Public Document Pack - argyll-bute.gov.uk

Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghaidheal agus Bhoid Customer Services Executive Director: Douglas Hendry

Lorn House, Albany Street, Oban, Argyll, PA34 4AR Tel: 01631 567901 Fax: 01631 570379

15 June 2010

NOTICE OF MEETING

A meeting of the OBAN LORN & THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE will be held in the MCCAIG SUITE, CORRAN HALLS, OBAN on WEDNESDAY, 9 JUNE 2010 at 3:00 PM, which you are requested to attend.

Douglas Hendry Executive Director - Customer Services

BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3. CUSTOMER SERVICES

(a) Minute of meeting of Oban Lorn & the Isles Area Committee held on 14th April

2010 (Pages 1 - 4)

(b) Minute of meeting of Oban Lorn & the Isles Area Committee held on 24th March 2010 in regard to The Argyll and Bute council (Off-Road parking Places and charges)(Mull)(Amendment) Order 200_ (Pages 5 - 10)

(c) Minute of meeting of Oban Lorn & the Isles Area Committee held on 24th

March 2010 in regard to The Argyll and Bute council (On-Road parking Places and charges)(Mull)(Amendment) Order 200_ (Pages 11 - 12)

(d) Minute of meeting of Oban Lorn & the Isles Area Committee held on 5th May

2010 (Pages 13 - 14)

(e) Utilisation of Capital Receipts - An Cridhe, Isle of Coll (Pages 15 - 22)

4. ALIENERGY - PRESENTATION FROM ENERGY AND BENEFITS ADVISOR

Public Document Pack

5. COMMUNITY SERVICES

(a) Letter of thanks from Oban & District Disability Forum & Access Panel (Shopmobility, Oban, Ltd) (Pages 23 - 24)

(b) Grants to Third Sector 2010/11 (Pages 25 - 42)

6. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

(a) Mull Landscape Capacity Study (Appendix A previously circulated) (Pages 43

- 46)

(b) Coll Sustainable Design Guide (Pages 47 - 50)

7. OPERATIONAL SERVICES

(a) Roads Capital Budget 2010-2011 (Pages 51 - 54)

(b) TranServ - A85 Restructuring, Oban (to follow)

8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is:-

Paragraph 9 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.

9. ACQUISITION / DISPOSAL / LEASING OF PROPERTY

E1 (a) Proposed Car Parking at Mossfield Park, Oban - Oban Marina Ltd (Pages 55 - 58)

E1 (b) Land and Buildings at Lochside Street, Oban - Development Opportunity

(Pages 59 - 62)

E1 (c) Snack bar site, Ganavan Sands Car Park, Ganavan (Pages 63 - 70)

OBAN, LORN & THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE Councillor Gordon Chalmers Councillor Mary-Jean Devon Councillor Donald Macdonald Kenneth Macdonald (Clerk) Councillor Duncan MacIntyre (Chair) Councillor Neil Mackay Councillor Roderick McCuish (Vice-Chair) Councillor Donald McIntosh Councillor Elaine Robertson Contact: Jane Gillies, Committee Services Assistant - 01631 567901

MINUTES of MEETING of OBAN LORN & THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE held in the MCCAIG

SUITE, CORRAN HALLS, OBAN on WEDNESDAY, 14 APRIL 2010

Present: Councillor Duncan MacIntyre (Chair)

Councillor Gordon Chalmers Councillor Mary-Jean Devon Councillor Donald MacDonald Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Elaine Robertson Attending: Kenneth Macdonald, Area Corporate Services Manager Jane Gillies, Committee Services Assistant Muriel Kupris, Leisure & Youth Services Manager Alex Taylor, Area Service Manager, Children & Families, Social Work Joanna Hynd, Service Manager, Community Care Allen Stevenson, Service Manager, Adult Services, Social Work Lorraine Todd, Pyramid Admin Assistant Adrian Jackson-Stark, Statutory Plans Officer Douglas Blades, Public Transport Officer 4 Press and public 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Mackay and

McIntosh


Councillor Robertson declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 4(b) due to being on the management committee.

3. CORPORATE SERVICES

(a) MINUTE OF MEETING OF OBAN LORN & THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE HELD ON 10TH FEBRUARY 2010

The minute of Oban Lorn & the Isles Area Committee held on 10th February

2010 was approved as a correct record.

(b) APPOINTMENTS TO OUTSIDE BODIES - OBAN COMMUNITY SPORTS FIELD MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

The Committee discussed a letter of resignation from the Oban Community

Sports Field Management Committee from Councillor McCuish and considered options for moving forward. Decision: It was agreed to arrange a meeting between the school, Community Council and sports representatives as soon as possible to resolve the

Agenda Item 3aPage 1

situation. Arising from this discussion, it was noted that bookings for the pitch are not affected and are being taken as normal through the Council’s Community Regeneration office. (Ref: Letter dated 24th March 2010, submitted)

4. COMMUNITY SERVICES

(a) APPLICATIONS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE EDUCATION AND LEISURE DEVELOPMENT GRANT SCHEME

The Committee dealt with applications for funding from the Education and Leisure

Development Grants Scheme as follows: Applicant Narrative Cost of

Project Decision

Highlands & Islands Music and Dance Festival

To contribute to the cost of stewarding, hall rental and adjudicators fees

£30,000 Grant of £2,000

Happy House Christian Pre-School

Garden Project £789 or £580

Grant of £290

(50% of cheaper quote)

These grants were allocated subject to the decision of the Executive on the report being considered on 15th April 2010, the final decision being remitted to the Chair, Vice Chair and local Members. (Ref: Report by Muriel Kupris, Leisure and Youth Services Manager dated 6th April 2010, submitted)

Councillor Robertson, having previously declared an interest in the following item, left the room and took no part in the discussion thereof.

(b) SHOPMOBILITY - REPORT BY AREA MANAGER - ADULT SERVICES

The Committee considered the additional information received in regard to Shopmobility, and dealt with their application to the Social Welfare Grants Scheme as follows: Oban and District Disability Forum and Access Panel incorporating Shopmobility Oban

To provide core funding to enable the organisation to sustain its existing level of service provision and hopefully expand to a six day week service in the course of this year.

£3,500 Grant of £3,000

Page 2

The Committee still require to have sight of the business plan for Shopmobility.

Councillor Robertson rejoined the meeting.

(c) SOCIAL WORK - ADULT CARE - PRESENTATION BY ALLEN STEVENSON, SERVICE MANAGER

The Committee heard a presentation on Adult Care by Allen Stevenson,

informing them of the progress in dealing with cases efficiently and the reporting thereof, showing how recording in Pyramid can provide useful statistics to assist Members in monitoring the progress of the department. Decision: It was agreed that a further report should be given to the Committee six months from this meeting, and that it would be beneficial to give the same presentation to a Community Engagement meeting.


(a) DISCRETIONARY EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT INITIATIVES (FORMERLY RURAL TRANSPORT GRANT) 2010-11

The Committee considered a report by Douglas Blades on public transport

initiatives (formerly Rural Transport Grant) 2010-11, recommending reduction of discretionary expenditure on experimental bus services as required by the budget set by the Council at their meeting on 18th February 2010. Decision: It was agreed to:

(a) authorise termination or reduction of the experimental initiatives and services listed in Section 4 of the report;

(b) support continuation of those listed in Section 5 of the report; and (c) to provide one return service from Appin to Oban per week.

(Ref: Report by Moya Ingram, Strategic Transportation Manager, submitted)

(b) LORN & THE INNER ISLES LANDSCAPE CAPACITY STUDY (DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED)

The Committee considered proposals for the Lorn & the Inner Isles

Landscape Capacity Study. Decision: It was agreed to continue consideration of this matter to a special Area Committee meeting to be held on 5th May 2010.

Page 3

(Ref: Lorn & the Inner Isles Landscape Capacity Study, circulated)

6. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Mr Adam McCracken

Acting Chairman, Ganavan Residents Association

Submitted a letter requesting clarification on various issues concerning the Ganavan area.

The Committee agreed that a letter compiled by Charles Reppke, Head of Governance & Law, which was read out at the meeting be sent to Mr McCracken in response to his queries, and copied to the Chairman and Secretary of Ganavan Residents Association to bring closure to this matter.

Mr Stuart Fraser Asked about the increased charges for Mossfield pitch.

Although this matter was not part of today’s agenda, those present were advised that this matter is being considered by Members and a decision will be made public shortly.

Page 4

MINUTES of MEETING of OBAN LORN & THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE held in the THE DRILL

HALL, WESTERN ROAD, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL on WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 2010


Councillor Gordon Chalmers Councillor Mary-Jean Devon Councillor Neil Mackay Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Donald McIntosh Councillor Elaine Robertson Attending: Kenneth Macdonald, Area Corporate Services Manager Jane Gillies, Corporate Services Neil Brown, Network & Amenity Services Manager Bill Weston, Senior Roads Engineer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Councillor Donald MacDonald

2. PROCEDURE

The Chairman invited Ken Macdonald, Area Corporate Services Manager, to

outline the procedure for the meeting.

3. THE ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL (OFF-ROAD PARKING PLACES AND CHARGES)(MULL)(AMENDMENT) ORDER 200_

Neil Brown, speaking on behalf of the Director of Operational Services, outlined

the background for the proposed charges for Ledaig car park. He referred to the decision by the Council, in September 2004, to introduce charging in public car parks and intimated that the proposal to be discussed today supersedes a previous proposal which was withdrawn in response to objections. These objections were taken into account when formulating the current proposal, which is for charging in Ledaig car park during the summer months only between the hours of 10am and 4pm for cars, buses and coaches, but not service buses. 19 permits will be issued to residents of the West Highland Housing Association development (distillery flats), as part of a previous agreement. There is no other car park in Tobermory and therefore lower charges are proposed than elsewhere in Argyll and Bute, as advertised previously. Mr Swinbanks, objector, stated that the car park was built as a community project. The (then) Strathclyde Regional Council had used rock from a new road development to infill the area free of charge. Residents had relinquished the right to moorings from the Crown Estate to allow the parking area to be created. Mr Swinbanks concluded by saying that the community raised £1.6m to create a harmonious area for a non-commercial pier and that he was unhappy that the meeting was arguing about revenue of £60,000. Mr Wilkinson, Cannons Law Partnership, speaking on behalf of several objectors, requested clarification on who the consultees were. He stated that

Agenda Item 3bPage 5

consultation had taken place several years ago in November 2004, and there had been radical changes to the town since then. He urged that fresh consultation was carried out to take the current situation into account. Mr Wilkinson then referred to the Road Traffic Regulation Order which listed 7 objectives and urged the Committee not to make the order as it fell outside these objectives. He continued saying that charges are not required; there is no evidence of support for the proposed Order and this was repeated by the objectors, with other issues being raised - amenity for shops, etc. He concluded emphasising that the Order was not needed to enhance Tobermory. Mr O’Donnell, objector, mentioned that the objectors had only 7 days to collate and organise their presentations. He stated that pier dues offset some of the financial burden; he was unhappy about the Order for charging until the end of October, which would collide with the Mull Rally and wondered why the proposals for on-street charges were until September. Mr O’Donnell stated that he had requested copies of correspondence from the community council regarding a parking problem which had not been supplied; he felt there was no parking problem; proof of cost effectiveness has not been supplied; questions in writing had not been responded to; the town is 100% against the charges. He added that the bus service is only to suit schools (2 journeys) and will cost more for more regular buses; He asked what research has been carried out; and said the only slight problem of congestion is when local vans arrive and are loading / unloading for a very short period. He asked whether the funding from parking charges would be ring-fenced for Tobermory and was advised that this would not be the case. Neil Brown, in response to the point made in regard to a community facility, stated that the project became much larger than had originally been foreseen, and that construction of the car park had been paid for by the (former) Strathclyde Regional Council. Argyll and Bute Council has also had to pay rent without any income for years and the revenue of £60,000 is important to the Council in order to protect existing services and offset budget reductions. In response to Mr Wilkinson’s comments, Mr Brown stated that a procedural challenge could be pursued through the Court of Session. Mr Weston, Roads, added that there is a marine maintenance budget. Pier dues are not ring-fenced to individual piers but contribute to the overall maintenance of piers throughout the Council area. Some letters of objection received were not relevant to the proposals being considered at this hearing. Bus services, supported by Argyll and Bute Council, are regular although not frequent, but are assessed by supply and demand. There is no guarantee of ring-fencing money but with extra funding there would be scope for additional works. Mr Swinbanks referred to an e-mail he had received from the Crown Estate stating that in the event of charging being introduced the current rental level would be reviewed, which would have a knock-on effect on the Harbour Association’s sub-lease. He suggested that the Council may not have taken this into account. Mr O’Donnell asked, taking into account the costs of a traffic warden, transport, rent of solum etc, what the cost effectiveness of the proposals would be, and what would be the benefit to the people of Tobermory.

Page 6

Mrs Whittaker, objector, member of the Tobermory Harbour Association, stated that there are a wide range of interested parties who want to ensure that the site remains a public space. The Harbour Association lease the area and want it to remain in public ownership. All works to the area are a volunteer effort therefore the community should have a say in the management of the car park. Mrs Whittaker suggested that the charging period should exclude the period of the Tour of Mull Rally and asked what assessment had been carried out on the impact on hotels. She also added that there is no alternative parking and pointed out that Oban has free parking. Mr Siddall, objector, stated that parking would be displaced to the upper town and that Strathclyde Police had raised concerns in this regard. He felt there had been no consultation. Mr Brown, in response to these comments, said that Mrs Whittaker was reinforcing what Mr Swinbanks had said and advised that Argyll and Bute Council are still incurring costs, and always will. In regard to viability, there had been an exercise in 2007 to confirm this; the Council would have sufficient income to support the toilet facility. In regard to the suspension of charging during the rally period he advised that the Council has powers to address this at that time. In regard to displacement of parking he felt that the town does not lend itself to this and was not convinced that such a problem would arise. Mr Proud, Mull Community Council, advised that Mull Community Council had written to the local authority suggesting traffic management schemes to address the parking problems, such as ‘discing’ (providing time limits for parking) and/or appropriate signposting to Ledaig Car Park. He concluded by stating that to treat Tobermory in the same way as Oban when the former does not have the same facilities as are available in Oban, would be unfair. Questions from Members: Councillor McIntosh requested confirmation of the duration of the parking charges as one hearing mentioned charging until September, and the other till October. He was also concerned to hear that the rental may be reviewed. Mr Brown advised that this was subject to negotiation with the landlord. Councillor Mackay referred to the informal meetings with the community in 2009 and asked what information had been taken on board at these meetings. Neil Brown advised that the proposals had been made public prior to this, and that other meetings were held to discuss the same issues. The Community Council set up a sub-group and met with them at Craignure at a stage where proposals were being set up. Councillor Mackay then asked what percentage of the total income from parking charges would be used for enforcement Mr Brown said it would be limited, but added that no additional staff would be required. In response to a question from Councillor Mackay, Mr Brown advised that no formal impact assessment had been carried out, but it was felt that there is little danger of parking displacement becoming a problem.

Page 7

Mr Swinbanks referred to a meeting held in Aros Hall when it was agreed to design a traffic management scheme for Tobermory as a whole. Councillor Devon asked if Crown Estates had been notified of the proposed changes and was advised that Estates have been asked to investigate this. Councillor Devon said she had serious concerns over the financial implications of an increase in rental and asked if this had been taken into account. She was advised that this had not been considered. Councillor McCuish asked whether the Council have the right to charge without consulting partners and was advised that the existing lease does not prevent this. Councillor McCuish then asked how much of the car parking surplus funding has been spent on Mull over the past 3 years and advised that this amounted to approximately £20,000. When asked how much Mull income had contributed to this Mr Bown responded that this was approximately £14,000 - 15,000 per annum. No guarantee could be offered that any surplus gained in Mull could be ring-fenced for Mull. Councillor Robertson said she had thought that one of the reasons behind the proposed Order was traffic management, and she was not clear in regard to the possible displacement effect. She also expressed concerns in regard to the cost effectiveness of the proposal. Councillor Chalmers said he had concerns over the unknown benefit to Tobermory. Neil Brown advised that lots of volunteers work very hard to keep the area tidy, the Council don’t have a gardener on Mull, adding that the current level of voluntary input would reduce significantly if charging goes ahead. Councillor McIntosh asked for the annual cost of maintenance of the Ledaig car park. Mr Brown said he did not have this information. Councillor Mackay asked how many partners were involved in the original project and was advised that the main partners were HIDB, AIE, LEADER, Objective 1 and the Countryside Commission. Others also gave financial and in-principle support. Councillor McCuish asked about the previous proposal for charging and was advised that this was withdrawn in 2004 as it would result in congestion on main street. In response to a further question he was advised that there had been a delay with Legal Services over the distillery issue. Councillor McIntosh asked what other towns in Argyll and Bute have no free parking available. Mr Brown advised that there is no alternative in Luss, but stated that this is reflected in the proposed lower rate of charging. The Chairman advised that a report on parking policy for all Argyll and Bute is going to the Executive to deal with issues from the whole area. There is no single solution for the traffic management problems in every town in Argyll and Bute.

Page 8

Summing Up: Mr Brown said the meeting had talked about the community and viability. It is costing the Council every year therefore it would be reasonable to charge for parking to recover some costs. He recommended that since there are no other car parks a low charge should be imposed. Charging would help to fund costs and allow effective powers to deal with abandoned cars / trailers, etc, and it would improve the maintenance of the car park. Mr Swinbanks said it was not reasonable to impose charging as there has been no traffic plan, no facts and figures, and no business plan. Charging would be counter-productive. Mr Wilkinson said that there is no evidence to suggest that the community needs this. Inadequate consideration has been given to the relationship with the landlord or to the issue of displacement. He asked the committee not to implement the proposed Order for these reasons. Mr O’Donnell said that Councillors must take into consideration the views raised today and vote on the proposal coming to Executive. He said it would be too easy to increase charges annually if agreed. Mrs Whittaker said that a traffic management plan is required to stop displacement. If the static tourers aren’t able to park they won’t spend money in the town but will go elsewhere. Mr Blackadder advised that the introduction of charging would be counter-productive. Mr Nic Davies said that officers having witnessed problems is not enough to justify implementation of the proposed Order. Little proper research has been done to evidence any problem. Neil Brown said the principle issue is of viability which won’t cause traffic management problems. The Chairman asked if everyone felt they had had a fair hearing, and all agreed that this was the case. Determination: The Chairman put forward a motion to adjourn the meeting until after the Executive meeting on 15th April. There being no seconder the motion fell. Councillor Devon proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor McIntosh, that the objections be upheld. There being no further motions this became the decision of the meeting.

Page 9

Page 10

This page is intentionally left blank

MINUTES of MEETING of OBAN LORN & THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE held in the THE DRILL

HALL, WESTERN ROAD, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL on WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 2010


Councillor Gordon Chalmers Councillor Mary-Jean Devon Councillor Neil Mackay Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Elaine Robertson Councillor Donald McIntosh Attending: Kenneth Macdonald, Area Corporate Services Manager Jane Gillies, Committee Services Assistant Neil Brown, Network & Amenities Manager Bill Weston, Senior Roads Engineer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Councillor Donald MacDonald

2. PROCEDURE

The Chairman invited Ken Macdonald, Area Corporate Services Manager, to

outline the procedure for the meeting.

3. THE ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL (ON-ROAD PARKING PLACES AND CHARGES)(TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL) ORDER 2000_

Neil Brown, speaking on behalf of the Director of Operational Services, outlined

the background for the proposed charges for on-road parking. Mr Tony Proud, Mull Community Council, said that Tobermory needed effective traffic management, not charges. Mr Wilkinson, Canon Law Partnership, speaking on behalf of Phil Campbell, Nicola Cannon, Keith Drake, James Fernoulhet, Robin & Louise Harrowsmith, James Heggie, Joan MacKay, Lynne Noble, Ian & Andi Stevens and Robert MacLeod, said that the 7 reasons for holding a hearing in stated in the Act apply and are valid for this hearing. He said there is nothing to suggest that a parking order is required, with the only issue being the relationship between the Council and the Landlord. Half of the Tobermory population have signed a petition placed in Brown’s shop and the Post Office. He said there is nothing to justify the imposition of the Order, it is simply not required. Mr Swinbanks felt there was a lack of community engagement in terms of consultation over this issue and there had been no consultation with Tobermory Forward Group. Mr Brown acknowledged that there is no traffic management problem in Tobermory.

Agenda Item 3cPage 11

Mr Stevens, Hotel owner on the main street, said that guests come for the Mull experience and freedom from bureaucracy. He asked the committee to consider visitors having to move their cars in the morning and whether they would stay in the town or move on elsewhere. He added that there are a number of bankruptcies in the town making it look dejected therefore people had to be encouraged to stay and spend money. He asked the Committee to consider the effect of more signage on the street which was nominated as Google’s most scenic street. He referred to inconsistencies in the responses from Roads regarding traffic management requirements. Signage to the car park would help direct drivers to the most appropriate area. He said there has been no study, or evidence of problems, therefore no justification for charges. Mr Davies, who lives on the Main Street, stated that he had never had a problem parking. He expressed concern that there has been a lack of proper research /study into the issue. Mr O’Donnell said there is no point in going any further with this hearing now that Ledaig car park is free. It is purely a money raising effort for the Council. There are no letters from the community council to support the statements given; buses in the car park can cause problems therefore management is required. He added that pier dues bring in a great deal of money and that people shouldn’t have to pay any more to live on Mull. Mr Blackadder said there should be more management of disabled bays. There appears to be an attitude of “people pay so much to visit Mull therefore they don’t mind being ripped off to park”. He felt that more money spent on parking would result in less spent in shops. Mrs Williams, a home carer, said she makes several visits per day to Tobermory through her work and parking charges would add another difficulty to the service provision. Mr Brown referred to the traffic management suggestion put forward by the Community Council, the first of which had been the designation of Main Street as a restricted parking area, using discs. He stated that discs are generally considered ineffective as they can be altered easily. The reason for charging on-street would be to encourage regular traffic movement / turnover. Free parking would be available at Ledaig so visitors etc would have an alternative to paying. He continued that in his view there is no traffic management problem in Tobermory requiring to be solved and that in light of the earlier decision not to impose charging at Ledaig Car Park there would be little to be gained by pursuing the implementation of on-street charging at this time. In light of Mr Brown’s comments it was unanimously agreed that the proposed Order be withdrawn.

Page 12

MINUTES of MEETING of OBAN LORN & THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE held in the

CEREMONY ROOM, LORN HOUSE on WEDNESDAY, 5 MAY 2010


Councillor Gordon Chalmers Councillor Neil Mackay Councillor Donald MacDonald Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Donald McIntosh Councillor Elaine Robertson Attending: Kenneth Macdonald, Area Corporate Services Manager Jane Gillies, Committee Services Assistant Adrian Jackson-Stark, Statutory Plans Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Councillor Devon


There were no declarations of interest


(a) LORN & THE INNER ISLES LANDSCAPE CAPACITY STUDY

(PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED)

The Committee gave consideration to, and approved, the Lorn & the inner isles Landscape Study, which had been circulated previously for their perusal.

3. PUBLIC TRANSPORT INITIATIVES

The Committee accepted a petition from residents within the Dalmally to Oban area who were against the reduction to the shopper bus service (403).

Agenda Item 3dPage 13

Page 14


ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL OBAN, LORN AND THE ISLES

AREA COMMITTEE STRATEGIC FINANCE 9th JUNE 2010

AN CRIDHE – FINANCIAL REVIEW

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The area committee has previously earmarked £50,000 from area capital receipts

as a potential contribution to the An Cridhe project on Coll. Development Coll who are leading the An Cridhe project have approached the Council requesting release of the £50,000. This report provides the area committee with a review of the business plan for An Cridhe

2 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Members should consider the request by An Cridhe to commit the funding set

aside of £50,000. This should take account of the 4 matters identified in the report and the conclusion in sections 4.1and 4.2.

2.2 If Members agree to commit the funding they should consider the comments at sections 3.27 and 4.3.

3 DETAIL 3.1 Development Coll are leading proposals for the construction and operation of a

village hall / community centre / bunkhouse facility on Coll. In October 2008 the area committee agreed in principle to allocate £50,000 to the project. Development Coll are now seeking release of the £50,000.

3.2 In considering the request to release the £50,000 there are 4 key matters that the area committee should be satisfied on:

• Assurance that full funding package is in place

• Assurance that the estimated capital costs are realistic and there is a sound process for moving the project to construction stage.

• Assurance that there are arrangements in place to manage the significant cash flow associated with the project.

• Assurance that the project is financially sustainable.

This report provides members with comments on each of these 4 matters based on a review of current project information provided by Development Coll.

Assurance that the project has a full funding package in place

3.3. Appendix 1 is a table that details the funding position for the project. In effect a full

funding package has been secured but there are 4 points to note that are outlined

Agenda Item 3ePage 15

below.

3.4 Trust funding of £20,000 is still at the application stage. The funder is unwilling to write letter of commitment until tender stage but Development Coll are confident funding will be agreed. In the meantime another funder has been approached.

3.5 The funding from Highland & Island Enterprise (HIE) £121,600 and Community Land Unit (CLU) £38,400 has been agreed and final confirmation by letter is expected in the next few weeks.

3.6 A decision in regard to ERDF funding has still to be announced.

3.7 There is a small balance of £579 on community funding that is outstanding.

3.8 In effect a full funding package has been received. The amount is £2,451,938. The funding of £160,000 from HIE and CLU has been agreed but Development Coll are awaiting the final letter. The ERDF funding of £940,682 has still to be announced. There is outstanding funding of £20,000 from a trust and £579 of community funding. The additional community funding of £579 is not significant. There are alternatives in place to secure the £20,000 trust funding which Development Coll are confident about securing and which could probably be covered by the project contingency if not secured. However the funding from ERDF amounts to £940,682 and any commitment by the Council should be conditional on this funding being secured as well as receipt of the final letter confirming HIE and CLU support of £160,000.

Assurance that the estimated capital costs are realistic and there is a sound process for moving the project to construction stage.

3.9 Capital costs are estimated as follows: £ Construction Costs 1,713,946 Land Costs 250,000 Fitting out 387,677 Project Management 85,910 2,437,533 Contribution to revenue 14,405 2,451,938

3.10 The capital cost estimates have been drawn up by the appointed Quantity Surveyor, Thomas MacQuade, of Morham and Brotchie. The practice was established in Edinburgh in 1874 and the Oban office was opened in 1957. The Oban office has been run by Thomas McQuade BSc (Hons) MRICS, since 2000 having previously been appointed a Director of the company in 1996. Morham and Brotchie have a wide and varied workload covering all aspects of Project Management Quantity Surveying and Planning Supervisor work as well as commercial and domestic property valuation throughout the West Highland and Islands.

3.11 Development Coll plan to run this project within the PRINCE2 management

Page 16

structure. The directors have just completed 2 sessions of training in order to gain an understanding of how this system works. The local development officer has gained practitioner level qualifications in PRINCE2. The lottery independent QS team is to be brought on board in an assurance role within the PRINCE2 structure. All of the above should ensure that the project is delivered within time and cost budgets.

3.12 The project is currently in the “start up” stage, heading into the “Initiation stage”. Within the latter a project plan is devised with a schedule of further stages up to project completion. The key stages in the project are: Detailed design development Aug 2010 Production Information Sept 2010 Tendering Jan 2011 Construction Jan 2011/Dec2011

3.13 Capital cost estimates appear to have been compiled on a reasonable basis although detailed design and tendering has still to be completed. There appears to be sound management arrangements in place.

Assurance that arrangements are in place to manage the significant cash flow associated with the project.

3.14 In order to manage the cash flow, a loan facility is being negotiated with Social Investment Scotland. The cost of this is estimated at £14,000. There is a separate plan in place for funding this amount. These are adequate arrangements to manage the cash flow assuming the loan facility is agreed.

Assurance that the project is financially sustainable.

3.15 Revenue income and expenditure have been estimated over the first 5 project

years as follows:

Project Year 1 £

Project Year 2 £

Project Year 3 £

Project Year 4 £

Project Year 5 £

An Cridhe Staff Costs 1,953 17,901 18,273 18,273

An Cridhe Running Costs 7,376 10,057 10,830

Total Costs 25,277 28,330 29,103

Bunkhouse Surplus 63 2,124 4,554

An Cridhe Income 20,220 20,570 22,726

Lottery Funding 1,953 4,994 5,636 1,823

Total Income 1,953 25,277 28,330 29,103

Page 17

3.16 The funding gap during the initial 5 years of the project is offset by grant funding from the Lottery grant award. Comments on each of the costs and incomes are made below.

3.17 Revenue income and expenditure have been estimated over the first 3 years following completion of the project as follows:

Post Project Year 1 £



An Cridhe Staff Costs 18,273 18,273 18,273

An Cridhe Running Costs 12,284 13,243 14,284

Total Costs 30,557 31,516 32,557

Bunkhouse Surplus 6,976 9,473 9,431

An Cridhe Income 23,604 24,589 25,697

Total Income 30,580 34,062 35,128

Surplus(Deficit) 23 2,546 2,571 3.18 The project breakseven and makes a small surplus in each of the post project

years. The financial position/surplus is very much dependent upon the surplus from the bunkhouse. Comments on each of the costs and incomes are made below.

3.19 The estimates of staff costs in general are reasonable. The main financial issue is that no provision has been made for pay increases. This could add £600 per annum on a cumulative basis ie £1,800 per annum in 3 years to the cost base. This would require other costs to be reduced or income to be generated.

3.20 A detailed breakdown of running costs has been provided and these have been estimated based on actual costs for other facilities. Adequate allowance has been made for future inflation and there is provision for a contingency. In overall terms the estimates of running costs seem reasonable.

3.21 The bunkhouse surplus is a significant source of income and to large extent it is this that makes the project affordable/sustainable. Allowance has been made for significant cost increases in the bunkhouse at 50% per annum for consumables, 20% per annum for repairs and 10% for other costs. These along with a contingency at 10% provide a cushion. The main issue is forecast use of the bunkhouse. In project year 3 use is forecast at 310 person days. This rises to 465 and 620 person days in years 4 and 5 of the project and then to 868, 1080 and 1,200 person days in post project years 1 to 3. The average charge per day is £16 per person allowing for use of shower facilities once every 3 days. A 10% reduction in bunkhouse income would effectively eliminate the surplus in post project years 2 and 3 and leave a deficit of between £500 to £1,500 in the earlier years of the project. The bunkhouse running costs and income estimates have been informed by:

• Discussions with and visits to both Dervaig Village Hall on the Isle of Mull and Kilmory Village Hall on the Isle of Arran. Both of these facilities successfully run bunkhouses as income generators for their main building.

• Seeking advice from current accommodation providers on the island

Page 18

• Carrying out general research across a range of bunkhouses in Scotland in order to provide solid pricing information.

• Reviewing the history of accommodation provision on Coll

• Compiling statistics on visitor numbers based on Cal Mac figures and Highland Airways (now Hebridean)

• The local hotel have provided further comments around current visitor numbers and lack of capacity that indicate the forecasts for the bunkhouse to be low and not unrealistically high.

3.22 There are a number of issues around income projections:

• Hall lets are forecast at £5,200 (equivalent to an average use of 10 hours per week at £10 per hour) compared to around £1,375 per annum for the current hall. Development Coll advise the increase is based on community consultation.

• Does the school have the budget to afford this level of use?

• Income from the Coll half marathon is £5,600 in project year 3 and increases by 10% per annum. The actual income from the Coll half marathon in 2008 and 2009 was £5,006 and £6,601. Development Coll believe the forecast increase to be realistic and that the facilities provided by the bunk house would encourage additional participation in the half marathon.

The school income is significant at £4,000 per annum. The other issues would more or less eliminate the annual ongoing surplus and create a deficit in the initial years but could probably be managed.

3.23 Development Coll have provided the following comments. “In reaching our estimated costs and anticipated income, we have taken a very realistic approach to likely costs and taken a very cautious approach to potential income. If costs were to increase a more active approach would be taken in terms of managing functions that would generate income. No anticipated income has been included from increased usage based on increased business opportunities. For example, the idea of hosting island weddings has been put on the table, as has the idea of more events to do with the performing arts. No income has been set against this aspirational level of use. In the recent community consultation conducted by an independent body at the request of the Lottery, it was found that:

• 80.7% of respondents stated “Yes” they thought that they would use An Cridhe,

• Of those respondents that have children, 94.9% (37 respondents) believe that that at least one child in their household would use An Cridhe.

• These numbers far exceed our anticipated levels of use. The cautious approach to potential income provides a sufficient level of comfort should costs increase

Page 19

In addition to experts at the Lottery, our finance plan has been reviewed by Paul Smyth, retired finance director, current treasurer and director of the Craignish Community Company”

3.24 Subject to risks around pay cost increases, bunkhouse income projections and overall income the project appears financially viable on an ongoing basis. No increase in hall charges is built into the forecast and this could offset the costs of any pay increase. The project could probably cope with any one of the risks outlined above but the concern would be if more than one were to arise. However Development Coll are confident in their forecasts and the research that has gone into the business plan.

Commitment and Release of Funding

3.25 If Members decide to commit the £50,000 funding then they also need to consider the conditions on which it would be released.

3.26 My own preference would be to make the final commitment of the funding conditional on the funding from HIE, CLU, CES and ERDF being secured and release of the funding would take place once tenders had been returned and a contractor appointed with the Council contribution being used to meet the first £50,000 of construction costs.

3.27 Development Coll would prefer early release of the funds to meet some of the design, development and pre tender costs. This reduces their need to borrow through the SIS loan arrangement. This does however expose the Council to a risk that the Council funding is used in these early stages and the project does not proceed to construction i.e. a lost investment.

4. CONCLUSION

4.1 Development Coll have submitted the latest financial projections for the An Cridhe project. Subject to some areas of conditional funding there is a full package in place. The approach to capital cost estimate seems reasonable although these will not be confirmed by tender until January 2011. Arrangements to manage the project appear reasonable. Arrangements are being negotiated to ensure funds are in place to manage the cash flow associated with the project. There are a few minor issues on the estimates of ongoing costs and income. This is to be expected at this stage in a project. On the whole estimates of expenditure are reasonable. Estimates of income are not unreasonable but they do represent significant increases in current income although Development Coll have researched these and estimated this on a sound basis.

4.2 Of the 4 matters that were identified in paragraph 3.2 the 3 related to

• Assurance that the estimated capital costs are realistic and there is a sound process for moving the project to construction stage.

• Assurance that there are arrangements in place to manage the significant cash flow associated with the project.

• Assurance that the project is financially sustainable. have been addressed. The matter outstanding relates to assurance that a full

Page 20

funding package is in place. In respect of this the key points are any commitment of Council funding should be conditional on confirmation that funding from HIE, CLU, CES and ERDF has been secured.

4.3 If Members are of a mind to commit the £50,000 funding they should consider when they would wish to release the funds. My preference is that if the funds are committed then release of the funding is made when the first £50,000 of construction costs are incurred.

Page 21

Appendix 1

Funding sources: secured notes

Lottery, GCA 852,329 Copy letter received

European Rural Development

Fund

940,682 Announcement outstanding

Community fundraising 71,475 £579 still to raise

Argyll and Bute Council 50,000 Decision to earmark funds is minuted at council

meeting of 8.10.08. Area Committee meeting

planned for award to be released

SNH 44,000 Copy letter received

Green Energy Trust 20,952 Copy letter received

Gannochy Trust 12,000 Copy letter received

Hugh Fraser 10,000 Copy letter received

WH Mann 2,500 Funding now received

Argyll College 8,000 Copy letter received and confirmation that funding

still in place following condition funding available to

Argyll College.

Sportscotland 200,000 Copy letter received

Subtotal 2,211,938

Funding sources: agreed in principle notes

Highland and Islands Enterprise 121,600 Letter of support in hand. Amount requested from

HIE has increased since letter written, to maintain

overall amount from CLU/HIE. Final paperwork still

to be approved

Community Land Unit 38,400 Letter of support in hand. Amount requested from

CLU has decreased since letter written. Final

paperwork still to be approved

Community Energy Scotland 60,000 Letter of support in hand. Final paperwork still to

be approved. Letter expected soon.

Subtotal 220,000

Funding sources: applications

pending

notes

A further trust 20,000 Funder unwilling to write letter of commitment

until tender stage but Development Coll confident

funding will be agreed. In the meantime another

funder has been approached.

Subtotal 20,000

Total 2,451,938

Page 22


Page 24


ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL OBAN, LORN AND THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE 9 June 2010

GRANTS TO THIRD SECTOR 2010/11

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This report details the recommendation for an award of a Third Sector Grant to an Oban, Lorn and the Isles organisation that has applied for funding. The organisation has been assessed in line with the Council’s criteria.

1.2 The total Third Sector Grant budget made available by the Council for allocation in Helensburgh and Lomond is £47,000, including £15,000 ring-fenced for Events and Festivals.

2. RECOMMENDATION

The total budget to be allocated to the organisation is outlined in the detail section of this report.

Organisation

Grant Awarded 2009/10

Amount Requested

2010/11

Total Running

Costs Recommendation

2.1 Girlguiding Argyll and Bute £1,350.00 £500.00 £4,300.00 £500.00

Total Recommended

£500.00

Budget for Third Sector

£32,000

Balance for Third Sector

£31,500

3. DETAIL

3.1 To date, only one application has been received. The availability of grants has been advertised on the Third Sector Website, but due to the low uptake in Oban, Lorn and the Isles a poster has now been circulated in order to spread the word.

Organisation Rationale for grant allocation

2.1

Girlguiding Argyll and Bute

The organisation holds annual training weekends. To ensure that volunteer leaders have the appropriate skills and information to maintain a quality service. The mixture of experience in the attendees allows a support system to new leaders plus refreshing the skills of existing leaders. The funding allocation will assist with the running costs of the annual training weekend for leaders from Argyll and the Isles.

Note: This group has applied to the B & C and MAKI Area Committees for the same funding.


4. CONCLUSION

4.1 The organisation has been contacted and grant application assessed. The recommendation is line with the financial assessment to ensure that resources available from this grant budget are disbursed in a manner that will deliver optimum support to Third Sector organisations in Oban, Lorn and the Isles.

5. IMPLICATIONS

Policy: None

Finance: The report sets out the allocation from the Oban, Lorn and the Isles Third Sector Grants budget.

Personnel: None

Legal: None

Equal Opportunities: The recommendations are consistent with the Council’s equal opportunities policies

Margaret Fyfe Community Development Manager For further information contact: Margaret Fyfe, Community Development Manager 01369 703214

Page 26

ASSISTANCE TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT FFOORRMM ffoorr SSoocciiaall WWeellffaarree GGrraannttss,, EEdduuccaattiioonn aanndd LLeeiissuurree

DDeevveellooppmmeenntt GGrraannttss 1 Details

Name of Assessing Officer Willie Young (assessment covers application for three areas MAKI, B & C and Oban Lorn and Isles)

Have you contacted/visited the organisation to assess this application? * Contacted Yes Visited No

*Please note if grant has not been checked and approved it cannot go ahead

Name of Group:

Girlguiding Argyll and Bute

Scheme: Education Development

a) Grant requested from A & B Council?

£500

b) Grant awarded last year?

£1350*

c) Total cost? £4.300.00

d) How much coming is from own resources?

£2,000.00

e) How much coming from other agencies?

£500.00*

Key Contact Person:

Mrs Mary Elder

Grant Recommended: £500

Reason for grant:

*To cover three areas. Guiders Training Weekend at Benmore Centre, Dunoon

2 Financial Check – Have you checked the Organisation is:

a) Fully constituted

Yes þ No �

b) Has submitted a bank statement

Yes þ No �

c) Has submitted audited/signed accounts

Yes þ No �

d) Leisure and Education Development Grants: If over £2000 have you sent this grant to finance?

Yes � No �

e) If relevant, has the grant passed the financial check?

Yes � No �

f) Social Welfare Grants: Has the grant been registered with Library Headquarters?

Yes � No �

g) Have you checked that the organisation is within 50% of the costs for the relevant grant scheme?

Yes þ No �

h) Have you checked that the Council is meeting its obligations under Best Value in awarding this grant, for example, if the grant is

Yes þ No �

2010-11 Page 27

awarded will the work definitely go ahead?

3 General Criteria

Do you concur with the organisation in their assessment of need? Please supply a very brief summary: Girlguiding Argyll and Bute have a substantial reserve which is required for upkeep of buildings, running costs and unforeseen circumstances.

Is the activity non-political?

Yes þ No �

Is the project consistent with Council priorities?

Yes þ No �

Does the project have open membership?

Yes � No þ

Have sponsorship agreements been checked?

Yes � No �

How many people overall will benefit from this grant?

159

Is the organisation well established?

Yes þ No �

Have you identified any training needs for the organisations committee or volunteers?

Yes � No þ

Does the organisation have volunteer training in place?

Yes þ No �

Have you confidence in their ability to deliver a service?

Yes þ No �

4 Policy and Procedures

Have you checked that the organisation, particularly if they work with children under 18 or vulnerable adults has in place a Child Protection Policy or a Vulnerable Adults Policy?

a) Clear recruitment policies Yes þ No �

b) Ongoing training and support for volunteers Yes þ No �

c) A code of conduct for staff and volunteers Yes þ No �

d) A Code of Good Practice Yes þ No �

e) An Equal Opportunities Policy Yes þ No �

f) A Policy for Managing Confidential Information Yes þ No �

g) Grievance Procedure for staff and volunteers Yes þ No �

h) A Disciplinary Procedure for staff and volunteers Yes þ No �

Signed: Willie Young Assessment Officer

Date:

Page 28

5 Equal Opportunities

What are the clients ethnic group(s)?

A White

Scottish Other British Irish

Any other White background please specify

B Mixed

Any Mixed background please specify

C Eastern European

D Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British

Indian Pakistani

Bangladeshi Chinese

Any other Asian background please write in

E Black, Black Scottish or Black British

Caribbean African

Any other Black background please write in

F Other Ethnic background

Any other background please write in

Page 29

Page 30


GRANTS TO THE

THIRD SECTOR

(PREVIOUSLY Education Development, Leisure

Development and Social Welfare Grants)

Applications are invited

from VOLUNTARY

ORGANISATIONS

supporting local communities

or organising local events and festivals

in Oban, Lorn and the Isles

For an application or more information

about eligibility, please contact:

Oban PA34 4JF Phone 01631 562 466

More information on the Argyll & Bute website:

www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/commlife/externalfunding/money/councilfunding

www.argyllcommunities.org

Page 31

Page 32


ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL 9 JUNE 2010

OBAN, LORN AND THE ISLES

GRANTS TO THIRD SECTOR 2010/11- SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This report details the recommendations for the award of Third Sector Grants to Oban, Lorn and the Isles organisations who have applied to date. All organisations have been assessed in line with the Council’s criteria.

1.2 The total Third Sector Grant budget made available by the Council for allocation in Oban, Lorn and the Isles is £47,000, including £15,000 ring-fenced for Events and Festivals.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 The total budget recommended for allocation to the organisations is detailed below.

Events and Festivals Grants

Organisation Grant

Awarded 2009/10

Amount Requested 2010/11

Total Running Costs

Recommendation

1.1 Kilmore and Kilbride Highland Games £250.00 £1,312.50 £2,625.00 £1,312.00

1.2 Tiree Music Festival Nil £5,000.00 £51,380.00 £3,500.00

Total Recommended £4,812.00

Budget for Events and Festivals £15,000.00

Balance for Events and Festivals £10,188.00

3. DETAIL

Organisation Rationale for grant allocation

2.1 Kilmore and Kilbride Highland Games (31 July 2010)

A well established event which should continue to operate with the upgrade of certain pieces of equipment. The funding allocated will assist with the purchase of permanent signage, a generator and a new event tent. Recommendation to support this application subject to evidence that the tent is available to other groups for loan/hire.

2.2 Tiree Music Festival (Saturday 24 and Sunday 25)

A new event for Tiree which would benefit the island economically, culturally and socially. The allocated funding will assist with the running costs of this pilot Tiree Music Festival. Recommendation to support this application subject to success of external funding bids, and to the organisation producing a copy of signed audited accounts towards the end of the year.

Page 33

4. CONCLUSION

4.1 The two organisations have been contacted and grant applications assessed. Applications have been forwarded to the Finance Section of Community Services and are awaiting approval. Recommendations are subject to the financial assessment to ensure that resources available from this grant budget are disbursed in a manner that will deliver optimum support to Third Sector organisations in Oban, Lorn and the Isles.

5. IMPLICATIONS

Policy: None

Finance: The report sets out the allocation from the Mid-Argyll, Kintyre and the Isles Third Sector Grants budget.

Personnel: None

Legal: None

Equal Opportunities:

Margaret Fyfe Community Development Manager For further information please contact: Dale Kupris, Active Schools Coordinator, Oban, 07917 073 391

Page 34



Name of Assessing Officer Dale Kupris

Have you contacted/visited the organisation to assess this application? * Contacted × Visited �


Name of Group:

Kilmore & Kilbride Highland Games

Scheme:


£1312.50


£250

c) Total cost? £2625


£1312.50


Key Contact Person:

Grant Recommended: £1312.50

Reason for grant:

To purchase permanent signage, a generator, and new event tent.



Yes × No � No copy enclosed.


Yes × No �


Yes � No × Accounts not signed


Yes � No � n/a


Yes � No � n/a


Yes � No �


Yes × No �

h) Have you checked that the Council is meeting its obligations under Best Value in awarding this grant, for example, if the grant is awarded will the work definitely go ahead?

Yes × No �

2010-11 Page 35

3 General Criteria

Do you concur with the organisation in their assessment of need? Please supply a very brief summary: It is my belief the application has merit in that it will enable a well established event to continue to operate and the organising committee to upgrade equipment. In the original application the group was looking for the full costs of the above items to be met from the grant which is not in keeping of the Council’s policy that the group covers 50% of the costs from reserves or other sources of funding. This has been modified following a discussion with the groups’ Chairman and the recommendation put forward only covers 50% of the overall costs. I have been assured the remainders of the costs will be met from other sources. For monitoring purposes I believe the organisation should be required to provide evidence that the above items have been purchased in full if the grant is successful when a year end report is submitted. This is also in light of the fact that the successful grant in 2009 for £250 to repair the stage was not spent within the financial year and work is planned just previous to the games this year. A proviso should also be put in place that if the grant is approved that the tent is made available to other groups for loan or hire to benefit the wider community. Currently this is done with other tents owned by the organisation through word of mouth and is free to local charities. In light of the sheer scale of this event and the number of people who attend ways should be looked at to make this event more sustainable and less reliant on annual funding from the Council for replacement of equipment.


Yes × No �


Yes × No �


Yes × No �


Yes × No �


2600


Yes × No �


Yes � No ×


Yes × No �


Yes × No �



Page 36

a) Clear recruitment policies Yes × No �

b) Ongoing training and support for volunteers Yes � No ×

c) A code of conduct for staff and volunteers Yes � No ×

d) A Code of Good Practice Yes � No ×

e) An Equal Opportunities Policy Yes × No �

f) A Policy for Managing Confidential Information Yes × No �

g) Grievance Procedure for staff and volunteers Yes � No ×

h) A Disciplinary Procedure for staff and volunteers Yes � No ×

Signed: Dale Kupris Assessment Officer

Date: June 2nd 2010



A White

Yes Scottish Other British Irish


American, Canadian, European, Union members and others

B Mixed


C Yes Eastern European


Indian Pakistani

Bangladeshi Chinese


Page 37


Caribbean African



Any other background please write in

Page 38



Name of Assessing Officer Dale Kupris

Have you contacted/visited the organisation to assess this application? * Contacted × Visited �


Name of Group:

Tiree Music Festival

Scheme:


£5,000


No

c) Total cost? £51,380


£34,000


£12,380

Key Contact Person:

Jane Issacson

Grant Recommended: £3,500

Reason for grant:

To assist with the running costs of a pilot Tiree Music Festival this year.



Yes × No �


Yes � No ×


Yes � No ×


Yes × No � Done centrally


Yes � No � Finance to comment here


Yes � No �


Yes × No �

h) Have you checked that the Council is meeting its obligations under Best Value in awarding this grant, for example, if the grant is awarded will the work definitely go ahead?

Yes × No �

2010-11 Page 39

3 General Criteria

Do you concur with the organisation in their assessment of need? Please supply a very brief summary: It is my belief the organisation has appropriately assessed the need for such an event and the Isle of Tiree would benefit economically, culturally, and socially from hosting this event. Due to their rural island location bringing visitors to an attraction like this would benefit the community enormously if they were able to get this beyond the pilot year. The group has developed a very good income and expenditure forecast, has a constituted group, and has a committed group of volunteers driving the project forward. At the moment the group does not have all of the funding in place for the event, but has a number of applications pending. My recommendation would be to make the above award with the proviso that if the event does not go ahead because of lack of support from other funders the money would need to be returned to Argyll & Bute Council. Additionally, I would recommend that at the end of their first year as an organisation a full set of signed accounts be submitted to Argyll & Bute Council as part of their year end reporting. My recommendation would be that if the event goes ahead and becomes an annual event that in the letter of offer it is noted that Argyll & Bute Council could not guarantee to offer assistance each year and that the organisation would need to consider other sources of funding as well as working towards sustainability without seeking sources of outside funding. I would be reluctant to make such a large award of £5,000 to an untested group so am recommending they are awarded £3,500.


Yes × No �


Yes × No �


Yes × No �


Yes � No ×


300+


Yes � No ×


Yes � No ×


Yes × No �


Yes × No �



Page 40

a) Clear recruitment policies Yes � No ×

b) Ongoing training and support for volunteers Yes � No ×

c) A code of conduct for staff and volunteers Yes � No ×

d) A Code of Good Practice Yes � No ×

e) An Equal Opportunities Policy Yes � No ×

f) A Policy for Managing Confidential Information Yes � No ×

g) Grievance Procedure for staff and volunteers Yes � No ×

h) A Disciplinary Procedure for staff and volunteers Yes � No ×

Signed: Assessment Officer

Date:



A White

Yes Scottish Other British Irish


B Mixed


C Yes Eastern European


Indian Pakistani

Bangladeshi Chinese



Page 41

Caribbean African



Yes Any other background please write in

ALL

Page 42

1

ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

OLI Area Committee

9th June 2010

Proposed Mull (Loch Na Keal) Landscape Capacity Study

1 SUMMARY

1.1 External landscape architect consultants have been engaged by the Council to produce a series of Landscape Capacity Studies for all Rural Opportunity Areas located within National Scenic Areas and Areas of Panoramic Quality as defined by the Argyll and Bute Local Plan. An exception to this is the Mull NSA at Loch na Keal for which a landscape capacity study was previously produced by external consultants on behalf of the Council and Scottish Natural Heritage. This previously produced Landscape Capacity Study was completed in 2006 and has been used to inform planning application assessments within the NSA. However this Study has not been formally approved by Members and so, given the approval process being undertaken for the recently produced Studies for Lorn and Mull it is considered appropriate that the Mull (Loch Na Keal) Study is also placed before Members for formal approval.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 That the Council amends as appropriate and approves the Landscape

Capacity Study for Mull (Loch Na Keal) attached in Appendix A of this report. 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 As Members are aware the principal objective of this study is to provide a

robust set of documents that will clearly identify the opportunities and constraints, in landscape terms, for development within the Rural Opportunity Areas (ROAs) identified in the Local Plan.

3.2 The Argyll and Bute Local Plan contains development control zones which are

mapped planning policy designations. One of these development control zones is the ROA designation which carries a particular policy stance towards development in the Plan. This policy stance is positive towards many small scale development types, and in particular, positive towards small scale housing development, with a general presumption in favour of up to 5 new houses (subject to design, siting, development pattern etc.).

3.3 A significant area of Argyll and Bute is covered by National Scenic Areas

(NSA) and Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQ - former Regional Scenic Area) designations, which are detailed within the Plan. Many of the ROAs are located within these NSAs and APQs.


2

3.4 The Plan was subject to Public Local Inquiry and one of the issues identified was that of potential conflict between ROA designation and NSA or APQ designation. The Council has taken the view that this potential conflict should be addressed through the production of landscape capacity studies that look closely at how new developments could be assimilated into such valued landscapes. Until these studies were completed and approved by the respective Area Committee, a moratorium has been placed on development in the open countryside within affected ROAs. The only other acceptable alternative to this action would have been to delete ROAs from NSAs and APQs.

3.5 These landscape capacity studies are being undertaken by appropriately

qualified consultants and cover all of the ROAs located within NSAs and APQs located in Argyll and Bute. An exception to this is the Mull NSA at Loch na Keal for which a landscape capacity study was previously produced by external consultants on behalf of the Council and Scottish Natural Heritage. This previously produced Landscape Capacity Study was completed in 2006 and has been used to inform planning application assessments within the NSA. However this Study has not been formally approved by Members and so, given the approval process being undertaken for the recently produced Studies for Lorn and Mull it is considered appropriate that the Mull (Loch Na Keal) Study is also placed before Members for formal approval.

3.6 All the landscape studies, including the Mull (Loch Na Keal) Study, are

consistent with all current national and local planning policy and will help support, and be consistent with, the Corporate Strategy and the Development Plan for Argyll and Bute (ie. both Structure and Local Plan) in meeting their aims of strengthening the economy; creating sustainable and vibrant communities in the area; and protecting and enhancing the environment.

3.7 The Mull (Loch Na Keal) Study Landscape Capacity Study is one in a series

of documents which will provide the Council and the public with a clearly defined set of guidelines for development within ROAs located within NSAs and APQs.

4 CONCLUSION 4.1 The Mull (Loch Na Keal) Study Landscape Capacity Study is one in a series

of documents which will provide the Council and the public with a clearly defined set of guidelines for development within ROAs located within NSAs and APQs. They will be used as technical guidance by planning officers assessing planning applications located within such ROAs and will also be useful in the production of the Local Development Plan.

5 IMPLICATIONS Policy: The Mull (Loch Na Keal) Study Landscape Capacity Study will

be primarily used in conjunction with the current Development

Page 44

3

Plan (Structure and Local Plan) to assess planning applications.

Financial: The costs for this work have been met through an established

budget held by Development Services. Personnel: None. Community: None. For further information contact: Fergus Murray Telephone: 01631 604293

Page 45

4

Appendix A

Page 46

ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

OBAN LORN & THE ISLES

AREA COMMITTEE

9th June 2010

REPORT ON ISLE OF COLL SUSTAINABLE DESIGN GUIDANCE

1. BACKGROUND

1.1

1.2

Argyll and Bute Council approved the new Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance at the Strategic Policy Committee on the 21st September 2006 and the Guidance was formally launched on the 19th December 2006. The Guidance recognises that new development will play an important part in the future success of Argyll and Bute as a sustainable economically viable and high quality place to live and work. The most challenging component of the guidance has been to embrace the varying and distinctive landscapes and settlements within Argyll and Bute and to provide appropriate design guidance for these. In recognition of this and given the unique and distinctive landscape and built form on the Island of Coll it was determined that specific guidance should be developed for the island which will supplement the more general guidance. The Coll Guidance takes on the broad Argyll and Bute wide principles and applies them to the landscape and built form on Coll. Members will be aware that similar complementary island specific design guidance has been prepared for Tiree.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1

That members approve the new Coll Sustainable Design Guidance as supplementary planning guidance and thereafter that the guidance is referred to the Council’s Executive for ratification.

3. DETAIL

3.1

The Council approved its new Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance on the 21st September 2006. The Guidance recognises that new well designed development will play an important part in the future success of Argyll


3.2

3.3

3.4

and Bute as an economically sustainable and high quality place in which to live, work and visit. The Guidance highlights the importance of good design in creating successful places and the need to take into account the local culture and economic benefit of design quality. The Guidance seeks to ensure that any proposed new housing development is appropriate for its context, demonstrates the principles of good design that is sensitive to its surroundings and is sustainable. The principle purpose of the new design guidance is to demonstrate good quality, innovative and attractive design, incorporating sustainable building practices, energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, which sit well within the distinctive landscape settings of Argyll and Bute. The overall aim is to raise the quality of and excellence in architecture and design within the Argyll and Bute environment. One of the most challenging components of the Argyll and Bute wide guidance has been to embrace the varying and distinctive landscapes and settlements within Argyll and Bute and provide appropriate design guidance for these. In recognition of some of the more distinctive landscapes and built form within Argyll and Bute it was decided that more detailed design guidance should be developed for a number of locations in Argyll and Bute, one of which was the Island of Coll. The Coll Sustainable Design Guidance has been informed through a number of stakeholder consultation events which were held during May and August 2007. The draft Guidance was amended to take account of feedback from them.

4. CONCLUSION

4.1

The principle purpose of the new design guidance is to demonstrate good quality, innovative and attractive design, incorporating sustainable building practices, energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, which sit well within the distinctive landscape settings of Coll. The overall aim is to raise the quality of and excellence in architecture and design within the Coll environment and to demonstrate the Council’s commitment to achieving high quality, innovative and sustainable design solutions. The Guidance is seen as a positive tool to assist all those

Page 48

involved in the planning process arrive at a sustainable solution and to make the formal planning process more efficient and effective.

5. IMPLICATIONS

Policy: The new guidance is consistent with the Argyll and Bute Finalised Draft Local Plan Policy LP ENV 19 Development, Setting and Layout Design which seeks to achieve a high standard of appropriate and sustainable design. The guidance is also consistent with National and Scottish Government Policy which seeks to achieve a sustainable solution to new development.

Financial: None Personnel: N/A Community: N/A For further information contact: Paul Convery Telephone 01546 604278

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:

Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance

Page 49

Page 50


1

ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL

OBAN, LORN & THE ISLES

AREA COMMITTEE

OPERATIONAL SERVICES 9TH

JUNE 2010

TITLE: ROADS CAPITAL BUDGET 2010 TO 2011

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This report sets out this year’s roads capital budget for Oban, Lorn and the

Isles.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 It is recommended that members note this report.

3 DETAIL

3.1 The roads capital budget and list of schemes for the period 2010 to 2011 is as

shown on the attached sheet in appendix 1.

3.2 The overall capital budget for Oban, Lorn & the Isles has been calculated as follows:-

35% of £4,200,000 = £1,470,000

3.3 Tenders for the surfacing work on Mull will be issued externally. This will allow

the limited resources on the island to be concentrated on important maintenance works, such as patching and drainage-related work.

3.4 Works are already in progress in Lorn and completion is expected on all works

by early Autumn.

Policy: The road network will be maintained in line with the ‘Road Maintenance & Asset Management Plan’ as closely as the available roads maintenance budget will allow.

Financial: Expenditure of capital budget to maintain the network.

Personnel and Equal Opportunity: Nil


2

For further information, please contact: Stewart Clark, Contracts Manager (Tel: 01546 604893) Graham Brown Operations Manager 12

th May 2010

Page 52

3

Appendix 1

Page 53

4

2010/11 Capital Sites APPENDIX 1

Area Route Location Description Estimated Cost District Total

Lorn A819 Ardteattle Reconstruction £65,000

A819 Ardteattle to Inistrynich Reconstruction £180,000

B844 Atlantic Bridge to Balvicar Reconstruction £220,000

Various – Oban Miller Road / Quarry Road / Sinclair Drive Resurfacing £120,000

Various - Oban Albany Street / Shore St / Alma Crescent Jn. Resurfacing £100,000

Albany St From Argyll Square to Nursery Resurfacing £100,000

Various U18 / U19 / C32 / Connel - Barran Structural repair prior to surface dressing £45,000

Various As above Surface Dressing £150,000

£980,000

Mull A849 / UC21 Kintra Resurfacing £90,000

C46 Glenbellart Resurfacing £75,000

A849 Pennyghael / Killunaig Resurfacing £75,000

B8073 Tobermory to Dervaig Resurfacing £250,000

£490,000

£1,470,000

Pa

ge 5

4

Agenda Item 9aPage 55NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 9

of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973

Document is Restricted

Page 56


Page 57NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 9



Page 58


Agenda Item 9bPage 59NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 9



Page 60





Page 62


Agenda Item 9cPage 63NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 9



Page 66





Page 68





Page 70


Date post:	01-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Public Document Pack - argyll-bute.gov.uk

Documents