Heritage Archives - Page 9 of 10

A Plea For The Deer – A Speech Unspoken

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

May 112011

Suzanne Kelly presents her speech which she was prevented from delivering at the crucial Housing and Environment Committee meeting yesterday due to an ‘incredible technicality’.

The committee voted down the opportunity to consider input from Ms. Kelly and a representative of Nigg Community Council, thereby ruling out further debate ahead of pressing ahead with the cull, in spite of the receipt of a 2400 strong petition, and 82 letters in opposition to the cull on Monday.

Councillors, thank you for allowing me to address your Committee today.

I am here to echo the sentiments of thousands of Aberdonians as well as national and international people, and ask you to stop any plan for a cull of deer on Tullos Hill.

I would like to propose you adopt one of two positions:

Halt the cull, and then plant trees once non-lethal measures can be put in place or …

re-launch the extremely flawed phase 2 consultation to the public – this time telling them that the tree planting will involve a deer cull.

There are some of you who insist that:

‘deer must be culled’,
‘we have taken advice from Scottish Natural Heritage’,
‘animal lovers should pay £225,000 for deer protectors’.

Let us examine those positions in a moment.

Firstly, let us consider how extraordinarily un-democratically – how against established good governmental practice the entire issue has been handled.

Irrespective of a Councillor’s personal views on animal culling, I hope we are all in agreement that there are established procedures for consulting with the public and consulting with Community Councils which have been wholly ignored. If you are upholding the law and the rights of your electorate, you must now stop this cull – at least until a proper consultation is launched.

The phase 2 public consultation for ‘a tree for every citizen’ closed at the end of January.

I read this document on the Council’s website; so did countless other people. The document tells me that there are rabbits in the area, and have been considered.

Who drafted this consultation and why did they omit the cull which was already being planned? We know the cull was being planned by the date of the letter from Scottish Natural Heritage, which I will come to presently. Who exactly decided to keep this cull from the public? Was it just an accidental oversight? Why were rabbits mentioned but not deer – the effect this had on me personally was to make me reach the conclusion that animals had been taken into consideration when the scheme was planned.

someone at the council or in the ranger service has decided to bypass normal democratic procedure

I can assure you that had a cull been mentioned, I would have most definitely objected to the plan while the consultation was open. And so would many other citizens of Aberdeen. I feel as if we have been robbed of our right to be properly consulted. In view of this point alone, the cull should not go ahead.

Another gross breach of protocol and established practice was the complete disregard shown to Torry Community Council. The City should by now have received a letter from Torry Community Council; as reported in the Evening Express, the Council voted unanimously at its April meeting to condemn this cull, and to complain that it was not consulted.

The Torry Community Council also confirmed that at no point was it alerted that a cull was part of the tree-planting scheme. Who, I would like to know, will take responsibility for this breach of established procedure? The City Council is already widely criticised for its failure to consult the Nigg Community Council concerning development plans for Loirston Loch. It is incumbent on this Housing Committee to stop any cull plans until it has addressed this procedural failure.

But now we come to the letter from Scottish Natural Heritage to ranger _________________. I contacted the ranger to whom the letter is addressed, and he referred me to Ian Tallboys, head ranger, for clarification.

Reading this letter – someone at the council or in the ranger service has decided to bypass normal democratic procedure.

Someone has told the SNH that fencing is a bad idea. Someone has even more incredibly told the SNH that tree protectors should not be used on Tullos Hill as they have ‘visual impact.’ ‘Visual Impact.’ On a coastal hill. Tree protectors are in use far and wide throughout this city in areas that have a great deal more traffic than Tullos Hill.

How can anyone for that matter decide for this Committee, for Torry Community Council, and for the citizens who should have properly been consulted that a subjective observation as to ‘visual impact’ condemn a small herd of deer to death?
Obviously this Committee will now realise that the SNH were led, by a person or persons yet to come forward, to decide that the lethal option was the only solution.
There are many, many non-lethal solutions to this issue of deer eating trees – this Committee acknowledges that the deer do not have to die.

Otherwise it would not have issued its highly controversial demand for money. The demand for money for fencing and tree protectors itself is a declaration that these are suitable options for deer control. It is of course a demand that is seen as nothing short of blackmail by myself, by animal charities, and the electorate.

This is one reason the avenue was not pursued: the City should be responsible for finding money, not citizens. The City has resources at its disposal – I note your new Robert the Bruce statue in front of the £60 million pound Marischal building, soon to be fitted with brand new furniture.

Are we really to understand that this city, with its vast real estate portfolio – which sells land at less than market value to property developers has no means of finding £225,000?

This city which hopes to borrow nearly £100 million pounds to fill in Union Terrace Gardens?

The suggestion the city has no money and cannot raise money is unacceptable. This Committee were offered the free services of a deer management expert: this was turned down. Some of the non-lethal methods which would work include: tree guards, fencing, using one of some 3 dozen types of trees which deer do not eat, planting crops nearby which deer will eat, planting the trees elsewhere, planting once the money can be found for these measures, using chemical deterrents on the young trees.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals calls your proposed cull ‘abhorrent and absurd’ – a sentiment echoed by thousands of people. The cull is not a suitable response: other deer will move into the area, as per the various animal charities I have consulted – many of which have made this plain to the Committee already.

We seem to be talking about a herd size of 30 animals. This is not over population.

As an aside, it would be nice to see the Council put up roadside ‘deer crossing’ signs in the area to warn motorists deer do live in Aberdeen.

I just mentioned the herd size. This was one of a half dozen relevant questions I asked as long ago as 28 February, Most of my questions were not answered at all. Some were answered only recently, and some were answered with the phrase that has become a mantra for pro cull councillors: we have taken advice – a cull is the only answer.

Well, you have not taken advice. You briefed SNH as to why you did not want the non-lethal options, and then presented their response to this briefing as being their unbiased professional opinion. The animal charities all give you non-lethal options, and some of you inexplicably reject them.

Back to these questions of mine.

some person or persons initially said that the tree planting scheme would be completely cost neutral

I asked a number of questions which would have provided material for me to start hunting for an appropriate grant for saving the Tullos Hill Roe Deer. The timescale was very tight indeed – but the lack of forthcoming answers made it completely impossible for me to try and find any kind of grant or fund.

Again, everything is being slanted towards a wholly unnecessary cull. The silence of the persons responsible for the ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme has blocked this avenue.

As an aside, in some of the documentation I read phrases such as ‘in a few years the trees will begin to pay for themselves.’ Is this tree scheme meant to be a source of income for the City? Am I wrong and no such plan to make money from the Tullos Hill plan exists? Where is there any consultation on this matter?

I will be pleased to hear that no plans for commercial wood exploitation exist, and will report back to the media and Torry Community Council. It is serious enough that the consultation was slanted, that the SNH were briefed to favour a cull, and that Torry Community was excluded from what should have been a simple scheme. But to have some form of commercial enterprise in mind that would forever change Torry certainly cannot be going on behind the scenes, and thank you for confirming this is not the case in advance.

To sum up the history of this whole irregular affair, some person or persons initially said that the tree planting scheme would be completely cost neutral. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of finance would have realised that planting over 200 thousand trees would indeed be expensive.

It would also seem that the responsible person or persons will not be putting up their hand and admitting their mistake – and instead are pulling out all the stops so that £2,500 is spent on the cull rather than the more expensive, humane, ethical non-lethal options which most definitely exist.

Someone or other briefed SNH that the non-lethal options would mysteriously not work on Tullos Hill.

Someone or other created a public consultation that was by omission of the cull misleading.

Someone or other decided to ignore protocol and kept Torry Community Council’s elected members in the dark.

This same person or persons came up with a scheme to ask the public to come up with a quarter of a million pounds before today.

Someone or other sadly forgot to tell the corporate sponsors that a cull was involved.

Someone or other has a good deal to answer for.

What a pity that person or persons did not think to seek funding for fencing themselves as soon as it became apparent there were cost implications they had not previously recognised.

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever your personal feelings are on deer – although Mr Fletcher has made it plain that they are no different to rats or pigeons – you must acknowledge that in these circumstances you must vote against any cull.

If a vote goes ahead in favour of a cull, please rest assured that every aspect of the tree scheme and any cull will be put under a microscope not just by me, but by established animal welfare organisations and legal minds.

The mechanisms for such actions are, I can promise this Committee, most definitely being readied. The deer are not overpopulated; other deer will move in, and you will have someone killing these animals for some 5 years.

Perhaps you think the animal instantly drops down dead when shot? This is hardly the usual case. In many instances, the terrified, shocked animal will try to wander around in agony as it begins to internally drown in its own blood.

Trackers will be needed to follow the blood stains from the wound or from its breathing out of blood droplets (sometimes very hard to find) and finish the creature off. There are various types of hits an animal will sustain, this is not by any means the worst case scenario – some animals if not quickly found die an agonising, slow death that takes days.

On behalf of myself, the thousands of Aberdonians who signed the petitions, do not plant a tree for us if you are having a cull to do so.

UTG Remains Opportunity Site In Aberdeen Local Plan

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

Apr 262011

By Mike Shepherd.

The Council have decided to keep Union Terrace Gardens as development opportunity in the new Aberdeen local plan despite hundreds of objections to this.

A report to Council on Wednesday (27th April 2011) lists over 360 objections and only two in support.

Numerous objections are listed in an appendix to the report. These are typical:

“Support retention of public open space other than in exceptional circumstances. Financial incentives by private sector should not count as exceptional circumstances sufficient to outweigh normal polices else planning system simply becomes a question of deep pockets.”

“Union Terrace Gardens could be sympathetically improved by one or more of the following: providing access down, reopening the toilets, covering the railway and dual carriageway and opening shops, cultural facilities and cafes in the archways.”

“In line with the city’s policies, it should be subject to conservation orders, like Duthie Park.”

“Union Terrace Gardens is the most obvious remnant of the Denburn the tributary of the Dee that saw the earliest habitation. It is an important topographical feature that also highlights the significant engineering features of the Union Street bridge and Rosemont Viaduct. Without the gardens these features become unintelligible and the centre of Aberdeen‘s history is much the poorer.”

“Add Union Terrace Gardens as a protected site as per Policy D4 – Aberdeen‘s Granite Heritage.”

The Council position is stated as follows:

“Whilst there is clearly a high level of debate regarding the Gardens it is our contention that it is important to identify that options for the redevelopment of the Gardens are currently under consideration. Any development proposal for the Gardens will need to be considered against the Local Development Plan, including the City Centre Development Framework, which sets out criteria for the future of the Gardens. The scale and nature of any improvements will be subject to other consultations and ultimately a planning application.

“In light of the above, the Council does not agree with the suggestion to remove this opportunity site from the Proposed Plan and to remove the Gardens from the opportunity site.”

See: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=13439

Once the local plan has been approved by the Council, the next stage is for the plan to be independently assessed by a reporter. It is to be hoped that this issue is picked up and dealt with by an examination in public, not the least because a quarter of the 1,544 representations received on the plan concerned the Gardens.

The Council seem to be determined not to listen to the public on Union Terrace Gardens. They also ignored the outcome of the public consultation on the city square even though a majority of 1,270 said no to the development of the park.

The comment made above by the Council that:

“The scale and nature of any improvements will be subject to other consultations”

… is difficult to take seriously in this regard. The Council appear to be only interested in one outcome and it’s not what the public want.

The World Is Asked What Aberdeen Should Look Like

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

Apr 222011

By Mike Shepherd.

The design competition for the City Square Project was launched this week. The brief provided by Malcolm Reading Associates follows Sir Ian Wood’s ‘strict parameters’ with walk-on, walk-off access from four sides.
http://www.malcolmreading.co.uk/architecturalcompetitions/citygarden

Teams of designers will initially be asked to register an interest in the project by 13th June.
A shortlist of 5 – 7 designers will then be picked to produce seven designs, with the city square board and the Council approving the final design in December.

The public will be allowed to ‘scrutinise’ and comment on the designs but not pick them. The Press and Journal reported on Thursday that there has been world-wide interest in the competition.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2233305

But, therein lies the problem. The rest of the world is being asked what the centre of Aberdeen should look like – but not the people in the city.

A year ago, we were consulted on whether we wanted a modern city square. We said no with a majority of 1,270; this was ignored.

I have a big problem with a modern city square in the centre of Aberdeen and this concerns the concept of architectural authenticity. This is the idea that a building or feature should harmonise with its location. The concept is easy to explain using our city. The Victorian Union Terrace Gardens is in harmony with the old granite buildings that surround it, whereas the 1960’s St Nicholas House is obviously out of place in the Granite City. The problem is even recognised in the current Aberdeen local plan:

“The standard of design in new development has been raised as a widespread cause for concern during the preparation of this Local Plan. This is one reason why new development can raise so much hostility amongst the public and this situation must change. The City has such a rich and relatively intact heritage of older buildings that shortcomings of newer ones are all the more obvious.”
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=17124&sID=4209

It is possible to produce modern buildings with architectural authenticity in sensitive locations; Elphinstone Hall built next to Kings College in 1930 is a good example.

A modern city square in the centre of Aberdeen would not be architecturally authentic and would be jarringly out of place with the older buildings.

It would totally change the character of the city centre and would probably accelerate the current trend whereby there has been piecemeal destruction of old granite buildings to be replaced by soulless modern buildings. This could be exacerbated if TIF funding is approved for a £70m loan.

This loan has to be paid back by capturing new or extra business rates and encouraging new city centre developments would be the main mechanism by which this could happen.

I was born and brought up in Aberdeen and I am intensely proud of the city. It is the granite buildings and the distinctive architecture that bring such a strong sense of locality and identity.

Once Aberdeen’s heritage starts to disappear on a large scale, the city will lose its unique character and will start to look like everywhere else. We will be denied our unique sense of belonging as Aberdonians.

We will not be given a public referendum on the city square. As it stands, a modern city square is being imposed on us whether we like it or not. We do not have to react to this in a “whatever will be, will be” mood of resignation. We can make sure that our voice is heard!

Join the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens on www.friendsofutg.org

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

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

Apr 082011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement nine in the Transport and Open Space category reads:

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

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

Another statement is that:

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

A unanimous 165 agreed with that.

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

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

“This generation, this time, this place.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diageo Deer Cull – Lessons To Learn?

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

Apr 082011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behind Closed Doors: The Secretive City Square Project

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

Apr 082011

By Mike Shepherd.

A proposal was made to discuss Thursday’s special council meeting on Union Terrace Gardens in private.
The reason put forward by the council lawyer was that the motion questioned the ‘validity and veracity’ of a report which led to the council’s approval to progress the City Square Project last May.

See article: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2205463

The public have every right to be concerned about this move. Too many details about the City Square Project are being withheld. Councillors are being briefed by council officials on the scheme’s progress, yet these briefings are not being made public.

These contain details such as timetables for the project and how the city square design is to be picked (the city square board selects the final design and the council will be asked to approve their choice).

Union Terrace Gardens is on Common Good land and belongs to the people of Aberdeen. It is our park and we have a right to be informed on any proposals for it.

Although the Council will probably retain ‘ownership’ of the land on which the Gardens are located, the building above it and the city square is likely to be owned by a private company in partnership with the council. The building will be about 5/6ths the size of Union Square. What will go into this enormous three-storey concourse given that the remit is that it will be a ‘civic and cultural’ space?

The latest idea is to put a conference centre in there, although this brings into question the fate of the Exhibition Centre at the Bridge of Don with which it would compete. Failure is not an option for the Exhibition Centre as it has been loaned £28m by the council. If the centre closes, then this debt will be transferred to the council budget with immediate and potentially calamitous consequences for the city’s finances.
See article: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1877056

An interesting perspective on the city square building was provided by an online comment made last week to the Press and Journal’s letters column:

“The design process for Union Terrace Gardens will be unlike most design processes. Most conventional designs tend to start with a use, before proceeding to a site and then a brief, and finally designs to enable a scheme to be built. For UTG this will effectively be reversed. This is partly because the scheme is opportunity led, but mostly because of the scale and significance of the expected design. This scheme will be, by its very nature, more akin to designing a new street in the city, than designing a new building.”
See article: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2205094#ixzz1IiidEav9

A limited company has appeared centre stage in the controversy and has been given control of the design competition. This is the Aberdeen City Gardens Trust, about which very little is known. Last week it was revealed that they have approached the council to invite them to be partners in the trust. The council have deferred the decision as they want to know more about the trust, what they are letting themselves in for and the implications of this.
See article: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2205463

It is not only the council that needs to find out more about the trust, the public need to be informed about everything to do with this company. Who are they?

Much to do with the way that the proposed development of Union Terrace Gardens has been driven through is highly questionable.

The public were consulted and ignored when they voted no to the scheme. The council meeting last May was informed that the results of the consultation “clearly indicated a wish for change”, when they didn’t. Local businessmen urged the council to ignore the consultation, Acsef minutes for the 20th April meeting state:

“There is a mandate from the business community to proceed to the next stage”.
See : http://www.acsef.co.uk/uploads/reports/21/13%20April%2010.doc

From then on, the project became ‘opportunity led’ and the public have been progressively ignored as it has progressed. Consultation has become two-way traffic between the project management board and the council; opponents of the scheme have been left scrabbling to find out what is going on. A modern city square for the centre of Aberdeen is being imposed on us whether we like it or not.

From now on, the possibility of keeping Union Terrace Gardens is not on offer unless the Council votes against the city square, and so far they have not. Even the selection of a final design for the city square is being taken out of our hands. The businessmen and council officials on the project management board will take that choice.

If like me you think this state of affairs is appalling, join the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens through our website www.friendsofutg.org

We are campaigning to keep our city-centre park.

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

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

Apr 052011

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

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

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

The initial scheme

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

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

Scottish Natural Heritage: A view to a cull

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phase 2 Consultation: No options given

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

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

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

Questions for the Council

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

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

Rays of hope

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

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

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

– Further reading: Critical Society quarterly e-journal.

Garden Wars: The Latest In The City Square Debacle

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

Mar 302011

By Mike Shepherd.

The controversy over Union Terrace Gardens shows no sign of abating. The proposed scheme to replace the Victorian city-centre park with a three-storey building and a modern roof garden is still causing outrage in Aberdeen. The plans have reached the stage where an architectural competition is to be launched at some time in the next two months.

The city square bosses are currently working on the design brief for the competition, a document which they hope to get out by mid May.

I understand that a key issue is to try and find a use for the three-storey building that could potentially fill in the site of Union Terrace Gardens. Given that the Gardens extend over 2 ½ acres, the floor space provided over three levels will be significant. According to the technical feasibility study this is estimated to be about 56,000 square metres.

By comparison Union Square, according to Wikipedia, has a total retail space of 65,000 square metres. Although I’m told there will be some commercial activity in the building, this will not apparently be on the scale envisaged in the technical feasibility study for the project. For instance, although it is possible that there will be a car park, this may not be the two-storey 490-bay car park as detailed in the study. I’ve been told that the main use of the building is to provide a civic and cultural centre including potentially a public meeting place, a heritage museum, art space, a concert hall, along with entertainment and sports facilities.

Although superficially this may sound attractive, one can already anticipate some major problems. One big headache for the city square bosses is that the design brief will have to give a reasonably detailed idea of what the building is to be used for. And that’s a lot of space to fill given the civic and cultural remit.

Councillors opposed to the City Square have forced an emergency debate on the gardens controversy

The problem is that Aberdeen already has many of the facilities that the City Garden Centre is supposed to house. It is difficult to see the City Square getting a major conference or concert facility as this would compete with the Exhibition Centre, a building that the Council would be most reluctant to close as this would land £28M of debt onto the massively-strained revenue budget.
See: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1594201?UserKey=

Providing an art space is not without problems either. The Aberdeen Art Gallery is almost next door and there are already plans to build an extension to the gallery to provide extra room. Peacock Visual Arts have so far refused to be part of the city square project and it is difficult to think of who else could get involved at this stage. His Majesty’s Theatre is immediately adjacent and an additional major drama venue also looks to be superfluous at this location.

Would the Council encourage the rehousing of institutions such as the Music Hall, the Lemon Tree, the Aberdeen Arts Centre and the Belmont Cinema just in order to find something suitable to fill the large space available? Then another question is as to whether the Council would be prepared to fund any new cultural activity in the City Garden Centre? Given the current calamitous state of the revenue budget, it is difficult to see this happening in the short to medium term.

Yet another problem is anticipated for the City square bosses later in the year. Once the designs come back from the competition, one of them will have to be picked. Councillors have been told what is likely to happen. Initial submissions will be shortlisted to around 25 entries. A jury comprising technical experts and community representatives will pick five of the designs.

These will then go on public display and the public feedback will be considered by the jury when ordering the preference for each of the five designs. The recommendations of the jury will then go to the City Square bosses who will in turn recommend a preferred option to the Council.

The Council will then vote on ratifying the final design at a meeting in December. If by this stage the public consider that their views on how the centre of Aberdeen will look are not being taken very seriously, they would be right. And not for the first time either.

Meanwhile, Councillors opposed to the City Square have forced an emergency debate on the gardens controversy.

They want the problems over the Peacock grant to be investigated. They are also asking for the City Square to be rejected on the grounds that it damages the city’s heritage and that it would have serious financial implications and risk for the Council in the years to come. No date has been fixed for the debate as of writing but it should be held by the 8th April.
See: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2197558?UserKey=

A pro City Square campaign has just been formed called ‘Just Imagine’. The leader of the group is Michail Tzouvelekis, co-convenor of the Grampian PR Group an organisation for public relations practitioners, professional communicators and PR and communication students in the Aberdeen area.

According to the group:

“A number of concerned locals from all backgrounds and ages have spoken out against objectors to the City Garden Project ‘who continue to promote inaccurate messages’, as they believe they are over-shadowing the huge but largely silent support for it.”
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2198685#ixzz1I1A8ttBv

Clock Ticking For Triple Kirks And The Peregrines

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

Mar 252011

In January 2011, Richard Pelling posted a blog entitled ‘Triple Kirks Nonsultation?’ about what was going on at The Triple Kirks site. At this stage, the plans for the site had already been subject to intense local criticism, inspired a poem and had even received a bit of a national mauling in Private Eye (Eye 1279, page 16). Richard now brings us up to date.

In February, Stewart Milne Group (SMG) submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening option request to determine if they would need to carry out an EIA prior to submitting plans – to which we of course made comment.

It turns out that given that the site is less than 0.5 hectares in size and “does not fall within a sensitive area”, no EIA is required.

So, the presence of the Schedule 1 listed Peregrine Falcons on site apparently does not merit any special attention and no study of the potential impact on them is required. Sad.

While on the subject of the majestic Peregrine, it is worth pointing out that the registered address of SMG is, ironically, Peregrine House in Westhill. Want more irony? Of course you do! One of the items cited in the Corporate Social Responsibility section of the SMG website is Protecting our Native Birds.

With the pesky matter of the requirement for an EIA out of the way, the plans for the proposed development were duly submitted to Aberdeen City Council in March.

Now on the aforementioned Corporate Social Responsibility section of the SMG website, I was pleased to read the following :

“Protecting our Heritage – Historic buildings are a vital part of this nation’s heritage, and one particularly close to our heart”.

So in line with this statement, would the final plans represent a volt face, meaning that Archibald Simpson’s Triple Kirks site would be treated in a sympathetic manner? Would the soaring A-listed spire now be afforded the respect it deserves? Nae chance. Perusal of the application on-line – P110303 – reveals that they look remarkably similar to those being peddled during the nonsultation exercise – quelle surprise.

Surely the site deserves more than the bland and insipid glazed shed that that some would say desecrates the Triple Kirks site and detracts from the surrounding historic streetscape? Why bother to give a building A-listed status if it can be treated with such disregard? Please check out the plans and then make your comments on the application – you have until 31st March 2011 to do this.

Remember that if you commented in the initial nonsultation exercise or in response to planning application P110056, you need to do it all over again for this one – P110303 – in order to make your views known.

If you have concerns on the impact on the spire, it would also be worth contacting Historic Scotland directly – I’m sure they will have something to say in response to seeing the plans anyway – but it’s good to let them know that you care about the fate of the Triple Kirks spire (Historic Building No. 19940).

As for the fate of the Peregrines, if you are worried about how this development may impact them it is certainly worth contacting Scottish Natural Heritage to express your concerns. The SMG website shows that they have apparently been funding some RSPB projects in Scotland, so could this mean that the RSPB may be reluctant to stand up for the Triple Kirks falcons? If you are an RSPB member perhaps you might consider dropping them an e-mail to ask them to fight for the falcons.

Anyway, whatever you feel like doing, please do it … the clock is ticking on Triple Kirks! So as the saying goes, act now or forever hold your peace.

As a footnote, it was nice to see the Rosemount Review report that :

‘ Rosemount Community Council rejected new plans to develop the derelict Triple Kirks site last night. The community council concluded that the new designs were “not in keeping with the area”. ‘

Giving Away Union Terrace Gardens – Part 2

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

Mar 252011

Last week, Mike Shepherd wrote an article on the next steps for the scheme to develop Union Terrace Gardens. Mike gives an update on this week’s events.

A timetable was published containing an item for the council meeting on 27th April when Councillors would vote on approving transfer of a lease for the park to a third party organisation, most likely a limited company or trust. This organisation was designated as a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’ (SPV).

If approval for leasing the park were to be given, then this would have been about a year in advance of any planning permission being sought for the City Square Project.

This week, I was forwarded an email from the Council Executive stating that Councillors will not now be discussing the lease transfer next month. The following are direct quotes from the email:

“… On a more general point, the basis on which UTG could be available for development still requires to be carefully considered and shall, doubtless, be the subject of considerable legal scrutiny and Elected Member decision before any disposition is finally known.

“From having read your constituent’s comments … it may be the case that your constituent is referring to the “City Gardens Project Plan timetable for key decisions” report approved by Council on 6th October 2010 which highlighted the forthcoming Council meeting of 27th April 2011 as the date when a report would be presented to Council seeking approval, amongst other issues, for lease of land (UTG) to the project’s Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company.

“As detailed in an Information Bulletin Report to Council of 23rd Feb 2011, a request to Members to approve any lease will first be subject to the approval of a Business Plan by the SPV company prior to Elected Members being asked to take any decision regarding the terms upon which appropriate development rights may be granted to the Special Purpose Vehicle. In other words, as work on the Business Plan etc is currently ongoing following the recent incorporation of the SPV company, Elected Members will not be asked at Council on 27th April to approve any lease or grant of development rights to the SPV.”

The timetable for progress on the City Square Project will now have to be revised and it is not known if or when the issue of transferring the lease will come up in future.

Last week also saw the appointment of the company to manage the design competition for the city square.

It is expected that the competition will be launched next month and short-listed designs will be made public by the end of September.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2188050?UserKey=

The Press and Journal reported on Saturday that the City Garden Project managers were proposing to bid for funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Given that the scheme involves the destruction of the Victorian Union Terrace Gardens, replacing it with a three storey building and a modern roof garden, this did cause a bit of a stir in the city.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2186720?UserKey=

One website has suggested how the City Square could ‘display and showcase our history and heritage’.

“Imagine walking under the new space with natural light filtering into an airy space that is bursting with historical documents and artefacts, currently held in the city’s archives, passing by studios and rehearsal rooms where dancers, actors and musicians practise, coming up onto street-level to be faced with displays showcasing physical pieces of our history and telling the story of our rich heritage.”

http://thecitygardenproject.com/history_and_heritage.asp

The vision of replacing heritage with a heritage museum angered a good number of Aberdonians, and emails were sent to the Heritage Lottery Fund in protest. The head of the fund replied to the effect that they hadn’t received any application as yet, and as such they couldn’t comment. However, they did note the following:

“We expect all applicants for funding to consult with relevant stakeholders, including the local community, in the development of their projects and we consider this as part of our assessment alongside a wide range of factors.”

Much has happened in a week and more is to come next week. The Union Terrace Gardens situation is fast moving, complex and to some extent shrouded in secrecy. It is not easy to follow, or even understand everything that is happening. However, be assured that some Councillors are also starting to lose track of the situation and are making their concerns known.

The Gardens should not be given away to a limited company without time for due diligence on behalf of the elected members and it should most certainly not be railroaded through in the manner that published timetables suggested would be the case. Union Terrace Gardens has a real estate value worth tens of millions of pounds to the city.

To the citizens of Aberdeen they are of course, priceless.

Older Entries Newer Entries