By Dave Lord

THE MAN famed for triggering the inquiry into the hugely over budget Scottish Parliament building project has branded the controversial scheme to create an upmarket shopping mall at Perth City Hall as “Holyrood Mark II.”

Author and eminent historic buildings expert David Black spoke out after The Courier unearthed the development brief agreed by Perth and Kinross Council and private firm Wharfside Regeneration.

He claims the powder-keg dossier—obtained from the European Commission in Brussels after the council repeatedly refused to release details—is “full of holes and questions” and clearly confers a benefit on the London firm.

More than three years have passed since Wharfside was handed the contract to renovate the Edwardian landmark. Despite countless promises and the passing of numerous deadlines, work has not even started on the project.

Until now details of the contract had remained private, with frequent requests from The Courier being rebuffed by council chiefs.

Even requests made under freedom of information legislation were refused, with officials insisting release of the documents would not be in the public interest.

However, the development agreement was eventually obtained from the European Commission who previously launched a probe of the city hall tender process amid allegations procurement laws had been broken.

The contract appears to prove that Wharfside faces no real pressure to get the job done and that funding for the project was not in place prior to the council signing on the dotted line.

Mr Black described the document as “highly unusual.”

Rather than showing that funding has been sourced and is in place for the project, the contract describes the “funder” as being any one of three companies or any other firm as Wharfside may nominate.

The agreement also states that Wharfside would not be obliged to start work until at least 50% of pre-lets had been secured.

Mr Black believes this “clearly confers a benefit on Wharfside” with “all risk attached to the council.”

He claimed that it shows the council handed over complete control of the project to Wharfside without the developer committing to anything in return.

“This clearly confers a benefit on Wharfside ... and has all the characteristics of an option, with risk attaching entirely to Perth and Kinross Council,” said Mr Black.

“Since no performance can take place until the pre-lets are signed up, logic suggests that the contract, in essence, is in limbo and not fully concluded.”

Meanwhile, a group of influential business leaders—including the local chamber of commerce and the Perth City Centre Action Group—yesterday released a statement branding the current apparent impasse regarding the city hall a “debacle.”

“The argument over the council’s contract with Wharfside is still raging and there are significant outstanding questions that need to be answered regarding the nature of the agreement,” they said.

With local tax payers continuing to shell out thousands of pounds for general maintenance of the vacant landmark building, local businessman and long-time critic of the Wharfside scheme Vivian Linacre has described his “horror” on learning details of the development agreement signed by Perth and Kinross Council.

In 2005 his company Linacre Land Ltd entered a design competition to convert the city hall but was pipped at the post by Wharfside.

Mr Linacre described the agreement as a “recipe for disaster.”

“The council handed over complete control to Wharfside,” he said.

When contacted by The Courier a Perth and Kinross Council spokeswoman issued a comprehensive rebuttal of the criticisms.

“The claims being made about the project have largely come from one of the unsuccessful bidders,” she said.

“A challenge on the project’s procurement by this unsuccessful bidder has already been rejected by the European Commission.

“The council is absolutely confident that its procedures are robust and will stand up to any challenge.

“With regard to the general terms and conditions of the contract, the council employed one of the leading commercial law firms in the country,” the spokeswoman said.

“Nothing in the claims being made causes the council to doubt the adequacy of the contract and this has been verified by independent legal advice.

“The council has no intention of debating the individual terms of the contract but would certainly disagree with Mr Black’s interpretation.

“The council is satisfied with the funding arrangements which include appropriate financial safeguards.”

The spokeswoman described the “suspensive condition” regarding pre-lets as being “standard in such a contract.”

“From the council’s perspective, we would not want work to begin on site until tenants are in place to occupy a substantial part of the project,” the spokeswoman continued.

“The council has also taken steps to protect its position by putting in place deadlines to ensure the developer went ahead on the projected timescale.”