Campaigners opposed to the controversial redevelopment of Aberdeen City Council’s former headquarters are considering legal action in their efforts to block the £107million project.
The Reject Marischal Square group has taken advice on seeking a judicial review at the Court of Session of the process followed for the hotel, office and restaurant plans for the Broad Street site.
The objectors have also reacted angrily to a decision by the city council to publish detailed information online in response to a number of questions tabled by the group last month.
John Martin, a leading member of the group, claimed they were told by the council the information would be provided on Friday.
However, he said the documents were not received until 8.41am yesterday – at which time the details were already in the public domain.
Mr Martin said: “Our group has not had the opportunity to properly study the answers.
“It is just further evidence of how the council is treating us with contempt.
“We are now going to set about studying the answers but on first pass I would say the council is continuing to hide behind the commercial contracts and disguising the real financial risks.
“There is a lot of obscurity regarding the site purchase deal with Muse and it seems the council are committing themselves to underwriting the entire rental risk of Muse and Aviva for the next 35 years.
“Aberdonians have a right to understand what risks they are being exposed to for that length of time.”
Mr Martin added that the group had taken advice on what legal options may be open. He said: “Considering the way forward as a campaign group, we may be taking legal action.
“We would be appealing for legal expenses to fund a judicial review, we could apply for an interim interdict.”
The group also wants to see the business case that was presented to councillors to be made public, and has also asked if assumptions made have been revised given the recent downturn in the oil industry.
Mr Martin said: “Whilst clearly there are contractual confidentiality issues, surely Aberdonians have a right to understand the degrees of exposure for the generations to come.”
Campaigners believe there was a conflict of interest during the process, given the council entered a commercial agreement with Muse then acted as planning authority for the application.
Questions also remain around the deal to sell the old St Nicholas House site to Muse and partners Aviva Investors.
Concerns have been raised about why the council is taking on all of the risk of the development, but only receiving 50% of profits.
Deputy council leader Marie Boulton has said the Labour-led coalition administration is being as “open as we can be”.
Mrs Boulton said: “All 43 councillors have had sight of the business case and the advice that we have from our officers, and they have used external auditors to review it as well, they are comfortable that the risk is a considered and manageable risk.
“They feel it is a risk the council can afford to take.”
Mrs Boulton also insisted that the deadline of Friday to provide the information had been set in good faith, and there was no “deliberate interference” from the administration.
Much of the material that was requested had to be kept private due to commercial sensitivities, she added.
A council spokesman said: “The council has never stated how much development profit is in the capital sum or how this is split between the parties.
“This is considered to be commercially sensitive. If released, it could adversely affect the council or indeed any of the parties in negotiating future transactions.”