Agenda item

The Area Committee received a petition from Jackie Hood, Chair of Helensburgh Skate Park Project and three young committee members of the Group which has received over 1,117 signatures in support of proposals to build a new concrete skate park at Helensburgh Pierhead site.  She advised that the Group were supportive of the plans for the Waterfront Development and asked the Council to support the skate park proposals, inviting the Area Committee to their open day on Saturday 23^rd June at 3pm at Helensburgh Pierhead.

 

Norman Muir, Convenor of Helensburgh and Lomond Community Council had submitted a question in writing but was unable to be in attendance.  The Area Committee Manager read out the question on his behalf.

 

1.          The Waterfront Project has been slowly gestating since 2009 and a Masterplan was adopted after public consultation in 2012. In December 2017 the Area Committee changed the location of the leisure centre on the pierhead site, laid out in the still-current 2012 Pierhead Masterplan Addendum.

 

This was done for unclear reasons and without public consultation. This was clearly a premature decision and unfounded in the light of the potential risk of wave damage and flooding identified in the subsequent pre-application consultation process held in the town.

 

In the light of community feedback on the development, will the Area Committee re-visit its December decision, honour the agreed Pierhead Masterplan and re-instate the leisure centre in its original location? 

 

The Regeneration Project Manager advised that officers have checked with planning and their advice is that as long as there is no deviation from the elements in the Masterplan, or any defined areas for those elements, then there is no issue in terms of their specific locations.

The survey undertaken by Helensburgh Community Council supports the preferred location. The report at Agenda Item 17 addresses the concerns over potential wave damage and flooding.

 

2.          Dr Peter Brown, Vice Convenor of Helensburgh Community Council asked a couple of questions:-

 

The following statements appear in A&BC's Standing Orders (https://www.argyllbute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/constitution_part_b.pdf):

 

• 19.2 Standing Orders marked CS will apply to meetings of any Committee, Sub-Committee and Short Life Working Group with suitable modification.
• CS 3.3 Copies of the Agenda and, except as set out in paragraph 3.4 below, copies of any report for a meeting will be open and available at the Council’s Headquarters and on the Council website for at least 3 clear days before the meeting for any members of the public who may wish to look at these.
• In 2.1, the phrase "Clear days" is defined:

-       “Clear days” excludes the day of publication and the day of the meeting and does not include Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays.

 

Reports for this meeting, on Thursday 21st June 2018, should therefore have been made public on Council received the Waterfront Development End Stage Report at 5pm on Monday 18th June. Does the Area Committee agree that this is a breach of its standing orders, and provides insufficient time for the public to assess this significant document?

 

The Chair responded:-

 

I don’t accept that there hasn’t been sufficient time to consider this report as this is the conclusion of a very substantial public engagement by the Council and it is partly because of the tremendous response from the public that the report was only issued to everyone on Monday of this week.  I think it is now a matter of urgency that we consider this report as the people in Helensburgh are expecting us all to make positive progress in respect of this matter.

 

3.          I have points that I would like to put to the Area Committee regarding the flood protection of the proposed leisure centre.

 

i)      The End Stage Report on the Waterfront Development states that “the Finished Floor Level of any building to be constructed on the site will be set no lower than 5.4m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), which is some 0.75m higher than the predictions for a 1-in-200year event”. The ground floor plan clearly indicates that the floor of the Plant Room will be at 4.7m AOD, which is much lower than the 5.4m recommended in the Kaya Consulting flood risk assessment. Why is this critical part of the building being constructed such that it will be susceptible to flooding?

 

ii)     The Report states “the Design Life for the new Leisure Building is 40years and that the Climate Change impacts, upon which we have based our design, are forecast out to 2080, or some 20 years after the new building would have reached the end of its operational life”. What, therefore, will be the wave overtopping rate (the amount of water that comes over the sea defence) in a 1-in-200 year weather event in 2050, which will be well within the lifespan of the building, and will this be less than 1 litre/s/m, which is the maximum above which damage would occur to the building?

 

Fergus Murray, Head of Economic Development and Strategic Transportation responded:-

 

i)      The predicted 1-in-200 year’s water levels are 4.06m AOD for 2018, 4.48m AOD for 2080 and 4.65m AOD for 2100 respectively.

 

The lowest proposed level of 4.7m AOD for the Plant Room and the Car Park is set 220mm above the predicted level of 4.48m AOD for 2080.

 

Our Project Team has concluded that the proposed levels are appropriate for a 1-in-200 year in respect of the still sea water level (i.e. astronomical tide + storm surge):

 

·         4.7m AOD for Car Park and Leisure Centre Basement

·         4.8m AOD for footways

·         5.1m AOD for future development area and

·         5.4m AOD for buildings and the top of the sea defence crest.

 

ii)     The proposed flood defence design levels are above the flood and overtopping requirements for the joint probability analysis of the 1-in-200 years’ water levels for 2018.

 

The unacceptable overtopping levels are calculated from the sea water level for 2080.

 

Our design proposals have mitigated this by allowing sufficient space around the perimeter of the development site to allow for the sea defences to be raised at a future date, should climate change impacts result in a significant rise in the forecast sea level.

 

Our drainage design allows for surface water as well as the potential volume of overtopping waters.

 

It also incorporates an emergency system in the form of flap valves installed along the pier perimeter which will be triggered should water levels in the Car Park rises above 200mm due to an unusual storm event.

 

Basing the design calculation on the 2080 predictions for a 1-in-200 year event is standard practice in the marine construction industry. What the paper the paper sought to highlight was the fact that by 2061 the new Leisure Centre would have reached the end of its’ operational life, and in planning for any replacement facility, designers at that time would be using the Climate Change Predictions applicable then.

 

4.          Norman McNally of Helensburgh Community Council asked a question:-

 

As a member of Helensburgh Community Council I fully support the previously published 5 strategic aims and objectives for the new Leisure Centre, although I note that they have now dropped to 4 strategic aims.

 

Earlier today I received a copy of the updated statement from the A&BC Waterfront Development team. This new document contains errors and, crucially, omissions concerning key professional advice.

 

Are the members of this Committee prepared to proceed towards submission for Planning Approval based upon incomplete information? This includes consideration of an updated KAYA study concerning wave overtopping and a revised AECOM parking and transport review that makes parking provision for visitors, leisure centre users and future shoppers for the intended retail units.

 

I am also curious that the Full Business Case will only to be realised after all the key major decisions for the development have already been made.

 

Andrew Collins, Regeneration Project Manager responded:-

 

·         This report to the Area Committee is an End Stage Report as required under the project governance structure (PRINCE2) and is not a planning application.  As you will be aware an End Stage Report is used to:

• give a summary of the project to date, and overall project situation; and
• to provide sufficient information to ask for a Project Board decision on what to do next with the project
• We have summarised the key outputs from the various reports and studies within the body of the report. However as you would expect, Elected Members rely upon the professional expertise and experience of the Project Team to ensure that the proposals being taken forward comply with all statutory requirements, best practice guidance etc.
• All of the technical reports, studies etc will be submitted in support of the planning application.  It will then be for the relevant officers on the planning department to consider the technical aspects of our proposals and to make recommendations to the members of the Planning Protective Services and Licensing Committee as to the suitability of our proposals. The members of the PPSL will ultimately decided whether the planning application should be accepted or rejected.
• There is always a question as to the most appropriate time to complete the Full Business Case, which in simplistic terms considers the return on investment, or the Benefit to Cost Ratio.  We consider it most appropriate to complete this key document at the point where we have received firm tender prices for the construction works, and prior to the Contract award Decision.

 

Nigel Millar of Helensburgh Community Council asked the following questions:-

 

5.            The Scottish Government, Argyll & Bute Council and Scotland as whole place ever increasing emphasis on health (and other) benefits from encouraging ever greater resident participation in exercise and relaxation.  Particularly among young and the elderly.  Why is there no specific mention of this in the published list of objectives for this project?

 

6.            The recent public consultation exercise on the Waterfront Project showed, among other things, a desire among residents for the design of the proposed new Leisure Centre to do justice to its prominent position on the site and on the Waterfront generally.  

 

At the public exhibition in the Victoria Halls on 26^th March 2018 drawings were made available showing an improved design to the Leisure Centre building from those on display.  Why are these revised drawings not included in the paper before the Area Committee?  Is this a simple oversight or is it the intention to revert to the designs on display in March.

 

Andrew Collins, Regeneration Project Manager responded:-

 

Question 5

There are a number of local and national policies/objectives that our design proposals have had to take account of during their development, not all of which have been specifically noted in the various documents associated with the project.  However as part of the various applications for statutory approvals/licences and/or funding support, specific elements will be brought to the fore as required.

 

Question 6

To clarify, we have been consistent throughout the PAC process in the drawings, documentation and information that has been made available to the public.  The first public event was held on 26 March and the same information was used at the following sessions on 30 April and 15 May.  At each of the subsequent public events we highlighted some of the key areas upon which we had received feedback at the previous events.

 

We did meet with representatives of the Community Council on 11 April following the first public event on 26 March, the purpose of which was to discuss with them how we might better publicise the remaining events.  At that meeting we did discuss with the Community Council the fact that we were looking at potential options for the roof of the leisure building.  Subsequently, as we considered the alternative roof layout further, a copy of an indicative drawing was made available to a representative of Architecture and Design Helensburgh.  This alternative was subsequently discounted by the Project Team for various reasons, however it was at no time part of the Pre-Application Consultation Process, it was for discussion only.

 

7.            Stewart Noble, Treasurer of Helensburgh Community Council asked a question:-

 

Given that a stated objective of the Helensburgh Waterfront Development (in the Pre- Application Consultation Notice) was "to create a safe, comfortable and accessible public space to provide a visible link to and from Colquhoun Square", and given that this objective has apparently been overlooked in the End-Stage Report, to what extent is Argyll and Bute Council now content to devolve or postpone responsibility for these public elements to the private developer of the proposed retail units?

 

Andrew Collins, Regeneration Project Manager responded:-

 

To clarify, the current design proposals allow for a significant element of hard and soft landscaping to all sides of the development site.

 

This includes significant soft landscaping on the northern end of the site, where we have worked with the representatives of the John Muir Trail to relocate the circular engraved plinth from its current location to the landscaping at the entry to our site on the junction of Sinclair Street and West Clyde Street.

 

This will be the starting point for an area of soft landscaping along the northern end of the site which then ties in with the existing soft landscaping on the esplanade

 

Elsewhere around the site we are introducing soft landscaping, with the placement of trees, shrubs, turf, wildflower turf, and connecting the site to the water by the use of individually placed rocks/boulders, which match the rock armour of the sea defences.

 

We have sought to break up the car parking provision by the careful placement of soft landscaping elements at key points within the site

 

What we have also done is to safeguard specific areas for future specified developments by others.  This includes space for additional landscaping, skate park or play park facilities.

 

8.            Mr Rudrum, Convenor of Rhu and Shandon Community Council advised he has been working with residents and other groups looking at proposals for the Helensburgh Waterfront Development and they feel it is dull, imaginative, lacks the fun and wow factor and is a missed opportunity.  He feels it does not comply with the Masterplan.  He asked if Officers would consider reforming the proposals?  The Chair confirmed this answer will be covered at item 17.

 

9.            John Tacchi of Helensburgh Community Council asked if all the technical information which was highlighted at question 3 will be published?  The Area Committee Manager confirmed this information will be published in the minute and also in the Planning Application.

 

10.          Finlay Bennison, Youth member of Helensburgh Skate Park Group asked the Council to support his campaign to have a concrete and secure skate park and to secure a site for this on the Pierhead.  The Chair stated she was delighted to see young people attend the Area Committee. Councillor Aileen Morton confirmed that the Committee would be happy to support this and the area is reserved for the Skate Park as detailed in the report at item 17 of this minute.

 

11.          Jack Rudrum asked a question on behalf of Rhu and Shandon Community Council.  He asked if the Committee accepts that the production of an Area Conservation Plan is the responsibility of the Council.  He referred to the Supporting Communities Fund application at item 8 on the agenda and advised the Community Council was unable to raise match funding as funders took the view that it was an Argyll and Bute responsibility.

 

Councillor Kinniburgh confirmed that the current policy allows the Council to look at two appraisals a year and he agreed to take all comments back to the Head of Planning and Protective Services in relation to this particular request.

 

Mr Jordan, from RNLI asked why there is no provision for vehicle access to the public slipway?  John Gordon, CHORD Programme Manager confirmed that due to the provision of the pedestrian walkway this would mean that vehicles would be reversing over this to access the slipway.  He advised the team are currently looking into a winch system for bigger vessels so confirmed this had been taken into account but did not have the full details as yet.  He advised he is more than happy to speak to any of the Emergency Services regarding this to find out their needs.