Academy Street: Councillors ‘will learn’ from debacle as Inverness businesses welcome U-turn
The public, political and business reaction to confirmation Highland Council will not proceed with the Academy Street revamp any time soon came swiftly last night.
SNP councillors made pleas to try to pave a way forward involving everyone concerned with the fate of Inverness city centre, while opposition members sought to hold them accountable for failure of the scheme.
After members conferred briefly behind closed doors the debate held in public saw frustrations on both sides of the argument aired.
City leader Councillor Ian Brown said he felt an appeal against the judicial ruling that found part of the council’s consultation process on the proposals unlawful, or continuing with the project, were both “dead” as options while insisting there had been “consultation and engagement” through the process.
He added he accepted Lord Sandison’s judgement and added “obviously we will learn from it.”
In terms of starting anew to look at Academy Street changes he supported this “at a far later date”.
Cllr Ken Gowans said: “I think we need to all take a step back and have an adult conversation about what we do with Academy Street.
“If we do this in a measured way then we have to make sure all stakeholders have the time and the space to make sure their input is optimal.”
Eastgate Centre says ‘damn-right frustrating’ battling Highland Council over Academy Street plans
COLIN CAMPBELL: Botched Highland Council plan for Academy Street has run out of road
But it was Inverness South Councillor Duncan Macpherson who perhaps most neatly summed up the views of many of those who had been opposed to the proposed changes aimed at limiting traffic movements on the key route.
“We need the consent of the public in order for things to go ahead,” he said. “Our job is not, as one senior executive of this council said, to ‘drag people out of their cars if it is the last thing I do’ – that is not persuasion.
“So that is what we have been burdened with here. I have had business owners talking to me biting their bottom lip to stop them from breaking into tears as they fear for their livelihoods because they say the officers in this council and the members in this chamber don’t understand.
“When we asked the administration to look at what was happening in Aberdeen it was ‘no, no, no’ and yes, you have got the power and you have got the numbers and the business of politics is arithmetic, but don’t abuse it – listen to the people who elected you.
“And many of you people who are now saying ‘oh yes, let’s be adult about this’ – I would have asked you to be adult about it two years ago instead of waiting until you heard your behaviour was unlawful”.
A spokesperson for Inverness Business Improvement District (BID) said: “For nearly two years we have been strongly campaigning for our businesses, as well as the public, community groups and all other stakeholders to be given a voice and to have their views properly considered.
“Our strategic efforts were extensive, and the material considerations and representations we put forward were at all times context and evidence led.
“The consultation on the proposal was found to be ‘unfair to and beyond the point of unlawfulness’.
“The plan itself was deemed to offer ‘poor value for money’ and the exercise ‘fundamentally flawed’. Given that we all want what is best for the Highland capital today’s decision was absolutely the right one to make.”
And Julian Diamond from Scoop said: “Representing the owners of the Eastgate Centre (who secured the judicial review), we were pleased to hear the outcome of the vote made earlier today and thankful that common sense has prevailed.
“To abandon the scheme altogether is somewhat disappointing as everyone agreed that Academy Street is in need of some tender loving care. However, officers will have known that dealing with such an important thoroughfare in isolation was never going to be a satisfactory long-term solution.
“The scheme had the ‘potential’ to split the city centre in half and have a catastrophic impact on businesses but for no good reason. Surely the way forward now is for officers to produce a long term cohesive town centre master plan, if there isn’t one already, with a focus on improving accessibility for all forms of transport to and from the city centre taking into account, for example; travel hubs, public transport, park and ride, level crossings, etc.
“A joined-up approach for a successful future city which includes streetscape improvements, traffic calming measures, speed restrictions, making it safer for pedestrians, those with mobility issues, parents with young children and cyclists.”
He added: “This of course would be subject to a formal consultation.”
The Inverness City Alliance - an organisation set up in response to the council’s handling of Academy Street said it “welcomes” the decision to abandon the project.
“As has already been demonstrated in Aberdeen and Glasgow, the introduction of bus gates restricting access to the city centre would have been a devastating blow to what are mostly locally owned Scottish small businesses, resulting in significant business failure and job losses,” a spokesperson said.
“Aberdeen has suffered a year on year decline of almost 600,000 visits to the city since their bus gates were activated, and Glasgow has seen a decline of some 400,000 visits. Such anti-business policies are completely unsustainable and at odds with the Scottish Government's stated intent to grow the economy.
“This is why around 80 per cent of city centre businesses opposed the scheme, and now welcome both the judicial review noting it was ‘unlawful’ along with Highland Council's decision to finally abandon it.
“We would like to thank Eastgate Centre for leading the Judicial Review process, along with Inverness City Centre BID, and the vast majority of city centre businesses for their support.
“It is now time to close this chapter, learn from the mistakes of other cities, and develop a new masterplan for Inverness which recognises the importance that local businesses play in the local economy.
“New proposals should now be co-developed with businesses, and must prioritise economic growth and people's livelihoods over dogmatic anti-motorist agendas.”
Conservative candidate in the Central Ward by-election Donald MacKenzie said: “Rejoice. Then look to get those who pushed this dreadful proposal to step down. The untrue claims, the bullying of opponents, ignoring the will of the public, trying to silence business opposition, the money wasted.
“Time those who pushed this project should go!”
Some members of public also responded warmly to the news online.
Kim Corbett said: “Thankfully they knew they were beat. It was always a ridiculous idea when it would have had a negative impact on so many other streets.
“If they had listened to the public two years ago a lot of time and money could have been invested in the city centre as a whole. It’s time for those bollards to be permanently removed.”
Russell Thompson from the Black Isle Brewery wrote to members ahead of the meeting where he said the SNP would likely lose his support over the administration’s approach over Academy Street.
He said: “I am especially ashamed of the actions of the SNP councillors throughout this, as a party supporter - though I doubt that will be continuing after the dismissiveness shown to me by you.
“Not one of you has attempted at any point to engage with me on this issue, the one exception to that is Councillor (Emma) Knox who last August told me she’d taken a note of my concerns for staff safety on Post Office Avenue, and had tabled an amendment that would address that concern. That amendment turned out to be something to do with a Park and Ride, not at all related.
“In the year since that happened not a single one of you has tried to listen to the concerns of myself or businesses in the city centre or try to argue your case and persuade us to your point of view. You’ve all hidden behind hapless council officers forced to try and justify these plans.
“The country dealt with months of the Partygate debacle where we ranted and railed against the government’s weaselly attempt to hide from scrutiny by pretending they couldn’t give an answer in public, because they were awaiting the publication of a secretive report, and here we have you using the exact same excuse to a member of the public.
“This plan has the problem of a perceived lack of consultation, and the entire project trying to be rammed through come hell or high water.”
