Town Centre and Waterfront Project - PLEASE SUPPORT!

[Kintyre Forum News]

One of a number of interesting articles in this weeks Courier was this one about the Town Centre and Waterfront Project. Please support the town's fight for this money by send e-mails of support to the Councillors. A list can be found at

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/yourcounc ... s/cllrlist

We must win this fight!
Published: 14 November, 2008

CAMPBELTOWN’S councillors are preparing to fight their corner at a council meeting later this month in the attempt to win millions of pounds of cash for the town.

November 27 is the decision day when a meeting of the full Argyll and Bute Council will examine the results of the work done by Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Oban Rothesay and Dunoon on outline business cases to regenerate their towns.

The winner of this beauty contest will get up to £10 million of council cash to spend on their plans.

All three of the South Kintyre councillors, Rory Colville, Donald Kelly and John Semple have put aside political differences to lobby the council and fight for a result.

Councillor Colville said: ‘I believe that if Argyll and Bute members take a corporate view of all five towns then there can only be one outcome and that is that Campbeltown’s bid is successful.

 ‘None of the other towns are in such dire need of this investment at this time, I therefore urge as many people as possible to visit Argyll and Bute Council’s web site, click on each councillor’s email address and send them your views as to why it is so important we have the economic tools to turn this town of ours around.That is certainly the message I will be taking to Kilmory.

 John Semple, who chairs the Campbeltown Town Centre and Waterfront Project board said: ‘From what I have seen of the proposals from other towns I think it is fair to say ours is in with a very good chance of being funded, much will depend on the final scores and recommendations brought forward by consultants.

‘My concern is that in pure weight of councillor voting numbers some areas are better represented than others. But I am confident that we can make a strong argument should the final outcome be a close thing; it will then be up to the council as a whole to justify the projects selected or whatever other way forward there may be.’

 The plans include extending the pontoons from 40 to 145 berths, realigning Kinloch Road to make it easier to get large loads to the quay and building new homes and businesses and investing in the town centre’s buildings both residential and commercial to bring them back up to scratch.

 Councillor Colville said: ‘With the exception of Rothesay none of the other towns are as remote or fragile or have the population reduction that is presently predicted for Campbeltown. This is the only major town not to benefit from new educational building and the only town not to have access to an all weather pitch.’

 Councillor Donald Kelly believes Campbeltown is in a very strong position to win: ‘I will be extremely disappointed if our outline business case is not successful on November 27; a lot of hard work has gone into this and as far as I am concerned we have ticked all the right boxes.’

But he stressed a note of caution: ‘Unless Argyll and Bute has changed radically all the councillors will all be fighting their own corners. We are giving 110 per cent, lobbying other councillors but other areas do have more councillors than us and I know that two members of the local area committee can’t be there on the day.’

[deirdreh]

The three Councillors emails are:

rory.colville@argyll-bute.gov.uk
donald.kelly2@argyll-bute.gov.uk
john.semple@argyll-bute.gov.uk

[Ship called Dignity]

The three Councillors emails are:

rory.colville@argyll-bute.gov.uk
donald.kelly2@argyll-bute.gov.uk
john.semple@argyll-bute.gov.uk

I think it is the other Councillors we need support from.

[Mary G]

I agree with SCD - it is all the councillors who should be supporting the most needful case. I would encourage people to contact the three local councillors, and the other 33, making their views known about the positive case for favouring Campbeltown.

That said, it is excellent that all the local councillors are putting their weight behind the local case. As I said here more than a year ago
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4558
when this topic was first raised, (and Helensburgh and Dunoon looked to be the likely 'winners' back in September 2007) this process appears to be flawed. Making all the towns compete means that all have spent time, energy and money producing plans which are then scored. By definition, most of these plans will then come to nothing.

I think that the only thing that should be scored is the extent of the need in that area. Full-stop.
Campbeltown needs this investment more than any other part of Argyll & Bute.

[Kintyred]

...

[Kintyre Forum News]

Couple of interesting articles in the Press and Journal and The Buteman

Press and Journal Article from http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Articl ... 1?UserKey=

Oban fury at revelation it is not foremost for cash prize
Community leaders say its needs are greater than other Argyll centres

By rita campbell

Published: 20/11/2008

A document out today is set to rank Campbeltown and Rothesay as top contenders in a competition between Argyll’s five main communities for a £10million investment prize.

And this has sparked anger from community leaders at Oban.

Consultants have been judging the business cases for town centre and waterfront regeneration put forward for Oban, Campbeltown, Rothesay, Helensburgh and Dunoon.

Information leaked to the Press and Journal reveals that the report, to go before councillors next Thursday, recommends that £6.4million goes to Campbeltown, £2.6million to Rothesay, and the remaining £1million to the highest scoring project in all of the business cases, which would be the pontoon project for Oban Bay.

The final decision of how to spend the £10million lies with the councillors, and debate is likely to be fierce at the meeting at Dunoon.

John MacGregor, chairman of Oban Bay Marine, the community company that plans to develop 60 short-stay pontoons for visiting craft, said: “Should this information be correct, then we are absolutely delighted with the recommendation to allocate £1million to the pontoons.

“However it is an absolute travesty of justice that Oban has not had further funding in this report.

“Oban only has two small manufacturing employers, the distillery and Oban Wetsuits. They only employ 40 people in total. In years gone by we lost the Alginate factory and 300 jobs. These have never been replaced.

“We badly need to attract industry to Oban, as we should not be relying solely on tourism and fishing, both which are in decline.

“We have no main council offices and we really do not get our fair share of any money handed out by the council. Dunoon has education, Helensburgh has estates, Campbeltown has the main financial offices based there and Lochgilphead has the headquarters. Oban has only small satellite offices.”

Two sets of consultants were commissioned by the council, one to draw up outline business cases with the needs and aspirations of all five towns, and another to score the cases.

It would cost Argyll and Bute Council £36million to take all of the projects forward.

The Campbeltown project would include a new marina and the regeneration of buildings in Kinloch Road.

The Oban proposal includes a development road, infrastructure for new houses, action around harbour areas and a yacht haven. Rothesay would see refurbishment of its pavilion and regeneration of the town.

Dunoon has a major waterfront proposal and Helensburgh has town centre and esplanade plans.

Buteman article at http://www.buteman.co.uk/news/Rothesay- ... 4711339.jp

Rothesay favourite to land waterfront cash

Pavilion is top priority, says independent report

Published Date:
20 November 2008
By Craig Borland
Editor


"I'm very hopeful of a favourable result for Rothesay" Cllr Len Scoullar

ROTHESAY is hot favourite to win the money desperately needed for the refurbishment of the Pavilion from a £10 million 'waterfront regeneration' cash pot.

An independent report has given Rothesay the top score of the five Argyll and Bute towns bidding for a share of the windfall.

The five towns - Rothesay, Dunoon, Campbeltown, Oban and Helensburgh - have been waiting nervously to see how their claims to the cash, in the form of 'outline business cases', or OBCs, would be scored by independent consultants.

And the results, published on Thursday, have given Rothesay's top priority, with Campbeltown in second place, Oban in third, Helensburgh fourth and Dunoon last.

The findings will provoke a good deal of controversy - not least because when each town had an initial business case, or IBC, prepared last year, the Dunoon scheme was given top priority, with Rothesay's plans ranked as the least important.

The consultants' report does not mark the end of the matter - the final decision will be made by all 36 members of Argyll and Bute Council when they meet in Kirn next Thursday, November 27.

But it would be a brave councillor who voted to reject the report after previously agreeing to hire the consultants to ensure an impartial outcome.

Island councillor Len Scoullar, who chaired the project board which drew up the Rothesay OBC, told us: "I would hope, on the basis of the results recommended by the consultants, that the Rothesay project could be looked upon favourably by the council when it meets next week.

"The Pavilion is the most important modern architectural building that the council owns, and there is an inherent duty on the council to maintain it to a proper standard.

"Our report stressed the social need for the Pavilion to continue to be operated. We don't have any other halls which could fulfil the same needs that the Pavilion does; other places do.

"The economy of the island depends upon it, and the social fabric of the community depends upon it. Run properly I believe the Pavilion could create more jobs for our community. I'm very hopeful of a favourable result for Rothesay."

The Pavilion was opened on July 1, 1938 to a design by Ayr architects J. & J.A. Carrick after a competition which attracted 24 entries.

Used for dances, plays, parties, concerts, conferences, meetings, exhibitions, festivals and by more than 20 island organisations, the building was given Category A listed status by Historic Scotland in 2005.

[Mary G]

Fascinating ... should be a robust debate next week. If the P&J report is right, then that sounds like a fair way forward.

People should still - in my view - support the local councillors in their endeavours. They will need all the backing they can get.

[John S]

The Papers for the Council meeting which will take the decision will be posted on the councils web site next week. Below is the Executive Summary and Introduction.

You can help -

Argyll & Bute Councillor, Gary Mulvaney, will stand in the forthcoming Westminster elections for the Tory Party tell him he will have to vote for the Recommendations in the consultant’s report for the Rothesay & Campbeltown proposal or he will not be worthy of a remit for the whole of Argyll & Bute, and will have not credibility in Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay, his email is

gary.mulvaney@argyll-bute.gov.uk

Allan Reid is your MP - email him and insist that he advises the Leader of the Liberals in Argyll & Bute Ellen Morton to Support the Proposals in the Consultants Report for Rothesay & Campbeltown. His email is;

reida@parliament.uk

Mike MacKenzie is the SNP candidate in the Westminster elections, Mike is from Oban, he wants you to elect him next year - tell him what you think of the proposals - Rothesay & Campbeltown must be funded!!! His email Address is;

coalree@sol.co.uk

Jim Mather is your MSP, he has a lot to lose, a lot of people in Kintyre voted SNP for the first time in the last elections - email him and tell him how you think you will vote next time if Campbeltown looses out!!!

Jim.Mather.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

The rest of those who require to be influenced in terms of the votes next week are listed on this page

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/yourcounc ... s/cllrlist

Make a phone call they have more impact - the main wards to target are - 4,5,6 9,10,11 - if you can do it before Monday.

Donald Rory and I will be giving it our best to crank up the pressure, but you can help by contacting those above, thanks.

Here’s the extracts from the report
JS





1. Executive Summary

Argyll and Bute Council have available a capital allocation of up to £10 Million. RPS have been commissioned to undertake a scoring exercise to assist the Council in making a decision about the most effective use of these funds. This report contains the results of RPS analysis of the five outline business cases for town centre and waterfront development projects in Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Oban, Rothesay and Dunoon within Argyll and Bute.

The analysis was conducted in accordance with a scoring methodology adopted by Argyll and Bute Council prior to the appointment of RPS as scoring consultants.

The methodology calls for the estimates of benefits to be modified by reference to impact (in terms of contribution to council and outer priorities) and Risk and Deliverability. This value is then divided by the cost of the proposed project to establish a weighted benefits per unit of expenditure.

The methodology has the virtue of having been agreed in advance, and RPS have applied it uniformly across the range of projects proposed.

The results of this scoring methodology ranks the proposed projects in order;

1. Rothesay
2. Campbeltown
3. Oban
4. Helensburgh
5. Dunoon

Based upon the application of the agreed methodology the following allocations would be made

Rothesay £ 2.4 Million
Campbeltown £ 6.5 Million

The highest scoring individual project from among the remaining areas is the Yacht Haven in Oban at a cost of £1.0 Million which could also be afforded within the limited funds available.
The next best alternative after that for remaining funds would be Kidston Park in Helensburgh.





2. Introduction

Argyll & Bute Council has asked RPS to carry out an independent scoring exercise of the outline business case (OBC’s) for five town centre and waterfront development projects in Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Oban, Rothesay and Dunoon. Business cases have been prepared by Cogent, Smiths Gore supplemented by additional analysis of costs and values undertaken by DTZ. The business cases have been approved by local project boards each of which have provided additional helpful commentary.

Argyll & Bute Council agreed a methodology on 20th March 2008 (modifying an earlier methodology agreed in February 2007) by which the OBC’s would be scored in order to allow an objective assessment of the relative merits of each of the proposals. The Council has available capital funding of £10m but the resources required to support all of the town centre and waterfront developments would be of the order of £36 Million, with additional sums being required from other public and private sector sources.

The Five town centre and waterfront projects are as follows;

• Campbeltown;
o Kinloch Road - Area Regeneration;
o Marina Development;
o Townscape Heritage Initiative;
• Dunoon;
o Waterfront - Major Project.
• Helensburgh;
o Town Centre - Streetscape Works;
o Esplanade Refurbishment;
o Kidston Park Refurbishment;
• Oban;
o Development Road -Major Land Release and Traffic Problem Resolution;
o Harbour Areas for Action – Masterplanning;
o Yacht Haven (Transit Marina);
• Rothesay;
o Pavilion - Category A Listed Building Refurbishment;
o Townscape Heritage Initiative;
This report sets out the results of our application of the agreed scoring methodology. We set out the rational for the judgements we make. We conclude with an ordered list of projects and scores.

[Kintyre Forum News]

Excellent post John. Fingers crossed for Thursday.

[Mary G]

This is a very helpful post from John S. Good suggestions, and the first two contacts - Gary Mulvaney as the Tory candidate, and Alan Reid who hopefully has some influence over the councillors in their parties - sound like good calls. There is also a job of work to be done among the SNP councillors. From this week's Oban Times:

Oban councillor Roddy McCuish [SNP] said: ‘I can’t comment on it at the moment but I would be very surprised if Oban wasn’t in first position because our report and the business plan and consultants DTZ put a tremendous case forward.’
http://www.obantimes.co.uk/news/fullsto ... _wire.html

There will be a certain amount of denial among all councillors in Oban, Dunoon and Helensburgh; the divisions are very unlikely to be on party lines.

It goes to show that this has been a chaotic way to go about prioritising how to spend money. Here's hoping it all works out 'right'.

[Kintyre Forum News]

Hope it turns out the way we here want it to but is it possible the success of the proposed Marina could depend on the plans that Scottish Water have for the loch.

Wasn't there a drop in visitors to the existing Marina because of the bad press the loch got among the yachting community?

Maybe a visit to Tuesday's public information by SW by all who are supporting the waterfront project to see what SW propose to do to clean up the Loch?

KFN

[John S]

Don't agree with you Mary, the methodology is sound, as well you know - Id suggest you take off your Rose tinted specs. It is a credit to the council that this process has taken place at all. Perhaps if Labour had done more to make difficult decisions in a logical way they would control more councils today.

[Beachcomber]

The Campbeltown project would include a new marina and the regeneration of buildings in Kinloch Road.

Does anyone know which buildings in Kinloch Road they're referring to in the report?

[Mary G]

That was an intemperate response from John S – yet again imagining that he can read my mind – wishful thinking on his part

The methodology is poor in my view because so much money has been wasted on detailed engineers’, surveyors’ and consultants’ reports for towns that are not going any funding. Abortive work costs. It is not a good use of tax-payers money, I would suggest. Nor is the process properly strategic, and it has taken far too long. I would challenge the Council to show any precedent for such a methodology anywhere else in Scotland. Our councillors could sensibly ask such questions: How much has this abortive work cost? Where else has this process been used, for different areas to produce outline business cases that are then scored? When other authorities – including SNP ones- want to make this sort of investment they first decide where they want to focus it. Then they commission the technical reports for that one place. That makes sense. Instead we have got five sets of reports, and only one (or two) will be taken forward.

Further evidence of the fact that this process is flawed – in my view:

* This topic was going to go before the Council on 26 September 2007 – almost exactly fourteen months before it reappears on the agenda on Thursday.
* At that time there was a major re-think; the scoring of the towns was not revealed initially and other issues arose, prompting a complete re-run on the exercise.
* Dunoon was unhappy with its consultants’ report in the Spring, and so hired additional consultants to help them ‘win’ this contest – again, hardly a good use of Argyll & Bute’s money.
* This added in further delay, to the annoyance of the other towns; this decision was due in the summer until the Dunoon and Cowal councillors derailed the timescales.
* Helensburgh councillors felt so anxious about the process that one asked for the scoring to be kept in sealed envelopes until the meeting! A bit like the Oscars
* Officers have felt frustrated at the intensity of feeling among the different groups of councillors – getting them to take the best, objective decision has proved to be almost impossible: Councillors are duty-bound to use public funding judiciously, and not parochially. The officers obviously know this, and have found it very difficult to establish an objective process.
* As evidence, an Oban councillor I know told me that he/she “could never vote for any decision that went against Oban’s interests”. This is a ludicrous situation - they will get into big trouble with Audit Scotland if they do not vote money based on hard evidence and systematic analysis. Simply saying that they can only vote in favour where it helps their ward is indefensible.

No-one can defend that as an efficient process. Campbeltown could have had this investment fourteen months ago if this had been done right first time.
The process will – almost inevitably –result in the ill-feeling and heavily strained relationships. That cannot be good for Argyll.

John S – I am fully behind you and your fellow Kintyre Councillors. I believe that your commitment is commendable, and that you have justice on your side. You do have your work cut out – and I wish you all the best in your endeavours over the coming days.

[Ship called Dignity]

The methodology is poor in my view because so much money has been wasted on detailed engineers’, surveyors’ and consultants’ reports for towns that are not going any funding. Abortive work costs. It is not a good use of tax-payers money, I would suggest. Nor is the process properly strategic, and it has taken far too long. I would challenge the Council to show any precedent for such a methodology anywhere else in Scotland. Our councillors could sensibly ask such questions: How much has this abortive work cost? Where else has this process been used, for different areas to produce outline business cases that are then scored? When other authorities – including SNP ones- want to make this sort of investment they first decide where they want to focus it. Then they commission the technical reports for that one place. That makes sense. Instead we have got five sets of reports, and only one (or two) will be taken forward.

Reading that you would think you don't want Campbeltown to succeed!? Isn't fair to have towns going against each other but at this point and time I'm only interested in Campbeltown!