Arts group accuses top officials of ignoring views

By Calum Ross

Published: 13/05/2010

An Aberdeen arts group has accused the local authority’s top officials of “completely ignoring” its position in the struggle over the future of the city centre.

Peacock Visual Arts raised concerns yesterday that a report to councillors on the proposed development of Union Terrace Gardens was “contradictory” and missing the “full facts”.

It comes after the Press and Journal revealed that council chief executive Sue Bruce and her top team had recommended approval of Sir Ian Wood’s £50million pledge towards the creation of a new civic square at the site.

The report produced by the council’s most senior officials appeared to offer a compromise proposal, with an “iconic” new Peacock centre to be included, as well as guarantees which are designed to protect the heritage and topography of the site.

But Peacock Visual Arts had previously made clear to the officials that it could not be part of the city square project.

Its members had said the decision was taken for a variety of reasons, including funding implications, its pressing need to find a new home and the results of a public consultation which showed 55% of almost 12,000 residents were against the scheme.

Director Lindsay Gordon said the group had consistently called for a compromise but that was not what was being offered by Mrs Bruce.

“It appears that all of Sir Ian's parameters for the city square remain intact and that the council is being asked to vote in favour of a concept that the people clearly rejected in the public consultation,” he said.

He added that proposed assurances that the existing shape and history of the gardens be retained seemed “contradictory” to the recommendation to approve the city square plans.

“Most worryingly, Peacock's contribution to the officers preparing the report has been completely ignored,” he said.

“The paper takes no account of Peacock's board’s position, taken after long and careful consideration, that we cannot be part of the city square project.”

“Councillors now appear to be having to make a judgment without access to full and accurate information.” Opposition Labour councillors last night called for delegations from the groups to be allowed to make presentations to the full council meeting on Wednesday, when the report will be discussed.

An Aberdeen City Council spokesman said: “The report acknowledges the clear consultation feedback that the gardens should be a focus for arts and culture.

“For that reason it recommends that the project provides at least £15million for a new centre for Peacock.

“The council believes that transforming the gardens and providing an iconic building for Peacock are not mutually exclusive and that a win/win outcome can be achieved.”

Tom Smith, chairman of Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef), the development body spearheading plans for the square, welcomed the report.

“Acsef welcomes the recommendation from council officials to support the vision encapsulated by the city square concept,” he said.

“The comprehensive report provides councillors with the facts they need to make a hugely important decision on the future of our city.

“It would appear that the council shares the view of Acsef and its partners that the city can have it all – an iconic arts centre, bigger and better gardens within a major civic space that will provide a focal point for the city while taking account of the existing topography and heritage of the location.”

Reader's Comments

Anyone having read the report will find the fourth paragraph pf this article completely wrong. The report does not in any way offer a compromise, nor does it suggest guarantees to protect the heritage and topography of the site. It merely claims that the PVA building will be housed within the CSP, at a new location of the same area, (and even assumes the funding already promised for the current proposal will be transfered) and that the new square will take into account the topography, and produce it's own swerves and swoops, to immititate the topography. It is in no way whatsoever modified from what the HFM report has outlined, and what the consultation has promoted. It is the EXACT same proposal, for the exact same unrealistic cost, and calls for the exact same paramaters, but with an interesting introduction about the heritage and importance of UTG, which then gets completely ignored in the rest of the report. In a nutshell, this is the report.. 'Blah Blah, since roman times we have had great leaders that have made important decisions.. blah blah, Aberdeen has a unique city centre sunken gardens that absolutely needs to be preserved... blah blah, we also have to secure aberdeen's economic position and transform it into a modern city, blah.. blah we recomment a new 6.7 acre platform over the UTG that will preserve the topography anf heritahe of the site by introducing similar swerves and swoops.. blah blah, it will double the greenery, blah and include the PVA as a compromise, exactly where we have always said it would go, blah blah, oh and there are infite ways in which the 90 million deficit, whic is actually only a 70 million deficit, can be funded. blah.. thumbs up csp blah blah blah..'
Ved M
Report this comment

The key words in the report are 'the design will take into account, but not be constrained by..' that's just a carte blanche that one, so as long as you acknowledge that you are destroying the gardens, and scrapping a current proposal, it's ok to do it..
Ved M
Report this comment

The funniest thing is the funding section of the report. The way it's put together makes you think that the CSP will ONLY cost, up to 140 million, out of which 50m is already secured, and a further 20 can be given by the private sector, so really it's Only 70m that we need, it's so easy, there are So many ways in which this can be provided. The PVA however, will cost a WHOLE 13 million, However, they need a Whole 4 Million more, which is quite a large gap (underlined twice in bold in the report). An impossible gap raeally, so we should just focus on securing the more likely 'only 70m gap'.. i mean the thing is priceless, when it comes to explaining big words like paradox, deciet and political spin to my kids, this report will be what i will use as reading material.
Ved M
Report this comment

If the gardens are to be raised to street level - and that is the Wood proposal - how can the topography be maintained? How can mature trees grow through concrete? How can the sheltered position provided by the existing topography be maintained by elevation? The contrary would appear the obvious. How does the provision of an undulating concrete area, with a few plant pots and perhaps a water feature ensure the future of the city and bring it untold riches in the future? Acef should come clean. They basically want yet another retail park and hotel with underground parking, which will generate income for the investors. At the end of the day, ACC will be left to pick up the tab for maintaining this "public space" and those costs will be significantly higher than UTG, as they stand. The council should abide by it's own planning restrictions, but allow the PVA plan to go ahead. Any other outcome will have dire consequences.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

Ron, these questins have been asked over and over, and the answer is, 'they just do' how exactly does that work? 'it just does'. Then we are told that we are incapable of understanding the facts, and that we are imsinterpreting valuable information. I guess 'we just are'.
Ved M
Report this comment

Tom Smith says that "it would appear the council shares the view of Acsef". As a signatory to a letter complaining bitterly about "misunderstanding" perhaps Smith should consider the misleading nature of that statement. After all, it is a very small number of unelected officials who prepared the report, not the full council. How can Tom allow such distortions into the public realm when he accuses anybody opposing the CSP of spreading misunderstanding? Could it be because the majority of misunderstanding about the CSP comes from the fact that Acsef chose to conceal the contents of their own feasibility study and market a fantasy?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Ved - you've had sight of this report - where can we see it?
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

I'm sure that the Artistic community will be well looked after by ACC, the taxpayers of Aberdeen and Private Sector benefactors at the expense of the disabled, the disadvantaged and the old and frail. They just need to be careful and not cut off the hand that feeds them in pursuit of ideaology.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Ludvig, it's a lengthy read, basically just an over-elaborated version of that letter the businessmen wrote to the council.. the appendix on the PVA meeting minutes is interesting................... http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Published/C00000122/M00000371/AI00005499/AberdeenCityCentre.pdf
Ved M
Report this comment

Sandy, would you be happy to make your point clear? I have no idea what you're on about I'm afraid.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Big words sandy, not sure i understand them. Artistic community? i assure you i am not part of any imaginary or existing aritst community, i've given you my reasons for wanting the PVA to go ahead in the letters page comments.
Ved M
Report this comment

Sandy - as George Bernard Shaw said: “Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable.” Your hostility to the arts is a matter of record. You should be aware that arts provide both the context for and a commentary upon the life we all live. You think and perceive the world around you the way you do only because of a legacy of artists interpreting reality stretching back to ancient Greece and beyond. You are their product. You should be careful not to bite the hand that created you.
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

That's deep Ludvig.. deep
Ved M
Report this comment

HI Sandy I'm just going to jump in here. One of many things Peacock do is work wit charities like Barnardo's, who work with some of the North East's most vulnerable and disadvataged children. Some (not all) of these are the ones, for example, who grow up in families were substance abuse is common, meaning the children are left to pretty much fend for themselves................................. The chance to express some of their fears and experiences through art helps to give them the confidence and support to face their fears and make the choices in life that will see them grow up to become valued members of society...................................... Sure, Peacock doubtless have some weird and wonderful things, and artists that I don't 'get', but they also work with some of the most vulnerable in society. ULTIMATELY, this work saves the local authority money. Next time ACSEF or anyone tries to argue that PVA is 'exclusive to arty-farty types', tell them to come and see me, and I'll introduce them to some of the kids at Barnardo's who PVA help the charity to help.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

Ved - thanks for the link. I'll read at my leisure. Skimming it right now and getting quite a laugh from some of the grandiloquence: Union Street: "the city’s principle thoroughfare and the grandest street in Scotland". The Green: "is of national importance". Castlegate: "the termination of a grand procession through the city from east to west."
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Sandy - this forum is for all views, and that is fine, because unless you hadn't noticed the P&J and the EE are very partisan and biased - probably protecting their advertising. (They should perhaps try to protect their readership). What Acsef has produced in their 'new' report, with the co-operation of a couple of un-elected officials, who are employees of the council is same old......same old...... I listened to Mr Blackwood of Acsef give his presentation last night and basically they want carte blanche to do that they like. When the money runs out, as it will, guess who's picking up the tabs? You and me sunshine! And they cannot guarantee that it will have the economic impact they are suggesting. The treatment that P.V.A. have received (whether or not you are in favour of their plans) at the hands of Acsef and the city council has been quite shocking, and P.V.A. through it all have remained circumspect and dignified. I also object to the way that you and others infer that pro PVA supporters are ill-informed (we're not): organized (we're not) and of little consequence. We do, however, have a feeling of powerlessness that is well-founded, because we can also see through the spin. £300,000 of public money was spent on a consultation the result of which showed that the citizens did not wish a Civic Square in U.T.G. Sir Ian Wood said, publicly, that if the people did not wish it then he would take his offer off the table. It comes down to who is running this city - a bunch of plutocrats who think they know best? Let them loose and you do so at your peril.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Might the new mis/disinformation strategies being deployed by supporters of the destruction of Victorian gardens and replacing them with a concrete slope replicating, in some small way, the natural topography of mature and beautiful parkland include CENSORSHIP AND SILENCING? I am having difficulty getting my posts up. Is it just me? G.raham Slat.er
Graeme Slaterr
Report this comment

No, Graeme, that'll be the rather laborious and out-moded internet architecture that Aberdeen Journals use for their comments. Clearly they like clunky, impractical and user-unfriendly solutions. This may well explain their enthusiasm for the CSP, perhaps?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Dorothy - "a bunch of plutocrats who think they know best". If only they did! From the report in question: "Peak oil production is now in the distant past and current predictions suggest that as much as 25 billion barrels of oil might still be able to be produced with most of that being in the next 10 years. The current position is that there are 6 years of proven reserves." EEEK. These plutocrats should get on with some enterprise, innovation and re-investment: in short, the capitalism which creates value and wealth. Retail is not wealth creation - quite the reverse; it's the 'sink' sector where excess value is drained from the economy. Their "future dream is a shopping scheme". But without wealth creation, who's buying?
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

It is outrageous that Sue Bruce is backing the ACSEF project after stating to me in a letter dated 25th March 2010 that Aberdeen City Council awaits the final results of the public consultation. Here is an extract. 'In responding it should be noted that Aberdeen City Council is not the direct sponsor of either of the two proposals currently being advanced for the Union Terrace gardens area. These are the primary responsibility of Peacock Visual Arts Ltd and ACSEF rather than that of Aberdeen City Council...Aberdeen City Council awaits the outcome of the public engagement and consultation process, without prejudice to its ability to determine any future planning application' So now that the results are known, and do not favour the ACSEF scheme, Aberdeen City Council are going against the public's decision found via the publicly funded consultation. How is the decision to back Sir Ian Wood's plan not without prejudice? I just don't understand? After all, the planning application for the ACSEF scheme has not been lodged, yet Sue Bruce is still publicly backing it?! The council are now blatantly going against the public consultation and making a mockery of their own earlier assertions to be neutral and fair.
Happy Aberdonian
Report this comment

It is outrageous that Sue Bruce is backing the ACSEF project after stating to me in a letter dated 25th March 2010 that Aberdeen City Council awaits the final results of the public consultation. Here is an extract. 'In responding it should be noted that Aberdeen City Council is not the direct sponsor of either of the two proposals currently being advanced for the Union Terrace gardens area. These are the primary responsibility of Peacock Visual Arts Ltd and ACSEF rather than that of Aberdeen City Council...Aberdeen City Council awaits the outcome of the public engagement and consultation process, without prejudice to its ability to determine any future planning application' So now that the results are known, and do not favour the ACSEF scheme, Aberdeen City Council are going against the public's decision found via the publicly funded consultation. How is the decision to back Sir Ian Wood's plan not without prejudice? I just don't understand? After all, the planning application for the ACSEF scheme has not been lodged, yet Sue Bruce is still publicly backing it?! The council are now blatantly going against the public consultation and making a mockery of their own earlier assertions to be neutral and fair.
Happy Aberdonian
Report this comment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8679408.stm listen to the radio link half way down the page
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8679408.stm listen to the radio link half way down the page
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

The fact that Sue Bruce was included in the ACSEF board meetings along with John Stewart shows that the decisions were made a while back. Now she has come out and state this plan is good. Never mind the principles of the whole thing, the waste of money, when she should just have told Wood to go ahead and save us some money instead of us having this blatant deceitful consultation. If I recall she was employed a year and a half ago with an enomous salarty to see that ACC made good use of their finances. Well it seems she is as good as the rest of the council for throwing it about like confetti. You only have to take a walk around the city to see the many apolgies for architecture and model design by our council. St Nicholas House,(younger than my house, but now unfit for purpose) The John Lewis store, ex Coop, the Haudigan, the beach promenade spoilt by the building facing away from the sea, instead of cafes. A large ugly building the Amadeus left to rot for years. The White elephant of the AECC needing millions to keep it going. This is what they want us to accept for the UTG. We are told it is a win win situation. How,???? No the win win situation is get Peacock project started and get the Civic centre where it should be. in fact where the council originally wanted it to be. That is until it got blinkered by Wood/ACSEF and the millions. The only reason so far is to connect the Union Square mall with the rest of the town, because the council managed as usual to build not only the wrong building but the wrong place. Do they learn by the mistakes, no they compound them by wanting to destroy the city centre. All that blarney about Union Street. Who let the the cheap shops on the street, who let more pubs on it. Who built another mall so that shops do not stay on Union Street. Not the public, but the council, wrong again. We have had the promises to see our city come alive with good projects discarded because some millionaire with too much money "donate" for his vision. We have a few millionaires in the city all becasue of the Oil. How much have they contributed to the city - Nothing. And when they do, they want to vandalise the centre to make way for retail. No matter what they say that is what they have on their web site. We know we have a weak council, who can be swayed by money. But for Sue Bruce, who has only been in the city less than 2 years propose the council take the offer is dismaying. As for Tom Smith expecting or suggesting money from the governmnet. I would think their coffers will be a bit bare, with the Bypass and now the Forth Bridge. A much more important project than killing our city centre. I cannot believe that a Chief Executive employed to make savings for the city, could be so swayed by the self interest of the ACSEF.
minnie mo
Report this comment

I just listened to the radio link and it's hard to believe that councilor Marie Boulton told the BBC "It's not going to be an easy decision." A straw pole with 8 for and 67 against and she recons she has a hard decision. (Is she stupid or what) We already have a development planned and approved for UTG in the form of PVA. ACC can’t afford the CSP considering the amount of debt they are in at the moment and that’s just one reason not to go ahead with Wood’s folly. Now the Aberdeen Society of Architects said its members were also 100% opposed the City Square plan.
Robert Horne
Report this comment

Robert I can see any objection from Aberdeen Society of Architects.http://www.aberdeenarchitects.org/index.html Your not telling porkies now are you
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Hey Mr. 'fa's this spanish loon like, and fit's he daein north aff the equator' yes sandy milne i do think you don;t know where spain is. Robert is right, listen to the BBC radio extract yourself, or for that matter, there was an article a while back where aberdeen architects unanimously condemned the csp, in this very paper.
Ved M
Report this comment

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1521733 http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1521073 I think these may be the articles you are looking for Sandy.
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

I see the rabid dogs are back!!
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Hey Sandy, I’m just stating what it said on the link, go have a read and then click on the radio link. I have never told porkies in my life (ha ha)
Robert Horne
Report this comment

Sandy, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8679408.stm contains this: "Meanwhile, the Aberdeen Society of Architects said its members were also opposing the City Square plan."
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Pretty sure at my last checkup I was diagnosed rabies-free. I should also point out it wasn't at a Vet either. Simply answering your query.
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

Our council has turned its back on its own planning ideals. Then again we have council who is sueing itself or one of its departments. That gives a lot of faith in our council. They must be the biggest joke of all councils in Scotland. Why is it that most people who can read, can see just what is envisaged on the ACSEF site, no matter how much they try and sugar coat it. It is even more surprising that 50 business men (notably no women, having more sense probably) are on bended knee to get this approved. These same men whos fortunes all came with the oil, in one or another. Now if they are all good business men why would they want us to believe that there is no profit for them is this scheme. If not why are they grovelling. If yes, let us know what it really is. This council has let the city down with its ideas of beauty, especially in its buildings. Kepplestone being one of the worst eyesores yet. Yet this business man is not content to ruin a beautiful street, he now wants to ruin the city centre. The First bus owner, cannot get the busses to run on time, charges the people in Aberdeen more than any other city, he now want his way on this. Just look at them all, all have made their fortune with the run of oil, now they are panicking and think that making Aberdeen like some other cities would work. No it would not because they have already ruinded the city over the years and there is not much left. Look at the things that the council has handed over to be run more efficiatly, like the Theatre, That is a classic example of their ineptitude. Again for Sue Bruce to encourage this seems to show that she is not upholding her job requirment very well.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Once concreted over, the beautiful, historical UTG will be gone forever. Having visited relatives recently in the city and seeing all the empty shops(including in the new Union Square shopping centre and Union Street)and office blocks, I dont see why this project is in any way good!!?? Come on Aberdeen council, you already approved the plans from peacock and public opinion backs this plan. Try to listen to what people WANT for a change!
Dream Contrast
Report this comment

Ved I certainly know where Spain is. I've seen more of the world than you'd ever wish to see believe me. From those travels I appreciate how good a city Aberdeen is but also appreciate it could be a whole lot better also.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Well it could be better if the council tell ACSEF that we do not want their idea what is good for the city. The Peacock plan gives us both a garden, a city centre green spot and a cultural building which will open up the centre without vandalising the heritage and history of our city. When St Nicholas house is demolished, the best place with the Marischal college in front and the Provost Skene in place, that is the ideal place for a Civic Square. That gives Aberdeen the advantage over some other cities of having 2 Civic squares. It seems that you are well travelled but it does seem that you do not appreciate the way the gardens could look if the Peacock plan is carried out. This has always been a lovely area in the centre, with a beautiful Victorian toilets. Which our "Progressive council " has managed to destroy OUR history and heritage. I have not been so lucky as to see all these places you have visited, but I have read plenty and do not know of many of them who have destroyed their city as much as the councils of Aberdeen has done. To show slides of other cities squares does not mean a thing apart from wanting to be the same and have no originality. The past performance of our planning departments have not been anything to applaud, in fact they are some of the worst in Scotland. Anyone who could approve the building of the John Lewis building had to be blind. As for the construction of the Haudigan, that showed a large amount of future thinking didn't it. And you think we should let them loose on the only decent thing in the city. No way .
minnie mo
Report this comment

Sandy Milne, you are absolutely right, aberdeen is a great city, and you are also right that it could be so much better, and i think the heat in both our arguements comes from that desire. I appreciate it's uniqueness, and i'd hate to see a poor immitation of what can be found everywhere else in the world forced on it. I'd love to see a thriving project that responds well to the context succeed in a commerce driven highly political environment. Let's hote the CSP gets binned and the PVA goes agead, and the imrpovements to aberdeen keep coming. I don't take your comment to heart by the way, it was well deserved, as i did get petty, so apologies for that.
Ved M
Report this comment

Ved I appreciate your comments and I'm sure we both want the best to happen here. We'll just have to beg to differ on what is the best solution here. Some form of compromise from a reasoned debate is democracy in action and a true victory for civilised society here's hoping PVA, the sentimental faction, the developers and most important the Citizens of Aberdeen win out.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

The next time the senior management sit down to look at areas where to save money, they seriously need to reconsider the amount of money they have handed over to ACSEF it is quangos like this we DO NOT NEED. One of my reasons for voting for the Peacock Visual Arts project other than thinking this is the best otion for the City was due the the way that ACSEF and Wood have conducted their selves, with their lies, false promises,bullying tactics and arrogance.
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

Lord Lucan you need to get back on Shergar and disappear again. The amount of money going into Arts Projects hasn't been cut by ACC but I do agree quangos need to be cut back. That said you've got to speculate to accumulate.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Pity that ACSEF and the rest could all not vanish into thin air. The city would be so much happier. The saying. This is what is supposed to be our future. Sorry Sandy, if you think they can do all that they want with their"vision" on £14 million you are more deluded than them. They don't even know how much the rail folk will want, never mind the buildings Belmont Street. Then the engineering surveys, that is only the start, Would imagine that most of the £140 would be long gone by now. Woods £50million a drop in the ocean. ALl this for one mans "Vision" Ridiculous. If anyone should get on Shergar, well fancy a ride Sandy.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Sorry should read £140 million, before Sandy gets on his horse again.
minnie mo
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.