Campbeltown likely to miss out on waterfront investment

[Mary G]

Agreed, £4 million is not a lot, however, it also comes with the technical expertise, and council resources (engineering, planning, etc) to oversee the work, and help secure other funds. So it is about staff resources and attention, as well as the share of the cash pot, as I understand it.

Anyway, very nice to know that General Jack agrees with my views on party-led councils, and how independent councils can tend to be officer-led. This is backed up by last year’s fairly hard-hitting Audit Commission report on Argyll & Bute Council:

http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/utilities/search_report.php?id=238

LO has provided a very good summary of this particular situation, with helpful additional insight. I did not catch any of the BBC stuff, so could not comment on it, albeit it sounded as if the media briefing was partisan.

Stepping back, I take issue with the whole competitive approach – it seems a bit like the Hallowe’en parties of yesteryear, where the prize went to the child whose mother was handiest with the sewing machine, rather than any creativity, talent or innovation on the part of the child. Here, if you create a really flashy business case, you will get the prize.

And none of this addresses what should be the fundamental criteria – need. I would prefer if this was the basis for allocating funds. Establishing need may not be straightforward, however, that is exactly the sort of challenging duty the Council needs to perform.

[LO]

i wonder why the towns case was so poorly set out,

From what I can gather, the exercise was carried out centrally by officers at Kilmory in a very broad brush manner so they may not have asked for local specifics at that point (although Helensburgh did manage to provide it!) as it was just supposed to be an initial outline.

Despite being short in detail, Campbeltown's case didn't appear too bad to me, and in fact when I read the papers I scored us second best with Dunoon coming out on top. (Helensburgh seemed so over the top that I rated it last by a country mile...... regardless of the merits it seemed to me that the requirement for a £40m investment relegated it to the realms of fantasy)

[John S]

Thanks for your comments LO, Mary the election in May saw nearly 40% of the councillors change on Argyll and Bute Council. The Audit Report you refer to is a reflection of how Argyll & Bute Council was run but I can assure you that significant changes are in the making. In the previous council the idea of a open decision making process would have been laughed at. Yet here we have an attempt at one, all be it premature. The fact that we were in a position to call into question and reverse the process is another indication of the changes being made.

I have been surprised and impressed at the willingness across the different political parties, the independent group and officers to work together. It is the role of officers to make recommendations to the council on issues of implementing policy. They are the professionals we are the representatives. Maybe in a labour controlled council both the development and implementation of policy tightly controlled by the politicians, I think that is an unhealthy situation.

Our job is to make and influence policy in the interest of our electorate and ensure that it is fairly implemented Wednesdays decision did just that.

[general jack o'niell]

i had something really pertinant to say but its started raining, oh aye, i won't be holding my breath waiting for an outcome that ends up fair and impartial. its just not going to happen

[Mary G]

Almost one year on, and the decision appears imminent. Helensburgh obviously thinks that its case is a strong one, and the Helensburgh councillor quoted here says they are "optimistic".

http://www.helensburghadvertiser.co.uk/articles/1/24934

What I found interesting about this article, is the talk of "get the maximum number of points and end up in the number one position". It almost sounds like a Eurovision vote I do not doubt that their case is a good one. But the allocation of funds of this nature should be on the basis of need - first and foremost.

I would like to see the 'business case' documentation mentioned. Normally, you would only do a business case to work out how to spend the money, after you had reached a decision on where to spend it. I would be very interested to see how business case methodology can assess the relative merits of four towns, all at least two hours from each other, and with little to connect them.

The proposal last year was that the funds would go to Dunoon and Helensburgh. I cannot find any papers on the Council website that show how this latest process is progressing. I think that a paper went to the Kintyre etc area committee last week, with the document 'to follow', according to the Council website. Maybe someone else can track it down.

Where do Forum members think that the £10 million will go? Maybe I should start a wee poll: Campbeltown, Dunoon, Helensburgh or Oban?

[Kintyre Forum News]

This is an important decision and an interesting one as you state Mary. It could make a hell of a difference to Campbeltown.

Heard today the decision has now been put back to August.

The forum is a good opportunity for people to raise points on this - alot of people read it.

[elainemck]

Surely the town can't lose out on this? Why is Campbeltown always the last to get anything and put to the back of the queue? The town needs new businesses to invest, a revitalisation of the whole town including waterfront and what about our all weather pitches we've been campaigning for for years? We're one of the only towns to be keeping our old school and not getting a new build.

The Aqualibrium doesn't even offer a dance studio for classes etc or a separate kids pool, or a jacuzzi (that would be good ) surely this should have been built in instead of the library moving.

Nightly rant over.

[Mary G]

I have not been following this issue closely, so am not intimate with the process or the detail. Nevertheless, I was surprised to read this latest twist in the tale ... that Dunoon has embarked on a parallel process in order improve its chances of getting the £10,000,000 ... perhaps ahead of more deserving towns. http://forargyll.com/2008/09/dunoon-see ... ain-towns/

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dunoon seen to obstruct progress in Council regeneration funding initiative for Argyll’s main towns

One of Argyll’s five main towns - Campbeltown, Dunoon, Helensburgh, Oban and Rothesay - will eventually be awarded the major part of Argyll and Bute Council’s funding for town centre and waterfront regeneration. As part of the decision-making process, each of these towns was asked, with the help of a firm of consultants (Cogent), to prepare an outline business case (OBC). These were to have been submitted in May 2008.

The Board of the Dunoon project however, was unhappy with aspects of the outline business plan being developed for it, refused to sign it off and employed an additional firm of consultants. Without describing the complicated and lucrative food chain by which consultants consult each other at pub;ic expense, the outcome is that the other towns feel that Dunoon has hijacked special treatment and that there is no longer a level playing field in what is effectively a contest in which the winner takes all.

Whilt to date only Helensbsurgh has signed off its outline business case, changes to Dunoon’s plans ma have a knock-on impact on the cases for the other towns.

Councillors and council staff are annoyed at the way in which the process has bee slowed if not derailed, although Council Leader Dick Walsh, himself a Councillor for Dunoon, points out that the quality of each submission should take precedence over timescales.

BY a majority, the Council has agreed a final submission deadline of 31st October, after which the scoring process will be carried out by an independent firm of consultants. The Council then hope to reach a decision on the funding at a meeting on 27th November.

Nigel Stewart, the Councils Director of Corporate Services, rejected a call from Helensburgh Councillor, Vivien Dance, for the final scored results to be kept in sealed envelopes to be opened at an executive meeting. Mr Stewart said that the process was not one of tendering; that it is being dealt with by officers in an honest and transparent way; and that the scoring results will have to be seen first by the Councils strategic management team.

This raisies two issues:

while the process may not formally be one of tendering, in reality it amounts to something very like that
the case for the alleged requirement for the scores first to be see by the Council’s strategic management team has not been publicly made
Given that each of the five towns is all but fighting for survival, feelings are understandably intense. The way the situation has developed almost guarantees resentments and bad blood after the event.

__________________________________________________________________________________

If this is true, it is a worrying state of affairs.

I said some time ago - and I am even more of this view now - that this "Outline Business Case" process, which is scored, is crass and wrong. Reading this saga (whatever its veracity) confirms my view. I am very concerned that Argyll & Bute Council has embarked on a flawed course of action. If it had £10,000,000 to invest in a strategic waterfront development, then the answer was simply to identify the town whose need was greatest. Not to pick the town who could, above others, deliver a more impressive consultancy report.

A Business Case will - usually - look at the 'value added' by the public investment. A well-off area, with good prospects for additional private funding, will usually always be able to prove greater 'value add', and so win a "Business Case" competition. The less-well off area, with greater need, is unlikely to score so well under this flawed process.

I can not think of any other authority that would have used a scoring/ business case model in this way - to select between five towns. They should have picked the town on the basis of need, in my view - using a range of well-known economic indicators. Then, after they had picked the town, they could have used a 'business case' methodology to compare the different options for spending £10 million in the chosen town.

I would be interested to hear from those that have been involved in the Campbeltown bit of the process. How satisfactory has it been? How well have we been able argue on the basis of need, as well as opportunity? Will the investment spending options be revealed to the people of the town?

I appreciate that these are big questions - and that answers may not be possible. I just wondered whether - in the interests of openness and transparency - such details could be shared.

Thanks, Mary