Agenda item

(A)      The Council received a deputation from Mr Hussein Patwa which was in the following terms:-

 

“My name is Hussein Patwa, a subject matter specialist appointed by the Disability Equity Partnership, a former Scottish Government appointee to the Mobility & Access Committee for Scotland (MACS) and a self-employed accessibility consultant.

 

I am here today to present a deputation on behalf of Katrina Michie (Acting Chair) of the Disability Equity Partnership and its external members (hereinafter referred to as ‘the parties’), and I thank you for the opportunity to do so.

 

This deputation covers the future of our City Centre and in particular the discrimination, exclusion, and resulting hardship which will be faced by disabled people if the recommendations in the report are accepted.  May I reiterate something which I said at a previous deputation, disabled people, those with reduced mobility and others are not against change, or the idea of progress.  We only ask that these changes, and ideas for progress are inclusive, that our needs are taken into account, that they are responded to by incorporation into the design and as part of an iterative process without unduly disenfranchising whole sections of our society, now and over the long term.

 

The report being presented to you today, and its numerous appendices may be within the letter of the Council instruction given in February but it isn’t in the spirit of that instruction.  Nor indeed does DEP feel that the engagement was carried out in good faith.  There have been a great many meetings, but at no time was the intention of officers made clear, DEP was kept under the impression that their concerns would be valued and addressed and that the process and options were open to change.  This was clearly never the case and the original option preferred by the previous administration was always going to be presented as the best deal for the city.  DEP would argue that this is not the case for the reasons contained in the documentation which has been provided to Council along with this deputation.

 

From the “sifted” options, options 1 and 4 were never going to be viable options as one was no change with a bit of a tidy up and the other would make the usability for all worse than doing nothing, which begs the question why were they presented to us for discussion?  All that remained was option 2 which is incorrectly being called pedestrianisation and option 3 which has buses, taxis and private hire vehicles operating in the central section.

 

As stated in the report, option 3 is the only option which is acceptable to DEP and NESS as it is the only one which affords anything close to equality of access to the city centre for disabled  and elderly people.  Option 3 causes no material harm to the general public, unlike option 2 which causes great harm to our most vulnerable and marginalised citizens.

 

There are overarching themes which must be addressed prior to any decision being made:

 

Access to the area by Bus and Taxi/private hire is non-negotiable, there is no other way that those who need to be dropped off in close proximity to their destination could possibly navigate the space.

 

The infrastructure that goes along with buses must also be in place, if the current versions cannot be accommodated, then different styles can be procured.

 

The Blue Badge criteria as set by the Government is clear, in order to qualify for a Blue Badge, applicants must only be able to travel 50m unaided.  This isn’t guidance, it's a material fact.  To put the ramifications of this into perspective, the central section of Union Street is approximately 350m long, seven times longer than blue badge holders can travel.  It is equivalent to asking an average person to walk 11Km (7 miles). These numbers are based on a poll carried out by Cancer Research UK.  Many of the people who use public transport or taxis/private hire vehicles meet the qualifying criteria for a Blue Badge. The Systra plan which shows the 50m isochrones where Blue Badge spaces are currently and where proposed spaces might be created left large gaps in the central section of Union Street, making any businesses or services located in these areas unreachable by a disabled driver.

 

Arguments have been made that under option 3 the stopping areas for buses would be overcrowded.  This may well be the case if the current under worked design for option 3 is used, however there are many places throughout the city where several buses use the same stop, and this will most certainly be the case if option 2 is pursued, the only difference being that they will be crowded and also in the wrong place.

 

Servicing times proposed have heavy vehicles in the area at the busiest times of the day, 6pm (when people are leaving work) and before 10am (when people are going to work and school) this makes the area its most dangerous for everyone, but especially disabled people, just when most people want to use it.

 

NESS have said: For many of the people DEP represents, access does mean for all transport modes, as different people will have different needs for support with their mobility.  Restricting two of the main modes of (buses and taxis) therefore restricts access.  Our greatest concern is that without buses travelling the length of Union Street, people who have mobility difficulties, for a variety of reasons, including people who are visually impaired, will find travelling the longer distances difficult and will therefore stop coming to the city centre.  DEP concurs with this, as this is a painful lesson learned from Broad Street.

 

This is the third time DEP has been in the situation of having to prepare a deputation, at very short notice, to Council regarding this issue, the facts have not changed, the solutions and mitigations promised have not been delivered, creating detriment to those we represent.

 

In our view, this recommendation doesn’t fulfil the Council’s responsibility under the Public Sector Equality Duty, the process didn’t meet the engagement criteria laid down in the Scottish Approach to Service Delivery, will not make Aberdeen a better place for people to live, work, raise a family (especially disabled parents or disabled children) or visit, will increase travel times and therefore the cost  adding to the cost of living crisis, is not open to all or inclusive, reduces peoples opportunities and choices, is unsafe and is not in keeping with the clear intentions set out in the Partnership document.

 

We ask that proper attention and thought is given to option 3 which not only benefits disabled and elderly people but will standardise the layout and the look of the whole of Union Street when the time comes to look at improvement to the east and west of this section, giving consistency and the clarity needed by those we represent in order for them to remain as independent and active as possible for longer.

 

The ‘A Vibrant City’ section of the Partnership agreement confirmed by council leadership specifically opposes the implementation of any new shared space zones within the city. Although some officers have previously denoted the recommended Option 2 as a pedestrianised area, this is a misnomer. Best practice and evidence from a number of large local and national stakeholders, as well as statutory transport bodies, recognise that any space used by both pedestrians and non-stationary objects (e.g. bicycles or servicing vehicles) are correctly referred to as shared spaces, and thus contrary to the council’s partnership agreement.

 

Finally, the content relating to this specific agenda item in the papers before you today is voluminous. However, we are perturbed and disappointed that despite the significant investment in time and effort with officers, their representatives and consultants over the previous months, including our provision of written responses to questions and issues raised in various meetings, today’s papers provide only a cursory mention of our view in inexplicably vague terms, without the evidence base, context and rationale needed to ensure a just and balanced representation of the engagement and its outcome. We have attempted to mitigate this by providing copies of this feedback as part of the written deputation submission, however we would respectfully submit that less than 24 hours provides wholly insufficient time for anyone, council or public, to assimilate, interrogate or audit the important detail contained therein.

 

The decisions you will reach will have long-lasting implications for all within our city. They must be accountable, audited and be evidenced with reference to specific stakeholder comment to avoid the need for retrospective recursion; something which we respectfully submit would be both counter-productive, politically, financially and morally challenging.

 

We wholeheartedly agree with the exigent need for certainty over the future design, infrastructure and operation of our city for those in business, tourists, residents, other users and, for those we represent and as seems increasingly likely, to plan the future logistics of their lives by ensuring continued access to inclusive services and resources outside the city centre, should this be their only option. Further delay and uncertainty does not benefit anyone however, nor does a decision taken without complete oversight of all pertinent evidence and supporting detail, as should have been the case today. We therefore ask that Council instruct officers to provide complete and unredacted copies of all meeting and engagement notes, responses from DEP and associated references in good time before a final decision is taken with the explanations and full consideration it merits. Such a decision could be taken in August to both allow it to be undertaken judiciously and to minimise further disruption to the overall city centre masterplan timeline. Until then, we ask that the decision to accept or reject the recommendation before you today is deferred pending remediation of the incongruences cited earlier.”

 

Members asked questions of Mr Patwa and thanked him for his deputation.

 

(B)      The Council next received a deputation from Mr Richard Tinto.

 

Mr Tinto advised that he was presenting as a local business in architectural practice but also as an Aberdonian who was passionate about the future of Aberdeen city centre, and that he was representing many people and businesses who were unable to be present today but who shared his dismay regarding the uncertainty over pedestrianisation of Union Street Central.

 

Mr Tinto emphasised that he was deeply disappointed when he saw the return of cars and buses to Union Street Central which brought with it a return to tight pavements and lack of space for pedestrians, which was an increased risk to health and safety and resulted in greater noise and air pollution.

 

Mr Tinto referred to the letter Aberdeen Inspired had sent to all Councillors recently, which he felt summed up the views of the majority of people who he spoke for and to. He firmly believed that pedestrianisation was the way to unlock a brighter future for the city centre and was the golden thread that would bring positive economic benefit, promote healthier and active living and would encourage more people to move back into the city to live, work and play, which was a key ambition for the current Council.

 

Mr Tinto stated that the city had been on a downward trajectory well before Covid-19 and that pedestrianisation would create an attractive and vibrant plaza that would allow people to enjoy a café culture they had come to enjoy during the pandemic. It would also allow people to safely stop, take stock and look at the city’s granite buildings and appreciate them, as they were simply not being looked after at the moment. He added that additional footfall and dwell time would attract a new generation of businesses to the city centre, and that every firm of surveyors in the city (and nationally) felt that pedestrianisation was one of the best ways to reduce the number of vacant units currently blighting Union Street. He emphasised that the Council needed to listen to such advice.

 

Mr Tinto stressed that pedestrianisation was the missing piece of the jigsaw and would help maximise the benefits of the City Centre Masterplan, including the much anticipated redevelopment of the old BHS site, the Aberdeen Indoor Market and Union Terrace Gardens. He acknowledged there were legitimate concerns about accessibility, however felt that these could be addressed. Mr Tinto expressed the view that it was deeply regrettable that almost every single vision for Aberdeen city centre seemed to become so divisive, and that the city, its people and the Council needed to come together and work in the best interests of the city.

 

Mr Tinto urged Councillors to vote for the long term success of Aberdeen city centre and work with the business community, transport companies, consultants, officers and disability groups to find solutions. He added that 8,000 people participated in the consultation on the City Centre Masterplan and the majority of people agreed that pedestrianisation was a top priority. Furthermore, over 80% of businesses surveyed by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce backed the proposal for Union Street Central to be pedestrianised.

 

Mr Tinto acknowledged that a new Administration was in power within the Council, and this was an opportunity to create a long lasting legacy by ensuring the City Centre Masterplan delivered major transformation - it would reduce pollution, make the city centre safer and more attractive and would attract more people to stay in the city centre for longer. It would also attract new businesses to fill vacant units, resulting a new generation of enterprise.

 

Mr Tinto concluded if pedestrianisation was properly planned it would improve traffic management in the city and urged Councillors to make the right decision for the city and its citizens.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Tinto and thanked him for his deputation.

 

(C)      The Council had before it a report by the Director of Resources which provided members with the background to the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) and updates on a number of key projects which would support economic and place-based recovery within the city following the Covid-19 public health emergency.

 

The report recommended:-

that the Council -

City Centre Masterplan

(a)           note that the City Centre Masterplan was approved unanimously in 2015 and agree the ongoing support of Council to the progression of the Masterplan review, noting that a recalibrated Masterplan to include the Beach would be presented to Full Council in August 2022;

Union Street Central

(b)           note the content of the Union Street Central Options Appraisal (Appendix A) and agree the preferred Option 2: Full Pedestrianisation (with central cycle and service corridor and servicing laybys);

(c)           instruct the Director of Resources to implement the detailed designs for Union Street Central as detailed in Appendix B, and to provide an update on progress to Full Council in December 2022;

(d)           subject to (c) above, instruct the Chief Officer - Operations and Protective Services to progress the necessary statutory processes to support that implementation.

City Centre Traffic Management Plan

(e)           note the outcomes of Phase 2 of the Traffic Management Plan (Appendix C) and agree:

(1)       that, irrespective of any decisions made in relation to Union Street Central, bus, taxi (and private hire) and cycle priority will require to be implemented on Bridge Street, Market Street and Guild Street to achieve the safe and efficient movement of active travel and public transport users through the city centre;

(2)       that, should Union Street Central be closed to general traffic, Schoolhill/Uppperkirkgate will require to be pedestrianised between Harriet Street and Flourmill Lane, and right turns prohibited except for buses, taxis (and private hire) and cycles from Union Terrace into Rosemount Viaduct in order to mitigate the impacts of displaced traffic from Union Street Central and to improve the safety of people walking and cycling;

(3)       the detailed designs of the above (as shown in Appendix C) and other necessary interventions, including operational plans for the Merchant Quarter and Belmont Quarter, all as specified in Paragraph 3.18, and instruct the Chief Officer - Operations and Protective Services to progress the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders and thereafter move to delivery of the required measures; and,

(4)       the initial outcomes of the option appraisal and sifting exercise for Union Street East and West (as shown in Appendix C), and that the remaining options proceed to detailed stakeholder engagement prior to final appraisal;

Union Street Building Condition Survey

(f)             instruct the Chief Officer - Strategic Place Planning to undertake the Union Street Building Condition Implementation Plan Pilot (Appendix D) and report progress to Full Council in December 2022;

George Street Mini Masterplan

(g)           note the outcome of the recent engagement exercise on the future of George Street (Appendix E) and instruct the Chief Officer - Strategic Place Planning to report back a Mini Masterplan for the George Street to Full Council in December 2022;

Ongoing Engagement with Stakeholders

(h)           note the ongoing engagement with key stakeholders, including the Disability Equity Partnership and children and young people, that has continued since the last report to Council in February 2022 (Appendix G) and instruct the Director of Resources to continue to engage key stakeholders on City Centre Masterplan projects moving forward, including establishing a City Centre Stakeholder Forum as detailed in Appendix F; and

(i)             instruct the Director of Resources to prepare a “fly through” visualisation of the City Centre Masterplan projects, including links to the Beach, to assist with engagement with stakeholders and to report this back to Full Council in August 2022.

 

Councillor Yuill moved, seconded by Councillor Cooke:-

That the Council -

City Centre Masterplan

(i)         note that the City Centre Masterplan was approved unanimously in 2015 and agree the ongoing support of Council to the progression of the Masterplan review, noting that a recalibrated Masterplan to include the Beach would be presented to Full Council in August 2022;

Union Street Central

(ii)        note the content of the Union Street Central Options Appraisal (Appendix A) and agree to implement Option 3 (bus lanes with bus laybys);

(iii)       instruct the Director of Resources to develop detailed designs for the implementation of Option 3 and further instruct that these designs where possible should allow for conversion to Option 2 (full pedestrianisation with central bicycle and service corridor and servicing laybys) should the Council agree in the future that:-

(a)       suitable 24-hour access arrangements to Union Street Central are in place for people with disabilities and limited mobility; and

(b)       suitable alternative bus and public transport arrangements are available which ensure easy bus passenger access to Union Street Central;

(iv)      subject to (iii) above, instruct the Chief Officer - Operations and Protective Services to progress the necessary statutory processes to support that implementation;

(v)        instruct officers to continue to engage with the UK Government about the developing profile of this project and to report back to Council on the outcome of that engagement;

City Centre Traffic Management Plan

(vi)      note the outcomes of Phase 2 of the Traffic Management Plan (Appendix C) and agree:-

(a)       that, irrespective of any decisions made in relation to Union Street Central, bus, taxi (and private hire) and cycle priority will require to be implemented on Bridge Street, Market Street and Guild Street to achieve the safe and efficient movement of active travel and public transport users through the city centre;

(b)       that, should Union Street Central be closed to general traffic, Schoolhill/Upperkirkgate will require to be pedestrianised between Harriet Street and Flourmill Lane, and right turns prohibited except for buses, taxis (and private hire) and cycles from Union Terrace into Rosemount Viaduct in order to mitigate the impacts of displaced traffic from Union Street Central and to improve the safety of people walking and cycling;

(c)        the detailed designs of the above (as shown in Appendix C) and other necessary interventions, including operational plans for the Merchant Quarter and Belmont Quarter, all as specified in paragraph 3.18, and instruct the Chief Officer - Operations and Protective Services to progress the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders and thereafter move to delivery of the required measures; and

(d)       the initial outcomes of the option appraisal and sifting exercise for Union Street East and West (as shown in Appendix C), and that the remaining options proceed to detailed stakeholder engagement prior to final appraisal;

Union Street Building Condition Survey

(vii)     instruct the Chief Officer - Strategic Place Planning to undertake the Union Street Building Condition Implementation Plan Pilot (Appendix D) and report progress to Full Council in December 2022;

George Street Mini Masterplan

(viii)    note the outcome of the recent engagement exercise on the future of George Street (Appendix E) and instruct the Chief Officer - Strategic Place Planning to report back a Mini Masterplan for the George Street to Full Council in December 2022;

Ongoing Engagement with Stakeholders

(ix)      note the ongoing engagement with key stakeholders, including the Disability Equity Partnership and children and young people, that has continued since the last report to Council in February 2022 (Appendix G) and instruct the Director of Resources to continue to engage key stakeholders on City Centre Masterplan projects moving forward, including establishing a City Centre Stakeholder Forum as detailed in Appendix F;

Aberdeen Performing Arts

(x)        instruct the Director of Commissioning, in conjunction with the Chief Officer - Finance, to agree a capital contribution to Aberdeen Performing Arts of £225,000 for His Majesty’s Theatre from the City Centre Masterplan capital budget; and

Cycling Walking Safer Routes

(xi)      welcome the funding earmarked through Cycling Walking Safer Routes (CWSR) and agree that this is deployed as soon as practicable to ensure that the agreed extended CCTV system along George Street is made operational at the earliest opportunity.

 

Councillor Macdonald moved as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Malik:-

That the Council approve the recommendations contained within the report, welcome the funding earmarked through Cycling Walking Safer Routes (CWSR) and agree that this is deployed as soon as practicable to ensure that the agreed extended CCTV system along George Street is made operational at the earliest opportunity.

 

On a division there voted:-

 

For the motion  (25)  -  Lord Provost; Depute Provost; and Councillors Al-Samarai, Allard, Alphonse, Boulton, Bouse, Hazel Cameron, Clark, Cooke, Copland, Cormie, Davidson, Fairfull, Greig, Henrickson, Hutchison, MacGregor, McLellan, McRae, Mennie, Nicoll, Radley, van Sweeden and Yuill.

 

For the amendment  (18)  -  Councillors Ali, Blake, Bonsell, Brooks, Crockett, Cross, Farquhar, Graham, Houghton, Kusznir, Macdonald, MacKenzie, McLeod, Malik, Massey, Stewart, Thomson and Tissera.

 

Absent from the division  (2)  -  Councillors Grant and Watson.

 

The Council resolved:-

to adopt the motion.