Money set aside for rival bid paid for report on City Garden Project

Reader's Comments

But Peacock couldnt get involved with the CSP because their funding was tied to the Brizac-Gonzales designed building. You know the one that got planning permission. This funding requirement was stated time and time again but no one at ACC or ACSEF listened. And what has happened? The funding was taken away once the CSP was voted through. This has been a farce ever since Ian Wood got involved. An investigation should be held and heads should roll.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

If, as this articles records, monies awarded to Aberdeen City Council to develop the proposed Peacock Gallery were used, with the blessing of Scottish Enterprise, to fund work on Sir Ian Wood’s rival scheme, I would suggest that any enquiry into the matter should (a) consider the actions of Scottish Enterprise and both the officers and ruling administration of Aberdeen City Council and (b) be conducted by someone external, such as the Auditor General, rather than by the ACC chief executive.
Hall Harper
Report this comment

How odd. Sir Ian Wood announces his City Square project at HM theatre on the 11th November 2008. Alex Salmond was there. The EE reported on this the same day: "A study funded by Scottish Enterprise – expected to be completed in March next year – will look at the feasibility, design and cost." "Mr Salmond said the Scottish Government was not in a position to discuss funding until the results of the feasibility study was completed and costings were known." So even Alec knew about the study in November 2008. Ever so strange that the study was eventually paid for from a grant that was awarded to Peacock five months later in March 2009. Some very ad hoc budgeting here. It would be interesting to know how all this was justified at the time.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Google "Sir Ian’s £50m pledge for city" - second item on list. Curiouser and curiouser.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

I've had a quick look and for the life of me I can't find anywhere on the Scottish Enterprise site that says they'll disburse discretionary grants from awards granted to third parties. But that appears to be the situation here - is it something that happens a lot, or just here? Certainly questions need to be asked of SE, and if ACC are now saying that they knew of this situation then they are deeply compromised. For ACC to go along with this as a core capital funder of the PVA scheme is perverse in the extreme.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Hey you whingers and moaners another headline from today "New bid to transform Inverness city centre". Inversnecky needs you, they want the costs to escalate and take years to do anything. Mass migration of NIMBY's forecast from Aberdeen to Inversnecky. Jock W beware, coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Totally agree Sandy. All those Nimbys who were against the Brizac-Gonzales designed center are obviously against progress in this City and should leave for another one. When you packing your bags?
John Rutherford
Report this comment

Yes saw that story Sandy. Something about enhancing existing heritage (Inverness castle)and dealing with a modern eyesore in the city centre. You should read it. The Council administration are in a right pickle here, they will struggle to explain all of this. There was some very secret squirrel stuff going on before the May 2010 vote that killed off the Peacock scheme.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Sandy, the only moaning and whingeing is coming from your direction, as usual. How do you manage such constant negativity? I think you must be a new demographic, the "anti-anti-brigade". Numbering one.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I am sure that Norman Harper will not mind me quoting from his article in The Leopard. "This nonsense should never have got past the ego-preening stage. Ian Wood should have understood his fellow-Aberdonians better. As for some of his supporters on the city council, I hope the electorate wreaks hearty revenge at the next ballot box." .......so do I, but not before there has been a thorough investigation into these disturbing reports that are surfacing re funding of the CSP.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Dorothy, "Wood should have understood his fellow Aberdonians better". Wood's scheme has nothing to do with the good of Aberdeen. He was simply doing his pal Stewart Milne a favour. If the Peacock scheme had gone ahead it would have been the end of Milne's plans for the Triple Kirks. In his eyes the Peacock HAD to be stopped. Had it gone ahead Stewart wouldn't be able to use UTG as his car park for Triple Kirks. He couldn't be seen to be involved personally, as this would have led to cries of cheating from the locals, so he got Wood to front the scheme to obliterate the Peacock plan. That there is any hint of the misuse of grants for the Peacock scheme shouldn't come as any surprise to those who understand the way these people work. Machiavelli would have been proud of them. I hope there wil be an investigation into this, and as someone earlier said, heads should roll. Not much likelihood of that in our corrupt business/council world though, more likely someone will be promoted or make huge gains from the takeover of publicly owned assets.
Colin Aberdeen
Report this comment

Here is a Tom Smith quote from last May: “Peacock is in a vulnerable position and ACSEF and its partners aim to sit down with them as soon as possible to discuss how we can help them ensure the viability of their organisation and protect their funding." And yet SE and ACC knew that the funding Tom Smith was committed to protecting had already been spent on Wood's scheme. Did Smith know? Perhaps the P&J would be good enough to ask Tom.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

That seems to be it in a nutshell, Colin. Well said.
harvey freshwater
Report this comment

No doubt I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here, but was some of this "earmarked money from Taxpayers" ever intended to use it to PR and provide the public with the opportunity to participate in a consultation prior to applying for planning permission for the PVA in UTG?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Alexis, Sue Bruce, Lord Provost Stephen, and the rest of the flea circus ought to be ashamed to have given this load of rubbish the thumbs up. The people of Aberdeen will never forgive them, even when it is finally put to bed.
harvey freshwater
Report this comment

Sandy, what is your question? It's not entirely clear from your post. The PVA scheme had full planning permission which means that it went through all necessary consultations. I think it was also called in on the basis that it involved the felling of mature trees, and approved by Scottish Ministers.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Richard, Sandy surely knows the truth but can't reveal it "for legal reasons" so we'll all just have to guess. My guess is that something terribly obscure and inappropriate has been going on amounting to a shocking misuse of public funding, lack of accountability and a subsequent excruciative wriggling to avoid the truth coming out. But that's just a guess without any real evidence to back it up.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

I'm still curious as to how Sir Tom Smith could publicly claim that Acsef and their partners (presumably including ACC and SE) would protect money already diverted away from PVA towards the Wood scheme. Surely there's no way he wouldn't have known? But if he did know, that would make his statement a bald and hypocritical lie.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

A more accurate headline would be "money invested build world class centre squandered funding 'report' into rival's vague concept.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

Richard my question was. What was the outcome of the consultation on the PVA/Brisac Gonzales scheme prior to applying for planning permission and who paid for the said consultation? Anyone care to enlighten me? Also what is the contractural situation with PVA, ACC and Brisac Gonzales? Who signed any contract and what monies have been paid and are still due?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sandy as usual you demonstrate how little you understand about what's going on. There is no compulsion to consult prior to planning; this is why the CSP consultation (which was prior to planning and therefore non statutory), even though it cost a great deal of public money, was something that Wood and Acsef and ACC could ignore because they didn't like the result it delivered. Your other question is quite childish, so I shall ignore it, Sandy.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

My opinion is that the Council administration assumed that Peacock were going to give in and agree to having their arts centre built within the CSP concourse. They didn't and this has caused all this accountability mess and a major embarrasment for the council administration. The impression is gained of a project that is being driven ruthlessly through irrespective of public opinion, any good will to existing commitments and perhaps even good project management practice. It's all been secret squirrel until now. ACC and the Scottish government have decided that this is going to happen, the people of Aberdeen are irrelevant. Big business wants your park, just don't bother us with your whinging as Sandy puts it.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

All's well that ends well. The gardens and the mature trees have been saved from the insensitive intrusion of the PVA scheme, and I optimistically expect the demise of that other inappropriate idea.
Michty Me
Report this comment

Sandy, rather than making obtuse insinuations why not enlighten us all as to what actually went on with the Scottish Enterprise £2 million pound grant to the PVA Contemporary Arts Centre?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

SE, Acsef, and ACC all presumed PVA would agree to legitimise the carpark/transport hub 'vision'. They didn't. Hence the subsequent book-keeping error(s) at SE. The risible Gordon McIntosh can claim complete innocence to his new boss(same as the other one no doubt). The stench is sickening.
harvey freshwater
Report this comment

The idea that PVA would jump on board the CSP project is utterly bizarre. Given that they had £9.5m in secured funding and planning permission - all of it attached to the specific Brisac Gonzales design - then it would have been remiss to abandon that funding by joining a speculative scheme with a massive funding gap and no planning permission. Had Wood offered to guarantee the existing funding PVA had in place, the limitations on that funding would have become meaningless, and PVA would have had little alternative than to agree to Wood's invitation. But he refused to make that offer so PVA had to pursue the reality of their existing funding and planning permission, as was the responsible course of action.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sandy, i've actually answered that to you before,in detail, and aptly, but you were too busy dishing out insults to take it in.
Ved M
Report this comment

sandy, to clarify, i meant the first part of your questio, not the second
Ved M
Report this comment

Ved, the second part was answered recently as well but unsurprisingly Sandy failed to take that in, either. It's almost as if he's trying to deflect attention away from the issue at hand for some reason...
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Richard- Sandie will be far too busy rehearsing for his part in the BBC's new flagship programme- STRICTLY SMALL-FRY.
harvey freshwater
Report this comment

Cue the protohuman losing his rag.10,9,8,7.... it can't help itself.
harvey freshwater
Report this comment

harvey, I'm really not interested in Sandy, but I'm very interested in how money destined for PVA's scheme was diverted - on whose authority, and how that squares with SE and their rules for disbursing public money. And how ACC now say that they knew about this. And how Tom Smith claimed that he was fighting to "protect their funding" when it had already been spent on Wood's scheme. All of that - interesting! Sandy Milne - tedious, anonymous troll.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Richard- ACC can wash their hands of this. That's why McIntosh is sticking to his guns. SE will blame it on an admin error, thus absolving them of any wrongdoing. The devil will be in the detail, as the troll might say. A morally repugnent situation , nodded smilingly through by SE, ACC, and aided and abetted,possibly, by Acsef.
harvey freshwater
Report this comment

So Richard a consultation never took place for the PVA BG scheme. That clears that one up. The second part of my question has never been answered so that's another porkie and eveyone wants to avoid it some how. Is there a smoking gun lying in wait?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sandy, go back, read again, come back when it's sunk it. See you in a few hours!
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

"Is there a smoking gun lying in wait?" Good question about this story, Sandy. For example - if Tom Smith knew from his partner organisations ACC and SE that PVA's grant had already been diverted to the CSP then how could he say this: “Peacock is in a vulnerable position and ACSEF and its partners aim to sit down with them as soon as possible to discuss how we can help them ensure the viability of their organisation and protect their funding."
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

The fact that "a consultation never took place for the PVA BG scheme" isn't an issue Sandy. I'm not aware of anyone claiming there had been one. One thing that was, and possibly still is an issue is why was the PVA BG scheme not even mentioned in the consultation for the City Square Project. Its omission has always been something of a puzzlement to me. Are you able to offer an explanation? Do you think mentioning it and maybe allowing people to vote on it might have made the process a bit more transparent?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

So Richard all this BS about death of democracy and all the rest is complete nonsense. The statement "There is no compulsion to consult prior to planning" would have resulted in a fait accompli as far as PVA was concerned had it went ahead. A bit of a double standard going on here methinks. Who signed up the contract with BG and how much money was spent and what's still due? Simple question really.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Alsadair of course there was a public consultation for the PVA scheme, Sandy doesn't understand that there's a difference between a statutory consulation (what PVA did, what Stewarty Milne is doing for the TK site) and the all-singing, all-dancing pre-planning, non-statutory consultation that cost so much public money last year. Because it was non-statutory (ie no legal status) this meant they could ignore the result. It also meant that they could ignore the RTPI guidelines for a statutory consultation, and therefore ignore best practise. Which means that they could pretend that the PVA scheme did not exist and conceal it when selling the CSP. Hope that helps!
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sandy you and I had the right to object to Peacock's plans before they went to planning committee for approval. Did you? If not what do you have to complain about?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Sandy, again your last post exposes your ignorance. Why do you continue to post as if from a position of knowledge when you don't understand what a non-statutory pre-planning consultation is, and neither do you understand that statutory consultations are part of planning gain? Just give up, Sandy.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Richard, thanks for the clarification - I knew there had been public information on the Peacock's scheme in the usual way there is with any planning application. I remember seeing the design and being both impressed and slightly worried about the impact on Union Terrace Gardens. My worries dissipated when I became aware of the alternatives!! I thought Sandy was inferring that Peacock were in the wrong not to have one like the City Square Project had. It's useful to know how the CSP got away with hiding the existence of the Peacock Contemporary Arts Centre in their consultation. That really was a shocking omission which they must have made deliberately as they knew they would lose by an even heftier margin if it had been included. Or is that just idle speculation?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

"...Having held various industry and education appointments including co-chairing the UK Oil & Gas Industry Leadership Team and Chairman of Scottish Enterprise, Sir Ian is Chancellor of Robert Gordon University...." Hmm...
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Dickie I fully understand the planning process but your answers stink of a typical "process and procedure was followed" BS and the usual bureaucratic nonsense that we expect today. Just because process and procedure was followed doesn't make it right does it? I think your squirming a little now aren't you?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

No Sandy, what's happening now is that you're backtracking and clutching at straws.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sandy, what do you think about the "procudure" that SE followed? No red tape for them!
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sandy do you think there was something wrong with the PVA planning application? You seem to be making an insinuation but without any specifics. Could you clarify? Please.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Alasdair he's fumbling blindly around without a clue. Look at this! Before: "So Richard a consultation never took place for the PVA BG scheme." After: "Just because process and procedure was followed doesn't make it right does it?" So Sandy performs a complete U-Turn and still claims that he's right and we're all wrong. The man is a pathetic troll; his persistence is really baffling, particularly when he's been so brutally exposed as knowing nothing.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sandy, the "death of democracy" is hardly BS or nonsense as you say, if any consultation had come back against the PVA scheme it would not have gone ahead. Unlike the CSP which the public was consulted, at great cost to the public only to find out that the public didn't like it so the "private" sector representatives went ahead with it anyway. As it stands in the pre-planning stages the ratio of opposition to support letters was not enough to warrent a full consultation - however as has been said it was called in by Government. In response to your second question why don't you try putting a Freedom of Information request in to ACC like everyone else instead of shouting about it in these comments pages? If and when you do I'm sure you'll find that budgets were allocated and spent on the pre-planning procedures such as the architectural competitions, the commissioning and early design stages. It is this work which created the costs and details for the building which would cost £13.5 m. When it had secured all of its major public funding contracts and agreements were drawn up and from the SE pot 225k was released for architectural costs and surveys, an amount which, by stipulation in legal agreements had to be matched by ACC and SAC. Given that this money was spent on a project which, for all intent and purpose, was going ahead now that the centre wont be built I hardly think it Peacock or Brisac Gonzalez's responsibility to return any of the cash since its decline was no fault of its own. No one is asking Haliday Fraser Munro to return the £190k it cost for a technical appraisal which, according to ACSEF was full of 'misinformation' and 'misleading images.' The £2m SE grant was awarded to ACC and not PVA direct for the 'Northern Light' project so if anyone is due to return money it should be ACC!
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

Bottom line is the wider Aberdeen public were never consulted on the PVA scheme. A minute minority may have been privy to it prior to appying for planning but nothing on the scale of other infrastructure projects in and around the city. Why was the design competition cancelled and it given to one architect? I'm sure you know the answer so let's tell everyone again.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about, Sandy. Here's your credibility - Before: "So Richard a consultation never took place for the PVA BG scheme." After: "Just because process and procedure was followed doesn't make it right does it?"
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sandy, I am a member of the wider Aberdeen public, I saw the PVA plans and I had the opportunity to object or comment, as did you. Why is this suddenly an issue for you? Did you complain at the time that the consultation had been exclusive? I'm not connected in any way to PVA other than as an occasional customer and my perception throughout the whole UTG debate is that PVA conducted themselves with exemplary dignity which was sadly lacking in ACSEF.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Both P&J and EE gave widespread coverage to the PVA scheme, indeed it was widely praised at the time. Again, Sandy's making it up as he goes along, looking for a rise. Just remember that one minute Sandy was sure PVA didn't undertake a consultation and the next minute, doing exactly that "doesn't make it right".
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

No sandy, you havn't got a clue about the planning process, which in itself would not be an issue would you be willing to take anything anyone tells you in for a second.. i had previously spelt it out for you, it's really simple really, and richard's comment spells it in a nutshell, there's no double standards or hypocracy, just pure ignorance on your part and inability to understand it.
Ved M
Report this comment

sandy, bottom line is you've properly never even heard of th PVA scheme, till you started ranting about imaginary anti progress nimbys.. it was well well pubicised, right from the announcement that the competition was organised, which i remember being excited about, to announcing the shortlist, again which had some awesome practices on it, to one practice pullung out, as it was too small for them (a scandinavian practice), to the selection of the brisac gonzales scheme, publkication of the design itself, and an invite to go see it at the council headquarters, to either object or support it.. that was the planning process, and it was duly followed, and trust me it was well well publicised, as everyone i know has known about it for that long, and there was a lot of excitement about it.. thhen it went on a fundraising campaign, also well publicised, and when planning was give, again, it was in all the press, not just local, but central belt too.. so if you've not heard of it until it was seen as an obstacle to the CSP, as many folk that blindly support the scheme under the illusion that any old construction site is in fact progress, that just highlights your narrow mindedness..
Ved M
Report this comment

Nice juicy story to be had for a budding journo just use the FOI act.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Ved, how a disfunctional back alley print shop ever got dillusions of grandeur is totally beyond me. What happened to the competition again? you tried to dance around that but your not fooling this ignoramous.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sandy, why is Peacock Visual Arts dysfunctional? How many times have you been there? Have you attended any of their courses, been to any exhibitions, bought any prints from their shop? And is there something wrong with aiming to improve? To find a better place to operate, to reach more people?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Alasdair in case you missed it here it is. Councillor Wisely QUESTION - To the Chief Executive “To ask the Chief Executive (1) what level of funding Peacock Visual Arts has received from Aberdeen City Council over the last ten years, with a breakdown per year and an explanation of the nature of the funding; and (2) what the financial implications would be for Aberdeen City Council in future years if the Peacock Visual Arts proposal for a contemporary arts centre within Union Terrace Gardens was to proceed (a) in isolation; and (b) in tandem with other proposals, i.e. in relation to annual funding and whether there would be any contribution towards the development.” ANSWER (by the Chief Executive) - 2001 £40,000 revenue and project running costs 2002 £55,000 as above 2003 £105,000 as above 2004 £60,000 revenue and project costs 2005 £71,500 as above 2006 £75,000 revenue contribution towards running costs 2007 £90,000 as above 2008 £90,000 as above 2009 £90,000 as above 2010 £90,000 as above £246,910 one third contribution towards the costs of the Union Terrace Gardens proposal The incomplete business plan assumes the transfer of revenue running and staff costs at 2008 levels from the arts development, arts education and citymoves teams but no additional revenue running costs. However this business plan is incomplete and work stopped on it at the point of Sir Ian Wood's proposal. Also there have been significant budget cuts which would affect the viability of the business proposal which would need to be addressed. A revised business plan would be required. There have been no costings set against the project should it be run in tandem with another development. Should this be considered to be the viable option a fully revised business plan would be required to take the time delays and future budget cuts into consideration. Peacock Visual Arts receive £90,000 per year running costs from Aberdeen City Council. This is factored into their business plan and it is not expected that this would rise or that there would be any further running cost contribution to the development other than the existing budgets held by arts development, arts education and citymoves. Capital contribution has been capped at £3,000,00
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sandy, very interesting but I've read it before. I asked you some questions about your own personal experience of Peacock Visual Arts. Would you like to answer?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Alasdair thats the answer to your first question. Here are the rest, never, no, no, no, no & no.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Oh before I ferget and Ved is reticent to answer here's something direct from e-architect. Peacock Visual Arts, Aberdeen, Scotland – Architecture Competition:Shortlist: 3 x Nielsen, Reiach and Hall Architects, Richard Murphy Architects, Nicol Russell Studios - cancelled early 2006. No sign of Brisac Gonzales but they got signed up I wonder why?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sandy, thanks for the confirmation.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Goodness a cut and paste Sandy Milne meltdown. Still has no idea about what he's trying to say. Whoever is posting as Sandy Milne surely ought to give up now.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I don't really know what sandy's point is, but it was my understanding that the first 'round' of the design competition didn't deliver satisfactory architectural solutions and pva / northern lights project teams took the decision to look for more / better ideas. I don't think the csp did that... If anything, they settled for average, misleading, unimaginative (and someone's personal fave architect - 'watch this space' ) which actually helped scupper the csp. But I don't know what sandy is getting at with this BG line and the design... As usual.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Philip, Sandy doesn't know what his point is. One minute it was that PVA didn't consult, the next it was that they did but that's no good either. I don't think that the troll posting as Sandy Milne really deserves our attention.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Does anyone else recall a similar oversight relating to the Union Row car park a few years back? My recollection is that the council somehow managed to accidentally sell the land to Stewart Milne for a fraction of it's true value. As I recall there was some mention of SM building an unspecified 'medical facility' as part of the deal. I've been searching online for the details for a few months but am unable to find any mention of it and am beginning to wonder if my memory is faulty?
Craig Adams
Report this comment