Minutes:
Question 1 – Frank Roberts, Oban Community Council
The appalling storm and
associated heavy rainfall that we experienced on October 7th last year resulted
in a number of very serious consequences, and the Council officers and their
staff are to be congratulated on the rapid response to many of these.
One consequence of the storm was
the inevitable flooding in Oban at Lochavullin, and
the seriousness and financial consequences of this to local business was raised
by Andrew Spence of BID4Oban and others at the last meeting of this committee.
We all know that such flooding is
a continuing problem, has been for many years, and that a permanent solution
will be dependent on securing significant funds, most probably from Government.
The recent meeting of the Oban Community Council was attended by Mr
Lachie Strathern. Mr Strathern has a garage business in the area, and is
regularly faced with the problem caused by flooding, and in particular of back
washing of raw sewage into his premises. You will all agree that this
constitutes an immediate and serious health risk for him and his staff, but
also will inevitably result in raw sewage contamination of the relatively
enclosed waters of the bay in the town centre.
Mr Strathern’s property is leased from the Council. He was told in
August last year that there are no plans of the sewage drains in the area of
his garage, but that the Council would arrange for them to be surveyed, to
enable remedial action to be taken. This has still not happened despite several
requests by him. This should be perfectly within the resources of the Council.
Can I ask, therefore:
1. When will Mr Strathern’s
immediate and potentially extremely hazardous to health problem of sewage
pollution of his premises be addressed, and will the Council commit to a
definite date by which the drains will be surveyed and remedial action be
taken?
2. Does the Council have a plan
of how it intends to address the overall flooding problem, including short term
remedial measures that can be immediately undertaken, such as clearing or
dredging the Black Lynn and ensuring the efficient operation of the pumps in
the car park, and will it publish that plan with target dates by which it will
achieve each step?
3. Will the Area Committee ask
that a brief report on progress made be submitted at its next and each
subsequent meeting, so that such progress, or lack thereof, can be monitored?
Mr Roberts added that at the last Area Committee it had been agreed that
Mr O’Neill and Mr Spence would take the matter off table for a detailed
response which he did not agree with as he felt the community should be kept
informed of current and ongoing information.
The Chair responded by firstly pointing out that the Council’s response
to the recent storms was remarkable and they had managed to get some funding
back from the Scottish Government to support their response. However, the issue of flooding was first
raised in 1973, then the Government changed in 1974 and ever since money and
resources have been in decline. There
are serious issues in our infrastructure and the Roads Department Budget is
£100m behind the curve. This is not an
excuse but a fact.
The Governance Officer gave advice surrounding the Guidance of Community
Councils acting on a person’s behalf, advising that the tenant would be best
placed to put his concerns regarding lack of response through the Council’s
complaints process. A complaint requires
to be lodged by an individual member of the public.
Mr Strathern, tenant of property at Lochavullin
advised that following the last flooding raw sewage was not backing up into his
property and was affecting not only him but his 7 members of staff. He stated that the responsibility falls
solely with the Council as it is an environmental health issue.
Mr Murphy from the Council’s Roads and Infrastructure advised that the
Head of Service was compiling a report around flooding and he stated he would
speak to his colleagues in the Environmental Health department with regards to
the raw sewage backup as a priority.
Councillor Lynch asked if the report would come to this Committee. Mr Murphy confirmed that it would.
Councillor Vennard responded to Mr Robert’s comment about the discussion
on flooding being taken off table, commenting that the discussion off line, not
that there wouldn’t be any follow up.
Mr Allan, of the Estates Department advised that his department has the
responsibility for the tenancies at Lochavullin,
stating that there was a mix of tenants and private owners, therefore there
lack of records who has done what to each property when it comes to
drainage. A survey has been requested.
The Chair suggested that the two issues were split with the sewage
situation being prioritised.
Mr Strathern made a suggestion as to how to trace the source of the
sewerage pollution by using dye and asked if this was feasible? Mr Murphy and Mr Allan were invited to look
into this.
Councillor Vennard and Councillor McKenzie made the point that it would
be appropriate to have raised these issues with a ward councillor. Councillor Hampsey offered to take the matter
forward and invited Mr Strathern to make contact with her.
Phil Hamerton asked if there was a plan for the long term. The chair advised that it was acknowledged
that there were areas which needed addressed and there was a list of actions to
alleviate although a more detailed plan would be difficult due to lack of
resources.
Mr Strathern, asked Mr Murphy if the pumping stations at Lochavullin were operational and if there was any plans to
dredge the Black Lynn?
Mr Murphy stated that as far as he was aware they were working. Mr
Strathern advised that the electrical box for the pumps was under water at the
last flood – Mr Murphy said he would double check with the local officers that
the pumps were fully operational.
Councillor McKenzie stated that public question time should be for
Councillors, that officers were accessible by other means and that she did not
agree with officers being put on the spot.
Duncan Martin asked if the
Committee recalled a report being commissioned on flooding and how to address
this. The Chair advised that he was not
aware of this. Councillor Vennard
thought there was a flood study that was fed into SEPA. It was agreed that Mr Murphy would look into
this and circulate to the Committee if this existed.
Councillor Hume asked if a feasibility study on dredging the Black Lynn
had been undertaken. Mr Murphy, advised
he would find out from his Road Design colleagues.
Question 2. Neil MacIntyre
Mr MacIntyre asked the Committee what their thoughts were concerning the
report at Item 14 on the agenda - Oban, Lorn Rugby FC, surrounding the access
to the site.
The Chair advised that generally the project was well supported but that
access arrangements were bordering on operational matters which the committee
could not comment on.
Again Mr MacIntyre asked about the access to the project and if the
Councillors knew where he was talking about.
Councillor McKenzie pointed out that discussing views on access issues
could cause issues for those members on the PPSL Committee.
The Chair re-iterated that Councillors were happy with the concept of
the project and agreed with Councillor McKenzie that access to the site would
be included in any planning process going forward.
Question 3 – Duncan Martin
Where are we on area plans for the Roads – are Councillors liaised with
when decisions are made on what roads are prioritised?
The Chair stated that there is a formula that is worked to prioritise
maintenance work to roads, starting with safety first and worked down, which is
applied to the four areas of Argyll and Bute.
Councillor Hume and advised that having worked previously in the roads
department he had a great deal of experience, but would welcome more consultation
from Officers.
Councillor Green advised that in recent years Councillors have been
asked for comments, although they do not have the expertise, Officers are best
placed in the know of operational matters.
Question 4 – Frank Roberts, Oban Community Council
At its recent meeting, OCC Members were unanimous in now asking that a
public meeting be requested to inform the public in general of how the town
might be affected both when the Municipal harbour is eventually established,
and thereafter into the future. In view of this, I ask on behalf of the
Community Council if the Area Committee will be willing to submit a motion to
the March 21st Harbour Board, requesting that a public meeting be held as soon
as possible, to begin to address public concerns over the Council's proposals.
It is the view of Oban Community Council, that an opportunity should be made
for both Councillors and Council Officers to speak to, and hear from, members
of the public, and that this might help to address concerns and enable the project
to progress smoothly.
Councillor Kain had intended in November to write a piece in response to
concerns raised in the local paper.
Again, Councillor Kain reiterated that the object of a Municipal Harbour
was to enhance the commercial viability of Oban Harbour and to address safety
issues. OCHDA are picking up on the
moorings, which were addressed previously.
He commented that communities have been inspired to raise concerns over
the moorings on the assumption that the Council would be removing moorings. This is not true; it is not in the council’s
best interest to put more prohibitions on the moorings but it does have a legal
right to ensure safety. The same
questions keep getting asked but in a different way and they have all been answered.
The Chair invited the Governance Officer to comment on the competency of
a motion. The Governance Officer advised
that under Standing Order 3.2, only items of business included on the agenda,
or urgent items of business intimated at the start of the meeting could be
considered. On this basis, it would not
be competent for the Area Committee to take forward a Motion.
Mr Roberts, then stated that he had been advised that the Council had no
resources to hold a public meeting, there has been no attempt to advise the
public and no engagement.
Councillor Kain again advised that he has read all the information on
the move to get a municipal harbour, there is a lot of misinformation going out
to the public by groups and it is nonsense.
The sea beds will not change as they fall under the
ownership/responsibility of the Crown Office, what has been proposed is to the
benefit of all harbour users locally and help address issues which prevent
access to Oban.
Question 5 – Frank Roberts, Oban Community Council
It is now the first anniversary of the Area Committee where it was
agreed that CCTV equipment would be installed at Ganavan
Carpark and nothing has happened.
Mr Murphy stated that advice had been sought from the Council’s
Anti-Social Behaviour Co-Ordinator and he would find out the response for Mr
Roberts.