Teams behind rival Union Terrace Garden plans urged to get together

By Joanna Skailes

Published: 08/02/2010

The teams behind conflicting plans for Aberdeen’s Union Terrace Gardens are expected to attend a joint public meeting later this month.

As the debate goes on between supporters of Sir Ian Wood’s £140million proposal to create a civic square and those who back a rival bid by Peacock Visual Arts, local Labour politicians have called for a “reasoned and considered” look into the Victorian park’s future.

Peacock, which had full planning permission and 75% funding, was preparing to start work on a contemporary arts centre built into the slope of the gardens when the Wood Group chairman announced his plans for a five-acre city square connecting Union Street, Union Terrace, Schoolhill and Belmont Street.

The tycoon has offered £50million of his own fortune for the development, which would involve covering over the gardens and the neighbouring railway line and Denburn dual-carriageway.

Residents are currently being asked for their views on it in a major consultation led by Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef).

Politicians have now invited representatives of the two bids, along with nearby residents, a town planning expert, councillors and members of architecture, heritage and civil amenity groups to a meeting at Aberdeen Citadel, in Castle Street, on February 18 at 6.30pm.

Aberdeen North MP Frank Doran, who is planning the event with Aberdeen South MP Anne Begg, Aberdeen Central MSP Lewis Macdonald and north-east Scotland MSP Richard Baker, said the debate had become “polarised and far too narrow”.

He hopes representatives from both groups will give presentations and form a panel with independent architects and planners for an open discussion with the audience.

He said: “We are extremely fortunate that we have two good schemes that we can consider, but each of them, or a combination of them, will fundamentally alter our city centre and needs to be fully considered by everyone who has the city’s interests at heart.

“Developments on this scale need to be considered in the context of what the city needs and how these developments would meet that need.

“It is also important that the citizens of Aberdeen are given the opportunity to make a proper analysis of the current proposals.”

Tom Smith, chairman of Acsef, said residents were already being given a voice in the consultation into the proposed project, which has been running in the city since January 11.

He said: “We strongly refute Mr Doran’s claims that city-centre residents have not been given the opportunity to make their views known.

“The awareness of the public consultation is extremely high and people are being given every opportunity to participate.

“It is important that such a meeting as Mr Doran proposes allows local residents the opportunity to get the facts and put forward their views so that we can have a useful meeting which respects all points of view.”

Peacock campaign director Elly Rothnie said: “We welcome this opportunity, as we share Mr Doran’s concerns that this has become a polarised debate.

“We have been very concerned about the lack of information about alternative options in this consultation.

“This is a great opportunity for the people of Aberdeen to hear about the various different options open to the city, as well as asking important opinions on compromise. We at Peacock are very much looking forward to hearing from the people on this occasion.”

Reader's Comments

All this holy racket is senseless. The £50 millions "gift" is a poisoned chalice, where on earth are we going to find the other 75 needed? But hey! ACC is going to take itself to court over the refusal of a licence, no surprise if finds itself supporting both sides at the same time. Mind! There is a wee difference between the £1.500 to Peacock to the £200.000 to the ASCEF. Some animals are always more equal than others.
Vincent McDee
Report this comment

Fantastic, it's about time a proper public debate was held. Hopefully a solution will be found soon before Aberdeen ends up with nothing.
nina higgs
Report this comment

This is good news and should have a happened a long time ago, possibly before a fortune was spent on the "Consultation". However i'm not sure where compromise can be made, ACSEF/Wood want to destroy the gardens and those in opposition (including most Aberdonians) don't! Unfortunately, unlike Peacock, ACSEF/Wood have been unwilling discuss any form of compromise to their plans and i can't see ACSEF/Wood backing down on a full deck!
Graeme Smith
Report this comment

This is good news and should have a happened a long time ago, possibly before a fortune was spent on the "Consultation". However i'm not sure where compromise can be made, ACSEF/Wood want to destroy the gardens and those in opposition (including most Aberdonians) don't! Unfortunately, unlike Peacock, ACSEF/Wood have been unwilling discuss any form of compromise to their plans and i can't see ACSEF/Wood backing down on a full deck!
Graeme Smith
Report this comment

A side-issue: one only has to think about attending this meeting - Sally-Ann, wrong end of the Castlegate, a cold dark February night, no safe or convenient place to leave the car now that the Timmer Market car park has closed - to realise how much one doesn't want to be there. Such is the state of downtown Aberdeen after 6 pm.
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

A side-issue: one only has to think about attending this meeting - Sally-Ann, wrong end of the Castlegate, a cold dark February night, no safe or convenient place to leave the car now that the Timmer Market car park has closed - to realise how much one doesn't want to be there. Such is the state of downtown Aberdeen after 6 pm.
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

Come on, Alex, it's not that bad. You make it sound as if there's knife gangs hanging outside Sally's Army.
nina higgs
Report this comment

Ian Wood's plans are horrendous. Who in their right mind would want to destroy this beautiful green space in the heart of the city and replace it with a monstrous concrete skate park? If this is such a great idea why is there no clamour in Edinburgh for concreting over Princes Gardens? Why is Hyde Park still allowed to exist in London? For the sake of generations to come this atrocity must not be allowed to happen, otherwise we'll end up with a city centre that'll look like Bucharest in the 1970s.
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

Indeed this is very welcome, Aberdeen citizens have not been given the full picture from ACSEF or the City Square people so here at last they'll get it. This is something Peacock have requesting for quite some time now. However as someone above mentions I find it hard to see a compromise being made. Peacock have offered up multiple compromise solutions but ACSEF/TCSP and Sir Ian have made it quite clear it is their plan or no plan.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

About time this meeting was held - although going by the comments on this page and others - opposers of the City Square Project should also throw out the PVA project and in it's place build a Drama School - Louis Balfour could get a job as a teacher ;-)
Philip Uren
Report this comment

About time this meeting was held - although going by the comments on this page and others - opposers of the City Square Project should also throw out the PVA project and in it's place build a Drama School - Louis Balfour could get a job as a teacher ;-)
Philip Uren
Report this comment

Excellent request and very welcome. We all recognise the need to rejuvenate the City Centre and there are many locations in the city that could achieve this, you just need to browse the ACC planning website to see a multitude of locations that they are seeking investment for, St Nicholas House being one of the most popular with the public for demolition and redevelopment. With so many options in the city centre it's a real shame that we have resulted in two completing schemes. One which has undergone the full planning approval process at local and national level and, the other, a glint in a millionaire's eye. Again, you don't have to look far on ACC's planning website to find a detailed understanding of the Aberdeen townscape and The Denburn Valley. Compare these proposals with the planning guidance for this Victorian Park and you'll find there is only one proposal that fits the bill. The other would be welcome at almost any other location in the city centre. It's ACSEF that have proposed a rival scheme for Union Terrace Gardens and maybe, now with a real public debate and not a PR exercise, they will justify why they believe it has to be "This Place" and not any other in the city centre, as the excuses on location they have given to date are laughable.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

It appears that even the ever never drawn to mention Aberdeen Annie Lennox is against the City Square plans - from her blog : http://forum.annielennox.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=487#p487 "Actually, make that 6000 and 1! [UTG petition]...Here’s my take on this. Aberdeen was my home town. I was born there, and lived in the city until I was seventeen. For me, Union Terrace Gardens was, and still is the green historical heart of the city. Like so many towns and cities all over the country, Aberdeen lost a great deal of it’s architectural heritage and charm through destruction by bulldozer and concrete. It made me sad then, and it still makes me sad. I hoped that this kind of “vandalism” had peaked in the 60’s and 70’s, but for Aberdeen, it seems to be back with vengeance. What idiocy and madness. I’ve been based in London since 1971, so I guess that kind of counts my voice out..but, to the citizens of Aberdeen I would say this... “Aberdeen is your home town. Are you going to sit back, and do nothing while it’s beautiful historic center gets ripped out and concreted over”??!! It’s down to you to stop this happening. Best wishes from Annie"
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

To Philip Uren Yes sir no sir three bags full Sir Ian sir. Ye big sook...
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

To Philip Uren Yes sir no sir three bags full Sir Ian sir. Ye big sook...
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

Wonder where Tom Smith went to school. As Chairman of ACSEF and the instigator of the "Public Consultation" which cost a fortune and was organised by a PR company. If he is so uneducated that he really believes that this is not Progaganda. No mention of the Peacock scheme, no 24 questions directed at what we would like to see if the Gardens are kept. Just 24 questions on what they want on the Concrete square. Sorry for this having been paid by public money is a disgrace. Sir Wood coming in after the Peacock scheme already planned and accepted is a total disgrace and ACSEF and ACC and now we have Stewart Milne adding his tuppenceworth, surprise surprice he is a member of ASCEF. Now the big guns are out. Maybe he his worried about parking for his new scheme at the Triple Kirk. Disgraceful and underhanded. Leave the garden and upgrade it. Why should we want to be like every other concrete city when we have this.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Politics and governance will in the next decade be dominated by the management of declining resources, in common speak, cuts. In the next five years a reduction of 20% in local government expenditure is expected. It is unbelievable, that possibly, over £100 million of public finance could be assigned to this questionable and controversial cosmetic project. Don't some of these folk know what is happening in the world.
Michty Me
Report this comment

ACSEF Chairman Tom Smith is quoted on the BBC website as saying that claims by protesters that the proposed City Square would be a flat grey concrete expanse are totally misleading ... so why is this precisely what the "artist's impressions" in his promotional bumf depict, over and over again?
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

Alex, you can't be referring to this image? http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46833000/jpg/_46833968_union_terrace_gardens_466282.jpg can you? - I guess ACSEF's glass is half full (of concrete) when looking at those images.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

At last. Common sense prevails. I am delighted that both sides are being invited to state their cases. The process should allow for 'give and take' and remove the confrontation which is getting us nowhere.
Fred Bull
Report this comment

The trouble is of course is that with the money, business clout and biased press behind them the balance of the argument has already been tipped well over to Acsef. Why now do people think its a good idea to have an 'open debate' (a one off event I suspect?) when if Acsef hadn't tried to distort the whole process by excluding the Peacock scheme from the outset of their 'consultation' there would be no need for this and there could have been a proper consultation from the start. Why did Mr Woods wade in with his £50m so late in the day with the Peacock scheme approved and virtually funded? Whose interest is being served by the conversion of public open space into private commercial space? Is it the public?
Mike Miller
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.