Response to vote on city square plan prompts delay

By Morag Lindsay

Published: 11/03/2010

The results of the public vote on Sir Ian Wood’s £140million city square project will not be announced until April 13 – two weeks after the funding deadline for Peacock Visual Arts’ new centre in Union Terrace Gardens.

Leaders of the city square bid said 10,000 people had responded to the eight-week consultation, meaning a huge amount of work would be required to analyse the feedback.

Peacock, which called a halt to its £13.5million scheme after the Wood Group chairman announced his plan for a five-acre civic square on the site of the gardens, the Denburn dual-carriageway and the railway, said it was disappointed the results would not be known for another five weeks.

The arts group’s deadline for taking up a linchpin £4.3million grant from the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) runs out at the end of March. It had already been extended to allow the consultation to take place. Last night, SAC said it would review its position at the end of March.

Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef), the group steering the city square bid on Sir Ian’s behalf, said the sheer weight of feedback meant it would be unable to announce the outcome until April 13.

Acsef chairman Tom Smith said: “A huge amount of work is now under way to analyse the quantitative and qualitative data collected over the last eight weeks.

“To put the scale of this task into perspective, the consultation report on Edinburgh trams took 12 weeks to compile based on feedback from 3,500 people. There has been three times that amount of input from the public for the city square project.

“When Acsef partners have had time to consider the opinions of those who got involved in the consultation a decision will be made as to whether we take our ambitions for the future of Aberdeen city centre forward.”

Since announcing he was prepared to put £50million of his own money into a redevelopment of Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn valley in November 2008, Sir Ian has stressed he would only press ahead if it could be shown that the people of Aberdeen wanted the city square.

Acsef said last week there was a danger of the bid crumbling due to “apathy” because fewer than 3% of the population had taken part in the consultation. It also warned the city could be left with nothing because there were no guarantees that Peacock would be able to secure the remainder of its funding.

Peacock campaign director Elly Rothnie said: “While we are delighted that 10,000 people have taken part in the consultation and understand it will take some time to analyse their responses, we are disappointed to learn that the results will not now be available until April.

“We had been assured that the results would be released in time for the March review of our funding by the Scottish Arts Council. I think everyone will be hoping now that the results can be issued as soon as possible to bring some much-needed clarity on the way forward for the city.”

SAC co-director of arts Iain Munro said: “This is new information we have just been made aware of and, as such, we will consider it alongside any other relevant factors when we review our position at the end of March.”

The Scottish Government has said it would be keen to see an arts centre in Aberdeen, either within the city square or on its own, and has suggested the city square could qualify for funding if the two groups were able to reach a compromise.

Last night, a spokesman said ministers were awaiting the outcome of the consultation with interest.

An online petition in support of the city square gathered about 1,500 signatures by the time the consultation closed on Friday, while another in favour of the Peacock centre in Union Terrace Gardens was signed by about 8,500 people.

Reader's Comments

Here we go, 5 weeks of SPIN
Jaki Sinclair
Report this comment

What about starting off by counting the YES and NO votes. That won't take long and might offer some instant clarity. If it's a bit ticht then there could be an argument for a more in-depth analysis.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

''Five weeks'' what a load of bull, on the form it there was a simple yes or no part and that should be very easy to count and the results published. This is a deliberate stalling tactic from Acsef to scupper the Peacock campaign. There seems to be no limit as to how low Acsef and Wood will stoop to get this Civic Square rammed down our throats. Disgraceful Smith and his cronies should be sacked and Wood should be striped of his knighthood.
Robert Horne
Report this comment

The consultation they are referring to here wouldn't be the one that asked you to vote online under a headline in favour of the city square project, is it? The one where the default response was yes to the City square if you accidently submitted it? The one organised by the developers with £300,000 of public money that lacked in any of the discursive argument that normally qualifies for the term consultation. Oh it is that one... Bit of a public relations disaster isn't it ACSEF? No wonder the council leaders were ducking for cover when anyone asked them about the City square Project at the EE debate on Tuesday night.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Let me get this straight... they had an outstanding record amount of feedback for the consultation compared to other high profile consultations, but it was ruined by apathy? And now they screw Peacock by dragging out the consultation results, it's absolute bull considering there was a YES / NO option that would give everyone an early idea of the result. ACSEF have clearly demonstrated they do not care about Aberdeen citizens or the future of Aberdeen. They care about themselves and their future.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

It was an 8 week public consultation paid for by public money. What were these people being paid for?
Jaki Sinclair
Report this comment

Interestingly, hearing the council speak at the "big debate" on Tuesday night, apparently there wasn't going to be a "do you support the city square project?" question - and John Stewart insisted that a quantitative question was put in there - to avoid this obvious caveat the "CSP Team" are playing. Interesting to read that all the pro CSP fans are crying "give them time to assess the data, it's not as simple as a yes no" - Why did Sir Ian say "I'll withdraw if people don't want it then". more contradictory BS from the CS. I also think it's rather like asking UKIP to process election results, because as we all know the "CSP team" were promoting the CSP, now the "CSP team" will be assessing the data collated?! Aberdeen is indeed looking rather a little silly on the national stage, thanks ACSEF, thanks CSP...
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Sorry to be the profit of doom but I wrote several weeks ago.... "There is no need to compromise. The "qualitative analysis" of the city square consultation (>8000 participants) will not be published before Peacocks lose their funding. The council will not make any decision until the report is published. However, 9118 people have already voted and the quantitative analysis shows 84% (7672) in favour of PVA and 14% (1446) in favour of the City Square. Sorry, I forgot about the silent majority. I guess that's why we need a qualitative analysis! A L http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1626593" Why do you think Wood and the P&J editor said neither project would go ahead. Predetermined. This still doesn't help Peacock Visual Arts. There's not even a legal route to get the information (freedom of information acts allows them 20 days). We are left relying on someone from ACSEF posting the results anonymously on the P&J website. Very sad!
A L
Report this comment

What vote do they keep talking about? Where were the polling stations? When was the vote? What was on the ballot? I'll vote for any council candidate that proposes abolishing this jobsworth ACSEF.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

God, talk about throwing teddy bears out of the pram. Many of these people on the board of ACSEF are supposed to be buisness people and they act like this. The consultation that was arranged by them was I thought happening in "real time" so at the end of the day the real result is how many for and how many against the destruction of the UTG..which should be instant. If ACSEF want to try to waffle on with the other perriferal questions who wanted what, obviously added to the consultation to confuse and to expain away why it cost over a quarter of a million of public money.This can be done at a later date or even better, not at all.. Perhaps we need to think twice about using the companies run by, Wood, Smith, Willox & Spence for starters..
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

It’s certainly disappointing to see that ACSEF have chosen to take over a month to collate and publish the results from this consultation. To say that it is due to the size of the project is questionable as any PR company worth its salt should be able to complete a task like this in a fraction of the time. I would be concerned that this delay could be seen to be a stalling tactic when, at its heart, this consultation was about determining a yes/no opinion to the CSP. This “digital” type of analysis (either 0 or 1, yes or no) is easily quantifiable and could theoretically be collated, verified and published in a matter of days. The extra information in the consultation, such as what people would like to see, is obviously harder to collate and present, and as such it is understandable if it will take longer to publish. This kind of data does not have any bearing on the decision of the proposal on the authority’s behalf as it is simply informing the design brief that will then be used should the project progress. However, all the authorities need is a yes/no show of opinions, and if the online petitions that gave a clear majority of almost 6-1 against the CSP is anything to go by then it is clear the ACSEF project as it currently stands is not supported by anything near a majority of citizens, while the PVA proposal shows much wider support. We can’t allow one project to go under while information irrelevant to the planning process is collated while information that is relevant is, effectively, stalled. Sorry for ranting on a bit, it just really p*sses me off.
Jonathan Mennie
Report this comment

Same old bilge from ACSEF. They know fine well what the results are - they were leaking them to their pals at the P&J all through the final week so that they could guarantee scare stories about a 'tiny organised minority' skewing the process. The public have rejected the City Square and the spiteful P&J editorial on the Saturday confirms this. As Robert Horne said above, this delay seems cynically designed to scupper Peacock's project. It's extremely annoying that a publicly funded body is allowed to behave this way.
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

So Tom Smith tells us that "a huge amount of work" is required to cope with the avalanche of response generated by the consultation - so much so that it'll take longer than originally anticipated to produce a report. Can this Tom Smith please tell us what he's done with the Tom Smith of last week, who was warning us that public participation was so low that there was a danger that Sir Ian would withdraw the £50million he has pledged? Acsef have spend more than two months contradicting themselves and appear unable to stop doing so even though the consultation period has finished. Their credibility is utterly shot to pieces, with Acsef themselves pulling the trigger at each and every turn.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

(Apologies if this my second comment. I lost my first somewhere in the ether. ) Acsef and Wood do really know how to fight dirty. They have effectively emasculated the local press, and our local representatives (A.C.C. M.Ps and M.S.Ps) are strangely silent. Mike Shepherd is correct. At the E.E. debate on Tuesday night the panel were getting a tad hot under the collar over UTG, and were delighted when the debate moved on to potholes! Cllr. Kevin Stewart did however, remind us that we will need money from individuals to develop, and that the issue was getting very personal. Of course it's personal. What hope is there when our elected bodies behave in this way. I did think that I lived in a democracy rather than an oligarchy.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Dorothy, I didn't make it along on Tuesday night sadly, but that's an interesting point Kevin Stewart raised. Did he mention how much of the £70m or so being put into the new council HQ has come from individuals? If something is for the council, the people pay, but if something is for the people then the council won't pay? Is that what he was saying? It's a very odd sounding position for an elected member to take as it would almost certainly guarantee Kevin Stewart losing his council place next year. Perhaps he might like to clarify his comment? I doubt he'll read this, though, as if one thing is clear it's that the opinion of the electorate is only important to councillors when there's a ballot box nearby.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

There is an awful lot of comment on here about the Council's position which bares no consideration at all of the Councillors individual legal responsibilities as the impatial arbiters of any planning decision. In the last few years an individual who had strong views about a certain developement was elected to the Council, and immediately found that they could no longer take part in the planning process. Councillors taking sides would be like a Sheriff stating his view of someone's guilt before the trial. That person didn't stand again.
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

The results of the CSP consultation are to be announced on April 13th. Political pundits reckon that the general election will be on May 6th, three weeks later. Uh, huh. So here's Mikey's prediction for the general election campaign. A big No vote, sir Ian Wood withdraws his money. A political party gets slagged off for this. A yes vote, a political party gets praised for this. Aren't we wonderful, vote for us. Watch this space.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Is it really surprising that ACSEF are behaving this way. They are incapable of telling anything like the truth. Where they get this "over 10,000" is a mystery as last week they were getting very worried about the lack of support. So just where did these extra votes come from. Oh yes they counted twice, just in case, but forgot to count the "No votes" Is that not a wonder. We as tax payers have paid for this disgusting fiasco and now we are being conned once more by people who are supposed to be leaders of business. It would seem that our business men only know how to deal in a very underhanded way. Perhaps that is how they become millionairs. Treat the public like dirt and walk all over them all in the name of "progress". As said the council has been rather quiet but that again is no surprise. Any council worth their salt would never have allowed this to happen in the first place. Just showo who runs the city. Not the council to which we pay our taxes, but the inglorious business men who are only interested in their own wealth. What a pathetic display by ACC. ACSEF. Wood and all the rest of the hangers on. Tom Smith should be sacked immediately as he has shown how incompetant he is. The PR company who thought up this "consultation" must be lauging all the way to the bank and slapping their backs at how clever they have been at our expense. Lets face it Wood will probably get his way, as his millions are far more important that the citizens of Aberdeen. But we can only vote for a few, which have the title of "Councilors" Pity they cant do their jobs properly either.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

I agree with Minnie. This councils impotence is now complete. Fletcher claims to be impartial but they fund ACSEF that's clearly biased in favor of the Woods project. I'd sack all ACSEF employees this afternoon for blatantly opposing the wishes of council and the people of Aberdeen. The money saved could fill some potholes.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Glad to see our local councillors adding their opinion to this blog. Welcome Neil. There is no planning submission yet on the CSP, surely you can comment on the subject until then? I came away from the EE debate on Tuesday night with the impression that there was a weakish four party consensus on the CSP with all the council leaders stating that sir Ian Woods £50M had to be applauded. I was later told that the situation in local Aberdeen politics is far more complex than this. There is a lot of posturing because nobody wants to get the blame if IW walks away with his money. Now as a concerned citizen I consider this to be a very unhealthy political situation this side of a possible planning procedure. We could drift into the situation of a decison being take out of fear of the political downside rather than due to the merits of the plan.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Mr Craigie, if I'm not truely impartial on this matter, then I will not be able to vote either for or against it. The Council funds Peacock too. I have very strong views on this proposal, and as a Councillor I will also have a vote at the final stages. If I state my views publically, that vote will be challenged. So in the meantime I will have to keep my own counsel, and put up with the various insults Mr Craigie and others wish to fore at me. I sincerely hope that some of the most vocal people on here will stand for election next time, and are not just criticising others for doing a job they wouldn't be prepared to do themselves;-)
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

Look we all know how the results of the consultation will be presented.. that the people of aberdeen want to see change in the gardens, that they want to see it safer, better, and used more. the first two thirds of the cinsultation is set up to show that no matter what.. the only concrete (pardon the pun) question is the YES/NO one, but that doesnt yield the results wanted. So once the 'conclusion' is published, ASCEF will then claim that the city square project will seek to deliver everything the public have 'asked for' in the consultation. They will take another year or so to produce a mildly modified version of the same proposal, and put it forward again. Of course all this time Halliday Fraser Munro, Stuart milne, and other Wood cronies will be paid for thei input. And by this point Peacock will be well out of the way, swept under the rug, and quite franlky, deliberately totally butchered by Ian Wood's 'generousity'. Then we'l have another consultation, once again only on the one proposal, and this will go on and on and on till the businsess folk get their way.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Mr Shepherd, consider this possibility. A planning applicatio does come forward, and several Councillors have taken your advice, and have said previously that they oppose it. Those Councillors take part in the vote, and the application is refused. How many lawyers do you think will be looking for a job from a developer to appeal against the impatiality of the decision. This happens all the time btw. Also, should an appeal tale place, how long do you think an organisation such as Peacock could hold out waiting for the Courts to make a decision? Food for thought!
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

This news is astonishing. The council knowing the Peacock time limits should set a meeting for mid to late March & take a vote on what information is available @ that time. If Ascef & their cohorts are refusing to forward the information of a basic yes or no until April then they have counted themselves out. Lots of local PEOPLE will be furious about this obvious delaying tactic. The business's that are in favour of the city square via Mr Wood/Ascef have already lost credibility & any lingering trust is eroding by the day
mike tyers
Report this comment

I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

If Ian Wood and the ASCEF had ANY decency, ANY commom coutresey whatsoever, they would stand behind the Peacock scheme when they saw how much support it had, and how few people actually want the civic bumker square thing that they imagine. They would help it get through, bridge the funding gap that they themselves have created with this whole pledge, and the 16 odd months that they've been desperately trying to force it on everyone. If Ian wood gave just a tenth of the money he was originaly prepared to invest in the civic square (and yes that is the right word, as opposed to give), the Peacock would be well under way, and so much more could be done to the gardens. How long is it going to take them to realise that this project delivers everything that they have asked the public in their consultation, and does so without destroying the contours of the gardens, or their intinsic visual interest.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Neil, if what you are saying is the truth (and I don't doubt it) then what is the point in the planning permission that PVA already earned? PVA's plan has been massively compromised by the investigation into Sir Ian's "vision" and now stands on the brink of oblivion because of a further delay which is widely - and quite rightly - seen as obfustocatory rather than necessary. The possibility you raise, whilst entirely plausible, also ignores the probability that any decision ACC make on a potential planning application for the CSP has already been compromised - one way or another - by the statement that ACC will not fund the CSP should it go ahead. Saying you will not put any resources into the capital funding for a major infrastructure project before it has come to planning is surely as prejudicial as it gets. Or am I misunderstanding last week's statement? Thanks for taking the time to post btw, perhaps you could ask Kevin Stewart to clarify his reported comments on Tuesday evening about individual donations to public projects? :-)
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Look we all know how the results of the consultation will be presented.. that the people of aberdeen want to see change in the gardens, that they want to see it safer, better, and used more. the first two thirds of the cinsultation is set up to show that no matter what.. the only concrete (pardon the pun) question is the YES/NO one, but that doesnt yield the results wanted. So once the 'conclusion' is published, ASCEF will then claim that the city square project will seek to deliver everything the public have 'asked for' in the consultation. They will take another year or so to produce a mildly modified version of the same proposal, and put it forward again. Of course all this time Halliday Fraser Munro, Stuart milne, and other Wood cronies will be paid for thei input. And by this point Peacock will be well out of the way, swept under the rug, and quite franlky, deliberately totally butchered by Ian Wood's 'generousity'. Then we'l have another consultation, once again only on the one proposal, and this will go on and on and on till the businsess folk get their way.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

If Ian Wood and the ASCEF had ANY decency, ANY commom coutresey whatsoever, they would stand behind the Peacock scheme when they saw how much support it had, and how few people actually want the civic bumker square thing that they imagine. They would help it get through, bridge the funding gap that they themselves have created with this whole pledge, and the 16 odd months that they've been desperately trying to force it on everyone. If Ian wood gave just a tenth of the money he was originaly prepared to invest in the civic square (and yes that is the right word, as opposed to give), the Peacock would be well under way, and so much more could be done to the gardens. How long is it going to take them to realise that this project delivers everything that they have asked the public in their consultation, and does so without destroying the contours of the gardens, or their intinsic visual interest.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

If Ian Wood and the ASCEF had ANY decency, ANY commom coutresey whatsoever, they would stand behind the Peacock scheme when they saw how much support it had, and how few people actually want the civic bumker square thing that they imagine. They would help it get through, bridge the funding gap that they themselves have created with this whole pledge, and the 16 odd months that they've been desperately trying to force it on everyone. If Ian wood gave just a tenth of the money he was originaly prepared to invest in the civic square (and yes that is the right word, as opposed to give), the Peacock would be well under way, and so much more could be done to the gardens. How long is it going to take them to realise that this project delivers everything that they have asked the public in their consultation, and does so without destroying the contours of the gardens, or their intinsic visual interest.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Neil, I respect your position as a local councillor and I'll accept your statement that there are legal restrictions on what you can say. I should also say that I am not involved with the Peacock scheme, I merely want the gardens to be preserved. I also think that our local politicians should not be so obsessed with the £50m wad. I don't think there would be that many in the city outside the Chamber of Commerce who would be that concerned with SIW walking away with his money as long as we got to keep our city centre park. I've talked to sir Ian, he clearly is not going to change his mind on the matter, it's the CSP or nothing. He's not going to spend the cash on anything else.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Neil, Your comment concerns me a bit "I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?". You have been elected to represent the people of Aberdeen. Surely your support should be based on the facts presented, objective analysis and public opinions, and not gained in such an emotive, flippant and childish manner? People are passionate about this subject and this passion shines through. This is also a public forum for people to voice their opinions, which Mike was doing. Are you going to 'vote for' IW because an individual questioned your political stance?
a bit worried
Report this comment

Neil, Your comment concerns me a bit "I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?". You have been elected to represent the people of Aberdeen. Surely your support should be based on the facts presented, objective analysis and public opinions, and not gained in such an emotive, flippant and childish manner? People are passionate about this subject and this passion shines through. This is also a public forum for people to voice their opinions, which Mike was doing. Are you going to 'vote for' IW because an individual questioned your political stance?
a bit worried
Report this comment

Neil, Your comment concerns me a bit "I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?". You have been elected to represent the people of Aberdeen. Surely your support should be based on the facts presented, objective analysis and public opinions, and not gained in such an emotive, flippant and childish manner? People are passionate about this subject and this passion shines through. This is also a public forum for people to voice their opinions, which Mike was doing. Are you going to 'vote for' IW because an individual questioned your political stance?
a bit worried
Report this comment

Neil Fletcher, i really appreciate your input, and the fact that you are responding to the comments people have aimed at councillors in general, thank you for that. I can see your pints now about keeping your opinions away from the public, at the end of the day, that's not where they really matter. As for your comment on not being 'slagged off' well i certainly hope you wont be letting any comments that people make on blogs affect your decisions. your professionalism is pretty eveident in your justification of not supportorting or judging the scheme publicly, i hope this carries through to that aspect as well. I understand also that you are in the position that will always draw such comments, whenever people feel dissatisfaction, the consilors are the first people that it's aimed at, and that's unfortunate.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Neil, Your comment concerns me a bit "I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?". You have been elected to represent the people of Aberdeen. Surely your support should be based on the facts presented, objective analysis and public opinions, and not gained in such an emotive, flippant and childish manner? People are passionate about this subject and this passion shines through. This is also a public forum for people to voice their opinions, which Mike was doing. Are you going to 'vote for' IW because an individual questioned your political stance?
a bit worried
Report this comment

Neil, Your comment concerns me a bit "I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?". You have been elected to represent the people of Aberdeen. Surely your support should be based on the facts presented, objective analysis and public opinions, and not gained in such an emotive, flippant and childish manner? People are passionate about this subject and this passion shines through. This is also a public forum for people to voice their opinions, which Mike was doing. Are you going to 'vote for' IW because an individual questioned your political stance?
a bit worried
Report this comment

Neil, Your comment concerns me a bit "I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?". You have been elected to represent the people of Aberdeen. Surely your support should be based on the facts presented, objective analysis and public opinions, and not gained in such an emotive, flippant and childish manner? People are passionate about this subject and this passion shines through. This is also a public forum for people to voice their opinions, which Mike was doing. Are you going to 'vote for' IW because an individual questioned your political stance?
a bit worried
Report this comment

Neil, Your comment concerns me a bit "I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?". You have been elected to represent the people of Aberdeen. Surely your support should be based on the facts presented, objective analysis and public opinions, and not gained in such an emotive, flippant and childish manner? People are passionate about this subject and this passion shines through. This is also a public forum for people to voice their opinions, which Mike was doing. Are you going to 'vote for' IW because an individual questioned your political stance?
a bit worried
Report this comment

Neil Fletcher, i really appreciate your input, and the fact that you are responding to the comments people have aimed at councillors in general, thank you for that. I can see your pints now about keeping your opinions away from the public, at the end of the day, that's not where they really matter. As for your comment on not being 'slagged off' well i certainly hope you wont be letting any comments that people make on blogs affect your decisions. your professionalism is pretty eveident in your justification of not supportorting or judging the scheme publicly, i hope this carries through to that aspect as well. I understand also that you are in the position that will always draw such comments, whenever people feel dissatisfaction, the consilors are the first people that it's aimed at, and that's unfortunate.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Neil, Your comment concerns me a bit "I've had another thought;-) since it is the Councillors who's support is required to get the decision folk above are looking for, why do you believe that the best way to win that support is to slag them off?". You have been elected to represent the people of Aberdeen. Surely your support should be based on the facts presented, objective analysis and public opinions, and not gained in such an emotive, flippant and childish manner? People are passionate about this subject and this passion shines through. This is also a public forum for people to voice their opinions, which Mike was doing. Are you going to 'vote for' IW because an individual questioned your political stance?
a bit worried
Report this comment

By the way,the 'vote' we botha re talking about is well well down the line, it's something that would only go ahead if a planning application was made, and the civic bunker is nowhere near that stage. Unless i have mistaken this whole consultation thing, and it is in fact a pre planning consultation that the new change in planning pilicies dictates before any majour development is put forward. Wouldnt put it past ASCEF to do that either, and this is in fact them just ticking a mandatory box so that they cal liodge a full planning application now.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

If Neil Fletcher feels he has been insulted and slagged off as he suggest, could it be because of his rather petty statement of if you can do better then stand for election. Also his last comment could be construed as a subtle threat. Is this the way the council is run. So much for the oath they are supposed to uphold. This debate, debauchle has not got a lot going for the democracy of the citizens. If he is so worried about the legal issues. Why then did they allow Wood to go ahead. Why did they allow Peacock to win approval then renage on it? All this because Wood dangled a carrot of 50 million. So Neil without being insulting or slagging you off, can you please answer these couple of questions. They would explain a lot about what is going on. Wood's plan should never have been allowed as planning permission was already granted. Does this mean in future that it does not matter how good a plan is, if someone with some spare money butts in, they can have their way. So much for democracy, decency and just plain common sense. Please reply with some answers, not balderdash.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Minnie, as much as i think your comment is slightly over the top, you do have a point. The PVA scheme was approved,and ready to start on site, it should never have been put in the position it is in. In fact had ASCEF at any point stated that they will find a way to make the PVA happen should their 'exploration' of Ian wood's vision prove inadequate, it would have been a different story, and the opposition would have been significantly less passionate. In no other city would such a development get put on hold to investigate something so vague, and to then take another few months to and try and convince people that it really would work. As for Neil fletcher's defensiveness, i will once again criticise it as slightly unprofessional, but i wil also show understanding, and also gratitude for taking the time to respond to people on an online forum.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

minnie my dear unions stand together, we are not capable of it any more, its a disgrace and nobody will do anything, dont vote, dont pay council tax we are all feart of what might happen, the new world my a---. Nothing you can do i dont know why anybody votes.
bob seivwright
Report this comment


bob seivwright
Report this comment

Anarchy and revoloution are the answer or become a councillor with the power to waffle
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

Firstly, I'm well aware that this is a public forum, not a private chat room. Whatever anyone posts here should be treated as public, despite our natural British inclination to speak more freely in cyberspace. When Councillors take the final decision, there will be some who are finely balanced between opposing views. There will be no political guide, and they will be free to do exactly as their conscience tells them. If they are genuinely torn, they will come down on the side that they believe represents natural justice, and such a decision nay well be influenced by the behaviour of the two sides in a debate. Of this were not the case, then so many opponents to the scheme wouldn't be making reference to the motives of Sir Ian.
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

Neil Fletcher, instead of wasting your time arguing with people on here you should be out filling potholes in our disgraceful roads. There are plenty to do you know!!!!!
desperate red
Report this comment

I'm travelling on a train, so filling potholes would be a little diificult, even if if I was trained to do so. Maybe your own time would be better spent lobbying national politicians to give more road tax revenue to councils. The pothole problem is a national one, and as the lowest funded council it is a miracle that we are dealing with it better than many other authorities.
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

Oh Well. Time will tell - The opponents t his scheme wouldn't be making reference to his motives. What else are people supposed to think??? What are the motives, architects have already said it is not a good idea. Many others have voiced the same opinion. So yes I do question his motives. For someone to be so dogmatic and unrelenting in his bid to get the gardens covered, with only the Idea that it is supposed to make the centre more ameniable. No concrete proof of this, only the stubbord, unrelenting attitude towards the "vocal minority" What else are people to think of someone who butts in others plans and scuppers them with only the blatant comment of My millions, my way or nothing. Nothing to be proud of in that statement. I see you still have not answered the question as to why Sir Wood was not told that plans were already approved so thank you and goodbye.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

I always challenge people who are critcal to either ensure they use their vote, or even better stand for the Council themselves. I was unhappy with the Council, which is why I stood! This sort of forum is an excellent way for folk to get things off their chest, and have a go at those in power. As it's a public forum, no-one should be surprised if their views are responded to by the people they are criticising. If someone posts illinformed comments theyay well be countered. What constantly surprises me is how black and white so many folk believe these issues to be, when in fact there's always far more grey. It also saddens me that when people do not agree with each other's deeply held views that they then resort to personal abuse. When we get to the end of this process, I look forward to being able share my views on the actual issue.
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

I agree. It's also a shame when good and valid points are hidden by hyperbole and ranting. Arguments are diluted by insults, repetition and conjecture. I think this is why a lot of opinion has been dismissed.
a bit worried
Report this comment

With regard to Minnie's comments, if the Council had told Sir Ian that his offer of £50m of his own money was not welcome, then we would simply have no credibility in the eyes of those we are asking to beter fund our City. What the Council is doing is to look at the feasability of the offer, whilst continuing to support Peacock financially to see it through the process. We will neither abandon hopes of securing this investment, nor kill off Peacock's plan, until we are absolutely ready with all the information to take an informed decision. Whilst on this forum, everyone wants us to do one thing, there is also much pressure to do the other. Emotions are running very high on both sides, and those of us who will take the final decision will need to see through the bluster, and take a calmer view. Thanks for the debate, I'm off to look find a way through Edinburgh's potholes.
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

I thought the consultation was over and it would take weeks to sort out. So why is the EE no got some Dundee development dircetor warning Aberdeen how sorry we will be if we do nothing with the centre of Aberdeen. What with the EE comments saying the same thing. Pity nobody told Mile Galloway that there is a perfectly feasable and beatiful plan for the centre of Aberdeen in existance and has planning permission. So why do the EE feel it is correct to have a whole centre page extolling Dundee's Vision and we should be grateful for the Wood one. Don't they ever give up. The heading is Dundee boss iis plea over Aberdeens future. Would he not be better seeing to Dundees. Wish I knew where the Scottish government, Entreprise etc are getting all these millions from Dundee to get millions, new pool for Aberdeen (if we are lucky), a new bypass Maybe and money for the UTG IF we accept Woods plan. So accoroding to the EE our city centre fiasco is still on, with them stirring all the time.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Neil thanks for your comments, they're very interesting and it's sad some people are too emotional at the moment to think about them for a second.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Will people stop refreshing the page after you've made a comment! Every time you do that it get's reposted. (no doubt this will get reposted 10 times now).
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Neil, without jeopardising their impartiality re planning, surely councillors could inform Acsef that they can not repeatedly change the rules of engagement. Whether you and your colleages like it or not, there is a genuinely held view by the citizens that Peacock's have been treated very shabbily, and yes emotions have been running high. I was born and brought up in Aberdeen and have not witnessed this level of debate on any issue, and I have been heartened by it. So, Neil, please do not rebuke us, rather reserve the rebuke for those who would try to put democracy on its head. There will be no civic square - there will be a car park, some shops, maybe a hotel a lot of concrete and some bushes. Please tell it like it is. The only people slavering for this civic square, so called, are the developers, architects, et al...
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Try to ignore the Express, minnie, you'll feel better for it. They also claimed the US architect of Houston's Discovery green said that city square would be phenomenal, without asking what he thought of CSP or actually telling him anything about it. Might be worth chasing up this Dundee chap to see if he's actually been asked anything, or if they just feel like attributing random quotes to him
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

Neil Fletcher - "road tax"? What's that? Do you mean "car tax"? I think you do.
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Neil, if you haven't fallen into an Edinburgh pothole, didn't the lib dems on the council come out in support of a new Aberdeen football stadium at Loirston? Surely that is a future planning issue? I'm not sure that you are being consistent here. I think if the council are culpable, it's that they allowed ACSEF to proceed with a totally unfair consultation exercise, when they could have used their influence to ensure taht it was fair. They could have stopped what has turned out to be public relations disaster for ACSEF, an exercise which has lost them credibility and trust with a substantial part of the Aberdeen population.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

A bit off topic, but The soloution for an olympic sized pool for Aberdeen is almost here. Once all the potholes have joined togehter we fill them with water and hey presto! The only problem is that some of them may fall foul of the regulations as they could be too deep and dangerous for a swiming pool :-)
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

I think some excerpts from the Councillors "code of conduct" is needed for clarity. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/04/14492/2560#7 the section we need here is section 7.10 which states, "If you propose to take part in the consideration of planning applications at a meeting of a committee or of the Council, you must not give grounds to doubt your impartiality. You must not make public statements about a pending application, to ensure that you are not seen to be prejudging a decision which will be made at the meeting where all the information required to take a decision will be available. You must not indicate or imply your support or opposition to a proposal, or declare your voting intention, before the meeting. Anyone who may be seeking to influence you must be advised that you will not formulate an opinion on a particular proposal until all available information is to hand and has been duly considered at the relevant meeting." You need to note that this is for pending applications, Peacock is not "pending" as it was accepted so councillors can indeed comment to their hearts content about their proposal. CSP is also not "pending" as its only a concept, however it may become "pending" therefore I understand councillors hesitation in commenting. However this excerpt states that "You must not indicate or imply your support or opposition to a proposal, or declare your voting intention", which means that councillers CAN comment on the CSP, the consultation and whatever they like, as long as they do not DECLARE or IMPLY their voting intentions, surely any politician worth their wage can do this. I would also like to point everyone to this: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/11/19125906/5 we need to look at sections 7.6: "The handling of individual applications should not limit you from discussing or debating matters of policy or strategy, notwithstanding that these may provide the framework within which individual applications will in due course be decided" This reinforces the fact that councillors are free to speak and can comment on many things, such as the consultation. And finally (in the same page), 7.7 "Therefore in your key role in establishing planning policies for the area, you are fully entitled to express your views or advocate proposals on the making, approval or amendment of the development plan." Note the part "you are fully entitled to express your views". Take from that what you will. I have confronted a few councillors with this but they say the "Code of Conduct" is open for interpretation, and they are too scared to comment in case they are omitted from the vote.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

And also Neil, I'm not sure that there has been too much misrepresentation of sir Ian Wood's motives in donating £50M for the CSP. The odd occasional wild comment, yes, but I think most of the people writing on this blog have tried to be fair in their views. Sir Ian Wood is clearly sincere in his motives in wanting to donate such a large amount of money for his scheme, and yes he is being very generous. I've heard him talk twice and briefly chatted to him after the first talk at the university. At this talk he made it plain that he was not interested in a city square at St Nicholas. The second time round, at the public meeting, he was not in favour of a compromise that substantially keeps the gardens intact and moves the city square over the dual carriageway. He is totally focussed on his plan and has been for many years apparently. I don't agree with him and told him so. He was gracious enough to recognise my point of view as the heritage argument. The great shame in all of this is that he picked Union Terrace Gardens for his scheme, a much-loved city centre park. I just wish he could use his fortune elsewhere in the city, but I don't think I would be misrepresenting him by saying that this will never happen.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

What's more Neil, politics has been in the background to the CSP ever since day 1. How about this from the Times on the 11th November 2008. Sir Ian Wood outlined his plans yesterday in front of an audience at the HMT which included Alex Salmond .... Mr Salmond said 'It is therefore important, indeed vital that the city has a centre, a heart of the calibre which fits the international status.' Can't say that any of the other parties come out of this debacle smelling of roses including your own. They have been mesmerised by the £50M pot of gold and seem to have lost all critical faculties as to the propriety of the scandalous consultation exercise.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

I just also wanted to comment that I too was at the Live Debate on Tuesday night and was disappointed that the EE omitted to report the overwhelming opposition (about 80%)against the CSP. If this is indicative of the feelings of Aberdonions our press and councillors should take heed of it.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

With attitudes like Neil Fletchers it's little surprise the ACC is sailing rudderless though a sea of debt. He's afraid to voice any opinion. Every decision from council will be a complete surprise then. It's the same as the huge debt we've incurred for Marischal we weren't given any indication until it was too late to steer a rational course. How about a little fiscal restraint. Stop giving ACSEF blank cheques to waste money on public consultations when you've already granted planning permission for Peacock.Surely if councillors are afraid of being sued the risk is greatest if they grant planning permission and then fund proposals for alternatives. Even the potted plants that fill ACC can see this is a conflict of interest.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

I have to disagree re: Marischal College, I think this was and is an inspired plan and worth every penny. What it lacks is a city square right in front of it when it is finished. Moving into Marischal College is the most cost effective way to the problem of where to house the council hq now that St Nicholas house has given up the ghost (and good riddance to it too). I'd like to hear of any other ideas of what to do that would be cheaper.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

Maybe the Marischal College is an inspired plan,but worth the money? I doubt it by the time it is finished it will probably cost triple the original amount.There is also the fact that it will not hold all the staff decanted from the council HQ. With regards to the city square.Lets face it, I do not think the ACC will listen to what the people of Aberdeen want.They havent before.I believe I could make a guess as to where the Councillors noses are firmly placed.
Aber Donian
Report this comment

This whole process, enacted by ASCEF, has been scurrilous from start to finish. From the outset by biasing the 'consultation' (PR exercise) by excluding the Peacock scheme to the now delayed result due to the volume of responses having previously claimed that the poor response jeopardised their desired outcome. Backed by a wholly biased media in the form of Aberdeen Journals. If the councillors of Aberdeen City wish to maintain credibility in this process then they should back the Peacock solution (which effectively ASCEF did before the offer of money from Wood) and then seek to wind up ASCEF and re-constitute it as a proper forum for the development of the City and region where interests of those other than the business community are properly represented.
Mike Miller
Report this comment

Well said Mike, but some how I don't think our councillors have the b***s to do that.
Robert Horne
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.