Campbeltown likely to miss out on waterfront investment

[Mary G]

Dunoon has come first, and Helensburgh second in a prioritisation exercise by the Council for investment in town centres and waterfront areas. It also appears that only the top two will go to the next stage, with Outline Business Cases prepared in detail, in order to get the investment. That would mean that Campbeltown, Oban and Rothesay, taking up the remaining places in that order, would miss out on a share of almost £3 million.

The papers detailing this evaluation will go before the Council on Wednesday 26 September. They show that a complex scoring system was used, weighing 16 different criteria such as “impact on service plan”, and “external funds leveraged”.

When the papers were sent out on Monday none of the actual scores was included; only the final placings of the five towns. The failure to include this crucial detail occurred despite the whole pack being in excess of 300 pages! On Wednesday a supplementary pack was issued that did include this analysis.

It may well be the case that Dunoon and Helensburgh are the most deserving, but suspicions among voters will surely be raised by this initial attempt to withhold the scores. I would be very interested to hear what local Kintyre councillors have to say about this recommendation, and the fact that the scoring details used to reach this prioritisation were not made public initially.

Here are the Council papers:

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=257&MId=2927&J=2

[Tom B]

Mary - Thanks for highlighting this.

If I'm reading the first and second last documents at 4d correctly

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov ... 26Sept.pdf

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov ... ocA.ps.pdf

, the assessment of c/town in third place is as much to do with the completeness of the submission, than the actual merits of the case for Waterfront development in campbeltown v's other Argyll towns - comments in the assessment like - "lack of specification of what will be done so difficult to form an assessment" , "no clear delivery actions specified" & " It was not clear what action would taken and how the money would be spent in order to achieve the outcomes listed under project description. Only very general risks were outlined. Although a project manager was identified the risks, risk management and steps to developing an OBC were quite limited. "

- these would all appear to lead to Campbeltown being scored more poorly than Dunoon/Helensburgh.

On the actual impact of the development, Campbeltown actually scored more highly than Helensburgh (as did Oban)

Is there any scope for the meeting on Wednesday to decide to ask for more detailed first round assessments, before creating a shortlist? - of course, I may have competely mis-understood the process here, and got the wrong end of the stick, I'm sure it's not as simple as that, so apologies in advance!

[Mary G]

Tom

That is exactly my reading of it.

In other words, the reason Campbeltown scored badly was because the detail wasn't there, unlike the other towns. Surely the responsibility for providing this detail lies squarely with the Council? They cannot pretend that the process is fair and transparent if one of the candidate towns has not enjoyed the same attention - by their own admission - as the others. I agree too that the Council meeting on Wednesday should decide to get that detail for Campbeltown and then re-do the assessment.

There is another difference in the scoring - leveraging external funding. The papers say that £26 million will come into Dunoon for its pier and marina, and the figure for Helensburgh is £30.5 million. In contrast, the Campbeltown external investment is estimated at £285,000. But again, no one has spent the time doing the equivalent analysis for Campbeltown - ie the extra investment at the Royal Hotel, and other external sources. Also, the Helensburgh and Dunoon figures are assumptions - not firm commitments. The papers provide no indication of where this assumed funding would come from.

I'd like to be clear - I do not grudge the communities in Helensburgh and Dunoon a penny. I hope that any investment that does come their way will help to develop these important towns, each with lots of potential. What I do find difficult to accept is that a Council evaluation process that was meant to be fair and transparent has all the signs of being neither fair nor transparent. And Campbeltown is set to suffer badly as a result.

[Kintyre Forum News]

I first read about this in the Helensburgh Advertiser.

http://www.helensburghadvertiser.co.uk/ ... 1&id=15507

[Kintyre Forum News]

Is this something different?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... 05.0.0.php

[4th gen Suthen']

"The plans range from a £2m feasibility study for Campbeltown to a £40m plan to transform the promenade and pier area of Helensburgh."

Quote from that Herald article...............

[general jack o'niell]

same old same old, helensburgh is only part of argyll in the first place due to a boundary change, now its getting preferential treatment ahead of "REAL" Argyllshire towns, likewise Dunoon, we have a new swimming pool which was designed and built without a flume, dunoon pool has one, which was paid for in part with money that had been earmarked to do important work on our library/museum building. had the plan to turn that building into offices been on the cards even then? why else would the new pool have a library in it?

the number of independants on the council has in my opinion got a lot to do with who came out top in this plan, it would be quite easy for the councillors for the cowal and helensburgh area to vote together to pass just about anything, likewise any members affiliated with a particular party are not going to vote against their particular town being left out, are they?

when it comes down to a vote campbeltown will always lose out, three votes will never get anything done, no matter how worthy the cause. i take it dunoons position ahead of campbeltown, oban, tarbert etc didn't take into account the countless millions thrown at the area after the americans left the holy loch, how much regeneration money did they get for that?

for the council to spend any money on the regeneration of campbeltown they'd first have to build a road into the place, i don't see that happening, do you?

[sooze]

another feasibility study - we have just had the yellow book one and there was at least another done a few years before that.

Sooze

[oorly gourlay]

I actually find myself in agreement with General Jack regarding the £40 million going to Helensburgh and the politics involved. To my mind, Helensburgh is and always will be part of Dunbartonshire and Argyll will always start at the bridge at Arrochar.

£2 million for a feasibilty study that will keep the consultants rubbing their hands for a while

oorly

[John S]

Id suggests before you go any further; read the council papers before the news papers.

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov ... &Ver=4&J=3

I know the Hearld is easier, but it's a newspaper we all believe them don't we?

By the way, the prioritisation was abandoned courtesy of the SNP Group who forced the amendment of the coalition motion.

All projects now progress to outline business case after which priority projects will be identified through a more robust process.

[Mary G]

John S

Thanks for the update, and this is very good news. A comment or two from you before the meeting would also have helped communicate at least that you were ‘on the case’.

I agree, the Herald article bore only a loose connection with the Council papers. But then, I also had concerns about what was in them in any case. So neither filled me with optimism that the right thing was going to get done.

In any case, it seems that in terms of short-term tactics, the situation has been retrieved.

This town-by-town competition for funds is a bit distasteful, in my view. Prioritisation of funds will always be needed, however, if all towns need investment, then a multi-year, phased approach, dealing with all requirements on the basis of need, should be the way ahead. Not on the basis of who managed to get this snazziest project concept scoring highly.

By the way, my initial post provided the link to the Council papers.

[Tom B]

By the way, the prioritisation was abandoned courtesy of the SNP Group who forced the amendment of the coalition motion.

All projects now progress to outline business case after which priority projects will be identified through a more robust process.

Well done John, and all who kept Campbeltown in the running.

[Mary G]

John S

Given that the SNP is one half of the very coalition that put forward this motion for prioritisation, are you saying that the the SNP Group tabled an amendment to its own motion? How bizarre!

[John S]

No Mary, the report came from the council officers and the recommendation for prioritisation from the head of strategic finance (also a council officer). As you will know council officers make recommendations to the council, the council can choose to adopt or amend the recommendations, the coalition as a result of the representations made by the SNP group, decided unanimously to amend the recommendation prior to the council meeting. There were no further amendments tabled the amendment was passed unanimously.

No political point scoring for you here Mary.

[Mary G]

The officers are normally tasked by the ruling group (coalition or solo party) to produce such proposals, John, as you know. They do not work in a vacuum. If they have carte blanche to develop schemes, scoring mechanisms, proposals for prioritisation, investment plans, etc, etc, without any political direction at all, then that is an even bigger indictment of the way things work in Argyll & Bute. Is it really such an officer-led authority?

In all my experience of working with councils and other political organisations, the length and breadth of the UK, none allows their senior officers such licence to shape policy. I would expect proposals, such as this one for waterfront investment, to bear at least the imprimatur of the Leader and Convener, if not the coalition.

This is a matter of basic democracy, John, not politics.