Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence intimated.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting of the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee held on Thursday, 17 June 2021 were approved as a correct record.

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…

1. Lady Colquhoun sitting as an elected member of the Community Council yet consistently failing to declare a financial interest in the TRO discussions which remove parking for over 200 cars from the village and surrounds, whilst her company built a new commercial car park for 250 cars.
2. The Community Council permitted Simon Miller CEO of Luss Estates to act in a manner which was totally inappropriate, including meeting Jim Smith as a representative to review the TTRO and deciding on modifications for the permanent TRO, all whilst taking money from a business disadvantaged by the TTRO.
3. Failure to consult Residents adequately.
4. Failure to consult Business at all.

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.

Report by Inspector Roderick MacNeill, Police Scotland

The Committee gave consideration to a report and verbal update from Inspector Roderick MacNeill which updated Members on current issues being dealt with by Police Scotland in the Helensburgh and Lomond area.

Decision

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee noted the contents of the report and information provided.

(Reference: Report by Inspector Roderick MacNeill, Police Scotland, dated 7 September 2021, submitted)

Report by Executive Director with Responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services

The Committee gave consideration to a report which provided an update on the recent activities of Roads and Infrastructure Services and highlighted works being undertaken which were of relevance to the Helensburgh and Lomond area.

Decision

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee considered and noted the contents of the report.

(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated July 2021, submitted)

Report by Executive Director with Responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services

The Committee considered a report which provided details on the council’s recycling and landfill diversion performance along with national policy, targets and regulations which are likely to impact on future performance.

Decision

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee considered and noted the information outlined within the report, including the national policy drivers that would likely impact over the next few years.

(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated 16 September 2021, submitted)

Report by Executive Director with Responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services

The Committee considered a report providing information around two proposed Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) relating to Luss Village and the U228 Old A82.

Decision

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee agreed:

Speed Limit TRO

1. that the Order should be made as drafted;
2. that physical traffic management measures should be installed to support the proposed speed limits in-line with the Council’s Road Speed Limit Policy Framework;
3. that officers should carry out pre and post implementation speed surveys and review with respect to the Council’s Road Speed Limit Policy Framework;

Traffic Management TRO

4. to reduce the proposed permit cost from £98 to £45 per annum;
5. to retain the restriction on the proposed number of permits with a view to amending this in the future depending on post-implementation use with respect to available road space (capacity);
6. to note that there is sufficient provision of off-street parking, that the inclusion of visitor parking within the permit scheme risks over-subscription of parking availability within the core village roads, and that off-street parking permits are available for the following fees:

a.         3 months - £139

b.         6 months - £258

c.         9 months - £371

d.         12 months - £489;

7. to note that equipment required by trades can be loaded and unloaded at the relevant property but that the vehicles should then park within the off-street car parks and that where works are longer term or more complex, a temporary relaxation of restrictions can be applied for;
8. to note that those with Blue Badges can park within the village core and that those with reduced mobility but without a Blue Badge can be dropped off or collected by a vehicle but otherwise to note the availability of off-street parking; and
9. to refer the objection to the Prohibition of Driving to an Independent Reporter.

(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated August 2021, submitted)

Report by Executive Director with Responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support

The Committee gave consideration to a report seeking the appointment of an Elected Member representative to the Gourock Harbour Reference Group. 

Motion

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee agree to appoint Councillor Barbara Morgan as the Elected Member representative to the Gourock Harbour Reference Group.

Moved by Councillor Mulvaney, seconded by Councillor Kinniburgh.

Amendment

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee agree to appoint Councillor Iain Paterson as the Elected Member representative to the Gourock Harbour Reference Group.

Moved by Councillor Trail, Seconded by Councillor Douglas.

The vote was taken by calling the role and Members voted as follows:-

Decision

The motion was carried 6 votes to 4 and the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee resolved accordingly. 

(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support, dated 10 August 2021, submitted)

Report by Executive Director with Responsibility for Customer Support Services

The Committee considered the Area Scorecard report for Financial Quarter 1 of 2021-2022 (April-June 2021), which illustrated the agreed performance measures.

The Committee Manager provided a further update in relation to street lighting targets on behalf of the Network and Standards Manager, noting that the electrician for the area would shortly be undertaking training to allow him to work on street lights and this should result in improved statistics in due course.

Decision

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee:

1.    agreed the proposed presentation of dog fouling data commentary as detailed at section 1.3. of the report;

2.    noted and considered the performance and supporting commentary as presented in the report;

3.    noted that upon receipt of the Quarterly Performance Report the Area Committee Members could contact either the Responsible Named Officer or the Performance Improvement Officer with any queries; and

4.    noted that work was ongoing and to respond to the Performance Improvement Officer with requests or comments regarding the layout and format of the Performance Report and Scorecard.

(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services, dated 16 September 2021, submitted)

Report by Executive Director with Responsibility for Commercial Services

A report which provided Members with an update on the development and sale of properties in the Helensburgh and Lomond area was before the Committee for noting.

Decision

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee noted the contents of the report.

(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services dated 11 August 2021, submitted)

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee Workplan as at September 2021 was before the Committee for noting.

Decision

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee noted the contents of the workplan.

(Reference: Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee Workplan, submitted)

Report by Executive Director with Responsibility for Development and Economic Growth

The Committee gave consideration to a report updating Members on the progress made since the previous report to the Committee on 17 June 2021 in relation to the delivery of Argyll and Bute Council’s long-standing commitment to the provision of a dedicated, high quality walking and cycle route linking Helensburgh, Cardross and Dumbarton.

The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for discussion of appendix (b) in relation to the report on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

Decision

The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee:

1. welcomed the recommencement of the construction of the section linking Cardross Railway station to the Geilston Burn, Cardross;
2. noted the delay in commencement of the community engagement to inform the design and hoped that this would begin by the start of October 2021;
3. noted the revised timescale for completion of the design of the route linking Colgrain to Geilston Burn, Cardross and Ferry Road, Cardross to Dumbarton; and
4. noted that the landowner between Geilston Burn and Murray’s Crossing had declined to progress land acquisition negotiations prior to the design for the full route being completed.

(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated 11 August 2021, submitted)