.”

An opinion poll would be their preferred option. The leader of the Council Callum McCaig disagrees. He told me in an email on Wednesday that:

“I’m quite clear that we need to have a referendum on the issue. Even the best opinion poll will come with a margin of error and if the result was close there would always be an element of doubt over the validity of the poll.

“Yes a referendum will not be cheap, but given the scale of the proposed investment, and the indication from the government that a clear demonstration of public support being required before they approve a TIF scheme, it is a price worth paying to have a definitive answer as to whether the public want this project to go ahead.“

The Council are currently investigating the options for running a referendum and a vote on this is due to take place later this month.

What would be the result in a referendum? Scottish Television gave an early indication when they ran a straw poll with over 1,100 taking part. Preserving Union Terrace Gardens was an option along with the six other city square designs. 74% voted to keep the Gardens.

Why Union Terrace Gardens Really Matters

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

Oct 132011

Mike Shepherd, Chairman of the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens, puts the case for keeping Union Terrace Gardens.

Union Terrace Gardens are a vital part of Aberdeen’s heritage.

The city centre park was planned by Alexander Marshall Mackenzie, the architect who also designed the Art Gallery, St Marks and the frontage of Marischal College.

If Union Terrace Gardens feel as if they belong in the city, it is because there is a harmony between the park and the surrounding buildings, several of which were designed by Marshall Mackenzie.

There is a sense of architectural authenticity. This authenticity would be lost if a six-acre modern square is built, which would be surrounded by Victorian granite buildings. The singer Annie Lennox has described this possibility as an act of civic vandalism.

Aberdeen’s heritage matters.

The beautiful granite buildings give us a sense of place and belonging. We identify with our heritage, and Aberdonians are proud of their beautiful city. The replacement of the old with the new, artlessly done, erodes the unique feel of Aberdeen, and starts to make our city look like everywhere else.

The Gardens are beautiful and spectacular.

The Gardens provide shelter below street level under the hustle and bustle of the city centre. The shelter is enhanced by the 78 mature trees in the Gardens, all of which will be chopped down if a modern city square is to be built according to the technical feasibility study.

An Aberdeen Council document states the following:

Union Terrace Gardens has many qualities to be exploited and enhanced including:

– Topography which provides a unique and dramatic setting for the surrounding historic townscape and bridges, and an essential component of the identity of the City Centre

– The character of buildings to the rear of Belmont Street

– The setting for His Majesty’s Theatre, St Mark’s and the Central Library, Denburn Viaduct and Union Bridge

– Green space and mature trees

– One of the last locations where the historic relationship of Union Street to the old city can be appreciated

(Source: Aberdeen City Council, “Aberdeen City Centre – Developing a Vision for the Future“, May 2010).

The development of Union Terrace Gardens is not a done deal.

There are many obstacles in the way of the so-called City Garden Project, such that it is unlikely to happen. The project depends on the Council borrowing £70M to fund the project through Tax Incremental Financing. The council, who are £562M in debt, cannot afford to take any more risks on borrowing.

There is no public consensus for the project: indeed a consultation held two years ago rejected the scheme. The politicians are hoping to address these concerns by holding a referendum, which will inevitably support the retention of the existing Gardens.

There is a much better alternative to building a modern and intrusive city square in the middle of the Granite City.

The Friends of Union Terrace Gardens group are committed to the sympathetic restoration of our city centre park. We intend to act in a similar capacity to the Friends of Duthie Park; Duthie park will benefit from the funds attracted by the Friends and will be restored to its former glory. Likewise, the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens intend to return Union Terrace Gardens to a fully-functioning park again.

It wouldn’t take much.

Our park needs some tender loving care, new toilets, a play pen, improved access. We have organised social events in the Gardens and we are instrumental in making Union Terrace Gardens a fun place to visit. It is a park that is a key part of Aberdeen’s heritage, the green heart of the Granite City.

We are a community group dedicated to the future of Union Terrace Gardens.

– Join us, help us in our aims; find out more from our website www.friendsofutg.co.uk

Something’s A Myth In The City Square

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

Sep 302011

By Mike Shepherd.

A document has appeared purporting to reveal and counter ‘myths’ about the proposed Union Terrace Gardens development. It has been posted on the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC) website.
Some of the claims are disingenuous and others stretch the idea of a ‘myth’ somewhat.

AGCC: “Fiction: This is Sir Ian Wood’s project. Fact: The City Garden is not and never has been Sir Ian Wood’s project.”

The City Square has always been seen as Sir Ian Wood’s project. Sir Ian announced his proposal at HM Theatre in November 2008. The Evening Express reported the launch with the headline;

“Options revealed in Sir Ian Wood’s vision for Union Terrace Gardens” EE13/11/08

The same article also states:

“The businessman wants to raise Aberdeen’s Union Terrace Gardens to street level and create a civic square.”

A media quote picked at random clearly shows that it has invariably been perceived as Sir Ian’s project.

“Back my vision for the city or lose £50m, Sir Ian warns” P&J 14/04/2010

So exactly whose vision is it then, Sir Ian?

“What is referred to as ‘my vision’ is in fact the vision, aspiration and hopes of many, many Aberdonians for the future economic and civic wellbeing of our city and region as North Sea oil winds down.” BBC20/4/10

Excuse me, I don’t think so.

AGCC: “Fiction: The City Garden Project will destroy the only green space in the city. Fact: It will create new, bigger, greener and more attractive gardens. It is about gardens and open, distinct spaces on different levels, using the natural slopes, for all sorts of activities.”

The development will destroy the existing Gardens and according to the technical feasibility study, all 78 mature trees including the old elms will be chopped down. It is hard to accept that the new “City Garden” could ever support mature trees on the existing scale.

AGCC: “Fiction: It will destroy our history and heritage. Fact: Wherever possible, the project will preserve and enhance our history and heritage.”

This is the most disingenuous of all the ‘myths’ in the document. The first draft of the design brief for the City Squarecalls for a …

“21st century contemporary garden”

…to be built in place of the Victorian park. Union Terrace Gardens was planned by Alexander Marshall Mackenzie, who also designed many of the surrounding buildings including the Art Gallery. If Union Terrace Gardens feel as if they belong, this is the reason why. The city square WILL destroy a key part of our history and heritage.

AGCC: “Fiction: Aberdeen City Council is selling off public land for this project. Fact: The land involved will remain in public ownership.”

This is misleading as it doesn’t explain the whole picture. The land will most likely remain with the Council for the time being. However, the ground will probably be leased for a long period, 125 years has been suggested. A lease-hold on this time-scale while technically not ownership, is nevertheless a significant property deal. Any structure on the land, including the so-called City Garden, will not be publically owned. This will belong to the private company or trust if they get planning permission.

AGCC: “Fiction: Aberdeen City Council is spending money it cannot afford on this project, money that could be better spent elsewhere. Fact: Aberdeen City Council has not allocated any revenue expenditure to the City Garden Project, over the past year.”

We know that considerable Council officer time has been allocated to work spent on the project. We do not know if the City Garden Project intends to reimburse the Council for this or not. ACC minutes show that the Council lawyers have not yet signed off the relevant project agreement that would allow this to happen.

AGCC: “Fiction: The City will be taking on-board future liabilities relating to the construction and operation of the City Garden. Fact: The City has agreed to consider a TIF scheme to provide public sector funding for the project. This will involve the City borrowing funds to invest in the project. The project will stimulate new business investment and generate additional extra economic activity in the area, resulting in an increase in the amount of business rates collected in future years. This will be used to repay the loan plus the interest charges.”

Doh! – “Fiction: The City will be taking on-board future liabilities” but then we are told “This will involve the City borrowing funds to invest in the project”.

The Council are £562M in debt and cannot afford any more borrowing for anything. As has been explained on these pages before by Mick Miller, the version of TIF suggested for the City Square Project involves major financial risk. If the amount of business rates does not increase sufficiently to pay back the loan, then the Council get left holding the baby.

AGCC: “Fiction: The majority of Aberdeen public has voted against redeveloping Union Terrace Gardens. Fact: 11,000 people (less than 10% of the population) participated in the public consultation which revealed that just over half were against the proposal. Many of those were basing their decision on misinformation. The majority indicated a need for change and for the location to be more attractive and accessible.”

This is probably the most outrageous of the so-called myths. A public consultation was held, the public voted No by a significant majority and it was ignored. The public were told that their votes would count. Even Sir Ian Wood acknowledged this in an interview as can be seen on an STV located on Youtube.

“”The citizens of Aberdeen… will have the right to choose. There will be full consultation, it’s coming to the end of it now and they will decide. And that’s democracy in operation. That’s great.”
http://video.stv.tv/bc/news-l2-gardens-190210/?redirect=no

The scale of participation in the consultation was significant. ACSEF, who helped set up the consultation, noted:

“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.”

When, later ACSEF discussed the results of the consultation at a board meeting onthe 22d March 2010, they discussed how to frame the result of the consultation as a favourable outcome for the city square in spite of the No vote:

“If views are roughly split there is an opportunity to say that although the public has spoken this is only in relatively small numbers. 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.”
http://www.acsef.co.uk/uploads/reports/21/22%20March%2010.doc

The statement that the majority indicated a need for change is misleading, the majority said no to the City Square Project and did not endorse it.

If the public were misled during the consultation, who was responsible for the misinformation? Where did these myths come from?

“It is now acknowledged by all involved that the absence of a reference design was a fundamental flaw in the consultation. The consultation asked if people supported the project or not but the common perception was that the conceptual illustrations, based on the technical study, represented a final design. Many based their decision on not liking what they believed was a final design.”
http://thecitygardenproject.com/background.asp

The proponents of the City Square do not accept that they lost the consultation fairly. They cannot believe that the public cogently preferred either the Peacock scheme or the preservation of the existing gardens to a modern city square. But this is what happened.

AGCC: “Fiction: It will be a flat, concrete square. Fact: This is not the case. The design teams have been given a very clear brief that new gardens and space which will have street level access from all four sides will use the existing topography of the site to provide a unique, dramatic and creatively landscaped setting to better reveal and blend with the surrounding historic architecture.”

OK guys, explain to me how you can ”raise the level of the Gardens to that of the surrounding streets” (the Council’s words not mine) and use the existing topography to any significant extent? So where did the idea of a unique and dramatic setting come from?

Here is the description of the existing Gardens as noted in the City Centre Development Framework:

They have a “topography which provides a unique and dramatic setting for the surrounding historic townscape and bridges and an essential component of the identity of the City Centre. “

I suspect that this is just the start of a large PR campaign to sell the concept of the “City Garden Project” to the Aberdeen Public. It will have only a limited impact. Aberdonians are highly educated and can think for themselves. They can make their own mind up about what they want the city centre to look like, whether it is the existing Gardens or a city square at street level. They are smart enough to see what is plausible and what isn’t.

Reversing The Destruction Of Disabilty Services Part 6

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

Sep 152011

The curtain falls on the sixth and final act of Jonathan Russell’s assessment of the tragi-comedy that is services for the disabled in Aberdeen – but what will be the last word? Is there a way forward for services for people with Disabilities in Aberdeen?

We are now faced as a city with considerable challenges due to both the wider financial and economic situation in the UK and the bleak financial situation that Aberdeen City Council has got itself into.
The situation with the SNP refusing to let councils increase the community tax has to be challenged and this is particularly relevant to oil rich Aberdeen where the majority of people could afford an increase.

Other possibilities would be to re introduce the SNP’S idea of taxing large retailers but it would have to be clear were the money collected was going. The Oil related companies have given very little back to Aberdeen or the wider Scottish/UK despite their huge profits.

ACVO (Aberdeen Council of Voluntary Organisations) have been working hard to get the private sector more involved in supporting the struggling voluntary sector and this should be encouraged. We have to make decisions on how best in difficult circumstances money is to be spent. We also have to make sure that the money spent is at best value for the needs of its citizens and end the prevailing culture of waste.

As a city we have to make bleak choices as to what is important to us as citizens.

Do we want to support the more vulnerable in our city including the disabled, the elderly, vulnerable children and the homeless or are our priorities more about grand projects like the replacement of Union Terrace Gardens, the Bridge over the Don crossing, the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, money once more to bail out the Aberdeen Exhibition Centre or a new Olympic Swimming Pool?

All these projects have to be paid for and as with most capital projects, costs are likely to escalate and eat into other budgets. At present it is the vulnerable people in our communities who are taking the biggest hit.

Is this what the citizens of Aberdeen really want?

As well as making these decisions we have to make sure that we are spending our money to its best effect. This means putting a priority on cutting management costs and the inappropriate cost of consultants and not on the cutting of front line services. Over the last year £29,500 was spent on an outside grouping ‘Moveable Feast’ finding out what services people with learning disabilities want. This is a scandal when the resources to actually run services are so low.

My experiences of management in Aberdeen City Council left me with major concerns about the organisation. At present there is a rift between frontline staff and management. The roles of both managers/strategists and councilors need to be urgently reviewed.

encouragement and support of front line staff has to take priority if we are not to have an increasingly failing organisation

In particular councilors and managers have to become much more visible and supportive to front line staff. Strategists have to engage with the front line and get away from their ivory towers and be expected to carry out work themselves rather than relying on consultants. The ethos has to be one of Public Service and not one of career moves and covering ones back which is sadly the prevailing culture.

The encouragement and support of front line staff has to take priority if we are not to have an increasingly failing organisation with an increasingly demoralised staff group. Finance and how to provide the optimum amount of service to the public needs to be at the centre of any service delivery.

The ideas in the disability area presently being mooted is the idea of providing individual budgets. The idea of individual clients having their own budgets to purchase services has been on and off the agenda for several years. Individual budgets have the potential to empower individuals to get the types of services that they themselves want.

However, from the experience of Direct Payments, a similar scheme that has operated for at least eight years, it is only families who are more able who have been interested in being involved.

For many the whole process just brings more stress onto already overburdened families. One of he main problems with the idea is that at present there is little choice as to what to purchase and to complement this people will only get services if they are seen as fitting the Eligibility Criteria as agreed by management.

This has led unsurprisingly to the unit costs of services going up. So that the cuts in services are greater than the money that is being saved.

Care Management is the process which operates across the UK in the management, finance and support of care packages. The original idea of Care Management was two-fold, firstly to co-ordinate individual packages, but secondly to develop needs led services at less cost.

What has happened in reality, in Aberdeen at least, to my knowledge is that no needs led services have ever been set up but what we have in its place is a highly bureaucratic system with much of the same information going onto different forms that is only about the seeking of funding for individual clients to go to already existing services.

One of the crazy things that happened was Single Status

As stated earlier this stops them thinking of services such as those at Aberdeen College that do not cost the council money being used. We have moved into a highly bureaucratic and risk adverse culture where the emphasis is on covering back rather than service delivery.

The danger is that the new system of individual payments ends up going down the same route as care management and direct payments with individuals spending their money on individual support workers rather than sharing resources with others which would be more cost effective. This will prove expensive and restrict support to fewer individuals also with further cuts coming down the line resources are going to become increasingly short.

The days of Thatcherite individualism are surely over, even David Cameron has moved on to ideas about the Big Society.

The other process that is happening is in the name of saving costs and getting better outcomes services are being re-provisioned away from the statutory sector to the voluntary and private sectors.

One of the crazy things that happened was Single Status (which was meant to be about equal opportunities and more equality). Salaries did go up for most levels and some went down. Many of those that went down re – did their job descriptions and their salaries went back up.

The low paid staff in many services had their salaries increased. The services they worked for like Home Care, Home Support and the Community Placement Team were then closed down and/or some form of re-provision took place. Of course the managers and strategists at the top have not been re-provisioned. They still have their increased high salaries.

public services that could be flexible to individual need and crises have been replaced by rigid contracts in the private sector for individual users

It is only staff on the front line and the services that have been primarily affected. Further in the 2009 round of Aberdeen City Council Social Work and Wellbeing cuts it was agreed to cut management and Strategic posts to be seen as being more balanced. Yet many of these posts were in reality never cut as this would affect the amount of work being undertaken by ‘low paid’!? management.

Whether putting services out to the voluntary and private sector leads to better outcomes is debatable and needs to be monitored. No doubt at times it does and at others it does not. What we do not know is whether costs have really been saved, as the costs of commissioning, pensions and redundancy payments are part of the costs of this process.

Also, many experienced and committed staff are no longer involved in the process of providing services.

What we also know is that public services that could be flexible to individual need and crises have been replaced by rigid contracts in the private sector for individual users. This means that in situations when clients need less or more of a service; they still get the same service. This stops the empowerment of clients when they could be doing more on their own, and also restricts services from providing more support when it is needed rather than having to go through the whole process of re-assessment.

We need to provide services that are good value both in terms of cost and in terms of providing the optimum service provision within the limited resources that we have. The Community Placement Team was a good example of this, actually bringing in resources and working effectively — it was closed.

Create, Inspire ‘s Local area co-ordination and Hub, Reach Out, Access to Training and Employment and Cornerstone employment service have the potential to start building up of services but my concern is that Aberdeen City Council will continue to waste money rather than putting emphasis on the delivery of services.

The main end point of the Community Placement Team was to get people with Disabilities into some form of work. As well as giving to individuals concerned the opportunity of having what most other people experience in being able to work this form of support is cost effective as most of the support is provided by employers.

Cornerstone Community Care have continued to continue to provide an employment service and this should be supported and encouraged.

We need to be doing the following to make the most of the resources we have.

Get back to partnership working and making use of resources which are of minimal cost to Aberdeen Council.
This would mean more joined up working between and with Schools,AberdeenCollegeand resources like the Workers Educational Associations ‘Reach Out’ Project
Work more effectively with carers, clients and their friends
Start working more again with employers to provide work opportunities
Get back to thinking in relation to groups rather than individuals and integrate these groups as much as possible into the wider community. What most people with learning disabilities want is social contact
Concentrate resources on service provision such as that provided by Create, Inspire, Cornerstone, Reach Out and Access to Training and Employment with an emphasis on Best Value
Focus management on supporting front line services
Have clearer roles and expectations of both management and frontline staff and concentrate on improving morale of all staff in Aberdeen City Council
Cut back on Strategists (many who were appointed in a spending frenzy around 2007) and spending on outside bodies such as Movable feast and other Consultants.
Start thinking about how to bring money in by working more closely with the private sector and investigate and go for any potential funding streams. This should be the responsibility of management/ strategy. An excellent example of where this has been done is Aberdeen Foyer.

As a city we also have to decide how we spend what will be increasingly limited resources following the impact of national cutbacks. I would suggest that people with disabilities should be a priority and to do otherwise would be a sign of a city that has forgotten to care.

Reversing The Destruction of Disability Services Part Five

Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Sep 082011

Aberdeen Voice presents the fifth installment of a six-part tragedy by Jonathan Russell describing the shocking process of service closure for disabled people in Aberdeen – and asks what we can do to reverse the destruction.

A Comedy of Errors Meets MacBeth: Act III

Choices users and supporters at the 2008 demo.

The next stage of the Community Placement Team fiasco was in November 2009 when we learnt firstly that as a team we were going to be stopped supporting staff at Glencraft ( just when Glencraft was in crises and potentially closing down ) and then the news came, not from our management but by someone leaving the information in a photocopier, that the whole team was to be closed.

This led to an outburst of public concern. Parents e-mailed councillors and officials, a highly successful public meeting took place which, despite high snow falls, was so well attended that not everyone could get in to the venue at the Belmont cinema. Council officials refused to attend.

The Director of Social Work put out an e-mail to Councillors telling them not to attend the meeting. This was a total affront to democracy and is an example of how the administration councilors have often lost control of our council.

At the public meeting which was highly supportive of the need to keep the Team operating there was an apology for attendance from the SNP Convener of the Social Work Committee who was on holiday but only Labour Councillors actually attended the meeting. Concerns were raised in the media and STV news ran several news items, one being shown on the national news.

Despite this public protest the council administration backed the recommendation to council by the officials.

The Councillors had been told again that employment services would be re-provisioned but no services to date have been established though some clients have been supported by the Cornerstone Employment Team. This means that many people with disabilities have been left in employment with no back up support to employers or for themselves and the opportunity to run a modern cost effective service lost.

In 2009 there was a temporary consultant employed to be the lead officer in Social Work Services.

Once more scarce public money was being wasted

One of his colleagues also a consultant ran some excellent workshops, which were organized to run, following concerns from parents about the proposed closure of Learning Disability Day Centres.

Sadly parents of clients already receiving services in the community were not asked to be involved. A number of actions and targets were set. However following the workshops none of the actions were acted upon. The Head of Service at the time refused to meet with me concerning an action we were expected to work on together in relation to employing more people with disabilities in the council. Once more scarce public money was being wasted.

What did happen however was that one of the Team Managers, who did have considerable interest and commitment in the disability field, was given the responsibility and unrealistic targets of putting together a number of proposals for future day services.

Along with a number of agencies I had been working on a proposal called Aberdeen Inclusive Horticulture our aim had been to bring in lottery funding to support the horticultural projects we had been running and extend this to an allotment in Garthdee.

My team at that point thought the world had gone mad and, of course, it had

This proposal was then taken over by management in the council and rather than looking into getting extra funding, the emphasis went onto paying a consultant to carry out a feasibility study. Of course nothing materialised out of this exercise and yet more public money was wasted.

With other agencies, I was also looking into funding opportunities to finance a pilot with the hospitality industry. Again this was taken over and lots of agencies were invited to meetings with the aim of them taking on the employment work that had been carried out by the Community Placement Team.

Again, nothing came out of these meetings other than more time and money wasted.

Even more bizarrely, in 2008 due to new criteria that were introduced, we had to cut all our leisure services. Yet suddenly in 2010 there was a Principal Planner getting involved in organizing taster leisure events. This was crazy on two levels, firstly that while cutting low paid staff who had been running leisure groups, we now had a Principal Planner on a high salary organising such activities surely not part of their job remit, and doing work that should not have been happening if the eligibility criteria was being followed.

There was also failure to understand that it took time and at least a period of support for people with people with learning disabilities until they were able to attend events independently and those with a more profound disability need continued support. My team at that point thought the world had gone mad and, of course, it had.

There was also a proposal to develop the Skyline Café which was to be above the Bon Accord Centre. This was often heralded as the solution that would handle all the needs of people with learning disabilities. With a café and lots of activities it was also meant to have taken over Inclusion for All – coordinating classes in community centres.

In the end, The Skyline failed to materialise.

More recently Inspire funded by the council and put together by their excellent Development Manager and other staff has opened up what is called a Hub in Aberdeen market which is a very similar project. This project needs to be supported and hopefully it can lead to more opportunities for people with disabilities in the city.

In reality however they filled the Seniors post which of course cost more money

Access to Training and Employment did carry on with ‘Inclusion for All’ until December 2010 but did this on a voluntary basis as a half promised payment was never received from Aberdeen City Council.

Inclusion for All has never been picked up and, with the present proposals to cut Community Learning and cuts at Aberdeen College, will have less opportunity to do so in the future.

One very positive development is that three staff who had been employed in the day centres one of which Burnside has been closed have formed themselves into a voluntary organisation Create and have been providing good creative services this has included taking on the Va-va-voom theatre group. Individuals attending pay for their attendance and money has been raised from trusts etc.

The question has to be raised however as to whether such developments will be sustainable in the long term given that individuals have to make their own payment to attend and their savings could eventually run dry.

As part of the cuts there was going to be savings made by the Senior of the Learning Disability Team taking early retirement. In reality however they filled the Seniors post which of course cost more money and was not a saving as said to the Social Work and Wellbeing Committee, but an extra cost to the Council.

In fieldwork, we had moved from two seniors with twenty one staff to two seniors and eleven staff.

Also as part of the cuts that were passed by Aberdeen City Council in 2009, four strategy posts were to go. To my knowledge all these posts are still in place.

The whole process has been strategically and managerially floored and has led to a significant loss of services that were being provided at best value, and instead money was wasted on consultants, extra management and strategist’s time.

In the final installment, Jonathan Russell concludes this six part tragedy and examines whether there is a way forward for services for people with Disabilities in Aberdeen? Read his conclusions in Aberdeen Voice next week.

Reversing The Destruction of Disability Services – Part 4

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

Sep 012011

Aberdeen Voice presents the fourth of a six-part tragedy by Jonathan Russell describing the shocking process of service closure for disabled people in Aberdeen – and asks what we can do to reverse the destruction.

A Comedy of Errors Meets MacBeth: Act II

At the end of 2009 the axe fell on the Community Placement Team in two ways.

Firstly, a report had gone to Council, which agreed to the cutting of five staff from our team. (If you remember from the first article – the Social Work Inspection Report – the team actually had much better outcomes than the norm in Scotland in relation to employment). Yet the report said they would re-provision services for better outcomes.

Our concerns were not only about the actual cuts, but also about how management implemented the cuts. There were no attempts to help us through this process and (as touched upon in the Social Work Inspection report) the perceived culture was ‘macho’, ‘punitive’, ‘autocratic’ and ‘hectoring’. This culture created low morale and a feeling of hopelessness.

What followed was a series of meetings with the voluntary sector with the aim of setting up this ‘high outcome service’. However nothing came out of this process except wasted time and money, with the net result of no new services being developed or delivered as agreed by Council.

Once more public money was being wasted, and no new services – as were promised to the Council and by officials – were actually created. So rather than better outcomes, no outcomes were achieved at all. Time and money was wasted and this further demoralized staff on the front line. We also lost good committed staff through this process.

What should be of concern to the public is that the Council failed to hold the officials to account for their failures, which evidences an administration which can often be out of touch with what actually goes on at service level.

This resource was providing services at very little cost to the council

Secondly, the decision was made to move the Community Placement Team away from the Choices building. The Choices building had been especially built for disabled people and was a venue that people with disabilities saw as their own.

The other service that had been based in the Choices building was the Choices Respite Service; and clients became involved in a high profile campaign to re-instate the centre.

Management was not happy with being questioned in this way and wanted the whole disability service based in the building closed down.

Along with partners in the voluntary sector, we had put a proposal together which would have more than covered the costs of keeping Choices open. Higher management refused to discuss this, and the proposal was turned down.

These services could also have been used by the Physical Disability clients who had already lost services due to the closure of Choices Day Service: also for the Learning Disability clients who were going to lose their service through the closure of Burnside Day Centre.

As has often been the case, no logical thinking by officials within Aberdeen City Council was in evidence. The administration appeared out of contact and led by the officials.

The team was moved into an anonymous open plan office in the centre of town. This had major ramifications for the services we had developed with Access to Training and Employment, because we lost our especially adapted garden, which included especially designed and created raised beds and poly-tunnels.

The cost of the parking permits itself would have covered the cost of keeping Choices open.

Much of the work done in creating this horticultural complex was on a voluntary basis. Over £100,000 worth of resources from oil firms and trusts was gathered at no cost to Social Work Services within Aberdeen City Council in the building of this gardening complex.

We had also planned to base Crafty Things at Choices, following the loss of premises due to the re-development of Beechwood School. This resource was providing services at very little cost to the council. But rather than saving money, the council was intent in purchasing more expensive services by spot purchasing service from the voluntary and private sectors.

As stated previously the Community Placement Team was moved into Kirkgate House – a large anonymous open plan office, which had restricted access for clients. Precious time and money was wasted, with staff having to go back and forward to car parks. The cost of the parking permits itself would have covered the cost of keeping Choices open.

To deal with concerns raised in the Social Work inspectorate report a new Transitions team was set up.

This entailed taking on an extra Senior Social Worker. As well as the Senior, the team consisted of four social workers – only two of whom actually carried out work with transitions. The other two staff were involved in carrying out service reviews. In reality half the transitions work was still being carried out by the Community Placement Team.

To try and compensate for this we set up joint meetings between transitions staff in both teams. There was no interest in this from management; probably because they knew what was going to happen next.

Read what happened next in the fifth part of this 6 part tragedy, subtitled ‘A Comedy Of Errors Meets MacBeth: ActIII’ in Aberdeen Voice next week.

Reversing The Destruction Of Disability Services – Part 3

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

Aug 242011

Aberdeen Voice presents the third of a six-part tragedy by Jonathan Russell concerning the decimation of services for disabled people in Aberdeen – and asks what we can do to reverse the destruction.

A Comedy of Errors Meets MacBeth: Act I.

In last week’s article the work of the Community Placement Team was described and the challenges it faced outlined.

The Community Placement Team’s good practice had been highlighted in the Social Work Inspectorate Report as one of the few areas of good practice in Social Work Services within Aberdeen City Council.

What follows is the story of how managers, criticised in the Social Work Inspectorate Report (for amongst other things their lack of engagement with the front line) then went on to close the team down.

Two weeks after the publication of the Social Work Inspection Report the then management of Learning Disability Services informed me as Team Leader that the team was to have a budget of £200,000. Management had no idea what the actual budget allocated was: but this would have meant a halving of the team’s budget.

Staff had just received a re-grading as part of the Single Status agreement, so in terms of service delivery, the cuts were even potentially more than fifty percent.

Following the Council meeting to agree cuts to budgets, we met with the Head of Service. He informed us that a cut had been made in the Supported Employment budget, which he said included our team. I questioned whether they had actually cut the right budget, as this was not the Community Placement Team Budget. The Head of Service said he would investigate and reply to us.

As usual in such situations we received no reply. However what we ourselves discovered was they had cut (with council approval) a grant from the Department of Work and Pensions. This was not in their jurisdiction to cut, and could not possibly make any savings to the council.

The budget they cut was Workstep, which supported people with disabilities find and retain jobs in the open market. The Community Placement Team operated this service, but had no control of the budget. We had challenged management on a number of occasions that the budget received from the Department of Work and Pensions was not being fully utilized or used appropriately. The Workstep scheme supported clients in full time work – including those employed by Glencraft, the well-known social business in the city for people with visual and other disabilities.

In reality this budget cut made no savings, and the Community Placement Team at this stage was still intact.

We did however lose two excellent staff members who left for other work due to the obvious insecurity of the situation. The Head of Service also ended the partnership we had had with Cornerstone, telling us that Cornerstone were ‘rubbish’ (at a later stage he told us that Cornerstone were ‘much better’ than us). We lost from this process another excellent team member who moved – like many other staff in the council – to Aberdeenshire Council.

On top of this there had been a whole series of meetings of top officials within the council about disability services. These meetings did not involve front-line staff.

Clients with a physical disability were particularly affected by these cuts

What happened as a result was the closure of Aye Can – a social business aimed at those with more complex needs – and as the name suggests, re-cycling. Aye Can received much of its operating costs through the landfill levy at no cost to the council, but this was not taken into account when making the cut.

Inspire – with support from the Scottish Government and Sir Ian Wood – heralded that they would take over and improve on Aye Can.

The type of clients they were looking for were the more able ones. These would often have been clients who would have been able enough to be in more inclusive work settings in the community. Of course in the end, money having been spent on new premises and it being heralded as the way forward (with clients being paid proper wages) it never re-opened, and was lost as a service. More recently Garden Crafts, a similar social business, has been closed.

The next development was the introduction of Eligibility Criteria: which was a way for the council to say no to providing services to the community, and restricting what as a council it would provide.

Management said that this would mean that we could no longer provide any of our leisure activities, as they did not fit the criteria, and all leisure groups were closed down. Clients with a physical disability were particularly affected by these cuts, but so were those with a learning disability.

Supports to many in employment ended. Of course management would later deny having cut leisure services.

In the coming weeks, further articles will be published, written by the ex-Team Leader of the then Community Placement Team, documenting what happened, and making suggestions for the future of services for people with disabilities in Aberdeen City. Read the fourth part of this six part tragedy, subtitled ‘A Comedy of Errors Meets MacBeth: Act II’ in Aberdeen Voice next week.

Aberdeen Council: Where’s The Brief ?

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

Aug 182011

An update on the Council – and non-council designs on Union Terrace Gardens by Mike Shepherd

Six architects are busy designing a modern square and a subsurface concourse for the proposed development of Union Terrace Gardens. The public can expect to see these designs in early October. The architects have been given a design brief by the project implementation team for the City Garden Project, telling them what it is they are expected to design.

Only part of the brief has been made public; most of our councillors still have not been fully informed as to what the architects are being asked to do with our public, open, green space.

Yet, the intention had been for the councillors to sign off the design brief, but this never happened. Councillors are informed about the City Garden Project in a series of meetings for a group called the Project Monitoring Board. The minutes of the meetings are posted on the council website. The April minutes state:

“MRC (Malcolm Reading Company – the company managing the competition) will produce a comprehensive design brief and this will be submitted to Council on 29 June 2011, for ratification, before being issued to the short listed companies.”

Two months later, the June minutes stated:

“Mr Brough informed the group that the project management group had met on Monday the 6th June and had discussed and also amended a draft of the brief that Malcolm Reading has written up. The final brief will go to council on the 29th of June for noting. Mr Brough informed the group that the brief for the design didn’t go into much detail and may seem vague as the brief needed to allow some leeway and not be too prescriptive to the architects.”

This document was provided to councillors and gave some vague details as to what was expected of the architects including a specification for “ a contemporary 21st century garden”. I was present at the Council meeting on 29 June and the design brief was never discussed. There was a lengthy debate on allowing smoking in homeless accommodation and that was more or less it. I asked the council executive why the design brief had not come up. I received this reply on 3 July, just after the council meeting:

“I reported to the Project Monitoring Group what was intended at the time of the meeting. However, it was subsequently decided, by members involved in determining the Agenda for Council meetings, that there was no need to obtain Council approval for this and that it should go to Council as an attachment to the normal quarterly City Garden Project Bulletin report.

“Also, the brief still has to be finalised, by the addition of various technical annexes, before being issued to short-listed companies on 21 July.”

This makes it clear that the brief had not been completed by the time of the council meeting on 29 June, and that ‘members’ had pulled the item from the agenda. The document provided to councillors was not a finalised version. I wrote an open letter to councillors criticising the decision not to allow councillors to ratify the design brief. https://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/07/an-open-letter-to-our-councillors-city-garden-project/

“You have now lost control over the City Garden Project. A non-elected body has now made decisions as to what our city centre should look like. They have decreed that the Denburn should have a “contemporary 21st century garden”, not you. It is this body that is also deciding what the large underground concourse should be used for. If conference and exhibition facilities are to be provided, then this will clearly have implications for the future of the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre at the Bridge of Don. However, this is not a decision that you will have any control over unless you turn down the city square plans.”

The public should be extremely worried about the loss of democratic control over the City’s assets. The public was ignored when they voted against the City Square in a public consultation last year, now the powers given to our councillors are being bypassed too.”

This was repeated in a letter in the Scotsman and later partly republished by Private Eye. The result was a major row in the council chambers, which still has not died down yet. Some councillors and council officials were very upset at the statement that councillors had lost control over the City Garden Project. Others were annoyed that they had not been allowed to debate the design brief. Labour Councillor Willie Young asked a series of questions at this week’s Council meeting.
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=1972

One of the questions was:

“To ask the Chief Executive if it is normal for third parties who currently do not own, lease or have any pecuniary property rights over a public asset such as Union Terrace Gardens to actively promote, encourage architectural design briefs on an asset they currently do not own, lease or have any pecuniary right over?”

The Chief Executive replied to this as follows:

“No. Any party does so at their own financial risk. However, the Council by virtue of their decision of May 2010 and those of subsequent meetings have noted and encouraged the course of action undertaken by the City Gardens Trust.”

The following request was also made:

“Council agrees that in order to provide proper scrutiny over an area of land currently under the City Council’s direct control, and to ensure that no citizen or citizens of Aberdeen can accuse the Council of “losing control” over the City Garden Project, as well as to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that there will be a local democratic audit of plans for an area of the city centre that many Aberdonians care passionately about, Council undertakes without delay to determine a design brief to be provided to architects which meets the requirements of the citizens of Aberdeen as approved by elected members, the democratically elected guardians of this fine city.”

This was not debated at the Council meeting on Wednesday. However, I’m told it will come up for discussion at a later Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure sub-committee meeting.

I would ask councillors to stand up and assert themselves on this issue. You are our elected representatives. There should be local democratic control over our public open green space, its function and its utility. It’s not up to a bunch of businessmen and their friends to decide what our city centre should look like. Nobody voted for them.

Older Entries Newer Entries