£4.3m error claimed in square report

By Calum Ross

Published: 18/05/2010

The Scottish Arts Council (Sac) has accused the most senior local authority official in Aberdeen of making an “incorrect assumption” in a key report on the future of the city centre.

Councillors meet tomorrow to make what could be one of the most important civic decisions in Aberdeen’s history – whether or not to back Sir Ian Wood’s proposed £140million city square development at Union Terrace Gardens.

Aberdeen City Council chief executive Sue Bruce and her team have recommended approval of the scheme, which comes with a £50million pledge from the Sir Ian – but only on condition that it includes a new Peacock Visual Arts centre.

But Mrs Bruce was told yesterday by Sac director Iain Munro that a crucial £4.3million grant from the body towards Peacock’s rival plans for a centre in the gardens could not be transferred to the square project as part of a compromise deal, as implied in the report.

Peacock had planning permission and most of its funding in place when Sir Ian unveiled his plans. The Sac has repeatedly extended its offer to allow the two sides to try to reach a compromise, but its final funding deadline runs out next month.

In an e-mail to Mrs Bruce, Mr Munro said: “If I am interpreting your recommendations correctly, your first suggests that any consortium progressing the city square project would have access to the Scottish Arts Council’s investment.

“I’m afraid that’s incorrect.”

A spokesman for the council said officials intended to make the situation clear during tomorrow’s meeting.

Peacock last week accused the council’s officials of “completely ignoring” its position in the dispute, having previously informed Mrs Bruce’s team that it could not be part of the square project.

Meanwhile, the opposition Labour group on the council was meeting last night to decide if its 10 councillors would vote against Sir Ian’s plan for the gardens.

All other groups are believed to be split, and are expected to allow their councillors a free vote.

Peacock’s fight to keep its original plan for a £13.5million centre in the gardens received another boost yesterday.

The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland revealed all 122 delegates at its annual meeting had given their support to the arts organisation’s “visionary” proposal and rejected the “technically extremely difficult” plan for a city square.

And a second city pensioner pledged £10,000 of his personal funds to help deliver Peacock’s original scheme.

Retired city art teacher Roddy Millar, 66, said he was inspired by Renee-Margaret Slater, a former council worker who revealed at the weekend she would donate £10,000 of her redundancy package to Peacock.

Mr Millar, a former Cults Academy teacher, said: “I thought that since I had been fairly strong in my views it was about time I put my money where my mouth was.

“It seems to me to be the people against big business.”

The donations follow a previous pledge from Aberdeen musician Alasdair Johnston, who gave £10,000 – an inheritance from his late mother – to the Peacock scheme following a public meeting to discuss the rival bids.

It was reported at the weekend that an anonymous businessman had pledged £5million for the city square project, on top of Sir Ian’s £50million offer.

Reader's Comments

Let's give Sue a break. She's new. Busy spending her 135K/year salary. It's only a 4.3 million mistake. Small change in terms of ACC blunders. Remember they were going to sell Nicholas house for 20 million then discovered it was worthless, woops! Besides she must be busy prepare the next round of cutbacks. There's not much we can do anyway it cost 2 million to pension off her predecessor.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Let's give Sue a break. She's new. Busy spending her 135K/year salary. It's only a 4.3 million mistake. Small change in terms of ACC blunders. Remember they were going to sell Nicholas house for 20 million then discovered it was worthless, woops! Besides she must be busy prepare the next round of cutbacks. There's not much we can do anyway it cost 2 million to pension off her predecessor.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

There you have it, all 122 members of the RIAS have condemned the CSP, and praised the PVA, just like aberdeen's own society of architects has also unanimously done so. there is no divided opinion among the architects then! In fact i'm yet to meet one that supports the CSP. That should definately be taken into account on matters of city planning, over the recopmmendation of 50 odd businessmen.
Ved M
Report this comment

Of course, now take that one incorrect assumption of 4.3 million, and add it to some of the others.. like for instance that it will cost 140 million, when going by the omossions in the report, it will be at least 200 million for all that is outlined, but more likely double, when all is examined. then tale the assumtion that they 'believe' a further 20 million can be obtained from the private sector, nobody has commited to this. then take the assumption that TIF loans for 70 million (read 90) will not amount to 150 million in repayments, because this is just financial nonsense.. you get the pattern.. the whole thing is flawed and just does not stack up..
Ved M
Report this comment

Well there you go PVA don't have the funding after all. Nice easy excuse for the SAC not to shell out and blame someone else.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Looks as if Sue Bruce has tried (and failed) to blur or obfuscate what was always the clearly-stated SAC position, i.e., that their funding was specifically in relation to the Enrico Gonzales building, for which ACC has already granted planning permission.
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

Sandy, how can you possibly not understand the above article, really.. the PVA DO HAVE the funding, the 4.3 million is SPECIFIC to the brisac Gonzalles scheme, and if that goes ahead, it's theires. It's only if the CSP gets pushed through that this grant will be withdrawn, and that is the false assumption that Sue Bruce has made, that the CSP will somehow get its hands on money promised to the PVA.
Ved M
Report this comment

some food for our under bridge dwelling friend... http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1737940 - letter directly form Elly Rothney (PVA) about the funding. not that it matters, as haters hate anyway.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Ved in the real world there is a big difference between a promise and a contract. I doubt very much if a contract has been signed between PVA and the SAC to that effect it is extremely easy to withdraw what was promised in the event of changes in economic conditions.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Troll:- a mythical creature from an imaginary fantasy world. Says more about the mindset of the accusers than the accused.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

"A spokesman for the council said officials intended to make the situation clear during tomorrow’s meeting." Eh? So what was the report for then? Was there an intention other than to make the situation clear? Aberdeen's councillors ought to be asking some very hard questions of their officers, who have manifestly failed in their duty to give elected members a full and clear picture.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sandy the only myth and fantasy around is coming from you. You probably do understand the difference between a grant and a pledge, but prefer to try and get a rise out of folk by posting nonsense instead.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

top return in google - shows how outmoded / outdated / inconsequential some "contributors" are to a debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

The Press and Journal has just announced a "Spot The Troll" competition. Visit http://www.tolkienforums.com/Orthanc_2.jpg and mark an x where the Troll should be. The lucky winner will be whisked off in a limousine for a luxury weekend for two in a caravan in Clatt.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

It's time the people of Aberdeen faced up to reality. The business world and their supporters (which includes all the local media) want this scheme to go ahead. How dare we question their greater knowledge and wisdom! An anyway, how is Stewarty supposed to make a buck out of his Triple Kirk site without the parking this project will provide. Me? Cynical? Never!
Colin Aberdeen
Report this comment

sandy, by that logic then ian's 50 millin is completely non existant, so the whole csp is actually pointless.. not that it matters anyway.
Ved M
Report this comment

Colin, i dont think its making a buck off tripple kirks that Stewarty has his eye on, i think it's more the prospect of a contructin project worth 140 million and more that rocks his boat.. who do you think the contractors will be?
Ved M
Report this comment

here's a good article, interesting read for all, not sandy though he'l misunderstand it.......................................................... http://www.urbanrealm.co.uk/news/2380/RIAS_delegates_unanimously_reject_%E2%80%98City_Square%E2%80%99_plans.html
Ved M
Report this comment

and another................... http://www.urbanrealm.co.uk/news/2378/Mystery_donor_hopes_to_kick-start_Aberdeen%E2%80%99s_City_Square.html
Ved M
Report this comment

Whether the £50M is there or not is irrelevant. It's got to be spent or else George Osbourne and the HMRC will take it. You can bet a large amount of the 122 architects will change their minds when there is a sniff of public money going around so that they can leech off the taxpayer.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Ved, undoubtedly the contractors will be some of the Aberdeen busuiness clique if not Stewarty himself. I firmly believe he is in this plot to the hilt, and his pal Ian is just helping out. Stewart may be "the local boy done good", but I don't see anything he has done in this area as "good". He is a cultural vandal. Profit rules.
Colin Aberdeen
Report this comment

ditto colin, ditto.
Ved M
Report this comment

Sandy, you can bet they wouldnt.. never have i seen architectural opinion so clearly one sided before, ther have been so many debates on various developments deemed destructive and backward, but there have always been at least some architects supporting them.\ In this case its None, absolutely none. maybe the councillors should see this as a sign that it really is the uneversally slated proposal that should get binned.
Ved M
Report this comment

Ved I certainly wouldn't put my house or pension on that bet, that's for sure!!!
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Royal Family - A senior member of the royal family, it is reported, has today signed warrants for the incarceration in the Tower of London of 3 prominent, leading, successful Aberdeen businessmen/entrepreneurs/tycoons. The trio will be taken into the subterranean cells via Traitors' Gate and may never see daylight again. it is thought. The arrest will be executed by Yeoman Garders, with pikes and bludgeons, with the assistance of the local constabulary. The warrants are issued under an ancient Scots law of 'Creatin fear o' ground loss and impediment in the lieges and tenants o' the guid toun and royal burgh o' Aiberdeen, twixt Dee and Don.' The law involved permits life imprionment 'in dungeon and darkness under the guid Lord's earth and with no recourse to air nor watter.'
Graham Slater
Report this comment

Time for the council to realise that their Chief executive is hand in glove with ACSEF. To recommend the go ahead for this project whilst making drastic cutbacks is well out of order. Reading the minutes of their meeting for tomorrow is laughable. Praise for the history and heritage of the city, but finish off with "lets demolish it". For a supposedly superior person installed in her position, making drastic cutbacks, to praise and encourage the council to back the ACSEF somehow shows that there are some serious flaws in her proposal. When the Architects have all gone against this plan, the Finance ones condemn it, but ACSEF will continue to forge ahead blindly ignoring every intelligent arguement against their proposals. Time for our council (as the papers keep saying) Take leadership and tell Sue Bruce, ACSEF and Wood that there project is not wanted, nor needed. Go with the original plans where most people were happy with, including the council and ACSEF. Apoligisee nicely to SIW and say No thanks, we cannot be bought. The decision is made tomorrow, and a lot will depend on it. The trust of the people for this council will be hard pressed if they agree with Sue Bruce. Only hope that if it gets the go ahead, I am still around to see the disaster we know it will be. This is a fairy tale dream of a very rich man who would do better to listen to the people not his sycophantic ACSEF. Buddies altogether, plotting to make more money for themselves.
minnie mo
Report this comment

I want to thank everyone for their kind emails a support. Dear Sandy - At least my £20.000 and the other contributions From Aladsdair and Roddy in support of PVA are for real! Slogan against ACSEF - I wouldnae destroy it - But Sir Ian Wood
Renee-Margaret Slater
Report this comment

And Sandy please just go away and take your petty squabbles to someone who cares. Try the ACSEF, you do have a lot in common with them. Thick as two planks.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Dear Renee-Margaret let me say this, I admire your, Alasdair and Roddys generousity you have all made a truly magnanimous and passionate gesture to something you believe in. Please accept this comment for what it is I'm not the ogre that some others percieve I am.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

I will donate all my weekends overtime to the square!!!!
Alan Hadley
Report this comment

Funny how the P&J has not picked up on the mystery businessman donating £5MM to the CSP as reported on the BBC website yesterday, as disclosed by Sue Bruce. Why would this be? Could it be that ACSEF believe this to be an "own goal" in their media control efforts? or could it be that in fact Council Employees should not be disclosing/spinning such information to the press as it probably is a breach of business ethics? I think we should know!
Bill Tough
Report this comment

Sandy, I think most folk feel (or, at least, felt) exactly the same about Sir Ian's gesture. However, unlike Renee-Margaret, Alasdair and Roddy, Sir Ian's gesture is conditional upon his vision and that alone. 100% of the RIAS think his scheme is poor. Finance experts are questioning the validity of the TIF vehicle (even the PwC/CBRE report states that it is based on assumptions that are not feasible "in reality"). For less than 20% of his pledge he could have offered a guarantee against secured PVA funding to allow a full exploration of his project, but he didn't do that. He could have listened to the results of the consultation, paid for with public money, as he said he would - but he ignored it. Nobody doubts his belief in his vision, but it does seem unusual that somebody with the best interests of his own city at heart would be so stubborn as to reject every alternative put forward, to ignore advice from experts, and to push on with a scheme that is so widely questioned. Of course the riposte that "it's his money to do as he chooses with" is entirely fair, up to the point where one considers the fact that his scheme involves a public space slap bang in the heart of Aberdeen. At this point it becomes a public matter, which surely ought to be clear enough.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Fit de these RIAS folk in Edinburgh think their dein', tellin' us here in Aberdeen fit te de or nae de? Di they think 'at they ken better than us fit de de in oor toun? Weel, they dinna!
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

I actually noticed both Sue Bruce and Roddy Millar (I didn't know who he was at the time) at the SCO season finale at the MH on Saturday. Sue was in the 'freebie seats' down the front of the balcony. Roddy, by contrast goes to every orchestral concert on his own nickel - a true supporter of the arts. Sue is just another fat cat dilettante in it for what she can get - not what she can give.
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Above - for Roddy read Alisdair. Apologies.
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Ludvig, Funnily enough Roddy was there too, up in the balcony. I only met him recently at the election hustings show for Radio Scotland so it was fine to bump into him at the Music Hall before the concert. Excellent performance by the RSNO.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Sandy, thanks for the positive comment about our donations - you're right about our passionate views - we are all supporters of the arts in our own way and feel that Peacock Visual Arts does a fantastic job in bringing the possibility of involvement in the arts to many people who might otherwise be excluded. And I'm sure you don't really live under a bridge and that you just enjoy playing the devil's advocate. Feelings are running very high after weeks of passionate debate and especially now in the run up to tomorrow's meeting. I'd like to offer you a coffee in The Contemporary Arts Centre's lovely cafe once the work is finished. All the best.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Richard, you are right, had Ian at any one point tried to assure people that his intentions were not to gazump the PVA out of the way so that the CSP can be the only option in town, the reception would have been different, and had he pledged 20% as you say, PVA's fincanced would not be at risk, and the whole attitude of his stance would have been different. However he didn't neet to did he, he got all the time he wanted to explore the feasibility, resources to run the campaign and consultation, pr coverage, and to finally put it to the council for a final decision, without any limits of time.. and all this without any promise back. What you are suggesting would have been the action of what is colloquially knon as 'being the bigger man', it's unfortunate that never happened. Maybe he can read Alasdair's comments, might learn a thing or two on the subject. At least the council can confidently say to all business inverstors, that they really did explore the option and not reject it apatheticlt as Acsef claim. After 18 months and 500,000 spent, it just did not manage to prove a gamble worth taking, and after all the criticism from the architects and the public, has just shown as an inadequate proposal.
Ved M
Report this comment

here's hoping...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgfdwvG9u0U
Ved M
Report this comment

Alasdair thank you for your comments and your probably correct about being devils advocate which is what I believe is needed in any debate. I'd like to accept that invite for a coffee in the cafe as I'm sure the centre will be built in whatever form it takes. Cheers.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sandy, if Acsef had put half as much effort into arguing their case as you did playing devil's advocate they might have got somewhere. Instead we had to put up with highly negative conjecture about our economic future, and "leap of faith" talk from Tom Smith. Incredible; is that how Smith runs his business? Does he sell its services by asking prospects to make a leap of faith? I doubt it. How and why did these otherwise successful and sober business folk abandon reason? I can only think of 50 million reasons myself, but even so...
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Or maybe they did put the effort in, 300,000's worth, and 18 month.. maybe there was just no case worth arguing.... hence the leap of faith...
Ved M
Report this comment

Are The Journals 'vetting'/filtering all posts today, or just mine?? Mr Slater
Greumachs Sslaterss
Report this comment

Throw in the HFM study and the total is north of £500,000. I suspect that Audit Scotland may well take in interest in the whole episode. Whilst Acsef aren't audited by Audit Scotland (in fact they aren't audited by anybody, they don't seem accountable in any conventional fashion), Scottish Enterprise are. Given Acsef were using SE funds by proxy there may well be some interesting questions for SE to answer.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Is there some way of bypassing the Journals filters to tell Tommy Smith and council employees that there may be a possibility of private prosecutions being taken out for possible misconduct in public office? Mr Slater
Greumachs Sslaterss
Report this comment

Graeme, try deleting your cookies and internet history. Ought to do the trick. By the way, I'm not sure that Acsef chair counts as "public office". It's officially a public/private partnership, whatever that might mean - it doesn't appear to have any legal status.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I have just had a look at E.E. headlines. Stewart Milne has, by the look of it, asked Peacock to support the civic square plan and he will build them a new home (I think in the triple kirks). Now why do you think that might be? There is a desperation to get the civic square plan through that smacks of something nasty.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

@dorothy - yes, that's right. Remember, the CSP is a fig-leaf for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Denburn Health centre and Woolmanhill Hospital site. The car parking which would be lost with the demolition of the Denburn Health Centre must be replaced with the planned car parking underneath the CSP. Unless this car-park is built on the site of the present Union Terrace Gardens, the Denburn/Woolmanhill redevelopment cannot go ahead. God (Milne?) alone knows what type of carbuncle is envisaged for the Woolmanhill site. Something 'iconic' no doubt.
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Here's a picture of what Peacock could end up with if they take up SM's generous offer: http://www.stewartmilne.com/media/Image/Groups/03-HQ-Homes-Head-Office.jpg
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

I know Ludvig - Stewart Milne and cutting edge design are not, in my view, synonymous. There is also the little talked about City Development Company, which is in the wings. Not much info. has been put about about that by this council. A heap of sites with potential for development are identified. So is thing just one giant jigsaw that will see the same appalling development that has blighted this city for so long.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

from the Stewart Milne website - "The Commercial Property Division of Stewart MiIne Group is led by Malcolm Deans who said: “We are currently developing our proposals for this acquisition, and expect to take a scheme to planning for a Grade A office development before the end of 2008. Triple Kirks will provide a unique office environment in the very heart of the city with superb views over Union Terrace Gardens”. A spokesperson for Esson said, “The redevelopment of the Triple Kirks site together with other proposals such as the new art centre planned for Union Terrace can be a catalyst for the regeneration of an attractive and vibrant city centre which is imperative for the economic prosperity of not only Aberdeen itself but for the whole of the northeast of Scotland.”
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

http://www.stewartmilne.com/solution-for-Triple-Kirks.aspx "The Commercial Property Division of Stewart MiIne Group is led by Malcolm Deans who said: “We are currently developing our proposals for this acquisition, and expect to take a scheme to planning for a Grade A office development before the end of 2008. Triple Kirks will provide a unique office environment in the very heart of the city with superb views over Union Terrace Gardens”. A spokesperson for Esson said, “The redevelopment of the Triple Kirks site together with other proposals such as the new art centre planned for Union Terrace can be a catalyst for the regeneration of an attractive and vibrant city centre which is imperative for the economic prosperity of not only Aberdeen itself but for the whole of the northeast of Scotland.”"
John Rutherford
Report this comment

damn...beat me to it Phil...LOL
John Rutherford
Report this comment

@ dorothy. I've not heard anything about the City Development Company. Is it the same as the 'Aberdeen BID' Development Company? www.aberdeenbid.org If you read the documents, all these guys seem to be interested in is creating more parking spaces in the city centre. They should consider using the Music Hall for car parking. This much loved, but sadly underused facility is well past its best and would be much better used to promote greater connectivity. And parking. At present, it is only frequented by arty muso types who suck up their public subsidies leeched off of the taxpayer. It's long past time this iconic piece of our Archie Simpson heritage earned its keep. Car parking and retail are the only things that I can think of that make sense in a modern, vibrant, connected city centre.
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

So, the real culprit in this whole sorry mess sticks his head over the parapet at last. Mr Milne must be getting very desperate seeing his wonderful, un-turn-down-able, plan slipping away. I sincerely hope that PVA show him a middle digit!
Colin Aberdeen
Report this comment

Richard thanks for what I think is a compliment. Devils advocate or not I still believe the ACSEF case to be the best solution for all in the future. We'll just have to beg to differ. Agreed?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

I don't hope that peacock show anyone a middle digit, I hope that PVA can show business how ethical business and development can be done, and that they invite the "big business" to join them in making this city a fascinating, culturally vibrant, welcoming, educated city. I think it'd be a shame if the "rich businessmen" had a hissy fit and threw toys out of prams - because they didn't get what they wanted... I'd hope that they are good enough to get behind the people's choice when it gets the thumbs up (again) from the council, and not go straight to Eck and the Boys in Edinburgh... otherwise, I think we can all start painting those fake "for sale" signs and put them all over Aberdeen. (watch this space)
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Earlier today, I emailed my ward councillors letting them know that I supported PVA over CSP. I have received one response from one councillor who declares a conflict of interest, I don't know whether or not this means he is recusing himself from the vote. I have had no response from my other two ward councillors. Is there a way we can find out which councillors vote for what tomorrow?
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

I had occasion to buy a packet of salt'nvinegar crisps at Kingswells shopping centre. Hadn't been there for some time. Among the boarded-up units I wandered over tired and jaded cheap paving stones, unweeded and uneven. A couple of wooden planters struggled to retain their compost and support the game flowers doing their best to show some seasonal and fragrant splendour. There were some sparse and unthriving shrubs too. I leapt up uneven, broken concrete stair treads moving, progressively and seamlessly from level to level, following the original natural topography of what were to me farmers' fields over which I had walked. The few shopers kept their heads down and scuttled back to the cars parked round in a crumbling tarred yard, littered and broken-glassed. I got my crisps and a glimpse of what Sir Ian Wood wants to bring city-centre in the energy capital of Europe. SHAME ON YOU, GOOD SIR KNIGHT!
Graham Slater
Report this comment

I just cycled past the gardens on the way back to Torry from Cornhill. Hundreds of people enjoying the afternoon sun at 1630. It was beautiful. This whole issue isn't just about CSP v PVA. Wherever PVA end up (and I hope they end up in the beautiful Enrico Gonzales building in the gardens!) the gardens should not be covered over.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Colin, agreed. It seemed obvious to me from the monment I saw the Halliday Fraser Munro boards on the hoarding outside Triple Kirks that this was about more than Sir Ian Wood's vision for a civic square.And what timing? If that was a possibility why was it not considered before or at least during the consultation? And was Triple Kirks not Peacocks first port of call as a potential new home and it was going to cost 3 times as much as the Brisac Gonzales solution?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Thought it was Steart Milne who was the mysterious donor of the £5 mill. After all he has a lot at stake. It now seems that the person brought in to see that Aberdeen can be financially viable again, is not so good at sums either. We now have the council having to fork out millions for 1. Bypass. 2 Olypic Pool, 3 The Haudigan, 4. The new Dons Stadium. (Pity Stewart did not fork out for players instead). Now how many millions are that, which our council does not have. And now we have an overpaid Executive wanting to fork out some more for something that a lot of people do not want. According to a letter in the EE, it is Peacock's minority objectors. You would think that with a public consultation, which coverer every Mall in town and also outlying places, Nothing but press coverage and still the vote was a No. Well Sue now states that she will explain all this tomorrow. Now I would like to be a fly on the wall in that room. We have the Labour councilors having a meeting to decide. The Lib.Dem very undecided and I would imagine by the two SNP who comment a lot in the papers that they are firmly with ACSEF. So no doubt the rest will follow suit. It is anyones guess how it will go. But at the end of the day SIW can congratulate himself with trying his best to vandalise the city centre with his great "Vision" Now we read that Steart Milne was all for the Peacock venture, that is until the magical £50 million was laid out. Show what a shallow group of businessmen that run our city and our future. If this is how they do business, it is a wonder they are still going strong. Or is that the way it is usually done. All underhanded and promises broken.
minnie mo
Report this comment

The CSP is becoming increasingly like a dead herring in the moonlight. It might well shine but it doesn't half stink!!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Stewart Milne has now stepped in with offering PVA the Triple Kirks for their project. I would really like to know what is going on there. Sure he is the mystery man. Just what is so important that they must have the gardens with access all the way through to the Union Square and station?? Something they are not telling the rest of us. As said above. It stinks and it will only get worse. As a city we have nothing to be proud of if this goes ahead. The only ones creating doom and gloom is themselves. They have convinced themselves and it seems our Chief Exec. that the costs are feasable. a bit like their consultation. All up in the air. Our council is to vote not on a plan but an idea,which can go either way, with no hard and fast finance for it. Pipe dreams, but Aberdeen council have always been up there with their grandiose plans and ideas. Heard the saying "Fur coat nae drawers". Sums them up I think. Notice that our friendly councilor is not joining in the debate anymore, that is Neil Fletcher. Did he get his fingers rapped for engaging with the masses.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Dorothy, alasdair, tripple kirks was indeed the precious option for the PVA, after the castlegate proposals fell through, they briefly looked at the Kirk, and i remember at the time thinking that this would have been an amazing building for them, right accross from the art gallery, in the centre, and it would actually do domething with the tower, maybe even something very exciting.. but now that it has been designed for the gardens, i honestly can't imagine it working better anywhere else.. i still maintain it would be brilliant in the gardens, and for the gardens, and for the city, and we should just get on with it already.. I hope the PVA stick by their guns as they have this whole time, and refuse Stewart's offer. Not for the risk that in time the trpple kirks might prove unfeasable, and that they may lose out, but just because they've got the design right, and there's no point trying to top it.
Ved M
Report this comment

saying that i dread to see what stewart will do with tripple kirks eventually..
Ved M
Report this comment

Minnie, maybe there is oil below the gardens, or maybe there is is just a publoicity stunt, that aims to portray the PVA as the bad guys here that stopped a promising development going through. So that when it is rejected tomorow, they can say that they offered the organised opposition everything, to be part of the csp, and even a brand new home, but the organised opposition was just too stong in their arty farty exclusivity and naysaying.. i'd put my money on that..
Ved M
Report this comment

Look at his other ventures. At worst the Kepplestone one. But who is to blame there. The council gave him the go ahead. They are to blame.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Have looked at that site at urbanrealm and just wondered where ACSEF can have the arrogance to ignore the comments. There whole arguement and total denial of the problems and the finance are bordering on insanity. To ignore RIAS and the finance world and say they are correct is madness. Now we have Stewart Milne only one word for it Bribing Peacock to give up the square and he will give them the Triple Kirks. Have any of them no shame. For our council to go forward with this after all the underhanded behaviour leaves us with no respect for the businessmen nor the council. If experts are being ignored and Sue Bruce says Go ahead, there is no hope at all for the future of Aberdeen. Here we have the prophesy of Tom Smith come True. All with his own deeds and Woods millions. Doesn't it make you sick
minnie mo
Report this comment

Here's hoping the CSP goes ahead and provides a catalyst for Ian Suttie yo get his fingerout with the eyesore that really blights the cty centre the Broadford Works site. Maybe he's the £5M man?? Oops never thought of that one did you!!
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

There is no doubt in my mind that ACSEF have known that Milne has wanted this project to go ahead since day one, mainly for the car parking space to allow Milne and other ACSEF cronies to develop the surrounding area of the Denburn car park and Health Centre into retail, flats and offices. Without the massive parking space below the concrete plazza these other future developements will not be so profitable and will cause planning problems. What the councillors who have to vote tomorrow, should remember the results of the flawed consultation, which is still in favour of the Union Terrace Gardens to REMAIN, as it is not all about Peacock Visual Arts. Peacock Visual Arts should remember that although they are now being offered a "carrot" there is no guarantee that planning permission will be granted for them at the Triple Kirks. The coucillors also need to remember about the disgusting way in which ASCEF members have conducted themselves in all this, and steps should be made to have them removed or at best disbanded. Lies, Lies and more Lies..
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

Now here's a bandwagon you can all jump on. How about creating a contemporary arts centre in the Broadford Works site similar to the David Hockney Gallery at Saltaire? There's another multi-millionaire ready to be condemned and slagged off when he doesn't agree to your ideas and decides to make money instead.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Any relation to Stewarty????? You are on the same wavelength. Devils advocate has a bit more savvy than to stir, just for the sake of stirring.But you have a point. Now that is an eyesore in the middle of town. Well not quite. Still was that not going to be another urban village. Still I suppose you have as much right to your say as anyone else. Benefit of the doubt. Still think CSP is not a good idea, and that it is only because of the surrounding area they can profiteer on. Stewarty has really shown his true underhanded colours now. Poor wee soul, not a very happy soul in his picture though. Still he can be miserable in comfort and his garden. more than a lot can say once our local, central garden gets covered over. Not for any real reason except to make millionaires more money. Not our benefit anyway. Sorry getting really angry at the hypocrasy of the wealthy. I do not have many nice thoughts about Wood. Wonder who put him up to this plan. Would it be his cronies at ACSEF. Can just imagine them saying OK Ian with £50 mill the council and the public will be bowled over, no problem, and if there is, we can always spin a good story line.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Where's John Drury from Mannofield been (EE letter page tonight)? Come on down John Drury The Points You Made Are Right!!!
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Why not just flatten the whole of Union Street that would open it up so all the malls can connect. That is after Union Street gets nominated the best street in Britain. Did you not read that. No matter, Sir Wood can always have his mausoleum in the centre perhaps with a waterfall and a pool of tranquility in the lush greenery of the small wood he had created. That is the lawn and the potted plants. Have fun Sandy.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Mo been on the wine have we?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sandy, don't get too excited, this is just a vain trump card (no pun intended), it's not going to change anything, it's a pr stunt to upset a few people, and show some true colours among acsef and the business cronies.. the fact remains, csp bad, pva good...
Ved M
Report this comment

csp is still a destructive project, and we werent just opposing it because it prevented the PVA going ahead, althoguh that alone would have been enough reason to bin it, we were opposing it because it is just silly, unimaginative, unviable and entirely unneccesary. so the csp should get binned no matter what.. the pva on the other hand have endured so much over the two years and have been shown so much support by the people, that i'm sure they just want to get the unuin terrace centre open as soon as, and get on with their work. it would be pointless accepting to start the whole process from scratch, just because acsef are desperate and have no chance of approval.. so wouldnt get all cheery just yet sandy..
Ved M
Report this comment

Just read Jill Wiseley's question to council tomorrow. Potential ballbreaker once all is revealed!!! http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Published/C00000122/M00000371/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

You may be right there sandy, or it may surprise us all how well peacock would have done over the years, on how little funding was provided. it might turn out that having the PVA operating in the new premises will be much more viable for the council. wouldnt bet on it either way. valid enough question, would be good to find out the answer.
Ved M
Report this comment

Ludvig -The document titled the City Development Company from the dept. Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure EP1/09/058 dated 26/11/09.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Sandy, while that's a valid questions about the PVA, it's a pity that no one is asking how much the City Square Project would need in terms of maintainence/rennovation over the next 25-50 years from the council. My guess is that it would be many times more than the PVA would ever require, while the PVA would provide a much better (and clearer) economic return to the city. If the CSP goes ahead, the risk of construction costs spiralling out of control and the maintainence/renovation costs would effectively drain all the money out of the city for the next 25-50 years. If this is the case, why would anyone set up a business, or indeed keep a business, in Aberdeen when all their business rates go on a white elephant. I'm certainly planning on re-locating myself, along with my business, if the CSP gets the go ahead tomorrow, before rises in business rates to pay for it suck my business dry. Its just not how I want my local taxes to be spent, and certainly not a valid reason for increasing local business rates. I am lucky that I can set up anywhere, so why stay if it will cost me more than doing business elsewhere? After all, Aberdeen certainly can't compete with other city's in terms of the culture/quality of life it offers (especially given the swinging cuts from the council over the last few years).
Colin MacLeod
Report this comment

Let's all wait and see. Obviously politics at play. Hard numbers and facts should be the deciding factors.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Well Sandy that is some things the CSP does not have. Hard numbers and facts. All conjecture and maybe this and maybe that. Nothing solid or factual.
minnie mo
Report this comment

minnie, let's hope that the council want to see Solidity in numbers, not their Size..
Ved M
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.