Public Question Time
:
Minutes:
Dave Pretswell, Luss and Arden Community Council, submitted the following question in writing for consideration by the Committee:
“During the last
local Area Committee meeting, and in the context of the Committee's
deliberations upon the draft Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) for Luss village,
the Committee was advised by Ms Rowena Ferguson, representing the Coach House
Coffee House, Luss, that she had submitted some seven counts of Complaint
alleging misconduct by Luss and Arden Community Council, allegedly material to
the Committee's consideration of these TROs.
Can the Members of
the Committee each confirm that they have been made aware of the outcome of the
Council's Conduct Panel Review of 5th November which duly considered these
allegations and subsequently dismissed all seven out of seven points of
Complaint as being entirely without merit?”
The Chair advised
that the minutes of the Community Council Conduct Review Panel meeting were
publicly available on the Council’s website and, on this basis, she was
confident that all Members would be aware that the Panel made the decision not
to uphold the seven points of complaint made against Luss and Arden Community
Council.
Alastair Moore, John
McGall and Laura Freeland submitted the following question to the Committee:
“At the Helensburgh
& Lomond Area Committee Meeting of January 2019 we, as a Rhu Village
residents group, put forward the case for the creation of a footpath on lower
Pier Road, Rhu, a stretch of road identified as dangerous particularly for
pedestrians. This proposition gained full Council support subject to
funding availability and possibly the completion of other historical footpath
projects.
We note that the
footpath work plans unveiled in a report and voted through on 2 September 2021
unfortunately did not include our footpath proposal.
Could we please have
an update on our proposal and what timescale is anticipated for this much
needed road safety measure.”
Councillor Freeman
provided information around a site visit that had taken place in 2019, which had
involved a number of parties discussing the highlighted concerns. He noted that
it was his understanding, following this site visit, that the Head of Roads and
Infrastructure Services would investigate funding for the purposes of
implementing a footpath. He asked that an update be provided on the progress of
this to Mr Moore, Mr McGall, Ms Freeland and all Members.
Councillor Paterson
noted his agreement with what Councillor Freeman had said, and asked that an
appropriate update be provided in order for the matter to be addressed.
The Chair confirmed
that the Committee Manager would feedback this question to the appropriate
Council officers, and that any response would be circulated to Mr Moore, Mr
McGall, Ms Freeland and all Members following the meeting.
:
Public Question Time
:
Minutes:
Rowena Ferguson advised that she had three
questions that she would like to submit to the Committee in relation to the
Luss Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) proposals and the Committee considered each
of these questions in turn.
Rowena Ferguson asked the following question in
relation to Community Council involvement in the foundations of the TRO:
“In your last paper to this meeting you stated the
Community Council TRO proposals ‘were produced by lawyers acting for the
Community Council’ and that these were ‘a strong example of positive
partnership working’. I note in today’s paperwork there is absolutely no
mention of the Community Council’s input to this TRO. Perhaps this is because
In the meantime allegations (with supporting evidence) have been filed with
regard to Luss Community Council and their preparation of this TRO.
Allegations of inappropriate influence by Sir
Malcolm Colquhoun…
As a result, a Conduct Review Panel is being
convened by Argyll & Bute Council. Yet the executive knowing all this, and
knowing the TRO is based on the Community Council legal work has decided to
proceed with this order. Surely it would be appropriate to wait for the outcome
of this panel hearing before progressing this TRO. Why proceed with the TRO
when there are such serious outstanding allegations? Why not wait until all the
facts can be properly established as this TRO risks disadvantaging my business
and other business in Luss which are not owned by Luss Estates?”
The Committee Manager advised that it would not be
appropriate for the Committee to comment on the concerns raised around a
Conduct Review Panel, as this process was completely separate to the process
for the TRO which was being considered at the meeting. Rowena Ferguson advised
that she was aware of this but felt that the Committee should delay any
decision until they were aware of the outcome of the Conduct Review Panel.
The Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services
advised that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the Conduct Review
Panel and he would not be best placed to respond to any comments in this
regard. He confirmed that officers had consulted with a wide range of partners,
including the Community Council, as part of the process to implement a
Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) previously and in the course of
preparing the draft TRO being considered by the Committee today.
The Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services
advised that proposals being considered were not significantly different to
previous TRO proposals which had been considered. He outlined the differences
between the previous TRO proposals and the ones being considered by the
Committee today, noting that the TTRO in place had provided opportunities for
officers to makes pertinent changes to proposals based on this experience. He
confirmed that the Community Council had provided some input to the process
alongside a wider group of consultees and this had been welcomed, advising that
officers were satisfied that this had been an appropriate step in seeking a
solution to issues in the area. He noted that any TRO process was likely to
require further work in the future and would involve continuous monitoring to
assess whether there were any required changes. He reiterated that the TTRO had
provided officers with a monitoring opportunity, and resulting knowledge had
been incorporated into the draft order. He confirmed that from an officer point
of view, he was confident and content that the process had been robust and that
the consultation process had likely been even more extensive in this instance
than it had been for a number of previous TROs.
Councillor Freeman advised that he was aware of
issues raised and would not comment on the aforementioned Conduct Review Panel
process. He noted that he did not believe that it was likely that Members would
agree to continue consideration of the TRO to a later meeting and sought
confirmation that, if concerns were subsequently raised which indicated that
there had been an impact on the TRO process, standing orders could be suspended
to allow Members to re-consider the matter. Councillor Freeman also sought confirmation
that the TRO would be subject to a bi-annual or annual review.
The Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services
confirmed that the TRO would be subject to ongoing review as part of the
standard process, and it was likely that any TRO would require to be in place
for a 12 month period before any changes were made to allow it an opportunity
to bed in. He noted that many of the
measures in the draft TRO had been a part of the TTRO and had therefore been
previously tested in the area. He advised that it was unclear at this point
what would happen in the future with regard to staycation activity and travel
behaviour, and where there was a requirement to respond quickly they would do
so, as had been previously demonstrated by the implementation of the existing
TTRO.
The Committee Manager confirmed that, as with any
Council decision, if there was a material change in circumstances within 6
months then any item could be revisited without the requirement for a
suspension of standing orders.
Rowena Ferguson advised that she had been
disappointed not to have been consulted in relation to the TTRO as a business
in the heart of the village.
Rowena Ferguson asked the following question in relation ... view the full minutes text for item 4
:
Public Question Time
:
Minutes:
Angela Anderson, Plastic Free Helensburgh, submitted the following question to the Committee:
“Plastic Free Helensburgh (PFH), Helensburgh Community Council, and others undertake regular beach cleans and litter picks throughout out our area. PFH understand that provision and collection of bins in remote areas is difficult and we are grateful to those citizens who regularly collect rubbish as part or as the aim of a walk. However, we are continually concerned and in despair over the inadequate provision on the sea front where, on sunny days, bags of rubbish pile up around the bins. The observation is that bins on the shop side and near take always are under used and that most of the rubbish on the front is bagged and placed near the bins and there is an intent to dispose of it properly.
We also commend the work undertaken by council employees on cleaning up each morning. There seems to us a dislocate in cost benefit and environmental impact between adequate provision of bins and clean up. The main beneficiary is the seagull population.
PHF are undertaking a survey of single use plastic and polystyrene in the takeaway businesses in Helensburgh in an effort to reduce this use.”
Ms Anderson asked the Committee if there were plans to put in place bigger, better bins in the area or if there was a plan for the future provision of recycling facilities for the disposal of litter.
The Network and Standards Manager advised that he had discussed this matter with colleagues prior to the meeting and could confirm that additional staff would be working throughout the Summer period from 2:30pm-8pm in Helensburgh, Luss and Duck Bay to assist in collecting excess waste. The Network and Standards Manager confirmed that active efforts were being made to address the issue and he would be happy to discuss the question around recycling facilities further with Ms Anderson following the meeting. Ms Anderson noted that legislation would be changing soon and provision would require to be in place for recycling going forward.
Councillor Freeman advised that there had been major problems with litter at Luss and Arrochar, noting that communities in ward 9 should be included in any discussions around additional bins or resources being put in place. Councillor Freeman advised that he thought it would be beneficial to review the effect of additional resource being put in place following the Summer period, to confirm whether further additional resource or bins were required.
Councillor Douglas noted that she had received representations from constituents around the bins in Helensburgh overflowing, advising that she was pleased that additional staff resource would be in place over the Summer to assist in tidying this up. Councillor Douglas added that she was aware that littering in general was an issue, however the design of bins was having an impact on this as many people were putting litter into bags which could not then fit into the bins and were being left beside them. Councillor Douglas noted that concerns around the bin design and capacity had been raised before, however it would be useful for this to be investigated again.
Councillor Douglas asked if there was an update for constituents around the availability of a street cleaning machine for the Helensburgh and Lomond area. The Network and Standards Manager confirmed that one street cleaning machine was shared between the Helensburgh and Lomond and Bute and Cowal areas, noting that unfortunately the machine had broken down when returning to the Helensburgh and Lomond area previously. The Network and Standards Manager confirmed that the machine serviced both areas according to a regular, cyclic programme, and that there was less resilience within the Council than had previously been the case where breakdowns occurred, as a result of budget constraints. The Network and Standards Manager confirmed that the machine was currently in the Bute and Cowal area, however it would be returning to the Helensburgh and Lomond area soon as part of the normal programme. The Network and Standards Manager noted that the Council did try to hire vehicles where longer term breakdowns had occurred whenever possible, however there were limited numbers of machines available to hire and high demand from other local authorities. The Network and Standards Manager confirmed that the Council would try to fix smaller issues with the machines within the department as quickly as possible, however there had been supply issues, with parts and materials taking longer than usual to arrive.
Ms Anderson advised that she would be happy to document what was being left beside the bins in Helensburgh prior to them being tidied up, as well as an analysis of what was being disposed of in terms of whether it would be worthwhile to have recycling bins in place. Ms Anderson noted that she would also be happy to undertake a survey around whether people would be willing to use recycling bins, however she believed the answer would be yes if there was an adequate provision. Ms Anderson added that most of the rubbish which was being left beside bins had already been placed in bags, so it would be beneficial if the bins were large enough to place a bag into.
The Committee Manager agreed to pass Ms Anderson’s details to the Network and Standards Manager.
Councillor Hardie asked if it may be useful for signs to be in place around Helensburgh asking people to take their litter home if the bins were full, as had been utilised in the National Park. Ms Anderson advised that a lot of people travelling to the area were coming by train or car and were reluctant to take rubbish with them, noting that ideally people would take their rubbish home with them but in catering to tourists coming to the area it would be more beneficial to have an increased provision of suitable places to dispose of litter available.
:
Public Question Time
:
Minutes:
No questions were submitted.
: