Agenda item

The City Garden Project - Timetable for Key Decisions and Arrangements for Short-listing Design Proposals - EPI/10/240

Minutes:

(A)       In terms of Standing Order 10(2), the Council received a deputation from Mr Mike Shepherd of Friends of Union Terrace Gardens.

 

Mr Shepherd expressed his belief that the timetable within the report was not logical and was excessively condensed with too many key steps being dealt with at the same Council meeting, which would be likely to lead to big mistakes being made along the way. Mr Shepherd highlighted that significant delays had already been incurred in relation to the project and that the timetable was overly ambitious with numerous omissions and ambiguities.

 

 

Mr Shepherd stated that the timetable was distinctly light on information pertaining to the Special Purpose Vehicle, and its legitimacy in legal terms, and questioned how the Council could approve a report which posed more questions than it provided answers.

 

There being no questions for Mr Shepherd, members thanked him for his contribution.

 

            (B)       With reference to Article 16 of the minute of its meeting of 30th June 2010, the Council had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which presented a timetable for key decisions and arrangements for short-listing design proposals relating to the City Garden project.

 

The report set out the following indicative timetable:-

 

Date

Description

28/09/10

Paper to Finance and Resources Committee outlining the steps involved in producing a Tax Increment Funding (TIF) business case and explaining the need for the production of an expanded TIF business case.

 

11/11/10

Project Management Board (PMB) to approve short-list of community engagement contractors.

 

11/11/10

PMB to approve short-list of design competition management companies.

 

02/12/10

Paper to Finance and Resources Committee detailing the resources required to project manage the City Garden project, and undertake essential tasks, up to the point where a design has been selected and a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) set up to take the project forward into the planning and construction phases.

 

20/12/10

PMB to approve draft TIF business case report.

 

18/01/11

PMB to approve final selection of design competition management company.

 

25/01/11

Council to sign contract to appoint community engagement contractor (100% of costs to be reimbursed from private sector stakeholders).

 

10/02/11

PMB to approve final selection of community engagement contractor.

 

17/02/11

Council to sign contract to appoint design competition management company (100% of costs to be reimbursed from private sector stakeholders).

 

01/04/11

Project Implementation Team (PIT) to agree competition guidelines and the request for proposals documentation prepared by the Competition Manager.

 

07/04/11

PMB to approve final TIF business case report, following up to three months of negotiations with Scottish Futures Trust (SFT).

 

27/04/11

Paper to Council outlining the situation with regard to land ownership and other rights (e.g. air rights above the road and railway), which may need to be acquired to deliver the project.

 

27/04/11

Paper to Council seeking approval of the SPV project business plan, approval to lease Council land to the SPV and permission for the SPV to take the project forward, subject to approval of the final detailed design scheme.

 

24/08/11

PIT and PMB to agree short-list of design teams and design proposals/options.

 

24/08/11 to

05/10/11

 

Short-listed design proposals subjected to public scrutiny.

08/11/11

PMB to approve selected design team and preferred design option.

 

14/12/11

Paper to Council, asking for approval of the selected design team and their preferred design option.

 

22/03/12

PMB to agree final sign off of the detailed, fully costed design scheme.

 

16/05/12

Paper to Council indicating who the likely key operators/tenants within the proposed scheme will be and asking for approval of the final, detailed, fully costed design scheme and the proposed funding package (including TIF funding element).

 

17/05/12

SPV to take the scheme forward into the planning process.

 

18/04/14

SPV to take the project forward into construction and operating phases.

 

 

The report went on to explain the process for the short-listing of the design proposal. The design process would be managed by an independent, professional design competition management company (hereafter referred to as the Design Competition Management Contractor (DCMC)), selected following a full tendering process according to EU procurement regulations. The DCMC would prepare a brief for the competition, which would be approved by the PMB before being issued as a public tender under full EU procurement regulations.

 

The report anticipated that the process thereafter would largely be determined by the DCMC, based on their knowledge and expertise in running similar competitions elsewhere, however an indicative process was set out within the report. The report concluded that the final, fully costed, design scheme would be submitted to Council on 16th May 2012 for final approval. If approval was granted, the plans would then be handed over to the SPV charged with taking them through the planning process.

 

The report recommended:-

that the Council -

(a)              note the timetable for key decision points of the City Garden project; and

(b)              note the proposed arrangements for short-listing design proposals relating to the City Garden project.

 

Councillor John Stewart moved, seconded by Councillor John West:-

            That the Council approve the recommendations contained within the report.

 

Councillor Greig moved as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Jennifer Stewart:-

            That the Council take no action on the City Garden project.

 

Councillor Yuill moved as a further amendment, seconded by Depute Provost Dunbar:-

That the Council approve the recommendations contained within the report and note that agreeing the recommendations did not imply support or otherwise for the City Garden project.

 

At this juncture, Councillor John Stewart agreed to accept Councillor Yuill’s amendment as an addendum to his motion and this was accepted.

 

On a division, there voted:-

 

For the motion  (21)  -  Lord Provost Peter Stephen; Depute Provost Dunbar; and Councillors Corall, Cormack, Cormie, Farquharson, Fletcher, Jaffrey, Kiddie, McCaig, McDonald, Milne, Noble, Penny, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart, Wendy Stuart, John West, Kirsty West, Wisely and Yuill.

 

For the amendment by Councillor Greig  (13)  -  Councillors Adam, Allan, Cassie, Collie, Crockett, Graham, Greig, Hunter, Ironside, Laing, Leslie, Jennifer Stewart and Young.

 

The Council resolved:-

to adopt the motion.

 

Supporting documents: