The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-14804, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on Marischal Square. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the concerns of the Reject Marischal Square Development campaign group (RMSD), who have published a report on what they believe to be a lack of openness and transparency regarding Aberdeen City Council’s decision to enter into a deal over Marischal Square, where, according to RMSD’s Facebook site, in the worst case scenario “Aberdeen tax payers will be underwriting the risk of under-occupancy of the development by guaranteeing £175 million to Aviva shareholders over 35 years”; understands that, in answer to a freedom of information request by campaigners dated 9 November 2015 asking for a copy of the business plan for Marischal Square, the council stated that “there is no business plan at this time”; is concerned that there seems to be no business plan for what it considers to be a complex financial deal, and understands with regret that many Aberdonians feel that their voices have been ignored on this issue.
18:40
First, I thank the colleagues who signed my motion, which has allowed us to have this members’ business debate on Marischal Square. I also welcome the reject Marischal Square development campaigners to the public gallery.
It would be fair to say that almost every Aberdonian was pleased to hear that the former council headquarters, St Nicholas house, was to be demolished. It was regarded as a monstrosity, an eyesore, and a blot on the landscape. Many hoped that its demise would lead to a sensitive development of the site and the construction of a city square to complement the iconic Marischal college and the historic Provost Skene’s house, which had been hidden from view for decades. Alas, that was not to be and the Labour-led council has pushed on with a scheme that is about as popular as a visit by King Herod to the Bethlehem nursery.
Dave Urquhart, a contributor to the reject Marischal Square development campaign Facebook site, talks for many when he says:
“When the old St Nicholas house was demolished we could finally see Provost Skene’s House and Marischal College in their glory. The people of Aberdeen are crying out for this to be an open space, a civic square but those who are meant to represent them are not listening.”
He goes on to say:
“Why could this be? What financial millstone have these councillors draped around the people who live in Aberdeen, who work in Aberdeen and are proud of Aberdeen?”
Fellow objector David McLeod says that the scheme is
“An architectural disaster, perpetuating its predecessor, and imposing a financial burden on Council Tax payers for many years to come.”
Many feel that the planning process was flawed and that the full impact of the scheme did not become apparent until 3D imagery of the development was produced by Pinnacle Visualisation. It would be fair to say that folk were extremely disappointed that the Scottish Government did not call in the application. However, I do not want to concentrate on the planning aspects. Instead, I want to focus on the perceived lack of openness and transparency around the financial deal that Aberdeen City Council has entered into with Muse Developments and Aviva.
The reject Marischal Square development campaign group has been assiduous in trying to get to the truth about the deal and Mr Bill Skidmore has been at the forefront of those investigations. In a freedom of information letter to the council, Mr Skidmore asked for a copy of the business plan for the scheme and received a reply from the council that said,
“there is no business plan at this time”.
There is no business plan at this time and yet, according to the campaigners, in the worst-case scenario,
“Aberdeen tax payers will be underwriting the risk of under-occupancy of the development by guaranteeing £175 million to Aviva shareholders over 35 years.”
It has been said by a great number of folk that it is somewhat ironic that Aberdeen City Council is willing to take on a risk that a multinational insurance company is not prepared to underwrite.
In recent days, campaigners have managed to acquire two pages of the summary of the bids for the Marischal Square development and I will hand a copy of those pages to the minister after the debate this evening. I will also send those documents to Audit Scotland for its perusal.
Yesterday, Mr Skidmore wrote to all Aberdeen city councillors about the content of those documents. In his letter, he said:
“I got the impression when reading the Summary Bid information that the author was trying to steer Councillors away from Muse. Too many unquantifiable risks, the need for a full life costing, a ‘risk’ fund and a ‘sinking’ fund to limit the damage of unquantifiable void periods over the full life of the lease. Instead, Councillors were taken in by the prospect of £2.6M income from the property or nearly £100M over the 35-year lease period—for a FULLY LET SCHEME!”
He also said:
“This is undeniably a bad investment decision, one that represents ‘Worst Value’ for the city when compared with the other bid proposals.”
Of course, all these grand plans, schemes and strategies were drawn up at a time when the oil price was high, when Aberdeen was booming and property was at a premium. Sadly, the outlook has changed, but has Aberdeen City Council’s Labour-led administration changed its business plan to manage the new risks that have appeared over the horizon? No, because, as we have already established, it does not have a business plan.
There is no business plan but, according to the summary bid information, the council is required to upkeep, manage and maintain the building. The document says that those costs can generally be recovered from tenants, but what if there are only a few tenants? The document goes on to point out a number of other pitfalls that, unfortunately, I do not have time to go over today.
I commend the member for achieving this debate. Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the full debate, but I am very struck by what the member has said and by what the group has put forward in the documents that I have read, because there are strong parallels with things that have gone wrong in my area of Argyll and Bute. Will the member and the minister reflect on the need for greater supervision of local authorities? To say the least, Audit Scotland does not appear to be well equipped to deal with such lack of democracy.
I agree with Mr Russell on that point. I know that he has been working assiduously to try to deal with some of the problems in Argyll and Bute. There are certainly similarities between the two situations.
I hope that the documents that I will provide to the minister and to Audit Scotland will be pored over and they will look very carefully at them.
I will leave the final words to Kathleen Paterson, whose words reflect the feelings of a great many Aberdonians. She says:
“The heart of the beautiful city of Aberdeen is being gradually murdered with every brick that is laid in this awful development!”
She continues:
“How can the councillors sit at their desks listening to the work going on, in the knowledge that they are imposing something horrendous on their town, something which will more than likely cost its taxpayers dearly and which, given the current and predicted economic climate of the North East, will surely stand half empty for years to come!”
She says:
“Open your eyes and ears Aberdeen Council, admit mistakes were made and rethink this project, with the help of all of those concerned, bewildered, angry and heartbroken citizens of your town!!”
18:47
I welcome this debate and I congratulate Kevin Stewart on obtaining it.
I welcome the desire of all concerned to support regeneration of the city centre of Aberdeen. Marischal Square has its origins in the decision that was taken by the previous administration to relocate Aberdeen City Council’s headquarters from St Nicholas house to Marischal college. That was a large-scale and ambitious proposal that divided opinion; indeed, it was the financial millstone that left the city council substantially in debt. Leasing Marischal college from the University of Aberdeen entailed a debt of £60 million. The demolition of St Nicholas house has cost several million more.
Will the member give way?
I would be delighted to.
I recall from my time as a member of that administration that Lewis Macdonald and his colleagues said that the Marischal college project would cost the council more than £80 million. It cost the council less than £60 million. Surely the member welcomes the fact that the project was brought in so heavily under the budget that he assumed it would cost.
That is a remarkable contribution. Mr Stewart has just talked about the financial millstone that has led to the Marischal Square development, and Mr McDonald wants to boast that the financial millstone is a little lighter than it originally looked as if it was going to be.
Will Mr Macdonald give way?
I will in a moment, I am sure, but let me make some progress.
Mr Stewart will recall that he was convener of finance on the city council at a key point in the process. He urged fellow councillors not to forget
“the multi-million pound asset that is St Nicholas House”.
The value of that asset could fund the costs of Marischal college. That is of course precisely what is happening now. Despite the controversy, no party or group on the council has brought forward proposals to leave the site of St Nicholas house undeveloped, because doing that would simply not pay the bills.
After some debate, Aberdeen City Council chose to demolish St Nicholas house and enable new development. As we have heard, it has now sold the site to a pension fund on a leaseback arrangement, with the right to buy it all back at a nominal price after 35 years. That is clearly a better deal for city taxpayers than the long lease of Marischal college, which generates debt rather than income, but as the campaigners have rightly argued, it comes with a degree of risk.
The lease of Marischal college is an extremely good deal over a 175-year period. Beyond that, the foresight of the previous administration saved an iconic Aberdeen building. Does Lewis Macdonald think that the buildings that are currently going up will be classed by any Aberdonians as iconic?
Mr Macdonald, I will give you extra time, given the length of the interventions that you have taken.
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer—I am very grateful.
I certainly think that it will be a lot easier for Aberdeen City Council to recover value from the Marischal Square development than from Marischal college, which it is clear is simply a drain on revenues for the council. It will take quite a lot of income to pay off the £60 million of debt that Mark McDonald mentioned.
However, there is a degree of risk, as has rightly been said. A report from the accountants EY yesterday commented on the “remarkable resilience” of the Aberdeen economy over the past year in the face of a low oil price and large-scale redundancies. We must hope that that continues, but there is, of course, a risk that that resilience will fail to prevent recession, and there is consequently a risk that the council’s income from Marischal Square will fall short of the annual rent that it has committed to pay under the leaseback arrangements.
In that context, it is worth noting last week’s report by the Parliament’s Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which is convened by Kevin Stewart, which said that local councils should work with pension funds to secure infrastructure investment.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Not at the moment.
Mr Stewart and his colleagues urged councils to take a less cautious approach. They said:
“without some degree of risk taking, innovation will not happen.”
That is quite right.
Audit Scotland has looked at the innovative financing arrangements for Marischal Square. It concluded that the risks had been well understood and managed, and it advised the council to
“continue to manage its financial exposure to mitigate these risks accordingly.”
I hope that the council will heed that advice, but I also hope that it will heed the advice of Mr Stewart’s committee not to be unduly risk averse.
Aberdeen City Council can clearly demonstrate a proactive approach to the wider risks to the regional economy. Its proposals for a city region deal, which are with ministers, have cross-party support. Now Opportunity North East is bringing together public and private sector partners to strengthen and diversify the regional economy with generous support from, among others, Sir Ian Wood. They recognise that investing so that the local economy continues to grow is the best way to ensure that Marischal Square pays for Marischal college rather than simply adding to the existing debt.
I commend the campaigners who are here today for asking difficult questions. As they will know, the project that they did not want is now well under way, and I suspect that, despite what Kevin Stewart said, they will hear no actual proposals this evening that would change that. Nonetheless, I hope that they will maintain their commitment to our living, changing city, and that they and all of us will continue to strive for Aberdeen’s future success.
18:53
I pay tribute to the campaigners and in particular to my constituent, Bill Skidmore, who has sent a great deal of information to MSPs in advance of this evening’s debate. It has certainly made for interesting reading.
My colleague Kevin Stewart helpfully focused on the lack of a business plan and the questions that arise off the back of that. I want to consider some of the wider impacts and risks that I think that the development poses. However, I cannot allow some of the things that Lewis Macdonald said to go unchecked and unchallenged.
First, I think that most people would accept and agree that the redevelopment of Marischal college has been a fantastic benefit to the city of Aberdeen. If Lewis Macdonald’s view is that any capital expenditure should be viewed as a millstone or a risk, it is a wonder that anything ever gets developed in the city of Aberdeen. I give the example of new school buildings, which cost tens of millions of pounds. Lewis Macdonald appears to believe that we should not make such investments of tens of millions of pounds because of the potential debt that might arise.
Will the member give way?
No, I have more to come to yet. Let me develop further.
Of course, Lewis Macdonald turns around and says that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee has spoken about using pension funds for infrastructure investment. That is something that I have spoken about, too, particularly with regard to public pension funds. The idea is that pension funds that invest in that way recoup their investment over time, rather than the burden of risk of the investment simply being transferred on to the local authority, which is what is happening in the circumstances that Lewis Macdonald is talking about.
Then Mr Macdonald says that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee has said that councils should not be too risk averse. There is a fundamental difference between not being risk averse and being essentially blind to or ignorant of risk. That appears to be a dividing line that the Labour-led administration in Aberdeen has fallen over quite spectacularly.
Clearly, Audit Scotland has not considered the handling of the matter to be either blind or ignorant. However, if Mr MacDonald is suggesting that, in some way, Aberdeen City Council should cease to seek an income from Marischal Square, can he tell us how he would have the council pay off the debt accrued at Marischal college?
One of the things that Aberdeen City Council ought to have done is to have had a much more open and transparent process from the beginning, focusing on the views of Aberdonians with regard to the options that they want to be developed, and then examining how those could be delivered. I am pretty sure that what is currently being developed would not have been top of any of the considerations.
One of the other things that Aberdeen City Council did erroneously was to vote—against the wishes of the group that I was a member of—for the council itself to incur the costs of the demolition of St Nicholas house, with no guarantee of what would come after, thereby taking on an up-front cost with no guarantee of future income. That was another example of carelessness in the face of risk assessment.
I want to consider some of the wider issues in terms of impact and risk. Union Street, the flagship street in the city of Aberdeen, needs support and investment as part of a strategic approach. I fail to see any sign of such an approach. Indeed, it seems that the development and the proposed development in and around the city centre are designed almost to prevent the recovery of Union Street rather than to assist that. The Marischal Square development will be another part of that problem, because it will have a financial impact.
Opportunities are coming to the council and, as Lewis Macdonald is now keen on the council not being risk averse, I am sure that he will join with the calls that have been made by my colleague Councillor Jackie Dunbar for Aberdeen City Council to look to use the new powers that are being given to it in relation to business rates to consider a targeted approach to business-rate reduction in order to encourage independent retailers on to Union Street.
I believe that that should be coupled with ideas about how the upper levels of Union Street buildings could be better used. For example, they could be converted to flats and other properties, which would enable the provision of accommodation in the centre of Aberdeen and reduce the space of buildings that is being let to retailers. That would encourage the smaller independent retailers that exist in areas such as Rose Street and Thistle Street on to Union Street, which would give them greater exposure and greater footfall.
That is the kind of approach that we want to be taken in our city centre—not what is being done with Marischal Square at the moment, which, instead of promoting the smaller independent retailers, only gives an opportunity to chain retailers that do not have a local presence to set up shop in Aberdeen and potentially divert business from them. For me, that is one of the great shames about this situation.
18:59
I am pleased that Kevin Stewart has secured this debate, because it allows us to discuss some real concerns about the Marischal Square development and the planning system in Scotland today, particularly with regard to public engagement in the process when a major development proposal is being considered.
At this point, I should declare that my husband is a committee member of Aberdeen Civic Society, but neither he nor I had any direct input into consideration of the proposals to develop Marischal Square in Aberdeen.
I would also like to acknowledge the detailed briefing material that was sent in by the reject Marischal Square development campaign group ahead of the debate, most of which I unfortunately do not have time to deal with today. It raised many issues with the process that was followed by the city council, including the financial process. The latter has been thoroughly investigated by Audit Scotland, and I think that, at this stage, we must accept that financial due process was followed by the council.
Marischal Square is a site of major importance to people in Aberdeen and far beyond, neighbouring as it does two of the city’s most historic buildings: Marischal college and Provost Skene’s house. Any development in Marischal Square would have a major impact on their setting. With the removal of St Nicholas house, widely seen as a blight on the landscape of the city centre, there was an opportunity to do something iconic with the space that was opened up and to develop the site in a way that is sympathetic to Provost Skene’s house and which showcases and compliments Marischal college, giving space and attracting people to the area. The development that has been approved and is now under construction has shocked many Aberdonians by its sheer size, scale and density—it is already obliterating the imposing granite façade of Marischal college.
At a recent summit held to discuss the effects of the downturn in the oil industry on the economic future of the north-east and the steps required to secure it going forward, it was stated that Aberdeen needs an attraction that not only brings visitors to the city but shows people from other parts of the world, with the skills that we need to attract, that Aberdeen is a great place to live and offers an excellent quality of life. However, there is widespread feeling throughout the city’s communities that the opportunity to develop an iconic attraction has been lost with Marischal Square, as it was just a few years back, when proposals to develop Union Terrace gardens were rejected by the council, although that was before they reached the planning stage. In fact, I think that that would have been a catalyst to the issues that Mark McDonald mentioned in relation to Union Street.
Public opposition to the Marischal Square development has been intense, with residents who have never before been active taking to the streets with placards and loudhailers in protest against it. Even at this late stage, campaigners are asking the Government to call in the planning application and are seeking a moratorium on building until the public engagement exercise can be rerun. That is because they feel that the public’s voice has not been listened to as part of the planning process, leaving them feeling totally disenfranchised from it.
The Marischal Square development has exposed some fundamental problems with our current planning system. The public do not understand the process. When they turn out in large numbers at pre-application hearings and other public consultation events, as they did in the case of Marischal Square, they think that they have registered their objections, unaware that, to be valid, those objections must also be formally submitted to the planning authority within the time allowed. In this case, the many hundreds of objections expressed resulted in only 44 formal submissions on the planning application. Understandably, people are outraged that their views were therefore not considered by the council.
In my opinion, that is simply not good enough in 21st-century Scotland, when we are encouraging community involvement in all aspects of life. When important major developments such as this are at issue, the process really needs to be changed to enhance community input. I urge the minister to consider that as a necessary and urgent improvement to the planning system that is currently in place.
19:03
I first congratulate Kevin Stewart on securing this important debate—I am happy to support the motion. I have received many emails and letters from my constituents on the Marischal Square development, and all of them are against the scheme. Not one person wrote to me asking me to publicly support it. I completely understand their concerns, and I, too, pay tribute to the tenacity and determination of the campaigners.
In my opinion, the scheme is utterly uninspiring and lacks any vision. It does nothing to improve the area aesthetically. It detracts from and overshadows an iconic building, and it is a missed opportunity to do something distinctive that reflects the architectural heritage of the north-east. A series of planning decisions has left the city centre fragmented. There was a chance to use this site to create a civic heart of which the citizens could be proud. I am not saying that Aberdeen should not have a new development or that the city should remain as it is. What I am saying is that this development should have been much more ambitious. I mean—how many more shopping malls does the city need?
However, this debate is not about aesthetics; it is about the financial irresponsibility of the city council in approving the bid by Muse. I am very much aware that the building works have already started, but it is important to reflect on the mess and what got us here. We heard from Kevin Stewart about the lack of business plans. We also heard about the financial risks involved in the deal that Aberdeen City Council made with the developers and the secrecy surrounding it.
We have to reflect on the facts that the Labour-led administration has regularly shown contempt for the city’s residents; the design was never subject to a proper public consultation; and Labour’s finance convener either sought to mislead the public or was simply being incompetent when he claimed that cancelling the scheme would cost £100 million in fees. Those are important matters that deserve our attention.
Muse previously stated that it hoped that a big-name oil company would lease office space in the new development. Unfortunately, the past year or so has shown us in the north-east how volatile the oil and gas sector is, how quickly opportunities fade, and how too much reliance on a single sector can damage other areas of the economy.
Does the member agree that, given the developments at Prime Four and ABZ business park by the airport, it is unlikely that oil companies will seek city-centre locations, when other available sites are located more advantageously for access to the airport and the Aberdeen western peripheral route?
Mark McDonald makes an absolutely fair point.
Employment and the retail and hospitality sectors have all been impacted. The city council, above many others, understands that we have to deal with the peaks and troughs of the oil industry. The reality is that currently most oil and gas companies are looking to cut down on staff and office space.
Aberdeen City Council and Muse agreed the deal when the city was in a better financial situation than it is in just now. However, the council should have had a robust business plan for the project and it should be able to show proof that it has contingency plans. It should be able to assure everyone that this new building will have a purpose and that it will be financially viable even in the toughest of times, and yet it cannot—those assurances are missing.
It is disgraceful to accuse those who raise these valid concerns of playing politics. I support Kevin Stewart’s motion.
19:06
Like, I suspect, others who have contributed already, I rise to speak as much as an Aberdonian as an MSP. Even though I have lived longer in the constituency that I represent than I lived in the granite city, Aberdeen will in many respects always be home, so it pains me to say that Aberdeen city centre has been destroyed by the planning decisions of successive local government administrations, with Union Street a deathly pale imitation of what it once was and, indeed, what it ought to be.
However, along came a wee glimmer of hope in the shape of the demolition of the blight that was St Nicholas house, which offered a chance to create an open space and let Provost Skene’s house breathe. More than anything, it was an opportunity to allow Aberdonians and visitors alike to view Marischal college and Greyfriars kirk in all their glory.
I managed fleetingly to avail myself of that opportunity when I was home in the summer. I have driven up Upperkirkgate many times over many years but in the summer, for the first time ever when I travelled those yards, I was able to gaze upon the magnificence of Marischal college, which was a genuine “wow” moment. That magnificent piece of granite architecture was at long last free of obstruction and able to be viewed as it ought to be viewed. However, that would not be the case for long, because work was already under way to construct Marischal Square.
Let us consider what Marischal Square is offering. It offers 173,500 square feet of grade A office accommodation and associated car spaces, but there is no shortage of available office space to be found within the granite city. It offers 26,500 square feet of retail and restaurant space. Forgive me, but are the Bon Accord and St Nicholas shopping centres not located within a couple of hundred yards of this spot, offering just that? Do we not already have the Union square development enticing shoppers away from the retail heart of the city? Marischal Square offers a 126-room hotel, but I thought that Aberdeen was pretty well served in that regard. Indeed, in recent months, it has seen a 30 per cent underoccupancy rate for hotels.
On the shopping element, do not listen just to us politicians; let us consider the views expressed by Mary Portas, who I am told is an expert in town-centre retail. On a recent visit to the city, she tweeted:
“Aberdeen Council are letting a shopping build in Marischal Square while Union Street is slowly dying ...What?!”
She continued:
“Beautiful granite stone buildings on Union Street being left while money pumped into a new build by Aberdeen Council. Madness!”
To be fair, the development does allow for a 14,500 square feet civic space in front of the historic Provost Skene’s house. However, although people will be able to gaze on the splendour of that construction, they will not be able to see Marischal college, because, apart from a narrow passageway, it will be completely blocked out by some of the buildings hosting these retail, restaurant and hotel facilities.
It is the missed opportunity represented here that is so sad—the chance to say “enough is enough” to these sort of developments, turn the spotlight on the beautiful buildings that the city already has and, in retail terms, concentrate on reviving Union Street.
There is also the financial aspect of the deal, involving Aviva investors and Muse Developments, whereby Aberdeen taxpayers are underwriting the risk of underoccupancy of the development by guaranteeing shareholders £175 million over 35 years. That financial arrangement potentially creates a significant problem for the council that goes beyond the threat of having to fund an underutilised Marischal Square.
If Marischal Square is underoccupied, the arrangement potentially places councillors in a rather difficult position when they come to decide on future planning applications. If they turn down applications for significant-sized city-centre retail, restaurant or office developments, would that potentially lay them open to accusations that they are doing so in order to protect Marischal Square and the council’s financial exposure there?
Perfectly valid and justifiable decisions could be called into question on those grounds. Legal challenges could be mounted, based on claims that councillors may have been predisposed to reject such applications because of the possible implications for council budgets if they were granted. The Marischal Square project, if it is not a rip-roaring success, could create all kinds of difficulties for future council administrations in the coming decades.
For me, it all comes down to one simple question: can Marischal Square be justified on any grounds? I and many others believe that the answer is no.
19:11
I, too, congratulate Kevin Stewart on bringing the debate to the chamber. The future of Aberdeen city centre is an extremely important issue and rightly excites strong opinions, including those from the reject Marischal Square development campaign group, whom I welcome to the Parliament this evening. People care greatly about the city centre and are concerned about its current state, as we heard from a number of members. They know that its improvement is vital for our local economy, particularly in these greatly challenging times for the oil and gas industry.
The Marischal Square plans have—as we heard—been at the centre of very heated debate, as the proposals for Union Terrace gardens were before them. As someone who supported the previous exciting plans for a new contemporary arts centre to be based in the gardens, I am disappointed that ultimately those plans did not go ahead. However, in the midst of all the debate on Marischal Square and amid much disagreement, there is a consensus that our city centre must change and must be improved.
I know that Aberdeen City Council is absolutely committed to making that change happen. The Marischal Square plans are part of that, but on an even wider scale there is the on-going work on the city centre masterplan to which the council administration is committed—Mark McDonald referred to the strategic approach to that.
Whatever views there may be on the plans for Marischal Square, we should all be able to agree that the new development will be a significant improvement on St Nicholas house, which stood on that site for so many years and which, as Nanette Milne said, was not a building that was widely regarded or cherished by the residents of Aberdeen.
It is interesting to hear Richard Baker now coming out in favour of the Marischal Square development, given that he would not do so in the run-up to the general election in which he stood as a candidate.
I disagree with Mr Baker, and I ask him for the proof that folks think that the new development will be better than the St Nicholas house situation. I have heard from residents of the city that we are simply replacing one ugly skyscraper with four ugly skyscrapers.
I will give you a little extra time, Mr Baker.
That is not what I have heard at all. Of the great majority of people in Aberdeen to whom I speak, no one has expressed to me the idea that the development will be detrimental in comparison with St Nicholas house. Indeed, I expect that even some of the members who have said in the debate that they are not in favour of Marischal Square hold that opinion.
I accept that there are people who do not support the plans, but there are others who want to see the kind of environment for retail and leisure in the city centre that Marischal Square will provide. Union square has already proved to be highly popular and it has plans to expand.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time—I apologise.
An important element concerns the finances that will accrue to the council through the Marischal Square project. Given that our city council receives significantly lower levels of funding than other local authorities, that must be a key consideration for the council administration as it seeks to protect funding for services. Although concerns have been raised during tonight’s debate with regard to the scheme’s finances, I point members towards the Audit Scotland report on the financial plans, which found that good practice had been followed. On the business plan, I understand that there was no business plan for the Marischal college scheme either.
The work on Marischal Square—
Will the member give way?
The work is proceeding, but doubtless the wider debate—
Will the member give way on that point?
No.
The member is not giving way, Mr Stewart.
The wider debate on the future of Aberdeen city centre will continue because it is such an important issue for the future of the city—on that we can all agree.
I know that there is also broad agreement on the need for an Aberdeen city region deal. That is important given the fact that infrastructure and investment are key elements of the deal, offering further opportunities to develop our city centre. It is good that the city region deal bid offers the opportunity for the transformation of the city and that it is supported across parties, across Governments, and by the two councils.
Aberdeen city centre can be the attractive and vibrant place that we all want it to be, helping to bring more people to visit, work and live, and to enjoy all that our great city has to offer. That is the goal that lies at the heart of the work of our council and should be a common endeavour for all who represent the city. I hope that the minister will confirm his support for that vital work at the end of this evening’s debate.
19:15
The subject of the motion is clearly an important issue, as we have seen from the debate this evening. I say that not just as the local government minister, but as one city-centre MSP to another. The key questions that are triggered here—about heritage, finances and how to plan best use of the short supply of space in a city centre—are big questions, and feelings run deep. The evidence of that was made clear by Aberdeen’s street protests, one of which was led by the member who has led tonight’s debate, and which had thousands of participants. As Graeme Dey highlighted, even Mary Portas weighed in.
We have seen a sustained campaign to influence local decisions. In the spirit of recent Scottish politics, I commend people’s willingness to get involved with debates, regardless of which side we or they are on, and I commend the willingness and energy that the citizens of Aberdeen have shown by becoming active and engaged on the issue. Whichever position people take, their determination has been something to behold and our society would benefit if more people engaged so actively with local issues.
I will correct the minister. I did not lead any of the protests; they have been led by the citizenry of Aberdeen, and have shown the groundswell of opinion that there has been.
Does the minister think that the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 can make a difference in allowing folks the opportunity to have their voices heard, unlike the situation under debate, in which they have been ignored?
I used the word “led” in the purely physical sense, based on a photo that I saw. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 is really important in this regard. I was about to comment on some of the wider issues that the debate has raised before homing in on the specifics.
The community empowerment agenda is all about tackling not just the inequalities of wealth and income that we have in this country, but the inequalities of power and influence. Sadly, only 22 per cent of people in Scotland feel that they can influence local decisions. That figure must be made higher.
There is a range of community empowerment initiatives that try to get away from adversarialism and in stead to focus on positive suggestions and partnership working. We are rolling out participatory budgeting in order to get people directly involved in spending decisions. Perhaps crucial for the debate tonight are participatory planning initiatives—for example, charrettes, of which we have funded 31 since 2011. They are an intensive way of getting communities proactively involved at the start in order to provide the vision of what people want. In July, we committed £300,000 more for 2015-16 and, as ever, we received more applications than we could fund, but the appetite for that form of empowerment is clear.
The minister might be aware that a charrette was undertaken in my constituency in relation to the Grandhome estate. That charrette predated the Marischal Square process, so the process ought not to have been alien to the council when it was undertaking the Marischal Square project.
Mark McDonald has made his point. Charrettes have been around for a while and they represent a particular way of doing intensive participative planning. The principles are good practice that can be deployed through all kinds of other methods in planning.
To answer Nanette Milne’s point, we have an independent panel reviewing the Scottish planning system at the request of the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights. Its membership includes Petra Biberbach of PAS—formerly Planning Aid for Scotland—and it has identified community engagement as one of its key issues. The call for evidence closed on 1 December, and the report is expected in May, with any changes to be based on the recommendations to follow after that.
All that is the generality; here is the specific. There is no doubt that this is a crucial issue to Aberdeen, and it brings home that we should not treat council elections lightly. Local authorities are responsible for vital services, for emotive decisions and for £16.5 billion of gross expenditure every year. Local democracy matters, and it gives councils a mandate and a way of being held accountable for decisions that are not supported by their electorate—just as we are held to account in the Parliament.
As the minister said, local democracy matters. Nanette Milne said that only 44 submissions came in against the planning, but many hundreds of people were out in protest. The council ignored democracy.
There is clearly an on-going debate and people from all sides are having their say. People will have all kinds of opportunities to have their say through the electoral and democratic processes.
We, as a Government, believe in local decision making. We intervene only in extreme cases and we have powers to direct only in specific circumstances. We have no general power to direct local authorities: to be frank, long may that remain so. Any power that we have goes through the statutes that are passed in this Parliament, and it applies in limited cases. In that respect, Marischal Square lies beyond any reach of the Scottish ministers at this point. Planning permission has been formally granted by the local authority, so it cannot be recalled by ministers, and we must act with respect for that decision. Nor is there any evidence that the council has failed in a statutory duty under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which could trigger powers.
Audit Scotland concluded in its 2014-15 annual audit of Aberdeen City Council that
“relevant transactions have been appropriately”
accounted for, and that
“Appropriate processes have been followed”
in a financial sense. The Scottish Government’s power to direct following a recommendation by the Accounts Commission will therefore not be engaged on the ground of best value. There have been criticisms of Audit Scotland this evening, but it is our established independent audit body and the Scottish Government must have regard to it; indeed, the Government’s powers in this respect are triggered only when, through its work with the Accounts Commission, it makes a recommendation.
I return to where I started on the matter. Audit Scotland looked at the finances, but this is a political decision. There are issues that are much wider than the finances, such as the opportunity cost, other uses of the square and the advisability of investing in one project over another. All those things are within the scope of reasonable local political debate, and it is understandable for people to come to different conclusions about the advisability of the plan, just as it is within people’s scope to view administrations positively or negatively. Planning permission was passed on a close vote of councillors, as was the Muse deal. The issue has been controversial and I expect that controversy to continue. Kevin Stewart, who has brought the debate to the chamber, is to be commended for acting on his views as a local representative and for giving the debate more space.
This Government is subject to constant attacks from parties on either side of me about centralisation, but it is also called on to intervene in local decisions on everything from planning to social care. This minister believes in local democracy.
In conclusion, let me restate clearly what my predecessor said to Kevin Stewart last year. Our actions do not constitute approval for the proposal or agreement with decisions that have been taken by the council. We are merely acknowledging that the matter is in the council’s area of responsibility.
Just as we want empowered communities, we want responsive democracies. Having the first without the second would lead only to cynicism and disengagement. It is only when all levels of government are truly realising the Christie principles of prevention, performance, people and especially partnership and participation that we will have flourishing villages, towns and city centres, and everyone will be able to look with pride on the place that they call home.
Thank you all for taking part in this important debate.
Meeting closed at 19:24.Previous
Decision Time