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 to the proposal of £489 annual permit charges:
“The
Council document makes mention of the residents being unhappy to pay £90 per
annum for a permit. Yet, the document does not spell out to Councillors that
members of my staff will each have to pay £489 annually to park to simply
attend their place of work. My staff have no alternative but to come by car due
to inadequate public transport. The new Permit Zone and accompanying yellow
lines on the approach roads to Luss mean they have nowhere to park without
charge. This affects staff at the Village Shop, Village Rest, my own business
and the Pier Shop. Luss Estates can clearly provide their own staff with free
of charge parking.
Their only alternative is to pay A&B Council
£489 annually for a permit. It is very difficult to attract staff in our rural
setting and £489 is simply too high. My staff have always parked on Church Road
without issue and there is adequate space. Why have you not proposed a solution
such as additional business permits at the lower fee or a reduced rate to
resolve this concern?”
The Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services
advised that this was an issue across a number of locations in Argyll and Bute,
resulting from there not being sufficient parking to allow everyone who wishes
to park there to do so. He noted that there were elements of compromise in any
process, confirming that residents had been given priority in this instance as
there was not sufficient space to incorporate both residents and business
parking. He confirmed that opportunities were available to purchase season
tickets for parking, but this did come at a cost in terms of the process. He
noted that businesses had not been excluded entirely from parking permits as
each would be allocated two permits, and this could be reviewed in due course
if any issues arose.
Rowena Ferguson asked the following question in
relation to the impact of the TRO on tradesmen:
“This TRO makes no provision for tradesmen to the
Coach House to park their vehicles close to our premises. This is totally
impractical for a busy coffee shop, as these tradesmen require constant access
to their vehicles for tools and materials. Their only alternative is to park
close to the coffee shop and risk a parking ticket while they carry out their
work. For example is our gardener expected to unload his mower and then leave
it unattended while he goes to the car park to park? Maybe then go back for his
strimmer? What if he has forgotten something? What about our maintenance man
who needs constant access to his vehicle for tools and materials?
The TRO suggests applying for permits in advance
but that is not much use when we need an emergency plumber or engineer. This
TRO is totally unsuitable for a working business. Why is Argyll and Bute
Council making it so difficult for a legitimate business to carry out essential
everyday activities while contributing to the economy?”
The Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services
agreed to note these comments.
David Pretswell, Luss and Arden Community Council,
asked the Committee to disregard previous comments relating to the Community
Council as it had been inappropriate for these to be raised at the meeting. He
noted that he would invite a reduction in costs for permits and asked
Councillors to consider the responses of residents who had overwhelmingly
reported their desire for a sustainable, long-term traffic management solution
in Luss.
David Pretswell also asked the Committee to take
cognisance of the below statement from Luss and Arden Community Council which
had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting in relation to the
draft TRO proposals:
“As you are well aware the traffic crisis in Luss
is horrendous, and these long awaited TROs, currently being considered, are
based upon the plan drawn up by the Community Council, local Residents and Luss
Estates, which were subsequently and are now, overwhelmingly supported by our
Community.
We view the proposed TRO as the very minimum 'first
step' that Argyll and Bute Council can do to mitigate the simply appalling
traffic issues facing Luss on any sunny day, winter or summer.
We make the following observations: