Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 7 March 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Council — 7 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 28 February 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A Special meeting of ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL will be held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on FRIDAY, 7 MARCH 2025 at 1:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) 3. LEARNING ESTATE INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (LEIP) - MULL CAMPUS - PREFERRED SITE RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED (a) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services and Education (Pages 5 - 32) (b) Appendix 1 - Hub North Scotland Site Selection and Engagement Report (February 2025) - costs redacted (Pages 33 - 84) E1 (c) Appendix 1 - Hub North Scotland Site Selection and Engagement Report (February 2025) - with costs (Pages 85 - 136) (d) Appendix 1A - Community Engagement Analysis (November 2024) https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/Mull Engagement Analysis.pdf (e) Appendix 1B - Long List of Sites (October 2024) https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/MUL-RYD-00- XX-PP-A-0004-S2-P1_Site Selection Options Appraisal_reduced size_1.pdf (f) Appendix 1C - Short List Site Plans https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/MUL-RYD-00- Public Document Pack
Page 2
XX-TRP-A-0006-S2-P1 Shortlist Site Layouts.pdf (g) Appendix 1D - Utilities Infrastructure Reports https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/education-and-learning/schools/mull- campus-site-selection (h) Appendix 1E - Preliminary Ground Conditions Review https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/21252100-WAT- EGT-XX-TN-G-77_P0.02_0.pdf (i) Appendix 1F - Flooding and Drainage Report https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/21252100-WAT- GEN-XX-RP-C-92-S3_0.pdf (j) Appendix 1G - Place Diagrams https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/MUL-RYD-00- XX-TRP-A-0005-S2-P1_Place Diagrams.pdf (k) Appendix 1H - Transport Considerations Report (January 2025) (Pages 137 - 218) E1 (l) Appendix 1I - Site Abnormal Costs (Pages 219 - 234) E1 (m) Appendix 1J - Wayleaves, Legal and Site Acquisition Risk (Pages 235 - 236) (n) Appendix 1K - Integrated Impact Assessment Report (February 2025) (Pages 237 - 308) E1 (o) Appendix 1L - Valuation Report (January 2025) (Pages 309 - 376) (p) Appendix 2 - Site Scoring Outcome (Pages 377 - 378) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (q) Learning Estate Investment Programme (LEIP) - Mull Campus - Preferred Site Recommendation - Supplementary Paper (Pages 379 - 380) 4. POLITICAL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS (Pages 381 - 384) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support 5. FINDINGS OF STANDARDS COMMISSION HEARING - COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN (Pages 385 - 412) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support The Council 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 paragraphs are:- E1 Paragraph 8 The amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by the authority under any particular contract for the acquisition of property or the supply of goods or services. 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.
Page 3
Argyll and Bute Council Contact: Hazel MacInnes, Senior Committee Officer Tel:01546 604269
Page 4
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 5
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, EDUCATION 27 FEBRUARY 2025 AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LEARNING ESTATE INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (LEIP) MULL CAMPUS – PREFERRED SITE RECOMMENDATION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide sufficient information to allow the Council to make an informed decision on the preferred site for Mull 2-18 Campus. Site selection is the first key decision milestone for the project and will allow the Outline Business Case to be progressed and design development to commence. 1.2 This report describes the site assessment and selection process, the contributing reports and analyses, outlines the relative benefits and challenges of each short- listed site option and makes a recommendation to the Council as to the preferred site, based on the evidence available. 1.3 The site selection phase for the project commenced in August 2024 with a “call for sites”. Eleven possible sites were identified, and four potentially viable options were shortlisted:- • Site 1 – Tobermory Existing School Site • Site 2 – Craignure • Site 3 – Garmony • Site 4 – Tobermory South 1.4 A detailed transport review found that the two Tobermory sites present minimal change to existing arrangements with travel time, distance and carbon emissions for staff and pupils remaining broadly the same. This significantly increases for the two centrally located sites, and in the case of Site 2 – Craignure the aggregate travel time would double, and vehicle miles and carbon emissions would triple. Page 5 Agenda Item 3a
Page 6
1.5 An Integrated Impact Assessment was undertaken to examine the potential impacts to the relevant groups on Mull and its surrounding islands that may result from a Tobermory or a more centrally located site. This highlighted that regardless of site location, the campus has the potential to deliver a range of benefits through the provision of contemporary and high-quality learning, sport and community facilities. 1.6 Many community members feel strongly that a central high school is required to unite young people from the north and south of Mull and to provide an on-island secondary education option for children from the Ross of Mull. However, there is also a strong feeling that early years and primary school education should not be relocated from Tobermory for the families residing there. 1.7 The impact assessment concluded that there are benefits and disbenefits associated with all site options. However, under the constraints of the available funding, it is unlikely that any of the options would be able to provide a fully equal solution for all children and young people living on Mull and the islands. 1.8 All contributing reports and analyses for the short-listed sites were considered as part of a site scoring exercise which assessed each site option against set criteria. The sites and their weighted scores are outlined below, in order of rank. 1. Site 4 Tobermory South, 645 2. Site 2 Craignure, 628 3. Site 1 Tobermory Existing, 625 4. Site 3 Garmony, 546 1.9 Sensitivity analyses were carried out and this demonstrated that site 4 – Tobermory South consistently performed better than the other site options, with the greatest number of cumulative good and very good scores. Site 3 – Garmony consistently performed the worst of the four options and that site is not recommended to be considered further. 1.10 Based on the substantial body of information contained within the Appendices of this report, the recommended preferred site for a new Mull Campus is Site 4 – Tobermory South. 1.11 This option would constitute a proposal to relocate the existing campus, with a statutory consultation legally required under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, the outcome of which will be reported back to full Council upon completion of that process. 1.12 Members are asked to consider the contents of this report and supporting Appendices and endorse the site scoring mechanism, criteria and supporting Page 6
Page 7
assessments. After consideration of all the available information and the content of the Integrated Impact Assessments, Members are asked to confirm their preferred site for a new Mull Campus, and agree to progress the Outline Business Case on that basis. Page 7
Page 8
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, EDUCATION 27 FEBRUARY 2025 AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LEARNING ESTATE INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (LEIP) MULL CAMPUS – PREFERRED SITE RECOMMENDATION 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report outlines the key information that requires to be considered to identify a preferred site for the Learning Estate Investment Programme (LEIP) Mull Campus project, which has reached the decision milestone for site selection. 2.2 On 25th April 2024 the Council decided to “commence the Business Case, undertake engagement exercises, commence the site selection process and establish governance arrangements, with updates to be brought back to Members at appropriate gateway points”. 2.3 An update was provided to the Council on 20th December 2024, where it was advised that a recommendation of a preferred site for Mull Campus would be brought forward for consideration by the full Council at their next meeting. At that meeting it was unanimously decided that the Council:- “Having regard to the information provided in respect of educational benefits elements and funding metrics, and the advice of the Council’s Chief Financial Officer that a two-site Mull Campus would not be affordable, agrees that the process will continue on a single-site basis for delivery of a new Mull Campus”; and “Notes the unanimous view of the community in Iona in relation to their removal from the scope of the project, and agrees that this is given effect to” 2.4 This report sets out the relevant information and recommendations to enable the Council to decide on the preferred site for a new Mull Campus. Page 8
Page 9
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that the Council: a) Considers the contents of the report and supporting Appendices. b) Endorses the site scoring mechanism, criteria and supporting assessments which is consistent with criteria categories commonly used for site selection on previous Council school projects. c) Confirms Site 4 – Tobermory South as the preferred site for a new Mull Campus and agrees to progress the Outline Business Case on that basis. d) Notes that as the preferred option would constitute a proposal to relocate the existing campus, a statutory consultation would be legally required under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, the outcome of which will be reported back to full Council upon completion of that process. e) In making their decision in accordance with recommendation (b), above, Members are specifically requested to have regard to the detail of the Integrated Impact Assessment (Appendix 1K) on the potential impacts to the relevant groups on Mull and its surrounding islands, as detailed therein, recognising that each site presents different benefits and disbenefits to these distinct groups. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 Background 4.1.1 The Council submitted a bid for Scottish Government LEIP funding in October 2022 for a 2-18 campus on Mull and this was accepted in October 2023. The bid met the LEIP eligibility criteria on condition, with funding provided on a “like for like” basis to replace the existing Tobermory campus. 4.1.2 The potential cost implications of LEIP funding, which requires the Council to pay the full capital cost up front with up to 50% of eligible costs funded by Scottish Government over 25 years, were considered on 25th April 2024 where it was decided that the Council:- “noted the capital and revenue implications of the LEIP / Mull Campus project which were of a strategic financial nature” and Page 9
Page 10
“considered the project to be affordable at this time, and agreed that up to £5m from the previously earmarked LEIP funding be used to commence the Business Case, undertake engagement exercises, commence the site selection process and establish governance arrangements, with updates to be brought back to Members at appropriate gateway points.” 4.1.3 On 20th December 2024 the Council agreed that a new Mull Campus would continue on a single-site basis. It was also agreed to remove Iona from the scope of the project in response to the community’s unanimous request to remain within the catchment area of Oban High School. 4.1.4 The Mull Campus project is being delivered as part of the North Schools Programme, which is a partnership between hub North Scotland ltd and five local authorities to deliver eight schools. Three of these projects, including Mull Campus, are island schools. 4.1.5 The hub North Scotland team have supported the Council throughout the community engagement and site selection phase. The outputs are provided in Appendix 1, with individual reports in Appendices 1A-L. 4.1.6 This report describes the site assessment and selection process, the contributing reports and analyses, outlines the relative benefits and challenges of each short-listed site option and makes a recommendation to the Council as to the preferred site, based on the evidence available. 4.2 Call for Sites and Long List of Options 4.2.1 A call for sites was launched from 27th August to 25th September 2024 to seek suggestions of sites that may be suitable for the new Mull 2-18 Campus. Eleven possible sites were identified, including the existing school site. 4.2.2 The hub North Scotland team undertook a high-level review of each site to consider key constraints such as flood risk, ground conditions, accessibility and site abnormals which could make the sites prohibitive to development. Each site was assessed on its suitability to deliver the brief in terms of size, fit and accessibility, and how it related to the wider context in terms of its ability to safely operate. 4.2.3 A Civil and Structural assessment of topographical and ground condition risks highlighted that some of the sites had substantial level changes and contained very poor marsh and peaty ground, making them unsuitable for development without significant remediation. 4.2.4 A review of Mechanical & Electrical requirements focused primarily on utilities and how easy it would be to service each site. As is typically the case in remote and rural regions, many sites were found to be located a distance away from existing infrastructure. 4.2.5 For each long-listed site an initial review was carried out in terms of any transport impact. Several sites were found to have constrained accesses which would not Page 10
Page 11
be able to accommodate significant amounts of traffic during the delivery of the Mull Campus project or in final operation once the facility is live. 4.2.6 Taking these factors into consideration, four sites were shortlisted as being potentially capable of accommodating the campus requirements. Further detail on the long list of options and reasons for not shortlisting is provided in Appendix 1 (section 2.3.1) and Appendix 1B the Site Selection Options Appraisal report (October 2024). The report was agreed by the project’s Strategic Board in early November 2024. 4.2.7 The four sites shortlisted for further consideration are: 1. Site 1 Tobermory Existing School 2. Site 2 Craignure 3. Site 3 Garmony 4. Site 4 Tobermory South 4.3 Assessment of Short-Listed Options 4.3.1 A detailed set of criteria for assessment were developed jointly by the hub North Scotland technical team and Argyll and Bute Council Project Team1. The hub North team developed an initial draft for consideration, which focussed on technical aspects including site size and capacity to accommodate the brief, technical deliverability (utilities, ground conditions, topography, flood risk), statutory consents and legal aspects, accessibility, sustainability and cost. The assessment process also took into account the feedback from the public engagement exercise as detailed in Table 1 below. The criteria and approach are consistent with other new build school projects delivered across Scotland. 4.3.2 The draft list was reviewed by the Project Team and Strategic Board in September 2024 where it was refined to align with criteria categories commonly used for site selection on previous Council school projects; impact, deliverability, affordability and risk. It was acknowledged that these would need to be expanded further to reflect the unique island context and comparatively wide geographical search area for a project located on Mull, which was recognised as being different from a mainland town location. 4.3.3 As noted in paragraph 4.3.1 above, the additional island factors included taking account of the feedback received from island communities during the community engagement exercise carried out in late September. This is described further in section 4.4 of this report. 4.3.4 To better understand the island infrastructure and transport implications, hub North Scotland carried out a baseline assessment of the transport considerations for the existing 2-18 school in Tobermory. The report included suggested criteria 1 Project Team includes council officers from the following departments; finance, education, commercial services, legal and regulatory support, estates, property, ICT, procurement, communications and health and safety. Page 11
Page 12
to be used in the site assessment exercise. This is described further in section 4.5 of this report. 4.3.5 In October, once the Community Engagement Analysis Report and Transport Considerations baseline reports were available, the draft criteria were reviewed and adjusted to take account of the suggested criteria included in those reports. The revised criteria were reviewed again by the full Project Team, who also discussed suitable weightings for the criteria to reflect their relative importance. To reflect the nature of this project the Educational Benefits were weighted highest as outlined in Table 5 (below). This was presented to the project’s Strategic Board in early November where they confirmed acceptance of the proposals to date and broad agreement to the weightings subject to final adjustments to reflect the importance of educational impact and travel distances, particularly for young children. The criteria and weightings were adjusted and finalised accordingly to allow them to be used to assess each shortlisted site. 4.3.6 A site scoring exercise was subsequently carried out by a team of council officers from education, property, legal, finance, estates, planning, economic development and development & infrastructure services. They were supported by the Mull Campus and hub North Scotland teams. The site scoring was undertaken during two workshops held on 15th November 2024 and 23rd January 2025. During the workshop the technical team and subject matter experts presented the information gathered to inform the scoring of each criterion. The group then collectively agreed on a consensus score from 0-10 for each site for that criterion. 4.3.7 In line with its statutory duties the Council commissioned an Integrated Impact Assessment looking at the potential equality, island communities, economic, children’s rights and wellbeing and Fairer Scotland Duty impacts. 4.3.8 The full suite of reports, impact assessments and the output of the site scoring exercise are included in Appendices 1 and 2. This is the culmination of six months of activity and the volume of information is substantial, therefore a hyperlink has been provided to some of the technical information. Conscientious consideration has been given to all the supporting information when forming the recommendations in this report. 4.4 Community Engagement Analysis 4.4.1 An extensive community engagement exercise was undertaken in September 2024 to ask the community what was important to them when considering a site for the new campus. The outcome was shared with the council in December 2024 and the full Community Engagement Analysis Report (November 2024) is available in Appendix 1A. 4.4.2 The report outlined the communities’ key criteria for site selection, which were incorporated in the criteria and relative weightings used for the site scoring exercise where possible. A summary is included in Table 1. Page 12
Page 13
Table 1 – Communities’ Key Criteria for Site Selection Communities Key Criteria Site Selection Criteria Category 1. Keeping travel time to a minimum Education Impact 2. Keeping families together/ avoiding children going off island Community and Place Impact 3. Providing an equitable solution that offers the best access for as many people as possible, and uniting the north and south populations Community and Place Impact 4. Being able to sustain local populations and economies Community and Place Impact 5. Plenty of outside space for good sports facilities and outdoor activities Education Impact 6. Equitable access to after school clubs Accessibility and Transport Impact 7. Close to existing services such as shops and sports facilities Community and Place Impact 8. Good transport links and plenty of space for parking and safe, accessible drop off Education Impact Accessibility and Transport Impact 9. Providing access to good community facilities such as a library, gym and adult learning on the campus Education Impact 10. The ability to provide more subjects, including vocational subjects, and easier access for teachers to travel to the campus from Oban to provide specialist teaching N/A – range of subject choice is determined by the number of teachers/ pupils and size of school. Digital learning has potential to enable this regardless of school location. 11. The opportunity to develop, or make use of existing, active travel routes so children can walk and cycle to school Accessibility and Transport Impact 12. The ability to retain existing staff and attract new staff, including proximity to affordable housing N/A – report noted that these points are conflicting, would be subjective and difficult to score. 13. Limiting the impact on the existing school and/ or surrounding residents Community and Place Impact 14. Provision of good technology that can support online/ distance learning N/A – assessed at shortlisting stage, a requirement for all sites. 15. Space for future expansion Education Impact Page 13
Page 14
4.5 Transport Considerations 4.5.1 Transport was highlighted by the community as a key consideration due to the unique geography and infrastructure challenges on Mull and the islands. A detailed transport review has been undertaken to assess the baseline for the existing school provision and examine the transport impact of each shortlisted site option. The Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations report (January 2025) is available in Appendix 1H and contains a high-level summary in section 15 of the report. All data presented relates to a single one-way trip. 4.5.2 The following metrics were considered when evaluating the four site options for Mull Campus and these were assessed as part of the site scoring exercise: • Number of user journeys and mode split • Good public transport links to the site and location • Existing safe active travel links to site • Travel times for pupils and staff • Potential impact on public transport network • Ability of existing roads infrastructure to service site • Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel • Carbon impact of travel 4.5.3 The report outlines that the two Tobermory sites present minimal change to existing arrangements with travel time, distance and carbon emissions remaining broadly the same. For the centrally located sites the travel time, distance and carbon emissions would increase significantly. The combined totals for all 59 staff and 252 pupils are illustrated in table 2. Table 2 – Combined travel time, miles and carbon emissions (one-way trip) Site 1 Tobermory Existing Site 2 Craignure Site 3 Garmony Site 4 Tobermory South Time minutes (hours/ minutes) 4,488 (74h 48m) 10,799 (179h 59m) 9,229 (153h 49m) 4,810 (80h 10m) Vehicle miles 467 1,553 1,358 453 Carbon emissions (kg CO2E) 156 460 409 152 4.5.4 The total number of trips and modal split for all staff and pupils is shown in figure 1. The Garmony and Craignure site options demonstrate a significant shift away from active travel with approximately 4 additional buses required compared to the baseline. Page 14
Page 15
Figure 1 – Number of one-way trips by mode and site 4.6 Integrated Impact Assessments 4.6.1 The Council have a statutory duty to consider the potential impacts of any change to services or policy before key decisions are made. The Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) Report (January 2025) examines the economic, island communities, equality, children’s rights and wellbeing and Fairer Scotland Duty impacts on a high-level basis comparing a Tobermory option to a more central location. The report also provides detail at a site-specific level where this was required to inform the site scoring exercise. The IIA is attached in Appendix 1K. 4.6.2 Members are specifically requested to have regard to the IIA findings of the potential impacts on the distinct and unique communities on Mull and the islands, recognising that each site option affects these communities in different ways. A high-level overview is provided in this recommendation report; however Members are strongly encouraged to consider the full detail contained within the IIA before coming to any decision. Community Input 4.6.3 It is ultimately the Council’s duty to undertake the impact assessments, however the communities affected have an important part to play in informing these. A rich body of evidence was already available through the engagement exercises undertaken at the time of submitting the bid for LEIP funding in 2022, and the more extensive engagement undertaken in September 2024 as described in Appendix 1A. Bunessan Primary Parent Council had carried out an independent survey to gather the views and opinions of parents and carers at the school, and gave their permission for the findings to be included in the IIA process. 4.6.4 Over and above this, the chairs of community and parent organisations represented on the Community Sounding Board were invited to co-ordinate a Page 15
Page 16
response to the IIA process. Groups were emailed on 20th December, with engagement proformas issued on 6th January and a virtual briefing session held on 9th January 2025. Responses were requested by 22nd January 2025. In view of the engagement that had already taken place and the limited timescales available, community groups were asked to respond on behalf of their organisation. Taking cognisance of the potential commercial sensitivities, the exact details of short-listed sites were not shared at that point and groups were asked to provide views on the impact of a Tobermory site option and a central site option. 4.6.5 Following the briefing session some community organisations collectively issued a formal response detailing that they would not participate in the impact assessment engagement process at this stage. Concerns were raised around the timing of the impact assessments, the length of the engagement window and the level of detail available of the proposed sites for selection. As a result, the feedback received was minimal, although responses received from three of the organisations were taken into account. These responses along with the information collated from the extensive engagement activities in September 2024, the Bunessan Parent Council independent survey, and a further Pupil Forum Engagement exercise carried out in January 2025 informed the content in the IIA. 4.6.6 Mull Community Council and their Mull Campus Working Group subsequently advised the Mull Campus Team that they are conducting their own detailed survey, which they believe will assist councillors to make an informed decision. 4.6.7 The Mull Campus Team continue to engage with community representatives on the Community Sounding Board. The next meeting is scheduled for 20th February 2025 where the recommendation that is being put to Elected Members will be shared, and input will be sought on how best to provide an update to the communities affected once a decision is made by the Council. The Mull Campus Team wish to express their gratitude to community volunteers for the time and input they have invested in the project to date. Economic Impacts 4.6.8 The economic impact assessment identifies areas of economic benefit where the value is expected to differ depending upon the choice of site location. These include effects on local investment; effects on existing housing stock; impacts on educational attainment; parent/guardian loss of earnings; staff commuting costs and the cost of transport carbon emissions. 4.6.9 The differences in economic impact across the Tobermory and central site options are summarised in table 3 below. This concludes that the economic impact of the Mull Campus project will be £3,147,000 higher if the school were built in Tobermory than would be the case if it were built in a central location. Page 16
Page 17
Table 3 – Difference in economic impact between Tobermory and Central Site Options Summary Difference Investment Lost/Gained Due to Relocation £89,000 Existing Property Values £1,474,000 Students Lifetime Earnings £627,000 Changes to Parents Current Earnings £96,000 Cost of Commuting £640,000 Carbon Cost of Travel £221,000 Total Benefits £3,147,000 Island Communities Impacts 4.6.10 The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 provides a legal basis for greater decision making at a local level within Scottish Islands and seeks to increase economic prosperity for island communities. Central site location 4.6.11 The potential impacts of a central site location for young people and families living in the South and South West of Mull is summarised below: • Positive impact, bringing unity to the North and South communities. • Community members feel strongly that a central high school option is crucial to reversing current trends of depopulation in the South West. • Stimulate local economic, business and population growth. • Potential to positively impact social outcomes for children and young people by reducing the length of the journey to attend school. • Greater opportunity to interact with a larger cohort of children and young people on the island. 4.6.12 The potential impacts of a central site location for young people and families living in Tobermory and the North of Mull is summarised below: • Increased travel times to school for primary and secondary age children, potentially impacting physical health, sleep and exercise, mental health and academic performance. • 95 children in early years and primary school education would travel daily from Tobermory to a central location. The community were particularly concerned about the negative impact on younger children. • An additional 4 buses would be required to transport pupils daily. Children would no longer be able to walk to school from home. Page 17
Page 18
• Negative impact on the demographic structure of the area with a risk of depopulation if families chose to relocate or leave the island. • Potential loss of revenue for Tobermory-based businesses • Negative impact on parent’s and carer’s working patterns whilst also incurring additional fuel and maintenance costs for private vehicles, which may be unaffordable for some. • Increased vehicle trip generation with an increase in vehicle carbon emissions and potential adverse effects on local road infrastructure. Tobermory site location 4.6.13 The potential impacts of a Tobermory site location for young people and families living in the South and South West of Mull is summarised as follows: • No additional benefit, continue with status quo of local primary schooling and off-island secondary-school attendance. • Children feel tired from long journeys or spending extended periods of time away from home, potentially impacting physical health, sleep and exercise, mental health and academic performance. • Continued risk of depopulation, where families may decide to relocate to avoid the possibility of weekly boarding on the mainland. • 50% of parents in the South West of Mull have stated that they would consider leaving the area if the school is not built centrally. • Concern that previous decision to site the school in Tobermory resulted in generational impacts which shaped social outcomes. 4.6.14 The potential impacts of a Tobermory site location for young people and families living in Tobermory and the North of Mull is summarised as follows: • Positive impact to those who use the existing 2-18 School in Tobermory through the re-provision of enhanced and contemporary facilities. • Modern school could encourage population retention and growth. • No detrimental impact on working parents and carers and established Tobermory-based businesses. • Tobermory site option may be more attractive to recruit and retain teachers, which is currently an issue on Mull. • Supports active travel, children continue to walk to school from home. • Lower vehicle trips. No additional transport-related costs for families. All Site Locations - Health 4.6.15 An extended daily commute of 30 minute to an hour each way for children can have several impacts on physical health, sleep and exercise, mental health and academic performance. This is relevant to pupils in all site option scenarios who Page 18
Page 19
need to contend with longer journey times than their peers in other Argyll & Bute and Scotland locations. All Site Locations – Gaelic Language 4.6.16 The Mull Campus project could result in positive impacts for the use of Gaelic and promotion of Gaelic learning for pupils of all ages and the wider community. Equality Impacts 4.6.17 The Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between those with a protected characteristic and those without. The duty covers the following protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. A summary of the key impacts is provided in the paragraphs below. 4.6.18 It is considered that a central site option would positively impact children and young people and their families living in the South and South West of Mull and bring unity to the North and South communities of the island. During consultation, children and young people from these areas raised that a central site option would be fairer for them as they would not have to travel as far every day and could potentially participate in after school clubs. 4.6.19 However, children and young people from Tobermory and the North of Mull presented concern with a central site option as it would significantly increase their journey time to and from school, reduce their current freedoms and potentially remove their ability to attend after school clubs. They showed preference towards a Tobermory site option as they could continue to walk to school and because the majority currently live in and around Tobermory. 4.6.20 It is considered that all site options would positively impact disabled children as the school would have improved campus facilities, such as enhanced accessibility measures. However, there are potential negative impacts as a result of a central site as some disabled children may not be able to travel by public transport and this would put pressure on family members or caregivers who may not have access to a private car. Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impacts 4.6.21 The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 requires public bodies to consider whether existing and emerging legislation, policy and guidance have an impact on children and young people and to assess what further action is required to ensure compliance with the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). 4.6.22 The following impacts on children’s wellbeing have been considered: • The new campus has the potential to address long-standing accessibility challenges currently identified at the existing Tobermory 2-18 High School site and provide improved learning environments benefitting all Page 19
Page 20
pupils including those with additional needs and enhancing overall pupil wellbeing. • Increased travel times for children from Tobermory to a central site location could negatively affect children’s wellbeing and their ability to participate in extracurricular activities. • Safety, travel arrangements, and minimising disruptions during construction are key priorities raised by parents and pupils. • Some community members have expressed concern around the impact of boarding weekly on the health and wellbeing of secondary aged pupils from the Ross of Mull. There are concerns around the implications of this on children’s mental health and physical wellbeing, including their ability to participate fully in island life. 4.6.23 The following differential impacts were identified for different groups of children and young people: • A Tobermory site option maintains proximity for local children but continues challenges for children from the Ross of Mull, who may need to board off-island for secondary school. • A central site option provides more equitable secondary school access across Mull but disadvantages Tobermory’s younger children, who would face longer daily commutes to early years and primary school attendance. • Parents generally believe that older children can better adapt to longer travel times compared with younger children. • Community members emphasise the need to manage any knock-on effect on nearby primary schools if primary provision at Tobermory is relocated. 4.6.24 While the Mull Campus Proposals have the potential to significantly enhance education and children’s rights on Mull, they also present challenges around travel, wellbeing, and equitable access, particularly for specific groups of children. Ongoing consultation and mitigation strategies will be critical. Fairer Scotland Duty 4.6.25 The Fairer Scotland Duty (FSD) places a legal responsibility on certain public bodies in Scotland to actively consider how they can reduce inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage when making strategic decisions or developing policy. The FSD seeks to tackle socio-economic disadvantage and reduce the inequalities associated with being disadvantaged. It is closely related to issues of poverty which may affect outcomes across health, housing, education and training and employment prospects. Socio-Economic Disadvantage 4.6.26 The North, South West and South of Mull all fall into the least deprived 40% of areas in Scotland, whilst Tobermory performs even better in the bottom 30%. In Page 20
Page 21
terms of overall impact depending on the campus site selection, it is not clear how area deprivation could be affected by either site option. 4.6.27 There is a greater loss to earning and future earning for a central site location compared to Tobermory, which is reflective of the larger population in the Tobermory settlement. 4.6.28 Community feedback has expressed concern around the impact of children attending six years of their schooling off-island, limiting their opportunities to participate fully in family life and community life on the island. 4.6.29 There is a precedent for extended travel times on Mull for secondary school children accessing Tobermory High School from other localities on the island. Inequality of Outcome 4.6.30 Regardless of site location, the Mull Campus project presents a positive opportunity to address challenges in the quality and provision of education on the island through the provision of contemporary and sustainably designed educational facilities that would benefit pupils aged 2-18 in addition to the wider community. 4.6.31 The extent of this benefit is varied depending on whether this is delivered in a central or Tobermory Site location. The reality of the proposals means that there is the potential to affect different groups of children and young people and their communities by virtue of where they live on the island. 4.6.32 There could be negative impact on potential future earnings for children required to undertake longer daily journeys to school. Pupils who must travel further to school are less likely to attend university and may experience a loss of earnings as a result. 4.6.33 There could be higher sensitivity in local communities living near site options in Tobermory and a central site in relation to the provision of or re-provision of sports facilities that might be associated with the Mull Campus proposals. 4.6.34 The project has the potential to affect income both in terms of future earnings for pupils and the earning of parents and carers. IIA Conclusions 4.6.35 The current Tobermory 2-18 school building is in poor condition and is not fully accessible for children and staff with disabilities or additional support needs. A replacement of this facility with a new modern facility will provide a positive impact on education provision. 4.6.36 Many community members across the island feel strongly that a central high school is required to unite young people from the north and south of Mull and to provide an on-island secondary education option for children from the Ross of Mull. However, there is also a strong feeling across the island’s communities that early years and primary school education should not be relocated from Tobermory for the families residing there. Page 21
Page 22
4.6.37 The conclusions of the IIA show that there are benefits and disbenefits associated with all site options. However, under the constraints of the available funding, it is unlikely that either of the campus locations would be able to provide a fully equal solution for all children and young people living on Mull and the islands. 4.6.38 Regardless of site location, the campus has the potential to deliver a range of benefits to the island through the provision of contemporary and high-quality learning, sport and community facilities. It is recommended that the pupils and members of the community are closely involved in shaping the design of the new campus so that it can best meet the needs of people living on Mull and the islands. 4.7 Site Option Appraisal This section provides an indicative site plan for each shortlisted site illustrating how the buildings and external elements could be accommodated on the site. A summary of each site’s strengths and weaknesses is also provided, with more detailed information available in Appendix 1 Site Analysis Report (February 2025). 4.7.1 Site 1 – Tobermory Existing School Site Strengths • Status quo: no change to school location, no statutory consultation required • Keeps nursery and primary provision in Tobermory • Lower transport impact than central options (no change) • Maintains and encourages active travel (currently 30% of primary pupils and 40% of secondary pupils walk to school) • Economic benefit is £3.15m higher than a central island location Page 22
Page 23
• Very good access to community services, local shops and businesses • Close to existing housing and future allocated housing development sites (up to 150 units in the Tobermory area) • No site purchase costs, land already owned by council • Lower revenue cost than central site options Weaknesses • Challenging topography, significant level changes within the site and on approach • Poor roads and footpath infrastructure in surrounding area. • Would be difficult to deliver improvements to current bus drop off arrangements • Tight site with insufficient space for a full size 100m x 60m pitch, although a 7- aside pitch can be accommodated • Potential for significant disruption to existing school during construction activities • Requires use of common good land (which would be reinstated), statutory consultation required, unlikely to be acceptable to the local community • Impact on family life: too far to travel for young people from Ross of Mull, who would likely remain with the current arrangement of boarding away from home when attending High School during the week • Phased construction, demolition and pitches; prolonged construction programme 4.7.2 Site 2 – Craignure Strengths • Can accommodate the full education brief including good quality external space, parking and drop off areas and full-size pitch Page 23
Page 24
• Equity of access, bringing the island together and providing an opportunity for young people across the island to attend the same high school • Potential to positively impact on social outcomes for children and young people living in the South and South West of Mull, providing an option to attend high school and return home to their families daily. • Potential to reverse the depopulation in South West Mull and enable economic development and potential housing in Craignure and the south • Proximity to other community facilities; community hospital and swimming pool • Adjacent land is allocated for future housing development (80 units) with outline planning permission for 97 houses • Potential for shared enabling works and costs with adjacent development site • Low construction programme risk Weaknesses • More children would undertake longer daily journeys to school by bus, doubling the aggregate travel time for pupils overall • Very limited potential for active travel, majority of pupils and staff travel by bus or car • Negative impact for younger and primary school aged children (combined total of 95). No community support for the relocation of the nursery and primary school away from Tobermory. • Potential impact on parents/ carer’s working patterns, increased cost and carbon impact. • Possible adverse effect on local road infrastructure due to increased trip generation involving mainly single-track roads • Economic benefit is £3.15m lower than a Tobermory location • Increase in revenue costs; 4 additional school buses required Page 24
Page 25
4.7.3 Site 3 – Garmony Strengths • Can accommodate the full education brief including good quality external space, parking and drop off areas and full-size pitch • Equity of access, bringing the island together and providing an opportunity for young people across the island to attend the same high school • Potential to positively impact on social outcomes for children and young people living in the South and South West of Mull, providing an option to attend high school and return home to their families daily. • Potential to reverse the depopulation in South West Mull and enable economic development Weaknesses • More children would undertake longer daily journeys to school by bus, doubling the aggregate travel time for pupils overall • Very limited potential for active travel, all pupils and staff travel by bus or car • Negative impact for younger and primary school aged children (combined total of 95). No community support for the relocation of the nursery and primary school away from Tobermory. • Potential impact on parents/ carer’s working patterns, increased cost and carbon impact. • Economic benefit is £3.15m lower than a Tobermory location Page 25
Page 26
• Remote from residential areas and other amenities, closest facility is the rugby club to the north. • No planned development nearby and site has no designation under the Local Development Plan. • No footways or crossing opportunities on nearest road network • Possible adverse effect on local road infrastructure due to increased trip generation involving mainly single-track roads • High enabling costs as no adjacent utilities or roads infrastructure • Increase in revenue costs; 4 additional school buses required 4.7.4 Site 4 – Tobermory South Strengths • Very little change from existing as Tobermory location • Keeps nursery and primary in Tobermory • New site, no impact on existing school operations • Better quality roads and footpath infrastructure in surrounding area with potential to deliver improvements to bus drop off arrangements • Supports active travel; expected to remain broadly similar to the current school site • Lower transport impact than central site options (marginal change) • Economic benefit is £3.15m higher than a central island location • Good access to community services, local shops and businesses • Close to existing housing and to future allocated housing development sites (up to 150 units in the Tobermory area, 112 units in immediate area) Page 26
Page 27
• Lower revenue cost than central site options • Low construction programme risk Weaknesses • Tight site with insufficient space for a full size 100m x 60m pitch, although a 7- aside pitch can be accommodated (there are potential solutions available to provide a full-size pitch elsewhere) • Site purchase costs, land under multiple ownership and likely to be the most expensive of the 3 site options that would require land purchase • Impact on family life - significant travel distances for young people from Ross of Mull, who would likely choose to remain with current arrangement of board away from home when attending High School 4.8 Site Scoring Exercise 4.8.1 Sites were scored by a multidisciplinary team of technical experts, as described in paragraph 4.3.6. The team had access to the information contained within Appendix 1 to enable them to collectively agree a score. Each site was scored 0-10 across set criteria. A description is provided in table 4. Table 4 – Site scoring categories and description Score Category Description 0 Very poor Fails to meet any requirements, performs poorly in all aspects (a score of very poor for deliverability or capable of accommodating the brief is likely to result in the site failing the initial shortlisting) 1 2 Poor Factors or risks that would significantly impact on ability to meet the basic requirements of the brief and/or impact negatively on quality of education provision. Complex or costly solution required. Significant adverse impact. 3 4 5 Satisfactory Meets basic requirements, satisfactory 6 Good Performs well in most aspects, minor issues which can be relatively easily overcome, able to meet essential brief requirements 7 8 Very Good Meets requirements in full, negligible risk / impact, any perceived issues are very minor in nature, potential to provide a very good education solution 9 10 Excellent Ideal site, performs very well in all aspects, fully meets requirements, most cost-effective solution 4.8.2 Once scores were agreed, the weightings were applied to reflect the relative priority of each of the criteria, which resulted in a total weighted score for each site option. The categories and relative weightings were agreed by the project Strategic Board in advance of the scoring exercise and are outlined in table 5. Page 27
Page 28
Table 5 – Criteria Categories and Relative Weightings Used in Site Scoring Criteria Category Weighting Deliverability 15 Impact • Education • Community and Place • Accessibility and Transport • Sustainability 32 8 8 5 Affordability 25 Risk 7 TOTAL 100 4.8.3 The output from the site scoring exercise is attached as Appendix 2 and summarised in table 6. Table 6 – Weighted score and ranking for the shortlisted sites Weighted score Rank Site 1 – Tobermory Existing Site 625 3 Site 2 – Craignure 628 2 Site 3 – Garmony 546 4 Site 4 – Tobermory South 645 1 4.8.4 Site 4 – Tobermory South scores most highly and is ranked 1st. Sites 2 - Craignure and 1 – Tobermory Existing are close behind, with Site 3 – Garmony performing least well. 4.8.5 With the scores for the top three sites relatively close, further sensitivity analysis was carried out. This included removing the scores for each criteria category in turn to check if that had any impact. In all cases, Site 4 – Tobermory South remained the highest scoring option, with Site 3 – Garmony the lowest, suggesting a robust conclusion. 4.8.6 The four site options were also assessed on the number and distribution of very poor to excellent scores to check consistency of performance. This is illustrated in figure 2. Page 28
Page 29
Figure 2 – Number of scores by category for each site option 4.8.7 Figure 2 highlights that Site 4 – Tobermory South has significantly more cumulative good/ very good scores than poor scores, indicating a robust outcome. Site 2 – Craignure is the only other site where the number of cumulative good/ very good scores are greater than the number of poor scores. The number of poor scores for Site 1 – Tobermory Existing is equal to the number of cumulative good/ very good scores. 4.8.8 The site scoring exercise therefore indicates that Site 4 – Tobermory South performs the best of the four site options in respect of the agreed site selection criteria. 4.8.9 Site 3 – Garmony consistently performs the worst of the four options, and it is therefore not recommended that this option be considered further. 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Of the four sites shortlisted, three are deemed to be potentially viable and the benefits and challenges of each must be carefully considered. There is no definitive site option that will fully satisfy all project requirements and address all the potential impacts on the distinct groups on Mull and its surrounding islands. Regardless of the option chosen, there will be an element of compromise, and it should be acknowledged that a proportion of those groups will be dissatisfied with the outcome. 5.2 Based on the substantial body of information provided in Appendices 1 and 2 of this report, the preferred site for a new Mull Campus is Site 4 – Tobermory South Page 29
Page 30
and that is the option recommended to Members to progress the Outline Business Case on that basis. 5.3 This option would constitute a proposal to relocate the existing campus, and therefore a statutory consultation would be legally required under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. 5.4 It must also be noted that as the project progresses through the RIBA2 design stages and more detailed information becomes available, there may be a requirement for the Council to review their position on the preferred site. 5.5 In making their decision in accordance with recommendation (5.2), above, Members are specifically requested to have regard to the detail of the Integrated Impact Assessment (Appendix 1K) on the potential impacts to the relevant groups on Mull and its surrounding islands, as detailed therein, recognising that each site presents different benefits and disbenefits to these distinct groups. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – The Council’s Learning Estate Strategy 2021 sets out an ambition to have Schools in category A or B in terms of suitability and condition. Delivering a new Campus on Mull is the no.1 priority in that strategy to address the suitability and condition of the current campus in Tobermory and is also a Corporate Policy. 6.2 Financial – On 25th April 2024 the Council deemed the project to be affordable at that time. The site scoring exercise examined the potential revenue and capital affordability of each site option, giving cognisance to potential site acquisition and land disposal values, site abnormal costs and transport implications. 6.3 Legal – An Integrated Impact Assessment has been undertaken (Appendix 1K) to demonstrate how the proposals for a new Mull Campus show due regard to the socio-economic, equalities, child rights and island communities duties under the Equality Act 2010, the Fairer Scotland Duty, the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, and the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. 6.4 HR – None at this stage. One of the potentially viable site options would result in a change of base for staff. To be considered once the preferred site has been identified. 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – An equality impact assessment has been carried out to inform this decision. 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – An economic impact assessment and Fairer Scotland Duty assessment have been carried out to inform this decision. 2 Royal Institute of British Architects Page 30
Page 31
6.5.3 Islands Duty - An island communities impact assessment has been carried out to inform this decision. 6.6 Climate Change – The carbon impact of travel, embodied carbon and opportunities for sustainable heating solutions were considered as part of site scoring exercise. To be eligible for full LEIP funding the campus will require to meet certain criteria in respect of embodied carbon and operational energy use. 6.7 Risk – Sites were assessed against risk criteria, taking consideration of legal restrictions and site acquisition, construction programme and planning risks. 6.8 Customer Service – A community engagement exercise was undertaken to understand what was important to the communities when considering possible sites. Community groups and parent councils were invited to input their views as part of the integrated impact assessment process. 6.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – A children’s rights and wellbeing impact assessment has been carried out to inform this decision. Douglas Hendry, Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services and Education Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Financial Services Audrey Forrest, Policy Lead for Education 6 February 2025 For further information contact: Head of Commercial Services – Ross McLaughlin Head of Education and Lifelong Learning and Chief Education Officer – Jen Crocket Head of Education – Learning and Teaching – Wendy Brownlie Page 31
Page 32
APPENDICES Appendix Title Location Appendix 1 Hub North Scotland Site Selection and Engagement Report (February 2025) * Attached * Mod.Gov * Publicly Accessible 1A Community Engagement Analysis (November 2024) Mull Engagement Analysis 1B Long List of Sites (October 2024) Long-list 1C Short List Site Plans Short List Plans 1D Utilities Infrastructure Reports Appendices - Utilities 1E Preliminary Ground Conditions Review Geotech 1F Flooding and Drainage Report Flooding Drainage 1G Place Diagrams Place Diagrams 1H Transport Considerations Report (January 2025) * Summary Paper Attached * Mod.Gov Transport Considerations * Publicly Accessible 1I Site Abnormal Costs * Mod.Gov * Exempt 1J Wayleaves, Legal and Site Acquisition Risk * Mod.Gov * Exempt 1K Integrated Impact Assessment Report (February 2025) * Attached * Mod.Gov * Publicly Accessible 1L Valuation Report (January 2025) * Mod.Gov * Exempt Appendix 2 Site Scoring Outcome * Attached * Mod.Gov * Publicly Accessible Page 32
Page 33
North Schools Programme Mull Campus – Site Selection Site Analysis Report 06 February 2025 Prepared by: Scott Adams, Project Director Page 33 Agenda Item 3b
Page 34
1 Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Report ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Scope of Works ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Community Engagement ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.3 Call for Sites ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2.3.1 Long List .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.3.2 Short List ......................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Site Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Site 1 – Existing Tobermory School ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1.1 Deliverability .................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Educational Impact ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Community and Place ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.4 Accessibility & Transport ............................................................................................................... 11 3.1.5 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.6 Affordability ................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.7 Risk ............................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Site 2 – Craignure .................................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.1 Deliverability .................................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.2 Educational Impact ....................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.3 Community and Place ................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.4 Accessibility & Transport ............................................................................................................... 22 3.2.5 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 26 3.2.6 Affordability ................................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.7 Risk ............................................................................................................................................... 28 3.3 Site 3 – Garmony ................................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.1 Deliverability .................................................................................................................................. 29 3.3.2 Educational Impact ....................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.3 Community and Place ................................................................................................................... 32 3.3.4 Accessibility & Transport ............................................................................................................... 32 3.3.5 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 36 3.3.1 Affordability ................................................................................................................................... 36 3.3.2 Risk ............................................................................................................................................... 38 Page 34
Page 35
2 3.4 Site 4 – South Tobermory ...................................................................................................................... 39 3.4.1 Deliverability .................................................................................................................................. 39 3.4.2 Educational Impact ....................................................................................................................... 41 3.4.3 Community and Place ................................................................................................................... 42 3.4.4 Accessibility & Transport ............................................................................................................... 43 3.4.5 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 46 3.4.6 Affordability ................................................................................................................................... 46 3.4.7 Risk ............................................................................................................................................... 48 4.0 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 49 Appendix A – Engagement Report ................................................................................................................. 49 Appendix B – Long List Report ....................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix C – Short List Site Layouts ............................................................................................................. 49 Appendix D – Existing Utilities Report ............................................................................................................ 49 Appendix E – Desktop Geotechnical Report................................................................................................... 49 Appendix F – Flooding and Drainage Report.................................................................................................. 49 Appendix G – Place Plans .............................................................................................................................. 49 Appendix H – Transport Review ..................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix I – Site Abnormals Cost ................................................................................................................ 49 Appendix J – Wayleaves, Legal and Site Acquisition Risk ............................................................................. 49 Appendix K – Integrated Impact Assessment Report ..................................................................................... 49 Appendix L – Valuation Report ....................................................................................................................... 49 Page 35
Page 36
1 1.0 Executive Summary As part of the North Schools Programme, hub North Scotland have supported Argyll and Bute Council with site selection activities for the proposed 2-18 Mull Campus. This report details the analysis of site-options to allow for Argyll and Bute Council to undertake a scored evaluation of short-listed sites. 2.0 Report 2.1 Scope of Works As part of the Site Selection activity we have undertaken the following; • Outlining site requirements to support a call for sites • Supporting with the development of evaluation criteria for site selection • Undertaking screening and assessment of submitted sites for both long-listing and short-listing • Detailed technical analysis of short-listed sites in order to provide suitable information for Argyll and Bute Council to score against evaluation criteria • Community Engagement from 17th-25th September 2024, with output report to capture feedback. • Integrated Impact Assessments capturing socio-economic impacts of site selection. • Valuation of short-listed sites. This report brings together the information gathered and produced during the above activities and is intended to support informed decision-making in terms of selecting a suitable site for the proposed 2-18 Mull Campus. 2.2 Community Engagement A Community Engagement exercise was undertaken between the 17th and 25th September in a range of locations across Mull and Iona, these sessions were set-up to help understand which factors were important to the Community in selecting a site for the new 2-18 Mull Campus. 2.3 Call for Sites Argyll and Bute Council issued a call for sites on 28 August 2024 which outlined the initial criteria for land to site the proposed Mull Campus. The initial request was for sites to be at least 2.3 hectares and provisions of as much information as possible to assess the site. Our team undertook an initial screening of each site to confirm its suitability in terms of area for inclusion within the Long List. 2.3.1 Long List Following the Call for Sites a long list was produced which included ten sites to be reviewed for consideration as to whether they could accommodate the new 2-18 Mull Campus. Our team undertook a high-level review of each site to consider key constraints such as flood risk, ground conditions, accessibility and site abnormals which could make the sites prohibitive to development. An initial focus was given on suitability of each site to deliver the brief in terms of size, fit and accessibility. The Architect initially overlaid a footprint for a comparative project on each option to establish how this would fit. It was then possible to consider how this would sit within a wider site context to deliver an overall site which would be able to safely operate. Our technical team provided commentary relevant to Civil and Structural requirements, such as topographical and ground condition risks. Some of the sites provided through the Call for Sites were found to have substantial level changes and contain very poor marsh and peaty ground, making them unsuitable for development without significant remediation. Page 36
Page 37
� NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME A review of Mechanical & Electrical requirements focused primarily on utility risk and how easy it would be to service each site. As is typically the case in remote regions, there is unlikely to be an extensive network of utility services outwith primary routes and as such many sites were found to be located a distance away from existing infrastructure. For each long-listed site an initial review was carried out in terms of any transport impact. Several sites were found to have constrained accesses which would not be able to accommodate significant amounts of traffic during the delivery of the Mull Campus project or in final operation once the facility is live. Where more detail was provided at the long-listing stage this was also reviewed to understand any additional impact. Examples of this are seen around sites which may already have planning or detailed ground investigation/surveys carried out. The outcome of the long-listed sites was as follows; Site Reference Reason for not short-listing Existing Site (Tobermory) Shortlisted Site 001 (Craignure) Shortlisted Site 003 (Eas Brae) The site is considered to have a significant flood risk and is too constrained to include the full brief. Site 004 (Garmony) Site has significant flood risk and would struggle to accommodate the full brief. Site 005 (Garmony) Shortlisted Site 007 (Tobermory South) Access to the site would be challenging through existing residential area. Ground conditions are boggy/peat and topography of the site varies significantly. Site 008 (Salen) The site has significant flood risk and is constrained by existing infrastructure, including a power line through the site. The ground is also peat over bedrock which would require significant remediation. Site 011 (Tobermory South) Sites constrained and reliant on a 2 site approach. Unlikely to have suitable space to accommodate parking and drop-off/pick-up facilities. Site 012 (Tobermory) The site is too small to capture the full brief and is constrained in terms of adjustments. Access would be difficult and the site varies significantly in terms of levels. Site 013 (Tobermory) Shortlisted Site 014 (Tobermory) Access from the road is very steep and significant level change is seen across the site. Additionally ground conditions are boggy and drainage routes run across the site which restricts development. 2 Page 37
Page 38
3 On conclusion of this exercise it was agreed that three sites, plus the existing Tobermory School site would be progressed to a short-list for a more detailed site analysis. Full details of the long-listing review, which includes the high level analysis of each site, along with the existing Tobermory School site is included in Appendix B 2.3.2 Short List Following the long list review it was agreed that 4no. sites would be short-listed for detailed analysis. These are listed as follows; Site 1 – Existing Tobermory School Site 2 - Development site, Craignure Site 3 - Garmony Site 4 – South Tobermory Page 38
Page 39
4 3.0 Site Analysis • In order to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the short-listed sites we worked collaboratively with Argyll and Bute Council to set-out evaluation criteria consistent with site selection for comparable projects. This initially focused on key themes of; • Deliverability – A technical review of sites to confirm suitability for building of the new Campus. This was to focus on utilities, ground conditions and flood risk. • Education – A look in to how each site could meet educational requirements through a review of external environments and confirming how each site could cope with adaptation and expansion. Travel times are also to be included. • Community and Place – A view on how each site would impact the region through impact on residents, families and staff/pupils. Consideration should also be given to any impact on the local economy. • Accessibility and Transport – An improved understanding around the impacts of travel and transport against each of the identified sites. This would focus on existing links, including active travel and how the wider infrastructure network would support access to each site. • Sustainability – Consideration around how different sites could have an impact in terms of embodied carbon through existing structures, whilst also looking at carbon related to travel. • Affordability – A review on any site abnormals across various sites, also picking up site acquisition costs and any revenue implications across sites. • Risk – Any consideration around impact to the construction programme, along with any details around wayleaves, legal restrictions and planning risks. Within each of these headings we detailed out information that could be provided to support the evaluation activity. Page 39
Page 40
5 The Strategic Board for the 2-18 Mull Campus project agreed the following Evaluation Criteria; The X in the ‘Report Reference’ above is to be replaced with the number for each site as follows; 1 – Existing Tobermory School 2 – Development Site, Craignure 3 - Garmony 4 – South Tobermory This numbering links to the relevant sections within this report. Criteria Category Report Reference Evaluation Criteria Supplementary Appendix 3.X.1.1 Utility infrastructure - capacity and need for any diversions Appendix D 3.X.1.2 Ground conditions Appendix E 3.X.1.3 Topography Appendix E 3.X.1.4 Flood risk Appendix F 3.X.1.5 Site abnormals - 3.X.1.6 Habitat constraints - 3.X.2.1 Is the site capable of accommodating the brief in full? - 3.X.2.2 Quality of external environment to support outside learning, sports activities etc - 3.X.2.3 Does the site provide capacity for future expansion? - 3.X.2.4 Travel times for ELC and primary school pupils Appendix H 3.X.2.5 Travel times for staff and secondary school pupils Appendix H 3.X.2.6 Access and connectivity to good community facilities and services Appendix H 3.X.3.1 Impact on family life Appendix K 3.X.3.2 Equitable - unites north & south of island Appendix K 3.X.3.3 Sustain and support local economy Appendix K 3.X.3.4 Impact of construction activities on existing school/ residential areas - 3.X.4.1 Good public transport links to site and location Appendix H 3.X.4.2 Existing safe active travel links to site Appendix H 3.X.4.3 Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/ staff mode split) Appendix H 3.X.4.4 Potential impact on public transport network Appendix H 3.X.4.5 Ability of existing (wider) roads infrastructure to service site Appendix H 3.X.4.6 Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel Appendix H 3.X.5.1 Potential for re-use of existing infrastructure and buildings (embodied carbon) - 3.X.5.2 Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) Appendix H 3.X.6.1 Costs associated with site abnormals Appendix I 3.X.6.2 Potential acquisition/disposal costs Appendix L 3.X.6.3 Other (revenue) cost implications e.g. pupil transport - 3.X.7.1 Wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risk Appendix J 3.X.7.2 Construction Programme risk - 3.X.7.3 Planning designation and sensitive receptors - Education Risk Affordability Sustainability Accessibility & Transport Deliverability Community and Place Page 40
Page 41
6 3.1 Site 1 – Existing Tobermory School 3.1.1 Deliverability 3.1.1.1 Utility Infrastructure – capacity and need for any diversions Re-use of the existing school site for the New Mull Education Campus benefits from having existing Utilities infrastructure connectivity supporting the function of the existing school. Whilst existing connections exist, further engagement will be necessary with Utilities companies in respect of any anticipated increased capacities, particularly in relation to electrical infrastructure. We are advised that the existing school has an authorised capacity of 31kVA but that should be nearer 230kVA. Argyle and Bute Council are in the process of requesting an uplift in authorised capacity to reflect the current maximum demand. From the record information we can establish that utilities infrastructure is not present across the area proposed for the new school. There is however a strategy to be developed to maintain utilities to the existing school whilst the new school is constructed. It is anticipated that within that strategy existing Utilities diversions/ protection will be necessary that will affect Electricity, Water and Communications Infrastructure. Potential for positive Business Case for future connection of Net Zero heat networks The existing school site is located in the heart of the most populated settlement on Tobermory. Having the ability to connect the school in an area with the greatest population mass would be advantageous and could also be supported by potentially introducing waste heat energy into the network from businesses such as Tobermory Distillery. 3.1.1.2 Ground Conditions Based on desk study review only, it is envisaged that within Site 1 where raised beach deposits of sand and gravel are recorded to be present a shallow pad or traditional strip foundation design would be suitable. If softer material than expected is encountered a trench fill solution could potentially be adopted. Compressible superficial deposits are unlikely to be present onsite, indicated by the successful construction of the existing school building and associated infrastructure. If made ground is encountered at significant depths within the Site 1 boundary, related to historical quarries and construction on Site, the extraction of contaminated material would be required prior to forming foundations, or potentially piled foundations would be required. If bedrock is present at shallow depths, it is envisaged strip or pad foundations could be utilised bearing directly onto bedrock. The above is based on reasonable assumptions from published information only, and would require to be confirmed following completion of a targeted intrusive ground investigation campaign. The suitability of deposits underlying Site 1 are unknown and therefore the deposits earthworks suitability for reuse cannot be speculated upon prior to an intrusive ground investigation. No site or laboratory testing information is currently available with regards to the strength, density, water content and compressibility. It is therefore recommended that an intrusive ground investigation including in- situ testing and sampling for laboratory testing is conducted to fully assess the reusability characteristics of the underlying geology. Page 41
Page 42
7 It is highlighted that the presence of an igneous dyke (olivine) on the site may result in ‘hard-dig’ / possible need for blasting to facilitate excavation dependant on depth to rock and site levels. 3.1.1.3 Topography Topography imposes constraints on the existing school site, both within the grounds, and on the approaches to it. The existing school boundary area is elevated above land to the south, west and east, with land continuing to rise to the north, where residential properties overlook the school grounds. This present access challenges when approaching from west, east or south, with the only level route into the site coming from the northern edge. Within the school site, the ground slopes from north to south, with significant level changes which impact on the suitability of the existing buildings on site. All accommodate multiple levels internally to deal with the level changes. To avoid decant, developable land is restricted to the eastern part of the site, which comprises the all weather pitch and grass area to its south. This zone is surrounded by level changes - the eastern edge of the site drops down significantly to the level of the children’s play park. Land to the south drops steeply, while there is rocky ground to the north of this area as the land rises. The topography will impact on development primarily in the extent of useable external space available, and accessible routes being limited to coming in from the northern edge. The area of land comprising the pitch and grass area would allow an accessible, two storey solution to be built on site with limited or no internal level changes, as well as a 7 aside pitch. 3.1.1.4 Flood Risk The SEPA flood map indicates that Site 1 is not impacted by flooding from high tides or storm surges, or from fluvial flooding from nearby watercourses. Scottish Water’s infrastructure records indicate that a 228mm diameter vitrified clay combined sewer is located on Erray Road to the north, the likely location of an existing connection to the public sewer network. A 152mm diameter combined sewer is also location on Western Road at its eastern boundary. Scottish Water would need to confirm in a Pre-Development Enquiry response that there is sufficient capacity in their network to service the development of a new Education Campus. This can be offset by understanding what the current flow rate from the existing school provides. There is no public surface water drainage shown on the Scottish Water infrastructure records within the boundaries of the site. There are also no watercourses in the vicinity of the site which surface water runoff could be discharged to. It is therefore considered that the surface water runoff from the existing school facility must be conveyed to the existing public combined sewer network or drained into soakaways or to a combination of these drainage options. Scottish Water will only allow surface water from new development to discharge to the combined sewer network under exceptional circumstances. It is therefore not expected that surface water runoff from any redevelopment of the site will be permitted to be conveyed to the existing combined sewer network. However, if the site currently benefits from a surface water connection to the combined sewer and it can be shown that the amount of hardstanding has not been increased and is attenuated, a connection to the combined sewer may be possible. They may also require use of raingardens/bio retention zones and green roofs to be appropriately considered as well as potential for rainwater harvesting. The requirement to infiltrate surface water runoff to the subsoils will be dependent on Scottish Water permission to discharge surface water to the existing sewers and the rate of any allowance. Page 42
Page 43
8 The appropriate form of SUDS for redevelopment of the site will depend on the method of surface water disposal. Irrespective of the actual form of the SUDS, a significant proportion of the lowest lying area of the site will require to be allocated for the SUDS and this will place a constraint the development proposals. 3.1.1.5 Site Abnormals The key abnormal issues for the existing school site are taking into account the requirement for a tandem build, which will necessitate a phased approach, which will have an impact on programme duration and prelim costs. The area of the site where it is proposed to build the new campus is also designated as King George V land, with a presumption that it is retained for outdoor use. While there would still be an overall balance in the amount of external space provided as part of a new campus, consultation with Fields in Trust will be required to ensure the proposals are acceptable. It is also anticipated there will be a need for retention to the southern edge of the parking area and newly formed 7 aside all weather pitch. 3.1.1.6 Habitat Constraints All sites will require to have habitat and ecological surveys carried out as a matter of course as part of statutory approvals process to identify any protected and invasive species present. From a walkover of the existing school site, the potential for significant habitat impact would appear to be limited, though it is worth noting existing structures increases the possibility of bat roosting. 3.1.2 Educational Impact 3.1.2.1 Is the site capable of accommodating the brief in full? The site area is 2.3 ha. but the existing school must remain in operation during the construction stage, which limits the area of land available for locating the school. There is sufficient space on site to accommodate the new campus brief over two storeys and the levels of parking and servicing required, although parking areas will require significant regrading. Bus drop off may potentially need to maintain the current situation of 14m buses parking on adjacent streets depending on how drop off is prioritised against providing external space. The other limitation of the site is the inability to accommodate a full size 100m x 60m all weather pitch, and the extent of external learning and social space. A seven aside all weather pitch could be accommodated on site. 3.1.2.2 Quality of external environment to support outside learning The BB103 maximum and minimum areas for the pupil roll of the proposed Mull 2-18 campus (31 ELC children, 90 primary learners and 177 secondary learners) is 21,374sqm – 22,847sqm. The existing school site is 23,000sqm. External space is limited on site, although there still exists scope to create external learning environments, the majority enjoying a southerly aspect. The location of the new building as a result of keeping the existing school in operation means that external space will wrap around parking areas, which is less than optimal. The site has limited potential for a quality external learning environment. 3.1.2.3 Does the site provide capacity for future expansion? While the site is constrained, and the area of development restricted to the western part of the site due to the need to keep the existing school operational, there is scope to plan for modest future expansion to the east. This future expansion could extend to two additional standard sized classrooms, one at ground and one at first floor, plus ancillary areas. Locating the expansion at the east allows building servicing to remain operational during any future extension construction period. Page 43
Page 44
3.1.2.4 Travel times for ELC and primary school pupils � NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME The estimated one-way travel times for ELC and Primary pupils are derived from the Transport Review included in Appendix H is shown below. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. Travel time for minor legs of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys are likely to remain constant across all four sites . 3.1.2.5 SITE COHORT ...... Site 01 - Tobermory Primary 18 22 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 153 Travel times for staff and secondary school pupils 280 473 AVERAGE The estimated one-way travel times for Secondary pupils and Staff are derived from the Transport Review included in Appendix H is shown below. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. Travel time for minor legs of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys are likely to remain constant across all four sites . SITE COHORT ...... Site 01 - Tobermory Site 01 - Tobermory Secondary Staff 0 2,356 0 0 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 162 588 695 163 3.1.2.6 Access and connectivity to good community facilities and services 3,106 858 AVERAGE The existing school site is located centrally in Tobermory, the largest settlement on Mull. It is in close proximity to the residential areas which form the catchment for the primary school. It is also nearby residential areas which supply the single largest number of secondary school pupils to Tobermory High School. The school is well served in this location by a range of shops, food and drink offerings and cultural and community facilities. The existing school site is located centrally within Tobermory, and as a result enjoys the potential for easy links with local businesses, community resources and employers. 3.1.3 3.1.3.1 Community and Place Impact on family life In a survey of Bunessan Primary School families, only 5% of respondents said that they would consider sending their children to a high school in Tobermory. During public engagement sessions, a number of parents and young people in the South West of Mull have expressed concerns around their children's ability to fully 9 Page 44
Page 45
10 enjoy family life if they are required to board on the mainland from Monday to Friday. Many respondents have raised concerns about the impact this has on young people during their teenage years which is a significant developmental period. Many members of the community have referenced Article 9 – Children should not be separated from their parents in relation to the current scenario where children from the Ross of Mull are required leave their family homes weekly to board on the mainland in order to attend Oban High School. Many argue that secondary- school aged children are entitled to remain with their families during the week and the current catchment provision does not allow for this. A central site option could allow greater choice for pupils and families living in the Ross of Mull to attend secondary school on the island which would allow children to more fully enjoy all aspects of family life during their time at secondary school. • While the premise of citing Article 9 is important, the Article legally does not apply to the current proposals. However, that should not invalidate the concerns of children, young people and their families who wish to avoid boarding on the mainland as part of the decision-making process. Equitable – best access for as many as possible Further details can be found in the Integrated Impact Assessment Report within Appendix K 3.1.3.2 Equitable – unites north & south of island Retaining education provision in Tobermory would positively impact pupils, families and community members currently utilising the existing Site through the re-provision of enhanced and contemporary facilities. This could also encourage population retention and growth in the area. However, there would be no additional benefit to families living in the South West of Mull, who would likely continue with status quo education arrangements for local primary schooling and off-island secondary-school attendance. This option poses the continued risk of depopulation with the South West of Mull, where families may make decisions to relocate on the basis of their child’s education and to avoid the possibility weekly boarding on the mainland. Site 01 - Tobermory will retain familiar travel patterns as current conditions would largely be unchanged. It is conveniently located within walking distance for most existing housing in Tobermory with 90% of pre-5 and primary school pupils currently living within a 5-minute walking distance as highlighted in Appendix H. Constraints have been noted for the site whereby access for larger vehicles such as HGVs and buses may be challenging. 3.1.3.3 Sustain and support local economy An Economic Impact Assessment has been prepared, this outlines that if the campus was located in Tobermory, the economic benefit would be £3,147,000 higher than would be the case if the campus was built in a central island location. This assessment takes into account investment stimulus acknowledging that schools influence the attractiveness of an area for potential residents and therefore the value of future housing developments. The full Economic Impact Assessment is included in Appendix K. 3.1.3.4 Impact of construction activities on existing school/ residential facilities The existing school is located on central Tobermory, with residential streets to the north on Erray Road and Western Road, and the residential back lane to the south. Back Brae has less residential properties, but falls Page 45
Page 46
11 steeply away from the school site to the west. The surrounding streets are narrow, and will present logistical challenges during the construction phase of the project, with inevitable impact to surrounding residential properties. A tandem build will also impact on the daily operations of the school due to the close proximity of construction activity with associated deliveries and noise. However, a competent contractor can successfully manage operations on a live school site and mitigate impact with appropriate forward planning. 3.1.4 Accessibility & Transport 3.1.4.1 Good public transport to site and location Existing Conditions The morning and afternoon school services current serve the site by way of the bus layby on Erray Road. Tobermory is additional served throughout the day by the 494 and the 95/495. Future Conditions The site could incorporate approximately three bus stances adjacent to the school entrance to enable safe boarding and disembarkation of pupils. Alternatively, as a result of site constraints, the use of the bus bays on Erray Road could continue to be utilised, perhaps with some rationalisation or upgrade. 3.1.4.2 Existing safe active travel links to site Existing Conditions Pedestrian facilities are limited to larger residential streets on the adjacent road network such as Erray Road and Victoria Street. There is also an off-road path between Back Brae and Main Street via Middle Brae and a set of steps. Future Conditions While infrastructure is currently limited, off-site improvement works would likely be a requirement following the standard consultation and transport assessment processes. 3.1.4.3 Number of user journeys – bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/staff mode split) As there will be little change to travel characteristics the anticipated mode share for the Tobermory site it has been assumed the mode share will remain the same as the results of a hands up survey conducted at the existing Tobermory 2-18 school. For completeness this mode share is presented below; Page 46
Page 47
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Primary Site 01 -Mode Share Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Secondary ■Walk ■Taxi ■Bus ■Car ■Ferry Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Staff NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME Currently around 30% of primary-aged pupils walk to the site and 70% are driven to the site. There are also a few trips facilitated by taxi or bus. 40% of secondary-aged currently walk to the site and 45% arrive by bus. A further 15% drive or are driven to the school. 33% of staff walk to the site and the remining 67% currently drive. Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected number of trips by each mode is presented below; Site 01 -Multi-Modal Trips SITE COHORT ------ Site 01 - Tobermory Primary 29 2 1 64 0 95 ] Site 01 - Tobermory I Site 01 - Tobermory Secondary Staff 64 20 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 0 0 71 22 0 157 0 39 0 As the T obermory site is located on the existing school site no changes to the current bus operations are anticipated. The buses which would be required for secondary school pupils are one bus from Calgary I Dervaig, one bus from Torloisk and Ulva Ferry via Salen and one bus from Lochbuie Crossroads. The annual revisions of the network and its complex dependencies are expected to be broadly in line with existing operations. The below map illustrates the anticipated bus network for Site 01. 12 Page 47
Page 48
13 Site 01 Anticipated Bus Network 3.1.4.4 Potential impact on public transport network As there will be no requirement to amend the bus services associated with school transport there is unlikely to be any impact, positive or negative, on the wider public transport network. 3.1.4.5 Ability of existing (wider) roads infrastructure to service site The site is already a part of the established road network and the site’s vehicular access would remain. The increase in car parking within the site will reduce the instances of on-street car parking occurring on the adjoining residential streets, in turn making it easier for buses to navigate these streets. There can at times be complexities in accommodating and manoeuvring larger vehicles on the site, particularly when multiple vehicles are present at once. Buses which arrive via Argyll Terrace then have to reverse up Erray Road with the aid of a banksman. 3.1.4.6 Trips with complex dependencies/multiple stages and modes of travel Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3 of the Transport Review in Appendix H. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. 3.1.5 Sustainability 3.1.5.1 Potential for re-use of existing infrastructure and buildings (embodied carbon) There are a range of existing buildings on site with the potential for re-use. However, their suitability is severely impacted by the level changes which occur within most buildings which result in accessibility issues. The ELC building is more recent than other structures and does have re-use potential with appropriate internal reconfiguration, although the external spaces would benefit from upgrading and reorientation. The site also Page 48
Page 49
NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME benefits from existing servicing although it is anticipated that some upgrading of capacity may be required. There is existing pedestrian links and vehicular access to the site, although the gradients present a challenge. 3.1.5.2 Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Tobermory site are presented below. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle as opposed to each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Site 01 - Travel Distance (Miles) Site Cohort TOTAL Site 01 - Tobermory Primary Site 01 - Tobermory Secondary 6 0 0 6 0 63 0 63 42 57 303 402 48 ___=] 121 � Site 01 - Tobermory Staff 303 � Site 01 -Tobermory Total 471 � As with any new development of this nature Travel Planning measures have the potential to positively influence travel, particularly among staff members. A Travel Plan would seek to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce the number of vehicle miles incurred. Applying the carbon emission assessment methodology outlined in Section 10.7 the estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the Tobermory site is presented below. Site 01 - Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) Site -- Primary 0 Secondary 0 0 67 0 9 79 67 TOTAL 7 I I Site 01 - Tobermory Site 01 - Tobermory Site 01 - Tobermory Site 01 - Tobermory Staff Total 0 0 67 9 12 67 89 156 Any increase in carbon emissions from bus travel may only be temporary. In line with current national policy bus fleets are gradually transitioning to electric and hydrogen systems. A similar transition is likely to occur to the car fleet, as residents increasingly embrace the use of electric cars. 3.1.6 3.1.6.1 Affordability Costs associated with site abnormals The existing school site will have a number of key factors impacting on the construction capital cost associated with this particular site compared to any other. A key difference is the need to construct the site adjacent to a 'live' school, and this adds a further layer of complexity to construction management. Men, plant and materials will need to be organised in a different way from a 'green field' and unfettered site. This may mean phased operations, different working hours and material delivery regime and this will result in impact on programme of works usually increasing the time to build the same building here as opposed to the alternative site options. 14 Page 49
Page 50
� NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME Ground conditions have yet to be fully understood and engineering consultants Waterman have indicated potential for the need to break out rock, which comes at a cost premium, but at this stage is dependent on site investigation and geotechnical reporting. Watermans have also suggested there could logically be the presence of contamination within the site given the central Tobermory location, the existing school site adjacent and the former quarrying on the site. Ground remediation potentially comes at a significant cost, but again is un tested and unquantifiable at this stage and is subject to further reporting. The efficiency of being able to accommodate 71 carparking spaces, bus lay down areas and provide service vehicles to access the new school will differ for each site, either requiring more or less hard standing than the other alternative sites. Site 1 has slightly more hardstanding than the alternative sites so this comes at a potential additional cost, though conversely does not require any new access roads to be built to accommodate the new school. Site levels indicate the need to provide some ground retention works to accommodate the site's natural slope to the south. As a result, an allowance for retaining walls to the southern carparking and the 7 a side pitch has been made here. Flood risk is considered non existent and normal surface water drainage management is anticipated. This site will have the advantage of not requiring any separate drainage system provided the drainage management design can be shown not to increase current surface water discharge into the existing drainage infrastructure. Utilities provision, the site is adjacent to the full suite of utilities provision. Design consultants RYBKA have noted that capacity and ability for the new school to connect to the existing infrastructure will be subject to further design and discussion with utility providers, but at the moment is assumes to have no abnormal cost uplift. Due to the 'live' site and proximity to the retained school, some element of protection and diversion of utilities will be likely and has been assessed here. Summary: Site Site 1- Existing Tobermory School Site CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS GROUND CONDITIONS SITE WORKS FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE UTILITIES TOTALS 3.1.6.2 Potential acquisition/disposal costs Argyll and Bute Council are in ownership of the existing Tobermory School site, therefore there would be no assumed acquisition costs. A valuation report has been provided in Appendix L to give an indication. 3.1.6.3 Other (revenue) cost implications e.g. pupil transport Argyll and Bute Council have assumed there would be no adjustment to revenue costs in relation to transport costs if the existing Tobermory school site is selected, as shown below; 15 Page 50
Page 51
Additional revenue Costs Pupil Transport - additional cost Staff Travel-additional cost Total potential additional cost per annum 3.1.7 Risk Detail 4 buses @ f6k per calendar month for 10.5 months 10 journey per week 40 weeks *miles *4Sp per mile less £2.91 per week Site 1 • Site 2 • Existinc Craicnure Toberrnory site 0 221,600 0 69,519 0 291,119 3.1.7.1 Wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risk Site 3 • Garmony 252,000 58,587 310,587 � NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME Site 4 • Toberrnory south site 0 0 0 Argyll and Bute Council have provided information detailing out ownership, wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risks within Appendix J. 3.1.7.2 Construction Programme risk The construction programme for the existing Tobermory site is likely to be longer due to requirement for a tandem-build and the need to undertake phased delivery which will likely include construction of a new school, demolition of the existing school and any landscaping/pitch works to be completed. There is also a risk delay due to implications of working within a constrained site and having to adapt methodology. All sites are impacted evenly in terms of reliance on ferry crossings to support construction activities. 3.1.7.3 Planning designation and sensitive receptors The site has no designation under LDP2. The King George V land is designated as an Open Space Protection Area. The site lies at the edge of the Conservation Area so there will likely be a requirement for a Visual Impact Appraisal. Under NPF4 a case for the demolition rather than reissue or refurbishment of the school would also be required. There is no requirement for HSE consultation with this site. 16 Page 51
Page 52
17 3.2 Site 2 – Craignure 3.2.1 Deliverability 3.2.1.1 Utility Infrastructure – capacity and need for any diversions The site is situated to the northern boundary of Craignure and adjacent to Mull and Iona Community Hospital. The utilities record drawings received show that the proposed site is clear of existing utilities with no anticipated abnormal costs for diversions within the proposed site. Existing Electricity (LV and 11kV), Mains Water and Communications infrastructure exists to the south of the site and serves the Hospital, Swimming Pool and Hotel to the south as well as residential units. On the assumption that capacities are available in the existing infrastructure they would need to be extended by approximately 400m to reach the proposed new school and will need to be co-ordinated with the proposed future housing development site arrangement. Alternatively, there is potential to connect into the existing infrastructure along the A849 to the west of the site. Infrastructure would need to extend approx. 400m and may present better opportunities in terms of capacity availability. Potential for positive Business Case for future connection of Net Zero heat networks Opportunities for a supporting a business case at Craignure exist given the close proximity of larger energy consuming facilities such as the Hospital, Swimming Pool and Hotel. At present heat network support to the local community near the Craignure site is limited although this may be increased should the proposed future housing development progress. 3.2.1.2 Ground Conditions Published mapping indicates raised marine deposits are present within Site 2. Raised marine deposits frequently contain soft organic clays which, dependant on thickness, may potentially require more onerous foundation solutions such as piles, or ground improvement, in place of traditional shallow foundations. This is largely speculative however, based on reasonable assumptions from published information only, and would require to be confirmed following completion of a targeted intrusive ground investigation campaign. The stratum recorded to underly Site 2 is predominantly Raised Marine and Beach deposits including sands, gravels, cobles and sites are greater depths. No site or laboratory testing information is currently available with regards to the strength, density, water content and compressibility. It is therefore recommended that an intrusive ground investigation including in-situ testing and sampling for laboratory testing is conducted to fully assess the reusability characteristics of the underlying geology. It is highlighted that the presence of olivine basalt below the northern half of the site may result in ‘hard-dig’ / possible need for blasting to facilitate excavation dependant on depth to rock and site levels. 3.2.1.3 Topography Topography has limited impact on the proposed development site. The site has a gradual but significant fall from southeast to northwest, and is bound at the northern corner by a steep level change which rises up to higher ground at the north, although this step from a natural boundary to the site. The nature of the main fall across the site is gradual, and would not present a significant issue in developing the new campus. Page 52
Page 53
18 It is anticipated that the site would be formed so that parking and the main school building occupy the lower portion of the site to the northwest, with the pitch occupying the higher ground to the southeast. External social space would be used to accommodate the level change in a way which limits the use of any retaining walls. Topography will impact on any potential new access road formed from the west however, as the A848 is at a significantly higher level than the adjacent part of the site. Ensuring appropriate gradients for any new route is a key consideration. 3.2.1.4 Flood Risk The SEPA flood map indicates that Site 2 is not impacted by flooding from high tides or storm surges. The SEPA Flood Map show medium to high risks around the Site 2, but the Site boundary is at "low to no" risk of surface water flooding. The proposed development should incorporate measures for effective surface water management. Specifically, it is essential to intercept, treat, and attenuate surface water before it is discharged in a controlled manner through a new on-site drainage network. Implementing these measures will ensure compliance with local council policy and contribute to effective flood risk management and water quality protection. Scottish Water’s infrastructure records indicate that the nearest location for wastewater disposal is located in the adjacent housing development in Java Place with 100mm diameter uPVC combined sewers discharging towards coastal waters. Scottish Water would need to confirm in a Pre-Development Enquiry response that there is sufficient capacity in their network to service the development of a new Education Campus. It should be noted that offsite improvement works may be required to facilitate a connection to the Scottish Water network but depending on timing, this work may be carried out as part of any planned housing development surrounding the Site. Placement of carrier drains through adjacent land would need to be considered so that it does not cause issues for future development if School site is developed in advance of any housing development. There is no public surface water drainage shown on the Scottish Water infrastructure records within the boundaries of the site. There are also no watercourses in the vicinity of the site which surface water runoff could be discharged to. Scottish Water will only allow surface water from new development to discharge to the combined sewer network under exceptional circumstances. It is therefore not expected that surface water runoff from any redevelopment of the site will be permitted to be conveyed to the existing combined sewer network. A new surface water connection through Java place towards the existing outfall may be considered but again, depending on timing, a surface water connection may have been made by any planned housing development. It should be noted that no records are available for the Mull and Iona Community Hospital surface water discharge and can be assumed that this infiltrates to the ground. Therefore, an appropriate method for treating and disposing of surface water from a new facility on the site would need to be established. Further investigation and consultations are required to establish the feasibility of these options. The investigations that are required to establish if surface water runoff from proposed development can be infiltrated into the subsoils will comprise intrusive ground investigation and insitu testing to determine the suitability of the ground conditions. The requirement to infiltrate surface water runoff to the subsoils will be dependent on Scottish Water permission to discharge surface water to the existing sewers and the rate of any allowance. The appropriate form of SUDS for redevelopment of the site will depend on the method of surface water disposal. Irrespective of the actual form of the SUDS, a significant proportion of the lowest lying area of the site will require to be allocated for the SUDS and this will place a constraint the development proposals. Page 53
Page 54
3.2.1.5 Site Abnormals � NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME The Craignure site has limited abnormals, but there is the need to form a new vehicular access from the A848 to an acceptable standard. The proximity of the helipad servicing the hospital will also need taken into consideration, particularly during the construction phase. 3.2.1.6 Habitat Constraints All sites will require to have habitat and ecological surveys carried out as a matter of course as part of statutory approvals process to identify any protected and invasive species present. Ecological surveys have been carried out in close proximity to the site previously, which identified no evidence of protected species. The site is at low risk of any habitat constraints. 3.2.2 3.2.2.1 Educational Impact Is the site capable of accommodating the brief in full? At 3.27ha, the identified site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the new campus building at two storeys, a full size all weather pitch, external learning areas and associated car parking, servicing and bus drop off areas on site. 3.2.2.2 Quality of external environment to support outside learning The 88103 maximum and minimum areas for the pupil roll of the proposed Mull 2-18 campus (31 ELC children, 90 primary learners and 177 secondary learners) is 21,374sqm-22,847sqm. The Craignure site is 33,000 sqm and is therefore able to accommodate the required amount of external space provision. The site has the capacity to enjoy a broad south facing aspect for secure external learning, sports and social spaces, clearly distinct from carparking, servicing and drop off areas. With good long range views, it has high potential to create good quality external learning environments. 3.2.2.3 Capacity of site for future expansion The Craignure site is large enough to allow for generous future expansion, which we anticipate would be located at the western end of the school to allow the servicing yard and plant areas to remain operational during any future extension construction period. While the extent of any future expansion is unknown at this time, an additional four standard sized classrooms plus supporting spaces would be easily accommodated over two floors. 3.2.2.4 Travel times for ELC and primary school pupils The estimated one-way travel times for ELC and Primary pupils are derived from the Transport Review included in Appendix H shown below. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. Travel time for minor legs of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys are likely to remain constant across all four sites . SITE Site 02 - Craignure COHORT Primary ...... 70 3,084 140 0 3,294 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding AVERAGE 19 Page 54
Page 55
3.2.2.5 Travel times for staff and secondary school pupils � NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME The estimated one-way travel times for Secondary pupils and Staff are derived from the Transport Review included in Appendix H shown below. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. Travel time for minor legs of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys are likely to remain constant across all four sites . 3.2.2.6 SITE COHORT ...... Site 02 - Craignure Site 02 - L.,:raignure Secondary Staff 0 0 5,147 328 0 1,966 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding Access and connectivity to good community facilities 48 5,523 16 1,982 AVERAGE The Craignure site enjoys the benefit of close adjacency to the Mull Community Pool for enhanced sports provision. It is also close to the Mull and Iona Community Hospital and Isle of Mull Hotel, which has the potential for partner working with secondary pupils. The site is also close to the ferry terminal, which offers advantages for access for visiting staff from the mainland. The Craignure site is in close proximity to the ferry terminal, and directly adjacent to Mull and Iona Community Hospital, Isle of Mull Hotel and the Community Swimming Pool. There is a small number of residential properties to the east of the site, with a planning consent in place for future residential development to the south and east of the proposed school site. The main Craignure settlement is further to the southeast, connected by a pedestrian footpath, which contains housing, a shop and cafe. 3.2.3 Community and Place 3.2.3.1 Impact on family life A central location would allow the majority of high-school pupils living on Mull to attend the same school. This would benefit all young people but in particular allow young people from the Ross of Mull to attend high-school on the island and return home to their families daily. This would bring a significant positive impact to young people in localities who are currently required to board on the mainland. There is also a strong community sentiment that this could help to reverse trends of depopulation in the Ross of Mull and continue to support population growth for young people and families elsewhere on the island. With a central location, journey times would increase for families living in Tobermory (assumed to double in time on average) and families living in South West Mull would still need to undertake longer journey times of approximately 1 hour each way, which is significantly higher than average school journey times across Scotland. This is likely to impact family life for many children, young people and their families who currently live in close proximity to Tobermory High-School or who would be required to undertake longer daily journeys as a result of the central location. This could affect the working patterns of parents who would be required to collect/drop-off children from school or other clubs and activities. 20 Page 55
Page 56
21 A central location option would require more children and young people aged 2-18 to undertake longer daily journeys to school by bus. A number of children and young people in Tobermory Primary and High School have expressed concerns around the implications of daily travel to a central location and the impact this could have on their health and wellbeing, including tiredness, ability to concentrate in school and opportunities to be active either through walking to school or having time to attend afterschool clubs. These impacts could also have a knock-on effect on pupil’s family lives if they are unable to fully participate in family live due to longer travel times, feeling tired or not having their needs met in terms of access to leisure, social opportunities and time to be physically active. 3.2.3.2 Equitable – unites north & south of island West Mull has experienced a depopulation rate of 8% amongst its 0-15 year old age group while North Mull has experienced a depopulation rate of 3% in this age group. Comparatively, the South of Mull has seen a significant increase in population growth for this age group at 36%, while Tobermory has experienced a 15% increase in this age group. A centrally located campus is sensitive to the demographic challenges faced by families living in South West Mull and would benefit families with teenage children attending secondary school in this region. A number of local families have expressed that attending boarding school on the mainland has negatively impacted their children and discourages young people from settling back in the local community in adulthood, increasing worries over depopulation. A centrally sited option is expected to allow all children on Mull to attend the same high school with reduced travel times for many pupils in the South and South West of Mull areas and allow for greater socialising amongst young people on Mull. This could have the potential to strengthen community cohesion amongst young people and their families leading to positive social benefits for all island communities. It would also encourage unity between communities in the North and South of Mull. With a Central site option, there is also the potential for negative demographic implications for those living in Tobermory which is Mull’s largest settlement area. Views expressed from community members suggest that families could choose to move away from Tobermory if early years and primary school provision were removed which could result in depopulation if families choose to leave the island. Both Site 03 Garmony and Site 04 Craignure would lead to increased travel times, distances and carbon emissions, particularly if the catchments are expanded to include the Ross of Mull. Average journey times would increase by approximately 20 minutes for Craignure and 15 minutes for Garmony, necessitating additional bus services in each case. While Craignure offers some potential for active travel with its proximity to an 80-unit residential housing allocation, it is noted that improvements would need to be made footways and cross infrastructure. Garmony lacks nearby housing and has no planned developments at present. There are also limited benefits from improving footways or crossings on the adjacent highway network at this location. 3.2.3.3 Sustain and support local economy An Economic Impact Assessment has been prepared, this outlines that if the campus was located in Tobermory, the economic benefit would be £3,147,000 higher than would be the case if the campus was built in a central island location. This assessment takes into account investment stimulus acknowledging that schools influence the attractiveness of an area for potential residents and therefore the value of future housing developments. The full Economic Impact Assessment is included in Appendix K. Page 56
Page 57
22 3.2.3.4 Impact of construction activities on existing school/ residential facilities Although the Craignure site is open, the site is in close proximity to the Mull and Iona Community Hospital which would be impacted on by adjacent construction operations, with the close proximity of the helicopter landing pad requiring pre-construction dialogue with the Air Ambulance service to mitigate the impact of construction operations. Residential properties around Java Place will not be significantly impacted on by site operations as it is highly likely construction traffic will not access the site along the existing road leading to it. 3.2.4 Accessibility & Transport 3.2.4.1 Good public transport links to site and location Existing Conditions The adjacent Mull and Iona Community Hospital is currently served by the service 95 bus. The 96/496 Craignure to Fionnphort service terminates at the nearby ferry terminal. Future Conditions The site would incorporate approximately four bus stances to enable pupils to board and disembark safely. These bays would ideally be positioned within the site such that bus doors opened directly onto an expansive pedestrian space, thereby removing the needs for pupils to interact with the car park and other trafficked spaces. The primary and secondary school days finish approximately 20 minutes apart. Unlike the morning period, where buses are only present on site for as long as it takes for pupils to disembark, buses are required to be present on site in anticipation of the afternoon school bell. This means it is more likely that several buses would be present on site at once. To avoid a scenario where buses blocked the operation of the car park, bays could be incorporated to the site access road to enable empty buses/coaches for the secondary school to dwell while the primary school buses are boarded. 3.2.4.2 Existing safe active travel links to site Existing Conditions There is currently limited active travel provision in Craignure. Footways which are provided on both sides of the A849 in the 30mph section are narrow. The footway is present on the north side of the road only, beyond the ferry terminal. This footway then stops beyond the entrance to the Mull Community Swimming Pool. There are currently no formal pedestrian crossings on the A849. Future Conditions While infrastructure is currently limited, it is clear that a package of off-site improvement works would be required to ensure the safe integration of the site to the established transport network. The scope of those works would emerge through the detailed Transport Assessment which would accompany and inform a Planning Application. At the time of writing, it seems likely that this package would at least comprise enhancements to existing footways, provision of new links where none are currently present and the delivery of new, safe crossing opportunities. It seems reasonable to assume that the adjacent residential allocation could be developed in a manner which facilitates active travel between Craignure and the school site. Page 57
Page 58
3.2.4.3 Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/staff mode split) � NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME The anticipated mode share for the Craignure site, in a scenario where the catchments do not change, is presented below. For comparative purposes, the forecast mode split is presented in the context of established travel behaviour at the existing Tobermory 2-18 school. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Primary Established Established Site 03- Behaviour Behaviour Craignure (Tobermory) (Tobermory) Secondary Staff Primary ■Walk ■Taxi ■Bus ■Car ■Ferry Site 02 - Indicative Mode Share Site 03- Site 03- Craignure Craignure Secondary Staff The majority of both primary and secondary-aged pupils would be required to travel to the Craignure site by bus for the main leg of their trip. This mode share is based upon existing travel behaviours and the modelling exercise which is outlined in Chapter 9 of the Transport Review in Appendix H. If established pupil and staff cohorts were to transfer to this site, a clear implication would be that those whose existing trip is made on foot would need to select an alternative travel mode. In view of the Council's obligation to provide school buses for pupils whose trip cannot be made on foot, it would seem likely that the majority of existing pedestrian trips would become bus trips. While such a change is likely to cause some disruption in the short-term, the principle established by the existing Tobermory to Salen GMU bus demonstrates that primary school transport over an extended distance is practical and feasible. Importantly, in the context of the Salen GMU service, the Council has been able to understand, and address, concerns which had initially been expressed by parents around the requirement for primary school age children to travel by bus. There will be limited opportunities the Craignure site to support trips on foot with just a handful of secondary school pupils and staff currently residing in Craignure. Should the adjacent site be developed with housing, it is reasonable to anticipate that a larger number of trips by active travel modes would result. Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected trips by each mode is presented in below; 23 Page 58
Page 59
Site 02 -Multi-Modal Trips � NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME SITE COHORT ........ Site 02 - Craignure I Site 02 - Craignure Primary 0 2 88 5 0 95 1 Secondary 3 0 143 11 0 1577 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 0 0 58 0 59 ] Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding In order to serve the anticipated 231 pupils travelling by bus a total of approximately 7 buses will be required. It is expected that two buses/coaches would be provided to serve primary pupils travelling from Tobermory to Craignure. These would likely have a capacity of around 45 seats each and would operate as closed-door services, i.e. not open to members of the public. For secondary school pupils, up to five buses (potentially of varying size) would be required. • One smaller bus would collect children from Calgary and Dervaig before operating non-stop to Craignure. This is necessary as a result of a weight restriction on the Calgary road (88073) which prohibits the use of buses with more than 33 seats. • Two buses would collect children from around Tobermory and then collect pupils who live within a reasonable distance of the A849 (such as at Aros or Pennygown) enroute to Craignure. This could be reduced to one bus in the event that a higher-capacity bus/coach was used. • A further bus would originate in Torloisk and collect children from Ulva Ferry and Salen before continuing non-stop to Craignure. • Lastly, in the event that school catchments don't change a minibus or large taxi could collect pupils from communities south of Craignure such as Lochbuie and Lochdonhead. The below map illustrates the anticipated bus network for Site 02. 24 Page 59
Page 60
25 Site 02 Anticipated Bus Network School buses would be funded as school transport where pupils meet Argyll and Bute Council’s requirements in line with the summary which is provided in Section 3.4 of the Transport Review in Appendix H. Notwithstanding the Council’s preparedness to meet the costs of additional bus services, their provision depends on the ability of operators to recruit and retain a sufficient number of drivers, noting the practical operating issues relating to AM and PM-only journeys. 3.2.4.4 Potential impact on public transport network It is likely that additional buses will be required to facilitate pupil transport. The availability of more buses and drivers has the potential enhance general levels of public transport provision on the island, noting that many existing scheduled local bus services arise primarily because of school transport requirements. 3.2.4.5 Ability of existing (wider) roads infrastructure to service site The site is well served by the adjoining A849 although there is currently no formalised access into the site. There is the potential for access to the site to be taken from a new junction formed on the A849. The design of this junction would be subject to technical assessments at an early stage to ensure the suitability of its placement and format in view of road characteristics and adjacent accesses, if applicable. Any new junction would need to comply with driver visibility criteria in line with standard assessment procedures. 3.2.4.6 Trips with complex dependencies/multiple stages and modes of travel Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3 of the Transport Review in Appendix H. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Page 60
Page 61
3.2.5 3.2.5.1 Sustainability Potential for re-use of existing infrastructure and buildings (embodied carbon) � NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME The Craignure site is a greenfield site, so there is no scope to re-use existing structures on site. However, if programme aligns, there could be scope for shared servicing and utility arrangements with the proposed adjacent housing development. The close proximity of the hospital and the hotel means that there is existing services infrastructure in close proximity, although the capacity would likely require upgrading. 3.2.5.2 Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Craignure site are presented in the table below. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle rather than each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Site 02 -Travel Distance (Miles) SITE Site 03 -Craignure Site 03 -Craignure Site 03 - Craignure COHORT Primary Secondary Staff --- 40 0 0 41 127 0 81 192 1,113 --- TOTAL 162 319 1,113 Site 03 -Craignure Total 40 168 1,386 1,594 The above table shows a modest uplift in the driven vehicle miles particularly among staff. As with any new development of this nature travel planning would seek to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce these vehicle miles. The estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the Craignure site is presented in the table below. Site 02 -Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE COHORT ------ TOTAL Site 03 -Craignure Primary 9 43 18 70 - - - = Site 03 - Craignure Secondary 0 135 42 177 - - - = Site 03 - Craignure Staff 0 0 245 245 -- -- - Site 03 - Craignure Total 9 178 305 492 3.2.6 Affordability 3.2.6.1 Costs associated with site abnormals The Craignure school site is located adjacent to Mull and Iona community hospital. There is a helipad adjacent to the site and whilst the full risk of construction next to the helipad needs to be understood, this could present some degree of inflexibility on contractor operations. Most likely this could result in a shut down in operations until an all clear is given and so an allowance for 10 shut downs has been made which equates to around 2.5 working days, though actual frequency of helipad use would need to be reviewed to build a more accurate risk profile for costing. Ground conditions have yet to be fully understood and engineering consultants Waterman have indicated potential for the need to break out rock, which comes at a cost premium, but at this stage is dependent on site investigation and geotechnical reporting. Watermans have also indicated the presence of lacustrine deposits 26 Page 61
Page 62
� NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME which could potentially affect foundation choice and piling alternatives would cost significantly more that pad and strip foundation solutions. However this is subject to further investigation and unproven at this stage. The efficiency of being able to accommodate 71 carparking spaces, bus lay down areas and provide service vehicles to access the new school will differ for each site, either requiring more or less hard standing than the other alternative sites. Site 2 has slightly more hardstanding than Site 3 Garmony, but significantly this site requires a new 264m long access road and junction with the A849 to be built to accommodate the new school. An alternative access could be considered but would be subject to the adjacent housing development and council approvals for same. Site levels indicate no need for ground retention. Flood risk is considered non existent on site but rises to high risk adjacent to the site however normal surface water drainage management is anticipated. A separate drainage system will be required as it is unlikely SEPA will allow connection into any existing combined systems. There are no existing utilities recorded on the site so no protection or diversions required. Design consultants RYBKA have noted that capacity and ability for the new school to connect to the existing infrastructure will be subject to further design and discussion with utility providers, but at the moment is assumes to have no abnormal cost uplift. Abnormal cost will however be incurred as the nearest infrastructure utilities connections are some 400m away from the site either utilising the local residential utilities infrastructure or alternatively the utilities within the A849 might offer a better alternative with more robust capacity, though connections will still be approx 400m from the site. The new junction for the access road will require some lowering of local utilities. Summary: Site SITE 2 • CRAIGNURE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS GROUND CONDITIONS SITE WORKS FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE UTILITIES TOTALS 3.2.6.2 Potential acquisition/disposal costs Argyll and Bute Council are to undertake this directly with landowners. A valuation report has been provided in Appendix L to give an indication of potential costs. 27 Page 62
Page 63
3.2.6.3 Other (revenue) cost implications e.g. pupil transport � NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME Argyll and Bute Council have assumed an increase of £321,519 to revenue costs would be expected if Site 02 - Craignure was selected. This is detailed below by considering additional transport requirements. Additional revenue Costs Pupil Transport - additional cost Staff Travel- additional cost Total potential additional cost per annum 3.2.7 Risk Detail 4 buses @ f6k per calendar month for 10.5 months 10 journey per week 40 weeks *miles *4Sp per mile less £2.91 per week Site 1 • Site 2 • Existinc Craicnure Tobermory site 0 221,600 0 69,519 0 291,119 3.2.7.1 Wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risk Site 3 • Site 4 • Tobermory Garmony south site 252,000 0 58,587 0 310,587 0 Argyll and Bute Council have provided information detailing out ownership, wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risks within Appendix J. 3.2.7.2 Construction Programme risk Construction Programme risk at Site 02 - Craignure is assumed to be low based on the land being relatively flat and ready for development. There are minimal constraints or risks to site access due to location near the ferry terminal. All sites are impacted evenly in terms of reliance on ferry crossings to support construction activities. 3.2.7.3 Planning designation and sensitive receptors Under Argyll and Bute's Local Development Plan 2, the site is designated as H4022 - Housing. The area to the south of the housing boundary is noted as Open Space Protection Area. Craignure is noted as an area for significant infrastructure action to help increase resilience in the strategic transport network and deliver opportunities for economic and residential development. This particularly includes a focus on Craignure Ferry Terminal. In September 2022, a detailed planning application for the erection of a residential development comprising 97 residential units and a commercial unit with all associated external works and landscaping was submitted and later approved in December. Part of the proposed application site to the northeast suggested a mixed-use area subject to future detailed applications, which has been proposed to be used for Mull campus. There is no requirement for HSE consultation with this site. 28 Page 63
Page 64
29 3.3 Site 3 – Garmony 3.3.1 Deliverability 3.3.1.1 Utility Infrastructure – capacity and need for any diversions The site is situated to the west of the A849 with very little amenity or residential developments in close proximity to the site. The utilities record drawings received show that the proposed site is clear of existing utilities with no anticipated abnormal costs for diversions within the proposed site. HV Electric overhead lines exist in close proximity to the site. 11KV lines run along the western side of the A849 and to the south11kV overhead lines connect the community hydro schemes 500kVA sub station to the main infrastructure. Access to the site will be constrained as it will require to pass under the overhead lines. This will likely be subject to restrictions imposed by SSE in constructing a new access road and will present a risk for construction traffic. At this stage we would suggest abnormal costs are applied to underground a section of this supply cable as enabling works to minimise the associated risk. If a new junction is formed off the A849 it is anticipated that alterations will be necessary to protect the existing underground water and communications infrastructure introducing further abnormal costs. On the assumption that capacities are available in the existing infrastructure they would need to be extended by approximately 250m to reach the proposed new school. Potential for positive Business Case for future connection of Net Zero heat networks The area around the Garmony site is not heavily populated and very little public amenity facilities in close proximity. There are limited positive elements that could contribute to a business case. 3.3.1.2 Ground Conditions Published mapping indicates raised marine deposits are present below Site 3. Although indicated as Sand and Gravel, raised marine deposits frequently contain soft organic clays which, dependant on thickness, may potentially require more onerous foundation solutions such as piles, or ground improvement, in place of traditional shallow foundations. This is largely speculative however, based on reasonable assumptions from published information only, and would require to be confirmed following completion of a targeted intrusive ground investigation campaign. The stratum recorded to underly Site 3 is predominantly Raised Marine deposits including gravel and shelly sand. No site or laboratory testing information is currently available with regards to the strength, density, water content and compressibility. It is therefore recommended that an intrusive ground investigation including in- situ testing and sampling for laboratory testing is conducted to fully assess the reusability characteristics of the underlying geology. The entirety of Site 3 is underlain by olivine basalt which may result in ‘hard-dig’ / possible need for blasting to facilitate excavation dependant on depth to rock and site levels. 3.3.1.3 Topography The site is expansive and generally level. There is a knoll of higher ground to the north west corner, but as this sits in the flood plain, this would not be an area of land identified for development. Land rises significantly to the west outside the site boundary, but topography is not a major constraint on the developable area of this site. Page 64
Page 65
30 3.3.1.4 Flood Risk The SEPA flood map indicates that Site 3 is not impacted by flooding from high tides or storm surges but is impacted on its northern boundary by fluvial flooding from the watercourse that bounds the northern boundary. It will be necessary to assess the 1:200-year flood event including an appropriate allowance for climate change. No development will be permitted within the flood plain other than landscaped features that do not alter the existing levels and affect flood plain storage. Proposed school buildings sit out with indicative flood extents but Flood Risk Assessment with modelling of watercourse would be required to confirm site constrains for school buildings and the finished floor level. Scottish Water’s infrastructure records indicate that there are no public sewers nearby for wastewater disposal. Wastewater generated by the school would need to be treated at source via a reed bed, or other treatment process, prior to discharge into the watercourse, subject to SEPA approval. Suitable space within the red line boundary of the development would need to be provided for this treatment but is not expected to be an issue. There is no public surface water drainage shown on the Scottish Water infrastructure records within the boundaries of the site. However, there is a watercourse in the vicinity of the site which surface water runoff could be discharged to. The appropriate form of SUDS for redevelopment of the site will depend on the method of surface water disposal. Irrespective of the actual form of the SUDS, a significant proportion of the lowest lying area of the site will require to be allocated for the SUDS and this will place a constraint the development proposals. SEPA approval would not be required for disposal of surface water to the watercourse if drainage complies with their General Binding Rules. A non-return valve would need to be included to restrict flood waters entering the drainage system with overland flood routes considered to ensure surcharging of drainage network during flood event does not pose a risk to school building. 3.3.1.5 Site Abnormals The Garmony site will require a significant upgrade to the junction with the A848, and a new access road into the useable area of the site. The wider site is larger than required, so agreeing final extents and any treatment to land left over needs to be considered. The exact extent of the watercourse flood plain will need to be clarified through FRA modelling. 3.3.1.6 Habitat Constraints All sites will require to have habitat and ecological surveys carried out as a matter of course as part of statutory approvals process to identify any protected and invasive species present. The site contains a range of different natural settings, including grassland, wetland, watercourses and areas of trees. This diversity of natural setting increases the likelihood that there may be some habitat constraints found on the site. 3.3.2 Educational Impact 3.3.2.1 Is the site capable of accommodating the brief in full? The Garmony site is large at 9 ha, although the actual usable area is smaller at approximately 2.4 ha. This useable area has sufficient capacity to accommodate the new campus building at two storeys, a full size all weather pitch, external learning areas and associated car parking, servicing and bus drop off areas on site. Page 65
Page 66
3.3.2.2 Quality of external environment to support outside learning � NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME The 88103 maximum and minimum areas for the pupil roll of the proposed Mull 2-18 campus (31 ELC children, 90 primary learners and 177 secondary learners) is 21,374sqm-22,847sqm. The overall Garmony site is 95,000sqm, although the effective useable area is 37,000sqm. This provides sufficient area to deliver the recommended amount of external space. The site enjoys fantastic long range views, and can be laid out to maximise south facing social, learning and sports spaces and provide good separation from vehicular areas. The site potential for a quality outdoor learning environment is high. 3.3.2.3 Capacity of site for future expansion The Garmony site is large enough to allow for generous future expansion, which we anticipate would be located at the eastern end of the school to allow the servicing yard and plant areas to remain operational during any future extension construction period. While the extent of any future expansion is unknown at this time, an additional four standard sized classrooms plus supporting spaces would be easily accommodated over two floors. 3.3.2.4 Travel times for ELC and primary school pupils The estimated one-way travel times for ELC and Primary pupils are derived from the Transport Review included in Appendix H shown below. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. Travel time for minor legs of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys are likely to remain constant across all four sites . 3.3.2.5 SITE COHORT ...... Site 03 - Garmony Primary 57 2,623 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 117 Travel times for staff and secondary school pupils 0 2,797 AVERAGE The estimated one-way travel times for Secondary pupils and Staff are derived from the Transport Review included in Appendix H shown below. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. Travel time for minor legs of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys are likely to remain constant across all four sites . SITE Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony COHORT Secondary Staff ...... 0 4,479 283 0 4,762 0 0 1,670 0 1,670 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding AVERAGE 31 Page 66
Page 67
32 3.3.2.6 Access and connectivity to good community facilities The Garmony site is isolated, with the only potential connectivity being with the Isle of Mull Rugby Club pitches. The Garmony site is remote from residential areas and other amenities, with the closest facility being the Isle of Mull Rugby Club and associated pitches to the north. 3.3.3 Community and Place 3.3.3.1 Impact on family life Site 03 – Garmony is impacted similarly to Site 02 – Craignure and is detailed in Section 3.2.3.1 3.3.3.2 Equitable – unites north & south of island This is considered to be similar to Site 02 – Craignure and is detailed in Section 3.2.3.2 3.3.3.3 Sustain and support local economy An Economic Impact Assessment has been prepared, this outlines that if the campus was located in Tobermory, the economic benefit would be £3,147,000 higher than would be the case if the campus was built in a central island location. This assessment takes into account investment stimulus acknowledging that schools influence the attractiveness of an area for potential residents and therefore the value of future housing developments. The full Economic Impact Assessment is included in Appendix K. 3.3.3.4 Impact of construction activities on existing school/ residential facilities The Garmony site has no residential properties in close proximity, with the nearest structures at Argyll Industrial Supplies being over 300m away. The impact of construction activity on existing properties is negligible. 3.3.4 Accessibility & Transport 3.3.4.1 Good public transport links to site and location Existing Conditions The service 95/495 currently stops at the nearby rugby club, although this stop is unmarked. Future Conditions The site would incorporate four bus stances to enable pupils to board and disembark safely. These bays would ideally be positioned within the site such that bus doors opened directly onto an expansive pedestrian space, thereby removing the needs for pupils to interact with the car park and other trafficked spaces. The primary and secondary school days finish approximately 20 minutes apart. Unlike the morning period, where buses are only present on site for as long as it takes for pupils to disembark, buses are required to be present on site in anticipation of the afternoon school bell. This means it is more likely that several buses would be present on site at once. To avoid a scenario where buses blocked the operation of the car park, bays could be incorporated to the site access road to enable empty buses/coaches for the secondary school to dwell while the primary school buses are boarded. Page 67
Page 68
3.3.4.2 Existing safe active travel links to site Existing Conditions NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME There is currently limited active travel provision in Garmony. No footways are present on this section of A849. Future Conditions While infrastructure is currently limited, it is clear that a package of off-site improvement works would be required to ensure the safe integration of the site to the established transport network. The scope of those works would emerge through the detailed Transport Assessment which would accompany and inform a Planning Application. At the time of writing, it seems likely that this package would at least comprise provision of new links where none are currently present. 3.3.4.3 Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/staff mode split) The anticipated mode share for the Garmony site, in a scenario where the catchments do not change, is presented in the table below. For comparative purposes, the forecast mode split is presented in the context of established travel behaviour at the existing Tobermory 2-18 school. Site 03 -Indicative Mode Share 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Established Established Established Behaviour Behaviour Behaviour (Tobermory) (Tobermory) (Tobermory) Primary Secondary Staff Site 04- Garmony Primary ■Walk ■Taxi ■Bus ■car ■ferry Site 04- Garmony Secondary Site 04- Garmony Staff The majority of both primary and secondary-aged pupils would be required to travel to the Garmony site by bus for the main leg of their trip. This mode share is based upon existing travel behaviours and the modelling exercise which is outlined in Appendix H. If established pupil and staff cohorts were to transfer to this site, a clear implication would be that those whose existing trip is made on foot would need to select an alternative travel mode. In view of the Council's obligation to provide school buses for pupils whose trip cannot be made on foot, it would seem likely that the majority of existing pedestrian trips would become bus trips. While such a change is likely to cause some disruption in the short-term, the principle established by the existing Tobermory to Salen bus demonstrates that primary school transport over an extended distance is 33 Page 68
Page 69
� NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME practical and feasible. Importantly, in the context of the Salen service, the Council has been able to understand, and address, concerns which had initially been expressed by parents around the requirement for primary school age children to travel by bus. There will be limited opportunities for the Garmony site to support trips on foot with a very limited number of pupils or staff currently living locally. Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected number of trips by each mode is presented in the table below. Site 03 -Multi-Modal Trips SITE COHORT ........ Site 04 - Garmony Primary 0 2 88 5 0 95 l Site 04 - Garmony Secondary 0 0 147 10 0 157 J Site 04 - Garmony Staff 0 0 0 59 0 59 ] Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding In order to serve the anticipated 235 pupils travelling by bus a total of approximately 7 buses will be required. It is expected that two buses/coaches would be provided to serve primary pupils travelling from Tobermory to Garmony. These would likely have a capacity of around 45 seats each and would operate as closed-door services, i.e. not open to members of the public. For secondary school pupils, up to five buses (potentially of varying size) would be required. • One smaller bus would collect children from Calgary and Dervaig before operating non-stop to Garmony. This is necessary as a result of a weight restriction on the Calgary road (B8073) which prohibits the use of buses with more than 33 seats. • Two buses would collect children from around Tobermory and then collect pupils who live within a reasonable distance of the A849 (such as at Aros or Pennygown) enroute to Garmony. This could be reduced to one bus in the event that a higher-capacity bus/coach was used. • A further bus would originate in Torloisk and collect children from Ulva Ferry and Salen before continuing non-stop to Garmony. • Lastly, in the event that school catchments don't change a minibus or large taxi could collect pupils from communities south of Garmony such as Lochbuie and Lochdonhead. The below map illustrates the anticipated bus network for Site 03. 34 Page 69
Page 70
35 Site 03 Anticipated Bus Network Notwithstanding the Council’s preparedness to meet the costs of additional bus services, their provision depends on the ability of operators to recruit and retain a sufficient number of drivers, noting the practical operating issues relating to AM and PM-only journeys. 3.3.4.4 Potential impact on public transport network As discussed in Paragraph 14.2.7 and 14.2.8 of the Transport review in Appendix H, it is likely that additional buses will be required to facilitate pupil transport. The availability of more buses and drivers has the potential enhance general levels of public transport provision on the island, noting that many existing scheduled local bus services arise primarily because of school transport requirements. 3.3.4.5 Ability of existing (wider) roads infrastructure to service site The site is well served by the adjoining A849 although there is currently no formalised access into the site. There is the potential for access to the site to be taken from a new junction formed on the A849. The design of this junction would be subject to technical assessments at an early stage to ensure the suitability of placement and format in view of road characteristics and adjacent accesses, if applicable. Any new junction would need to comply with driver visibility criteria in line with standard assessment procedures. 3.3.4.6 Trips with complex dependencies/multiple stages and modes of travel Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3 of the Transport Review in Appendix H. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Page 70
Page 71
Sustainability 3.3.5 3.3.5.1 Potential for re-use of existing infrastructure and buildings (embodied carbon) NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME The Garmony site is an undeveloped site with no existing structures present for reuse. There is also no servicing to the site currently, although overhead power cables run parallel with the western edge of the site. There is currently no pedestrian or adequate vehicle infrastructure to the site that could be re-used. 3.3.5.2 Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Garmony site, are presented below. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle rather than each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Site 03 -Travel Distance (Miles) SITE Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony COHORT Primary Secondary Staff ---- 35 0 0 35 123 0 70 159 960 --- TOTAL 140 283 960 Site 03 - Garmony Total 35 159 1,190 1,383 The above table shows a modest uplift in the driven vehicle miles particularly among staff. As with any new development of this nature travel planning would seek to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce these vehicle miles. The estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel ( of all vehicles) to the Garmony site is presented in the table below. Site 03 -Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony COHORT Primary Secondary Staff Total Affordability ---- 8 0 0 8 37 130 0 168 15 35 211 262 --- 3.3.6 3.3.6.1 Costs associated with site abnormals TOTAL 60 166 211 437 The Garmony school site is a greenfield site with no likely or obvious restriction to construction of a new building. Ground conditions have yet to be fully understood and engineering consultants Waterman have indicated potential for the need to break out rock over the entirety of the site, which comes at a cost premium, but at this stage is dependent on site investigation and geotechnical reporting. The efficiency of being able to accommodate 71 carparking spaces, bus lay down areas and provide service vehicles to access the new school will differ for each site, either requiring more or less hard standing than the other alternative sites. Site 3 has the smallest footprint in this respect of the 4 sites. However this site also requires a new 260m long access road and a new roundabout to be built to accommodate the new school. Site levels indicate no need for ground retention. 36 Page 71
Page 72
� NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME Fluvial flood risk exists to the northern part of the site. A 1 in 200 year assessment will need to be made to model the risk but an allowance has been included to accommodate some form of flood defence. A separate drainage system would be required as it is unlikely SEPA will allow connection into any existing combined systems. There are significant existing utilities recorded on the site, in particular an existing HV overhead line and 11 kV lines skirt the site to the west and south of the site and site access will most likely need to cross below the HV lines and SSE may impose constraints in constructing the new access road and for works during the construction. The recommendation is to allow abnormal costs for diverting part of the HV lines below ground. Further, some degree of protection to the existing utilities will be required on the site. Design consultants RYBKA have noted that capacity and ability for the new school to connect to the existing infrastructure will be subject to further design and discussion with utility providers, but at the moment is assumes to have no abnormal cost uplift. Abnormal cost will however be incurred as the nearest infrastructure utilities connections are some 250m away from the site either utilising the closest utilities infrastructure. Site SITE 3 • GARMONY CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS GROUND CONDITIONS SITE WORKS FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE UTILITIES TOTALS 3.3.6.2 Potential acquisition/disposal costs Argyll and Bute Council are to undertake this directly with landowners. A valuation report has been provided in Appendix L to give an indication of potential costs. 3.3.6.3 Other (revenue) cost implications e.g. pupil transport Argyll and Bute Council have assumed an increase of £310,587 to revenue costs would be expected if Site 03 - Garmony was selected. This is detailed below by considering additional transport requirements. Additional revenue Costs Detail Site 1 • Site 2 • Site 3 • Site 4 • Tobermory Existinc Craicnure Garmony south site Tobermory site Pupil Transport -additional cost 4 buses @ f6k per calendar 0 221,600 252,000 0 month for 10.5 months Staff Travel- additional cost 10 journey per week 40 0 69,519 58,587 0 weeks *miles *4Sp per mile less £2.91 per week Total potential additional cost per 0 291,119 310,587 0 annum 37 Page 72
Page 73
38 3.3.7 Risk 3.3.7.1 Wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risk Argyll and Bute Council have provided information detailing out ownership, wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risks within Appendix J. 3.3.7.2 Construction Programme risk If Site 03 – Garmony was selected then initial site investigation would be needed to fully understand site conditions. Following visits to the site it’s expected that an element of remediate would be needed to make the land suitable for development. All sites are impacted evenly in terms of reliance on ferry crossings to support construction activities. 3.3.7.3 Planning designation and sensitive receptors The site has no designation under the Local Development Plan. It is noted as within the countryside area. Page 73
Page 74
39 3.4 Site 4 – South Tobermory 3.4.1 Deliverability 3.4.1.1 Utility Infrastructure – capacity and need for any diversions The site is situated to southern edge of Tobermory with the western boundary adjacent to the A848. The utilities record drawings received show that the proposed site is clear of existing utilities. However, it is evident that 5 overhead power lines exist within the site and located in the vicinity of the proposed car park area in the adjacent sketch. One of the poles appears to have a pole mounted transformer but with no obvious signs that it is connected. As this infrastructure is not shown on record drawings and given the above observations it is assumed that this infrastructure is redundant and can be removed without any significant abnormal cost to the project Existing Electricity (LV and 11kV), Mains Water and Communications infrastructure exists in close proximity to the site. Whilst existing infrastructure exists, further engagement will be necessary with Utilities companies in respect of any anticipated increased capacities. Potential for positive Business Case for future connection of Net Zero heat networks The site is located at the southern edge of Tobermory and approximately ¾ km from the most densely populated part of town. The connection of the school to support a business would be positive but diminishes the further it is away from the most populated areas. It would however help to support any proposals to extend infrastructure to residences and business that are located towards the southern boundary of the town. 3.4.1.2 Ground Conditions At Site 4, superficial deposits have not been recorded within the available mapping, if bedrock is present beneath the topsoil strip, it is envisaged shallow strip or pad foundations could be utilised bearing directly onto bedrock. If Superficial deposits however are present at significant depths at Site 4, more onerous foundations may be required. The above is based on reasonable assumptions from published information only, and would require to be confirmed following completion of a targeted intrusive ground investigation campaign. The suitability of deposits underlying Site 4 are unknown and therefore the deposits earthworks suitability for reuse cannot be speculated upon prior to an intrusive ground investigation. The entirety of Site 4 is underlain by olivine basalt which may result in ‘hard-dig’ / possible need for blasting to facilitate excavation dependant on depth to rock and site levels. 3.4.1.3 Topography Commentary is based on the assumption the additional parcels of land adjacent to the A848 are included as part of the overall site. Given the site is located on the ridge at the southern end of town, topography will play a key role in the design solution. From the western boundary, the site generally slopes down significantly towards the eastern edge defined by the A848, with a significant shelf at the line of the current site boundary. On the Western edge of the site the land falls steeply towards the West. The sloping nature of the site will result in a design solution which has to address the level change, by adopting a stepped floor plan. This is an approach that has been successfully adopted in schools for Argyll Page 74
Page 75
40 and Bute previously, such as Kirn Primary and will deliver a fully accessible learning environment. It is anticipated that retaining walls will be required internally at this level change, and to external areas I conjunction with some rock excavation, particularly around the all weather pitch provision which will add to costs. 3.4.1.4 Flood Risk The SEPA flood map indicates that Site 4 is not impacted by flooding from high tides or storm surges but fluvial flooding is noted from the watercourse near its western boundary, but flooding does not enter Site. Proposed school buildings sit out with indicative flood extents but a Flood Risk Assessment with modelling of watercourse will likely be required from planning to confirm site constrains for school buildings and the finished floor level. It will be necessary to assess the 1:200-year flood event including an appropriate allowance for climate change. Scottish Water’s infrastructure records indicate that there are public sewers nearby for wastewater disposal. Wastewater generated by the school would connect to the foul sewer located within the grass verge between the A848 and Meadhonish cottage. A Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) would need to be submitted to Scottish Water to ensure capacity is available within their network to allow a connection from the proposed school campus. There is an existing public surface water sewer shown on the Scottish Water infrastructure records located within the grass verge between the A848 and Meadhonish cottage. A Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) would need to be submitted to Scottish Water to ensure capacity is available within their network to allow a connection from the proposed school campus and what limit surface water would be restricted to. Alternatively, surface water could discharge to the Tobermory River, SEPA approval would not be required for disposal of surface water to the watercourse if drainage complies with their General Binding Rules. A non- return valve would need to be included to restrict flood waters entering the drainage system with overland flood routes considered to ensure surcharging of drainage network during flood event does not pose a risk to school building. The appropriate form of SUDS for redevelopment of the site will depend on the method of surface water disposal. Irrespective of the actual form of the SUDS, a significant proportion of the lowest lying area of the site will require to be allocated for the SUDS and this will place a constraint the development proposals. 3.4.1.5 Site Abnormals The site has a number of abnormals. There are currently overhead powerlines which enter the site and then stop in close proximity to the site boundary, which will need either removed or diverted. The sloping nature of the site means that there will be areas of excavation and retaining walls under the proposed building location, with retaining walls across the external areas on site, particularly between the car park and social areas, and the south and east edges of the 7 aside all weather pitch. Due to limitations in space, 14m long buses will require to be accommodated in a layby formed along the edge of the A848 rather than within the site. 3.4.1.6 Habitat Constraints All sites will require to have habitat and ecological surveys carried out as a matter of course as part of statutory approvals process to identify any protected and invasive species present. The site is bound to the Page 75
Page 76
� NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME east by the A848 which acts as a barrier to coastal species. Elsewhere the land is sloping paddock land at the lower levels, with grassed areas on higher ground, although rock is close to the surface. There is likely to be limited impact from habitat restrictions. 3.4.2 3.4.2.1 Educational Impact Is the site capable of accommodating the brief in full? At 2.1 ha, the site can accommodate the new campus brief, but the change in level on site will dictate a design solution which works with the site levels, being formed over three levels. Car parking can be accommodated on site, but bus drop off would need dealt with by forming a layby adjacent to the site. The other limitation of the site is the inability to accommodate a full size 1 00m x 60m all weather pitch, and the extent of external learning and social space. A seven aside all weather pitch could be accommodated on site. The building and external areas will require a series of retaining walls to deal with the change in level across the site. 3.4.2.2 Quality of external environment to support outside learning The 88103 maximum and minimum areas for the pupil roll of the proposed Mull 2-18 campus (31 ELC children, 90 primary learners and 177 secondary learners) is 21,374sqm-22,847sqm. The South Tobermory site is 20,500sqm, and as is below the recommended minimum area for external space. While the site is too small to provide a full size all weather pitch, the nature of the site topography does create the opportunity for a rich and varied external learning environment, with the site able to be laid out to maximise the external space available, and good separation from parking and service areas. The site has medium potential for a quality outdoor learning environment. 3.4.2.3 Capacity of site for future expansion The site is compact, but scope for future expansion exists by designing the building in such a way that it can be extended by a structural bay to the northwest. This would realise an additional two standard sized classrooms plus supporting space on a single level. This would allow the school to remain operational during construction with limited disruption. 3.4.2.4 Travel times for ELC and primary school pupils The estimated one-way travel times for ELC and Primary pupils are derived from the Transport Review included in Appendix H are shown below. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. Travel time for minor legs of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys are likely to remain constant across all four sites . 3.4.2.5 SITE COHORT ...... Site 04- South Tobermory Primary 0 80 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 150 Travel times for staff and secondary school pupils 440 670 AVERAGE 7 The estimated one-way travel times for Secondary pupils and Staff are derived from the Transport Review included in Appendix Hare shown below. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the 41 Page 76
Page 77
� NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME wide range of trips which would be made to the site. Travel time for minor legs of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys are likely to remain constant across all four sites . SITE COHORT ...... AVERAGE Site 04- South Secondary 0 2,110 135 948 3,192 20 Tobermory Site 04- South Staff 0 0 655 293 948 16 Tobermory Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 3.4.2.6 Access and connectivity to good community facilities While not as centrally located within Tobermory as the existing school site, the South Tobermory site still retains the potential for easy links with local businesses, community resources and employers. The South Tobermory site enjoys the same advantages as the existing Tobermory school site as a result of it's proximity to the primary settlement on island. It is located approximately 900m further south than the existing school site. While it is not as centrally located as the current school site within the wider settlement, the location at the southern end of the town places it close-by areas designated for future residential development. 3.4.3 3.4.3.1 Community and Place Impact on family life It's assumed that this will be the same as siting the proposed campus on the existing Tobermory School site as per Section 3.1.3.1. 3.4.3.2 Equitable - unites north & south of island Retaining education provision in Tobermory would positively impact pupils, families and community members currently utilising the existing Site through the re-provision of enhanced and contemporary facilities. This could also encourage population retention and growth in the area. However, there would be no additional benefit to families living in the South West of Mull who would likely continue with status quo education arrangements for local primary schooling and off-island secondary-school attendance. This option poses the continued risk of depopulation with the South West of Mull, where families may make decisions to relocate on the basis of their child's education and to avoid the possibility weekly boarding on the mainland. Site 04 South Tobermory is walkable from local housing and a proposed residential allocation for 112 new homes offers further potential for active travel to and from this proposed site. Other impacts are expected to remain consistent with baseline conditions for Site Option 01. 42 Page 77
Page 78
43 3.4.3.3 Sustain and support local economy An Economic Impact Assessment has been prepared, this outlines that if the campus was located in Tobermory, the economic benefit would be £3,147,000 higher than would be the case if the campus was built in a central island location. This assessment takes into account investment stimulus acknowledging that schools influence the attractiveness of an area for potential residents and therefore the value of future housing developments. The full Economic Impact Assessment is included in Appendix K. 3.4.3.4 Impact of construction activities on existing school/ residential facilities The South Tobermory site only has one road adjacent to it’s boundary, the A848 to the west. While there are residential properties north and south of the site, the impact on these properties would be minimal as construction traffic would not use residential roads, instead coming directly into the site off the A848. 3.4.4 Accessibility & Transport 3.4.4.1 Good public transport links to site and location Existing Conditions The existing service 95/495 passes the site frontage. There are a pair of bus stops located south of the site at Struan Crescent. Future Conditions The site could incorporate approximately three bus stances adjacent to the school entrance to enable safe boarding and disembarkation of pupils. Alternatively, as a result of site constraints, bus bays could be provided adjacent to the site on the A848. The service 494 bus from Calgary to Tobermory would not have to be significantly diverted from its present route in order to service the South Tobermory Site. 3.4.4.2 Existing safe active travel links to site Existing Conditions There are currently footways on both sides of the A848 between Eas Brae and the site. Footways are provided on at least one side of the road down into the town centre and up into Rockfield Road and the Tobermory Medical Practice. These footways are generally lit and appear to be of a good quality, albeit narrow in some locations. There are currently no footways provided on Dervaig Road or Breadalbane Street, both of which are narrow and unsuitable for pedestrians. There is a pedestrian footway between Argyll Terrace and Eas Brae enabling access between the site and the majority of housing in Tobermory. There are currently no formalised pedestrian crossings on the A848 in the vicinity of the site. Future Conditions While crossing infrastructure is currently limited, off-site improvement works of this nature would likely be a requirement following the standard consultation and transport assessment processes. It seems reasonable to assume that the adjacent residential allocation could be developed in a manner which facilitates active travel between these sites and the school site. Page 78
Page 79
3.4.4.3 Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/staff mode split) NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME The anticipated mode share for the South Tobermory site is anticipated to be broadly similar to that of the existing school site. For comparative purposes, the forecast mode split is presented in the context of established travel behaviour at the existing Tobermory 2-18 school in the graph below. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Established Established Established Site 02 -South Site 02 -South Site 02 - South Behaviour Behaviour Behaviour Tobermory (Tobermory) (Tobermory) (Tobermory) Primary Secondary Staff Primary ■ Walk ■ Taxi ■ Bus ■ Car ■ Ferry Tobermory Tobermory Secondary Staff The above graph demonstrates that mode share among all cohorts is expected to remain broadly similar. The main difference is the slight increase in bus travel among primary-aged pupils. While this is borne out as a result of the modelling assumptions there are a handful of pupils who live outwith the catchment but on the main A849/A848 road. There is potential, therefore, for these pupils to be transported to the site by bus. Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected number of trips by each mode is presented in the table below. Site 04 - Multi-Modal Trips Site Cohort ------ Site 04 - South Primary Tobermory 30 0 5 60 0 95 J Site 04 - South Secondary Tobermory 64 0 70 22 0 157 J Site 04 - South Staff Tobermory 19 0 0 40 0 59 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 44 Page 79
Page 80
45 As the Tobermory site is located just 0.7miles from the existing school site no changes to the current bus operations are anticipated. The buses which would be required for secondary school pupils are one bus from Calgary / Dervaig, one bus from Torloisk and Ulva Ferry via Salen and one bus from Lochbuie Crossroads. The annual revisions of the network and its complex dependencies are expected to be broadly in line with existing operations. The map below illustrates the anticipated bus network for Site 04. Site 04 Anticipated Bus Network School buses would be funded as school transport where pupils meet Argyll and Bute Council’s requirements as detailed in Appendix K. 3.4.4.4 Potential impact on public transport network As there will be no material requirement to amend the bus services associate with school transport there is unlikely to be any impact, positive or negative, on the wider public transport network. 3.4.4.5 Ability of existing (wider) roads infrastructure to service site The site is well served by the adjoining A848 although there is currently no formalised access into the site. There is the potential for access to the site to be taken from a new junction formed on the A848. The design of this junction would be subject to technical assessments at an early stage to ensure the suitability of junction placement and format in view of road characteristics and adjacent accesses, if applicable. Any new junction would need to be checked for driver visibility in line with standard assessment procedures. Page 80
Page 81
3.4.4.6 Trips with complex dependencies/multiple stages and modes of travel NORTH SCHOOLS PROGRAMME Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3 of the Transport Review in Appendix H. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Sustainability 3.4.5 3.4.5.1 Potential for re-use of existing infrastructure buildings (embodied carbon) The South Tobermory site is undeveloped, with no scope for the re-use of existing structures on site. It benefits from existing footpath infrastructure from the town centre, and has overhead power lines coming into the site. 3.4.5.2 Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the South Tobermory site are presented below. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle as opposed to each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Site 04 -Travel Distance (Miles) SITE Site 04 -South Tobermory Site 04 -South Tobermory Site 04 -South Tobermory Site 04-South Tobermory COHORT Primary Secondary Staff Total ---- 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 62 37 50 304 390 --- TOTAL 37 112 304 453 The above table shows a minor decrease in the driven vehicle miles compared to existing conditions. This is primarily as a result of marginally shorter trips for those travelling from the south of Mull. The estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the South Tobermory site is presented below; Site 04 -Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE Site 04 -South Tobermory Site 04 -South Tobermory Site 04 -South Tobermory Site 04-South Tobermory Affordability COHORT Primary Secondary Staff Total ---- 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 66 8 11 67 86 --- 3.4.6 3.4.6.1 Costs associated with site abnormals TOTAL 8 77 67 152 The Tobermory South school site is a greenfield site with no likely or obvious restriction to construction of a new building. 46 Page 81
Page 82
� NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME Ground conditions have yet to be fully understood and engineering consultants Waterman have indicated potential for the need to break out rock, which comes at a cost premium, but at this stage is dependent on site investigation and geotechnical reporting. Watermans have also indicated the presence of lacustrine deposits which could potentially affect foundation choice and piling alternatives would cost significantly more that pad and strip foundation solutions. However this is subject to further investigation and unproven at this stage. The efficiency of being able to accommodate 71 carparking spaces, bus lay down areas and provide service vehicles to access the new school will differ for each site, either requiring more or less hard standing than the other alternative sites. Site 4 has the second largest footprint in this respect of the 4 sites. This site requires a new junction to the A849 as well as off site bus lay down zones to the east of the site. Site levels indicate significant changes in topography and much more sloped that the alternative sites with the need to some ground retention works to accommodate the site's natural slope to the south. As a result, an allowance for retaining walls to the eastern boundary with the A849, the carparking area and the MUGA pitch has been made here. In addition Ryder have advised that the preferred location of the school will require it to 'step' up the hill to be efficient with the substructures, however this will introduce retaining walls into the build. Fluvial flood risk exists to the western part of the site. A 1 in 200 year assessment will need to be made to model the risk but an allowance has been included to accommodate some form of flood defence. A separate drainage system would be required as it is unlikely SEPA will allow connection into any existing combined systems. Design consultants RYBKA have noted that capacity and ability for the new school to connect to the existing infrastructure will be subject to further design and discussion with utility providers, but at the moment is assumes to have no abnormal cost uplift. No existing utilities infrastructure on the site recorded so no diversion costs expected. Five overhead power lines cross the location of the proposed carpark, however RYBKA believe the lines may be redundant and can be removed with no significant abnormal cost. A full suite of utilities exist in close proximity to the site so no significant connection runs expected and any increase in capacity to be discussed with Utilities in due course. The existing watermain at the new A849 junction would need to be lowered. Summary: Site SITE 4 • TOBERMORY SOUTH CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS GROUND CONDITIONS SITE WORKS FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE UTILITIES TOTALS 3.4.6.2 Potential acquisition/disposal costs Argyll and Bute Council are to undertake this directly with landowners. A valuation report has been provided in Appendix L to give an indication of potential costs. 47 Page 82
Page 83
3.4.6.3 Other (revenue) cost implications e.g. pupil transport � NORTHSCHOOLSPROGRAMME Argyll and Bute Council have assumed there would be no adjustment to revenue costs in relation to transport costs if Site 04 - Tobermory South is selected, as shown below; Additional revenue Costs Pupil Transport - additional cost Staff Travel- additional cost Total potential additional cost per annum 3.4.7 Risk Detail 4 buses @ f6k per calendar month for 10.5 months 10 journey per week 40 weeks *miles *4Sp per mile less £2.91 per week Site 1 • Site 2 • Existinc Craicnure Tobermory site 0 221,600 0 69,519 0 291,119 3.4.7.1 Wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risk Site 3 • Site 4 • Garmony Tobermory south site 252,000 0 58,587 0 310,587 0 Argyll and Bute Council have provided information detailing out ownership, wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risks within Appendix J. 3.4.7.2 Construction Programme risk There is not assumed to be any significant Construction Programme risk associated with construction stage as the site is generally accessible. The site will require preparation for development, however this could be done at an early stage to mitigate any impact on the construction end date. All sites are impacted evenly in terms of reliance on ferry crossings to support construction activities. 3.4.7.3 Planning designation and sensitive receptors The site is located at the edge of the settlement area and countryside area. Under LOP 2, it is designated under housing as H4018 - Tobermory 3. It is located across from the business and Industry Area and is close to Tobermory 1 and Tobermory 2 which are designated as housing under the Strategic Masterplan Area. There is no requirement for HSE consultation with this site. 48 Page 83
Page 84
49 4.0 Appendices Appendix A – Engagement Report Appendix B – Long List Report Appendix C – Short List Site Layouts Appendix D – Existing Utilities Report Appendix E – Desktop Geotechnical Report Appendix F – Flooding and Drainage Report Appendix G – Place Plans Appendix H – Transport Review Appendix I – Site Abnormals Cost Appendix J – Wayleaves, Legal and Site Acquisition Risk Appendix K – Integrated Impact Assessment Report Appendix L – Valuation Report Page 84
Page 85
Document is Restricted Page 85 Agenda Item 3cNOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 8, 9 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 86
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 87
Mull Education Campus 29/01/2025 Reference number GB01T24G04 MULL EDUCATION CAMPUS TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS Page 137 Agenda Item 3k
Page 88
MULL EDUCATION CAMPUS MULL EDUCATION CAMPUS TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS IDENTIFICATION TABLE Client/Project owner Hub North Scotland Ltd Project Mull Education Campus Study Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Type of document Report Date 29/01/2025 File name Mull Education Campus Transport Review_290125.docx Reference number GB01T24G04 Number of pages 82 APPROVAL Version Name Position Date Modifications 1 Author T Foster Consultant 11/11/2024 Checked by Keith McGillivray Associate 11/11/2024 Approved by Keith McGillivray Associate 11/11/2024 2 Author T Foster Consultant 27/11/2024 Minor amendment to carbon emissions Checked by Keith McGillivray Associate 12/12/2024 Approved by Keith McGillivray Associate 18/12/2024 3 Author T Foster Consultant 14/01/2025 Added summary section and removal of Iona from modelling scope Checked by Keith McGillivray Associate 14/01/2025 Approved by Keith McGillivray Associate 14/01/2025 4 Author T Foster Consultant 29/01/2025 Re-ordering site assessment chapters Checked by Keith McGillivray Associate 29/01/2025 Approved by Keith McGillivray Associate 29/01/2025 Page 138
Page 89
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 3/82 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 GENERAL 8 1.2 CONTEXT 8 1.3 DISTRIBUTION AND CATCHMENT DATA 9 1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE 9 2. EXISTING SCHOOL OPERATIONS 10 2.1 BACKGROUND 10 2.2 CATCHMENT 11 2.3 PUPIL AND STAFF NUMBERS 11 2.4 OPERATING HOURS 12 2.5 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 12 3. EXISTING TRAVEL OPTIONS AND FACILITIES 13 3.1 WALKING 13 3.2 CYCLING 13 3.3 PUBLIC TRANSPORT 14 3.4 INTEGRATION WITH ORGANISED SCHOOL TRANSPORT 15 3.5 FERRY SERVICES 17 3.6 CAR PARKING 18 3.7 ROAD NETWORK 19 4. STAFF TRAVEL PATTERNS 20 4.1 CATCHMENT 20 4.2 MODE SHARE 20 5. PUPIL TRAVEL PATTERNS 21 5.1 TOBERMORY 2-18 SCHOOL PRE-5 AND PRIMARY PUPIL DISTRIBUTION 21 5.2 MODE SHARE 21 5.3 ISLAND-WIDE PRE-5 AND PRIMARY PUPIL DISTRIBUTION 23 5.4 SECONDARY PUPIL DISTRIBUTION 24 5.5 TOBERMORY HIGH SCHOOL MODE SHARE 25 6. KEY FINDINGS 26 6.1 INTRODUCTION 26 Page 139
Page 90
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 4/82 6.2 DEPENDENCIES AND COMPLEXITIES 26 6.3 HEADLINE STATISTICS 26 7. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 28 7.1 INTRODUCTION 28 7.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 28 8. FORTHCOMING DEVELOPMENT ON MULL, ULVA AND IONA 30 8.1 INTRODUCTION 30 8.2 FUTURE HOUSING ALLOCATION 30 9. MULL EDUCATION CAMPUS OVERVIEW 31 9.1 INTRODUCTION 31 9.2 SHORTLISTED SITES 31 9.3 OVERALL APPROACH 32 10. FORECAST METHODOLOGY 33 10.1 INTRODUCTION 33 10.2 EXCLUSIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 33 10.3 MODE SHARE 34 10.4 PERSON AND VEHICLE TRIPS 35 10.5 TRAVEL DISTANCE 35 10.6 TRAVEL TIME 35 10.7 CARBON EMISSIONS 36 11. SITE 01 – EXISTING TOBERMORY SITE 37 11.1 INTRODUCTION 37 11.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA – EXISTING SCHOOL CATCHMENTS 37 11.3 CONCLUSION 42 12. SITE 02 - CRAIGNURE 43 12.1 INTRODUCTION 43 12.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA – EXISTING SCHOOL CATCHMENTS 43 12.3 SENSITIVITY TEST – REVISED CATCHMENTS 51 12.4 CONCLUSION 55 13. SITE 03 - GARMONY 56 13.1 INTRODUCTION 56 13.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA – EXISTING SCHOOL CATCHMENTS 56 Page 140
Page 91
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 5/82 13.3 SENSITIVITY TEST – REVISED CATCHMENTS 64 13.4 CONCLUSION 68 14. SITE 04 – TOBERMORY SOUTH 69 14.1 INTRODUCTION 69 14.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA – EXISTING SCHOOL CATCHMENTS 69 14.3 CONCLUSION 76 15. SUMMARY 77 Page 141
Page 92
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 6/82 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Schools on Mull, Iona and the Mainland 8 Figure 2. Tobermory 2-18 School 10 Figure 3. Tobermory 2-18 School Catchments 11 Figure 4. Footways on Erray Road 13 Figure 5. Bus Routes on Mull 14 Figure 6. Connections with the 495 Bus Service 16 Figure 7. Ferry Services on Mull 17 Figure 8. Main Road Links on Mull 19 Figure 9. Distribution of Tobermory 2-18 School Staff 20 Figure 10. Distribution of Tobermory Pre-5 and Primary Pupils 21 Figure 11. Tobermory 2-18 School Pre-5 and Primary Unit Travel Mode Share 22 Figure 12. Island-Wide Distribution of Pre-5 and Primary Pupils 23 Figure 13. Island-Wide Distribution of Secondary Pupils 24 Figure 14. Tobermory 2-18 School Secondary School Travel Mode Share 25 Figure 15. Aggregated Pupil Mode Share 27 Figure 16. Future Housing Allocation 30 Figure 17. Location of Shortlisted Sites 31 Figure 18. Site 01 – Tobermory Indicative Layout 37 Figure 19. Site 01 – Mode Share 38 Figure 20. Site 01 Anticipated Bus Network 39 Figure 21. Site 02 – Craignure Indicative Layout 43 Figure 22. Site 02 – Indicative Mode Share 44 Figure 23. Site 02 Anticipated Bus Network 46 Figure 24. Site 02 – Indicative Mode Share 51 Figure 25. Site 03 – Garmony Indicative Layout 56 Figure 26. Site 03 – Indicative Mode Share 57 Figure 27. Site 03 Anticipated Bus Network 59 Figure 28. Site 03 – Indicative Mode Share 64 Figure 29. Site 04 – Tobermory South Indicative Layout 69 Figure 30. Site 04 – Indicative Mode Share 70 Figure 31. Site 04 Anticipated Bus Network 72 Figure 32. Number of People Trips by Mode and Site 78 Figure 33. Vehicle Miles by Mode and Site 78 Figure 34. Carbon Emissions by Mode and Site 79 Figure 35. People Travel Time by Mode and Site 80 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. CalMac Mainland to Mull Service Summary 17 Table 2. Reliability and Punctuality of CalMac Services to Mull 18 Table 3. Generalised Student Mode Splits 34 Table 4. Site 01 – Multi-Modal Trips 38 Table 5. Site 01 – Travel Time (Minutes) 40 Table 6. Site 01 – Travel Distance (Miles) 41 Table 7. Site 01 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) 42 Page 142
Page 93
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 7/82 Table 8. Site 02 – Multi-Modal Trips 45 Table 9. Site 02 – Travel Time (Minutes) 48 Table 10. Site 02– Travel Distance (Miles) 49 Table 11. Site 02 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) 50 Table 12. Site 02 – Multi-Modal Trips 52 Table 13. Site 02 – Travel Time (Minutes) 53 Table 14. Site 02 – Travel Distance (Miles) 54 Table 15. Site 02 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) 55 Table 16. Site 03 – Multi-Modal Trips 58 Table 17. Site 03 – Travel Time (Minutes) 61 Table 18. Site 03 – Travel Distance (Miles) 62 Table 19. Site 03 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) 63 Table 20. Site 03 – Multi-Modal Trips 65 Table 21. Site 03 – Travel Time (Minutes) 66 Table 22. Site 03 – Travel Distance (Miles) 67 Table 23. Site 03 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) 68 Table 24. Site 04 – Multi-Modal Trips 71 Table 25. Site 04 – Travel Time (Minutes) 74 Table 26. Site 04 – Travel Distance (Miles) 75 Table 27. Site 04 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) 76 Table 28. Summary of Site Metrics 81 Page 143
Page 94
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 8/82 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General 1.1.1 SYSTRA Ltd (SYSTRA) has been commissioned by Hub North Scotland Ltd (Hub) on behalf of Argyll and Bute Council (A&BC) to examine the transport baseline of the existing Tobermory 2-18 School. This report will also examine sites for A&BC’s proposals to develop a new education campus for pupils aged between 2-18 on the island of Mull. 1.2 Context 1.2.1 The Isle of Mull is an island in the Inner Hebrides on the west coast of Scotland. Tobermory 2-18 School is an education campus providing nursery, primary and secondary school education to pupils aged 2 to 18. It is the only school on Mull that delivers education to S1-6. In addition are another 5 primary schools on Mull and one primary school on the nearby island of Iona. The nearest mainland secondary school is in Oban. 1.2.2 The locations of schools on Mull, Iona and the Mainland are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Schools on Mull, Iona and the Mainland 1.2.3 Argyll and Bute Council is currently exploring options for a new 2-18 campus on Mull to replace the existing 2-18 school in Tobermory. At this stage, the location of a new campus has not been identified. Page 144
Page 95
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 9/82 1.2.4 The purpose of this report is to establish a clear understanding of the transport situation and operations relating to the existing Tobermory 2-18 School. In so doing, the report examines travel and transport considerations for pupils and staff, and, through an examination of the local public transport network, it shows a series of dependencies and complexities which arise from the present-day school transport situation. 1.2.5 The Council has decided that the existing Education Campus should be replaced by a new facility. Should the existing 2-18 campus move to a new site, the existing travel patterns, habits and routines would need to change. This report will help Argyll & Bute Council and other stakeholders to understand the implications of a decision to relocate. 1.2.6 A clear objective of the report is to establish a set of suitable criteria against which the suitability of emerging candidate sites for the proposed new education campus can be evaluated. 1.3 Distribution and Catchment Data 1.3.1 This report examines the present distribution of pupils across Mull, Iona and Ulva. Absolute and percentage values which are used throughout the report should be viewed in that context. While there are changes in distribution year on year capturing the picture as it stands creates a baseline which can support subsequent analysis of proposed sites. 1.3.2 SYSTRA has discussed the presentation of geospatial data presented in this report with Argyll & Bute Council. Mindful of data protection considerations all location markers for staff and pupils shown within the figures of this report have been randomly cast within a 500m radius of the true location. 1.4 Report Structure 1.4.1 The remainder of this report is divided into two sections. The first section reviews the baseline transport conditions associated with the existing school site and the islands of Mull, Iona and Ulva more broadly. The section is structured as follows: Chapter 2: Existing School Operations; Chapter 3: Existing Travel Options; Chapter 4: Staff Travel Patterns; Chapter 5: Pupil Travel Patterns; Chapter 6: Key Findings; Chapter 7: Assessment Criteria; and Chapter 8: Forthcoming Development on Mull, Ulva and Iona. 1.4.2 The second section of the report assess each of the shortlisted sites for the proposed Mull Education Campus and details the methodology used. Page 145
Page 96
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 10/82 2. EXISTING SCHOOL OPERATIONS 2.1 Background 2.1.1 The existing Tobermory 2-18 School is located within the town of Tobermory - the largest settlement on Mull. The location of the campus within Mull is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Tobermory 2-18 School 2.1.2 The campus is comprised of 3 departments: Pre-5 Unit, catering to pupils aged 2-4; primary school, offering P1-7 education (pupils aged 5-11); and the high school, offering S1-6 education (pupils aged 11—18). UHI Argyll, Tobermory Centre and Tobermory Library are also located within the campus, but these are separately operated entities. 2.1.3 Vehicular access into the site is taken by Erray Road, to the north of the campus, only. There are three pedestrian accesses on Erray Road, one to the north, a second via a set of steps opposite the Tobermory Arts Centre and from the east around the playing fields. Page 146
Page 97
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 11/82 2.2 Catchment 2.2.1 The Pre-5 Unit serves pupils from Tobermory and Dervaig. The primary school currently serves pupils from Tobermory. The high school generally serves pupils in the north and the west of Mull. The extent of the primary and secondary school’s catchments are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Tobermory 2-18 School Catchments 2.2.2 Dervaig, Tobermory, Ulva, Salen and Lochdonhead Primary Schools all act as associated primary schools to the Tobermory High School. Subject to a placing request Tobermory High School does accept pupils from the Ardnamurchan peninsula in the Highland Council region. Pupils from Bunessan and Iona Primary Schools typically attend Oban High School. 2.3 Pupil and Staff Numbers 2.3.1 As of the academic year 2024/25 there are 14 pupils in the Pre-5 Unit which has a capacity of 30 pupils. The primary school has a capacity of 116 pupils with 81 pupils currently enrolled. The high school currently has 157 pupils enrolled with a capacity of 222 pupils. The distribution of these pupils will be explored further in Section 5. 2.3.2 There are currently around 5 staff employed in the Pre-5 Unit, 12 staff in the primary school and 42 staff in the high school. This includes the 3 and 15 support staff in the primary and secondary school, respectively. The distribution of staff will be explored further in Section 4. Page 147
Page 98
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 12/82 2.4 Operating Hours 2.4.1 The Pre-5 Unit is currently open between 08:50 – 15:00. The primary school opens at 09:00 and it is understood that staff typically arrive between 08:00 and 09:00. The primary school closes at 15:15, with staff typically leaving between 15:15 and 17:00. The high school is open from 09:05 – 15:40 with staff typically arriving between 07:30 to 09:05 and departing between 15:40 to 18:30. 2.4.2 School drop-off is permitted between 08:45 and 09:00 for the primary school and between 08:45 and 09:05 for the high school. Pick up is at 15.15 for the primary school and 15.40 for the high school. 2.5 Operational Considerations 2.5.1 The adjoining streetscape of the current Tobermory 2-18 School is constrained and often challenging operationally. This is particularly problematic where buses and coaches are concerned. 2.5.2 The 495 bus service is occasionally operated by a 14.1m long double-decker coach. In a UK context, this is among the largest coaches available, with standard vehicles more typically being approximately 12m in length. 2.5.3 The current Tobermory site does not have dedicated bus set down area and the local streetscape was not designed with vehicles of this length, for this purpose, in mind. There can at times be complexities in accommodating and manoeuvring larger vehicles on site, particularly when multiple vehicles are present at once. Buses which arrive via Argyll Terrace then have to reverse up Erray Road with the aid of a banksman. 2.5.4 The staggered pattern of arrivals in the morning means that multiple buses are not present at the school at the same time. During the afternoon departure period, buses are stacked up in preparation for the end of the school day making it more likely that operational issues may present themselves. Page 148
Page 99
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 13/82 3. EXISTING TRAVEL OPTIONS AND FACILITIES 3.1 Walking 3.1.1 The majority of Tobermory is within 1km of the education campus, equating to around a 10 to 15-minute walk. Consideration of walking distances should be viewed in the context of local topography, with a difference of around 50m in elevation between the campus and Main Street. 3.1.2 As a result of the nature of the town, pedestrian facilities are limited to larger residential streets on the adjacent road network such as Erray Road and Victoria Street. There is also an off-road path between Back Brae and Main Street via Middle Brae and a set of steps. The general characteristics of footways on Erray Road are shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Footways on Erray Road 3.2 Cycling 3.2.1 There are no formalised cycle facilities currently in the vicinity of the campus although cycling is possible via quieter residential roads. A covered bicycle shelter incorporating five Sheffield-style racks (space for up to 10 bicycles) is provided adjacent to the stepped pedestrian access from Erray Road. 3.2.2 Lockers are currently provided for the senior secondary pupils only. Page 149
Page 100
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 14/82 3.3 Public Transport 3.3.1 There are currently 3 public bus services on the Isle of Mull, all of which are operated by West Coast Motors. The 95/495 operates between Craignure and Tobermory, the 96/496 operates between Craignure and Fionnphort and the 494 operates between Tobermory and Calgary. 3.3.2 Both the 494 and 495 stop adjacent to the school – the 95 stops at Tobermory Harbour only. The routes of the 494, 95/495 and 96/496 are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Bus Routes on Mull 3.3.3 The 494 operates between Tobermory and Calgary three times per day in each direction. The first inbound service arrives at Tobermory 2-18 School at 08:50 (having departed Calgary at 08:10). The last outbound service leaves the campus at 15:46 and arrives in Calgary at 16:33. Both the first inbound and last outbound coincide with primary and secondary school operating hours and therefore presents a viable mode of travel for pupils living in Calgary or Dervaig to access the school. This is unlikely to be suitable for staff who typically have to arrive before school start and depart after school finish. 3.3.4 The 495 operates between the campus and Craignure once per day in each direction. The inbound service arrives at the campus at 8:52, having left Strathcoil at 7:45. The outbound service leaves the high school at 15:45 and arrives at the terminus at 16:56. As with the 494, the 495 is likely to be viable for pupils and not staff. 3.3.5 The 496 currently runs twice per day eastbound in the AM and one per day westbound in the PM. There is an additional early morning service in each direction on the first school day of the week to take pupils from the south of the island to Oban High School. Page 150
Page 101
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 15/82 3.3.6 The current configuration of the island’s bus network is largely underpinned by school transport requirements. Services which are prefixed by a 4 are supplemented school services organised by Argyll and Bute Council. 3.3.7 During the winter period, these services are almost entirely funded by the Council whereas they operate on a commercial basis during summer months. This largely reflects peaks of tourism activity on the island. 3.4 Integration with Organised School Transport 3.4.1 Due to the dispersed population across Mull, and more broadly in Argyll and Bute, the public transport network is supplemented by a number of ‘closed-door’ school bus services and taxi operations to get pupils to the high school. 3.4.2 The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requires the education authority (Argyll and Bute Council) to make appropriate provision to assist pupils’ education. Under Section 42 of the Act, the authority must provide free transport or such other arrangements for all pupils up to age 8 who live more than 2 miles from their local school and for all pupils over age 8 who live more than 3 miles from their local school. 3.4.3 The Act also makes provision for a number of exceptional circumstances and special conditions under which the authority may also provide free transport. In the case of schools on Mull and Iona, free transport is provided for all primary-aged pupils who live more than 2 miles from their local school and pupils who live closer than 2 miles but where there is a safety concern associated with other means of travel (e.g. walking or cycling). 3.4.4 Free transport is provided to all secondary-aged pupils who live more than 3 miles from their local school and for those closer than 3 miles where there is a safety concern, as outlined above. 3.4.5 Free transport is also provided to some pupils with additional support needs. 3.4.6 There is currently a closed-door bus service, operated by West Coast Motors, which starts in Torloisk and ends at Tobermory 2-18 School, via Ulva Ferry and Gruline. This service is timetabled to align with a crossing of the Ulva ferry where a small number of pupils are collected. 3.4.7 The timetabling of the 495 is more complex so as to align with two ferries and a taxi. This is illustrated in Figure 6. Page 151
Page 102
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 16/82 Figure 6. Connections with the 495 Bus Service 3.4.8 The Figure summarises the following carefully-planned operation, providing a worked example of the complex interdependencies which are a reality of existing school transport operations: The 495 bus is met by a taxi from Lochbuie at the Lochbuie Crossroads. The bus departs at 07:45, arriving at Craignure for 08:00. In the summer on a Monday and in the winter on any weekday, the first ferry into Craignure arrives before 08:00 and therefore a connection is possible. The first ferry from Lochaline arrives into Fishnish at 08:03 allowing pupils from the Ardnamurchan Peninsular to connect onto the 495 at 08:18. The 495 then continues on to pick up pupils in Salen and arrives at Tobermory 2-18 School at 08:52. 3.4.9 In the event of delays to services connecting with the 495 the bus will typically wait for up to 15 minutes to enable a connection. Instances of pupils being unable to get to school because of cancellations do occur although they are rare. Advances in remote (online) learning opportunities mean that such instances now have a diminished impact on pupil education. 3.4.10 Approximately once per year there is a light-touch review of the organised school services to ensure they best serve pupils and align with other timetables, such those provided by Caledonian MacBrayne. Page 152
Page 103
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 17/82 3.5 Ferry Services 3.5.1 The relevant and regular ferry services on Mull are shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Ferry Services on Mull 3.5.2 There are 3 car ferry services, all operated by Caledonian MacBrayne, which offer service between the mainland and Mull. Table 1 summarises the typical first sailing departing from the mainland and last sailing departing Mull and average sailings per day for a weekday. The summer timetable is typically operational between the first week in April to the third week in October. The winter timetable then operates for the remainder of the year. Table 1. CalMac Mainland to Mull Service Summary ROUTE SAILING TIME FIRST SAILING LAST SAILING SAILINGS PER DAY Kilchoan – Tobermory (Summer/Winter) 35 mins 0800 1800 / 1600 7 / 3 Oban – Craignure (Summer/Winter) 60 mins 0725 / 0600 2110 / 2200 10 / 6 Lochaline – Fishnish (Summer/Winter) 18 mins 0700 1900 / 1805 14 / 11 3.5.3 On the summer timetable CalMac typically operates the 10-minute Iona to Fionnphort ferry frequently between 0610 and 1830. On the winter timetable the ferry is typically Page 153
Page 104
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 18/82 operated 10 times per day between the same first and last sailing times. The Iona ferry is open to cars but only to those resident on the island or permit holders. Pedals cycles and foot passengers are also permitted. 3.5.4 The Ulva ferry is a small privately run foot and bicycle passenger only ferry. The ferry typically operates on demand Monday to Friday 09:00 to 17:30 from the first week in April to the last full week in October. During the winter there is a school run for the pupils on Ulva twice daily during term time. 3.5.5 All ferry services on Mull are subject to suitable weather and sailing conditions. The reliability of services, which is a metric of how many services were cancelled, and whether the services that did run were punctual is shown in Table 2. The data presented is an aggregate from September 2023 – August 2024 – cancellations are typically worse in the winter months. Table 2. Reliability and Punctuality of CalMac Services to Mull ROUTE RELIABILITY PUNCTUALITY Average Worst Month Average Worst Month Kilchoan – Tobermory 95.2% December – 89.2% 96.5% May – 88.6% Oban – Craignure 94.0% January – 83.1% 88.6% December – 74.5% Lochaline - Fishnish 99.2% December – 96.3% 98.3% March – 92.1% Fionnphort – Iona 95.3% December – 78.3% 95.4% February – 92.3% 3.6 Car Parking 3.6.1 There are currently 6 standard marked car parking spaces and 2 accessible spaces at the school. There is an additional unmarked car parking area with space for approximately 10 cars. 3.6.2 There are ‘No Loading’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on Erray Road between Breadalbane Street and the Erray Road Depot during school pick-up / drop-off time. Adjoining residential streets such as Victoria Street and Breadalbane Street are sufficiently wide enough for on-street parking. Page 154
Page 105
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 19/82 3.7 Road Network 3.7.1 The main road links on Mull are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8. Main Road Links on Mull 3.7.2 Figure 8 highlights the fact that the road network on Mull is largely composed of single- track sections, with some sections of two-way running between Craignure and Salen and over the section of road immediately to the south of Tobermory. 3.7.3 These roads are typically narrow and of varying quality, giving rise to platoons of vehicles and requiring frequent use of passing places. These factors can introduce driver delay and hamper journey time reliability. Page 155
Page 106
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 20/82 4. STAFF TRAVEL PATTERNS 4.1 Catchment 4.1.1 There are currently around 60 staff employed at the site across all three teaching units and in supporting rolls such as administration, janitorial staff and catering staff. The distribution of these staff is shown in Figure 9. Figure 9. Distribution of Tobermory 2-18 School Staff Remaining 18% dispersed across Mull 4.1.2 Figure 9 shows that the majority of staff live within Tobermory (63%). There is also a clustering of staff in Salen, 13%, and in Dervaig, 7%. There are two staff members in Oban, and one each in Lochaline, Kilchoan and Ulva. All of these staff are therefore dependent on ferry services. 4.2 Mode Share 4.2.1 On the 23rd of October 2024 a “hands-up” of staff was conducted. The survey indicated that 20 members of staff walked to the school that day and 39 travelled by private car. Of those that drove 4 also travelled by ferry. The school has also indicated that 4 members of staff regularly car share. Page 156
Page 107
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 21/82 5. PUPIL TRAVEL PATTERNS 5.1 Tobermory 2-18 School Pre-5 and Primary Pupil Distribution 5.1.1 There are currently around 14 pupils at the pre-5 unit and 81 pupils in the primary school located at the Tobermory 2-18 School. The distribution of these pupils is shown in Figure 10 - larger markers represent multiple pupils at the same address. Figure 10. Distribution of Tobermory Pre-5 and Primary Pupils 5.1.2 Figure 10 shows that pre-5 pupils are generally clustered within Tobermory itself (approximately 85%). Around 90% of pupils at the primary school also live within Tobermory and many of them within a 5-minute walk. The remaining pupils live on the west side of the island within a 30-minute drive. 5.2 Mode Share 5.2.1 A “hands-up” survey of pre-5 and primary school pupils was conducted by staff in w/c 30th September 2024. The survey asked pupils “By which mode did you travel to and from school today?”. The results of this survey are presented in Figure 11. Page 157
Page 108
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 22/82 Figure 11. Tobermory 2-18 School Pre-5 and Primary Unit Travel Mode Share 5.2.2 The results of the hands up survey indicate that the majority of both pre-5 and primary pupils arrive to the existing school by car. Just over 15% of pre-5 pupils and up to 40% of primary pupils do walk to the school. Taxis presently play a small role in transporting junior pupils to and from the school. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% To School From School To School From School Pre 5 Primary Mode Share Year Group Tobermory 2-18 School Mode Share Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 158
Page 109
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 23/82 5.3 Island-Wide Pre-5 and Primary Pupil Distribution 5.3.1 There are currently around 280 pre-5 or primary aged pupils (aged 2-11) on the islands of Mull, Iona and Ulva. There are 6 primary school campuses on Mull and one on Iona, 4 of which have pre-5 units and 2 of which have Gaelic units. The distribution of pre-5 and primary pupils is shown in Figure 12, the colour of each dot corresponds to the catchment shading. The legend also contains the percentage of pupils currently residing in each catchment. Figure 12. Island-Wide Distribution of Pre-5 and Primary Pupils 5.3.2 Figure 12 shows that primary aged pupils are distributed across the island with concentrations in key settlements. The Figure also shows that the majority of pupils live within their respective school catchments. The main exception is pupils at Salen. 5.3.3 The majority of pupils outlying the primary school catchment are those who attend the Salen Primary Gaelic school which is designed to serve the north of the island. This is one of two Gaelic Medium schools on the island, alongside Bunessan which serves the south of Mull and Iona. Page 159
Page 110
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 24/82 5.4 Secondary Pupil Distribution 5.4.1 There are currently 157 pupils enrolled at Tobermory High School. The distribution of these pupils and the 36 pupils who attend Oban High School is shown in Figure 13, the colour of each dot corresponds to the catchment shading. Clusters of pupils and the proportion of the island-wide population is also shown. Figure 13. Island-Wide Distribution of Secondary Pupils Remaining 13% dispersed across the island 5.4.2 Figure 13 shows that secondary aged pupils (11-18) are also distributed across Mull, Iona and Ulva, with concentrations in key settlements, as with primary aged pupils. With few exceptions, pupils attend their catchment school. 5.4.3 Of the total 193 secondary school-aged pupils on Mull, Iona and Ulva, around 40% of them live within Tobermory, 11% within Dervaig, 10% in Salen and 4% around Ulva and Ulva Ferry. 22% currently live with the Oban High School Catchment (8% around Bunessan, 7% on Iona and 7% around Fionnphort). The remaining 13% are dispersed across the island. 5.4.4 Of the 157 pupils at Tobermory High School approximately 50% live within Tobermory, 13% in Salen and 7% in Dervaig. The remaining 30% of pupils live in disparate locations around Mull. Page 160
Page 111
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 25/82 5.5 Tobermory High School Mode Share 5.5.1 As with the pre-5 and primary unit pupils, each secondary class was asked “By which mode did you travel to and from school today?” in a “hands-up” survey conducted by staff in w/c 30th September 2024. The results of this survey are presented in Figure 14. Figure 14. Tobermory 2-18 School Secondary School Travel Mode Share 5.5.2 The Figure shows that cars play a lesser role in the transport of secondary pupils to and from the Tobermory 2-18 school, representing around 14% of mode share on average. Bus is the predominant mode accounting for around 44% of all trips, just greater than walking which has a mode share of 40%. A small number of pupils’ journeys to school currently involve ferries. 5.5.3 The mode split which is revealed by these summary statistics shows that while motorised travel modes account for just a little more than half of the trips which are made by secondary ager pupils, a significant proportion (40%) of pupils currently walk to and from school. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% To School From School To School From School To School From School To School From School To School From School To School From School To School From School S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Average Mode Share Year Group Tobermory 2-18 School Mode Share Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 161
Page 112
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 26/82 6. KEY FINDINGS 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This report provides an insight into the transport baseline which is associated with Tobermory 2-18 School and with school-age children on Mull, Iona and Ulva as a whole. In so doing, the report examines data related to pupils of all ages and staff who are associated with the facility. Through an examination of postcode data, the report presents a clear understanding of how the home locations of pupils and staff are dispersed around Mull and beyond. 6.1.2 While the datasets reveal concentrations in areas of population density, they also reveal that staff and pupils who travel to and from the school each day include individuals who live in lower population areas where transport facilities and services are less-well developed. 6.2 Dependencies and Complexities 6.2.1 The report identifies that the transport situation which relates to the existing school facility is complex; it includes multi-leg journeys and highlights a series of inter- dependencies between different transport modes. 6.2.2 Notably, the report also highlights that the commercially operated public transport network on the island is, to a large extent, framed by the requirements of school travel. This being the case, any changes in the location of the education campus seems likely to have implications for public transport as a whole. 6.3 Headline Statistics 6.3.1 As of the academic year 2024/25 there are currently 14 pupils in the Tobermory 2-18 School Pre-5 Unit, 81 pupils in the primary school and 157 in the high school. There are a further 36 high school-aged pupils on Mull and Iona who currently attend Oban High School, on the mainland. 6.3.2 The pre-5 and primary pupils at the Tobermory 2-18 school live predominantly in Tobermory, around 90%, with the remaining 10% living in periphery communities such as Glengorm and Salen. Secondary school pupils are distributed more widely across the island. Around 40% of them live within Tobermory, 11% within Dervaig, 10% in Salen and 4% around Ulva and Ulva Ferry. 22% currently live with the Oban High School Catchment (8% around Bunessan, 7% on Iona and 7% around Fionnphort). The remaining 13% are dispersed across the island. 6.3.3 The mode share of pupils at the existing Tobermory 2-18 School, aggregated by primary and secondary age groups, is shown in Figure 15. Page 162
Page 113
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 27/82 Figure 15. Aggregated Pupil Mode Share 6.3.4 The existing school is supported by around 5 staff employed in the Pre-5 Unit, 12 staff in the primary school and 42 staff in the high school. This includes the 3 and 15 support staff in the primary and secondary school, respectively. 6.3.5 The majority of staff live within Tobermory (63%). There is also a clustering of staff in Salen, 13%, and in Dervaig, 7%. There are two staff members in Oban, and one each in Lochaline, Kilchoan and Ulva. All of these staff are therefore dependent on ferry services. The remaining 18% are dispersed across Mull. Currently 34% of staff walk to the school and 66% drive to the school. 30% 41%2%1% 45%67% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Primary Secondary Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 163
Page 114
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 28/82 7. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 Matters relating to travel and transport are prominent among members of the community when discussing the question of a possible school relocation. As this report identifies, a decision to relocate the school to a new site would, in some cases, disturb established routines while giving rise to a series of other travel and transport implications. 7.1.2 The remainder of this report examines each of the short-listed school sites to determine how each performs in terms of travel, transport and access. While this includes local accessibility and connectivity, the appraisal also establishes the implications and opportunities when the home locations of staff and pupils are taken into account. 7.1.3 The assessment criteria below are designed to ensure each candidate site is appraised in the context of the island-wide school operations which are summarised in this report. This process will enable the Council to form a clear understanding of the implications and opportunities which arise from development of a given site. This appraisal process is separate from the various detailed analyses which would be required in support of a planning application in support of a selected site. 7.1.4 SYSTRA anticipates that the ‘Application Stage’ is likely to require the preparation of a comprehensive Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Such a document would set out the detail of any plans which were necessary to develop a given site while ensuring its layout, connectivity and operations were all tailored to the specific requirements of a site and its locality. 7.2 Assessment Criteria 7.2.1 SYSTRA has considered the following metrics when evaluating candidate sites: Number of user journeys and mode split; Good public transport links to the site and location; Existing safe active travel links to site; Travel times for pupils and staff; Potential impact on public transport network; Ability of existing roads infrastructure to service site; Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel; and Carbon Impact of travel. 7.2.2 These criteria have been chosen following public consultation events, discussions with the Council and with the wider design team. SYSTRA’s understanding for each of these criteria is presented in the following paragraphs. User Journeys and Pupil Mode Split 7.2.3 The Baseline report presents a breakdown of how pupils travel, whether by active travel, bus, taxi or private car. If trip distance changes materially as a result of the school relocation, it is likely that the means by which people travel may also change. For example, a trip currently made on foot by a pupil whose home is within walking distance Page 164
Page 115
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 29/82 of the school would no longer be practical by that means if the school were relocated to a site outside of walking distance. Good Public Transport Links to the Site and Location 7.2.4 An assessment of the interactions between the site and the present-day public transport network. This section will also identify measures which could be implemented at each site to support journey by pupil transport. Travel Time 7.2.5 As with journey distance, it will be possible to evaluate differences between the overall travel time required for current and potential future trips. Given the nature of road links on Mull, where single track roads are commonplace the consideration of travel time is perhaps more prominent than that relating to overall journey distance. Potential Impact on Public Transport Network 7.2.6 This report highlights that most of the island’s public transport network is shaped around the requirements of school travel. In the event that the school bus network was to change, adjustments to the commercial bus network may occur as a consequence. Ability of Existing Roads Infrastructure to Service Site 7.2.7 This criterion will assess the present roads infrastructure adjacent to each of the sites. Off-site highway upgrades which may be necessary to support the site will also be identified. Complex Dependencies 7.2.8 If a ‘complex dependency’ can be defined as a trip which requires multiple modes and stages, appraisal of alternative sites will help to determine if the share of trips which are ‘complex’ is likely to increase or not. School Travel Emissions 7.2.9 A detailed understanding of pupil and staff home locations, accompanied by a breakdown of how many individuals travel from each location enables a quantification of the total distance travelled by each individual. The extent to which those values may change as a result of a new location being selected can be examined, enabling a comparison between present-day and future situation. 7.2.10 As an extension of changes to the distance travelled and mode used, it seems likely there will be changes in emissions related to school travel. In the baseline conditions, 37% of children travel by means which do not generate carbon emissions and 72 travel by bus. An appraisal of alternative locations will show how associated changes in travel then effect the requirement for vehicle-based trips. Page 165
Page 116
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 30/82 8. FORTHCOMING DEVELOPMENT ON MULL, ULVA AND IONA 8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 The main objective of this exercise is to consider the implications of developing the proposed Mull Education Campus in a location other than the existing site, examining the implications for travel, transport and access when viewed in the context of the Baseline situation. This section observes that the existing housing stock on the Islands is likely to be supplemented by the delivery of new homes over time, changing the absolute number of homes and potentially leading to a change in the overall distribution of homes across the study area. 8.2 Future Housing Allocation 8.2.1 Argyll and Bute Council conduct an annual Housing Land Audit which identifies two classifications of housing allocation sites. The first are ones contained in the Local Development Plan/Local Development 2 (either allocations, or Potential Development Areas that have received planning consent) and Large Windfall Sites, which are sites for 5 units or more that are not in the LDP/LDP2. Secondly, are Small Windfall Sites which are developments of less than 5 units not on LDP identified sites. 8.2.2 The location of housing sites identified in the 2023 Housing Land Audit and the number of units of remaining capacity (for LDP and LWF sites) are shown in Figure 16. Figure 16. Future Housing Allocation Page 166
Page 117
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 31/82 9. MULL EDUCATION CAMPUS OVERVIEW 9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 SYSTRA has worked closely with the Council and other project team members to evaluate the credentials of a long-list of possible locations for a single-site education campus. Following this high-level evaluation, four candidate sites have been shortlisted for further, more detailed evaluation. 9.1.2 The wider project team has worked together to agree suitable assessment criteria against which each of the shortlisted sites can be appraised, with matters relating to transport and access forming an important part of that overall consideration. 9.1.3 Consideration of transport matters related to the shortlisted sites is essentially two-fold, as follows: Matters which relate specifically to the sites and their immediate environs (access, layout and local connectivity) Matters related to travel to and from the sites from within the catchments which are defined in the Baseline review (changes in travel mode split, travel distance and carbon). 9.2 Shortlisted Sites 9.2.1 The locations of the shortlisted sites are shown in Figure 17. Figure 17. Location of Shortlisted Sites Page 167
Page 118
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 32/82 9.3 Overall Approach 9.3.1 Each of the shortlisted sites is evaluated in the sections which follow. The approach taken has sought to ensure that a common methodology has been applied to each of the sites, thereby providing outputs which can be readily compared across each of the sites. 9.3.2 Notwithstanding the physical considerations which relate to each site, the assessment requires evaluation of the extent to which transport routines and provisions would need to change in the event that a decision was taken to develop one particular site. For example, the evaluations which follow show how such a change might prompt an adjustment to travel mode split, overall distance travelled or the transport-related carbon effects that might result from additional mileage being incurred. Outputs such as these are presented in a consistent manner to enable direct comparisons. 9.3.3 The Baseline Evaluation section of this report documents a series of ‘complex dependencies’ which apply to travel to, and within the Island of Mull. These may include the requirement for certain staff members or pupils to travel to the island by ferry, or, for individuals whose home location is detached from the island’s main road network (and hence bus services) to access bus stops by means of a feeder car or taxi trip. In evaluating the overall performance of each site, SYSTRA has assumed that the complex dependencies do not change; that is to say that regardless of the site which may be developed, it will remain necessary for a given individual to complete the first leg of their journey by ferry or feeder car or taxi. Page 168
Page 119
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 33/82 10. FORECAST METHODOLOGY 10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 In order to make an informed assessment of each candidate site against the transport related criteria, it is necessary to understand where end users live, the distance they will be required to travel to a candidate site and the means by which that trip will be made. SYSTRA has developed a consistent methodology to arrive at site-specific forecasts, with each being informed by the observed travel behaviours which are discussed in the Baseline report. In developing those forecasts, it was necessary to make a number of assumptions and qualifications. The purpose of this Chapter is to document and explain those assumptions and any qualifications which apply to the methodology adopted. 10.2 Exclusions and Assumptions 10.2.1 The mode share forecast is representative of the primary mode of travel used to travel to and from the school site. The primary mode of travel is the one used for the longest distance in a given trip. For example, someone who takes the bus to school may also have a 400m walk to the bus stop. In such a case, it is only the bus journey which is of concern. 10.2.2 Similarly, in instances where pupils are taken from their (remote) home by car or taxi to access the bus which forms the main leg of their journey to school, the mode split recorded for this exercise will be recorded as ‘bus’. Existing examples of such trips are evident at Lochbuie. Trips like this are likely to occur regardless of the site selected for a new campus and hence their inclusion within the mode share forecast is academic. 10.2.3 Ferry journeys have also been excluded for the same reason - pupils or staff who live on Iona, Ulva or the mainland will still have to use the ferry to get on to Mull regardless of the site selected. 10.2.4 This forecasting exercise does not account for any strategic changes in population distribution on Mull, Iona and Ulva. It also does not account for any pupils changing school. All sites have been assessed on the assumptions that school catchments would remain the same. 10.2.5 Consideration has been given to the impact of changing the secondary school catchments on the two sites outwith Tobermory (Site 02 – Craignure and Site 03 – Garmony) to include the Ross of Mull. In response to a request from the Iona Community to remain within the catchment area of Oban High School they have been removed from the scope of these additional tests. 10.2.6 SYSTRA has included these additional tests to consider their sensitivity, and it is noted that these are not intended to directly influence the scoring of the sites. The inclusion of these sensitivity tests does not represent a commitment by the council to implement any changes to the school catchments. Such a process would be subject a separate statutory process. 10.2.7 The travel time, distance and carbon emissions associated with pupils from the Ross and Mull and Iona travelling to and from Oban has not been accounted for in the baseline conditions. Page 169
Page 120
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 34/82 10.2.8 The car requirement calculation assumes a pupil occupancy of 1.2. Staff vehicle occupancy is assumed at 1.05, this is based on observed car sharing behaviour as revealed by the staff ‘hands up’ travel survey. 10.2.9 SYSTRA anticipates that regardless of the site selected, Travel Planning measures would be adopted to ensure staff and pupil travel in the most efficient and sustainable way possible. In this context, it would be expected that efforts are made to maximise rates of car sharing, especially between staff – where possible. 10.2.10 For all of the following metrics, values are based on a single one-way trip. It is assumed that travel to and from school will be broadly similar although there may be some variation as a result of wrap-around activities. These have not been accounted for. It is assumed that travel behaviour will not vary significantly day to day across the week. Daily and weekly values could therefore be calculated by multiplying the values stated in this report by 2 and 10, respectively. 10.3 Mode Share 10.3.1 To suitably reflect the available travel modes SYSTRA has developed a range of generalised mode splits which reflect the outcomes of the ‘hands-up’ surveys of existing pupils. Five separate mode split combinations were developed to capture the breadth of circumstances which are evident in the Baseline situation – these capture the different ways that individuals travel according to the location and setting of their home. 10.3.2 The five generalised mode splits are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Generalised Student Mode Splits MODE SPLIT WALK TAXI BUS CAR Primary School - Vehicle 2.5% 95% 2.5% Secondary School - Vehicle 95% 5% Remote Origin - Vehicle 2% 98% Primary School - Walkable 35% 65% Secondary School - Walkable 80% 20% 10.3.3 To calculate an overall pupil mode share for each of the candidate sites the most appropriate of the mode splits has been applied to each age group of pupils travelling from each the residential catchments on Mull and Ulva 10.3.4 The following example considers primary school-aged pupils living in Tobermory. For the existing school site those pupils have been assigned the ‘Primary School - Walkable’ mode split. However, for Site 03 – Garmony, as those pupils would have to travel to that site by vehicle, they are assigned the ‘Primary School - Vehicle’ mode split instead in this instance. Page 170
Page 121
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 35/82 10.3.5 For each of around 11 residential areas (14 in the case of the additional assessments for Sites 2 and 3), such as Tobermory, Calgary, Salen and Ulva, a suitable mode split has been applied to primary and secondary pupils. There are a further two categories (“Within reasonable trip of bus” and “Remote”) which captures the disparate location of pupils who live outwith a residential area. 10.3.6 To produce a mode split for each of the candidate sites, the individual mode splits for each area have been aggregated, taking account of the existing pupil populations in each area. These mode shares are presented within each relevant candidate site chapter. 10.4 Person and Vehicle Trips 10.4.1 Using the mode share for each site and age group and the anticipated pupil count, SYSTRA has sought to calculate the number of pupils travelling by each mode. To inform further calculations relating to journey time, journey distance and carbon emissions criteria an origin must be determined for each vehicle. 10.4.2 To determine the origin of taxi trips, the number of taxis estimated to be required is assigned to the areas with the largest pupil population which require them. Note that only one taxi is assigned to each area. For example, for sites where the campus remains in Tobermory, Tobermory is not assigned a taxi as the Tobermory generalised mode split for both primary and secondary is “Walkable”. Instead, an area such as Salen is assigned one. However, in the instance that the site is located in Craignure then Tobermory would be the first to be assigned a taxi because it has the largest population which requires one. As in this case Tobermory is assigned the “Vehicle” mode split. 10.4.3 The number of buses required for each site is determined based on the anticipated mode share of buses. The configuration of the bus network is informed by the existing conditions and input from Argyll and Bute Council’s School Transport officers. For the purposes of modelling, the origin of each bus route is the first stop on the route. 10.4.4 Cars, similar to taxis, are assigned proportionally to the residential areas which require them. 10.5 Travel Distance 10.5.1 The travel distance from the centre of each residential area to each candidate site has been calculated following the most suitable driving route for a single-direction trip (i.e. a trip TO school). Each vehicle is then assigned a mileage base upon its origin location. The total mileage for each site is an aggregation of all vehicle miles associated with the site. 10.6 Travel Time 10.6.1 The travel time for taxi and car passengers is derived from Google Maps for the average drive time on a Tuesday morning. Tuesday is considered to be a ‘neutral weekday’ in transport assessment terms. The travel time for buses is calculated based upon existing bus timetables. Unlike for travel distance, the total travel time is an aggregation of all passenger journey times, albeit the values presented relate to a single-direction trip. Page 171
Page 122
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 36/82 10.7 Carbon Emissions 10.7.1 The carbon emissions of each vehicle trip are informed by the Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Data Book. The assumed split of car fuel types is taken from Table A1.3.9 for the year 2024 and is as follows: Petrol – 51% Diesel – 39% Electric – 11% 10.7.2 While this may not perfectly reflect the proportions of each car type on Mull and Ulva in any instance the proportion of engine types will change with time in line with national policy and changes in buyer habits. 10.7.3 The fuel / energy consumption of each vehicle type (Petrol Car, Diesel Car, Electric Car and Passenger Service Vehicle (PSV)) is calculated as a function of average speed. SYSTRA has assumed the average speed of all vehicles to be 30mph, this is broadly consistent with the average journey times derived from Google Maps. 10.7.4 Carbon dioxide emissions per litre of fuel burnt / kWh used is taken for the year 2024 from Table A3.3 of the TAG Data Book. This, combined with the fuel consumption can be used to derive a value for emissions per mile driven for cars and buses. This value is used to inform the travel related carbon emissions for each site for a single direction trip. Page 172
Page 123
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 37/82 11. SITE 01 – EXISTING TOBERMORY SITE 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Site 01 – Tobermory is located on the existing Tobermory 2-18 School site. The indicative site layout is illustrated in Figure 18 below. Figure 18. Site 01 – Tobermory Indicative Layout 11.1.2 Travel habits to the existing site are already established and as such the redevelopment is unlikely to have a measurable impact on pupil and staff travel. The steep nature of Back Brae and the wider area as a whole constrain access as already demonstrated in the baseline section of this report. The site is within 500m of two large windfall (residential) sites, both currently under construction, with a total remaining capacity of 8 units. 11.2 Assessment Criteria – Existing School Catchments Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/ staff mode split) 11.2.1 As there will be little change to travel characteristics the anticipated mode share for the Tobermory site SYSTRA has assumed the mode share to remain the same as the results of the hands up survey conducted at the existing Tobermory 2-18 school. For completeness this mode share is presented in Figure 19. Page 173
Page 124
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 38/82 Figure 19. Site 01 – Mode Share 11.2.2 Currently around 30% of primary-aged pupils walk to the site and 70% are driven to the site. There are also a few trips facilitated by taxi or bus. 40% of secondary-aged currently walk to the site and 45% arrive by bus. A further 15% drive or are driven to the school. 33% of staff walk to the site and the remaining 67% currently drive. 11.2.3 Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected number of trips by each mode is presented in Table 4. Table 4. Site 01 – Multi-Modal Trips SITE COHORT WALK TAXI BUS CAR FERRY TOTAL Site 01 - Tobermory Primary 29 2 1 64 0 95 Site 01 - Tobermory Secondary 64 0 71 22 0 157 Site 01 - Tobermory Staff 20 0 0 39 0 59 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 11.2.4 As the Tobermory site is located on the existing school site no changes to the current bus operations are anticipated. The buses which would be required for secondary school pupils are one bus from Calgary / Dervaig, one bus from Torloisk and Ulva Ferry via Salen and one bus from Lochbuie Crossroads. The annual revisions of the network and its complex dependencies are expected to be broadly in line with existing operations. 11.2.5 Figure 20 illustrates the anticipated bus network for Site 01. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Primary Secondary Staff Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 174
Page 125
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 39/82 Figure 20. Site 01 Anticipated Bus Network 11.2.6 School buses would be funded as school transport where pupils meet Argyll and Bute Council’s requirements – details of these requirements are provided in Section 3.4. Good public transport links to site and location Existing Conditions 11.2.7 The morning and afternoon school services currently serve the site by way of the bus layby on Erray Road. Tobermory is additionally served throughout the day by the 494 and the 95/495. Future Conditions 11.2.8 The site could incorporate approximately three bus stances adjacent to the school entrance to enable safe boarding and disembarkation of pupils. Alternatively, as a result of site constraints, the use of the bus bays on Erray Road could continue to be utilised, perhaps with some rationalisation or upgrade. Existing safe active travel links to site Existing Conditions 11.2.9 Pedestrian facilities are limited to larger residential streets on the adjacent road network such as Erray Road and Victoria Street. There is also an off-road path between Back Brae and Main Street via Middle Brae and a set of steps. Page 175
Page 126
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 40/82 Future Conditions 11.2.10 While infrastructure is currently limited, off-site improvement works would likely be a requirement following the standard consultation and transport assessment processes. Travel times for pupils and staff 11.2.11 The estimated one-way travel times for primary and secondary pupils and staff are shown in Table 5. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. It should also be noted that the travel time for the minor leg of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys is likely to remain constant across all four sites. Table 5. Site 01 – Travel Time (Minutes) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR WALK TOTAL AVERAGE Site 01 - Tobermory Primary 18 22 153 280 473 5 Site 01 - Tobermory Secondary 0 2,356 162 588 3,106 20 Site 01 - Tobermory Staff 0 0 695 163 858 15 Site 01 - Tobermory Total 18 2,378 1,010 1,031 4,438 - Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding Page 176
Page 127
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 41/82 Potential impact on public transport network 11.2.12 As there will be no requirement to amend the bus services associated with school transport there is unlikely to be any impact, positive or negative, on the wider public transport network. Ability of existing roads infrastructure to service site 11.2.13 The site is already a part of the established road network and the site’s vehicular access would remain. The increase in car parking within the site will reduce the instances of on- street car parking occurring on the adjoining residential streets, in turn making it easier for buses to navigate these streets. 11.2.14 There can at times be complexities in accommodating and manoeuvring larger vehicles on the site, particularly when multiple vehicles are present at once. Buses which arrive via Argyll Terrace then have to reverse up Erray Road with the aid of a banksman. Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel 11.2.15 Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) 11.2.16 The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Tobermory site are presented in Table 6. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle as opposed to each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Table 6. Site 01 – Travel Distance (Miles) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Site 01 - Tobermory Primary 6 0 42 48 Site 01 - Tobermory Secondary 0 63 57 121 Site 01 - Tobermory Staff 0 0 303 303 Site 01 - Tobermory Total 6 63 402 471 11.2.17 As with any new development of this nature Travel Planning measures have the potential to positively influence travel, particularly among staff members. A Travel Plan would seek Page 177
Page 128
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 42/82 to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce the number of vehicle miles incurred. 11.2.18 Applying the carbon emission assessment methodology outlined in Section 10.7 the estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the Tobermory site is presented in Table 7. Table 7. Site 01 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Site 01 - Tobermory Primary 0 0 9 9 Site 01 - Tobermory Secondary 0 67 12 79 Site 01 - Tobermory Staff 0 0 67 67 Site 01 - Tobermory Total 0 67 89 156 11.2.19 Any increase in carbon emissions from bus travel may only be temporary. In line with current national policy bus fleets are gradually transitioning to electric and hydrogen systems. While SYSTRA is not aware of specific plans to convert the fleet on Mull, such an advancement would of course reduce the carbon impact from bus travel. 11.2.20 A similar transition is likely to occur to the car fleet, as residents increasingly embrace the use of electric cars. 11.3 Conclusion 11.3.1 The following considerations are given to Site 01 – Tobermory: Travel characteristics are mostly known as they are likely to align with present conditions; The site is within walking distance of the most existing housing; and The site is constrained making access for large vehicles (e.g. buses and HGVs during construction) difficult. Page 178
Page 129
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 43/82 12. SITE 02 - CRAIGNURE 12.1 Introduction 12.1.1 Site 02 – Craignure is located to the west of Craignure Bay adjacent to the Mull and Iona Community Hospital. The indicative site layout is illustrated in Figure 21 below. Figure 21. Site 02 – Craignure Indicative Layout 12.1.2 The site sits back from the main A849 which is subject to a 60mph speed limit in the vicinity of the site. It also sits adjacent to a site which has a local plan strategic housing allocation for c. 80 housing units. The site is greenfield in nature and on the basis of preliminary masterplanning work, it is of sufficient size to enable incorporation of necessary car parking and bus facilities. 12.2 Assessment Criteria – Existing School Catchments Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/ staff mode split) 12.2.1 The anticipated mode share for the Craignure site, in a scenario where the catchments do not change, is presented in Figure 22. For comparative purposes, the forecast mode split is presented in the context of established travel behaviour at the existing Tobermory 2- 18 school. Page 179
Page 130
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 44/82 Figure 22. Site 02 – Indicative Mode Share 12.2.2 The majority of both primary and secondary-aged pupils would be required to travel to the Craignure site by bus for the main leg of their trip. This mode share is based upon existing travel behaviours and the modelling exercise which is outlined in Chapter 9. 12.2.3 If established pupil and staff cohorts were to transfer to this site, a clear implication would be that those whose existing trip is made on foot would need to select an alternative travel mode. In view of the Council’s obligation to provide school buses for pupils whose trip cannot be made on foot, it would seem likely that the majority of existing pedestrian trips would become bus trips. 12.2.4 While such a change is likely to cause some disruption in the short-term, the principle established by the existing Tobermory to Salen GMU bus demonstrates that primary school transport over an extended distance is practical and feasible. Importantly, in the context of the Salen GMU service, the Council has been able to understand, and address, concerns which had initially been expressed by parents around the requirement for primary school age children to travel by bus. 12.2.5 There will be limited opportunities the Craignure site to support trips on foot with just a handful of secondary school pupils and staff currently residing in Craignure. Should the adjacent site be developed with housing, it is reasonable to anticipate that a larger number of trips by active travel modes would result. 12.2.6 Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected trips by each mode is presented in Table 8. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Site 02 - Craignure Site 02 - Craignure Site 02 - Craignure Primary Secondary Staff Primary Secondary Staff Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 180
Page 131
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 45/82 Table 8. Site 02 – Multi-Modal Trips SITE COHORT WALK TAXI BUS CAR FERRY TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 29 2 1 64 0 95 Existing Conditions Secondary 64 0 71 22 0 157 Existing Conditions Staff 20 0 0 39 0 59 Site 02 - Craignure Primary 0 2 88 5 0 95 Site 02 - Craignure Secondary 3 0 143 11 0 157 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 1 0 0 58 0 59 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 12.2.7 In order to serve the anticipated 231 pupils travelling by bus a total of approximately 7 buses will be required. It is expected that two buses/coaches would be provided to serve primary pupils travelling from Tobermory to Craignure. These would likely have a capacity of around 45 seats each and would operate as closed-door services, i.e. not open to members of the public. 12.2.8 For secondary school pupils, up to five buses (potentially of varying size) would be required. One smaller bus would collect children from Calgary and Dervaig before operating non-stop to Craignure. This is necessary as a result of a weight restriction on the Calgary road (B8073) which prohibits the use of buses with more than 33 seats. Two buses would collect children from around Tobermory and then collect pupils who live within a reasonable distance of the A849 (such as at Aros or Pennygown) enroute to Craignure. This could be reduced to one bus in the event that a higher- capacity bus/coach was used. A further bus would originate in Torloisk and collect children from Ulva Ferry and Salen before continuing non-stop to Craignure. Lastly, in the event that school catchments don’t change a minibus or large taxi could collect pupils from communities south of Craignure such as Lochbuie and Lochdonhead. 12.2.9 Figure 23 illustrates the anticipated bus network for Site 02. Page 181
Page 132
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 46/82 Figure 23. Site 02 Anticipated Bus Network 12.2.10 School buses would be funded as school transport where pupils meet Argyll and Bute Council’s requirements in line with the summary which is provided in Section 3.4. Notwithstanding the Council’s preparedness to meet the costs of additional bus services, their provision depends on the ability of operators to recruit and retain a sufficient number of drivers, noting the practical operating issues relating to AM and PM-only journeys. Good public transport links to site and location Existing Conditions 12.2.11 The adjacent Mull and Iona Community Hospital is currently served by the service 95 bus. The 96/496 Craignure to Fionnphort service terminates at the nearby ferry terminal. Future Conditions 12.2.12 The site would incorporate approximately four bus stances to enable pupils to board and disembark safely. These bays would ideally be positioned within the site such that bus doors opened directly onto an expansive pedestrian space, thereby removing the needs for pupils to interact with the car park and other trafficked spaces. 12.2.13 The primary and secondary school days finish approximately 20 minutes apart. Unlike the morning period, where buses are only present on site for as long as it takes for pupils to disembark, buses are required to be present on site in anticipation of the afternoon school bell. This means it is more likely that several buses would be present on site at Page 182
Page 133
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 47/82 once. To avoid a scenario where buses blocked the operation of the car park, bays could be incorporated to the site access road to enable empty buses/coaches for the secondary school to dwell while the primary school buses are boarded. Existing safe active travel links to site Existing Conditions 12.2.14 There is currently limited active travel provision in Craignure. Footways which are provided on both sides of the A849 in the 30mph section are narrow. The footway is present on the north side of the road only, beyond the ferry terminal. This footway then stops beyond the entrance to the Mull Community Swimming Pool. There are currently no formal pedestrian crossings on the A849. Future Conditions 12.2.15 While infrastructure is currently limited, it is clear that a package of off-site improvement works would be required to ensure the safe integration of the site to the established transport network. The scope of those works would emerge through the detailed Transport Assessment which would accompany and inform a Planning Application. At the time of writing, it seems likely that this package would at least comprise enhancements to existing footways, provision of new links where none are currently present and the delivery of new, safe crossing opportunities. It seems reasonable to assume that the adjacent residential allocation could be developed in a manner which facilitates active travel between Craignure and the school site. Travel times for pupils and staff 12.2.16 The estimated one-way travel times for primary and secondary pupils and staff are shown in Table 9. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. It should also be noted that the travel time for the minor leg of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys is likely to remain constant across all four sites. Page 183
Page 134
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 48/82 Table 9. Site 02 – Travel Time (Minutes) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR WALK TOTAL AVERAGE Existing Conditions Primary 18 22 153 280 473 5 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 2,356 162 588 3,106 20 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 695 163 858 15 Existing Conditions Total 18 2,378 1,010 1,031 4,438 - Site 02 - Craignure Primary 70 3,084 140 0 3,294 35 Site 02 - Craignure Secondary 0 5,147 328 48 5,523 35 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 0 0 1,966 16 1,982 34 Site 02 - Craignure Total 70 8,231 2,434 64 10,799 - Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 12.2.17 Table 9 shows a general uplift in the total and average travel times for all pupil and staff cohorts. Comparisons of average travel time should be viewed in the context of the wide range of unique travel considerations. Potential impact on public transport network 12.2.18 As discussed in Paragraph 12.2.7 and 12.2.8 it is likely that additional buses will be required to facilitate pupil transport. The availability of more buses and drivers has the potential to enhance general levels of public transport provision on the island, noting that many existing scheduled local bus services arise primarily because of school transport requirements. Ability of existing roads infrastructure to service site 12.2.19 The site is well served by the adjoining A849 although there is currently no formalised access into the site. 12.2.20 There is the potential for access to the site to be taken from a new junction formed on the A849. The design of this junction would be subject to technical assessments at an early stage to ensure the suitability of its placement and format in view of road characteristics Page 184
Page 135
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 49/82 and adjacent accesses, if applicable. Any new junction would need to comply with driver visibility criteria in line with standard assessment procedures. Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel 12.2.21 Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) 12.2.22 The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Craignure site are presented in Table 10. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle rather than each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Table 10. Site 02– Travel Distance (Miles) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 6 0 42 48 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 63 57 121 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 303 303 Existing Conditions Total 6 63 402 471 Site 02 - Craignure Primary 40 41 81 162 Site 02 - Craignure Secondary 0 100 179 278 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 0 0 1,113 1,113 Site 02 - Craignure Total 40 141 1,373 1,553 12.2.23 Table 10 shows a modest uplift in the driven vehicle miles, particularly among staff. As with any new development of this nature Travel Planning measures have the potential to positively influence travel, particularly among staff members. A Travel Plan would seek to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce the number of vehicle miles incurred. 12.2.24 Applying the carbon emission assessment methodology outlined in Section 10.7 the estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the Craignure site is presented in Table 11. Page 185
Page 136
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 50/82 Table 11. Site 02 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 0 0 9 9 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 67 12 79 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 67 67 Existing Conditions Total 0 67 89 156 Site 02 - Craignure Primary 9 43 18 70 Site 02 - Craignure Secondary 0 105 39 145 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 0 0 245 245 Site 02 - Craignure Total 9 149 302 460 12.2.25 Any increase in carbon emissions from bus travel may only be temporary. In line with current national policy bus fleets are gradually transitioning to electric and hydrogen systems. While SYSTRA is not aware of specific plans to convert the fleet on Mull, such an advancement would of course reduce the carbon impact from bus travel. 12.2.26 A similar transition is likely to occur to the car fleet, as residents increasingly embrace the use of electric cars. Page 186
Page 137
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 51/82 12.3 Sensitivity Test – Revised Catchments Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/ staff mode split) 12.3.1 The anticipated mode share for the Craignure site, in a scenario where the secondary school catchments do change to include the Ross of Mull is presented in Figure 24. For comparative purposes, the forecast mode split is presented in the context of established travel behaviour at the existing Tobermory 2-18 school. Figure 24. Site 02 – Indicative Mode Share 12.3.2 The mode share of the Craignure site in the event that the school catchments do change will be broadly the same as if the catchments don’t change. 12.3.3 Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected trips by each mode is presented in Table 12. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Site 02 - Craignure Site 02 - Craignure Site 02 - Craignure Primary Secondary Staff Primary Secondary Staff Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 187
Page 138
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 52/82 Table 12. Site 02 – Multi-Modal Trips SITE COHORT WALK TAXI BUS CAR FERRY TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 29 2 1 64 0 95 Existing Conditions Secondary 64 0 71 22 0 157 Existing Conditions Staff 20 0 0 39 0 59 Site 02 - Craignure Primary 0 2 88 5 0 95 Site 02 - Craignure Secondary 3 0 164 14 0 181 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 1 0 0 58 0 59 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 12.3.4 The primary difference in the number of multi-modal trips if the catchments change is an additional 21 bus passengers and an additional 3 car trips from the Ross of Mull. 12.3.5 In the event of catchments changing, a similar reconfiguration of the bus network will be required to serve the Craignure site, as outlined in Paragraph 12.2.7 and 12.2.8. The key difference is that the minibus/taxi from Lochbuie would instead have to be a full-sized bus/coach originating at the Fionnphort ferry. The characteristics of this bus service would broadly align with the existing 96/496 bus service. 12.3.6 School buses would be funded as school transport where pupils meet Argyll and Bute Council’s requirements in line with the summary which is provided in Section 3.4. Notwithstanding the Council’s preparedness to meet the costs of additional bus services, their provision depends on the ability of operators to recruit and retain a sufficient number of drivers, noting the practical operating issues relating to AM and PM-only journeys. Good public transport links to site and location 12.3.7 The public transport considerations of the site remain consistent regardless of the catchments. See Paragraphs 12.2.11 to 12.2.13 for more details. Existing safe active travel links to site 12.3.8 The active travel considerations of the site remain consistent regardless of the catchments. See Paragraphs 12.2.14 and 12.2.15 for more details. Travel times for pupils and staff 12.3.9 The estimated one-way travel times, if the catchments were to change, for primary and secondary pupils and staff are shown in Table 13. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. It Page 188
Page 139
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 53/82 should also be noted that the travel time for the minor leg of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys is likely to remain constant across all four sites. Table 13. Site 02 – Travel Time (Minutes) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR WALK TOTAL AVERAGE Existing Conditions Primary 18 22 153 280 473 5 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 2,356 162 588 3,106 20 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 695 163 858 15 Existing Conditions Total 18 2,378 1,010 1,031 4,438 - Site 02 - Craignure Primary 70 3,082 140 0 3,292 35 Site 02 - Craignure Secondary 0 6,738 360 48 7,146 39 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 0 0 1,966 16 1,982 34 Site 02 - Craignure Total 70 9,821 2,465 64 12,420 - Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 12.3.10 Table 13 shows an uplift in the total and average travel times for all cohorts. Comparisons of average travel time should be viewed in the context of the wide range of unique travel considerations. Potential impact on public transport network 12.3.11 As discussed in Paragraph 12.2.7 and 12.2.8 it is likely that additional buses will be required to facilitate pupil transport. The availability of more buses and drivers has the potential to enhance general levels of public transport provision on the island, noting that many existing scheduled local bus services arise primarily because of school transport requirements. Page 189
Page 140
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 54/82 Ability of existing roads infrastructure to service site 12.3.12 The adjacent infrastructure considerations of the site remain consistent regardless of the catchments. See Paragraphs 12.2.19 and 12.2.20 for more details. Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel 12.3.13 Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) 12.3.14 The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Craignure site, should the catchments change, are presented in Table 14. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle rather than each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Table 14. Site 02 – Travel Distance (Miles) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 6 0 42 48 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 63 57 121 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 303 303 Existing Conditions Total 6 63 402 471 Site 02 - Craignure Primary 40 41 81 162 Site 02 - Craignure Secondary 0 127 192 319 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 0 0 1,113 1,113 Site 02 - Craignure Total 40 168 1,386 1,594 12.3.15 Table 14 shows a modest uplift in the driven vehicle miles particularly among staff. As with any new development of this nature travel planning would seek to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce these vehicle miles. 12.3.16 Applying the carbon emission assessment methodology outlined in Section 10.7 the estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the Craignure site is presented in Table 15. Page 190
Page 141
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 55/82 Table 15. Site 02 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 0 0 9 9 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 67 12 79 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 67 67 Existing Conditions Total 0 67 89 156 Site 02 - Craignure Primary 9 43 18 70 Site 02 - Craignure Secondary 0 135 42 177 Site 02 - Craignure Staff 0 0 245 245 Site 02 - Craignure Total 9 178 305 492 12.3.17 Any increase in carbon emissions from bus travel may only be temporary. In line with current national policy bus fleets are gradually transitioning to electric and hydrogen systems. While SYSTRA is not aware of specific plans to convert the fleet on Mull, such an advancement would of course reduce the carbon impact from bus travel. 12.3.18 A similar transition is likely to occur to the car fleet, as residents increasingly embrace the use of electric cars. 12.4 Conclusion 12.4.1 The following considerations are given to Site 02 – Craignure: Travel times, distances and carbon emissions will increase over the baseline (more so if the catchments are amended to include the Ross of Mull); Average journey times will increase by approximately 20 minutes; Pupils who currently walk will likely have to be taken to the Craignure site by bus requiring approximately 4 additional buses over the baseline; There is an adjacent allocation for c. 80 housing units, enabling trips by active modes; and Footways and crossing opportunities on the adjacent highway network are limited but could be improved. Page 191
Page 142
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 56/82 13. SITE 03 - GARMONY 13.1 Introduction 13.1.1 Site 03 – Garmony is located in Garmony to the south of the Isle of Mull Rugby Club. The indicative site layout is illustrated in Figure 25 below. Figure 25. Site 03 – Garmony Indicative Layout 13.1.2 The site boundary sits adjacent to the A849, although the school building itself will be set back from the main road due to a large area of boggy land to the north east. In the vicinity of the site the A849 runs as a single carriageway, two-way road subject to the national speed limit of 60mph. The site is greenfield in nature and on the basis of preliminary masterplanning work, it is of sufficient size to enable incorporation of necessary car parking and bus facilities. 13.2 Assessment Criteria – Existing School Catchments Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/ staff mode split) 13.2.1 The anticipated mode share for the Garmony site, in a scenario where the catchments do not change, is presented in Figure 26. For comparative purposes, the forecast mode split is presented in the context of established travel behaviour at the existing Tobermory 2- 18 school. Page 192
Page 143
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 57/82 Figure 26. Site 03 – Indicative Mode Share 13.2.2 The majority of both primary and secondary-aged pupils would be required to travel to the Garmony site by bus for the main leg of their trip. This mode share is based upon existing travel behaviours and the modelling exercise which is outlined in Chapter 9. 13.2.3 If established pupil and staff cohorts were to transfer to this site, a clear implication would be that those whose existing trip is made on foot would need to select an alternative travel mode. In view of the Council’s obligation to provide school buses for pupils whose trip cannot be made on foot, it would seem likely that the majority of existing pedestrian trips would become bus trips. 13.2.4 While such a change is likely to cause some disruption in the short-term, the principle established by the existing Tobermory to Salen GMU bus demonstrates that primary school transport over an extended distance is practical and feasible. Importantly, in the context of the Salen GMU service, the Council has been able to understand, and address, concerns which had initially been expressed by parents around the requirement for primary school age children to travel by bus. 13.2.5 There will be limited opportunities for the Garmony site to support trips on foot with a very limited number of pupils or staff currently living locally. 13.2.6 Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected number of trips by each mode is presented in Table 16. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony Primary Secondary Staff Primary Secondary Staff Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 193
Page 144
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 58/82 Table 16. Site 03 – Multi-Modal Trips SITE COHORT WALK TAXI BUS CAR FERRY TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 29 2 1 64 0 95 Existing Conditions Secondary 64 0 71 22 0 157 Existing Conditions Staff 20 0 0 39 0 59 Site 03 - Garmony Primary 0 2 88 5 0 95 Site 03 - Garmony Secondary 0 0 147 10 0 157 Site 03 - Garmony Staff 0 0 0 59 0 59 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 13.2.7 In order to serve the anticipated 235 pupils travelling by bus a total of approximately 7 buses will be required. It is expected that two buses/coaches would be provided to serve primary pupils travelling from Tobermory to Garmony. These would likely have a capacity of around 45 seats each and would operate as closed-door services, i.e. not open to members of the public. 13.2.8 For secondary school pupils, up to five buses (potentially of varying size) would be required. One smaller bus would collect children from Calgary and Dervaig before operating non-stop to Garmony. This is necessary as a result of a weight restriction on the Calgary road (B8073) which prohibits the use of buses with more than 33 seats. Two buses would collect children from around Tobermory and then collect pupils who live within a reasonable distance of the A849 (such as at Aros or Pennygown) enroute to Garmony. This could be reduced to one bus in the event that a higher- capacity bus/coach was used. A further bus would originate in Torloisk and collect children from Ulva Ferry and Salen before continuing non-stop to Garmony. Lastly, in the event that school catchments don’t change a minibus or large taxi could collect pupils from communities south of Garmony such as Lochbuie and Lochdonhead. 13.2.9 Figure 27 illustrates the anticipated bus network for Site 03. Page 194
Page 145
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 59/82 Figure 27. Site 03 Anticipated Bus Network 13.2.10 School buses would be funded as school transport where pupils meet Argyll and Bute Council’s requirements in line with the summary which is provided in Section 3.4. Notwithstanding the Council’s preparedness to meet the costs of additional bus services, their provision depends on the ability of operators to recruit and retain a sufficient number of drivers, noting the practical operating issues relating to AM and PM-only journeys. Good public transport links to site and location Existing Conditions 13.2.11 The service 95/495 currently stops at the nearby rugby club, although this stop is unmarked. Future Conditions 13.2.12 The site would incorporate four bus stances to enable pupils to board and disembark safely. These bays would ideally be positioned within the site such that bus doors opened directly onto an expansive pedestrian space, thereby removing the needs for pupils to interact with the car park and other trafficked spaces. 13.2.13 The primary and secondary school days finish approximately 20 minutes apart. Unlike the morning period, where buses are only present on site for as long as it takes for pupils to disembark, buses are required to be present on site in anticipation of the afternoon school bell. This means it is more likely that several buses would be present on site at Page 195
Page 146
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 60/82 once. To avoid a scenario where buses blocked the operation of the car park, bays could be incorporated to the site access road to enable empty buses/coaches for the secondary school to dwell while the primary school buses are boarded. Existing safe active travel links to site Existing Conditions 13.2.14 There is currently limited active travel provision in Garmony. No footways are present on this section of A849. Future Conditions 13.2.15 While infrastructure is currently limited, it is clear that a package of off-site improvement works would be required to ensure the safe integration of the site to the established transport network. The scope of those works would emerge through the detailed Transport Assessment which would accompany and inform a Planning Application. At the time of writing, it seems likely that this package would at least comprise provision of new links where none are currently present. Travel times for pupils and staff 13.2.16 The estimated one-way travel times for primary and secondary pupils and staff are shown in Table 17. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. It should also be noted that the travel time for the minor leg of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys is likely to remain constant across all four sites. Page 196
Page 147
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 61/82 Table 17. Site 03 – Travel Time (Minutes) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR WALK TOTAL AVERAGE Existing Conditions Primary 18 22 153 280 473 5 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 2,356 162 588 3,106 20 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 695 163 858 15 Existing Conditions Total 18 2,378 1,010 1,031 4,438 - Site 03 - Garmony Primary 57 2,623 117 0 2,797 29 Site 03 - Garmony Secondary 0 4,479 283 0 4,762 30 Site 03 - Garmony Staff 0 0 1,670 0 1,670 28 Site 03 - Garmony Total 57 7,102 2,070 0 9,229 - Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 13.2.17 Table 17 shows a general uplift in the total and average travel times for all pupil and staff cohorts. Comparisons of average travel time should be viewed in the context of the wide range of unique travel considerations. Potential impact on public transport network 13.2.18 As discussed in Paragraph 13.2.7 and 13.2.8 it is likely that additional buses will be required to facilitate pupil transport. The availability of more buses and drivers has the potential to enhance general levels of public transport provision on the island, noting that many existing scheduled local bus services arise primarily because of school transport requirements. Ability of existing roads infrastructure to service site 13.2.19 The site is well served by the adjoining A849 although there is currently no formalised access into the site. 13.2.20 There is the potential for access to the site to be taken from a new junction formed on the A849. The design of this junction would be subject to technical assessments at an early stage to ensure the suitability of placement and format in view of road characteristics and Page 197
Page 148
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 62/82 adjacent accesses, if applicable. Any new junction would need to comply with driver visibility criteria in line with standard assessment procedures. Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel 13.2.21 Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) 13.2.22 The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Garmony site are presented in Table 18. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle rather than each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Table 18. Site 03 – Travel Distance (Miles) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 6 0 42 48 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 63 57 121 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 303 303 Existing Conditions Total 6 63 402 471 Site 03 - Garmony Primary 35 35 70 140 Site 03 - Garmony Secondary 0 96 162 258 Site 03 - Garmony Staff 0 0 960 960 Site 03 - Garmony Total 35 132 1,192 1,358 13.2.23 Table 18 shows a modest uplift in the driven vehicle miles, particularly among staff. As with any new development of this nature Travel Planning measures have the potential to positively influence travel, particularly among staff members. A Travel Plan would seek to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce the number of vehicle miles incurred. 13.2.24 Applying the carbon emission assessment methodology outlined in Section 10.7 the estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the Garmony site is presented in Table 19. Page 198
Page 149
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 63/82 Table 19. Site 03 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 0 0 9 9 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 67 12 79 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 67 67 Existing Conditions Total 0 67 89 156 Site 03 - Garmony Primary 8 37 15 60 Site 03 - Garmony Secondary 0 102 36 138 Site 03 - Garmony Staff 0 0 211 211 Site 03 - Garmony Total 8 139 263 409 13.2.25 Any increase in carbon emissions from bus travel may only be temporary. In line with current national policy bus fleets are gradually transitioning to electric and hydrogen systems. While SYSTRA is not aware of specific plans to convert the fleet on Mull, such an advancement would of course reduce the carbon impact from bus travel. 13.2.26 A similar transition is likely to occur to the car fleet, as residents increasingly embrace the use of electric cars. Page 199
Page 150
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 64/82 13.3 Sensitivity Test – Revised Catchments Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/ staff mode split) 13.3.1 The anticipated mode share for the Garmony site, in a scenario where the secondary school catchments do change to include the Ross of Mull is presented in Figure 28. For comparative purposes, the forecast mode split is presented in the context of established travel behaviour at the existing Tobermory 2-18 school. Figure 28. Site 03 – Indicative Mode Share 13.3.2 The mode share of the Garmony site in the event that the school catchments do change will be broadly the same as if the catchments don’t change. 13.3.3 Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected trips by each mode is presented in Table 20. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony Site 03 - Garmony Primary Secondary Staff Primary Secondary Staff Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 200
Page 151
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 65/82 Table 20. Site 03 – Multi-Modal Trips SITE COHORT WALK TAXI BUS CAR FERRY TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 29 2 1 64 0 95 Existing Conditions Secondary 64 0 71 22 0 157 Existing Conditions Staff 20 0 0 39 0 59 Site 03 - Garmony Primary 0 2 88 5 0 0 Site 03 - Garmony Secondary 0 0 167 13 0 0 Site 03 - Garmony Staff 0 0 0 59 0 0 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 13.3.4 The primary difference in the number of multi-modal trips if the catchments change is an additional 24 bus passengers and an additional 3 car trips from the Ross of Mull. 13.3.5 In the event of catchments changing, a similar reconfiguration of the bus network will be required to serve the Garmony site, as outline in Paragraph 13.2.7 and 13.2.8. The key difference is that the minibus/taxi from Lochbuie would instead have to be a full-sized bus/coach originating at the Fionnphort ferry terminal. The characteristics of this bus service would broadly align with the existing 96/496 bus service, although continuing further north than it currently does. 13.3.6 School buses would be funded as school transport where pupils meet Argyll and Bute Council’s requirements in line with the summary which is provided in Section 3.4. Notwithstanding the Council’s preparedness to meet the costs of additional bus services, their provision depends on the ability of operators to recruit and retain a sufficient number of drivers, noting the practical operating issues relating to AM and PM-only journeys. Good public transport links to site and location 13.3.7 The public transport considerations of the site remain consistent regardless of the catchments. See Paragraphs 13.2.11 to 13.2.13 for more details. Existing safe active travel links to site 13.3.8 The active travel considerations of the site remain consistent regardless of the catchments. See Paragraphs 13.2.14 and 13.2.15 for more details. Travel times for pupils and staff 13.3.9 The estimated one-way travel times, if the catchments were to change, for primary and secondary pupils and staff are shown in Table 21. The travel times presented are an Page 201
Page 152
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 66/82 aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. It should also be noted that the travel time for the minor leg of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys is likely to remain constant across all four sites. Table 21. Site 03 – Travel Time (Minutes) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR WALK TOTAL AVERAGE Existing Conditions Primary 18 22 153 280 473 5 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 2,356 162 588 3,106 20 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 695 163 858 15 Existing Conditions Total 18 2,378 1,010 1,031 4,438 - Site 03 - Garmony Primary 57 2,634 117 0 2,808 29 Site 03 - Garmony Secondary 57 2,622 117 0 2,796 35 Site 03 - Garmony Staff 0 6,130 288 0 6,418 28 Site 03 - Garmony Total 0 0 1,670 0 1,670 - Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 13.3.10 Table 21 shows an uplift in the total and average travel times for all cohorts. Comparisons of average travel time should be viewed in the context of the wide range of unique travel considerations. Potential impact on public transport network 13.3.11 As discussed in Paragraph 13.2.7 and 13.2.8 it is likely that additional buses will be required to facilitate pupil transport. The availability of more buses and drivers has the potential to enhance general levels of public transport provision on the island, noting that many existing scheduled local bus services arise primarily because of school transport requirements. Page 202
Page 153
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 67/82 Ability of existing roads infrastructure to service site 13.3.12 The adjacent infrastructure considerations of the site remain consistent regardless of the catchments. See Paragraphs 13.2.19 and 13.2.20 for more details. Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel 13.3.13 Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) 13.3.14 The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Garmony site, should the catchments change, are presented in Table 22. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle rather than each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Table 22. Site 03 – Travel Distance (Miles) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 6 0 42 48 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 63 57 121 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 303 303 Existing Conditions Total 6 63 402 471 Site 03 - Garmony Primary 35 35 70 140 Site 03 - Garmony Secondary 0 123 159 283 Site 03 - Garmony Staff 0 0 960 960 Site 03 - Garmony Total 35 159 1,190 1,383 13.3.15 Table 22 shows a modest uplift in the driven vehicle miles particularly among staff. As with any new development of this nature travel planning would seek to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce these vehicle miles. 13.3.16 Applying the carbon emission assessment methodology outlined in Section 10.7 the estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the Garmony site is presented in Table 23. Page 203
Page 154
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 68/82 Table 23. Site 03 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 0 0 9 9 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 67 12 79 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 67 67 Existing Conditions Total 0 67 89 156 Site 03 - Garmony Primary 8 37 15 60 Site 03 - Garmony Secondary 0 130 35 166 Site 03 - Garmony Staff 0 0 211 211 Site 03 - Garmony Total 8 168 262 437 13.3.17 Any increase in carbon emissions from bus travel may only be temporary. In line with current national policy bus fleets are gradually transitioning to electric and hydrogen systems. While SYSTRA is not aware of specific plans to convert the fleet on Mull, such an advancement would of course reduce the carbon impact from bus travel. 13.3.18 A similar transition is likely to occur to the car fleet, as residents increasingly embrace the use of electric cars. 13.4 Conclusion 13.4.1 The following considerations are given to Site 03 – Garmony: Travel times, distances and carbon emissions will increase over the baseline (more so if the catchments are amended to include the Ross of Mull); Average journey times will increase by approximately 15 minutes over the baseline; Pupils who currently walk will likely have to be taken to the Garmony site by bus requiring approximately 4 additional buses over the baseline; The site is located adjacent to a limited number of existing housing and no LDP or LWF housing sites identified in the Housing Land Audit; and There are no footways or crossing opportunities on the adjacent highway network – providing them would deliver limited benefit. Page 204
Page 155
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 69/82 14. SITE 04 – TOBERMORY SOUTH 14.1 Introduction 14.1.1 Site 04 – Tobermory South is located in Baliscate, to the south of Tobermory. The indicative site layout is illustrated in Figure 29 below. Figure 29. Site 04 – Tobermory South Indicative Layout 14.1.2 The site sits adjacent to the A848 which is subject to a 30mph speed limit in the vicinity of the site. The site is a greenfield site, although smaller than the Garmony and Craignure sites, and therefore requires some degree of flexibility for car parking and bus facilities. The site also sits within 500m of four Local Development Plan housing sites and one large windfall (not including the LDP site which the school site occupies) which have a total housing capacity of c. 112 units. 14.2 Assessment Criteria – Existing School Catchments Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/ staff mode split) 14.2.1 The anticipated mode share for the Tobermory South site is anticipated to be broadly similar to that of the existing school site. For comparative purposes, the forecast mode split is presented in the context of established travel behaviour at the existing Tobermory 2-18 school in Figure 30. Page 205
Page 156
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 70/82 Figure 30. Site 04 – Indicative Mode Share 14.2.2 Figure 30 demonstrates that mode share among all cohorts is expected to remain broadly similar. The main difference is the slight increase in bus travel among primary-aged pupils. While this is borne out as a result of the modelling assumptions there are a handful of pupils who live outwith the catchment but on the main A849/A848 road. There is potential, therefore, for these pupils to be transported to the site by bus. 14.2.3 Based on the expected student cohort and staff numbers, the expected number of trips by each mode is presented in Table 24. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Established Behaviour (Tobermory) Site 04 - Tobermory South Site 04 - Tobermory South Site 04 - Tobermory South Primary Secondary Staff Primary Secondary Staff Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Page 206
Page 157
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 71/82 Table 24. Site 04 – Multi-Modal Trips SITE COHORT WALK TAXI BUS CAR FERRY TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 29 2 1 64 0 95 Existing Conditions Secondary 64 0 71 22 0 157 Existing Conditions Staff 20 0 0 39 0 59 Site 04 – Tobermory South Primary 30 0 5 60 0 95 Site 04 – Tobermory South Secondary 64 0 70 22 0 157 Site 04 – Tobermory South Staff 19 0 0 40 0 59 Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 14.2.4 As the Tobermory site is located just 0.7miles from the existing school site no changes to the current bus operations are anticipated. The buses which would be required for secondary school pupils are one bus from Calgary / Dervaig, one bus from Torloisk and Ulva Ferry via Salen and one bus from Lochbuie Crossroads. The annual revisions of the network and its complex dependencies are expected to be broadly in line with existing operations. 14.2.5 Figure 31 illustrates the anticipated bus network for Site 04. Page 207
Page 158
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 72/82 Figure 31. Site 04 Anticipated Bus Network 14.2.6 School buses would be funded as school transport where pupils meet Argyll and Bute Council’s requirements – details of these requirements are provided in Section 3.4. Good public transport links to site and location Existing Conditions 14.2.7 The existing service 95/495 passes the site frontage. There are a pair of bus stops located south of the site at Struan Crescent. Future Conditions 14.2.8 The site could incorporate approximately three bus stances adjacent to the school entrance to enable safe boarding and disembarkation of pupils. Alternatively, as a result of site constraints, bus bays could be provided adjacent to the site on the A848. 14.2.9 The service 494 bus from Calgary to Tobermory would not have to be significantly diverted from its present route in order to service the Tobermory South Site. Existing safe active travel links to site Existing Conditions 14.2.10 There are currently footways on both sides of the A848 between Eas Brae and the site. Footways are provided on at least one side of the road down into the town centre and up Page 208
Page 159
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 73/82 into Rockfield Road and the Tobermory Medical Practice. These footways are generally lit and appear to be of a good quality, albeit narrow in some locations. 14.2.11 There are currently no footways provided on Dervaig Road or Breadalbane Street, both of which are narrow and unsuitable for pedestrians. There is a pedestrian footway between Argyll Terrace and Eas Brae enabling access between the site and the majority of housing in Tobermory. 14.2.12 There are currently no formalised pedestrian crossings on the A848 in the vicinity of the site. Future Conditions 14.2.13 While crossing infrastructure is currently limited, off-site improvement works of this nature would likely be a requirement following the standard consultation and transport assessment processes. It seems reasonable to assume that the adjacent residential allocation could be developed in a manner which facilitates active travel between these sites and the school site. Travel times for pupils and staff 14.2.14 The estimated one-way travel times for primary and secondary pupils and staff are shown in Table 25. The travel times presented are an aggregate, encompassing the wide range of trips which would be made to the site. It should also be noted that the travel time for the minor leg of a trip (such as walking to the bus stop, a ferry crossing or travelling by car to access bus stops on the main road) are not accounted for in this analysis. In any case, the nature of these journeys is likely to remain constant across all four sites. Page 209
Page 160
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 74/82 Table 25. Site 04 – Travel Time (Minutes) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR WALK TOTAL AVERAGE Existing Conditions Primary 18 22 153 280 473 5 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 2,356 162 588 3,106 20 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 695 163 858 15 Existing Conditions Total 18 2,378 1,010 1,031 4,438 - Site 04 – Tobermory South Primary 0 80 150 440 670 7 Site 04 – Tobermory South Secondary 0 2,110 135 948 3,192 20 Site 04 – Tobermory South Staff 0 0 655 293 948 16 Site 04 – Tobermory South Total 0 2,190 940 1,681 4,810 - Note: minor discrepancies as a result of rounding 14.2.15 Table 25 shows that travel times will increase marginally compared to the established travel behaviours associated with the existing Tobermory 2-18 school. This is primarily as a result of longer walking times. Potential impact on public transport network 14.2.16 As there will be no material requirement to amend the bus services associate with school transport there is unlikely to be any impact, positive or negative, on the wider public transport network. Ability of existing roads infrastructure to service site 14.2.17 The site is well served by the adjoining A848 although there is currently no formalised access into the site. 14.2.18 There is the potential for access to the site to be taken from a new junction formed on the A848. The design of this junction would be subject to technical assessments at an early stage to ensure the suitability of junction placement and format in view of road characteristics and adjacent accesses, if applicable. Any new junction would need to be checked for driver visibility in line with standard assessment procedures. Page 210
Page 161
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 75/82 Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel 14.2.19 Complex dependencies are likely to be broadly similar regardless of the selected site. Further details on this criterion are provided in Section 9.3. For pupils who live remotely from the main road network and key population centres, an additional leg of their journey will be required to intersect the bus service. This secondary journey will be facilitated by specific arrangements to them and may include a taxi or short car trip by a parent/carer. Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) 14.2.20 The estimated one-way vehicle miles by cohort and vehicle for the Tobermory South site are presented in Table 26. The values presented in this table represent the driven milage of each vehicle as opposed to each passenger. This accounts for the fact that one bus can carry multiple passengers. Table 26. Site 04 – Travel Distance (Miles) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 6 0 42 48 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 63 57 121 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 303 303 Existing Conditions Total 6 63 402 471 Site 04 – Tobermory South Primary 0 0 37 37 Site 04 – Tobermory South Secondary 0 62 50 112 Site 04 – Tobermory South Staff 0 0 304 304 Site 04 – Tobermory South Total 0 62 390 453 14.2.21 Table 26 shows a minor decrease in the driven vehicle miles. This is primarily as a result of marginally shorter trips for those travelling from the south of Mull. As with any new development of this nature Travel Planning measures have the potential to positively influence travel, particularly among staff members. A Travel Plan would seek to encourage behaviours such as car sharing or public transport usage in order to reduce the number of vehicle miles incurred. 14.2.22 Applying the carbon emission assessment methodology outlined in Section 10.7 the estimated carbon emissions for one-way travel (of all vehicles) to the Tobermory South site is presented in Table 27. Page 211
Page 162
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 76/82 Table 27. Site 04 – Carbon Emissions (Kg Co2e) SITE COHORT TAXI BUS CAR TOTAL Existing Conditions Primary 0 0 9 9 Existing Conditions Secondary 0 67 12 79 Existing Conditions Staff 0 0 67 67 Existing Conditions Total 0 67 89 156 Site 04 – Tobermory South Primary 0 0 8 8 Site 04 – Tobermory South Secondary 0 66 11 77 Site 04 – Tobermory South Staff 0 0 67 67 Site 04 – Tobermory South Total 0 66 86 152 14.2.23 Any increase in carbon emissions from bus travel may only be temporary. In line with current national policy bus fleets are gradually transitioning to electric and hydrogen systems. While SYSTRA is not aware of specific plans to convert the fleet on Mull, such an advancement would of course reduce the carbon impact from bus travel. 14.2.24 A similar transition is likely to occur to the car fleet, as residents increasingly embrace the use of electric cars. 14.3 Conclusion 14.3.1 The following considerations are given to Site 04 – Tobermory South: The site is walkable from some existing housing, and it is noted nearby and adjacent sites are allocated with up to 112 new residential units; There are some existing footways from adjacent residential catchments; and Travel time, distance and associated carbon emissions are likely to remain broadly similar to the baseline. Page 212
Page 163
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 77/82 15. SUMMARY 15.1.1 The technical assessment presented in the second section of this report has highlighted key considerations for each of the short-listed sites. For ease of comparison these summaries are reiterated below. 15.1.2 The following considerations are given to Site 01 – Tobermory: Travel characteristics are mostly known as they are likely to align with present conditions; The site is within walking distance of the most existing housing; and The site is constrained making access for large vehicles (e.g. buses and HGVs during construction) difficult. 15.1.3 The following considerations are given to Site 02 – Craignure: Travel times, distances and carbon emissions will increase over the baseline (more so if the catchments are amended to include the Ross of Mull); Average journey times will increase by approximately 20 minutes; Pupils who currently walk will likely have to be taken to the Craignure site by bus requiring approximately 4 additional buses over the baseline; There is an adjacent allocation for c. 80 housing units, enabling trips by active modes; and Footways and crossing opportunities on the adjacent highway network are limited but could be improved. 15.1.4 The following considerations are given to Site 03 – Garmony: Travel times, distances and carbon emissions will increase over the baseline (more so if the catchments are amended to include the Ross of Mull); Average journey times will increase by approximately 15 minutes over the baseline; Pupils who currently walk will likely have to be taken to the Garmony site by bus requiring approximately 4 additional buses over the baseline; The site is located adjacent to a limited number of existing housing and no LDP or LWF housing sites identified in the Housing Land Audit; and There are no footways or crossing opportunities on the adjacent highway network – providing them would deliver limited benefit. 15.1.5 The following considerations are given to Site 04 – Tobermory South: The site is walkable from some existing housing, and it is noted nearby and adjacent sites are allocated with up to 112 new residential units; There are some existing footways from adjacent residential catchments; and Travel time, distance and associated carbon emissions are likely to remain broadly similar to the baseline. 15.1.6 A summary of the site-specific metrics (number of trips, vehicle miles, carbon emissions and travel time) are illustrated in Figure 32 to Figure 35, respectively. This is to enable an “at-a-glance” comparison between short-listed sites, broken down by mode. For all of the following metrics, values are based on a single one-way trip. Daily and weekly values Page 213
Page 164
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 78/82 could therefore be calculated by multiplying the values stated in this section by 2 and 10, respectively. Figure 32. Number of People Trips by Mode and Site 15.1.7 The following considerations are given to people trips: The number of trips associated with Tobermory and Tobermory South are broadly similar; Craignure and Garmony will have very few walking trips which most travelling by bus instead; and The southern sites have the opportunity to reduce car trips with fewer primary school aged pupils being driven to school and instead travelling by bus. Figure 33. Vehicle Miles by Mode and Site 0 50 100 150 200 250 Site 01 - Existing Tobermory Site Site 02 - Craignure Site 03 - Garmony Site 04 - Tobermory South Number of Trips Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Site 01 - Existing Tobermory Site Site 02 - Craignure Site 03 - Garmony Site 04 - Tobermory South Vehicle Miles Taxi Bus Car Total Page 214
Page 165
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 79/82 15.1.8 The following considerations are given to driven vehicle miles: The number of vehicle miles associated with Tobermory and Tobermory South are broadly similar; Car miles will increase significantly for southern sites; Bus miles will also increase for southern sites due to the additional services required; and Vehicle miles associated with Garmony will be marginally less than Craignure due to being closer to Tobermory. Figure 34. Carbon Emissions by Mode and Site 15.1.9 The following considerations are given to travel related carbon emissions: The carbon emissions associated with Tobermory and Tobermory South are broadly similar; and As with driven vehicle miles the carbon emissions for the southern sites are greater than Tobermory sites with emissions for the Garmony site being slightly less. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Site 01 - Existing Tobermory Site Site 02 - Craignure Site 03 - Garmony Site 04 - Tobermory South Carbon Emissions (kg CO2e) Taxi Bus Car Total Page 215
Page 166
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 80/82 Figure 35. People Travel Time by Mode and Site 15.1.10 The following considerations are given to people travel time: The travel associated with Tobermory and Tobermory South are broadly similar although Tobermory South has a slightly greater total as a result of longer walking times; Total travel time for Craignure is approximately double that of Tobermory South; and Travel time for Garmony is slightly less than Craignure, again this is due to the site being closer to Tobermory. 15.1.11 Provided overleaf in Table 28 is a numerical summary of the site-specific metrics providing the means to make an “at-a-glance” comparison. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Site 01 - Existing Tobermory Site Site 02 - Craignure Site 03 - Garmony Site 04 - Tobermory South Travel Time (minutes) Taxi Bus Car Walk Total Page 216
Page 167
Mull Education Campus Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations GB01T24G04 Report 29/01/2025 Page 81/82 Table 28. Summary of Site Metrics SITE GROUP TRIPS TIME (MINS) MILES CARBON EMISSIONS (KG CO2E) Walk Taxi Bus Car Ferry Taxi Bus Car Walk Total Taxi Bus Car Total Taxi Bus Car Total Site 01 - Existing Site (Existing Conditions) Primary 30 0 5 60 0 0 87 153 280 520 0 0 42 42 0 0 9 9 Secondary 64 0 69 23 0 0 2,356 160 588 3,104 0 63 57 120 0 67 12 79 Staff 19 0 0 40 0 0 0 700 163 863 0 0 305 305 0 0 67 67 Total 113 0 74 123 0 0 2,444 1,013 1,031 4,488 0 63 404 467 0 67 89 156 Site 02 - Craignure Primary 0 2 88 5 0 70 3,084 140 0 3,294 40 41 81 162 9 43 18 70 Secondary 3 0 143 11 0 0 5,147 328 48 5,523 0 100 179 278 0 105 39 145 Staff 1 0 0 58 0 0 0 1,966 16 1,982 0 0 1,113 1,113 0 0 245 245 Total 4 2 231 74 0 70 8,231 2,434 64 10,799 40 141 1,373 1,553 9 149 302 460 Site 03 - Garmony Primary 0 2 88 5 0 57 2,623 117 0 2,797 35 35 70 140 8 37 15 60 Secondary 0 0 147 10 0 0 4,479 283 0 4,762 0 96 162 258 0 102 36 138 Staff 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 1,670 0 1,670 0 0 960 960 0 0 211 211 Total 0 2 235 74 0 57 7,102 2,070 0 9,229 35 132 1,192 1,358 8 139 263 409 Site 04 – Tobermory South Primary 30 0 5 60 0 0 80 150 440 670 0 0 37 37 0 0 8 8 Secondary 64 0 70 22 0 0 2,110 135 948 3,192 0 62 50 112 0 66 11 77 Staff 19 0 0 40 0 0 0 655 293 948 0 0 304 304 0 0 67 67 Total 113 0 75 122 0 0 2,190 940 1,681 4,810 0 62 390 453 0 66 86 152 Page 217
Page 168
SYSTRA provides advice on transport, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers. A diverse group of results-oriented people, we are part of a strong team of professionals worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world. For more information visit www.systra.com/uk Birmingham Alpha Tower, Crowne Plaza, Suffolk Street Birmingham, B1 1TT T: +44 (0)121 393 4841 Bristol 33 Colston Avenue, Bristol, BS1 4UA Cork City Quarter, Lapps Quay, Cork City Cork, T12 WY42, Republic of Ireland Dublin 2nd Floor, Riverview House, 21-23 City Quay Dublin D02 AY91, Republic of Ireland T: +353 (0) 1 566 2028 Edinburgh Ground Floor, 18 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh, EH2 4DF T: +44 (0)131 460 1847 Glasgow The Centrum Business Centre Limited, 38 Queen Street, Glasgow, G1 3DX T: +44 (0)141 468 4205 Leeds 100 Wellington Street, Leeds, LS1 1BA T: +44 (0)113 360 4842 London One Carey Lane, London, England EC2V 8AE T: +44 (0)20 3855 0079 Manchester 5th Floor, Four Hardman Street, Spinningfields Manchester, M3 3HF Tel: +44 (0)161 504 5026 Newcastle Block C, First Floor, Portland House, New Bridge Street West, Newcastle, NE1 8AL Tel: +44 191 249 3816 Reading Davidson House, Forbury Square, Reading, RG1 3EU T: +44 118 208 0111 Woking Dukes Court, Duke Street Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH T: +44 (0)1483 357705 York Meridian House, The Crescent York, YO24 1AW Tel: +44 1904 454 600 Other locations: France: Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Paris Northern Europe: Astana, Copenhagen, Kiev, London, Moscow, Riga, Wroclaw Southern Europe & Mediterranean: Algiers, Baku, Bucharest, Madrid, Rabat, Rome, Sofia, Tunis Middle East: Cairo, Dubai, Riyadh Asia Pacific: Bangkok, Beijing, Brisbane, Delhi, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Manila, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Shenzhen, Taipei Africa: Abidjan, Douala, Johannesburg, Kinshasa, Libreville, Nairobi Latin America: Lima, Mexico, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago, São Paulo North America: Little Falls, Los Angeles, Montreal, New-York, Philadelphia, Washington Page 218
Page 169
Document is Restricted Page 219 Agenda Item 3lNOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 8, 9 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 170
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 171
Document is Restricted Page 235 Agenda Item 3mNOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 8, 9 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 172
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 173
On behalf of Hub North Scotland Ltd (in partnership with Argyll & Bute Council) Project Ref: 332612224 | Rev: FINAL | Date: February 2025 Registered Office: Buckingham Court Kingsmead Business Park, London Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 1JU Office Address: 3rd Floor, 58 Morrison Street, Edinburgh, EH3 8BP T: +44 (0)131 335 4200 E: info.edinburgh@stantec.com Classification: OFFICIAL Mull Campus Integrated Impact Assessment Report Page 237 Agenda Item 3n
Page 174
Integrated Impact Assessment Report Mull Campus ii Classification: OFFICIAL Document Control Sheet Project Name: Mull Campus Project Ref: 332612224 Report Title: Integrated Impact Assessment Report Doc Ref: Final Date: February 2025 Name Position Signature Date Prepared by: Bren Walters Jenny Keenan Kathleen Morrison Graduate Economist Assistant Consultant Senior Consultant BW JK KM February 2025 Reviewed by: Steven Findlay Senior Associate Economist SF February 2025 Approved by: Kiri Heal Senior Associate KH February 2025 For and on behalf of Stantec UK Limited Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved V1 28/01/25 Draft for comment KM SF KH V2 29/01/25 Second draft following initial comments KM SF KH V3 03/02/25 Third draft following comments KM SF KH V4 05/02/25 Final Draft KM SF KH This report has been prepared by Stantec UK Limited (‘Stantec’) on behalf of its client to whom this report is addressed (‘Client’) in connection with the project described in this report and takes into account the Client's particular instructions and requirements. This report was prepared in accordance with the professional services appointment under which Stantec was appointed by its Client. This report is not intended for and should not be relied on by any third party (i.e. parties other than the Client). Stantec accepts no duty or responsibility (including in negligence) to any party other than the Client and disclaims all liability of any nature whatsoever to any such party in respect of this report. Page 238
Page 175
iii Classification: OFFICIAL Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Report Structure ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Overview of the Assessment Process ........................................................................... 2 1.4 Integrated Impact Assessment Approach ..................................................................... 3 2 Mull Campus Project ................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Context .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Mull Campus Summary Process ................................................................................... 5 3 Consultation / Engagement ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Impact Assessment Engagement Activities ................................................................ 10 4 Baseline Assessment ............................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Population Change ...................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Education and Qualifications ....................................................................................... 13 4.4 Deprivation .................................................................................................................. 14 4.5 Protected Characteristics ............................................................................................ 15 5 Economic Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 23 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 23 5.2 Assessment Approach ................................................................................................ 23 5.3 Economic Impacts ....................................................................................................... 24 5.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 30 6 Island Communities Impact Assessment ............................................................................... 32 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 32 6.2 Assessment Approach ................................................................................................ 32 6.3 Island Communities Impact Assessment Findings ...................................................... 33 6.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 40 7 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment .......................................................... 44 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 44 7.2 Assessment Approach ................................................................................................ 44 7.3 Pupil Forum Engagement ............................................................................................ 45 7.4 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment Findings .................................. 45 7.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 49 8 Equality Impact Assessment ................................................................................................... 51 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 51 8.2 Assessment Approach ................................................................................................ 51 8.3 Equality Impact Assessment Findings......................................................................... 52 8.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 53 Page 239
Page 176
iv Classification: OFFICIAL 9 Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment ........................................................................................... 54 9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 54 9.2 Assessment Approach ................................................................................................ 54 9.3 Fairer Scotland Duty Findings ..................................................................................... 55 9.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 58 10 Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 59 10.1 IIA Summary ................................................................................................................ 59 10.2 Recommendations....................................................................................................... 59 11 References ................................................................................................................................. 61 Figures Figure 2.1: Schools on Mull, Iona and the Mainland ............................................................................... 4 Figure 2.2: Project Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4.1: Four Study Areas ................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 4.2: Highest Level of Qualification. ............................................................................................. 14 Figure 4.3: Disabled Employment Rates by Local Authority in Scotland .............................................. 18 Tables Table 1.1: Report Structure ..................................................................................................................... 2 Table 4.1: Population Change, 2011-2022............................................................................................ 12 Table 4.2: School Level Attainment ....................................................................................................... 13 Table 4.3: Domains of Deprivation ........................................................................................................ 15 Table 4.4: Age Profiles .......................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4.5: Disability Profiles .................................................................................................................. 16 Table 4.6: Ethnicity Profiles ................................................................................................................... 18 Table 4.7: Sex Profiles .......................................................................................................................... 19 Table 4.8: Marital and Civil Partnership Status Profiles ........................................................................ 19 Table 4.9: Percentage Religion or Belief Reported in Scotland's Census 2022 ................................... 21 Table 4.10: Percentage of people who identified as LGB+, 2022 ......................................................... 21 Table 5.1: Wider LVU Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 25 Table 5.2: Wider LVU Results ............................................................................................................... 25 Table 5.3: Change in Local Housing Value Assumptions ..................................................................... 26 Table 5.4: House Value Results ............................................................................................................ 26 Table 5.5: Educational Attainment Assumptions ................................................................................... 27 Table 5.6: Educational Attainment Results ........................................................................................... 27 Table 5.7: Loss of Earnings Assumptions ............................................................................................. 28 Table 5.8: Loss of Earnings Results ...................................................................................................... 28 Table 5.9: School Staff Cost of Commuting Assumptions .................................................................... 29 Table 5.10: Cost of Commuting Results ................................................................................................ 29 Table 5.11: Carbon Costs Assumptions ................................................................................................ 30 Table 5.12: Carbon Costs Results ........................................................................................................ 30 Table 5.13: Summary ............................................................................................................................ 30 Table 6.1: Key Travel Considerations from Systra (2025) Mull Education Campus Transport Review Report .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Page 240
Page 177
v Classification: OFFICIAL Appendices Appendix A Glossary Appendix B Summary of the UNCRC Articles Page 241
Page 178
vi Classification: OFFICIAL Page 242
Page 179
Classification: OFFICIAL Executive Summary This report entitled ‘Mull Campus: Integrated Impact Assessment Report’ has been prepared by Stantec UK Ltd to demonstrate how proposals for the proposed Mull Campus Development show due regard to the socio-economic, equalities, child rights and island communities duties under the Equality Act 2010, the Fairer Scotland Duty, the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, and the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. The purpose of this report is to support Hub North Scotland Ltd, in partnership with Argyll & Bute Council in exercising its public functions to check and review that equalities implications have been considered within the proposals, including socio-economic inequalities, impacts on island communities and children’s rights and wellbeing. The process has benefitted from consultation to inform the impact assessments with the inclusion of local and contextual knowledge. As a public authority, Argyll & Bute Council must consider equality issues when making certain types of decisions. In addition to considering the impact the Council’s activities might have on people with one or more of the nine protected characteristics as defined under the Equality Act 2010, there is also a requirement for the Council to take into account socio-economic disadvantage, in accordance with the Fairer Scotland Duty, the impact to island communities in accordance with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and the impact to children’s rights and wellbeing under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. This report provides an assessment of potential impacts relating to the following domains: Economic impacts (including investment stimulus, existing local housing, educational attainment, loss of earnings, school staff costs of commuting, and vehicle carbon costs). Island communities (including demographic challenges, economic prosperity, unique transport challenges, infrastructure, natural environment, unique social challenges, unique health challenges and the use of Gaelic). Protected characteristics (including age, disability, ethnicity, sex, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, and sexual orientation). Children’s rights and wellbeing (including Children’s Rights and the wellbeing of children and young people). Fairer Scotland Duty (including socio-economic disadvantage and inequality of outcome). Page 243
Page 180
Classification: OFFICIAL 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Stantec UK Ltd has been commissioned by Hub North Scotland Ltd, in partnership with Argyll & Bute Council (the ‘Client’), to provide consultancy support in developing a number of impact assessments for a range of potential site options for the proposed Mull Campus Development (the ‘Project’). 1.1.2 Public authorities in Scotland have a statutory duty to consider and address various societal needs and rights when developing proposals, policies and decisions. This is to ensure equity, fairness and the promotion of positive outcomes across diverse groups. The impact assessments include, an Economic Impact Assessment, an Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA), an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA), a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and a Fairer Scotland Duty (FSD) assessment. 1.2 Report Structure 1.2.1 The report is structured as follows: Table 1.1: Report Structure Section Description Section 1 Introduction to the assessment and the Project Section 2 Description of the Project Section 3 Overview of consultation and engagement Section 4 Baseline characteristics relevant to the overarching assessment domains Section 5 Economic Impact Assessment Section 6 Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) Section 7 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) Section 8 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) Section 9 Fairer Scotland Duty (FSD) Assessment Section 10 Summary 1.3 Overview of the Assessment Process 1.3.1 The objectives of this report are to integrate the consideration of relevant equality issues and associated impacts into the Project to demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), the Fairer Scotland Duty (FSD), the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. 1.3.2 The purpose of the impact assessments at this stage is to examine the impact of locating the new campus either in Tobermory or more centrally on Mull. Page 244
Page 181
Classification: OFFICIAL 1.4 Integrated Impact Assessment Approach 1.4.1 This section provides an overview of the approach for each impact assessment. Economic Impact Assessment 1.4.2 The economic impact assessment identifies areas of economic benefit where the value is expected to differ depending upon the choice of site location. These include effects on local investment; effects on existing housing stock; impacts on educational attainment; parent/guardian loss of earnings; staff commuting costs and the cost of transport carbon emissions. The assessment was undertaken based on HM Treasury Green Book economic appraisal guidance, using the Isle of Mull economy as an impact geography. Island Communities Impact Assessment 1.4.3 The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 provides a legal basis for greater decision making at a local level within Scottish Islands and seeks to increase economic prosperity for island communities. 1.4.4 The guide framing questions are provided in Section 6.2. Equality Impact Assessment 1.4.5 Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out a Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). This requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between those with a protected characteristic and those without. The duty covers the following protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The public sector equality duty also covers marriage and civil partnerships, with regard to eliminating unlawful discrimination in employment. 1.4.6 The guide framing questions are provided in Section 7.2. Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment 1.4.7 The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 requires public bodies to consider whether existing and emerging legislation, policy and guidance have an impact on children and young people and to assess what further action is required to ensure compliance with the UNCRC. CRWIAs are one of the general measures of implementation under the Convention. It recommends that all levels of government complete a CRWIA as part of their policy development. 1.4.8 The guide framing questions are provided in Section 8.2. Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment 1.4.9 The FSD places a legal responsibility on certain public bodies in Scotland to actively consider how they can reduce inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage when making strategic decisions or developing policy. This differs from the PSED which considers only reducing inequalities of opportunity. The Duty seeks to tackle socio-economic disadvantage and reduce the inequalities associated with being disadvantaged. It is closely related to issues of poverty which may affect outcomes across health, housing, education and training and employment prospects. 1.4.10 The guide framing questions are provided in Section 9.2. Page 245
Page 182
Classification: OFFICIAL 2 Mull Campus Project 2.1 Context 2.1.1 The Isle of Mull is an island in the Inner Hebrides on the west coast of Scotland. Mull is closely located to the neighbouring islands of Iona, Ulva and Gometra. Iona is located to off the southwest coast of Mull. Ulva and Gometra are both situated off the west coast of Mull and are separated by a narrow strait. Ulva and Gometra are connected to each other by a bridge. 2.1.2 At present, the Tobermory 2-18 School is an education campus providing nursery, primary and secondary school education to pupils aged 2 to 18. It is the only school on Mull that delivers education to S1-6. In addition, there are another 5 primary schools on Mull and one primary school on the nearby island of Iona. The nearest mainland secondary school is in Oban. The locations of schools on Mull, Iona and the Mainland are shown in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: Schools on Mull, Iona and the Mainland 2.2 Project Overview 2.2.1 The Project proposes a new 2-18 school and community campus on a single site on Mull, to replace the existing campus buildings in Tobermory which continue to deteriorate. The Project was deemed to be the highest priority across all Argyll & Bute Schools projects of which there are about 90 schools overall. 2.2.2 The new campus will be part funded, up to 50%, by Scottish Government through their Learning Estate Investment Programme (LEIP)1 with the level of funding determined by the 1 The LEIP is the Scottish Government’s flagship programme for investment in education and is now into Phase 3. It is the successor to the ‘Schools for the Future’ programme which saw our Council deliver a number of new builds and substantial refurbishments across our education estate. Page 246
Page 183
Classification: OFFICIAL existing pupil capacity numbers and community facilities at the current Tobermory 2-18 School on a like for like basis. Argyll & Bute Council will fund all other costs and will fund the entire construction costs up front. 2.2.3 In April 2024, Argyll & Bute Council agreed to progress the business case for the Project and commence community engagement and site selection activities, and in December 2024 Councillors reaffirmed that the Project is to proceed as a single site campus. 2.2.4 The projected school roll for the new campus, at the time of submitting the bid for LEIP funding in 2022, was 31 early learning and childcare (ELC), 90 primary and 177 secondary school pupils. 2.2.5 This IIA Report has been prepared to inform a site selection exercise for the Mull Campus Project. Following a call for sites in August 2024, four sites were shortlisted for further consideration and assessment by technical experts and the wider Mull Campus Project Team. Due to commercial sensitivities, at the time of writing the IIA, details about the four site locations were not made available to the public. 2.2.6 The IIA was commissioned on the basis of providing a high-level assessment of either a Tobermory or central site location. However, in response to some assessment criteria, a more detailed assessment has been provided to consider findings from the Mull Campus Transport Review (Systra, 2025) which assessed the following four specific site options: Site 1 – Tobermory (existing school site); Site 2 – Craignure; Site 3 – Garmony; and Site 4 – Tobermory South. 2.2.7 A final decision on the site is due to be made at the next meeting of the Full Council, currently scheduled for the end of February 2025. 2.3 Mull Campus Summary Process 2.3.1 The Project brief, concept design and outline business case activities will take place during 2025, aiming for Outline Business Case approval by the end of 2025. Argyll & Bute Council will then review the updated case and confirm whether they are content to move to Full Business Case development. 2.3.2 The Full Business Case, including more detailed proposals for the campus and costs will be considered again by councillors in late 2026 and approval would allow the campus to move to construction phase. These timescales are estimates and will be reviewed as the Project moves forward, with the community being kept updated of any significant changes. Figure 2.2: Project Summary Source: (Argyll & Bute Council, 2025) Page 247
Page 184
Classification: OFFICIAL 3 Consultation / Engagement 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Argyll & Bute Council have an engagement strategy in place for the multiphases of the Project. They have set up a community sounding board and pupil voice group. The Community Sounding Board is formed of community representatives who are impacted by or have an interest in the Project, including groups such as Community Councils, Parent Councils, Community Development Trusts, constituted community groups, education staff, and student voices. The purpose of the group is to advise the Argyll & Bute Council Project Team (the ‘Project Team’) on how best to engage with the community in relation to the Project, share Project updates and information with the group(s) that they represent and feedback the views of the group on their behalf. 3.1.2 Various phases of consultation and engagement have occurred and are detailed below. Pre-Engagement 3.1.3 In 2022, a series of pre-engagement events were held in the local community prior to submitting the bid to the Scottish Government for LEIP funding (Argyll & Bute Council, 2024a). These were held at Tobermory 2-18 School on 11th August, and at Bunessan Primary School on 7th September. There were also a series of pupil engagements led by members of the central education team in each of the primary schools, Tobermory High School and pupils who travel to Oban High School. 3.1.4 There were over 200 written comments and responses provided through the face to face sessions and the online platforms, with a majority confirming support for the Project. 3.1.5 Comments covered a variety of areas, which are categorised: Accessibility (13 comments); Buildings (4 comments); Community (57 comments); Curriculum (45 comments); Hostel (16 comments); Locations (131 comments); Nursery/Pre-5 Unit (1 comment); Outdoor Facilities (35 comments); and Staffing (21 comments). Community Engagement 3.1.6 A series of drop in public engagement sessions were held between 17th-25th September 2024, as part of ongoing engagement with the communities of Mull and Iona. Sessions were held in the following locations: Craignure Hall; Tobermory Scout Hall; Tobermory High School; Salen Church Hall; Salen Primary School; Ulva Primary School; Dervaig Village Hall; Lochdonhead Primary School; Iona Village Hall; and Bunessan Community Hall. 3.1.7 Every session was attended by representatives from the Project Team, as well as an engagement consultant. Attendees were given the opportunity to review information on Page 248
Page 185
Classification: OFFICIAL boards, talk to the Project Team, and feedback their comments anonymously. Comments could also be returned up until 4th October 2024 via email or an online survey. 3.1.8 The purpose of this engagement was to understand what communities and individuals thought were the important factors that should be considered when assessing the potential sites for the campus. Feedback from these sessions was taken into consideration when finalising the site assessment criteria and the relative weightings of each. 3.1.9 A total of 352 respondents contributed comments through various channels: in person (205), online (115), by email (18) and by paper response (14). The majority of respondents were from Tobermory (134), followed by Bunessan and Ross (65) and Craignure (36)2. The majority of respondents were aged 36-45 (77). 3.1.10 Key themes and issues that were raised most frequently across the majority of locations included: Comments about the location of the whole campus, primary provision, and / or high school. Many people felt that primary and / or ELC provision must be kept in Tobermory, meaning that a split site with a more centralised high school was the most commonly requested solution to providing an equitable and accessible campus. Some queried whether a hostel on Mull was a possibility. Concerns about the increase in travel for children if children are to be transported to a location outside of Tobermory. The key issues raised were: o Poor infrastructure such as road conditions, winter weather, lack of buses, access for families without cars; o Wellbeing impact on children spending long portions of their day travelling, especially younger children. Emphasis on length of journey, not distance, due to the nature of roads on Mull; o Environmental impact of increased travel; and o Impact on children who are neurodiverse or have other reasons to avoid long travel such as experiencing travel sickness or bullying. Keeping families together and avoiding children having to leave home through the week to board. There were additional themes around families having the right to choose whether to board or stay at home, and comments about the rights of children to education and a home life. However, those on Iona strongly requested the right to retain access to funded places at Oban High School, regardless of where the campus is located on Mull. The importance of an equitable solution that provides access for as many children as possible. These comments tended to be rooted in a desire for fairness and equity and were often combined with comments about keeping families together and creating more social cohesion between the communities in the north and south. The campus should be easily accessible from good transport networks, with plenty of parking and safe pick up and drop off areas. Active travel is also important to some, with a desire for children to be able to safely walk and cycle to school. Access to good facilities both on campus and close by. This includes space for sports facilities and other outdoor activities such as learning and socialising, space for community facilities such as a library, shops and other activities somewhere near the 2 To note: Location of ‘in person’ attendees is based on the session they attended rather than a stated home address, therefore numbers are approximate. Otherwise, those filling out the online survey chose the location closest to their home, and those emailing were asked to provide an approximate location. Where necessary, these have been assigned to a closest location from the list below for the purposes of analysis. Page 249
Page 186
Classification: OFFICIAL school so children can socialise. This includes equitable access to after school clubs whereby children do not have to rush away to catch ferries or travel long bus journeys. The campus should be able to provide a range of subject areas including vocational subjects, either by space provision and / or by making use of teachers who have easy access from Oban. The power of a campus to create community stability and sustainability, whether by attracting and retaining people to live and work in a location, or by supporting the shops and cafes nearby. For some, this was about a specific location – for example, supporting the stability of the Ross of Mull or avoiding depopulation of the north. For others, it was about the sustainability of Mull and islands as a whole. 3.1.11 More detail on community engagement undertaken in September 2024 can be found within the Mull Campus Community Engagement Report (Ryder, 2024). School Engagement – Staff and Pupils 3.1.12 As part of the community engagement, pupils and staff across Mull and Iona were visited by an Argyll & Bute Education Officer between 17th and 30th September 2024. The schools comprised: Tobermory High School; Tobermory Primary School; Tobermory ELC; Tobermory staff; Salen Primary School; Ulva Primary School; Lochdonhead Primary School; Dervaig Primary School; Bunessan Primary School; Iona Primary School; and Oban High School Hostel. 3.1.13 Sessions took the form of informal workshops, during which attendees were encouraged to talk about what they think is important for a new campus and record their ideas on post it notes. 3.1.14 It should be noted that representatives and community members in Iona requested for the island to be removed from the scope of the Mull Campus Project on the basis that they would like to continue with their existing defined catchment area which includes attendance at Iona Primary School and secondary school attendance and boarding at Oban High School. This decision was agreed unanimously at the Argyll & Bute Council Special Meeting on 20 December 2024. ELC and Primary Schools 3.1.15 Children from Tobermory ELC shared their ideas. The most common request for these children was to have an obstacle course and space for a planting box. 3.1.16 The children from the primary schools on Mull were particularly keen on making the most of outside space, with a football pitch being the most mentioned request (20 mentions) and 12 others requesting basketball. A further 18 requested good play space outside. 16 would like access to a swimming pool. Iona Primary School 3.1.17 Iona Primary School was reported separately, as the children tended to focus more on the location of the school, and the prospect of going to Oban High School. Reasons for wanting to attend Oban High School generally echoed the views of the adults during the public engagement: Independence and learning to cope away from home; Avoiding long or disruptive travel every day; and Ability to attend after school clubs. Tobermory High School Page 250
Page 187
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.1.18 Pupils mentioned that they would like to see the following new features within a new campus: a bigger gym hall, provision of social seating, assembly hall, sheltered spaces to eat lunch outside, more or bigger classrooms, music practice rooms and better sports equipment. 3.1.19 This group was also asked about their general perceptions or thoughts about location of the campus. Several pupils shared their perceptions of Oban High School, the importance of family life, and a desire to see a central site location. The general consensus of these participants was that they do not think boarding at Oban is a positive experience 3.1.20 Three members of staff raised that their main concern regarded the impact of travel, both on the wellbeing of young children and on the roads infrastructure, if the campus was located outside of Tobermory. Oban High School Hostel 3.1.21 Seventeen pupils who board at Oban High School hostel shared their thoughts on a new campus. Several talked about their own experiences and perceptions of staying at Oban, with mixed opinions on whether the campus could be an alternative option to boarding at Oban. Nine commented that there is no point in a central site location for the high school as it will be equally difficult to get to (or would still need a hostel); Six said that they would stay at Oban High School regardless Three said they would consider attending high school on Mull if it was easier to travel to. Others agreed with both points, say that families should have a choice and there should therefore be an option that is fairer for all families. Bunessan Parent Council Questionnaire 3.1.22 Following the engagement events and information released by the Mull Campus Team at the end of 2024, the Bunessan Parent Council independently decided to reassess the views and opinions of the parents of nursery and primary aged children locally. Bunessan Parent Council gave permission for their findings to be included in the impact assessment process, these are summarised below. 3.1.23 In November 2024, the Bunessan Parent Council distributed an up-to-date questionnaire and received 23 individual responses (representing 19 family groups), which suggests that almost every family in the area with children at primary school age or below gave their opinion. Key statistics from the questionnaire include: 100% of parents support and realise the importance of a new high school; 95% of parents would send their children to a central school daily; Only 5% of parents would send their children to school in Tobermory daily; 57% of parents expressed that there needs to be funded placement retention for Oban High School, including the hostel; and 50% of parents would seriously consider leaving the Ross of Mull if a central school is not built. 3.1.24 Overall, the questionnaire highlighted the importance of a central site location for the participants. The questionnaire noted that the participants felt that a Tobermory location would result in separation between the rest of the island and may contribute to depopulation levels of young people and families. Page 251
Page 188
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.1.25 Bunessan Parent Council gave permission for the findings of the survey to inform the ICIA detailed below in Section 6. 3.2 Impact Assessment Engagement Activities 3.2.1 The Mull Campus Team (Argyll & Bute Council) wrote to chairs of community organisations represented on the Community Sounding Board on 20th December 2024 to invite representatives from each organisation to co-ordinate a response to the ICIA and CRWIA process. 3.2.2 An engagement proforma was developed to collect high-level feedback from representatives in relation to the assessment criteria. The engagement proforma’s introduction and information sheets were supplied in English and Scottish Gaelic with the option provided to request the full document in Gaelic, if preferred. 3.2.3 The engagement proforma’s were issued by the Mull Campus Team on 6th January 2025 and a virtual briefing session was held on 9th January 2025 via Microsoft Teams. During the briefing sessions community organisations were invited to provide feedback to inform the site selection process for the Project. 3.2.4 During the briefing session and following this, community organisations collectively issued a formal response detailing that they would not participate in the impact assessment engagement process at this stage. Concerns were raised around the timing of the impact assessments, the length of the engagement window and the level of detail available of the proposed sites for selection. A joint response was issued by a collective of community organisations stating that they would not participate in the impact assessment process. As a result, only a small number of feedback has been received as part of the impact assessment engagement exercise. The impact assessment is predominantly informed by the engagement sessions held by the Mull Campus Team in September 2024, school engagement sessions and the Pupil Forum Impact Assessment Engagement exercise (summarised below). 3.2.5 Responses providing input to the Impact Assessment process were issued by: Salen Primary Parent Council; Mull Primary Schools Head Teachers (including Bunessan, Dervaig, Lochdonhead, Salen and Ulva); South West Mull and Iona Development (SWID); and Bunessan Parent Council – Pupil and community testimonies provided in respect of the Mull Campus Project, and findings from a parent council survey (conducted November 2024) discussed above in paragraphs 3.1.22-24. Pupil Forum Engagement 3.2.6 Pupil representatives who are part of the Mull Campus Pupil Working Group were invited to participate in the CRWIA process on 15th January 2025. An online session was led by a member of the Mull Campus team with schools including Bunessan Primary School, Lochdonhead Primary School, Ulva Primary School, Tobermory Primary School and Tobermory High School. 3.2.7 An engagement proforma was developed for the Pupil Working Group, focussing on three questions to inform the CRWIA. Pupil representatives were asked to provide feedback and gather the views of their peers and classmates. A number of responses were received from pupils in Tobermory Primary School, Tobermory High School, Bunessan Primary School and Ulva Primary School. Anonymised findings have been incorporated into the CRWIA section below. Page 252
Page 189
Classification: OFFICIAL 4 Baseline Assessment 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This socio-economic baseline provides a comprehensive overview of key demographic, educational, and social trends across the Isle of Mull, Gometra, Ulva and Iona, and comparisons with Argyll & Bute as well as Scotland. By exploring characteristics such as age, disability, and ethnicity, the baseline underscores Mull’s distinctive demographic makeup while providing comparative insights with regional and national averages. 4.1.2 Four ‘study areas’ have been adopted within the baseline assessment: Tobermory; North Mull, Gometra and Ulva; South Mull; and Southwest Mull and Iona: Tobermory: The data zone that Tobermory sits in is ‘S01007286’. North Mull, Gometra and Ulva: The data zone ‘S01007285’. South Mull: The data zone ‘S01007288’. Southwest Mull and Iona: The data zone ‘S01007287’. 4.1.3 Mull and the Islands (all data zones listed above), Argyll & Bute (local authority level) and Scotland (national level) have been used for comparison (where available). 4.1.4 The four study areas are shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Four Study Areas Source: Stantec Page 253
Page 190
Classification: OFFICIAL 4.1.5 Where available, data from the Scottish Census in 2022 has been used. Where data availability is limited due to a delay in the release of data, census data from 2011 has been used. 4.1.6 The following data sources have been used to determine baseline information and are fully referenced in Chapter 10: Scotland’s Census; Education Scotland; and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD); and Scottish Public Health Observatory. 4.2 Population Change 4.2.1 Table 4.1 below highlights the changes in the population in the four data zones, Mull and the Islands, Argyll & Bute, and Scotland between 2011 and 2022. 4.2.2 The 0-15 year old age group has grown in some of Mull and the Islands data zones, particularly in the South with a significant increase of 36%, and in Tobermory with a 15% rise. In contrast, North Mull, Gometra and Ulva; and Southwest Mull and Iona have seen declines of 3% and 9% respectively. Overall, Mull and the Islands has experienced an 8% increase in this age group, compared to declines in Argyll & Bute (-13%) and Scotland (-3%). 4.2.3 The 16-64 year old age group, representing the working-age population, has seen limited growth or decline across Mull and the Islands. The largest increase is in Tobermory with a 4% rise, while the North has also seen an increase at 3%. The South shows no change, and the Southwest has declined by 4%. Mull and the Islands overall has seen a 1% increase, outperforming Argyll & Bute (-8%) and Scotland (-1%). 4.2.4 The 65+ year age group has grown substantially across Mull and the Islands, with particularly sharp increases in the South (42%), Southwest (38%), and Tobermory (31%). The North, with a smaller rise of 24%, is higher than Argyll & Bute (21%) and Scotland (22%). Mull and the Islands overall has experienced a 32% increase in this group, reflecting the island’s ageing population. Table 4.1: Population Change, 2011-2022 Study Area 0-15 16-64 65+ All Ages North Mull, Gometra and Ulva -3% 3% 24% 8% Tobermory 15% 4% 31% 10% Southwest Mull and Iona -9% -4% 38% 4% South Mull 36% 0% 42% 15% Mull and the Islands 8% 1% 32% 9% Argyll & Bute -13% -8% 21% -2% Scotland -3% -1% 22% 3% Source: (Scotland’s Census, 2022a). 4.2.5 Overall, across the various parts of the island and Mull as a whole population growth has mostly exceeded Argyll & Bute and national averages for most age brackets. Although there may be an issue with an ageing population, growing faster than Argyll & Bute and Scotland, the growth in the younger age brackets is more positive than the national picture. Argyll & Page 254
Page 191
Classification: OFFICIAL Bute as a whole may have an issue with population decline, however, this has not been observed on the Isle of Mull. 4.3 Education and Qualifications Primary and Secondary Attainment 4.3.1 Table 4.2 below shows the level of primary and secondary pupil attainment for the 2023-2024 academic year, where the proportion for Reading, Listening & Talking, Numeracy, and Writing highlights the proportion of all pupils meeting the test score threshold required to be regarded as excellent3. The ‘Attendance’ score shows the average attendance across all school pupils in that geographical area. 4.3.2 Attendance in Argyll & Bute is slightly higher than the national average at both primary and secondary, suggesting consistent school engagement. In primary schools, performance is generally on par with the national average, with marginal differences in Reading and Numeracy, though Writing and Listening & Talking lag slightly more than other areas. Secondary school pupils in Argyll & Bute show similar trends, performing slightly below the national average in Reading, Listening & Talking, and Writing. However, a strength emerges in secondary Numeracy, where Argyll & Bute outperforms the national average by 1.8%, indicating strong mathematical attainment. Table 4.2: School Level Attainment Primary Secondary School Level Attainment Argyll & Bute Scotland Difference Argyll & Bute Scotland Difference Attendance 92.8% 92.2% 0.6% 87.9% 87.7% 0.2% Reading 80.0% 80.5% -0.5% 89.2% 90.2% -1.0% Listening & Talking 86.0% 87.3% -1.3% 89.8% 90.8% -1.0% Numeracy 80.1% 80.3% -0.2% 92.1% 90.3% 1.8% Writing 75.2% 76.2% -1.0% 87.5% 89.6% -2.1% Source: (Education Scotland, 2024). Qualifications 4.3.3 Figure 4.2 below indicates the highest level of qualification of residents across the study areas, Argyll & Bute and Scotland. Overall, Scotland and Argyll & Bute show broadly similar trends, with most residents achieving degree-level qualifications or above, followed by upper school qualifications and further education or sub-degree qualifications. 4.3.4 Within the specific study areas, there is noticeable variation. Some areas, such as North Mull, Gometra and Ulva, have a relatively high percentage of residents with degree-level qualifications, while others, such as South Mull, show higher proportions of residents with no qualifications or lower school qualifications, suggesting localised disparities in educational attainment. 4.3.5 There is noticeable variation within Mull and the Islands’ specific study areas (e.g., North Mull, Gometra and Ulva; South Mull; Southwest Mull and Iona; and Tobermory). Some areas, such as the North Mull, Gometra and Ulva, have a relatively high percentage of residents with degree-level qualifications, while others, such as South Mull, show higher proportions of 3 This is regarded as students who have exceeded their expected or targeted grade in key assessments. Page 255
Page 192
Classification: OFFICIAL residents with no qualifications or lower school qualifications, suggesting localised disparities in educational attainment. 4.3.6 However, Mull and the Islands overall has a higher proportion of adults aged 16 years and over who have a degree level qualification or above at 42% compared with the Argyll & Bute average of 32% and the Scottish average of 34%. Across Mull and the Islands, 46% of adults aged 16 years and above have a degree level qualification or above compared with 43% in Southwest Mull and Iona, 40% in South Mull and 39% in Tobermory. This suggest that Tobermory could have greater sensitivity in terms of educational attainment compared to other parts of the island. Figure 4.2: Highest Level of Qualification. Source: (Scotland’s Census, 2022b). 4.4 Deprivation 4.4.1 North Mull, Gometra and Ulva, Southwest Mull and Iona, South Mull study areas all fall into the least deprived 40% of areas in Scotland, whilst Tobermory performs better, in the bottom 30%. This means that Mull and the Islands is relatively less deprived compared to other areas within Scotland. 4.4.2 Table 4.3 below summarises domains of deprivation for data zones on Mull and the Islands, where lower percentages indicate higher levels of deprivation. The results highlight key challenges across different parts of the island, shaped by its geography, economy, and infrastructure. Figures that are closer to 1% represent higher levels of deprivation, where any area is below the 10% it is in the top 10% most deprived communities in Scotland for that type of deprivation. Similarly, those above the 90th percentile fall in the 10% least deprived areas in Scotland. 4.4.3 The North of Mull faces severe deprivation in access to services, it is in the 2% most deprived of areas, due to its remote and dispersed population, which makes it difficult to provide regular and convenient access to facilities. Housing deprivation (43%) may reflect limited housing stock, and the high costs associated with building or maintaining homes in remote areas. However, the area's lower crime levels (top 14% least deprived) and moderate education deprivation (23% least deprived) suggest a safe community with reasonably good access to education compared to other parts of the island. 4.4.4 Tobermory, the island's largest settlement, experiences challenges in income and employment deprivation. Despite being better connected than other areas, housing Page 256
Page 193
Classification: OFFICIAL deprivation also remains an issue. The relatively better access to services, top 40% least deprived of areas in Scotland, reflects Tobermory’s role as a service hub for the island. 4.4.5 The South West area of the island experiences extreme deprivation in access to services, ranked in the lowest percentile, this reflects its isolation and sparse infrastructure. The area is geographically remote, with fewer roads and limited public transport. However, the Southwest performs well in health and crime, for both domains the area ranked in the top 20% least deprived in Scotland. This is likely due to its rural character, low population density, and healthier lifestyle factors often associated with remote living. 4.4.6 The South of Mull similarly struggles with access to services ranked in the bottom percentile, reflecting its geographical challenges. However, the South performs relatively well as income, employment, education, crime and health are ranked in the top 30% least deprived. Table 4.3: Domains of Deprivation Study Area Income Employment Education Health Access Crime Housing North Mull, Gometra and Ulva 65% 75% 77% 67% 2% 86% 43% Tobermory 58% 63% 72% 59% 60% 54% 54% Southwest Mull and Iona 67% 68% 58% 83% 1% 88% 19% South Mull 76% 74% 72% 72% 1% 75% 16% Source: (SIMD, 2020). 4.5 Protected Characteristics Age 4.5.1 2022 Census data on age was published in May 2024 and provides a summary of age profiles across the four study areas. Table 4.4 illustrates the age profile of the study areas from the 2022 Census (Scotland’s Census, 2022c). Table 4.4: Age Profiles Study Area Ages (%) 0-15 Years 16-64 Years 65+ Years All Ages Tobermory 18.1% 58.5% 23.8% 100% North Mull, Gometra and Ulva 15.1% 57.1% 27.5% 100% South Mull 14.3% 55.3% 30.5% 100% Southwest Mull and Iona 16.5% 59.4% 27.8% 100% Page 257
Page 194
Classification: OFFICIAL Mull and the Islands 15.3% 57.6% 27.0% 100% Argyll & Bute 14.6% 58.2% 27.2% 100% Scotland 16.4% 63.6% 20.0% 100% Source: (Scotland’s Census 2022c). All figures have been individually rounded and may not sum. 4.5.2 In terms of the four study areas, Tobermory has the largest proportion of children aged 0-15 (18.1%) and South Mull had the lowest proportion (14.3%). Southwest Mull and Iona had the largest proportion of residents aged 16-64 at 59.4% and South Mull had the lowest at 55.3%. All study areas had a higher proportion of residents aged 65+ when compared to the national average (20.0%). However, South Mull had the highest proportion at 30.5% of residents aged 65+ and Tobermory had the lowest at 23.8%. 4.5.3 In terms of comparison with the regional and national averages, Mull and the Islands has a slightly higher proportion of children aged 0-15 (15.3%), compared to Argyll & Bute (14.6%) but had a lower proportion compared to Scotland (16.4%). Mull and the Islands had a lower proportion of working age population aged 16-64 (57.6%), compared to Argyll & Bute (58.2%) and Scotland (63.6%). However, Mull and Argyll & Bute overall had a higher proportion of older people aged 65+ (27.0% and 27.2%, respectively) compared to the national average of 20.0% (Scotland’s Census, 2022c). 4.5.4 Older people tend to have stronger feelings of belonging with their community. In 2019, almost nine in ten adults (86%) aged 60 and above said they felt a very or fairly strong sense of belonging to their community, compared to seven in ten (70%) of those aged between 16 and 39. However, young people are more likely to attend a cultural event of place than older people (Scottish Government, 2019). Disability 4.5.5 Table 4.5 illustrates the disability profiles of the study areas and comparators from the 2022 Census (Scotland’s Census, 2022d). The table demonstrates the percentage of residents of all ages who have a long-term health problem or disability. Table 4.5: Disability Profiles Study Area Disability (% - total population) Day-to-day activities limited a lot Day-today activities limited a little Day-to-day activities not limited Tobermory 7.7% 12.5% 79.8% North Mull, Gometra and Ulva 7.5% 14.7% 78.2% South Mull 9.1% 13.2% 77.5% Southwest Mull and Iona 6.7% 11.5% 81.7% Mull and the Islands 7.7% 13.1% 79.3% Argyll & Bute 10.6% 14.6% 74.7% Scotland 10.8% 13.3% 75.9% Source: (Scotland’s Census, 2022d). Page 258
Page 195
Classification: OFFICIAL 4.5.6 In terms of the four study areas, South Mull has the highest proportion of residents (9.1%) whose day-to-day activities are limited a lot, while Southwest Mull and Iona has the lowest proportion (6.7%). North Mull, Gometra and Ulva has the highest proportion of residents (14.7%) whose day-to-day activities are limited a little and Southwest Mull and Iona has the lowest proportion (11.5%). Overall, Southwest Mull and Iona study area has the population with the lowest percentage of residents who have a long-term health condition or disability. 4.5.7 In terms of comparison with the regional and national averages, Mull and the Islands has a significantly lower proportion of its population that have day-to-day activities limited a lot (7.7%), compared to Argyll & Bute (10.6%) and Scotland (10.8%). Despite this, all three areas have similar results in relation to day-to-day activities are limited a little, however Argyll & Bute has a marginally higher percentage: Mull and the Islands (13.1%), Argyll & Bute (14.6%) and Scotland (13.3%). Mull and the Islands has a higher proportion of residents whose day-to-day activities are not limited (79.3%), compared to regional (74.7%) and national (75.9%) averages. Overall, the population of Mull and the Islands has a lower percentage of residents who have a long-term health condition or disability when compared to regional and national averages. 4.5.8 In 2019, adults living with a long-term limiting physical or mental health condition were more likely to experience discrimination (12% vs 6%) and harassment (9% vs 5%) in the last 12 months compared to adults without any health condition (Scottish Government, 2023a). 4.5.9 According to the Scottish Household Survey, cultural attendance at events or places was lowest among adults with a physical or mental health conditions that caused long-term major reduced daily capacity (Scottish Government, 2018). 4.5.10 The gap between employment rates for disabled and non-disabled people across Scotland in 2018 was 35.5 percentage points (46.5% for adults aged 16-64 who were Equality Act disabled vs 81.1% for those who were not Equality Act disabled). However, the gap between employment rates for disabled and non-disabled people was lower for women (31.1 percentage points) than men (40.0 percentage points) (Scottish Government, 2020a). 4.5.11 The average rate of employment for people who are classed as disabled under the Equality Act in Argyll & Bute is 51.0% which is higher than the average rate for Scotland at 45.6%, as shown in Figure 4.3. Page 259
Page 196
Classification: OFFICIAL Figure 4.3: Disabled Employment Rates by Local Authority in Scotland Source: (Scottish Government, 2018). 4.5.12 Across Scotland, 13% of looked after children had a disability which is higher than the overall proportion of children with a disability (approximately 10%) (Scottish Government, 2017). Ethnicity 4.5.13 According to the 2022 Census, the majority of people across Scotland are White; however, across the four study areas within Mull and the Islands, a higher proportion of residents are White, as shown in Table 4.6 below. The study areas with the highest proportion are North Mull, Gometra and Ulva; and South Mull, both with 98.4%. These percentages are higher than the averages in Argyll & Bute (97.7%) and Scotland (92.9%). Table 4.6: Ethnicity Profiles Study Area Ethnicity (% - total population) ‘White’ ‘Mixed or Multiple Ethnic Group’ ‘Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British’ African Caribbean or Black Tobermory 98.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% North Mull, Gometra and Ulva 98.4% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3% South Mull 98.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% Southwest Mull and Iona 98.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Mull and the Islands 98.3% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% Page 260
Page 197
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll & Bute 97.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.2% 0.1% Scotland 92.9% 1.1% 3.9% 0.1% 7.9% Source: (Scotland’s Census 2022e). All figures have been individually rounded and may not sum. 4.5.14 The second highest ethnic group in Tobermory is ‘Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British’ (0.9%). The second highest ethnic group in the other three study areas is ‘Mixed or Multiple Ethnic Group’: North Mull, Gometra and Ulva (1.0%), South Mull (0.8%) and Southwest Mull and Iona (0.5%). Sex 4.5.15 Data on sex from the 2022 Census demonstrates that it is very similar across all four study areas and comparators, as seen in Table 4.7. Overall, there are marginally more females than males in Scotland. Table 4.7: Sex Profiles Study Area Sex (% - total population) Male Female Tobermory 46.8% 53.1% North Mull, Gometra and Ulva 49.1% 50.9% South Mull 48.1% 51.7% Southwest Mull and Iona 46.3% 53.7% Mull and the Islands 47.6% 52.3% Argyll & Bute 48.9% 51.1% Scotland 48.6% 51.4% Source: (Scotland’s Census, 2022f). All figures have been individually rounded and may not sum. 4.5.16 In Mull, Iona, Coll & Tiree4, life expectancy is higher for females (83.4 years) which is higher than the Scottish average (80.7 years). Life expectancy for males is 78.4 years which is higher than the Scottish average (76.5 years) (Scotland Public Health Observatory, 2024). Gender reassignment 4.5.17 The 2022 Census found that 19,990 people in Scotland were trans or had trans history. This is 0.44% of people aged 16 and over (Scotland’s Census, 2022g). Almost half (46.1%) of trans people were aged 16-24 and around a quarter (26.0%) were aged 25-34. In Argyll & Bute, 0.32% of people were trans, or had trans history, this is lower than the national average. Marriage and civil partnership 4.5.18 Table 4.8 shows the marital and civil partnership status profiles of the various study areas (Scotland’s Census, 2022h). Table 4.8: Marital and Civil Partnership Status Profiles Study Area Marriage and civil partnership (% - population aged 16+) Never married and never registered in a Married or in a registered Separated, but still legally Divorced or civil Widowed or surviving civil 4 Data is not available solely for Mull in regards to life expectancy, therefore intermediate zone level data is used which also includes Iona, Coll and Tiree. Page 261
Page 198
Classification: OFFICIAL civil partnership civil partnership married or still legally in a civil partnership partnership dissolved partnership partner Tobermory 33.0% 49.1% 2.5% 10.1% 5.5% North Mull, Gometra and Ulva 27.8% 57.1% 1.3% 7.3% 7.1% South Mull 27.4% 52.0% 2.8% 8.5% 9.2% Southwest Mull and Iona 30.6% 52.0% 1.8% 8.9% 6.7% Mull and the Islands 29.9% 52.6% 2.0% 8.7% 7.0% Argyll & Bute 30.2% 49.1% 2.5% 9.5% 8.7% Scotland 38.1% 44.0% 2.4% 8.4% 7.0% Source: (Scotland’s Census, 2022h). All figures have been individually rounded and may not sum. 4.5.1 In terms of the four study areas, Tobermory has the highest proportion of residents who have never been married or registered in a civil partnership (33.0%) and who are divorced or civil partnership dissolved (10.1%). North Mull, Gometra and Ulva has the highest proportion of residents who are married or in a civil partnership (57.1%). South Mull has the highest proportion of residents who are separated, but still legally married or in a civil partnership (2.8%) and widows or surviving civil partnership partner (9.2%). 4.5.2 In terms of comparison with the regional and national averages, Mull and the Islands has a higher proportion of residents who are married or in a registered civil partnership (52.6%), compared to Argyll & Bute (49.1%) and Scotland (44.0%). As a result of this, Mull and the Islands has a lower proportion of residents who have never been married and never registered in a civil partnership (29.9%) compared to Argyll & Bute (30.2%) and Scotland (38.1%). Additionally, a lower proportion of residents are divorced or civil partnership dissolved (8.7%), compared to 9.5% and 8.4%, respectively. Pregnancy and maternity 4.5.3 In Mull, Iona, Coll & Tiree, 81% of babies are a healthy birth weight which is very similar to the national average of 80.9%. In 2021, the rate of live births in Mull, Iona, Coll & Tiree was 9.5 births per 1,000 population which is higher than the national average at 8.8 births per 1,000 population. The rate of live births in Mull, Iona, Coll & Tiree from 2002-2021 has experienced periods of increase and decrease. The rate of live births did increase from 7.2 per 1,000 population in 2020 to 9.5 per 1,000 population in 2021 (Scottish Public Health Observatory, 2024). Religion or belief 4.5.1 Table 4.9 shows the religion and belief profiles of the various study areas (Scotland’s Census, 2022i). 4.5.2 In terms of the four study areas, the Church of Scotland is the religion or belief which the majority of residents identify with, Southwest Mull and Iona has the highest proportion of residents who identify with it (30.6%). Despite this, the majority of residents across all four study areas identify most with no religion, with North Mull, Gometra and Ulva reporting the highest percentage (56.8%). 4.5.3 In terms of comparison with the regional and national averages, Mull and the Islands has a higher percentage of residents who report no religion (53.8%), compared to Argyll & Bute Page 262
Page 199
Classification: OFFICIAL (48.5%) and Scotland (51.1%). Additionally, Mull and the Islands has a higher proportion of residents who identify with the Pagan religion (0.8%), compared to Argyll & Bute (0.6%) and Scotland (0.4%). Mull and the Islands has a higher percentage of residents who identify as Other Christian (8.7%) compared to Argyll & Bute (6.6%) and Scotland (5.1%). Conversely, Mull and the Islands has a significantly lower proportion of residents who are Roman Catholic (4.0%), compared to Argyll & Bute (9.2%) and Scotland (13.3%). Additionally, Mull and the Islands has a lower percentage of residents who identify as Muslim (0.2%), compared to Argyll & Bute (0.4%) and Scotland (2.2%). Table 4.9: Percentage Religion or Belief Reported in Scotland's Census 2022 Religion or Belief Religion or belief (% - total population) Tobermory North Mull, Gometra and Ulva South Mull Southwest Mull and Iona Mull and the Islands Argyll & Bute Scotland Church of Scotland 24.9% 19.1% 21.5% 30.6% 23.7% 27.0% 20.4% Roman Catholic 5.4% 3.6% 2.7% 3.9% 4.0% 9.2% 13.3% Other Christian 7.9% 8.0% 9.7% 10.1% 8.7% 6.6% 5.1% Buddhist 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% Hindu 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% Jewish 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Muslim 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 2.2% Sikh 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Pagan 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% Other religion 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% No religion 54.0% 56.8% 55.2% 47.4% 53.8% 48.5% 51.1% Religion not stated 6.0% 11.2% 10.2% 5.3% 8.2% 7.0% 6.2% Source: (Scotland’s Census, 2022i). Sexual orientation 4.5.4 The 2022 Census found that there the majority of people aged 16+ in Argyll & Bute identify as heterosexual/straight (88.0%), which is very similar to the national average (87.8%). As of 2022, there were 1,894 LGB+ people aged 16+ in Argyll & Bute (2.5%), this is a smaller proportion of the population when compared to the rest of Scotland (4.1%). These percentages are demonstrated below in Table 4.10. Table 4.10: Percentage of people who identified as LGB+, 2022 Sexual Orientation Sexual orientation (% - population aged 16+) Argyll & Bute Scotland Heterosexual/Straight 88.0% 87.8% Gay or Lesbian 1.1% 1.8% Bisexual 1.1% 1.8% Page 263
Page 200
Classification: OFFICIAL Other sexual orientation 0.3% 0.5% Not answered 9.4% 8.2% Source: (Scotland’s Census, 2022j) All figures have been individually rounded and may not sum. 4.5.5 Of this 4.1% of people aged 16+ who identify as LGB+, 43.6% identify as ‘Gay or Lesbian’, 43.6% identified as ‘Bisexual’ and 12.8% identified as ‘Other sexual orientation’. Almost half (46.6%) of bisexual people were aged 16 to 24. Around a third (32.0%) were aged 25 to 34. Around a quarter (23.1%) of gay or lesbian people were aged 16 to 24. A further 28.6% were aged 25 to 34, therefore just under half were aged 35 and older (Scotland’s Census, 2022j). Page 264
Page 201
Classification: OFFICIAL 5 Economic Impact Assessment 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This economic impact assessment identifies areas of activity where the economic benefits of the proposed campus will differ depending upon whether a site is selected in Tobermory or in a more central island location. These include effects on local investment; effects on existing housing stock; impacts on educational attainment; parent/guardian loss of earnings; staff commuting costs and monetised value of transport carbon emissions. The assessment was undertaken based on HM Treasury (HMT) Green Book economic appraisal guidance (UK Government, 2022), using the Isle of Mull economy as an impact geography. 5.1.2 Its purpose is to support the Council in making an evidence-based decision on the most appropriate location for the school, and therefore does not include any consideration of economic benefits that will remain the same irrespective of school location. For example, it does not include an assessment of impacts related to staffing numbers, school expenditure, carbon emissions from construction and operations; or educational impacts related to size of the school’s student roll. 5.1.3 The assessed impacts provide insights into the effects of the Project on key groups and aspects of the local economy, including: 1. Local Housing 2. Students 3. Parents/Guardians 4. Staff 5. The Environment 5.2 Assessment Approach 5.2.1 The assessment has used HMT Green Book (UK Government, 2022) and Transport Scotland’s Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) compliant methodologies to quantify the impacts of keeping the school in Tobermory or relocating it to a central Site. Using publicly available data alongside information from the Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report (Systra, 2025), reliable data and robust assumptions have been applied to show the changes in economic impacts. The following impacts have been examined: Effects on Local Investments – The changes to wider Land Value Uplift (LVU) as a result of potential housing developments being closer to or further from a school. Effect on Existing Housing Stock – The changes in the house prices of existing residential units. Impacts on Educational Attainment – The loss in potential lifetime earnings of students as a result of a decreased likelihood to attend Higher/Further Education due to having to travel further to school. Parent/Guardian Loss of Earnings – Estimated earnings lost due to parents travelling further to take children to school. Cost of Commuting – Perceived costs to staff commuting to work at the school. Cost of Transport Carbon Emissions – Total environmental costs to society as a result of students, parents/guardians and staff travelling to the school. Page 265
Page 202
Classification: OFFICIAL 5.2.2 These impacts have been examined to best show the differences between the options. Due to the negligible or no difference in the construction and operations of the school between sites any impacts related to those would be the same. 5.2.3 In line with HMT Green Book Guidance all values are presented in Present Value (PV) terms. Using STAG and Green Book principles, values are discounted at 3.5% annually to give the economic impacts in PV terms. The school is scheduled for completion in 2028 and all annual impacts, excluding educational attainment, are appraised over a 10-year period post completion of the school. Educational Attainment is given as the effect on total earnings over a lifetime, still in PV terms. Impacts on housing and land are given in a single year once the school is open and operational. 5.3 Economic Impacts Investment Stimulus 5.3.1 Schools influence the attractiveness of an area for potential residents and therefore the value of future housing developments. The economic benefits of this are captured through the effect of a school on the LVU of surrounding proposed housing development sites. LVU is the net private benefit resulting from a change in land use to more productive uses. The impact represents the monetised difference between the current land value and future land value resulting from the proposed investment. 5.3.2 Research shows that in Scotland, houses within 0.5 miles of a school have a 1.73% higher Gross Development Value (GDV) (market price) than those further away (OnlineMoneyAdviser, 2025). The GDV of future housing developments drives the underlying land value and therefore the LVU of the site. The location of the school on the Isle of Mull will result in a change in the future land values of proposed housing developments nearby, increasing the value of those developments within 0.5 miles of the school’s location. 5.3.3 The key assumptions used are outlined below. Page 266
Page 203
Classification: OFFICIAL Table 5.1: Wider LVU Assumptions Assumption Value Source Current Developments Brought Forward within 0.5 miles of the Tobermory Site (number of units) 144 Calculated using data for Local Development Plan (LDP) and Large & Small Windfall Sites from Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report. Current Developments Brought Forward within 0.5 miles of the Central Site (number of units) 82 Calculated using data for LDP and Large & Small Windfall Sites from Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report. Average House Price in Tobermory £218,208 Zoopla average house price in Tobermory (Zoopla, December 2024). Average House Price near the Central Site £160,000 Zoopla average house price near the Central Site (Zoopla, December 2024). Change in House Price 1.73% Where in Britain do homes sell for more money when they are closer to a school? - Value for Scotland of the increase in property prices within 0.5 miles of a school. Current Land Value Tobermory £3,360,468 Calculated using data for LDP and Large & Small Windfall Sites from Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report and values from Scotland’s Land Information Service. Current Land Value Central Site £447,302 Calculated using data for LDP and Large & Small Windfall Sites from Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report and values from Scotland’s Land Information Service. Land Value as a Proportion of GDV 1/3 Savills – Land buyers rule of thumb, land value is a third of GDV. Source: Stantec. 5.3.4 The difference in all house prices for the areas near both sites are outlined below. Table 5.2: Wider LVU Results Tobermory Site Central Island Site Difference Between Tobermory and Central Island Site Effect on Local Investments £152,000 £63,000 £89,000 Source: Stantec. 5.3.5 The greater impact at the Tobermory Site is driven by the substantially greater number of houses in Tobermory than near the central island site. The impact of this will be realised when the school is opened and operational as this is from when prospective buyers will be able to use the school, the benefit occurs once in a single year. Existing Local Housing 5.3.6 A similar approach has been used to quantify the effect on existing local housing, showing the effect on house prices due to the choice of location of the school. As there is no change in the Page 267
Page 204
Classification: OFFICIAL use of land, LVU has not been captured. This effect shows only the change to total housing value in Tobermory and near the central site. The table below shows the assumptions used. Table 5.3: Change in Local Housing Value Assumptions Assumption Value Source Current Households within 0.5 miles of the Tobermory Site 496 Scottish Census 2022 Current Households within 0.5 miles of the Central Site 40 Scottish Census 2022 Average House Price in Tobermory £218,208 Zoopla average house price in Tobermory. (December 2024) Average House Price near the Central Site £160,000 Zoopla average house price near the Central Site. (December 2024) Change in House Price 1.73% Where in Britain do homes sell for more money when they are closer to a school? - Value for Scotland of the increase in property prices within 0.5 miles of a school. Source: Stantec. 5.3.7 The impact on all current house prices is outlined below. The impact of this will be realised when the school is opened and operational as this is from when prospective buyers will be able to use the school, the benefit occurs once in a single year. As there currently is a school in Tobermory the benefit is the value that would be retained if the school does not relocate. Table 5.4: House Value Results Tobermory Site Central Island Site Difference Between Tobermory and Central Island Site Effect on Local Investments £1,567,000 £93,000 £1,474,000 Source: Stantec. 5.3.8 The greater impact at the Tobermory Site is driven by the substantially greater number of houses located there and the higher average house price. Educational Attainment 5.3.9 The distance a student must travel to school influences their decision to participate in post- compulsory education, meaning it influences the decision of high school students on whether to continue on to further or higher education. Research shows that in the extreme condition in which a student must travel more than 8km to school they are 27% less likely to attend post- compulsory education than those that live within 2km of their educational institute. The decision of where to locate the high school on Mull will move some students from within 2km to further than 8km away from the school. 5.3.10 Those that do not attend university are likely to experience a loss of earnings compared to those that obtain a degree. Therefore, students that must travel further to school are less likely to attend university and may experience a loss of earnings as a result of this. The table below details the assumptions used to calculate the change in lifetime earnings because of the location of the school. Page 268
Page 205
Classification: OFFICIAL Table 5.5: Educational Attainment Assumptions Assumption Value Source Total High School Students within 2km of Tobermory Site 80 Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report (Systra, 2025). Total High School Students within 2km of Central Site 3 Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report (Systra, 2025). University Attendance Rate 35.8% Higher education student numbers. House of Commons Library. 2023 Higher Education Entry Rate. University Retention Rate 91.5% Report on Widening Access 2021-22. Scottish Funding Council. University Retention Rate. Percentage Change in Likelihood to Attend University 27.0% The Impact of Distance to Nearest Education Institution on the Post–Compulsory Education Participation Decision. Dickerson and McIntosh. Students who live less than 2km from their academic institutes are 27% more likely to attend post-compulsory education than those who live more than 8km away. Lifetime Difference in Earnings for a Male £130,000 The impact of undergraduate degrees on lifetime earnings. Britton et al. Over their working lives men who attend university earn £130,000 more than those who do not. Figures are over a lifetime and in PV terms. Lifetime Difference in Earnings for a Female £100,000 The impact of undergraduate degrees on lifetime earnings. Britton et al. Over their working lives women who attend university earn £100,000 more than those who do not. Figures are over a lifetime and in PV terms. Source: Stantec. 5.3.11 Using the number of high school students within 2km of each site and calculating a figure for the number of students likely to attend and complete university, which can then be adjusted for the decrease if the school moves 8km away. Applying the loss of earnings values to the number of pupils affected results in the total earnings lost over their entire lifetime. This is then discounted for 7 years, as an average amount of time for high school students to join the labour market. The results of the analysis on total lifetime earnings for all affected students for both sites are outlined below: Table 5.6: Educational Attainment Results Tobermory Site Central Island Site Difference Between Tobermory and Central Island Site Effect on Lifetime Earnings £652,000 £25,000 £627,000 Source: Stantec. 5.3.12 The impact of the Tobermory Site is the earnings that could be lost if the school was moved, the impact of the central site is the earnings gained from the relocation. The greater impact of the Tobermory Site is driven by the high number of students located in the area. Page 269
Page 206
Classification: OFFICIAL Loss of Earnings 5.3.13 Parents who drive their children to school are affected by the location of the school. Due to the transport infrastructure limitations a large number of parents must take their children to school, alongside this parents with children in early learning years must take their children to school themselves as transport is not provided. If the school is moved parents may lose the additional travel time in working time. This loss of working time may result in a loss of earnings to parents. Although not quantitively captured here, there will also be an effect on employer’s balance sheets due to the reduced working time of parents. Businesses are likely to suffer some changes to revenue or costs due to the effect on working time. As the effect of this on firms will differ dependant on their business model and approach to the change, this has not been captured here. 5.3.14 The assumptions used are outlined below. Table 5.7: Loss of Earnings Assumptions Assumption Value Source Daily Travel Time for all Parents - Tobermory Site (aggregate minutes across all staff) 630 Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report (Systra, 2025). This is the total travel time in minutes for all parents taking their children to school. This is for the 2 trips per day which are likely to impact employment time. Daily Travel Time for all Parents - Central Site (aggregate minutes across all staff) 936 Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report (Systra, 2025). This is the total travel time in minutes for all parents taking their children to school. This is for the 2 trips per day which are likely to impact employment time. Employment Rate 67.8% Argyll & Bute Employment Rate aged 16-64 (December 2024) taken from the Annual Population Survey. Value of Travel Time for Parents (per hour) £20.34 Average hourly earnings in Argyll & Bute from ASHE 2024. Source: Stantec. 5.3.15 The total journey time for 2 daily journeys has been calculated for the entire school year and multiplied by the average earnings in the area. This has then been adjusted to account for the percentage of parents in employment. The difference in journey time for trips in both the morning and afternoon for all employed parents results in the earnings retained or lost set out below: Table 5.8: Loss of Earnings Results Tobermory Site Central Island Site Difference Between Tobermory and Central Island Site Effects on Parents Earnings (per year) £0 -£96,000 £96,000 Source: Stantec. 5.3.16 The value for the central site is the earnings lost due to the relocation of the school, the value for the Tobermory Site is 0 as there will be no earnings lost if the school remains where it currently is. Page 270
Page 207
Classification: OFFICIAL School Staff Costs of Community 5.3.17 The STAG Guidance applies a value to the individual for commuting to work, this can be applied to the staff travel time for both site options. The STAG Guidance provides a willingness to pay value for the journey time savings for individuals commuting to work. Applying this to the total staff travel time for both sides will show the economic impact to the individuals for commuting to work. The assumptions applied are set out in the following table: Table 5.9: School Staff Cost of Commuting Assumptions Assumption Value Source Total Daily Staff Travel Time Tobermory Site (aggregate minutes across all staff) 1,390 Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report. Total Daily Staff Travel Time Central Site (aggregate minutes across all staff) 3,932 Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report. Value of Travel Time for Staff (per hour) £11.10 TAG Databook value of commuting 2024. Source: Stantec. 5.3.18 The results of the analysis for both sites are outlined below: Table 5.10: Cost of Commuting Results Tobermory Site Central Site Difference Between Tobermory and Central Island Site Cost of Commuting (per annum) - £350,000 - £990,000 £640,000 Source: Stantec. 5.3.19 Staff commuting time will approximately triple if the school is located at the central site, this is driving the large increase in the total cost to staff. Although staff would be reimbursed for their mileage for the first 4 years of the school relocating, this impact captures the willingness to pay value for the journey time savings which the staff will not receive back and takes a longer- term approach. Vehicle Carbon Costs 5.3.20 The various methods of transport used by students and staff to travel to school will result in carbon emissions. The Transport Scotland STAG Guidance provides values for monetising vehicle carbon emissions for use in appraisal, these values are estimated by the target- consistent marginal abatement costs consistent with the Government’s commitments on carbon emissions. These monetise vehicle emissions to align them with national commitments to carbon reduction. The assumptions used are highlighted below. Page 271
Page 208
Classification: OFFICIAL Table 5.11: Carbon Costs Assumptions Assumption Value Source Total Daily Carbon Emissions Tobermory Site (kgCO2e) 352 Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report. Total Daily Carbon Emissions Central Site (kgCO2e) 1,032 Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations Report. Carbon Costs (tCO2e) Varies by year Based on TAG Databook Carbon Values. Source: Stantec. 5.3.21 The results of the analysis for both sites are outlined below: Table 5.12: Carbon Costs Results Tobermory Site Central Island Site Difference Between Tobermory and Central Island Site Carbon Costs - £115,000 - £336,000 £221,000 Source: Stantec. 5.4 Summary 5.4.1 The differences in economic impact across the two options are summarised below. Table 5.13: Summary Summary Difference Between Tobermory and Central Island Site Investment Lost/Gained Due to Relocation £89,000 Existing Property Values £1,474,000 Students Lifetime Earnings £627,000 Changes to Parents Current Earnings £96,000 Cost of Commuting £640,000 Carbon Cost of Travel £221,000 Total Benefits £3,147,000 Source: Stantec. 5.4.2 Overall, the analysis has concluded that the economic impact of the Project will be £3,147,000 higher if the school were built in Tobermory than would be the case if it were built in a central island location. Sensitivity Analysis – Change in School Catchment Area 5.4.3 As part of the Transport Considerations Report (Systra, 2025) a change in school catchments has been included to present the scenario in which the secondary school catchments areas are altered. Although this scenario will not directly influence the site scoring and selection Page 272
Page 209
Classification: OFFICIAL process it has been included as an additional test to consider the sensitivity. The bullets below show the impacts which are affected by the change in catchments: Changes to Parents Current Earnings – The earnings lost under the central site option, and the differential between the two options would increase by £20,000 to £116,000. Carbon Cost of Travel – The cost of carbon emissions for the central site option would increase by £24,000 to £360,000; raising the differential between the two options to £250,000. Aggregate Difference in Impact - These two changes would increase the aggregate difference in impact by £44,000, taking it to £3,191,000. Page 273
Page 210
Classification: OFFICIAL 6 Island Communities Impact Assessment 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 provides a legal basis for greater decision making at a local level within Scottish Islands and seeks to increase economic prosperity for island communities. 6.1.2 This is to be achieved through ‘island proofing’ legislation, policy, and strategic decisions by taking account of the special circumstances of island communities and ensuring no disadvantage to people living and working on islands (as defined by Section 1 of the Act). 6.1.3 Section 7 of the Act sets out a specific duty for relevant public bodies to “have regard to island communities” in carrying out their functions. A related duty in Section 8 of the Act requires relevant public bodies to undertake an island communities impact assessment “in relation to a policy, strategy, or service which, in the authority’s opinion, is likely to have an effect on an island community which is significantly different from its effect on other communities (including other island communities) in the area in which the authority exercises its functions”. 6.2 Assessment Approach 6.2.1 An ICIA is intended to evaluate the potential effects of a project on island communities, taking account of the unique challenges and opportunities faced by people living on islands, such as geographical isolation, smaller population sizes, limited infrastructure and reliance on specific industries. 6.2.2 The assessment following the Scottish Government’s guidance and toolkit prepared on ICIAs (Scottish Government, 2020b). This provides a framework to assess the extent to which the proposed Mull Campus has an impact on island communities. The assessment has been informed by engagement activities, as discussed in Section 3.2. 6.2.3 Consideration has been given to the thematic questions in the ICIA guidance around: Demography – including current demographic structure, challenges faced in areas with greater proportion of older people and impacts on these challenges including encouraging young people to leave; Economy – potential for impacts on key industries, on island infrastructure and natural environment, on communications networks, on small businesses and their supply chains and taking account of the costs of travel particularly for people on low incomes; and Social – the often dispersed nature of island deprivation, impacts on the cost of living, changes affecting people in fuel poverty, consideration of part time and self-employed nature of much of the islands’ workforce and issues with availability of childcare provision. 6.2.4 The following framing questions have been applied to understand the potential impact of the Project based on high level site selection assumptions in accordance with the early phase of the Project. Guide Questions: Island Community Impact Assessment Q1. Does the proposal take into consideration the current demographic structure of the islands and the challenges faced by populations in these communities? Q2. Will the proposals have an impact of the economic prosperity of island communities? Page 274
Page 211
Classification: OFFICIAL Q3. Does the proposal consider the unique transport challenges faced by island communities? Has the cost and time taken in travelling between island communities been taken into consideration – particularly for those on low incomes or reliant on infrequent public transport? Q4. Will the proposals have an impact on the island’s infrastructure or natural environment and biodiversity? Q5. Effectively address the unique social challenges faced by island communities? Q6. Effectively address the unique health challenges faced by the islands’ communities? Q7. Does the Project have the potential to impact on the use of Gaelic in the community? 6.2.5 The framing questions have also been applied taking account of key aspects in Section 8 of the Act around the potential for differential impacts on the islands’ communities and on consideration of the extent to which delivery of the Project might improve or mitigate outcomes. 6.3 Island Communities Impact Assessment Findings Q1. Does the proposal take into consideration the current demographic structure of the islands and the challenges faced by populations in these communities? 6.3.1 At the time of writing, the Project is undergoing a site selection process to determine the most suitable location for a 2-18 education campus on the Isle of Mull. This process has been initiated as a result of LEIP (discussed previously in Section 2.2.2) funding which has been awarded to Argyll & Bute Council on the basis of a like-for-like replacement of an existing education campus in Tobermory. 6.3.2 The site selection process is considering the suitability of site options within the settlement boundary of Tobermory, including the existing school site, and site options located centrally on Mull in Craignure or Garmony. Due to commercial sensitivities, the exact locations of the site options was not released to the public prior to completion of the impact assessments at this stage. As such, the impact assessment report predominantly considers the high-level implications of a site in either a central (i.e., Craignure or Garmony) or Tobermory (i.e., existing or new site) location. 6.3.3 The proposals to consider a Central campus option responds to community views to provide a more equitable high schooling option for all children and young-people living on Mull. At present, children and young people living in the Ross of Mull (South West Mull) have limited access to the high school in Tobermory due to travel times of approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes each way, which precludes this as a viable option for most families. The area is currently within a catchment area for Oban High School where children can board weekly from Monday to Friday and return home to Mull at the weekends. 6.3.4 A Tobermory location would likely maintain the current status quo for school provision on the island. This predominantly includes families in Tobermory which is the largest settlement area on the Island and some families located in north, central and some south settlements. By retaining a Tobermory option, concerns about depopulation in the Ross of Mull have been cited during a number of community engagement events and this is reflected in the baseline data which indicates that South West Mull has experienced a depopulation rate of 9% amongst it’s 0-15 year old age group between 2011 and 2022, while North Mull, Gometra and Ulva has experienced a depopulation rate of 3% in this age group. Comparatively, South of Mull has seen a significant increase in population growth for this age group at 36%, while Tobermory has experienced a 15% increase in this age group. Page 275
Page 212
Classification: OFFICIAL 6.3.5 A centrally located campus would be sensitive to the demographic challenges faced by families living in the South and South West of Mull and would benefit families with teenage children attending secondary school on the mainland in Oban. A number of local families have expressed that attending boarding school on the mainland has negatively impacted their children and discourages young people from settling back in the local community in adulthood, increasing worries over depopulation. Results from the Bunessan Parent Council Survey (conducted November 2024) show that 50% of parents would “seriously consider leaving the Ross of Mull if a central school is not built”. 6.3.6 While 95% of those surveyed in the Bunessan Parent Council said they would send their children to a central school daily, 57% of parents said that a funded placement option for Oban High School, including the hostel needs to be retained suggesting a preference to maintain this option. During public engagement sessions in September 2024 a number of parents stated that they would continue to opt for their children to board and attend school in Oban, citing that they felt their children had wider access to more opportunities. 6.3.7 A centrally sited option is expected to allow all children on Mull to attend the same high school with reduced travel times for many pupils in the South and South West of Mull areas and allow for greater socialising amongst young people on Mull, this was particularly raised during the engagement with schools. This could have the potential to strengthen community cohesion amongst young people and their families leading to positive social benefits for all island communities. It would also encourage unity between communities in the North and South of Mull. 6.3.8 Proposals for a central site option currently involve the transfer of existing early-years and primary school education from Tobermory to the central Campus site due to the like-for-like requirements of the LEIP funding secured by the Council. As such, with a central site option, there is also the potential for negative demographic implications for those living in Tobermory which is Mull’s largest settlement area. Views expressed from community members suggest that families could choose to move away from Tobermory if early years and primary school provision was removed which could result in depopulation if families choose to leave the island. 6.3.9 A split-site option which would retain early years and primary school provision in Tobermory with a central high school was explored by the Council, however this option has been deemed unaffordable and thus unviable on the basis that the Council would be required to fund the additional cost requirement for a split-site option in its entirety. A motion was passed unanimously on this matter by Argyll & Bute councillors at a Special Meeting on 20 December 2024 (Argyll & Bute Council, 2024b). Q2. Will the proposals have an impact of the economic prosperity of island communities? 6.3.10 The Economic Impact Assessment presented in Chapter 5, outlines that if the campus was located in Tobermory, the economic benefit would be £3,147,000 higher than would be the case if the campus was built in a central island location. This assessment takes into account investment stimulus acknowledging that schools influence the attractiveness of an area for potential residents and therefore the value of future housing developments. The Economic Impact Assessment outlines that houses with 0.5 miles of a school have a 1.73% higher GDV (market price) which drives the underlying land value of the site. The location of the Mull Campus has the potential to increase the value of developments within 0.5 miles of the schools location which would generate positive impacts for both a central and Tobermory site option. 6.3.11 Similarly, the Economic Impact Assessment considers economic impacts to existing local housing. A substantially greater impact has been identified for the Tobermory sites options are as result of more houses being located there and higher average house prices. 6.3.12 While a Tobermory site location is judged to have a stronger economic impact, some community members feel that a central option could particularly bring positive benefits for the Ross of Mull. This is captured in the following response from members of the community in the Page 276
Page 213
Classification: OFFICIAL South West of Mull: “an accessible high school, built in a central location, would make South West Mull a significantly more attractive place for families to move to, assisting in building the economy, stimulating repopulation, and enhancing community resilience. With the increasing ability of remote working, there are exciting opportunities to build up our population through families employed in a combination of remote working and local employment which will make us less dependent on tourism and seasonal work. However, such families are more likely to be attracted to areas with accessible schools”. 6.3.13 Community testimonies provided to inform the ICIA from young people and families who have moved away from the Ross of Mull or from prospective working age families who want to move there but feel unable to do so due to the current secondary school catchment area also support the above comment. Impact on Local Businesses and Employment 6.3.14 Small businesses could experience changes in revenue or a loss in earning if working patterns were affected by the school site location. A central site option could result in a loss of revenue for Tobermory-based businesses who benefit from local footfall and custom from young people and families attending school in the town if they were instead required to travel daily to a central location. Increased travel times for working parents based in Tobermory and North Mull could also affect earnings if this impacted their available working hours and brings implications for increased travel costs for these families. 6.3.15 Bringing the Project forward in a central location could stimulate local business growth to provide services in proximity to the school such as new proposed housing allocations, local shops, amenities and other services. However, due to the early stage of the Project development process any potential impacts attributable to this are regarded as uncertain as they are dependent on a number of factors beyond the scope of this proposal. 6.3.16 Across Mull the supply of 0-3 year old childcare is very low compared to demand and provision is largely centred around Tobermory. It is recommended that that new Campus could integrate community spaces and services that meet the needs of the wider community as a whole. This could include more facilities and resources to offer more after school clubs, breakfast clubs and wraparound care that could positively benefits single parents and working parents. Journey Times and Cost of Travel 6.3.17 In the Mull Education Campus Transport Review (Systra, 2025) attending a central campus option would result in a doubling of travel time for all pupils on average compared to the existing baseline for attendance in Tobermory. This could have a negative impact on parent’s and carer’s working patterns, particularly those who are self-employed or who work part-time to ensure they can accommodate their children’s daily travel to and from school, including attendance at any after school activities locally or elsewhere on the island. 6.3.18 While it is assumed that bus services would be provided along major routes, there will still be a need for some families and staff to ‘feed in’ to bus route intersections where small villages and settlements may not be served. Additionally, the Transport Review (Systra, 2025) forecasts that a number of families are likely to drop-off and collection children by car. 6.3.19 Increased journey times and mileage could also have a significant impact on a higher number of families and staff members who will be subject to longer daily journeys to a central campus location. This would incur additional fuel and maintenance costs for private vehicles if travelling by car which could have financial implications, particularly for low-income families and families with limited or no access to a car. Staff Recruitment and Retention 6.3.20 Education staff have raised concerns about staff recruitment and retention on Mull which is already an issue for a range of positions across the island. A lack of housing options has also Page 277
Page 214
Classification: OFFICIAL been cited as a factor linked to this. It may be more attractive to recruit and retain teachers in a larger settlement area such as Tobermory but the full impacts of the proposals on staff recruitment and retention is not clearly known at this stage. 6.3.21 However, the nearby mainland town of Oban also experiences issues with staff recruitment and retention. Therefore, a location closer to the ferry that allows for staff travel may not alleviate these issues. Q3. Does the proposal consider the unique transport challenges faced by island communities? Has the cost and time taken in travelling between island communities been taken into consideration – particularly for those on low incomes or reliant on infrequent public transport? 6.3.22 To inform the site selection decision making process, Argyll & Bute Council commissioned a Mull Education Campus Transport Review (Systra, 2025). The Transport Review takes into account the transport context of Mull and the cost and time required to travel between island communities to four different proposed site options, including Site 1 Tobermory (existing school site), Site 2 – Craignure, Site 3 – Garmony and Site 4 – Tobermory South. 6.3.23 A summary of the report findings are presented in Table 6.1 below: Table 6.1: Key Travel Considerations from Systra (2025) Mull Education Campus Transport Review Report Site Location Key Travel Considerations Site 1 – Tobermory (existing school site) Travel characteristics are mostly known as they are likely to align with present conditions; The site is within walking distance of the most existing housing; and The site is constrained making access for large vehicles (e.g. buses and HGVs during construction) difficult. Site 2 – Craignure Travel times, distances and carbon emissions will increase over the baseline (more so if the catchments are amended to include the Ross of Mull); Average journey times will increase by approximately 20 minutes; Pupils who currently walk will likely have to be taken to the Craignure site by bus requiring approximately 4 additional buses over the baseline; There is an adjacent allocation for c. 80 housing units, enabling trips by active modes; and Footways and crossing opportunities on the adjacent highway network are limited, however, could be improved. Site 3 – Garmony Travel times, distances and carbon emissions will increase over the baseline (more so if the catchments are amended to include the Ross of Mull); Average journey times will increase by approximately 15 minutes over the baseline; Pupils who currently walk will likely have to be taken to the Garmony site by bus requiring approximately 4 additional buses over the baseline; The site is located adjacent to a limited number of existing housing and no LDP or Large Windfall housing sites identified in the Housing Land Audit; and There are no footways or crossing opportunities on the adjacent highway network – providing them would deliver limited benefit. Page 278
Page 215
Classification: OFFICIAL Site 4 – Tobermory South The site is walkable from some existing housing, and it is noted nearby, and adjacent sites are allocated with up to 112 new residential units; There are some existing footways from adjacent residential catchments; and Travel time, distance and associated carbon emissions are likely to remain broadly similar to the baseline. 6.3.24 Site 1 Tobermory will retain familiar travel patterns as current conditions would largely be unchanged. It is conveniently located within walking distance for most existing housing in Tobermory with 90% of pre-5 and primary school pupils currently living within a 5-minute walking distance (Systra, 2025). Constraints have been noted for the site whereby access for larger vehicles such as HGVs and buses may be challenging. 6.3.25 Site 4 Tobermory South is also walkable from local housing and a proposed residential allocation for us to 112 new homes which offers further potential for active travel to and from school. Other impacts are expected to remain consistent with baseline conditions for Site Location 1. 6.3.26 Both Site 3 Garmony and Site 2 Craignure would lead to increased travel times, distances and carbon emissions, particularly if the catchments are expanded to include the Ross of Mull. Average journey times would increase by approximately 20 minutes for Craignure and 15 minutes for Garmony, necessitating additional bus services in each case. While Craignure offers some potential for active travel with its proximity to an 80-unit residential housing allocation, it is noted that improvements would need to be made footways and cross infrastructure. Garmony lacks nearby housing and has no planned developments at present. There are also limited benefits from improving footways or crossings on the adjacent highway network at this location. There is also a high potential for increased traffic on the A849 and A848 with more buses and car traffic commuting to a central site for a large proportion of pupils and staff who are based in Tobermory. This could be particularly challenging along sections of the route that involve single track road which will be subject to a high volume of commuters also heading northwards to Tobermory for work at a similar peak time. 6.3.27 Island communities are subject to more extreme weather conditions that can more frequently affect travel infrastructure including public transport and ferry travel. For all site locations, it is recommended that the new facilities include digital infrastructure to facilitate and access to online learning for pupils and staff who may not be able to travel to school due to weather- based disruptions. Q4. Will the proposals have an impact on the island’s infrastructure or natural environment and biodiversity? 6.3.28 A central site option would involve increased vehicle trip generation compared with a Tobermory location. The Economic Impact Assessment estimated that vehicle carbon emissions generated from these trips would be 352 kgCO2e for a Tobermory Site and 1,032 kgCO2e for a central Site. 6.3.29 It is acknowledged that the existing road infrastructure on Mull is constrained with large sections of single track road, particularly between Tobermory and central island localities. Increased trip generation on these roads could have adverse effects on local road infrastructure which may require upgrading and could involve increased maintenance costs. 6.3.30 A Tobermory site location is not likely to result in substantially higher levels of vehicular traffic compared to the existing baseline scenario. 6.3.31 Environmental impacts are likely to arise during construction of either site option. It is considered that these will be robustly assessed during the pre-planning process with appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to meet local and national planning requirements. Page 279
Page 216
Classification: OFFICIAL 6.3.32 It is considered that sustainable design and energy measures will be incorporated into the new Campus, regardless of location, which could have a positive effect in terms of operational emissions and sustainability of the new Mull Campus. Further detail is expected in this regard as the Project develops. Q5. Effectively address the unique social challenges faced by island communities? 6.3.33 Mull has an ageing population and while some communities have experienced growth in the population group aged 0-15 years, some communities such as the South West of Mull has experienced depopulation in this age group of 9%. 6.3.34 Some community members have attributed this to the lack of a central high schooling option for children living in the Ross of Mull who at present have the option to travel and board weekly at Oban High School. Many believe that this discourages young people from returning to the island in adulthood to live and work. 6.3.35 Parents in the South West of Mull have voiced concerns about their children’s experiences at Oban High School. Some of these parents had personally experienced weekly boarding at Oban High School and due to their experiences had decided that they did not want that for their children. This was especially apparent as the survey showed that 50% of those surveyed stated that they would consider leaving the Ross of Mull is a school is not built centrally. Additionally, some parents knew of families who would return to Ross of Mull if there was a daily accessible secondary school for their children. 6.3.36 Through testimonies provided by Bunessan Parent Council, current and former pupils with experience of boarding at Oban High School detailed the adverse impact that boarding had on them and their mental health, citing particular difficulties with home-sickness and feeling isolated from their families and local community during secondary school. 6.3.37 Some community members in the South West of Mull have shared that the impacts of the previous school siting decision in Tobermory has resulted in generational impacts to the communities in this area which has shaped a number of social outcomes for the island as a whole. Community members also feel that if their children and young people are travelling to the mainland for high school education that they are less likely to return to the islands as young adults, bringing concerns around future depopulation. One parent reinforced this point by using an example of their friends who attended Oban High School and “still don’t have a close knit of friends” as they don’t know anyone in the north of the island. 6.3.38 Children who have to undertake long journeys to attend school, whether on Mull or in Oban are more likely to experience tiredness as a result. Parents with children who board at Oban High School have shared that their children are often so tired on the weekends that they worry about their ability to partake in local social activities. One parent stated: “The children come back tired on a Friday and Sundays are ruined because they have to get up so early on Monday. They are 'not here' at the weekends as they are too tired to participate in normal life.” 6.3.39 If a central school location was chosen, this could have the potential to positively impact social outcomes for children and young people currently living in the Ross of Mull, or those currently experiencing long commutes to Tobermory for high school. Many of these pupils, especially those from the Ross of Mull, would still likely experience longer than average travel times by bus each day, however it would provide a feasible option for them to remain on the island, living at home, while attending high school. They would also have the opportunity to socialise with a larger cohort of islanders across Mull who would also be attending the central high school opening up social opportunities such as friendships and participation in island based clubs and activities. 6.3.40 A central school location could have negative implications for younger and primary school aged children in Tobermory who would be required undertake daily journeys to a central location to attend early years and primary school education. As a result of this, average journey times for a central school location will increased by approximately 17.5 minutes over Page 280
Page 217
Classification: OFFICIAL the baseline (SYSTRA, 2025). This could negatively families who are less able to travel by car such as families on low income, experiencing unemployment or deprivation. Q6. Effectively address the unique health challenges faced by the islands’ communities? 6.3.41 Island communities face a number of unique health challenges linked which are augmented by limited access to healthcare services as a result of distance and travel from facilities and a lack of specialist care and emergency service provision within island communities. 6.3.42 Mental health challenges are prevalent in rural and island contexts, and this is often attributable to geographic isolation which can exacerbate feelings of loneliness. Limited access to mental health services also means island communities may lack the same level of support compared to mainland counterparts. Some island communities also have higher rates of chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and respiratory diseases due to lifestyle factors and limited preventative care options. Island residents may experience health inequalities compared to mainland populations due to socioeconomic disparities, limited job opportunities, and high costs of living. 6.3.43 While there is limited evidence around the impacts of daily travel time on children, some studies suggest that extended daily commutes of 30 minute to an hour each way for children can have several impacts on the following: Physical health: longer commutes could result in increased sedentary behaviour due to children spending more time sitting during travel. A reduction in physical activity can contribute to health issues such as obesity and other chronic conditions (Chairassamee et al., 2024). Sleep and exercise: children with longer travel times to school may get less sleep and engage in lower levels of physical activity compared to those with shorter commutes which has the potential to affect their overall wellbeing (Chairassamee et al., 2024). Mental health: extended period spent commuting can increase stress and negative emotions in children, making it more difficult for them to concentrate during school hours. Linked to the above point, have less time for sleep and exercise could further impact negative health outcomes in children (Voulgaris et al., 2017). Academic Performance: there is some evidence to suggest that a negative relationship between longer commuting times and academic performance (Alanzi and Alfraih, 2023). 6.3.44 The above factors are relevant to a number of pupils in both site option scenarios who need to contend with longer journey times than other peers across part of Argyll & Bute and Scotland more widely. 6.3.45 The Mull Campus proposals have generated a strong community response to an important matter that many care deeply about. A number of concerns have been raised by the community in respect of the proposals and it should be acknowledged that uncertainties around the proposals at present in terms of site location and catchment areas may be causing stress and anxiety to many families in the community. Community members, who have already contributed much to the engagement phases of the Project, have also expressed concerns during the impact assessment process. They have stated that they feel stretched and unable to engage with the process in their capacities as volunteers due to limited timeframes. 6.3.46 Some of the sentiments and concerns expressed by the community have indicated a loss of trust in the Project development process and could likely result in a negative impact on mental health for parents and families. It is recommended that Argyll & Bute Council regularly review and monitor their Engagement Strategy and consider measures to rebuild community trust around the Project to promote positive collaboration between the Council and community with Page 281
Page 218
Classification: OFFICIAL the aim of achieving beneficial outcomes for the Project and Mull’s island communities as the Project develops. Q7. Does the project have the potential to impact on the use of Gaelic in the community? 6.3.47 Community views suggest that the Project has the potential to increase the use of Gaelic in the community if a Gaelic unit is included as part of secondary education in order to continue the full Gaelic Medium Education (GME) currently available. Community views expressed that this could be further strengthened if a cohort from Bunessan Primary School are able to join to continue their Gaelic education at a central site option alongside GME pupils from Salen Primary School. 6.3.48 Delivering GME within the secondary sector of the campus is recognised as being very challenging due to ongoing issues around the recruitment and retention of teachers to Mull and the wider region, including Oban. As such, any GME provision at the Mull Campus cannot be guaranteed regardless of site location. 6.3.49 Feedback from Mull Primary Head Teachers also expressed that the new Campus could promote children’s bilingual learning and exposure to Gaelic through dual language signage throughout the building and potentially bring together the two Gaelic Medium Units on the island (Salen and Bunessan Primary Schools) to increase the prominence of Gaelic within the island’s communities. 6.3.50 Overall, it is viewed that the Project could result in minor positive impacts for the use of Gaelic and promotion of Gaelic learning for pupils of all ages and the wider community. The opportunities for this could be enhanced by bringing together two cohorts of Gaelic speaking children from Bunessan and Salen in a central secondary school. 6.4 Summary 6.4.1 Conclusions for the above assessment are provided below in accordance with high level assumptions for either a Central Site Location or a Tobermory Site Location. Conclusion Q1 – Island Demography and Population Challenges Central Site Location 6.4.2 It is considered that a central site location would positively impact children, young people and their families living in the South and South West of Mull and possibly bring unity to the North and South communities of the island. Community members feel strongly that a central high school option is crucial to reversing currents trends of depopulation in the island’s South West community. 6.4.3 Children, young people and their families would be affected in Tobermory and the North of Mull with increased travel times to school and importantly the removal of early years and primary school education in Tobermory which currently serves a combined total of 95 children, requiring them to travel daily to a central location. The implications of this could negatively impact the demographic structure of Tobermory and North Mull if families decided to move elsewhere with a risk of depopulation if they chose to leave the island. Tobermory Site Location 6.4.4 Retaining education provision in Tobermory would positively impact pupils, families and community members currently utilising the existing Site through the re-provision of enhanced and contemporary facilities. This could also encourage population retention and growth in the area. 6.4.5 However, there would be no additional benefit to families living in the South West of Mull who would likely continue with status quo education arrangements for local primary schooling and Page 282
Page 219
Classification: OFFICIAL off-island secondary-school attendance. This option poses the continued risk of depopulation with the South West of Mull, where some families may make decisions to relocate on the basis of their child’s education and to avoid the possibility weekly boarding on the mainland. Conclusion Q2 – Economic Prosperity Central Site Location 6.4.6 The location of the Mull Campus has the potential to increase the value of developments within 0.5 miles of the school location, which would generate positive impacts. However, a central site could stimulate local business growth in this area, for example, a greater number of local businesses surrounding the school. Conversely, a central site option may result in a loss of revenue for Tobermory-based businesses and negatively impact working parents based in Tobermory and North Mull due to increased travel costs. 6.4.7 An increase in travel time for those living in Tobermory and North Mull may have a negative impact on parent’s and carer’s working patterns whilst also incurring additional fuel and maintenance costs for private vehicles, which may be unaffordable for some. Tobermory Site Location 6.4.8 The Economic Impact Assessment estimated that there would be a higher economic benefit (£3,147,000) associated with a Tobermory location than a central site location. The location of the Mull Campus has the potential to increase the value of developments within 0.5 miles of the school location, which would generate positive impacts. As a larger settlement, the Tobermory site option may be more attractive to recruit and retain teachers, which is currently an issue on Mull. Conclusion Q3 – Transport Challenges Central Site Location 6.4.9 Based on the travel considerations outlined, both Site 2 – Craignure and Site 3 – Garmony would result in increased travel times (approximately 20 minutes for Craignure and 15 minutes for Garmony), distances and carbon emissions. Both sites would require additional bus services. While Craignure offers some potential for active travel, improvements would still be required. Despite this, it was deemed of little benefit to provide additional footways or crossing opportunities on the adjacent highway network. Tobermory Site Location 6.4.10 Based on the travel considerations outlined, Site 4 – Tobermory South emerges as the most favourable option. It maintains proximity to some existing housing and is adjacent to planned developments for up to 112 new residential units, which could support future active travel. The presence of existing footways and travel times, distances, and carbon emissions are expected to remain consistent with the baseline make it a practical choice. 6.4.11 While Site 1 – Tobermory (existing site) also offers proximity to housing and unchanged travel conditions, its constraints for large vehicle access during construction could pose logistical challenges. Sites 2 – Craignure and 3 – Garmony, by contrast, would significantly increase travel times, carbon emissions, and the need for additional buses, making them less efficient and less environmentally sustainable. Overall, South Tobermory balances accessibility, sustainability, and future growth potential, making it the best performing option. Conclusion Q4 – Island’s Infrastructure Central Site Location 6.4.12 A central site option would involve increased vehicle trip generation compared to a Tobermory location. It was estimated that vehicle carbon emissions generated from these trips would be Page 283
Page 220
Classification: OFFICIAL 1,032 kgCO2e. As existing roads from Tobermory to central island locations are mainly single track, increased trip generation could have adverse effects on local road infrastructure which may require upgrading. 6.4.13 Environmental impacts are likely to arise at both locations during construction but will be appropriately mitigated against. The new Campus, regardless of location, is likely to have a positive effect in terms of operational emissions and sustainability due to appropriate design and energy measures. Tobermory Site Location 6.4.14 A Tobermory Site location would result in lower vehicle trip generation compared to a central site location. It was estimated that vehicle carbon emissions generated from these trips would be 352 kgCO2e. Conclusion Q5 – Unique Social Challenges of Island Communities Central Site Location 6.4.15 Parents in the South West of Mull have voiced concerns if the school is not built centrally, as 50% of those surveys stated that they would consider leaving the area. 6.4.16 A central site option could have the potential to positively impact social outcomes for children and young people who have to undertake long journeys to attend school. Additionally, they have a greater opportunity to interact with a larger cohort children and young people on the island. However, for children and young people in Tobermory, average journey times for a central school location will increase by approximately 17.5 minutes over the baseline. 6.4.17 Additionally, a central site option could have negative implications for younger and primary school aged children in Tobermory who would be required to undertake daily journeys to a central location to attend early years and primary school education. Tobermory Site Location 6.4.18 Some community members in the South West of Mull have shared that the impacts of previous school siting decision in Tobermory has resulted in generational impacts and has shaped a number of social outcomes. Parents in South West Mull also raised that the issue of depopulation will continue in their area if the school was located in Tobermory. Children, especially in South West of Mull, who have to travel long journeys shared how tired they feel from their journeys, and this would continue with a Tobermory site location. Conclusion Q6 – Unique Health Challenges in Island Communities All Site Locations 6.4.19 Island communities face a number of unique health challenges. Some studies suggest than extended daily commutes of 30 minute to an hour each way for children can have several impacts on physical health, sleep and exercise, mental health and academic performance. These factors are relevant to a number of pupils in both Site option scenarios who need to contend with longer journey times than other peers across part of Argyll & Bute and Scotland more widely. Conclusion Q7 – Gaelic in the Community All Site Locations 6.4.20 Overall, it is viewed that the Project could result in minor positive impacts for the use of Gaelic and promotion of Gaelic learning for pupils of all ages and the wider community. Members of the community and school representatives have suggested the inclusion of Gaelic signage in the design of the new Campus building. While some members of the community are Page 284
Page 221
Classification: OFFICIAL advocating for further opportunities for Gaelic provision in the secondary sector of the Campus it is recognised that the delivery of this would be challenging due to recruitment constraints. It is recommended that opportunities to incorporate Gaelic in the new Campus are explored where possible during further development of the Project. Page 285
Page 222
Classification: OFFICIAL 7 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 requires public bodies to consider whether existing and emerging legislation, policy and guidance have an impact on children and young people and to assess what further action is required to ensure compliance with the UNCRC. CRWIAs are one of the general measures of implementation under the Convention. It recommends that all levels of government complete a CRWIA as part of their policy development. 7.1.2 There are four general principles of the UNCRC which must always be considered in policy appraisal: Article 2: apply rights without discrimination; Article 3: best interests of the child to be a principal consideration; Article 6: right to life, survival and development; and Article 12: right to express a view and have that view taken into account. 7.1.3 These articles underpin all other rights in the Convention and have formed the basis for consideration within this assessment. Additional articles considered relevant to this appraisal include, further detail is provided in Appendix B: Summary of the UNCRC (UNICEF UK, 2019): Article 15: freedom of association; Article 23: rights of the disabled children; Article 24: right to best possible health; Article 29: goals of education; Article 30: rights of children from minority or indigenous groups; and Article 31: right to leisure, play and participation in cultural and artistic activities. 7.2 Assessment Approach 7.2.1 The following guide framing questions have been applied to testing the performance of the proposed Mull Campus Development in relation to implementing the CRW Duties. This provides a transparent framework to assess the extent to which emerging components of the development have an impact on children and young people and assess what further action is required to ensure compliance with the UNCRC. 7.2.2 The framing questions, as set out below, have been applied to test and confirm the implementation of relevant Scottish Ministers’ duties under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 and the UNCRC in relation to the proposed Mull Campus. They have been formulated with reference to the approach recommended within the Scottish Government’s Child Rights and Wellbeing (CRW) Impact Assessment Guidance (Scottish Government, 2021a). 7.2.3 The objective is to help progress the realisation of children’s rights, and safeguard support and promote the wellbeing of children and young people. Page 286
Page 223
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.2.4 The assessment has been informed through engagement activities with relevant groups of interest and impact (as discussed in Section 3.2). 7.2.5 The framing questions have been applied in relation to the UNCRC articles and taking account of the Scottish Government’s SHANARRI5 wellbeing indicators developed for the Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) approach (Scottish Government, 2023b) to children’s services provision in Scotland. These indicators were developed from the UNCRC and are incorporated in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. They are safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included. Guide Questions: Children’s Rights and Wellbeing impact Assessment Q1. What likely impact will the Mull Campus Proposals have on Children’s Rights? Q2. How will the Mull Campus proposals affect the wellbeing of children and young people? Q3. Are some children and young people more likely to be affected by the proposals than others? 7.3 Pupil Forum Engagement 7.3.1 To inform the CRWIA, representatives from the Mull Campus Pupil Working Group were invited to provide feedback during an online video call and afterwards by completing feedback forms centred around the three assessment questions highlighted below in Section 7.4. Pupil representatives from Lochdonhead Primary School, Bunessan Primary School, Ulva Primary School, Tobermory Primary School and Tobermory High School joined the call on 15 January 2025. The call was led by an Education Officer from Argyll & Bute Council with a consultant from Stantec present. 7.3.2 Written feedback was received digitally from pupils attending Ulva Primary School, Tobermory Primary School, Bunessan Primary School and Tobermory High School. No written responses were received from Lochdonhead Primary School, however verbal feedback captured during the online session has been taken into account. All responses gathered are presented anonymously to protect confidentiality. 7.4 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment Findings Q1. What likely impact will the Mull Campus Proposals have on Children’s Rights? 7.4.1 The Project adheres to the four underpinning Rights of the UNCRC, including: Article 2 (non-discrimination): The Project proposals considered the needs of all children and young people on Mull without discrimination. For example, this includes consideration of children and young people with protected characteristics, their socio- demographic status and other status factors such as language, ability, or geographic location. This is evidenced in this IIA Report. Article 3 (best interests of the child): The Project proposals consider the best interests of children in the decision making process. This IIA report indicates that there is not one single solution that equally meets the needs of all children and young people living on Mull due to the challenges of its island context and geography. While the Education Authority has a duty to educate pupils in accordance with the wishes of their parents, there is a requirement for this to be compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training 5 Eight wellbeing indicators: Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, and Included. Page 287
Page 224
Classification: OFFICIAL and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure (Section 28, Education (Scotland) Act 1980). Article 6 (life, survival and development): The Project proposals support the delivery of a contemporary and accessible education campus facilities, designed to meet the needs of children, young people and their local communities on the Isle of Mull. In doing so, the proposals intend to support children to survive and develop to their full potential. Article 12 (respect for the views of the child): Every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously. The Mull Campus Team have engagement with all schools on Mull and Iona, as well as pupils from these areas attending Oban High School, during school engagement sessions in September 2024 to gather views on the Project to inform the site selection process. A pupil forum has also been established by the Mull Campus Team which invites pupil representative from all affected schools to meet regularly to discuss the Project and to be informed of the process and development of proposals. Argyll & Bute Council have also published an Engagement Strategy which details plans for key engagement activities, including those with children and young people as the Project develops. To inform the CRWIA, the Pupil Forum were invited to provide feedback for the assessment as detailed in Section 7.3. 7.4.2 The following articles have also been identified as relevant to the Project and are considered below in relation to different site options: Article 15 (freedom of association): Every child has the right to meet with other children and join groups and organisations, as long as this does not stop other people from enjoying their rights. A key driver of a central campus option is to provide children and young people across Mull with equal opportunities as part of the secondary school experience. This could include attendance and participation in school sports, clubs and music lessons available to all children on Mull. However, some community feedback has raised concerns that increased or long travel times for a large proportion of children travelling from Tobermory or the Ross of Mull to a central site location could affect their ability to participate fully in group and organisations due to timings, travel arrangements and the potential implications of a longer school day on children’s wellbeing. Article 23 (children with a disability): Children with a disability have the right to live a full and decent life with dignity and as far as possible, independence and to play an active part in the community. Regardless of the site option, the Mull Campus has the potential to deliver benefits for children with disabilities living on Mull. At present, there are concerns around inadequate accessibility at the existing Tobermory 2-18 School site which does not include suitable level access provision and is constrained by narrow corridors and split- level site design. The new Mull Campus will be designed to include modern accessibility standards and intends to provide a range of learning environments to support children with physical and mental disabilities or additional support requirement. The Council currently make provision for the transport needs of disabled pupils (i.e., by taxi or specialist bus) and future provisions will likely continue to be made available to meet the needs of pupils regardless of site option or where they reside on the island. Article 24 (right to best possible health): Every child has the right to the best possible health. All site locations have the potential to positive impact the health of all children through the provision of well-designed high-quality learning environments and sports facilities. In terms of active travel, a Tobermory location would facilities walking or cycling to school for a large proportion of Tobermory Primary and High School pupils. Currently 90% of primary pupils live within a five minute walk of the existing school site and 50% of Tobermory High School pupils live in Tobermory. It is likely that good levels of active travel to school will be maintained in either the existing or South Tobermory site option which is linked to a range of health benefits for children and young people. Active travel to school would be highly unlikely for the majority of pupils attending either central locations at Garmony or Craignure (Systra, 2025) and all pupils would likely be travelling via bus or car Page 288
Page 225
Classification: OFFICIAL to school. Increased sedentary time for a large proportion of pupils could have a negative impact on their health, particularly for those with longer commuting times. Article 29 (goals of education): Education must develop every child’s personality, talents and abilities to the full. It must encourage the child’s respect for human rights, as well as respect for their parents, their own and other cultures, and the environment. The Project has the potential to contribute positively to this right by designing a contemporary education facility that can deliver educational and social benefits to a range of children and young people living on Mull. Article 30 (rights of children from minority or indigenous groups): Every child has the right to learn and use the language, customs and religion of their family, whether or not these are shared by the majority of people where they live. In the context of Mull, like many other Scottish islands, there is a larger proportion of Scottish Gaelic speakers and relevant to the scope of this Project, provision is currently made for Gaelic Medium Education at Bunessan Primary, Salen Primary, Tobermory High School and Oban High School. The National Islands Plan Survey (2022) suggests that 13% of people in the Argyll Islands speak Gaelic. Regardless of site location, the Mull Campus has the potential to deliver Gaelic education for secondary pupils which promotes and protects the heritage and culture of the island for future generations. If this was delivered in a central location, then there would be a greater potential of bringing Gaelic speaking children from the South and North of the island together at secondary school. Article 31 (right to leisure, play and participation in cultural and artistic activities): Every child has the right to relax, play and take part in a wide range of cultural and artistic activities. Some children and parents living in the Ross of Mull and attending boarding school in Oban have cited concerns about their ability to participate in local activities as they can only return home for a short period at the weekends and often feel tired from travelling when they return. A central site option could enable the majority of children on Mull to participate in local sporting, cultural or other leisure activities locally with their island peers. However, at present many activities for children and young people are currently organised in and around Tobermory. There is also a concern that if the school site was relocated this would affect the provision of local activities in Tobermory or that children would be less able to attend due to increased travel time, increased travel costs and the need for additional travel arrangements which could be challenging for some families. 7.4.3 Some members of the community have referenced UNCRC Article 9 stating that children should not be separated from their parents in relation to the current scenario where children from the Ross of Mull leave their family homes weekly to board on the mainland in order to attend Oban High School, as per their defined catchment area. Many argue that secondary- school aged children are entitled to remain with their families during the week and the current catchment provision does not allow for this. A central site option could allow greater choice for pupils and families living in the Ross of Mull to attend secondary school on the island which would allow children to more fully enjoy all aspects of family life during their time at secondary school. 7.4.4 While the premise of citing Article 9 is important, the Article covers instances where there is enforced separation by the State of a child and parent. Examples of that being where a child is removed from the parent(s) by virtue of procedures under social work legislation, where a parent is detained or imprisoned or where a court makes an order restricting contact between a child and parent. As such, Article 9 would not apply to the current scenario as parent’s have a legal right to make a placing request for their child to attend a school that is not in their catchment area, as such Education Authorities cannot legally force children to only attend their catchment school. 7.4.5 Similarly, many parents and children have identified Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of children’s rights to a private and family life as being a relevant consideration in the Project. Article 8 is a qualified right and under the current proposals it is unlikely to be engaged on the basis that while the Education Authority is required to make Page 289
Page 226
Classification: OFFICIAL arrangements to set its catchment areas, it does not require the children attending with those areas to attend the catchment schools. 7.4.6 Taking the above into account, however, should not invalidate the concerns of children, young people and their families who wish to avoid boarding on the mainland as part of the decision- making process. Q2. How will the Mull Campus proposals affect the wellbeing of children and young people? 7.4.7 During the Pupil Working Group engagement, some young people expressed that the proposals involving increased travel time would have a negative impact on their mental health and physical wellbeing. For children and young people in the Ross of Mull this was a concern linked with weekly boarding at Oban High School. For children and young people in Tobermory concerns were raised around no longer being able to walk to school and spending more time travel to and from school which could also limit participation in sports clubs or other after-school activities. 7.4.8 Testimonies provided by Bunessan Parent Council form current and former pupils with experience of boarding at Oban High School highlight some of the difficulties experienced by pupils who board, including adverse impacts on their mental health often linked with home- sickness and feeling isolated from their families. Some former pupils said that these challenges affected their mental health in adulthood after finishing secondary school. If a Tobermory site is selected then, there would continue to be a proportion of pupils from the Ross of Mull who are likely to experience a range of difficulties boarding weekly in Oban for the duration of their secondary school education. 7.4.9 If the existing Tobermory site is selected for the Campus, additional consideration should be given to the disruption this could cause for pupils during the proposed two year construction period. This includes any decanting requirements while the site is prepared for construction and any amenity impacts (e.g., noise pollution, air pollution and dust) that could be experienced by children during school hours in addition to the safety of children in respect of increased construction and HGV traffic accessing the site. 7.4.10 Representatives from a Parent Council have requested that information is provided about the impacts of any potential building works on Tobermory High School pupils with assurance provided that their education will not be disrupted. It was expressed that a group of children have already been impacted by renovation works at Salen Primary School, involving a decant, in addition to disruptions caused by COVID-19. Efforts to minimise further disruption to their learning should be prioritised. 7.4.11 The Project responds directly to the need for improvements at the current Tobermory High School site which has a number of accessibility issues. The development of a new education Campus aims to provide a contemporary, pleasant and accessible learning environment for all children and young people, including those with additional needs. Regardless of site location, this is considered to have a significant positive impact on the wellbeing of pupils attending the Campus. 7.4.12 During consultation, concerns were raised about the potential increase in travel if younger children (e.g., early years and primary school aged children) were to be transported to a location outside of Tobermory. Key issues raised related to the wellbeing of children, especially, spending longer portions of their day travelling by bus or car. Additionally, concerns were raised around the impact on children who are neurodiverse or have other reasons to avoid long travel times such as experiencing travel sickness or bullying. 7.4.13 The safety of children was also raised during consultation as parents raised the importance of safe pick-up and drop-off areas at the new Campus. Active travel was also an important factor for many parents and children and young people, with a desire for pupils to be able to safely walk and cycle to school. Currently, 90% of children attending Tobermory Primary School and pupils live within a five minute walk of the school. Of the 157 pupils at Tobermory High School, 50% live within Tobermory. The Transport Review conducted by Systra (2025), suggests that Page 290
Page 227
Classification: OFFICIAL there would be very limited potential for active travel in either of the proposed central site locations due to their geographic locations and limited connectivity to residential settlements and co-located services. Q3. Are some children and young people more likely to be affected by the proposals than others? 7.4.14 It is clear from the ICIA that there is no clear definitive site option that would meet the needs of Mull communities in its entirety under the current proposals. With both site options there are groups of children and young people who will benefit and others who are more likely to be disproportionately affected by the proposals. For a Tobermory Site location, secondary school aged pupils living in the Ross of Mull would continue to be disadvantaged in terms of high school access and would face the choice of continuing to board off-island and attend Oban High School. 7.4.15 For a central site location, there would be more equity in terms of secondary school provision that is more suited to serving a wider proportion of the island’s population. However, this option would bring disadvantages for pre-school and primary school aged children living in Tobermory who would be required to undertake longer journeys by bus each day to access education. 7.4.16 Generally, many parents felt that longer travel times from Tobermory to a central location for high school aged pupils would have less of an adverse impact as they were more likely to adapt and cope with an increase in travel time similar to that undertaken by many of their peers currently to attend Tobermory High School. 7.4.17 As the Project develops, community members have requested that they are kept informed about any implications that could have a knock-on effect on other schools on Mull. For example, if pre-school and primary school provision was to be relocated from Tobermory as part of a central campus option, implications would need to be considered for nearby schools such as Salen Primary School and its ability to accommodate any additional primary intake that may arise. 7.5 Summary 7.5.1 In general, the Project aligns with the general principles underpinning the UNCRC. The development of Project proposals through engagement have aims to take the diverse needs of all children, including those with protected characteristics or specific geographic challenges into account. While no site solution fully meets the needs of all children due to Mull’s geography and the financial constraints of the Project, decisions have aimed to balance educational needs, parental wishes, and reasonable public expenditure. Findings in relation to other relevant UNCRC articles are summarised below: The provision of modern, accessible campus facilities aim to support children’s growth and development; Engagement with children and young people via the Pupil Working Group and school sessions has sought to ensure that children’s voices and views are considered. The Mull Campus Engagement strategy also outlines how this will be managed in the future. Overall, the Project aims to deliver increased accessibility and contemporary learning environments for all pupils, including those with a disability or additional support needs. The Project has the potential to promote island and Gaelic heritage and provide cultural opportunities. Some concerns are noted in regard to children’s ability to participate in extracurricular activities and travel to school via walking or cycling if they would be required to undertake significant different travel routines with increased journey times. Page 291
Page 228
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.5.2 The following impacts on children’s wellbeing have been considered: The new campus has the potential to address long-standing accessibility challenges currently identified at the existing Tobermory 2-18 High School site and provide improved learning environments benefitting all pupils including those with additional needs and enhancing overall pupil wellbeing. Increased travel times for children from Tobermory to a central site location could negatively affect children’s wellbeing and their ability to participate in extracurricular activities. Safety, travel arrangements, and minimising disruptions during construction are key priorities raised by parents and pupils. It is also acknowledged that some community members have expressed concern around the impact of boarding weekly on secondary aged pupils on their health and wellbeing from the Ross of Mull. In particular, there are concerns around the implications of this on their children’s mental health and physical wellbeing, including their ability to participate fully in island life. 7.5.3 The following differential impacts were identified for different groups of children and young people: A Tobermory site option maintains proximity for local children but continues challenges for children from the Ross of Mull, who may need to board off-island for secondary school. A central site option provides more equitable secondary school access across Mull but disadvantages Tobermory’s younger children, who would face longer daily commutes to early years and primary school attendance. Parents generally believe that that older children can better adapt to longer travel times compared with younger children. Community members emphasise the need to manage any knock-on effect on nearby primary schools if Tobermory provision is relocated. 7.5.4 In conclusion, while the Mull Campus Proposals have the potential to significantly enhance education and children’s rights on Mull, they also present challenges around travel, wellbeing, and equitable access, particularly for specific groups of children. Ongoing consultation and mitigation strategies will be critical. Page 292
Page 229
Classification: OFFICIAL 8 Equality Impact Assessment 8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out a ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ (PSED). This requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between those with a protected characteristic and those without.6 8.1.2 The Duty covers the following protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The public sector equality duty also covers marriage and civil partnerships, with regard to eliminating unlawful discrimination in employment. 8.1.3 The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 require listed authorities to undertake an impact assessment in relation to the needs outlined in section 149(1) of the Act and take account of the results of the assessment in development of the policy. The approach to the assessment has been informed by reference to the Scottish Government’s general guidance on the PSED (Scottish Government, 2016) and relevant guidance on application of the duty in Scotland (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2016). 8.2 Assessment Approach 8.2.1 The assessment has been framed using the key aims of the PSED have been applied to test the performance of the proposed Project in relation to this duty and to assess the extent to which it promotes equality of opportunity. 8.2.2 The assessment takes the following three key aims of the Duty into account: Eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; Advancing equality of opportunity; and Fostering good relations. 8.2.3 The second of these aims involves: Removing or minimising disadvantages affecting people due to their protected characteristics; Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people; and Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low. Assessment Scope 8.2.4 Age and disability have been scoped in as the proposals have the potential to disproportionately or differentially affect school children or staff with these protected characteristics. 8.2.5 However, the proposals are unlikely to disproportionately or differentially affect school children or staff with the following protected characteristics: ethnicity; sex; gender reassignment; 6 The protected characteristics referenced within this duty are specified within Section 4 of the Act, namely: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. Page 293
Page 230
Classification: OFFICIAL marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; religion or belief; and sexual orientation. Therefore, these protected characteristics have been scoped out of the assessment. 8.3 Equality Impact Assessment Findings Age 8.3.1 This section discusses the potential impacts of both campus locations on different age groups: young children (early years and primary school aged children) and older children (high school age). 8.3.2 For children in Tobermory, travelling to a central site would result in much longer journey times which could have a negative impact, especially for the younger children. Longer travel times for a greater number of children may also result in an adverse effect on educational attainment, thereby reducing equality of opportunity for all children. As shown in Table 4.2, performance relating to reading; listening and talking; numeracy; and writing within Argyll & Bute are all currently below the national averages. If a larger number of children are required to travel greater distances for school as would be the case with a central site option, there is concern that this could affect wellbeing, energy levels and ability to concentrate during school hours which may take away from their learning. This was echoed by feedback received from the Pupil Forum where children were concerned about the impacts of undertaking long daily commutes by bus and losing the ability to walk to school. 8.3.3 Conversely, a central site would benefit children living in the south and southwest of the island and would enable all children on the island to stay on the island by reducing the need for children to board at Oban High School throughout the week. However, through the consultation process it was highlighted by some parents that it is important that this commute remains an option regardless of what site option is taken forward. A benefit of the central site option would mean that there would be no discrimination for children depending on what part of the island they are from, thereby advancing equality of opportunity for children in the south and southwest of the island. Additionally, children from other parts of the island would spend less time travelling with a central site and may have more energy during school which may positively impact education attainment averages. A central site option would enable greater socialising amongst young people on the island and may lead to a greater level of unity across Mull. 8.3.4 A centrally located campus may negatively impact children and young people in relation to being able to attend after school clubs, particularly those living in Tobermory who already have access to such clubs. This was highlighted by school children attending both Tobermory Primary School and High School during the Pupil Forum engagement and concern was specifically raised regarding a lack of transport home. Additionally, the Transport Review Report (Systra, 2025), found that 50% of Tobermory High School students lived within Tobermory and many felt that because the majority of children attending the school lives within the surrounding area, the school would benefit from a Tobermory location. 8.3.5 Independence of both younger and older children are at risk through a central site as far fewer children would be able to exercise the freedoms that they are able to currently. An example of this was raised through the older children during consultation with Tobermory High School. They stated that a central location has the potential to negatively impact their mental health due to a likely remote location which would not allow them to have as much freedom as they do now, for example, at the moment they are able to go into town to the shops at lunch time. In addition to this, younger children raised how a central location would negatively impact their mental and physical health as they would no longer be able to walk to and from school. As stated in the Transport Report (Systra, 2025), 90% of the 81 pupils in Tobermory Primary School live within a 5 minute walk from the school. A central location would mean that children must travel to and from the school, reducing their level of physical activity throughout the day. Page 294
Page 231
Classification: OFFICIAL Disability 8.3.6 Improved campus facilities as a result of the proposed development will positively impact disabled children and staff compared to existing provision. This is likely to include enhanced accessibility measures and design features that could benefit pupils and staff with a disability. Further detail on these design measure will come forward as the project develops. 8.3.7 An increase in travel times, for example for children and staff living in Tobermory travelling to a central location, will have a negative impact on disabled children and staff. Conversely, a decrease in travel times, for example for children and staff living in Lochdon travelling to a central location, will have a positive impact on disabled children and staff. 8.3.8 Poverty rates remain higher for households in which somebody is disabled compared to those where no-one is disabled (Scottish Government, 2023c). Additionally, people who have a long-term illness or disability that limits their daily activities are more likely to live in households that do not have access to a private car. This may adversely impact disabled children who require transportation to school and may not be able to use a public bus. There is potential for additional adverse impacts if a parent is disabled and or does not have use of a private car. This would be particularly evident if the school was centrally located. This is a particular concern as the highest proportion of residents whose day-to-day activities are limited a lot is the South. 8.4 Summary 8.4.1 It is considered that a central Site option would positively impact children and young people and their families living in the South and South West of Mull and bring unity to the North and South communities of the island. During consultation, children and young people from these areas raised that a central Site option would be fairer for them as they would not have to travel as far every day and could potentially participate in after school clubs. 8.4.2 However, children and young people from Tobermory and the North of Mull presented concern with a central Site option as it would significantly increase their journey time to and from school, reduce their current freedoms and potentially remove their ability to attend after school clubs. They showed preference towards a Tobermory site option as they could continue to walk to and from school and because the majority of students currently live in and around Tobermory. 8.4.3 It is considered that all site options would positively impact disabled children as the school would have improved campus facilities, such as enhanced accessibility measures. However, there are potential negative impacts as a result of a central site as some disabled children may not be able to travel by public transport and this would put pressure on family members or caregivers who may not have access to a private car. Page 295
Page 232
Classification: OFFICIAL 9 Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment 9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 The FSD places a legal responsibility on certain public bodies in Scotland to actively consider how they can reduce inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage when making strategic decisions or developing policy. This differs from the PSED which considers only reducing inequalities of opportunity. The Duty seeks to tackle socio-economic disadvantage and reduce the inequalities associated with being disadvantaged. It is closely related to issues of poverty which may affect outcomes across health, housing, education and training and employment prospects. 9.1.2 The FSD identifies a need to consider both ‘communities of place’ and ‘communities of interest’ in terms of people who share an experience and are particularly impacted by socio- economic disadvantage (Scottish Government, 2021b). Demographic groups who share one or more of the protected characteristics listed in Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 can be considered ‘communities of interest’, meaning there is a direct link between the FSD and the PSED. 9.2 Assessment Approach 9.2.1 The FSD assessment considers impacts of the Project on two key parts of the Duty, with relevant criteria identified from the statutory guidance. This includes consideration of the following: Socio-economic disadvantage, which is influenced by low income, low/no wealth, material and area deprivation and socio-economic background; and Inequality of outcome, including education, skills, employment, crime, health and wellbeing, life expectancy, living standards, poverty and connectivity. 9.2.2 The assessment has been informed through engagement activities with relevant groups of interest and impact (as discussed in Section 3). Socio-Economic Disadvantage 9.2.3 Socio-economic disadvantage considers living on a low income compared to others in Scotland, with little or no accumulated wealth, leading to greater material deprivation, restricting the ability to access basic goods and services. As well as considering areas of deprivation, the guidance also identified communities of place and communities of interest (Scottish Government, 2019). 9.2.4 Communities of place describe people who are bound together because of where they live or work. Communities of interest refers to groups who share an experience such as homelessness, or those who share one or more protected characteristics as listed in the Equality Act 2010. Inequality of Outcome 9.2.5 The Fairer Scotland Duty is intended to reduce inequalities of outcome cause by socio- economic disadvantage. Inequality of outcome refers to the measurable difference between those who have experienced socio-economic disadvantage and the rest of the population, for example this could be in relation to health and life expectancy or educational attainment. Socio-economically disadvantaged households have a higher risk of experiencing negative outcomes (Scottish Government, 2019). 9.2.6 Background to topic and provide response based on education outcomes, and other relevant topics from above bullet point. Page 296
Page 233
Classification: OFFICIAL 9.3 Fairer Scotland Duty Findings Socio-Economic Disadvantage An assessment has been provided below for the main consideration that would affect socio- economic disadvantage in respect of the Project. This includes Area Deprivation whereby living in a deprived area can exacerbate negative outcomes for individuals and households already affected by issues of low-income. Socio-economic background is considered which take account of structural disadvantage that can arise from parents’ education, employment and income. Communities of interest and communities of place have also been identified. Area Deprivation 9.3.1 The North, South West and South of Mull all fall into the least deprived 40% of areas in Scotland, whilst Tobermory performs even better in the bottom 30%. This means that the Isle of Mull is relatively better off in terms of deprivation compared to other areas within Scotland. While this provides some measure of deprivation, it should be noted that island contexts are known to have higher a cost of living and rates of fuel poverty compared to mainland counterparts which could affect adversely affect income deprivation. 9.3.2 The baseline evidence presented in Section 4.4 highlights key challenges across different parts of the island, shaped by its geography, economy and infrastructure in terms of deprivation. 9.3.3 The North of Mull faces severe deprivation in access to services, it is in the 2% most deprived of geographic areas, due to its remote and dispersed population, which makes it difficult to provide regular and convenient access to facilities. Housing deprivation (43%) may reflect limited housing stock, and the high costs associated with building or maintaining homes in remote areas. However, the area's lower crime levels (top 14% least deprived) and moderate education deprivation (23% least deprived) suggest a safe community with reasonably good access to education compared to other parts of the island. 9.3.4 Tobermory, the island's largest settlement, experiences challenges in income and employment deprivation. Despite being better connected than other areas, housing deprivation also remains an issue. The relatively better access to services, top 40% least deprived of areas in Scotland, reflects Tobermory’s role as a service hub for the island. 9.3.5 The South West area of the island experiences extreme deprivation in access to services, ranked in the lowest percentile, this reflects its isolation and sparse infrastructure. The area is geographically remote, with fewer roads and limited public transport. However, the South West performs well in health and crime, for both domains the area ranked in the top 20% least deprived in Scotland. This is likely due to its rural character, low population density, and healthier lifestyle factors often associated with remote living. 9.3.6 The South of Mull similarly struggles with access to services ranked in the bottom percentile, reflecting its geographical challenges. However, the South performs relatively well in crime and health ranked in the top 30% least deprived. 9.3.7 While overall levels of multiple deprivation across Mull perform better compared to other areas of Scotland, it is clear that the island’s geographies are impacted by more unique factors of deprivation typical for island and rural communities in terms of access to services and housing deprivation. 9.3.8 In terms of overall impact depending on the Campus site selection, it is not clear how area deprivation could be affected by either site option. It is likely that a central Site option could result in reduced access to services in Tobermory if the 2-18 Campus was to relocate, resulting in an adverse impact for the locality. However, a central option would enhance access to services for a central site options, particularly if this could be co-located with other services and infrastructure such as the Community Hospital and ferry terminal in Craignure. Page 297
Page 234
Classification: OFFICIAL Socio-Economic Background 9.3.9 Socio-economic background is a structural disadvantage that can arise as a result of parents’ education, employment and income. These factors in the Mull context are discussed below. 9.3.10 Educational attainment is closely linked to socio-economic background. Baseline evidence suggests that there is noticeable variation within Mull’s specific study areas (e.g., North, South, South West and Tobermory). Some areas, such as the North, have a relatively high percentage of residents with degree-level qualifications, while others, such as the South, show higher proportions of residents with no qualifications or lower school qualifications, suggesting localised disparities in educational attainment. 9.3.11 However, Mull overall has a higher proportion of adults aged 16 years and over who have a degree level qualification or above at 42% compared with the Argyll & Bute average of 32% and the Scottish average of 34%. Across the island 46% of adults aged 16 years and above have a degree level qualification or above compared with 43% in the South West, 40% in the South and 39% in Tobermory. This suggest that Tobermory could have greater sensitivity in terms of educational attainment compared to other parts of the island. 9.3.12 Approximately 63.0% of people aged 16+ in Mull are economically active, which is lower than both the Argyll & Bute and Scotland averages (75.0% and 77.1%, respectively). Average gross weekly pay for full-time workers in Mull is not available, therefore, the Argyll & Bute average has been used instead which is £653. This compares to a Scottish average of £702 and a British average of £682. In 2024 48% of employee jobs in Argyll & Bute are ‘Managers, Professional and Associated Professional Occupations'. This compares to 50% for Scotland and 52% for Great Britain (Argyll & Bute Council, 2024c). 9.3.13 The above data suggests that people living on the Isle of Mull are likely to be earning less compared to the Scottish average. While lower levels of economic activity may be reflective of an ageing population in Mull, there are likely disparities on the island in terms of socio- economic background compared to other parts of Scotland. The Economic Impact Assessment has quantified the potential impact of the Mull Campus proposals on future earning and loss of earnings depending on the site location (see Sections 5.3.9 – 5.3.16). There is a greater loss to earning and future earning for a central site location compared to Tobermory, which considers the larger population in the Tobermory settlement. This impact could be augmented by increased sensitivity among the population in terms of average full- time weekly earnings being lower and lower levels of economic activity on the island. Communities of Interest and Communities of Place 9.3.14 A community of interest refers to groups of people who share an experience. In this context, that is also closely aligned with communities of place so both factors are considered together. A notable community of interest in the context of the Mull Campus proposal is secondary school aged children from the Ross of Mull and other localities who access secondary education by boarding on the mainland to attend Oban High School. Community feedback has expressed concern around the impact of children attending six years of their schooling off- island, with limiting their opportunities to participate fully in family life and community life on the island. 9.3.15 The site selection proposals have the potential to significantly affect this community of interest with the potential to bring positive impacts and equity to this group through the delivery of a central site option. 9.3.16 Another community of place that could emerge as a result of the proposals is group of children from Tobermory attending pre-5 and primary school who might be required to undertake longer journeys on a daily basis to access education at a central or other location. Due to the age of children, it is judged that impact would be felt more significantly in this age group compared with secondary school aged children. There is also a precedent for extended travel times on Mull for secondary school children accessing Tobermory High School from other localities on the island. Page 298
Page 235
Classification: OFFICIAL Inequality of Outcome Equality of outcome is influenced by socio-economic disadvantage. To assess this in relation to the Mull Campus proposal, factors relating to education, health and income have been selected as most relevant. Education 9.3.17 Island communities often face challenges in providing consistent, high quality education due to their geographic context and smaller population sizes. Specific considerations include smaller school roll sizes which may mean schools have fewer resources, limited subject offerings and the ability to recruit fewer specialist teachers. Teacher recruitment and retention is often challenging and has been cited as a key concern from many community members and organisations during public engagement sessions. Attracting and retaining qualified staff can be challenging due to rural isolation, cost of living, and limited professional development opportunities. Digital connectivity and facilities can also have an impact on the access to online learning tools which could widen educational disparities. 9.3.18 In the National Islands Plan Survey 2020 (Scottish Government, 2021), 57% of Argyll Islands7 respondents agreed that children living on the islands can access secondary school education that offers a range of subjects (online or in person). While this response rate is similar to response rates in Uist and Barra (57%), and Bute and the Cumbraes (59%) is lower than the average response for all island groups (approx. 75% agreement). 9.3.19 Regardless of site location, the Project presents a positive opportunity to address challenges in the quality and provision of education on the island through the provision of contemporary and sustainably designed educational facilities that would benefit pupils aged 2-18 in addition to the wider community. 9.3.20 The extent of this benefit is varied depending on whether this is delivered in a central or Tobermory Site location. The reality of the proposals means that there is the potential to affect different groups of children and young people and their communities by virtue of where they live on the island. Existing baseline data should that educational attainment and qualification levels across Mull are relatively consistent across the Isle of Mull and with Scottish averages (please refer to Section 4.3). However, findings from the Economic Impact Assessment indicate that there could be negative impact on potential future earnings for children required to undertake longer daily journeys to school. The assessment is based on evidence that pupils who must travel further to school are less likely to attend university and may experience a loss of earnings as a result. Health and Wellbeing 9.3.21 In the National Islands Plan Survey 2020 (Scottish Government, 2021) it was reported that Argyll Islanders report notably lower satisfaction with local sports facilities than other island groups. Only 60% of Argyll Islands respondents agree that there were places they could go to take part in sports and physical exercise, compared with 86% of respondents who agreed across all island groups. Only 36% of Argyll Islands responses agreed that local sports facilities were good quality and maintained, compared with 73% across all island groups. 9.3.22 There could be higher sensitivity in local communities living near site options in Tobermory and a central site in relation to the provision of or re-provision of sports facilities that might be associated with the Mull Campus proposals. Early engagement and planning should ensure that new facilities are able to meet community needs to minimise the population loss or disruption of existing facilities during construction periods, which would be a key consideration if the Mull Campus is located on the existing school site in Tobermory. 7 Argyll Islands – National Islands Plan group that includes Coll, Colonsay, Easdale, Gometra, Iona, Isle of Gigha, Isle of Mull, Jura, Kerrera, Lismore, Luing, Oronsay, Seil, Tiree and Ulva. Page 299
Page 236
Classification: OFFICIAL Income 9.3.23 The Project has the potential to affect income both in terms of future earnings for pupils and the earning of parents and carers. This is discussed above in Sections 4.3 – 4.4 of the Economic Impact Assessment and as part of the FSD assessment in Section 9.3.12 – 9.3.13. 9.4 Summary Socio-Economic Disadvantage The North, South West and South of Mull all fall into the least deprived 40% of areas in Scotland, whilst Tobermory performs even better in the bottom 30%. In terms of overall impact depending on the Campus site selection, it is not clear how area deprivation could be affected by either site option. There is a greater loss to earning and future earning for a central site location compared to Tobermory, which considers the larger population in the Tobermory settlement. Community feedback has expressed concern around the impact of children attending six years of their schooling off-island, with limiting their opportunities to participate fully in family life and community life on the island. There is a precedent for extended travel times on Mull for secondary school children accessing Tobermory High School from other localities on the island. Inequality of Outcome Regardless of site location, the Project presents a positive opportunity to address challenges in the quality and provision of education on the island through the provision of contemporary and sustainably designed educational facilities that would benefit pupils aged 2-18 in addition to the wider community. The extent of this benefit is varied depending on whether this is delivered in a central or Tobermory Site location. The reality of the proposals means that there is the potential to affect different groups of children and young people and their communities by virtue of where they live on the island. There could be negative impact on potential future earnings for children required to undertake longer daily journeys to school. Pupils who must travel further to school are less likely to attend university and may experience a loss of earnings as a result. There could be higher sensitivity in local communities living near site options in Tobermory and a central site in relation to the provision of or re-provision of sports facilities that might be associated with the Mull Campus proposals. The Project has the potential to affect income both in terms of future earnings for pupils and the earning of parents and carers. Page 300
Page 237
Classification: OFFICIAL 10 Conclusion and Recommendations 10.1 IIA Summary 10.1.1 This report provides a high-level IIA of the Project proposals to inform the site selection process. 10.1.2 Findings from this impact assessment have been taken into consideration by Argyll & Bute Council as part of a technical scoring exercise to evaluate the performance of four separate sites on the Isle of Mull for delivery of the proposed Mull Campus. 10.1.3 Due to commercial sensitivities, members of the public were not made aware of the four individual sites for selection. As such, this assessment largely reflects public understanding to consider the implications of the Project broadly in either a central or Tobermory site location. 10.1.4 There is currently a strong need to upgrade the current Tobermory 2-18 School which is in need of upgrading and has been reported to have inadequate accessibility features for children and staff with disabilities or additional support needs. Many community members across the island feel strongly that a central high school is required to unite young people from the north and south of Mull and to provide an on-island secondary education option for children from the Ross of Mull. However, there is also a strong feeling across the island’s communities that early years and primary school education should not be relocated from Tobermory for the families residing there. As such, conclusions of the IIA show that there are benefits and disbenefits associated with all site options. However, due to LEIP funding restrictions and other cost factors, it is unlikely that either of the Campus locations would be able to provide a fully equal solution for all children and young people living on Mull and the islands. 10.1.5 Regardless of site location, the campus has the potential to deliver a range of benefits to the island through the provision of contemporary and high-quality learning, sport and community facilities. It is recommended that the pupils and members of the community are closely involved in shaping the design of the new Campus so that it can best meet the needs of people living on Mull and the islands. 10.2 Recommendations 10.2.1 The following recommendations are provided as part of this assessment: 10.2.2 This IIA has been conducted at an early phase of the Project and it is recommended that the assessments are taken forward and updated iteratively with community involvement as the Project progresses. It is recommended that the Mull Campus proposals consider the integration of community spaces and services that would meet the needs of the wider community as whole, this could include additional extracurricular activities, breakfast clubs and wraparound care to support working families and single parents. It is recommended that Argyll and Bute Council regularly review and monitor their engagement strategy for the Project to promote positive engagement and collaboration with the local community. It is recommended that, wherever possible, the Mull Campus Project should utilise local contractors and supply chains in the development and fit-out of the school. The Mull Campus has the opportunity to showcase and promote the island’s unique geography, culture and heritage. It is recommended that a strategy is developed between pupils, the community and the Project Team to promote these elements in the projects design and delivery. Page 301
Page 238
Classification: OFFICIAL It is recommended that the Project delivers digital infrastructure to enhance access to online learning which can be used to support pupils with additional support needs or pupils and staff affected by weather based disruptions. Page 302
Page 239
Classification: OFFICIAL 11 References Alanzi, K.A. and Alfraih, M.M. (2023), "Does students' commuting influence their academic performance?", Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 1706-1716. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-07-2022-0211 [last accessed: 20 January 2025]. Argyll & Bute Council (2024a) Mull Campus Pre Engagement feedback. Available from: Mull Campus Pre Engagement feedback | Argyll and Bute Council [last accessed: 27 January 2025]. Argyll & Bute Council (2024b) Special Meeting, Argyll and Bute Council – Friday, 20 December 2024 10:30am. Available from: Agenda for Argyll and Bute Council on Friday, 20 December 2024, 10:30 am - Argyll and Bute Council [last accessed: 28 January 2025]. Argyll & Bute Council (2024c) Quick Facts and Figures about Argyll and Bute. Available from: Quick Facts and Figures about Argyll and Bute | Argyll and Bute Council [last accessed: 27 January 2025]. Argyll & Bute Council (2025) Mull Campus Project. Available from: Mull Campus Project | Argyll and Bute Council [last accessed: 27 January 2025]. Chairassamee N, Chancharoenchai K, Saraithong W. (2024) Getting there: How commuting time and distance impact students' health. PLoS One. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11623559/ [last accessed: 20 January 2025]. Education Scotland (2024) Educational attainment. Available from: Educational attainment | National Performance Framework [last accessed: 27 January 2025]. Equality and Human Rights Commission (2016) Assessing impact and the Public Sector Equality Duty – A guide for public authorities in Scotland. Available from: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/6._assessing_impact_-_formatted.pdf [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. OnlineMoneyAdviser (2025) Where in Britain do homes sell for more money when they are closer to a school. Available from: Does proximity to schools affect house prices in Britain? | Online Money Advisor [last accessed: 27 January 2025]. Ryder (2024) Mull Campus Community Engagement Report. Scotland’s Census (2022a) UV103 – Age by single year. Scotland’s Census (2022b) UV501 – Highest level of qualification. Scotland’s Census (2022c) UV102b – Age. Scotland’s Census (2022d) UV303 – Disability. Scotland’s Census (2022e) UV201 – Ethnic group. Scotland’s Census (2022f) UV102a – Age by sex. Scotland’s Census (2022g) Sexual orientation and trans status or history. Scotland’s Census (2022h) UV104 – Marital and civil partnership status. Scotland’s Census (2022i) UV205 - Religion. Scotland’s Census (2022j) UV904 – Sexual orientation. Page 303
Page 240
Classification: OFFICIAL Scottish Government (2016) Mainstreaming equality: Scottish Government’s equality duties. Available from: Mainstreaming equality: Scottish Government's equality duties - gov.scot [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. Scottish Government (2017) The Scottish Health Survey. Available from: Scottish Health Survey 2017: Volume 1: Main Report [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. Scottish Government (2018) Economy and Labour Market: Regional Employment Patterns in Scotland – Annual Population Survey 2018. Available from: Regional Employment Patterns in Scotland: Annual Population Survey 2018 [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. Scottish Government (2019) Scottish Household Survey. Available from: Scotland’s People Annual Report 2019 [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. Scottish Government (2020a) Disabled people and the labour market in Scotland. Available from: Disabled people and the labour market in Scotland - gov.scot [last accessed: 28 January 2025]. Scottish Government (2020b) Island Communities Impact Assessments: Guidance and Toolkit. Scottish Government (2021a) Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) External Guidance. Available from: Child rights and wellbeing impact assessment external guidance and templates - gov.scot [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. Scottish Government (2021b) The Fairer Scotland Duty: Guidance for Public Bodies. Available from: Fairer Scotland Duty: guidance for public bodies - gov.scot [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. Scottish Government (2023a) Scottish Equality Evidence Finder. Available from: equalityevidence.scot [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. Scottish Government (2023b) GIRFEC. Available from: Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) - gov.scot [last accessed: 27 January 2025]. Scottish Government (2023c) Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland 2019-22. Retrieved from: Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland 2020-23 Scottish Public Health Observatory (2024) All indicators. Available from: ScotPHO profiles (shinyapps.io) [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. SIMD (2020) Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Available from: SIMD (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) [last accessed: 20 December 2024]. Stantec (2024) Economic Impact Assessment. Completed December 2024. Systra (January 2025) Mull Education Campus Transport Considerations. Unicef UK (2019) A Summary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available from: UNCRC_summary-1.pdf [last accessed: 28 January 2025]. UK Government (2022) The Green Book. Available from: The Green Book (2022) - GOV.UK [last accessed: 27 January 2025]. Voulgaris, C. T., Smart, M. J., & Taylor, B. D. (2019). Tired of Commuting? Relationships among Journeys to School, Sleep, and Exercise among American Teenagers. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(2), 142-154. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17725148 [last accessed: 20 January 2025]. Zoopla (2024) Zoopla average house price in Tobermory. Available from: Zoopla > Search Property to Buy, Rent, House Prices, Estate Agents [last accessed: 28 January 2025]. Page 304
Page 241
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix A Glossary Abbreviation Meaning CRW Child Rights and Wellbeing CRWIA Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment ELC Early learning and childcare EqIA Equality Impact Assessment FSD Fairer Scotland Duty GDV Gross Development Value GIRFEC Getting it Right for Every Child GME Gaelic Medium Education HMT HM Treasury ICIA Island Communities Impact Assessment IIA Integrated Impact Assessment LDP Local Development Plan LEIP Learning Estate Investment Programme LGB+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and other LVU Land Value Uplift PSED Public Sector Equality Duty PV Present Value SIMD Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation STAG Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance UNCRC United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child UK United Kingdom Page 305
Page 242
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix B Summary of the UNCRC Articles Page 306
Page 243
a summary of the un convention on the rights of the child article 1 (definition of the child) Everyone under the age of 18 has all the rights in the Convention. article 2 (non-discrimination) The Convention applies to every child without discrimination, whatever their ethnicity, sex, religion, language, abilities or any other status, whatever they think or say, whatever their family background. article 3 (best interests of the child) The best interests of the child must be a top priority in all decisions and actions that affect children. article 4 (implementation of the Convention) Governments must do all they can to make sure every child can enjoy their rights by creating systems and passing laws that promote and protect children’s rights. article 5 (parental guidance and a child’s evolving capacities) Governments must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents and carers to provide guidance and direction to their child as they grow up, so that they fully enjoy their rights. This must be done in a way that recognises the child’s increasing capacity to make their own choices. article 6 (life, survival and development) Every child has the right to life. Governments must do all they can to ensure that children survive and develop to their full potential. article 7 (birth registration, name, nationality, care) Every child has the right to be registered at birth, to have a name and nationality, and, as far as possible, to know and be cared for by their parents. article 8 (protection and preservation of identity) Every child has the right to an identity. Governments must respect and protect that right, and prevent the child’s name, nationality or family relationships from being changed unlawfully. article 9 (separation from parents) Children must not be separated from their parents against their will unless it is in their best interests (for example, if a parent is hurting or neglecting a child). Children whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this could cause them harm. article 10 (family reunification) Governments must respond quickly and sympathetically if a child or their parents apply to live together in the same country. If a child’s parents live apart in different countries, the child has the right to visit and keep in contact with both of them. article 11 (abduction and non-return of children) Governments must do everything they can to stop children being taken out of their own country illegally by their parents or other relatives, or being prevented from returning home. article 12 (respect for the views of the child) Every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously. This right applies at all times, for example during immigration proceedings, housing decisions or the child’s day-to-day home life. article 13 (freedom of expression) Every child must be free to express their thoughts and opinions and to access all kinds of information, as long as it is within the law. article 14 (freedom of thought, belief and religion) Every child has the right to think and believe what they choose and also to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Governments must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide their child as they grow up. article 15 (freedom of association) Every child has the right to meet with other children and to join groups and organisations, as long as this does not stop other people from enjoying their rights. article 16 (right to privacy) Every child has the right to privacy. The law should protect the child’s private, family and home life, including protecting children from unlawful attacks that harm their reputation. article 17 (access to information from the media) Every child has the right to reliable information from a variety of sources, and governments should encourage the media to provide information that children can understand. Governments must help protect children from materials that could harm them. article 18 (parental responsibilities and state assistance) Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their child and should always consider what is best for the child. Governments must support parents by creating support services for children and giving parents the help they need to raise their children. article 19 (protection from violence, abuse and neglect) Governments must do all they can to ensure that children are protected from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and bad treatment by their parents or anyone else who looks after them. article 20 (children unable to live with their family) If a child cannot be looked after by their immediate family, the government must give them special protection and assistance. This includes making sure the child is provided with alternative care that is continuous and respects the child’s culture, language and religion. article 21 (adoption) Governments must oversee the process of adoption to make sure it is safe, lawful and that it prioritises children’s best interests. Children should only be adopted outside of their country if they cannot be placed with a family in their own country. article 22 (refugee children) If a child is seeking refuge or has refugee status, governments must provide them with appropriate protection and assistance to help them enjoy all the rights in the Convention. Governments must help refugee children who are separated from their parents to be reunited with them. article 23 (children with a disability) A child with a disability has the right to live a full and decent life with dignity and, as far as possible, independence and to play an active part in the community. Governments must do all they can to support disabled children and their families. article 24 (health and health services) Every child has the right to the best possible health. Governments must provide good quality health care, clean water, nutritious food, and a clean environment and education on health and well-being so that children can stay healthy. Richer countries must help poorer countries achieve this. article 25 (review of treatment in care) If a child has been placed away from home for the purpose of care or protection (for example, with a foster family or in hospital), they have the right to a regular review of their treatment, the way they are cared for and their wider circumstances. article 26 (social security) Every child has the right to benefit from social security. Governments must provide social security, including financial support and other benefits, to families in need of assistance. article 27 (adequate standard of living) Every child has the right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet their physical and social needs and support their development. Governments must help families who cannot afford to provide this. article 28 (right to education) Every child has the right to an education. Primary education must be free and different forms of secondary education must be available to every child. Discipline in schools must respect children’s dignity and their rights. Richer countries must help poorer countries achieve this. article 29 (goals of education) Education must develop every child’s personality, talents and abilities to the full. It must encourage the child’s respect for human rights, as well as respect for their parents, their own and other cultures, and the environment. article 30 (children from minority or indigenous groups) Every child has the right to learn and use the language, customs and religion of their family, whether or not these are shared by the majority of the people in the country where they live. article 31 (leisure, play and culture) Every child has the right to relax, play and take part in a wide range of cultural and artistic activities. article 32 (child labour) Governments must protect children from economic exploitation and work that is dangerous or might harm their health, development or education. Governments must set a minimum age for children to work and ensure that work conditions are safe and appropriate. article 33 (drug abuse) Governments must protect children from the illegal use of drugs and from being involved in the production or distribution of drugs. article 34 (sexual exploitation) Governments must protect children from all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation. article 35 (abduction, sale and trafficking) Governments must protect children from being abducted, sold or moved illegally to a different place in or outside their country for the purpose of exploitation. article 36 (other forms of exploitation) Governments must protect children from all other forms of exploitation, for example the exploitation of children for political activities, by the media or for medical research. article 37 (inhumane treatment and detention) Children must not be tortured, sentenced to the death penalty or suffer other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. Children should be arrested, detained or imprisoned only as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. They must be treated with respect and care, and be able to keep in contact with their family. Children must not be put in prison with adults. article 38 (war and armed conflicts) Governments must not allow children under the age of 15 to take part in war or join the armed forces. Governments must do everything they can to protect and care for children affected by war and armed conflicts. article 39 (recovery from trauma and reintegration) Children who have experienced neglect, abuse, exploitation, torture or who are victims of war must receive special support to help them recover their health, dignity, self-respect and social life. article 40 (juvenile justice) A child accused or guilty of breaking the law must be treated with dignity and respect. They have the right to legal assistance and a fair trial that takes account of their age. Governments must set a minimum age for children to be tried in a criminal court and manage a justice system that enables children who have been in conflict with the law to reintegrate into society. article 41 (respect for higher national standards) If a country has laws and standards that go further than the present Convention, then the country must keep these laws. article 42 (knowledge of rights) Governments must actively work to make sure children and adults know about the Convention. The Convention has 54 articles in total. Articles 43–54 are about how adults and governments must work together to make sure all children can enjoy all their rights, including: article 45 Unicef can provide expert advice and assistance on children’s rights. optional protocols There are three agreements, called Optional Protocols, that strengthen the Convention and add further unique rights for children. They are optional because governments that ratify the Convention can decide whether or not to sign up to these Optional Protocols. They are: the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict and the Optional Protocol on a complaints mechanism for children (called Communications Procedure). For more information go to unicef.org.uk/crc/op Page 307
Page 244
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 245
Document is Restricted Page 309 Agenda Item 3oNOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 8, 9 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 246
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 247
Classification: OFFICIAL# Criteria Category Category Individual Factors to consider Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Notes/ rationale 3 Utility infrastructure - capacity and need for any diversions 7 21 5 15 2 6 5 15 Existing utilities considered, minimal diversions, opportunities for future heat network connections. Distance of running utilities. 3 Ground conditions 6 18 5 15 5 15 7 21 Potential for contamination at Site 1. Poorer ground conditions at Site 2/Site 3 marine deposits etc. 2 Topography 3 6 8 16 9 18 5 10 Existing school site constrained. Site 2/3 both more devleopable level wise 2 Flood risk & Drainage Assessment 4 8 6 12 5 10 9 18 Next steps would involve flood modelling/assessment. SEPA engagement key 3 Site abnormals 3 9 8 24 7 21 5 15 2 Habitat constraints 8 16 9 18 5 10 7 14 Impact 53 10 Is the site capable of accommodating the brief in full? 4 40 9 90 9 90 5 50 South tob can be used better than existing, due to constraints. More space in Craignure/Garmony sites. 5 Quality of external environment to support outside learning, sports activities etc 3 15 9 45 10 50 6 30 2 Does the site provide capacity for future expansion? 4 8 9 18 9 18 5 10 8 Travel times for ELC and primary school pupils 9 72 4 32 4 32 8 64 Systra report 2 Travel times for staff and secondary school pupils 9 18 4 8 5 10 8 16 Systra report 5 Access and connectivity to good community facilities and services 9 45 4 20 1 5 8 40 Ryder place report 2 Impact on family life 4 8 5 10 5 10 4 8 Refer to Stantec report. Impact on families if their child is away from home during the week was felt to be the greatest (sites 1 & 4). Increased travel time affects a greater number of families (sites 2 & 3).Travel time increase has a bigger impact for families with young children compared to older children 2 Equitable - unites north & south of island 4 8 7 14 6 12 4 8 Criteria re-defined to be around uniting north/south island, as it was felt that better reflects community feedback 2 Sustain and support local economy 7 14 4 8 3 6 7 14 Stantec report 2 Impact of construction activities on existing school/ residential areas 3 6 7 14 6 12 7 14 1 Good public transport links to site and location 5 5 7 7 4 4 6 6 Existing public transport links. Craignure slightly higher score due to ferry terminal and better links to north & south 2 Existing safe active travel links to site 4 8 3 6 2 4 6 12 Improvements in scoring could be seen as a result of future development at sites 1 Number of user journeys - bus, car, pedestrian (Pupil/ staff mode split) 8 8 5 5 3 3 7 7 1 Potential impact on public transport network 9 9 7 7 7 7 8 8 Scoring for sites 2 & 3 assumes school bus from Dervaig would travel via Tobermory 2 Ability of existing (wider) roads infrastructure to service site 3 6 4 8 3 6 7 14 New access roads required for both Craignure/Garmony. Tob South limitations. Existing site challenging/constrained, not much space for adjustment - one way in/out. Single track roads on Mull have an impact 1 Trips with complex dependencies/ multiple stages and modes of travel 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 No material difference between site options 2 Potential for re-use of existing infrastructure and buildings (embodied carbon) 4 8 3 6 1 2 3 6 3 Carbon impact of travel (travel distances and mode of transport) 8 24 3 9 4 12 8 24 Personal decisions to drive could impact actual carbon impact 15 Costs associated with construction abnormals 9 135 8 120 5 75 7 105 Thomson Gray report. Assume demolition included in scope regardless Based on assumptions and known information, site investigations not completed at this early stage 5 Potential acquisition/ disposal costs 4 20 7 35 10 50 3 15 Market value of each site. Updated 28/1/25 to reflect existing site value excluding common good land, and cumulative value of Tobermory South site (2 separate land transactions) Site 3 Garmony (005) MULL CAMPUS SITE SELECTION CRITERIA (v5) Site 4 Tobermory South (013) Accessibility & Transport 15 32 8 8 Deliverability Education Community and Place Weighting Site 1 Existing Tobermory site Site 2 Craignure (001) Affordability Sustainability 5 25 Page 377 Agenda Item 3p
Page 248
Classification: OFFICIAL# Criteria Category Category Individual Factors to consider Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Notes/ rationale Site 3 Garmony (005) MULL CAMPUS SITE SELECTION CRITERIA (v5) Site 4 Tobermory South (013)Weighting Site 1 Existing Tobermory site Site 2 Craignure (001) 5 Other (revenue) cost implications e.g. pupil transport 9 45 2 10 2 10 9 45 4 additional buses for site 2 & 3 (£1,385 per week for 40 weeks = £222k per annum) plus additional cost for staff travel for change of base (over 4 years). Any hostel savings, assuming catchment area change, negigible as staff shortages already. Main difference would be cost of food 3 Wayleaves, legal restrictions and site acquisition risk 6 18 7 21 7 21 7 21 Common good land risk on site 1 Sites 2-4 have site acquisition risk 2 Construction Programme risk 3 6 8 16 5 10 7 14 Likely to be a prolonged programme on site 1 due to need for staged construction and decant. Greater enabling works required for site 3 2 Planning designation and sensitive receptors 8 16 7 14 6 12 8 16 Site 2 - consider risk with housing development next door. Countryside zone, but already some development. Site 3 - also countryside zone, flooding considerations, cat 1 peat land. Site 4 - Housing allocation, amendment needed to LDP. TOTAL 100 625 628 546 645 Impact 53 Deliverability 15 Affordability 25 Risk 7 7Risk Affordability 25 Page 378
Page 249
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, EDUCATION 7 MARCH 2025 AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LEARNING ESTATE INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (LEIP) MULL CAMPUS – PREFERRED SITE RECOMMENDATION SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER 1.0 Supplementary Paper Mull Community Council survey 1.1 Mull Community Council advised Council Officers on 24th January 2025 that they had decided to conduct their own survey which they intended to inform Councillors’ decision making. 1.2 This survey ran from 31st January to 9th February 2025 and sought community views on location options for a campus and for a split site (two new schools). The survey findings outline that 665 responses were received. The split site options are not within the agreed scope of the Mull Campus project following the decision made by the council on 20th December 2024 to progress the project on the basis of one school campus on a single site. 1.3 Members are invited to review the results of the survey – which include both qualitative and quantitative information - to inform their decision making, this is available on the Mull Community Council website: Mull Campus Survey - Summary of Findings 14th February 2025 Feedback from Landowner – Site 2 Craignure 1.4 A letter dated 26th February has been received from the owners of ‘Site 2 – Craignure’ outlining their intention to gift the entirety of the proposed site to the Council. The offer is conditional upon the delivery of commensurate infrastructure to deliver an adjacent housing site. This aspect is already referenced to as a ‘strength’ of the Craignure site at Para 4.7.2 of the report and has been taken into consideration in the technical assessments. The offer must Page 379 Agenda Item 3q
Page 250
also be considered by Members in the context of Appendix 1L ‘Valuation Reports’ (January 2025 – Publicly Exempt) noting that detailed land purchase negotiations (if required) with landowners will be undertaken once a preferred site has been selected and Full Business Case is progressed. 1.5 Following a review of the survey and landowner letter, Council Officers advise that there is no change to the recommendations contained within the site recommendation report. Officers do draw attention to the community survey which Members have been invited to review. Douglas Hendry, Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services and Education Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Financial Services Audrey Forrest, Policy Lead for Education 28th February 2025 Page 380
Page 251
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL COUNCIL LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 7 MARCH 2025 POLITICAL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report sets out the updated Political Composition of the Council. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Council is asked to consider the updated Political Composition of the Council as outlined in Appendix 1 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 The updated Political Composition of the Council is provided at Appendix 1 and sets out political group membership and leadership. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 This report sets out the updated Political Composition of the Council. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy 5.2 Financial 5.3 Legal 5.4 HR 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics Page 381 Agenda Item 4
Page 252
5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty 5.5.3 Islands 5.6 Climate Change 5.7 Risk 5.8 Customer Service 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead - Mark Irvine 28th February 2025 For further information contact: Shona Barton, Governance Manager (01436) 657605 APPENDIX Appendix 1 – Political Composition of the Council Page 382
Page 253
Appendix 1 - Political Composition of Argyll and Bute Council Argyll and Bute Council – Political Composition ARGYLL FIRST (2) Jennifer Kean (Ind) Douglas Philand (Ind) (Leader of Argyll First) * INDEPENDENT (6) Kieron Green * Mark Irvine * Andrew Kain * Tommy Macpherson Ian James MacQuire Alastair Redman SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY (1) Luna Martin* SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY (1) Fiona Howard * SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (4) Graham Hardie * Paul Donald Kennedy * Ross Moreland * (Leader of Scottish Liberal Democrat Group) William Sinclair * SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY (12) John Armour * Gordon Blair * Jan Brown * Math Campbell-Sturgess * Audrey E Forrest (Depute Leader, SNP Group) * Anne Horn * Willie Hume * Reeni Kennedy Boyle * Jim Lynch (Leader of the SNP Group) * Dougie McFadzean * Julie McKenzie* Iain Shonny Paterson * * Member of the Administration Partnership Page 383
Page 254
The Argyll, Lomond and the Isles Group (TALIG) (10) Garret Corner (Con) Maurice Corry (Con) Amanda Hampsey (Con) Daniel Hampsey (Con) Liz McCabe (Ind) Yvonne McNeilly (Con) Gary Mulvaney (Con) (Leader (and Leader of the Opposition)) Gemma Penfold (Con) Andrew Vennard (Con) (Depute Leader) Peter Wallace (Con) Note: Con - Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Ind - Independent Page 384
Page 255
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MONITORING OFFICER 7TH MARCH 2025 FINDINGS OF STANDARDS COMMISSION HEARING – COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Section 18(2) of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 requires the Council to consider findings of a Hearing held by the Standards Commission for Scotland within three months of receiving the Commission’s Written Decision. 1.2 Accordingly, the Written Decision of the Hearing Panel in relation the case against Councillor Alastair Redman (Ward 2, Kintyre and the Islands), is produced in full at Appendix 1 for the consideration of the Council. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Council is invited to: 2.1 Consider the terms of the Standards Commission’s Written Decision, attached as Appendix 1, which details the breaches of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct that were committed by Councillor Alastair Redman. 2.2 Note the Hearing Panel’s decision to impose the sanction of suspending Councillor Redman for a period of two months, with effect from 25th February 2025, from all meetings of the Council and of any committee or sub-committee thereof and of any other body on which he is a representative or nominee of the Council. Page 385 Agenda Item 5
Page 256
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MONITORING OFFICER 7TH MARCH 2025 FINDINGS OF STANDARDS COMMISSION HEARING – COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN 3.0 INTRODUCTION 3.1 The full Written Decision of the Standards Commission’s Hearing Panel, dated 24th February 2025, in respect of a complaint against Councillor Redman is attached as Appendix 1. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Council is invited to: 4.1 Consider the terms of the Standards Commission’s Written Decision, attached as Appendix 1, which details the breaches of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct that were committed by Councillor Alastair Redman. 4.2 Note the Hearing Panel’s decision to impose the sanction of suspending Councillor Redman for a period of two months, with effect from 25th February 2025, from all meetings of the Council and of any committee or sub-committee thereof and of any other body on which he is a representative or nominee of the Council. 5.0 DETAIL 5.1 At the conclusion of a Hearing held online and in private on 19th February 2025, the Standards Commission found that Councillor Redman breached Sections 3.1 (courtesy and respect), 3.2 (discrimination) and 3.3 (bullying and harassment) of the Code. 5.2 In the circumstances, the Panel concluded, on balance, that a two-month suspension was the appropriate sanction. This suspension commenced on 25th February 2025, and shall end at midnight on 24th April 2025. 5.3 The Standards Commission’s Suspension Guidance, outlines those activities that a councillor subject to a suspension in terms of Section 19(1)(c) of the 2000 Act (the applicable provision in this case) generally can and cannot undertake during the period of suspension. This Guidance is attached as Appendix 2. Page 386
Page 257
6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 Section 18(2) of the 2000 Act requires the Council to consider the findings of a Hearing held by the Standards Commission for Scotland within three months of receiving the Commission’s Written Decision. 6.2 Appendix 1 accordingly sets out the full details of the findings before Members for their consideration. 7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Policy – General guidance about which activities a suspended councillor can and cannot undertake during the period of their suspension is attached as Appendix 2. 7.2 Financial – None arising from this report. 7.3 Legal – This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 18(2) of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. 7.4 HR – None arising from this report. 7.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 7.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – None arising from this report. 7.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – None arising from this report. 7.5.3 Islands – None arising from this report. Page 387
Page 258
7.6 Climate Change – None arising from this report. 7.7 Risk – None arising from this report. 7.8 Customer Service – None arising from this report. 7.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – None arising from this Report DOUGLAS HENDRY Monitoring Officer 25th February 2025 For further information contact: Graeme McMillan, Transformation Programme Manager, Graeme.mcmillan2@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission for Scotland, dated 24th February 2025 (Case Ref: LA/AB/3953) Appendix 2 – Standards Commission for Scotland, Suspension Guidance (2024) Page 388
Page 259
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 1 of 20 Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission for Scotland following the Hearing held online and in private, on Wednesday, 19 February 2025. Panel Members: Ms Ashleigh Dunn, Chair of the Hearing Panel Ms Helen Donaldson Dr Lezley Stewart The Hearing arose in respect of a report referred by Mr Ian Bruce, the Ethical Standards Commissioner (the ESC), further to complaint reference LA/AB/3953, concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (the Code) by Councillor Alastair Redman (the Respondent). The Standards Commission usually holds its Hearings in public. In this case, however, it decided to hold the Hearing in private after concerns were raised that a child involved in the matter could be identified which, in turn, could have a detrimental impact upon the child. REFERRAL Following an investigation into a complaint received on 13 August 2023 about the conduct of the Respondent, the ESC referred a report to the Standards Commission on 14 November 2024, in accordance with the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Following receipt of the report, the Standards Commission determined to take no action in respect of one issue of complaint, which alleged that the Respondent had claimed falsely to have received communication from constituents about the Complainers’ child. The Standards Commission noted, however, that the ESC had found there was evidence to demonstrate the Respondent’s constituents had raised concerns with him, which he had then passed on to council officers. The ESC noted, in his referral report, that it was entirely proper for councillors to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents, provided they do so in an appropriate manner and through official channels. The ESC found it was appropriate for the Respondent to have raised concerns, in the manner he did, with the Council’s Education Service. Having reviewed the ESC’s report, the Standards Commission was satisfied, for the reasons given by the ESC, that the Respondent’s conduct in respect of this would not amount to a breach of the Code. In the circumstances, the Standards Commission concluded that it was neither proportionate, nor in the public interest, for it to consider that issue at a Hearing. The Standards Commission nevertheless decided to hold a Hearing in respect of the other issue of complaint, as outlined in the referral report. The substance of this was that the Respondent had failed to comply with paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Code, which were as follows: Respect and Courtesy 3.1: I will treat everyone with courtesy and respect. This includes in person, in writing, at meetings, when I am online and when I am using social media. 3.2: I will not discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, disability, religion or belief, marital status or pregnancy/maternity; I will advance equality of opportunity and seek to foster good relations between different people. 3.3: I will not engage in any conduct that could amount to bullying or harassment (which includes sexual harassment). I accept that such conduct is completely unacceptable and will be considered to be a breach of this Code. EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING Introductory Remarks by the ESC The ESC advised that the Respondent was an independent councillor. The ESC advised that the Respondent had first been elected in May 2017. Having not been returned at the local government elections in May 2022, Page 389
Page 260
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 2 of 20 he had then been re-elected at a by-election later that year. The ESC noted that, as part of his declaration of office, the Respondent had agreed to comply with the provisions of the Code. The ESC explained that, at the time of the events in question, the Complainers’ son was 15 years old and attended a school in the council area. The ESC advised that the Complainers submitted a complaint directly to the Council, in March 2023, about the Respondent’s conduct in raising concerns with council officers about their son allegedly using the female facilities at the school. The ESC noted that the Complainers also made a complaint to his office about the matter in August 2023. The ESC advised that, following an internal investigation, the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer found that the Respondent had been passing on concerns raised by his constituents, as he was entitled to do. The ESC explained that, after an abbreviated version of the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s investigation report was sent to both the Complainers and Respondent in December 2023, the Complainers raised a second issue of complaint with his office in January 2024. The ESC explained this was the matter that was to be considered at the Hearing, which was that the Respondent breached the Code during telephone calls with the Council’s Education Manager on 11 and 13 January 2023, by suggesting: • First, because the Complainers’ child cross-dressed, it was likely he put video recording equipment in the girls’ toilets or changing rooms; and • Secondly, people who cross-dressed were more likely to be sexually deviant. The ESC advised that the Respondent was acting as a councillor at the time of the events in question, given he was speaking to a council officer about concerns raised by his constituents. As such, there was no dispute that the Code applied to his conduct. Witness Evidence on behalf of the ESC The ESC led evidence from the Council’s Education Manager. The Education Manager advised that when he was attending a high school in the local authority’s area, he was made aware that the Respondent had raised concerns, based on what he had been told by some of his constituents, that a boy was using the female facilities. The Education Manager advised that, as he happened to be on the same site anyway, he was asked to investigate the matter. The Education Manager explained that, as part of this investigation, he had spoken to the Respondent by telephone on 11 and 13 January 2023. The Education Manager confirmed it was his understanding that the Respondent would have known the telephone interviews would form part of the formal investigation into the concerns he had raised, given the matter was being dealt with under the Council’s complaint procedures. The Education Manager noted that service users will normally follow the complaint procedures themselves. The Education Manager explained, however, that on this occasion, the Respondent had advised that a number of constituents had contacted him directly and that he was representing their views. The Education Manager advised that he considered the Respondent would have been aware that the concerns he was raising would be the subject of an investigation under the Council’s complaint procedures, regardless of whether he was raising them on his own behalf of that of his constituents. When asked what led him to conclude that the Respondent would have been aware that the matters being discussed during the telephone calls would then be reported to the Complainers and their child, the Education Manager advised this was because he was undertaking an investigation in terms of the Council’s formal complaint procedures. As such it was evident that the child, as a key witness and the subject of the concerns, would need to be advised of what was alleged, in order to be able to respond. The Education Manager contended this was “unavoidable and normal”. The Education Manager noted that one of the Complainers worked at the school and advised that he understood the Head Teacher may have spoken to him about the allegations raised. The Education Manager advised, in any event, that as the allegations Page 390
Page 261
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 3 of 20 concerned the child, it was inevitable that the child and his parents would need to be advised of the concerns raised. The Education Manager advised he did not consider there was any possibility that the Respondent could have concluded reasonably that the details of their telephone conversations would be considered private and confidential. This was because there was no suggestion that might be the case and, further, because it was evident the conversations concerned a formal complaint that was to be investigated. The Education Manager advised it was clear from their conversations that the Respondent was aware of the identity of the child, albeit he had not named him. The Education Manager contended, however, that the Respondent advised his constituents had reported to him that the child identified as transgender or non- binary. The Education Manager stated that the Respondent’s default understanding that this was the case was a “key element” of their conversations. The Education Manager contended it was very clear, from the language and terminology he used, that the Respondent was sharing his own views during their conversations, as opposed to just passing on those of his constituents. The Education Manager advised that he had been “shocked and surprised” by the substance of what the Respondent was saying and his choice of words, given the context of the conversations as being between two individuals undertaking formal and established roles. The Education Manager advised that, given this context, he had found it “very surprising” that the Respondent had, on four separate occasions, used language, terminology and expressed ideas that he considered were discriminatory and inappropriate. The Education Manager advised that the Respondent had not offered any evidence to support his views and allegations about the Complainers’ child. Instead, he proffered what the Education Manager understood to be his personal opinion about the child, LGBT issues, and anyone who identified as another gender. The Education Manager contended that the Respondent employed a disapproving and judgemental tone that had left him (the Education Manager) in no doubt that his comments were discriminatory and based on transphobia and homophobia. The Education Manager advised the Respondent had used an example or analogy of a farm quickly falling into bankruptcy when it tried to mate bulls with bulls, and cows with cows, to illustrate points he was making. The Education Manager stated that the Respondent strongly suggested that the child who had used the female facilities was likely to be the one alleged to have placed recording equipment in the female changing room. The Education Manager advised that the Respondent had not referred to his constituents having made such a connection. As such, it was evident that this was the Respondent‘s own opinion. The Education Manager advised that his conclusion in this regard was reinforced by the words and phrases employed by the Respondent and the fact that he had referenced wider societal issues, rather than just the alleged incident being investigated. The Education Manager advised that the Respondent described individuals who cross-dress as “more likely to be sexually deviant”. The Education Manager contended, again, that it was evident that this was clearly the Respondent’s opinion. The Education Manager advised that the Respondent also said, on two occasions, that if he was a betting man, he would bet on the child in question being responsible for placing the recording equipment in the changing room. The Education Manager argued that someone who was merely relaying the views of constituents would have done so objectively without making such a statement, employing an analogy about cows and bulls, or using phraseology such as “sexually deviant”. The Education Manager advised that he did not consider the Respondent explicitly accused the child in question of sexual deviancy or of this being his motivation, albeit the statement was made in the context of it being a discussion about the child. The Education Manager further advised that the Respondent had not stated directly that the child would have been responsible for placing recording equipment in the changing room because he cross-dressed. The Education Manager noted, however, that the Respondent had, by then, Page 391
Page 262
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 4 of 20 made it clear he was aware the child might be gender fluid as a result of how he dressed or appeared. The Education Manager advised that while the Respondent’s statement to the effect that individuals who cross- dress were more likely to be sexual deviants was general in nature, in this context it was evident it also aimed at the child. The Education Manager contended it was evident from the fact that he did not say he was quoting from his constituents, that the Respondent’s statement to the effect that individuals who cross-dress were more likely to be sexual deviants was his own opinion. The Education Manager advised that he was unable to recall everything that was said, particularly as the conversations had been lengthy, with the first call lasting some 30 to 40 minutes, but that the Respondent had taken them as an opportunity to express his personal views on gender politics. The Education Manager advised that he did not consider some of these views were compatible with education policies that emphasised the Council’s duty of care with student wellbeing and equality being central tenets. In response to cross-examination by the Respondent, the Education Manager accepted the Respondent had written evidence that some of his constituents had raised concerns about the alleged conduct of the Complainers’ child. The Education Manager advised he could understand why some of these constituents may have been reluctant to raise these issues with the school or Council directly, given the sensitive nature of the matter. When asked whether he was commenting on the Respondent’s views, rather than his conduct, the Education Manager advised his concerns related to the terminology the Respondent had used, and the accusations he had made about the Complainers’ child. The Education Manager noted that accusations of sexual deviancy, from an important and influential source, were extremely derogatory and damaging, particularly as they did not appear to have any basis. The Respondent questioned whether, during the conversations, he had constantly referenced his constituents and their views. In response, the Education Manager accepted that this had been the foundation of the conversations, but that the Respondent had not communicated his constituents’ concerns and views to anything like the extent to which he had outlined his own. When asked whether he had a duty to all pupils, not just the child in question, the Education Manager agreed. The Education Manager noted that his aims and priorities, when investigating the matter, were to be fair, objective and thorough. In response to questions from the Panel, the Education Manager advised he was investigating allegations that a male pupil at the school had been using the female changing rooms and toilets. The Education Manager advised he did not explain the Council’s formal complaint procedure to the Respondent, but noted that was because the Respondent was not a witness or party of any complaint. Instead, as no specific constituent had made a complaint directly, the Education Manager had telephoned the Respondent to try to establish what exactly was being alleged. The Panel asked the Education Manager whether it would be reasonable for the Respondent to assume everything that was said during their conversation would or could be shared with the Complainers and, potentially the child,. In response, the Education Manager advised he considered it was, as it would not be fair or reasonable to have any expectation of confidentiality, given the Respondent had raised concerns that he knew would be investigated. The Education Manager contended that an investigation inevitably involved the sharing of facts. While the Education Manager accepted the Respondent’s comments were extraneous to these, they nevertheless formed part of the conversation and contended, as such, it would have been remiss of him to have ignored them. Page 392
Page 263
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 5 of 20 The Panel asked whether the Education Manager had asked for an investigation in respect of the Respondent’s comments, given he was unhappy with them. The Education Manager advised that he had not. Instead, he had reported his shock and surprise to his line manager and matters had escalated from there. The Education Manager advised that he had taken notes of his conversations with the Respondent as they had formed part of the formal investigation. The Education Manager advised that he had not considered it necessary to share or check these notes with the Respondent, however, given he was not a witness to events. Instead, he had been contacted as part of the process of establishing the nature of the allegations to be investigated. In response to a question from the Panel, the Education Manager confirmed that, at no point during the conversations, had he asked the Respondent for his views or taken any action that would have encouraged the Respondent to make the comments he had. Evidence from the Respondent: In response to questions from the Panel, the Respondent advised that “a great many constituents” had contacted him by telephone and social media with concerns about the child using female facilities at the school. As these constituents advised that their identities would be made known to the Complainers and their child and they did not wish to appear transphobic, the Respondent had agreed to raise them with the senior council officers on their behalf. The Respondent advised that, when speaking to the Education Manager, he referred repeatedly to “my constituents” when relaying their concerns and what they had told him. The Respondent advised that he had been unaware that the conversations were considered “official” and that council officers had never previously recorded any conversation with him. When asked whether, during the conversations, he had provided his own opinions, in addition to sharing the concerns of his constituents, the Respondent noted he had concerns about males entering female only spaces but had “not particularly” offered his own views. The Panel noted that, during the investigation, the Respondent had provided the ESC with documentary evidence to show he had been contacted by constituents about a boy using female facilities. The Panel noted, however, that there was no mention of recording equipment or sexual deviancy in the documents and asked, therefore, from where concerns about this had emanated. In response, the Respondent advised that his constituents had raised concerns about the recording equipment “on multiple occasions” and that he was quoting directly from them when mentioning sexual deviancy. When asked whether he had provided his own views and opinions on LGBT matters, the Respondent advised he was “not a fan of LGBT” and that he did not “lump people together”. When asked by the Panel whether he had stated during the conversations what he considered LGBT and gender identity matters to be ‘nonsense’, the Respondent advised he “did not believe in acronyms”. The Respondent accepted he would have talked about this, in the context of raising his constituents’ concerns. The Respondent further accepted that he had provided the analogy about bulls and cows, during the telephone conversations, when expressing his view was that there were only two sexes. The Panel noted the Respondent had stated, in an interview on 8 September 2023, as part of the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s investigation (the written transcript of which had been agreed by the Respondent), that during the conversations he had “expressed concerns” about people who dress “as the opposite sex” as there was “evidence to suggest that they are more likely to be sexually deviant”. The Panel asked the Respondent whether he still accepted he had done so. In response, the Respondent advised that as the conversations had taken place a long time ago, he could not recollect exactly what had been said. Page 393
Page 264
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 6 of 20 The Respondent was asked whether his position, to the effect that he became involved (at least in part) because his constituents did not wish to appear transphobic in raising their concerns, was compatible with: • the views he then provided during the conversations (which could potentially be categorised as such); and • his position that he was only relaying his constituents’ comments. In response, the Respondent reiterated his contention that he was only passing on what he had heard. When asked what his expectations were, when he raised the concerns with senior officers, the Respondent advised he wished to make sure the school was enforcing single sex spaces and that the serious concerns his constituents had raised about the recording equipment were investigated formally. When asked, given this, whether it was reasonable for him to have understood his conversations with the Education Manager (as the individual responsible for undertaking the investigation) would not be of a formal nature, the Respondent advised he had understood them to be informal chats. The Respondent advised he would only have considered the discussion to have been formal, had the call not been made by someone from the school. The Respondent indicated he was sure he had mentioned the conversation was to be considered as being ‘off the record’, but that he did not recall whether the Education Manager had acknowledged this. When asked whether he understood the Complainers’ child to be transgender, the Respondent noted some of his constituents had described him as a “boy in a dress”, while others had said he was a “boy who liked to dress up”. The Respondent advised that he did not care about this. The Respondent advised that his sincere belief was that men are men, and women are women, and that his concerns solely related to whether any male was entering a female only space. In response to a question about the extent of the Council’s investigation, the Respondent advised he understood it was about both the policy on who could use female only spaces and whether a boy had done so. The Respondent contended the investigation did not really concern any specific child and, instead, was only about whether a boy had entered a female only space. The Respondent advised he had also passed on what he had been told about the recording equipment. The Respondent advised that the police had previously investigated this allegation and not found who was responsible. In response to cross-examination by the ESC, the Respondent advised he did not know whether the Education Manager had explained the purpose of the telephone calls. The Respondent accepted that, in a subsequent discussion with the Deputy Monitoring Officer, he had confirmed that the Education Manager’s note of their conversations was accurate, but advised this was because he was “not the best at reading”, due to being dyslexic. When asked whether it was his position that there was no way he could have known that anything he passed on to the Education Manager would be repeated to the Complainers and their son, the Respondent reiterated that he considered they were just having informal discussions in which he was relaying his constituents’ concerns. The Respondent acknowledged that given he was reporting a serious allegation about a minor, it would be reasonable for him to have anticipated both the child and his parents would be interviewed. The Respondent advised, however, that he would not have expected them to be told about his own views regarding the allegations. When asked whether he understood the Complainers’ child to be transgender or non-binary, the Respondent advised he had not thought about this and considered only that the child was male. The ESC noted that the Respondent had consistently described the child as a “boy who identified as a girl”, and as a “trans male”, and asked how the Respondent had made the connection between the child cross-dressing and being transgender or non-binary, or between being transgender and using female facilities. In response, the Respondent advised he did not know what non-binary meant, and that those were phrases used by his constituents when corresponding with him about the matter. Page 394
Page 265
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 7 of 20 When asked whether he accepted having said that he would bet on the child in question being likely responsible for placing the recording equipment in the changing room, and that individuals who cross-dress were more likely to be sexually deviant, the Respondent again advised he was simply relaying what his constituents had told him. The Respondent confirmed that he did not have any evidence to support this accusation. The Respondent further confirmed he had not asked his constituents for any evidence as he was not investigating the matter and was only passing on their views. The ESC noted that the Respondent had signed off the record of his interview with the Deputy Monitoring Officer in which he admitted having stated, during the telephone conversations in question, that he had “concerns” about those who cross-dressed and, further, that there was evidence to suggest they were “more likely to be sexually deviant”. The ESC noted the Respondent was now denying having expressed these views and asked whether, therefore, it was his position that the Deputy Monitoring Officer had falsified the record. The Respondent advised he did not consider this to be the case and, instead, he felt both the Education Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer had misinterpreted his comments. The Respondent advised that his difficulties with reading and writing meant that he found it hard to assimilate information to determine accuracy. When asked why he had told the Education Manager that he considered LGBT and gender identity issues were ‘nonsense’ and how these matters were connected to the allegations about the child, the Respondent denied raising the issues and again reiterated that he had only relayed what his constituents had told him. The Respondent advised that his own views were distinct to those he had relayed. When asked whether referring to a minor as being potentially sexually deviant was derisory, the Respondent advised he neither wished to agree or disagree. In response to re-examination by the Panel, and a question as to whether he had said, and considered, that someone who cross-dressed was more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’, the Respondent advised that did not want to give a view on this but confirmed these were comments made by his constituents. Submissions made by the ESC The ESC suggested the Panel should find the Education Manager’s account of his conversations with the Respondent credible, given it was supported by contemporaneous notes and the fact that he had raised concerns about them with his line manager shortly afterwards. The ESC noted the Respondent had implied the Education Manager might be motivated by a wish to be ‘politically correct’. The ESC noted, however, that there was no evidence of this. The ESC noted, in any event, that such a motivation would not be a reason for the officer to have falsified an account of what the Respondent had said. The ESC contended that, by contrast, the Respondent’s contention that he had not provided his own views during the conversations was not credible or reliable. In support of this assertion, the ESC noted that the Respondent did not deny having said that individuals who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’, albeit he claimed he was only relaying his constituents’ views. The ESC contended that this phraseology was unusual and, as such, memorable, which made it more likely the Education Manager would recall the context in which it had been used. The ESC further noted that while the Respondent had claimed, both during the investigation and at the Hearing, that he was only repeating his constituents’ comments, he had admitted to the Deputy Monitoring Officer that he had been expressing his own views. The ESC argued that the Respondent’s claim that he had signed off the record of his interview with the Deputy Monitoring Officer without reading it properly was implausible. The ESC further noted that, at no point when being interviewed either by the Deputy Monitoring Officer or the ESC’s Investigating Officer, had the Respondent advised that reference to sexual deviancy had been made by his constituents. The ESC advised that, on the contrary, the Respondent told the Investigating Officer that he had not used the phrase at all. Page 395
Page 266
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 8 of 20 The ESC accepted that, during the telephone conversations, the Respondent outlined his constituents’ concerns that the Complainers’ child might be responsible for the alleged planting of a recording device. The ESC contended, however, that the evidence demonstrated the Respondent had gone beyond this and expressed his own view that the child was likely responsible because he cross-dressed and (as assumed by the Respondent) was transgender and non-binary. The ESC acknowledged that the Education Manager’s evidence was that the Respondent had not referred directly to the Complainers’ child when expressing the view that individuals who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’. The ESC contended, however, that as the Respondent had expressed this opinion when speaking to the Education Manager about the allegations concerning the Complainers’ child, it was evident it was an indirect reference to that child. The ESC confirmed that councillors have every right to report concerns raised by their constituents. As such, there would be no issue had the Respondent had simply shared his constituents’ concerns about the potential use of female facilities by a boy and asked for the matter to be investigated. The ESC contended, however, that the Respondent had not only concluded the child was guilty of planting a recording device in the female facilities but had also shared his assumption that this was because (he understood) the child cross-dressed and his personal view that individuals who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’. The ESC argued that accusing someone of a potential criminal act and of sexual deviance, based on such an assumption, was objectively and inherently disrespectful. The ESC accepted that the Respondent may not have been fully cognisant of the Council’s complaint process, but argued that he must have been aware that his comments would be recorded and shared with the Complainers and their child. This was because he knew he was being contacted by the Education Manager, in his capacity as a council officer responsible for investigating the concerns raised by his constituents. Given the serious and potentially criminal nature of the allegation he had made, the ESC argued it was implausible to suggest the Respondent would have been unaware that his comments would or could be passed on. The ESC noted that natural justice dictates that in order to defend himself, the Complainers’ son would have to be made aware of the allegations made against him. As he was a minor at the time, it is also clear that his parents would be provided with that same information. The ESC contended, therefore, the Respondent knew, or should have known, that any comments made to the Education Manager during their discussions may later be passed on to the Complainers and their son. The ESC noted that the Deputy Monitoring officer had confirmed, in his investigation report, that recording equipment had been found in a female toilet at the school some two or three years earlier. An investigation had been undertaken at the time, but no culprit had been identified. The ESC noted that, despite this and there being no suggestion of a further incident having occurred, the Respondent had chosen to accuse the Complainers’ son of being likely responsible during his telephone conversations with the Education Manager in January 2023. The ESC contended that, regardless of whether the accusation was made to the child’s face or was to be passed on to him and his parents, the making of such a serious, shocking and unfounded claim about a minor, and the making of a suggestion that he was somehow ‘sexually deviant’, all because he apparently cross-dressed, was inherently disrespectful. The ESC argued, therefore, that the Respondent had breached paragraph 3.1 of the Code. The ESC contended that it was evident the Respondent had made his remarks and accusation because he believed the Complainers’ son to be transgender. In support of this, the ESC noted that, during the investigation, the Respondent provided documentary evidence from his constituents who described the Complainers’ son as “trans” and “a boy who identifies as a girl”. Therefore, when the Respondent was speaking to the Education Manager, he evidently believed the pupil they were speaking about was transgender. Page 396
Page 267
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 9 of 20 The ESC noted the Respondent contended that he did not know what transgender or non-binary meant. The ESC suggested that this was implausible, given his position as a politician, and given gender identity issues and the potential conflict between transgender and women’s rights has been a defining feature of Scottish politics in recent years. The ESC advised, in support of this, that the Complainers’ complaint form included screenshots of the Respondent’s social media posts in which he referenced and shared his views on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. The ESC noted that the content of these posts coincided clearly with the views he shared with the Education Manager during their two telephone conversations, including the analogy he made about the mating of cows and bulls. The ESC advised that the Respondent stated, when interviewed, that he was not prejudiced against people who chose to cross-dress. The ESC contended, however, that his comments to the effect that individuals who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’, and that a child was likely to have placed recording equipment in the girls’ facilities because he cross-dressed, appeared to be entirely prejudicial. The ESC advised that the Complainers had confirmed their son was not transgender or non-binary, and simply prefers to cross-dress on occasion. The ESC argued, nevertheless, that the Respondent had made his accusation and comments in the belief, and on the basis, that the Complainers’ son was transgender (having conflated this with his preference to occasionally cross-dress). The ESC argued that the Respondent made the accusation and disrespectful and offensive comments about the Complainers’ son because he perceived or understood him to be transgender. The ESC contended, as such, the Respondent treated the Complainers’ son differently due to a perceived protected characteristic and in doing so, discriminated against him. The ESC contended that there was “no question” that the Respondent’s conduct in doing so would have had an impact on the Complainer’s son, both in terms of the investigation itself and also in respect of how others will have treated him as a result. The ESC argued, in any case, that even if the Respondent had not perceived the Complainers’ son to be transgender, his comments demonstrated a failure to foster good relations between different people, as required by paragraph 3.2 of the Code. The ESC advised this was because the Respondent made offensive comments about a then 15-year-old child based solely on what he chose to wear and also because he stated those who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’. The ESC acknowledged that the Respondent was entitled to hold and express his own views, including on issues concerning gender identity and women’s rights. The ESC argued, however, that during the telephone conversations the Respondent went beyond voicing a political view or opinion and, instead, expressed his personal views in a way that demonstrated a wider prejudice or intolerance against people who cross- dressed. The ESC contended, therefore, that the Respondent failed to foster good relations between different people and, as such, breached paragraph 3.2 of the Code. The ESC acknowledged that the Respondent’s comments were a one-off incident. He contended, however, that as the Respondent was an adult, an elected member and a public figure; he was also in a position of power over the Complainers’ son who, at the time, was a 15-year-old child. The ESC noted the Standards Commission’s Advice Note for Councillors on Bullying and Harassment states that a key factor is the impact, not the intent, of any behaviour. The ESC advised that the Complainers have reported that their son was “sickened” by the Respondent’s comments and becomes anxious whenever the matter is discussed. The ESC advised that, when asked by the Investigating Officer about the impact on him since, the Complainer’s son had explained it had a huge impact on him as it had left him feeling uncomfortable about attending school. The Complainers’ son advised it had upset him “immensely to hear that someone in a position of power would say something like this” about him, with no actual evidence. Page 397
Page 268
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 10 of 20 The ESC noted that the Respondent had accused the Complainers’ son of likely hiding recording equipment in a female changing room. The ESC argued that the Respondent did not have “a shred of evidence” for this accusation, other than the allegations purportedly made by some of his constituents. The ESC contended that the Respondent’s accusation was based entirely “on a set of inappropriate and discriminatory assumptions”. The ESC noted, in support of this view, that the claim that recording equipment had been placed in the changing room had already been investigated by the police, who had not found anything. The ESC advised he considered the Respondent’s conduct, in making the accusation in this context, was akin to “spreading malicious rumours”. The ESC noted, in support of this, that although the Respondent had only made his remarks to one person, he should have been aware (for the reasons previously outlined) that they would be passed on. The ESC contended, therefore, that the Respondent had targeted the Complainers’ son. The ESC advised that the Complainers’ son would not have found out about the Respondent’s comments until December 2023 (this being nearly a full year after they were made), when the Deputy Monitoring Officers’ report was sent to his parents. The ESC accepted, therefore, that the Respondent’s conduct may have only indirectly affected the Complainers’ son. The ESC argued, nevertheless, that by repeating unsubstantiated rumours from constituents, and by also making his own unfounded accusations, the Respondent risked making life difficult for the Complainers’ son and causing him distress and humiliation, regardless of intent. The ESC argued it would be reasonable to expect that any child would feel offended, humiliated, intimidated, frightened or uncomfortable if they heard that an adult in a position of power had spread a rumour about them. The ESC contended, in the circumstances, that the Respondent’s conduct met the threshold for amounting to bullying and harassment and, therefore, that he had also breached of paragraph 3.3 of the Code. The ESC noted that the Courts have held that politicians commenting on matters of public or political interest attract enhanced protection in respect of their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ESC advised he considered, that while the Respondent’s comments about the Complainers’ child were personal, they still related to a matter of public interest; being an allegation that a boy was using the female facilities in a local authority school. The ESC concluded, therefore, that the Respondent would attract enhanced protection in respect of his freedom of expression. The ESC acknowledged that the Courts have held that there is little scope for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest and also that, in a political context, a degree of the immoderate, offensive, shocking, disturbing, exaggerated, provocative, controversial, colourful, emotive, non-rational and aggressive, which would not be acceptable outside that context, is tolerated. The ESC noted, however, that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, and that restrictions may be imposed to: • ensure that the conduct of public life does not fall below a minimum level; and • protect the protecting the rights and reputations of others, including from offensive, abusive and defamatory remarks. The ESC contended that, in this case, a restriction on the Respondent’s freedom of expression was justified as the Respondent’s comments about the Complainers’ child were offensive and defamatory and, as such, could bring the Council and local democracy into disrepute. The ESC noted the Respondent could have passed on his constituents’ concerns without making offensive, unwarranted and unprompted comments to a council officer about a 15-year-old child. The ESC noted the Respondent contended in written submissions provided to his office, that he made the comments during a “politically charged discussion”. The ESC argued that was not an accurate characterisation of the conversations, given: • their purpose was for the Education Manager to gather information from the Respondent about his constituents’ concerns, and Page 398
Page 269
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 11 of 20 • there was no suggestion or evidence that, during them, the Education Manager had shared his own views or challenged any proffered by the Respondent. The ESC advised that, as public representatives, councillors are expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct. The ESC contended that the Respondent’s negative assumptions had undermined the dignity and rights of the Complainers’ child as they encouraged discrimination and, potentially, social exclusion. The ESC argued that if the Respondent’s remarks had been about an adult, his right to freedom of expression “may have carried more weight”. The ESC noted that the Respondent had argued that there was a factual basis for his comments. The ESC contended, however, that there was no factual basis for the Respondent’s allegations that the Complainers’ child had likely placed recording equipment in the girls’ facilities (the existence of such equipment being a matter that had already been the subject of an investigation). The ESC advised that the Respondent had indicated he had evidence to support his contention that people who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’, but that he had failed to produce this. The ESC therefore invited the Panel to conclude that this particular comment also had no basis in fact. The ESC contended, for the reason he had outlined, that while the Respondent benefited from enhanced protection in respect of his right to freedom of expression, this did not extend to discriminatory or intolerant speech, or gratuitous personal attacks. The ESC argued that the Respondent, in making unfounded and offensive allegations, had engaged in such conduct and, therefore, a restriction on his enhanced right to freedom of expression could be justified. In response to questions from the Panel, the ESC confirmed that he considered it reasonable to assume that the Respondent’s remark regarding sexual deviancy referred to, or were aimed at the child, given the context of the discussion. The Panel queried whether it was reasonable to conclude that the Respondent knew, or should have known, that his comments to the Education Manager would be passed on to the Complainers and their child, given they only came to the Complainers’ attention on receipt of the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s report (which was distinct from the Education Manager’s own investigation). In response, the ESC noted that the Education Manager’s was a senior officer who had been asked to conduct an investigation into the concerns raised, which included allegations about the child. The ESC noted that the Respondent’s own allegations had formed part of that investigation and, given their seriousness, there was no possibility of them not being passed on, regardless of how this happened. In considering whether the Respondent would benefit from enhanced protection in respect of his right to freedom of expression, the Panel questioned whether, if his remarks were accepted as being his own personal opinions and speculative views, they could be said to be matters of public interest or concern. The ESC acknowledged this was debatable and advised that he was “less persuaded” that the Respondent’s personal, derogatory comments could be afforded enhanced protection. The ESC confirmed that he had not based his contention that the Respondent’s freedom of expression might have been afforded more weight had his comments been directed at an adult on any available case law. The ESC also confirmed that the Respondent had not been asked, during his office’s investigation, to provide for any evidence to substantiate his assertion that individuals who cross-dress were more likely to be sexually deviant. The ESC advised, however, that it had been the Respondent’s position, by the time of the investigation, that this was the view of his constituents, that he was simply relaying, rather than his own opinion or understanding. Page 399
Page 270
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 12 of 20 Submissions made by the Respondent The Respondent stressed that he had never intended to cause any harm to any of his constituents or any individual. The Respondent noted, in this regard, that he had raised his concerns via the proper and appropriate channels and, at no point, had he made any of the allegations public. The Respondent advised that the concerns he had raised about the use of female facilities and the placing of recording equipment were emotive matters, which had caused upset to many of his constituents. The Respondent explained that he felt an obligation to protect all pupils in the local area. It was in this context that he had raised the concerns of his constituents. The Respondent indicated he had repeated the expressions his constituents had used when advising him of their concerns, which he accepted were ‘colourful’ in nature. The Respondent advised that people living in rural areas tended to use old-fashioned language and terms and suggested that the Standards Commission and council officers needed to make allowances for that. The Respondent contended that he was unaware that his comments would be passed on to the Complainers or their child. In support of this, the Respondent noted that the Education Manager had not made it clear that he was telephoning him in any kind of formal capacity. The Respondent advised that he engaged regularly in political debates with officers and indicated he had understood the telephone conversations with the Education Manager were of that nature. The Respondent noted that the ESC had indicated he did not want to control public speech and political debate. The Respondent argued, however, that the ESC could not be impartial given his staff all used gender pronouns in their automatic email signatures. The Respondent drew the Panel’s attention to a relatively recent Standards Commission Hearing about a Glasgow City Councillor1. The Respondent noted, in that case, the Panel found that as the Respondent’s alleged disrespectful comments had been made during a political debate and concerned matters of public interest, she was entitled to enhanced protection in respect of her right to freedom of expression under Article 10. The Respondent argued that his remarks were made in a similar political context and concerned matters of public concerns. As such, and in order for there to be consistency, he should also be afforded enhanced protection in respect of his Article 10 rights. The Respondent further contended that he had not made any personal remarks and, instead, had simply passed on his constituents’ concerns. The Respondent argued that a restriction on his right to freedom of expression and his right to raise concerns about issues with men using female safe spaces would have a chilling effect, as it would prevent robust debate and deter women from raising concerns about the use of female only spaces. In support of this contention, the Respondent noted that parents at the school had been “terrified” of raising concerns as they knew their identities would be leaked if they did so. The Respondent noted that the ESC contended that his action had offended and hurt the Complainers’ child. The Respondent advised, however, that he had no intention of making public any of his enquiries. The Respondent contended that they should have been kept confidential and should not have been ‘leaked’. In response to a question from the Panel about whether he understood his telephone conversations with the Education Manager to be a political debate or discussion, the Respondent confirmed that yes, he considered it was entirely possible to have a political debate over the telephone. When asked by the Panel whether, if it was the case that he was engaged in a political debate, he accepted he was expressing his own views during the telephone calls, the Respondent advised he considered the conversations to be both about the concerns he was raising and a political discussion. The Respondent reiterated that he did not consider the conversations to be anything other than informal chats. 1 Case reference LA/G/3919 Page 400
Page 271
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 13 of 20 When asked how he had reached this conclusion (and had not understood the conversations to be part of a formal process), given he had received the first call from the Education Manager the day after he had raised his concerns with senior officers, the Respondent reiterated it was because he regularly engaged in informal discussions with officers and, further, because the Education Manager had telephoned from the school itself, rather than his office. The Panel asked the Respondent if he accepted that, even if it was reasonable for him to have understood his conversations with the Education Manager to be of an informal nature, he was still raising concerns about a specific, individual and identifiable child. In response, the Respondent advised he did not accept the discussion only concerned one person, as it may have been the case that more than one male had used the female facilities. DECISION The Hearing Panel considered the submissions made both in writing and orally at the Hearing. It concluded that: 1. The Councillors’ Code of Conduct applied to the Respondent, Councillor Redman. 2. The Respondent had breached paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Code. A restriction on his right to freedom of expression that such a finding would entail could be justified. Reasons for Decision 1. The Panel noted the complaint before it concerned the conduct of the Respondent, Councillor Redman, during telephone conversations with the Council’s Education Manager on 11 and 13 January 2023. The Panel noted the Education Manager had telephoned the Respondent to discuss concerns raised about the use of female facilities at a local authority school. As such, the Panel was satisfied that the Respondent was acting in his capacity as an elected member during the conversations. The Panel was therefore satisfied, and noted it was not in dispute, that the Code applied to the Respondent’s conduct at the time of the events in question. 2. In reaching its decision as to whether there had been a breach of the Code, the Panel took the following three-stage approach, as outlined in the Standards Commission’s Advice Note on the Application of Article 10 of the ECHR: • First, it would consider whether the facts found led it to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Code. • Secondly, if so, it would then consider whether such a finding in itself was, on the face of it, a breach of the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10. • Thirdly, if so, the Panel would proceed to consider whether the restriction involved by the finding was justified by Article 10(2), which allows restrictions that are necessary in a democratic society. Stage 1: Whether the Respondent’s conduct amounted, on the face of it, to a breach of the Code 3. The Panel noted that it was not in dispute that the Education Manager telephoned the Respondent to discuss concerns the Respondent had raised, on behalf of constituents, about the Complainers’ child allegedly using the female toilets or changing rooms at a local school. 4. Having heard evidence from the Respondent and Education Manager, the Panel noted there was a dispute as to what was said during the calls and, in particular, whether the Respondent had repeated his constituents’ concerns (as he was entitled to do) or whether he had gone further and advanced his own views. 5. The Panel found the Education Manager to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted his evidence that, during the conversations, the Respondent stated that: Page 401
Page 272
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 14 of 20 • first, because the Complainers’ child cross-dressed, it was likely he put video recording equipment in the girls’ toilets or changing rooms; and • secondly, people who cross-dressed were more likely to be sexually deviant. In making this assessment, the Panel also considered that the Education Manager had no reason to lie and noted his version of events was supported by contemporaneous notes. 6. By contrast, the Panel noted a number of inconsistencies in the Respondent’s position. In particular, the Panel noted that the Respondent’s position in relation to the second remark had changed, in that he had agreed, in a witness statement provided to an internal council investigation, that he had been expressing his own concerns and views. The Panel did not accept, as plausible, the Respondent’s position that he had agreed the contents of this statement as he had not read it properly. In support of this assessment, the Panel noted that the Respondent admitted, in response to questions put to him at the Hearing, that he considered the conversations to be both about the concerns he was raising and a political discussion. It further found that the Respondent had been evasive when asked directly, when giving evidence on oath, whether he had proffered his own views on the allegations about the child. 7. The Panel noted, in any event, that the Respondent had accepted he had raised LGBT and gender identity matters and had provided an analogy to support his view that there were only two sexes during the telephone conversations. The Panel agreed there would have been no reason for him to do so, had he been expressing his constituents’ views only. The Panel was further of the view that the lack of a logical link between an individual’s choice to wear clothes more normally associated with someone of another gender, and their sexual preferences or the likelihood of them being responsible for a criminal act, would make the comments appear more unusual and make it more likely the Education Manager would recall both that the remarks had been made and the context in which they had been imparted. 8. The Panel also accepted the Education Manager’s evidence that it was evident, from the timing and context in which it was made, that the Respondent, when making the second remark (to the effect that people who cross-dressed were more likely to be sexually deviant), was doing so in the context of the discussion about Complainers’ child. As such, even if it was also a general opinion about individuals who cross-dress, it was not plausible or reasonable to perceive it as being an entirely separate and distinct statement. The Panel rejected the Respondent’s contention that the remark did not necessarily concern the Complainers’ child because it may have been the case that more than one male had used the female facilities. This was because there was no suggestion or evidence that he was accusing any other child or was aware that any other child might be choosing to cross-dress. 9. The Panel agreed that the Respondent would, or reasonably should have, been aware that, as the person responsible for investigating the matter, the Education Manager would be obliged to take a note of what was discussed. The Panel further agreed that the Respondent would, or reasonably should have, been aware that it was likely any allegations made, and the basis for these, would be shared with the Complainers, given the accusations were of a serious nature and concerned their then 15-year-old child. The Panel agreed with the ESC that it was evident that an adherence to principles of natural justice would mean the child would be informed of the accusations, and any basis or evidence for these, in order to be able to respond and defend himself. 10. The Panel did not find the Respondent’s position that the Education Manager, a senior council officer, would be calling him for an “informal chat” about such a serious matter, to be credible, or that he [the Respondent] had requested the discussion be ‘off the record’. The Panel accepted the Education Manager’s evidence that there had been no suggestion that it was or might be the case. While the Panel accepted the Respondent may not have expected his own opinion about individuals who cross-dress would be shared, it considered he should have been aware this was a possibility, given these had been proffered in support of his accusation that the Complainers’ child was likely responsible for the alleged placement of video recording equipment in the female facilities. Page 402
Page 273
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 15 of 20 11. The Panel agreed with the ESC that, as councillors have every right to report concerns raised by their constituents, there would be no issue if the Respondent had simply shared his constituents’ concerns about the potential use of female facilities by a boy and asked for the matter to be investigated. The Panel noted, however, that in his remarks the Respondent effectively made serious accusations on his own behalf (as opposed to just passing on what his constituents had allegedly told him); being both that the child had undertaken a potentially criminal act and was also likely ‘sexually deviant’. The Panel had not seen any suggestion, or been provided with any evidence, to indicate this accusation was based on anything other than hearsay and how the Respondent understood the child occasionally dressed. The Panel considered that making such an accusation in the circumstances was disrespectful towards the child and, as such amounted, on the face of it, to a breach of paragraph 3.1 of the Code. 12. The Panel noted the ESC had concluded, on balance, that the Respondent had understood the child to be transgender. This was because, in some of the documentary evidence provided to his office by the Respondent, the child was described as “trans” and “a boy who identifies as a girl”. The Panel noted also that the Respondent, in his agreed witness statement provided to the Council’s internal investigation, stated that: • “people cannot have any sex other than one assigned to them at birth”; and • “LGBT matters, in particular the area of gender identity, were nonsense”. 13. The Panel accepted fully that the Respondent was entitled to hold and express these opinions. The Panel nevertheless considered that, had the Respondent not thought the child to be transgender, there would have been no reason for him to proffer these views in the context of a discussion about concerns relating to the child’s alleged conduct. The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that the Respondent’s accusation was based on an understanding or perception that the child was transgender, or because he was under the misapprehension that anyone who cross-dressed must identify as such. The Panel noted that the Respondent had indicated, at the Hearing, that he did not understand what “trans” and “non-binary” meant, but did not find this position to be credible given: • the views he had expressed during the Council’s internal investigation, as outlined above; and • it was not in dispute he had posted comments on social media concerning the debate on transgender and women’s rights. 14. The Panel agreed, that in making an unsubstantiated accusation on the basis of a protected characteristic, perceived or otherwise, the Respondent failed to foster good relations between different people. The Panel concluded, therefore, that the Respondent had also, on the face of it, breached paragraph 3.2 of the Code. 15. The Panel noted that bullying is inappropriate and unwelcome behaviour that is offensive and intimidating, and which makes an individual or group feel undermined, humiliated or insulted. The Panel noted it is the impact of any behaviour rather than the intent that is the key. The Panel further noted that bullying usually arises as a result of an individual misusing their power and, while it tends to be a pattern of behaviour or course of conduct, it can also be a one-off serious incident that becomes objectionable or intimidating. 16. The Panel accepted there was no evidence that the Respondent’s conduct had been repeated beyond the two conversations or that he had made accusations about the child in any other forum. The Panel acknowledged that the Respondent had not made his comments directly to the child or the Complainers, and accepted he did not intend to upset or insult them. 17. The Panel nevertheless considered, as previously noted, that the Respondent should have been aware, that there was a strong likelihood his comments would be shared with the child’s parents and, by Page 403
Page 274
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 16 of 20 extension, the child. The Panel agreed with the ESC that, as an elected politician, the Respondent was in a position of power and authority. The Panel was of the view that in making a very serious and unsubstantiated accusation on his own behalf, from a position of power, before any concerns raised by his constituents had been investigated, the Respondent engaged in inappropriate, offensive and intimidating behaviour. The Panel agreed that it was reasonable to conclude the Respondent should have been aware that such behaviour had the potential to make the Complainers and their child feel humiliated and insulted, regardless of whether the comments had been made directly to them or passed on at a much later date. The Panel further agreed with the ESC that it was reasonable to consider the Respondent should have understood that any child would feel intimidated and uncomfortable if they were to discover an adult in a position of power had been making unsubstantiated allegations of criminality and ‘sexual deviance’ about them. 18. After some debate, the Panel therefore concluded, on balance, that the Respondent had also, on the face of it, breached paragraph 3.3 of the Code. Stage 2: Whether a finding of a contravention of the Code would be a breach of the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR 19. The Panel noted that enhanced protection of freedom of expression under Article 10 applies to all levels of politics, including at a local level. The Panel further noted that the Courts have held that political expression is a broad concept and that there is little scope under Article 10(2) for restrictions on political speech or the debate of questions of public interest2. 20. The Panel acknowledged that the Courts have held that political expression or speech is a broad concept and that there is little distinction between political discussion and discussion of matters of public concern3. The Panel noted, however, that the Courts, while being careful not to unduly restrict the breadth of this concept, have held that gratuitous personal comments do not fall within the scope of this concept4 and that a politician indulging in offensive abusive will not attract the higher level of protection5. The Panel noted, therefore, that this meant that not all remarks made by a politician (and in this case, an elected member of a local council), will attract enhanced protection6. 21. The Panel did not consider the Respondent’s telephone conversations with the Education Manager could be categorised as political discussions or political debates. This was because it was evident, or should have been evident, that the sole purpose of the telephone calls was for the Education Manager to obtain information from the Respondent to allow him [the Education Manager] to understand the precise nature of the concerns and whether there was any evidence or basis for the allegations raised, in order to define the scope and extent of the investigation he was undertaking. The Panel further noted, in support of its conclusion, that there was no evidence or suggestion that, during the conversations, the Education Manager challenged the Respondent, proffered his own views or engaged in any debate. The Panel further noted that the Respondent would have been aware that, as a senior council officer, the Education Manager was obliged to maintain political neutrality and, as such, would not be telephoning him [the Respondent], in a professional context, to engage in a debate about political issues. 22. The Panel accepted that any issues the Respondent raised about the policy on the use of female only spaces or wider matters surrounding transgender and women’s rights were matters of public concern. The Panel did not accept, however, that unsubstantiated allegations and views about a specific identifiable child’s alleged conduct, choice of clothing, or potential sexual deviancy could be so 2 Castells v Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 445 3 Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843 4 Heesom v Public Service Ombudsman for Wales (2014) EWHC 1504 (Admin) 5 Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England (2006) EWHC 2533 (Admin) 6 R (Calver) v Adjudication Panel for Wales (2012) EWHC 1172 (Admin) Page 404
Page 275
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 17 of 20 categorised. As such, the Panel did not accept that the Respondent would attract enhanced protection in respect of his right to freedom of expression when making remarks and proffering opinions on these matters. Stage 3: Whether any restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression involved by a finding of a contravention of the Code would be justified by Article 10(2) of the ECHR 23. The Panel noted, in any event, that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. Article 10(2) states that restrictions can be imposed, provided they are necessary in order to achieve a legitimate aim. The Panel noted that legitimate aims can include: • protecting the rights and reputations of others; and • ensuring public confidence in local government is not undermined and that a council is not brought into disrepute. 24. The Panel accepted, however, that the Courts have found any restriction on freedom of expression must also be proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued. As such, the Panel was required to undertake a balancing exercise, weighing the protection to freedom of expression enjoyed by the Respondent against any restriction imposed by the application of the Code and the imposition of any sanction. In doing so, the Panel had regard to the following findings that have been made by the Courts: • The necessity of any restriction on the exercise of freedom of expression must be established convincingly and be in response to a pressing social need. • The less egregious the conduct in question, the harder it is for a Panel, when undertaking its balancing exercise, to justifiably conclude that a restriction on an individual’s right to freedom of expression is required7. • A careful distinction is to be made between factual statements on the one hand, and value judgements on the other. While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible to proof8. 24. The Panel accepted that the Respondent’s remarks to the effect that: • as the Complainers’ child cross-dressed, it was likely he put video recording equipment in the girls’ toilets or changing rooms; and • people who cross-dressed were more likely to be sexually deviant, could be classed as a value judgement or opinion (as opposed to statements of fact), in that they were not susceptible to proof. This was because the concepts of cross-dressing and sexual deviancy were open to interpretation, as was the extent of what was meant by ‘likely’ in any given scenario. 25. The Panel noted, however, that even where a remark amounts to a value judgement, there must exist a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it will be deemed excessive9. The Panel further noted that the obligation to have such a sufficient factual basis can be considered proportionate to the nature and degree of the allegation in question, meaning the more serious an allegation, the more sound the factual basis has to be10. 26. The Panel noted that it had found, in this case, the Respondent had made serious, unfounded and gratuitous accusations of potential criminality and sexual deviancy about a then 15-year-old child. The Panel noted it had not been provided with any evidence to support these allegations and, instead, had found the Respondent had based them on his understanding of how the child allegedly and occasionally dressed (and a perception that, as a consequence, the child was transgender). The Panel noted that it had not been presented with any evidence to suggest that the child had been responsible for the 7 Calver (ibid) 8 Lingens v Austria (1986) Series A 103 9 Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark (GC) 49017/99 10 Pederson (ibid) Page 405
Page 276
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 18 of 20 placement of any recording equipment, as alleged by the Respondent. Indeed, the Panel noted that evidence had been led to suggest the police had not found who had placed any recording equipment, when undertaking an investigation into the allegations about the issue some two years earlier. The Panel was not satisfied, therefore, that the Respondent had demonstrated a sufficient factual basis that was proportionate to accusations of such a serious nature. Consequently, the Panel concluded that the remarks were excessive. 27. The Panel noted that the Respondent, in his submissions, had stated that a restriction of his freedom of expression, in the circumstances, would have a “chilling effect” on those wishing to safeguard single-sex spaces, in that it may make individuals less willing to come forward and raise concerns. The Panel rejected the Respondent’s contention in this regard. This was because the Panel considered that the Respondent could have passed on any concerns both he and his constituents may have had to council officers without making unfounded accusations and disrespectful and discriminatory remarks about a child. The Panel did not consider, therefore, that a restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression would, in any way, restrict his ability to undertake his role in assisting his constituents in making their views known to council officers, or that it could dissuade concerned citizens from raising concerns about the use of single-sex spaces. 28. The Panel was therefore satisfied that a restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression was relevant, sufficient and proportionate to protect the reputation and rights of the child in question, and to prevent public confidence in local government and the Council from being undermined. As such, the Panel concluded that the finding of a breach of the Code would not contravene Article 10, and determined that a finding of a breach of paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Code could be made. Submission in respect of Mitigation and Sanction The Panel noted the Complainers had submitted an impact statement. The Panel advised the Respondent that it would take into account the fact that the statement was not taken under oath and could not be tested, given the Complainers had not been asked to give evidence at the Hearing. The Panel noted that the Complainers advised, in their impact statement, that: • since the unfounded and accusations about their son had been made, their family had been under considerable stress; • their son had left the community in order to be safe from such baseless accusations; and • the Respondent had not shown any remorse for his actions and how they had impacted upon their son and family. The Respondent advised that the length of time taken to investigate the matter had caused him and his family considerable stress. The Respondent explained that, at the time of the telephone conversations, there had been a great deal of heated public debate on transgender and women’s rights issues. The Respondent advised that his only motivation was to protect safe spaces for women and girls. The Respondent advised he was now worried that women and girls would feel unable to raise concerns about such matters. The Respondent reiterated his view that the Council’s Education Department should not have ‘leaked’ the information he provided, or his identity as the individual raising concerns, as he had understood these would be kept private. The Respondent argued that any publicity about the Complainer’s child had not been caused by his actions. The Respondent asked the Panel to note that he was from a poorer background and was not well-educated. The Respondent stated that individuals from where he was from spoke plainly and indicated that was what he had done. Page 406
Page 277
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 19 of 20 SANCTION The decision of the Hearing Panel was to suspend, for a period of two months with effect from 25 February 2025, the Respondent, Councillor Redman, from all meetings of the council and of any committee or sub- committee thereof and of any other body on which the councillor is a representative or nominee of the council or body. This sanction was made under section 19(1)(c) terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Reasons for Sanction 1. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered: • first, whether the interference (i.e. the proposed sanction) was the minimum necessary, or whether less restrictive means could be employed; and then • secondly, whether the benefit of that least restrictive measure outweighs its adverse impact on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression. For example, whether any benefit in applying a sanction in respect of protecting the rights and reputations of others would outweigh any impact on the Respondent. 2. In making its decision on sanction, the Panel had regard to the Standards Commission’s Policy on the Application of Sanctions. A copy of the policy can be found on the Standards Commission’s website at: https://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/cases/hearing-rules 3. The Panel began by assessing the nature and seriousness of the breach of the Code. The Panel agreed that the requirement to behave with courtesy and respect, to foster good relations between different people and to refrain from bullying are key requirements of the Code. The Panel noted that a failure to adhere to these provisions can have a detrimental impact on the rights and reputations of others and can erode public confidence in elected members and the local authorities they represent. 4. In this case, the Panel noted that the Respondent had agreed, as part of his acceptance of office as a councillor, that he would abide by the terms of the Code. The Panel noted it had found, however, that the Respondent had made serious, unfounded and gratuitous accusations of potential criminality and sexual deviance about a then 15-year-old child, based only on his understanding how the child allegedly and occasionally dressed (and a perception that, as a consequence, the child was transgender). The Panel found the Respondent’s behaviour towards the child was disrespectful, discriminatory and amounted to bullying. The Panel was of the view, therefore, that the breaches of the Code were serious in nature. 5. The Panel considered, nevertheless, that while conduct had occurred over the course of two telephone calls, essentially it was a one-off incident and, as such, was limited in duration. 6. The Panel then considered the aggravating and mitigating factors as set out in the Policy on the Application of Sanctions, beginning with those in mitigation. The Panel noted that mitigating factors are those which may lessen the severity or culpability of the breach. 7. The Panel, in mitigation, acknowledged that the Respondent had co-operated fully with the investigative and Hearing processes. There also had not been any previous findings of a contravention of the Code by the Respondent. 8. The Panel acknowledged the Respondent’s stated intention in respect of protecting women and girls’ spaces. The Panel further acknowledged there was no evidence or suggestion of any repeated conduct, or of further targeting of the child by the Respondent. Page 407
Page 278
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 20 of 20 9. The Panel then proceeded to consider whether there were any aggravating factors; being ones that may increase the severity or culpability of the breach. 10. The Panel accepted fully that the Respondent was entitled to hold and express opinions on issues relating to transgender and women’s rights and noted that the Code did not, in any way, restrict this right. The Panel further acknowledged that the Respondent had every right to pass on concerns his constituents may have had to council officers. The Panel found, however, that he had engaged in disrespectful and discriminatory behaviour when doing so. The Panel was particularly concerned that the Respondent’s conduct was based on the child’s presumed transgender identity. 11. The Panel noted the Respondent had not shown any insight into the potential impact of his conduct, particularly on the child and his family. It further noted that the Respondent had not proffered any apology or demonstrated any remorse. 12. The Panel was of the view that a censure, being the minimum sanction available to the Panel, was not appropriate given the seriousness of the conduct and impact it would have had on the Complainer and their child. 13. Having considered the nature and seriousness of the breach, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors identified, the Panel concluded that a short suspension was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances. In particular, the Panel agreed that a short suspension would achieve the aims, as outlined in the Policy on the Application of Sanctions, of: • preserving the ethical standards framework; • promoting adherence to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct; • maintaining and improving the public’s confidence that councillors will comply with the Code and will be held accountable if they fail to do so; and • achieving credible deterrence. 14. The Panel accepted that the Respondent’s conduct was essentially one-off and limited in duration. In the circumstances, it did not consider that a disqualification or lengthy suspension was warranted or justified. 15. The Panel was satisfied that the imposition of a short suspension was the minimum necessary to achieve the aims outlined above and, in particular, to protect the rights and reputation of the Complainers’ child. The Panel was of the view it was also necessary to discourage other councillors from engaging in similar conduct. The Panel was also satisfied that the necessary interference (being the short suspension) outweighed the adverse impact on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression. 16. Having considered all of the matters outlined above, the Panel concluded, on balance, that the appropriate sanction, in the circumstances, was to suspend fully the Respondent, for a period of two months, with effect from 25 February 2025. RIGHT OF APPEAL The Respondent has a right of appeal in respect of this decision, as outlined in Section 22 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Date: 24 February 2025 Ashleigh Dunn Chair of the Hearing Panel Page 408
Page 279
1. 2024 v2 SUSPENSION GUIDANCE 1. Introduction 1.1 Section 19 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) outlines the options available to the Standards Commission, following the finding of a breach of their respective Codes of Conduct by a councillor or member of a devolved public body, at a Hearing it has conducted. 1.2 Section 19 obliges the Standards Commission to impose a sanction upon the finding of a breach. The options available to the Standards Commission under Section 19(1) are to censure, suspend or disqualify the councillor or member. Section 19(1) is reproduced below. 19 Action on finding of contravention (1) Where the members of the Commission conducting a hearing find that a councillor has contravened the councillors’ code or a member of a devolved public body the members’ code, they shall impose one of the following sanctions— (a) censuring, but otherwise taking no action against, the councillor or member; (b) suspending, for a period not exceeding one year, the councillor’s or member’s entitlement to attend one or more but not all of the following— (i) all meetings of the council or body; (ii) all meetings of one or more committees or sub-committees of the council or body; (iii) all meetings of any other body on which the councillor or member is a representative or nominee of the council or body; (c) suspending, for a period not exceeding one year, the councillor’s or member’s entitlement to attend meetings of the council or body and of any committee or sub-committee thereof and of any other body on which the councillor or member is a representative or nominee of the council or body; (d) in the case of a councillor, disqualifying the councillor for a period not exceeding five years, from being, or from being nominated for election as, or from being elected, a councillor; (e) in the case of a member of a devolved public body, removing the member from membership of the body and disqualifying the member, for a period not exceeding five years, from membership of the body. 1.3 Section 21 of the 2000 Act provides the Standards Commission with the power to impose an interim suspension on a councillor or member of a devolved public body on receipt of an interim report from the Ethical Standards Commissioner (ESC) on an ongoing investigation. Page 409
Page 280
2. 2024 v2 1.4 Section 19(8) provides that the Standards Commission should, after undertaking a consultation, issue guidance to councils on the extent to which a councillor should engage in activities (other than those mentioned in subsection 1(c)) which are, or could be perceived to be, the activities of a councillor during a period of suspension. 1.5 The purpose of this document is to provide such guidance. It is only intended to cover the activities of a councillor where a period of full suspension has been imposed (either on the finding of a breach under Section 19(1)(c), or as an interim measure under Section 21), as opposed to a partial suspension under Section 19(1)(b). 2. Aims 2.1 The overriding aim of this guidance is to provide clarity in respect of the impact / effect of a suspension. The purpose of imposing any restrictions on the activities of a councillor during a period of suspension is to: • discourage or prevent them from any future failure to comply with the Councillors’ Code of Conduct; • to deter similar conduct by other elected members; • protect other individuals who may be impacted adversely by the councillor’s conduct; • to prevent the Council from being brought into disrepute; and • to help ensure that public confidence in councils and councillors is maintained. 2.2 The Standards Commission recognises that councillors have been elected democratically to undertake certain tasks and that their ability to help and serve constituents should only be restricted where such a restriction is justified in the specific circumstances of the case. 2.3 This guidance is not intended to be exhaustive as it is not possible to cover every activity or duty a councillor may be expected to undertake in their role. 3. Guidance 3.1 Activities: Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 cannot, during the period of suspension, engage in any of the following: • council decision-making; • developing and reviewing policy; • regulatory, quasi-judicial and statutory duties; • formal scrutiny of service performance; • member / officer working groups; • attending meetings of any other body on which the councillor is a representative or nominee of the Council; • meetings with council officers (other than those an objective individual with knowledge of a councillor’s role would consider to be reasonably required to undertake the duties listed under paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 below); and • partnership work with outside bodies. 3.2 Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 are not, during the period of suspension, to undertake any ceremonial duties or attend any external events or functions where they are representing the Council. Page 410
Page 281
3. 2024 v2 3.3 Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 are not, during the period of suspension, entitled to send a substitute along to meetings (including committee meetings). 3.4 Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 should still be entitled, during the period of suspension, to attend and participate in: • local bodies such as Community Councils, Local Area Forums and voluntary organisations (except meetings of any other body on which the councillor is a representative or nominee of the Council); • political group meetings, campaigns and events; and • training events; unless the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission has confirmed in its written decision that the councillor should not do so. 3.5 Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) and Section 21 are entitled, during the period of suspension, to hold constituent surgeries and to: • seek information on a constituent’s behalf in respect of a case; • advise Council officers of a constituent’s views; • help a constituent make their views known to the relevant Council officer; • give a constituent advice on the correct procedure to follow and who to contact; and • raise concerns a constituent may have about a Council service / decision, unless the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission has confirmed that they should not do so in its written decision. 3.6 A Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission, in imposing a suspension under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21, may restrict the councillor’s entitlement to contact officers or hold constituent surgeries and / or assist constituents. This may be in circumstances where it has concerns (based on the complaint, the ESC’s interim or final report and / or its findings at a Hearing), that the councillor either poses a threat to officers or constituents, could bring the council or the role of a councillor into disrepute or disrupt the effective operation of the Council. In making such a determination, a Panel will consider the principles of fairness, public interest and proportionality. The following list provides some examples of circumstances where it might do so: • where the Hearing Panel has found that the councillor was repeatedly or seriously disrespectful to officers or third parties; • where the Hearing Panel has found that the councillor participated in, or condoned, any acts of harassment, discrimination, victimisation, bullying or other threatening behaviour; and / or • where the Hearing Panel has found that the councillor deliberately abused confidential, privileged or sensitive information for personal gain or for the gain of a close personal associate. 3.7 Nothing in this Guidance precludes a councillor who has been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 from contacting the council, council officers or using council services in their capacity as a member of the public, and in the same way as any other member of the public would be entitled. 3.8 Access to Information: Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 are entitled, during the period of suspension, to receive papers and correspondence from officers that they would normally expect to receive, had they not been suspended. Page 411
Page 282
4. 2024 v2 4. Assistance Any councillor or officer requiring assistance in interpreting and applying this guidance should contact the Standards Commission: enquiries@standardscommission.org.uk. Page 412