Agenda item

(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the proposed civic square element which relied on the pedestrianisation of Broad Street, however this had been withdrawn on the day the Council considered the planning application, and therefore the public felt misled.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 of Ms Ingram and thanked her for her contribution.

            (D)       The Council next received a deputation from Mr Sydney Wood.

Mr Wood highlighted the need for Aberdeen to diversify its economy for the longer term and argued that the Muse development represented short term thinking. He stated that the city had too many retail outlets as things stood, and that many of them were currently lying empty.

Mr Wood referred to the redevelopment of Aberdeen Art Gallery, and suggested that a major museum be built in close proximity to Provost Skene’s House, which he felt was a special building which deserved to be seen properly, not hemmed in by the Muse development. He added that Marischal College represented the visual character of Aberdeen, and with a redeveloped Art Gallery and Provost Skene’s House in full view alongside a major museum, Aberdeen would be in a far better position to mount a genuine challenge for City of Culture in the future.

Members thanked Mr Wood for his contribution.

            (E)       The Council next received a deputation from Mr Bob Taylor of Common Weal Aberdeen.

Mr Taylor explained the purpose of Common Weal Aberdeen, advising that they wanted the Council to hold a ‘mini public’ in an effort to resolve the public anger surrounding the Marischal Square project. He intimated that the Council appeared to be ignoring the will of the people, and Common Weal Aberdeen wanted to help improve local democracy at a number of different levels.

Mr Taylor emphasised that the people needed to be more involved - particularly when there was such a high level of interest as was the case with the Marischal Square project. He added that a community planning partnership approach could have been better utilised and that a citizen’s jury was another initiative worth looking at. He concluded that public participation should not be viewed as an obstacle for the Council to overcome.

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

            (F)       The Council next received a deputation from Dr Lorna McHattie who was accompanied by Mr Fraser Garrow.

Dr McHattie and Mr Garrow delivered a presentation with a number of images which highlighted the density of the proposed development and the shadowing effect it would have on Marischal College. They contended that if the pedestrianisation of Broad Street did not go ahead, then the development would encroach closer to the road, which raised a number of public safety concerns, and questioned if any modelling had been carried out with pedestrianisation not included.

Dr McHattie and Mr Garrow also questioned whether the financial risk associated with the project was a risk worth taking for the city, with the Council due to receive a share of any profit but being saddled with all of the loss.

Dr McHattie concluded by referring to the legal advice which members were due to receive, and argued that this should not be considered in private as they had been given a copy of the legal advice, and it had also been reported in the local newspaper and was therefore in the public domain.

Members asked questions of Dr McHattie and Mr Garrow and thanked them for their contribution.