Giving Away Union Terrace Gardens – Part 2

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion  Comments Off on Giving Away Union Terrace Gardens – Part 2
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.

 

The Peacock Grant And The City Square Project

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion  Comments Off on The Peacock Grant And The City Square Project
Mar 082011
 

The City Square Project is a highly controversial proposal to replace Union Terrace Gardens with a  three-storey building topped by a modern city square. This week, unlikely as it seems the scheme became more controversial as Mike Shepherd tells Aberdeen Voice.

The latest revelations concern the luckless Peacock Visual Arts (PVA) proposal for Union Terrace Gardens.

The local art group, Peacock Visual Arts, had planned to build a “centre for contemporary arts” in part of the Gardens. The £13.5 million building was to contain a gallery, a TV studio, a print studio, a restaurant and offices for Peacock Staff.

The intention was also to provide a base for Aberdeen City Council’s Arts Development and Arts Education teams as well as extra space for the City Moves dance agency. The project had been awarded funding from Aberdeen Council (£3 million), the Scottish Arts Council (£4.3M) and the Scottish Government body, Scottish Enterprise (£2 million).

See:-  http://www.peacockvisualarts.com/archive/182/over-9m-of-core-funding-now-in-place

After planning permission was granted to Peacock in August 2008 by the Council, Sir Ian Wood then stepped in and in November 2008 announced his own plans for Union Terrace Gardens, a civic square described by him as “a cross between the Grand Italian Piazza and a mini Central Park”.  Scottish Enterprise paid for a technical feasibility study for the City Square Project and then promoted the consultation to gauge public opinion on the issue.  Aberdeen Council now found themselves faced with two projects competing for the same lease of ground.  Councillors later decided at a full Council meeting in May 2010 to support the City Square scheme rather than the Peacock Visual Arts centre.

The Peacock contemporary arts centre was effectively killed off by the May Council vote

In reply to a recent question as to what was spent out of the Peacock grant,  Scottish Enterprise listed £190,000 spent on the technical feasibility study for the City Square Project and  £226,000 spent by Peacock on architect, design and project management costs. No indication is given as to when the agreements to do this were signed off.

See:- http://fraserdenholm.blogspot.com/2011/02/use-it-or-lose-it.html?spref=fb

Thus money intended for the Peacock scheme looks to have been allocated to a feasibility study for a rival project which ended up replacing the Peacock scheme itself as the Council’s preference (Scottish Enterprise, it should be said, have acknowledged that if the PVA plan had been approved they would have honoured the £2 million grant).

It was later reported in a Press and Journal article that Aberdeen Council had secured permission to use a further £375,000 of the grant funding for the City Square Project. What this money is to be used for is not allowed to be, as yet, in the public domain.

See:- http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2153115?UserKey

The Press and Journal  report states that the Peacock grant now stands today at  £1.2 million out of the original £2 million allocated. The grant was left open after the vote in May. According to information provided by Scottish Enterprise the money is nominally available to fund similar projects to the Peacock scheme until the end of March this year, at which point it has to be returned back to central funds.

The Council monitoring officer has been asked to launch an investigation into the matter

The Peacock contemporary arts centre was effectively killed off by the May Council vote. Although Peacock had been asked to locate their arts centre within the proposed city square building, this proved unacceptable to them and there was no chance of an alternative proposal surfacing in time for the March 2011 deadline.

The Council executive confirmed to Scottish Enterprise in November 2010 that the Peacock funding was no longer required; they nevertheless made a request to reallocate the funds to alternative projects under revised terms. Kevin Stewart, the Council’s finance convenor, told the Press and Journal that seven proposals had been drawn up, costed and presented to Scottish Enterprise.

See:- http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2154909

In response to a question I had asked him as to whether the money could be given to Peacock for new facilities, Cllr. Stewart replied that:

“Council officers put forward a number of worthy projects that could use the funding, including Peacock, but these were all rejected by Scottish Enterprise.”

The £1.2 million grant to Aberdeen Council from Scottish Enterprise now looks as if it will have to be returned to central government funds at the end of March. The Council monitoring officer has been asked to launch an investigation into the matter under the Local Government in Scotland Act.

See:- http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2163875

Item Grant Allocated from
the grant
Amount remaining
in grant
Original Peacock Grant 

 

£2 million
Technical Feasibility Studyxx
for the City Square Project 

 

£190,000
Spent by Peacock 

 

£226,000 £1, 584,000  (“£1.6 million)
Additional funding for the
City Square Project (P&J) 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

£375,000

£1,209,000 (“£1.2 million”)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Feb 182011
 

By Bob Smith.

Fit a stramash roon Loirston wye
Aboot the Dons new fitba hame
The local fowk are up in airms
Claimin some are nae playin the game

Noo richt awa I maun declare
An interest in aa iss spik
As I masel can be fun
At Pittodrie ilka second wikk

I hiv an interest as weel
In conservation o greenbelt lan
An fir mair than 5 decades
I’ve bin a wildlife fan

Noo aat’s said let’s hae a look
At the argiement for an agin
Tho’ ti build on protected lan
Iss ti me wid be a sin

Fir greenbelt lan it wid seem
Planners dinna hae muckle time
Nivver myn the flora an fauna
Jist cover it wi steen an lime

The Community Cooncil hiv great doots
Aboot the traffic an the parkin
Cloggin up aa the road arteries
Iss scheme they think is barkin

It’s nae surprise yon Stewartie Milne
Is richt ahin aa this caper
Wi lots o his business freens
An the “rag” o a local paper

I’ve hid a wird wi a fyow Dons fans
Faa ken the move is nigh
Maist are nae in favour
O a move oot Loirston wye

Bit losh I’m fair dumfoonert
Fit wye AFC canna upgrade
Aa the stands an ither bitties
Wi a new Main Stand ti be made

The new biggin it’ll glow aa reid
Fin the Dons play nicht matches
It micht be thocht a UFO
An be mentioned in RAF dispatches

The P&J – oh fit a surprise
Think aathing’ll be a bonus
They shud tell us aa the facts
An hae an impartial focus

Noo fowk aa ower the toon
At iss thocht will faa aboot
An impartial view fae the P&J
We’ll nivver hae I doot


©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2010

Jan 212011
 

Old Susannah has been constantly on the go the past week. Here’s her travelogue…

On Friday I attended most of the public hearing on the Loirston Loch proposal at the Town House. Admittedly, I left before the full meeting ended, so missing Kate Dean’s concluding remarks, but I would have lost the will to live altogether, and I had to be at Peacock for 6pm.

Sorry I only lasted 8 hours at the hearing, but seeing as Kate was doing a great job of being impartial as convener, I left, in the knowledge that the stadium was in safe hands. See the article elsewhere in this edition of Voice.

Next day, the P&J printed an article favouring the stadium development which ignored all the practical problems and local objections, alongside a piece on Cove Rangers being allowed to move to new premises. Of course, these two developments in the Aberdeen footballing world are completely unrelated. Old Susannah must have wandered into a completely different public hearing from the one the P&J wrote about, as I missed the parts that proved how this stadium will not only make us all rich, but also make us the envy of the northern hemisphere. I came away with the subtle feeling that one or two of the residents might not be onside with putting a 21,000 seat stadium on their greenbelt.

The Peacock exhibition features Alicia Bruce’s photographic portraits of the residents facing potential eviction through compulsory purchase, so that Mr Trump can have the world’s most kitsch – sorry – most excellent, perfect, wonderful, swell, expensive golf course. A review and photos of the exhibition is elsewhere in Voice.

Finally, George Galloway and his moustache are in the news this week. He seems to be saying he will end his political career in Scotland. Has no one told him that his political career well and truly ended when he was on Big Brother pretending to be Rula Lenska’s cat?  Respect….?

..and she shares the week’s defining moments in her Dictionary, Part 21

Embezzle

(Verb) To embezzle is to appropriate goods, property or money fraudulently when in a position of power, rather like when we pay Council Tax to local government with the false promise we’ll get something of value in return. Now it looks as if a City Council employee has been taking his work home with him literally – to the tune of somewhere between £300,000 and £400,000. It is understood the person and his wife are now ‘helping police with their enquiries’.

there is no fraud to worry about really, except the odd half million pound case like this one

Yes, it’s hard to understand how our well-run, efficient, properly audited and controlled City could have allowed such a thing to happen; ‘financial impropriety’ and ‘Aberdeen City Council’ are words you’d never expect to hear in the same sentence, I know.

Stringent controls are in place to prevent, for instance, property being sold below market value, property being sold to private developers when the City thinks it is really selling property to the NHS, or building work contract values escalating out of control, and the like. In fact there are ‘Investigation Managers’ and ‘Budget Analysts’ on the City’s efficient payroll.

But relax –  there is no fraud to worry about really, except the odd half million pound case like this one, which clearly is a one-off and will never happen again.

Incandescent (Adjective) Incandescent is the ‘condition of glowing or emitting heat and light’. Indeed, it is often associated with lightbulbs but presumably less so with the new mercury-filled ones which don’t give out quite enough light for my taste. John Major famously took the word ‘incandescent’ and coupled it with his anger, coming up with the phrase, ‘not inconsiderably incandescent with rage’ to describe how he usually felt. This may have been his greatest contribution as Prime Minister, although we might want to ask Mrs Edwina Currie her opinion.

This adjective is still being used by the brightest stars in the political firmament, as no less a luminary than our own Kate Dean has told the press she is incandescent. No, not just her natural glow of warmth, charm and beauty; she is incandescent with anger.

Who’s upset Kate? The Scottish Government transport authorities have had the gall to criticise Aberdeen’s public transport management – the nerve!

outsiders might mistakenly think we have problems. I hope that an apology to Kate is on the way

As if there was anything to criticise. Kate’s main problem is that she didn’t have a chance to defend the City’s sterling record on public transport. The frequent bus services, the low prices, the potholes, the bus lanes.Apparently we’ve created one million pounds worth of bus lanes recently, part of the reason traffic moves so swiftly.

The well thought-out transport arrangements for Union Square and the bus and railway stations are greatly appreciated by people with mobility problems as well as car drivers and bus passengers, who, in rush hour or late night shopping days, can spend ages window-shopping at Union Square from the comfort of their own cars. Building the new AFC stadium is going to add 80 buses at current estimate and 1400 cars to the mix on Wellington Road, pollution levels on which can be higher than national recommended levels, but with the new bus lanes, well, it will be fine.

Part of Ms Dean’s problem is that Aberdeen wasn’t invited to the particular meeting where the criticism was levelled, so she could not defend our excellent system. Clearly a system as perfect as ours would not be able to stand on its own merits for others to marvel at – outsiders might mistakenly think we have problems. I hope that an apology to Kate is on the way.

Joined-up government.

How do things in the public sector work so well?

How do our governors manage to accomplish so much good with our tax money so efficiently?

The answer is that we have ‘joined-up government’.

The term ‘joined-up government’ is defined as ‘a method of governing wherein all departments and branches communicate efficiently with each other and act together purposefully and effectively towards well-defined objectives – but you don’t need me to tell you that’s what you’ve got in the ‘deen.

It is little wonder that international property developers want to come here when they see how ‘joined up’ we are.

It’s hard to pick out just one example pertaining to our government in terms of its ‘joined-up’ thinking, so I’ll take the most recent one. In the P&J on 19 January, there’s a story of how Scottish Enterprise and Aberdeen City Council work in harmony to our benefit.

Peacock Art Gallery, you may recall, had managed to secure a large grant from the Arts Council to build new premises. Like vultures smelling blood, the City and Scottish Enterprise moved in to offer assistance. They assisted Peacock right out of its plans for the Union Terrace Gardens arts centre it had proposed.

But what becomes of the grant from the Arts Council? It’s now probably lost forever, and we have the amusing spectacle of Aberdeen City v Scottish Enterprise. The blame game is on.  Who did what and when is being argued over in the press as these two entities try to blame each other for the loss. Strangely enough, many years back, the Arts Council had ring-fenced a few million for an arts centre in the Castlegate. This money too was lost forever. A deadline approached, and the City Council seems not to have known anything about it, despite having a Council representative attending the relevant meetings. It is little wonder that international property developers want to come here when they see how ‘joined up’ we are. They know when they see examples like the latest drama over Peacock funding unfold, that we are people to be reckoned with – smart, astute business minds working in conjunction. There is no way we will be fooled or taken advantage of when great minds are in control. Not here.

On a serious note

Spare a thought for Sandy Ingram, the 79 year-old man found severely beaten in June of last year. He will now need full-time care, and can never return to the home he knew. Apparently he had seen two men on his property before he was assaulted. Whilst the residents in his area of Newmachar are now more vigilant regarding strangers, and are reporting suspicious behaviour to police, it comes too late for the Ingram family.

Someone out there knows what happened to him which is still a mystery to the rest of us. If you don’t come forward you are as guilty as if you’d hurt this elderly man yourself. And the next time someone else gets permanently injured or worse, you’ll have to live knowing you could have prevented it.

Even if you just suspect something, make an anonymous call. Do the right thing.

Nov 262010
 

By Mike Shepherd.

Local author John Aberdein saw his second novel ‘Strip the Willow’ published in 2009. It is set in the near future in Aberdeen, now renamed Uberdeen. Following the cities bankruptcy, its assets have been sold off  to the sinister and manipulative multinational corporation, LeopCorp.

The novel is of course fantastical, but when I met the book’s author in Union Terrace Gardens earlier this year,  John told me that he was amazed as to how much recent actual events seem to have overtaken the satire in the book. While LeopCorp is fiction, the idea of transferring Council assets to a limited company is not.

Last year the Council agreed to set up an organisation called the Aberdeen City Development Company, essentially as a means to privatise or semi-privatise Council assets deemed to be what they refer to as ’market failures’. A key document describing how the company could be set up is the report of Aberdeen City Council Policy and Strategy committee, dated 9th June 2009. It describes how a City Development Company can allow local authorities to “use their assets to realise long-term investment from the private sector for regeneration projects”. They “provide a route to bringing public and private sectors together to pool finance, land, expertise and powers, allocate risks and returns appropriately, and plan and deliver projects more strategically”.

More information emerged about the company in the report to the Council for the enterprise, planning & infrastructure committee on the 9th November 2010. This also included a partially redacted report from the accountants Ernst & Young on how the city development company will be set up. Some details are missing here and other sources have been used to supplement the material quoted from the document in this article.

http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=10100

The new company is to be called “One Aberdeen”. “It will be governed by a non executive board with up to a maximum of 12 directors. The composition of the board will be split between the public and private sector with 6 directors coming from each sector.”

One Aberdeen is the private sector’s Christmases and birthdays rolled into one

Of the six public sector directors, it is understood that only four board members will be from the Council itself, one will be from Scottish Enterprise and one from the Aberdeen Civic Forum. Later in the document it says:

“The chair will be from the private sector appointees and will have the casting vote, meaning that that there is private sector control at parent board level.”

The intent is to transfer assets into the development company. In an email forwarded from the Council executive I’ve been told “There is no question whatsoever of the Council gifting these assets. A full market value would be realised for the Council. The additional value created – which can be shared with ACC – is derived from development activities which the Council has traditionally never undertaken. It is designed as a way of maximising public benefit of assets in partnership with the private sector.”

Some excerpts from the Ernst & Young document give an idea of how the company will operate: “The transfer agreement will set out the commercial details of the transfer and related obligations of each party, including appropriate clauses for profit share between the Council and One Aberdeen.” …. “The delivery approach to each commercial development will be influenced by the nature of the investment and identified partner. This could involve development through a series of joint ventures or other forms of public-private partnership for example, via a development agreement.”

The minutes of the ASCEF meeting held on Monday the 23rd November 2009 states the following:

“Partners, including ACSEF, would have the opportunity to transfer assets to the CDC, and could fit into the structure as a founder member, associate member, or as part of the advisory panel for the venture.  The Chairman indicated his willingness to discuss this at a future meeting of the Board.” It is not clear what this means; ACSEF is a publically funded economic forum for the Aberdeen area and not a property group, although the board of ACSEF has members from private business. It may be indicating that private companies will also be allowed to transfer assets into the development company.

The Council have identified 59 assets deemed suitable for the development company. Of these, 14 have been short-listed as suitable for development. The Council have not revealed which assets these are. The Council executive informed me that:

“This was a draft list. Discussions are ongoing with asset management. Any short list will not be finalised until the new year for the April 2011 Finance committee.”

In a previous committee report (9th June 2009) the following was stated:

It is widely recognised that the provision of land assets into any development vehicle is key to help “kick-start” the re-development process. As such, external consultants have appraised 12 land assets owned by the Council with a view to demonstrating the development potential available to the Council through its asset base. This, in turn, would then help in the consideration of this development potential being levered via the concept of a city development company vehicle. The example sites considered were agreed within the Council Officer Working Group and were as follows:

1 Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre

2 Bon Accord Baths

3 Chapel Street Car Park

4 Denburn Health Centre and Car Park

5 Granitehill

6 Greenferns

7 Land at Carnie

8 Land at Haudagain roundabout

9 St Nicholas House

10 Summerhill Education Centre

11 Union Terrace gardens

12 Westburn House and Park House/Choices”

It is important to note that item 12 “Westburn House and Park House/Choices” refers to two buildings and does not refer to Westburn Park itself. This list should only be taken as indicative of the assets that are likely to be selected next April.   I have been told that Union Terrace Gardens will not be one of the 14 assets. The development of the Gardens is proposed to be carried out through a separate company or trust to be formed in 2012.

the Council are more inclined to the interests of big business rather those of the ordinary citizen

Fourteen out of the 59 assets have been short-listed for development. The remaining 45 assets will either be sold or kept on the shelf by the Council. Although the Ernst and Young report does not make this too obvious, it is likely that some of these assets will be sold to fund the company. Again, the Council have not provided any details as to which assets will be sold.

The aim of the company is outlined in the Ernst and Young document:

“It is proposed that the delivery vehicle will be created as a charity with the purpose of positively contributing to the regeneration challenges of the City. An application for charitable status will be made following approval of this business plan by elected members. The vehicle will deliver a sustainable urban regeneration programme that will contribute to, creating local jobs, maximising economic development opportunities, meeting housing demand and tackling the spatial concentration of deprivation in Aberdeen. The geographical focus will be on the priority and at risk areas … “

These are identified as:

Priority neighbourhoods
At risk neighbourhoods

Seaton Stockethill
Tillydrone George Street
Woodside Mastrick
Torry City centre
Middlefield Froghall, Powis and Sunnybank
Cummings Park Garthdee
Northfield Old Aberdeen

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Heathryfold

The Ernst and Young document also mentions that: “A wholly owned subsidiary will be established (“Property Company”) with the purpose of undertaking riskier and more commercial projects and activities which do not fall within the charitable purposes and objects of One Aberdeen. Any projects which do not meet the charitable objects as defined within the Articles will be conducted through the Property Company.”

Although the aims of One Aberdeen are largely charitable, it has already received considerable criticism.

As has been referred to frequently in articles in the Aberdeen Voice, it has been a long time since the Council and the people of Aberdeen have been in accord. Given the response to the city square consultation, there is widespread distrust of the motives of the Council; a suspicion that the Council are more inclined to the interests of big business rather those of the ordinary citizen. The Ernst and Young report appears to differ: “A failure to consider the opinions of the wider community and halting to gauge public opinion has plagued a number of high profile developments in the North East of Scotland.” One suspects that the wider community referred to here may be the business community.

There is also criticism that control of Council assets will be surrendered to private business. One online blogger made the comment that “One Aberdeen is the private sector’s Christmases and birthdays rolled into one providing them with access and influence over empty buildings and land which will result in ‘surplus’ public assets being sold off for private development.” http://lenathehyena.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/one-aberdeen-pure-piche/

it has been a long time since the Council and the people of Aberdeen have been in accord

The Council’s dealings with private business has proved less than impressive to date. The Press and Journal reported last month that the Stewart Milne Group (SMG) had lost an appeal in court after disputing a land deal with the Council. The Council had sold 11 acres of land at Westhill for £365,000, having made  the condition that it would share any profit made by the SMG selling or leasing the land at a future date. The land was then sold to a linked company, Stewart Milne Westhill, for £483,020, who then stated that there was no money in the deal for the city Council because the sale had cost them £559,696. The Council then later argued in court that the land was worth £5.6 Million, eventually being awarded £1.7 Million.  http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1964641

It is also possible that the money generated by the company could be used for purposes other than for regenerating the priority areas of the city. I heard one councillor state at a public meeting recently that he thought it would be a good idea that any profits could be used to fund the Exhibition Centre, a very early example of potential ‘mission creep’ for the development company. The Exhibition Centre owes the Council £28 Million and has been heavily subsidised by the Council in recent years. http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1994339

Aberdeen One is likely to be set up in April next year, at which time it should be known which assets are to be transferred in the company. April should prove to be a highly fraught month for local politics. On April 27th the full Council meets to discuss the business case for the company intended to take the highly-controversial City Square project forward. They will also vote to approve assigning a lease for Union Terrace Gardens to the company even though it will not be a legal entity until 2012.  The Scottish Parliamentary elections take place the week after on the 5th of May. Interesting times as the Chinese would say.


Jul 022010
 

Eence, oor prood forefaithers
Raised their kilts on the battlefield
Defendin’ oor land fae thievin’ hands
Wi’ a big sword an’ a shield
A tradition upheld yet tae this day
In the Shire and Aiberdeen
Yet the Cooncil’s swapped the Claymore
For a tub o’ Vaseline.

Continue reading »