Agenda item

Mairi Malloy – Oban Community Council

A sauna has been installed at the North end of Ganavan Carpark, the Community Council has never been made aware of any planning permission application.  How did this installation come about and by who?

As no officer from the planning department was in attendance, the question would be taken away, by the Democratic Services Manager and a response would be sent on to Mrs Malloy directly.

Lachie Strathern

Mr Strathern sought an update on the progress made in relation to the ongoing flooding issues caused by the collapsed and blocked drainage system leading from Crannog Lane to the main sewer. It was highlighted that this issue had been identified in a report completed approximately two years prior. Councillor Vennard and Councillor Lynch have also been following up on outstanding queries on my behalf.

In response, Councillor Vennard advised that the matter had been discussed at previous meetings, including the most recent meeting. Reference was made to an offer by the Council to undertake remedial works on the basis of a shared cost arrangement, whereby the relevant party would contribute half of the costs. Councillor Vennard advised that costs would only be established should Mr Strathern agree to accept the Council’s offer.

Councillor Lynch advised that discussions had taken place regarding the potential costings, similar to those raised by Councillor Vennard. It was requested that an indicative estimate of the costs be provided, noting that it was reasonable for Mr Strathern to be informed of the likely costs prior to any agreement.

Councillor Lynch added that that Environmental Health had been contacted regarding the matter. A response had not yet been received; however, it was confirmed that an update would be provided directly once available.

Mr Strathern clarified that there were two separate issues which had previously been discussed. One issue related to an incorrect connection within Mr Strathern’s site, which he acknowledged responsibility for and confirmed his intention to resolve independently.

The second, and primary, issue was identified as the blockage and collapse of the main drainage system. It was noted that the previously mentioned offer of a 50% contribution had been in relation to remedial works within Mr Strathern’s site. However, it was emphasised that this did not address the main concern, which remained the condition of the principal drain.

As no information could be provided by attendees at the meeting, the question would be taken away with a response being made available to Mr Strathern.

Roddy McCuish

Mr McCuish stated that his question was in relation to Item 11 on today’s agenda, he made reference to the committee report, which noted an allocation of £40,000 towards the project. It was observed that the wording suggested the total cost of the bridge may vary and what anticipated costs were. He further asked for the name of the engineering firm engaged to carry out the works, asking whether they were Council approved as concerns had been raised by residents at the lower end of Glencruitten Drive as installation of a box culvert could alter the flow characteristics of the burn, potentially affecting water speed and behaviour.

Mr McCuish also sought clarification on whether an environmental assessment had been undertaken, given that the proposed development is situated within a floodplain. It was emphasised that any alteration within such an area could have significant impacts.

The Chair advised his understanding was that where a bridge involves alterations to or spans a watercourse, approval would typically be required from SEPA. It was agreed that officers would be asked to confirm what consents, if any, had been granted, as these would determine the nature and extent of the works to be undertaken.

It was indicated that responsibility for progressing the matter would lie with the relevant department. The Chair invited officers present to respond, if able, to the queries raised.

In response to Mr McCuish the Infrastructure Design Manager advised that the engineering consultants used were HGA Group who were based in Inverness. She also reported that the Infrastructure Design team would request an Approval in Principle (AIP), within which all technical matters would require to be set out in detail. These included hydraulic, geotechnical, and topographical surveys, as well as the identification of relevant constraints and stakeholders involved in the process.

It was noted that a further update would be provided in due course.

Terry Hegarty

Mr Hegarty advised that he had raised a question at a previous meeting regarding the Mull Campus. While a response had been received promptly, he indicated that he had not been satisfied with the content and had therefore sought further clarification.

He reported that the subsequent clarification, received the previous day, did not address the original query. Mr Hegarty sought guidance on how to proceed in circumstances where he was not satisfied with the response provided, advising that Councillors Hampsey and McKenzie had been sent the response, he received, as they had intimated that they were interested in seeing the response to his question.

Councillor McKenzie indicated that she had been off for a few days and had returned to a backlog of emails to go through and unfortunately had not had the opportunity to see the email sent by Mr Hegarty but was happy to come back to him with her comments when she had read it.

The Chair advised that Councillor Hampsey had not yet joined the meeting but would maybe be able to respond later, confirming that he would not respond to the email as he disputed some of the points raised.

Mr Hegarty expressed concern that the Council’s perceived lack of engagement with community interests on these matters could lead to a view within the community that the Council was acting unlawfully, particularly if it did not respond to or address the concerns raised.

The Chair sought advice from the Clerk on what routes would be appropriate to Mr Hegarty given that he is dissatisfied with the response he received from council officers.  The Clerk advised that, where there was dissatisfaction with a response provided, the Council’s formal complaints procedure could be followed and that detail on this could be found on the council’s website.

Tracy Mayo

Ms Mayo asked for clarification on whether there was a commitment from Councillors, including the Policy Lead for Education, to meet with representatives of the working group and Mull Community Council. It was noted that there were issues extending beyond the campus itself, including concerns regarding unrecorded data. Ms Mayo also suggested that Mull Community Council were also keen to discuss and asked whether Councillor Green would commit to attending a roundtable discussion?

In response, the Chair confirmed that he had visited Tobermory campus and had attended a meeting organised in relation to human rights considerations, as well as at a meeting of Mull Community Council.  The Chair also advised following his participation in responding to questions at a previous meeting, he would seek to attend future meetings where his schedule permitted and highlighted that the availability of online access to meetings had been beneficial in facilitating his attendance. He indicated that, should invitations to future meetings be extended, he would give these due consideration in his capacity as Area Chair and Policy Lead for Education.

Ms Mayo raised questions regarding whether councillors had met to review the explainer document, including its implications around the progressive realisation of rights as referenced by Mr Hegarty. She queried whether this matter had been discussed directly with councillors, whether they had sufficient understanding of the expert advice contained within the document, and whether policy leads and councillors had been afforded the opportunity to examine it in detail.

In response, the Chair advised that he had received reassurance that the Council had obtained appropriate legal advice and that the proposals being advanced were compliant with the Council’s interpretation of the law.

The chair invited comments from other members, Councillor McKenzie asked whether in view of what she seen as growing levels of frustration which stated an unwillingness to engage, the area committee might host a meeting?  The Chair advised that it was open to individual councillors to determine whether to attend meetings but that he would seek some legal advice as to whether it was appropriate for the Area Committee to host such a meeting.