Agenda item

A presentation by the architects of the proposed City Garden Project design will be delivered as part of this item

(A)       In terms of Standing Order 10(2), the Council received a deputation from Ms Suzanne Kelly.

 

Ms Kelly stated that in the interests of democracy, transparency and consultation with the people of Aberdeen, she was asking the Council to vote against any motion this day which would prematurely progress the City Garden Project, and that any decision be postponed until the following basic conditions had been met:-

• The public referendum has taken place and the majority of the public support the Granite Web;
• The local government elections have taken place in May; and
• Sufficient time has passed for the public and Councillors to properly consider the PricewaterhouseCoopers report.

 

Ms Kelly requested that before any further progress or expenditure on the City Garden Project, the Council should arrange for the following to be provided for public consideration:- (1) a report on legal protection accorded to Common Good land and acknowledgement of the fact that Union Terrace Gardens is Common Good land; (2) detailed costings for the project design to be implemented; (3) full architectural drawings to scale; and (4) an environmental impact assessment.

 

Ms Kelly concluded that to take any action moving such an impossible and undesirable scheme forward before a referendum and before the May elections, would undermine any transparency, democracy, inclusion or consultation the Council claimed existed. Ms Kelly urged members not to proceed with the project, and to vote to retain Union Terrace Gardens when they received their ballot papers in the referendum.

 

Members asked questions of Ms Kelly and thanked her for her contribution.

 

(B)       The Council then received a deputation from Mr Mike Shepherd of Friends of Union Terrace Gardens.

 

Mr Shepherd referred to the ninth recommendation within the report, and advised that he had made an official complaint to the Council that officers were recommending progression of the project before the outcome of the referendum was known, which gave the impression the Council was telling the public how it wanted them to vote.

 

Mr Shepherd also referred to the sixth recommendation within the report, highlighting that another £300,000 of Council funding was being requested for the project, in addition to the money required for the Council’s share of the cost of the referendum, which was in total contrast to previous promises that the Council would not be required to contribute any money towards the project.

 

Mr Shepherd stated that the Tax Incremental Funding (TIF) Business Case was seriously flawed, and questioned a number of statements and figures contained within it, which he felt were totally spurious and based upon very loose assumptions.

 

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

 

(C)       The Council next received a deputation from Mr John Shewell of Just Imagine!

 

Mr Shewell acknowledged that the City Garden Project had been divisive, however he underlined that Aberdeen needed to change to survive. He called on the elected members and citizens of Aberdeen to imagine the long term future of the city when making their decision in relation to the project, rather than solely focusing on the pros and cons of the current gardens.

 

Mr Shewell intimated that the TIF Business Case was an excellent document and drew comparisons with Dundee in terms of city centre regeneration. He emphasised that a sympathetic enhancement of the existing gardens would not bring about the major regeneration that Aberdeen city centre needed.

 

Mr Shewell concluded that Aberdeen was doing well in terms of the city economy right now, however the economy needed to diversify for the future - the City Garden Project was a once in a lifetime opportunity and the city could not afford to lose it. Mr Shewell urged members to show leadership in the face of such a difficult decision and to show imagination for the city.

 

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

 

(D)       The Council next received a deputation from Mr John Michie of Aberdeen City Centre Association who was accompanied by Mr Charles Landry.

 

Mr Landry emphasised that there was far greater competition between cities across the world than ever before, and drew comparisons with a number of other cities such as Perth, Australia, and Calgary in Canada. He added that the oil and gas industry was gradually weakening which would have a dramatic impact in Aberdeen as other cities moved ahead of it in punching above their weight.

 

Mr Landry advised that many of the world’s well respected modern landmarks had been contentious projects at their inception, and cited the Sydney Opera House, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao and the High Line in New York, all of which were now hugely popular both locally and internationally.

 

Mr Michie referred to the TIF Business Case, underlining that he wanted greater employment within the city for future generations. He added that Aberdeen had been fortunate with the oil bonanza which could not be replicated but the City Garden Project was a golden opportunity for the city to become a player on the international stage. Mr Michie hoped for a big turnout in the referendum and pleaded with those eligible to vote for the City Garden Project.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Michie and Mr Landry and thanked them for their contribution.

 

(E)       The Council next received a deputation from Mr Colin Crosby of Aberdeen City Gardens Trust, who was accompanied by Ms Jennifer Craw.

 

Mr Crosby spoke in support of the report members had before them and endorsed the recommendations contained therein. He explained that there was no guarantee that this opportunity for the city would be here tomorrow; there was no ‘Plan B’ and the funds that had been identified could not be used for any other purpose.

 

Mr Crosby explained how TIF worked in basic terms and likened it to a person buying a house with an initial deposit and paying off the rest of the purchase price via a mortgage. In the case of the City Garden Project, the deposit was money from the private sector and the mortgage repayments would be met by additional business rates brought about by the regeneration of the city.

 

Mr Crosby emphasised that the City Garden Project was feasible and affordable - Aberdeen needed to grasp the nettle and be more aspirational as a city. Mr Crosby added that he was looking forward to members receiving the presentation from architects Diller Scofido + Renfro, as, in his opinion, the imagery was mind-blowing.

 

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

 

(F)       The Council next received a deputation from Mr David Henderson.

 

Mr Henderson stated that the city had too much to lose in supporting the City Garden Project, it was excessive in terms of cost and risk. He repeated earlier speakers’ comments that the Council should not be prejudicing the outcome of the referendum by making decisions at this stage.

 

Mr Henderson advised that he was in favour of a sympathetic redevelopment of Union Terrace Gardens and had some ideas but would need to work with Council officers to develop them.

 

Mr Henderson referred to the TIF Business Case, repeating earlier comments regarding estimated figures and assumptions contained within it, and expressed reservations about the project being delivered within budget.

 

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

 

(G)       After the deputations had been concluded, the Council received a presentation from Mr Charles Renfro of Diller Scofido + Renfro, the architects of the preferred design, the Granite Web, who, with the aid of audio and video technology, described the many elements of the proposed design and the rationale behind them, emphasising that the design was unique to Aberdeen and would totally regenerate the city centre.

 

Members thanked Mr Renfro for his presentation.

 

(H)              The Council had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which advised of the current position in regard to the City Garden Project (CGP) and sought approval to progress certain specific actions aimed at moving the project forward to the formal planning application process.

 

The report recommended:-

that the Council -

(a)               engage in future activities required to progress the CGP, subject to obtaining public endorsement of the proposed CGP design (see Appendix 1 to the report) in the proposed public referendum on 1^st March 2012; and ensuring that Council engagement in such activities cannot, in any respect, be construed as prejudicial to any future planning process;

(b)               instruct officers to enter into negotiations with a view to putting in place a development agreement with Aberdeen City Gardens Trust (ACGT) and/or their representatives, which sets out the terms upon which Aberdeen City Council (ACC) would be prepared to make necessary Council owned land available, to realise the proposed development described in Appendix 1 of the report after 1^st March subject to:-

a.        Council owned land, made available for the project, remaining in Council ownership, in perpetuity;

b.        Any assets built upon the land in question becoming the property of the Council;

c.         ACGT producing a viable business plan for the construction and future operation of the CGP (“the CGP Business Plan”) which will be used to underpin the development agreement, and in addition to the normal information contained within a commercial business plan, will also need to confirm:-

·     That sufficient provision has been made to enable future management and maintenance of the development, to a high standard, without the need for any direct revenue support from the Council and/or the Common Good Fund;

·     That the minimum amount of space possible, i.e. only as much as is needed to secure the development’s long-term financial sustainability, will be used for wholly commercial or semi-commercial purposes, and that the remaining space will be used for civic, cultural, communal and non-commercial leisure purposes; and

·     The expected use of the internal and external space by including a full description of the proposed civic, cultural and acceptable commercial and semi commercial uses;

(c)               require that the Finance and Resources Committee will scrutinise and approve the final terms of the development agreement before it is signed by all relevant parties;

(d)               instruct officers to submit a detailed business case (based on the document attached as Appendix 2 to the report), as the basis for negotiating a final Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement with Scottish Futures Trust (SFT), which will enable Aberdeen City Council to fund enabling infrastructure related to the proposed City Centre Regeneration Programme, and which specifically:-

a.          Secures a maximum funding contribution of £70million towards the CGP, in recognition of this project’s significance to the delivery of the City Centre Regeneration Programme;

b.          Secures a further £22million towards the other projects identified within the City Centre Regeneration Programme; and

c.          Mitigates the risks to Aberdeen City Council and ensures that the Council is not placed in a position whereby it is exposed to any additional risks, other than the risks highlighted in the attached business case;

(e)               require the Finance and Resources Committee to scrutinise the terms of and approve the final TIF Agreement before it is signed by all relevant parties;

(f)                 agree to fund all Council costs (external and internal) associated with drafting and negotiating necessary future legal agreements associated with the project (e.g. development agreement, TIF agreement, future operating agreement, lease agreements etc), subject to a maximum cost of £300,000, to be met from the Council contingency budget;

(g)               agree that no direct funding will be provided towards the cost of designing, planning or constructing the CGP, other than that:-

a.      generated through the proposed TIF Agreement;

b.      already committed to the public referendum being held to gauge support for the CGP;

c.      required to cover external fees associated with the negotiation and production of necessary legal documentation between Aberdeen City Council and ACGT and/or other project stakeholders; or

d.      required to cover the cost of officer time committed to supporting future activities needed to realise the CGP, subject (see recommendation (a));

(h)               encourage negotiations to take place between various Council services and ACGT relating to the possible exploitation of space within the development for art, cultural, leisure and heritage purposes, on a financial basis that is commensurate with the requirement to minimise the CGP’s future ongoing management and maintenance costs (see (b)c above);

(i)                 request ACGT to appoint the design team associated with the preferred design scheme (see Appendix 1) and move forward with the detailed design process in parallel with negotiations relating to the Development Agreement and the TIF Agreement, as soon as possible after the result of the public referendum is known and assuming this confirms public support for the CGP;

(j)                  require ACGT to confirm, in a legally binding form, that they have access to at least £70million of private sector funds to invest in the CGP,  prior to the signing of:-

a.      An appropriate Development Agreement; and

b.      A TIF agreement confirming Aberdeen City Council’s ability to invest at least £70million in enabling infrastructure related to the CGP; and

(k)       agree that notwithstanding the approval of the foregoing             recommendations, the Council is forming no view of any proposed development in its capacity as planning authority.

 

Councillor John Stewart moved, seconded by Councillor Corall:-

            That the Council approve the recommendations contained within the report.

 

Councillor Yuill moved as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Boulton:-

            That this Council agrees:-

1.             To note the outcome of the ‘City Gardens’ design competition;

2.             That it would be inappropriate for the Council to take any action which would appear to pre-empt the result of the referendum on 1^st March;

3.             That the Council will therefore not progress any matters or incur any expenditure related to the ‘City Gardens’ scheme - except those directly linked to the conduct of the referendum - before the outcome of that referendum is known;

4.             To instruct officers to report to a future meeting of the Council on the implications of the result of the referendum once that result is known; and

5.             To otherwise note the report.

 

Councillor Crockett moved as a further amendment, seconded by Councillor Cooney:-

            That the Council:-

1.             Notes the decision of Council of 15^th December 2011 regarding a referendum;

2.             Notes the design selected in the City Garden Project design competition;

3.             Agrees that Council should not consider matters further today and should meet following the result of the referendum and decide to either progress the project or not; and

4.             Agrees in the meantime to consult further with Aberdeen Youth Council and other relevant civic groups.

 

During the course of his summing up, Councillor Crockett agreed to withdraw his amendment in support of the amendment by Councillor Yuill, subject to Councillor Yuill’s amendment incorporating part 4 of his amendment - this was accepted by Councillor Yuill and those present.

 

On a division, there voted:-

 

For the motion  (24)  -  Lord Provost Peter Stephen; Depute Provost Cormie; and Councillors Blackman, Collie, Corall, Cormack, Dean, Donnelly, Dunbar, Jaffrey, Kiddie, MacGregor, McCaig, McDonald MSP, Malone, May, Noble, Penny, Robertson, John Stewart, Wendy Stuart, Townson, West and Wisely.

 

For the amendment  (15)  -  Councillors Adam, Allan, Boulton, Cooney, Crockett, Farquharson, Hunter, Ironside, Laing, Leslie, Milne, Reynolds, Jennifer Stewart, Young and Yuill.

 

The Council resolved:-

to adopt the motion.

 

In terms of Standing Order 15(6), Councillors Adam, Allan, Cooney, Crockett, Hunter, Ironside, Laing and Young intimated their dissent against the foregoing decision.