Edinburgh Christmas market and Hogmanay operators have been awarded a new contract to run the events for another three years, despite the threat of legal action against the council by a rival bidder.
GC Live wrote to councillors raising “serious concerns” about the procurement process, claiming the council did not properly evaluate its bid in line with its own contracting rules – or scrutinise the financial position of Unique Assembly, which it lost out to.
It said it was preparing to launch a legal action in the Court of Session and had “instructed solicitors to review the procurement documentation”.
A spokesperson for the Bathgate-based company said they were “understandably disappointed” councillors rejected their plea to reject the officers’ recommendation to renew its deal with Unique Assembly. The consortium consisting of Assembly Festival and Unique Events Limited first stepped in at the eleventh hour to run Edinburgh’s Winter festival in 2022, following a previous procurement fiasco.
GC Live said after being “encouraged to apply by the council” and investing “considerable resources” it received “no response to valid queries we raised relating to the procurement process”.
Council bosses said they did a “range of due diligence checks” and were quizzed on the specifics of the dispute by councillors in a behind-closed-door session at the finance and resources committee on Tuesday, February 30.
Withdrawing an amendment to delay awarding the contract, Lib Dem councillor Neil Ross said he felt reassured “legally, financially and contractually” by the officers’ responses to the issues raised in GC Live’s letter, as the decision was passed.
Edinburgh Labour councillor Katrina Faccenda said in a post on X committee members were “being rushed towards making a decision,” adding: “It is time to stop and scrutinise.”
In a preceding public discussion on the contract, Cllr Lewis Younie, Lib Dems, pressed officers on “probity and when we started to ask people for financial information”.
An official said specification included a “minimum turnover requirement which was equal to twice the value of the expected contract award” and then “further checks were undertaken”.
Another added: “We agreed it was appropriate to do further due diligence as the end of the tender process approached and therefore we built in additional checks . . . so that meant that rather than looking back which is what we would have done in the October time we were asking bidders to provide more up to date financial information about their organisations.
“We also advised we would do a range of due diligence checks on the back of that – not just turnover and not just threshold, but we would also look more intently at other external financial information that was available.
“For example, credit reference checks would form part of that, we would look at balance sheets, we would look at cash in bank. So we looked and provided a lot more rigour around all of those areas before we were satisfied with the outcome.
“We also asked additional questions of bidders where appropriate to get an explanation of any figures we weren’t sure about and get more detail around that.”
Estimated rental income to the council for the three years plus two optional 12-month contracts with Unique Assembly “will range between a minimum of £405,000 and £1,507,500 over the course of the contract term, subject to planning permission, licensing and site availability,” a report said.
A spokesperson for GC Live said: “We are understandably disappointed to hear about the City of Edinburgh Council’s decision on the tender award for the CT2978 Edinburgh Winter Festivals’ contract because we have had no response to valid queries we raised relating to the procurement process.
“GC Live submitted a tender for the account having been encouraged to apply by the Council as part of the formal process.
“After investing considerable resources in a four stage, six-month long process, initial recommendations for the bid appointment were published on 25th April. Having identified potential flaws in the process, we responded to those recommendations through the appropriate Council channels but were told to wait until today’s F&R committee meeting.
“We had heard nothing back from the council so sought legal advice and sent a private letter requesting a pause on the final award of the contract.
“This request was made to ensure that the probity and lawfulness of the council’s decision and tender scoring could be provided and as a tenderer, our concerns alleviated.
“Even as of today, we have had no response or any official correspondence from the Council apart from what’s been made available publicly and now considering our position while we await further information.”
Meanwhile Labour council leader Cammy Day, who said ahead of the meeting said the authority had “taken a different approach to procuring this contract this year” was criticised for making a “comment on the award of contract before the contract was awarded by this committee,” by Cllr Younie.
Cllr Faccenda’s X post said Day was “making it sound like it was already awarded before the meeting”.
Finance and resources convener Mandy Watt, Labour, admitted the council leader “pushed it probably a bit further than would have been ideal”.
She said: “I’ll feed that back to him and check with the media briefing team that we make sure we get these kind of things quite accurate when there are contracts and legal things.”
Commenting after the report was approved, Cllr Day said: “I’d like to congratulate Unique Assembly following today’s unanimous decision by councillors. They bring decades of experience in delivering major events, including our own Winter Festivals, and I’m confident that they’ll provide a fantastic service to the city over the next three years.
“The festivals occupy a central element in the cultural calendar of our city and delivering them well for our residents and visitors remains a key priority for us – not least given the huge enjoyment they bring each year. They also deliver substantial economic benefit for the city and for Scotland more widely, supporting jobs and businesses in many sectors most notably tourism, hospitality, and leisure.”
Big-hearted Edinburgh cabbies have hit out at the council after being asked to stump up cash to have planters on the Royal Mile moved for their annual outing with vulnerable children.
For over 75 years the capital’s taxi drivers have treated local youngsters with special needs, life-limiting conditions and terminal illnesses to a fun day out parading through the city in their brightly decorated cars.
But after seeking to return to the route taken by the much-loved Edinburgh Taxi Outing before the pandemic – when planters were used to block traffic from the High Street under the Spaces for People scheme – they were told temporarily removing the blockade would come at a cost.
Organisers have said they remain hopeful the issue is just one of ‘miscommunication’ and that any fee would be waived by the council for the long-running event.
After submitting plans to go along Princes Street, up the Mound and down the Royal Mile for the first time since 2019 organisers were quoted a figure understood to be around £1,500 to have the planters moved.
In a letter seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service the council said during events such as the long-running Taxi Outing its staff were “not required on site” and therefore there were “no resources available to move or return the planters”.
It said: “If an organiser wishes to use a route which requires the planters moved or returned then the costs for the work would be at the expense of that organiser.”
A council spokesperson said the cabbies would be free to shift the large boxes themselves or alternatively alter their route by turning down Cockburn Street.
Taxi Outing secretary Keith Bell said it wasn’t “physically feasible for us to do that”.
He said: “I’m not sure why they can’t just send a man in a flatbed with a tail lift, drop the tail lift, or a pallet truck, and move the planters.
“What happens if the public see Joe Bloggs moving the planters? You really need to have a council lorry there with council staff moving it, because if I can just shift them what’s to stop anyone else shifting them? It’s on a hill as well, it’s not like we can do that – we’re taxi drivers.”
He added: “I think the figure quoted was probably for a commercial event, which is fair enough – if people are making a profit from the city it’s only fair the council recoup their cost and I would never have a problem with that – it’s just we’ve been going for over 75 years.”
The Association of Hackney Carriage Drivers of the City of Edinburgh said: “Despite the commendable efforts of the city’s taxi drivers to uplift the spirits of vulnerable children, bureaucratic hurdles erected by the council threaten to undermine their altruistic endeavours.
“The refusal to accommodate these compassionate acts speaks volumes about the council’s misplaced priorities.”
Mr Bell said he was “sure it’s just a misunderstanding” and “when the officials realise it’s for the Outing and we’ve been doing it for 75 years the matter will be resolved quite amicably”.
He said: “I suspect what’s happened is the email has come in – because the council is more like a sort of call centre where they just have generic staff answering the phone, doing the post – and the person probably wasn’t aware of what the taxi outing was, so they’ve just given the generic answer.
“I know sometimes how bureaucracy can get in the way and what you would think would be a simple solution sometimes turns into a nightmare.
“I’m sure it’s just a misunderstanding and when the officials realise it’s for the outing and we’ve been doing it for 75 years I think the matter will be resolved quite amicably.”
He added: “The whole point is they were installed for Covid – Spaces for People. Covid’s finished two years ago and they’ve kept them there.”
While the planters were installed in 2020 as part of a range of measures to make it easier and safer for people to walk, wheel and cycle during the pandemic, the council had previously agreed to permanently close the High Street to traffic between North Bridge and St Mary’s Street.
Originally the Taxi Outing – which the public are invited to take part in by lining the streets and soaking the balloon-clad convoy with water pistols – went along Princes Street and Regent Road, before heading to Musselburgh for Luca’s ice cream and then Dirleton for a BBQ.
However amid tram works the procession was directed along the Royal Mile, where the Lord Provost would be dropped off at the City Chambers, and this became the new route for the event.
The Edinburgh Taxi Outing is set to take place this year on Tuesday, June 11.
Edinburgh Council has been contacted for comment.
Henderson Place, Edinburgh.
An Edinburgh developer has been accused of trying to “wriggle out” of a commitment to build affordable homes after it claimed doing so was no longer “financially viable.”
Councillors overwhelmingly refused Henderson Place LLP’s bid to abandon allocating 10 flats in a new block of 42 as social housing.
They were told making the properties affordable enough for registered social landlords to buy would “eat into the potential profitability” and result in £1.3 million less going to the developer.
It was proposed just under £600,000 would be paid to the council instead for affordable homes to be delivered “in the vicinity” of the Henderson Place Lane site.
However councillors rejected the move, saying they would be “lucky to get two” or “possibly three” built – down from a previously-agreed 10 in line with the local authority’s 25 per cent affordable housing policy.
One remarked: “The developer is trying to wriggle out of the obligations for this which I’m not happy about.”
Planners said the overall cost of the project had risen from £7.9 million in 2020 to £10.6 million, while the estimated income from property sales had “plummeted.”
Developers required to provide affordable housing on small sites were facing a “perfect storm” of difficult market conditions,” said Cllr Hal Osler, convener of the development management sub-committee where the application was heard on Wednesday, May 1.
Planning officer John Maciver said the cost of taking on the units to a registered social landlord (RSL) “would be an amount of monies well above anything that could be afforded by any of them.”
Planner Alex Blyth added figures provided to the council “prove the developer could not afford to reduce the price of the units to a level that would be affordable to an RSL.”
The pair were quizzed by councillors on whether there were any “exceptional circumstances,” which justified waiving the developer’s obligation to deliver affordable homes on-site.
Cllr Chas Booth said: “In the past we’ve had arguments from developers that they have needed to do pile driving, which they had not anticipated beforehand and that had added costs.
“As far as I understand it, the reason for this developer saying they can’t afford the affordable housing is inflation in terms of the significantly increased build costs.”
He added: “Their argument for asking for this to be changed from on-site to a commuted sum is around construction price inflation. That is not unique to this specific site.
“I think it was reasonable to take into account some sort of expectation that inflation might increase.”
Cllr Booth was also concerned approving the application would send a “message” to developers that on-site affordable housing was “an optional extra.”
He said: “On-site affordable housing is really, really important. We should be holding quite a firm line to developers, I believe.”
Cllr Osler, who backed granting permission, said: “This is not something we like to see coming before us.”
She said: “We do seem to have a bit of a perfect storm. I know there’s been much mentioned about the increase of costs of construction.
“We seem to have applications coming in front of us where they are small scale and so the build costs are more expensive for small build, in particular areas which are expensive to build in.
“I would pretty much say a perfect storm of having three things in front of you is quite exceptional.
“I would with a heavy heart obviously go with what planners have recommended. I don’t believe the planners would have recommended this if they didn’t feel there was a different option.”
Cllr Jo Mowat urged the committee to reject the bid. She said a subsequent appeal to the Scottish Government would be a “test for our policy.”
She said: “I am highly concerned about what is being brought forward.
She added: “Development is a risky business, it comes – we have determined that – with a high level.
“I do not accept there are exceptional circumstances. I think this is purely a question of testing viability.”
She said issues affecting construction costs “apply to every single site being developed” and “unless we want a rash of these applications to come in and lose all the affordable housing this committee has fought very hard for over the years, we need to test this.”
Cllr Alan Beal said: “From what should be 10 affordable housing units, we’re going to be lucky to get two somewhere, possibly three.”
He added: “The developer is trying to wriggle out of the obligations for this which I’m not happy about. I think they’ve got a responsibility to meet this obligation.”
The committee voted 8-2 to refuse modifying the planning obligation.
