A £140 MILLION transformation of Aberdeen city centre has been abandoned, with Sir Ian Wood –the oil tycoon who pledged millions of his own money to the project – claiming councillors had shown "a lack of vision and confidence" after the plan was rejected by just two votes.
A watered-down counter-proposal was backed by 22 votes to 20, with one abstention, after a full-day's debate on the controversial scheme to raise Union Terrace Gardens from subterranean level and create a "world class" civic square.
It was claimed the regeneration could create 6500 new jobs and secure Aberdeen's status as a global player beyond the oil and gas era.
Aberdeen residents had voted 55% in favour of the plans in a referendum but a Labour pre-election promise to scrap the project led to further wrangling over Sir Ian's vision.
Last night, a restoration of the gardens and surrounding landmark buildings, including the art gallery, was agreed.
Sir Ian, chairman of global oil services firm The Wood Group, who offered £50m to the project, said: "Along with the majority of Aberdeen citizens who voted for the ambitious regeneration programme of our city centre, I am obviously very disappointed and dismayed by this outcome.
"I believe future generations, looking back on Aberdeen's oil era, will wonder why – after years of under-investment in our city centre, parts of which are clearly in decline – our city council failed to grasp the opportunity to do something really transformational and enhance their legacy.
"It's hard to believe that, following the positive referendum, our council have turned down an investment of £182m [including infrastructure costs] not available for other projects, with no impact on Aberdeen City Council's budget and with no impact on council tax payers.
"Labour councillor Willie Young earlier this week suggested 'big business is trying to call the shots and the ordinary citizens of Aberdeen are being sidelined'. That's exactly what the Labour Party and the council have done today – effectively sidelined the views of ordinary citizens of Aberdeen.
"We should be very concerned about the message this sends outside Aberdeen nationally and internationally about our lack of vision and confidence to invest for the future."
The Granite Web design was unveiled in January this year with 45,301 backing the scheme compared to 41,175 against in a 52% voter turnout.
Criticisms were made that the price to local businesses, which would pay back the outstanding costs through tax incremental financing, were too high.
Singer Annie Lennox, a key opponent of the project, claimed it was "an act of civic vandalism and an abandonment of democracy".
Mike Shepherd, chairman of the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens, said last night there was "no doubt that our councillors made the right decision" in turning down Sir Ian's project.
"The fatal flaw of the City Garden Project was that nothing was done to build consensus," added Mr Shepherd.
Richard Baker, Labour MSP for the North-East and Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, said "common sense has prevailed".
He added: "The financial risks attached to the City Gardens Project were too great. We have plans which will be advanced by Aberdeen City Council which will take our city forward and are ambitious but realistic."
SNP council leader Calum McCaig, whose party supported the gardens development, said: "I don't think 'livid' would be a fair enough description of how I feel right now. It's the narrowest of defeats and its repercussions will be felt in Aberdeen for many years to come.
"It would have instilled the change required to weather potential future storms for when the oil and gas is no longer here."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article