Agenda, decisions and minutes

In terms of Standing Order 4(2), 14 members of the Council had called for a special meeting of the Council to meet this day to consider a motion in relation to the Marischal Square project.

Councillor McCaig indicated that he would be moving the terms of the requisition notice with a minor addition. The Council therefore agreed to suspend Standing Order 12(5) to enable Councillor McCaig to have prior right to the motion.

The Council had before it the following requests for deputations, and was advised that none of them complied with Standing Order 10(1), which stated that applications must relate to a substantive report on the agenda, and furthermore requests (5) and (6) had been received beyond the deadline for submission:-

(1)       Mr Ronald Duguid

(2)       Mr Dustin Macdonald - City Centre Community Council

(3)       Ms Joan Ingram

(4)       Mr Sydney Wood

(5)       Mr Bob Taylor - Common Weal Aberdeen

(6)       Dr Lorna McHattie - Reject Marischal Square Development campaign group

The Council resolved:-

to accept all of the requests, suspending Standing Order 10(1) to enable the deputations to be heard.

(A)       In terms of Standing Order 10(2), the Council received a deputation from Mr Ronald Duguid.

Mr Duguid stated that he was not in favour of the proposed Muse scheme and outlined a number of negatives associated with it, adding that the Council was making the same mistake as its predecessor authority did in the construction of St Nicholas House, which was generally perceived as an eyesore and disliked by all.

Mr Duguid outlined a number of alternative suggestions, which he felt would better utilise the footprint of the site - which primarily involved building underground, where all kinds of facilities could be located as was the case in other cities across the world. He referred to correspondence which had been published in the local newspaper and expressed support for those suggestions, for example building a museum on the site. Mr Duguid concluded by comparing Aberdeen to other cities and urged the Council to think more imaginatively.

Members asked questions of Mr Duguid and thanked him for his contribution.

            (B)       The Council then received a deputation from Mr Dustin Macdonald of the City Centre Community Council.

Mr Macdonald referred to his presentation at the Planning Development Management Committee Public Hearing in August 2014, emphasising that he was not impressed with the proposed development as he felt it did not contribute much to the city, other than for businesses and business people. He added that office blocks would not attract visitors to Aberdeen, and that the Council needed to do more to attract people to the city centre in terms of play and leisure facilities and cultural offering.

Mr Macdonald argued that the development did not have a ‘wow’ factor, and that the design could have been much better. He highlighted the proposed civic square element which relied on the pedestrianisation of Broad Street, however this had been withdrawn on the day the Council considered the planning application, and therefore the public felt misled.

Members asked questions of Mr Macdonald and thanked him for his contribution.

            (C)       The Council next received a deputation from Ms Joan Ingram.

Ms Ingram stated that the proposed development would blight the city for a hundred years to come, and underlined that the issue should not be one for the party whip, which would be going against the very essence of the democratic process under which all members had been elected. She urged members to do what was best for Aberdeen as they had the opportunity to create something magnificent and of architectural significance.

Ms Ingram contended that the deal the Council had signed with Muse was a very poor one for the city, with all of the risk resting with the Council, the developer walking away with the city’s money, and the Council inheriting buildings after 35 years which would be nothing more than a liability. She concluded by urging members to vote as individuals and emphasised that Aberdeen would never forgive the Council if the development was given the go ahead.

Members asked questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Council asked a number of questions of officers in connection with the Marischal Square project and the planning process.

The Lord Provost intimated that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services had prepared written legal advice which was to be circulated to members, and it was intended that this would require the Council to go into private session at this juncture.

Councillor Malone moved as a procedural motion, seconded by Councillor Yuill:-

That the Council consider the legal advice in public.

On a division, there voted:-

For the procedural motion  (21)  -  Councillors Blackman, Cameron, Corall, Cormie, Delaney, Dickson, Jackie Dunbar, Greig, Jaffrey, Kiddie, MacGregor, McCaig, Malone, May, Noble, Samarai, Jennifer Stewart, Sandy Stuart, Thomson, Townson and Yuill.

Against the procedural motion  (22)  -  Lord Provost; Depute Provost; and Councillors Allan, Boulton, Carle, Cooney, Crockett, Donnelly, Lesley Dunbar, Finlayson, Forsyth, Graham, Grant, Ironside, Laing, Lawrence, Malik, Milne, Jean Morrison, Nathan Morrison, Taylor and Young.

The Council resolved:-

(i)         to reject the procedural motion; and

(ii)        in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the legal advice so as to avoid disclosure of exempt information of the classes described in paragraphs 6, 9 and 12 of Schedule 7(A) of the Act.

In terms of Standing Order 15(6), Councillors Delaney, Greig, Jaffrey, Malone, Jennifer Stewart and Yuill intimated their dissent against the foregoing decision.

In accordance with the aforementioned decision, the following part of the meeting was held with the press and public excluded.

The Council was then issued with two pieces of written legal advice which had been prepared by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, who spoke in furtherance of the advice and answered questions from members.

Councillor Cooney moved as a procedural motion, seconded by Councillor Young:-

That the Council continue to consider the motion before them with the press and public excluded.

At this juncture the press and public were readmitted to the meeting to observe the division on Councillor Cooney’s procedural motion.

Councillor Yuill moved as a further procedural motion, seconded by Councillor McCaig:-

That the Council suspend Standing Order 15(1)(b) in order that the vote on Councillor Cooney’s procedural motion be taken by roll call and not by means of the electronic voting system.

On a division, there voted:-

For the procedural motion by Councillor Yuill  (21)  -  Councillors Blackman, Cameron, Corall, Cormie, Delaney, Dickson, Jackie Dunbar, Greig, Jaffrey, Kiddie, MacGregor, McCaig, Malone, May, Noble, Samarai, Jennifer Stewart, Sandy Stuart, Thomson, Townson and Yuill.

Against the procedural motion by Councillor Yuill  (22)  -  Lord Provost; Depute Provost; and Councillors Allan, Boulton, Carle, Cooney, Crockett, Donnelly, Lesley Dunbar, Finlayson, Forsyth, Graham, Grant, Ironside, Laing, Lawrence, Malik, Milne, Jean Morrison, Nathan Morrison, Taylor and Young.

The Council further resolved:-

to reject the procedural motion by Councillor Yuill, and therefore utilise the electronic voting system for the division on Councillor Cooney’s procedural motion.

In terms of Standing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.