Minutes:
The Democratic Services Manager advised that a
number of written questions had been received in advance of the meeting. Questions were taken in the following order.
Question 1 – Alison Rennie
The 2019 Oban Flood Study identified the clearance of
the Black Lynn including the removal of Japanese Knotweed, in particular, as
significant matters of 'clearance and repair' (The Flood Risk Management
(Scotland) Act 2009). At the most recent meeting of this Committee, and in
e-mail correspondence subsequently, I was advised, and observed myself, that
work was being undertaken to address the Japanese Knotweed infestation by
limited spraying. I was also advised that additional personnel were to be
trained in the process of injecting the Knotweed. More recently I have learned
that this is no longer the case and that no further work will be undertaken
with regard to clearing obstructions from the Black Lynn, including Japanese
Knotweed.
Please could the Area Committee be given a
definitive statement on this matter, specifically:
does the Council now reject the recommendations of
the 2019 Flood Study report; and,
does the Council intend to do nothing regarding the
existing Japanese Knotweed and other obstructions in the Black Lynn?
The Operations Manager, Mr Murphy, advised that
colleagues from the Flooding Team were no longer responsible for the Japanese
Knotweed and that this would now fall within his responsibilities. A tender had been issued for the training of
operatives and Mr Murphy would be meeting with contractors this week to discuss
assistance with treatment including stem injection, to start within the next
month or so.
Regarding the flooding, Mr Murphy advised that he
understood the new pumping station controls were now operational and obstacles
from the Black Lynn had been removed.
Mrs Rennie asked for clarification that in relation
to Japanese Knotweed the clearance of would now be either put out to tender or
taken on by an operative within the Roads and Infrastructure Service. Mr Murphy confirmed that this was the case.
Mrs Rennie followed up with a question concerning
the build-up of silt which has contributed for the Japanese Knotweed to take
root. With it being an artificial
waterway silt build-up would continue and require regular clearance. Is that being looked at?
Mr Murphy advised a survey had been carried out on
behalf of colleagues in the Design Team to see if dredging the Black Lynn would
make a difference to the silt build-up.
The outcome of that survey was that it would make no difference and as a
result there would be no dredging taking place.
He advised that this matter would be picked up in the weekly briefing in
order that all Members are kept up to date with what is going on.
Question 2 – Phil Hamerton
Please could you provide an
update on the possible development of short-term let control areas in Argyll
& Bute, specifically:
As the relevant Policy Lead, Councillor Green
advised that the target had always been Summer of next year for implementation
of any potential control areas. The
consultation that would proceed that would be the first half of 2026, in line
with the statutory timescale, and a decision to commence that was anticipated
to come at start of next year, possibly later this year. He confirmed that the consultation would
involve all relevant stakeholders such as businesses, wider sector, community
councils and the public.
Question 3 – Frank Roberts
As has been the case for some years now, there has been a complete
failure by the Council Wardens to even attempt to enforce parking regulations
at Ganavan. To all intents and purposes this appears to be a decision
taken consciously, as evidenced by:
The Council is clearly losing significant revenues both because it is
accepted by many visitors that they do not need to purchase a ticket, and so
choose not to, and that vehicles parked contrary to the regulations will not
attract a penalty notice. Therefore, I would like to ask:
The Chair advised that she
was deeply uncomfortable with questions seeking to discuss council staff at
this committee given they can be identified in small communities because of the
jobs they do. She noted that wardens do a mammoth task in a difficult job and
that they should be congratulate. As
this was an operational question, she passed the question over to Mr Murphy to
respond to.
The Operations Manager
advised there are 8 wardens to cover the whole of Argyll and Bute. He advised that the responsible officer for
provision of the number of fixed penalties issued was off on leave but that he
would provide a response via the Committee as soon as he had the
information. He also agreed with
concerns express about failure to enforce at this forum but indicated that as
it was raised he would take up this matter with his colleague, Hugh O’Neill. Mr Murphy suggested a meeting with Mr Roberts
onsite to discuss what the concerns are.
Mr Roberts welcomed the
opportunity to meet with someone who could take action.
Question 4 – Mr David Hamilton Oban Celtic Shinty Club & McAulay Cup
Association
In relation to point 5.4 of today’s agenda item 9, it states that
“engagement has taken place with members of local sports clubs”, I can confirm
that no one has engaged with the Shinty Club or the McAulay Association – why?
The Chair advised that although the item would be discussed later in the
meeting that she was happy to respond.
She advised that she was of the opinion and impression that engagement
had taken place and understood Mr Murphy had met with Mr McCuish from the
McAulay Association, as well as other sports clubs in the town.
Mr Murphy advised that he and colleagues from Estates had attended a
very good meeting at with members of the Rugby Club which also involved
representatives of other forums. He went
on to say that he had also met with Mr McCuish at Mossfield to discuss from the
Shinty perspective and with Mr Hamilton and Mr Clark yesterday in Oban. Mr
Murphy stated that he believed that he had engaged with all of the people
leading the future development of the sports hub.
The Chair asked Mr Hamilton if he did meet with Mr Murphy, and if he
could advise if the issues he wished to take forward were reflected in the
paper before members?
Mr Hamilton advised that the first time he had found out about the
report was yesterday and if there was engagement with other clubs when was
this?
The Chair advised that engagement concerning Mossfield had been ongoing
for years and thatthere was originally a Stakeholder Group set up, at the
request of this Committee, in the previous Council. That group fell by the wayside which is why
this issue was brought back to Committee to examine again.
Mr Hamilton asked when it had been agreed to ring fence the money for
Mossfield and stated that in his opinion the bridge was not in Mossfield.
The Chair advised that the money was ring fenced at a previous Area
Committee Meeting and advised that the bridge was within the grounds of
Mossfield. She asked Mr Hamilton if he had feedback that he would like to
provide at this point, that was not reflected in the paper?
Mr Hamilton said he would like to see the money spent on secure fencing
around Mossfield due to vandalism. The
chair confirmed that that proposal was within the report and asked Mr Hamilton
if he had figures regarding vandalism instances? Mr Hamilton advised that
grounds staff often had to pick up broken glass.
The Chair asked Mr Murphy to clarify the position regarding the site of
the bridge. Mr Murphy confirmed that the
bridge was in fact in the grounds of Mossfield and in past, it had been a major
link to Mossfield for certain events.
Question 5 – Mr Patrick Steeman, Oban Camanachd Shinty Club
Mr Steeman referred to the Agnes Angus Bequest report stating that in
his opinion paragraphs 1.1 which set out the bequest was to be used for public
utility and for the benefit and
advantage of the community of Oban was contradictory with paragraph 1.2,
suggesting use for improvement at Mossfield Stadium. He advised that he was also of the opinion
that the bridge was not within the confines of Mossfield Stadium. He asked the Committee to clarify that the
funds are to be used on Mossfield Stadium?
The Chair guaranteed that the money would be used within Mossfield
Stadium, however, she could not say how at this point given the decision would
be made later in the meeting. She
commented that it had already been confirmed about the bridge and that she was
confused as to where the lack of clarity on that had come from.
Question 6 – Mr Archie Clark, Vice-Secretary of Mossfield Development
Group
Mr Clark advised that he had met with Mr Murphy yesterday, but not about
this paper, as he did not find the paper until last night. He said he considered it had been established
that there had been no dialogue with the shinty groups and asked if the
employed ground staff at Mossfield, who had 50 years plus experience between
them, had been approached for feedback and advice on:-
a) Outstanding and long term
defects of the facility; and
b) Their opinion where best to
utilise the £40,000?
The Chair advised that she would need to bring Mr Murphy back in as the
questions were relating to staffing matters.
Mr Murphy advised that the ground staff reporting any defects are
listened to and the repairs/replacement would be carried out under the
maintenance budget from Property Services.
It is a wider issue being looked at than the need to engage with staff,
and he reiterated that the staff are listened to, and they do maintain the
facility to the best of their ability, commenting that the maintenance levels
are extremely high at Mossfield.
The Chair asked Mr Murphy for clarity surrounding the figures for
vandalism, as given her conversations with Police Scotland locally that they do
not believe there is currently an issue at Mossfield with regards to vandalism?
Mr Murphy advised that in discussions with Police there has been nothing
reported since last summer, and that discussions had also taken place with the
Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Officer for feedback. He advised that yesterday, Mr Clark showed him
a video of some broken glass and cans which had been disposed of on the pitch,
but we have no records, and checked with our offices, and there are no
instances of numerous complaints on any damage or anti-social behaviour at
Mossfield.
Question 7 - Mr Roddy McCuish
Mr McCuish confirmed he did have a short discussion with Mr Murphy and
in that discuss had stated that the bridge was a waste of time. He asked if any officer of the Council or any
elected member had had a discussion with the Rugby Club about a bridge over to
Mossfield?
The chair advised that she cannot speak for any officers, but that she
did have a discussion with the Rugby Club about a bridge when they were asked
what their priorities would be for Mossfield.
The Chair invited Mr Murphy to comment on the question. Mr Murphy confirmed that at the same site
meeting at Mossfield referred to earlier, there was a discussion as tothe
advantages that linking the Rugby Club and Mossfield by bridge could have for
sports events or other major events taking place at both venues. Mr Murphy
stated that he could not speak for other officers or officials from the
Council.
The Chair stated that she felt it was important to point out that they
were not building a new bridge but reinstating of the original bridge that had
been used to access Mossfield but that could no longer be used by vehicles as
it had fallen into disrepair. She added
that the Council did not have the funding to invest and that the proposal for
reinstatement of an asset will improve the longevity of Mossfield, bringing
benefit to the wider community of Oban. The Chair further advised that it
seemed to her that there is a feeling that the council are undervaluing
Mossfield here, which is certainly not the case. Councillor McKenzie stated
that she had been fighting Mossfield’s corner since 2016 and was delighted that
there is even a small pot of money to invest.
Mr McCuish stated that he recently attended a meeting with the Chief
Executive and Leader of the Council, during which it was heartening to hear that
the Council want to engage more with Communities. Given what has been said from major
stakeholders today he asked if the Area Committee would consider a pause in the
recommendations, until further in-depth consultations had taken place with the
Stakeholders of Mossfield, indicating that if it at that stage it was decided
that a bridge is the outcome then that would be accepted?
The Chair pointed out that Mr McCuish was well aware of how this
Committee works and the governance procedures surrounding it. She advised that there was a paper on the
agenda today and that if any elected Member felt the need to amend any of these
recommendations, they could do so.
Mr McCuish asked for clarity that any Member wishing to put forward an
amendment to the recommendations in the report could do so today during
consideration of the item?
The Chair again confirmed that was the case.
Question 8 – Mr David Hamilton
Why do we need this bridge, I think the money could be spent better?
The Chair advised that in her opinion matters may be clarified during
discussion on the item. She advised that
Mr Hamilton had made his point but that she did not hear any new questions in
relation to the paper on the agenda.