Bute and Cowal Area Committee - 3 December 2024
Argyll and Bute Council · 4 March 2025
Back to Bute and Cowal Area Committee — 4 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE HELD ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE QUEEN'S HALL, DUNOON AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS ON TUESDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor William Sinclair Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Mark Calder, Project Manager Colin Young, Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer Charlotte Craig, Business Improvement Manager, Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership Iona MacPhail, Chief Executive, Fyne Homes 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillor Yvonne McNeilly and Audrey Forrest. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle declared a non-financial interest in relation to item 5 (Fyne Homes Update) due to her occupation as General Manager of Fyne Futures which is a subsidiary of Fyne Homes. Having reviewed the content of the presentation, she did not feel that there was any substantive decision being taken and therefore advised that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration of this item of business. Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle declared a financial interest in relation to item 9 (Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project Progress Report) due to her occupation as General Manager of Fyne Futures which is a subsidiary of Fyne Homes. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle added that Fyne Futures has been engaged in delivering projects associated with active travel on the Isle of Bute and that even though Fyne Futures have not been in receipt of any funding through Argyll and Bute Council recently, they may consider applying for funding in the future and as such she would leave the meeting and take no part in the consideration of this item. Councillor Peter Wallace declared a non-financial interest in relation to item 5 (Fyne Homes Update) due to being the Council’s appointee on the Fyne Homes Board. Having reviewed the content of the presentation, he did not feel that there was any substantive decision being taken and therefore advised that he would remain in the meeting during the consideration of this item of business. 3. MINUTES (a) Bute and Cowal Area Committee - 3 September 2024
Page 2
The Minute of the meeting of the Bute and Cowal Area Committee, held on 3 September 2024 was approved as a correct record. (b) Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group - 5 November 2024 The Minute of the meeting of the Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group, held on 5 November 2024 was noted. (c) Cowal Transport Forum - 7 October 2024 The Minute of the meeting of the Cowal Transport Forum, held on 7 October 2024 was noted. 4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Jean Moffat My question relates to the Cyclepath for Bute which is an item on the agenda. The report has raised concerns in the community, particularly the way that the information is displayed and the document which is full of misinformation and missing information. I cannot see anywhere that Calmac or West Coast Motors have been consulted about the effects of the Cyclepath to them. It also states that Bute BID have been consulted and approve of this Cyclepath when they haven’t, and they do not have a decision to make on this subject as they have not yet asked levy payers for their opinions. The document also states that ‘Rothesay Community Council’ approve of the proposal when there is no such Community Council. As Convenor of Bute Community Council it is not in our remit to decide whether we approve of this or not, it is in our remit to give the communities views forward and as you can see, 10% of the Community support this proposal with 90% being against, therefore Bute Community Council cannot approve of this Cyclepath. We were led to believe that the views of Bute would be taken into account and that if the majority were against the Cyclepath then it wouldn’t happen and today you are being asked to vote approval of this Cyclepath. What does democracy have to do with this? Why are Councillors being asked to approve this when there is a clear Community view against it? Councillor Moreland advised that the Committee is considering whether to move forward to the concept and design stage and are not being asked to approve the Cyclepath, this will be done at a future meeting of the Area Committee following further consultation and development of the initial proposal. Councillor Moreland added that the process being undertaken is very similar to what happened in Dunoon and that proposals can be adapted to suit the community views, as was the case in Dunoon. The Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer advised that the design work which has been done so far is stage 1 of a 4 stage design process. Mr Young also confirmed that the Area Committee is being asked to agree that Officers move onto the development and technical stages and that at the conclusion of these development stages a report will be presented to the Area Committee for approval prior to any construction work being undertaken. Erin Murphy, Bute Business Improvement District (BID) I am a member of the Bute BID Board and it has come to our attention that at section 9.9 of the Cyclepath report it lists a number of points claiming to be made by Bute BID, I can
Page 3
confirm this has not been submitted by Bute BID and we are not in a position to comment on this without consulting our levy payers. It states we have hosted workshops which we have not nor have we undertaken any consultation on this topic or made any statement in relation to this. This level of inaccuracy, suggests this report is significantly flawed. Can you confirm that the company who produced this report will not be involved in the next stage of consultation? Councillor Blair responded that he would be very surprised if miss-information had been included within the report deliberately. The Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer advised that Officers had worked very hard to prepare the report in advance of this meeting due to the high level of interest in the project. Mr Young added that in terms of the section in relation to Bute BID, it was his understanding that it was describing the public events held and that should the Area Committee support the continued development of the project Officers would seek to submit applications to the Scottish Government to secure the required funds. Councillor Sinclair added that this is the first stage of a long process and that the design referenced within the report is likely to change following further community consultation Councillor Hampsey agreed with Councillor Sinclair and that the development of the cycle path in Dunoon faced similar criticism until the designs were updated to meet the needs and wishes of the community. Catriona Renfrew The consultation ran by the Argyll Rally organisers finished in September, it attracted a lot of objections including from Glendaruel and Colintraive Community Council and from residents in the Otter Ferry area. The Rally organisers have now applied for a Motorsport permit that they need in order to ask permission from the Council to run the rally. The organisers changed 1 of the 16 stages as a result of the consultation and concerns have been raised around closing single track roads, some for around 12 hours and the impact on local businesses, with the only economic analysis being done by Dunoon Presents, who sponsor the rally. Question 1 What process does the Council follow to consider a motorsport order application, to consider economic impact and whether community views have been taken into account and who will make the decision? Question 2 Is the test of taking community views into account met by the rally organisers consulting on "initial proposals" for the rally route, receiving multiple objections and subsequently revising only one of sixteen stages? Question 3 Does the Area Committee consider that the closure of single track roads without alternative access, in one case for 12 hours, meets the test of adequate traffic management arrangements?
Page 4
Question 4 The council has never made any assessment of the economic impact of the rally, will this be done before a decision is made for 2025? Question 5 Our community are concerned that the noise of the night stage, which runs past our houses at 2am, may breach noise regulations. We have asked for advice from Environmental Health but have been referred back to the roads department. Should Council residents not be able to get advice directly? The Project Manager highlighted that the Council’s requirements in terms of this application are set out in the Motor Sport on Public Roads (Scotland) Regulations 2019 and that this legislation does not place any requirement on the Local Authority in this instance to “Consult” with those affected in the local community. Rather, the requirements are set out in Regulation 5 of the 2019 Regulations. Mr Calder advised that the Council has made further requests of the organisers in respect of economic impact assessments for the entire area of the rally and that there is currently an Environmental Impact Assessment which is based on an approved Scottish Government formula. Mr Calder added that in response to the communication arrangements, the Council has taken the view that customers like to have a single point of contact who can coordinate which is why Ms Renfrew was referred back to the Roads Department. The Chair advised that he would enquire with the Leader and Chief Executive of the Council around Motorsport orders being agreed in consultation with the Area Committee going forward and that he would raise Ms Renfrew’s concerns around the noise level during the night with the Environmental Health Department. The Project Manager added that he would enquire whether an Argyll and Bute wide economic impact assessment concerning the rally would add value to future decisions. Joe McGoldrick At the Bute and Cowal Area Committee meeting held on 3 September 2024, Ann Marie Ferguson (Bute Community Council member and member of the Castle Street Action Group) highlighted that Castle Street Action Group had submitted questions in relation to a dangerous and derelict building to the relevant council department and that they had received responses to the questions but asked for clarity on several questions. During Public Questions Time, Ann Marie Ferguson also made the following assertion: ‘Castle Street Action Group believe that the building owners have already failed in their duty to fulfil this responsibility and would ask what action can the council take to rectify the situation?’ The questions I wish to raise are as follows: Question 1
Page 5
What was the Committee's response to the question raised by the Castle Street Action Group member (Ms Ferguson)? '...what action can the council take to rectify the situation?' Question 2 What evidence has been submitted by the Castle Street Action Group to the Bute and Cowal Area Committee, in support of the assertion made by the Castle Street Action Group: '...the building owners have failed in their duty to fulfil this responsibility...' Question 3 Is the Bute and Cowal Area Committee aware of Bute Community Council's involvement in the formation of the Castle Street Action Group? The Chair assured Mr McGoldrick that any actions noted at meetings are passed onto the relevant departments for a response. The Committee Manager advised that in terms of question 1 and 2, the questions that were asked by Ms Ferguson were submitted to the relevant department and officers immediately after the meeting of the Area Committee in September, however the Committee Manager advised that he was not aware of the status of the responses but that he had followed up with the department this morning and was awaiting a response. Jean Moffat, Chair of Bute Community Council, advised that Bute Community Council were not involved in the formation of the Castle Street Action Group and that the Group had attended meetings of the Community Council but are not involved with them. John Butcher My property is in Otter Ferry and is affected by the 2 main routes proposed for the Argyll Rally. The first year I welcomed the rally and I am not objecting to the rally but I am objecting to the fact that year after year it is accepted automatically that the rally will be ran without any questions being asked. I did ask Jenni Minto to contact the Council on my behalf as I felt that the Council was not dealing with the concerns correctly and the latest response to Jenni Minto in relation to alternative routes is unbelievable. There is a clear requirement in the legislation that alternative routes should be investigated, in the response it was suggested that there is no responsibly on the Council and the application should be made to the rally organisers in relation to alternative routes. Can I be reassured that someone will take seriously the lack of consideration of alternative routes? I cannot believe that the Council could regard the Dunoon Presents analysis, as they are the promotors of the rally and therefore have a vested interest in it going ahead. Will somebody take seriously the analysis and find another sensible way to analyse the economic loss for Dunoon and the economic loss to people in my community? Councillor Blair advised Mr Butcher and Ms Renfrew that they would seek reassurance that the data used for the economic impact analysis provided was accurate. Scott Gardner
Page 6
Public toilets have been a free facility for as long as I’ve lived in the area but fairly recently the Council has started to charge people for using them. I am not adverse to the Council charging for public toilets to keep these facilities running for the future, however, I am a disabled blue badge holder as is my wife and there are other groups with protected characteristics under the Equality act such as age, sex and pregnancy, who will be affected by these charges, not necessary because the Council are charging but because they need to use the facilities a lot more often and more urgently. I did not know that the Council had starting to charge for the facilities. I visited Tighnabruaich and because of my disability I needed to use the toilet urgently so I approached the public toilets to find that there was a locking system and the payment system was out of order, this unfortunately turned into an awful situation. Following this incident, I raised a complaint with the Council in relation to those protected characteristics who need to use the facilities more often and urgently, and I submitted a stage 1 complaint, with the Council responding by providing a socio-economic impact assessment that they had carried out. Having written to the Council in relation to the unfair disadvantage which I believe falls under the Section 19 of the Equality Act and that the charging system is a discrimination provision criterion or practise. Can the Area Committee provide support to encourage the Council to re-evaluate their decision regarding the existing charging policy for public toilets? The Project Manager advised that they have had some issues with the system and where they’ve had these issues, they’ve looked to deactivate the system and open toilets up while the issues are investigated. Mr Calder advised that he was aware of the complaint and highlighted the complaints process, adding that the next stage which is open to Mr Gardner is to escalate the matter to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The Project Manager further advised that in considering the provision of public toilets the Councils starts from the basis that local authorities have a power but not a duty to provide such facilities, adding that the Council provide nearly 60 public conveniences across the Council area, some of which are dedicated accessible WCs and some which are not. Mr Calder confirmed that in terms of the Council’s obligations under the Equality Act regarding dedicated accessible WCs, the Council has a duty to make reasonable adjustments if a person is at a substantial disadvantage because of a disability compared to a non-disabled people. The Project Manager highlighted that in terms of the recent introduction of payment systems at some of the public toilets, that this was a policy proposal which was confirmed during the Council’s budget process and included an Equality and Social Impact Assessment being undertaken. Mr Calder advised that in choosing which type of charging infrastructure to install officers had looked at various options and one of the factors in choosing the door entry system was that it effectively replicated the type of access previously in place at each facility and was therefore as accessible as the previous entry method. Other options were paddle gates and turnstiles, which they did not take forward for various reasons, accessibility considerations being among these and the door entry system has also been installed to help prevent misuse and vandalism. The Chair highlighted that toilets and access to use them needs to be looked at as an Area Committee and asked the Project Manager to provide a list of public conveniences
Page 7
within the Bute and Cowal Area. The Chair added that he was advised that the doors on the toilets could not be amended to use the radar keys but agreed to explore options. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised that it was her understanding that there is plans to review the Economic impact and revisit the social impact to see whether adjustments are needed. 5. FYNE HOMES UPDATE Consideration was given to a presentation by the Chief Executive of Fyne Homes, which provided an update on a number of areas including property upgrades; welfare advice provided to tenants; the Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library which Fyne Homes is a partner of; current and future projects within Argyll and Bute; Auchadaduie Wind Farm and the gift aid recipients supported through profits of the wind turbines; the Tenants Information Service National Achievements Awards which they have made the final in two categories and the Scottish Housing Awards which they have been shortlisted in. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Committee noted the information provided in the presentation. (Reference: Presentation by Chief Executive, Fyne Homes, submitted) 6. AREA PERFORMANCE REPORT - FQ2 2024/25 The Committee gave consideration to the Area Performance Report for financial quarter 2 of 2024/25 (July to September 2024) which illustrated the agreed performance measures for this period. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Committee noted the performance and supporting commentary as presented. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services, dated 7 November 2024, submitted) 7. ARGYLL AND BUTE HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCE REPORT - FQ1 2024/25 Consideration was given to the Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership Performance Report for financial quarter 1 of 2024/25 (April to June 2024). Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Committee: 1. acknowledged the performance for FQ1 2024/25 (April - June); 2. acknowledged the performance update on the National Health and Wellbeing Outcomes and Ministerial Steering Group Integration Indicators, as at Appendix 1; and 3. noted Delayed Discharge Sitrep as of 01 July 2024, as at Appendix 2.
Page 8
(Reference: Report by Senior Performance and Improvement Manager, Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership, dated 21 November 2024, submitted) 8. ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report which provided links to the recent activities of Roads and Infrastructure Services. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services, dated November 2024, submitted) Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle, having declared an interest in relation to the following item of business, left the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item. 9. ROTHESAY PAVILION TO ALBERT PIER ACTIVE TRAVEL PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT Consideration was given to a report updating members on the progress made in relation to initial feasibility and concept design of improved active opportunities and wider public realm infrastructure between the Rothesay Pavilion and the Albert Pier/ Glenburn Hotel. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Committee: 1. welcomed the design progress made to date in relation to identifying opportunities to improve the active opportunities and wider public realm infrastructure; 2. instructed Officers to undertake Developed Design and Technical Design stages to complete the design process, subject to securing external funding; and 3. instructed Officers to provide a future paper to members on completion of the design process prior to any construction. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated 21 October 2024, submitted) Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle re-joined the meeting at this point. 10. CHARITABLE TRUSTS, BEQUESTS AND TRUST FUNDS The Committee gave consideration to a report which provided details relating to the ongoing management of Charitable Trusts, Bequests and Trust Funds for which the Bute and Cowal Area Committee are Trustees. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Committee noted the financial position of all the Charitable Trusts, Bequests and Trust Funds as of August 2024.
Page 9
(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support, dated November 2024, submitted) 11. DRAFT BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE WORKPLAN The Bute and Cowal Area Committee workplan was before members for information. Decision The Bute and Cowal Committee noted the contents of the workplan. (Reference: Bute and Cowal Area Committee workplan, dated 3 December 2024)