Minutes:
Having noted that there were
members of the public in attendance, the Chair invited them to submit any
questions they may have.
Kenneth Lockhart, Cardross Cycle Path
Action Group
Since the year 2000, Argyll and Bute Council have been discussing and
have partially implemented a cyclepath between Helensburgh and Dumbarton. There
have been lengthy delays in delivering this route for a variety of
reasons. We note from the previous minutes, the delivery of this path is a
stated Council Priority. 24 years on, anticipated completion is
still some years away. On behalf of the community of Cardross, The
Cardross Cyclepath Action Group would like to ask:
What assurances can the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee give to
the community of Cardross that construction of the cyclepath, as a stated
Council Priority, will be given the highest priority in terms of both staff and
financial resources?
How can the community of Cardross and the Cardross Cyclepath Action
Group best support Argyll and Bute Council in delivering this sustainable
travel route?
The
Committee members agreed that they all wished the cyclepath to be completed and
that they were aware of issues and assured Mr Lockhart that the cyclepath
remained a priority.
Councillor
Mulvaney highlighted his frustration regarding the lack of progress and
welcomed the support of the community to get this over the line. Councillor
Mulvaney suggested that if landowners got the message of this support for the
cyclepath it may be helpful to move the project forward. The Committee Manager
advised that with permission, he would share Mr Lockhart’s contact details with
the designated officer.
Norman McNally, Helensburgh Community
Council
I read
that both the Ryder Community Engagement exercise and the Collier Retail Study
have been instrumental in finalising the bid selection for the Waterfront site.
My
question concerns the Helensburgh Waterfront Community Engagement Reporting
carried out by Ryder Architecture, Glasgow.
This
stakeholder engagement was carried out over the course of a week between 17 and
23 June 2023.The architects had prepared five sets of themed image panels
“illustrating the range of options currently being put forward for the
Waterfront site in terms of broad function or type”.
Ten
scheduled events were held in which a total of 83 people participated. The
Report was published in September 2023. Attendees were invited to identify any
images they liked or disliked (green and red dot-sticking) and discuss the pros
and cons of each option.
The
Report uses a wide range of loose descriptions to indicate the frequency of
similarities in feedback gathered, and thus attempts to arrive at some
important Key Findings. Words such as:
Everyone, Most, Many, Some, Several, Others, Few, Small number and
further vague descriptors such as mixed feedback, positive feedback, very
popular, positively received, even ‘close to the hearts’
In
developing the feedback descriptions above, the author(s) will have had the
dot-tally from each option to hand; one trusts the above commentary is based
upon the numerical dot-sticking feedback gathered over those ten sessions. I am
concerned that this verifying data remains absent from public view,
particularly in the light of the Council’s declared reliance on this study.
My
question is this.
Can the
Council affirm that the selected development will meet the Key Findings
criteria laid out the Ryder Report?
Which of
the five alternative themes offered by Ryder Architecture received the greatest
positive, and which alternative theme received the greatest negative
Stakeholder Engagement returns?
Will the
Council publish the actual (positive and negative) dot-tally data that relate
to each of these five options?
The Estates & Property
Development Manager advised
that they had recently received information from the consultants and that the
engagement consultants gave advice on how they would like to take things
forward and where they would like to set it up. Mr Allan highlighted that the
idea of the consultation was to reach parties who had not previously engaged
with the Council, to get their views and find out why their views were what
they were. It was highlighted that from the engagement study there was no
strong consensus with many different views. Mr Allan advised that he would
provide a written response in detail to Mr McNally following the meeting.
The Head of Commercial Services
advised that the engagement report was based on engagement workshops carried
out in September 2023, reinforcing that there was no consensus on any of the 5
options.
Mr
Allan advised that the engagement exercise was an additional step undertaken by
the Council to encourage people who were not engaging to give their views and
that there would still be statutory consultation on any application by way of
the planning process.
Cameron
Foy, Helensburgh Community Council
At the last Area Committee meeting
Councillor Mulvaney wrongly stated that supporters of Helensburgh skatepark
were “re-writing history” in relation to the location of a skatepark on the
waterfront development. A permanent skatepark on the waterfront in
Helensburgh town centre was promised by Argyll & Bute Council in its
Masterplan adopted back in 2012 after lengthy public consultation.
Is the Council still
committed to delivering the key elements of its approved Masterplan, including limiting
commercial development to 2,600 sq m gross, and space for a skatepark as
intended?
The
Estates & Property Development Manager confirmed that this is built into
the Masterplan and none of the proposals would exceed that space. Mr Allan also
advised that as agreed at the September 2023 Area Committee, the skatepark
would be located on the Waterfront unless a more suitable location was
identified.
Peter
Brown, Helensburgh Community Council
Question
1 and 2
The agenda for the
H&L Area Committee meeting states that the Committee will be asked to pass
a resolution to exclude from the public Appendices B, C and D of the Pierhead
development item. These Appendices are referenced in the overview briefing
as:
I would firstly like
to remind Councillors of the statement in the Council's Constitution which
says:
All decisions of the
Council, or any Committee or Sub-Committee will be made in accordance with
certain immutable principles, which includes "A presumption in favour of
openness".
The reason given for
exempting these Appendices is given as Paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 7A of
the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which is: "Any terms proposed
or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a
contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or the supply of goods or
services."
But
this paragraph is qualified by Part II of Schedule 7A in Paragraph 4 which says
"Information falling within paragraph 9 of Part I above is exempt
information if and so long as disclosure to the public of the terms would
prejudice the authority in those or any other negotiations concerning the
property or goods or services."
Would
Councillors agree therefore that at least Appendices B and C should be able to
be shared with the public without prejudicing any negotiations as long as any
financial information was redacted and that, only if these Appendices are made
public will this committee be fulfilling the Council's Constitutional
requirement in favour of openness?
If
these Appendices are not shared, can Councillors confirm that full minutes of
the exempt section will be provided? As a reminder, section 50C of the
Local Government Act says:
Inspection
of minutes and other documents after meetings.
(2) Where, in
consequence of the exclusion of parts of the minutes which disclose exempt
information, the document open to inspection under subsection (1)(a) above does
not provide members of the public with a reasonably fair and coherent record of
the whole or part of the proceedings, the proper officer shall make a written
summary of the proceedings or the part, as the case may be, which provides such
a record without disclosing the exempt information.
The
Committee Manager advised that appendices B, C and D would be considered in
private in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and that the
minutes of any Council Committee are never a verbatim record. The Committee
Manager advised that he would provide Mr Brown with a summary of any relevant
discussions had at the item, confirming that this would not include any
commercially sensitive information.
Question
3
The Disposal of Land
by Local Authorities (Scotland) Regulations 2010 makes clear that councils do
not need to get the best price for a piece of land. Specifically:
4. -(1) The
circumstances in which a local authority may dispose of land for a
consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained are that -
(a) economic development or regeneration;
(b) health;
(c) social well-being; or
(d) environmental well-being.
The overview document,
which is the only one that we can see, says repeatedly that the bids selected
are the "best value for the council". Can Councillors reassure
us that they know they are not obliged to accept the best price for this site?
The Head
of Commercial Services advised that The Disposal of Land by Local Authorities
(Scotland) Regulations 2010 is a statute that they work to and that there are a
variety of different mechanisms for choosing the preferred bidder for any site.
In this particular project there are 5 recognised criteria, price, community
benefit, risk, deliverability and economic benefit.
Question
4
At the weekend, I
sent all Councillors Helensburgh Community Council’s summary of the Colliers
Retail Study Update. I will not attempt to summarise all of that detail
here, but I can update it based on information that we received from Colliers
yesterday through David Allan.
Our primary concern with
the Retail Study Update is that Colliers have significantly underestimated the
existing retail floorspace in the town centre. Colliers said that they
had taken the floorspace figure from an Experian Goad Category Report, and that
the list of shops and their individual floorspaces “do not materially impact
the conclusions of the retail impact assessment”. But they do, if the
list of shops and floorspaces is wrong.
We obtained the
underlying Experian data yesterday. This data, supposedly specifically
created for Helensburgh, said that Val’s Toy Shop on the front was part of the
Jolly Giant Toy Superstore and therefore was a significant multiple retailer. Unbelievably,
The Jolly Giant Toy Superstore went into receivership in 2002.
Given this kind of
hole in the data, it may come as no surprise to the committee that we can
demonstrate definitively that the floorspace figure that Colliers have used for
2023 is too low, for both convenience and comparison shops. What that
means is that their conclusion is wrong and, in fact, that any expansion of
food (convenience) stores will close down some of our existing shops.
A similar position
applies to the Colliers’ comparison floorspace and conclusion but, more
significantly, the comparison sales percentages have been based on very old
figures, from 2007. We asked Colliers what error margins should be
applied to allow for such old data, to which they responded “Error margins are
not applied to retail assessments, as they are reviews by market specialists
based on specific scenarios using data from multiple sources.”
There is also a
crucial figure in the Colliers calculations, which is the “benchmark sales
density”. If this is too low, it will suggest that more floor area is
required. Colliers have told us that “The benchmark sales density was
provided by Experian and is a national figure that is based on the average
sales density of all comparison retailers, including multinational and small
independent retails. It must be appreciated that a benchmark sales density for
comparison goods is difficult to estimate…”
We have examined
another Retail Capacity Study, prepared by Nexus Planning for Newry, Mourne and
Down District Council in April 2022. This report said “…there are no
robust, industry standard benchmark sales densities for calculating the
turnover of smaller independent retailers that typically make up the majority
of the comparison provision of town centres. Moreover, the trading levels of
comparison retailers can fluctuate significantly depending on a number of
localised variables, most notably the location of the retailer relative to
similar providers.
“As such, we adopt a
standard approach that comparison goods retailers across the Study Area are
trading ‘at equilibrium’ at 2022, meaning that we adopt the survey derived
turnover of each facility, and examine capacity by measuring the growth in
available expenditure to 2035.”
So this consultancy,
which was the UK’s Town Planning Consultancy of the Year in 2020, calculates
required capacity in a completely different way. Using the same approach
shows that in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2, Helensburgh Town Centre will need
600sqm less of comparison retail by 2033.
My underlying
question is this – given the holes and inconsistencies in Colliers underlying
data and resulting conclusions, will Councillors accept that there is clear
evidence that additional retail in Helensburgh’s town centre will adversely
affect our existing shops?
The Estates & Property
Development Manager advised that they have referred back to Colliers for
responses to the questions and are happy to pass on any further questions that
can be looked into. Mr Allan advised that as a town centre site there is no
requirement for any retail impact assessment or retail study due to national
and local policy and that the work undertaken was additional and that the
Council had went beyond what was required.
The Head of Commercial Services
highlighted that this it is a town centre site and is for mixed use and that
retail is nationally and locally found to stimulate footfall in town centre.
Sarah Davies, Helensburgh Community Council
Question 1
At
the last meeting of the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee I asked about the
allocation of the recently awarded £20 million from the Westminster Governments
Levelling up Fund.
I
was assured that the Council would be looking in to this. As yet 5 months later
we have heard no further updates on this matter despite the very public budget
discussions.
My
question is when will this money be allocated, who will make this decision and
when will the Argyll and Bute residents be consulted about this?
I
understand that this money needs to be allocated to ready to go projects. Might
I suggest that there are three such projects in Helensburgh and Lomond which
would welcome the money, the pier regeneration project, the community plan to
buy and develop the Tower Cinema and Arts Centre and last but not least the
development of our Waterfront into a Public leisure area with a state of the
art Skatepark, public event space, pop up shops and coach parking.
I
am also very concerned that given that this is a General Election year that
this money identified for Argyll and Bute if not used may well be lost.
Councillor
Penfold advised that a report on the Levelling Up Fund would be considered by
the Policy and Resources Committee in due course.
Councillor
Mulvaney highlighted that at the moment the process is driven by the UK
government who are having discussions with officers and that the Council have
to work to their criteria. It was advised that the report with shortlisting of
projects would be going to the Policy and Resources Committee in the near
future.
Question 2
Helensburgh
in Motion Active Travel Study
Engagement
with the community is always welcome. As a community council we were very happy
to be involved. We advertised this widely, shared our community contacts and
invited the consultants to our monthly meeting. Unfortunately due to the short
period of the consultation this didn’t happen. Now In paragraph 1:2 of the
executive summary page 155 it suggests that this consultation was on the
Helensburgh section of the Dumbarton - Helensburgh cycleway. At no point was it
made clear that this was the purpose of the survey. Can you assure us that
further consultation will take place on the preferred route and that this is
not the only consultation?
We
also have concerns in paragraph 4:13 on page 160 that there is a role for
volunteers to support the maintenance of the cyclepath because the Roads and
Infrastructure Service have previously stated they do not wish to adopt
sections of cyclepath remote from the road. The Community Council and other
groups willingly coordinate volunteers to clean the beach and tend to the shrub
beds maintaining cycle paths would be quite a different matter for which we
have neither the expertise or the equipment.
Councillor
Penfold advised that this question would be passed onto the Strategic
Transportation Delivery Officer who would provide a response to Ms Davies.
Question 3
On
the agenda today Item 12 pages 123-128 is an item Area Plans Update. As the
Chair of the Helensburgh and Lomond Community Planning Group I can report we
have already had this presentation. It would appear that the Area Committee,
the Community Planning Partnership along with Community Councils and community
groups will have a significant role to play in the production of these plans. I
would like to ask how you as a committee feel we can all better work together
to produce an area plan for Helensburgh and Lomond which truly represents the
needs and aspirations of the local community?
Councillor
Corry confirmed that he would welcome any suggestions in this regard from Ms
Davies.
Jackie Hood, Helensburgh
Skatepark Group
The Helensburgh Skatepark Project
carried out a poll which got 123 responses, 73% wanted the Skatepark to remain
on the waterfront, 15% supported a move to Kidston Park and 12% didn’t mind
where they just wanted a Skatepark. This poll showed a clear preference for the
skatepark to remain on the waterfront despite the size restrictions imposed by
the council planning conditions. However, should Kidston Park be deemed by the
current feasibility study to be a suitable alternative location for our
community skatepark, and the skatepark is forced to move to this location, can
the Council confirm that the replacement ramps will be allowed to remain on the
waterfront location until the alternative park is constructed and operational
so that there is no further loss of amenity for our young people?. They have
already had to endure 3 years without a skatepark. We need confirmation that
the temporary ramps can remain on the pierhead site until a new facility is up
and running.
Can the Council also confirm that
any funds left over from the £80,000 after the feasibility study has been concluded,
will be put towards the planning, design and construction of a permanent
skatepark?
The Estates & Property
Development Manager advised that due to planning considerations an alternative
location would need to be agreed before relocating it.
The Head of Commercial Services
advised that at the December Area Committee there was a preference for further
investigations into Kidston Park and also Hermitage Park and that
investigations in this regard are ongoing. Mr McLaughlin confirmed that that there
would be a skatepark on the waterfront site until such time and any revised
relocation proposal is agreed.
The Estates & Property
Development Manager confirmed that any funds left over from the £80,000 after
the feasibility study would be used to facilitate the new development.
Angela Anderson, Plastic Free
Helensburgh
Following on from the question I raised last
quarter on drainage and flooding going back to August, and increasing and more
disruptive as the year progressed, I received a reply that routine gully
cleaning would take place in March.
Since the last area meeting you are all no doubt
aware of multiple rainfall events.
The gully gratings across the town are blocked or
barely porous with grit. Sinclair Street runs ankle deep in water as do
adjacent streets. East and west streets are flooding and spilling across verges
overwhelming French drains which were never intended to cope with street
flooding and flooding down to the back of houses. Across the street, shops and
tea rooms flooding of gardens and houses is the talk of the ‘steamie’.
I also understand the gully cleaning apparatus is
currently loaned to the Dunoon depot.
Gullies taking three days to clear are deemed slow
draining and as the water doesn’t stand on sloping streets they are outwith the
metric. Our campaign for the town to take better care of what goes into drains
is still on hold.
My question is can the Committee ensure that our
streets are adequately husbanded going forward, the gutters adequately cleaned
to prevent gully covers blocking, the gullies kept clear and that there is a
serious exercise to ameliorate the problems to households from flooding from
the roads?.
Some of this may well be expensive but the
predictions are that these weather patterns will be the norm as climate change
bites. There is a willingness across the town to look after our environs but an
increasing feeling that the Council doesn’t care. We know that the Council and
staff are hard pushed.
Councillor Penfold advised that the Committee would
speak to officers regarding the gulley cleaning and maintenance and encouraged
members of the public to report any dog fouling either to the Council directly
or to their local Councillors.
Councillor MacQuire advised that he had submitted
reports in relation to gulley cleaning in the Colquhoun Square and West Princes
Street and that these were cleared, adding that he had put in a further report
for Sinclair Street and West Clyde Street and that these should be cleared
within the month.
Polly Jones
The Committee Manager read out
the below question submitted by Polly Jones:
Please can you set out, including
in writing, what the process is to appeal the decision by the Helensburgh and
Lomond Area Committee on the successful waterfront tender, for:
1. another tender bidder
2. A community council
3. Members of the public
The Head of Commercial Services
advised that he would refer this question to the Council’s Monitoring Officer
who would follow up with a written response.
Fiona Baker
In light of the recent
eye-watering 10% increase in Council Tax, imposed during a cost of living
crisis, and with Argyll and Bute Council having over £96 million in reserves,
over £8m of which is unallocated, and an award of some £20 million of Levelling
Up funds, can the Councillors explain why there is continued insistence that
the pierhead site must be sold off to the highest bidder and generate at least
£1m for Council coffers?
It seems with all this extra
income and the Council’s reserve funds there is no need to destroy
Helensburgh’s prime waterfront site with a retail development we don’t want or
need. As a town centre retailer and member
of the Helensburgh Business Group I can advise that Councillor Hardie has not
asked our view on the development and his anecdotal 75% of local retailers are
in favour is incorrect.
The Collier’s Retail Study, for
all its many flaws, as pointed out by Dr Brown of Helensburgh Community
Council, advises Helensburgh is above the national average on provision of all
kinds of shops, but behind on leisure.
And with approximately 21 vacant shops this suggests we do not need any
more shops, but we do need more public amenity. There will always be leakage,
as there is leakage from other areas to Helensburgh for our specialist
independent shops, and as you can order your food shopping from your preferred
retailer and have it delivered to your door thinking a new supermarket will
stop leakage is a fallacy.
If the political will was to
listen to the evidence based representations and pleas of residents to provide
people with the amenities we so desperately need to attract and retain local
spending and visitors, a community focussed development, a real investment in
the town’s future, which the majority
desire, could proceed. The funds
available to the Council clearly demonstrate that the £1m price tag for our
town’s future is not a purely fiscal issue so please can you explain this
unjustified financial argument?
The Estates & Property
Development Manager highlighted that the Waterfront is a mixed use site and
that the Council had invested a substantial amount of money into the Leisure
Centre and advised that there has been a lot of investment into Helensburgh
over the years to bring people into the town and added that the mixed use
nature of the site is key to encouraging people into the town centre.
The Head of Commercial Services
highlighted that there are a number of open spaces in Helensburgh including
Colquhoun Square, The Civic Centre and Hermitage Park and advised that the item
on the agenda was not about one bidder but to confirm further investigations
into two bidders with subsequent interviews in advance of a preferred bidder
being identified.
The Committee confirmed that they
would be looking at and discussing every proposal before coming to a decision
that would be best for the town.
Michael Darcy
I am here today regarding the
deforestation of mature semi-natural woodlands at Blairvadach, including 7 out
of the 9 giant redwoods that were there, which sequestrates more carbon than
any other tree in the world and Scotland only has around 4% of mature natural
woodlands left so all remaining fragments are very precious to this type of
nature crisis. The new national planning framework 4 recognises this in law and
seeks to protect ancient woodlands from development and the community in Rhu
fought for tree preservation orders for Blairvadach and Argyll and Bute Council
delivered the Tree Preservation Orders in 2018, this made the Community think
that the trees would be protected and any development would be nature
sensitive. In 2020 the children in Rhu and staff at the primary planted
hundreds of tree saplings and the community is being responsible and climate
aware but why is the Council betraying us by signing death warrant for mature
woodlands?
Will the Council commit to giving
back to the community what is left of Blairvadach Woods so that we can ensure mature
trees continue to sequestrate the carbon, purify the air and water, provide
homes to owls, hedgehogs and bees and all who live there?
The Committee highlighted their
disappointment at hearing what had happened and agreed to contact Planning
Officers to look into the matter as a matter of urgency.
The Committee Manager advised
that if the land was owned by the Council there is a Community Asset Transfer
process in place and agreed to put Mr Darcy in contact with the relevant
officer.