Issue - meetings

Question from Sarah Davies, Helensburgh Community Council

Sarah Davies enquired about the street lights on Upper Colquhoun Street at the Hill House. She advised the Committee that they were in poor repair with 2 not functioning.

Response from Committee

Councillor Penfold advised that the Committee would seek a response from the appropriate department.

Questions from Angela Anderson, Plastic Free Helensburgh /Time for Change Argyll and Bute

Angela Anderson asked the Committee to ensure that anyone available attends the Climate Literacy Training. She also asked for Clarification on the Council’s waste stream management and advised the Committee that Time for Change, Plastic Free Helensburgh and the GRAB Trust are collaborating to show The Oil Machine in the Tower Cinema and asked that as many people come as possible, adding that invitations would be sent to all Councillors.

Response from the Committee

Councillor Penfold advised that the Carbon Literacy Training was great and added that some Councillors have said they would be happy to do it, if course is offered again.  She advised that a response would be sought on behalf of Angela regarding the Waste Stream Management.

Questions from Peter Brown, Helensburgh Community Council

Question 1

Section 3.4 of the Waterfront Development Update states that the 2012 approved Masterplan "agreed that the former pool area within the waterfront site would be developed primarily for commercial use".  This is incorrect and, as per the diagram from the 2012 Masterplan it can be seen that the footprint of the former pool is in fact primarily to be used for landscaping/playpark/skatepark.  Does the Committee agree that the subject of this paper is actually the "grey area" of the Leisure Centre development plan, which is significantly more than the site of the former pool?

Response from Head of Commercial Services

The Head of Commercial Services advised that he had slides as part of Item 14 that also illustrated the retail/commercial area that he would talk to later in Committee.  He said it is correct that the Masterplan shows retail area further over to the right of the section of the area next which is not subject of any planning consent and overall does form part of the demolished pool. Mr McLaughlin advised that they are now progressing with a large scale regeneration site which is now largely complete and what cannot be disputed is the fact that the majority of the remainder of the site was part of the old pool and as per later item is the subject of the proposed marketing exercise.

Question 2

Section 3.7 of the Waterfront Development Update states that "to dispel speculation there is no 'done deal' or proposition to build at the site at this stage".  The author of this report, the Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services, was at a meeting with members of Helensburgh Community Council in August where a 2-storey building with retail frontage extending between Sinclair Street and Colquhoun Street was pictured on the pierhead site.  We were shown a plan view of this building, along with 3-dimensional sketch views, and the plan was marked as created by Darton B3 in March 2022.  This was clearly a "proposition" for the site that the Council had procured, yet from the Minutes of the Helensburgh & Lomond Area Committee meetings, the Committee had not given direction that this was to be created.  Can the Committee answer why that plan was created, why it has not been made public, and whether that is actually the proposition that Avison Young are to market?

Response from Committee/Head of Commercial Services

Councillor Penfold advised that as far as she knew the plan was created to show what could be done in that area and was not a proposition. The Head of Commercial Services confirmed that the plan which had been presented at the meeting with the Community Council and Councillors was a desk based mock up to show what could be possible on the site.  Mr McLaughlin advised that there is no done deal and that the report later on the agenda asks for agreement to take forward the marketing of the site.

Question 3

Section 3.6 of the Waterfront Development Update states that the Full Business Case for the Leisure Centre was "underpinned by forecast future income / capital receipt from commercially developing the remaining plot abutting West Clyde Street".  The cost of the leisure centre, which the Council approved is £23M.  Within that figure, the Council has agreed to fund £16.3M, with a further £5M coming from the LIBOR grant.  The Council has incrementally increased its contribution over the last 6 years, when it had budgeted in 2014 to provide only £11.7M.  If the Council has been willing to increase its spend on this site by £4.6M as the project has evolved to a total of £16.3M, it is disingenuous to say that the project is underpinned by an expected £1M contribution from the sale of the area next to West Clyde Street.  Does the Committee agree that they could ask the full Council to increase its spend by a further £1M and decouple the leisure centre cost from this site?

Response from Committee

Councillor Penfold advised that she would seek further information and provide a response to Dr Brown by e-mail.

Question 4

Section 3.10 of the Waterfront Development Update, almost as a footnote, says that "Consultants have also been commissioned to update previous reports and consider the wider impacts developing this site would have on the town centre".  The crucial report that needs to be updated is the Retail Survey which was last done in 2011, and on which the Masterplan's retail requirements were based.  In particular, the 2011 report's proposed additional grocery spend in the town has already been fulfilled by Waitrose/Morrisons and therefore any new store would mean that an existing town centre store would close.  Does the Committee agree that marketing for retail purposes can only be considered once a new Retail Survey has been put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4