Minutes:
Questions
submitted by Peter Brown, Vice Convener, Helensburgh
Community Council
Question 1
I would be grateful if the
committee could clarify the content of Phase 2.
The Position Statement says that
Phase 2 “includes the retail development, skate park, play park and
landscaping”. It would be perfectly understandable if the ‘blank area’ in
the development plan was Phase 2, but the landscaping for which the committee
are being asked to increase the budget is not in the ‘blank area’. The
West Clyde Street landscaping is clearly detailed in the plans which are to be
considered at the PPSL committee on 19th December. This means
that either:
Or
Response
from CHORD Programme Manager:
As it clearly
states at section 5.6.1 of the Report to be considered at Item 13 of today’s
Agenda, it was originally envisaged that the landscaping of the area to the
North of the site, along the West Clyde Street frontage, would be part of Phase
2, and therefore no budget allowance for it had been made.
That is why we
are now asking the Area Committee to recommend, to the Policy and Resources
Committee, that additional funding allowance be made a part of the 2019/20
Budget Process.
The inclusion of
the start of the John Muir Trail is something which came about as part of the
consultation process and following on from our purchase of the ex-Mariners
site.
It was considered
that relocating the start of the trail to this new public space at the
northwest corner of the development site would have mutual advantages, both for
the start of the trail and this new public space.
The other benefit
of purchasing the ex-Mariners site was that it provided the physical space for
us to introduce a left turning lane from the pierhead
site following the Traffic Assessment.
The budget previously
agreed covered the following elements:
Question 2
Previous budget plans for the
development have included an expectation of £250,000 funding from Sport
Scotland to pay for the moveable floor for the training pool. That does
not appear in the budget in Section 6.0. Where is this money – if it is
no longer being requested from Sport Scotland then where is the money to pay
for the moveable floor to come from?
Response
from CHORD Programme Manager:
It had always been
the project’s intention to apply for funding support from SportScotland,
given that one of the key elements was the construction of a new leisure
building.
Very early
discussions and engagement with SportScotland
suggested that a funding application in the region of £1m would not be
considered unreasonable for a major project such as the construction of a new
leisure centre. However due to
reductions in the SportScotland budget this figure
was downturned to £500k, and in October 2017 we were advised that due to
further budget cuts the maximum funding support for any single project would be
£100k.
One of the key
priorities for SportScotland was projects which
improved inclusivity and accessibility to sports facilities, and this fed in to
our design development wherein we have included a number of features or facilities
which are examples of best practice e.g. Changing Places facility and pool
pods.
Argyll and Bute
Council made a funding application to SportScotland
for £100k in March, however the informal feedback that we have received,
September 2018, was that our application had been unsuccessful. We are still
awaiting formal confirmation of this decision, but considered it financially
prudent to discount it from our current budget assumptions.
We are currently
exploring a number of other external funding opportunities in support of the
project, but these are at very early stages.
Question 3
The cost of this project
appears to be constantly growing.
In June 2016, the Project
Initiating Document forecast that the development would cost £18.2M including:
Despite this last item, the budget
has now grown to £19M, and a further £0.5M is being requested of the Area
Committee. In addition, the revised plans in front of the PPSL committee
show an additional 0.5m seawall on top of the flood defences, which has yet to
be costed.
It is likely that this
addition to the defences will take the cost of the project close to £20M, which
is an increase of £1.8M, or 10%, in just 18 months. And that is before a
Full Business Case for the leisure centre has been completed.
How expensive does this development
need to become before the Area Committee decides that it is unaffordable, and
that the cheaper solution, of locating the leisure centre closer to the
existing swimming pool so that the flood defences can be reduced in both height
and cost, is the right solution?
Response
from CHORD Programme Manager:
We have indicative costs for
raising the southern sea defence wall of circa £20k or just under 1% of the
total estimated cost of the flood defences.
In accordance with Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) Green Book guidance on the Preparation of
Business Cases we shall be bringing forward the Full Business Case for
consideration by the Council prior to any contract being awarded. Only if it can be demonstrated that the
project can demonstrate that it delivers Value for Money and is Affordable
would the Council approve the award of the construction contract.
Without the provision of any
detailed technical design, cost plan, statutory approvals or programme
information we fail to see how the Community Council can state that their
alternative proposals ‘are the cheaper solution’
Question submitted by the Friends of Blairvadach
Horses
Do councillors fully appreciate
they have placed local residents near Blairvadach in
an intolerable situation for nearly 4 years as they have been forced to witness
the neglect, abuse and starvation of a herd of horses and ponies the Council
has allowed to fly graze on Council-owned land? Residents will testify
the keeper has been using the Blairvadach site for
that length of time and the keeper himself brags on Facebook that he has been
visited by SSPCA inspectors for 4 years.
The photos being circulated
here show the extent of the neglect. The old bay mare collapsed in the
field after being tied to the tree and left to stand on the concrete hard
standing for 4 days and nights, unable to lie down or even turn round.
While I understand the SSPCA deems this treatment unacceptable, still nothing
has been done to address it.
Are councillors aware that
local residents are feeding the animals because they cannot live with a
statutory system that it appears will only act when animals are in a near death
condition? A condition the keeper has ensured for 4 years that the horses do
not quite reach.
Is the Council aware the keeper
is breeding, selling and lending his animals, effectively running a business
from Blairvadach, and that there is currently one
stallion in the field with 4 mares? One mare is thought to be currently
pregnant and more animals will surely follow.
Is the Council aware the horses
have strayed dozens of times on to the A814 and are a threat to road users?
Will the Council and the SSPCA
finally stop dithering and remove the horses, take them to a place of safety
and raise the necessary court action to ensure the owner is banned from keeping
horses and ponies for the foreseeable future?
Response from Special
Projects and Quality Improvement Manager
I would advise that the Council
is very much aware of the fly grazing issue and has taken active steps to address
the matter, contacting the owner and his representatives on a number of
occasions, raising court proceeding in the Sheriff Court and liaising with the
SSPCA in regard to the welfare of the horses.
In January 2018, the Council became aware of horses grazing on land
owned by the Council at Blairvadach, Helensburgh without the Council’s consent. There appears to
be a perception that the horses have been there for a period in excess of that
but that is not the case. It appears they may previously have been “fly grazed”
nearby. Thereafter, Officers advised the owner that he did not have permission
to graze his horses on the Estate and instructed him on a number of occasions
to remove them. The Owner of the horses failed to comply with any request or
instruction, written or oral, to remove his horses from the Estate.
The Council has pursued a civil action against the owner of the horses
in the Sheriff Court and has obtained orders to have the owner remove the
horses. Unfortunately he has, thus far, failed to comply with that court order.
It is important to note that the Council does not have a common law power, nor
can the court at this stage competently grant such a power to remove the horses
that enables the Council to assume ownership and dispose of them in an
appropriate way. In the absence of the owner removing the horses in a
responsible manner the Council (and other statutory and interested bodies) can
only interfere in the custody and ownership of the horses, as they belong to a
third party, where there is a lawful basis to do so.
There is no “fly grazing legislation” such as that existing in England
and Wales, providing a power to the Council to deal directly with the horses as
a result of the fly grazing alone. Therefore other lawful routes must be
considered and there is a possible route involving liaison with the police that
would be an effective measure and we are currently in communication with them
to assess whether they are willing and able to action that.
Neither the Council nor the Police are, currently, in a position to
deny the owner his rights of ownership in the horses or sell them. That
position may change depending on the communications we are currently having
with the Police.
In the meantime the Council’s animal health officer continues to
liaise with the SSPCA. They have been actively monitoring matters and do not
currently consider that the welfare of the Animals is of sufficient concern to
warrant a “statutory” intervention in that regard.
I hope that’s helpful and sets out that the Council are concerned for
the welfare of the horses and are working to address this matter as effectively
as it can within the confines of the law.
Questions submitted by John
Black
The basic problem with the Helensburgh Pierhead project has been the lack of engagement with the
public. The first real engagement with the public took place at the hearing
held in the Victoria Halls. The application has now been deferred by the PPSL
Committee and there will be no further opportunity for public input. Where do
we go from here and will there be any further public input?
Response from Councillor
Kinniburgh
The application has been continued until the January meeting of the
PPSL Committee. This meeting is held in public but there is no opportunity for
further input from the public.
Response from CHORD Programme
Manager
I disagree that there had been no prior
public engagement prior to the Discretionary Hearing of the Planning,
Protective Services and Licensing Committee on 19 November 2018.
The project Team undertook a number of
focussed forum sessions back in January 2018 to obtain feedback and comments on
our proposals from as wide a cross section of the community and facility users
as possible.
Subsequently in through March and April of
this year we engaged in a Pre Application Consultation Exercise (PAC). The
regulations on PAC require that as a minimum we undertook at least one public
engagement event, however given the importance of this project we scheduled
three such consultation events, extended the final one into the evening to
allow commuters to comment, and also worked with Helensburgh
Community Council who were running a concurrent On-line Survey, to capture the
results of their exercise in our PAC Report.
Unfortunately as this is a live planning
application we are not in a position to undertake any additional public
consultation until a determination has been made.
Question 2
This debacle has wasted public money and
time. Will the project leader resign as an early Christmas present.
Response
from Councillor Mulvaney
I would confirm that I have no intention of
resigning.
Question
from Stewart Campbell, Chair of Friends of Duchess Wood
You will note there is a paper for the
future management of the wood on the agenda today. The wood is recognised as an
important part of Helensburgh both socially and
ecologically. The Friends are concerned that they have had no real impact in
terms of the final version of the report that is before you today. We would
like to know how we can have a clearer input into the process which could
influence any decisions being made.
Response
from Councillor Aileen Morton
The concerns of the Friends are noted
however it is for officers to prepare reports and to offer recommendations for
Members to consider. Advice would be to liaise
with local Elected Members to put forward any information that is
relevant.