Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Caltongate given a Black mark

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 February 2008
THE man who sparked a European investigation over the Holyrood parliament building has demanded a fresh probe into the controversial £300 million Caltongate scheme.
Architectural historian David Black has contacted the European Commission with allegations the city council broke competition laws over the sale of land for the massive project.

Mr Black – a founder of the Old Town Association – has raised a numbe
r of concerns over the council's handling of the Caltongate scheme, which this week got the green light from the city's planning committee for most of its main elements.

It is unclear what the result of any investigation would be but Mr Black believes the EC could technically derail the project.

One of the key allegations centres around a patch of council-owned land, which Mr Black believes the city council supplied to Caltongate developer Mountgrange without offering it on the open market.

The old garages and land at East Market Street and Cranston Street, which includes common good land owned by the people of Edinburgh, was sold to the developer in an estimated £5 million deal nearly three years ago. A proportion of the money will go into the common good fund.

But Mr Black said: "I believe it is urgent that this is investigated. It would appear that there may have been several infringements of procurement legislation, and if there has been any infringement, this has to be made known."

Bill Cowan, spokesman for the Old Town Association, today welcomed the move. He said: "If Mr Black can take the matter to the European Commission, then that's tremendous. There has been the sale of common good land which does not belong to the council – it belongs to you and I. There is a process involved with that which has not been carried out."

The main Caltongate site, which incorporates the old New Street bus depot, was put up for sale by the Scottish Transport Group in 1990. A joint venture company headed by London company the Cuckfield Group and Dutch firm Sofam got the go-ahead for a £100m development in 2002.

The site changed hands again early in 2005 and it emerged that the new developer, Mountgrange, was pursuing much bigger plans. The company also wanted to develop the council-owned arched lock-up garages opposite the council HQ next to Waverley Station.

Mountgrange was one of two potential bidders for the site, with the other an unidentified company offering to develop the site in isolation as new offices.

Council officials said at the time that Mountgrange was the only developer that could offer "comprehensive and co-ordinated development for the wider area by combining their land interest with those of the council".

A council spokesman said: "The council's financial involvement relates to commercial agreements on property which have been reported openly to the council. It is routine for public and privately-owned land to be taken together for the sake of developments that benefit the city. We are obliged to raise market value on property we sell and we are comfortable that we have done that. If anyone has any information that rules have not been followed, they should bring that to our attention."

Five years ago, Mr Black lodged a complaint with the European Commission over the £414m parliament project, alleging mismanagement, secrecy and bias. The Commission decided that although rules were broken, no further action should be taken because the Scottish Executive had taken steps to prevent a repeat.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 February 2008 10:51 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh planning issues
 
1

Buttress,

09/02/2008 12:39:43
There has to be a call-in and all issues fully and properly investigated, preferably at a public inquiry.
2

Buttress,

09/02/2008 12:41:59
See also:

www.eh8.org.uk
3

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 09/02/2008 12:48:44
Why pander to the incompetent EU we have our own superior Scots law which will quite easily bring a necessary sentence of condemnation in regard Scots common good land.
4

,

09/02/2008 12:52:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Buttress,

09/02/2008 13:38:15
A further investigation should be made regarding the sale of the Caltongate Venture by the council to Mountgrange in order that it be demolished for a Sofitel Hotel, simply becaue the hotel chain 'requires a Royal Mile address'. Since when was national policy for the protection of listed buildings to be dictated by the commercial demands of a developer? If the development of the old bus garage site cannot be doneprofitably by Mountgrunge without this, then they should sell on the land. I suspect that once all permissions are in place it will all be sold on anyhow, possibly piecemeal.

The same applies to the 'Sailor's Ark' (also listed) and the McCrae tenements - not listed but buildings which make a positive contribution to a conservation area - these should not be demolished simply for commercial gain.

The council has ignored national planning policy for historic buildings and areas and this has got to be scrutinised by Ministers.
6

grantcat,

Old Town 09/02/2008 14:04:34
Bill Cowan is correct , the common good land does not belong to the council it belongs to the people, there needs to be a process which the council did not go through and they only offered it to one buyer. The land of Market Street is common good and should go in the common good fund not to pay for the mortgage/rent payments on the Council HQ. Waverley Market is common good land and despite its value when it changed hands at £40 million 3 or 4 years ago - the developers only pay a rent of £1 a year to the council (should they collect it!)for the next 200 years.

If David Black reckons they have breached legislation then it should be investigated - you either have a brown envelope economy or you don't. If nothing untoward happened then Mountgrange and the Council will have nothing to worry about.

www.eh8.org.uk
www.independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com
7

Terr2,

09/02/2008 15:05:45
More tedium from the Old Town grumpies. YAWN.
8

Pilrig,

Livingston 09/02/2008 16:48:25
7 grumpies to make way for legoland yuppies ?
9

Moscow Central 42,

09/02/2008 16:59:16

4 Ard Righ

Why don't you just call for the introduction of the more extreme elements of Sharia Law. Would a public execution perhaps be to your taste? You complete idiot!
10

seanie,

09/02/2008 20:55:35
#6
Legally speaking, Bill Cowan is not correct. Assets held in the Common Good are legally owned by the council, although there are conditions and restrictions on how the council can administer them.

Common Good assets may belong to all of us in a metaphorical sense. But not a legal one.
11

Buttress,

09/02/2008 21:04:14
Are they owned or are they held in trust for all?

Certainly the demolition of listed buildings is not simple, there are in national policy restrictions which don't appear to have been followed here.

12

seanie,

09/02/2008 21:15:57
They are legally owned by the council but must be administered "with regard to the interests" of the public.

They are not held "in trust" in a legal sense.
13

Buttress,

09/02/2008 21:32:21
Clearly, the interests of the public are served then by a deal with Mountgrunge!

It's how you interpret wider public interest - or how you wish to.

14

seanie,

09/02/2008 21:39:10
There are different classes of Common Good assets. Some are, and always have been, considered as just commercial assets; to generate income. Others are more specifically of public utility and benefit.

Whether the current proposals are in the public interest is a matter of opinion. But from a legal pint of view the issue of Common Good is probably a dead end. I'd think general planning issues, and the quality of the proposed development, would be better grounds for making a case against.
15

Buttress,

09/02/2008 22:35:38
I agree - the planning issues, especially the demolition of listed buildings, are maybe more relevant issues.
16

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 09/02/2008 22:37:36
TAKE DOWN INDIAN BREAKFAST SIGN LOOKS TERRIBLE
17

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 09/02/2008 22:48:27
What really annoys me is that these idiots will cost the Council / Council tax payers a fortune for their petty cause.
18

Think Tank,

09/02/2008 23:16:18
#17- spot on

They're blocking massive private investment and costing every taxpayer in Edinburgh through their pointless anti-progress mandate.

It's truly pathetic- if they're so certain that rules have been broken, they should be forced to underwrite ANY costs incurred for further investigation in the likely event of this scheme continuing to progress to development.

To put the burden on the taxpayer is irresponsible and idiotic.



19

Buttress,

10/02/2008 08:09:43
Of course national planning rules have been broken.

The plans will have to be called in by Ministers regardless because of that and because the council is financially involved.

The fault lies not with protestors but with an idiotic and irresponsible council which ignores the policies it should be following, and seems intent on spoiling the city with cruddy schemes which will be eyesores, the claimed financial benefits of which have yet to be proven.







20

Moscow Central 42,

10/02/2008 10:19:27
19

And you had the temerity to accuse me recently of having a limited repertoire.For someone who is so apparently so "well informed " your words not mine - you seem to be unclear about the legal status of Common Good assets.
21

Buttress,

10/02/2008 11:28:01
Well, I'm not here to troll, or bandy words with you. I think however you are mistaken - show me the post where I accused you of a 'limited repertoire'?

I am interested in the planning issues.

Those are the important ones. Listed buildings, conservation areas... however, it's useful to have more information about Common Good Land.

So if you have anything useful to add regarding that please do.

22

Enuff is Enuff,

Edinburgh 11/02/2008 11:19:33
Yet more expensive housing that no working class people from EDINBURGH can afford.
23

mad moo,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 13:53:53
It's truly pathetic- if they're so certain that rules have been broken, they should be forced to underwrite ANY costs incurred for further investigation in the likely event of this scheme continuing to progress to development.
- Think Tank

If rules have been broken perhaps the councillors who broke them should be charged and fined the costs of loss of income to the council from having agreed to sell off assets which are in demand as well as any loss of development costs incurred by Mountgrange.

Dont pass on the costs to the public who already are suffering directly from the incompantancy of those councillors who have either been voted out or who took their 'retirement' cheque from the council not to stand.
The councillors who promoted dodgy decisions (whether still in office, 'retired' or working for developers PR firms like PPS) should be made to pay all legal costs for investigation and compensation to the people of Edinburgh.
24

Buttress,

22/06/2008 12:21:11
This was a recent EU ruling on a similar land sale to that regarding Caltongate:

Land Securities' Stratford plan dealt blow by EU ruling

Ben Cook, Regen.net, 28 April 2008


Developer Land Securities' hopes of signing an agreement with Newham Council to extend a shopping centre in the borough have been dealt a blow by a European Union ruling.

The property company has, over the last four years, been developing plans for a mixed-use extension to its 350,000 square foot Stratford Centre in east London. The extension would have involved the development of land owned by Newham Council.

But an EU ruling on a case in France means Newham Council has been forced to put the contract out to full tender.The ruling - which related to a case involving Roanne town council - has established the principle that public development agreements are bound by EU procurement rules. Previously, such development agreements were not considered to be work contracts falling under EU procurement legislation.

Land Securities says it was close to signing a deal with Newham Council and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation to work on the project, but now the contract has been put out to tender via the Official Journal of the European Union.

The Stratford Island Regeneration Project will consist of an extension to the shopping centre as well as educational facilities for the University of London.

A spokesman for Land Securities, which owns the shopping centre, said the company was "disappointed" with the ruling.

He added: "The Stratford centre has development potential and we will take a view on what is the best way forward."

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.