Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 26 February 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE will be held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE FYNE HOMES BOARDROOM, 11 VICTORIA STREET, ROTHESAY AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 4 MARCH 2025 at 10:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Bute and Cowal Area Committee - 3 December 2024 (Pages 3 - 12) (b) Cowal Transport Forum - 29 January 2025 (Pages 13 - 18) (c) Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group - 4 February 2025 (Pages 19 - 26) 4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5. AREA PERFORMANCE REPORT - FQ3 2024/25 (Pages 27 - 58) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services 6. ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES UPDATE (Pages 59 - 62) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 7. PRIMARY AREA ATTAINMENT REPORT: BUTE AND COWAL (B&C) (Pages 63 - 80) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Education 8. HOUSING SERVICES ACTIVITY UPDATE - STRATEGIC HOUSING INVESTMENT PLAN (SHIP) ANNUAL UPDATE (Pages 81 - 94) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Public Document Pack
Page 2
Growth 9. 2024/25 ACTIVE TRAVEL PROGRESS REPORT (Pages 95 - 112) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 10. ROTHESAY PAVILION TO ALBERT PIER ACTIVE TRAVEL PROJECT: UPDATED REPORTS (Pages 113 - 410) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth REPORT FOR NOTING 11. DRAFT BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE WORKPLAN (Pages 411 - 414) REPORTS FOR A DECISION 12. LAMONT BEQUEST AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS (Pages 415 - 416) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support E1 (a) APPENDIX 1 (Pages 417 - 418) E1 (b) APPENDIX 2 (Pages 419 - 420) E1 (c) APPENDIX 3 (Pages 421 - 422) The Committee 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 paragraph is- E1 Paragraph 6 Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority). Bute and Cowal Area Committee Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle (Vice-Chair) Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Yvonne McNeilly Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor William Sinclair Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager - 01436 658717
Page 3
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 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
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 4
Page 5
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 5
Page 6
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 6
Page 7
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 7
Page 8
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 8
Page 9
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 9
Page 10
(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 10
Page 11
(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) Page 11
Page 12
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 13
MINUTES of MEETING of COWAL TRANSPORT FORUM held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 29 JANUARY 2025 Present: Councillor Daniel Hampsey (Chair) Councillor William Sinclair Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Audrey Forrest Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Captain, Alister McLundie, Western Ferries Andrew Boyd, Transport Scotland Ewan Tait, Scotrail Gordon Ross, Western Ferries Ian Woodcock, Transport Scotland Inspector Bart Simonis, Police Scotland Neil Stewart, West Coast Motors Simon Stuart, Timber Transport Group Kerris Bone, Kilmun Community Council Tom Murray, Lochgoilhead Community Council Allan Comrie, Strathclyde Passenger Transport (SPT) Michael Breslin, South Cowal Community Council David Clough, Dunoon Community Council 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Yvonne McNeilly and Ross Moreland; Sophie Marshall, Police Scotland; Richard Hadfield, Transport Scotland and Kirstie Reid, Strachur Community Council. Forum members raised concerns that there was no representative from CalMac at the meeting. Action The Chair to liaise with CalMac regarding their representation at future meetings of the Cowal Transport Forum. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTES Page 13 Agenda Item 3b
Page 14
The minutes of the meeting of the Cowal Transport Forum held on Monday 7 October 2024 were approved as a correct record. The Chair highlighted that since the last meeting of the Forum there that a one to one meeting with the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, had been arranged and had been held immediately before the Forum. The Chair advised that this had been a positive meeting with lots to take away from it and that he would ensure any subsequent updates from the Ministers office would be circlulated. 4. POLICE SCOTLAND Inspector Bart Simonis provided the Forum with a verbal update on the ongoing work of the service. He advised that Friday’s storm was challenging for Argyll and Bute, and that he had witnessed great partnership working together with lots of help from the community to keep things moving throughout the area. Inspector Simonis advised that social media went down and communication with Officers on the Isle of Bute was lost. He thanked the community for all their help. The Chair also thanked the community and all the emergency services for their assistance. Inspector Simonis advised that speeding and driving complaints remain prevalent within Cowal and Bute and that driver behaviour and the impact this has on our community remains a focus for local policing. Local officers have been on joint patrols with officers from the traffic division to upskill and to cascade learning to others. He advised that across Argyll and Bute there had been 47 reported road accidents and 33 driving offences since 1 November 2024. The Preventions Team are planning a number of road safety roadshows in the coming months which were well received in 2024, the first will take place at Dunoon Community Fire Station on Saturday 1st February. Outcome The Forum noted the update from Police Scotland and that details of the road safety shows would be circulated. 5. FERRIES UPDATE (a) CalMac Timetable Consultation Proposal The Chair advised that in 2024 CalMac had approached him to comment on the proposed changes to the sailing timetable and that he had organised subsequent discussions with various member of the Forum. Councillor Hampsey advised that CalMac wished to continue this approach in a more structured way and as such proposed an informal sub-group consisting of Councillors, CalMac, West Coast Motors, Scotrail and some community council members to meet around 3 times a year to look at proposed timetables. Outcome Page 14
Page 15
The Forum noted the update on the CalMac timetable consultation proposal and that the Chair would advise of the date to the sub-group. (b) Opportunity for verbal updates by Cowal Transport Forum Members Western Ferries Gordon Ross highlighted the challenges of Friday’s storm for the service, adding that normal service had resumed by Saturday lunchtime. M Ross advised that the summer timetable would be introduced at the beginning of April and stated his disappointment for the people in Dunoon who would now suffer due to the increases in SPT fares and the exclusion from Road Equivalent Tariff (RET). Discussion was had on the SPT fares; the 10% increase in April; the discrimination of RET not being included and the recent Motion that had been agreed at the last Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee meeting of 19 December 2024. Allan Comrie, SPT explained the background to the concessionary fare scheme for the 12 local authorities involved and advised that if fares were frozen the scheme would become unsustainable and the reserves would quickly become exhausted. Outcome The Forum noted: 1. the update from Western Ferries; and 2. that the Chair would confirm the subsequent actions regarding the Motion that had been agreed at the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee.. 6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT (a) SPT Concessionary Fares Councillor Gordon Blair provided an update on the meeting with SPT regarding the increase of the concessionary fares. Outcome The Forum noted the update on SPT Concessionary Fares. (b) Opportunity for verbal updates by Cowal Transport Forum Members Scotrail Ewan Tait provided an update on the recent damage caused by the storm including over 120 trees on the lines across the network. Updates were also provided on the Inverclyde routes; passenger numbers and the Page 15
Page 16
signage at Gourock station. The Chair thanked Ewan for the update and attendance at the Forum. Outcome The Forum noted the update from Ewan Tait. West Coast Motors Neil Stewart also provided an update on the recent damage caused by the storm over Friday and Saturday. Updates were also provided on the Argyll Street service; statistical information on passenger numbers; service updates including school contracts and the delivery of a new bus. The Chair thanked Neil for the update and attendance at the Forum. Outcome The Forum noted the update from West Coast Motors. 7. ROADS UPDATE The Chair advised that there was no representative from the Roads Department today but he would take back any questions received and update the Forum accordingly. Questions raised:- Does Cowal have a dedicated road engineer? The road to Carrick Castle is in a poor condition due to potholes will this be looked at? Why has the road at Carrick Castle been re-classed as a C road? What traffic management, if any, is in place at Hunters Quay in the event that the Rest and Be Thankful road is closed? When will the Strachur Primary School crossing be completed and does this road have a Traffic Regulation Order? What plans, if any, have been drafted to mitigate flooding on the AA15 road at Loch Eck? Does that A815 meet the minimum road width requirement? Outcome The Chair advised that he will take away the actions from the points raised in the questions. 8. TRANSPORT SCOTLAND Page 16
Page 17
Ian Woodcock provided the Forum with a verbal update on recent activities at the Rest and Be Thankful during Storm Eowyn including:- Rest and Be Thankful timeline of events; • 23/01/25, 6pm: convoy operations commence on A83 due to forecast heavy rain • 24/01/25, 1pm approx: road closed due to Storm Eowyn high winds preventing safe operation of TM (light heads blown down and damaged, signs/ cones blown away). Further traffic signals being supplied, ready for opening around 5pm after feedback from various route tours/inspections • 24/01/25, 1pm approx. to 9.20pm: road continues to be closed due to very high winds preventing TM operation and fallen trees at Ardgarten and Cairndow. • 24/01/25 9.20pm: fallen trees cleared and A83 reopened under convoy operation Cairndow update; Signing improvements, still waiting for SSE to determine power connection but understand that they now have a way forward with remaining signs ready to be installed when SSE have completed their works. Other works of note to be carried out before the end of this financial year include: • Re-surfacing works at West of Ardgarten • Bridge works on Fyne Bridge • Drainage works at Loch Fyne Oyster Bar, Succoth The Chair thanked Ian and his team for all their hard work on Friday during the storm. Outcome The Forum noted the update from Transport Scotland. 9. TIMBER TRANSPORT GROUP Simon Stuart provided the Forum with a verbal update, advising that he had on issues for Cowal. A question was raised with regard to the continued use of the Sandbank Holy Loch Marina for the transportation of timber. Stuart advised that he had no update on this but we check this and report back. Outcome The Forum noted the update from the Timber Transport Group. 10. ANY OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS No other business was discussed. 11. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The Chair thanked everyone in attendance at the meeting and the Forum noted that the next meeting would be held week beginning 5 May and that Stuart will circulate a date in due course. Page 17
Page 18
Page 18
Page 19
MINUTES of MEETING of BUTE AND COWAL COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2025 Present: Jean Moffat, Bute Community Council - (Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor Peter Wallace Stuart McLean, Committee Manager, Argyll and Bute Council Andy MacPherson, Argyll and Bute Climate Action Network Lucy Sumsion, National Farmers’ Union (NFU) Inspector Bart Simonis, Police Scotland Sergeant Sophie Marshall, Police Scotland Susan MacRae, Skills Development Scotland Rhona Altin, University of the Highland and Islands, Argyll D L Gordon, Bute Bid Christopher Spence, Scottish Fire and Rescue Olena Mishanina, Health and Social Care Partnership Angela Coll, Health and Social Care Partnership Janis Marshall Reilly, Argyll and Bute Third Sector Interface (TSI) Melony MacLean, Argyll Community Housing Association Tom McCowan, Dunoon Community Council Attending: Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor William Sinclair Ailie Law, Community Development Officer, Argyll and Bute Council Aimie Dow, Community Development Officer, Argyll and Bute Council Stuart Green, Corporate Support Manager, Argyll and Bute Council Milly Leggett, Area Plans Officer, Argyll and Bute Council John McLuckie, Community Planning, Argyll and Bute Council Ann Kennovin, Community Learning, Argyll and Bute Council Shona Edwards, Community Learning, Argyll and Bute Council Linda Payne, Waterbaby Arts Donna Marie Canavan, Waterbaby Arts Mary-Lou Anderson, Bute and Cowal Engagement Officer Andrew Galloway, Local Democracy Reporter 1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and general introductions were made. Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of: Reeni Kennedy-Boyle, Fyne Futures Michelle Mundie, Argyll Community Housing Association 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest intimated. Page 19 Agenda Item 3c
Page 20
3. MINUTES OF THE BUTE AND COWAL COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP HELD ON 5 NOVEMBER 2024 The Minute of the Bute and Cowal Area Planning Group meeting held on 5 November 2024 was approved as a correct record. 4. AREA COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS The Group gave consideration to a report which outlined the governance arrangements of the Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group (Area CPG) specifically the Terms of Reference, membership and the future meeting dates. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Planning Group: 1. considered and adopted the Terms of Reference submitted at Appendix 1 of the report and to agree that they would be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure their ongoing currency and appropriateness for the work of the Area CPG as it develops over time: 2. considered and agreed the membership of the group at Appendix 2 of the report, subject to the inclusion of the National Farmers Union, Scotland and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and agreed that the membership of the Group would be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure currency and appropriateness for the work of the group as it develops over time; and 3. noted the future meeting dates submitted within the report subject to the change of the date for May 2026 to 28 April 2026. (Reference: Report by Committee Manager, Argyll and Bute Council, dated 4 February 2025, submitted) 5. COMMUNITY PLANNING PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING The Group gave consideration to a report which outlined matters discussed during a meeting of the Community Planning Partnership (CPP) Management Committee held on 6 December 2024. The report provided information on a number of cross cutting themes such as the Census – Population Update; Joint Strategic Needs Assessment from NHS Highland, CPP Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan; CPP Community Wealth Building; Argyll and Bute Council Equalities Outcomes Consultation and Audit Scotland’s Tackling Digital Exclusion. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group considered and noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Committee Manager, Argyll and Bute Council dated 4 February 2025, submitted) Page 20
Page 21
6. ASPIRING PLACES - COMMUNITY PROJECTS IN ARGYLL AND BUTE The Group gave consideration to a presentation by the Corporate Support Manager, Argyll and Bute Council, in relation to the Council’s Aspiring Places; Community Project in Argyll and Bute. The presentation provided background information in relation to the revised approach which is deemed to be more sustainable, dynamic and an efficient way to not only capture community projects, but allow community groups to use CONSUL Democracy as a ‘shop window’ to attract funders and promote collaboration. Stuart Green outlined the projects next steps and that it will launch at the end of March 2025. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group noted the information provided. (Reference: Presentation by Corporate Support Manager, Argyll and Bute Council, submitted) 7. PARTNER UPDATES (a) Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Update The Group gave consideration to a report highlighting the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s (SFRS) FQ3 review of local performance across Bute and Cowal for the period 2024/25. The report included information on the local firefighter training plan; accidental dwelling fires; casualties; deliberate secondary fire setting; fires in non-domestic property; casualties from non-fire emergencies; unwanted fire alarm signals; incidents and activities of note and community engagement activities. Christopher Spence advised there will be a change to the pathway system which will be hosted on a new platform from 12 February which will require re-registration. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group considered and noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, submitted) (b) Public Health Consideration was given to a public health update from Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership’s Public Health Team on the ongoing wellbeing and prevention activities overseen and delivered by them in Page 21
Page 22
Argyll and Bute. The update provided information on the Argyll and Bute Joint Strategic Needs Assessment which was published in December 2024; the expansion of the Community Link Working service; the launch of the Mental Health Hub – Living Well in Argyll and Bute digital resource and mental health awareness and suicide prevention training available. The report also provided information on the work undertaken as part of the alcohol and drugs partnership; the screening inequalities grants funding which has been awarded to Argyll and Bute; the end of the Waverly Care contract; and the end of the existing Living Well Network coordination. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group noted the information provided. (Reference: Report by Health Improvement Senior, Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership, dated February 2025, submitted) (c) Transport Scotland Consideration was given to an update from Transport Scotland which highlighted the continuing traffic management arrangements at the Rest and Be Thankful and that there is a final section of debris flow barrier still to be installed at sectors 3a and 3b which is planned for February; the Cairndow signage improvement works are ongoing and that they are still waiting on SSE to determine power connection and that the emergency works at Furnace were successfully completed during November 2024 to mitigate river erosion. Mr Woodcock also provided the Group with note of planned works at Ardgarten, work on Fyne Bridge and drainage works at Loch Fyne Oyster Bar, Succoth. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group noted the information provided. (Reference: Report by Area Manager, Transport Scotland, submitted) (d) Argyll and Bute Third Sector Interface Consideration was given to an update from Janis Marshall Reilly from Argyll and Bute TSI. The update included information in relation to Chief Executive Officer, Takki Sulaiman’s, contribution to TSI Scotland Network’s document; activities of the Third Sector Support Advisor; Funding for third sector organisations; Day Services for Older People review; activities of the Wellbeing Development Manager; Winter welcome spaces and volunteer of the year awards 2025 which has two new Page 22
Page 23
categories for this year. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group considered and noted the information provided. (Reference: Report by Argyll and Bute TSI, dated January 2025, submitted) (e) UHI Argyll - Rothesay and Dunoon Consideration was given to a written update from UHI Argyll. The update included information on January start courses that are available; commercial courses available and open events and taster sessions. Rhona Aitken reported that the Maritime Rope Workshop course was a success and they are hoping to replicate this in the future. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group considered and noted the information provided. (Reference: Report by UHI Argyll dated 21 January 2025, submitted) (f) Opportunity for Verbal Updates Live Argyll Community Learning Services Shona Edwards reported that the Community Learning team had use of the upstairs of the Moat Centre Library for youth work and adult learning and that as the Library will be 50 years old this year there will be some promotional work on this to celebrate the History of the Library. Ann Kennovin highlighted that the youth work bill was out for consultation and they were hoping to get young people to contribute and that they are continuing to work with primary 7 students to ensure a smooth transition into secondary school Skills Development Scotland Susan MacRae confirmed that duding for national training initiatives will soon pass from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council and that officers are working to ensure that service users experience a smooth transition. Susan also advised they she is continuing to deliver the PACE programme to support those facing reducing into positive destinations. Argyll and Bute Council, Economic Growth - Visitor Levy Consultation On behalf of colleagues in Economic Growth, the Committee Manager, advised that the Council is running a formal visitor levy consultation until 10 April 2025 and urged Partners to find out what it could mean for them Page 23
Page 24
and the area and to give their views. The consultation can be accessed here : council website. Stuart also confirmed that the Council will be hosting a series of drop-in events and online information webinars to help people in Argyll and Bute to find out more and get involved in assessing the possible introduction of a Visitor Levy. The online webinars will last one hour, to book a space please follow this link Visitor levy information events to take place across Argyll and Bute Stuart added that there is no requirement to book a space for the drop-in events which will be held across Argyll and Bute. Stuart highlighted 2 events in particular, Rothesay on 10 March, hosted in the Academy 4.30pm-7pm and in the Queen Hall, Dunoon, on 28 March 4pm-7pm. (g) Police Scotland Consideration was given to an update which provided information on the ongoing work and priorities of the Service and information on Serious and organised crime, crimes of theft and dishonesty, road safety and road crime, violent crime and public protection. The report also highlighted some local policing news items, including the recruitment of 5 new probationary officers on Bute with 2 in Dunoon and forward planning issues. Inspector Bart Simonis advised that Friday’s storm was challenging for Argyll and Bute, and that he had witnessed great partnership working to keep things moving throughout the area. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group considered and noted the information provided. (Reference: Report by Police Scotland dated January 2025, submitted) 8. COMMUNITY FOCUS (a) Waterbaby Arts of Dunoon Consideration was given to a presentation by Linda Payne and Donna Canavan, Chairperson of Waterbaby Arts, a non-profit charity organisation that was started in Glasgow. Waterbaby Arts provides workshops, support and services across four Council areas providing movement and creative arts classes which are accessible to people of all ages with disabilities. At the heart of the initiative of the organisation is the provision of a safe environment for a variety of people and their families to encourage children to participate in movement and the arts. The Chair thanked Linda and Donna for their presentation and short video and wished them every success for the future. Decision Page 24
Page 25
The Bute and Cowal Area Planning Group considered and noted the information provided. (Reference: Presentation by Donna Canavan and Linda Payne, Chairperson of Waterbaby Arts) 9. CLIMATE CHANGE (a) Argyll and Bute Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for Argyll and Bute Consideration was given to a report providing an update on the Community Planning Partnership’s Argyll and Bute Climate Action Project: Developing a Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for Argyll and Bute. Andy MacPherson advised that he was working with the Councils resilience team with a view to enhance resilience at a more local level after lessons learned following Storm Eowyn. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group noted the approach and status of the project outlined in the report. (Reference: Report by Climate Change Project Manager, Argyll & the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust, dated 22 January 2025, submitted) (b) Argyll and Bute Climate Action Network - Colglen Community Trust on LLP and CAP Consideration was given to a verbal update by Mary-Lou Anderson, Engagement Officer who works in the Tighnabruaich area in a team of three who job share. Mary-Lou advised that they have been assisting the Community Council and the Community Trust in developing a Local Place Plan. A survey was launched throughout the area with a 25% return rate and that they are now in a position, to create a report to feed back to the Steering Group with some goals and recommendations. Decision The Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group considered and noted the information provided. (Reference: Presentation by Mary-Lou Anderson, Bute & Cowal Engagement Officer) (c) Opportunity for verbal updates on community based initiatives Argyll and Bute’s Community Development Team Page 25
Page 26
Aimie Dow highlighted the Supporting Communities Fund would be launched on 31 March 2024. Argyll and Bute Third Sector Interface Janice Marshall Reilly thanked the teachers for all their support during the storm when schools were closed and in providing activities for the children. She further highlighted the event for Community and Management in Gaelic which was really insightful delivered by the Gaelic Development Office. 10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The Group noted that the next meeting of the Bute and Cowal Area Community Planning Group would take place on Tuesday 6 May 2025. Page 26
Page 27
1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 4 MARCH 2025 AREA PERFORMANCE REPORT – FQ3 2024/25 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 This paper presents the Area Performance Report for Financial Quarter 3 2024/25 (October to December 2024) and illustrates the agreed performance measures. 1.2 The features of the Performance Report are as follows:- Indicators are grouped by Corporate Outcome. The data table for each indicator is colour coded to identify the level of reporting. o Area level measures are blue o Council level measures are grey o COI measures are white Each indicator details the o Target, Actual and Performance status (Green / Red / No Target) for the current and four previous financial quarters. o Commentary for the current financial quarter only. o Narrative explaining the performance trend e.g. This indicator is above Target and performance has improved since the last reporting period. o Where appropriate a Performance Trend Line has been added. o The name of the Responsible Officer. o Where possible performance is presented at both Area and Council level. 1.3 The commentary for each indicator helps ‘Tell Our Story’ and enables Elected Members to put the performance data into perspective and understand if an issue is local in nature or should be escalated up to a Strategic Committee. 1.4 As part of our improvements to performance reporting and making best use of the digital technology available to us, the information contained in this report is also available in your online scorecard which can be accessed via the Members area on The Hub. If support is required to navigate the online scorecard, please contact lorna.gillies@argyll-bute.gov.uk 1.5 To improve the response to performance queries, it is requested that should there be any queries that either the Responsible Person or Kay Owen are contacted. This should enable some queries being resolved or clarified prior to the Area Committee meeting, and therefore being carried forward as Actions at a subsequent meeting. Page 27 Agenda Item 5
Page 28
2 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Area Committee – a) Notes and considers the performance and supporting commentary as presented. 3.0 IMPLICATIONS 3.1 Policy All of the indicators in this report are based on agreed Council policy. 3.2 Financial All indicators with financial implications are actively managed through agreed budget monitoring processes. 3.3 Legal All appropriate legal implications are complied with. 3.4 HR All HR implications are actively managed through agreed Wellbeing and Management monitoring processes. 3.5 Fairer Scotland Duty See below. 3.5.1 Equalities All activities comply with Equal Opportunities/Fairer Scotland Duty policies and obligations. 3.5.2 Socio-economic Duty All activities comply with the council’s socio- economic duty. 3.5.3 Islands Duty All activities comply with the council’s islands duty. 3.6 Climate Change The Council is committed to working towards net zero. 3.7 Risk Without this information Elected Members are less informed of activities within their area. 3.8 Customer Service All activities with customer feedback or insight are rigorously monitored for improvement. 3.9 The Rights of the Child This report highlights examples of how the Council is (UNCRC) committed to, and working towards reducing child poverty and improving outcomes for every child. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services Jane Fowler Head of Customer Support Services 11 February 2025 For further information, please contact: Kay Owen Team Lead - Organisation Development Project Office - Customer Support Services 01546 604073 Appendix 1: FQ3 2024/25 B&C Performance Report Page 28
Page 29
# Indicator Responsible Person Reported Page COI - Maximise distribution of Scottish Welfare Fund Fergus Walker A&B only 3 COI - Percentage of clients satisfied that they are better able to deal with their financial problems following our support and intervention Lee Roberts A&B only 4 Number of parking penalty notices issued Hugh O'Neill Area 5 Car parking income to date (cumulative) Hugh O'Neill Area 6 - 7 Number of dog fouling complaints Tom Murphy Area 8 COI - Increase the percentage of our care experienced young people that have the recommended additional tracking and monitoring plans in place Louise Chisholm A&B only 9 COI - Provide quality meals within cost margins to all pupils Christine Boyle A&B only 10 Maximise the percentage of 16-19 year olds participating in education, training or employment Jennifer Crocket Area 11 2024/25 FQ3 Bute and Cowal Performance Report The information presented is a summary of the agreed measures. Unless stated otherwise, performance is presented at both Area and Council-wide levels. The measure shows the performance against target for the current previous three reporting periods with an explanation of performance trend. Where appropriate a trend line has been added to illustrate movement in 'Actual' over the reporting period. Corporate Outcome: People live active, healthier and happier lives Corporate Outcome: People live in safer and stronger communities Corporate Outcome: Children and young people have the best possible start Corporate Outcome: Education, skills and training maximises opportunities for all Page 29
Page 30
# Indicator Responsible Person Reported Page Number of affordable social sector new builds completed per annum Kelly Ferns Area 12 Percentage of pre-planning application enquiries processed within 20 working days Peter Bain Area 13 - 14 Average number of weeks to determine householder planning applications Peter Bain Area 15 - 16 COI - Number of new homeless applicants who required temporary accommodation this period Morven Macintyre A&B only 17 COI - Maintain the percentage of local suppliers that benefit from the award of contracts via the procurement portal Anne MacColl-Smith A&B only 18 COI - Increase the number of community benefits that are delivered through contracts we award locally Anne MacColl-Smith A&B only 19 Percentage of street lighting faults repaired within 10 days Tom Murphy Area 20 Number of waste collection complaints Tom Murphy Area 21 - 22 COI (part) - Percentage of waste recycled, composted and recovered John Blake Area 23 - 24 COI - Number of tonnes of waste sent to landfill John Blake A&B only 25 COI - LEAMS (Local Environment Audit and Management System) Tom Murphy Area 26 - 27 COI - Teacher sickness absence Jennifer Crocket (B&C and MAKI) Wendy Brownlie (H&L and OLI) Area 28 COI - LGE staff (including non-Teacher) sickness absence Carolyn Cairns Area 29 COI - Increase the percentage of all self-service automated contacts Robert Miller A&B only 30 Corporate Outcome: We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth Corporate Outcome: Making it happen Corporate Outcome: Our economy is diverse and thriving Page 30
Page 31
# Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 95.3% 79.7% -15.6% Red - Actual below Target As at 31 December 2024 , our expenditure stands at £423,302. This represents an underspend of £107,914 of our budgeted profiled amount. To date the number of applications is down by 10% compared to the same period last year, however the average award amount has increased by almost £50. As in previous years we expect an increase in both applications and awards in the final quarter of this year. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 138.2% 2023/24 FQ4 128.6% 2024/25 FQ1 94.0% 2024/25 FQ2 72.9% 2024/25 FQ3 79.7% Corporate Outcome - People live active, healthier and happier lives COI - Maximise distribution of Scottish Welfare Fund Responsible Person: Fergus Walker This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported quarterly. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for FQ3 is lower than the target however performance has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line As of 30 September 2024, our expenditure stands at £258,079. However as our confirmed budget allocation has increased to £708,284 which includes £458,284 from the Scottish Government programme fund and £250,000 provided by the Council to address cost pressures. Therefore this represents an underspend of £96,065 to date. The number of applications to the fund is down by 11% in this quarter, however the average amount of award is higher compared to last year. As the next 6 months can be the most challenging for our vulnerable claimants we expect increases in both applications and spend going forward. 3 Page 31
Page 32
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 100% 100% 0% Green - Actual meets Target This is a voluntary survey with no obligation for clients to respond either in full or in part. It is also common for incomplete returns to be received. In FQ3 2024/25, 17 survey forms were distributed to clients. 9 were returned. Of these 9 returns, 8 responded to the question relating to being better able to deal with their financial problems. Of these 8 respondents, 8 responded positively, whilst 0 responded negatively. Accordingly, 100% of clients that responded were positive about their experience i.e. no negative comments or responses were reported. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 100% 2023/24 FQ4 100% 2024/25 FQ1 100% 2024/25 FQ2 100% 2024/25 FQ3 100% Actual trend line This is a voluntary survey with no obligation for clients to respond either in full or in part. It is also common for incomplete returns to be received. In FQ2 2024/25, 14 survey forms were distributed to clients. 4 were returned. Of these 4 returns, 4 responded to the question relating to being better able to deal with their financial problems. Of these 4 respondents, 4 responded positively, whilst 0 responded negatively. Accordingly, 100% of clients that responded were positive about their experience i.e. no negative comments or responses were reported. Corporate Outcome - People live active, healthier and happier lives COI - Percentage of clients satisfied that they are better able to deal with their financial problems following our support and intervention Responsible Person: Lee Roberts This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported quarterly. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for FQ3 meets the target with no change in performance since the last reporting period. 4 Page 32
Page 33
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C No Target 245 N/A N/A Increase from last quarter and up compared to previous year FQ3. The "off-season" has allowed the B&C warden to focus locally. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 226 2023/24 FQ4 214 2024/25 FQ1 251 2024/25 FQ2 195 2024/25 FQ3 245 2024/25 FQ3 A&B No Target 968 N/A N/A Decrease on previous FQ3 but within general range. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 1,015 2023/24 FQ4 1,196 2024/25 FQ1 1,763 2024/25 FQ2 2,302 2024/25 FQ3 968 Corporate Outcome - People live in safer and stronger communities Number of parking penalty notices issued Responsible Person: Hugh O'Neill This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of parking penalty notices has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line There has been a decrease in PCNs issued for the Bute and Cowal area as the warden has been covering the Luss area in line with the new Traffic Regulation order. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of parking penalty notices has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line There is a substantial increase since last year's FQ2, this is mainly due to the extra patrols in the Luss area on the back of the Traffic Regulation order being progressed and enforced as per the wishes of local Luss Village residents. 5 Page 33
Page 34
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C £18,372 £12,383 -£5,989 Red - Actual below Target The poor weather during FQ3 may have impacted vistor numbers. The waiving of charges for winter festivals and the free parking over the festive period may have had a detrimental impact on income. Period Target Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 £71,239 £48,303 2023/24 FQ4 £86,511 £64,271 2024/25 FQ1 £17,135 £7,755 2024/25 FQ2 £20,132 £27,788 2024/25 FQ3 £18,372 £12,383 £2,017 £0 £348 £1,402 £3,168 £1,918 £3,530 £0 £12,383 Corporate Outcome - People live in safer and stronger communities Car parking income to date (cumulative) Responsible Person: Hugh O'Neill This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 shows the cumulative amount of income is lower than the cumulative target. Dunoon Pier Moir Street,Dunoon Argyll Street, Dunoon Jane Villa, Dunoon B&C Total Actual trend line There is no trend as this data is cumulative as of FQ1 each financial year. Despite the relatively poor summer weather, B&C Parking income has seen an increase in budget recovery, this may well be due to an increased presence by the local warden in Dunoon coupled with a possible rise in visitor numbers. Income Collected During FQ3 Guildford Square, Rothesay Church Street, Dunoon Swimming Pool, Dunoon 6 Page 34
Page 35
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B £237,910 £248,502 £10,592 Green - Actual exceeds Target An increase in income but generally on track with targets. Period Target Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 £797,331 £807,348 2023/24 FQ4 £968,262 £937,090 2024/25 FQ1 £289,219 £247,216 2024/25 FQ2 £373,922 £391,990 2024/25 FQ3 £237,910 £248,502 This indicator for FQ3 shows the cumulative amount of income has exceeded the cumulative target. Actual trend line There is no trend as this data is cumulative as of FQ1 each financial year. Events in Oban, the new TRO in Luss as well as a full time warden in Dunoon has most likely been the source of extra income coming through our parking areas. Corporate Outcome - People live in safer and stronger communities Car parking income to date (cumulative) Responsible Person: Hugh O'Neill This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. 7 Page 35
Page 36
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C No Target 22 N/A N/A There has been a rise in the number of dog fouling complaints this quarter in the Bute and Cowal area, with Bute receiving 8 complaints and Cowal receiving 14. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 14 2023/24 FQ4 19 2024/25 FQ1 12 2024/25 FQ2 12 2024/25 FQ3 22 2024/25 FQ3 A&B No Target 65 N/A N/A A total of 65 dog fouling complaints were received for the whole of Argyll and Bute this quarter. This may seem high, however it has been found that dog fouling can be seasonal with spikes in dark nights and dark mornings with a lot of dog walkers refraining from walking their dogs off the beaten tracks in the winter months. The warden service will continue to monitor as and when time allows. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 46 2023/24 FQ4 65 2024/25 FQ1 57 2024/25 FQ2 33 2024/25 FQ3 65 Corporate Outcome - People live in safer and stronger communities Number of dog fouling complaints Responsible Person: Tom Murphy This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of dog fouling complaints has increased since the last reporting period. This indicator for 0 shows the number of dog fouling complaints has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line This quarter has seen the number of dog fouling complaints reduce significantly to 33 throughout the whole Argyll and Bute Council area, this is very good and is partyly down to the presence of the Warden Service. In August the service recruited another Amenity Warden who will cover the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay areas. Actual trend line For the Bute and Cowal area the total number of dog fouling complaints received this quarter was 12. Bute received 9 and Cowal 3. 8 Page 36
Page 37
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 100% 100% 0% Green - Actual meets Target Each care experienced child and young person (CECYP) enrolled in an authority school has tracking and monitoring plans in place via our education management information system known as Seemis. Data collated includes attendance, exclusion, progress and attainment and wellbeing information. We are continouosly working alongside schools and partner agencies to ensure the CE status is accurately reflected. Enhanced reporting and scrutinising of data, alongside greater awarness of our CECYP, has led to earlier and positive intervention. This is evidenced through our attainment data which shows a reduced learning gap between CE and non-CE learners since 2021 -22 (with both cohorts showing increased attainment). We continue to work with partner agencies to support cross authority tracking and monitoring to support CECYP hosted out with Argyll and Bute. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 100% 2023/24 FQ4 100% 2024/25 FQ1 100% 2024/25 FQ2 100% 2024/25 FQ3 100% Actual trend line Each care experienced child and young person enrolled in an authority school has tracking and monitoring plans in place via our education management information system knowns as Seemis. Data collated includes attendance, exclusion, progress and attainment and wellbeing information. The Virtual Head Teacher (VHT) for Care Experienced Children and Young People (CECYP) works closely with the education team and receives monthly reports specific to CECYP. The VHT has focussed attainment meets with Designated Managers for CECYP across authoriy settings. Our tacking and monitoring data is scrutinised during these meets to ensure each young person has the correct framework of support to help them achieve success. Our 2023 - 24 data (still embargoed to quality assurace process) evidences the positive impact of this enhaced level of scrutiny, support and challenge. The profile of our CECYP continues to be raised through system improvements, training opportunities, information sharing (as appropriate) leading to greater consideration of personalised support at all stages of the young peron's educational journey. Feedback evidences that wider school staff have increased awareness of the needs of our CECYP cohort. We are able to work with Virtual Head Teachers from Scottish wide local authorities to develop a data sharing agreeemnt to support cross authority tracking and monitoring to support CECYP hosted out with Argylll and Bute. Corporate Outcome - Children and young people have the best possible start COI - Increase the percentage of our care experienced young people that have the recommended additional tracking and monitoring plans in place Responsible Person: Louise Lawson This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported quarterly. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for FQ3 meets the target with no change in performance since the last reporting period. 9 Page 37
Page 38
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B +/-5.00% 0% 5% Green - Actual exceeds Target We continue to monitor schools that are not achieving the +/- 5% target. B&C 6.21, H&L -3.88%, MAKI -4.58%, OLI 1.68% Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 4.12% 2023/24 FQ4 -3.44% 2024/25 FQ1 0.48% 2024/25 FQ2 -1.37% 2024/25 FQ2 0.14% Corporate Outcome - Children and young people have the best possible start COI - Provide quality meals within cost margins to all pupiles Responsible Person: Christine Boyle This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported quarterly. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for FQ3 within the +/5.00% variance and performance has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line We continue to monitor schools that are not achieving the +/- 5% target. B&C -5.65%, H&L -5.52%, MAKI 6.55%, OLI 3.26 10 Page 38
Page 39
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C 94.00% 92.95% -1.05% Red - Actual below Target As of 3rd February 2025 the participation figure (16–19-year-olds in employment, training or education) in Bute and Cowal was 870 young people, which equates to 92.95%. This is 1.05% below the target and 1.35% below the annual Argyll and Bute participation figure of 94.3% which was released by Skills Development Scotland at the end of August 2024. The participation figure of 92.95% for FQ3 of 2024/25 is a decrease of 2.21% on the participation figure for FQ2 of 2024/25. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 92.97% 2023/24 FQ4 91.16% 2024/25 FQ1 93.56% 2024/25 FQ2 95.16% 2024/25 FQ3 92.95% 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 94.00% 94.19% 0.19% Green - Actual exceeds Target As of 3rd February 2025 the participation figure (16–19-year-olds in employment, training or education) across the whole of Argyll and Bute was 3921 young people, which equates to 94.19%. This is 0.19% above the target and 0.11% below the annual Argyll and Bute participation figure of 94.3% which was released by Skills Development Scotland at the end of August 2024. The participation figure of 94.19% for FQ3 of 2024/25 is a decrease of 1.61% on the participation figure for FQ2 of 2024/25. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 94.37% 2023/24 FQ4 93.59% 2024/25 FQ1 94.99% 2024/25 FQ2 95.80% 2024/25 FQ3 94.19% Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving Maximise the percentage of 16-19 year olds participating in education, training or employment Responsible Person: Jennifer Crocket This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 is lower than the target and performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line As of 10th October 2024, the participation figure (16-19 year-olds in employment, training or education) for the whole of Argyll and Bute was 4,174 young people, which equates to 95.80%. This is 1.80% above the target and 1.50% above the annual Argyll and Bute participation figure of 94.30% which was released by Skills Development Scotland at the end of August 2024. The participation figure of 95.80% for FQ2 of 2024/25 is an increase of 0.81% on the participation figure for FQ1 of 2024/25. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line As of 10th October 2024 the participation figure (16–19-year-olds in employment, training or education) in Bute and Cowal was 924 young people, which equates to 95.16%. This is 1.16% above the target and 0.86% above the annual Argyll and Bute participation figure of 94.3% which was released by Skills Development Scotland at the end of August 2024. The participation figure of 95.16% for FQ2 of 2024/25 is an increase of 1.60% on the participation figure for FQ1 of 2024/25. 11 Page 39
Page 40
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C 0 0 0 Green - Actual meets Target There were no completions in B&C in FQ3. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 4 2023/24 FQ4 0 2024/25 FQ1 0 2024/25 FQ2 0 2024/25 FQ3 0 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 6 6 0 Green - Actual meets Target Fyne Homes completed 6 x 3 bed general needs properties at Baddens, Lochgilphead in FQ3 Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 4 2023/24 FQ4 0 2024/25 FQ1 12 2024/25 FQ2 26 2024/25 FQ3 6 Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving This indicator for FQ3 meets the target however performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line There were 26 units completed during this period. B&C 0 H&L 0 MAKI 20 OLI 6 Number of affordable social sector new builds completed per annum Responsible Person: Kelly Ferns This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 meets the target with no change in performance since the last reporting period. Actual trend line There were no completions in Bute & Cowal in Q2. 12 Page 40
Page 41
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C 75.0% 22.7% -52.3% Red - Actual below Target Performance across the Development Management Service is still being recovered and impacted upon by the management of a significant backlog of casework. Overall output and performance across the Service is improving as staff resource issues have been resolved, however timeliness measures continue to be adversely impacted through the prioritisation of older statutory 'legacy' casework for determination. In order to assist with managing customer expectations the target response period has been temporarily extended to 6 weeks. There continues to be a backlog of pre-application enquiries within the BCHL team which is impacting upon performance although many of the open enquiries are in fact progressing with ongoing dialogue. During FQ3 the BCHL team's pre-app volume throughout increased, with a 118% turnover reported. Working through a backlog of pre-apps inevitably means that the overall percentage turned around in 20 working days will be impacted. Of the 23 pre-apps closed, 18 were from the backlog of cases. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 21.4% 2023/24 FQ4 27.8% 2024/25 FQ1 54.5% 2024/25 FQ2 23.5% 2024/25 FQ3 22.7% This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 is lower than the target and performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Performance across the Development Management Service continues to be impacted by a backlog of casework. Overall performance is improving across the Service as availability of staff resource has delivered improved output, however timeliness measures are adversely impacted as older casework from the backlog is completed. To assist with the management of customer expectations the target for responding to pre-app enquiries has been temporarily extended to 6 weeks. During FQ2 there has been considerable effort to close older pre-app enquiries which has resulted in a reduction of in time responses despite good output. During FQ2 23.5% of responses were issued within 6 weeks. Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving Percentage of pre-planning application enquiries processed within 20 working days Responsible Person: Peter Bain 13 Page 41
Page 42
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 75.0% 48.3% -26.7% Red - Actual below Target Performance across the Development Management Service is still being recovered and impacted upon by the management of a significant backlog of casework. Overall output and performance across the Service is improving as staff resource issues have been resolved, however timeliness measures continue to be adversely impacted through the prioritisation of older statutory 'legacy' casework for determination. In order to assist with managing customer expectations the target response period has been temporarily extended to 6 weeks. There continues to be a backlog of pre-application enquiries within the BCHL team which is impacting upon overall Service performance although many of the open enquiries are in fact progressing with ongoing dialogue. During FQ3 123 pre-apps were closed aross ABC. Please find links below for supplementary information on performance in this area: PPSL Committee - Development Management Performance Update: https://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s215679/DM%20Performance%20Update%202024-25%20FQ3%20PB%2010.01.2025.pdf Appendix 1: https://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s215680/Appendix%201%20DM%20Performance%20Update%20FQ3%202425.pdf Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 49.1% 2023/24 FQ4 55.0% 2024/25 FQ1 49.5% 2024/25 FQ2 49.2% 2024/25 FQ3 48.3% Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving Percentage of pre-planning application enquiries processed within 20 working days Responsible Person: Peter Bain This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. Actual trend line Performance across the Development Management Service continues to be impacted by a backlog of casework. Overall performance is improving across the Service as availability of staff resource has delivered improved output, however timeliness measures are adversely impacted as older casework from the backlog is completed. To assist with the management of customer expectations the target for responding to pre-app enquiries has been temporarily extended to 6 weeks. During FQ2 there has been considerable effort to close older pre-app enquiries which has resulted in a slight reduction of in time responses despite good output. During FQ2 57.1% of enquiries were responded to within 6 weeks. This indicator for FQ3 is lower than the target and performance has decreased since the last reporting period. 14 Page 42
Page 43
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C 8.0 16.3 8.3 Red - Actual exceeds Target Performance across the Development Management Service has been impacted by a significant backlog of casework. Whilst issues relating to staff resource availability have been resolved and output has significantly improved it is highlighted that KPI's measuring average time taken are adversely affected by the resolution of increasing volumes of 'legacy' casework which significantly skew reporting, particularly at area level where this relates to a small number of applications. During FQ3 6 'householder' applications were determined in B&C; these included 1 'legacy' item. Excluding this 'legacy' item the average time taken to determine the other 5 applications was 10.8 weeks. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 23.5 2023/24 FQ4 17.2 2024/25 FQ1 11.4 2024/25 FQ2 43.4 2024/25 FQ3 16.3 Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving Average number of weeks to determine householder planning applications Responsible Person: Peter Bain This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Performance across the Development Management Service continues to be impacted by a significant backlog of casework although performance is now improving alongside improved staff resource availability. Improved output does however involve the determination of increasing volumes of older 'legacy' case work. The determination of a higher than normal volume of older cases has a significant adverse impact on average time reporting measures as a small number of old cases significantly skew the overall output. FQ2 has seen the determination of 5 legacy items amongst a higher volume of newer casework. It is highlighted that during FQ2 75% of all householder applications determined were less than 6 months old and that these were determined within an average timescale of 9.6 weeks. 15 Page 43
Page 44
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status 0 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 8.0 15.9 7.9 Red - Actual exceeds Target Performance across the Development Management Service has been impacted by a significant backlog of casework. Whilst issues relating to staff resource availability have been resolved and output has significantly improved it is highlighted that KPI's measuring average time taken are adversely affected by the resolution of increasing volumes of 'legacy' casework which significantly skew reporting, particularly at area level where this relates to a small number of applications. During FQ3 60 'householder' applications were determined across all of ABC; these included 7 'legacy' items. Excluding the'legacy' items the average time taken to determine the other 53 applications was 10.2 weeks. Please find links below for supplementary information on performance in this area: PPSL Committee - Development Management Performance Update: https://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s215679/DM%20Performance%20Update%202024-25%20FQ3%20PB%2010.01.2025.pdf Appendix 1: https://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s215680/Appendix%201%20DM%20Performance%20Update%20FQ3%202425.pdf Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 16.8 2023/24 FQ4 20.0 2024/25 FQ1 16.1 2024/25 FQ2 26.1 2024/25 FQ3 15.9 Responsible Person: Peter Bain This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Performance across the Development Management Service continues to be impacted by a significant backlog of casework although performance is now improving alongside improved staff resource availability. Improved output does however involve the determination of increasing volumes of older 'legacy' case work. The determination of a higher than normal volume of older cases has a significant adverse impact on average time reporting measures as a small number of old cases significantly skew the overall output. FQ2 has seen the determination of 11 legacy items amongst a higher volume of newer casework. It is highlighted that during FQ2 75% of all householder applications determined were less than 6 months old and that these were determined within an average timescale of 9.6 weeks. Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving Average number of weeks to determine householder planning applications 16 Page 44
Page 45
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B No Target 27 N/A N/A During FQ3, the housing service took 90 homeless applications and provided temporary accommodation for 27 new homeless households. B&C: Out of 25 Homeless Applications, 8 new households went in to temporary accommodation (4 x Serviced Accommodation, 4 x Bed & Breakfast). H&L: Out of 22 Homeless Applications, 8 new households went in to temporary accommodation (4 x Serviced Accommodation, 2 x Bed & Breakfast, 1 x Private Sector Lease, 1 x Council Retained). MAKI: Out of 23 Homeless Applications, 7 new household went in to temporary accommodation (3 x Private Sector Lease, 4 x Bed & Breakfast). OLI: Out of 20 Homeless Applications, 4 new households went in to temporary accommodation (3 x Supported Accommodation, 1 x Serviced Accommodation). Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 26 2023/24 FQ4 30 2024/25 FQ1 26 2024/25 FQ2 40 2024/25 FQ3 27 Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving COI - Number of new homeless applicants who required temporary accommodation this period Responsible Person: Morven Macintyre This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported quarterly. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of applicants has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line During FQ2, the housing service took 138 homeless applications and provided temporary accommodation for 40 new homeless households. B&C: Out of 39 Homeless Applications, 16 new households went in to temporary accommodation (3 x Registered Social Landlord, 6 x Serviced Accommodation, 7 x Bed & Breakfast). H&L: Out of 29 Homeless Applications, 4 new households went in to temporary accommodation (3 x Serviced Accommodation, 1 x Bed & Breakfast). MAKI: Out of 46 Homeless Applications, 12 new household went in to temporary accommodation (5 x Private Sector Lease, 7 x Bed & Breakfast). OLI: Out of 24 Homeless Applications, 8 new households went in to temporary accommodation (5 x Supported Accommodation, 1 x Registered Social Landlord, 1 x Serviced Accommodation, 1 x Bed & Breakfast). Please note: • The Registered Social Landlord and Private Rented Sector properties are leased by the Council and sub-let to homeless households as temporary accommodation. • Serviced Accommodation is available in Cowal and Helensburgh and is for single people providing an en-suite bedroom and shared kitchen facilities. • Supported accommodation is provided in Lorn by Blue Triangle Housing Association. 0 • Emergency accommodation may on occasion be provided out with the location of the original presentation due to the pressure on the availability of temporary accommodation 17 Page 45
Page 46
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 20.0% 23.6% 3.6% Green - Actual exceeds Target From the 44 tender/quick quote contract awards during FQ3, 55 suppliers were successful, 13 of which were local suppliers. However, only 18 received local bids. The nature of the types of contracts awarded can impact on submission of local bidders. Of the 18 contracts, 13 were awarded to local suppliers (72.2%) with an estimated total contract value of £9.6m. The Procurement, Commercial and Contract Management Team will continue to support local suppliers by providing useful information on the Council's website. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 27.8% 2023/24 FQ4 14.3% 2024/25 FQ1 36.0% 2024/25 FQ2 10.5% 2024/25 FQ3 23.6% COI - Maintain the percentage of local suppliers that benefit from the award of contracts via the procurement portal Responsible Person: Anne MacColl-Smith This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported quarterly. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target and performance has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line From the 49 tender/quick quote contract awards during FQ2, 57 suppliers were successful, 6 of which were local suppliers. However, only 12 received local bids. The nature of the types of contracts awarded can impact on submission of local bidders. Of the 12 contracts, 6 were awarded to local suppliers (50.0%) with an estimated total contract value of £140k. Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving 18 Page 46
Page 47
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B No Target 0 N/A N/A The next report covering FQ3 & FQ4 2024/25 will be available in April 2025. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 - 2023/24 FQ4 37 2024/25 FQ1 - 2024/25 FQ2 31 2024/25 FQ3 Actual trend line We have been working closely with our suppliers to deliver additional social, economic and environmental value to our society. 31 Community Benefits have been achieved through Contract Management, Contract Awards and the Request List during Q1 & Q2 2024/25. Corporate Outcome - Our economy is diverse and thriving COI - Increase the number of community benefits that are delivered through contracts we award locally Responsible Person: Anne MacColl-Smith This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported in FQ2 and FQ4. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for... 19 Page 47
Page 48
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C 75% 87% 12% Green - Actual exceeds Target Continued Progress with the new tablets and software has seen a marked improvement across the service area. 46 faults reported in total this quarter - a relatively low number. A generally busy period for the Service though and at a time when staff do take annual leave. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 37% 2023/24 FQ4 90% 2024/25 FQ1 91% 2024/25 FQ2 100% 2024/25 FQ3 87% 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 75% 92% 17% Green - Actual exceeds Target Continued Progress with the new tablets and software has seen a marked improvement across the service area. 341 faults reported in total this quarter - a high number but in general we deal with more faults in FQ3 and FQ4 each year. This has been a busy quarter for the Service and at a time when staff do take annual leave. Capital Improvement Schemes will have helped deal with lighting that was that was previously unrealiable. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 46% 2023/24 FQ4 49% 2024/25 FQ1 93% 2024/25 FQ2 97% 2024/25 FQ3 92% Corporate Outcome - We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth Percentage of street lighting faults repaired within 10 days Responsible Person: Tom Murphy This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Since the end of last quarter we now have real time access via remote access tablets for our electricians on the ground for new jobs that come in. It was also summer months meaning the number of faults being logged where low. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Overall introducing the new tablets has had a positive impact on the service, our electricians are working more efficently and effectivly. Summer months also does mean less faults reported by the general public, however that may change in the upcoming winter months. We also have carried out our capital improvements in the Lorn area, and are in the midst of carrying out capital improvements on the Isle of Mull. 20 Page 48
Page 49
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 Bute No Target 0 N/A N/A There were no waste collection complaints received this quarter for the Isle of Bute. An excellent service provided by the Waste Team. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 2 2023/24 FQ4 0 2024/25 FQ1 0 2024/25 FQ2 0 2024/25 FQ3 0 2024/25 FQ3 Cowal No Target 1 N/A N/A Another great service provided by the team in the Cowal area, only 1 waste collection complaint received. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 2 2023/24 FQ4 0 2024/25 FQ1 3 2024/25 FQ2 2 2024/25 FQ3 1 Corporate Outcome - We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth Number of waste collection complaints Responsible Person: Tom Murphy This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of waste collection complaints has remained the same since the last reporting period. Actual trend line There were only 2 waste collection complaints received for the Cowal area for the months of July, August and September. Given the number of properties serviced this is very good. Actual trend line Again this quarter there were no refuse collection complaints received for the Isle of Bute, an excellent service from the waste team. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of waste collection complaints has decreased since the last reporting period. 21 Page 49
Page 50
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B No Target 36 N/A N/A In total there were 36 waste collection complaints received for the whole Argyll and Bute Council area for the months of October, November and December. The majority of which were received in the Helensburgh and Lomond area due to vehicle breakdowns and resourcing. The teams are still delivering a very high level of service to the many properties throughout the areas ensuring the domestic, recycling, glass and food waste is uplifted. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 18 2023/24 FQ4 7 2024/25 FQ1 38 2024/25 FQ2 26 2024/25 FQ3 36 Corporate Outcome - We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth Number of waste collection complaints Responsible Person: Tom Murphy This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of waste collection complaints has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line There were only 26 waste collection complaints received this quarter for the whole of the Argyll and Bute Council area. Given the number of properties serviced and the various waste collected over the summer months this is a very good level of service. 22 Page 50
Page 51
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 45.0% 65.4% 20.4% Green - Actual exceeds Target 65.4% recycling, composting and recovery (37.2% recycling/composting plus 28.2% recovery) . Target exceeded mainly due to high recovery levels for Helensburgh and Lomond's residual waste which now goes for refuse derived fuel (RDF) instead of landfill. Less garden waste composted during this quarter than FQ2 which is expected as green waste composting is higher during spring/summer periods. Recycling and composting rate of 37.2% is marginally higher than same quarter in previous year (which was 36.1%). Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 49.0% 2023/24 FQ4 74.0% 2024/25 FQ1 68.4% 2024/25 FQ2 70.5% 2024/25 FQ3 65.4% 2024/25 FQ3 Renewi No Target 52.4% N/A N/A 52.4% recycling, composting and recovery (35.3% recycling/composting plus 17.1% recovery) . Less garden waste composted during this quarter than FQ2 which is expected as green waste composting is higher during spring/summer periods. Recycling and composting rate of 35.3% is marginally higher than same quarter in previous year (which was 33.9%). Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 55.3% 2023/24 FQ4 66.5% 2024/25 FQ1 56.2% 2024/25 FQ2 61.3% 2024/25 FQ3 52.4% Actual trend line 70.5% recycling, composting and recovery (45.2% recycling/composting plus 25.3% recovery). Exceeds target due to increases in recycling and recovery. For example, a significant amount of over 1000 tonnes of stockpiled rubble at Renewi's Moleigh Waste and Recycling Facility was processed into materials for hardstanding at the site during the quarter. There was also slight tonnage increases in recycling of wood, blue bin materials and glass during the quarter. Recovery continues to improve compared to 2023 with the Helensburgh and Lomond general waste no longer going to landfill and instead going for refuse derived fuel (RDF)/energy from waste (EFW). This indicator for FQ3 shows the percentage of waste recycled has decreased since the last reporting period. Corporate Outcome - We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth COI - Percentage of waste recycled, composted and recovered Responsible Person: John Blake This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is by Council-wide service provision. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line 61.3% recycling, composting and recovery (44.3% recycling/composting plus 17.0% recovery). Increased recycling during the quarter mainly due to over 1000 tonnes of stockpiled rubble at Renewi's Moleigh Waste and Recycling Facility being processed into materials for hardstanding at the site. There was also slight tonnage increase in blue bin recycling during the quarter. 23 Page 51
Page 52
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status 0 2024/25 FQ3 Islands No Target 44.2% N/A N/A 44.2% recycling, composting and recovery (31.9% recycling/composting plus 12.3% recovery) . Less garden waste composted during this quarter than FQ2 which is expected as green waste composting is higher during spring/summer periods. Recovery rate of 12.3% in quarter is higher than same quarter in previous year (which was 0%) as residual waste from Coll and Tiree now goes for refuse derived fuel (RDF) instead of landfill. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 34.2% 2023/24 FQ4 41.5% 2024/25 FQ1 45.8% 2024/25 FQ2 51.8% 2024/25 FQ3 44.2% 2024/25 FQ3 H&L No Target 100.0% N/A N/A 100% recycling, composting and recovery (43.1% recycling/composting plus 56.9% recovery) . High recovery levels for Helensburgh and Lomond's residual waste which now goes for refuse derived fuel (RDF) instead of landfill. Less garden waste composted during this quarter than FQ2 which is expected as green waste composting is higher during spring/summer periods. Recycling and composting rate of 43.1% is marginally higher than same quarter in previous year (which was 40.8%). Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 41.5% 2023/24 FQ4 100.0% 2024/25 FQ1 100.0% 2024/25 FQ2 100.0% 2024/25 FQ3 100.0% This indicator for FQ3 shows the percentage of waste recycled has decreased since the last reporting period. Corporate Outcome - We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth COI - Percentage of waste recycled, composted and recovered Responsible Person: John Blake This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is by Council-wide service provision. Actual trend line 100% recycling, composting and recovery (48% recycling/composting plus 52% recovery). There was slight tonnage increases in recycling of wood, blue bin materials and glass during the quarter. Recovery continues to be high compared to 2023 with the Helensburgh and Lomond general waste no longer going to landfill and instead going for refuse derived fuel (RDF)/energy from waste (EFW). Actual trend line 51.8% recycling, composting and recovery (43.5% recycling/composting plus 8.2% recovery). There was slight tonnage increases in recycling of wood, blue bin materials and glass during the quarter. Recovery continues to improve compared to 2023 with the Tiree/Coll general waste no longer going to landfill and instead going for refuse derived fuel (RDF)/energy from waste (EFW). This indicator for FQ3 shows the percentage of waste recycled has remained the same since the last reporting period. 24 Page 52
Page 53
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 5,100 2,846 -2,254 Green - Actual below Target Well within biodegradable municpal waste target for the quarter mainly due to the residual waste from Helensburgh and Lomond area now all going for refuse derived fuel (RDF)/ energy from waste (EFW) whereas this was previously sent to landfill in same quarter in 2023. Period Target Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 5,100 4,253 2023/24 FQ4 5,000 2,567 2024/25 FQ1 5,850 3,200 2024/25 FQ2 5,550 3,225 2024/25 FQ3 5,100 2,846 Corporate Outcome - We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth COI - Number of tonnes of waste sent to landfill Responsible Person: John Blake This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported quarterly. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for FQ3 is lower than the target (lowest is best). Actual trend line Well within target partly due to increased recycling during the quarter e.g. rubble, wood, glass and blue bin recycling. A significant factor also is that the Helensburgh and Lomond general waste now goes for refuse derived fuel (RDF)/energy from waste (EFW) instead of going to landfill (which it was in 2023). 25 Page 53
Page 54
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 Bute 73 78 5 Green - Actual exceeds Target The Isle of Bute has again this quarter exceeded the bench marking and national average with a street cleanliness score of 78, meaning the Island's street cleanliness is to a good standard. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 80 2023/24 FQ4 81 2024/25 FQ1 81 2024/25 FQ2 80 2024/25 FQ3 78 2024/25 FQ3 Cowal 73 77 4 Green - Actual exceeds Target Cowal's street cleanliness figure remains steady this quarter, thanks to the teams working in this area ensuring the area is well maintained. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 77 2023/24 FQ4 76 2024/25 FQ1 75 2024/25 FQ2 78 2024/25 FQ3 77 Corporate Outcome - We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth COI - LEAMS (Local Environment Audit and Management System) Responsible Person: Tom Murphy This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Again this quarter the street cleansing figure for the Cowal area remains good at 78. Actual trend line Again this quarter the street cleansing figure for the Isle of Bute remains high at 80, exceeding both the national standard and benchmark figure. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has decreased since the last reporting period. 26 Page 54
Page 55
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 73 84 11 Green - Actual exceeds Target The street cleanliness figure for the months of October, November and December for the whole of the Argyll and Bute Council area remains high. This means the areas scored show no or a very small amount of litter visible but not detracting from the look of the area. The teams on both the mainland and islands are providing a good service by ensuring weeds, detritus, litter, fly posting, grafitti etc are being dealt with timeously. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 85 2023/24 FQ4 83 2024/25 FQ1 84 2024/25 FQ2 85 2024/25 FQ3 84 Actual trend line For the months of July, August and September the overall figure for street cleanliness within Argyll and Bute is sitting at 85, this is a very good level of service provided by the teams on both the mainland and the Islands. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target however performance has decreased since the last reporting period. Corporate Outcome - We have an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth COI - LEAMS (Local Environment Audit and Management System) Responsible Person: Tom Murphy This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. 27 Page 55
Page 56
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C No Target 3.76 N/A N/A Work days lost has increased by 0.04 of a day on the same quarter last year and has increased by 1.67 of a day from the previous quarter. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 3.72 2023/24 FQ4 4.00 2024/25 FQ1 2.95 2024/25 FQ2 2.09 2024/25 FQ2 3.76 2024/25 FQ3 A&B No Target 2.89 N/A N/A Work days lost has increased by 0.07 of a day on the same quarter last year and has increased by 1.12 of a day from the previous quarter. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 2.82 2023/24 FQ4 2.82 2024/25 FQ1 2.14 2024/25 FQ2 1.77 2024/25 FQ3 2.89 Corporate Outcome - Making it happen COI - Teacher sickness absence Responsible Person: Jennifer Crocket (B&C and MAKI) / Wendy Brownlie (H&L and OLI) This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of sickness absence days has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Work days lost has increased by 0.09 of a day on the same quarter last year and has decreased by 0.86 of a day from the previous quarter. Main work days lost have been due to long term Medical Treatment related reasons. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of sickness absence days has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Work days lost has increased by 0.52 of a day on the same quarter last year and has decreased by 0.37 of a day from the previous quarter. Main work days lost have been due to Mental Health related reasons. 28 Page 56
Page 57
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 B&C No Target 4.65 N/A N/A Work days lost has increased by 0.23 of a day on the same quarter last year and has increased by 0.78 of a day from the previous quarter. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 4.42 2023/24 FQ4 4.64 2024/25 FQ1 4.53 2024/25 FQ2 3.87 2024/25 FQ3 4.65 2024/25 FQ3 A&B No Target 4.40 N/A N/A Work days lost has increased by 0.67 of a day on the same quarter last year and has increased by 0.97 of a day from the previous quarter. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 3.73 2023/24 FQ4 4.12 2024/25 FQ1 3.85 2024/25 FQ2 3.43 2024/25 FQ3 4.40 Corporate Outcome - Making it happen COI - LGE staff (including non-Teacher) sickness absence Responsible Person: Carolyn Cairns This indicator is reported quarterly. The performance presented is at area level and Council-wide. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of sickness absence days has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Work days lost has increased by 0.25 of a day on the same quarter last year and has decreased by 0.42 of a day from the previous quarter. Main work days lost have been due to Mental Health related reasons. This indicator for FQ3 shows the number of sickness absence days has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line Work days lost has increased by 0.37 of a day on the same quarter last year and has decreased by 0.66 of a day from the previous quarter. Main work days lost have been due to Mental Health related reasons. 29 Page 57
Page 58
Period Area Target Actual Variance Status FQ3 Commentary 2024/25 FQ3 A&B 70.0% 82.7% 12.7% Green - Actual exceeds Target In FQ3 there were 33,666 customer transactions dealt with by Customer Service Agents (17.3%) and 160,491 were automated or self-service transactions (82.7%) so the 70.0% target was substantially bettered. This was largely due to the significant increase in customers using the improved Bin Day Uplift online resources. Period Actual FQ2 Commentary 2023/24 FQ3 72.7% 2023/24 FQ4 70.1% 2024/25 FQ1 71.6% 2024/25 FQ2 72.7% 2024/25 FQ3 82.7% Corporate Outcome - Making it happen COI - Increase the percentage of all self-service automated contacts Responsible Person: Robert Miller This indicator is a Corporate Outcome Indicator that is reported quarterly. The performance presented is Council-wide only. This indicator for FQ3 exceeds the target and performance has increased since the last reporting period. Actual trend line In FQ2 there were 39,421 customer transactions dealt with by Customer Service Agents (27.3%) and 104,776 were automated or self-service transactions (72.7%) so the 70.0% target was bettered. 30 Page 58
Page 59
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4 MARCH 2025 SERVICES ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES UPDATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 A Roads and Infrastructure standing report was a fixture on Area Committee agendas throughout the life of the last Council. In the first two rounds of Area Committee meetings in the new Council feedback was sought on the value of these updates, and their format and frequency. Generally Members felt having a standard item was beneficial and it was acknowledged that the Roads and Infrastructure weekly briefings issued to all members each Friday afternoon provide for the main sources of live information on current activities. On top of these briefings there is a bank of resources on the new Member Zone system which include the weekly briefings, subject specific briefings, ad hoc short briefings on issues, relevant previous committee reports, operational service procedures, legislation and Council policies. 1.2 In the last Council the purpose of these reports was to provide an update on service activities but since weekly briefings these have largely superseded the original stated purpose of these reports. 1.3 On the basis of the above this new format has been agreed through the December 2022 round of area committees for this standing item. This format removes duplication for Officers and rather links to existing published information, with additional updates only in the body of the reports if these are specifically requested/noted from previous meetings. The report remains as a standing item and continues to provide the opportunity for Officer engagement at the committee meetings. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Area Committee: 2.1 Note and consider the contents of this report. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 Roads and Infrastructure Services provides Members with weekly briefings on topical service activities which are all available here. Page 59 Agenda Item 6
Page 60
3.2 As part of the resources on the new Member Zone system there are various key documents available in an online library here. 3.3 There are also additional online resources covering the streetlighting, footway, surface dressing and roads reconstruction programmes available on the website here. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 This report provides links to existing published information on service activities and provides for the opportunity for officer attendance and engagement at committee meetings. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – Roads and Infrastructure work to a number of policies across the range of service areas. 5.2 Financial – revenue and capital budgets are in place to deliver projects and cyclic work. 5.3 Legal – Roads and Infrastructure Services work to a number of different pieces of legislation such as the Roads Scotland Act 194 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 5.4 HR – none known. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – where appropriate EqSEIAs will be carried out to identify any implications. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – where appropriate EqSEIAs will be carried out to identify any implications. 5.5.3 Islands – where appropriate Island impacts assessments will be carried out to identify any implications. 5.6. Climate Change – due regard will be given to climate change with a view to minimising any climate change impact and these will be considered as and when they arise. 5.7 Risk – risk managed through toolbox talks, safety briefings and where appropriate risk registers – all of the above are monitored through the RIS leadership and management teams. 5.8 Customer Service – none known. Page 60
Page 61
5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – none known. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services, Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services, Councillor John Armour February 2025 For further information contact: Stephen Hall, Interim Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Stephen.hall@argyll-bute.gov.uk Mark Calder, Project Manager mark.calder@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 63
1 Education Service Primary Area Attainment Report: Bute and Cowal (B&C) March 2025 ‘Our Children, Their Future’ Argyll and Bute Council 2024 - 2025 Page 63 Agenda Item 7
Page 64
2 Introduction Within the Bute and Cowal area there are 14 Primary Schools, 3 on Bute and 11 in Cowal. There is secondary school provision at Dunoon Grammar School and Rothesay Joint Campus. Nursery provision is provided within several of these schools and Gaelic Medium Education is provided at Sandbank Primary School. Primary school rolls in Bute and Cowal vary considerably ranging from 10 pupils (Innellan PS) to 290 (Kirn PS). This report provides a range of key information about school provision from June 2024 to January 2025 and reports the National collection of attainment and achievement data from June 2024. This report contains the collective data and performance for the locality. More detailed information about school level successes and achievements can be found in each school’s Standards and Quality Report. In addition, each school’s Improvement Plan outlines their main priorities for improvement. Most schools have an active website where these documents can be accessed, and further links or information can be obtained from the Head Teacher. Page 64
Page 65
3 Bute and Cowal School Profiles 2024-2025 Cluster Primary Schools 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 % change in Roll over 5 years1 Dunoon Primary School 191 187 186 198 191 0% Innellan Primary School 29 41 38 15 10 -68% Kilmodan Primary School 17 19 12 11 17 0% Kirn Primary School 273 252 270 298 290 6% Lochgoilhead Primary School 29 23 21 24 26 -12% North Bute Primary School 38 39 26 27 22 -44% Rothesay Primary School 249 240 246 241 218 -12% Sandbank Primary School Gaelic Unit 52 51 45 39 34 -39% Sandbank Primary School 62 56 60 64 66 6% St Andrew's Primary School - Argyll 58 56 71 77 78 40% St Mun's Primary School 87 77 68 33 14 -74% Strachur Primary School 27 31 27 26 20 -26% Strone Primary School 23 25 21 24 12 -55% Tighnabruaich Primary School 45 55 66 67 63 45% Toward Primary School 21 21 19 23 24 11% Total 1201 1173 1176 1167 1085 -4% * Data for rolls provided at Census each year 1 Please note the % change in Roll over 5 years shows the percentage change in roll figures from 2020/21 to 2024/25 and is not an average. SIMD Profile SIMD is the Scottish Government's standard approach to identify areas of multiple deprivation in Scotland, with SIMD 1 indicating areas of highest deprivation and SIMD 10 indicating the least deprived. It can help improve understanding about the outcomes and circumstances of people living in the most deprived areas in Scotland. It can also allow effective targeting of resources and funding where the aim is to wholly or partly tackle or take account of area concentrations of multiple deprivation. Table below shows percentage of pupils residing in each decile and quintile of the SIMD in each area of Argyll and Bute. 1 2 3 4 5 Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unknown Bute and Cowal 16.4% 14.3% 18.0% 9.1% 23.0% 15.3% 2.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% HALCO 3.2% 5.7% 6.1% 3.3% 9.5% 13.7% 15.8% 20.8% 12.8% 8.9% 0.1% MAKI 0.0% 6.3% 8.5% 10.6% 9.5% 43.6% 21.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% OLI 1.4% 0.0% 0.2% 12.4% 24.9% 18.3% 34.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% *SIMD Data from January 2025 Page 65
Page 66
4 Footwear and Clothing Grant and Free School Meal Information for Bute and Cowal Clothing and Footwear Grant (CFG) is not shown as a National Average as each authority set their own criteria and therefore cannot be compared accurately. Please note that 2024-2025 data for CFG and Free School Meals (FSM) is to date (end December 2024) and therefore may change as the year progresses. In January 2022, the Scottish Government launched the extension of free school meal universal eligibility to include all children in primary 1-5. The above figures only show those pupils in P6 and P7. In August 2021, the Scottish Government introduced a School clothing grant minimum for all authorities set at £120 for Primary pupils and £150 for Secondary pupils. Financial support is given during school holidays to all parents where their child receives free school meals under Scottish Government set criteria. Further information can be found at Help during the school holidays - mygov.scot Page 66
Page 67
5 Attendance and Exclusion Information for Bute and Cowal Session 2023-24 under embargo by SG **2024-25 Data up to end December 2024 Authorised absence includes bereavement, short – term exceptional domestic situations, religious observance and weddings of immediate family. Unauthorised absence includes truancy, unexplained absence and most family holidays during term time. Attendance and absence is outlined in the recently updated Management Circular 3.03 Page 67
Page 68
6 There have been no primary school exclusions in the locality between August 2024 and January 2025. During 2020/21 there were additional attendance codes added for COVID. These codes can count as attendance, authorised absence or unauthorised absence depending on the circumstance. Please note that attendance & exclusion data for 2023/24 remains under SG embargo. Please note that attendance & exclusion data for 2024/25 is up to the end of December 2024 and not a complete year. It is therefore subject to change. Pupil attendance has been highlighted nationally as a concern. Significant work at authority level has been undertaken to maximise pupil attendance. This includes the formation of a strategic group and working party, refreshed policy and guidance, staff training, and a media campaign highlighting the impact of non-attendance and individual school attendance targets. All of these aspects are working together to ensure a sharpened focus and emphasis on pupil attendance. Additional Support Needs Table below indicates the numbers of pupils identified as having Additional Support Needs across the Bute and Cowal area at each stage of primary schools. Student Needs P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 Total Autistic spectrum disorder 2 2 7 6 7 5 14 43 Bereavement 1 2 2 1 6 Communication Support Needs 8 4 2 4 4 1 23 Dyslexia 1 5 2 2 10 English as an additional language 3 7 7 7 7 8 3 42 Family Issues 4 3 11 3 6 8 7 42 Hearing impairment 1 1 2 3 7 Interrupted learning 2 1 3 Language or speech disorder 8 7 6 10 10 8 5 54 Learning disability 2 1 4 3 2 3 15 Looked after 8 4 1 7 9 7 9 45 Mental health problem 1 1 2 More able pupil 1 1 2 Not disclosed / declared 1 1 Other 1 6 3 5 4 8 27 Other moderate learning difficulty 3 2 6 5 11 15 42 Other specific learning difficulty (eg numeric) 1 2 1 7 5 7 23 Physical health problem 3 4 1 4 5 7 2 26 Physical or motor impairment 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 16 Social, emotional and behavioural difficulty 10 13 25 16 23 30 24 141 Visual impairment 1 6 3 10 Young Carer 1 4 4 11 17 7 44 Care Experienced Children and Young People A Virtual Head Teacher took up post in April 2023. The core purpose of the role of the Virtual Head Teacher is to be relentless in driving improvements in the educational progress and attainment/ achievement of an identified group of young people, including Care Experienced, across Argyll and Bute. The core function of the Virtual Head Teacher in terms of planning is to ensure that all children have access to appropriate and timely support achieved by collaborating with relevant professionals to ensure plans are of a high quality, with impact and outcomes followed up. Page 68
Page 69
7 Table below shows the numbers of care experienced children in our primary schools across each area of the Council as of January 2025. Area Previously Away Home Total Bute and Cowal 16 19 13 48 HALCO 12 9 4 25 MAKI 20 9 4 33 OLI 18 9 3 30 Attainment of Curriculum for Excellence Levels over time Curriculum levels are national levels to describe different stages of learning and progress. For most children the expectation is: Throughout the Broad General Education, children and young people are assessed and professional judgements are made by teachers about when a child or young person has achieved learning at a particular level. This means that they have broadly covered the experiences and achieved the expected outcomes for that level. In making this decision, the teacher takes into account the evidence mentioned above, and considers the benchmarks produced by Education Scotland for each level as well as diagnostic feedback from the National Standardised Assessments (NSAs). Attainment of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (ACEL) data is collected annually each June by the Scottish Government. The data collection collects information on pupil performance in four areas, known as organisers. Organisers consist of Numeracy and the three literacy components: Reading, Writing and Listening and Talking. A combined literacy measure is also produced based on the three literacy organisers: reading, writing and listening and talking. The data is collected for pupils at the key stages of P1, P4, P7 and S3. As an authority, we have made significant progress in raising attainment and closing the poverty related attainment gap. Authority level data for literacy and numeracy demonstrating increased attainment is displayed below. Further detail on progress towards closing the attainment gap between those residing in Quintile 1 and those in Quintile 5 can be found on pages 10 and 11. Page 69
Page 70
8 Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels across Bute and Cowal schools: June 2021-June 2024 NOTES: There was no ACEL collection during session 2019/20 due to COVID. Page 70
Page 71
9 In English medium by June 2024: In listening and talking, 83% of P1 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved early level, this is compared with 86% at authority level and 87% nationally. In reading, 76% of P1 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved early level, this is compared with 81% at authority level and 82% nationally. In writing, 74% of P1 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved early level, this is compared with 79% at authority level and 79% nationally. In numeracy, 77% of P1 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved early level, this is compared with 84% at authority level and 85% nationally. In English medium by June 2024: In listening and talking, 85% of P4 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved first level, this is compared with 87% at authority level and 87% nationally. In reading, 74% of P4 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved first level, this is compared with 79% at authority level and 81% nationally. In writing, 66% of P4 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved first level, this is compared with 75% at authority level and 76% nationally. In numeracy, 73% of P4 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved first level, this is compared with 78% at authority level and 80% nationally. Page 71
Page 72
10 In English medium by June 2024: In listening and talking, 85% of P7 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved second level, this is compared with 85% at authority level and 88% nationally. In reading, 71% of P7 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved second level, this is compared with 78% at authority level and 81% nationally. In writing, 66% of P7 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved second level, this is compared with 73% at authority level and 76% nationally. In numeracy, 73% of P7 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved second level, this is compared with 77% at authority level and 79% nationally. Page 72
Page 73
11 In Gaelic medium by June 2024: In listening and talking, 100% of P1 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved early level, this is compared with 97% at authority level and 89% nationally. In reading, 100% of P1 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved early level, this is compared with 93% at authority level and 85% nationally. In writing, 100% of P1 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved early level, this is compared with 93% at authority level and 85% nationally. Page 73
Page 74
12 In Gaelic medium by June 2024: In listening and talking, 80% of P4 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved first level, this is compared with 76% at authority level and 87% nationally. In reading, 80% of P4 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved first level, this is compared with 76% at authority level and 79% nationally. In writing, 60% of P4 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved first level, this is compared with 62% at authority level and 74% nationally. In Gaelic medium by June 2024: In listening and talking, 100% of P7 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved second level, this is compared with 77% at authority level and 86% nationally. In reading, 75% of P7 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved second level, this is compared with 73% at authority level and 79% nationally. In writing, 75% of P7 pupils in the BUTE AND COWAL area achieved second level, this is compared with 77% at authority level and 75% nationally. Page 74
Page 75
13 Argyll and Bute Stretch Aims Session 2023-24 and onwards to 2026 (Authority Level) The Scottish Attainment Challenge (SAC) is about achieving equity in educational outcomes, with a particular focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. SAC funding is provided to all of Scotland’s local authorities to help tackle the attainment gap and support education recovery and improve outcomes for children and young people most impacted by poverty. The Scottish Attainment Challenge aims to raise the attainment of children and young people living in deprived areas, in order to close the equity gap. Attainment Advisors within Education Scotland’s regional improvement teams work with authorities to identify core attainment measures and specific aims (Stretch Aims) which, informed by local evidence and data, are identified as local priority areas for improvement. The stretch aims are intended to be both ambitious and achievable within local contexts and targets are specific to individual authorities. Progress towards achieving the current stretch aims will be reported on later in 2025. The Stretch Aims are intended to support recovery from the pandemic and accelerate progress in closing the attainment gap and include: Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (literacy P1/4/7 combined and numeracy P1/4/7 combined) The stretch aims for literacy and numeracy identify the percentage of young people who achieve their expected Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) level: An overall attainment target, which includes all young people An attainment target for young people who live in the most deprived areas (SIMD quintile 1) An attainment target for young people who live in the least deprived areas (SIMD quintile 5) A target to reduce the attainment gap between the most and least deprived young people The Argyll & Bute literacy and numeracy tables illustrate data from the most recent ACEL collection in 2024 (published December 2024), against the stretch aim for 2023-24 and also indicate the stretch aim targets in place for 2024-2026. The year-on-year trend in ACEL data has been positive; in the three-year period between 2022 and 2024 the overall proportions of primary school pupils achieving the expected levels in literacy had increased by 10 percentage points (62% to 72%), while in numeracy there had been an increase of 7 percentage points (73% to 80%). The percentage of Quintile 1 (most deprived) young people who achieved their expected CfE level has increased by 15pp in literacy and 5pp in numeracy between 2022 and 2024. Scottish Attainment Challenge - Stretch Aims 2023-26: Literacy In literacy, the attainment gap between young people from the most and least deprived areas of Argyll & Bute was 33 percentage points in 2021, by 2022 this narrowed to 27 percentage points and narrowed further to 13 percentage points by June 2023. At the end of the 2023/24 session the attainment gap had grown slightly to 15 percentage points, but remains smaller than 2021 and 2022. Argyll & Bute’s target is to reduce the attainment gap to 10.5 percentage points by June 2025 and to 10 percentage points by June 2026. Literacy (P 1/4/7 Combined) Stretch Aim Overall SIMD Q1 SIMD Q5 GAP (Q1-Q5) Stretch Aim 2023/24 71% 70% 81% 11pp Confirmed Dec 24 72% 68% 83% 15pp Interim Stretch Aim 2024/25 73.5% 72.5% 83% 10.5pp Final Stretch Aim 2025-26 76% 75% 85% 10pp Page 75
Page 76
14 Scottish Attainment Challenge - Stretch Aims 2023-26: Numeracy In numeracy, the attainment gap between young people from the most and least deprived areas of Argyll & Bute was 29 percentage points in 2021, by 2022 this narrowed to 18 percentage points and narrowed further to 14 percentage points by June 2023. By June 2024 the attainment gap had increased slightly to 15 percentage points. This was 2 percentage points below the national gap of 17pp. Argyll & Bute’s target is to reduce the attainment gap to 13.25 percentage points by 2025 and to 13 percentage points by June 2026. Numeracy (P 1/4/7 Combined) Stretch Aim Overall SIMD Q1 SIMD Q5 GAP (Q1-Q5) Stretch Aim 2023/24 78% 76.5% 90.5% 13.50pp Confirmed Dec 2024 80% 73% 88% 15pp Interim Stretch Aim 2024/25 81% 77.75% 91% 13.25pp Final Stretch Aim 2025-26 83% 78.5% 91.5% 13pp The table below outlines the National expectations of when most children and young people may achieve each level: CfE Level Stage Early The final two years of early learning and childcare before a child goes to school and P1, or later for some. First To the end of P4, but earlier or later for some. Second To the end of P7, but earlier or later for some. Third and fourth S1-S3, but earlier or later for some. Further information: National Improvement Framework for Scottish Education – https://www.gov.scot/policies/schools/national-improvement-framework/ Page 76
Page 77
15 Initiatives to raise attainment and achievement In response to data and evidence gathered in the areas of literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing, a range of work has been undertaken in order to drive forward improvement and raise attainment and achievement across the authority. Literacy Literacy work funded by Strategic Equity Funding (SEF) has centred around the Children and Young People’s Improvement Collaborative (CYPIC) Improving Writing Programme. The impact of this programme has been significant and has resulted directly in increased attainment in writing in all schools involved. Training and ongoing support has been provided to practitioners to improve pedagogy and use of data to secure improvement in writing at first level and across first and second in multi composite classes. Two teachers who have been involved in the programme are also supporting the delivery and support for the programme to ensure that a sustainable model of improvement is developed. 33 schools have been involved since the start of the programme. In Cohort 1; an average of 21-point increase from attainment at P4 in June 22 and June 23. In Cohort 2; an average of 2-point increase from attainment at P4 in June 22 and June 23. In Cohorts 3 and 4 combined there has been an increase of 10% in the number of children assessed by teachers as on track in writing from P3 to P7. In feedback all staff involved agree/strongly agree that this has improved writing within their class. In almost all cohorts of children there has been an improvement in writing attainment. A full evaluation of impact on writing will be completed during this school session. Numeracy Whilst it is too early to ascertain the direct impact of our numeracy and mathematics development work on attainment, progress has been made in a number of identified areas for improvement. These include: o The creation of the Counting on Excellence framework which ensures a seamless progression of learning, spanning early to third level outcomes. This provides teachers in Argyll and Bute schools with a clear and cohesive structure to support continuity in teaching and learning, enabling students to build a strong foundation in mathematics and numeracy across the BGE. The framework is designed to complement the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) and its benchmarks, offering detailed guidance to teachers that enhances consistency and rigor in mathematics learning and teaching. By incorporating additional strands, the framework strengthens alignment with national priorities while allowing for flexible and context-sensitive teaching practices. o Support for Inclusive Mathematics Education: The expanded framework provides a robust support system for teachers, equipping them with tools and resources to address diverse learning needs. By integrating additional strands into the existing structure, it ensures that learners in Argyll and Bute schools benefit from a comprehensive, inclusive, and innovative mathematics education that prepares them for future academic and real-world challenges. This fits with the curriculum improvement cycle as well as recommendations from the OECD and the mathematics thematic inspection. o Enhanced Teacher Confidence Through Customised CLPL: The collaborative design and implementation of a professional learning programme, informed by the latest research and best practices, ensures tailored professional development for practitioners. Data gathered around teacher confidence in mathematics pedagogy, particularly in Helensburgh and Lomond schools as a test of change, demonstrates measurable improvements in teacher efficacy. This professional growth directly supports improved classroom practices, fostering better outcomes for learners across the authority. Page 77
Page 78
16 o Data-Driven Support and Continuous Improvement: Observations in targeted schools, combined with focused dialogue with practitioners and senior leaders, provide valuable insights into strengths and areas for development. The coordination of follow-up support by the numeracy lead, within specified timescales, ensures a responsive and adaptive approach to improvement. This data-driven strategy empowers schools to address gaps effectively, supporting consistent progress in mathematics teaching and learning authority-wide. Wellbeing: Readiness to Learn Two nurture teachers are funded through Strategic Equity Funding (SEF) and work has continued, in collaboration with partners, to progress with the implementation of our strategy for embedding effective nurture and relationship-based approaches across all establishments. Progress includes: o Our Children, their Nurturing Education (OCTNE) documents have been refined and now include an OCTNE Implementation Framework for Bronze to Platinum. A Self-Evaluation toolkit has also been developed to include How Good is Our School? 4 (HGIOS4) challenge questions that align with OCTNE. Supportive documentation has been developed and includes an exemplar Silver Action Plan, a Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) exemplar and a bespoke nurture and relationships-based programme of professional learning for the Argyll and Bute Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) programme and the UHI PGDE course. o Whole-school accreditation has increased with 58 settings currently engaged with OCTNE, including 6 Partnership Providers, registered. 12 new settings are attending February 25 leadership training. The current accreditation levels are; 19 Bronze, 11 Silver and 1 Gold. o The uptake for targeted nurture has increased over the last school session. Referral for targeted nurture support comes via the link Educational Psychologist to ensure that involvement is relevant. All pupils referred for targeted nurture have remained in in-authority placements. Work has taken place in 18 schools (22 pupils) and is ongoing in 7 schools (7 pupils). Universal and targeted work in this area has improved approaches to embedding the principles of nurture within schools and settings involved, and for targeted pupils has demonstrated impact in terms of ability to access the curriculum and understand their own feelings and emotions. This work has enabled us to exceed our 2023/24 core plus stretch aim. Page 78
Page 79
17 School Contacts Establishment Head Teacher Telephone Number Dunoon Primary School Brenda Reid 01369 704159 Innellan Primary School Lisa Marle 01369 830560 Kilmodan Primary School Jodie Blincow 01369 820280 Kirn Primary School Verity Lundy 01369 702509 Lochgoilhead Primary School Louise Blair 01301 703338 North Bute Primary School Marie Law 01700 503728 Rothesay Primary School Louise Nicol 01700 503227 Sandbank Primary School Norman MacDonald 01369 706350 Sandbank Primary School Gaelic Unit Norman MacDonald 01369 706350 St Andrew's Primary School - Argyll Jacqueline Shields 01700 503123 St Mun's Primary School Brenda Reid 01369 703643 Strachur Primary School Lorraine Fisher 01369 860293 Strone Primary School Lorraine Fisher 01369 840242 Tighnabruaich Primary School Megan Stirling 01700 811413 Toward Primary School Lisa Marle 01369 870259 Page 79
Page 80
18 Page 80
Page 81
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL BUTE & COWAL AREA COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 4th MARCH 2025 HOUSING SERVICES ACTIVITY UPDATE - STRATEGIC HOUSING INVESTMENT PLAN (SHIP) – ANNUAL UPDATE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The main purpose of this report is to update Members of Housing Services activity within the Bute and Cowal area. This report will detail the following housing activity:- • Housing Emergency • Housing Need and Demand • Homelessness • Affordable Housing Supply - Strategic Housing Investment Programme (SHIP) • Empty Homes • Private Sector Housing Grant Adaptations • Private Sector Housing Grant Repairs and Improvements • Energy Efficiency - Energy Efficiency Scotland: Area Based Scheme(EES:ABS) • Local Housing Strategy 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are asked to consider the content of the report. Page 81 Agenda Item 8
Page 82
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL BUTE & COWAL AREA COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 4th MARCH 2025 HOUSING SERVICES ACTIVITY UPDATE - STRATEGIC HOUSING INVESTMENT PLAN (SHIP) – ANNUAL UPDATE 3.0 INTRODUCTION 3.1 The main purpose of this report is to update Members of Housing Services activity and the delivery of the Local Housing Strategy within the Bute and Cowal area. This report will detail the following housing activity:- • Housing Emergency • Housing Need and Demand • Homelessness • Affordable Housing Supply - Strategic Housing Investment Programme • Empty Homes • Private Sector Housing Grant Adaptations • Private Sector Housing Grant Repairs and Improvements • Energy Efficiency – Energy Efficiency Programme: Area Based Scheme • Local Housing Strategy 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Members are asked to consider the content of this report. 5.0 DETAIL 5.1 As the Strategic Housing Authority, the Council has a series of important statutory housing functions to fulfil. A Housing Need and Demand Assessment (HNDA) is carried out every 5 years which enables Scottish Government funding to be brought into Argyll and Bute primarily to deliver affordable housing. A comprehensive revision of the local HNDA was approved as “robust and credible” by the Scottish Government’s Centre for Housing Market Analysis in December 2021. The Council also produces a Local Housing Strategy (LHS) every 5 years. Full Council approved the LHS 2022-27 in December 2021. It is subject to annual updates, which are published on the Housing Strategy pages of the Council website. Page 82
Page 83
The LHS has been developed in accordance with Scottish Government guidance and local priorities as identified in the new HNDA. This sets out the vision for Argyll and Bute: “Everyone in Argyll & Bute has access to a suitable, high quality home which is affordable and located within a vibrant, sustainable and connected community.” This report details the housing activity taking place in Bute & Cowal. 5.2 Housing Emergency In June 2023, Argyll and Bute Council became the first local authority to declare a housing emergency. A number of key statistics informed the emergency. • In 2023 there were just under 3,300 people on social rented housing waiting lists, representing an increase of 8% since the previous year. • The average housing price in 2022 was £206,000 which is 7 times the average income level in Argyll and Bute. • 11% of all homes are ineffective stock, with 6% second homes and 4% empty. • 42% of the property sales are made to people living out with the Argyll and Bute area. • There were 131 private house completions in the last 5 years representing only 17% of the expected rate. • Constructions costs have seen a 22% increase in 2022 with island construction costs significantly higher. This trend is continuing currently. • 92% of residents responding to the Housing Emergency survey said that housing shortage was having an impact on their community • Of employers who responded to the workforce housing survey, 75% said a shortage of housing was a barrier to recruiting or retaining staff A copy of the Housing Emergency Summit Report held in November 2023 and associated progress reports are available here The housing emergency action plan developed in conjunction with partners at the Housing Summit has been appended to the Local Housing Strategy Annual update 2024, and will be fully embedded in to the next Local Housing Strategy. Members requested regular updates on activity to tackle the housing emergency including a set of metrics, which could be used as a benchmark to monitor progress. The housing system is complex and wide-ranging; the following table of statistics and indicators, which were approved by Council in November 2024, give a balanced representation of the housing system based on the issues across the housing market. Page 83
Page 84
* Consents Figure is June23-March24, & will be corrected for next year 5.3 HOUSING NEED & DEMAND IN BUTE & COWAL In addition there were 70 applicants for Bute and 151 for Cowal who received nil points according to the Common Allocation Policy and therefore would be deemed to have no housing need. For Bute & Cowal as a whole, the main requirement (59%) is for one bedroom properties, while 21% require 2 bedrooms; 13% require 3 bedrooms; and 7% need 4 or more. However, to establish actual need, the available supply must be factored into this, based on the available lets within the RSL stock during a year. HOMEArgyll Applicants RSL Lets 2023/24 (HOMEArgyll only) Pressure Ratio Bute 156 173 1:1 Cowal 368 146 3:1 B & C TOTAL 524 319 2:1 HOUSING EMERGENCY - METRICS Year Measures 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Housing Completions – All Tenures 144 Planning Consents Granted 512* Resource Planning Allocation(RPA) £18.26m Resource Planning Allocation(RPA) spend Available Mid 2025 Strategic Housing Fund (SHF) spend £1.057m Number of Homeless Applications 492 Number of Households on social housing waiting list 3209 Multiple of median wage to median house price 5x (£35k / £175k) Number of Registered Short Term Lets 3031 Number of Second Homes 2811 Number of Empty Homes 2364 HOMEArgyll WAITING LIST November 2024 – Active Applicants (excluding those with 0 points/no defined need) Minimum Bedroom Size Required TOTAL 0/1beds 2beds 3beds 4+beds Bute 97 26 22 11 156 Cowal 209 85 47 27 368 B & C TOTAL 306 111 69 38 524 Page 84
Page 85
While the pressure ratios are only one factor in determining need and demand, they are useful indicators of areas where further research and analysis may be required. The fully revised Argyll & Bute HNDA 2021 takes account of a wide range of factors to determine existing need and future demand for new build housing, and demographic projections have a critical role in this assessment. Although the default population projections suggest a significant and continuous decline across Argyll and Bute, and consequently minimal or zero requirement for new build housing, the council has developed ambitious Housing Supply Targets based on an alternative, positive growth scenario for all areas. In this instance, 16% of the Argyll & Bute Housing requirement would be apportioned to Cowal and 6% to Bute; and over the next 5 years this could amount to around 340 new builds across all tenures for the Bute & Cowal area as a whole. 5.4 HOMELESSNESS There were 146 homeless presentations across Bute and Cowal in 2023/24. This was a decrease from 151 applications in 2022/23. There was an increase of 10% (41 up from 37) in homeless presentations on Bute during 2023/24. There was a decrease of 8% in Cowal (105 down from 114). During 2023/24, there were 46 homeless cases closed on Bute and 103 in Cowal. The figures below illustrate the number of homeless applications and cases closed for the period from 2019/20 to 2023/24. The main reasons for presenting as Homeless last year were “disputes with household/relationship breakdown”, “other action by landlord resulting in termination of tenancy”; and “being asked to leave”. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Applications Cases closed Applications Cases closed Bute Cowal Homeless Applications and Cases Closed 2019/20 - 2023/24 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Page 85
Page 86
Rough Sleeping Bute and Cowal experienced an increase in the incidence of rough sleeping over the same period last year, with 7 cases (+3) in total across the area reporting that they slept rough the night preceding their presentation and 21 (+6) reporting that they had slept rough in the 3 months preceding their homeless application. These were disaggregated as follows:- AREA Number of Rough Sleepers in 2023/24 Night Before Application 3 Months Prior to Application Bute 1 3 Cowal 6 18 B&C Total 7 21 Argyll & Bute 33 56 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1. Termination of tenancy/mortgage due to rent… 10. Dispute with household/relationship breakdown:… 11. Fleeing non-domestic violence 12. Harassment 13. Overcrowding 14. Asked to leave 15. Other reason for leaving accommodation/household 2. Other action by landlord resulting in the termination… 3. Applicant terminated secure accommodation 4. Loss of service/tied accommodation 5. Discharge from prison/hospital/care/other institution 6. Emergency (fire,flood,storm,closing order from… 7. Forced division and sale of matrimonial home 8. Other reasons for loss of accommodation 9. Dispute with household violent or abusive Bute and Cowal Reasons for Homelessness 2023/24 Cowal Bute Page 86
Page 87
5.5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY This continues to be a very challenging period for the construction sector and there is ongoing slippage in the new build programme due to disruption and shortages with materials and staffing. Following completion of the ACHA development of 4 specific particular need units at Eton Avenue in October 2023, there have been no further Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) developments in Cowal and Bute during the reporting period of this report. Further sites/projects in the Cowal area are being progressed or in early stages of development and may be programmed in the SHIP in the future include: ACHA Alexander Street phases 1 and 2 plus other Dunoon site - 86 units in SHIP; 2027/30 Additional commitment to 50 property acquisitions, across whole local authority area. Fyne Homes Rothesay Academy site phases 1 and 2, Rothesay – site acquired March 2023, 65 units in SHIP; 2027/30 Ballochgoy, Rothesay – 8 units to be delivered in 2025/26 Tighnabruaich phase 2 – 10 units included in SHIP; 2029/30 Trust Housing Association Redevelopment of housing complex at Strachur – 15 units RSLs have also identified future opportunities, which they will continue to develop. These projects could be included in the later years of the SHIP. For example, ACHA and Fyne Homes are both exploring options for sites in Dunoon. 5.6 EMPTY HOMES In 2023/24 there were 8 private empty homes brought back into use in Bute & CowaI, amounting to 27% of all empty homes brought back into use across Argyll and Bute last year with assistance of Empty Homes Officer (30). Council Tax Information on Empty Homes The following table breaks down the numbers of empty homes including those subject to premium Council Tax charge across the Bute & Cowal area. The table does not include properties which are empty and exempt from Council Tax. The numbers of recorded empty homes can vary from day to day due to natural changes and reported numbers are snapshot from November 2024 reports. Page 87
Page 88
Council Tax Exemptions There are also a number of empty properties which are on the Council Tax register which are exempt from paying council tax. In Bute & Cowal there are 446 properties which are empty and exempt from Council Tax. The categories for empty properties include: • Class 4A = Properties recently occupied but now empty and unfurnished (210) • Class 7A = Dwellings Empty Under Statute – Closing or Demolition Order (33) • Class 6A = Deceased owners – where estate has not been settled (149) • Class 8A= Held for demolition (16); • Class 5A= Living/detained elsewhere and Person in Prison (23); • Class 2A= Unoccupied-renovation (8); • Class 13A= Repossessed dwelling (7) Second Homes As at 1st November 2024 there were 404 registered Second Homes on Bute and 523 in Cowal. The number second homes for Bute and Cowal (927) represents 35% of the total number of Second Homes in Argyll and Bute (2,666). This has reduced by 148 from 1075 for same period in 2022/23. Self-Catering Lets As at 1st March 2024 there were 417 self-catering lets on the Rates register in the Bute & Cowal area. 19% of the Argyll and Bute total (2,210). BUTE & COWAL Council tax data as at 01.11.24 Number of properties on Council Tax register Empty Homes Properties subject to 200% council tax levy Total EMPTY Isle Of Bute 4,396 112 103 215 Cowal 8,906 179 195 374 B & C TOTAL 13,302 291 298 589 Bute & Cowal Rates data as at 01.03.24 Number of self-catering properties Bute 103 Cowal 314 Bute & Cowal TOTAL 417 Page 88
Page 89
Short Term Let Licence As at 1st March 2024, there were 525 applications for short-term let licences in Bute & Cowal. This was 17% total applications (3,031). These can apply to wide range of properties and can include home sharing, home letting, and secondary letting. There is a public register for all short-term lets, which can be accessed here. 5.7 PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING GRANT (PSHG) – ADAPTATIONS In 2023/24, there were 14 individual adaptations installed in Bute (8) & Cowal (6) with PSHG aid. 5.8 PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING GRANT – REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS In 2023/24, there were a total of 5 PSHG repair and improvement grants completed in Bute & Cowal, (across Argyll and Bute, the total was 41). Total cost of the works was £438,231.65 of which PSHG covered £31,388. 5.9 ENERGY EFFICIENCY (ENERGY EFFICIENT SCOTLAND: AREA BASED SCHEME (EES:ABS)) There were 91 individual energy efficiency measures fitted to 62 properties across Bute and Cowal in 2023/24 via the Scottish Government’s Energy Efficient Scotland – Area Based Scheme (EES-ABS), at a total cost of £515,961.46 with EES-ABS grants in support of this work amounting to £496,311.68. Bute & Cowal Data as at 01.03.24 Number of short term let licence applications Bute 145 Cowal 380 Bute & Cowal TOTAL 525 PSHG ADAPTATION COMPLETIONS 2023/24 HMA Grant Value Works Value ADAPTATION INSTALLED Ramp Stair lift Access Hoist Bathroom Adaptation Wash and Dry Unit External Drainage Collection Bute £33,940.98 £44,083.62 0 3 1 0 4 0 0 Cowal £19,406.40 £69,133.98 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 TOTALS £53,347.38 £113,217.60 2 4 1 1 7 0 0 Page 89
Page 90
Current estimates of local Fuel Poverty are based on Home Analytics data (Scottish figures sourced from The Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel):- Area Likelihood of Households in Fuel Poverty Extreme Fuel Poverty Bute 29% 16% Cowal 28% 21% Argyll and Bute 30% 25% Scotland 34% 23% 5.10 LOCAL HOUSING STRATEGY (LHS) 2022-2027 As the strategic housing authority for Argyll and Bute, the Council has a statutory duty to develop, implement and monitor a Local Housing Strategy over a five-year planning cycle, based on a robust and credible Housing Need and Demand Assessment (HNDA) for the area. Following completion of the previous Argyll and Bute LHS (2016-2021) last year, a comprehensive revision and update of the strategy has been approved by the Council and was formally launched in April 2022. The planning process was based on a robust process of consultation and stakeholder engagement, which has been acknowledged as an exemplar model for other local authorities by the Scottish Government, the CHMA, and the Scottish Housing Network LHS Forum. The revised HNDA was approved as “robust and credible” by the Scottish Government’s CHMA in 2021, and this has informed the revised Housing Supply Targets set out in the new LHS. These targets are based on a positive demographic and economic growth scenario for Argyll & Bute and include ambitious and challenging Housing Supply Targets for the Cowal and Bute HMAs over the next 5 years and beyond. Work has commenced on the preparation of the next HNDA due to be approved in 2026. The Local Housing Strategy is subject to annual updates and the 2024 update can be found in the Housing Strategy pages of the Council website Microsoft Word - Local Housing Strategy Annual Update 2024 - FINAL as at 170924 6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 This report provides the detail of the Council Housing Services team activity in the Bute and Cowal area and outlines progress with the Local Housing Strategy. There are a variety of housing issues within the area which are being tackled by Housing Services and partner agencies with the aim of delivering a functioning housing system which meets the needs of the communities we serve. The scale of the challenge is shown in statistical evidence and the declaration of the Housing Emergency and the subsequent Page 90
Page 91
Housing Emergency Summit has shown that many concerns are common across agencies and communities. 7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Policy - Complies with approved SHIP and Local Housing Strategy. 7.2 Financial - none arising from this report. 7.3 Legal - we have a statutory duty to deliver statutory housing functions. 7.4 HR – none. 7.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: positive in terms of delivering affordable housing. 7.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics - none 7.5.2 Socio-economic Duty - positive in terms of delivering affordable housing. 7.5.3 Islands – positive in terms of delivering affordable housing on the islands. 7.6. Climate Change – the strategy and housing service deliver positive impacts for energy efficiency and climate change. 7.7 Risk – none. 7.8 Customer Service – none. 7.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – the housing activity described in the report will deliver affordable housing for families with children Kirsty Flanagan Executive Director with the responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Cllr Jim Lynch Policy Lead for the Economy and Rural Growth January 2024 For further information contact: Douglas Whyte Team Lead – Housing Strategy E-mail: douglas.whyte@argyll-bute.gov.uk Tel: 01546 604 785 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Extract from LHS 2022 - 2027 (data as of 2021) Cowal Appendix 2 – Extract from LHS 2022 - 2027 (data as of 2021) Bute Page 91
Page 92
Appendix 1 - Extract from LHS 2022 -2027 (data as of 2020) Cowal Cowal is projected to see a significant demographic decline if recent trends continue. It is the mainland housing market most influenced by house purchasers from out with Argyll and Bute – only 44% of sales in the area are to local residents. Average house prices have actually been lower than most other HMAs in Argyll and Bute in recent years, while household incomes are roughly average for the authority, making this one of the relatively affordable housing market areas within the authority. Since 2015 the total dwelling stock increased by over 5%, and currently Cowal accounts for 18% of the authority’s housing. At the time of the last LHS, in 2015, almost 14% of the dwelling stock was deemed ineffective to meet local needs, i.e. second/holiday homes and long-term vacant properties. This has improved to 11% of the total, albeit this remains a substantial proportion of the housing stock. Over the last five years RSL homes have increased by around 3%, bringing the total social rented stock in 2020 to 1,476 which is 17% of the Argyll and Bute sector total. There are approximately 3 waiting list applicants for every available let, and 20% of all homeless cases are located here; therefore it is evident that despite some development activity and historic population decline, a degree of unmet need remains. Parts of rural Cowal also fall within the planning remit of the Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park, and issues regarding high levels of second/holiday homes, and affordability for permanent residents are often exacerbated in these areas. Key issues for Cowal HMA: Although the rate of population decline would suggest that a surplus supply might be generated from within existing housing stock and therefore the need for new build would be minimal; nevertheless there are ongoing levels of unmet need in terms of long waiting lists and relatively high homelessness, and a judicious, strategically planned programme of new build could in fact help to support economic growth and reverse the population decline as well as addressing specific unmet needs, such as demand for specialist accommodation. Population Households Dwellings Ineffective Stock (%) RSL Stock Waiting List Applicants RSL Lets (2019/20) Pressure Ratio Lower Quartile House Price Lower Quartile Income LQ Affordability Ratio 14,003 7,362 8,722 11% 1,476 400 131 3:1 £65,375 £14,617 4.5 Cowal Page 92
Page 93
Appendix 2 - Extract from LHS 2022 -2027 (data as of 2021) Bute Bute HMA is one of the least self-contained housing markets in Argyll and Bute, with only 38% of house sales being to local residents. Almost 35% of purchasers originate elsewhere in Scotland. Despite the lowest average household income in Argyll & Bute, historically it has been by some way the most affordable area in the authority with a local price to income ratio of 4.0. Over the course of the last LHS, the number of dwellings increased very marginally (0.4%), although total RSL stock has declined (due to a demolition/reconfiguration programme), while the number of households decreased by around 1%. Over 19% of the general housing stock is unavailable to meet local need i.e. second/holiday homes or long-term vacant. While evidence remains of potential over-supply in the RSL sector - with relatively high annual turnover, areas of low demand, and the main landlords sustaining a number of voids– nevertheless there are indications of increased market activity and growing pressures. Key issues for Bute HMA: The main focus for Bute remains maintaining, repairing, improving and managing the existing stock, across all tenures. However, emerging perceptions on the island suggest that need for additional, affordable housing may be growing as greater pressures are becoming evident with increased market activity and more properties potentially being lost from the effective, permanent housing stock. Tackling fuel poverty, improving energy efficiency and targeting Housing Options advice and assistance remain priorities; as does supporting those with particular needs to remain independent in their home or within the community as far as possible. Population Households Dwellings Ineffective Stock (%) RSL Stock Waiting List Applicants RSL Lets (2019/20) Pressure Ratio Lower Quartile House Price Lower Quartile Income LQ Affordability Ratio 5,981 3,372 4,247 19% 1,054 148 172 0 £45,000 £11,093 4.0 Bute Page 93
Page 94
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 95
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Bute and Cowal Area Committee DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 04 March 2025 2024/25 Active Travel Progress Report 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. This report provides an update to Members on the progress made in 2024/25 in relation to active travel projects in the B&C Area, informs Members of the significant changes in Scottish Government active travel funding and seeks continued support for the projects and wider active travel measures from Members. 1.2. Active travel encompasses accessible, everyday Walking, Mobility Assistance and child push scooters and prams/buggies (collectively termed “Wheeling”) and Cycling. The focus of active travel is on accessible provision including those with mobility impairments. 1.3. Active Travel can offer significant benefits to the area: • Access to essential services and employment: In B&C 26% of households (2,758 households) do not have access to a motor vehicle and are therefore reliant on public transport and active travel modes. Within the key settlements the proportion of households without access to a motor vehicle is 41% (947) in Rothesay, 26% (1,370) in Dunoon, Innellan and Sandbank, 15% (50) in Blairmore, Kilmun and Strone and 13% (40) in Tighnabruaich. (2022 census) • Health benefits: being more active reduces the risk of premature morbidity and death, particularly from diseases related to inactivity. (NHS Scotland) • Economics: People who travel to shops by walking and/or cycling have a higher monthly spend than people who travel to shops by private car. (Pedestrian Pound, 2024) • Improving safety: high quality active travel infrastructure reduces the frequency of injuries from collisions with motor vehicles. (Transport Scotland) • A number of active travel projects link to schools, offering the opportunity to increase the numbers of pupils, parents and staff choosing to walk, cycle or wheel to school. While focus is improved physical and mental health, where new active travel infrastructure creates a safe route to school where one did not previously exist it could reduce the requirement to provide school transport on safety grounds, thereby creating a revenue saving to the Council’s school transport budget. Page 95 Agenda Item 9
Page 96
1.4. The Council’s Active Travel Team, 1.7 Full Time Equivalent employees, is part of the Strategic Transport Team within the Development and Economic Growth Service. No Council funding is currently received by the Active Travel Team. All project costs, including internal staff costs, have to be funded via successfully securing highly competitive external challenge funds. 1.5. The Active Travel Team work with communities, internal and external stakeholders across Argyll and Bute to develop and deliver active travel projects which provide new/improved accessible infrastructure (e.g. paths, cycle lanes) and behaviour change (e.g. access to bikes, walking/cycle training, promotional activities). 1.6. In 2024/25, the Active Travel Team secured £1.4M external funding for the development and delivery of a total of 16 projects across Argyll and Bute. 1.7. The Active Travel Team work to source and secure highly competitive funding from a range of sources, the main of which are Transport Scotland’s Places for Everyone (PFE) Programme (administered by Sustrans), the Scottish Government’s Cycling Walking and Safer Routes (CWSR)/Active Travel Tier 1 (Tier 1) and Local Authority Direct Award (LADA) funds, Transport Scotland’s Active Travel Infrastructure Fund (ATIF), and HITRANS Regional Active Travel Fund. It is recognised at a national level that the Active Travel Team in Argyll and Bute Council secure significantly more funding, and subsequently deliver more projects, than similar staffed teams in other Local Authorities. 1.8. Transport Scotland have informed Officers that, as of 25/26, the funding model for active travel will change. The primary change will be the reallocation of the significant funding previously disbursed via third-sector organisations (such as Sustrans with Places for Everyone fund) to a single Transport Scotland controlled Active Travel Infrastructure Fund Tier 2 fund. The new fund will remain as a competitive challenge fund and is expected to be significantly oversubscribed due to the number of high value projects being progressed across Scotland and will therefore be highly competitive. Transport Scotland have also indicated that they will require Local Authorities to provide a minimum of 30% of the construction cost of projects from non-Transport Scotland derived sources. 1.9. In 24/25 Scottish Government behaviour change funding was transferred from the multitude of third sector organisations to the Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs). This aimed to enable the development and delivery of behaviour change programmes/activities which are tailored to the specific requirements of each RTP area. Officers engaged with HITRANS and SPT to promoted projects which supported the wider delivery of active travel in Argyll and Bute. While this engagement was successful in relation to HITRANS and resulted in a number of community orientated projects being funded, SPT took a more competitive approach and focused on funding the national third sector Page 96
Page 97
organisations which have extremely high overheads and therefore only limited results were achieved for Argyll and Bute. 1.10. The Scottish Government committed a total of £185M to active travel in 24/25. The Scottish Government’s draft 25/26 budget commits a total of £165M to active travel in 25/26. 1.11. Separately, Officers are working to develop an Active Travel Strategy (ATS) for Argyll and Bute which will set out the policy and strategic context for the development and delivery of active travel across the whole of Argyll and Bute. Subsequent to this, an Active Travel Delivery Plan (ATDP) will be developed which will identify the specific projects to be developed in order to achieve the ambition set in the ATS. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.12. It is recommended that the Bute and Cowal members: 1.12.1. Welcome the progress made to date across a significant number of active travel projects by the small Active Travel Team. 1.12.2. Support the continuation of the projects and the submission of future funding applications to external challenge funds to continue to develop design and construction stages in order to deliver these projects. 1.12.3. Support the allocation of the Tier 1 active travel funding element in the Council’s 25/26 block grant to the development and delivery of appropriate active travel projects, including those already underway in B&C. 1.12.4. Instruct Officers to continue to identify and develop new active travel projects to benefit local residents, businesses and communities. Page 97
Page 98
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Bute and Cowal DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 04 March 2025 2024/25 Active Travel Progress Report 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1. This report provides an update to Members on the progress made in 2024/25 in relation to active travel projects in the B&C Area and seeks continued support for the projects from Members. 2.2. Active travel encompasses accessible, everyday Walking, Mobility Assistance and child prams (sometime collectively termed “Wheeling”) and Cycling. The focus of active travel is on accessible provision including those with mobility impairments. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1. It is recommended that the Bute and Cowal members: 3.1.1. Welcome the progress made to date across a significant number of active travel projects by the small Active Travel Team. 3.1.2. Support the continuation of the projects and the submission of future funding applications to external challenge funds to continue to develop design and construction stages in order to deliver these projects. 3.1.3. Support the allocation of the Tier 1 active travel funding element in the Council’s 25/26 block grant to the development and delivery of appropriate active travel projects, including those already underway in B&C. 3.1.4. Instruct Officers to continue to identify and develop new active travel projects to benefit local residents, businesses and communities. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1. The Council’s Active Travel Team, 1.7 FTE (Full Time Equivalent employees), is part of the Strategic Transport Team within the Development and Economic Growth Service. No Council funding is currently received by the Active Travel Page 98
Page 99
Team. All project costs, including internal staff costs, have to be funded via successfully securing highly competitive external challenge funds. 4.2. It is recognised at a national level that the Active Travel Team in Argyll and Bute Council secure significantly more funding, and subsequently deliver more projects, than similar staffed teams in other Local Authorities. 4.3. The Active Travel Team work with communities, internal and external stakeholders across Argyll and Bute to develop and deliver active travel projects which provide new/improved accessible infrastructure (e.g. paths, cycleways) and behaviour change (e.g. access to bikes, walking/cycle training, promotional activities). 4.4. In 2024/25, the Active Travel Team secured £1.4M external funding for the development and delivery of a total of 16 projects across Argyll and Bute. Further details of the projects relevant to B&C are presented in Appendix 1. Active Travel Funding Model 4.5. Transport Scotland have informed Officers that, as of 25/26, the funding model for active travel will change. The primary change will be the reallocation of the significant funding previously disbursed via third-sector organisations (such as Sustrans or Paths for All) to a Transport Scotland controlled “Active Travel Infrastructure Fund (ATIF) Tier 2” fund. The new fund will remain as a competitive challenge fund and is expected to be significantly oversubscribed due to the number of high value projects being progressed across Scotland and will therefore be highly competitive. The new Tier 2 fund is split into 2 sections, one for “Design” and the other for “Construction”. 4.6. Transport Scotland have indicated that they will require Local Authorities to provide a minimum of 30% of the construction cost of projects under Tier 2 from other sources. 4.7. The application deadline for 25/26 projects to ATIF Tier 2 is 14 February 2025 and, at the time of writing, Officers are developing submissions for projects including the Rothesay Pavilion – Town Centre – Joint Campus Active Travel Route (combining elements of Rothesay Joint Campus to Town Centre and Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier projects). 4.8. The Scottish Government committed a total of £185M to active travel in 24/25. The Scottish Government’s draft 25/26 budget commits a total of £165M to active travel in 25/26. 4.9. In 24/25 Scottish Government behaviour change funding was transferred from the multitude of third sector organisations to the Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs). This aimed to enable the development and delivery of behaviour change programmes/activities which are tailored to the specific Page 99
Page 100
requirements of each RTP area. Officers engaged with HITRANS and SPT to promoted projects which supported the wider delivery of active travel in Argyll and Bute. While this engagement was successful in relation to HITRANS and resulted in a number of community orientated projects being funded, SPT took a competitive application approach and focused on funding the national third sector organisations which have extremely high overheads and therefore only limited results were achieved for Argyll and Bute. 4.10. Due to the continually evolving funding environment, Officers remain vigilant to potential funding opportunities and will submit applications for relevant projects as and when appropriate funding opportunities arise. Outgoing (2024/25) Funding Model 4.11. The Active Travel Team work to source and secure highly competitive funding from a range of sources, the main of which are Transport Scotland’s Places for Everyone (PFE) Programme (administered by Sustrans), the Scottish Government’s Cycling, Walking and Safer Routes (CWSR) fund and Delivery Resource Fund, Paths for All Smarter Choices Smarter Places (SCSP) programme, Transport Scotland’s Active Travel Transformation Fund (ATTF), and HITRANS Regional Active Travel Fund. Further funding has been secured for some projects via local community organisations and from willing businesses. It is recognised at a national level that the Active Travel Team in Argyll and Bute Council secure significantly more funding, and subsequently delivery more projects, than similar staffed teams in other Local Authorities and/or local authorities with similar populations. 4.12. The primary external funding route for active travel infrastructure design is Transport Scotland’s Places for Everyone (PFE) programme (which Sustrans are paid to administer). The PFE Programme is a competitive challenge fund structured around 8 project stages; with the 32 local authorities, 7 regional transport partnerships, two national parks and numerous community groups across Scotland competing against each other to secure the funding each project requires. In 24/25, the Active Travel Team secured £503,350 from the PFE Programme. It has been announced that the PFE Programme will by wound down with a final closure date of December 2025. 4.13. A minimum of three new competitive funding submissions are required to complete a project using PFE funding, with competitive applications required, as a minimum, prior to Stage 0 (Strategic Definition), Stage 3 (Developed Design) and Stage 5 (Construction). The full project stages are (0) Strategic Definition, (1) Preparation and Brief, (2) Concept Design), (3) Developed Design, (4) Technical Design, (5) Construction, (6) Handover & Close Out and (7) In Use. 4.14. The Scottish Government Cycling, Walking and Safer Routes (CWSR) fund was an annual ring-fenced fund which provides the opportunity for Local Authorities to identify and deliver lower value active travel infrastructure without the level of Page 100
Page 101
complexity and time required by the PFE route. In 24/25 the CWSR fund was retitled “Tier 1” fund. Also in 24/25, a new distribution methodology was implemented by Transport Scotland with approval from COSLA which focused funding on larger urban authorities, the new methodology resulted in a 27% reduction in the value of funding received by Argyll and Bute Council between 23/24 CWSR and 24/25 Tier 1. 4.15. Transport Scotland’s Active Travel Transformation Fund (ATTF) was launched in 23/24 and focuses on supporting Local Authorities, RTPs and National Parks with the additional cost of constructing very ambitious, high-quality active travel projects. Projects must be fully construction ready prior to submission to the ATTF. Officers submitted two applications to the 24/25 ATTF which were shortlisted on the reserve list, the lower value of which was later awarded 24/25 funding in October 2024. For 25/26 ATTF is being retitled “Active Travel Transformation Fund (ATIF) Tier 2 (Construction)”. 4.16. Table 1: Changes to relevant Active Travel Behaviour Change Funds Previous Fund(s) New Fund Notes Smarter Choices Smarter Places (SCSP) Local Authority Fund Local Authority Direct Award (LADA) 1. Council given an annual allowance which we can reclaim from Transport Scotland following spend. 2. Ring fenced for active travel behaviour change work. Smarter Choices Smarter Places (SCSP) Sustrans Behaviour Change Team Cycling UK Bothies and Rural Connections Cycling Scotland Community Fund HITRANS / SPT People and Place Programme 1. Funding from Transport Scotland provided to each RTP who can determine own distribution model or to take forward projects within RTP. 2. Each RTP decides its own distribution model. • HITRANS chose a collaborative approach which has been very positive with community orientated projects being funded. • SPT chose a challenge fund approach which resulted in ABCs top projects not being funded in 24/25. Smarter Choices Smarter Places (SCSP) Community Fund HITRANS / SPT People and Place Programme – Community Fund 1. Funding from Transport Scotland provided to each RTP who can determine own distribution model or to take forward projects within RTP. 2. Each RTP decides its own distribution model. • HITRANS have accepted funding applications from selected community organisations alongside those from Local Authorities /National Park. • SPT have chosen to set aside a portion of the funding and offer selected community organisations the opportunity to bid for funding. Page 101
Page 102
Bikeability (Cycling Scotland) Bikeability (Cycling Scotland) 1. Retained as a national project to keep training standard equivalent across all areas. 4.17. Table 2: Changes to relevant Active Travel Infrastructure Funds Previous Fund(s) New Fund Notes Cycling Walking and Safer Routes (CWSR) Transport Scotland Active Travel Infrastructure Fund Tier 1 (ATIF Tier 1) 1. Delivered to Council as part of block grant. 2. Transport Scotland checking allocation is spent on appropriate active travel work in determining allocations of future Tier 1 funding and award of Tier 2 applications. Places for Everyone (PFE) Design Transport Scotland Active Travel Infrastructure Fund Tier 2 (Design) (ATIF Tier 2 (Design)). 1. Competitive Challenge Fund approach. 2. Separate lengthy application for each project. 3. Must have allocated Tier 1 funding to appropriate active travel work to be eligible for Tier 2 funding. 4. Competing against projects submitted by 32 local authorities, 7 regional transport partnerships and 2 national parks. Places for Everyone (PFE) Construction Transport Scotland Active Travel Infrastructure Fund Tier 2 (Construction) (ATIF Tier 2 (Construction)). 1. Competitive Challenge Fund approach. 2. Separate lengthy application for each project. 3. Must have allocated Tier 1 funding to appropriate active travel work to be eligible for Tier 2 funding. 4. Competing against projects submitted by 32 local authorities, 7 regional transport partnerships and 2 national parks. 5. Transport Scotland request that LAs provide up to 30% of the construction cost from other sources. National Cycle Network (NCN) (Sustrans Scotland) National Cycle Network (NCN) (Sustrans Scotland) 1. Sustrans Scotland will continue to promote and develop the NCN and receive direct funding from Transport Scotland (£15M 24/25). 2. The majority of the NCN is owned and maintained by other organisations including Local Authorities, Scottish Canals, etc. Sustrans own and maintain c.2% of the NCN in the UK, but are funded to promote the whole NCN. Design guidance Page 102
Page 103
4.18. Adherence to the latest design criteria for active travel (e.g. Cycle by Design for cycle projects) will continue to be a requirement to secure Scottish Government derived funding. However, the removal of national third-sector organisations from control of the main active travel funding steams should enable Officers to apply the guidance in a more flexible and specific manner to local circumstances. Utilising adopted design guidance provides a clear framework for development of designs which are appropriate, accessible, attractive and safe. Benefits of Active Travel 4.19. 26% of households (2,758 households) in the B&C area do not have access to any motor vehicles (2022 census) and are therefore reliant on public transport and active travel to move around. Within the key settlements the proportion of households without access to a motor vehicle is 41% (947) in Rothesay, 26% (1,370) in Dunoon, Innellan and Sandbank, 15% (50) in Blairmore, Kilmun and Strone and 13% (40) in Tighnabruaich. 4.20. Transport poverty is defined as households and individuals who spend a significant percentage of their income to make the journeys they need (UK Government, 2019). In Argyll and Bute, where a higher than Scottish average of the population have low incomes (SIMD 2020), the cost of travel is a significant barrier to a substantial number of the community. This is highlighted by the higher than Scottish average number of households have multiple cars but shorter than Scottish average journey distances to work/study (2022 census), indicating that a significant number of households own multiple cars to travel short distances. Walking, wheeling (mobility aids/child prams) and cycling are much cheaper than running a car or using public transport, and improving opportunities to choose to walk/cycle for essential journeys can improve access to essential services, reduce social exclusion and increase opportunities to access education and employment. 4.21. Health benefits of enabling individuals and communities to choose to travel more actively are well documented and a significant body of research has identified that having active, healthy lifestyles helps to reduce fragility and reduce falls as individuals age, and increase social inclusion and accessibility. In particular, being more active reduces the risk of premature morbidity and death, particularly from diseases related to inactivity including cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, dementia, type 2 diabetes, hip fractures and cancer. Active travel also has significant mental health benefits including increasing social inclusion and reducing depression. This means those who choose to be more active are less likely to require social care services in later life which could result in a future saving to the Council or HSCP (DfT, 2014; CIHT, 2016; Centre for Mental Health, 2016; Scottish Government, 2018; Dunoon Shaping Places for Wellbeing, 2022; World Health Page 103
Page 104
Organisation, 2022; Public Health Scotland, 2022; Public Health Scotland, 2023). 4.22. Economics: People who travel to shops actively by walking and/or cycling, while they spend less per individual visit, make more visits a month and have a higher monthly spend than people who travel to shops by private car (Pedestrian Pound, 2024). Improving public realm and routes to shops for pedestrians and cyclists can increase trade by up to 40% (Pedestrian Pound, 2024). 4.23. Improving safety through good design, in particular to protect more vulnerable individuals, pedestrians and cyclists, reduces injuries from car collisions (Public Health Scotland, 2022). Where people choose to travel actively to make a journey instead of using a private car, this reduces the number of car movements which makes streets cleaner, improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion and reduces demand for space to park in key hotspots. 4.24. A number of the active travel projects link to schools, thereby offering the opportunity to increase the numbers of pupils, parents and staff choosing to walk, cycle or wheel to school. While the main benefits are improved physical and mental health, such provision may also generate a saving on school transport provision. Argyll and Bute Council provide free school transport to some pupils on safety grounds. This is where pupils live less than the legislative minimum distance from school to qualify for free school transport provision but where there is no safe active travel route to school. Where new active travel infrastructure creates a safe route to school where one did not previously exist it could reduce the requirement to provide school transport on safety grounds, thereby creating a revenue saving to the Council. Active Travel Strategy (ATS) 4.25. Officers are working to develop a Local Transport Strategy (LTS) for Argyll and Bute covering all transport modes and a sister Active Travel Strategy (ATS) which will focus on setting out the policy and strategic context for the development and delivery of active travel across the whole of Argyll and Bute. Subsequent to this, an Active Travel Delivery Plan (ATDP) will be developed which will identify the specific projects to be developed in order to achieve the ambition set in the ATS. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1. Significant changes to the funding model in 2025/26 will create opportunities for active travel projects to focus on local priorities, rather than projects which meet the aspirations and objectives of national organisations. However, continued delivery of new and improved active travel opportunities to the residents, businesses, communities and visitors in the B&C area will require Members to Page 104
Page 105
commit the Tier 1 active travel funding allocation in the 25/26 Council Block Grant to the development and delivery of active travel projects. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1. Policy Completion of this project will support the Council’s Outcomes Improvement Plan outcomes 1: Transport Infrastructure and 3: Community Wellbeing. The project also supports achievement of the Scottish Government’s objectives set out in the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS) and Let’s Get Scotland Walking - The National Walking Strategy. 6.2. Financial The development and delivery of active travel in Argyll and Bute is currently solely funded by external funding applications. To date, the Council has not contributed any funding to design or capital costs. Active travel infrastructure requires maintenance and consideration is required of commitment of future resources to maintain the new active travel infrastructure our communities are seeking as the external funding opportunities do not fund maintenance. Improved active travel provision could reduce the requirement to provide school transport on safety grounds, thereby creating a revenue saving. There is strong evidence that people who are more active, for example by walking or cycling, have better physical and mental health and are less likely to require social care services in later life which could result in a future saving to the Council or HSCP. 6.3. Legal Continued input will be required from Legal Services to support any land acquisition required for the creation of active travel routes. 6.4. HR None. 6.5. Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities Provision of new and improved active travel infrastructure and behaviour change options will provide enhanced opportunities for residents and visitors to choose to travel more sustainably and actively by walking, wheeling and cycling. All new active travel routes are designed to be accessible and DDA compliant to provide a safe and accessible route for those with mobility aids including wheelchairs and parents/guardians with a child’s pram or buggy. Page 105
Page 106
6.5.2 Socio- economic Duty New and improved active travel routes will improve access to essential services, retail, leisure and employment opportunities for local residents, with studies demonstrating those who travelled actively had a higher monthly spend in local businesses than those who travel via motorised transport. The routes will also offer opportunities for individuals to travel for leisure, again encouraging spend in local businesses connected by the routes. 6.5.3 Islands A number of the active travel projects are based on islands, thereby providing the same opportunities for island residents/visitors to choose to travel actively as those on the mainland. Where visitors choose to travel actively in leu of taking a motor vehicle this can help reduce demand for the overstretched vehicle capacity on the ferry services. 6.6. Climate Change Active Travel is the least carbon intensive mode of travel. Providing the opportunity for residents and visitors to consider an alternative to having to use a private car to travel will help lower Argyll and Bute’s carbon footprint. 6.7. Risk There is a reputational risk to the Council if the projects are not completed within a reasonable timeframe. 6.8. Customer Services None. 6.9. The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Active travel is the most accessible mode of travel to young people, as it does not have any minimum age limits, does not require any form of licence, is free to use and is not tied to any fixed timetable. All new active travel infrastructure is designed to be utilised by an unaccompanied 12 year old. Engagement with school pupils indicates that the vast majority of pupils strongly support the provision of new active travel infrastructure, even where it would adversely impact other modes of transport. Executive Director with the responsibility for Development and Economic Growth: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads and Transport: Cllr John Armour 03 February 2025 For further information contact: Colin Young Page 106
Page 107
Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer colin.young@argyll-bute.gov.uk 01546 604275 Appendix 1: 2024/25 B&C Active Travel Projects Page 107
Page 108
Appendix 1: 2024/25 Projects Behaviour Change Projects Project Outline Programme Detail Active Travel Promotional Campaign Ongoing [subject to securing funding] Promotion of the Council’s new sustainable travel (walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport) promotional brand “Better Journeys” including a promotional campaign to raise awareness of opportunities to travel actively and sustainably across Argyll and Bute. External funding has been retained within the Council by working with the Council’s Communications Team to develop the brand, campaign materials including posters and social media clips. Pedestrian and Cycle Counters Ongoing [subject to securing funding] Argyll and Bute Council operate a network of automated pedestrian and cycle counters with 36 installed across the Council area. The data from these counters is used to monitor changes in pedestrian/cycle numbers, including from new routes, and by partners to support compilation of national statistics. The data is also publicly available via a dedicated website. Dunoon Active Travel Bothy Ongoing 2025/26: working with HITRANS and Dunoon Community Development Trust to move from Cycling UK to HITRANS/DCDT to reduce overheads and increase sustainability. Operated until 2024/25 by Cycling UK, the successful Dunoon Bothy project supports local residents in Dunoon and Cowal to choose to walk or cycle. The Bothy staff and volunteers offer a range of activities including family activities, led walks, led rides, cycle training and cycle loan to encourage and enable residents to view active travel as a viable option for short everyday journeys. Dunoon Behaviour Change Plan 2023/24: plan drafted 2024/25 – onwards: plan Working in partnership with Dunoon Community Development Trust a town wide behaviour change plan has been developed to support individuals and groups to find opportunities to become Page 108
Page 109
implementation [subject to securing funding] more active with the objectives of increasing inclusion/reducing social isolation, increasing access to services, improving health and reducing transport poverty. Dunoon to Hunters Quay Active Travel Route 2018/19: Concept Design v1 2023/24: Concept Design v2 2024/25: Developed and Technical Design 2026/27 – 2029/30: Construction This project seeks to improve the strategically important corridor between Dunoon and Hunters Quay that connects the ferry terminal at Hunters Quay with Dunoon Town Centre and the Dunoon Ferry Terminal for pedestrians and cyclists. The project also seeks to introduce a series of improved crossing facilities at key locations along its length in order to create safer accessible links over the A815 thereby improving the connection for everyone including those with limited mobility between the route which runs along the seaward side of the A815 and facilities and residential areas that are located on the landward side of the A815. The project also seeks to introduce public realm improvements at key locations such as the Kirn Shops to help emphasize Kirn as a destination and create an improved sense of place. Rothesay Town Centre to Joint Campus 2018/19: Concept Design 2020/21 - 2021/22: Developed Design 2024/25: Technical Design 2026/27 – 2029/30: Construction This project has developed a preferred option for a safe route between Rothesay Town centre and the Joint Campus along the B881 High Street, and in 24/25 it is planned to develop the preferred option to a fully constructible set of designs. This will deliver on the community ambition to create a safe route between the town centre and the Joint Campus, and it will create an important active travel route that will link in with the health centre, hospital, leisure centre, town centre, ferry terminal and other key services/destinations. Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier 2023/24: Concept Design 2024/25: Developed Design 2025/26: Technical Design This project will undertake extensive community engagement to develop options and designs to improve the walking, wheeling and cycling environment along the A844 Victoria Street, including the provision of links into the neighbouring communities and destinations along the route, from the Rothesay Pavilion to the Page 109
Page 110
2026/27 – 2027/28: Construction Rothesay Ferry Terminal and on to Albert Pier. This route is a key commuter and community link that will provide a safe active travel route to places of employment, essential services, residential areas, transport hubs, key recreational facilities and a range of retail services. The designs will include appropriate place making elements to enhance the route and offer wider public benefits along the route corridor. The designs will also improve pedestrian links into Rothesay Town Centre, Discovery Centre and the Rothesay Pavilion, and make allowance for potential future active travel connections, including onward on the A844 and the planned active travel improvements between Rothesay Ferry Terminal and the Joint Campus. Dunoon Castle Gardens Path Upgrade As per Economic Development plan Financial support to Economic Development colleagues to support upgrading paths within Dunoon Castle Gardens as part of the wider Castle Gate Lodge project to improve links to the newly refurbished Gate Lodge and improve walking, wheeling and cycling links through the Castle Gardens to improve active travel links between Dunoon Ferry Terminal, Town Centre and Promenade and the large residential areas behind the Castle Gardens. Infrastructure Projects Project Outline Programme Detail Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier 2023/24 – 2024/25: Concept Design 2025/26 – 2026/27: Combine with Rothesay Town Centre to Joint Campus Project for Development of concept proposals to improve the walking, wheeling and cycling environment along the A844 Victoria Street, including the provision of links into the neighbouring communities and destinations along the route, from the Rothesay Pavilion to the Rothesay Ferry Terminal and on to Albert Pier. This route is a key commuter and community link that will provide a safe active travel route to places of employment, essential services, Page 110
Page 111
Developed and Technical Design 2027/28 – 2030/31: Construction residential areas, transport hubs, key recreational facilities and a range of retail services. The designs will include appropriate place making elements to enhance the route and offer wider public benefits along the route corridor. The designs will also improve pedestrian links into Rothesay Town Centre, Discovery Centre and the Rothesay Pavilion, and make allowance for potential future active travel connections, including onward on the A844 and the proposed active travel improvements between Rothesay Ferry Terminal and the Joint Campus. Page 111
Page 112
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 113
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Bute and Cowal Area Committee DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 04 March 2025 Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project: Updated Reports 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. This report updates members in relation to changes made to the “Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project Stage 1&2 Combined, Engagement Report” and “Rothesay, Pavilion to Albert Pier Car Park Active Travel Project Stage 1&2 Combined, Options Feasibility Report” documents for the Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project following requests from Bute Community Council and Bute BID at this Committee on 03 December 2024. 1.2. References to the Community Council have been updated to the official title of Bute Community Council. 1.3. Comments previously attributed to Bute BID have been amended to note that comments provided at a meeting by a previous Bute BID Coordinator were provided in a personal capacity and not as a formal response by Bute BID. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Bute and Cowal members: i.Approve the changes made to the initial feasibility and concept design reports for the Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project to update title of Bute Community Council and note that Bute BID did not submit a formal response. Page 113 Agenda Item 10
Page 114
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Bute and Cowal Area Committee DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 04 March 2025 Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project: Updated Reports 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1. This report updates members in relation to changes made to the “Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project Stage 1&2 Combined, Engagement Report” and “Rothesay, Pavilion to Albert Pier Car Park Active Travel Project Stage 1&2 Combined, Options Feasibility Report” documents for the Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project following requests from Bute Community Council and Bute BID at this Committee on 03 December 2024. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1. It is recommended that the Bute and Cowal members: i. Approve the changes made to the initial feasibility and concept design reports for the Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project to update title of Bute Community Council and note that Bute BID did not submit a formal response. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1. At this Committee on 03 December 2024 the Convener of Bute Community Council raised that the Bute Community Council had incorrectly been referred to as “Rothesay Community Council” in a number of places in the reports. Officers agreed to correct the report. 4.2. References to the Community Council have been updated to the official title of Bute Community Council. The Convener of Bute Community Council thanked Officers for making this update via email on 27 January 2025. 4.3. At this Committee on 03 December 2024 a member of the Bute BID board raised that the Bute BID had not provided a formal response to the consultation and that the comments attributed to the Bute BID in the report were not the formal response of Bute BID. Officers agreed to correct the report. 4.4. As part of the consultation in developing the project, a meeting was arranged on 05 August 2024 with the Bute BID Coordinator in post at the time specifically to get Bute BID’s comments on the proposals. The Bute BID Coordinator agreed to distribute the meeting invitation to the wider Bute BID Board. In the event, only the Bute BID Coordinator attended the meeting but at no point stated that they were not speaking on behalf of Bute BID or that any comments made were personal and shouldn’t be attributed to Bute BID. As such, the comments made Page 114
Page 115
by the Bute BID Coordinator at the meeting were unknowingly incorrectly included as being a response from Bute BID. 4.5. Following this Committee on 03 December 2024, Officers contacted the current Bute BID Coordinator and Bute BID Chair to confirm if Bute BID wished to submit a formal response to the consultation. The current Bute BID Coordinator confirmed that Bute BID could not submit a formal response to the consultation as they had not carried out a consultation with their levy payers. This was due to Bute BID considering it unnecessary, given that individual levy payers could contribute to the consultation directly. 4.6. Comments previously attributed to Bute BID have been amended to note that Bute BID was “Contacted. No formal response received.” and the section of the report previously containing the comments erroneously attributed to Bute BID was updated to state “A meeting was held with the Bute BID Coordinator who offered their personal comments but was unable to provide an official comment on behalf of Bute BID.”. 4.7. Officers have subsequently contacted the current Bute BID Coordinator and Bute BID Chair to confirm that the changes resolve Bute BID’s concerns. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1. The reports submitted to the Bute and Cowal Area Committee on 03 December 2024 have been updated to take account of requests raised by the Convener of Bute Community Council and a board member of Bute BID. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1. Policy Completion of this project will support the Council’s Outcomes Improvement Plan outcomes 1: Transport Infrastructure and 3: Community Wellbeing. The project also supports achievement of the Scottish Government’s objectives set out in the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS) and Let’s Get Scotland Walking - The National Walking Strategy. 6.2. Financial The design and construction is planned to be funded by external funding applications. To date, the Council has not contributed any funding to design or capital costs. There is strong evidence that people who are more active, for example by walking or cycling, have been physical and mental health and are less likely to require social care services in later life which could result in a future saving to the Council or HSCP. 6.3. Legal Continued input will be required from Legal Services to support contractual agreements and Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) should these be necessary. Page 115
Page 116
6.4. HR None. 6.5. Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities Completion of this project will provide opportunities for all in Rothesay to travel more sustainably and actively by walking, wheeling and cycling. This is particularly important to the 41% of households in Rothesay (2022 Census) don’t have access to a motor vehicle. The route has been designed to be DDA compliant and will provide a safe and accessible route for those with mobility aids including wheelchairs and parents/guardians with a child’s pram or buggy. 6.5.2 Socio- economic Duty The route, once completed, will offer residents the opportunity to choose to travel using active travel, which are lower cost than alternative modes of transport. The route will also improve access to essential services, retail, leisure and employment opportunities for residents living along the route, with studies demonstrating those who travelled actively had a higher monthly spend in local businesses than those who travel via motorised transport. The route will also offer opportunities for individuals to travel for leisure, again encouraging spend in local businesses along and connected by the route. 6.5.3 Islands There are no adverse impacts. 6.6. Climate Change Active Travel is the least carbon intensive mode of travel. Providing the opportunity for residents and visitors to consider an alternative to having to use a private car to travel for essential journeys will help lower Argyll and Bute’s carbon footprint. 6.7. Risk There is a reputational risk to the Council if the project is not completed within a reasonable timeframe. 6.8. Customer Services None. Page 116
Page 117
6.9. The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Active travel is the most accessible mode of travel to young people, as it does not have any minimum age limits, does not require any form of licence, is free to use and is not tied to any fixed timetable. All new active travel infrastructure is designed to be utilised by an unaccompanied 12 year old. Engagement feedback demonstrates support for the delivery of the improvements from younger members of the community. Wider engagement with school pupils indicates that the majority of pupils across Argyll and Bute strongly support the provision of new active travel infrastructure, even where it would adversely impact other modes of transport. Executive Director with the responsibility for Development and Economic Growth: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity: Councillor John Armour 03 February 2025 For further information contact: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Fergus.Murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk Colin Young, Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer colin.young@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1: Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project Stage 1 & 2, Options Feasibility Report Appendix 2: Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project Stage 1 & 2, Engagement Report Page 117
Page 118
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 119
Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project Stage 1 & 2, Options Feasibility Report DATE: February 2025 REF: 501053 VERSION: FINAL v2 Page 119
Page 120
MARK RINKUS Managing Director Mark.rinkus@connectedtp.com Contents 1 OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL ......................................................................................................................................... 25 3 DEVELOPING THE CONCEPT ............................................................................................................................................................... 41 4 DESIGN PROCESS QUALITY AND INNOVATION ................................................................................................................................. 57 5 PROJECT DELIVERABILITY AND DESIGN COLLABORATION .............................................................................................................. 64 APPENDIX A – EXTENT OF APPROXIMATE COUNCIL OWNERSHIP ............................................................................................................. 66 APPENDIX B – SOCIAL AND EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SEQIA) ..................................................................................................... 67 Page 120
Page 121
1 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1 OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE 1.1 Introduction and Study Overview The Rothesay community consists of around 4,2071 people with the town providing the service centre for the Isle of Bute. The island is located on the coast of the Firth of Clyde. The A844, Victoria Street passes through the centre of Rothesay and serves as the Main Street providing access to essential amenities and education facilities and will connect to neighbouring settlements via the B878 and B881 roads that connect Rothesay to the wider Isle of Bute. The proposed study route spans between the Rothesay Pavilion and the Albert Pier along the A844 Victoria Street. A distance of c.965m. The route can be considered in two sections split at the ferry terminal and high street junction. Each section reflects different challenges relating to land use and corridor space. This Outline Business Case (OBC) seeks to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the options to improve walking and cycling within the study extent, setting out a baseline from which future monitoring and evaluation can be referenced. This report should be considered in conjunction with the Stage 1 Community Feedback and Monitoring and Evaluation Report; reported separately. 1 https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//geography/2022- census/Census2022_SpatialDatasetsFileSpecification.pdf 1.2 Recent Study History Options to improve the town facilities have been considered for a number of years. These include: • In 2010, The Highlands and Islands Regional Transportation Partnership (HITRANS) commissioned an audit of existing active travel infrastructure in Rothesay, with the aim of recommending priority areas for future investment. The actions focused on four key priorities for encouraging active travel: Priority 1: Clear and simple sign for Rothesay (both signposting and mapping) Priority 2: Introduction of contra-flow cycling on Rothesay's one-way streets Priority 3: Montague Street - Bridge Street town centre shared space system Priority 4: School campus to town centre (High Street). • In 2015-16 Remaking Rothesay Charette was produced in response to the growing concern about population decline on the island. A series of community and stakeholder engagement events were held in 2015, gathering ideas and opinions from businesses, community groups, school pupils, and members of the public. The key outs of the charette are: - Redesign of circulation and way finding between harbour and town; https://surf.scot/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Remaking-Rothesay-Charrette- Report-1.pdf Page 121
Page 122
2 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com - Detailed reconfiguration of movement and parking across the wider town; - Accessibility awareness and improvements; - Connected transport and active travel. - The Charette also identified plans for improving the town including a ‘Low Speed Environment’ and also imposing an idea of different ‘Series of civic spaces and connecting routes’. • In 2013 Fyne Futures, the Sustainability subsidiary of Fyne Homes, and partners in the Toward Zero Carbon Bute group, sought to undertake a review, identification and implementation of actions to enable active travel on Bute. In Rothesay, the work focused on progressing key actions identified in the Rothesay Active Travel Audit, and included: -1. The development of a cycle signposting strategy for the island, including routes to Rothesay, although no strategy was proposed. -2. The design of a walking and cycling map of the island, including Rothesay, showing key active travel routes, destinations and transport modes. -3. The review and phasing of developing the esplanade/promenade as an active travel route between Port Bannatyne and Ascog Bay. The implementation of the route was split into three phases, with Rothesay town centre (from the Pavilion to East Prince Street) included in phase 2. • In 2016 Argyll and Bute Council commissioned a review of pedestrian and cycling movements in the harbour and promenade with the aim of identifying improvements to the poor connectivity in the area. The present feasibility study builds on that review and addresses the issues, suggestions and comments raised during the public consultations as part of Remaking Rothesay Charette. • During 2018 the town was examined as part of The Rothesay Town Initiative investigating how the town is being used and accessed. The resulting spatial strategy identified several improvement options. • Argyll and Bute Council (ABC) have been progressing an active travel route within the community since 2017. This study focuses on the route between the Joint Campus to the north of the town towards the ferry terminal junction via High Street. Through a process supporting community engagement, the project has concluded detailed design (Sustrans PfE stage 3) with funding now being sought to supported by the routes technical design prior to future construction. • Caledonian MacBrayne (CalMac) as the ferry operator commissioned a safety assessment during 2019. The study examined the layout, access and operation of the port and made recommendations for safety related improvements. 1.3 Project Alignment with National and Local Strategy / Policy Page 122
Page 123
3 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As an active travel enabler2, this project seeks to support the connection of 20- minute neighbourhoods3, linking people and places whilst enabling the movement of people of all ages and abilities. The project will seek to reduce car dependency, reducing the need for car based short-journey trips whilst enabling the benefits of the healthier options of walking and cycling in undertaking everyday journeys by sustainable travel modes. The project seeks to directly contribute to safety and resilience objectives through the creation of a safe walking and cycling space. The project is therefore directly and indirectly aligned with national, regional and local policy and aligned with the strategic objectives of Argyll and Bute Council (ABC). The following strategies and policies are considered relevant to this study: • The Scottish Government’s National Performance Framework • Scottish Government Infrastructure Investment Plan • Active Scotland Outcomes • Physical Activity Implementation Plan – A More Active Scotland • Scottish Government Creating Places • Preventing Obesity in Scotland • The National Walking Strategy • The Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS) 2 A project which enables travel behaviour change. • The Climate Change Plan • The Road Safety Framework; and • The National Transport Strategy (NTS) A figure summarising the Scottish government's journey towards reducing car dependency for single occupancy trips is presented below. 3 https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/get-active/2020/in-your-community/what-is-a-20-minute- neighbourhood The National Picture Page 123
Page 124
4 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.4 Population and Demographic Assessment Rothesay currently has a population of 4,3204 residents based on the 2022 census. The population shows an overall small decline since 2001, summarised in the following table. Year Population 2001 5,140 2011 4,637 2022 4,320 The population is evenly split between males and females and weighted towards ages 60 – 69 years old and upwards. 4 2022 Census Supporting Information | National Records of Scotland (15 August 2021). "Appendix 2: Population and households on Scotland's Inhabited Islands" (PDF). Statistical Bulletin: 2022 Census: First Results on Population and 1.5 SIMD Assessment To understand Rothesay's social challenges, the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) area statistics for 2022 were examined. The results indicate that Rothesay is ranked low overall at 558 out of 6,976 places, all social indexes receiving a low score of between 1-3 out of 10. Thirteen out of the ABC area’s 125 data zones were identified as being amongst the 20% most overall deprived data zones in Scotland. These thirteen data zones are located in the towns of Rothesay, Dunoon, Campbeltown, Helensburgh and Oban. All of these data zones are located in the area’s towns, however, deprivation can, and does, occur elsewhere. Because the SIMD identifies concentrations of deprivation, smaller pockets and instances of individual deprivation are not picked up by the index. The town has a low level of car ownership with 41% not having access to a car or van when compared with wider Scotland (31%). The low ownership presents opportunities through the study scope to positively influence travel mode choice through improvements to infrastructure to support everyday travel by walk and cycle modes. Limited access to a private car will limit accessibility to services and opportunity by restricting the ability to move around with evidence showing that Household Estimates for Scotland Release 1C (Part Two) (PDF) (Report). SG/2013/126. Retrieved 14 August 2021. Page 124
Page 125
5 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com residents in smaller communities are typically disadvantaged by being more reliant on car ownership and exposed to greater costs of accessing goods and services. Most people living within Rothesay commute to work within the town with the largest movement outside the town being north east to adjacent settlement of Craigmore. Residents also commute off-island with reliance on the ferry service. Travel within the ward is likely but cannot be disaggregated from the reported census data. The islands primary employment industries are agricultural and tourism with the ferry services providing a critical lifeline to the movement of goods and services. The town suffers from comparably high levels of unemployment. 1.6 Rural Deprivation In recent years there has been a greater understanding of the impacts of transport poverty; where people lack access to services or work and the contributions that a lack of affordable transport options creates. Rothesay SIMD low ranking Census 2011 Rothesay travel to work Destination Page 125
Page 126
6 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com It is important to consider the aspect of island and rural inequalities, which creates challenges to living that are different from communities within larger urban areas5. In reviewing employment in rural areas, the SRUC report highlights a significantly larger percentage of those in part-time or smaller contract jobs, often with lower hourly rates or salaries than counterparts in urban population centres. Many rural areas have become increasingly reliant on the tourism industry, as a result, many jobs are seasonal and in demand, reducing the overall hours or contracts available over the year. Fuel Poverty Living outside larger urban areas is likely to increase the costs of goods overall – primarily due to the cost of the supply chain network required. This can be seen in the fuel cost with a predominant market of independent providers, unable to offer the prices of larger national outlets. This issue raises a secondary cost to residents, with island / rural communities relying more on private transport, and often having to travel further for services. Ultimately, for residents of communities such as those in Bute and Islay, more fuel is required to travel for day-to-day work and leisure. A report on the Minimum Income Standard for Remote Rural Scotland and research on the subject highlights that the cost of food and consumable goods are between 10-50% higher in rural areas, whilst clothing and household goods are between 30-50% higher. These estimates do not consider the impact of living 5 The Scottish Rural Policy Centre (SRUC) published a report entitled ‘Rural Scotland in Focus’ in the most remote locations where the costs associated with the movement of goods and services can be even more disproportionate. The cycling organisation Sustrans through their research has identified three key areas which can assist in addressing transport poverty. These are: • People-centred transport planning; • Provision of quality accessible, frequent and affordable public transport service; and • Development of a transport network that supports the movement of people to places irrespective of user’s social status. Whilst these options may not address the inequalities of island / local transport challenges; improving accessibility and access to goods and services, through sustainable travel modes, will provide the community with improved travel choices better aligned with the National Transport Policy. In time, these measures have the potential to reduce car dependency for short journey trips whilst contributing to people’s health and well-being through increasing daily physical activity. The reprioritisation of our streets to a more equitable distribution of limited space, combined with the reallocation of road space to support sustainable travel, landscaping, ecological and placemaking will improve the social and environmental experience of the area. Transport and access within Page 126
Page 127
7 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com the community are a core consideration in helping to mitigate some of the challenges of rural social deprivation. 1.7 Understanding Place Rothesay as a Town Rothesay is the principal town located on the east side of the Isle of Bute. The town can be reached by ferry from Wemyss Bay, which offers an onward rail link to Glasgow. Rothesay is a Victorian seaside resort and the main town, with a traditional appearance and Victorian heritage including a Victorian frontage around Rothesay Bay. Dominating the shoreline amongst the esplanade front green is the refurbished Isle of Bute Discovery Centre, a unique 1920s circular structure of cast iron and glass, The centre incorporates a cinema, theatre and many interactive displays providing tourist information. The community includes Rothesay Castle and its dungeons. Just behind it is located Bute Museum. To the north of Rothesay, through the small community of Port Bannatyne, lies Ettrick Bay, Bute’s most accessible beach, which is attractive destination for able swimmers. Rothesay supports access to several everyday community services: • Coop supermarket • Rothesay Academy (Joint Campus) • Rothesay High Street, supplying most everyday service essentials; • St Andrews and Rothesay Primary Schools (Joint Campus); • Rothesay Leisure centre; • Esplanade Gardens including putting greens and palm trees; • Rothesay Castle, Victorian Toilets and cabbie’s shelter; • Bute Museum; • Discovery Centre (tourist information) and Cinema; and • Churches, supporting all aspects of community activity. Due to the town’s few surviving examples of Victorian design and styling the town is a conservation area. Rothesay Esplanade Rothesay is famous for its pier and promenade which have been built on reclaimed land. The original shoreline being located about 200m further inland, just in front of Rothesay Castle. The esplanade spans from the ferry terminal east along the coast. The esplanade is formed as a solid surfaced shared use footway which is as wide as c.14m. The route is formed in two parts consisting of a wider boulevard located between the front green and the sea and spanning from the ferry terminal (Victorian toilets) to around St Johns Place. From here the esplanade is formed adjacent to the A844 Page 127
Page 128
8 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Victoria Street and continues north along the coast essentially becoming a footway. The esplanade at this location is considerably narrower at just over 2m in width. The esplanade provides a number of functions incorporating an inner and outer coastal defence wall providing protection to the front green from the Scottish weather and tidal surges. From the esplanade, access can be gained to Rothesay’s beaches via stairs. The esplanade is designed in keeping with the Victorian style incorporating ornate ironwork fences and is a car free route. Albert Pier Albert Pier forms the western boundary of the study area located to the west of the ferry terminal. This section of the study area is shorter than the esplanade at only 230m in length. The route is however complex incorporating a narrow route corridor between the harbour and buildings located on the inland side of Victoria Street. With the extent of Albert Pier there are a number of land uses including: • A 20-vehicle taxi rank formed as a taxi layby on the coastal side of Victoria Street; • A bus stance supporting access to island bus services. The stance is located on both sides of Victoria Street at the harbour; • Access to Bishop Street via a mini roundabout; • Access to Albert Pier car park providing c.20 vehicle spaces; • Access to a range of frontage business and residential flats. Limited land space at Albert Pier combined with seasonal high on-street parking demand will likely be key route design considerations. Rothesay Ferry Terminal The ferry terminal is owned by Argyll and Bute Council and operated by Caledonian MacBrayne. A commercial ferry port, the port is a lifeline to the island supporting access for goods and services. The terminal is a 30-minute journey from the mainland at Wemyss Bay. The terminal consists of a terminal building with waiting room, toilets and ticket terminal. Access to the terminal from the town is via a pedestrian walkway adjacent to a covered harbour stance that historically provided shelter to horse drawn cabs and buses. A relatively new swing bridge provides access across the inner harbour mouth to the terminal building. Vehicular access to the terminal is via the Victoria Street / High Street junction (the principal junction in Rothesay), the terminal is formed as a fourth arm to the junction configured to provide a 3m wide vehicular drop-off lane supporting access direct to the terminal building. Adjacent to this is 6 stacking lanes (1 HGV and 5 car) for traffic waiting to board the ferry and a single 2.5m traffic lane used by all traffic existing the ferry. Traffic movements are supervised by marshals who provide drivers with the necessary instructions. The Victoria Street / High Street / Ferry junction is an unusual layout incorporating non-standard road geometry with some very wide sections of Page 128
Page 129
9 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com carriageway. The junction is partially signalised, providing priority to egressing traffic from the ferry utilising loop detectors in the carriageway. The signals do not include any support for pedestrian or cyclist movements. Pedestrians wishing to cross the ferry arm are required to traverse 30m of carriageway unsupported. Similarly, crossing of Victoria Street at this location could also be a challenge as there are no pedestrian signals, provided and the road often has cars parked along both sides of the carriageway. Overall, measures to support access and mobility by those less able have not been included within the junction design. Notwithstanding, the separate Ferry Terminal to Joint Campus active travel route did identify a number of smaller scale junction improvements designed to improve pedestrian and cyclist mobility. The proposed changes are shown in the figure opposite. The design has been developed on the understanding that the majority of vehicular traffic arriving from the ferry will travel east or west along Victoria Street / Albert Pier with few drivers choosing to travel directly ahead onto High Street. High Street / Ferry Terminal Proposed Changes Page 129
Page 130
10 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Victoria Street Victoria Street is located to the east of the ferry terminal. This section of the study area is longer than Albert Pier at around 640m in length. The route leads on from Albert Pier at the High Street junction supporting access through the town to the west. The route is wide with a carriageway of around 18m flanked by two footways, the coastal side being c.3m and the inland side being 2m. The widths of the footways vary along the route. Within the study extent, Victoria Street is fronted by a number of businesses including accommodation services. The street supports access to the main shopping area on Montague Street located behind Victoria Road. Access to the Chapelhill Car Park can also be gained from Victoria Street noting that the street is often well used for parking with vehicles parked along both sides of the carriageway. A number of bus-stops are located along the route. A few pedestrian crossing points have been formed using cobbled ramps to manage vehicular speeds and carriageway buildouts to reduce pedestrian crossing widths and improve visibility between parked vehicles. Rothesay Pavilion Rothesay Pavilion is an internationally recognised building of architectural and cultural significance. The building is A listed and is currently being redeveloped with the intention of becoming a social hub and economic multiplier for the community, as well as a catalyst for the creative and digital industries in keeping with its heritage and a magnet for tourists, particularly architectural industrial design enthusiasts and fans of popular music, dance and entertainment. Upon completion and once open to the public, the Pavilion is anticipated to become a key trip attractor / generator and will increase trips from the town centre. The Pavilion is also anticipated to include a frontage placemaking design which will ideally ‘tie-in’ to this project. 2016 Pavilion Concept showing Placemaking Page 130
Page 131
11 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.8 Infrastructure Condition The esplanade is predominately surfaced using a bound surface asphalt between the sea defence walls. The surface is in generally good condition. Lighting is provided via Victorian style lighting columns installed on the inland side. Victoria Street is also in generally good surface condition with both the carriageway and footways showing only a few signs of failure. Victoria Street is lit from the lighting columns on the seaward side and from lighting installed on the building fronts. Some dropped kerbs have been installed along the length of Victoria Street although there are few locations where tactile paving has been provided. The road includes a number of footways buildouts helps pedestrians cross the wide road. Sections of cobbled inserts have been used to manage vehicle speeds. Whilst the surface condition is generally in good condition, the streetscape is a mish-mash of changes. Double rows of parked cars and limited formal crossing opportunities will create challenges for pedestrians seeking to cross the road. The adjacent front green provides a key recreational space for the town and a welcoming green space to visitors. The greens include putting greens, benches and bins with the benches and bins supporting pedestrians walking the length of the esplanade. Overall, the infrastructure within the study area is in generally good condition. Rothesay’s Road Surface is in Comparably Good Condition Page 131
Page 132
12 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.9 Tourism, Visitors and Local Economy Rothesay High Street provides a core function as the heart of the Rothesay community and provides a service centre to the wider region. The High Street consist of a wide range of retail and commercial uses supporting everyday services. Like all towns, Rothesay businesses face a challenging economic headwind having suffered through the COVID-19 pandemic with the cost-of-living crisis, fuel cost rises adversely impacting the viability of businesses to be able to afford occupying high street spaces. As an island community, the decline in footfall due to alternative online / home delivery options is less pronounced. In Rothesay tourism is a core component of the island’s economy, architecture and heritage such as Mount Stuart, Bute Museum, Rothesay castle, Victorian Toilets and seafront which all attract tourists and bring business to the town. Cycling is also popular with the island which is part of the five ferries challenge route with many cyclists travelling west to Rhubodach ferry terminal. 1.10 Utilities and Known Constraints To understand the utilities within the area, a search of utility apparatus within the study area was undertaken. These are summarised as follows: Water supply The Scottish water plan has indicated a 90mmm HPPE pipe below Victoria Street along the extent of the route. Consideration should be taken for any works undertaken within the vicinity of the pipe work in line with Scottish water guidance. Electricity Line search before you dig has indicated multiple HV main cables in the vicinity of the project route. Consideration should be taken for any works undertaken within the vicinity of the cables in line with SSE guidance. Foul/Surface Water Scottish water GIS plan has indicated a water main is present along Victoria Street. Communications Telecommunication apparatus was noted to be located along Victoria Street. Gas Gas apparatus was noted to be located along Victoria Street. Flood Risk An extract of the SEPA flood risk for the project area is supplied separately. The extract confirms that the project route is not at risk of flooding from a 1:200-year event. Page 132
Page 133
13 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.11 Landownership and Rights of Access The project route extent consists of road space publicly adopted by Argyll and Bute Council. The Front Green and Discovery Centre are owned by Visit Bute whilst much of the land on the wider Isle of Bute is owned by the Mount Stuarts. The project area is flanked by commercial and residential properties. The approximate extent of public road adoption excluding public road adoption is presented in Appendix A. 1.12 Understanding Travel Behaviour The study route forms one of the two major traffic routes in Rothesay. The route will complement the ongoing Joint Campus to Ferry Terminal route currently undergoing development. Once complete, both routes would provide network within the town centre supporting access from key trip generators to key trip attractors. This will include trips to and from local services and towards the residential areas. 1.13 School Travel A sample Hands-up Survey (HuS) was undertaken during February 2024 to understand how the community’s younger members currently travel to the primary school. The results of the sample survey show that pupil’s dependency on travel by car (60%) and bus (40%). Only 1% of the surveyed children walk to school and even fewer cycle. The school engagement has confirmed that a number of the town's younger members do own bikes and regularly walk or cycle along the route. The school’s location relative to the study area is however unlikely to be a key indicator of suppressed active travel demand for the project route. Travel Mode Morning Trip Afternoon Trip Walk 0 2 Cycle 0 0 Bus 7 11 Car 14 7 Ferry 1 0 Whilst pupil walking is popular, the school is located remote from the study area Page 133
Page 134
14 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.14 Public Transport Bus services around the town are contracted by Argyll and Bute Council and currently operated by West Coast Motors who provide public transportation services in various regions of Scotland. They offer a schedule of bus services connecting the various towns to Rothesay including Ardbeg and Ettrick. A review of the bus services offered suggest that the town benefits from an effective public transport service with a wide range of services operating on a 30- minute service frequency. 1.15 Baseline Data To support this project, a number of data sources were commissioned to provide a snapshot of people and traffic volumes speeds and movements during February 2024. The town is a known tourist destination with many visitors arriving between May and September. Any traffic survey undertaken during the peak seasonal period of May to September will therefore likely reflect seasonal peak (worst case) results. The surveys consisted of Automatic Traffic Counters (ATC) installed for 7 days along A844 Victoria Street, Albert Pier. Junction Turning Counts (JTC) were undertaken at Victoria Street / High Street and the Albert Pier / Bishop Street junctions. The counters recorded all vehicle movements including speeds by direction continuously. To support an understanding of parking behaviours in the area, parking surveys were also commissioned to capture parking on-street along Victoria Street and Albert Pier including two car parks. In addition to the ATCs, Non-Motorised Users (NMU) surveys were also undertaken during the same period. The NMU surveys were located at key locations along the route corridor. Location and range of survey data collection Page 134
Page 135
15 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.16 ATC Results The results of the surveys indicate that the typical traffic volumes along Victoria Street in the vicinity of the Pavilion are around 1,8006 vehicles per day in both the southbound and northbound directions. These volumes are low when compared with the roads theoretical design capacity. Vehicle speeds were noted to be in excess of the speed limit with an 85th percentile speed of 34mph being recorded (30mph limit). Nearer to the ferry terminal junction, eastbound vehicle numbers increase to around 2,800 vehicles per day. This indicates that traffic travelling along Montague Street turns right onto Victoria Street as part of a ‘gyratory’ loop. Westbound traffic flow is 1,600 vehicles per day. 85th percentile speeds of vehicles were noted to be under the speed limit with the eastbound recorded at 25.5mph and the westbound at 26.5mph. To east at Albert Pier, the number of vehicles travelling in both the eastbound and westbound directions was notably lower at around 1,000 vehicles per day. 85th percentile speeds were noted to be around 24mph with vehicles travelling westbound noted to be marginally slower at 22mph. This may be as a result of vehicles having to slow down on approach to the Bishop Street roundabout. Traffic composition along this route is 86% cars or light vans with 14% classed as Heavier Goods Vehicles (HGVs). 6 February 2024 12-hr AAWDT 1.17 Non-Motorised Users (NMU’s) During the same survey period, NMU surveys were located on the terminal junction and the Bishop Street / Albert Pier junction and recorded a single-day snapshot of pedestrian and cyclist movements. The surveys captured all ATC results by location Page 135
Page 136
16 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com pedestrian and cyclist numbers by travel direction within a 12hr day 07:00 to 19:00 over a typical off-peak weekday. The results of the surveys indicated that at the ferry terminal junction the daily pedestrian flow was 144 people travelling east/ west on the northern side of the footway (coastal) and 132 travelling east /west on the inland footway. Pedestrian movements along the Victoria Street section to the High Street junction is noted to be high with around 614 movements recorded on the inland footway. The majority of these movements then turn right and travel south along High Street. Unsurprisingly, the cycling numbers are low at this location, noting the time of year (February). Around 7 were recorded over the course of the day, favouring the coastal side footway. 1.18 ABC Cycle Counters ABC have installed a permanent pedestrian and cycle loop counters on the Esplanade. With the exception of when the counter has malfunctioned, the counter captures data continually 24hours per day and by each day of the year. The data can be used to understand how the number of pedestrians and cyclists change over the year. The results of the counter indicate that since 2020, the number of pedestrians / cyclists have declined up to 2022 which may be the result of COVID19 on tourist visitors to the island. From 2022 the counter would appear to be malfunctioning. Ferry Terminal Junction Off-Peak 24hr Pedestrians and Cyclist Movements Victoria Street Zebra -Off-Peak 24hr Pedestrians and Cyclist Movements Page 136
Page 137
17 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Notwithstanding the above, the data captured by the counter for 2019 would appear to be complete. Using this data a comparison of pedestrian’s and cyclist demand between an off-peak month and day (February) and a peak season weekday in September can be estimated. The results of the comparison are shown in the following figure and indicate that during the peak season, the number of pedestrian / cyclist trips increases from 174 to 282. This is an increase of 62%. 1.19 Parking Parking surveys were undertaken during early February 2024. The surveys included Chapelhill and Alber Pier off-street car parks and on-street parking. The survey results indicate that Chapelhill has a capacity of a round 25 spaces with around 40% of these unused during successive town visits. Albert Pier has an official parking capacity of 20 vehicles but during both the weekday and weekend surveys around 18 to 22 vehicles were parked within the car park and a peak parking occupancy of 31 vehicles was observed. Summary of Esplanade Counter Walk / Cycle Data ABC Off Peak-to-Peak 2019 Pedestrian Cyclist Comparison Page 137
Page 138
18 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The parking duration for vehicles parking regular within the car parks is noted to be long at over 5 hours suggesting that the spaces are used by the staff of nearby businesses or local residents. Albert Pier Weekday / Weekend Parking Summary Page 138
Page 139
19 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com February 2024 Off Peak Parking Survey along A844 Victoria Street / Albert Pier Page 139
Page 140
20 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.20 Road Safety A review of the Crash Map Road Safety7 website indicated that there have been no incidents documented in the vicinity of the study route between 2018 and 2023. The nearest recorded accidents occurred in the public car park opposite the kiosk, just off Vicotria Street. The accident was serious, involving only one vehicle and one casualty. A second serious incident was recorded on the Guildford square. No details were available. It's important to note that this does not necessarily imply that no accidents have taken place within the study route, but rather that emergency services were either not required or not notified. 7 https://www.crashmap.co.uk/ Accident History 2018 - 2023 Page 140
Page 141
21 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.21 Parking, Access and Management Parking within the study area is split between off-street car parks and on-street parking. Within the study area is located a number of off-street parking areas, all free of charge, consisting of: • Chapel hill Road. Providing 25 vehicles spaces. During the February site visit, it was noted that a number of the parking spaces are occupied by the bins from surrounding properties or caravans. • Albert Place Car Park. Proving parking for around 20 vehicles. • East Princess Street. Providing parking for a round 5 vehicles. There is adequate designated parking along the promenade to cater for all observed parking numbers. It’s noted there is a lot of pavement parking in the southeastern section of Rothesay due to the narrow width of the road and parking on the opposite side residents and visitors are parking with all 4 wheels on the footway. For electric vehicles, two 22kW, 32A charging points are available at Guildford Square Car Park, Rothesay, less than 100m from the Terminal Building. The Isle of Bute historically operated a Community Car Club which was open to both residents and visitors. Pavement parking is a common occurrence Page 141
Page 142
22 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.22 Current Travel Patterns The 2011 census data for Rothesay was examined to understand current travel behaviours and travel patterns within the project area. It is noted that more rural locations are more likely to be more dependent on private car use when compared with the Scottish average. However, as stated previously, car ownership for Rothesay remains comparably lower at 41%. Rothesay is currently participating in the 2024 ‘Beat the Street’ Active Travel programme. The results of the initiative may be available for the stage 2 of this project. 1.23 Understanding The Communities Demographics The National Records of Scotland data as at 2022 shows the population of Rothesay was 4,320. 14.3% were children, 55.1% were aged 15-64, 30.6% were over 65 years of age and over. There is a greater percentage decrease in the population aged 0-15 years compared to Highland or Scotland.8 The National Records of Scotland shows the population has decreased by 16% in the period 2002 to 2022 with a difference 8 https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/scotland/argyll_and_bute/S19002472__ro thesay/ between age groups concerning population change. There was a 63% increase in the 65+ age group, which occurred year on year since 2002 Over the next 10 years, the population of Argyll and Bute is projected to decrease by 6.2% due to natural change (more deaths than births). Notwithstanding, Total net migration (net migration within Scotland, from overseas and from the rest of the UK) is projected to result in a UK population increase of 0.5% over the same period.9 9 https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/statistics/council-area-data-sheets/argyll- and-bute-council-profile.html Page 142
Page 143
23 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.24 Where do People Currently Cycle? Rothesay is part of the Bute Cycle Network, a 23-mile loop around the Isle of Bute which runs through Rothesay and right along the A844 Victoria Street which is the site of the proposed development. This demonstrates demand for cycling in the Rothesay area, and a key tourist attraction. 1.25 Health and Wellbeing Being more physically active can benefit everyone and can reduce the chances of developing preventable conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. Active travel as promoted by this project will encourage individuals to be more physically active as part of their daily routine by incorporating physical activity into everyday tasks. This reduces the need to find extra time, money or motivation for exercise. The route could also offer savings to some users by saving on fuel, and vehicle running costs. Making short journeys using active travel helps to reduce the number of vehicles on the road and improves local air quality and environmental amenities. Investment in active travel can also deliver economic benefits with shoppers who are actively spending less per visit but making more frequent visits and spending more. Active travel is affordable and delivers value for money in achieving health, transport and wider policy objectives. Studies on the economic benefits of walking and cycling interventions in the UK revealed an average return of £13 for every £1 invested and returns as high as £19 for every £1 invested. Cycling and Walking Activity from Strava Page 143
Page 144
24 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL Page 144
Page 145
25 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2 OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL 2.1 Investigating the Network In advance of the Stage 1 Community engagement process undertaken during February 2024, the design team worked with the steering group to identify multiple route corridors which could be used to help identify the community’s appetite for change and set the ambition for the design. The concepts were developed in stages set out as follows: • A constraints plan was developed to capture all known geographic, ecological and physical considerations within the identified route corridors. Following engagement with Bute Community Council and ABC a land ownership register was produced to accompany a land ownership plan. A suite of data collection surveys was commissioned, including traffic surveys, NMUs. The results were consolidated and considered. • The previous 2020 spatial masterplan report for Rothesay Town and the route concept options developed between the Pavilion and Ferry Terminal junction were examined. • The results of the traffic surveys were considered in conjunction with the route design guidance provided within Transport Scotland’s Cycle by Design Guidance 2021 update. • Through a workshop discussion between the design team and ABC representatives it was noted that the study corridor is formed in two halves, each with a different set of challenges. A section between the Pavilion and the ferry terminal junction benefits from additional road space and therefore a number of potential group options are possible. Between the ferry terminal and the Albert Pier Carpark the route corridor is more constrained and the development of a route option would be more challenging. There are fewer options available for the route in this location. • It was noted that the Esplanade already provides a good quality walking and cycling route which should ideally support the majority of the route design. The use of the Esplanade was also noted to be a key objective of previous studies. The Esplanade was debated within the design team and the number of technical challenges were identified. These included avoiding alteration to the sea defence and the challenges of tying the route at the terminal back to the ferry terminal junction. On reflection it was agreed that the Esplanade must be promoted as an option for consideration • Between the Pavilion and the ferry terminal junction a total of five concept route alignments were identified. • Between the ferry terminal junction and Albert Pier, a total of three route alignments were identified. • Utilising the design team experience in conjunction with the guidance provided within Cycle by Design 2021, the concept options were created. Page 145
Page 146
26 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com It was agreed appropriate that the stage 1 of the project should be to sample the community’s preference on route corridor. The options considered are summarised as follows and graphically overleaf. Option Pavilion to Ferry Terminal Route Concept Description 1 Route formed on Esplanade. Use existing route and connect back to Victoria Street at the Ferry Terminal either through the inner harbour or along the side of the Front Green 2 Widen existing footpath into winter gardens. Route on inland side of A844 3 Widen footpath on inland side to suit width constraints. Maintain current road widths by widening onto coastal side of A844 4 Reallocation of road space to suit new widened footpath on coastal side of A844 5 Reallocation of road space to suite new widened footpath on inland side of A844 Page 146
Page 147
27 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Option Ferry Terminal to Albert Pier Route Concept Description A Widen route and provide path on inland side B Widen route and provide path on coastal side C Shared use of West Princess Street then widen route and provide a path on the inland side of the road A844 Albert Place Typical Cross Section Options Page 147
Page 148
28 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com All Route Corridor Options Initially Considered Page 148
Page 149
29 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.2 Pavilion to Ferry Terminal Junction: Route Summary Descriptions Each of the route options are described in greater detail as follows. Option 1: Route formed on Esplanade. Use existing route and connect back to Victoria Street at the Ferry Terminal Length 646m Description Widen the pinch points on the esplanade and provide improved connection to Ferry Terminal junction Key Challenges • Avoid impact on sea defences • Ramps and stairs will require realignment • Limited corridor space at terminal end • May not present as attractive alternative to Victoria Road (not direct enough) • Busy during summer peaks • Coastal exposure Key Opport’ies • Most direct route for tourists from ferry • Car free route • Lower capital costs • No impact on bus, servicing or loading • More pleasing environment • Limited impact on existing drainage systems • Limited impact on the front green area Option 2: Widen existing footpath into winter gardens. Route formed on inland side of A844 Length 604m Description Following Victoria Street, the route would be formed on the inland side of the street. The road cross section would be maintained with the whole road being shifted into the front gardens area by around 2m Key Challenges • Major impact on kerbs, drainage and services • Increased risk of cycle / pedestrian conflict • Higher capital cost • Potential impact on Front Green Key Opport’ies • Cycle route on busiest inland side nearest all key trip attractors • Most direct route • Avoid changes to front green • Simpler interface with Ferry Terminal Junction Option 3: Widen footpath on inland side to suit width constraints. Maintain current road widths by widening onto coastal side of A844 Route Length 604m Description Following Victoria Street, the route would be formed on the coastal side of the street. The road cross section would be maintained with the improved active travel facilities extended into the front gardens area Key Challenges • Major impact on kerbs, drainage and services • Some impact on front green area Page 149
Page 150
30 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • Higher capital cost Key Opport’ies • Cycle route near all key trip attractors • Most direct route • Simpler interface with Ferry Terminal Junction Option 4: Reallocation of road space to suit new widened footpath on coastal side of A844 Length 604m Description Following Victoria Street, the route would be formed on the inland side of the street. The road cross section would be adjusted to narrow the carriageway width to avoid impact Key Challenges • Major impact on kerbs, drainage and services • Some impact on front green area • Higher capital cost Key Opport’ies • Cycle route near all key trip attractors • Most direct route • Simpler interface with Ferry Terminal Junction Option 5: Reallocation of road space to suite new widened footpath on inland side of A844 Length 604m Description Following Victoria Street, the route would be formed on the coastal side of the street. The road cross section would be adjusted to narrow the carriageway width to avoid impact with the gardens area by around 2m Key Challenges • Some impact on kerbs, drainage and services • Higher capital cost Key Opport’ies • Cycle route near all key trip attractors • Most direct route • Simpler interface with Ferry Terminal Junction Page 150
Page 151
31 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.3 Ferry Terminal Junction to Albert Pier: Route Summary Descriptions Each of the route options are described in greater detail as follows. Option A: Widen route and provide path on inland Length 245m Description Route would be formed on inland side of A844 Victoria Road Key Challenges • Limited route corridor space will limit the extent of design possible. • Impact on taxi and bus rank • Albert Pier Car park will be impacted • Area is heavy parked • Will impact on coach parking at Albert Pier Key Opport’ies • Route coherence • Most direct route option Option B: Widen route and provide path on coastal side Length 245m Description Route would be formed on coastal side of A844 Victoria Road Key Challenges • Limited route corridor space will limit the extent of design possible. • Impact on taxi and bus rank • Albert Pier Car park will be impacted • Area is heavy parked • Will impact on coach parking at Albert Pier Key Opport’ies • Route coherence • Most direct route option Option C: Shared use of West Princess Street then widen route and provide a path on the inland side of the road. Length 260m Description Using West Princess Street at a mixed traffic street to avoid the taxi and bus rank, the route would rejoin Victoria Street at Albert Pier. The route would then be formed on the coastal side Key Challenges • Limited route corridor space will limit the extent of design possible. • Albert Pier Car park will be impacted • Area is heavy parked • Least direct option, may not be used Key Opport’ies • Route coherence • Avoid Impact on taxi and bus rank Page 151
Page 152
32 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.4 Considering The Technical Challenges Albert Pier Coach and Vehicle Parking The Albert Pier car park has a marked capacity for 20 vehicles consisting of 17 cars and 3 coaches. Parking capacity is nearer 30 vehicles with cars and campervans often parking along the waterfront footway. The car park is irregularly shaped limiting the options to reconfigure the space to increase parking capacity. A key feature of the facility is the provision of 3 coach sized parking bays. These are understood to be well used during the peak summer months and should ideally be retained. A derelict pier building currently occupies the site and is noted to be an eyesore. Demolition of the building would contribute towards providing additional parking capacity whilst the building itself could be reinvested as a public toilet or an active travel community hub. Taxi Rank The taxi rank is located between the ferry terminal junction and the Bishop Street roundabout. The taxi rank is large supporting around 20 taxies (parked end in). The taxi rank is well used but could be reduced in scale. This would provide some additional road space within this constrained location. It is unclear at the time of writing what the optimum capacity of the taxi rank should be. It is also noted that currently taxies are parking end in. This requires a reversing manoeuvre on the main road which is considered less safe and best avoided. Bus Stance The bus stance is located adjacent to the taxi rank in front of the harbour and Guildford square. The stance can support a total of 4 coaches (2 per direction) within the lay-bys provided. Access between the stops is supported by a zebra crossing which ais also aligned with the pedestrian access to the inner harbour and ferry terminal building Ferry Junction The ferry junction is a key node point in the network. The junction is an irregular shape and partially signalised to support the egressing movements of ferry vehicles. The junction does not support the movement of pedestrians, cyclists of other non-motorised users. Page 152
Page 153
33 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Traffic Volumes It is noted to be very challenging to accurately predict any changes to traffic volumes as a result of the concept being implemented. This is primarily due to the challenges in forecasting drivers route decision making within a complex urban area which reflects the level of congestion and vehicle speeds at that time. Vehicle numbers are noted to be in excess of the 300 vehicles per day Cycle by Design threshold with Victoria Street and Albert Pier catering for over 10% in Heavy Goods Vehicles. As a result, a facility segregated from the carriageway will be required. As the route is within a 30mph area, the segregation strip may be a narrow as 0.5m subject to agreement of technical standards. Loading and Servicing Currently, a loading and servicing along Victoria Road is catered for by frontage access. Service vehicles park where they can (sometime across bus stops) and utilise pallet trucks to make deliveries through the businesses front doors. It is understood that many of the business have the ability to take delivery via the rear but find frontage servicing agreeable. Road Safety Feedback received through the stage 1 engagement combined with on-site design team observation indicates that there are a number of road safety challenges that could be addressed through the project design process. These include: • Crossing of pedestrians on Victoria Street which often required pedestrians to cross between parked cars. A lack of formal crossing points limits the mobility of those less able. The most obvious points for crossing support are the ferry terminal junction, at the Pavilion and Victoria Street Frontage Loading Page 153
Page 154
34 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com outside the Discovery Centre. Higher vehicle speeds and lower level of lighting during the darker winter months exacerbate this issue. • Cycling along Victoria Street / Albert Pier is not comfortable for less confident cyclists as they are required to cycle on the live carriageway between parked cars and moving vehicles. • High Street / Ferry Terminal junction is unwelcoming to pedestrians and cyclists with no pedestrian crossing provision and wider crossing distances increasing crossing risk. • Cyclist / pedestrian conflicts along the esplanade could be addressed through segregation of the user groups. • Pedestrian routes to the ferry terminal junction are not well sign posted for visitors. • There is no cohesive cycle network to support access south along High Street towards the joint campus. Street Trial The idea of a street trial to test concept 1 was raised during the public engagement event. Street trials are normally reserved for Category 4 (or bigger) PfE funded projects where the scale of the project would justify the additional costs of appraising the concept. Notwithstanding, Rothesay is a small scheme with a likely small cost associated with producing a Temporary Traffic Regulatory Order (TTRO) and temporary surfacing works required to test the concept. The preparation of the temporary order will however take time requiring public notification and collaboration with Argyll & Bute Council. Following discussions with the study steering group, it has been agreed that a street trial is not a practical option to test as the extent of temporary works required to safely implement the concept would be excessive and ultimately unmanageable. Maintaining The Design A key challenge to all placemaking design options relates to the development of a robust maintainable design. Often the choice of materials that meet the maintainability criteria will be restrictive as the Argyll & Bute Council will need to maintain a store of the materials to support future repair works. A number of services are noted to be present along Victoria Street. Evidence recorded on site indicates that ongoing repair and replacement works by utility service providers will continually disturb any new design. It is unlikely to be possible to relocate the services as part of the design process due to the likely disproportionate costs. Alternatively, the design and material selection should take cognisance of the need to access services and be provided to improve the quality of any repair works. The choice of design materials will require careful consideration as part of the next stages of the project and will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter of this report. Page 154
Page 155
35 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment The site has been reviewed for potential sources of flooding following ABC Supplementary Guidance on Flood Risk. These are outlined below along with a qualitative assessment of the risk they pose to the route. • Fluvial Flooding: The SEPA Indicative Flood Map shows that the location of the site is not within the area of fluvial flood risk. • Pluvial flooding: The SEPA Indicative Flood Map shows that the location of the site is not within the area of high pluvial flood risk. • Coastal Flooding: The SEPA Indicative Flood Map shows that the location of the site is not within the area of high coastal flood risk. To summarise, the site is not considered at risk of flooding and no further investigation is deemed necessary. Community Feedback Reference is drawn to the results of the community and stakeholder feedback reported within the Community Feedback Report. A summary of the community’s feedback is summarised as follows: Concerns relating to the use of the existing road route • Parking is a premium within the town. Many of the town’s frontage buildings do not have alternative parking locations. Parking stresses increase with the influx of summer tourists • Parking at the Albert Pier end of town is particularly challenged. Camper vans, tour buses / coaches are understood to park on and along the footways. • The town roads are well trafficked by a number of HGVs (14%). These are often larger tractors or lorries. • The ferry terminal area is considered unsightly. There is opportunity to improve connection. • The front green should be protected. • The ferry terminal / High Street junction is noted to limit access by some user groups. The junction does not include a provision for the mobility impaired and is difficult to navigate. • There is a lack of crossing opportunities along Victoria Street to support the movement of pedestrians and cyclists. • Improve cycle walking connectivity between the ferry terminal and the Esplanade and between the Esplanade and Albert Pier. Aspirations for the future design • Victoria Street could be improved to include a central boulevard including palm trees. This would improve crossing potential and reduce carriageway width. Page 155
Page 156
36 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.5 Initial Options Sift Workshop The design team met to discuss the feedback of stage 1 consultation and investigate the route options being considered. Victoria Street The options were debated during a design team workshop. It was noted that option 1, the esplanade was strongly preferred by the small community sample with the primary justification being to avoid any negative impact on Victoria Street parking. The route would however require alterations to the sea defences in a number of locations including the installation of a sea defence gate. These changes were not acceptable to ABC due to risk of reducing effectiveness of flood defences and would require further investigation. Notwithstanding, option 1, when compared with the option Victoria Street options, would also be a less direct route for those wishing to pass along Victoria Street with the route being further disconnected from local everyday High Street services. It was also noted that the widening of the route (options 2 and 3) into the front green offered similar benefits to options 4 and 5 but would add significant additional cost to the project. It was therefore concluded that these options should only be considered if options 4 and 5 that used the existing road space could not be realised. Using the street width measured from OS mapping in combination with the options cross sections and feedback received, it was concluded during the workshop that options 4 and 5 can be accommodated within the existing road space, maintaining on-street parking. Further investigation of these two options highlights that the option four with the route formed on the coastal side would be the most deliverable option. Option 5 was felt to also reflect the most direct and coherent of the route options retaining cycle and walking activity on the businesses and residential side of the street and avoiding the need for promoting additional crossing movements. Page 156
Page 157
37 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Albert Pier Options A, B and C were considered further with option C – using Princess Street discounted on the basis that the route is too convoluted to be utilised. The taxi rank design was investigated further and it was noted that should this facility be rescaled and reorganised, the route could be accommodated along Albert Pier to the Albert Pier car park with no adverse impact on parking. It was noted that Albert Pier car park has a capacity of c.20 vehicles with a typical parking demand for 30 vehicles, even during the off-peak February survey. It has been concluded that all the design options would have an impact on the car park and / or on-street parking capacity. Consideration should therefore be given to either truncating the route option at the Ferry Terminal junction or seeking to identify alternative parking mitigation options to offset the parking impacts from both this project and the Joint Campus to Ferry Terminal. The route design standard was subjected to review using Transport Scotland’s Cycling by Design 2021 guidance. Noting the results of the vehicle traffic/speeds, the number of potential NMUs. Stakeholder Feedback Reference is drawn to the results of the community and stakeholder feedback reported within the Community Feedback Report. 2.6 Route Appraisal Against Cycling by Design (CbD) 2021 The route corridor was subjected to a review using the Sustrans route assessment criteria in combination with Cycling by Design 2021. The concepts were scored ranging between 1 – 3 with 1 reflecting a ‘high level’ of service and 3 a ‘low level’ of service. The assessment was undertaken by the design team as a workshop discussion to allow each route option and assessment criterion to be discussed and scored. The criteria considered in the assessment included: • Indicative Cost; • Deliverability; • Accessibility; • Local Need; • Coherence; • Directness; • Comfort; • Attractiveness; and • Adaptability. The resulting assessment identified that a number of the concepts, unsurprisingly would need further investigation to determine an appropriate standard of design provision. No consideration of the relative weighting of the evaluation criteria has been undertaken. Page 157
Page 158
38 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Route / Option Length (m) Proposed Intervention Structures Required / Altered 1 High level of Service 10-14 2 Medium level of Service 15-23 3 Low level of Service 24-30 Costs Deliverability Accessibility Local Need Safety Cohesiveness Directness Com fort Attractiveness Adaptability Total Option 1 646 Route formed on Esplanade. Use existing route and connect back to Victoria Street yes 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 17 Option 2 604 Widen existing footpath into winter gardens. Route formed on inland side no 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 16 Option 3 604 Widen footpath on inland side to suit width constraints. Maintain current road widths by widening onto coastal side no 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 16 Option 4 604 Reallocation of road space to suit new widened footpath on coastal side no 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 14 Option 5 604 Reallocation of road space to suite new widened footpath on inland side no 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 12 Option A 245 Widen route and provide path on inland side keeping road as it is. no 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 14 Option B 245 Widen route and provide path on coastal side keeping road as it is. no 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 14 Option C 260 Shared use of West Princess Street then widen route and provide a path on the inland side. no 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 19 Page 158
Page 159
39 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.7 Recommended Stage 1 Outcomes • Option 1 should be progressed subject to detailed conversations with ABC stakeholders regarding sea defence changes and scope of connection through to CalMac terminal. • Options 5 should be developed to concept stage 2 with route provided on coastal preferred as smaller works and cheaper, space available, coherent and consistent with Albert Pier • Option B Coastal for Albert Pier should be progressed to stage 2 concept design • Recommend redesign of Albert Pier as parking demand at this location is will negatively ‘over shadow’ the other merits delivered by the project. Alternatives are to explore community car park near albert pier. This may provide joint benefit to offset parking impacts associated with the Ferry to Joint Campus route. 2.8 Considering Those with Protected Characteristics An appraisal of the project has been undertaken using a Social and Equality Impact Appraisal template (SEQiA). The results of the assessment are included in Appendix B. Taking cognisance of the appraisals summarised previously it is noted that all concepts would be provided to achieve a Cycle by Design ‘High standard’ of 10 Subject to reducing total traffic flow provision10. Once a preferred route alignment has been determined the design should consider best practices to maximise the route accessibility for all user groups and abilities. Page 159
Page 160
40 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com NEW CHAPTER DEVELOPING THE CONCEPT Page 160
Page 161
41 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3 DEVELOPING THE CONCEPT 3.1 Developing the Options Following approval of progress by Argyll and Bute Council Officers, Option four, ‘Reallocation of road space to suite new widened footpath on coastal side’ has been selected for further development. 3.2 Designing with Nature A key consideration of the design process is to avoid an impact on flora and fauna. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) was commissioned in support of the options development process. The assessment identifies and reports on a limited number of ecological points of note within the study route. The ecological constraints plan was overlaid on the concept option plan to check that the concept does not impact on any ecological matters. The check confirmed that the concept is not likely to have any impact. Further validation should be undertaken at stage 3, detailed design. 3.3 Developing the Design The concept was subject to continual development to address the challenges noted. These included: • Redesigning Albert Pier Car Park layout to maximise parking capacity by reducing circulation space and removing the derelict kiosk building. • Improve parking capacity of the off-street parking area opposite Albert Pier by standardising the parking layout and adopting a herringbone layout. • Improve coach parking by avoiding reversing and manoeuvring space promoting a drive in and drive out layout. • Address existing pavement parking by separating the pavement from the parking area by including the coach parking in between. This layout is anticipated to reduce pavement parking along Albert Pier. • Formalise on-street parking by introducing marked bays. These will assist in maximising parking capacity by supporting drivers to park within the spaces provided. • Reduce the overall operational carriageway width to 6.5m. This will allow improved crossing opportunities for pedestrians. • Increased the number of pedestrian crossing points along the route. The crossing points are located where the community expressed a need for improved crossing. • Redesigned the CalMac entrance to reduce carriageway space whilst retaining the same vehicle stacking capacity for the ferry. 3.4 Maintaining the Concept A key challenge of any design is ensuring the robustness and minimising future maintenance requirements of any network changes. To support this, a series of Page 161
Page 162
42 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com workshops were held with Argyll and Bute Network Management Representatives in advance of developing the final concept design. In advance of each workshop a concept option plan was shared to support discussion. The key points of each workshop are summarised in the remainder of this chapter. Argyll and Bute Network Management (Workshop 2) • Due to carriageway construction and drainage arrangements, developing the route on the A844 route on coastal footway side was agreed to be the preferred route option. • The operational carriageway width must be maintained at a 6.5m minimum to give extra space allowance for HGV and Buses. It was agreed that the road narrowing would improve pedestrian crossing opportunities and help encourage appropriate vehicle speeds. • Noting the potential impacts of the concept on the ferry vehicle access, the Harbour Master and CalMac operator should be consulted to understand better any operational impacts. • Improvements to parking capacity along the route are supported. Any changes should consider seasonal parking impacts and the demand for coach and camper van parking where possible. • Improved access options should explore the use of ramps and avoid the suggested gate in the sea defence wall. This will improve connectivity for cyclists and wheelchair users to access the winter gardens from the CalMac terminal while not risking reducing the effectiveness of the sea defences. • The trees located along Victoria Road should ideally be retained as the public may have concerns regarding removal. • There is limited scope to revert the roundabouts on the A844 to Priority T-junctions. The town operates as a one-way gyratory and noting the industrial activity to the north, the roundabouts must be retained to support industrial traffic access onto the A844 from Bishop Street. • It was agreed that there is scope to repurpose road space to better accommodate different user groups. This should ideally avoid the need for the design to be widened into the front green / gardens. • Any redesign of Albert Pier car park to maximise car parking capacity is desirable. • Exploring the use of herringbone parking layout solution at parking area opposite Albert Pier should be considered. End-in parking is undesirable and should be removed through the design process due to safety concerns relating to vehicle manoeuvring. This will most obviously impact on the existing taxi rank. Based on the feedback received, the concept design was developed considering the above noted points. The emerging design was again subject to review by ABC network management and maintenance representatives. Page 162
Page 163
43 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Argyll and Bute Network Management (Workshop 3) A third stakeholder workshop was initiated to discuss the approach to review the emerging concept. The following points were noted: • Due to limited road space, a cycle buffer strip width of 0.5m is promoted. • The accommodation of the design within the existing carriageway kerbing is noted to significantly reduce drainage concerns and overall project construction costs. • The proposed ramp solution at the sea defence wall just behind the Winter Gardens in lieu of steps will provide improved connectivity between the Esplanade and the CalMac terminal. • The introduction of a drainage system is an option that ABC would support but would increase the overall capital cost of the project. • Improved and formalised parking capacity was welcomed. The formalising of on-street parking is noted to be a benefit. The improved parking capacity at Albert Pier was noted to be beneficial. • Parking impacts at Albert Pier should be subject to further conversations with ABC Economic Development team to confirm ABC aspirations to provide additional coach parking. • The Scottish Water building within the Albert Pier car park must be retained. The design should be revised to include this. • There is limited scope to resize the existing roundabouts but changes can be considered subject to vehicle tracking analysis to ensure access by larger vehicles can be maintained. 3.5 Vehicle Tracking Analysis The concept design was subject to a vehicle tracking analysis using vehicle tracking simulation software. The tracking was undertaken at the locations where the design was estimated to impact on the operational layout and included: • The entrance, exit and circulation of the parking at Albert Pier; • Access, egress and access to parking bays in the parking area opposite the Albert Pier car park; • Access, queuing and exit of the CalMac ferry terminal junction; and • The resized roundabouts along the route length. Vehicle tracking results can be found below: Page 163
Page 164
44 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Albert Pier Coach and Car Tracking Page 164
Page 165
45 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Albert Pier Coach and Car Tracking Page 165
Page 166
46 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com CalMac Junction HGV / Car Tracking Page 166
Page 167
47 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Bishop Street HGV Tracking Page 167
Page 168
48 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.6 Considering the Ferry Junction Operation It was a decision by the stakeholders that the ferry junction should be consulted regarding the proposed changes. A meeting was set up with CalMac ferry’s manager and the Harbour Master for Rothesay to review the emerging concept. Key outcomes of the meeting included: • General agreement regarding the operational layout changes to the CalMac junction layout. Particularly that the layout might help queuing on access back along Victoria Street. This would reduce the requirement for occasional marshal intervention and also improve the operation of the vehicle waiting are for CalMac staff. • Consideration of options to improve visitor legibility of the queuing lanes and intended operational management plan. • Avoidance of the use of lines and signs due to longer term maintenance challenges within a coastal location and the skewing movement of vehicle tyres wearing road line markings. 3.7 Value Engineering Route Extent As the design has been developed it was noted that the concept would offer additional benefits from being extended from the current end point at Albert Pier west towards Craigmore. Following design team and client discussion, it was agreed that the route should be extended to Glenburn Road where the corridor width increases. This revised end point was agreed as this location would afford more route options for future extension and therefore provided a logical termination point for this project. 3.8 Peak Season Parking Surveys To better understand the parking demand within the study area and noting the towns role as a key summer tourist destination, a second parking survey / assessment was undertaken during June 2024. The surveys followed a similar scope to those undertaken during February 2024 to assist in comparison of the results. The June 2024 survey results are summarised as follows. Page 168
Page 169
49 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com June 2024 Peak Parking Survey along A844 Victoria Street / Glenburn Road Page 169
Page 170
50 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Understanding Parking Impacts Using the June 2024 parking data, an assessment of forecast parking capacity impacts has been estimated. A minimum parking bay space of 6m in length has been assumed to allow space for vehicle manoeuvring. For each section of the route as defined by the February parking survey sections, an estimate of theoretical capacity of the current road layout has been undertaken by calculating the length of available road space by section available for legal parking and dividing this by the 6m bay length. The calculation includes allowance to avoid parking across accesses and on existing parking restrictions. The results of the comparisons for the on-street and off-street parking provision is shown in the following tables. The results indicate that as a result of the concept design, the total number of parking bays has been increased by around 15 parking spaces. The majority of these additional spaces are located towards the Albert Pier end of the route where the February parking surveys and stage 1 community feedback have indicated parking stress is at its greatest. In general parking between the Pavilion and Albert Pier remains broadly unchanged from the existing arrangement. On Street Parking Route Section Description Road side Existing Parking Bays Proposed Parking Bays Difference A Pavilion St Johns Place South 19 20 1 North 0 7 7 B St Johns Place Chapel hill Car Park South 7 7 0 North 7 5 -2 C Chapel hill car park Chapel hill Road South 10 10 0 North 10 10 1 D Chapel hill Road Gallowgate South 5 3 -2 North 0 6 6 E Gallowgate Tower Street South 10 12 2 North 10 11 1 F Tower Street High Street South 8 7 -1 North 8 4 -4 G High Street Bishop Street South 5 10 6 North 0 0 0 H Bishop Street Albert pier South 13 13 0 North 0 0 0 I Albert Pier South 8 8 0 North 0 0 0 J Bishop Terrace Brae Commodore Guest House South 38 0 0 North 0 0 0 K Commodore Guest House Glenburn Road South 40 0 0 North 0 0 0 Total 221 120 15 Page 170
Page 171
51 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.9 Coach, Taxi and Visitor Parking The proposed concept includes three 17m long coach parking bays located within Albert Pier which will replace the existing three coach bays currently provided. The coach parking will be accessed via a one-way in and one-way out gyratory style operation. This method of operation will ensure that no coaches are required to reverse within the public road spaces whilst ensuring all patrons are able to alight and disembark on the footway side away from the road. The proposed taxi layout will be redesigned to align vehicles parallel to road to improve access for passengers and remove need to reverse off the main road. This will reduce parking capacity to four allocated spaces. Additional taxi spaces may be possible through reallocation of adjacent public parking spaces. The bus-stops located along Victoria Road will remain in approximately the same location. 3.10 Route Safety Audit The emerging concept design were submitted to Drummond Black Ltd who undertook a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit in support of the design. Full details of the audit and designers’ response are supplied separately 3.11 Developing Route Cross Sections The proposed concept design route cross-sections taken at various locations across the scheme are shown in the following figure. Car Parks Car Park Existing Bays Proposed Bays Difference Chapel hill 21 21 0 Albert Pier 28 31 -2 Bishop Street 16 17 1 Total 70 70 0 Page 171
Page 172
52 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.12 Forecast Construction Costs Estimates An initial assessment of the capital cost of constructing each of the concept option is set out in the following table. The estimates have been prepared by CTP using SPONS cost information and relevant previous experience. The cost estimates should be treated as indicative until complete estimates of construction costs are prepared during the stage 3 detailed design. The option includes a 44% Optimism Bias reflecting the early concept design stage. Page 172
Page 173
53 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.13 Route Re-Appraisal Against Cycling by Design (CbD) 2021 The route option was again subjected to a review using the Sustrans route assessment criteria in combination with Cycling by Design 2021. The concepts were scored ranging between 1 – 3 with 1 reflecting a ‘high level’ of service and 3 a ‘low level’ of service. The assessment was undertaken by the design team as a workshop discussion to allow assessment criterion to be discussed and scored. The criteria considered in the assessment included: • Indicative Cost; • Deliverability; • Accessibility; • Local Need; • Coherence; • Directness; • Comfort; • Attractiveness; and • Adaptability. The resulting assessment identified that a number of the concepts, unsurprisingly would need further investigation to determine an appropriate standard of design provision. No consideration of the relative weighting of the evaluation criteria has been undertaken. Page 173
Page 174
54 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Route / Option Length (m) Proposed Intervention Structures Required / Altered 1 High level of Service 10-14 2 Medium level of Service 15-23 3 Low level of Service 24-30 Costs Deliverability Accessibility Local Need Safety Cohesiveness Directness Com fort Attractiveness Adaptability Total Option 5 604 Reallocation of road space to suite new widened footpath on inland side no 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 12 Option B 245 Widen route and provide path on coastal side keeping road as it is. no 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 14 Page 174
Page 175
55 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.14 Considering Those with Protected Characteristics An appraisal of the project has again been undertaken using ABC Social and Equality Impact Appraisal template (SEQiA). The results of the assessment are included in Appendix B. Taking cognisance of the appraisals summarised previously it is noted that both options would be provided to achieve a Cycle by Design ‘Medium standard’ of provision. 3.15 Considering Construction Phasing Due to the overall route length and complexity of island delivery, it is highly unlikely that the identified route corridor will be constructed as a single delivery project. It is more likely that the route will be delivered in a staged order as funding becomes available. Taking cognisance of the known challenges at this stage of the network development, the following construction order is suggested. 3.16 Recommendations and Next Steps Following consideration of the material provided within this assessment, it is recommended that the concept route is promoted and developed further during the stage 3 design process. The developed version will both reduce the unknown risks in the construction costs and improve deliverability but will also align with key stakeholders’ requirements. The design builds on the feedback provide by the community to focus less on cycle provision, improve more opportunities to cross the road, improve parking and address provision for overnight parking, coach and campervan parking. The concept improves connectivity between the Esplanade and the CalMac terminal and promotes a direct route that benefits pedestrian and cyclists through the town. Ref Route Section Route Length(km) Phase 1 Option 5 - Esplanade to Ferry Junction 0.58 Phase 2 Option B - Ferry Junction including Albert Pier 0.25 Phase 3 Option B - Albert Pier to Route end 0.62 Page 175
Page 176
56 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com DESIGN PROCESS QUALITY AND INNOVATION Page 176
Page 177
57 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4 DESIGN PROCESS QUALITY AND INNOVATION 4.1 Outline Design Process The project will be developed to align with the Places for Everyone (PfE) design development programme. 4.2 Design Guidance and Quality A wide range of design guidance and standards have been used to develop the project proposals. The core documents include: • Designing Streets; • Cycling by Design (2021); • The National Roads Development Guide (NRDG); and • Inclusive Mobility (2021). The detailed design process will use these standards and include: • Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB); • Traffic Signs and Regulations and General Directions (TSRDG); • Local Transport Notes (LTN); and • Traffic Advisory Leaflets (TAL). These references represent the core design guidance however other documents such as Sustrans Design Guidance Documents and other examples of best practice have also been considered. Page 177
Page 178
58 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4.3 Considering Wider Area Improvements The concept design process will include several key considerations in support of the emerging network. These include: • Improvement to accessibility, walking and cycling links between people and place; • Developing a signage and wayfinding strategy; • Promoting a cycle-welcoming intervention; • Introducing a Travel behaviour change programme; and • Providing cycle parking and storage measures. 4.4 Considering Streetscape and Landscape Improvements The route on its own will not create the maximum opportunity to support the movement of people, create a place and encourage community ownership. Rothesay is a key service centre for the regional community which relies heavily on the use of motorised travel to support the movement of the community. To support lasting change to travel behaviours the design process must include placemaking potential giving priority to maximising the communities’ assets and access to public transport as well as the opportunity to walk and cycle while retaining car-based access. 4.5 Planting, Drainage and Local Environment Within the proximity of any areas where there would be works such as seating, way finders, and shared surfaces, planting of native species will enhance the environmental improvements. Not only will planting create an attractive setting but it will also be encouraging and increasing biodiversity. Salt-tolerant species can be used for foraging and can be educational. The changing seasons are marked with the advent of spring with blossom flowers followed by autumn leaf colour changes. Page 178
Page 179
59 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4.6 Developing Streetscape Sensitively designed rural street furniture and public art can be incorporated as part of the concept design process and is aimed at enriching the experience of everyday journeys and visits to the area. Whilst keeping in mind the coastal environment; seating, opportunities for incidental play, and way-finders would be appropriate. As a rural area with period style street lighting, the lighting design must be provided very sensitively. Lighting can become a design feature in its own right, by marking at ground level or by enhancing seating areas by incorporating lighting into the structures. Paving materials will avoid any garish colours and patterns which would be more associated with an urban area; again, as they are not in keeping with the style of the road. The linear nature of the site naturally establishes a physical connection through the site which can be punctuated with environmental improvements such as seating areas and viewpoints. Examples of bike stands combined with seating Examples of Bike Stands Page 179
Page 180
60 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Example of Seating and Planting Example of Route Signage Example of Paving Page 180
Page 181
61 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Examples of Rural Route Lighting Solutions Page 181
Page 182
62 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Designing for Equality and Accessibility The proposed Active Travel network must support access by all user’ groups that includes accessibility by all ages and abilities. As the route corridor design progresses, consideration must be given to ensuring that the network remains safe and inviting to everyone. This includes how those more vulnerable in our society will be supported by the design. The design is supported by a Social and Equalities Impact Assessment (SEQiA) which is included in Appendix B. 4.7 Flood Prevention With a changing climate, the importance of designing with flood risk in mind is paramount. The SEPA flood risk maps indicate that the route is not at risk of 1:200-year coastal flooding event. A summary of the flood risk map is supplied separately. 4.8 Traffic Modelling No traffic modelling is considered necessary at this stage of the concept development. 4.9 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been undertaken for the existing route corridor. The PEA is supplied Separately. Page 182
Page 183
63 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com PROJECT DELIVERABILITY AND DESIGN COLLABORATION Page 183
Page 184
64 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 5 PROJECT DELIVERABILITY AND DESIGN COLLABORATION 5.1 Landownership The project route is predominately located within Argyll & Bute Council owned or adopted lands. There are no sections of the route where third-party land ownership is expected to be required. Additional frontage landowners may need to be consulted at the next stage of the design development depending on the route standard developed. 5.2 Designer Risk Register Similar to the Project Risk Register, the Designer Risk Register provides a summary of the risks and risk management associated with the technical delivery of the design. The Designer Risk Register is supplied separately. 5.3 Project Budget Forecast A whole-life project forecast has been provided (Supplied separately). Page 184
Page 185
65 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDICES Page 185
Page 186
66 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX A – EXTENT OF APPROXIMATE COUNCIL OWNERSHIP Page 186
Page 187
67 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX B – SOCIAL AND EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SEQIA) Argyll and Bute Council: Equality and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Section 1: About the proposal Title of Proposal Rothesay, Pavilion to Glenburn Road Walking and Cycling Improvement Description of Proposal Stage 2 Concept design of a 1.45km Active Travel Route through Rothesay Purpose and Aims of Proposal To provide safe walking and cycling route between Pavilion and Glenburn Road, local community services. To encourage everyday cycling and walking as an alternative to private car use. To improve the islands travel and mobility options. To improve access for those less able. Intended outcome of proposal Concept design for the route aligned with the funding requirements of the Scottish Government active travel programme. Intervention to be proportionate and affordable to the communities requirements and maintain the islands character whilst providing infrastructure improvement. Business Outcome(s) / Corporate Outcome(s) / National Policies to which the proposal contributes/relates Aligned with National and local policy interventions regarding promotion of sustainable travel modes, reduction in single journey car dependency. Design reflects use of Cycle By Design 2021 update. Lead officer details: Page 187
Page 188
68 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Name of lead officer Colin Young Job title Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer Service / Company ABC Contact Details colin.young@argyll-bute.gov.uk Appropriate officer details: Name of appropriate officer Colin Young Job title Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer Service / Company ABC Contact Details colin.young@argyll-bute.gov.uk Sign off of EqSEIA Approver Signature Approver Name Approver Job title Date of sign off Revision Number 1 Who will deliver the proposal? ABC Strategic Transportation Team Individuals involved in developing the EqSEIA Name Colin Young Job title Strategic Projects Officer Service / Company ABC Contact Details colin.young@argyll-bute.gov.uk Name Mark Rinkus Job title Managing Director Page 188
Page 189
69 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Service / Company Connected Transport Planning Ltd Contact Details mark.rinkus@connectedtp.com Name Jack Munro Job title Engineer Service / Company Narro Ltd Contact Details jmunro@narroassociates.com Section 2: Evidence used in the course of carrying out EqSEIA Who does the proposal impact? Will impact on everyone as it is a community asset and part of core infrastructure. Key receptors include local frontage property owners, local residents and visitors to the community Are there any aspects which explicitly address discrimination, victimisation or harassment? No. The project is a supporting element of infrastructure that will connect people with place. Are there any aspects which explicitly promote equal opportunities? No. Through good design aligned with current guidance and design standards, the project will be designed to support access by all user groups and abilities. Through appropriate design, the project will promote a safe environment for all user groups seeking to support the movement of people Are there any aspects which explicitly foster good relations? Potential concerns regarding project location and route and the negative impact of unwanted construction and parking impacts Are there any aspects which explicitly promote socio-economic equality? Page 189
Page 190
70 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com No. The project will contribute towards socio economic growth through better provision of a safer route between people and place Consultation / engagement undertaken Consultation Details Date(s) Summary of Findings Online via Facebook study page and community pages Various. See Consultation Report Support for the project Community visit x4 Various. See Consultation Report Support for the project Public Consultation x2 in including digital dial in workshop Various. See Consultation Report Support for the project. Some landownership concerns Local Community Primary School x1 Various. See Consultation Report Support for the project. Include colourful infrastructure Local Community High School x1 Various. See Consultation Report Support. No interest in play equipment LGBTQIA+ Pride community Various. See Consultation Report Support for the project Community Social Services x1 Various. See Consultation Report Support. Concerned relating to speeding cyclists and cycle priority scheme General interactions with the community x10 Various. See Consultation Report Supportive. Concerns raised relating to off-road routes around rear of Rothesay Regular steering group sessions Various. See Consultation Report Helped guide engagement with the community Have people who identify with any protected characteristic(s) been involved in the development of the proposal? Yes. Individuals would self-identified as having protected characteristics of age, sexual orientation, race and disability have engaged in the project Data Sources Page 190
Page 191
71 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Census 2011 and 2022, 2019 previous engagement outputs, project traffic data (2023 off and on peak), community feedback Other information Various design standards but primarily Cycle by Design 2021 update. What is known currently about the experience of people under each characteristic? Protected characteristic What is currently known Source(s) Gaps in Evidence Age Including the experiences of young people (age 18 and under) and older people. Young adults live in the community and use a bus or parent transport to get around. Older populations have expressed concerns regarding cycle priority vs.. pedestrian priority. Kerbs, poor visibility, changes in surface delineation are challenges to mobility. Ensuring older people do not need to step into the cycle route and have sufficient time to hear an oncoming cyclists. Particularly relevant for those trying to cross the concept at points beyond the allocated pedestrian crossings. Meetings and feedback with primary, secondary schools. The general public and through previous project experience such as conversations with the RNIB. none Disability Physical and mental. Including the experiences of people with long term limiting health conditions. Older mobility challenged residents live in the community. They use mobility aids to get around. Changes in surface levels such as kerbing can limit some people’s ability to physically move their bike. Those with hearing impairment have expressed concerns regarding ability to hear and see oncoming traffic or cyclists and have sufficient time to take action Face to face meeting with residents in the community and survey feedback from the public. Previous experience from other projects. none Ethnicity Including impact relating to skin colour, nationality, language spoken and country of origin. People identifying as Gypsy / Travellers are protected by this characteristic. Some users from some ethnic groups have a view that they may be more vulnerable to assault or verbal abuse as members of particular ethnic groups. Safety concerns relate to the creation of unsupervised spaces and places that might support Online data search. Points shared through design team conversation No empirical evidence to support what might be a generalised viewpoint. Feedback reflects subjective view of some individuals and Page 191
Page 192
72 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com intimidating behaviour by some individuals. Promotion of natural surveillance and appropriate lighting is important to inclusive / welcoming design. Challenges also relate to signage and language barriers. may not reflect the group overall. Not all ethnic groups surveyed or view points have been recorded so there is a high risk of generalisation. Sex Some user groups feel they are unsafe passing through or along spaces which is less well lit. Appropriate levels of lighting and natural surveillance can help address these perceptions. Online data search. Points shared through design team conversation. No evidence to support what is likely to be a personal view held by the individual. No safety concerns relating to sex have been received via the community survey. Gender reassignment Where someone is living part / full time as the opposite gender to their assigned sex at birth. Some user groups suffering from gender dysphoria may feel they are unsafe or more vulnerable to attack when passing through or along spaces which are less well lit. Appropriate levels of lighting and natural surveillance can help address these perceptions. Online data search. Points shared through design team conversation. No evidence to support what is likely to be a personal view held by the individual. No safety concerns relating to gender have been received via the community survey. Marriage and Civil Partnership Some male or females living together out with marriage or in a civil partnership may feel less secure or victimised by other people using the travel route. This perception of risk may be the result of religious belief. No data available. No evidence to support what is likely to be a personal view held by the individual. No safety concerns relating to marital status have been received via the community survey. Pregnancy and Maternity This covers women as soon as they become pregnant. In the workplace this includes pregnancy-related illness. When a woman gives birth or is breastfeeding, this characteristic protects them for 26 weeks. Parents in the community do walk the project route but numbers are low are proportionately lower. Use of private car is preferred for ease and convenience noting the space between places, weather and concerns have been raised regarding shared use of the road and safety challenges of maintaining access for those reliant upon car use. Face to face meeting with residents in the community and survey feedback. Few participating parents to provide comment by anecdotal evidence provided from wider island community Page 192
Page 193
73 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Religion / Belief Including the experiences of people with no religion or belief. Some user groups have a view that they may be more vulnerable to assault or verbal abuse as members of particular religious groups. Safety concerns relate to the creation of unsupervised spaces and places where would anti-social activity might take place. Promotion of natural surveillance and appropriate lighting is important to inclusive design. There are multiple churches on the island supports some religious groups and can be accessed via the road. Online data search. Points shared through design team conversation No empirical evidence to support what might be a generalised viewpoint. Feedback reflects subjective view of some individuals and may not reflect the group overall. Not all religious groups surveyed or view points have been recorded so there is a high risk of generalisation. Sexual Orientation Some people can feel they are unsafe passing through or along spaces which they believe they have less than appropriate lighting and natural surveillance. In these situations their perception of risk due to verbal or physical assault is elevated. The inclusion of spaces with limited natural surveillance can also present opportunities to individuals with protected characteristics. Online data search. Points shared through design team conversation. No evidence to support what is likely to be a personal view held by the individual. No safety concerns relating to sexual orientation have been received via the community survey. Other marginalised groups Including but not exclusive to the experiences of unpaid carers, homeless people, current and ex-offenders, people with addictions, care experienced people, people living in rural areas. Some people from some marginalised groups have a view that they may be more vulnerable to assault or verbal abuse as members of particular marginalised groups. Safety concerns relate to the creation of unsupervised spaces and places where anti-social behaviour might occur. Promotion of natural surveillance and appropriate lighting is important to inclusive design. As a rural community the distance and acceptance of the challenge of access to everyday services is considerably greater than that on the mainland. Online data search. Points shared through design team conversation No empirical evidence to support what might be a generalised viewpoint. Feedback reflects subjective view of some individuals and may not reflect the group overall. Not all marginalised groups surveyed or view points have been recorded so there is a high risk of generalisation. Cross Cutting Where two or more characteristics overlap and the proposal affects those people in a specific way The project will support access to improved walking and cycling travel. The promotion of walking is at odds with the needs of cyclists and vice versa. Some user groups are at 'odds' with the needs of local drivers who wish to access places quickly. Conversations and Community feedback. Conversations and Community feedback. Page 193
Page 194
74 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com These needs are in turn at 'odds' with the actions of tourists arriving on the island by private car. What is currently known Source(s) Gaps in Evidence Mainland rural population The island co-exists through a dependency with the mainland through the passenger ferry service. Access to Rothesay is via car, ferry and bus service provides support. The equality challenges are typical to those associated with rural island living. Community conversations. Census and Placemaking tool results. No gaps identified. Island populations The community consists of many people who live throughout the area, have many different aspects of travel with no difficulty. Community conversations. Census and Placemaking tool results No gaps identified Low income There is no single definition or measure of low income. Some indicators suggest that low income is where individuals living in households receive below 60% of UK median income. Scottish Government’s Children in Families With Limited Resources Across Scotland 2014-2016 defines low income as ‘household income below 70% of the Scottish median after housing cost’. Access to travel is not a challenge for Rothesay. The movement of goods and services are often at a higher comparable cost to the mainland. This cost disparity can exacerbate difference in wealth, health and welfare. Online research. Published research no gaps identified Low wealth Not having access to wealth (including for example, financial products, equity from housing, decent pension, accessible saving). People who have low wealth lack protection from socio-economic disadvantage. Access to travel is not a challenge for the community. The movement of goods and services is often at a higher comparable cost to the mainland. This cost disparity can exacerbate difference in wealth, health and welfare. Online research. Published research. No gaps identified. Page 194
Page 195
75 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Material deprivation Inability to access basic goods and services. Access to travel is a challenge for rural communities and remote communities. The movement of goods and services is often at a higher comparable cost to the mainland. This cost disparity can exacerbate difference in wealth, health and welfare. Census and place standard tool feedback None Area deprivation Areas where there are concentrations of deprived households. Access to travel is not a challenge for area deprivation as many residents own cars and drive quite often, some areas also have bus stops which can pass in and out of Rothesay. Online research. Published research no gaps identified Socio-economic background Relates to the context in which a person has been raised or in which they live. Disadvantage may arise from parents’ education, employment and income (social class). Access to travel is a challenge for rural communities and remote communities. The movement of goods and services is often at a great comparable cost to the mainland. This cost disparity can exacerbate difference in wealth, health and welfare. Online research. Published research. No gaps identified. Communities of place Refers to people who are bound together because of where they live, work, visit, or otherwise spend a continuous portion of their time. This may include rural, remote and island areas. Challenges associated with community living including higher car dependency and cost of living Census and place standard tool feedback. None. Section 3: Impact of proposal Impact on service users Protected characteristic Negative No Impact Positive Don’t Know Action required for impact be known Details (incl. action taken to minimise negative and/or maximise positive impact) Age Including the experiences of young people (age Any proposal will have some positive and Consider user group design separation Many of the communities younger generation are independently mobile. The travel distances in the Page 195
Page 196
76 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 18 and under) and older people. negative challenges to people of different ages and abilities. Overall, the proposal wont prioritise one age group over another if space allows community between places mean travel by car is the only practical option even though many of the children show a willingness to walk and cycle and do walk and cycle regular. Personal safety is not currently a community concern with some of the younger adults often cycling and walking during the hours of darkness. The more mature generation has expressed concerns relating to accessibility challenges, noting the limited road width and loss of access through changes to parking. Steep gradients should be best minimised or avoided. Cycle speeds can be intimidating (particularly e-bikes) to some older people and measures to clarify the priority of the route to pedestrians and provide cycle speed control measures cannot yet be effectively managed. The concept will seek to minimise road crossings by keeping the route on the same side of the carriageway as much as reasonably practicable. The design includes additional benches as requested by the community to Page 196
Page 197
77 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com provide more frequent rest opportunities for the less able- bodied noting the overall length of the route is around 1.45km. The design does include for user segregation meaning that multiple user groups which will address some of these challenges but will create other challenges for crossing the route beyond the allocated crossing points. No additional play areas are promoted as the community did not identify them as preference. Lighting is provided via existing street lighting. Disability Including the experiences of people with long term limiting health conditions. Any proposal will have some positive and negative challenges to people of different abilities. Overall, the proposal will be a net improvement overall as it provides infrastructure where there Consider user group design separation. Install measures to manage cyclist speeds. We have considered accessibility by those less able, noting the design is a shared use path which supports segregation of user groups. By using the existing road route we have avoided steep or lengthy inclines and declines which keeps the route accessible by the mobility impaired. We have ensured pedestrian priority in the project as far as possible with the route changes seeking to provide a more coherent and continual route. This is achieved by removing Page 197
Page 198
78 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com is currently none vegetation and improving sightlines. Ethnicity Including impact relating to skin colour, nationality, language spoken and country of origin. People identifying as Gypsy / Travellers are protected by this characteristic. The route concept includes good practice design to minimise people accessing dark or unwelcoming spaces that might discourage use by some user groups. However, the island is a remote community and much of the route does not benefit from natural surveillance The ethnicity of the population in the community is Scottish / white. The spoken language is English and Gaelic. Route signage will be provided bi- lingual. The route is being designed to support access by all races and we are unaware of any design features that would influence users within this category. There are no published details of path design considerations relevant to race that are not equally as relevant to other user group criterion. Sex The route concept includes good practice design to minimise people accessing dark or unwelcoming spaces that might discourage use by some user groups. However, the island is a remote community and much of the route does not benefit from natural surveillance The concept design supports mobility by all user groups. The route design is promoted to support mobility by a unaccompanied 12 year old. We are not aware of any design criterion relevant to path design that is unique to this category. Page 198
Page 199
79 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Gender reassignment Where someone is living part / full time as the opposite gender to their assigned sex at birth. The route concept includes good practice design to minimise people accessing dark or unwelcoming spaces that might discourage use by some user groups. However, the island is a remote community and much of the route does not benefit from natural surveillance The concept design supports mobility by all user groups. The route design is promoted to support mobility by a unaccompanied 12 year old. We are not aware of any design criterion relevant to path design that is unique to this category. We also note participation of two individuals within the community feedback who suffer from gender dysphoria and inclusion of Bute Pride within the concept design consultation. Marriage and Civil Partnership Not measurable. Pregnancy and Maternity This covers women as soon as they become pregnant. In the workplace this includes pregnancy- related illness. When a woman gives birth or is breastfeeding, this characteristic protects them for 26 weeks. The separation of user groups to provide level- priority walking route that is not shared with vehicles will improve the projects attractiveness. The concept design supports mobility by all user groups. The route design is promoted to support mobility by a unaccompanied 12 year old. Page 199
Page 200
80 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Religion / Belief Including the experiences of people with no religion or belief. The intervention will include good practice design to minimise provision of dark or unwelcoming spaces that might discourage use by some user groups. However, the area is a remote community and much of the project does not benefit from natural surveillance The concept design supports mobility by all user groups. The route design is promoted to support mobility by a unaccompanied 12 year old. The route will continue to be available to persons of any religion or belief. The location of the route nearer the coast may appeal to some individuals with a religious belief rooted in nature. Sexual Orientation Other marginalised groups Including but not exclusive to the experiences of unpaid carers, homeless people, current and ex- offenders, people with addictions, care experienced people, people living in rural areas. The intervention will include good practice design to minimise provision of dark or unwelcoming spaces that might discourage use by some user groups. However, the area is a remote community and much of the project does not benefit from natural surveillance The concept design supports mobility by all user groups. The route design is promoted to support mobility by a unaccompanied 12 year old. Cross Cutting Where two or more characteristics overlap and the proposal affects those people in a specific way Conflicts between cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. The standard of design includes a low level of provision narrow but segregated cycle route. User groups are expected to interact sensibly. This may present a risk to some user groups such as the older and less able who have difficulty in hearing oncoming Page 200
Page 201
81 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com vehicles or cyclists. The design will include some basic wayfinding signage that should seek to reinforce pedestrian priority. The route has a high level of coherence making it easier for groups to navigate between and across sections. At these locations, user conflict risk is increased. There is little can be done from a design perspective to manage user group behaviours. It is also noted that visiting drivers can often choose to arrive by car and place continued strain on available community parking. Fairer Scotland Duty Mainland rural population Island populations x Page 201
Page 202
82 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Low income There is no single definition or measure of low income. Some indicators suggest that low income is where individuals living in households receive below 60% of UK median income. Scottish Government’s Children in Families With Limited Resources Across Scotland 2014-2016 defines low income as ‘household income below 70% of the Scottish median after housing cost’. Improved access to services will address the challenges noted through the SIMD and Place scoring tool. Accessible routes will support the movement of people on all points of the social scale. The routes should provide some support to social interaction between the community. During the stage 1 engagement, it was noted that promotion on a route along the existing road corridor would be preferred as it is within this space that the majority of the communities social engagement occurs. Whilst no data is known about low income families within the community the principle of providing improved access to people to place by improved sustainable travel options is known to support individuals from all income abilities. Low wealth Not having access to wealth (including for example, financial products, equity from housing, decent pension, accessible saving). People who have low wealth lack protection from socio-economic disadvantage. Improved access to services will address the challenges noted through the SIMD and Place scoring tool. Accessible routes will support the movement of people on all points of the social scale. The route may support new business opportunities through tourist cycling groups which could contribute to wealth creation. Whilst the route is not directly linked to wealth it is again supportive of wealth creation. Page 202
Page 203
83 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Material deprivation Inability to access basic goods and services. Intervention is unlikely to create a significant enough impact to address the areas overall rural remoteness and the cost of living in a community. The intervention is unlikely to create a significant enough impact to address the areas overall rural remoteness and the cost of living in a community. The route links Rothesay's pavilion to Glenburn Road which might provide some betterment to the communitas located to the West or East of Rothesay noting these folks will still need to travel to Rothesay to access goods and services in any case. The route will not provide any improvement to the location of services but may accessing services more comfortable. Area deprivation Areas where there are concentrations of deprived households. Intervention is unlikely to create a significant enough impact to address the areas overall rural remoteness and the cost of living in a community. Intervention is unlikely to create a significant enough impact to address the areas overall rural remoteness and the cost of living in a community. Page 203
Page 204
84 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Socio-economic background Relates to the context in which a person has been raised or in which they live. Disadvantage may arise from parents’ education, employment and income (social class). Improved access to services will address the challenges noted through the SIMD and Place scoring tool. Accessible routes will support the movement of people on all points of the social scale. Communities of place Refers to people who are bound together because of where they live, work, visit, or otherwise spend a continuous portion of their time. This may include rural, remote and island areas. Improved access to services will address the challenges noted through the SIMD and Place scoring tool. Accessible routes will support the movement of people on all points of the social scale. The route should support social interaction between the community. The route will be located along the existing road as promoted by the community. This will continue to support community social interaction and maintain a community connection with the residents. Communities of interest Refers to groups of people who share an identity or an experience. They do not need to live in the same area, however. Improved access to services will address the challenges noted through the SIMD and Place scoring tool n/a Page 204
Page 205
85 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com If you have identified any impacts on service users, explain what these will be. Impact on service deliverers (including employees, volunteers etc) Protected characteristic Negative No Impact Positive Don’t Know Action required for impact be known Details (incl. action taken to minimise negative and/or maximise positive impact) Age Including the experiences of young people (age 18 and under) and older people. x As per Service Users. Disability Including the experiences of people with long term limiting health conditions. x As per Service Users. Ethnicity Including impact relating to skin colour, nationality, language spoken and country of origin. People identifying as Gypsy / Travellers are protected by this characteristic. x As per Service Users. Sex x As per Service Users Gender reassignment Where someone is living part / full time as the opposite gender to their assigned sex at birth. x As per Service Users. Marriage and Civil Partnership x As per Service Users. Page 205
Page 206
86 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Pregnancy and Maternity This covers women as soon as they become pregnant. In the workplace this includes pregnancy-related illness. When a woman gives birth or is breastfeeding, this characteristic protects them for 26 weeks. x As per Service Users. Religion / Belief Including the experiences of people with no religion or belief. x As per Service Users. Sexual Orientation x As per Service Users. Other marginalised groups Including but not exclusive to the experiences of unpaid carers, homeless people, current and ex- offenders, people with addictions, care experienced people, and people living in rural areas. x As per Service Users. Cross Cutting Where two or more characteristics overlap and the proposal affects those people in a specific way x As per Service Users. Fairer Scotland Duty Mainland rural population X As per Service Users. Island populations x As per Service Users. Low income There is no single definition or measure of low income. Some indicators suggest that low income is where individuals living in households receive below 60% of UK median income. Scottish Government’s Children in Families With Limited Resources Across Scotland 2014- 2016 defines low income as x As per Service Users. Page 206
Page 207
87 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com ‘household income below 70% of the Scottish median after housing cost’. Low wealth Not having access to wealth (including, for example, financial products, equity from housing, decent pension, accessible saving). People who have low wealth lack protection from socio- economic disadvantage. x As per Service Users Material deprivation Inability to access basic goods and services. x As per Service Users. Area deprivation Areas where there are concentrations of deprived households. x As per Service Users. Socio-economic background Relates to the context in which a person has been raised or in which they live. Disadvantage may arise from parents’ education, employment and income (social class). x As per Service Users. Communities of place Refers to people who are bound together because of where they live, work, visit, or otherwise spend a continuous portion of their time. This may include rural, remote and island areas. x As per Service Users. Communities of interest Refers to groups of people who share an identity or an experience. They do not need to live in the same area, however. x As per Service Users. Page 207
Page 208
88 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Section 4: Interdependencies Is this proposal likely to have any knock-on effects for any other activities carried out by or on behalf of the Council? No Details of knock-on effects identified. None Select the overall assessment result, 1-4, which applies Overall Assessment Result Justification No major change If this is selected you are confirming that the EqSEIA demonstrates the proposal is robust and there is no possible adverse impact. n/a Continue the proposal If this is selected you are confirming that the EqSEIA identifies possible adverse impact or missed opportunities but the proposal can be justified. At this early stage, the project options can be developed to provide a positive influence on all user groups within the community. Consideration of a project alignment which supports access by those less able will increase the interventions attractiveness for use by a wider audience. Adjust the proposal If this is selected you are confirming that the EqSEIA identifies possible adverse impact or missed opportunities which suggest the proposal needs to be adjusted. n/a Stop and remove the proposal The proposal shows actual or possible unlawful discrimination. It must be halted or significantly changed. n/a High Level Amendments made to Proposal due to EqSEIA Page 208
Page 209
89 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Protected characteristic Specific Adjustments made due to EqSEIA Lessons Learned Age Including the experiences of young people (age 18 and under) and older people. None n/a Disability Including the experiences of people with long term limiting health conditions. None n/a Ethnicity Including impact relating to skin colour, nationality, language spoken and country of origin. People identifying as Gypsy / Travellers are protected by this characteristic. None n/a Sex None n/a Gender reassignment Where someone is living part / full time as the opposite gender to their assigned sex at birth. None n/a Marriage and Civil Partnership None n/a Pregnancy and Maternity This covers women as soon as they become pregnant. In the workplace, this includes pregnancy-related illness. When a woman gives birth or is breastfeeding, this characteristic protects them for 26 weeks. None n/a Religion / Belief Including the experiences of people with no religion or belief. None n/a Sexual Orientation None n/a Other marginalised groups Including but not exclusive to the experiences of unpaid carers, homeless people, current and ex-offenders, people with addictions, care experienced people, people living in rural areas. None n/a Cross Cutting Where two or more characteristics overlap and the proposal affects those people in a specific way. None n/a Fairer Scotland Duty Mainland rural population None n/a Page 209
Page 210
90 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Island populations None n/a Low income There is no single definition or measure of low income. Some indicators suggest that low income is where individuals living in households receive below 60% of the UK median income. Scottish Government’s Children in Families With Limited Resources Across Scotland 2014-2016 defines low income as ‘household income below 70% of the Scottish median after housing cost’. None n/a Low wealth Not having access to wealth (including for example, financial products, equity from housing, decent pension, accessible saving). People who have low wealth lack protection from socio-economic disadvantage. None n/a Material deprivation Inability to access basic goods and services. None n/a Area deprivation Areas where there are concentrations of deprived households. None n/a Socio-economic background Relates to the context in which a person has been raised or in which they live. Disadvantages may arise from parents’ education, employment and income (social class). None n/a Communities of place Refers to people who are bound together because of where they live, work, visit, or otherwise spend a continuous portion of their time. This may include rural, remote and island areas. None n/a Communities of interest Refers to groups of people who share an identity or an experience. They do not need to live in the same area, however. None n/a Section 6: Monitoring and Review How will the equality and socio-economic impacts of the proposal be monitored and evaluated? Page 210
Page 211
91 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Update the SEQiA at the next stage of the project once the design is developed. Action to be taken to: Provide a best practice design • Mitigate possible negative impact(s) (listed under Section 3); • Promote possible positive impact(s) and; • Gather further information or evidence. Action Lead Timescale When is the proposal due to be reviewed? Jul-25 Page 211
Page 212
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 213
Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Travel Project Stage 1&2 Engagement Report DATE: February 2025 REF: 501053 VERSION: FINAL v2 Page 213
Page 214
MARK RINKUS Managing Director Mark.rinkus@connectedtp.com Contents 1 APPROACH TO TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 STAGE 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15 3 STAGE 1 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS 28 4 STAGE 1 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 5 STAGE 1 BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 37 6 STAGE 2 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 7 STAGE 2 - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 44 8 STAGE 2 - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 64 9 STAGE 2 - STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 76 10 OUR LESSONS LEARNT .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 81 APPENDIX A – PROJECT HANDS UP SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 84 APPENDIX B – STAGE 1 AND 2 PUBLIC EVENT ATTENDEES LIST (EVIDENCE) ..................................................................................................................................... 85 APPENDIX C – ISLE OF BUTE NEWS SAMPLE EXTRACTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 86 APPENDIX D – STAGE 2 SURVEY COMMENTS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 87 Page 214
Page 215
2 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com ` APPROACH TO TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Page 215
Page 216
1 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1 APPROACH TO TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR CHANGE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 1.1 Relevant Previous Engagement and Consultation This project seeks to improve pedestrian links into Rothesay Town Centre and to the Rothesay Pavilion making allowances for potential future active travel connections. The study is aligned with the 2017, Rothesay Town Heritage Initiative (THI), town centre spatial strategy and was identified by the community during 2016 Rethink Rothesay Charrette. 1.2 Stakeholder Mapping A stakeholder mapping matrix was developed in conjunction with the design team's relevant experience. The stakeholder mapping aims to identify all stakeholders to be involved within the study and seeks to quantify each stakeholders forecast level of interest in the project and likely influence over the project. The stakeholder’s mapping process was led by the council and supported by Bute Community Council using their knowledge of the community. The stakeholders were categorised into engagement tiers reflecting their engagement hierarchy using the mapping matrix (shown opposite). The process was collaborative with members of the study steering group including Bute Community Council helping to define the stakeholder mapping which evolved through the project lifecycle. 1.3 Engagement Planning A consultation and engagement plan were developed setting out the studies stage 1 engagement programme. The plan was used to identify all proposed activities, the activity order, potential audience and engagement method. Tiered stakeholder mapping developed mapping matrix Page 216
Page 217
2 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The plan provides a reference point to ensure that all parties were made aware of forthcoming actions and had a chance to contribute. This provided the opportunity to incorporate local knowledge and best practices. The plan identified a range of activities, which would support comprehensive engagement. A summary of the key project engagement activities considered in support of stage 1 is summarised as follows: • Study Branding Identity. • Project Press Release. • Study Facebook Page. • Regular Community Visits. • Study Website Space. • Engagement with Local Groups. • Press and Media Support. • Community Feedback Tool (CFT). • Schools Engagement. • Public Community Engagement Event. • Community Group Meetings. • Stakeholder Meetings (virtual and face to face). A summary of each action plan is provided in the remainder of this chapter. 1.4 Study Branding / Study Identity Whilst some active travel studies can benefit from the development of a bespoke study branded title and logo, it was agreed with the project steering group, at the project outset that no branding should be applied to this project. The primary reason being that Bute Community Council stated that the strong community ethos in Rothesay would help spread awareness of the project far better than any bespoke branding would and that the design teams time would be better spent working with the community. 1.5 Project Press Release (PPR) Public Notification The council’s Marketing and Communications (M&C) team was engaged for support. The PPR is typically authored by the lead council sponsor in conjunction with the M&C team. The resulting PPR would then be circulated internally to all council departments and issued externally to local press and media outlets. Councils’ Services Notification From our experience of other active travel projects, whilst the project is managed by Argyll and Bute Council (ABC) strategic transportation team, other council services have an important role to play in enabling active travel projects to progress. This means it is important that all council services which have a role to play or interest in the project are informed and engaged from the start of the project. ABC manage a portfolio of active travel projects, where all projects are advertised and communicated within and across the council. The portfolio Page 217
Page 218
3 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com supports the sharing of project information. The PPR was issued to this portfolio by ABC. 1.6 Facebook Study Page As part of the study lifecycle, a bespoke study Facebook Page was developed. Information was also posted on the Isle of Bute community Facebook page as Bute Community Council advised that it has a wide following in the community and to be the best way to raise awareness of the project. The design team posted updates that encouraged anyone with an interest in the study to engage. The Facebook page was effective with the community engaging to ask questions throughout the duration of the study. The page was used as a direct channel of communication between the design team and the community. Our study team managed the page to maintain responsiveness. The page was used to inform the community of upcoming project events, advertise the teams’ visits to the community and publish our visit itinerary. The page was also used to share post visit photos and videos. These were produced to provide a post event snap-shot of the design team's community interaction and to assist those unable to attend in person. 1.7 Community Visits A key ambition of the project was to ensure the community remained central to the project and would feel a strong collaboration through ‘face to face’ meetings. To achieve this aim, our engagement strategy centred around the design team being physically present within the community where appropriate. Using the community Facebook pages, we advertised our visits which included a day within the community where the design team invited and met with local groups, school and Bute Community Council. We advertised an itinerary of our visits providing an opportunity for the community to ‘drop-in’ to our evening public event. The Community Facebook page was well used to support the project Page 218
Page 219
4 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com To support the conversations, we used our digital ‘platform’ of materials. These included our pre-prepared constraints mapping used to record ideas and note comments, barriers and aspirations. The plan was then digitised, comments added to our Community Feedback Tool (CFT) and used as the foundation of the constraints mapping process and route development. The ability to demonstrate to the community how their comments had been considered is key to developing trust and engagement between the design team and the community. 1.8 Study Website To support the lifecycle of the project, a study webpage was developed and hosted within the Connected Transport Planning Ltd (CTP) website. The website utilised a project template which was personalised to reflect the project community using images of Rothesay recognisable buildings to assist in making the space familiar to the community. The website provided a key consultation tool for the community to access the project, designed to be accessible 3 weeks during the consultation time and not just a ‘bolt on’ point of reference. The site provided access to all public exhibition and materials, videos, a range of feedback tools and general project information. The site also incorporated a range of functions including a news feed, a Facebook link and an interactive constraints and option map from where a series of micro- animations visualisations could also be accessed. These animations were developed from local photos taken at key points along the study route and designed to present a vision to the audience that would assist their understanding of the project’s possible outcomes. The website enabled those unable to speak with us in-person to view and comment on any of the materials at any time during the consultation period that suited them. Noting the challenges of consultation with a busy community, the use of the website was a perfect tool to support wide-reaching engagement within the community. Constraint mapping and face – face meetings were constructive Page 219
Page 220
5 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The website was open to access by the public for a period of three weeks following the stage 1 public event. 1.9 Survey Questionnaire A survey questionnaire was developed for the project to provide an opportunity for the community to share their existing travels habits and existing travel modes, requirements for a new route appetite for a route and improvements to active travel. The survey was designed using our experience of supporting similar projects, where we noted that to maximise community feedback, the survey should be less than 15 questions to minimise survey fatigue and maximise the chance of receiving complete responses. Using questions from previous studies as a reference, a bespoke stage 1 survey questionnaire was developed that would capture key respondent demographics and sought to learn how the community currently travel and their aspirations for any future improvement. The survey formed a core component of the engagement process and was the primary informant of quantitative feedback, used to support the design process. To maximise accessibility by all possible user groups and abilities, the survey was hosted online via the study website using QR codes, website URLs and by contact email. The survey also included links to the study website tools such as the Community Feedback Tool (CFT) which would assist the community in providing comments by location on a map. Physical copies of the survey were distributed at various locations including the Discovery Centre and the co-op noticeboards. The leaflets were also hand issued by the design team for a period during a day within the foyer of the larger Co-op Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier website including custom local images Page 220
Page 221
6 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com supermarket with a number of community representatives supporting wider distribution. 1.10 Media Support To raise the community’s general awareness of the study, the local press and radio stations that cover Rothesay were contacted, the radio station however did not respond after multiple contact attempts. The local newspaper in Rothesay; The Isle of Bute News were happy to assist in promoting awareness for the local community. The paper prints provided physical and digital advertisement of the study and was again used to advertise our contact details. ABCs Communications Team also promoted the study and consultation events on the Council's social media pages. The community Facebook study group was another source used to raise the community’s awareness. Around 1,500 event advertisement leaflets were distributed to advertise the community events. A number of the locations planned to post the flyers either couldn’t accept the flyer or were unable to display it. Notwithstanding, the flyers were successfully posted at various locations. These included: • Various Victoria Street frontage businesses, • Discovery Centre; • Local residential properties; • Co-op; • Albert Pier businesses; • Montague Street businesses. Flyers were also utilised to communicate a post-event ‘Thank You’ to the community and to continue the promotion of the digital feedback options offered via the project website. This approach meant that those members of the community unable to attend the advertised event would still have the option to provide feedback or ask the design team questions, enabling wide-reaching community engagement. Advertising leaflets were distributed across the community Page 221
Page 222
7 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Argyll Media Coverage of the study helped raise awareness Page 222
Page 223
8 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.11 Event Pop-Up To raise the community’s awareness of the project and consultation event, the study team set up a pop-up event within the foyer of the Co-op foot store. The event lasted for 3 hours within which the team issued advertising leaflets to shoppers, to raise awareness of the evenings public event that evening in the Discovery Centre. 1.12 Community Feedback Tool (CFT) Our bespoke engagement platform supports community feedback using a project map and comment pins. The tool allows comments to be added by location with comments visible to everyone. The tool was hosted within the project website and again used a series of QR codes, website URLs and a named email contact to support access to other feedback methods and information platforms. The CFT was pre-populated with comments noted by the community on the constraint plan. Community Feedback Tool (CFT) allows comments to be added by location Co-op Pop-up event was used to advertise to the public Consultation Page 223
Page 224
9 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.13 Schools Engagement Rothesay Joint Campus Rothesay Joint Campus catchment for Primary Schools pupils covers the southern section of Bute including Rothesay, while for Secondary School pupils the school serves the whole of Bute. The school role includes 240 primary pupils and 272 secondary pupils. The design team arranged to meet the Primary 6 pupils (22 pupils) for a 2-hour period to learn more about the younger generation's views and thoughts regarding walking and cycling. The timing of the meeting worked well as it developed on the classes ongoing theme of problem identification and solutions. Following introductions and a project discussion, an interactive Hands-up Survey (HuS) exercise was undertaken using stickers and travel mode pictures. The use of this approach ‘energised’ the primary and secondary school pupils to participate in the engagement discussion whilst also providing a visual result of their current travel mode decisions. The results show in Appendix A and show that the majority of the school pupils currently travel by car or bus to school and some also stated they walk and no pupils cycle to school. Following the HuS, the team discussed with the school pupils and teachers how they would feel about the project improvements. 100% of the pupils and 100% (1) teacher supported the proposal and agreed it would be a positive addition. A summary of the school children’s feedback about what they think is important in the design is also shown in Appendix A. With the children in ‘problem-identification mode’, the team utilised our bespoke primary school asset pack to work with the children to develop their own ideas for a streetscape and how they would solve the travel issues they had earlier identified. The children were then split into two groups and tasked with developing/exploring ideas using the kit, using drawings and plasticene to help people and animals move around within the space they had created. Some very creative options were explored and positive feedback from parents via the Facebook Page. Feedback from the Rothesay Primary School was positive Page 224
Page 225
10 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Engineers of the future? Rothesay Primary made great use of the asset pack to design a streetscape Page 225
Page 226
11 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.14 Parent Teacher Association (PTA) To maximise the reach of the engagement, the school was approached to advertise awareness of the project through communication with the local parents via the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). 1.15 Community Public Event Following the physical and digital advertisements, an event was hosted by the design team and ABC within Rothesay Discovery Centre on the 27th of February 2024. The event opened to the public at 17:30 to 20:45 with the start time set to maximise attendance. 10 large format, graphically designed A0 presentation boards were displayed to provide the audience with a story map of the study, process and consultation purpose. The event was made more visible to the community through the use of banners and bunting that was installed. The team also posted live Facebook updates. All attendees were given the choice of completing the project survey questionnaire or accessing our range of digital tools to provide feedback via QR codes and URL links. A key advantage of the digital platform is that the materials could still be accessed and commented upon at a time that best suited the consultees. This was particularly relevant noting the event took place on a dark winter’s weekday night with only 61 people managing to meet the team. A register extract presented as evidence of those attending the event is shown in Appendix B. Page 226
Page 227
12 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com A weekday dark winter night may have had an adverse impact on the community’s attendance at Stage 1 Public Event Page 227
Page 228
13 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.16 Micro-Visual Transition Animations To assist the public in understanding how and what an active travel route may look like within their community a series of transition animations and sketches of the future were developed. Each animation was based on a photographed viewpoint of locations along the route that the public would recognise. The transitions lasted 10 seconds and showed the transformation of the existing viewpoint to a proposed future vision. The animations were hosted as part of the study website experience and embedded within the large format constraints and options maps. 1.17 Community Group Meetings A number of requests to meet were issued to the various local groups within the community. Unfortunately, no responses were received from the groups noting their members may still have provided representation through the public survey questionnaire and online materials. Micro-Transition Animations were effective in showing what could be developed Page 228
Page 229
14 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Page 229
Page 230
15 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2 STAGE 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 2.1 Sources of Community Feedback The multiple engagement platforms made available to the community supported them to engage with the project providing feedback both digitally and in person. A summary of the received feedback by the various engagement platforms used is summarised in the following table. Format Responses Received Survey (Paper) 5 Survey (Digital) 35 Community Feedback Tool (Digital) 5 Total Quantitative Responses 45 Community Public Event Attendees 61 Stakeholder Meetings 0 Total Non-Quantitative Responses 61 1https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/scotland/argyll_and_bute/S19002472__r othesay/ 2.2 Survey Sample Validation A total of 45 quantitative responses were received from Rothesay’s population of 4,3201 residents. This represents a sample size of 1% which is lower than the 10 – 15% aimed for. This equates to a total sample size of 0.7% when considering the population on the whole of the Isle of Bute which has 6,498 residents (c.3,328 households)2. The winter dark nights / changing of the season may also have impacted on the community’s appetite to attend the public event. 2 Census 2022 Page 230
Page 231
16 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.3 Survey Participant Demographics 2.4 Participant Demographics This question was asked as it is important to capture the views of people with varying levels of life experience to assist in the design process. Of the participant responses received • 32% were between 40-59 years old (26% Census 2022). • 51% were aged between 60-79 (34% census 2022). • 5% were older than 79 (8% census 2022). The results indicate that the survey was completed by a disproportionately greater number of over people between 40- and 79-year-old. Only 8% of participants were younger than 40 (33% Census 2022). 3% preferred not to say how old they were. These results highlight that the survey has not captured the views of the younger community (0% younger than 21-year-old). However, the school engagement event was well attended and their views have been recorded through less prescriptive measures than the survey questionnaire and are not therefore included in this summary. Page 231
Page 232
17 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.5 Participants by Gender Of the total respondents, 54% were women / girls (52% census 2022) and 41% as men / boys (48% census 2022). No respondents identified as non-binary and 5% of respondents indicated that they would prefer not to say. Overall, we consider the respondents reflect a reasonable cross-section of the community however the results are slightly skewed more towards the views of females, as data from 2022 census demonstrates there are 4% more women have completed the project survey. 2.6 Participants Relationship with the Area Respondents were asked if they lived in Rothesay. This question was relevant to ask as it is important to understand if the respondent is responding with longer term experience of the community or as a tourist/visitor. 100% of respondents are full time residents in the community and none of the respondents have either lived in the community historically, or visited at least once a year. Page 232
Page 233
18 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.7 Participants Health The majority of participants considered themselves to be able-bodied and did not have a health or disability that impacted on their everyday mobility (71%). None of the respondents indicated they did have some health or disability which limits their day-to-day activity a lot, 21% indicated their disability or health issue would affect them a little and 3% say they are limited a lot. 5% of respondents indicated that they would prefer not to say. 2.8 Participants Health Issues Of the respondents indicating they did have a health-related disability, 38% indicated their disability was related to mobility or stamina. 8% of the respondents say they have breathing or stamina conditions that affect them. 8% indicated a challenge relating to hearing. 8% respondents have mental health conditions 0% related to poor vision and 8% indicated they’d prefer not to say. These questions are important to ask as they assist the design team in designing for all user groups, including those with protected characteristics. Page 233
Page 234
19 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.9 Participants Employment Status Participants were asked to qualify their employment status. This question was relevant to ask as the design team will need to consider how the project would support economic activity and support the movement of people to and from places of work. 16% of respondents indicated that they are currently not employed. 24% indicated they were employed full time and 13% work part time, 13% indicated they were self-employed and 34% of respondents said they were retired or not applicable. 2.10 Results Comparison with 2022 Census 3 https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/scotland/argyll_and_bute/S19002469__rothesay/ To assist in understanding more about how representative the study demographics are, the survey results were compared with the 2022 Census for Rothesay3. The results indicate that the project feedback demographic by age and all genders is broadly comparable with the census analysis. The community has a marginally higher proportion of female to males and a mature population with 23% over 65 years of age. These results align with the survey feedback with a slightly more female responses be received than male. However, the survey results include a much larger proportion of responses are from more mature members of the community. Overall, the study results are considered to capture a good sample of the community, capturing the views of both able bodied and those less able, those in work and those unemployed. Page 234
Page 235
20 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.11 Views on Opportunities and Barriers to Walking, Cycling & Wheeling? Participants were asked how often they walked or cycled. This question is relevant as it helps us understand the popularity of walking and cycling within the community at present. 69% of respondents indicate that they walk or cycle daily, 11% roughly 3 times a week, 3% twice a week and 17% roughly once a week. These results indicate the community is relatively active and that cycling and walking is a popular travel mode. 2.12 Participants Travel Habits Along Victoria Street Following on from this question, participants were then asked how often they typically travelled along Victoria Street. Only 11% of respondents indicated that they travel along the road one day a week, 11% twice a week, 17% 3 times a week, 56% said they travel along Victoria Street more than three times a week, and 6% said they don’t travel along the road. The results of this question indicate that participants don’t travel along the road frequently. Page 235
Page 236
21 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.13 Participants Parking Habits Along Victoria Street Following on from this question, participants were then asked how often they park a car along Victoria Street. 3% of respondents indicated that they park a car along Victoria Street once a day, 21% twice a week, 26% three times a week, 18% said they don’t own a car, and 32% said they don’t park along the road. The results of this question indicate that participants don’t regularly park along the road. 2.14 Participants Travel Mode Influences Participants were asked to provide an insight into the factors influencing their travel mode decisions. Participants provided a variety of reasons they viewed to be barriers to travel by sustainable travel modes along the project route. To enable the processing and presentation of data, the responses were categorised into a number of themes. A summary of the themes is presented as follows: • Road is too wide • Animal Droppings • Poorly Parked Cars • Speeding Traffic • Poor pavements • Other • Don’t Have Any Considering the responses received, the majority of travel barriers relate to the perception of traffic speed, poorly parked cars and the conditions of the pavements. Many of these issues are within the scope of this project design and could be directly addressed through design development. Page 236
Page 237
22 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.15 Future Opportunities to Improve Active Travel 2.16 Participants View of Concept Participants were asked to consider if they believed that the provision of a car free route within the project area would encourage them to walk or cycle more often. 9% of respondents believed that the provision of a route as described through the public engagement process would encourage them to walk and cycle more often and 91% said it would not. Page 237
Page 238
23 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.17 Participants Travel Corridor Preference To assist the design team in developing the most appropriate route corridor, the community was asked which of the route options is best suited between the pavilion and the ferry junction. 51% chose option 1, 3% chose option 2, none chose option 3. 3% chose option 4, and 5% chose option 5. The other 38% said that no improvement is required. 2.18 Community Route Preference The community was asked was, which of the route options works the best between the section of the route between the ferry junction and Albert Pier. • 53% of respondents indicated that Option A worked best (Widen route and provide path on inland side keeping road as it is), • 8% of respondents said Option B worked best (Widen route and provide path on coastal side keeping road as it is). • None of the respondent chose option C (Shared use of West Princess Street then widen route and provide a path on inland side of road). • 39% said that none of the options should be considered. Page 238
Page 239
24 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.19 Participants Views Regarding Front Green The community was then asked whether or not the front green should be improved. To which 35% of respondents indicated that an improvement would be welcomed, 58% of respondents said they didn’t want it to be altered, and 8% said they didn’t know. Page 239
Page 240
25 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.20 Participants Thoughts and Aspirations for Improvements Participants were asked about their thoughts, aspirations and considerations the proposed design should take cognisance of. To enable the processing and presentation of the responses, the responses were again categorised into a number of themes. A summary of the themes is presented as follows and shown in the chart opposite. • Reduction in Parked Vehicles • Don’t do Anything • Everything • Improved Lighting • Cycle Lanes Removed • More Crossing Points • Return Fairy Lights The feedback from the community to this question provides a good level of insight into the challenges the design is required to address and highlights the challenges in maintaining a design balance that will address all the points proportionately. Page 240
Page 241
26 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.21 Participants View on Future Project Locations Participants were then asked whether there were any other locations on the Isle of Bute, the community think should be looked at for improvement. To enable the processing and presentation of the responses, the responses were categorised into areas. A summary of is presented as follows and shown in the following chart. • The High Street • Albert Pier • No • Kerrycroy • Port Bannatyne • Townhead Page 241
Page 242
27 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 1 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS Page 242
Page 243
28 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3 STAGE 1 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS Five initial responses were received through the Community Feedback Tool (CFT) followed by a further 21 which were added by the design team to capture the publics views following the public engagement. The responses were provided anonymously. Participant's comments were located along the route. In the majority, comments were positive with participants providing concerns relating to visibility, a lack of provision for pedestrians to cross with concerns that once the Pavilion opens, more pedestrian traffic will be generated. Some of the comments provided detailed summaries of localised challenges which will greatly assist the design development process. The stage 1 feedback received is presented by location and verbatim in the following figure and table. Each comment reference is shown in the figure. Page 243
Page 244
29 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 1 Community Feedback Tool comments by location Page 244
Page 245
30 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1 Narrow section of esplanade at this location 2 When leaving Mackinlay street to turn right into town, it’s really difficult to see past parked cars. This is very dangerous when driving, but while on a bicycle I have several times had to go far into the road in order to see both ways, once or twice being dangerously closely passed by cars which I couldn’t see were coming while further back. The curve of the road exacerbates this. Having lights there could help, and when the Pavilion opens, I would expect more pedestrians to want to cross from the prom to the Pavilion. 3 Intersection of ferry traffic lanes and road ignores the interests of pedestrians. The junction here is also hazardous for cyclists. In fact the whole section between the Pavilion and the pier is hazardous for cyclists (parked vehicles, vehicles negotiating the mini roundabouts, cobbled strips across the road, cars, lorries, buses all competing for space). Maybe reduce the space devoted to parked cars (there are underused parking spaces elsewhere in town, e.g. near the main co- op store). Maybe idealistic but there is an excellent bus service on Bute, it could be used more. Encourage people out of their cars, pedestrianise Montague Street, apart from buses, have a dedicated bike or bike/pedestrian lane right through from Prospect House to Craigmore. 4 I think we need a safe crossing at the ferry crossing for pedestrians. There is already a set of lights, it should have a ‘green man’ as well as the lights for cars. If this is not a suitable spot, then perhaps the raised areas opposite the Discovery theatre should be a safe pedestrian crossing, I believe it was previously one. 5 No provision for pedestrian crossing at ferry junction location 5a Waste of Money! 6 I am opposed to the plan. Money can be spent much more wisely and usefully. eg. designated lane for disabled users to get onto the ferry lift 7 Not enough parking as it is, so don’t prefer any option that cuts down parking, Option 1 takes least change to roads and uses a matured foot path that exists 8 There is no designated parking for disabled passengers who need to travel by car 9 Review pinch points - Ardbeg Po, Brechans, Gallowgate 10 Spend money on Albert Pier to Glenburn road 11 There is not enough parking in town as it is, so option 1 route should not impinge on the road way 11a Option 1 preferred route 12 Option 1 preferred Page 245
Page 246
31 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 13 Include Palm trees in the middle of the road 14 Putting greens and gardens must be maintained for attracting tourists 15 Could this not be extended to the end of Battery Place? 16 Flower beds in centre of the road 17 pedestrian lights wanted at Victoria street/ high street junction 18 So many eye sores around ferry terminal that it would be a real shame to lose the lovely areas around the winter gardens 19 Important to retain the coach parking at Albert Pier 20 Dangerous pavements here 21 Too many small Manhole covers on the pavement on Gallowgate 22 Pelican crossing in front of pavilion is preferable 23 Better curbs for wheelchair users Page 246
Page 247
32 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 1 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK Page 247
Page 248
33 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4 STAGE 1 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK To support the design optioneering process, a number of stakeholders identified within the stakeholder mapping were engaged with. A range of engagement methods were used for each group. Stakeholder Meetings The study team met with a range of stakeholders identified through the study mapping process. We utilised consultation mandates to plan 1-2-small group workshop sessions with key stakeholders to introduce the team and discuss the study. Stakeholders included: • Key council staff; • Key local groups; • Local Community Councils; • Other key stakeholders. The workshops followed a similar format providing an introduction to the study, setting ambitions, and introducing the team. ABC Network Management The team met with James Ross of ABC Network Management virtually to discuss the Rothesay project. Following a presentation of the project to date, a constructive conversation explored a number of topics including: • Route alignment challenges, particularly relating to the sea defence impacts, minimising future maintenance obligations and Roads Construction Consent (RCC). Page 248
Page 249
34 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4.1 Council Statutory Consultees The stakeholders identified through the stage 0 of this project and noted within the stakeholder mapping were consulted as part of the project. A summary of the other stakeholder feedback received is summarised as follows. 4.2 Non-Council Statutory Consultees A summary of the non-council stakeholder feedback received is summarised as follows. 4.3 Community Groups Community groups have been engaged through the public engagement process. No direct response has been provided. 4.4 Traditionally Harder to Reach Groups / Individuals Engagement was undertaken with the residents of the community. The design team arranged a meeting with Bute Prides chairperson Angie Webb. As a keen cyclist within the community Angie was able to provide a great insight to the challenges faced by those less heard voices. A number of issues were identified including: • The area is considered pretty safe already for walking and cycling when compared with other urban locations; • Noted that for older less mobile people, a lack of dropped kerbs and coherent routes may limit travel options; • Familiarity with the local area has added compliancy to accepting the issues; • Tractors in the area are massive and can be intimidating when cycling along Victoria Street; • The Front Green is noted to be ‘going downhill’ and would benefit from improvements. The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) was consulted and highlighted that there is no specific representation for Rothesay available to provide comment. 4.5 Landowners and Affected Parties The design team worked with the local community / stakeholder feedback to identify potentially impacted landowners. The Registry of Scotland (ROS) was contacted to obtain current legal land ownership details. These details were ABC Marine Operations Not consulted as no service impact ABC Fleet Public Transport Not consulted as no service impact ABC Outdoor Access Not consulted as no service impact ABC Youth Services Not consulted as no service impact ABC Community Development Team Not consulted as no service impact ABC Economic Development Not consulted as no service impact SEPA Not consulted at this stage Scottish Water No Issue. Details to be provided SSE No Issue. Details to be provided Page 249
Page 250
35 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com included within our landowner engagement tracker and recorded within our stakeholder mapping and constraint mapping (shown in circles). The ROS confirmed that the study area is within the ownership of Argyll and Bute Council (ABC). Page 250
Page 251
36 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 1 BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNTIES Page 251
Page 252
37 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 5 STAGE 1 BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES 5.1 The Challenges to Active Travel The community engagement programme has identified a number of barriers to travelling sustainably. These have been categorised and summarised as follows: • lack of lowered curbs; • Dangerous pavements; • Access to the ferry terminal limited; • Protecting the front green is a concern; • Lack of provision for disabled and minority user groups; • Lack of pedestrian crossings; • Vehicle speeds a concern; • Dangerous road crossings at points; • Improvements to pedestrian and cycle crossing on Victoria Street, at the ferry terminal junction and the pavilion; • A clear preference for no impact on parking; • Minimise the impact on Albert pier due to tourist traffic and coach parking; • Why here and why such a short section of route; • Limited support for investment or change; Page 252
Page 253
38 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 2 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Page 253
Page 254
39 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 6 STAGE 2 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 6.1 Further Engagement Following the conclusion of the stage 1 consultation and completion of the stage 1 options feasibility report, option 2 (road corridor with route on coastal side) was shortlisted for further development and consultation. The decision to progress the design was partly due to the limited responses received during stage 1 and the anticipation that by providing an example of what could be achieved, a greater proportion of the public would engage during stage 2. The scheme was also extended from Albert Pier to Glenburn Road to address some of the stage 1 feedback regarding the useability of the route and concerns raised regarding developing short sections of route. To support the process, the engagement plan as described within the stage 1 section of this report was repeated. This included: • A second public event was held on the 21st August 2024 at the Discovery Centre between the times of 16:30 and 20:30; • A interactive discussion session with s4 pupils of Rothesay Academy to review the concept ‘fly though’ animation, capture views and test the engagement materials. • A drop-in session at Rothesay Swimming Pool using the ‘Toblerone’ interactive podium. The event lasted 1 hour and captured the views of the community within the swimming pool foyer; • Production of a 40-minute-long Project Podcast to explain the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). The podcast was hosted on-line within the project virtual room; • A post public event Bute Community Council public meeting was hosted by the council on the 26th September. Two one -hour long meetings were facilitated to present the scheme and allow further question and answers of the community’s concerns; The event was advertised by Bute Community Council utilising social media and leaflet distribution. The design team also advertised the event on social media; and • Production of a 4-minute-long video infomercial to provide an explanation to the project and limitations to funding. The use of an video format had been developed successfully on other projects and supported more meaningful engagement with the community. Similar to the stage 1 event, 5 large formats graphically designed A1 presentation boards were developed to explain the project along with 3 x 1.5m x 2.0m long concept design prints. It was noted that during the stage 1 event, the public experienced some difficulty in working with the map-based images. To improve on the publics interface with the study materials a ‘fly along’ video was produced for stage 2 using a combination of Google Earth and the scheme concept design. The ‘fly through’ was projected onto the Discovery Centre wall using a large format projector and supported by narration provided by the study team. Page 254
Page 255
40 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The event was advertised to the community through the use of local press coverage in Appendix C (Isle of Bute News), local poster advertising and support offered from the Bute Community Council. The team again posted regular updates using social media in advance of the event. These updates being reposted by the community multiple times across the community’s own social media space including the Isle of Bute Facebook Page. All visitors attending the event were given the choice of completing the project survey questionnaire or accessing our range of digital tools to provide feedback via QR codes and URL links. A key advantage of the digital platform is, that even with the poor impact of weather on attendance, the materials could still be accessed and commented upon at a time that best suited the consultees. The event took place on a wet and rainy weekday night. A total of 110 people managed to meet the team (90% increase from the 61 attendees for stage 1). During the event, the majority of visitors were observed by the design team to bypass the project information boards provided and congregated around the ‘fly through’ video. A number of visitors attended promptly and prior to the completion of video / event set-up. Many of the visitors were noted to repeat the same questions regarding project funding, parking impacts and how the pavement parking ban would impact on their businesses. This information being available within the bypassed boards. The team struggled to manage the surge of visitors and the number and frequency of repetitive questions, with many being raised by new visitors joined the rear of the group. Due to the loud voices of a few, a number of visitors who were supportive of the project felt uncomfortable speaking up in public resulting in many of the louder and more aggressive voices dominating the event. A number of those in support of the project investment did reach out and engaged with the design team later during the event. It is noted, the value offered by the online engagement platform also allowing the islands community to still provide their feedback for a period of six weeks post event. A register extract of those attending the event is shown in Appendix B. Post event, leaflets and surveys were left on the counter of Rothesay’s Discovery front desk and the large format concept plans left on display for a period of four weeks, before being reused at the Bute Community Council public meeting. The design team met and spoke with a number of people in the community, visiting the Rothesay joint campus and the Discovery Centre. All school pupils engaged in project conversation and either completed a survey response on their own or provided feedback that the team used to complete a survey on their behalf at that time. Page 255
Page 256
41 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 6.2 Event Advertising The advertising approach to stage 2 was similar to stage 1 with the key difference of scaling back the leaflet production following further advise and support from the Bute Community Council. It was agreed that the use of paper- based leaflets would have limited value within Rothesay as the island is more reliant on digital media (Facebook) and word of mouth. Accordingly, only 100 leaflets were printed for stage 2 and advertised through the town three weeks in advance of the planned public event. Leaflets were this time distributed by BUTE BID whilst the design team issued leaflets to the Library, town businesses, Discovery Centre and Co-Op. The study Facebook page alongside the community page were used to advertise the event with a number of post prompts issued in advance. A paid for advertisement was also take out within the Argyllshire Advertiser who subsequently printed a number of editorial extracts (weekly). During the design teams visit to the island the digital ‘Toblerone’ advertising totem was also deployed to raise community awareness of the forthcoming event and project. Rothesay joint Academy also agreed to circulate information to parents and pupils through the PTA and student council. The public engagement event was open to the public for comment for a total period of six weeks (two weeks in stage 1) to maximise the opportunity for public feedback. The consultation period was supported again through the use of virtual engagement room which had subsequently also been revised and improved. Page 256
Page 257
42 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Photos from August 24th Public and Schools Engagement Page 257
Page 258
43 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 2 Concept 3D Flythrough Extract Page 258
Page 259
44 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7 STAGE 2 - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 7.1 Sources of Community Feedback The multiple engagement platforms made available to the community supported the community to engage with the project providing feedback both digitally and physically. A summary of the received feedback by the various engagement platforms used is summarised in the following table. Format Responses Received Survey (Paper) 22 Survey (Digital) 603 Community Feedback Tool (Digital) 85 Total Quantitative Responses 710 Community Public Event Attendees for stage 2 110 Stakeholder Meetings 4 Bute Community Council Public Meeting Attendance 19 Total Non-Quantitative Responses 133 4 Census 2022 7.2 Survey Sample Validation A total of 710 quantitative responses were received from the island’s population of 6,498 residents (c.3,328 households)4. This represents a sample size of around 11% which is aligned with the 10 – 15% typically received on other similar projects. This equates to sample size of 16% when considering the population of Rothesay. The results are also higher sample rate than those received for stage 1 (45 responses - 1% sample). The higher stage 2 level of response is a positive reflection on the additional methods invested to engage with the community, the value of utilising an extended six-week consultation period and possibly the extension of the route to include Battery Place to Glenburn Road. These results are despite the event being undertaken during a wet and windy summers night which will have had an adverse impact on the community’s appetite to visit the event. An analysis of the survey responses received is provided in the remainder of this chapter. The free text comments provided as part of the survey responses are included in Appendix D. Page 259
Page 260
45 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 2 – Section A - Participant Demographics 7.3 Participants Age This question was asked as it is important to capture the views of people with varying levels of life experience and perspectives. Of the participant responses received: • 16% were aged under 40 (16% census 2022). • 40% were aged between 40-59 (26% census 2022). • 33% were younger than 60-79 (34% census 2022). • 2% were older than 79 (8% census 2022). These results highlight that not only have more people participated in the project but a wide range of age groups across the community have been consulted. The results indicate a slight over representation of 40–59-year-olds (40% project vs. 26% census). However, all other age bands are well aligned with the census 2022 for the Rothesay ward area. The under 40 years olds are now also better represented when compared with the stage 1 results (16% stage 2 vs. 8% stage 1). Page 260
Page 261
46 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.4 Participants Gender Of the total respondents, 52% were women / girls (52% census 2022) and 37% as men / boys (48% census 2022). 1% of respondents identified as non-binary, 0.50% were transman and 0.17% transwomen. 9% of the respondents indicated that they would prefer not to say. Overall, the results reflect a reasonable cross-section of the community and are broadly aligned with the census demographic split, albeit slightly less respondents identifying as men / boys. A key difference from the stage 1 results is that the views of females are better represented aligning well with the census data (52% project vs. 52% from 2022 census). 7.5 Participants Health The majority of participants considered themselves to be able-bodied and did not have a health or disability that impacted on their everyday mobility (72%). No person indicated they have some health or disability which limits their day-to-day activity a lot, However, 13% of respondents did indicate that their disability or health issue would affect them a little. 16% participants preferred to not say anything. Page 261
Page 262
47 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.6 Details of Participant Health Of the respondents indicating they did have a health-related disability, 20% indicated their disability was related to mobility or stamina but not breathing related. These questions are important to ask as they assist the design team in designing for all user groups, including those with protected characteristics. 7.7 Participants Employment Status Participants were asked to qualify their employment status. This question was relevant to ask as the design team will need to consider how the project would support economic activity and support the movement of people to and from places of work as part of ‘everyday’ journeys. 1% of the respondents indicated that they are currently not employed. 50% indicated they were employed either part time or full time, 30% indicated they were self-employed and 18% of respondents said they were retired or not applicable. Page 262
Page 263
48 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.8 Results Comparison with 2022 Census To assist in understanding more about how representative the survey demographics are, the survey results were compared with the 2022 census5 for Rothesay. The results indicate that the project feedback demographic by age and all genders is broadly comparable with the census analysis noting that the under 21 years olds is a small proportion of the community at only 3%. Overall, the study results are considered to capture a good sample of the community, capturing the views of both able bodied and those less able, those in work and those unemployed or studying. The results also show an improvement on the stage 1 results with the demographics presenting a more representative match with the census. This is partly due to the increased sample size. 5https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/scotland/argyll_and_bute/S52000547__rot hesay/ 7.9 Participants Residential Status Respondents were asked if they lived in Rothesay. This question was relevant to ask as it is important to understand if the respondent is responding with longer term experience of the community or as a tourist/visitor. • 70% of respondents are full time residents in the community. • 25% have either lived in the community historically, or visited at least once a year. The results indicate that ¾ of the respondents are commenting as longer-term members of the community. Page 263
Page 264
49 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 2 – Section B - Participant Travel Habits 7.10 Walking and Wheeling between the Pavilion to Glenburn Road All participants (residents and visitors) were asked how often they currently walk or wheel from the Pavilion to Glenburn Road. A summary of the results is presented below. • 45% of the participants said they travel this section less than once a week or never. • 39% say they travel this route more than once a week. • 17% indicated they travel the route more than once a day. Overall, 45% of respondents do not walk or wheel the route regularly. With 39% using the route at least once a week and 17% using the route more than once a day. Overall, the route between the Pavilion and Glenburn Road is not well used currently by walking or wheeling modes as part of respondent’s everyday travel. It may be possible that part of the route is more popular but this would require further investigation through survey to qualify. Page 264
Page 265
50 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.11 Cycling between the Pavilion to Glenburn Road All participants (residents and visitors) were asked how often they travel from Pavilion to Glenburn Road using a bicycle. • 85% say they never cycle this route. • 13% say they travel this route more than once a week. • 1% indicated they travel the route more than once a day. Overall, more than 85% of respondents do not own a bike or cycle the route currently. A further 13% travel the route less than once a week with only 1% cycling regular every day. The route is therefore not popular for regular cycling as part of everyday journeys. Similar to walking results from the previous question, it may be possible that part of the route is more popular but this would require further investigation through survey to qualify. Page 265
Page 266
51 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.12 Parking Along the Route at Victoria Street or Albert Pier All participants (visitors and residents) were asked How often do they park on Victoria Street or Albert Pier. • 25% of the participants said they rarely park • 12% say they don’t own a car. • 9% said they park once a week, • 9% also say they park less than once a week, • 8% park two days a week, • 8% park 3 days a week, • 6% of the participants say they park on this route once or more a day, • 5% park on the route 4 times, • 5% times a week, 4% park 6 days a week and • only 2% park along the route at the weekends only. Overall, a relatively small proportion of the total survey respondents parked a vehicle within the study area on a regular basis. This is relevant when considering in conjunction with the number of comments provided by respondents in relation to overall parking deficiency within the study area. These are qualified later within this chapter. Page 266
Page 267
52 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.13 Views if the Concepts Offers Benefit to the Community All participants (visitors and residents) were asked if they felt the proposed concept design suited the community’s needs? This question helps us understand the communities’ thoughts on the appropriateness of the design and their understanding of the project aims and funding limitations. Residents 95% of resident’s respondents who own a car or drive said ‘No’ and 5% of respondents said ‘Yes’. 2% answered ‘Don’t know’. These results indicate the community is overall unsupportive of the concept design and the value it may bring. This level of response, may indicate issues with the concept, concerns reading change or a lack of understanding of project aims and funding. Visitors Visitors to the island who also drive responded with 86% saying ‘No’ and 14% of respondents said ‘Yes’. These results indicate that visitors to the community are also unsupportive of the proposed scheme, but less so than the residents (5% residents support concept vs. 14% of visitors). The slight difference in positive opinion might reflect difference in opinion regarding the ‘fear of change’ with visitors more open to changes Page 267
Page 268
53 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.14 Views on Concept Community Benefits by Car / Non-Car Drivers The resident community (only) results were interrogated further to better understand how their views are aligned with their mobility habits. An analysis of residents (only) views on the concept designs benefit to the community based on their preference to own or use a car was examined. Non-Car Users A total 17 respondents (5/5%) indicated that they did not regularly use a car. This is lower percentage of non-car owners than the census 2022 (43%) and reflects that not all respondents disclosed their use of car. A total of 59% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community, with some expressing concerns relating to the design’s safety. A total of 41% of resident respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. Car Users A total 292 respondents indicated that they did regularly use a car or park within the study area. Of these a total of 96% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community, with some expressing concerns relating to the value of investing in other more necessary improvements including additional parking. A total of 2% of resident car user respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. Overall, it appears that the non-car users are more supportive than car users (non-car 41% support vs. car users 2%). The overall number of non-car users is however much lower than those regular car users reflecting a small sample. Additional surveying would be required to assist in qualifying any relationship between response and car use. Page 268
Page 269
54 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.15 Views on Concepts Community Benefits by Gender The resident community (only) results were interrogated further to better understand how their views relate to their stated gender. An analysis of residents (only) views on the concept designs benefit to the community based on their gender was examined. To aid in reporting, the multiple gender groups have been combined into two groups, female and male. Female A total 205 respondents indicated they were women, girl or trans female. Of these a total of 95% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 3% of resident respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. Male A total 165 respondents indicated that they were male, boy or trans man. Of these a total of 86% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 13% of male grouped respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community. Overall, it appears that the women grouped respondents are slightly less supportive than male grouped of the concept (female 3% support vs. male 13%). Page 269
Page 270
55 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.16 Views on Concept Community Benefits by Employment Status The resident community (only) results were interrogated further to better understand how their views relate to their employment status. An analysis of residents (only) views on the concept designs benefit to the community based on their employment was examined. Employed A total 148 respondents indicated they were not currently employed, retired or in education. Of these a total of 87% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 11% of resident respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. 2% remain unsure and did not comment. Unemployed A total 232 respondents indicated that they were in employment. Of these a total of 94% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 6% of respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community. A total of 1% indicated they were unsure. Overall, it appears that the employed grouped of respondents are slightly less supportive than male grouped (not-employed 11% support vs. employed 6%). Page 270
Page 271
56 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.17 Views on Concept Community Benefits by Age The resident community (only) results were interrogated further to better understand how their views relate to their stated age. An analysis of residents (only) views on the concept designs benefit to the community based on their age was examined. To aid in reporting, age bands have been grouped into 21 and under and 21 and over. Respondents under 21 A total of only 8 respondents indicated they were 21 or under. Of these a total of 25% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 75% of resident respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community and offered a welcomed addition. Respondents over 21 A total 240 respondents indicated that they were aged over 21. Of these a total of 93% felt that the concept design would not offer benefit to the community. A total of 5% of respondents felt that the concept would offer benefit to the community. A total of 2 % indicated they were unsure. Overall, it appears that respondents under 21 years are old are more supportive of the concept. However, with only 8 respondents, the sample size is noted to be small and potentially under representative. Those older than 21 are more likely to be employed and are less supportive of the proposed change. Page 271
Page 272
57 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.18 Views on Design Measures Supporting Future Walking and Wheeling The community (both residents and visitors) were asked, whether the concept measures are likely to improve opportunities for future walking and wheeling within Rothesay. The majority 90% think the design will not result in any increased walking or wheeling activity. The remaining 10% support the design and believe it will encourage more walking and cycling for the community. 7.19 Views on Appropriateness of Concept with Current Community Needs To help us understand how participants currently feel about the concept’s alignment with current community needs. Respondents were asked if they were overall pleased with the concept would address current mobility concerns. These concerns were raised by the community through the 2016 design charette. 90% of respondents said they were concerned and thought the concept was unsatisfactory. The remaining 10% indicated that they were pleased with the concept and that it would support the community’s current mobility needs. Page 272
Page 273
58 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.20 Respondents Views Regarding Perception of Project Value and Intended Use The results of the survey feedback were further interrogated to better understand how the community have responded to the concept. Each survey response was interrogated to further understand how well informed the respondents are whilst providing feedback. The comments were varied in detail with some statements including excessive detail, negative slurs, personal attacks on individuals and the use of explanative language. These types of response are not typically associated with a civilised community. In some cases, and by contrast a proportion of responses included a copy and paste of a short statement with a clear indication of completing and submitting the survey as quickly as possible. From a review of the surveys a number of observations were made. • A total of 1,686 individual comments were provided6 across the 603 surveys received. • In the majority, most respondents when providing a comment noted they would prefer the project to be ‘scrapped’ or consider it to be a ‘waste of money’ (22% of all comments and 62% of all surveys received). • 18% of the comments suggested changes that are beyond the scope or reach of the project. These comments would therefore indicate the respondents lack of understanding of the projects aim, limitation in how the 6 Users were limited to single use IP addresses. funding can be used. A number of comments referenced other general feedback which could also indicate the respondent is making comment through influence of others. It was noted through social media that a number of people within the community were influencing feedback either through provision of mis-information or seeking to increase their personal status as community contributors. These comments have been recorded by the design team as ‘project misunderstood’ and accounted for just over half of the feedback received. C. 51% of the total survey responses received. • A total of 16% of the comments made indicated that the project was not needed or unwanted. These direct rejection comments accounted for just under half of the surveys received (45%). • A total of 13% of comments indicated that respondents felt the project would not be used once complete. These comments accounted for 35% of all survey responses received. 7.21 Respondents Views on the Suitability of the Design Only 10% of all comments received related to views expressed (positive or negative) referenced the suitability of the concept design. These comments accounting for 27% of all survey responses received. Details of concept design suggested changes are summarised as follows. Page 273
Page 274
59 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • A total of 6% of comments indicated that the design was ‘too focused on cycles’ and /or would introduce potential safety concerns. These comments being mentioned in 16% of all surveys received. • A total of 4% of all comments received suggests that the project would be best relocated elsewhere. Alternative locations were however rarely suggested. These comments accounted for 11% of all surveys received. A summary of the comments received by percentage popularity and a summary of comments received as a percentage of total survey responses received is presented in the following charts. Page 274
Page 275
60 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Page 275
Page 276
61 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Page 276
Page 277
62 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 7.22 Summary of when Responses were Received Analysis of the timeline of when the surveys have been received was also undertaken. This analysis is relevant as it can assist in understanding how the community have reacted to both the range of engagement methods used but also the strength of feeling of the respondents. It was clear from the stage 2 public event that a portion of the community did have concerns regarding the concept design and were very vocal to make their opinions known. Analysis of the survey entries shows that the majority of responses received were submitted within the first 48 hours. On the 21st of August 279 (34%) surveys had been completed on day one. A further ‘thank you’ Facebook post was issued by the design team to the communities group page ‘The Isle of Bute’ and ‘Rothesay, Pavilion To Albert Pier study page’ following the event. This increased the survey results by 387 (47%) to 81% within the first two days. It is observed following multiple social media public ‘call to action’ posts issued within the six week consultation period, only a small increase in surveys were received. Ongoing social media debate indicated a lack of support for the scheme which did not translate into additional survey responses. It is therefore concluded that the majority of the population ‘active’ on social media submitted a survey at the study outset within the first 24 hours with the limiting ‘one survey per IP address’ preventing repeat survey submissions. The results in combination with the low level of stage 1 feedback, indicates that the majority of surveys have been completed by a ‘group’ of the community active on social media and generally unsupportive of the project. The timeline analysis of response is shown in the following chart. Page 277
Page 278
63 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 2 - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS Page 278
Page 279
64 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 8 STAGE 2 - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK TOOL (CFT) RESULTS 8.1 Summary A total of 85 additional responses (stage 2) were received through the Community Feedback Tool (CFT) for the stage 2 consultation (110 total). The responses were provided anonymously. Participant's comments were located along the route. Comments covered a wide range of subjects including providing challenge on the detail of the concept operation with a focus on septic tank conflicts, parking and access to the church and approach to the project. The stage 2 CFT feedback received is presented by location and verbatim in the following figure and table. Each stage 2 comment reference is shown in the figure. Stage 1 comment reference are not shown in the following figure to avoid confusion. Page 279
Page 280
65 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stage 2 -Community Feedback Tool comments by location (all comments) Page 280
Page 281
66 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 24 The council already have a problem funding existing flowerbed. Introducing more flowerbeds beds will not be well maintained in the future. Getting the existing pedestrian infrastructure into good order should be a priority. The pavements and footpaths are dangerous especially in Montague Street. I wouldn't like to have poor eyesight when trying to navigate my way around bad paving slabs. 25 First this area is used by the fair every year, where is it to go. Second it is ideal for walkers with without dogs, cyclists and pedestrians do not mix. 26 As people get older, they tend to rely on wheelchairs or even mobility scooters to get around. Narrowing the pavement in this plan will make it more difficult for them and other pedestrians. I would be extremely surprised if such a proposal to narrow a pavement (which the pavement parking ban is trying to address) could pass any competent equality impact assessment. Narrow pavements are also a problem for people with prams. 27 Do not impose floating pavements - where pedestrians/ bus passengers have to negotiate the cycle path in order to get on/ off a bus. RNIB are running a campaign highlighting the dangers of these crossings for bus users - especially those who are elderly or have visual impairments. 28 There is definitely conflicting views about the track. Your plans on this site show the paths which are already round the promenade area and not the plans which have been produced for the front page of the local paper. Local people realise that this money is confined only to the Cycle Path but what about the condition of the pavements. Are you going to repair the parts where the track has to go and leave the rest in a bad condition? 29 Along this stretch of pavement local residents and holiday makers actually walk but you are making this pavement smaller - are parents/grandparents out walking with prams meant to walk in single file and not communicate to anyone along the cycle route? What about people with disabilities - are they meant to walk/manage wheelchairs for example next to cycles whizzing past? What about residents with hearing difficulties and accidentally wander into the track. Will you make bikes have loud bells on them? Please do not return the advice that people could walk on the prom part as if weather is inclement this is not viable: this part of the prom was blocked off to vehicles etc due to part of it being unsafe. This whole cycle route will be a disaster for residents and despite what you say you are not listening to residents. 30 You have omitted to change this since the last consultation where you were advised that the ferry terminal can be very busy and cars are parked to as near the road as possible, leaving enough room for pedestrians to cross. It was a pity that you were not here during the Highland Games to see the volume of traffic. If you put the cycle lane at this part where are pedestrians meant to cross or are you trying to make Bute residents cross where you, who do not live on the island or actually listen to the residents, decide we have to cross. 31 Council can make extra parking places here but there is a crossing which dictates how near cars can be to the crossing, unless you wish everyone to break the law. 32 Increased parking for coaches means you are reducing parking, which is at a premium, to cars. Where are residents meant to park? The other side of the road you intend to put in more parking places which is something the council could do as they will collect the money from car parking places. You are only talking about two extra spaces at the most at this location. 33 Where are pedestrians given the right of the pavement which they are entitled to? Are parents meant to keep youngsters on a short leash so they do not stray on to the proposed cycle path? 34 An overflow carpark for the pier should be considered but never at the expense of the winter gardens. This area has HUGE cultural significance to the island and it must never be used for anything other than recreational use. 35 With the increase in volume of motors on the island this year, when the pier is full cars are seen overflowing along Victoria street. The weekend of butefest saw motors cue to the pavilion. the narrowing of the road for a clue path will create more issues for island residents 36 Due care and attention is required around the town cenotaph. A cycle lane along front of this monument is a sheer mark of disrespect. Page 281
Page 282
67 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 37 More Cobble stones should be installed as a traffic calming measure. 38 Removing parked cars from this pavement will certainly be more sightly. However, with homes and guest houses along battery place, homeowners will have nowhere to park. 39 Narrowing of road is not advised, even if cycle lanes were installed, road cyclists will not use them and will make road conditions more dangerous when overtaking. With the narrowing of the road along Victoria street, visibility will be worse for larger vehicles(tractors, HGV, bin lorrys, Emergency services) spotting pedestrians 40 Parking heavy buses on the seawall is not advised 41 Any new area of pavement created will require bollards to prevent pavement parking. 42 Create more car-parking (not less) for tourists bringing their tourist money to Bute. Formally permit pavement parking (permitted and tolerated for years) on the ocean-side pavement of E Princes St and Battery Place. Guest houses and hotels in Battery Place already suffer with inadequate street parking. This proposed cycle-lane plan makes it worse. Eventually, all Rothesay businesses will suffer when guest houses can't attract Bute visitors for lack of parking. 43 Pedestrianise Montague Street, reduce through traffic to residents/shopkeepers and deliveries with moveable bollard. 44 Victoria Steet should foster designs utilised in Montague street that work to subtly reduce speed of traffic. Road is level with pavement, reduces car priority, pavement is maintained across side streets to denote pedestrian priority. Ambiguity in road design can work well to encourage drivers to be more courteous and considerate. 45 The 3 coach parking bays on the harbourside would block the view to the harbour for local cafes. Additionally more difficult for coaches to manoeuvre in and out. 46 I think that Rothesay already IS a 20 minute neighbourhood, but even if it's not - I have a query about why the Promenade (broad, runs from Pavilion to Ferry Terminal) is not being utilised for this? Similarly, on the other side, there is the pavement at high level and a lower level path - can't one of them be utilised as cycle path. Narrowing the road (which is already pretty narrow) feels like the wrong option. 47 Speed bumps need to be installed or speed cameras . Daily witness vehicles r speeding along here . 48 Persistent inconsiderate parking long term by large motor homes block the pavement at Albert Pier just past the phone box. Albert pier also currently used as a dumping ground for unused trailers and the odd caravan when not being used. What is happening to the derelict building? 49 Taxi rank must be sustained to allow for 11 taxis (current level) 50 Make the lights pedestrian and traffic flow controlled. The crossroads are busy and getting across can be challenging 51 Toilets at Albert pier need demolished and for it to have proper spaces for coaches as they currently have to park up on the pavement 52 Need to ensure enough spaces for taxi rank 53 Must allow for parking / pulling in to drop off passengers for when Pavilion reopens 54 Albert Pier area is a weed strewn mess. Any chance of sorting this building and getting the fences down? 55 Trying to cross the road at this roundabout is difficult. 56 Will Camper Vans and motor homes be moved off the pavement at East Princes Street 57 Ferry Traffic makes this side of the road difficult to cross. 58 The cobbled area at the pier side of Guildford Square is too difficult to negotiate in a wheelchair comfortably or safely. The zebra crossing kerbs need to be dropped more. Crossing most of the roads on the way along from the start of the town at battery place to the pavilion can be very difficult in a wheelchair and potentially unsafe as the chair can get stuck, the dropped kerbs are not dropped enough in some areas and as a result can be painful. There is also difficulty in accessing dropped kerbs due to drivers parking Page 282
Page 283
68 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com inconsiderately beside them. Please allow some dropped kerbs along the way on the opposite side of the road to the intended route for wheelchair users to be able to cross safely from. 59 If you want to promote cycling why not look at providing a safe cycle path from the Port to Ettrick? A very popular route and you could use the existing overgrown walkway 60 This is a waste of money as we have a wide promenade where you can cycle already or road is perfectly safe to cycle. 61 Cyclists that come onto the island will not use a cycle path as they will be happier on the road and will be travelling much further than the cycle lane and will be travelling faster than safety would allow. I’m not really sure who this path is designed to be used by? It doesn’t go anywhere and anyone accessing it will have had to ride on the road to get there…. Riding through Rothesay is not dangerous but mixing cycling and pedestrians is. 62 This entire stretch of Battery Place includes a large number of guest houses / B&Bs, and multi-story apartment buildings. Consequently there is insufficient parking on the inland side of the road, as a result of which many cars park on the wide pavement on the shore side of the road - not out of disregard for the law, but out of necessity. The proposed plan offers no relief to this situation, but in fact makes it worse, but turning the roadside half of the shoreside pavement into a cycle path, which would therefore make it doubly an offence for cars to park there. Thus the plan (debateably) enhances the experience of a tiny minority of cycle users, at the expense of a very substantial number of resident vehicle users. 63 How’s about making the taxi rank better looking and en outing for electric taxis 64 Argyll & Bute Council's prime consideration should be first and foremost for the residents before accepting external funds for a vanity project that benefits few but adversely impacts on the lives of residents in E Princes Street and Battery Place. For many years parking has been allowed on the ocean-side pavement where this proposed new few hundred yards of cycle track is to be. Despite the law prohibiting pavement parking that A&B Council will be enforcing by the end of 2024, it is quite within the power of the Council to legitimise parking on the ocean-side pavement so that residents can continue to live harmoniously instead of squabbling over few remaining parking spots. With government encouragement, over the years houses have been sub-divided into multiple occupancy. Where there was once a three-storey home with perhaps a maximum of two vehicles, there are now properties along Battery Place that have been sectioned off into 3, requiring parking for up to six vehicles. E- Princes St to the end of Battery Place requires and deserves parking both sides of the road. A&B Council have the power to do this instead of considering a non-sensical cycle track along this route and a ridiculous waste of tax-payer money to simply redesign the coach parking and car parkings and rip up characterful cobbled paving to replace with unsightly tarmac. Why is this plan also reducing the number of taxi stands from eleven to four? Are the taxis to double-park elsewhere? There are simply too many bad elements to this proposal. 65 I have a separate question which we need to start a community chat about. The question: Is Argyle and Bute Council the most incompetent Council in Scotland? From all the holiday resorts in Scotland I have been to the areas the council are responsible for looking after are easily in the worst state of repair. Any repair they do undertake is half finished and barricaded with Herras fence. Rothesay is becoming like a building site where all the Herras fencing will eventually join to encircle us! A resolution to an actual problem would be useful. Middle of the busy season or any other season for that matter is there any difficulty walking or cycling from the Glenburn to Rothesay? None I have ever seen. So what exactly is the problem being resolved here? The resolution of a non problem is clearly causing many actual problems for real residents and holidaymakers. Many roads have one pavement. Battery place has 3 and one of them is wide enough to fit a bus and still have space to walk and cycle on but somehow Battery place needs more space for walking and cycling. Have the designers been to Battery Place? There are very few side streets so no real alternative for parking. This proposal needs to introduce full parking both sides of the road all the way along east Princess Street and Battery Place and beyond. This affects so many businesses, residents and holiday makers. Hotels, B&B’s, cafes, working people. Some of the residents may be retained fire fighters for all these designers know. They need access to their vehicles! 66 The scheme appears to have limited thinking it neither adds to Rothesay being a contemporary destination with ease of access, nor does it add to the connectivity of the Page 283
Page 284
69 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com town. The current scheme ignores the awesome opportunity of integrating the promenade with a cycle path. the island has more mobility scooters and access to the promenade is a bit tortious in places, so any improvement would be a benefit. Overall the proposed scheme does not connect anything for people in town, what would be of benefit would be a cycle pathway from the ferry to the school, connecting the doctors, the hospital and the health center 67 Battery Place towards to Glenburn Hotel do not need a cycle lane to cost more space problem which is already has. As there is most B&B located here, business need the car park space. Passed weekend just between 3 B&Bs there are 40 car space needed on both side road plus car space for residents alone the road. This plan will not benefit anyone on Rothesay. The pedestrian pass along the seafront is enough and safe for people walk pass Battery Place. 68 Road is far too narrow for large vehicles passing or when cyclists who will use the road 2 abreast it will be impossible to pass them leaving 1.5m 69 I think extending the pavement in front of vehicle access to the pier and ferry will cause chaos. 70 Waste of money in my opinion. Will cause more problems than benefits. Bute is already a safe cycling zone and the distance you have proposed is ludicrous. 71 This whole scheme is not suitable for this area. It will cause congestion and difficulty for pedestrians to walk along this area. Emergency vehicles going to emergencies will also have difficulty passing this area. Where will people park their cars, especially guests at hotels and b&b’s? It is not required and a complete waste of money. It will also impede entrance to the ferry terminal. There are many more reasons not to go ahead with this proposal a main factor being none of residents living on the island neither want it or asked for it. 72 Parking is very limited as it is. Residents/businesses require parking that sustains all. 73 This is a complete waste of money. There is a high proportion of elderly people on Bute and narrowing the pavement and road for a cycle lane that would be seldom used at the expense of what is already there and adequate for prams, mobility scooters and wheelchairs is just virtue signalling at it’s worst. 74 Cars parked on one side of the road and on the pavement at the other side of the road. Cars continually speeding at ridiculous speeds along the road and it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed. 75 Not enough spaces for the amount of taxis that the island currently has 76 This junction is bad enough at the moment for near misses, it will only result in a few crashes if they make the roundabout smaller/ reduce sightlines 77 This whole scheme needs to be abandoned, the vast majority of the community are against it 78 Absolute nonsense. This will cause chaos at Battery Place and badly affect businesses there. There is approx 20 miles of safe cycling road on the island. 79 Loal residents and accommodation businesses need the parking that will disappear from Battery place. Note the word 'need', there are no alternatives. This section at least must be cut from the plans. 80 New roundabout is far too small for buses to turn around. 81 If the public transport service was better then perhaps less people would drive. This would lead to less cars on the roads and make it safer for cyclists without the need to cause enormous disruption to create a cycle lane where it is not necessary. 82 The town in general needs adequate parking. 83 The pavement between between Ettrickdale and Ardmaleish has been broken and extremely unsafe for years, this has to be addressed. 84 Public gardens and verges should be maintained to ensure the town is presentable to all visitors. Page 284
Page 285
70 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 85 All railings along the sea front areas are in dire need of repair. They are not only unsightly but unsafe. 86 It's quite obvious from all the comments by residents and business owners along E Princes St and Battery Place that car-parking is a major problem. This needs to be addressed by Argyll & Bute Council. This proposed cycling path along Battery Place simply creates more of a resident problem with parking in favour of a minority of possibles that might actually use this cycle path before it evaporates at the Glenburn Hotel. Argyll & Bute Council, listen to your rate payers!! Bin this part of the cycling lane proposal along E Princes St and Battery Place and, instead, legitimise the parking on the ocean-side pavement (already wide enough to be shared by parked cars and pedestrians). Will you listen to residents? Or will you bulldoze through your vanity project? 87 This Rothesay Pavilion to Glenburn Road Walking and Cycling Project proposal appears to simply involve an expensive rearrangement of parking at Albert Pier without much gain (if any) in additional parking. The proposal for a cycling lane along the ocean-side pavement on E Princes Street and Battery Place is bad, ill-conceived and detrimental to residents in so many ways. It’s dangerous and is a huge waste of taxpayer money. Cyclists currently share the road with motorists. Over the past few years there has been wide publicity to ensuring cyclists rightly receive better courtesy, awareness by motorists, and protection to avoid collision with motorists to the extent that nowadays any cyclists sharing the road in Battery Place are given a wide berth when overtaken by motorists. This proposal now has cyclists sharing a dedicated path with pedestrians. Whereas before there was little chance of a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian, a dog or a child there is (by the very design of this proposal) an increased chance of this happening. This proposal continually touts increased parking as one of its benefits without referring to the fact that parking along the ocean-side pavement will be permanently lost for up to as many as 30-40 vehicles in high season. Yes, there is government legislation banning pavement parking, but Argyll & Bute Council has the power to legitimize parking for vehicles on the E Princes and Battery Place ocean-side pavement which would be consistent with what has been allowed for decades. Over the years various governments have encouraged the conversion of houses into multiple flats. This has occurred in Battery Place. Where there was a single house with a parking need for one or two motor vehicles, houses have been converted into three flats (for example) resulting in the parking need for many more vehicles at the same address. With no other parking available, residents and businesses have for decades been allowed to park on the ocean-side pavement along E Princes Street and Battery Place. The concerns of residents and businesses for parking need to be addressed by Argyll & Bute Council. It’s not debatable whether there is a need for parking on the ocean-side pavement along E Princes Street and Battery Place. The merits of this cycling path proposal are, however, highly questionable and debatable as to whether it should exist here at the expense of required parking. In Battery Place this vast pavement is 4.60 metres wide, certainly enough for pedestrians to stroll along shared with parked cars. A stationery car must surely be preferable to walk past for pedestrians than having to share the path with cyclists travelling toward them silently and at speed…often unsighted. It’s easy to envisage an infant or dog straying into the path of a cyclist with this proposal. A collision is inevitable. And how might a cyclist take immediate evasive action? Duck off the cycle path and onto the road into the path of an oncoming vehicle? If the avoidance of a potential cyclist/motorist collision is a prime motivation for this cycling path, why not have cyclists share the promenade with pedestrians. It is 3 metres wide and completely removes any possibility of a cyclist and motorist collision. But, is there really any need for a cycle path along this short stretch of road at all? The inevitable question that needs to be raised with this proposal as it affects the stretch of road along E Princes St and Battery Place is “Why?” A lot of taxpayer money is going to spent to achieve what? Are cyclists really going to benefit from a few hundred metres of cycling path that ends at Glenburn Road? Are pedestrians better off sharing the pavement with cyclists? Would pedestrians not be safer and better off sharing the 4.6m wide pavement with stationery cars than with cyclists? Would the residents of E Princes Street and Battery Place not be better off with formalized, legalized parking on this pavement instead of losing it? 88 Buses currently move into layby, thus avoiding congestion along Victoria Street. With this plan, a bus pulling in will cause the traffic to come to a halt. 89 People getting off the buses will be forced to walk across the cycle path Page 285
Page 286
71 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 90 Must maintain Taxi Rank "As Is" to cater for all taxis on the island. Proposal is for 4 spaces, but there are regularly 5 taxis in place waiting for the ferry, and there are 10 licensed taxis in the town. Taxis are important to foot passengers, many of whom are either elderly or have youngsters with them 91 Would not want any changes made to the Winter Gardens or putting green area. This is a tourist attraction in a tourist town and should be considered a conservation area 92 I can see no provision for parking along this section of the proposed route. The council has not considered the needs of local residents 93 I think for this junction, that pedestrians and bicyclists should not have a route across the ferry lanes; that is, the North facing side remains dedicated to vehicle traffic, and that the north-west and north-east edges get their walls extended to section off the ferry ramp from non-vehicle traffic. I am also not in favour of the access to/from the ferry lanes getting smaller. Then, the pedestrian/bicyclist/other get a route from the north-west corner across victoria street, across the high street onto the north-west corner of Guildford Square, and back onto the north-east corner of the junction. I think this helps focus Guildford Square as a starting/stopping point or a hub of travel on the route, along with it's other travel connections, and I think improving the separation between vehicle and non-vehicle traffic in the north facing area of the junction, without restricting ferry lane access is a benefit. 94 Difficult to see how the coaches parked here (according to the plan) will be able to U-Turn in order to return to the ferry, given that the proposal is to narrow the road to "Standard". Note that the coaches would also have to cross the cycle path and footpath 95 Putting marked parking bays in Victoria Street will encourage the introduction of pay and display or other such chargeable parking. This will make it expensive to visit the town. We don’t want it !!! 96 You said that you intended to narrow the road to a "Standard Width". Have you considered the wider vehicles such as tractors and trailers that regularly have to use this stretch of road from Argyle Street through Victoria Street and all the way out to the Glenburn? 97 How well will this be maintained afterwards? Who will pay for the ongoing maintenance Will it be allowed to decay like the pavements on Montague Street and Guildford Square? 98 Rothesay is supposed to be a designated Conservation Area - Are you REALLY going to dig up and remove the historic weigh bridge ? 99 How wide will the parking spaces be? The map doesn't seem to be to scale 100 Proposed parking spaces on this corner - Will they be wide enough for modern cars? 101 Increase the availability of parking spaces by enforcing restrictions on those who dump cars here, park trailers and caravans, carry out repairs. Employ a permanent traffic warden. 102 This extension appears to be a complete waste of money. There is a beautiful walk for pedestrians right along the sea front which could be improved. Improved parking for residents/island visitors staying at the numerous guest houses would be far more beneficial than a short length of cycle path to the Glenburn Road. The real danger is that you simply encourage people to park on the road further down therefore creating a much more dangerous environment for pedestrians and cyclists. 103 Move some of the taxi parking from Albert Place into this area 104 Reduce the unnecessarily wide, and poorly maintained, pavement area in front of the job centre and telephone exchange to provide an additional and legitimate car parking area. This would be extremely useful for visitors to the castle and relieve car parking pressure elsewhere near to the busiest areas of the town. 105 Where do all the other taxis park if there are only 4 spaces? 106 Making the roundabout smaller will make it near impossible for buses and larger vehicles to turn round 360 degrees as they frequently do without some element of reversing therefore creating a new hazard. 107 Would rather you spent the money repairing the pavement/railings along Ardbeg Road which was washed away in 2021. Temporary repairs are now 3 years old. This repair should qualify for the funding you are chasing for this monstrosity that the majority dont want Page 286
Page 287
72 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Summary of Respondents Views by Category In order to enable processing of the wide range of comments received, an analysis of the CFT comments received was undertaken. From an initial review of the comments a number of categories were developed to assist in categorising comments into a format that would assisting reporting. These comments reflect categorise the design team believe best summaries the points being raised in the comments. By grouping comments into categories, a better understanding of the communities’ overall views on the concept can be understood. Each individual locational specific comment will be utilised as part of any stage 3 design development. A review of the data indicates that: • 43% of the comments made related too issues beyond scope of the project. This may include funding or considerations for a different route. These comments accounted for 28% of the total CFT comments received. The proportion of comments is noted to be broadly comparable to those received via the survey feedback and again indicates a lack of community understanding of the projects aims and limitations. • 32% of the CFT comments related to parking concerns (21% of all CFT comments). • 10% of the comments related to the concerns of the extended scheme to Glenburn Road (6% of all CFT comments received) • 22% of the comments expressed concerns regarding road safety. 20% of the comments received expressed a concern for road geometry. Both these items accounted for 14% and 13% of the total CFT comments received. • 11% of comments related to the scheme not being value for money whilst 14% of all comments received were related to congestion or operational concerns. This equates to 7% and 9% respectively of all CFT comments received. A summary of this analysis by reported category is provided in the following charts. Page 287
Page 288
73 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Page 288
Page 289
74 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Page 289
Page 290
75 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com STAGE 2 – STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK Page 290
Page 291
76 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 9 STAGE 2 - STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK Following the public engagement process, the emerging network was refined through a workshop with key stakeholders. A range of engagement methods were used for each group. These included: • Face to Face meetings; • Digital meetings; and • Emails of proposals / details. 9.1 Project Consultees A summary of the stakeholder engagement action by group and feedback received is summarised as follows: Consultee Summary ABC Roads Four workshops / meetings in total concluding with no issues with resulting concepts as presented to the public. ABC Fleet Public Transport No known issue ABC Outdoor Access No known issue ABC Planning No known issue ABC Marine Operations / Piers and Harbours Consulted. Summary provided. ABC Youth Services No known issue ABC Community Development Team No known issue ABC Economic Development Consulted. Summary provided. Bute Community Council Consulted. Summary provided. Bute BID Contacted. No formal response received. Page 291
Page 292
77 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 9.2 Argyll and Bute Network Management (Workshop 2) • Due to carriageway construction and drainage arrangements, developing the route on the A844 route on coastal footway side was agreed to be the preferred route option. • The operational carriageway width should be maintained at 6.5m in width (5.5m is standard minimum) to give extra space allowance for HGVs and Buses. It was agreed that reducing the road width to 6.5m would improve pedestrian crossing opportunities and help encourage lower vehicle speeds. • Noting the potential impacts of the concept on the ferry queue area, the Harbour Master and CalMac operator should be consulted to understand better any operational impacts. • Improvements to parking capacity along the route are supported. Any changes should consider seasonal parking impacts and the demand for coach and camper van parking where possible. • Improved access options should explore the use of ramps and avoid the suggested gate in the sea defence wall. This will improve connectivity for cyclists and wheelchair users to access the winter gardens from the CalMac terminal. • The trees located along Victoria Road should ideally be retained as the public may have concerns regarding removal. • There is no limited to no scope to revert the roundabouts on the A844 to Priority T-junctions. The town operates as a one-way gyratory and noting the industrial activity to the north, the roundabouts must be retained to support industrial traffic access onto the A844 from Bishop Street. • It was agreed that there is scope to repurpose road space to better accommodate different user groups. This should ideally avoid the need for the design to be widened into the front green / gardens. • Any redesign of Albert Pier car park to maximise car parking capacity is desirable. • Exploring the use of herringbone parking layout solution at parking area opposite Albert Pier should be considered. End-in parking is undesirable and should be removed through the design process due to safety concerns relating to vehicle manoeuvring. This will most obviously impact on the existing taxi rank. Based on the feedback received, the concept design was developed considering the above noted points. The emerging design was again subject to review by ABC network management and maintenance representatives. 9.3 Argyll and Bute Network Management (Workshop 3) A third stakeholder workshop was held to discuss the approach to review the emerging concept. The following points were noted: • Due to limited road space, a cycle buffer strip width of 0.5m is promoted in lieu of the 1m required for the road speed limit. This change was suggested acceptable noting the majority of the route would be subject to parking restrictions which would limit cars parking adjacent to the cycle route. Page 292
Page 293
78 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • The accommodation of the design within the existing carriageway kerbing is noted to significantly reduce drainage concerns and overall project construction costs. • The proposed ramp solution at the sea defence wall just behind the Winter Gardens in lieu of steps will provide improved connectivity between the Esplanade and the CalMac terminal. • The introduction of a drainage system is an option that ABC would support but would increase the overall capital cost of the project. • Improved and formalised parking capacity was welcomed. The formalising of on-street parking is noted to be a benefit. The improved parking capacity at Albert Pier was noted to be beneficial. • Parking impacts at Albert Pier should be subject to further conversations with ABC Economic Development team to confirm ABC aspirations to provide additional coach parking. • The Scottish Water building within the Albert Pier car park must be retained. The design should be revised to include this. • There is limited scope to resize the existing roundabouts but changes can be considered subject to vehicle tracking analysis to ensure access by larger vehicles can be maintained. 9.4 Caledonian Macbrayne Ferry Operations and ABC Piers and Harbours A stakeholder workshop was held to discuss the concept and proposed alterations to the ferry terminal junction and emerging concept. The following points were noted: • Supportive of concept overall; • Have not been involved in previous Ferry Terminal to Joint Campus route and have therefore not previous viewed the proposed junction design produced at that time; • Would prefer to see introduction of overhead gantry drive information system also; • No concerns raised regarding full time signalisation of all approaches; • Noted the improved layout of the access junction is likely to reduce marshalling support necessary at peak times. 9.5 ABC Economic Development A stakeholder workshop was held to discuss the concept and proposed alterations to Albert Pier and Coach Parking. The following points were noted: • Supportive of concept overall; • Kiosk at Albert Pier is currently being demolished. No fixed proposal for use of space; Page 293
Page 294
79 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • Scottish Water building on the pier is to be retained; • Potential to increase coach parking from current 3 bays. No details yet available; • Noted condition of the pier and structural integrity would need to investigated art next stage; • Noted ambition to include public shower and changing facility within the pier. Details not available although it was agreed that the proposal will have a ‘small’ footprint and could likely be located within the concept. 9.6 Non-Council Statutory Consultees A summary update of the non-Council stakeholder feedback received is summarised as follows. 9.7 Community Groups Community groups have been engaged through the public engagement process. 9.8 Bute Community Council Three stakeholder workshops were hosted to discuss the concept. The following points were noted: • Group is supportive overall of concept overall; • Would like more time to consider Front Green opportunities within the project; • Concerned regarding the use of the coastal side footway from Albert Pier to Glenburn Road during inclement weather and high tides as the footway can be flooded by waves and sea spray. • Welcomed additional parking; • Noted that peak season use of ferry terminal creates significant operational challenges. Concerns offered relating to increasing number of car-based ferry journeys and limited infrastructure to accommodate vehicle waiting to board the ferry. 9.9 Bute BID A meeting was held with the Bute BID Coordinator who offered their personal comments but was unable to provide an official comment on behalf of Bute BID. 9.10 Traditionally Harder to Reach Groups / Individuals The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) was again attempted by phone. The resulting call confirmed that there is no specific representative for Bute available to discuss potential design impacts. It is noted that feedback received does include representation by minority groups and those with protected characteristics. 9.11 Landowners and Affected Parties SEPA Not Consulted. No change to road surface area or water runoff are proposed. No change to existing watercourse. Scottish Water No response received SSE No response received Page 294
Page 295
80 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com It is noted that the scheme is located within the public adopted road. Page 295
Page 296
81 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 10 OUR LESSONS LEARNT During the engagement plan, records of each activity were maintained to assist in the evaluation of how effective the engagement process has been. The review process included a single design team workshop session, where the teams’ thoughts and ideas were shared to assist in ‘destressing’ and improving future engagement both during Stage 1&2 of this study but also all future studies. The summarised results of the workshop sessions are summarised in the following table. Observation / Issue Mitigation Face to Face meetings have been most effective in supporting feedback Maximise time within the Community Lack of engagement with traditionally harder to reach groups Work with care centres to capture views of older and younger community members including those with registered disabilities Under representation from younger adults Focused workshop with younger adults during Stage 2 Use of digital engagement materials, podcast, flythrough offers greater audience participation Progress service offers in the future using more interactive digital material Facebook and social media study page offers limited value to project feedback and are best reserved for use as event advertising Use community pages as alternative to study page Mis-information distributed via social media cannot be controlled if using community social media pages Minimise messaging and provide references. Social media also provides an "echo chamber" for views and can encourage some respondents to adopt views of the loudest voices rather than taking the time to fully understand the project for themselves Project materials note being effectively engaged with or understood Consider using easier to understand materials to assist the public to engage with the materials provided. Options include videos and infomercials as alterative to presentation boards Terminology including "active travel" and "wheeling" are not well understood across the whole community Consider use of project language. Avoid use of Active Travel and explain on wider mobility improvement in plain English Working with local press can influence the effectiveness of published information. Reporters will revert to ‘making up’ information to fill in blanks. Provide press information pack. Work with press reps direct Page 296
Page 297
82 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Survey questionnaire design too long to be completed effectively. Reduce the number of free form responses to aid in survey analysis. This introduces a risk that the public perceive a ‘closed’ already decided survey. Open form format questions must be character restricted to 100 characters max. Page 297
Page 298
83 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDICES Page 298
Page 299
84 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX A – PROJECT HANDS UP SURVEY RESULTS Page 299
Page 300
85 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX B – STAGE 1 AND 2 PUBLIC EVENT ATTENDEES LIST (EVIDENCE) Page 300
Page 301
86 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX C – ISLE OF BUTE NEWS SAMPLE EXTRACTS Isle of Bute news front cover / Page 6 - August 23rd Isle of Bute news page 5 –October 4th Page 301
Page 302
87 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX D – STAGE 2 SURVEY COMMENTS Within the Stage 2 survey respondents were offered the opportunity to provide a free text comment to three questions. Each respondent had the opportunity to provide multiple comments to each question. How is the design aligned with the needs of the community? Very happy with the design I think this design is almost perfect just needing some changes I think this design makes it a way better experience for anyone on a wheelchair or just walking Creates a space for cyclists to ride without worrying about cars allowing more uneasy or scared bike riders to get out and ride. very good I'm really pleased with the design I like the design for the cycling route you don't need much space for cycling so yeah Key areas are hit, and will improve the speed of the roads. The cyclists are discouraged to cycle as drivers are a tad too reckless, this would boost the quantity of cyclists & decrease and no. cars on the road. im quite pleased with how to design is aligned erterged gfdgdsfgsdg Concerned that this short section doesn't sufficiently benefit the community, a sign making the prom shared between walkers and cyclists would cost the price of a sign and the money put towards the section up to school i would like it if there was more nature well done The community needs, stuff for young people to do, not a pointless late for 50 year olds in lycra Wasted money! Not needed Not needed, waste of money This will only add further pressure to the town and surrounding areas to park your vehicle It's just a con like the Simpsons monorail We have been fine for years why would you try and mess up a good system. Ohh I know to line pockets with gold Not needed This does not need to happen. Better more important things these funds could improve/fix Waste of time and money, the saying don’t fix what isn’t broken springs to mind Whoever is in charge has not contacted business at all to see how this would affect us Page 302
Page 303
88 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com It does not align with the needs of the community and you don’t seem to want to listen Yes, front needs to be improved and design will help develop a more pedestrian front There is no need for this project, certainly not bikes on the island to justify such a large cost undertaking This will not improve anything, will just include a huge cost and massive disruption to the island. ‘The community’ does not want, nor need, this. Utterly ridiculous, uncalled for, waste of funds. Not needed Not needed the pavilion to pier already has esplanade that could be used and all along battery place has a wide pavement and a footpath Consultant clearly not interested in anyone with an opposing view Totally unnecessary No Not needed There is already plenty of room for cyclists. We don’t need this crazy scheme. If it aint broke dont fix it. People have been cycling and walking the route for years without any issues so this would be a waste of money I am concerned that the views of the vast majority of the community are actively being ignored, Mark literally says in his video presentation that if 99% of the respondents don’t want it then is that really a reparation of the community, we can almost guarantee if it was the other way around he would say that that was conclusive to the community wanting this scheme. From my own research and understanding from the community of Bute that I have spoken to face to face and who’s comments that I have read online this is not wanted, and the fact that in his own words Mark admits that the community said they did not want it during the first consultation that it has gone to stage 2 is staggering and is telling the community that their views simply do not matter and that as a group you will do whatever you like. This is a democratic process, the community do not want it and so far you have been unable to legitimately answer concerns and questions raised. Mark has been quoted in the paper saying that it doesn’t matter if this will be poorly maintained it should still go ahead, this is an absolutely ludicrous comment to make and reinforces the reason for the scheme not to go ahead in the first place! This scheme will not be of any benefit to Bute or it’s community. No, we already have wide pavements right along the route, a prom etc that are away from the road that cyclists already use, this is a waste of time and much needed community money and resources. Again this is not needed! Please listen to our community and provide us with something that will benefit us. It's not need at all! The roads are great as it is for bikes amd the very wide pavement are all ready perfect for children to, bike, scoot, skate safely. Please use this money for something the community and locals actually need! Don’t need it Fix the prom and it will be good as it is Its not needed . Completely unnecessary The community doesn’t want this. Money could be used on other things Page 303
Page 304
89 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not needed total waste of money Absolutely not. It really is not necessary. There is a perfectly adequate walkway from the glenburn to the esplanade. The island needs other amenities before this nonsense. Other routes are required Roads in Bute are pretty quiet compared to other places so cyclists have no problem on the road for this short proposed route. I would onlt5reduce pavement on Battery Place to aliw Complete waste of taxpayers money as is the consultation process Total waste of time Completely uneccesary The roads are wide enough for both cars and cyclists and the pavements are wide enough for prams, wheelchairs and pedestrians Concerned enough that the road will be narrowed, basically there is no need for this Waste of money I am very concerned that this plan is even under consideration as it is totally unnecessary and unwanted NOT NEEDED Not required Rothesay has an elderly population many of whom require use of their own cars, also busses and taxis. The road is currently adequate for the tiny proportion of cyclists using it. These plans will destroy valuable car parking spaces in particular on Victoria Street & Battery place, and will also lower the number of taxi rank spaces to more than HALF the current required demand for daytime. It is not required. Butes residents and visitors have managed without a cycle lane where it is proposed for ever. There has never been an accident yet. This whole idea will impact travel, social care and emergency services in a very negative way. We don't want or need a cycle lane. The project is not required No one has thought about the locals only about the tourist side of things. The area is already designed for a safe walking space why do we need to waste more money on it, instead of improving the island in other ways Very concerned at the negative impact Waste of money. There is ample safe space just now for walkers and cyclists everywhere on bute my 9yr old does it regularly without any issues Project is primarly geared to making cycle lanes without any improvement to walking The community should have been consulted on what improvements could be made before appointing consultants to design cycle lanes then ignore initial feedback and launch a design concept Bute does not want this Not needed This is a total waste of public money, considering the state of the roads and pavements on Bute. The money could be better spent elsewhere. The public should have had far more say in this venture. Bute is already a great place to cycle and walk. We don't need this. No one asked for this to be added Page 304
Page 305
90 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The pavement is already 8ft wide and there is also the prominade No one asked for or wanted this We have an ageing population on Bute, most young people drive everywhere. No one will use this The concept of safe cycle zones is great but where you have positioned it is ridiculous. Make a cycle pathway from the schools. Or fix the road at Ardbeg to allow for both cyclists and pedestrians to walk safely. This plan is absolutely ridiculous and whoever was brought in to make these plans really has no grasp of what our community actually needs. I have brought up a family over the last 20 plus years and we’ve cycled, walked and ran from Craigmore to Port Bannatyne on numerous occasions without needing these suggested adaptations. We, as a family, have completed training for half marathons, sponsored cycle runs and raised extensive funds for charity. What we have on Bute currently is ideal for this type of training. It’s a waste of money Community do not want this It does not address the needs of the community one iota. Repairs to the sea wall on Ardbeg Road, doing something about the former Royal Hotel and The Pavillion plus an elderly care home on the island would actually meet the needs. Not this utter nonsense. There is already a good promenade for walking. Except at Ardbeg Road where the storm damage from several years ago has yet to be properly repaired. But you ate not interested in that!!! Not essential in the slightest Not required Absolutely no need to waste time and money on a stupid idea Our pavements and shore side walking are big enough for walkers cyclists belong on the road there is no real issue with heavy traffic on Bute This project is not required. I understand that if this money us not used for this purpose on Bute then the island gets none of it - that is preferable to the chaos that this ludicrous scheme will cause. The promenade and battery place to craigmore pavements have more than enough room to have a cycle lane painted - no need for any construction - Totally not required There are far better things to spend this money on Waste of time and money I think there are other projects that would benefit from spending this public money, no need to restrict traffic further with these plans Waste of time and money The community does not need this ! Total waste of tax payers money It’s really not needed and if it’s a way to get funding to include road repairs be upfront and say this is design is being used as a way of fixing the roads! There is adequate walking,cycling and mobility transport without this design. The community clearly doesn't want this Bin it We don’t want it. I don't think the pedestrian crossings near the ferry are safe. Page 305
Page 306
91 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not extensive enough. Build a pavement to the Eco houses at Loch Fad so children living there have a safe way to walk to school. There won't be enough car and disabled driver parking or coach parking or campervan parking in your scheme which will cause chaos! What a waste of tax payers money, if it’s not broke don’t try fix it, funds can be relocated and spent where needed, and 10 years to complete the proposal as quoted by mark is a joke Not required or needed Not rewuired Other areas need attention not just the front You. An only improve when base is solid As above, the roads need improved across the whole island to improve cyclist safety. Loose gravel clippings, uneven surfaces and potholes have caused me to damage my bike and skid dangerously. I must say that whatever this consultation costs, the salaries of those involved could maybe explain where Victoria Road is, there is a Victoria STREET but that’s not mentioned,. Reduction in main road through towns width. Will cause congestion at ferry terminal entrance at busy periods. Smaller roundabout recipe for disaster for larger vehicle. Don't think it will help at all, if you want to cycle uou would want to go further than Pavilion Rubbish idea,can't even get names right Victoria St not Road! A waste of resources Completely against community views The community has made it clear that this scheme is neither wanted or needed. Cancel waste of money The community want the money spent elsewhere What happens to the taxi’s you are now making redundant? There is only space for 4 taxi, on average there is 8 taxis minimum on at one time - all very busy, who will be responsible for these redundancies? How will these companies continue to provide a service with half the service ? Based on responses on Facebook group this is not a welcome development. This is not in the best interest of the community Pointless The roads, pavements and Promenade are absolutely adequate! Completely a waste of money and you know it We don't want it Completely unnecessary and detrimental. With our climate and number of aged people cycling is highly unlikely to increase to the extent required to justify this waste of public funds regardless of what virtual piggy bank it comes from. Very concerned Narrowing of road & roundabout and not enough parking which is required for overflow for ferry!! Sort the Promenade for all walking, wheeling, cycling to enjoy and mobility to enjoy Page 306
Page 307
92 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Perfectly good promenade that could be used Use what we already have a prominade Rothesay has a huge obesity and ill health issue the more we can encourage people to walk or be active the better We have to remember many people do not have access to a car or cannot drive the people shouting loudest here have cars This proposal is Not needed in Rothesay No consideration how removing parking spaces will impact the community as we will lose safe parking spaces in a town which is already struggling to accommodate the many vehicles you find on island particularly on weekends As stated before there is no need for this in a small island community. The distance proposed is miniscule and will not improve the experience of walkers or cyclists in any form. Who has proposed this and why?? There are more urgent priorities to spend money on. Need to put it on the prom not change road/parking No need for this, many more things in the town are needed or need repaired None The proposed design and measurment are a waste of money. They do not aligne with the needs of the community.The paths , pavements and roads are perfectly adequet for pedestrians and cyclists as they are. Meets no needs for the community Waste of money Total waste of time and money and especially when the pot holes on the road are always a temporary fix it’s a disgrace and to think we pay our taxes for this nonsense You only need to look at the cars parked o. The pavement it’s simple we need more parking for cars and viditord Don’t believe this is needed or wanted. Most cyclists don’t use these layouts, preferring to use the normal road network The real needs of the community are being overlooked here. Waste of money We have a prom for walkers, we need parking Insane idea What a complete waste of our council taxes - appalling stupidity Rothesay is a fantastic town to walk and cycle around at present The local need is not for upheaval to create cycle routes which will not be utilised to their fullest. Better planning of parking areas and development of the town would better serve the community It's not needed Not needed Not needed Definitely Not This is of No use Page 307
Page 308
93 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Doesn’t meet community needs, more an exercise in using funding Simple solution would be to enforce current parking restrictions Our community does not need a cycle pathway. We already have pathways and walkways. We do not need this project. As usual with these things, pushed through when more pressing matters are of concern, another vanity project Not needed See above What is there is already more than adequate and to implement this plan would be a waste of tax payers money which could and should be used wiser Can't see the need for this with the cost involved, has there been any accidents?? The island lacks In care for elderly and nothing to do for kids, why not address the things that matter These are so.e of the safest areas for cyclists, would be better spent for school road. The community of Rothesay and Bute as a whole has far greater needs elsewhere where funding is vital but lacking. Crumbling sea defences still to be repaired after three years, play spaces for children, social spaces for teens, care for those with disabilities, adequate care for the elderly, incentives for small business owners, restoration of derelict buildings, community wellbeing projects etc should all take priority over this project and be more worthy of the funding. There is no need for the project at this location. There is already ample space for walking, wheeling etc along the pavement, roadway and esplanade. It Isn’t Needed Or Wanted Whoever Designed It Is A Fuckin Idiot From young to old most are drivers on Bute not cyclists I hope enough people object to stop this from happening we don’t need it Not a requirement the islanders require Unuseful project Not aligned at all with community needs Waste of money I’ve observed, both as a driver and a cyclist, that most people are very tolerant of other road users, especially in Rothesay. There are very few accidents inRothesay. Statistics should be a considered as a measure of need. The community do not want these changes but they are being forced through by some mandate which is, no doubt, financially driven There is no evidence to support the need for change. Not much of a problem actually exists but you are generating plenty of new problems. Not much of a problem actually exists but you are generating plenty of new problems. Irrelevant Not interested A lot of nonsense and not required Waste of my tax paying money Page 308
Page 309
94 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com I believe my displeasure at the misalignment of your proposal with what this community needs have been clearly expressed already in this lazy, cobbled- together survey Read all comments already stated Not listening to the community Tell me why it's required? You are creating something just to justify your contract There is no need for this in our town we have adequate facilities This is not needed and should be scrapped This is not required , it will make walking more dangerous Concentrate on actually improving the town not wrecking it. Waste of time and money 11 Taxis on the island, the planners assumed 7 so 4 spaces on a rank is ridiculous Absolute waste of money. The current pavements need to repaired and more wheelchair friendly lowered curbs out in place. To improve safety for elderly, disabled and particularly sighted or blind. Would suit you better to fix the pavements for elderly and wheelchair chair users Please listen to our community - this would be a gross misuse of public money The ridiculous proposal of a cycle lane when it isn't required. Argyll and Bute council you are an absolute joke Money could be better spent elsewhere. Unnecessary. Last thing the island needs is this pathway This is a walking community already. Total waste of money. Not needed and not wanted The community does not need more routes for cyclists or walkers due to already having a pavement and road. I'm concerned that money is not funding the correct projects on Bute which would meet the needs of Bute. The design is not needed as the route is already wide enough for cyclists and walkers to be safe and its accessible. The money spent on design and consultation is already a waste of scarce resources. Proposed area is already very safe & pedestrianised to sea front Very concerned - disruptive & unnecessary If the roads, pavements and the prom was maintained properly We already have the facilities in place. You are going to narrow the access to the pier. On busy weekends cars are queued along Victoria Street waiting to get on the ferry. Examples Bute Feast and Highland Games, Bank Holidays. This is a holiday resort. Also an island that needs it town to be accessible and useable by all. Not hindered by fewer parking spaces and narrowed roads. You are going to affect the businesses in the town. Just because there is funding for this bike path dies not mean it is needed nir necessary. . Holidays. Nonsense Spend the money properly on something that is needed for the town Page 309
Page 310
95 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The town centre is in decline, mainly due to the state of the Royal Hotel and empty shops, this is the last thing money should be spent on. Plenty of space to walk no need for anything else Who will enforce parking on the pavement, it is not a police re4sponsibility and we have one traffic warden who only visits once a month People are going to get hurt need to walk on the road not the pavement Cyclists are already a nightmare whether you are a driver or a pedestrian, I don't see how they benefit me anymore than they do now whilst out enjoying walks with my dog and family Why waste money on this design, it would be better spent improving safety of children to and from the joint campus which is an absolute nightmare with the cheese factory too. It's dangerous and need improved urgently. This way kids could walk/cycle safely and maybe help parents feel safe for their child to do so. Not required at all ..cyclists cycle on the road there is more important things to spend money on I feel there are so many other ways the money is needed on the Island. This is a waste of money and time. The entire thing is not appropriate This is not aligned with any of the needs of the community!!! Not needed add a cycle lane to the promenade - if necessary. This is neither wanted or needed this is neither wanted or needed No need this is just ABC wasting money.. our island use to look beautiful NOT now. U pay a dog and traffic warden and yet our town is a DISGRACE!! None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. Absolute waste of funding. I used to cycle along the whole bay for work for years never had an issue along any of the front roads. Even as a child I felt safe cycling. This is really a wast of money and is going to affect the local community not help it. It is not necessary. This should never happen. It's a waste of money and not needed. I don't know what benefits the people working on this get for forcing it down our throats but Bute is NOT happy with this. You clearly have no idea what your proposing as it is an utter waste. I think our island lacks in parking spaces for vehicles and you close the street off for a cycle lane is ludicrous!! The worst idea yet. I'm sure the funds can be used on much more needed things to our island I think you need to rethink your ideas as our island is deprived enough let alone adding this to the situation If this is all you can come up with to improve our island, then there is something very, very wrong!!! Waste of money, use the money to provide essentials to the community that pays council tax. Not neede Not needed Fixing the current pavements and installing more dropped curves would be more beneficial Once it gets damaged you won't fix it, same as the current situation. No one in the community wishes this Worst project ever proposed pathments should e fixed and roads before this Page 310
Page 311
96 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com I’m concerned that this is being pushed through regardless of what the community wants, Not needed! We have many places to walk and cycle which are preferable to the proposed route. They is no issue so why change it Pointless You parked on a bloody footpath and have shown a lack in understanding of the highway code The roads are wide and quiet. The Lycra brigade will not use a new cycle route. Pedestrians will wander along oblivious to cycle markings listening to headphones . Money that would be better spent elsewhere on Bute will be squandered Cycling route and car parking provision is clear but not the other elements There’s already wide pavements along this route This project shouldn’t go ahead Ridiculous cycle route not enough traffic Rubbish idea Not needed What prat came up with the idea ANGRY that this money is being spent on something we do not want or need. There are many other things we are in need of in the island rather than a useless expensive cycle lane. We do not want this on our island There is no need to make this change. Community doesn't need this. If anything improvements needs making up high St for route to academy. Not along the front. Waste of time and money- upheaval to do works is not worth it Money is desperately needed elsewhere No need for it. Perfectly adequate Inverclyde set up a similar routes that cost thousands, to be only used by a handful of cyclists. This has increased congestion and reduced parking in allot of areas. It was classed as a very expense of verly little value in return. That the council and project manager are not listening to the community, and are hell bent on pushing this through. Just like the route from the town to the school, taking no account of the access through parts that would be unsafe in the dark winter months. Not needed in this area This is NOT needed on the island !!! Put the money to other much needed things It is an unnecessary impingement It is not needed Money should be spent in Other problems Money should be spent on other projects Waste of money some of the town is falling down Cycle lane not necessary, educate cyclists to safely move over when appropriate for vehicles to pass. Page 311
Page 312
97 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com If it's not broke, don't fix it. Leave Bute don't come back Wasted money Totally not about the community Cornc The community doesn’t need a walking/cycling track Access to the ferry terminal is problematic when demand is high and the ferry terminal is full. Cars currently queue ad hoc on / Victoria Street until space becomes available. The current width of Victoria Street allows this without any problems The only issue at the moment is the poor state of the pavements and roads (Pot holes and uneven paving), which is caused by poor / lack of maintenance. Resolve this, and walking / "wheeling" / cycling becomes much easier Not needed Not needed, we have l big wide pavements, this is a disgraceful waste of money It doesn’t improve what is there and is a waste of money The community has not been engaged and its requirements are not known. We do not need this, and it is Victoria Street. Don't waste money Waste of money Waste of money I don’t believe this is a good idea to the town as it’s cutting off more parking spaces and it’s leaving the taxi rank with only 4 spaces. Not needed not good for tourists parking not enough space to widen for a cycle path!! Rubbish not needed As above!!! Just LISTEN to local people LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS This would be an embarrassing waste of money Don't think it is beneficial Overall there is nothing wrong with what we already have. This design is not required for Rothesay. This is a serious miss use of funding when there are pavements roads and buildings falling apart all over the town centre. This is not a priority for the community and points of views should be adhered to as we the community need to live and use these areas daily Ban parking on the pavement at Battery Place once access to designated are on the Esplanade The whole point about cycle friendly roads should be the laying of decent tarmac surfaces, thereby avoiding potholes. Cery Won’t benefit anyone Nit at all needed Scrap it Page 312
Page 313
98 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not necessary. Probably take over 5 years to complete Extremely concerned that the planner’s have not did their research and assume there is only 7 taxis on the island and only 4 work at a time. There is 11 taxis in total. Where would the other 7 rank ??? There is ample footpaths for walking and cyclists will not use a path. This is obvious from what i have witnessed on the mainland Absolute waste of money. This will not benefit the community and the funds could be better utiliised in many ways This is a solution looking for a problem. Money could be better spent elsewhere. This is NOT wanted or needed. This is not necessary there is plenty of space for cycling and walking. Focus on more important issues Concerned for business which will be affected by the scheme There have been no cycling incidents on the island for years, most yous the pavements when necessary. It will loose the taxi company business and the business surrounded by shortening pedestrian crossing Waste of money & no one will use it I cycle all over the isle and there is simply no need for this consultation, it really concerns me that after the debacle that was the school walk cycle route you now plan to "enhance" and already sufficient route and seem to be pushing on in the face of public dismay. Your premise is flawed we do not want or need this enhancement and would rather see cash put into existing services that are being cut i.e, Police, lolly pop men, public conveniences, gardeners,,,,,, geeze this list could go on but you get my point, so please listen and stop! There is zero need to improve the already good service that exists This seriously is not needed on this island and is a complete waste of money. The most concerning point is I don’t know one person on the island that is for this yet it seems to be going ahead Money couldn’t be well spent elsewhere There is absolutely no need to do this to the front of the town. Just leave it alone, we don’t need it, don’t want it. It could affect business with the taxi rank and other parts along the route. Someone is profiting from this and there is no need for it at all Waste of space time and money Waste of space time and money There are no issues with the route currently Without exception anyone I’ve talked too is utterly bemused as to why this project is being funded. Its aims could be achieved by simply maintaining the existing route in an overall better condition. The Isle of Bute has far greater concerns than the road/pathway system we should be able to choose where and what the council puts investment into. If people aren’t currently walking and cycling on this route design won’t change things. It’s not a communities route. Why this route. It’s not the main route in the town. From the town to the campus would make more sense to focus on. It’s very busy during that e day and when children are going and coming from school.It needs to be made safer and cycle/walk friendly. Just a way for the fat cats to make more money regardless of the community's feelings There is no need to build something else, the payments we have already are suitable for wheelchair access and pedestrian walking. If maintained properly there is non need for this honest farcical proposal. All you br doing is creating more issues for something that would not benefit anyone. I cycle and have Page 313
Page 314
99 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com never encountered a problem that would require a separate lane. I also push my kid about in a pram along the proposed new walkways and again no issues doing so. There is no need to waste money here. This is an honestly terrible design and serves none of the intended purpose Public seem to be getting ignored by organisers Not needed and not practical The present if sufficient for walking and cycling Waste of resources Cyclists will not use it they prefer to disrupt motorists by blocking the road cycling 2 & 3 abreast Idiotic design! The amount of “give ways” on the cycle route that cyclists will take absolutely no notice of. If you observed the local zebra crossings you would realise that cyclists take no notice and pass through when pedestrians are on the crossings. The roundabout die to be reduced is already too small as coach drivers have to conduct a 3 point manoeuvre in order to turn. Concerned that this scheme is ignoring some of the critical issues already being experienced around standard of existing pavements etc in order to promote a 'blue sky tick.box scheme' Rather than looking to make more obstacles funding would be better served improving the pavements, roads, drop kerbs etc Community doesn’t want it Poor survey design there. Am more than concerned. Totally oppose it There are so many better things that could be done with this money. The traffic on Bute does not warrant spending this sort of money on a "solution" that probably less than 1% of the population will see any benefit from. I don't believe this will benefit our community at all a complete waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere such as play parks etc Typically cyclists use cycle paths to avoid pedestrians Again, not required Not needed Many in community agree change are a waste of money The road and pavements are already adequate 2 way cycle lane I feel would be more dangerous than what we have just now Are we suddenly going to get hundreds of cyclists coming over. The community is mostly elderly and getting older all the time. Not all will be able to cycle. We already have racing and many bikes that have enjoyed the island as it is. It will not meet the needs of the community The promenade is wide enough already. Not required. Cyclists have no problem as they weave where they want to anyhow There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. I do not think it's needed Upheaval, mess and it's not needed As mentioned before most people ride their bikes along the seafront because let’s be honest that’s why they come to Rothesay. This is a pointless tick box exercise and a complete waste of public money which would be better spent elsewhere. Page 314
Page 315
100 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As previously mentioned there is absolutely no need for a cycle lane here. It’s hardly Hackney. The road traffic is not high enough. Seems only to benefit a handful of cyclists Plenty room at the sea front for cycle route and pedestrians. Reducing parking spaces is detrimental to the town. Just why?!!! Roads and pavement wide enough Wast of money no need for a cycle lane Everyone is concerned, this is not aligned with the “needs” of the community in any way shape or form It will improve nothing Very poor and ill conceived with poor value for money Why not survey existing users and community ? Ferry users are notoriously friendly and a captive survey audience It will reduce parking & cause congestion How can it improve walking when the pavement is being used by cyclists. The community has made it abundantly clear that they do not see a need but they are being ignored by an unaccountable organisation that appears to do this kind of thing all over the country for no good reason. Well no good reason for the community but clearly it is profitable to Sustrans. Mega concerned Rubbish Money could be well spent on town Just going to cause trafic congestion which will increase accidents Not an appropriate idea at present for the town centre Esplanade as it is has always been able to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. I think the money spent so far has been a complete waste Whoever has come up with this project does not seem to know the island as a cyclist at all We don't need it. Money could be better spent elsewhere We have a perfectly adequate space available at present I see on average 6 to 8 cyclists / week in the height of summer. The majority of them tourists. Rothesay is a quiet town. If a cyclist is cycling along the promenade and people are walking, a simple ring of their bell currently works to alert the walkers. In my opinion, money would be better spent on improving the existing promenade surface and painting on a cycle lane I think repairing the current surface of the promenade and painting on a cycle lane (as Troon and Largs has done - which is extremely effective by the way) would offer the same benefits It will hinder drivers, hotel, guest houses, air b&b’s Leave our island roads alone. This is a waste of money I feel that the majority of the community prefer to use their car and won't see this as a benefit Page 315
Page 316
101 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Yes, within the proposed developement Scrap it There isn't a problem It doesn't need improving Waste of money Plenty of space on existing prom Population is mainly elderly people who do not cycle We don't need this We don't need this It isn't aligned to any relevant local transport priorities The community have been very vocal in not supporting this move, yet we are being ignored, even with our genuine concerns. It is quite clear that this is already going ahead regardless of what we say. It does look quite expensive given all the other priorities that we are told there is no money for. I think a slimmed down version would stand more chance of getting community support and funding. Not aligned with community Not needed See previous comment. The only complaints I've noted from cyclists have concerned the uneven condition of some of the island's back roads, well out of the town centre. The design is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Traffic volumes are low, cycle volumes are very low. Cycling/walking along the whole of the stretch is already both easy and safe. I think it will future proof the uskanx for future changes in transport I thinkbut future Bute is very popular with cyclists and has been for years. Groups come regularly and cycle round the island with no issues. This scheme has been dreamed up simply to tap into funding Totally ludicrous proposal If the surface and layout were improved this area already caters for pedestrians and cyclists especially if you remove parking in the pavement There are other places on Bute more in need of improvement No concern Will be excellent for community Plenty of paths already Making roads narrower and dangerous Not needed Already used by all the local community, no need to change anything. Not required on Bute. Page 316
Page 317
102 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com DThis has to be the most ridiculous project yet. I have seen the chaos of addding these cycle lanes have made to Aberdeen city. Fix Rothesay pavements In an aging community fixing pavements and walkways are uppermost. There is a wide promenade to cycle or road no need for cycle path This is waste of our money There are so many paths and ramps that these changes make zero difference. You have not taken on any of the negative feedback that the whole community has given you. its not broke so no need to fix it The current situation offers a great walk, wheelchair route, walked it all my years living here and enjoy it every time Feel like it’s a way of lining the companies pockets with absolutely no interest in the community It would help after looking at the drawings etc but the prom is already sufficient for cycling and walking This doesnt appear to provide enough parking for future pavilion demand. Mark out a route on esplanade and save a fortune Unnecessary Waste of money The amount of people using this area of footpath is very minimal. Most people use the promenade to walk on so to convert this is a brilliant idea Some of the ideas are good but not all Wasted money, address the problem with roads and pavements, money better spent. Waste of time and money Very much in line with parts of the community, including me. I see that only 1% of the resident population responded to the previous consultation. This was hardly representative. At this week's consultation, I noticed a few very vocal objectors. They don't speak for me. Yes. There needs to be better segregation of motor vehicles from pedestrians and particularly cyclists. Cyclists are currently very exposed riding in Rothesay. Nobody here has asked for a cycle path on the area you are proposing It's not needed Some absolutely stupid idea to waste money What a waste of time and money Community being overlooked again Going to be an absolute disaster Not wanted or needed by the local community Scrap it completely Money would be better spent elsewhere. The seafront and prom is crumbling and needs urgent attention more than this. As said previously Bute needs kids soft play or similar rather than this,I live and work in Bute and cycle daily with no worries or issues about my safety and see plenty of families cycling also Not necessary and waste of hard to come by money NOT NEEDED, SCRAPIT AND USE MONEY MORE APPROPRIATELY Page 317
Page 318
103 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Present facilities are adequate for everyone in every category mentioned. No I don't there will be any improvement Absolutely not. I am a walker and this would impede me from walking along this area, no room for prams and wheelchair users. I feel that this whole idea is a vanity project, ignoring the vast majority of islanders who have lived here for many years. It would impede on parking for emergency vehicles and care workers going to clients and emergencies. Walkers, wheelchair users and prams would have limited space. It is. It people friendly. We have a large elderly population on the island who do not and cannot use a bike, they depend on cars and mobility scooters to get from A-B. The wrong area for a bike lane Will cause more issues At the moment I find it difficult to use the pavements in my wheelchair as they are in poor repair and every bump can be painful when already in pain. The proposed changes just so happen to start near my house at 8 Mountstuart Road and as long as it’s easy enough for me to cross the road to access it, I’m hopeful that it will encourage me to get out more in my wheelchair which is much more sociable rather than needing to be driven For me personally I think it will make an improvement but I think people locally are concerned about the impact on parking spaces ‘Concerned’ doesn’t cover it - I’m dismayed and frustrated at this proposed waste of public money. As above. This is not needed, will not provide significant benefit and will make some areas worse (e.g queuing for ferries and parking at Battery Place) Concentrate on the prom. This is going to be a huge waste of money, why not upgrade the walk/path ways we already have going out towards the Glenburn and the pavillion? The island needs the money spent on a lot of other areas rather than a cycle path It’s not needed Not required As a non driver and a regular walker of this route I think the idea of needing a dedicated cycle path is ludicrous and has clearly been drawn up by pencil pushers who have likely never been to or spent much time on the island As Above As above Clearly, done by someone with no care for Bute. Totally agree with it. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, it impacts negatively. Try listening olease Will make life worse for the islanders Improving access on a route where it’s already good. Plenty other paths and routes need I lroved No requirement in that route for this there is in other areas of the town Absolutely flabbergasted at the fact that it has even got to this point. A shambles. Total and complete waste of money that could be used elsewhere. Will affect the roads that are already affected with heavy traffic when the ferries are busy. I have heard hundreds of people taking about this and all were against it. This has to be stopped. This project is not wanted nor needed. The money needs to go elsewhere Has the design team tried and tested this route. I think local knowledge has not been well enough considered regarding this work. Repair existing footpaths is more important than cycle lanes. Not heard any positive aspect of the inclusion of the plans Page 318
Page 319
104 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As above. Please listen to the people who live here, this is not required or wanted. It is not safe to share a walking path with bicycles. What about the buses turning at the island, how is that going to work if you narrow the island. People who live and work here depend on current bus routes. Waste of money, not needed Please start listening to voters not activists Traffic on island isn't busy enough to fuss with this nonsense I think anything encouraging safe cycling on the island is a wonderful thing we have a great deal of selfish drivers but sadly my opinion will be in the minority as people here don’t walk the length of themselves never mind cycle if they can drive here I think it’s a start in the right direction too many drivers on a very small island Not sure why some people are objecting so strongly. The council still has the same duty to upkeep the roads and mend potholes, doesn't it? £6 million Money should be spent on prom roads that are horrendous on this islanDel Completely unnecessary Did whoever thought up this idea even visit Rothesay and look at what the town really needs ,ie the state of the Royal hotel, the empty shops,trees growing out of buildings and they think a cycle lane is the main priority then they should try living here There is very few who cycle in the town. It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters Don’t know who came up with idea but absolutely no need. No need for all this. The local community doesn't want this If this goes ahead in Rothesay it will be another example of the shambles of our council Your trying to fix a problem that’s not broke and improvise a change that is not needed No improvement. Will have negative impact for the residents. There was no box option for Displeased ! Please amend your survey Not needed Total waste of time Waste of money It is a waste of time and money and other things can be done. I cycle and have never felt it needed. Why is this even being proposed? Noone has asked for this. Seems to be a waste of time and some way of laundering money I'm sure. Despite what the community has said I am sure you are still going to do this as I'm sure some money has gone under the desk to make sure certain companies get the work. I even doubt you will read this. Rather than add this why not fix what needs fixed first We have other issues that should be dealt with 1st Action re pavement parking required Scrap it. Page 319
Page 320
105 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap it. No benefit to community Will not improve anything The community needed to be asked sooner, maybe even speak with the schools and local groups, Bute wheelers would also be a good starting place Don’t need this ! Not needed in my opinion We don't need a cycle lane, Utterly useless I’m gobsmacked that anyone with an ounce of common sense could dream up this ridiculous idea Not needed ar all, waste of money/ time Waste of money Needs of the community, come here and look for yourself, the last thing we need is thousands spent on a bike lane There is a pavement/ promenade....cyclist's will still use the road due to their sense of entitlement Not fir disability It will be a pain for drivers This can be easily improved if time is spent on bute to see practicalities of concept. Absolutely no one is backing this Sea wall falling to bits and roads in pavements are in shocking condition No. Firstly, if someone wants to knock over a cyclist, they’re going to knock over a cyclist, “safer” routes isn’t going to help that. Secondly, those pavements are of historical significance, just look at the Rothesay in days gone by Facebook, everyone’s granny has a photo walking along that pavement. Plus, everyone hates cyclists, that’s only going to get worse if you destroy the natural beauty of the town with a cycle lane They did the whole cycle thing in Greenock and wasted millions of tax payers pounds. This is a terrible, terrible idea. This would be Rothesay’s breast feeding mermaid gable end, don’t do it. Nobody even cycles on the island.. Look at The Real Isle of Bute Facebook Page, you’re not doing this for the people of the island, they don’t want this. Building a cycle lane isn’t going to get rid of the eyesore rotting academy on the hill or the catastrophic let down that is the pavilion renovation - finish that before you build cycle lanes. Total waste of money. The town needs regeneration, not a bloody cycle path! We have a promenade that runs from the town to the Pavilion. This is wide enough to accommodate all. It will NOT meet the needs of ALL the community. It will be divisive, causing frustration towards cyclists and traffic issues The route and proposed plans are not well enough thought out No communication with residents and the whole scheme is being pushed through with no care for what the residents want or need. The whole scheme will cause disruption and delays to motorists due to restricted width of the roads in places where changes want to be made. Total waste of resources Very concerned Access to pier for ferry traffic Page 320
Page 321
106 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Already plenty of opportunities around the island Narrowing the pavements for un-needed cycle paths disrupts walkers, parents with prams and strollers, and wheelchair users. Putting in cycle paths on the pavement areas will mean an extra set of kerbs for folk to trip on. The community doesn't need this change because there is no need for it - the pavements, the promenade, the pathways are all perfectly fine. The idea of reducing the size of the roundabout is absurd - how are the buses to negotiate it? the idea of reducing the taxi parking is inhumane - the taxis are essential for people who have no cars. Public transport doesn't cover the whole island, and elderly or disabled people coming back from medical appointments rely on having plenty of taxis available. They are also needed for the many visitors who come to Bute. There is no need to change anything - there is plenty of room for walkers, cyclists, wheelers, and anyone with mobility problems already. Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Lack of parking due to the cycling layout Need to revise the placement of the cycling lane. All the space on the promenade which is empty and not used. I regularly walk the route from the Gleburn to town. There are three separate paths which can be used and they are more than adequate. There are a number of dangerous flagstones and potholes in town, the money would be better spent repairing these and employing a dog warden to address the issue of dog fouling in this area! There was very little information or publicity about the initial phase of this plan, I don't feel the community has been adequately consulted or listened to regarding this. Good, but could be enhanced. In general yes. pointless exercise do not proceed with this I think the design is totally inappropriate for the needs of the community of Bute Very concerned. I can categorically say that at least 90% of the population of Bute are totally against this ridiculous proposal. Not really, it can all be done already, it is a small community Due to the fact that there ar 2 pavemented areas from albert pier to the glenburn ( one of which is a wide pavement) and already problems with parking on this road, this would be insane. For the route from albert pier there is again broaded pavements and the prominade, so again no need for this. I do not believe this is a good way to spend public money. Not needed, waste of money A 2 way cycle lane on one side of the roafd will create dangers for people like my sons who have learning disabilities. It will not stop cyclists cycling 3 abreast on lane and road. It will cause chaos for pier traffic, it will narrow the road , it prevents parking for residents. With the Highway Code hierarchy of road users this is not needed. Especially at a cost of 6 million.. 6 million !.. has the government this amount of money to spend!! The community does not want this wast of money and badly designed cycle path Page 321
Page 322
107 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com There is no issues in regard to cycling in these areas and as stated multiple times above it is a waste and does not benefit the community in anyway No it is an unnecessary waste of money which could be used to improve and fix the places we on the island already have available to cycle on ie the widest pavements ever the prom and the coastal path along battery place We do not need cycld paths It’s pointless Pointless Nonsensical concept Waste of time and money Apart from not being wanted or needed, this will be an absolute nightmare getting onto the ferry lanes, especially at busy times. If you were really interested in the needs of the community you would scrap the whole idea! The town would be losing much needed parking. Battery place is made up of flats and many b&bs, where do you propose residents nevermind visitors park? The taxi rank proposed isn't ample for what the island requires, where will they go? The ferry que is asking for trouble during peak times. Another point of where will the overflow go and wait? Unnecessary The demographics of the island are changing and over 55% of islanders are over 55years of age . Not the group who would take up cycling radio. The cycle route connects nothing in town for folk to commute too. The driving standards on the island are terrible so adding to the Absolutely ridiculous idea Extremely concerned Waste of money Car congestion Pointless waste of funds There are far more important issues that need addressing Not needed !! Waste of money We don’t need this ! Waste of money . Absolutely not, this is not taking pedestrians and families into consideration at all - does this mean cyclists have the right of way when people are attempting to cross? Vehicles going to and from the ferry? It’s quite frankly a lot of rubbish - build something people actually want! Extremely concerned. It's as if it's been designed with no forethought whatsoever to community. Which is shocking & disrespectful. No as previously stated there are already areas that can be utilised for these activities. A total waste of public money. The sooner this hare brained scheme is consigned to the rubbish bin, the more money will be saved by not paying over priced consultant fees. Therr is alot more needing money spent on than investiing in thist As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this concept We do not need this we should spend the money on something useful Don’t do this Page 322
Page 323
108 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Worst idea waste of money resources and more. The whole thing is unnecessary As above Why does it require 6 bodies ,who all will be taking their "cut " Our council tax can be better used. My vote is a big NO Existing system already works for us New system not required in Rothesay No. The design does not meet the needs of the community in any positive way. Designed by someone who does not know Rothesay Where is Victoria Road? I don’t consider cycling and walking paths should be the same pathway. It is not aligned with the needs of the community. Hugely disappointed that this has been given any time of the day stop the pen pushers making decisions for a community just ask them and deal with the answer instead of this farce we are going through This plan is terrible non local think he knows best ridicules I'm concerned that taxpayers money is not being better used. See comments above The Promenade along Battery Place already caters for walking, wheeling, cycling and future mobility This is another hardship foisted on Rothesay residents by Argyll & Bute Council which says it's open to feedback and then simply ignores residents' comments and imposes Council's will regardless. On any given day and night there are around 20-25 vehicles parked on the pavement along East Princes Street and Battery Place. There is nowhere else for residents to park their vehicles. Residents along these roads were hoping that the current tolerated parking on the pavement opposite would be formally permitted to counter the blanket ban on pavement parking enacted. Simply because funds are available for a project does not mean it should go ahead. This proposed change to create cycling lanes will pit resident against resident for the limited remaining parking. Rothesay guest houses (already) dwindling as a result of recent prohibitive changes will continue to throw in the towel and simply quit running guest accommodation. Not needed Use the prom Needs of the community are overshadowed by need to push through new but long term unsustainable ideas. Will merely increase hostility to the few cyclists who might use it. It's a waste of money They are no better than what is already in place As above. would need to get the full detail specs to fully support it. Maybe if funding limits ability to hit all details require for safe spaces, it would be better to forget bicycle lane and focus on creating a slower, better designed street through surfacing and planting. Cycling was my main mode of transport growing up here and living in Glasgow for uni, I am passionate about urban design and active travel, my dissertation was a critical analysis of bicycle infrastructure in Glasgow so i am familiar with many designs both good and bad. I think good street design really cracks into the subtle psychological cues to reduce driver Page 323
Page 324
109 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com priority and a powerful tool within that can be ambiguity! Overall something absolutely needs done about the towns streetscape and am fully supportive of proposals to make changes. Please don't let those who shout the loudest dissuade plans to make changes. Yes but the devil is in the detail with street design Do not take into account local knowledge and concerns. Worried local feedback is ignored as ‘free money’ available. Get grants to get Hanson to do something with Royal Hotel eyesore before pandering to nonsense. Please A waste of money , would be better making a completely off road cycle path adjacent to the tramway path. The roads in Bute are too narrow for any more space to be taken by extra lanes I think it will make it worse , there will be more accidents with people crossing the lanes, if there is a reduction in parking then this is not inclusive for disabled people , it will impact on local businesses if there is a reduction in parking so people can get into town. I don’t believe it’s needed I don’t believe it’s required Waste of money. Money could be spent better in the town . It’s not ideal either for those with mobility issues Not pleased at all. I think its a pointless idea. We haven't got a problem for cycling or walking in Rothesay so why change it? Just don’t see the need for change Not necessary. Promenades are quite adequate as they are. This could cause difficulties for cars turning onto the pier Im totally against this happening The upheaval this would cause to the town would be ridiculous LEAVE IT ALONE Taking the majority of space for cyclists from Albert Pier to the Glenburn and just leaving the narrow path on the seaward side for pedestrians who walk with dogs, prams, children etc is disproportionate and not necessary This appears not to have taken any account of the local community or their wishes. The design doesn't meet the needs of the community. Many more things need doing before this unnecessary design. The pavements and roads are already adequate Too much space used for cycling Plenty walking facilities on island and safer than the bottle neck that is going to happen in the town centre Waste of time and money The busiest street in town will be the most dangerous The majority of the local community don’t want this As mentioned before I don’t think this path is needed on the chosen route. I think the route that should be considered is to the school as it would benefit the kids (and parents/teachers) and give us a safe path to cycle. I don’t think the route chosen needs a dedicated cycle path as there is already a safe and adequate path in place. Terrible seems like a money making scheme for a few people. pointless project Think money could be spent on more urgent improvements such as roads/pavements and seawall Page 324
Page 325
110 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The person in charge MR rinkus just isn’t listening to my locals and very arrogant 1%of the population is pretty poor engagement in my view I dont think this is a particularly useful or cost effective way to improve either walking or cycling in this particular section of town. Pavements here are mostly already quite wide and conducive to walking. There is alrrady a walki g route on the promenade. Waste of money that could be spent usefully elsewhere. Not interested as this island is determined to be run to the ground Pavement parking at busy times in the Albert Pier to Glenburn section works well and costs nothing. Why spend public money to change it? This is a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. Walking and cycling on this section of the A844 is no more dangerous than on other roads in the town. Adding a pedestrian light to the traffic lights would be sensible, and perhaps a pedestrian crossing by the Visitor Centre, but apart from this the whole project is an unnecessary waste of public money. Existing measure only need improved Imposing on limited parking, existing taxi rank, roundabouts, entrance/exit ferry terminal Very happy with the idea. How does it relate/join to the active travel route up the High Street to the school? The community does not need nor want this. There is sufficient pavement space for walkers and wheelers in the proposed location. Cyclists can continue to cycle on the road like they already do with no issue Not needed Waste of money, not needed I'm pleased about this project as a start but I'd prefer if the route was more connected eg. to Mount Stuart, which have extremely dangerous and innacessible route for cycling and pedestrians especially out of season when gate at Kerrycroy is closed Many Bute residents are in capable of cycling or walking This design is seeking to address a central target as opposed to a local issue. I would rather the money was spent elsewhere. The more Absolutely not. The community neither needs nor wants this I cycle every day on the island and usually in Rothesay. There is absolutely no need for any change from what we have. There are many cyclists here and the vehicle traffic on the roads is used to them and patient with them. I have always felt safe cycling here and this would be a total waste of money. It would not be used and would probably just annoy everyone. I would rather the potholes were fixed so I don't need to swerve to avoid them. This is a virtual signalling exercise , nothing more The promenade has ample space to create cycle lanes This is going to create a lot of problems at the peir It’s ridiculous Waste of money Not in the slightest There is absolutely no need for this Pointless interference Spend the money on fixing potholes. Page 325
Page 326
111 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com No consideration for the local community. One size does not fit all. Lack of interaction with the community Absolute waste of time, resource and money. As a keen cyclist, pedestrian and motorist I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever from this project. Fix the existing walkways Just causes more upheaval for little gain & a minority of people The community didn't ask for it because it doesn't need it. The route is nonsensical. The money should be given to a town that would be improved by a cycle path. This is a really badly designed survey. Stop interfering with things that don’t need fixed This idea is a load of nonsense I object to the plans. This is a waste of time and money and upheaval and no benefit to the community or visitors. Why put a cycle path in a place where one isn't needed? The cycle changes could be made to improve access up High Street to the Academy. Improve the surface of the promenade and the Albert Pier area The path simply will be underused The whole project is pointless, unnecessary & a waste of money. Its a waste of communuty money when the park is a mess with the grass cutting being no lifted, theres no football goals, skateparks, the the kids parks needs a facelift. The prom wall is falling down, theres weeds growing everywhere. Understaffing the council in alot of departments. The roads are a mess and full of pot holes and lets not start on the pavillion and whats happened there. There is not enough cycling on rothesay to justify this Not needed fix all the other roads and pavement s Waste of money Taking over a large part of the pavement is not appropriate - are people meant to walk in single file along the pavement so they do no disturb the cyclists? Very concerned as it appears that no negative comments are being put forward on the other page. No, there is no barrier between cycle path and pavement - dangerous for pedestrians, narrowing the pavement also a hazard as is introducing floating bus stops. This plan will limit the number of people wanting to walk in the town and will reduce customers to local shops as they may decide to walk along esplanade instead. Not heard any voices in support of this plan Not needed As per above Unless I am mistaken? The plan is for people to cross a cycle path to get on a bus? Not acceptable This is a terrible idea and a total waste of money I think the design is aligned to the needs of the community, but the benefits to pedestrians and wheeled transport users could be emphasised more. At the moment, car owners seem to be directing their frustrations at cyclists, which seems to be missing the point... Not needed There are plenty of of walking pavements already Page 326
Page 327
112 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Leave as is and spend the money allocated in a more beneficial way. The volume of traffic particularly in the summer months needs more car parks. No need for a cycling line at all, for people walk pass battery Place there is enough space and safe areas. Cyclists also have enough space to pass on the normal road. We do not needed, by only think about the cyclist, the project would hurt all accommodation business along battery Place. Alos will make problems to residents to park up their own cars. It is unnecessary project for Rothesay The project is not a bonus to the island at all This area already has a very good pedestrian access Community don’t want or need this Don’t want or need this The plan does not allow connectivity within town now does it take into account actual needs of community - this is an aging community so mobility scooters are an issue The route does not connect anything that is useful for those that live on the island (wet and windy one). The connectivity is needed up the high street to the doctors, the hospital the sports center the cheese factory and school. Existing pavements require to be resurfaced and left as they are. I’m concerned that nobody will pay attention to what the majority want and that is to CANCEL THIS IDEA. The funds should be used to reinstate the pavements at the broken sea walls along Ardbeg Road, this would improve the walking experience for everyone. This would make walking into town worse as the pavement would be narrower. I don’t like walking along the prom! Don’t want or need it Don’t need it. I walk a lot I this area and don’t think it’s necessary No need to spend valuable resources on this. Do we really want to spend money on this? I think it is the wrong project for a town in decline All ready adequate for all of the above Waste of money the community does not need this money could be better spent elsewhere if it works then great. the parking and traffic flow needs sorting This really isn't a priority for the needs of the community. Please spent your money on something that is needed and benefit the residents The pavements are wide, mobility users cyclis twalkers all get along. This is not a big computer city town etc where it might benefit How on earth can this be justified when improvements are. Ended toTidy I do not believe a cycle track is needed through town, it goes nowhere, useful, and at the end of it cyclists will have to return to the road. It does not appear at all to be aligned with the needs of the community. The design will not improve the experience for walkers and will create safety issues.The design will not improve the experience for walkers and will create safety issues. There is nothing in this design that will persuade people out of their cars. Page 327
Page 328
113 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com I don't have faith that this scheme brings any benefit to the community. In fact I think it will actively harm pedestrians that will be expected to use poorly thought through floating bus stops. A good idea, but I would rate as a higher priority the dereliction of Albert Pier and the old Royal Hotel and the dilapidation of some of the seafront buildings. These badly need the speedy attention of ABC. This is a crazy idea Very concerned, dangerous and stupid idea More pressing issues Not listening It will cause problems for cars entering the ferry terminal and lanes. People will not be able to walk safely in this area due to less pavement. You cannot walk and cycle in the same lane. People with poor mobility, wheelchair users and prams users would not be able to get out of the way of cyclists. Feel like the community are being totally ignored Not needed Only considers cyclists I believe some aspects of the design are damgerous to the public. Not pleased as it isn't aligned with the needs of the community It really is not required. Not required as there are parallel paths. It is all very well saying it is ringfenced for such purposes - fine, spend it somewhere where it will be of benefit, don't waste it here. I truly do not think there is any problem with existing pedestrian, cycling or motor traffic through the town Rothesay does not need a cycle lane. Traffic is light and there's ample room on the prom for kids to ride their bikes safely. No actual feedback from people who use this daily. The reduction in car parking will harm the town as it’s already a struggle at times - especially busy periods for those waiting to get into the ferry queue when it’s full. Narrowing the road here makes no sense whatsoever. Reduction in parking for taxi’s also ridiculous - four spaces are not enough for them. Plenty of walking opportunities currently. Plenty of cyclists use the area with no complaints other than the roads need resurfaced in places. There are better ways this could be done and the lack of understanding by those delivering these meetings is unbelievable. It’s been done with no community interest. No cycle path required in town No cycle path required in town whole project is not required on Bute you are over engineering a problem that doesnt exist and I will be monitoring if the community oppositions are noted in this ‘survey’ response It will actually cause more harm when visitors are trying to leave the island, the pier is also destined to cause accidents This has absolutely no place on Bute as we have an adequate promenade for this already Very concerned. The scheme appears to have ignored public opinion from the stage 1 consultation, and the proposed design is out of touch with local views. The design does not offer any value for money and completely ignores far more practical, and less damaging options to create the scheme which are permitted under the design guidance. Cycle lane not required Page 328
Page 329
114 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com No requirement for cycle lane The community have very loudly said that they neither need nor want this project There is plenty of room at present for walkers and cyclists to move between the Pavilion and the Glenburn areas. The community have made it quite clear that the proposal is not needed and that there are far more pressing areas in need of funding. In an ideal world fine. We’re not in an ideal world, so put the money to better road and traffic management use. In my local experience, Bute cyclists will continue to cycle where they want to. Unnecessary. I don't recall a local petition requesting this, but I do see a lot of opposition to it The consultation exercise appears to be biased in favour of going ahead with it, regardless of local opinion No-one asked for it and very few want it Overkill. No thought has been given to residents needs a much needed investment and well considered project. Well done in trying. I think part of the difficulty with any proposal for change in Rothesay is the lack of community feeling. Pedestrians and cyclists, but particularly pedestrians and those with mobility needs, are poorly served by the current provision of pedestrian crossings. The lack of pedestrain crossings and the lack of control on traffic speeds means that people have to cross roads at dangerous locations. As with a lot of these schemes, whilst trying to improve provision for walking/cycling there is an adverse effect on the day to day routines of local residents. Putting pedestrians and cyclists side by side does not make for a safer environment in this instance. Given the nature of the area around the discovery centre/ putting greens a lot of people will find themselves crossing the cycle path rather than walking along it and therefore increasing the likely hood of a serious accident between pedestrian and bike. Moving the cycle route along the seafront where there is far more room would minimise this risk. I only found out about this by accident, I don't do Facebook etc so I fear many people have missed out on the opportunity to participate in the consultation hence the low turnout so far. I think it's very hard from the provided material to get a good grasp of what outside the largest features are. I You receive a negative response on the required question because I'm required to provide on Put these lanes in a bigger town Sort the roads and pavements out first please as a cyclist i have no safety concerns for present cyclists on the road. I would not use this proposed cycle path. to focused on bikes. Why would anyone use it? it's too short and goes no where. maybe a better idea would be to use the funding to create a safe path up to the school. Walkers will be vulernable to being hit by a cyclists and dog walkers too are at risk. Better using funds for potholes All residents and visitors need access to shop, amenities and services in rothesay. Some need it to park on the front street and infact their homes and residentsies Improvement is not needed in this town Page 329
Page 330
115 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com What changes would you prefer the design to include more of? More crossings to benefit wheelchair users All looks great Pedestrian access, parking bays The marking of parking spaces, as normally people don't park correctly taking up too much space Pedestrian crossings, Parking bays increase taxi spaces, make some kids park or something on the green more space for the taxes maybe more things for people and tourists to do, maybe adding better and bigger parks and dog parks and maybe more to do i have no more ideas but 1) Narrowing of the road will consequently reduce speed of the cars, I see this as an additional gain of the project. 2) Pedestrian Crossing is low more will boost use. more taxi spaces hn kjjjjjjjkjhijh clarity on crossing priority crossing at the roundabout from Honeyz cafe side to the Fyne Homes side. Some sort of junction to make it easier to then go up towards the High Street. Lights which allow bikes to go first at junctions cycle rute to the school ,more nature , . Spend the money on more important things Not needed! Not needed Not applicable It’s not needed No cycle lane on the pavement or over the pier to Albert pier. Just use the promenade it's been used as a cycle root for years and is perfect. Not happen at all! More road less cycle lane There is no need for this scheme The drawbacks far far outweigh the positives Parking along battery place Nothing, waste of money and resources. Space for existing road users. No cycle paths None, whole thing is an unnecessary waste of money and will make life worse for most. Not needed Page 330
Page 331
116 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Do not go aheaf Cancel the proposal Nothiing To stop wasting taxpayers money on non useful plans such as these. Car Parking We don't need this Don’t need cycle path Cancel Things for children to do Spaces needed for taxis, there’s normally 8 operational during the day. Not needed Nothing. Ridiculous idea. It is not required on our island. Cognisance of areas without already well defined routes Stop it completely Sc the design Absolutely no need for it at all. Waste of money!!! Spend money on I.proving pavements pedestrian crossings and drop kerbs None, total waste of taxpayers money Waste of money that could be spent elsewhere There should be no need for change as it should not be built. Bin the whole design I do not endorse this design at all Nothing. This is ludicrous Less cycle space Implementation of bute community and residents concerns Safe crossings I would prefer the town left as it is Not too happen 20mph limited Do not go ahead with the design It is not required, scrap the whole idea. Create more parking as a bus stop should not be beside a roundabout We don't need a cycle lane Scrap the whole plan, spend the money fixing potholes instead Page 331
Page 332
117 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrapping the design An alternative cycle path in another area. None, it is totally ludicrous to suggest that any intervention is needed to the current layout Don’t want the route to happen at all. Complete waste of money. A lot more important things needing done for the community first I think it is a waste if taxpayers’ money Not needed , No changes. Whole thing is a joke I think it is a preposterous decision to put that into place on a small island Not Stupid idea No need for cycle path Use of areas already accessible to bikes Waste of money Disabled parking The wide pavement from the Albert pier to be made into car parking bays. Cancel. waste of money. None. It’s a lot of shite that’s not wanted. Prioritising pedestrians. Not safe to have crossings next to hatched yellow areas near the ferry terminal as traffic often waits on the hatched areas. Use the prom as a cycle route Anandoned Controlled car spaces The money would be better spent improving the roads for cyclists. I’ve buckled 2 tyres on the potholes recently! Funds to keep the gardens along the prom in a good condition as it used to be Scrap it Scrap the whole idea Think it should be scrapped waste of money Move the cycle lane to the prom Leave pavements and roads as they are Better parking Pavements are for peoplem not bikes. Cancelled waste of money No cycle lane required Parking Routes for families / children ie to schools Page 332
Page 333
118 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Keeping children safe first at the schools Car parking Parking Absolutely none of what you are proposing! We don't need any changes in this area! Leave it as is Don’t think it is necessary for our island Status quo Nil Parking More car parking for short term stops No change Better existing path surface Consideration of safe parking spaces for cars Money going to other local projects and repairs to existing buildings and the promenade. No need for money being wasted on cycle lanes. The pavements are adequate and the traffic are courteous of cyclists not to require a lane. Parking N/A None,I'd prefer the proposed design to be rejected. Sack mark rinkus Parking for cars I don’t see what benefits to the community will be released through this scheme Parking Drop the design completely as a waste of public money Improved parking around town in particular for residents of areas of flats Abandon this ridiculous idea which will only make things more difficult for the town and for the elderly inhabitants It's not needed Don’t need it , total waste I money Scrapped all together ad other things need attention first Scrap it Enforce parking restrictions round Albert Pier Leave as it is not needed No to introduce e it at all as not necessary and redirect the funds somewhere more needed e.g fixing the broken storm wall in Ardbeg. Not to happen Page 333
Page 334
119 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More relevance to the community’s needs. Need A Decent Car Park Not A Cycle Path Rothesay needs a car park not a cycle route Call the roads their correct name in order that survey may be completed correctly, there is no victoria road on the Island!! To not happen at all Not needed Cancellation None – it’s a waste of money. Better signage, ie road markings, NO vehicles parked on the pavements. Nothing, I don't want it A resolution to an actual problem. Middle of the busy season or any other season for that matter is there any difficulty walking or cycling from the Glenburn to Rothesay? None I have ever seen. So what exactly is the problem being resolved here? The resolution of a non problem is clearly causing many actual problems for real residents and holidaymakers. Many roads have one pavement. Battery place has 3 and one of them is wide enough to fit a bus and still have space to walk and cycle on but somehow Battery place needs more space for walking and cycling. Have the designers been to Battery Place? Not required It's not needed at all Spend the money repairing the sea wall Scrap it Money spent on an area for kids The design is not required, just because money is available to do something does not mean you have to do it. We don’t need it Leave route as it is,no cycle or walking lanes as not needed Scrap this nonsense Cancel it Scrap the idea The promenade can be used for walking and cycling and the pavements are perfectly suitable for walking More consideration of busy traffic route - you shouldn’t narrow it Spaces to sit Unnecessary There is already a perfectly good pathway between both sites already No changes needed here No change at all None Nothing Page 334
Page 335
120 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Cancel the plan Parking To use the existing paths that are already there. The prom, the wide pavements. Absolutely no need for this. I wouldnt because it is not needed Don't do it None, leave as is Left as it is Repair properly the damage done by the ?Nov 2022 storms to the Ardbeg Road pavement & railings, and infrastructure. Just leave it the way it is Taxi spaces for visitors, 4 is nowhere near enough. Spend money more wisely Don’t know Not required at all I think there are better ways to spend money on the Island. There is no need for this so scrap the whole design Scrap the idea! Many more needed improvements should take precedence!! it's not needed Parking None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. Change to be no route. It’s not needed. No renovations. Cycling lanes are NOT needed. A taxi rank is. Not to go ahead Scrap said Proposals altogether. Waste of money Fix the pier Cancel the plans Scrap this plan, not needed Fixing the currently pavement I think this is a terrible idea I would spend money on better free parking We don’t need this! STOP this ridiculous proposal! Scrap it Forget the idea We don't want it Not needed Wider cycle routes Page 335
Page 336
121 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Complete segregation of bicycles from pedestrians. If you can’t do that, scrap the idea and put cyclists back on road It isn't clear in the drawing how access and mobility will be improved for disabled people and wheelchair users Not to waste money on doing it in the first place Cycle route not needed Scrap the plan. It's clear that nobody wants it. You're looking at these results right now trying to figure out how to spin it into a positive (I've been there), but this is a glaringly obviously loss. Scrap it Bin it Not bother leave everything as is currently make no changes Scrap it and use the funds else where Print on soft paper to wipe my derriere Route is not suitable going through the town, use the promo along the sea wall as this is understandable used. Plans to scrap the idea It should be abandoned Please spend this money on maintaining existing paths, roads and railing Total waste of money Spend the budget for this more wisely. Don't happen More of leaving this area as is I don’t want the cycle track Keep road current width in order to get past delivery vehicles No changes Not needed The project is not necessary and money could be better spent elsewhere. Improved road conditions for pot holes and surface of the road Don't do it to begin with Don't start it No need for it, do not waste any more money Scrapped More parking Not needed Not needed Nothing Just repair existing roads and pavements Page 336
Page 337
122 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com None The layout there is sufficient space along the sea front Scrap the plan as designed None ludicrous idea Money spent on more pressing matters Fix the pavements on both sides of Victoria Street Leave it as it is. It's not needed. VICTORIA STREET not road No need for a cycle lane Scrap this ridiculous idea. Not needed or wanted. This is not necessary there is plenty of space for cycling and walking. Focus on more important issues No cycle lane None, it shouldn’t happen It not to happen No design no projects Don’t do it Don’t do it None Just don’t do it Do not think it is needed NA More parking None. I see absolutely no benefit in this scheme Update the promenade for walking and cycling.keep pedestrians away from cars. As little development as possible. This is not needed on our island It should not happen at all Spend the money elsewhere it is not needed None Don’t feel this is required traffic isn’t such an issue on Bute Cancel Scrap the idea Walking space needs to be priority over cycling. More people walk this route and squeezing the walking space down to 1.5 is not a good idea Do not believe it is needed Page 337
Page 338
123 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Repairs to existing pavements Not required Free parking As opposed to architecturally changing Bute perhaps a wee bit of paint along the super wide pavements to create a non invasive cycle path might be more cost effective None No changes to layout Not to waste money Move it to the prom Parking Fix the potholes on the roads Nothing 1. Why do you need to place it there. It’s a ridiculous location. There is the seafront to cycle along. Parking. Not needed No cycle lane wate of money Scrap the project Keep existing Greater use of existing infrastructure, to reduce costs and provide more impact . Scrap the idea, won’t work & cause congestion Abandone what is clearly a pointless waste of taxpayer's money that has ZERO local support. Use the esplanade for overflow pier traffic and extra parking if required Could do other things on bute None Common sense Pavements levelled out for better wheelchair acces. Planning Parking spaces in town centre N/A None we do not need it Expand to the whole island Nothing wrong with what we have More thought for what the people of the island actually want Road Page 338
Page 339
124 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not required None, Great Plan From the marina to Glenburn Road, the shore pathway is in need of resurfacing and repair Scrap the whole ridiculous project and spend the money on something useful. More parking Existing infrastructure is good Reduction cycling/walking lanes We don't need this Cancellation None of the above. The path towards port Bannatyne or Ardbeg seawall would be more useful Improved safety for cyclists using the road - for some reason drivers have a problem giving way to cyclists on those two roundabouts. A lot of cyclists are heading into the town so still need to use the roads. More money spent on repair of Albert Quay Coach parking Spend money on something the town ny More parking along Battery Place Look to increase car parking spaces as much as possible on Albert pier Total waste of money to impose this nonsense on a rural island community Good surface for walking and cycling None N/A More parking for cars .. Keep pavement as it is perfectly ok. To extend it up to Ardbeg or Port bannatyne. None Don't need a cycle path. There is the promenade to cycle if unsure on road for this stretch Cancel the whole thing. just drop some pavements Money spent elsewhere Don't think we need one More Car Parking Spaces I would prefer this not to be spent in this but on routes to the school Scrap it No cycle tracks Page 339
Page 340
125 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com In different areas such as port bannatyne Where is money coming from Not needed More parking for cars A longer length, e.g to 'the fountain' aka Prospect House Pier is too rich for turning now especially with Commercial vehicles We do not need a cycle path there we can use the promenade Scrap the plan for cycle lane Parking on Battery Place pavement Cars Scrap it completely It isn’t needed at all, this question is rigges More parking for residents Nothing, money should be used on other things in the town. We don't need a cycle lane Not to happen at all. As it will take away valued pavement for eg walking, wheelchair users and prams No changes. The idea is useless and will cause more risk of bike accidents This cycle path is not wanted and not needed Most important no 1 This is not needed, and is a waste of money. The promenade and pavements are already wide enough for walking, push chairs, wheel chairs etc. We don’t have a major problem with space for cyclists - our roads are not hugely busy. Cancel the idea I would scrap it Pedestrian crossings Wouldn’t have it at all. Waste of finances when plenty of open space to cycle a long prom already. Not required at all For the idea to be scrapped but instead for the money to be used to fix the prom as this is where people regularly walk and cycle anyway N/A The design should be scrapped. Scrap it and where exactly is Victoria Road on Bute ? Use promenade Use existing wide walkways at shore side Common sense Not to happen Page 340
Page 341
126 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Repair of existing pavements/pathways Increased and improved parking facilities within the town centre More design with trees and some style, bike parking, markers with every kilometre/ mile Pavements should be for pedestrians only. There is already plenty of paths in existence. Cyclists have no issue using existing roads. I would be too frightened of using a path shared with cyclists.This is a waste of money and will cause a huge headache for residents. Don't want it Where possible use existing sea path, just do a cycle lane, it’s wide enough and put signs Stop forcing active travel on unwilling voters Extend to full blown cycle lanes on island More taxi parking places perhaps Nothing money would be well spent on other things More parking More parking It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters No changes just scrap the idea Cancel the project This area is already wide for bicycles so not needed in this area. Ardbeg to Rhubodach would be far a more useful route to change. The ferry entrance on this design will NOT work with cars, trailers, HGV’s trying to navigate a very sharp narrow turn As a regular cyclist, I say scrap it, not needed or wanted Not needed Fix pot holes More spaces for taxis as I’m a taxi driver and we have 11 taxis on the island and not just the 4 you’re making space for Repair Ardbeg Road. Speed control measures especially from roundabout out towards Battery Place None Scrap it. No benefit to anyone The route is wrong, this area isn’t an issue for cyclists, roads are wide enough for people to overtake We don’t need this . Period . Funding go to other community needs Car parking None I would prefer it to be scrapped altogether More parking Page 341
Page 342
127 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don't bother, redirect the money where it's needed Don’t do it at all not needed Should be cancelled N/A Stop it Parking for cars Short term parking. Taxi and coach parking ( more users per vehicle). People with additional needs. It shouldn't go ahead None Not being there Cancel it completely More consideration for ALL locals and tourists No alterations to road layout Scrap it Stop wasting money on a useless idea Don't do it Design is not the issue. We have a prom why not utilise that? Would prefer it not to go ahead These roads are already safe for cycling I would prefer the design to leave Bute and take itself to where it is needed, like some dangerous roads in Sandbank for instance. SCRAP THE PLAN.Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Car parking availability Not to spend the money on a cycle route that isn't needed. More pedestrian crossing points. common sense Leave as it is pavement could do with a repair in places do not proceed with this I would prefer the existing roads along the shoreline of proposed ludicrous development to be properly repaired Parking spaces I don't want 20 min neighbourhood No bike lane Use of the promenade Waste of money Page 342
Page 343
128 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com We don,t need any changes to the walkway from pavilion to Albert pier Scrap it Actually listening to the community and locals who do not feel this is necessary Vehicle parking More ambitious. A cycle path is required along the flat from Port Bannatyne to Kerrycoy. The roads are not safe for cyclists. Cycle route not needed Sensible removal of concept 1 We do not need it! Remove the cycle lanes, they're unnecessary To make more use of the under utilised space on the Promenade Total waste of money Stop the consultation. The proposal is not required Scrap the design sounds the money on more useful stuff Parking Parking spaces Abandon it None of proposed Shared Cycling area on prom instead Proper car parking spaces in Battery Place Notjing as its a waste of time and money No cycle roads and paths fixed and maintenance As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! None Not needed Nothing Don’t do this I don’t feel we need this None, money could be spent on more essential things No changes needed Work on the promenade and seawall at Arbeg . Try walking on the sloping pavement between th sailing club and Arbeg. Money needs to be spent there The "design" is all wrong! Here is sufficient infrastructure at present and we'll maintained pavements to allow walking, wheelchair use on this route. Some pavements could be lowered and additional parking space offered No design required at all I would rather there was not such widespread changes to the town. Page 343
Page 344
129 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Nothing, spend the money on the war memorial which is in a disgraceful state. Leave things as they are No parking by drop kerbs as a mobility scooter user this would help me enormously No More spaces for coaches. Is this area still one way? North to South direction or West to East means exit from bus appear to exit at the seaside meaning restricted space to disembark Scrap it What a prodigal waste of time and money thought up by someone who has to come up with change of some sort and can’t think of anything else. The route is already used for cycling in three ways. First the road then the existing pavement and also walkway along the bay and two of these ways are already used for walking. If there must be a cycle lane, use the promenade and either widen the road along Battery Place to allow car-parking both sides of the road or allow dedicated car-parking on the pavement where the cycling lanes are proposed along Battery Place Totally unnecessary No bikes More use of existing promenade rather than roadway. Fix the sea wall on the Ardbeg Road Your centres Don't do a cycle lane No changes Raised surfaces on carriageway to denote pedestrian priority, would like to see this from Albert Pier to Pavilion ideally, but definitely at area between guilford square and pier and at designated crossings It’s unnecessary for the volume of cyclists I would like more parking for cars More room for cars to park on coastal side from Albert pier to Glenburn by reducing size of pavement, with cycle lane nearest gardens. I do y believe it’s necessary Cancel the idea in the first place Signage for cycling in the countryside and not the town No changes to present situation required Im against the bike route our town has problems that need money spent on them first N/A Better parking both locals and visitors on the island I don't like orthink Bute needs this design or rout Safe parking Not needed scrap it cause more congestion Page 344
Page 345
130 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Proper consultation with locals. Reject: what benefits to the community Unsure Just don’t do it the people of Bute don’t want it bin it N/A Working public toilets None it’s not suitable Pedestrian crossings Fixing sea wall None Visitor parking Proper separation of cyclists from pedestrian routes. Joint user routes, even with white lines, are increasingly dangerous. Improved pavements More parking on Battery Place Like many others in the local community, I do not want this project to go ahead Extend route to entire island or at least to Port Bannatyne It's not needed Not needed Visualisations of core changes from pedestrian view No comment Unnecessary We don't need any changes. Waste of money. Scrap Why not use the existing promenade Don’t bother with it This whole idea should be scrapped Sustainable maintenance costs for local council We need more car parking not less. We have an ageing population, I would inmagine they would find it difficult to cycle to the shops everyday. Parking is hard enough None - scrap it is it not needed Abandon this project 1, Don't want it I think the whole idea makes no sense. Page 345
Page 346
131 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Fix various steps down to beaches None of it No cycle route necessary - improve the prom instead Not to be built Scrap it and use fund elsewhere Fix roads The cycle path be rethought as it will not enhance the Isle of Bute Put the cycle path on the esplanade No need for it Make roundabout bigger.Make sure cycle path is not in front of a bus stop. Do not make pavements narrower. Consider sight and hearing impaired N/a Ensure that the cycleway is safer and faster than using the road. This means clear delineation between the cycleway so that pedestrian users of the promenade, road crossings and bus stops do not stray into the cycle lane. Reduce pavement to allow vehicles easier access for parking in battery place Safer pavements to walk on and not to be cycled on. More parking spaces made available. N/A Scrap the project It’s not necessary A more imaginative scheme that includes the sea front walk so it can fully integrate walking and cycling. I would include COMMON SENSE! I would NOT go ahead with this idea! The design is a total waste of taxpayer’s money. Leave Don’t do it Don’t think this design is necessary More car parking, less electric charge points, less taxi parking space None a cycle path isn’t required some of it looks good. something needs done No "floating bus stops" Don’t build it it’s not wanted or needed This is a waste of money and not needed Leave it as it is I would like more consideration to be given to the safety of pedestrians with consideration in particular to those with disabilities More consideration of pedestrians using the proposed floating bus stops - which are dangerous and difficult for the elderly / disabled / wheelchair users / prams / visually impaired impaired individuals etc. Page 346
Page 347
132 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Unnecessary plan A longer route to go along to Ardbeg. Ridiculous idea Not required Object to any changes Don’t feel there’s any need for it Prefer it not to exist Better ease of parking and access for larger vehicles Car parking More parking spaces for vehicles as the island had an elderly population. Evidence that it is needed. The design is ill thought out and will cause considerable difficulty with access to the pier. There will be restrictions in parking too and as owner of the Veterinary Surgery in Argyle Street this will cause difficulties for clients accessing our surgery with ill pets. You do not seem to be interested in the views of the Rothesay business community who will be seriously affected by the creation of this and the consequences. Discarded Consideration for existing users of this route We don't need a cycle lane. It's a complete waste of time and money Additional parking along Battery Place Pavement extended to Kerrycroy this project is not needed or wanted and you are ignoring people’s feedback Stop trying to force what is clearly not wanted The current proposals do not offer socio-economic value to the local community. Don’t want cycle lane To not happen Using existing space such as esplanade/pier etc plus ground signage etc rather than wasting money on whole new construction. I do not think the proposed route would be used anywhere near enough to justify the disruption and inconvenience to others. More money spent on the buildings that are empty More car parking spaces for Battery Place Unnecessary design. Maintain parking on the section along Battery Place towards the Glenburn Car parking pass along Battery Place front green should be included More traffic speed controls Page 347
Page 348
133 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Complete ban on parking along Gallowgate (enforced) and enforced short term loading only. This is the most dangerous section of road for pedestrians and cyclist alike and the traffic regularly blocks the roundabout due to illegal parking here. Enforcing parking resections would help to improve safety far more than this scheme. ██████ Not needed here Cars parking along the side of cycle path can open doors onto cycle path and can put cyclist endangered Pavement area for walking Scarp it Total segregation of walkers and cyclists . More parking Consider an area that needs improvement and not the front of Rothesay Use the prom Page 348
Page 349
134 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com What changes would you make to the design? None Covers for cycling lanes, more parking Add more parking space for taxis as in somedays they're needed a lot, so instead of 4 spaces i would say that 5 is a better5 option Covers for cycling lanes, More Parking none a place for skateboarding nothing really rain cover for bikes more room at ferry terminal's sfghsfghfshg improved clarity of crossing points The part that goes parallel to the prom could be omitted and make the prom shared pedestrians/cyclists. I also am a little concerned about what happens to get on and off the cycle lane - if you needed to cross with your bike. I find in other places that it's the transitions that cause problems. cycle rute to the school ,more nature . Scrap it Scrap design Not beeded For it not to go ahead It’s not needed Scrap it No parking box outside bed shops yard needs to be at least 2 metres each side to allow swing for vans and vans with trailers enough swing to use the yard as it’s used daily Scrap it No money spent on it. The discovery centre needs to be saved and the facade of the front is in ruin. Do something that will actually benefit the community instead of this box ticking exercise Better pedestrian crossings Scrap it, see above Cancel it completely No cycle paths None, scrap it. Not needed Not needed Cancellation x 3 Page 349
Page 350
135 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com I wouldnt start it Cancellation of this idea. Scrap it it’s not required and not wanted by the community, this is plain to see online Please don't waste the money and get something the island needs Don’t do it Cancel Island doesnt nees a cycle path on the prom when the prom is a perfectly good cycle place as it is Give it up completely and spend the money on something better. Cancel all Scrap the whole lot. Scrap it. Scrap it.scrap it. Change route to includes areas without already well defined wide spaces for active travel Scrap it I would scrap the design Scrap it all together Scrap it Traffic not heavy enough and not enough cyclists to warrant a cycle lane No change don’t build it The whole design is not needed Cancel the whole plan Scrap it As above All of the above Remove all together I would cancel the whole thing Not too happen Scrap cycle track Cancel it As question 5 None don’t agree Scrap it Scrap the whole design, waste of time and money Making any changes as this is an unnecessary waste of money Page 350
Page 351
136 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The whole concept. You have taken the safest area on the whole island when there are many more places like the high St for instance that would benefit from a cycle path. Scrap these plans Don’t want this to happen Scrap it Scrap the whole designe and project , waste of public money The lot. Scrap and spend on other things Drop the whole design Not Scrap it No need for cycle path Less destruction of green land Scrap the design Quite happy with the existing design that has been there for over 100 years. Not to proceed with it. Scrap it If it was put in the bin I'd look at sea defences first. No point in introducing new scheme until the sea defences eg next to the prom are repaired. Global warming will cause more extreme weather in the future and protecting sea defences is the main priority. The hole thing Abort Not to extend to glenburn road More parking is needed for cars. We do not need a bike lane and I’m a regular cyclist. Not really needed Scrap it Of little or no use to the community as a whole. Expensive mistake Scrap plan Where do you cycle after the pavilion Do not do any of it More parking and seperate area for tour buses scrap it completely. Cancelled waste of money No cycle lane required I wouldn’t implement the design without being sure that there is an actual need for something like this. Page 351
Page 352
137 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com For it to not exist None, waste of time and money For the design not to exist Scrap it, Get rid of it, not needed Scrap it altogether Shred it Not installed Parking Wouldn’t have the proposed path , there is more needing done to the town than this path None Scrap it8 Shelve the idea altogether Delete the design. No need for it. Cycle lane on existing prom/path N/A Reject the design . Buy paint for the royal hotel instead More parking for cars Make more use of the prom space. There is already wide pavements & prom from town to pavilion Cancel it not what the town needs Abandon completely I don’t feel that this design meets the needs of the island Bute generally is great for cycling at present as someone who cycles regularly on the island The whole scheme is a ridiculous white elephant Discard it Stop the process now! Scrap all together other things need attention first Leave it . See no point in this if parking restrictions are not enforced Do not agree with this design not needed See above Scrap it Relocation of the project to a location more in need. Page 352
Page 353
138 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap It Change it completely invest in parking space, support locals encourage tourists No route for cycles required Not have it happen Cancel it Cancellation As for Q5 Good surfaces Do nothing there is ample space for safe travel and the accident records prove that. Concentrate funding on actual problems. Railings, poor buildings on front, fixing damaged pavements. Not required It's not needed at all Leave as it is Listen and take heed of the opinions clearly expressed on local social media pages. Delete Revert to main housing to school routes Scrap the design and put money to better use Scrap it Scrap the design Cancel it Abandon it! Scrap it altogether Move it Don't build it. Waste of money Use the money elsewhere. Scrap it,scrap it,and scrap it Get rid of it Spend the money elsewhere Money to be spent elsewhere Scrap it Cancel it completely – it’s a waste of money that (in the Scottish government didn’t ring fence stupid spending) could be spent on more pressing problems. No scheme needed - proposed area is very safe already for pedestrians Scrap it Not needed better things to spend money on Page 353
Page 354
139 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Throw in the bin None, leave as is Stop the cycleway from the peir to the glenburn Scrap it altogether Just leave it the way it is Take away cycle lanes, they won't stick to them anyway. Want to spend money on fixing pathways None Not required I wouldn’t have it in the first place. Forget it! Forget it!! Forget it!!! See 5. it's not needed It's not needed None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. For the idea to be scrapped I wouldn't use it. Not to go ahead None, scrap it and do something more beneficial for the community and visitors alike! Fix the pier Cancel the plans Change it so that it doesn't happen Maybe have someone that listens to the local voices head it Cancel it I’d scrap it altogether! Scrap it Bin it Just spent the money on fixing out roads u know the potholes Don’t do it Wider walking/cycle route Replace painted separation lines with kerbs and a different surface to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from using same space Location of dropped kerbs for wheelchair or other mobility aid users There’s already wide pavements between these two locations on the sea side of the road Cycle route rubbish idea Page 354
Page 355
140 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap the plan. Bin it I’d put the design in the bin As above not bother doing the work Scrap everything Make paper planes Scrap the project Abandon the idea I would drop it Please spend this money on maintaining existing paths, roads and railing Scrap it Just improve the road and pavement surfaces we already have. Rip it up and burn it Scrap it I don’t want the cycle track Am concerned about the proposed width of access into the ferry port for HGVs / Coaches / Larger Vehicles coming from Victoria Street. Proposed access seems very small and it appears that drivers would need to "Double Back" on themselves Scrap it Not needed Scrap it Improve existing road for driving Don't do it to begin with Rip it up Don't do it Scrapped Keeping the taxi rank as it is Not needed We don’t need it Scrap it Ditch design and repair existing walkways Get rid of this numpty. Move it completely it won’t be useful to the community Scrap it To abandon idea Page 355
Page 356
141 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Money spent on more pressing matters Scrap it Scrap it. Cancel the plans SCRAP IT Removal of the cycle lane See answer to q.5 This is not necessary there is plenty of space for cycling and walking. Focus on more important issues Scrap it None – shouldn’t go ahead Cancel this before you waste more public money on a pointless scheme Erase them all and fix potholes Don’t do it Don’t do it Scrap it Just don’t do it For it to be shelved I’d leave the existing ‘route' exactly as it is More free parking Cancel it Move it to town to School campus route. This route would improve things for the school,college,sports centre, health centre and hospital. Scrap it completely Scrapp it Cancel it, already a very safe route along the promenade Cancel it Na Cancel the project Scrap it Prioritise space given to walking path. 1.5 is far to.narrow for families to walk together. I am a cyclist and would not use the path underhand circumstances. I have had experience with this sort of design. When the walking space is squeezed pedestrians simply spill over into the cycle path often causing it to be unavailable or increasing the risk of collision. Young children especially jump low barriers or use them as climbing entertainment. I have had a few near misses so simply would avoid them Don’t implement any of it Scrap it and spend the money where it's actually needed and would benefit more people Page 356
Page 357
142 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com N/A Nothing really as I haven't seen the design Personally, I’d throw it in the recycling bin. None Cycle lane not needed Scrap it Move it to the prom which will give more space and not impact vehicles Rip it up There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. Scrap it Move it elsewhere it’s not required. Scrap the whole thing - a waste of money Move rout to seafront. Get rid of it No cycle lane Give up with this stupid idea Scrap it Consult the community in advance of proposing a solution to a problem that the community and visitors do not consider to be a priority Scrap the idea & use on other area that would benefit from wider pavement like between Port Bannatyne & Ettrickdale that frequently gets used by pedestrians & some cyclists prefer to use the footpath rather than the road but the footpath isn’t wide enough for pedestrians & bicycles Cancel it Scrap it Spend it on a play park Scrap the plans The placement of the route heavy volumes of traffic around the pier are dangerous enough without adding to it! None. The route, the pier is extremely dangerous with the constant heavy flow of traffic adding more to the mix will be sure to result in an accident! Put cycle path on the Promenade not the road Cancel the project As above Scrap the whole project Nothing wrong with what we have Resurfacing of the existing promenade Disregard whole thing Page 357
Page 358
143 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap and start again Not required on island None. As above Sack the guy with the white BMW who had the check to illegally park his car at the presentation Scrap it Leave the existing infrastructure. Abandon it all We don't need this Scrap The loss of parking fir taxis. Parking removed from cars on Victoria Street, the extended pathway will lead to congestion Make more use of existing infrastructure eg the prom Abandon Lose the cycle lane Not required Discard the narrowing of the vehicular access to the ferry lanes Incorporate some more parking around the pavilion Scrap it Not sure Make it longer in the future N/A Scrap the lot Scrap all of the proposed idea. More spaces for taxis None No design not needed I'd stop making changes that aren't required. none Just not do it Leave as it is Reduce cycle lanes Not to proveed Scrap it Scrap it Page 358
Page 359
144 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com None Unsure Scrap it Don’t do it Extend length, 2, 3 Scarp it all The design Scrap the plan Parking on Battery Place pavement Scrap it Scrap it completely to not move ahead with it and use the money elsewhere Waste of time and money as not needed Scrap it altogether, waste of time, money and effort. We don't need a cycle lane running through our town Stop it all together as it is an unnecessary project and a complete waste of time and money. Have no bike lane Scrap it completely Plenty of dropped kerbs and disabled parking bays as there is a shortage of both then people park illegally in them Drop the whole thing. This is going to have minimal positive benefit and numerous negative effects Cancel Scrap it Keep bishop st roundabout same size I would better invest the money in a cycle path in the countryside similar to the West Island way. Scrap the plans For it to be binned N/A Scrap the whole idea. Scrap it and don’t come over here parking on pavements and double yellow lines, telling us what is best Cancel whole design. Not required. Don’t do it Cancel the whole plan. Scrap the plans Scrap it. Cycling lanes are seldom used. Page 359
Page 360
145 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don't agree with the design and would not include a designated cycle lane Make like Poland which shares cycling and pedestrian use This is simply not needed or wanted by us who live here. None, not wanted at all See above Buildouts are pointless with this level of traffic None Could it not go along the prom in places where the prom is very wide? Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters Scrap it completely Stop stop stop now The location, Ardbeg to Rhubodach makes far more sense to offer cyclists a path. Forget the changes at the ferry lanes if the location isn’t changed. Don’t take away car parking on Victoria STREET I’d scrap it completely Put it in the bin Fix pot holes in road More taxi space. No cycle lane as won’t get used Don't do it, utterly pointless and has no benefit to community ? No commented derelict building at pier None Scrap it. Don’t do it Scrap the whole thing, it needs to be totally reevaluated It’s waste of our money ! Cancel it Scap it Bin it Scrap it Bin in Don't bother , redirect the money where it's needed Scrap the whole idea Page 360
Page 361
146 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stop it altogether Abolish it Cancel it Parking for cars Battery place pavement should be parking area. Taxi rank needs more spaces ( huge user group on bute ). More drop kerbs lined up on both sides for wheelchair users. Spend the money elsewhere Spend the money on something more essential It not being there Rub it out! Lose the traffic congestion areas Scrap the whole idea Scrap it Don’t design it Don't do it See anove Would not go ahead Take away the cycle path as these roads are safe I would erase it and leave things as they are. SCRAP THE PLAN: LISTEN TO THE MAJORITY. Bigger entrance to ferry lanes Listening to the community and not going ahead with the cycle route. Pedestrian crossing with 'lights' where you cross over to go to and from the ferry terminal (over the bridge). scrap it Just don’t need it scrap the idea do not proceed with this Reject the proposal and fix the roads and pavements on Bute Parking spaces Completely unnecessary No bike lane Abolish it Not needed Project is a waste of money Scrap it Page 361
Page 362
147 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Get rid of it there is no need for wasting money on something so unnecessary Do not want cycle paths Extension of cycle path as above. Scrap it and spend the money on something more important Scrapped totaly Don't do it Make the cycle lanes on the promenade that's already more than wide enough to facilitate them Place the cycle route on the prom and improve the signage and sight lines for the elderly drivers on the island For the money to go to better use on the island Scrap the design Scrap the whole thing More parking Cancel this pointless project Scrap it Complete waste of money LISTEN & actually do as community wants & not waste money & cause unnecessary upheaval for islanders. Scrap the whole ridiculous scheme Srcap the whole idea Reject it As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces None Scrap it All off it Don’t do this I don’t wish for any of this Scrap it No changes needed Abandon it I think it warrants full reconsideration Design not required at all. Leave roads and pavements as they are I would use the money to improve the promenade and walk ways already present on the island Scrap it. Don't change anything leave as is None Page 362
Page 363
148 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Put Attention to parking at Battery Place Make more parking for cars and free If taxpayers money is involved I would advise that this unnecessary project should be reviewed. Abolish the project. Simply because central government is throwing funds at Council is not good enough reason to impose an unwelcome plan on residents. Not needed Scrap it Move all cycle traffic to existing prom area. Keep existing wide access to ferry queuing. Sack ‘consultants’ to save taxpayers money Scrap it and do something that's actually beneficial Scrap it Don't do it No changes Coach parking in albert pier away from harbourside Scrap it. As above Not sure I don’t believe the proposed is needed, maybe for a very few Cancel the idea in the first place Scrap it. Its not needed and will cause a lot of problems and accidents. Unfortunately most, not all cyclists now seem to think they have overall ownership of the highway. They are silent, and dangerous. Leave the roads as they are The council should be ashamed of themselves if this is allowed to happen N/A Scrap it - the number of Glenburn guests using bicycles is negligible. The money should be used for more pressing needs in the town No need for separate cycling lane Nothing scrap it Scrap it By tearing it up or shredding it and putting it to recycled into something useful like a blank sheet of paper. I think the location is wrong. I would rather see a route to the school via the meadows. Don’t do it bin it N/A Working public toilets Page 363
Page 364
149 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap the idea isn’t suitable for the island Dont think it is necessary for this area. Clean up the Island first Didn't want it at all The narrowing of the entrance to the ferry queue Remove cycleway between pavement and bus stop. The prosed plan would create more danger than it would prevent Motor cycle parking Make sure the roundabout is big enough for buses to do a complete turn on Scrap the entire plan None Wouldn't have it done Scheme not need3d Extending the route to Mount Stuart and/or to Ardbeg Assuming getting rid of the design is not an optionssue seeing my answers below Scrap Scrap it. We don't need it. File it away, not needed Not reduced access to pier STOP Stop it Take a black marker pen and scrub it out Scrap it. Exclude cycle path put in zebra crossing at discovery centre None - scrap it is it not needed Abandon this project Scrap it & use the money for something useful I would scrap the whole thing. Scrap the cycle lanes Object to it - no need for this work Spend the money improving Albert Pier parking area Scrap it now before wasting more money Is this the best way to spend the money when the rest of the town is a mess Don't I would take it back to the drawing board and listen to the residents. Page 364
Page 365
150 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap the plans entirely - complete waste of money and a danger to pedestrians Don't waste money on Make roundabout easy for buses and Lorrie’s to use. Scrap it Think about the ends the the cycleway. Too often the cyclist is just directed back onto the road at an inappropriate or even dangerous place. What about cyclists who are travelling in the opposite direct (Glenburn to Pavilion)? How will they be encouraged and enabled to cross the road safely without interruption to their journey? Could the cycleway continue on the promenade as a dual-use track shared with pedestrians beyond the Glenburn and Pavilion? Scrub the hole idea Do away with a proposed cycle route as cyclists already have use of the road. There is no need a cycle line for battery Place Not to go ahead Use the budget for something we need Re routing the cycle lanes to fully integrate the sea walk promenade SCRAP IT! Scrap it in its entirety. No changes Don’t do it Would not implement this to start with Already stated I’d scrap the entrance to the pier, is it too small I'd scrap it. I don't see any need for it and I'm a cyclist of many years. Don’t do it x3 This project is waste of time and money Scrap it now Clear signage to mark the end of the route and a safe route back onto the road I think the design as a whole is a "solution looking for a problem" and as such I think it should be scrapped. We have a perfectly adequate multi-use esplanade that covers the majority of the route. Cyclists and motorists should be able to share the short stretch of roadway as it exists. Cancel the whole scheme The taxi rank probably needs more spaces. Your design shows 4 spaces only. Don’t do it There is not enough car parking Object to the whole design. Scrap it Page 365
Page 366
151 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com None. Bin it Vehicle entry to ferry terminal too restricted especially for large vehicles Scrap it Scrapping it. Scrap the idea, observe the existing traffic through town, and acknowledge that the idea is needless. N/a .. I would cancel altogether We don't need a cycle lane. It's a complete waste of time and money Remove the pathway from Victoria Street – it’s not needed Pavement extended to Kerrycroy All of it. This is not a required project Where are the other 4 taxi rank spaces? Whilst the proposed scheme appears to offer no benefit to the community, the design also fails to consider the opportunities available under the Cycling by Design Manual. Almost the entire route could benefit from utilising existing footways on the sea-side of the flood wall along the whole route, by developing them into a shared cycle and footway, as per chapter 3 of the manual. Don’t want cycle lane Cancel See 5 Findings that were undertaken to justify this proposal should be made public - how many people are in favour of it? Put money into the places that need attention Do away with whole project Cancel whole thing. Maintain parking on the section along Battery Place towards the Glenburn Abandon the scheme altogether more taxi spaces Although probably not possible at this stage (but could be something for the future), and if opposition meant that the section along Battery Place was abandoned, it would be good to extend the scheme as far as Port Bannatyne. This would give a connection between the two communities and, also, provision for pedestrians who frequently use the northward route from Rothesay for exercise. Improve the existing footpath along the sea front at Battery Place and provide proper parking on the coast side of the road to separate pedestrians. This would also make it safer for cyclists. Victoria Street - High Street - Ferry terminal junction: No pedestrian island nor bikelane across the north facing side. Leave ferry lane access alone. Route pedestrians/bicyclists in a U shape around the junction, and section off the north-west/north-east edges to discourage non-vehicle traffic crossing the ferry lanes. Not needed here Page 366
Page 367
152 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Cycle lanes on road and not pavement Leave the bays same size and not obstructor traffic at chapel hill area Scarp it Put the cycle lane on the road Forget the plan More parking Forget it, Scrap it Scarap it . none none idk idk more taxi bays traffic lights unnecessary fgshsfhf sghfsghfsgh cycle rute to the school more nature Scrap design Scrap design Not needed Not needed Cancel the project See above Fire all in charge Not to do it Just scrap the idea The taxi rank would be to small for the 10 plus taxis and buses would struggle to get round a smaller round about Scrap it And again, scrap it Scrap it As above As above Page 367
Page 368
153 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com No cycle paths No cycle paths Not needed Not needed Use money elsewhere Please give the island something that will improve it, as this is not it. Please listen to the community of the isle of bute Don’t do it Don’t do it Not required Not suitable Fix Ardbeg Road shoreside it’s an eyesore. Fix the towns eyesores. Cancel Cancel Sack whoever’s idea this was. Set fire to the plans. Improve the parking bays and introduce more zebra crossings Narrowing the entrance to the ferry lanes will create traffic jams, especially if the road has been narrowed Spend the money on fixing the esplanade As above As above Scrap it SCRAP IT Like into something for youths Put the money elsewhere Impose 20mph limit improve parking Making any changes as this is an unnecessary waste of money Making any changes as this is an unnecessary waste of money There is already a safe area for bikes and pedestrians that requires no crossing of roads, so literally all you are doing is paying to put down paint. Use the money to put in safe zebra crossings at all the schools Listen to the public on Bute Stop spending money unnecessarily Page 368
Page 369
154 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap it Scrap it Na Na Spent money wisely in the town Happen To Scrap it Scrap it Finish projects already started Fix roads Use of areas already bike and walk friendly ie the prom Scrap the design Scrap the design Why not use the existing promenade and widen at battery place . This would save money on the grass cutting.!! Also other councils have made exemptions to pavement parking why can’t Argyll and Bute council enforce this ? As above Wide pavement made into car parking bays Bin it Bin it Improving road safety, but no point in trying to do this if enforcement just means the occasional visit from a traffic warden who doesn't patrol around much of Rothesay let alone the rest of the island. You've not allowed for enough parking. Adult cyclists prefer to cycle on the road. Disabled pedestrians will wall on the area closest to them even if it becomes designated as a cycle lane. Parking on Albert pier for coach’s won’t work when people can’t park properly Abort Abort Parking to be monitored Sort out paths so not trip hazard Scrap it Scrap it Scrap plan Leave taxi rank as it is Stop plans Page 369
Page 370
155 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More taxi rank space as you seem to have reduced it Public toilets so tourists actually want to walk around and explore Cancelled waste of money Cancelled waste of money Children Elderly and burn it! rip it up Do it somewhere else Leave it alone Don’t build it It’s not needed or wanted Bin it Just maintain existing roads and seafront eg storm damage in Ardbeg Road untouched for 2+ years Nil Nil Parking Parking As above Sort roads and pavements we already have Scrap the plans. To be scrapped. Not to lose parking N/A N/A As above As above Fix the pot holes Fix the potholes Parking for card Public toilets Cancel it Cancel it Provide covered bike storage in town Page 370
Page 371
156 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Spend the money in other areas on the island where it’s needed such as road maintenance or dedicated cycle areas out of town on some of the narrower roads Go away and leave us alone What part of go away don’t u understand? .. No cycle lanes Waste of money not needed NOT NEEDED See above See above Spend money on something of benefit to community Waste of money when these areas are safe, when was there an accident??? No cycle path between Glenburn Road and Rothesay Pavillion No Road alterations between Glenburn Road and Rothesay Pavillion Do not take up space on the roads for cycle lanes The design is ridiculous and would cause chaos on our roads Stop wasting money on this proposed project Not have it happen Not have it happen Cancel it Cancel it Cancellation Cancellation None None Do nothing there is ample space for safe travel and the accident records prove that Do nothing there is ample space for safe travel and the accident records prove that Building improvements Fixing damage Spend the money on repairing the promanade Listen to views being clearly expressed by local residents using platforms beyond your lazy survey which can’t even get street names correct. How insulting that is to local people! Page 371
Page 372
157 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com You should have advertised the link to the survey clearly and repeatedly on local social media sites. Feedback from dozens there clearly state that until recently they had no idea where to find the survey to express objection Change it to something that would provide an are fir kids like battery park in gourock/greenock Only spend money on changes that will improve life's or increase economic growth Scrapping it Scrapping it Sack the consultant Start spending it on the pavements replacing cracked slabs that have been neglected for too many years. Oban has no cracked slabs. Cancel it Cancel it Use the prom which is already there Use the money elsewhere. Use the money elsewhere. Put in bucket Rip it up Money saving Reinvesting the money elsewhere Cancel the plan. Redirect the funds to higher priority problems. See above (there can only be one MOST important change. People need to have car parking spaces You are narrowing already narrow roads Waste of money We the community of Bute don't want it.. Leave the taxi rank Scrap the idea More parking for cars in battery place by making the pavement narrower The head of the pier is already a dangerous junction when the ferries are busy so not making it worse Want to spend money on fixing the roads Want to spend money on more disabled parking spaces Nome Scrap the whole project! Spend the money of more worth while causes! Why has this been allowed to continue in the face of public opinion. it's not needed Page 372
Page 373
158 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com it's not needed None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. I'd throw it in the bin Just scrap the whole idea. Fix pot holes More public toilets Pen pushing, box tickers from the council Put project in bin Spend money on better things for community A cycle lane up High street to the Joint Campus would be more beneficial to the community. Waste of money. The community does not want this!! Scrap it Scrap it Move on to somewhere else. RIP the proposal up Don't change anything! This will causes a issue with parking Don’t do it Don’t do it More benches Don’t mess up the roads Move it into the prom Don't need this on the island Waste of money Scrap the plan. Scrap the plan. Big bin fit consultants in Spend the money on something the Island needs Cancel it. We don’t want it WE DO NOT WANT OR NEED THIS As above None required As above Page 373
Page 374
159 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As above Better use the money on other services Cancel all plans Stop the whole idea !!! I would leave the route unchanged Leave the area untouched Please spend this money on finishing pavilion Please spend this money on royal hotel Scrap it Scrap it Do not waste the town Stopped prepositions Burn it Ripe it up Keep the Bus Stop Lay-bys. Current bus stop lay-bys allow all other road users to pass when buses are picking up passengers. Moving the bus stop into the road will inconvenience other road users, thus causing congestion / increasing exhaust emission levels Reinstate parking outside Rothesay Pavilion. Parking here will be especially required when it eventually reopens Burn it We don't want it!!!!! Spend the money on something that the community actually needs As above As above Don't do it Don't do it Repair our paths and roads Use the cash for repairs Scrap it Scrap it None None None Stop it going ahead Scrap it Scrap it Page 374
Page 375
160 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More public convenience open for longer Spend the money making appearance more inviting. Not needed Would be detrimental to the area 4 taxi bays ? There are 11 taxis in Rothesay and every one of these spaces are required What a waste of money. The council budget will never cover the cost of maintaining this Stop Not going ahead with the project Stop wasting money Dont do it Leave the community alone Do nothing Do nothing Move the route Cyclists are a bloody menace - keep cycling on pavements and nearly knocking people over especially the blind and partially sighted who don't see them coming Just don't do it!!!!! See above See above Cancel the project Cancel this wasteful project Scrap it Scrap it Cancel the Albert Pier to Glenburn stretch as this stretch of road needs more off road parking Nothing Use the existing esplanade None None Change size think of the lorry’s and tractors using the road Needs to be moved as you can’t make the roads smaller Don't do it Forget it There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. There is absolutely no need for a cycling path on this stretch of road whatsoever. Page 375
Page 376
161 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Pavements sorted Pot holes sorted Move it elsewhere Where are people goi g to park in Victoria Street. Parking is restrictive enough. Survey aimed at walkers and cyclists. Ask drivers and local shops what would be best for town Take away the restrictive entrance for vehicles your design shows. Ferry terminal entrance Ferry terminal entrance No cycle lane Sack mark arrogant and incompetent Give up with this stupid idea Give up with this stupid idea Scfap Scrap Do not hinder access to ferry terminal . It is creating a conflict between users and inviting a collision Cancel it Scrap the whole idea Scrap the whole idea Scrap the plans More carparking in town Upgrade the Promenade surface and seawall Ditti above, it is not required. As above As above Just stop this project Use the money for this project for something else Consultation into a cycle path between Port Bannatyne and Ettrick Bay Painting a specific cycle lane on the existing promenade No needed Cycle lanes will not be used Improve the parking at Albert Pier - Cars parking 30 mins limit Not required on island Not required on island Scrap it Page 376
Page 377
162 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Cancel the whole plan No improvements to existing route needed Abandon it all Abandon it all We don't need this We don't need this Cancellation Stop wasting money on white elephants I don't think preventing traffic from turning left into the ferry queue is realistic. Maybe an all red phase on the lights for people to cross in all directions. Also lights need to stay on green when the ferry is unloading, otherwise the turnaround of the ferry can be delayed and active travellers miss train connections! Provide somewhere dry for cyclists who are waiting to board the ferry. Only needs a small bus shelter. How does making people with bikes stand in the rain for ages in the middle of winter encourage cycling?! Coach parking isn’t adequate Taxi rank isn’t big enough See above See above Discard the unnecessary cycle lanes Do not add light control of crossings - "zebra" style crossings more than suffice Incorporate more cycle parking Do not implement these proposals Once they start this it will expand all over town to tap into the funding. Not sure Not sure Connect More dropped curbs Scrap the lot Scrap the lot immediately Scrap all of this idea. Scrap all of this idea. instead of roundabouts make crossing None None No design not needed No design not needed and I cycle regularly Page 377
Page 378
163 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don't do the redesign Nobody wants it. Absolutely no need to do it Pure nonsense Spend the money on route up to the school or out to port bannatyne Used the esplanade Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it Extend length Scrap it Scrap it all Because we don't need it Means nothing Increase taxi rank Not to encroach ferry terminal parking And again Scrap it again Scrap it completely Scrap it completely Scarp this as waste of money put money to kids soft play or sumilar Scrap as not needed, as a daily cyclist plenty of room in road, pavement and promenade already Ditto Ditto For it to be completely binned. The roads are too narrow and the pavements are required eg walkers, wheelchair users and prams. It would restrict the number of essential taxis at the rank. Cause congestion and stop traffic from getting easy access to the ferry therefore causing more congestion. nu Not to happen it is the most stupid and inconsiderate idea, there are other places in Bute where it would be better to put a cycle lane eg out past the yachting club and Skeoch woods, a much more sensible area. Have no bike lane Have no bike lane As above As above Ideally spend the money improving the safety of the pavements at Ardbeg and Ettrickdale Page 378
Page 379
164 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com If the money cannot be spent improving current active travel walkways, the give funds back and don’t waste taxpayer’s money. Don't waste money on it CalMac port entrance - new design is completely impractical Gallogate Roundabout is very difficult to navigate on foot and need complete redesign with crossing for walkers/cyclists Scrap tje plans As above As above Scrap the whole idea Scrap the whole idea. Scrap this and listen to the community Scrap this and listen to the community Use the money elsewhere like to widen the pave,EMT and improve routes up to the campus Use the shore side paths Use the money to fix the pa event and fence on Ardbeg Road Use the money to fix the prom None Waste of money Cut cost so can do other work. Signage to cycle track along sea wall Use a lane in sea walk Retain parking improvements Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it Scrap it More parking It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters As above Forget the idea Cancel the whole thing Scrap this nonsense Location - not needed for the area you’re proposing. Change location LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION Leave the island alone and scrap it Page 379
Page 380
165 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Listen to the residents and scrap it Don't do it, utterly pointless and has no benefit to community Don't do it, utterly pointless and has no benefit to community Speed control for cars etc Leave route as it is Leaving route as it is Look at better routes, for example a safe route for children to cycle to school. Stop wasting more money on these surveys, if you are not going to listen to the views Cancel it Cancel it Burn it Rip it up As above As above Scrap it Scrap it Battery place left dide pavement should be parking. This will encourage visitors to leave car and walk to town. Taxi rank increase in spaces. Ardbeg shoreline needs fixed Pavilion needs fixed Leaving the town alone Not changing what already works Forget it! Scrap it! Consider a different route, one that will benefit folk, not just a change for changes' sake Instead of telling locals what they want, actually ask them Don't alter anything that already exists Don't change the road layout Don’t design it Don’t design it As above As above SCRAP THE PLAN: LISTEN TO THE MAJORITY. SCRAP THE PLAN: LISTEN TO THE MAJORITY. Page 380
Page 381
166 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Coach space made realistic The narrowing of the roads Actually look at the community you're proposing doing this in and get the names of the streets it'll affect right. Check the highway code, apparently the person in town promoting this thinks that people should just park on cycle paths if they need to. Traffic Calming (keep speeds below 20mph in town centre) Listen to the locals Put the idea in the bin do not proceed with this do not proceed with this No need for a cycle lane. As a cyclist for over 30 years the roads in Bute are safe for me and my children to cycle on As above Scrap it It will be hell for disabled drivers. It will be mayhem Fix the prom with the money Install more drop kerbs to current system Stop the consultation Cycle route nearer the sea Pedestrians with prams . Wheelchairs pavement cars Repair ardbeg sea walk instead Repair promenade instead Scrap the whole idea Scrap it Have a more family friendly promenade Make something for children Abandon & start over Use the areas that are already available instead of withdrawing amenities that have & needed. Scrap it As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces None None Scrap it Scrap it Page 381
Page 382
167 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Take away the plans all together We don't need this Don’t do this Don’t do this No changes needed No changes needed Abandon it Abandon it Lower pavements Parking space N/A N/A Bin In Improve the failing structure of the promenade Reconsider the parking at Albert Pier. The space for 3 coaches is totally inadequate and in the wrong position against the seawall. The old toilet building at Albert Pier needs consideration Do something with the pavilion it is an eye sore Fix roads Review the process which led to this project being suggested Spend the time and money in some better way. There must be a better way. If there MUST be a cycle lane on E Princes St and Battery Place, make use of the promenade Instead of the cycle-lane along E Princes Street and Battery Place, formalise permitted car parking on the pavement that has already been permitted and tolerated for decades. Use existing prom rather than costly changes. Scrap it and do something that's actually beneficial Scrap it and do something that's actually beneficial Same Same No changes No changes pavement extension at Pier, blocks route to pick up/ drop off zone when approaching from north. would be better as a raised deck (like big speed table) reduces speed, pedestrians have more protection, traffic can still flow. uni directional cycleways on either side of road as opposed to bi-directional on one side of road. Proven to reduce conflicts at junctions Page 382
Page 383
168 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Ditch this nonsense Sack the clown consultant at the meeting who park illegally for starters. As above As above Coaches to park Albert Pier More room for cars to park Albert Pier to Glenburn As above As above The design is unnecessary The urination of that part of Rothesay Leave it as it is Scrap the idea, utter waste of money Way too narrow particularly at bottom of bishop street / roundabout for buses and emergency vehicles bin it bin it N/A N/A Working public toilets Working public toilets Keep well away from the exit from the ferry Completely waist of money other things fixed first Fix the roads Don't want it Don't want this change The narrowing of the entrance to the ferry queue area is too restrictive. The section including East Princes Street and Battery Place will eliminate much needed parking for both residents and visitors to the guest accommodation. Improving on parking Secure access Add extra trees along the seafront Use pavement outside Victoria Street shops to increase parking Wouldn't have it done Wouldn't have it done Scheme not needed Scheme not needed Page 383
Page 384
169 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Cycle route on the seafront behind Winter Gardens I would not block off the vehicle access to the peer in the way the design does. This will almost certainly increase congestion. when loading ferries I would not increase the number of pedestrian lights as opposed to crossings in the design. Idea Whole N/a N/a Perfectly god esplanade to walk and cycle this route Parking in town limited at present any further reduction would have economic impact on town Use promenade Don’t waste our tax payers money Take a red marker pen and cross it out Try to forgive the clueless consultant who dreamt up the scheme. Zebra crossing Zebra crossings Abandon this project Abandon this project It doesn't go ahead Spend the money on something actually needed Give the money to a town that needs it or to fund a community buyout of the discovery centre. Scrapping the scheme. Fill in the potholes Make wheelchair accessible kerbs Renovate or demolish the Albert Pier Building Do not build Save money Don't do it Not needed Listen to the residents. There appears to be a lack of thought re people with disabilities and young children. The pavements are fairly wide in parts but if you take away a large proportion of that then other people are at a disadvantage. If a child runs out in front of a cyclist who is cycling on the pavement who is liable? The roundabout being made smaller is another indication that the people who are carrying out the survey do not live in the island as the buses have to get round it!! Albert Pier having more space for buses means that yet again car parking is being lost and where will the cars who have to park along the road to the Glenburn going to park. The road here is narrow and the bus can struggle to get through. Page 384
Page 385
170 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com You have indicated more parking on Victoria Street, however when cars come off the ferry and turn right it is already a tight corner. There is also traffic lights and cars should not be within the zigzag lines and not near the corner of the street so where would parking be? Keep full width of the pavement - important as more people use wheelchairs and mobility scooters as they get older Remove floating bus stops -RNIB campaign highlights their dangers Scrap the proposals This is the same question as above. Could some car-parking be included along the stretch of road towards the Glenburn. Cars are currently parking (illegally) on the promenade. As above. Keep pavements clear for pedestrians. People should not have to cross a cycle lane to get to Rothesay town centre. There is no need a cycle line for battery Place There is no need a cycle line for battery Place Probably the only area on the island NOT to have a cycle lane Save the Council money to spend elsewhere Don’t need this Don’t want this Ideally the cycle route should be for connectivity in the town and should be from the ferry to the school and factory something that is useful and includes mobility scooters Forget this absolutely ridiculous idea which nobody wants. Use money for something sensible that is required. Forget the Battery Place leg of the scheme. If this hare brained scheme has to proceed then it should run along the prom from the Victorian toilets to the pavilion. None None Don’t do it A refurb of Guildford Square would be better Spend the money upgrading the building in Rothesay town centre All above Scrap it Scrap it parking Money wasted Waste of money which could be put to much better use Scrap it now Scrap it now Page 385
Page 386
171 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Reduce the road speed through the town to 20 mph. This will make the road even safer for cyclists. It will also make crossing the road safer for pedestrians. The road through Rothesay is already very safe for cyclists, The majority of cyclists who visit or live on the island are Road cyclists who would not use the cycle path. The only dangerous part of the route is at the traffic lights for the ferry terminal. It wasn't clear how that would be separated from cars. Will it be raised? Will the cycle route have its own traffic lights? Don’t do it Don’t do it Demolition of Royal Hotel More pressing issues Can it be changed to the promenade. The money could be well spent repairing the promenade and creating a safe cycle and walking route. Spend money on existing pavements Spend money on existing roads Scrapping it. Scrapping it. Abandon the idea Look for genuine improvements to spend money on Do not proceed with the design Have consideration for the thoughts of the community Don’t reduce access to pier No cycle path required in town No cycle path required in town give up now to not proceed Legal compliance with crossings, bus stops, Scrapping the idea altogether and spending on improving our local hospital/dental services As above -even though the scheme is not required - minimal amendments to existing footpaths can be made to create shared cycle/footways as permitted under the design guidance. Don’t want cycle lane Don’t want cycle lane Discard To not be considered Direct funding where it is needed most - this proposal is a waste of money. Ditto above Ditto above Page 386
Page 387
172 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Maintain historic weigh bridge outside the ferry terminal. This is meant to be a conservation area Maintain layout of taxi rank. It works, and it allows for more than 4 taxis during busy periods, which can immediately set off in any direction without the need to turn round Fix the pavements 20mph traffic speed limit through the busiest area Do not make the roundabout smaller, people already have difficulty here. Move the cycle route to the sea front which already runs to the Pavilion. The cycle hire station is already located in a prime position here so some improvements to this area seems a more logical choice and avoids sending cyclists to the busiest junction on the entire island. Waste of money sign markings end of route cycles must move off the pavement the present scheme is creating potential danger to both cyclists and pedestrians. There needs to be barrier seperating them buffer needs to be bigger for car doors to avoid hitting cyclists. its mych to short, why would anyone want to use it .. Just because funding is available, does not mean you have to use it. Not required Look at other areas on the island Not needed in the area, period Not needed! Not needed Not applicable It’s not needed We need more parking and wider space for cars no need for a cycle lane Something Isle of Bute doesn't need! Spend money fixing the prom the existing cycle lane Don’t do it Additional parking for ferry waiting Spend the money on improving other existing infrastructure Safe walking and cycling space separated from vehicles, not on a shared roadway IE the PROMENADE More parking Do not go ahead As above Dont waste money The community deserves something useful Page 387
Page 388
173 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don’t need cycle path Not required Skate/cycle park Scrap the project and fix the eyesores all over the town Waste of money Waste of time and money. It is definitely not required Scrap the design Would be better spending money to complete sea wall works at ardbeg It is a waste of money and Even less cycle space Implementation of bute residents and community concerns and scrap all of this Car parks This is a vanity project which will have a negative impact on our town More parking spaces Scrap it all together Redesigning this nonsense so that it doesn’t exist An alternative cycle path in another area. Utterly pointless Na Spend money on a dog warden To Stupid idea Plenty of room for all Waste of money The road repaired Common sense We do not want it More disabled parking. Cycle lane up the high street to the school Abandoned Cars not to park on drop curbs From Albert pier to Glenburn, the road needs more official car parking Scrap it Page 388
Page 389
174 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Don't go ahead with it Bay parking means cars reversing on to the main road, dangerous Instead repair any uneven or damaged sections of the pavement Bike shelters Cancelled waste of money Parking Looking after the elderly Motorbike parking as above Do not touch Don’t want it at all As existing Nil Parking More car parking in Montague street no shops reserving the space outside their shops Consideration of more taxi spaces Funding to help restore the Royal hotel. No need for a cycle lane. Improving existing prom/pavement N/A As above Tell the job centre he left voluntarily Parking for coached Disabled drop kerbs monitored by parking attendants Less emphasis on dedicated cycle areas Stop wasting money .. Use money elsewhere within our community not needed Consultation for the locals Waste of money A more useful location. Both locals and visitors need parking The answers in the survey are taken on board To not happen at all Page 389
Page 390
175 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not beeded No parking on pavements As above NO pavement obstructions! Nothing, I don't want it The actual width of pavements (there are 3) and roads along Battery Place is massive. Plenty room for parking both sides of the road, a cycle lane and walking path. Come up with a solution that resolves everything not just one or two individuals priorities. As mentioned above, all issues are already resolved and have been for decades so someone is finding problems that don’t exist. Scrap it. It is not needed Use the funds for other better local uses Leave route as it is, this is not needed It doesn’t happen Ridiculous idea cyclists will not use it Not required There was a plan to widen the road up to the school and make a Cycle route- what happened to this? Use the 3rd putting green as a playpark, fenced off, as area for kids waiting ferry in a safe space All unnecessary Waste of money NO CHANGE AT ALL See answer 1 Not narrowing the road There are already road users Highway Code rules regarding the space cars and vehicles must give bicycles Burn ithe proposal We do need the taxi rank I cycle on the road Not taking away walking and driving spaces in a narrow enough lanes Don't come up with stupid ideas Don’t know Get rid of it all together it's not needed None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. Use the money for something else. More public toilets Sorting proper parking in town so idiots don't park on the pavement Page 390
Page 391
176 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Free parking Keep pedestrians safe by rebuilding the sea wall at Ardbeg. Scrap it Ludicrous proposals Wase of money Not needed More seats to stop at Secondly, not to do it Not needed in Rothesay As above Waste of time get someone with a brain to stop it Burn it Pointless will make no improvement As above Keep cyclists and pedestrians well away from each other, due to the fact blind or deaf persons would be a great risk of collision and accidents Other ways Money should be spent on more needed things It is unwanted Please spend this money on finishing pavilion Same as above Improve the road and pavement surfaces that are already there. Stop wasting money Spending money on repairs Add parking / allow pavement parking on/near Battery Place to facilitate residents and Guest Houses in that area Repair current roads More traffic wardens would help traffic flow and punish council employees who park illegally in white BMWs. Footpath to be even and less patchy As above Do not start it Scrapped Repair the paths and roads None Reintroduce access to Esplanade for vehicles to park:as it is rarely used by pedestrians thereby reducing pressure on parking in the town centre and Battery Place None Page 391
Page 392
177 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap the bike plan completely Not necessary Ample space already for walking and cycling Do not implement this. Cyclists do what they want and the majority will not use it they are more content cycling the wrong way on one way streets Taxi rank is vital and should not be altered No cycle lane Waste of money Reallocate the funds Fix the pavements instead Don’t do the plan Taking away parking N/A 3 spaces for taxis is not enough Car parking along Battery Place. You can easily have up to 40 cars parked on the pavement you are considering for the cycle route at any given time in the summer. Walking and cycling separate from cars Waste of money See above None Cancel Scrap it The area around the busy ferry terminal needs more not less parking to accommodate large coaches etc. Repairs to existing roads N/A Safe walking None Fix potholes Listen to the people who live here Use the money elsewhere Parking Level the pavements for users Getting the pavements and pot holes sorted 2. Why do t you put in a cycle lane up towards Rothesay campus which would be beneficial to the health and safety of the students. Safer pedestrian crossings at ferry vehicle entrance exit. Page 392
Page 393
178 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not needed No cycle lane Waste of money Keep existing Invite suggestions and benefits of schemes that are less costly and obstructive to other road users( eg damaged paths nearer Port Bannatyne ) Scrap the whole idea None . Resurface roads and pavements N/A As above resurface the rutted roads of the island Less virtue signalling Parking spaces Waste of Government money The shore railings are in need of replacement or repair Improved parking is needed on the seafront. Spend money on this and not this stupid project. Better Road Markings Change to existing infrasyructure not needed. Keep parking available Would rather have speed bumps along battery place along to pavilion Removal Making sure vehicles don't park where they block the route. No-one does anything about the parking on the footway on Battery Place so how will this be any different Spend money keeping a bank on the island Taxi rank See above More priority given to pedestrians rather than cyclists Ensure parking regulations are enforced This is a conservation area with a huge wide Victoria. promenade for cycling and walking Separate from traffic Keep pavements as is No cycle lane required already use pavement to cycle on. None Page 393
Page 394
179 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More important things to waste money on It should be cancelled. none Roads fixed There are already broad pavements and esplanades that can be safely used just mark them up Scrap it Not needed Scarp The money would be better spent on fixing the current pavements and roads Make cycle lane in high street Increase size for taxis Deck chairs Scrap it completely More parking for visitors Ditto Common sense it is not required No bike lane Parking on Battery place for businesses and residents is way more important than any cycle path Cars have no option but to queue along Victoria Street when the ferries are busy. The proposed changes are going to make this even more of a problem, with complete blockages along our main thoroughfare highly likely. Stupid I wouldn't put it in place Shared space at roundabouts As above The design should be scrapped. Scrap it and listen to the community Use existing facilities Invest in a play area Consideration for the opinions of the whole of Bute This is not needed Easier access for those with mobility issues Keep separate from road traffic Waste of money ZebraCrossings Page 394
Page 395
180 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com As above A workshop to educate car drivers on how to safely pass cyclist's Nothing More parking Less cycling route It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters As above The project should be scrapped HGV’s trying to navigate a very sharp narrow turn As a regular cyclist I’d say scrap it Boat traffic will be a nightmare Repair road near boat yard Landscaping especially at Albert pier Scrap it. Safety this would make things worse The majority of the island roads are suitable and safe for cycling, this will not encourage people to cycle more Funding go to other community needs Total waste of money Less cycle path As above Don’t do it at all not needed Stop it Short term paid parking Waste of money None No cyclists No benefit to the island A more intelligent route Use existing wide off road areas I.e. the promenade Stop wasting money on a useless idea Wider roads More parking As above Page 395
Page 396
181 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com SCRAP THE PLAN.Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Parking monitoring and illegal parking dealt with Not wasting money which will affect the accessibility of taxi services and parking in town. Traffic calming measures (reduce motor traffic speed). Weeds removed from kerbs do not proceed with this Abandon the proposal Rubbish bins As above Scrap the project Actually use the money to fix the places bikes can already use ie the prom Vehicle parking Improving the appearance around the pier 2 We do not want it! Improve the parking, or leave as it currently is. Safe for elderly drivers Total waste of money Its not required Bikes off road Parking spaces Abandon it Update/maintenance of prom for cycling to occur As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces None Waste of money Leave it the way it is Don’t do this No changes needed As above For designers to consult local people properly Leave existing system in place The removal of parking spaces in the proposed areas will impact business across the town Stopping vehicles parking on pavements. Page 396
Page 397
182 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Bike Parking at Battety Place needs fixing . Although Battery Place seaside pavement is regularly used for car parking that indicates the necessity to create proper parking bays in this area. Fix the roads Common sense. Improve/ extend waiting area for ferry Fix the railings along Ardbeg road Town parking No changes cycle way must be different height to main carriageway and pavement. Essentially 3 levels. when the pavement and cycleway are same level, it creates conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists It causes undue problems to buses and emergency vehicles managing the proposed changes. I would like it not to cut off the pier for ferry traffic Having the coaches park on the Albert pier and rest of proposed area for cars. Safety for pedestrians As above The promenade needs repaired Proper maintenance of existing prom for walking The design should be rejected Good walking pavements Has there been a Health / safety done Fix the islands roads , so many potholes potentially dangerous to cyclists bin it N/A Working public toilets Cleaning side of pavements as full of weeds None Provision for parking between Albert Pier and Glenburn Road. Bollards Plenty of crossing places for pedestrians Roads need fixed first Not needed No comment Unwanted Page 397
Page 398
183 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com N/a Waste of money that could be gainfully in other parts of the island Parking Abandon the plan More road space for cyclists who will not use the cycle path. They will use the road. The existing infrastructure is poorly maintained so what hope do we have that they will maintain the proposed scheme. More parking None - scrap it is it not needed Abandon this project It doesn't happen Small quiet seaside towns don't need cycle lanes. .More drop kerbs for wheelchairs Scrapped Fix pavement Same as above keep the full width of the pavement for pedestrians, especially those using wheelchairs, mobility scooters or even prams Cycle path not in front of bus stop N/a The extra parking spaces at Albert Pier are welcome, but are these intended specifically for ferry users (which is important) or will they be taken by local residents? How will the scheme ensure that parking for ferry passengers is prioritised? Open up the promenade so vehicles going for the ferry can park instead of waiting on Victoria street Safer pavements. N/A Do not go ahead We don’t need it Opportunity to repurpose the sea front promenade and make it a real facility for the town If you cannot even get the name of Victoria Street correct then there is no hope for us! Don’t block the access of the cars entering the pier. It Don’t do it Spend the money on other things Rothesay needs More parking access to shop for elderly but not yet disabled Don’t need cycle path waste of money sort parking out with bays Page 398
Page 399
184 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com It’s not needed See above Scrap it now Separate, completely cyclists from pedestrians Better access to the ferry terminal for drop off and pick up purposes - the current plan looks to severely restrict existing vehicular access in this regard Ridiculous idea Crumbling buildings People going on a bus will have to cross over the cycling lanes. On the mainland this has caused many accidents. Bus parking Pot holes fixed Evidence that it will be of any benefit at all Less disruption Make use of the esplanade No cycle path required in town this will cause disruption beyond it’s so called benefits Proper legal compliance with bus stops, crossings, entrances and egress’s The survey data provided in slide 3 provides no context to allow the reader to make an informed judgement. Is it parking surveys? bicycle use surveys? From local knowledge, it would be expected that extremely low numbers of bicycle users along the proposed routes would be identified, which, when considered in context of the potential CAPEX for the scheme will indicate little value in the scheme. Don’t want cycle lane Not necessary There are more pressing needs on the island for development and funding. Mend paths More residential car parking spaces for Battery Place Maintain layout of taxi rank. It works, and it allows for more than 4 taxis during busy periods, which can immediately set off in any direction without the need to turn round Waste of money Delay the scheme until route from ferry to school have been constructed route up to the school to make it useful instead No Cycling This idea restricts other users accessing services in the town and infact access to the island is hindered no alteration to existing roads and pavement Not needed! Not needed Page 399
Page 400
185 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not applicable It’s not needed Spruce up the buildings spend the money on that maybe make a play area for kids at the putting green anything but a deranged cycle lane that nobody wants Waste of money! Scrap the whole idea There are more important things needing attention This is just a vanity project put together without the consultation of the community No cycle paths Do not go ahead As above Nothing Why not use the money for a safe school crossing up at the medows/ hospital Same Not suitablw Keep wide promenades they’re safer. Total rubbish Utterly ridiculous. Not needed.....not applicable Scrap the design Build a playpark on putting green next to ferry Is totally unnecessary Zero cycle lanes Implementation of bute residents and community opi unions re scraping whole project Child safe areas No cyle track Implementing something more useful, like more parking around the town An alternative cycle path in another area. Not needed Na More parking places for cars on shore side at battery place Happen Stupid idea Why take it to the pavilion, is there a plan to get this finished? Waste of money Page 400
Page 401
186 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The Albert pier area cleaned up Don’t want Camper vans will park in the coach parking if they're moved off the pavement at Battery Place. Abandoned Pot holes to be addressed so people on mobility scooters can drive on pavement rather than road Help the small shops along the front Scrap it Make the road wider Increase number of kerb drops for disabled users Accessible water and air pump stations Cancelled waste of money Getting the derelict buildings up to use for the community Any parking as above again, hope you are getting the message! Do other work first for the community Not needed and a waste of money None Nil Parking Shuttle bus from a car park to Pier for commuters who park along Victoria street go on boat and don’t come back until night time Funding for repairing the sea wall and pavements along by the sailing club towards Port Bannatyne. No effect to existing parking N/A As above And scrap the idea Parking for taxis Childrens corner rebuilt No loss of existing roadways Not needed .. Do not proceed with this project not needed Transparency regarding the responses to the questions the community is asking Money could be spent on other areas Page 401
Page 402
187 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com More consideration towards a wider demographic of Bute’s population. I believe a cycle route will put tourists off visiting Not happen at all Not needed Priority for pedestrians As above Speed limit signs on road. Nothing, I don't want it Resolve Rothesays actual problems. The railings that the council never fix properly, the pavements damaged by storm never fixed properly, a building upgrade program to the front of Rothesay to improve image and encourage tourism. This plan discourages tourism in many ways by making parking a nightmare. There are very few side streets on Battery Place so nowhere for people to park. This is hotels, B&B’s, cafes, residents who may be retained fire fighters for all the designers know. They need access to their vehicles. Scrap it. The vast majority of the local community does not want this Support routes for school children cycling Leave route as it is, this is not needed Consultant learns to park in a proper parking space Sort out the route up to the school - there is room to widen in places there and it it’s dangerous for cyclists. Walkers and wheelers can use the promenade on the waterfront. Do not put in a cycle lane. This is a total waste of money when you could be spending this money on Thomson court day centre or keeping the discovery centre open All unnecessary Give community funding to make their own changes to benefit community No change at all See answer 2 No scheme needed The alteration to the front of Rothesay for a minority of users Lot of crap not needed Put in Pedestrian Crossings for the kids coming down from the joint campus Just get the roads fixed More coach spaces for tourists so they stop using Guildford square Preposterous idea Don’t know Spend the money on repairing the pathways and roads we already have it's not needed Page 402
Page 403
188 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com None of it- washing money ABC just like you have on the pavilion. How about reducing prices for the Bute Highland Games in OUR PUBLIC park. Less ignorance towards the islanders who LIVE HERE and listen to us when we say we do not want this. Fix pot holes Fix the potholes! No need for it at all We already have a promenade. A cycle lane could be introduced there. Scrap it Waste of money Going to cause a headache Are you getting the hint yet? Thirdly, cancel the project Not enough traffic on island for cycle route As above Consultants to pay back there fee Get rid of it Just coz money ring-fence for job doesn't mean its a good idea As above Better car parking bays within the town, as there is lack of parking and bus stops are getting blocked by parked cars. Rip it up It is unnecessary Please spend this money on royal hotel Same as above Improve local local buildings/infrastructure with the budget for this instead. Don't wreck our town More of what locals actually want Taxi Rank allows only for 4 vehicles, but there are consistently more taxis using the rank. This is important to have as many available as possible when the ferry comes to port in order to prevent people from being kept waiting, especially when raining. There is nowhere for the 5th taxi to park. We don't want it Rothesay is already as safe as it can be for cyclists and the current routes, while in need of urgent repair, already provide the community with what it needs. Better lighting As above Waste of money More parking needed None, make it disappear Page 403
Page 404
189 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Resurface roads in the town centre, particularly Battery Place to make them more cycle friendly None Spend money on essentials as opposed to hairbrain ideas. Waste of funds that would be better spent elsewhere. Community don't want this change The extra pedestrian crossings are not required and will only increase congestion Waste of money We don’t need a cycle lane Go away Use the money wisely this is not needed Leave the place as is Money could be better used elsewhere on the island NA As little development as possible. Would be better off repairing the roads and pavements so people can walk without tripping. See above None Cancel Scrap it Removing parking on the Albert Pier to Glenburn stretch will cause problems Repairs to existing benches & shelters N/A Space to push a pram or wheelchair None In force parking rules ie double yellows Cyclists local and who come here have had no serious accidents Don’t do it Parking Build housing for residents More lower kerb. For chairs 3. 1 and 2 . Not needed No cycle lane Page 404
Page 405
190 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Spend money elsewhere Keep existing Use of existing roadway to form painted marked cycle lane . Make more parking for cars and disabled people None N/A As above Try going out with a cyclist and see the actual issues Improvement of the existing tarmac surface at the promenade No changes needed to existing roads The grass bank and borders are in need of tidying up Listen to the views of the public and don’t force this on us. Forget the Rothesay Cycle Lane The routd is fine as it is Tearing up the plans N/a Community objection Less cruise ships more local visitors See above Increase parking around the pavilion It is totally unnecessary, whole community is against it Wide enough for pedestrians and cyclists Leave our town alone Town doesn’t need this change to accommodate cycling and walking. None This is waste of our money Stop making changes for the sake of it. none Pavements fixes More parkibg Scrap it Not needed Scrap Upgrade the lighting and walkways we have currently Page 405
Page 406
191 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Not to encroach ferry terminal parking Buses Scrap it completely More parking for ahoppers Ditto For money to be used elsewhere eg to make the promenade safe before it collapses No bike lane Parking along battery place is already difficult. This proposal will make that worse. Don't waste the money on it Ker separation from carriageway As above The design should be scrapped. Scrap it and listen to the community Fix sea wall Or just don’t bother with this at all This is a waste of money No silly cones to separate cycle and road traffic As above Expand to ettrick bay via Ardbeg Nothing More parking It's a waste of resources money could be spent on other pressing matters As above Please stop this waste of valuable resources Don’t take away any parking spaces. Parking is already very limited As an experienced cyclist who has cycled all over the world, I say scrap this totally Finish pavilion Scrap it. Safety can’t see how this would make anyone safer Parking will be an issue for all the residents along this route Funding go to other community needs More parking As above Don’t do it at all not needed Page 406
Page 407
192 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Stop it Large vehicle parking ( less carbon footprint print) Not wanted None Not existing Waste of money, that could be better spent elsewhere Joined up thinking. Just because it looked good on paper or worked in another area, does not mean it'll work here Stop wasting money on a useless idea As above SCRAP THE PLAN.Misplaced plans to fix something that does not require to be fixed whilst simultaneously creating problems that didn’t previously exist and compounding those that did. That's an emphatic 'No' from me! Road markings clearer Listening to the community who are stating that money should be spent on other things that are needed far more than a cycle route which we'll only serve a very small number of cyclists. A repaint of railings do not proceed with this As above Makes the road more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians And more vehicle parking Improving the appearance 3 Please go away and leave our main street as it is! Take account of the demographics Total waste of money Safe pedestrian and cycles to get to Montague street Parking spaces Abandon it More consideration for where residents park. Which is area of proposed cycle path. As a frequent cyclist and walker I see no benefit in this proposed concept! Improve the existing road and pavement surfaces None Waste of time More car parks Don’t do this No changes needed As above Page 407
Page 408
193 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com To LISTEN to the views of locals Leave existing roads and pavements The disruption to the community in bringing these changes in will be a net negative to the community in the immediate near future. Lane Improve the weakness issues at the Promenade. Why not take the route in this direction and stabilise the reported weakness on the main promenade. Make better parking areas with in Rothesay instead of taking it awau Clear thinking. Fix the foot path at ettrickdale Traffic lights at Gallowgate No changes The changes to the vehicle queue at Calmac ferry is a nonsense and will cause chaos. I would like it to not take away space from the road Make all wider pavements small for cycle lane from Pavilion to pier and narrow pavement at taxi rank.. Safety for cyclists AND motorists. As above The sea wall at Ardbeg needs repaired Stop wasting money on unwanted projects and focus on improving the existing building stock The design would ruin a the town Mothball it waste of money The bike hire closed there was so little trade bin it N/A Working public toilets Paint Building's all over the Island None Adequate parking 20mph speed limit Waste of money Not needed No comment Unneeded N/a Why is this project being railroaded onto the locals file it away Listen to the community Page 408
Page 409
194 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Scrap this scheme and stop over-paying consultants. We need safe places for children to cycle and we already have a prom just maintain it !! More parking None - scrap it is it not needed Abandon this project Scrap the idea Who asked for this? Who’s needs dors it address? Stop people cycling on pavements Waste of money Fix seawall Same as above Do not impose floating pavements in the area - see RNIB campaign for why they are so dangerous to pedestrians Sight and hearing impaired N/a More parking made available for all drivers whether it be cars or coaches. N/A Scrap the project Not needed Not to have cycle lanes in this manner I would in-ring fence the money and use it to repair the sea walls in Ardbeg Road. Don’t take away any of the pavement running along beside the road. Alone Don’t do it Do something about the Royal Hotel instead Allow other uses when the cyclists only use it on high days and jolidays None we don’t need a cycle path cycling on the roads are dangerous a cycle lane is a good idea but how will it work It’s a waste of money See above Leave it as it is Ensure that cyclists do not continue along the pavement at each end of the cycle routeroute Ridiculous idea Overall state of Town Elderly and less able bodied will have difficulty getting on a bus and keeping out of the way of oncoming cyclist therefor this will be dangerous for them. Page 409
Page 410
195 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Loading bays Pavements repaired Acknowledgement that it will be detrimental More parking No cycle path required in town do not change existing situation An official meeting with and Argyll and Bute concil representatives present Don’t want cycle lane Will not benefit the town The railings and pavements all need attention. Sort out the places that a person with a pram or mobility problems that can get across the roads without all stepping up curbs More car parking facilities on Battery Place Maintain historic weigh bridge outside the ferry terminal. This is meant to be a conservation area Present the route can only be accessed by road - it ques to no where useful and is a waste of money and funding Ensure bikes leave the footpath at the end of cycle route Hinders flow of traffic access to pier Page 410
Page 411
Bute and Cowal Area Committee Workplan 2025-2026 Committee Date Report Description Lead Service and contact officer Regularity of occurrence/ consideration Date for Reports to Committee Services Additional Comment March 2025 4 March 2025 Area Performance Report – FQ3 2024/25 Customer Support Services – Kay Owen/ Claire McAllister Quarterly Report 10 or 11 February 2025 4 March 2025 Roads and Infrastructure Service Update Roads and Infrastructure – Mark Calder Quarterly Report 6 February 2025 4 March 2025 Primary School Report Education – Susan Galloway Annual Report 6 February 2025 4 March 2025 Housing Services Activity Update - Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) - Annual Update Development and Economic Growth – Douglas Whyte Annual Report 6 February 2025 4 March 2025 Lamont Bequest Award Recommendations Legal and Regulatory Support – Stuart McLean As Required 6 February 2025 Exempt information in Appendices 4 March 2025 Rothesay Pavilion to Albert Pier Active Active Travel Project – Update Reports Development and Economic Growth – Colin Young 6 February 2025 4 March 2025 2024/25 Active Travel Progress Report Development and Economic Growth – Colin Young 6 February 2025 Page 411 Agenda Item 11
Page 412
Bute and Cowal Area Committee Workplan 2025-2026 Committee Date Report Description Lead Service and contact officer Regularity of occurrence/ consideration Date for Reports to Committee Services Additional Comment June 2025 3 June 2025 Area Performance Report – FQ4 2024/25 Customer Support Services – Kay Owen/ Claire McAllister Quarterly Report 9 May 2025 3 June 2025 Supporting Communities Fund – End of Project Monitoring Report Chief Executive – Ailie Law/Amie Dow Annual Report 9 May 2025 3 June 2025 Supporting Communities Fund 2025/26 Chief Executive – David Hagerty Annual Report 9 May 2025 3 June 2025 Roads and Infrastructure Service Update Roads and Infrastructure – Mark Calder Quarterly Report 9 May 2025 3 June 2025 ACHA Annual Update ACHA – Chief Executive (Michelle Mundie) Annual Report/ Presentation 9 May 2025 3 June 2025 Secondary School Report – Dunoon Grammar School Education – David Mitchell Annual Report 9 May 2025 3 June 2025 Secondary School Report – Rothesay Joint Campus Education – Louise Nicol Annual Report 9 May 2025 3 June 2025 Cruach Mhor and Clachan Flats Windfarm Trusts Legal and Regulatory Support – Stuart McLean Annual Report/ For Noting 9 May 2025 3 June 2025 Clachan Flats Legal and Regulatory As Required 9 May 2025 Page 412
Page 413
Bute and Cowal Area Committee Workplan 2025-2026 Committee Date Report Description Lead Service and contact officer Regularity of occurrence/ consideration Date for Reports to Committee Services Additional Comment Windfarm Trust Support – Melissa Stewart September 2025 Area Performance Report – FQ1 2025/26 Customer Support Services – Kay Owen/ Claire McAllister Quarterly Report Roads and Infrastructure Service Update Roads and Infrastructure – Mark Calder Quarterly Report Recycling and Recovery Performance Roads and Infrastructure – John Blake Annual Report CHARTS (Argyll and the Isles) Seymour Adams Annual Report December 2025 Area Performance Report – FQ2 2025/26 Customer Support Services – Kay Owen/ Claire McAllister Quarterly Report Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Partnership Performance Report Health and Social Care Partnership – Charlotte Craig Annual Report Charitable Trusts, Bequests and Trust Funds Legal and Regulatory Support – Stuart McLean Annual Report Page 413
Page 414
Bute and Cowal Area Committee Workplan 2025-2026 Committee Date Report Description Lead Service and contact officer Regularity of occurrence/ consideration Date for Reports to Committee Services Additional Comment Roads and Infrastructure Service Update Roads and Infrastructure – Mark Calder Quarterly Report The Third Marquis of Bute’s Silver Wedding Dowry Fund Legal and Regulatory Support – Stuart McLean Annual Report (If Required) The Provost’s fund (Bute) – Award Recommendations Legal and Regulatory Support – Stuart McLean Annual Report (If Required) Fyne Homes Update Fyne Homes – Chief Executive Annual Report Page 414
Page 415
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE LEGAL & REGULATORY SUPPORT 4 March 2025 XX MARCH 2021 LAMONT BEQUEST AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report gives Members information regarding three applications that have been received for support from the Lamont Bequest. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Bute and Cowal Area Committee are asked to agree to award £100 to each of the family applicants and £50 to the individual applicant that meet the criteria of the Lamont Bequest 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 The Bute and Cowal Area Committee on 01 December 2020 agreed new distribution arrangements for the Lamont Bequest, which had been established to support the poor of Kilfinan. In order to be considered for an award applicants must; 3.1.1 be in receipt of a qualifying benefit (Jobseekers Allowance, Employment Support Allowance, Income Support, or Universal Credit) and for those people who are employed/self-employed, they must be in receipt of some amount of Universal Credit as well (a nil payment due to deductions for earned income would mean they do not qualify); 3.1.2 live within the Parish of Kilfinan, which includes everyone with a PA21 postcode; and 3.1.3 be over the age of 16. 3.2 Furthermore, it was agreed that successful individual applicants would receive £50 while those applying on behalf of their family would receive £100. 3.3 Three applications have been received, two on behalf of families and one on behalf of an individual, all of which are recommended for award. Details of each application can be found at appendix 1, 2 and 3. 3.4 The total funds available for distribution from the Lamont Bequest are approximately £4.6k. Should members be minded a total of £250 will be awarded during this award cycle. 4.0 CONCLUSION Page 415 Agenda Item 12
Page 416
4.1 Members are asked to consider the three applications that have been received for support from the Lamont Bequest and to approve the financial awards recommended within this report. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy None 5.2 Financial None, the Council acts as trustee for the Fund, it does not represent assets of the Council. However, there is a risk that the Council would have to repay the Trust if an objection was raised as to the use of the funds. 5.3 Legal Area Committees, as Trustees, must ensure that the distribution arrangements comply with the terms of the funds, failure to do so would result in the Council being liable. 5.4 HR None 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty None 5.5.1 Equalities – protected characteristics None 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty None 5.5.3 Islands None 5.6 Climate change None 5.7 Risk None 5.8 Customer Service None 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) None Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support February 2025 For further information contact: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Tel. No: 01436 658717 Email: Stuart.Mclean@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Application 1 (exempt) Appendix 2 – Application 2 (exempt) Appendix 2 – Application 3 (exempt) Page 416
Page 417
Document is Restricted Page 417 Agenda Item 12aNOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 6 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 418
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 419
Document is Restricted Page 419 Agenda Item 12bNOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 6 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 420
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 421
Document is Restricted Page 421 Agenda Item 12cNOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 6 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 422
This page is intentionally left blank