Agenda and minutes

(i)                 Dr Shan Parfitt – this request relates to item 8.2 on the agenda

(ii)               Mr Erik Dalhuijsen – this request relates to item 8.2 on the agenda

The Committee had before it the two undernoted requests for deputations in relation to The Aberdeen City Council (Inchgarth Road/Westerton Road/ Primrosebank Avenue/Primrosehill Avenue/Primrosehill Road/Den of Cults/Station Road/Ashfield Road/Deeview Road South/Park Brae/Park Road/Loirsbank Road/West Cults Road) (20mph speed limits) Order 2009 (with associated speed cushions on Inchgarth Road) and The Aberdeen City Council (Golf Road, Bieldside, and Pitfodels Station Road) (20mph Speed Limits) Order 2009 (with associated speed cushions on both roads) (Article 5 refers):-

(1)   Dr Shan Parfitt; and

(2)   Mr. Erik Dalhuisen

The Committee heard from the Convener who advised that a third request for a deputation had been received from Mr. T Campbell in relation to the emergency motion from Councillor Adam (Article 3 below), and explained that, in accordance with standing order 10(1), she had ruled the request incompetent.

The Committee resolved:-

to agree to hear both requests for deputations prior to considering the report.

The Committee heard from Councillor Allan who sought clarification as to whether a report on AECC Funding, which was to be submitted to the Committee every cycle, was on the agenda for today’s meeting. In response, the Convener advised that an oral report on this item would be provided today by the Programme Director for Economic and Business Development at the relevant point on the outstanding committee business statement. She explained that there had not been a stipulation about whether this report was to be oral or written, and that the format of delivery would depend on the information available at the time of each Committee meeting.  Councillor K Stewart advised that this item had previously been reported to the former Resources Management Committee where the practice had been to receive the item orally.

The Committee had before it the following emergency motion by Councillor Adam, which the Convener had accepted onto the agenda as a matter of urgency:-

            "This Council condemns the total disregard the SNP/Liberal Democrat Administration has for the people of Aberdeen by making excuses rather than clearing the ice from City pavements. Seeks clarification on why people have been trapped in their homes. Seeks information on how many claims for injuries sustained by residents and tourists of the City are expected and the likely outcome of any claim following the Administration's inability to act in accordance with its statutory obligation. Seeks information why so many grit bins across the City were either empty or full of rubbish and to seek assurance from the Political Leadership of this Council that they provide Council with a full operating plan as to how they intend to ensure that this will not happen again and that the plan is published for public reassurance".

At the outset, Councillor Adam asked why no action had been taken on his original request that all members of the Council be invited to attend today.  The Convener replied that this request had not formed part of the motion, which she had accepted on the understanding that it was the Committee, not the Council, which had been intended to consider the matter.  However, the attention of all members had been drawn to the motion, and any member not on the Committee was now able to request that he or she be heard as local member.

The Convener also asked Councillor Adam if he wished to have his motion remitted to Council instead, to which he replied that he did not, and that he wished the Committee to consider the motion forthwith.

The Vice-Convener then expressed concern that the part of the motion referring to claims for injuries appeared to raise the question of how the Council would handle the financial burden of claims not yet known, a matter falling within the remit of the Finance and Resources Committee.  The Convener concurred and asked Councillor Adam if he would be prepared to excise this element from his motion, which he confirmed he was prepared to do.  Councillor Adam also confirmed that he would not wish to seek to include within the motion a proposal that the excised part be remitted to the Finance and Resources Committee.

Its terms having been adjusted accordingly, Councillor Adam, seconded by Councillor Allan, moved his motion, and also that the current background report be noted but that a full report on the entire winter maintenance operation be brought to the next meeting of the Council.

As an amendment, the Convener, seconded by the Vice-Convener, moved that the Council:-

(1)       thank all those staff from a wide variety of services who had been involved in snow clearing and gritting during this exceptional period of bad weather, particularly those who had given up holidays, and those who had undertaken roles over and above their usual ones;

(2)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

            During consideration of the following item the Convener declared an interest in the following article by virtue of being the Council’s appointed substitute representative member on the Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group.   Councillor Kevin Stewart declared an interest as the Chair of Nestrans and as a member on the Northern Isles Lifeline Ferry Services Tier 2 Forum. Neither Councillor felt it necessary to withdraw from the meeting.

The Convener welcomed to the meeting Mr. Colin Parker, Chief Executive of Aberdeen Harbour and Mr. Keith Allan, Chairman of Aberdeen Harbour Board, who then delivered a presentation on the operation and economic activity of the Aberdeen Harbour.

Mr. Parker advised that this activity contributed around £420million annually to the local economy, helped to sustain over 11,000 jobs directly and indirectly, and represented a key component in the region’s transport infrastructure.  In terms of operations in 2009, 8,000 vessels (representing over 24 million vessel tonnes) had arrived at the harbour, as well as 141, 000 passengers and over 100,000 crew members. In addition 5 million tonnes of cargo had been handled. Graphs comparing the cargo tonnages, vessel tonnages and passenger numbers between 1980 and 2009 were presented.

With regard to income generated by the harbour, the biggest percentage (45%) came from oil related business, with the remaining income generated through commercial activities (25%), rent of land and buildings (24%), investments (5%) and fishing (1%). 

In terms of the future operation of the port, there were a number future development plans, with £65 million expenditure already planned over the next five years. The main developments included providing deeper berths, creating more space for quayside operations, the development of nearby land for support of cargo operations, the redevelopment of Torry Quays and the possible widening and deepening of the entrance to the port to accommodate larger vessels.

Finally, Mr. Parker discussed the proposed wind deployment centre.   The maritime sector and others had a number of key concerns regarding the proposal. In particular they felt that the proposed positioning of the centre was a  navigational hazard in that it eliminated the safe anchorage at Aberdeen Bay, obstructed busy shipping routes, obscured navigation aids, interfered with radar, reduced sea room, and concentrated traffic into ‘pinch points’. The maritime sector was supportive of the centre and had suggested a number of safe alternative locations. Mr. Parker emphasised that engagement with the sector was now required to resolve the issue.

Members of the Committee then asked questions about the future development of the harbour, and about external funding opportunities in particular.   In response Mr. Allan advised that there were a number of matters to be clarified prior to the Board exploring funding sources, and that, accordingly, they had not begun to explore this aspect so far.  Further to this, members asked whether the widening and deepening developments proposed would enable the harbour to accommodate cruise ships. Mr. Parker advised that the harbour was a member of Cruise Europe and Scotland, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

            The Convener and Councillor Kevin Stewart declared interests in the subject matter of the following article by virtue of their NESTRANS involvements.  Neither considered it necessary to withdraw from the meeting.

There had been circulated a report by the Director of Corporate Governance dealing with objections received after the statutory advertisement of the above named traffic orders and associated speed cushions.  The projects had been advertised separately but were closely related in terms of considering the value judgements raised in the objections.  Accordingly, the report dealt with them as a unified set of proposals.

Also, a third traffic order – containing new waiting restrictions for Westerton Road – had also been drawn into the overall balance of value judgements.  This order – The Aberdeen City Council (Various Roads in South Aberdeen) (Traffic Management) Order 2009 – was actually “on standby” for confirmation, having been approved by the Committee in all respects other than the Westerton Road element.

The recommendation was that the objections be overruled and the speed limit orders and associated speed cushions be introduced as originally envisaged, but that the intended new waiting restrictions for Westerton Road be abandoned in the meantime (i.e. dropped from the current order otherwise ready for confirmation) even though the need for them should be kept under consideration.

The report then went on to summarise the overall situation.  An appendix, in the authorship of the roads officials, offered detailed commentary on the main points raised in the objections.  Copies of the original communications were available for inspection.

There was one broad issue of public policy and public perception which needed to be clarified at the outset.  Increasingly in recent years, objections to traffic calming had been able to be thematised in terms of a particular type of scepticism about whether the measures in question were being pursued out of piety rather than hard-edged traffic management rationale.  This was an intellectually respectable debate which ought to be rehearsed when it was relevant, but it was not particularly apposite here.  In the present case, recorded speeds were high – sometimes distinctively so.

In fact, the objections from Westerton Road were founded on the assumption that traffic calming did work, and, indeed, that it was precisely because it worked that the proposals for Inchgarth and Pitfodels Station Road would displace traffic back onto Westerton Road – even though it already had speed cushions.

So scepticism that the virtue of traffic calming was largely abstract, and lacked concrete conviction, was not at the heart of the representations from Westerton Road.  To the extent that such scepticism had been expressed by objectors from Inchgarth Road, members needed to be aware that the 85 percentile speeds at the top end of that road had come in at 37 – 40mph.  Accordingly, it did not seem to be particularly abstract to look at those recorded speeds and to imagine that it would be desirable to reduce them to something closer to 20mph. 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Committee had before it the minute of its previous meeting of 26 November, 2009.

The Committee resolved:-

to approve the minute as an accurate record.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

During consideration of this item the Convener and Councillor Milne declared an interest in the subject matter of the oral update provided on item 15 in the report (AECC Funding) by virtue of being the Council’s representative of the Board of the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre. Neither the Convener of Councillor Milne considered it necessary to withdraw from the meeting.

The Committee had before it a statement of pending and outstanding Committee business, which had been prepared by the Acting Head of Democratic Services.

With regards item 15 (AECC Funding) the Committee received an oral update from the Programme Director of Economic and Business Development, wherein he provided an overview of the current economic position of the AECC and advised that a report regarding its future funding and development would be considered by Council at its meeting on 10 February 2010.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)                  to delete items 2 (Lane Gating at the Adelphi), 7 (Car Parking Charges), and 18 (2009/2010 Revenue Budget Monitoring);

(ii)               in relation to item 13 (Midstocket and Rosemount Public Transport Review) to delete resolutions (i), (ii) and (iii), and to thank officers for their work in relation to the no. 25 service;

(iii)             in relation to item 15 (AECC Funding) to note the oral update from the Programme Director of Economic and Business Development, and that a report on this matter would be submitted to Council at its meeting on 10 February 2010;

(iv)              to transfer item 10 (Aberdeen City Council Nature Conservation Strategy 2010/2015 – Final Draft), and 21 (St. Fitticks Farmhouse Site, Torry) to the Housing and Environment Committee business statement; and

(v)                to note the updates contained within the statement.

The Committee had before it a list of outstanding motions which had been prepared by the Acting Head of Democratic Services.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)                to note the update in relation to motion 1 (Councillor Cassie – Increased Parking Problems); and

(ii)              to note that a report on motion 2 (Councillor Donnelly – Trades Annual Parking Permit) was on today’s agenda, and therefore to delete this motion from the list.

The Committee had before it an update by the Director on the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure service performance up to September 2009.

The report presented the key management information and performance indicators for the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure Service which consisted of the following four sections:- (1) a progress report from the Director; (2) a summary in the format of a performance indicator balanced scorecard and detailed information supporting those indicators being considered this cycle; (3) a monitoring statement for the Non Housing Capital Programme 2009/2010 as at 30 November, 2009; and (4) a table providing additional information on the performance of road defect repairs.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to request officers to submit a detailed report detailing the spend to date with the capital programme, and outlining the programmes that would and would not be completed in the financial year; and                                                         

(ii)        to otherwise note the performance to date.

With reference to article 5 of the minute of the meeting of the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure Committee of 26 November, 2009, the Committee had before it a joint report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure and the City Chamberlain advising of the revenue budget performance for the current financial year to date as at 30 November, 2009.  The paper confined itself to services relating to the Committee, outlined areas of risk that were immediately identifiable, and explained the responses to these.

Appended to the report was a summary monitoring statement for the revenue budget 2009/2010 which outlined the budget for the year, detailed the actual spend to 30 November, 2009, and explained variances.  The current position reflected a projected overspend of £478,000, representing an improvement of £529,000 since the last update to the Committee.  The remaining overspend continued to be the subject of further targeted savings being identified by the service; progress on this aspect would be reported to the next meeting of the Committee on 23 February 2010.  In particular the report highlighted that, in light of the current downturn in building work within the city, income from building applications was not expected to meet the budget for the year.  Similarly, planning application income had shown a significant downturn to date.  The current forecast income for the year for these two elements combined was £1.5million, compared with a budget of £3.1million.  To offset the impact of this, the management of vacant posts was being actively pursued as a source of savings and the service was continuing to work with other Heads of Planning and COSLA to lobby the Government for increases in planning fees.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to request officers to submit regular update reports to the Committee advising of the impact of the recent bad weather on the winter maintenance budget, and detailing what actions the service was taking to address this;

(ii)        to note the information on management actions and risks that was contained in the report; and

(iii)       to instruct officers to continue to review budget performance and report on service strategies as required to ensure a balanced budget.

With reference to article 6 of the minute of the meeting of the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure Committee of 26November, 2009, the Committee had before it a joint report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure and the City Chamberlain providing an update on the progress made on various projects in the Non-Housing Capital Programme previously approved by the Council (and now aligned to the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure services).

Appendix A to the report outlined the Non Housing Capital Programme projects aligned to the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure services and provided, for each project, the budget for 2009/2010, spend to the end of November 2009, and the forecast out turn position.  Comments on particular projects, where appropriate, were included in the narrative.

The report advised that the spend to the end of November 2009 reflected payments made and processed, and therefore excluded any commitments that had been made and were due to be paid by the end of the year.  Such commitments would be reflected in the forecast position.

The Committee resolved:-

to note the content of the report in relation to the projects outlined at Appendix A.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure on the current position regarding income from car parking services, and steps being taken to balance the budget.

The car parking service was split between three Directorates; the Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure service held responsibility for the overall budget and also the policy and development of charging structures.

A number of factors affected income levels;  in particular, charging levels, alternative modes of transport, increase in parking available, and the economic downturn.  A detailed analysis of income for both on and off street car parking was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.  A summary of the current position (up to the end of October 2009) for each of the income streams indicated that, while overall income was around £550,000 below the budgeted level, spend on staffing costs was well below the budgeted allowance, with administration and vacant posts for City Wardens accounting for an underspend of approximately £570,000.  Given the potential for minor fluctuations, and also changes to VAT levels from 1January, the service would have to monitor closely its expenditure throughout the remainder of the year.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to note the position regarding income from car parking and acknowledge steps being taken by officers to keep within budget; and

(ii)        to request officers to circulate to all members of the Committee the financial and operational details (i.e. the cost of a full staff complement) for the city warden service.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure outlining an application for financial assistance from the 2009/2010 International Twinning Budget.

The report recommended:-

that the Committee:-

(a)       approve a contribution of £1,150 to Aberdeen District Coaching Group towards the accommodation and subsistence costs of six participants at the Nordic Games in Stavanger.

The Committee resolved:-

to approve the recommendation.

Would members please note that the framework, masterplan and impact assessments can be viewed at http://thezone/StrategicLeadership/PI/SL_stratlead_reports.asp

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure, which outlined the new Greenferns Development Framework and Masterplan, which had been prepared as a guide for the future development on an area of Council owned land.

By way of background the report advised that the Development Framework had been prepared following approval of the Aberdeen Masterplanning Process, approved in November, 2008, and contributed significantly to the Council’s Design Campaign’s aims of raising design quality in new development.

With regards the Greenferns site, the report provided a comprehensive overview of current status of the site in planning terms wherein it was advised that part of the Greenferns site was zoned in the current Aberdeen Local Plan as Opportunity Site 2 (OP2), whilst the larger part was zoned as Strategic Housing Land Reserve (for an indicative number of 120 and 680 houses respectively). In relation to the OP2 site, this was included in the adopted Housing Land Release Supplementary Planning Guidance, which allowed the site to be released for development subject to planning approval and masterplan preparation. Whilst the larger part of the Greenferns site, was covered by Policy 30 of the Aberdeen Local Plan and was now being considered as part of the work being undertaken to prepare the new Aberdeen Local Development Plan. As such the site was identified as a possible development option and included in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan Main Issues Report as a desirable option. It suggested that Greenferns could accommodate 750 homes in Phase 1 (2007-2016), 350 homes in Phase 2 (2017-2023) and 400 homes in phase 3 (2024- 2030). It was highlighted that members would have to consider all responses to the Main Issues Report before finalising the Proposed Plan which was expected to be published in September 2010; at that time it would become clearer whether the SHLR site was to be included in the new Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

In terms of the Development Framework and Masterplan, it was advised that the Framework set out a baseline or 2-dimensional spatial framework, for the way in which Greenferns should be developed, and was supplementary planning guidance for the Strategic Housing Land Reserve (SHLR) identified in the Aberdeen Local Plan 2008, to be considered in the forthcoming Aberdeen Local Development Plan.  Whilst the masterplan forms detailed 3-dimensional design guidance for the opportunity site OP2 as identified in the Aberdeen Local Plan 2008.  The guidance had been developed for the OP2 Area, with the intention that it be adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.  It ensured integration with the surrounding communities, illustrated what would be expected in future detailed design guidance, established an illustrative layout and ensured that future development of the OP2 area would have a clear identity.

An overview of the public consultation process carried out for the development of the framework and masterplan was provided along with a summary of public comments and responses to the documents.  Further consultation opportunities would be available as part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which informed of the Design Review Panel Process.

By way of background it was advised that the design review process was part of Aberdeen City’s Design Campaign and was included within the Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan 2009, as a way of meeting the target of improving design standards.

The Design Review Panel aimed to provide constructive and objective advice at an early stage in the planning process.  This advice would draw on professional knowledge and experience within a local context, offering the opportunity for comprehensive comments on masterplans and development proposals. 

With regards the composition of the Panel, it was advised that the Panel would consist of approximately six members selected from a larger pool of about twenty, with the Council’s appropriate Head of Service chairing the meeting. It was expected that the Panel would be operational by April 2010 (with a review of the process to be undertaken after six months at which point an update report would be presented to the Committee).

The Committee resolved:-

that output from the design review document form additional material considerations in determining planning applications.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure providing a detailed account of the Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative (SSCI) recommending that the relevant Council services participate in a forthcoming project at Grandhome and Whitestripes.

The SSCI was a Scottish Government initiative which aimed to create outstanding developments of high quality design that would then be used as examples of best practice.  Such developments were also intended to meet the needs of local people, to protect and enhance the unique built and natural heritage and to contribute to a more sustainable future.  A further part of the objective was to achieve more homes of mixed tenure, built to a higher environmental and design standard.

Of sixty-eight SSCI submissions received by the Scottish Government, eleven had been awarded recognition, confirming that they were working towards ‘Creating a Scottish Sustainable Community’.  One of the successful proposals had been Grandhome and Whitestripes in Aberdeen.

The main focus was on partnership between the public and private sectors.  Successful sites would have access to advice and support in the course of their development.  There was no direct financial support from the Scottish Government.

Because of its scale, and its current stage in the overall process, the Grandhome and Whitestripes proposal would benefit from a national Charrette.  The Charrette concept was an interactive public design workshop creating draft masterplan options through new public engagement and design techniques.  It would include both large presentations to the public and smaller discussions with special interest groups.

The Grandhome and Whitestripes site was identified in the Aberdeen City Main Issues Report, as having the potential to contribute towards the numbers in the Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan approved in August 2009.  The proposals for the site were at a very early stage in the planning process, with timings that matched those set out in the Development Plan Scheme for the Aberdeen City Local Plan.  The Charrette process would not prejudice or interfere with the planning process, and would produce supplementary planning guidance to be brought forward through the Local Development Plan (LDP).

As part of the Council’s contribution to the SSCI there would be a requirement to cover the cost of venue hire, which was estimated in the region of £5,600.  Additional venue hire would be required for evening presentations and community events.  These costs would be met from the existing Design Campaign budget.

The Committee then heard from the Head of Planning and Infrastructure who confirmed that the Council’s financial contribution could increase slightly but that, in her judgement, this involvement was an exemplar of progressive practice.

There were no current commitments to extra expenditure, however.  As the report indicated, the entire process would inform - not pre-empt - the Local Development Plan process.

The Committee resolved:-

to welcome the initiative and agree participation of the relevant Council services as outlined in the report.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure providing an account of traffic management measures considered necessary at the above locations.  Waiting restrictions were proposed in all but the final three locations; in those three, a prohibition of driving was recommended at Pitmedden Road, a regulatory school keep clear restriction at Howes Road, and new loading restrictions at Huntly Street.

The Committee resolved:-

to request the officials to carry out preliminary statutory consultation on legislation to provide for these schemes except for the intended prohibition of driving at Pitmedden Road, which it was agreed be deferred for a cycle to allow the officials to report back on Councillor Clark’s suggestion that the proposed closure at this location might be a prohibition of left turns instead.

The Committee had before it the minute of meeting of the Controlled Parking Areas Working Party of 10 December, 2009.

The Committee resolved:-

to approve the minute and all recommendations arising from it;  namely:-

(1)       that the officials enter into discussions with motorcycle organisations on the possibility of seasonal use of existing on-street parking spaces for motorcycles (including additional locations compatible with this) and that, upon conclusion of these discussions, a report be brought back to the Committee with definitive recommendations, including observations on whether there might yet be realistic means of securing parking tickets (or permits) to motorcycles; 

(2)       to introduce an option allowing members of the armed forces to surrender three, six or twelve-month permits and receive refunds proportionate to the number of full months remaining; 

(3)       to report back to the Committee on a trial variation of Edinburgh City Council’s system of releasing trades parking permits which, in Aberdeen, would cost £50 a month (£100 in Edinburgh) and (again unlike Edinburgh) require neither vehicle-specificity nor that vehicles be liveried; 

(4)       arising from discussion on a range of issues on the future development of on-street controlled areas, to take steps –

            (a)       to adjust the charges in the forthcoming zones M and X to bring them into line with other zones nearby; 

            (b)       to re-engage with local retailers in Foresterhill to re-establish easy availability of vouchers for that zone;

            (c)        to review the priority of future controlled parking areas and report back to the Committee on this, with particular reference to the impact of Union Square on the Palmerston area, which might well now be able to be adduced as the highest priority;

            (d)       to investigate afresh existing zone boundaries and examine the implications of changing them;

            (e)       to review price structures throughout the zone;

            (f)         to investigate the possibility of introducing differential charging between zones;  and

(g)       to examine the implications of introducing emission-based charging.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure outlining flooding incidents that had occurred between September and November 2009, and various mitigatory and inspection measures planned as a result.

The Committee resolved:-

to note the incidents listed in the report, to look forward to the forthcoming publication of the 7^th biennial flood report, to welcome the development of a scheme being progressed to deal with the problem at Jack’s Brae, to note that an initial inspection of open sections of water courses would commence in 2010 (subject to budget availability), and to note that work was under way on a regular basis to clear road gullies, drains and hecks, particularly at locations of known high risk.

EXEMPT INFORMATION

            The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(B)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business so as to avoid disclosure of exempt information of the class described in the paragraphs 8 and 12 of Schedule 7(A) to the Act.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure providing an account of the failure of a recently-constructed flood prevention scheme to protect properties in Glashieburn in Bridge of Don from the effects of the storm of 4 September 2009, and proposing a solution in terms of corrective work and funding sources.

The report recommended:-

(a)       that the Committee note that an investigation of the scheme by Council engineers had revealed significant design failings, and that the conclusion had been reached that the scheme as built was not fit for purpose;

(b)       that it be noted that the installation of an auxiliary culvert at the location was considered by Council engineers to be the most straightforward and cost-effective way of resolving the problem;

(c)        that officers be instructed to progress the detailed design of the corrective scheme on the basis of costs of £175,000;

(d)       that it be noted that discussions were continuing with the company responsible for constructing the scheme that had failed;

(e)       that officers be instructed to report back on damages received from that company, either by negotiation or as a result of legal proceedings; and

(f)         that the matter be referred to the Finance and Resources Committee for consideration of additional capital funding required to complete the scheme.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to approve these recommendations; and

(ii)        to refer the current report to the Finance and Resources Committee on
28 January, and to commend to that Committee the possibility that it might consider on that occasion a further and more up-to-date report (even if such a report were to be presented later than would ordinarily be desirable).

EXEMPT INFORMATION

            The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(B)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business so as to avoid disclosure of exempt information of the class described in the paragraph 1 of Schedule 7(A) to the Act.

The Committee had before it a business case prepared by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which sought a contract extension for an existing fixed term contract until 30 September 2010. 

The business case advised that the fixed term post was shared and jointly funded between Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure’s International Trade section and Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group (AREG).  The extension was sought to ensure service continuity in delivering agreed priorities and activities until a permanent revised structure had been designed by the Programme Director for Economic and Business Development.  It was highlighted that the current postholder had been employed continuously by the Council since 2008, and as such was now classified as a permanent employee.  The postholder would therefore be entitled to redeployment rights in line with the Temporary Workforce Policy.  The implications of not extending the contract were detailed. With the funding for the post being split 50:50, between AREG and Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure, the actual financial impact for the Council of extending the post for 6 months was one quarter of the annual salary, or £9657 (including on-costs).

The Committee resolved:-

to approve the business case and grant the 6 month extension.

- COUNCILLOR DEAN, Convener.