Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 19 December 2024
Back to Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee — 19 December 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 12 December 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE will be held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2024 at 11:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (Pages 5 - 10) Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 12 September 2024 4. ROUTE OPTIMISATION UPDATE (Pages 11 - 14) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 5. CEMETERY ASSET - ANNUAL REPORT (Pages 15 - 34) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 6. REVIEW OF ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES - UPDATE (Pages 35 - 38) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 7. SECOND DOMESTIC BIN REVIEW 2024 (Pages 39 - 42) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 8. WASTE LANDFILL BAN UPDATE (Pages 43 - 54) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 9. MARINE OPERATIONS: MAINLAND FERRY SERVICE (Pages 55 - 100) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Public Document Pack
Page 2
10. 20MPH SPEED LIMITS REPORT (Pages 101 - 136) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 11. TRANSPORT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2019, PART 6 PARKING PROHIBITIONS UPDATE REPORT (Pages 137 - 142) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 12. ROADS RECONSTRUCTION BUDGET (Pages 143 - 150) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 13. DRAFT ACTIVE TRAVEL STRATEGY FOR CONSULTATION (Pages 151 - 176) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth REPORT FOR NOTING 14. ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE WORKPLAN (Pages 177 - 180) 15. NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 13 At its meeting on the 20th September 2024, the Strathclyde Concessionary Travel Scheme (SCTS) Joint Committee approved a new fare structure to come into effect from 1st April 2025. The new model based on half standard fare, with a fare cap set at £2.50 for a single and £4.00 for a return, is applied for wholly rural rail journeys and all ferry journeys. Currently, rail and ferry journeys under approximately 10 (nautical) miles are charged at £1.00 single and £1.50 return. This represents a fare increase of up to 165%, including on lifeline ferry routes and disproportionately impact on the elderly and most vulnerable members of our community. This Council: 1. Expresses deep concern about the fare increases that have been agreed, noting that residents of Argyll and Bute already face higher cost of living associated with rural and island life, and these changes disproportionately impact on the elderly and most vulnerable members of our community. 2. Acknowledges demand and increasing operator fares will require SCTS funding reserves of £0.836M by the end of this current financial year 2024/2025 and that Strathclyde Concessionary Travel Scheme reimbursement costs continue to increase sharply. 3. Urges the Scottish Government to provide additional funding for the SCTS to support older and disabled residents traveling and phase in changes to the pricing over a number of years to mitigate the impact of changing to the new model. 4. Agrees that the Policy Lead for Roads & Infrastructure write to the First Minister, John Swinney MSP to highlight these concerns and request action to support elderly and vulnerable service users. Proposer: Cllr Peter Wallace Seconder: Cllr John Armour
Page 3
Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Councillor John Armour (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Jim Lynch Councillor Tommy MacPherson Councillor Ian MacQuire Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Ross Moreland (Vice-Chair) Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor William Sinclair Councillor Andrew Vennard Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Katie McKenzie Tel: 01546 604465
Page 4
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 5
MINUTES of MEETING of ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor John Armour (Chair) Also Present: Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Willie Hume Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Jim Lynch Councillor Tommy MacPherson Councillor Ian James MacQuire Councillor Yvonne McNeilly Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor Alastair Redman Councillor Andrew Vennard Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services John Blake, Fleet, Waste and Transport Manager Scott Reid, Marine Operations Manager Stuart McLean, Committee Manager 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor William Sinclair. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 20 June 2024 were approved as a correct record. 4. ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL'S ECONOMIC STRATEGY ACTION PLAN: 2024-2027 The Committee gave consideration to a report detailing an action plan to implement and deliver the refreshed Argyll and Bute Council Economic Strategy, endorsed by the Committee on 21st March 2024, covering the short-term period 2024-2027. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee – 1. provided commentary on the action plan, with the addition of appropriate outcomes, as outlined in Appendix 1 to the submitted report; and Page 5 Agenda Item 3
Page 6
2. endorsed the Economic Strategy Action Plan. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated 30 August 2024) 5. TRANSFORMATIONAL PROJECTS AND REGENERATION TEAM - LARGE SCALE PROJECT UPDATE REPORT The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on progress of the large-scale, externally funded project work of the Transformational Projects and Regeneration Team and key issues that may impact on the successful delivery of projects. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee – 1. noted the current progress contained within the report; and 2. noted that the grant funding landscape remained extremely challenging and that the Transformation Projects and Regeneration Team would endeavour to identify alternative match funding opportunities for future place-based regeneration projects. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated August 2024, submitted) 6. ARGYLL AND BUTE - DIGITAL UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report providing a full update on all aspects of digital infrastructure build across Argyll and Bute Fixed and Mobile. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 7 August 2024, submitted) 7. WINTER SERVICE POLICY 2024/25 The Committee gave consideration to a report outlining the Council’s Winter Service Policy. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee – 1. approved the 2024/25 Winter Maintenance Policy Document at Appendix 1 to the submitted report; 2. approved the Salt Use Reduction and Preservation of Stocks Protocol at Appendix 2 to the submitted report; Page 6
Page 7
3. noted the Advisory signing, routes unsuitable in severe conditions at Appendix 3 to the submitted report; 4. noted the Frontline Treatment Vehicle Fleet 2024-25 at Appendix 4 to the submitted report; 5. noted the Salt Stocks monitoring and resilience record at Appendix 5 to the submitted report; and 6. noted the weather summary from season 2023-24 at Appendix 6 to the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated August 2024, submitted) Councillor Luna Martin joined the meeting during consideration of the following item of Business. 8. SCHOOL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT - OPTIONS FOR FUTURE SERVICE DELIVERY The Committee gave consideration to a report detailing potential solutions for future service delivery of both statutory home to school transport services and supported local bus services. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the cost increases; and the scope of the brief for an expert external consultant. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated 27 August 2024) 9. MARINE OPERATIONS: COUNCIL FERRY SERVICE The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an overview and description of Argyll and Bute Council’s Ferry Services. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee – 1. approved the vessel priority strategy as illustrated in table 2 at 3.4 of the submitted report; 2. approved the crewing plan described at 3.5 of the submitted report; 3. approved in principle, extra sailings outwith the published timetables, which were required to meet demand until capacity can be increased; and 4. agreed that the Council continue to pursue the full funding of the service. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure dated 27 August 2024, submitted) Page 7
Page 8
10. CAMPBELTOWN FLOOD PREVENTION SCHEME The Committee gave consideration to a closure report for Campbeltown Flood Protection Scheme and an update on some of the key elements of the project which is substantially complete. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure dated August 2024, submitted) 11. GENERAL WASTE UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on a number of waste related matters, specifically on the capital funding request to support compliance with the landfill ban; the Circular Economy Bill and the Waste Composition Analysis undertaken by Zero Waste Scotland. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee – 1. noted that the Scottish Government had made £1.5million of capital funding available to the Council to support compliance with the landfill ban; 2. noted that officers would bring forward a progress update along with a plan and timescales which detail the steps the Council requires to take to get to a complaint solution by the end of 2025 to the December Committee Meeting; 3. noted that the Circular Economy Bill was passed in Scottish Parliament on 26 June 2024; and 4. noted the content of the waste composition analysis and the outputs from the report attached at Appendix 1. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure dated September 2024, submitted) 12. FLOOD RESILIENCE STRATEGY - SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION The Committee gave consideration to a report outlining the Council’s response to the Flood Resilience Strategy Public Consultation by the Scottish Government. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the Flood Resilience Strategy consultation response that had been submitted to the Scottish Government. Page 8
Page 9
(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure dated August 2024, submitted) 13. PLAY PARK FUNDING - UPDATE REPORT NO. 4 The Scottish Government had allocated £938k for Play Park Funding to Argyll and Bute Council for investment in play park equipment through to 2025/26. The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on the engagement process covering local Elected Members, Community Councils, Education and disability forums. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the updates provided in the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated August 2024, submitted) 14. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2015 - ALLOTMENTS WAITING LIST REGISTER The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on the actions that were being undertaken in response to duties placed on the Council under Part 9 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 which provides a legal framework that promotes and encourages community empowerment and participation in growing food. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the Allotments Waiting List Register update which reflected the duties placed on local authorities arising from Part 9 – Allotments of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated August 2024, submitted) 15. ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE WORKPLAN The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee workplan was before the Committee for noting. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the content of the workplan. (Reference: Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee workplan dated September 2024, submitted) Page 9
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 11
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 19 DECEMBER 2024 SERVICES ROUTE OPTIMISATION UPDATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Council has invested in a Route Optimisation system which will enable existing cyclic activities (bin collection, grass cutting, winter gritting etc) to be tested for efficiency and, where possible, remodel routes to be more efficient and effective. The system will enable modelling for potentially different service delivery policy options providing a range of options much quicker than conventional ‘manual’ modelling processes. At an operational level the system will provide works supervisors the flexibility to change routing in the event of vehicle breakdowns, road closures etc. The purpose of this report is to provide Members with an update on the development of the Route Optimisation project following the report to this Committee in March 2024. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee:- • Consider the progress with the Route Optimisation project; • Note the delays to the initial progress plan and the new milestones; • Note that monthly progress updates will be provided to Elected Members from January 2025 via the RIS Weekly Briefings; and • Note that a further update report will be brought back to the next Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee meeting in March 2025 together with a demonstration of the system. 3.0 DETAIL Background 3.1 The Council initially appointed Webaspx through a competitive procurement process. Webaspx are now a subsection of Routeware, an American Route Optimisation company who provide specialist software solutions in routing vehicles and individuals carrying out cyclic activities including waste management and general municipal activity. Page 11 Agenda Item 4
Page 12
3.2 Route Optimisation provides a system which enables routing of cyclic activity to be efficiently and effectively delivered. The Routeware system the Council has invested in, provides various capabilities, including, but not limited, to the following modules: • Route Optimisation - enables new/alternative routes (bin collections and other cyclic activity) to be designed more efficiently whilst ensuring deliverability to reduce the risk of service disruption. This will enable existing collection routes to be tested for efficiency with the opportunity for replacement routes cutting down travel, costs and carbon emissions. Different scenarios for collection frequencies will be much easier and faster to model. This is expected to be hugely beneficial for the Biodegradable Municipal Landfill Ban, improvements to recycling percentages etc. The initial contract revolves around modelling refuse collection routes. Once this is an operational tool there will be future opportunities to upgrade the system for other activities such as winter maintenance, street sweeping etc which are intended to be subsequently modelled. • Digital Depot – replaces paper and spreadsheet routes with cloud based data and automated workflows. • In-cab – replaces paper route cards with touch screen tablets providing the crew and driver with the information they need to work both safely and efficiently. The in-cab technology also provides information to and from the back office which will bring customer service benefits in terms of being able to provide up-to-date information to the public. The system will also enable vehicles to be re-routed at an operational level to accommodate vehicle breakdowns, road closures etc. • Commercial waste – at present this is not included in the contract however based on the experience with the domestic collections upgrading to include this module would give the ability to plan and operate commercial waste services efficiently whilst also enabling customer accounts to be managed allowing contracts to be easily updated and invoices issued. 3.3 Bin collection is being progressed as the first activity to be modelled. In doing so the system will be populated with all address points and collection locations allowing much of this data to be used for modelling of other activities. Bin collections also have the potential to offer a significant efficiency, this has been confirmed from feedback from other Councils and the system supplier. Progress 3.4 Initially the implementation of the Route Optimisation system was progressing well, after the initial upload of existing routes, all 48,000 households, civic amenity sites and tipping points loaded into the system. A number of Page 12
Page 13
competing demands and staffing changes have led to some delay, however, the project is back underway. The table below summarise the next steps: Activity Previous Timescale Updated Estimated Timescale In-cab installations October 2024 December/January 2025 Completion of design files October 2024 November/December 2024 Training and familiarisation June 2023 Ongoing - training will be scheduled based on the completion of design files and in-cab installation. System go live in pilot area August 2024 February/March 2025 Evaluation, learning and any system adjustments August 2024 April/May 2025 Wider rollout October 2024 From May 2025 onwards 3.5 The report to the March 2024 Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee was scheduling the go live date as August 2024, this has now slipped to the first pilot area going live in February/March 2025. As detailed above, this will be facilitated with in cab equipment being installed in November/ December for the pilot area. 3.6 Monthly updates on progress will be provided to Elected Members from January 2025 via the RIS Weekly Briefings, as well as a further update report together with a demonstration of the systems capabilities being brought to the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee in March 2025. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The new Route Optimisation system is a powerful tool which will provide opportunities to model different options, with this firstly being used for the bin collection routes followed by a wider range of cyclic activities. We anticipate that this system will bring about a number of efficiencies in terms of cyclic and logistical activities. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – There are no direct policy implications arising from this report. Page 13
Page 14
5.2 Financial – This project is funded from previous funding allocated by the Council. It is expected that there will be efficiencies once the system is rolled out and fully operational. 5.3 Legal – None known. 5.4 HR – None known. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – Works from this project will be accompanied by a socio and economic impact assessment. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – None arising from this report. 5.5.3 Islands – This project will look at both the mainland and islands and there is not deemed to be any adverse impact to island communities from this work. 5.6 Climate Change – There is potential to reduce the mileage covered by some vehicles, which would help to work towards reducing the Council’s carbon footprint. It is anticipated this will result in CO2 savings however this will not be fully known until the system is implemented. 5.7 Risk – None arising from this report. 5.8 Customer Service – the Route Optimisation system is expected to bring customer service benefits in terms of being able to provide up-to-date information to our service users. 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – None arising from this report. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services: Councillor John Armour December 2024 For further information contact: Tom Murphy, Operations Manager Tom.murphy@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 14
Page 15
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 19 DECEMBER 2024 SERVICES CEMETERY ASSET – ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Within the cemetery inventory of 131 locations, 63 cemeteries remain “active” with lairs spaces available. This report provides the annual update on the current Argyll and Bute “active” cemetery portfolio - number of lairs available for sale and operational timescales within the Cemetery Development programme, based on data collated as at 30th September 2024. 1.2 It should be noted that the rate of sale of lairs, equivalent to the uptake of land, differs from the annual rate of interments (coffin burials) as generally, individual lairs are able to accept 2 or 3 interments. 1.3 Updated figures indicate there are approaching 13,000 lairs available for sale throughout the cemetery inventory, sufficient to sustain the burial service overall, for the next 47 years. The bulk of these are due to the assessed potential at the main cemeteries at Achnabreac (1,500 lairs) and Pennyfuir (2,000) lairs since last year’s report. However, the number of lairs available varies from several hundred in larger cemeteries to 10 or less, depending on the location. These figures are used to prioritise the cemetery development programme of existing extensions or new cemetery development sites. 1.4 The timescales from planning an extension to an existing or providing a new cemetery, through to operational availability vary, depending on the complexity of each project. SEPA ground water management requirements, which have become far more stringent over the last decade, local consultations with landowners and the Planning approval process all contribute to the length of time taken to deliver new cemetery lairs. For this reason the current priority list highlights development needs in 0-5yrs, 5-10yrs or 10-20yrs. The 5 year development programme has been updated with a revised budget requirement of £605k. 1.5 In the previous annual report officers highlighted a potential spend of £270k for schemes requiring immediate development required for 2024/25. The updated spend profile is listed in Appendix 3, which does overlap with costs from this year at Strachur/Cowal High Road and Calgary, with as of 30th October a total of £40,390 having been spent this year from the £270k. There is a total of £681k now left in the Capital Environmental Projects Budget which will cover this cost of £605k as per Appendix 3 for the next 5 years. Page 15 Agenda Item 5
Page 16
1.6 Discussions with landowners and community groups continue, on potential cemetery locations, in association with initial site investigation trial pit excavations to verify the suitability of land for cemetery development. • Trial Pit investigations at both Cairndow and Strachur confirmed that neither site was suitable for development, due to shallow depth to water table or rock and poor soil gradings and water content. • A formal planning application has been submitted for Calgary Cemetery extension. In parallel with this, final arrangements are underway with the landowner to transfer ownership of a section of field amounting to 0.1Ha to the Council. This will allow the development in 2026 of phase 1 where the existing ground will be re-profiled to allow 3xdepth interment lairs. • Drainage and footpath improvements at Cowal Cemetery - Sandbank have provided a further 110 lair spaces available for sale within the current cemetery boundary. Trial excavations in adjacent Torlochan extension site, were carried out late July and a report sent to SEPA Mid-August as part of a pre-application consultation. This site has been considered a low risk site by SEPA and suitable for development as a cemetery extension, subject to planning approval. • At Kilkerran Cemetery, Campbeltown, a re-assessment of the lair spaces available indicates 115nr remain available for sale, within the property boundary of the cemetery. This includes the numbers generated through the “maximizing lair space” operation last year. Two separate trial pit investigations have been carried out in the field adjacent to Kilkerran Cemetery. Negotiations continue with landowners on the suitability of developing this area. This includes discussions with King’s Harbourmaster and Argyll and Bute Council (Marine section), regards the associated issue of sightlines to the Leading Light Navigation beacon for Campbeltown Harbour. Agreement was reached in August with both, that the development of a cemetery would not be detrimental to the navigation sightlines for Campbeltown Harbour. • The existing burial ground at Lismore Church has been improved through the maximising lair space process. This was achieved by removing rock, crushing and mixing with suitable soils and refilling within the current cemetery boundaries. A further 60nr full depth burial lairs are now available, for an estimated development cost of £53k. • Clarifications with Legal Services to determine the status of the ground previously occupied by Kingarth Parish Church, Bute to confirm if this can be converted to burial lair space. In parallel, discussions continue with the neighboring landowner towards the potential to develop a second cemetery extension in the adjacent field. 1.7 The cemeteries portfolio has been updated to indicate the current status of all locations which remain ”active” with revised comments against each location. Page 16
Page 17
1.8 The full list of “active” cemeteries with restrictions on the pre-sale of lairs is revised and updated. This now includes locations where historical local priorities had already reduced the demand on lair sales, outwith the “less than 10 years” process ratified at the November 2023 Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee. RECOMMENDATIONS The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to:- i. Note the annual lairs sales figures and remaining availability; ii. Note the updated comments relevant to the Cemetery Development programme; and iii. Agree the updated list of sites, where the pre-sale of lairs is restricted. Page 17
Page 18
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 19 DECEMBER 2024 SERVICES CEMETERY ASSET – ANNUAL REPORT 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report provides the annual update on the current Argyll and Bute “active” cemetery portfolio of 63 sites - number of lairs available for sale and operational timescales within the Cemetery Development programme. 2.2 The comments against the individual sites have been updated where progress has been made on the development of extensions or new sites and where additional lair space has been developed in any existing facility. Updates are also given where investigations or consultations may have changed the likelihood of any planned development gaining SEPA / Planning Authority approval. 2.3 The report also provides confirmation of the current list of cemeteries subject to restrictions on the pre-sale of lairs – further to March and June EDI reports – to preserve the service at local levels, as far as is practicable. This highlights that there are 24 sites throughout the portfolio of “active” cemeteries, which are subject to a restriction on the sale of lairs, either through the shortage of remaining lair space or to preserve the burial facility for local communities. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to:- i. Note the annual lairs sales figures and remaining availability; ii. Note the updated comments relevant to the Cemetery Development programme; and iii. Agree the updated list of sites, where the pre-sale of lairs is restricted. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The inventory of “active” cemeteries, details the remaining ground, within each property, which can be used for interments. This is expressed as an equivalent number of standard lair spaces which are available to the public to purchase the right of burial – through the lair certificate purchase process. Page 18
Page 19
4.2 Members are reminded that the uptake of land, through the allocation of burial lairs is independent of the number of interments in each individual cemetery. In most current cemeteries and in the design of any new facility, the expectation is that a full depth lair will provide vertical space for three interments. 4.3 As detailed in the report and attachments, the average annual rate of lair sales is now calculated as approximately 273 lairs per annum, with 194 sold in the last 12 months. However, it should be noted that the average annual rate of interments (coffin burials) is approximately 530 interments per annum with very little fluctuation +/- 50 per year. It should therefore also be noted that there remains no “Covid spike” or other unusual variation in annual interments in Argyll and Bute since 2019. 4.4 In the last 12 months a total of 483nr coffin burials and a further 124nr ashes interments, were carried out within the 131 cemeteries portfolio (Table 1). Table 1 - Burial Statistics for Period 01 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 New = first interment, Re-open= 2nd/3rd New Re Open New Re-Open Total all cemeteries 225 258 34 90 1st Oct 2023 - 30th Sep 2024 Casket Interments 483 Ashes Interments 124 4.5 Update of Statistics in Cemeteries programme and list of pre-Sales restrictions 4.5.1 In accordance with the conclusions of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee of December 2022, annual updates in lair sales are now recorded through interrogation of the BACAS database, used for the management of the burial service. 4.5.2 Annual figures are recorded from the 1st October the previous year to 30th September, to allow the most up to date figures to be included in the annual committee report. The average annual rate of sale is now calculated from available accurate data collected since September 2019. 4.5.3 Members are reminded from previous reports, that of the portfolio of 131 cemetery locations, 68 cemeteries are considered as “closed”, where all available land for burial lairs has been allocated. Re-opening of lairs and ashes interments are however still possible. The remaining 63 “active” cemeteries, are those where land is still available, for the purchase of the right of burial, and a lair space can be allocated to the applicant. 4.5.4 The portfolio of “Active” cemeteries is detailed in Appendix 1. This details the number of lairs sold in the last year, from end of September 2023 - September 2024 in each individual cemetery and based on the review of remaining spaces, the number of lair spaces remaining for future sale. Records indicate that 194 new lair spaces were sold throughout the asset in the last year, with a revised assessment of 12,948 spaces remaining available, an increase of over 4,000 Page 19
Page 20
spaces since 2021. This is partly through the development of lairs in current cemeteries, where ground has been brought into operation, including re- purposing previous hard or soft landscaped areas in the “maximising lair space” process. 4.5.5 However, as intimated in previous reports, there remain local pressures on lair availability, requiring a programme of cemetery extensions or development of new sites. The overall “operational time remaining” until all lairs are sold, is based on the annual average rate of sale, which mitigates any localised increase or decrease in sales in any particular year. 4.5.6 The completion of the maximising lairs operation at Lismore Church has provided 60nr additional full depth lairs, through the excavation to 2m depth and crushing of rock, mixing with soils and backfilling to existing levels within the current cemetery. Provided these lairs remain restricted to Lismore residents only on a No-Presale basis, this should maintain the burial service at this location for the next 100 years at the current annual rate of lair sales, allowing for the added capability now, for multiple depth interments per lair. Improvements to drainage within Cowal Cemetery Sandbank has allowed the development of a further 110 lair spaces within the existing boundaries, extending the operational time remaining in this location to 5.5 years, provided the no-presale measures remain in place, until the Torlochan extension is developed. 4.5.7 The process of locating suitable sites for extensions or new developments is becoming increasingly difficult, due to environmental and planning constraints. The introduction of the 5yr, 10yr and 20yr colour coding system was designed to highlight the Cemetery Development programme sequence. There are however some statistical variations year on year which may change the “hierarchy” of cemeteries in need of expansion. Generally, the list of priorities remains unchanged from that given in the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee in March 2023 report. The annual cemetery update report allows members to keep track of any changes and overall progress. 4.5.8 Comments on the activities to preserve lair availability, or towards developments or extensions, are updated against the relevant cemeteries within the record. In some cases the colour coding may have changed but it should be noted that this purely statistical calculation will be affected, where the restriction on pre-sale has been introduced. The increase in the operational time remaining, being the object of the exercise. This does not however, change the previous urgency of a particular site, in the search for additional suitable land. 4.5.9 The list of cemeteries with pre-sale restrictions has been updated to include locations where previous local arrangements preserved lair space in parallel with those “10-year rule” locations ratified at the Nov 2023 Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee. This indicates 24 sites, or over 1/3 of the “Active” portfolio are subject to a restriction on lair sales for one of several reasons, under section 3 of the updated Cemetery Management Rules. Notes indicate the reasons for restrictions and measures to mitigate if practicable Appendix 2. Page 20
Page 21
4.6 Cemetery Development Programme – recent progress 4.6.1 Cemeteries within the “5 year development programme” remain the focus for the securing of suitable land, however there has been limited success with investigations of selected sites in the past year. • As intimated in the Nov 2023 paper, trial excavations at the potential site at Forest View - Strachur proved that the ground was unsuitable due to the shallow depth to rock. Contact resumed in August 2024 with local landowners, to determine if other potential plots were available on land, south of Strachur at Balliemeanoch and Glen Sluain. • A similar exercise was carried out on land in Cairndow, adjacent to Kilmorich Cemetery. This also proved the ground to be unsuitable due to depth to water table and rock and the composition of the excavated material, making it unsuitable for development. Enquiries with local landowners did not identify any other potential areas for development. • Trial excavations on Council owned land at Torlochan – Sandbank, for the potential Cowal Cemetery extension, proved that the ground conditions were suitable. This was confirmed by an initial pre-application report accepted by SEPA in August, towards progressing ground clearance in parallel with the planning approval process to the Planning Authority • At Kilkerran, a re-assessment of the remaining space confirms 115nr lairs are available, including previous works on maximizing lair space. An area adjacent, but out-with the cemetery ownership boundary, has been removed from the calculations, for remaining lair space. • Two separate trial pit surveys have been carried out in the field North of Kilkerran Cemetery – Campbeltown. This defined the area that was suitable for development and confirmed the original assessment that much of the field immediately adjacent to the existing cemetery has limited depth due to rock. There is however, informal approval from SEPA to the proposal for a limited development, where material quality and depth allow. This still has the potential to generate up to 2,000 lair spaces initially. 4.6.2 The parallel issue at Kilkerran, related to the sightline to the Navigation Beacon for Campbeltown harbour, has been reviewed and discussed. • The Council’s Harbourmaster raised no objections to the proposal. • The strip of land owned by MoD adjacent to Kilkerran Road would be required, to develop a safe vehicular access. Whilst there was initial reluctance to release this land, the MoD strategy for Campbeltown later allowed this area to be considered for sale to the Council. • The meeting with MoD-King’s Harbourmaster and A&BC Harbourmaster late August, concluded that a cemetery development in the field north of Kilkerran cemetery would not be detrimental to the sightlines to the navigation beacons, provided standard headstones were used. ABC Harbormaster did suggest a condition of lair sale, restricting the use of solar powered LED lit tributes, on the line of sight. • Contact with landowners through Estates and Legal Services is now progressing towards purchasing the land required to provide a new cemetery with compliant vehicular entrance and parking facilities. Page 21
Page 22
• The remaining space for 70 lairs at Carrick Cemetery was released for use, with a restriction on pre-sale. As the land to the North of the existing cemetery, is not available and the land to the South is unsuitable, an alternative site will be required for a new cemetery in the Tarbert area. • Other sites within MAKI area will be monitored and plans will be developed in parallel with the main cemetery issue in Campbeltown. 4.6.3 A review of the development plans for Cowal and Bute cemeteries was carried out in July to clarify the priorities within the 5 year programme. • This identified the potential for further areas within Kilmun Cemetery to maximise lair space, to preserve the burial facility at this location for a further 2-3 years. Investigation works are scheduled for Winter 2024-25 • Trial excavations are planned to confirm the suitability of ground to maximise lair space within the original Kingarth Cemetery – Bute on the footprint of the original church building. In parallel with this, discussions continue with the adjacent landowner, towards access to the fields to allow site investigation for a possible PH2 Kingarth cemetery extension. • A review of the topography and flood plain mapping of the Strachur area highlighted the difficulties in finding suitable land close by. Initial assessment of land south of the village, on the Glenbranter road and also at Balliemeanoch off A815, has been pursued initially with landowners. Further options North or West of Strachur, bounding Loch Fyne would appear to be limited by the steep slopes immediately adjacent to the road. • Land north of Inveronich - Lochgoilhead may be sufficiently removed from the river and flood plain to allow a small cemetery development. Land ownership enquiries and potential site surveys are to be pursued. • Trail excavations and SEPA consultation has confirmed the suitability of Torlochan extension site adjacent to Cowal (Sandbank) cemetery. 4.6.4 The main Lorn cemetery at Pennyfuir has sufficient space for 2,000 lairs • Footpaths and headstone foundations, are being developed within current section Y, by the cemetery team, as required. • The access road network has been developed, from the proposed new carpark area, along with the first terrace for lair space in the adjacent land (purchased 2006) in what will become Section AA once completed. This will include the current woodland burial site and potential expansion. 4.6.5 On Mull, the extension to Calgary cemetery is in the final stages of ownership transfer, to allow the area to be further developed, with a potential for full depth multiple interment lairs, to preserve the facility here for 50 – 100 years. • There may be scope to maximise lair space at Pennygowan Cemetery in front of the exiting cemetery extension but recent inspections did not find any other suitable ground nearby, able to be developed further. 4.6.6 The cemetery portfolio in Helensburgh and Lomond remains the area with the highest number of lairs available for sale, with no critical cemetery locations. This takes into consideration the measures in place to preserve lair space. Page 22
Page 23
• No pre-sale of lairs at Barbour Cemetery, due to there being no adjacent or nearby land for a further extension. • Local residents and no pre-sale restrictions at Luss and Faslane. A further 4 lair spaces have been developed and brought into use, at Faslane. • Arrochar cemetery can be extended to the retaining wall bounding the A814 Footpath. Initial ground investigation works will be carried out this autumn / winter. If practicable, a suitable boundary treatment, potentially hedging similar to the existing, will be put in place prior to lair development. 4.7 Cemetery Development Programme - Priorities for 2025 4.7.1 The Cemetery Development programme will continue to be delivered within the list of priorities, as the identification and confirmation of suitable land allows locations to then be obtained. The parallel measures, to maximise lair space and when necessary, restrictions on sale of lairs, will be used to preserve the burial service at as many “Active” cemeteries as practicable. 4.7.2 The 5 year programme has been expanded and is updated with a revised budget requirement of £605k Appendix 3 4.7.3 The development programme in MAKI will focus on the following • Pursue the transfer of ownership, design and planning application of PH1 of Kilkerran–North cemetery extension. For completion 2027-28 est £250k • Investigate the rock depth in sections of Achnabreac Cemetery and pursue a maximizing lair space / depth solution similar to that successfully completed this year on Lismore est £50k • In parallel, investigate options for expansion or new sites at other cemeteries within the 10year programme. 4.7.4 In OLI, the development programme will mainly be island focused. • Complete the transfer of ownership at Calgary, obtain planning permission and develop ph1 of the cemetery extension = 50 lairs/35 yrs Est £30k • Maximise lair space at Pennygowan and investigate potential new cemetery sites for Salen and Tobermory. • Commence process for an extension at Sorobay (Tiree) cemetery. • In parallel – continue to develop Pennyfuir cemetery as part of operational expansion of current section Y and infrastructure in proposed section AA. 4.7.5 The largest number of “critical” sites are in B&C, where several work streams are planned to progress in parallel. • Pursue design and planning application of Torlochan extension to Cowal (Sandbank) cemetery, towards development 2026 – 27 Est £150k • Investigate potential to maximise lair space in Kilmun cemetery to preserve the burial service at this location for as long as practicable. Page 23
Page 24
• Liaise with the local community and landowners on other potential sites south of Strachur for a new cemetery Est £75k • Investigated potential to maximise lair space on footprint of old Kingarth Parish Church, within existing cemetery and in parallel pursue talks with adjacent landowner, towards potential PH2 cemetery extension Est £50k • Develop next phase of Cnoc-an-Rear cemetery, within existing boundary. 4.7.6 The cemetery portfolio in H&L, taking into account, the measures already in place to preserve available lairs, have sufficient capacity at present. • Potential extension to the front of Arrochar cemetery, within ownership. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 The cemetery portfolio has sufficient overall capacity for the next 47 years operation but locally, restrictions are in place to preserve remaining lair space. 5.2 The Cemetery Development programme is currently focused on providing additional cemetery space, based on the most urgent need, subject to the measure above. However, the site selection and development programme is now a much longer process than may have been the case historically. 5.3 The previous estimated budget of £270k has been partly spent (£40,390) and the remaining budget still sits within the Capital Environmental Projects Budget. The updated figures take into account development work which now shows a profile for estimated costs required over the next 5 years, again this can only be an estimate until works commence in case there are problems below the surface with rocks or issues with purchasing land which can affect costs. There is no requirement at this time for an extra budget line as the current budget is sufficient to cover the estimated works. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – The Management Rules for Burials revised policy 2023, provides a process where lair sales can be restricted when cemeteries have less than 10 years remaining capacity. 6.2 Financial – Cemetery extensions and new developments require Capital funding, to provide “ready to use” infrastructure to sustain the burial service at local levels. Est £605K within next 3-5 years. 6.3 Legal – The Council, as Burial Authority, must provide at least one cemetery. At present, there is available space for approximately 13,000 lairs, throughout the portfolio of 63 “active” cemeteries. 6.4 HR – None known. 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: None known. 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – None known. Page 24
Page 25
6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – Provision of the burial service at local level sustains the business models of both the Council and private providers and reduces the overall cost to customers. 6.5.3 Islands – The programme of cemetery development locations, highlights the desire for the retention of a local burial service, including at least one “active” cemetery on main inhabited islands, wherever practicable. 6.6 Climate Change – None known. 6.7 Risk – Land suitability, availability and development costs, may affect the viability of retaining a local burial service. 6.8 Customer Service – Cemetery development programme aims to provide and maintain the burial service at local level wherever practicable. 6.9 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 December 2024 For further information contact: Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Hugh O’Neill, Network and Standards Manager Callum Robertson, Assistant Network and Standards Manager APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Active Cemeteries - Lair Sales and Development programme Appendix 2 – Active Cemeteries - Restrictions on Pre-Sale of Lairs (updated 2024) Appendix 3 – Cemetery Development Programme - Capital budget 2025-2030 Page 25
Page 26
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 27
# ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL - CEMETERIES DEVELOPMENT UPDATE 2024 "ACTIVE" CEMETERIES - LAIR SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SALE APPENDIX 1 CEMETERIES PORTFOLIO - BY AREA Revised estimated operational years - based on current data - Oct 2024 EDI - 19th DEC 2024 HIERARCHY OF NEED - by age - Area Data - as at OCT 2024. - BASED ON SALE OF LAIRS TO NEW APPLICANTS ( uptake of remaining land) RED = 0-5Years remaining at current Lair Sale Rate = CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2025-30 Column B Key AMBER = 5-10 Years For consideration in future programmes = early options to be considerd YELLOW - 10-20years Future Years - NO PLANS AT PRESENT - but uptake to be monitored. Column H BLUE - Column H denotes where No Pre-Sale of lairs affects the statistical calculation of remaining years - Individual notes against these locations adds further detail Cemeteries ACTIVE Expectancy - YEARS Note - Where no sales recorded in last Year - Average figures recorded in red. Total for Burial Service - New lairs Added / Sold Added Sold Remaining ARGYLL AND BUTE CEMETERY PORTFOLIO SUMMARY >> A B C D E F G H AREA / DISTRICT CEMETERY REMAINING LAIRS FOR SALE 1st OCT 2023 UPDATE LAIRS ADDED IN LAST YEAR "MAXIMISING SPACE" LAIRS SOLD Ist OCT 2023 TO 30th SEPT 2024 REMAINING AVAILABLE LAIRS 1st OCT 2024 AVERAGE LAIRS SOLD PER ANNUM 2019 - 2024 ESTIMATED REMAINING OPERATIONAL YEARS COMMENTS - UPDATED AND REVISED SEPTEMBER 2024 MidARGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLANDS Mid-Argyll Carrick Old and New 66 8.00 58 4.4 13.2 "LAST" 70nr LAIRS RELEASED SEPT 21 , LAND ADJACENT UNSUITABLE OR UNAVAILABLE. NO SCOPE FOR EXTEND - NEW SITE REQUIRED Achnabreac 16miles Mid-Argyll Carsaig 69 3.00 66 3.2 20.6 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 10 years (2034) Achnabreac 10miles Mid-Argyll Shira (Glen) 177 5.00 172 5.2 33.1 Sufficient for foreseeable future - review in 20 years (2044 )-adjacent land Killevin 15miles Mid-Argyll Achnabreac Section K 350 1500 16.00 1834 20.8 88.2 OWNED LAND AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION IN LAIRS , IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXPANDED PARKING. SPACE FOR 1500+ LAIRS = 50YRS ADDITIONAL USE - TRIAL EXCAVATIONS REQUIRED 2025 TO CONFIRM ROCK DEPTH OR "MAXIMISING LAIRS " OPERATION SIMILAR TO LISMORE. n/a Mid-Argyll Kilvaree 159 1.00 158 2.4 65.8 additional 93 lairs Sept 21 - sufficent capacity for foreseable future Achnabreac 16miles Mid-Argyll Killevin 346 2.00 344 3.6 95.6 additional 271 lairs Sept 21 - sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Achnabreac 10miles Kintyre Kilkerran Existing 6th Section 164 15.00 115 17.4 6.6 REVISED MANUAL CHECK 115NR LAIRS REMAINING , OCTOBER 2024 ( area to South of 6th section - not in A&BC ownership = 50 lair spaces discounted) POTENTIAL EXTENSION IN FIELD TO NORTH, SUBJECT TO OWNERSHIP TRANSFER AND PLANNING APPROVAL. RELATED ISSUE CONCERNING SIGHTLINES TO NAVIGATION BEACONS - DISCUSSION WITH MoD / HARBOURMASTERS ON ACCEPTABLE US OF LAND - AGREED AUGUST 2024 - PROJECT CAN PROCEED Campbeltown (New site - tbc) ~3miles Kintyre Clachan (New) 40 5.00 35 3 11.7 Potential for extension of existing to be considered within 5 years by 2029 Carrick M-A 9miles Kintyre Patchen 41 1.00 40 2.2 18.2 Potential for extension of existing to be considered within 5 years by 2029 - for use 2033 or thereby - adjacent land.. C/Town new 11miles Kintyre Killean 57 0.00 57 1.4 40.7 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Patchen-Kintyre 6miles Kintyre Skipness 41 1.00 40 2 20.0 Revised lairs assessed Feb 2023 - 45 lairs , 20 years capacity. Sufficient for foreseeable future - reconsider in 10 years (2034) Carrick M-A 11miles Kintyre Brackley 211 0.00 211 2.8 75.4 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future C/Town new 16miles Kintyre Keil - Southend 99 1.00 98 2.8 35.0 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 15 years (2039) C/Town new 10miles Isle of GIGHA Keil 23 0.00 23 0.4 57.5 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Patchen-Kintyre 12miles Isle of ISLAY Bowmore 56 5.00 51 4.8 10.6 Potential for extension of existing review 3-4 years - adjacent land by 2028 n/a Isle of ISLAY Kilchoman new 181 3.00 178 2.8 63.6 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Bowmore 11miles Isle of ISLAY Kilnaughton (Old & New) 264 6.00 258 10.2 25.3 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 10 years (2034) Bowmore 10miles Isle of ISLAY Kilmeny 176 0.00 176 0.6 293.3 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Bowmore 5miles Isle of ISLAY Nerabus 96 3.00 93 4 23.3 Sufficient capacity reconsider in 10 years (2034) ample scope for extension n/a Isle of JURA Keils, Jura 27 0.00 27 1 27.0 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - review 15 years(2039) - new site ? Islay 15miles Isle of COLONSAY Kilchatten (Lower) 14 1.00 13 0.2 65.0 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future-review 15 years(2039)-land adjacent Islay 20miles OBAN, LORN and the ISLES AREA / DISTRICT CEMETERY REMAINING LAIRS FOR SALE 1st OCT 2023 UPDATE LAIRS ADDED IN LAST YEAR "MAXIMISING SPACE" LAIRS SOLD Ist OCT 2023 TO 30th SEPT 2024 REMAINING AVAILABLE LAIRS 1st OCT 2024 AVERAGE LAIRS SOLD PER ANNUM 2019 - 2024 ESTIMATED REMAINING OPERATIONAL YEARS COMMENTS Lorn Appin 2021 Extension 87 2.00 85 1.2 70.8 NO PRE-SALE OF LAIRS - LOCAL PARISH RESIDENTS ONLY - NO SCOPE FOR FURTHER EXPENSION AT THIS LOCATION. 90 LAIRS CONSTRUCTED 2021 Pennyfuir 16miles Lorn Appin 1953 Extension (Full) N/A n/a N/A n/a Previous lair sale rate used to calculate new extension time ~40yrs Existing 1953 extension , all lairs sold - re-openings/ashes only n/a Lorn Pennyfuir ( Oban ) 1616 2000 29.00 3587 41.2 87.1 Development of owned land in progress - section Y -Estimate 2000+ lairs total , subject to development of road and path network over next 3 years. Also - Ground to the north Section AA - Development of new Carpark facility requires Right Turn Lane on A85 trunk road before use . n/a Lorn Kilbrandon (Balvicar) 33 2.00 31 1 31.0 SUFFICIENT CAPACITY AT PRESENT BUT LIMITED SCOPE TO EXPAND Pennyfuir 15miles Lorn Kilninver new cemetery 26 0.00 26 0.4 65.0 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Pennyfuir 10miles Lorn Achnaba Ext 3 141 2.00 139 5.8 24.0 PARISH RESIDENTS ONLY- SPECIAL CONDITION ON LAND DONATION NO FURTHER SCOPE TO EXTEND - NO PRESALE TO PRESERVE LAIRS Pennyfuir 8miles Lorn Glenorchy ( Dalmally Church) 76 2.00 74 3.2 23.1 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 10 years (2034) Muckairn 7miles Lorn Kilchrenan 17 1.00 16 0.6 26.7 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 20 years (2044) Pennyfuir 16miles Lorn Muckairn ( Taynuilt) 261 2.00 259 3.8 68.2 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 20 years (2044) Pennyfuir 10miles Lorn Pennyfuir Woodland Burial Site 37 0.00 37 0.8 46.3 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 20 years (2044) n/a Lorn Dalavich 19 0.00 19 0.4 47.5 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 20 years (2044) Kilchrenan 7miles Lorn ( Isle of LUING) Kilchattan 171 0.00 171 0.6 285.0 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 20 years (2044) Balvicar 5miles Isle of LISMORE Lismore 7 60 0.00 67 0.6 111.7 MAXIMISING LAIR SPACE, JUNE-JULY 2024. ADDITIONAL 60nr FULL DEPTH LAIRS IN EXISTING CEMETERY - NO PRE-SALE / LISMORE RESIDENTS ONLY Appin 10miles Isle of MULL Tobermory (New)Beadoun Phases 1 & 2 207 0.00 207 2.2 94.1 PHASE 2 - SEPT 2022 - 210nr LAIRS. NO SCOPE FOR FURTHER EXTENSION - NO PRE-SALE ARRANGEMENT TO CONTINUE TO PRESEVRE LAIRS n/a Isle of MULL Calgary 4 1.00 3 0.2 15.0 FINAL STAGES OF LAND TRANSFER 2024-25 SCOPE TO MAXIMISE FULL DEPTH LAIRS IN PHASED DEVELOPMENTS 2025-2065 - NO PRESALE TO REMAIN Beadoun (Tobermory) 15miles Isle of MULL Pennygowan 30 0.00 30 0.8 37.5 MAXIMISE LAIR SPACE 2024 , NO SCOPE TO EXTEND . ADJACENT LAND UNSUITABLE - NEW SITE REQUIRED - NO PRESALE IN PLACE Beadoun (Tobermory) 12miles Isle of MULL Balure 50 1.00 49 1.6 30.6 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 15 years (2039) Kilpatrick 8miles Isle of MULL Kilmore (Dervaig- new) 64 0.00 64 1.4 45.7 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Beadoun (Tobermory) 8miles Isle of MULL Suidhe (Bunessan) 101 3.00 98 2.4 40.8 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Kilpatrick 25miles Isle of MULL Kilpatrick Duart 211 0.00 211 1.4 150.7 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future n/a Isle of IONA Iona 26 0.00 26 0.6 43.3 SPECIAL RESIDENT'S REQUIREMENTS FOR LAIR SALES - NEW EXTENSION REQUIRED BY 2035 , REVIEW IN 5 YEARS (2029) - site enquiries pending Suidhe(Bunessan) 5miles Isle of TIREE Sorobay 68 7.00 61 8 7.6 REVISED SALES STATISTICS - ASSESS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN NEXT 2 YEARS RESTRICTION ON PRE-SALE - DECEMBER 2024 ONWARDS. Kirkapoll 7miles Isle of TIREE Kirkapoll 165 0.00 165 0.2 825.0 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future n/a Isle of COLL Killunaig 54 1.00 53 1.6 33.1 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future n/a BUTE & COWAL AREA / DISTRICT CEMETERY REMAINING LAIRS FOR SALE 1st OCT 2023 UPDATE LAIRS ADDED IN LAST YEAR "MAXIMISING SPACE" LAIRS SOLD Ist OCT 2023 TO 30th SEPT 2024 REMAINING AVAILABLE LAIRS 1st OCT 2024 AVERAGE LAIRS SOLD PER ANNUM 2019 - 2024 ESTIMATED REMAINING OPERATIONAL YEARS COMMENTS Cowal Kilmun 18 3.00 15 8 1.9 POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER MAXIMISING LAIR SPACE AUTUMN 2024 - NO SCOPE FOR FURTHER EXTENSION - NO PRESALE TO PRESERVE SPACE. Sandbank 5miles Cowal Kilmorich 2 1.00 1 0.2 5.0 NO SUITABLE ADJACENT OR NEARBY LAND - INITIAL TEST DIGS UNSUCCESSFUL - NO PRESALE TO PRESERVE REMAINING LAIRS. Strachur 5miles Cowal Cowal High Road 28 110 11.00 127 23 5.5 110nr NEW LAIRS - MAXIMISING LAIR SPACE 2024, FURTHER TEST DIGS IN ADJACENT TORLOCHAN SITE - POTENTIAL EXTENSION - SEPA APPROVED. n/a Cowal Strachur 3 0.00 3 3 1.0 15 nr NEW LAIRS - MAXIMISING LAIR SPACE 2023 MOST NOW SOLD. TEST DIGS AT POTENTIAL NEW SITE FOREST VIEW - UNSUCCESSFUL. LIMITED SCOPE FOR OTHER SUITABLE LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED. - LOCAL ENQUIRIES AUTUMN 2024 Sandbank 10miles Cowal Kilmodan 5 0.00 5 1.2 4.2 LIMITED SCOPE TO EXTEND, DUE TO LOCATION IN FLOOD PLAIN - PLANNING APPROVAL UNLIKELY - NO PRESALE TO PRESERVE LAIRS Strachur 8miiles Cowal Lochgoilhead 15 1.00 14 0.8 17.5 LIMITED SCOPE TO EXTEND AT CURRENT LOCATION - CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE SITES BY 2028 NORTH OF VILLAGE - NO PRESALE OF LAIRS IN PLACE. Strachur 10miles Cowal Cladhamhulin/Millhouse 272 3.00 269 3.2 84.1 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Strachur 22miles Cowal Colintraive 50 0.00 50 1 50.0 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Strachur 20miles Cowal Strachlachlan 84 1.00 83 0.8 103.8 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Strachur 7miles Isle of BUTE Kingarth extension 12 3.00 9 7.4 1.2 26nr ADDITIONAL LAIRS, MAXIMISE SPACE DEC 2022 MOST NOW SOLD - POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF OLD CHURCH FOOTPRINT tbc - POTENTIAL PH2 EXTENSION IN ADJACENT FIELD - LANDOWNER CONTACTED. Barone Rd 7miles Isle of BUTE N. Bute Cnoc-an-raer extension 2 136 4.00 132 10.2 12.9 NO PRESALE TO PRESERVE REMAINING SPACE - PROGRAMME TO MAXIMISE LAIRS WITHIN CURRENT OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES Barone Rd 5miles Isle of BUTE Barone Road section A & B 183 6.00 177 8 22.1 RE-ASSESS IN 5 YEARS (2029) TOWARDS EXTENSON IN ADJACENT FIELD, WITH POTENTIAL FOOTWAY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. n/a HELENSBURGH & LOMOND AREA / DISTRICT CEMETERY REMAINING LAIRS FOR SALE 1st OCT 2023 UPDATE LAIRS ADDED IN LAST YEAR "MAXIMISING SPACE" LAIRS SOLD Ist OCT 2023 TO 30th SEPT 2024 REMAINING AVAILABLE LAIRS 1st OCT 2024 AVERAGE LAIRS SOLD PER ANNUM 2019 - 2024 ESTIMATED REMAINING OPERATIONAL YEARS COMMENTS Helensburgh and Lomond Barbour 31 0.00 31 0.4 77.5 NO SCOPE TO EXTEND - SHALLOW ROCK - NO PRESALE IN PLACE Rosneath 6miles Helensburgh and Lomond Luss 48 2.00 46 0.6 76.7 CONFINED SITE NO EXPANSION POSSIBLE - NEW LOCATION TO BE INVESTIGATED. SALE TO LUSS RESIDENTS ONLY TO PRESERVE LAIRS Helensburgh 10miles Helensburgh and Lomond Faslane 60 4 2.00 62 2.8 22.1 40nr LAIRS 2021 - BUILDING DEMOLISION . 4NR ADDITIONAL 2024 NO SCOPE FOR FURTHER EXPANSION - SALE TO FASLANE PARISH MEMBERS ONLY Helensburgh 7miles Helensburgh and Lomond Arrochar 84 2.00 82 1.4 58.6 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future, area to A814 frontage available. Helensburgh 18miles Helensburgh and Lomond Helensburgh 592 5.00 587 6.8 86.3 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Cardross ( add) 3miles Helensburgh and Lomond Rosneath 155 0.00 155 1.2 129.2 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Helensburgh 14miles Helensburgh and Lomond Cardross ( Crematorium) 1600 21.00 1579 17.8 88.7 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future n/a SUMMARY - data to. "ADDED" LAIRS SOLD LAIRS Lairs available 1st October , 2024 since 1 Oct 2023 since 1 Oct 2023 for sale Lair Sales Service Resilience ARGYLL AND BUTE SUMMARY - TOTALS 3674 194 12952 Average p.a. overall 273 47 years DISTANCE TO NEXT NEAREST OR "MAIN" DISTRICT CEMETERY . Name Miles DISTANCE TO NEXT NEAREST OR "MAIN" DISTRICT CEMETERY . Name Miles DISTANCE TO NEXT NEAREST OR "MAIN" DISTRICT CEMETERY . Name Miles DISTANCE TO NEXT NEAREST OR "MAIN" DISTRICT CEMETERY . Name Miles Page 27
Page 28
# ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL - CEMETERIES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 2023/24 "CLOSED" - ALL LAIR SPACE SOLD - "IN ACTIVE" RE-OPENINGS AND ASHES ONLY CEMETERIES PORTFOLIO - BY AREA CEMETERIES CONTINUE TO BE MAINTAINED FOR ACCESS AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS. AREA / DISTRICT CEMETERY STATUS N0W AND FUTURE MAKI Mid-Argyll Achnabreac Other Sections Section K - operational section of cemetery for new lairs 2022 onwards Mid-Argyll Braeface "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Carse "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Inverlussa "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Inverneill "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Keills, Tayvallich "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Killinver "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Kilmahumaig "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Kilmalieu "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Kilmartin "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Kilmory "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Kilmory Knapp "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Kilnaish "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Lergnahension "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Lochgair "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Lochead "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Innisherrach "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Tarbert New "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Mid-Argyll Tarbert A - T "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Kintyre English "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Kintyre Gartnagrenach "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Kintyre Kilchenzie "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Kintyre Kilkivan "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Kintyre Saddell "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Kintyre Waterfoot "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Kintyre Clachan ( Old) "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Keills, Islay "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Port Charlotte "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Kilnave "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Kilarrow "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Kilchiaran "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Kildalton "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Kilchoman Military Cemetery "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Tarbert, Jura "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of ISLAY Inverlussa "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity OLI Lorn Craigneuk Pennyfuir 6 miles / Achnaba 4 miles Lorn Innishail - Island in Lochawe not applicable - special arrangements for interments Lorn Kilninver Burial ground "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Lorn Kilbride "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Lorn Kilmelford "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Lorn Kilmore "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Lorn Parish Cemetery ( Oban) "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Carsaig "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Lochdon "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Fionnhport "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Gometra - Isle of "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Inch Kenneth - (island) - (Gribun) "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Kilinalin "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Killean "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Kilmluaig "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Kilninian "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Kilunaig "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Knock "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Laggan "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of MULL Tobermory (Old) "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of Ulva ULVA Cemetery "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of Gometra GOMETRA Cemetery "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of TIREE Cladbeag "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of COLL Crossapol "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity B&C Cowal Hamilton Street "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Cowal Inverchaolin (Toward) "closed" - Church building sold by CoS - private residence. Cowal Kilfinnan "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Cowal Southall "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Cowal High Kirk "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Cowal Kilbride "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of BUTE Rothesay (High Street) "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Isle of BUTE Saint Blanes (Private) No plans to exetend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity H & L Helensburgh and Lomond Rhu Churchyard "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity Helensburgh and Lomond Ballyhenan Arrochar cemetery 1 mile Helensburgh and Lomond Cardross Churchyard "closed" - No plans to extend existing cemetery or seek land in the vacinity All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only JUSTIFICATION FOR "IN ACTIVE" STATUS All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only ( added to list Feb 23 ) All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only - Updated (added) Feb 2023 All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only - Updated Feb 2023 All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only - Updated Feb 2023 All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only Private - not managed or maintained by the Council Private - not managed or maintained by the Council All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only - Updated Feb 2023 All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only ( Updated -Oct 22) All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only ( Updated - Oct 22) All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only All Lairs sold - Re-openings / interment of Ashes only Private - not managed or maintained by the Council Page 28
Page 29
APPENDIX 2 ARGYLL and BUTE COUNCIL - CEMETERY RULES 2023 > EDI – 19th Dec 2024 NO PRE-SALE OF LAIRS – Full List of locations October 2024 update LESS THAN 10 YEARS AVAILABLE SPACE OR # PREVIOUS LOCAL PRIORITY ARRANGEMENTS. HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND LOCATION REASON FOR NO PRE- SALE MITIGATION MEASURES / NOTES Luss Church Yard and Cemetery # Pre-sale of lairs restricted, due to limited land available. Attractive location – tourist area None available - new location to be considered if local burial service to be retained. Sale of lairs restricted to Luss residents only. Faslane Cemetery # Pre-sale of lairs restricted, due to limited land available within current boundary. No option to expand Cemetery building removed and other areas converted - a further ~40nr lairs created Restricted to Faslane parish residents only. 4 more new lairs 2024 Barbour Cemetery Previously - Less than 10 years available, prior to restrictions. None – Adjacent land unsuitable due to shallow rock depth. No sales last year BUTE AND COWAL LOCATION REASON FOR NO PRE- SALE MITIGATION MEASURES / NOTES Kingarth cemetery South Bute Less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale. 3 sold in last year – less than half the calculated 5 year average. Additional 30nr lairs created in current ground - Further on old church footprint tbc - plus enquiries regarding PH2 extension. Initial contact with landowner Summer 2024 onwards. Cnoc-an-raer Cemetery North Bute Previously - less than 10 years available, only 4 sold in last year Section 2 to be expanded and developed within owned land footprint. Kilmorich (Cairndow) Cemetery Less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale. 1 sold 2024, leaving 1 space remaining No adjacent land available – option for new extension in wooded ground – poor conditions / cost prohibitive Strachur Cemetery Less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale. 3 spaces sold in last year, only 3 spaces remaining. Additional 15nr lairs by relocating access road. New site south of village – Ground investigation works Nov 23 proved poor conditions - Unsuitable within SEPA regs. Other local sites tbc. Kilmun Cemetery Less than 10 years available at current annual rate of Additional 20 - 30nr lairs by maximising space. Possible Page 29
Page 30
sale, 3 sold in last 12 months. scope to expand 30nr further tbc – no option to expand site. Cowal (Sandbank) Cemetery Less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale. Maximising space within current boundaries awaiting new adjacent extension development. Additional drainage and footpaths to develop 110nr lairs within current site. Adjacent land at Torlochan Site – Dept. responsibility transferred to RIS. Further trial holes July 2024 – report to SEPA - acceptability confirmed. Kilmodan (Glendaruel) Cemetery Previously - less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale. No sale in last 12 months No scope to extend, new development unlikely - SEPA water course / Flood plain restrictions, affecting planning consent. Lochgoilhead Cemetery Previously - less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale. Only 1 sold in last year. No adjacent land available –new extension in wooded ground – cost prohibitive - new site to be investigated North of Inveronich – tbc. MID-ARGYLL, KINTYRE and ISLANDS LOCATION REASON FOR NO PRE- SALE MITIGATION MEASURES / NOTES Carrick Cemetery # 70 lairs released for sale with no scope to expand – no presale restriction to preserve service Surrounding land unavailable or unsuitable. Future access road no longer required - lair space released. Kilkerran Cemetery (Campbeltown) Less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale. Re-assessment of available space within ownership = 115 lairs available for sale, at 1st Oct 2024 with 15 spaces sold in last 12 months = less than 7 years. Additional 100nr lairs in existing “6th Section” by converting roads and footpaths. Investigation of land North of Cemetery. MoD ownership / navigation issues now resolved. Land purchase process commencing Sept 2024 towards PH1 dev – 2025-27 Patchen Cemetery Kintyre Previously - less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale, 1 last year, ave. = 2p.a. Additional extension in field – initial site investigation required to confirm SEPA compliance - 2025 onwards. Bowmore Cemetery Islay Marginally 10 years available at current annual rate of sale, with 5 sales in last 12 months. Additional extension in field – initial site investigation required to confirm SEPA compliance. - 2025 onwards. OBAN, LORN and the ISLES LOCATION REASON FOR NO PRE- SALE MITIGATION MEASURES / NOTES Sorobay ( Tiree ) Less than 10 years remaining 2024 calculation – extension required Page 30
Page 31
Iona Cemetery # Sale restricted to Iona residents New site enquiries by 2035 onwards Beadoun (Tobermory ) Cemetery # Restrictions on Pre-sale in place in PH1 Constructed ~2008, to remain in place in new 2023 PH2 extension to preserve Burial Service in town. No sales in last 12 months. Approximately 210nr lairs available in new extension. Release to “open sale” likely to trigger “10 year rule” after first 12 months. No scope to expand further due to cost prohibitive construction and land tenure conditions on adjacent ground. Third site to be sought - limited suitable ground available. Calgary Cemetery Mull # Sale restricted to local parish residents – at point of requirement – but in pairs due to depth ( or until improvements achieved) New extension in process of being acquired. Planning app submitted Sept 2024 for revised, upfill to full depth lairs, in phases - Ph 1 2026-27 tbc Pennygowan Cemetery , Mull Previously - less than 10 years available at current annual rate of sale. No sales in last 12 months Adjacent land – unsuitable due to shallow rock, water/peat - limited scope elsewhere for new site. Isle of Lismore Cemetery # Sale restricted to local parish residents – at point of requirement Improvement to existing cemetery now provides 100+ years but only if local restrictions remain. Rock at shallow depth in “half” the current cemetery, treated June - July 2024 and up-filled to maintain burial service. SEPA reg restricting further expansion at this site. Limited suitable land elsewhere on the island. Kilbrandon (Old/New) # Sale restricted to parish residents with 2 sales in last year, ave.=1 p.a. Limited remaining space. “New” cemetery operating in parallel. Achnaba Cemetery # Sale restricted to parish residents with 2 sales in last 12 months. Gifted Extension ~2009, no scope for further development at this site. Appin Cemetery # Sale restricted to parish residents Alternative site Glen Stockdale explored ~2015 but not suitable ?. Extension in 2021 on remaining area of suitable ground ~ 90nr lairs = 90yrs? - No further extension here. Explanatory notes Note 1 – Calculation of remaining space / operating years. The calculation for average rate of sale and lairs remaining, fluctuates annually for each cemetery. The calculations in App1 will trigger the “10 year” restriction when the remaining lairs available for sale is less than 10 x annual average sales. Thereafter, the restrictions on pre-sale, are designed to slow down the annual rate of sale to preserve the service in the individual cemetery, until such time Page 31
Page 32
as an extension or new site can be developed. If this proves not to be a practicable or viable option, the restrictions preserve the service at local level for as long as burial space remains within the cemetery. The subsequent calculations of average annual lair sales and space remaining will produce a new figure higher than 10 years – which is the object of the exercise. This would not be a reason, however, to remove the restriction on pre-sale, as this would likely lead to an acceleration in the following period, prior to any extension or new development being available. Sorobay (Tiree) 2024 calculation – added to list of restricted sales - 7.6 years remaining. Once any suitable sized developments are available, the restriction on pre-sale will be reconsidered. Note 2 - Additional sites marked # where local arrangements are in place. Local arrangements, mainly Lomond, Lorn and Mull, are in place where there were pressures on lair space, due to the popularity of some locations. In such cases, including where conditions were part of any “gifted land” from landowners, this has resulted in specific restrictions, such as sale to local residents/parish members only. Officers have also foreseen the end of any further development at some sites and the restriction on pre-sale has been implemented, even after recent cemetery developments, due to the limited timescales these improvements will provide. Carrick cemetery - added to list 2024 – no scope to expand - remaining space set aside for the access road to a potential extension , now released for sale as lairs. As above these restrictions are in place to preserve the burial service at local level for as long as practicable, within the variations in annual lair sales. Note 3 - Previous report “10 years” sites No sites previously intimated as subject to the less than 10 years category have been removed from the list, at this time. Two sites added due to 2024 calculations As noted, Tobermory (Beadoun) cemetery was a restricted development only able to provide a further 210 lair spaces, so the no-presale restriction remains in place, given the previous average rate of lair sales and no option for further expansion at this site. Page 32
Page 33
APPENDIX 3 ARGYLL and BUTE COUNCIL CEMETERY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2025-2030 EDI – 19th Dec 2024 DISTRI CT CEMETER Y DEVELOPMENT WORK CONTENT WORKS DURATI ON ESTIMAT ED VALUE Kintyre Campbelto wn Kilkerran - North Extension Purchase land - Boundary fence - Form new vehicular access and parking area. Initial ph1 roads , footpaths and headstone foundations (500 lairs) – Of 2,000 potential 2025 - 2028 £250,000 Mid- Argyll Achnabrea c- Lochgilphe ad Maximise Lairs through excavation , removal/treatment of rock outcrops, reinstatement to existing levels. 2025 - 2026 £50,000 Mull Calgary - Extension Complete land transfer - Boundary fence - form embankment using existing land to maximise depth. Ph1 parking , footpaths and headstone foundations (50 lairs) 2025 - 2026 £30,000 Cowal Sandbank extension Torlochan Phase 1 Clear and re-level site - Boundary fencing - Form access link roads between existing cemetery and Gochan access road. Form footpaths and headstone foundations, expand parking. ( ph1 - 2 200 - 450 lairs ) 2025 - 2027 £150,000 Cowal Strachur New Cemetery site required Confirm a suitable site - purchase land - develop area for local requirements only - access road / parking , footpaths and headstone foundations ( ~200 lairs tbc) 2025- 2028 £75,000 Bute Kingarth - Second extension Test land for suitability - purchase area - Boundary Fence - develop links to existing - Footpaths / Headstone foundations. (~500 Lairs for similar area as PH1 ext) 2025 - 2027 £50,000 REVISED BUDGET REQUIREMENT 2025 - 2030 £605,000 Note :- The Priority Investment Plan (PIP) for Amenity Assets 2025-26 indicates Cemetery Development as PRIORITY 1 within the top three asset development Page 33
Page 34
requirements. A funding package of £605K is indicated against this priority line. The current Capital Budget Programme Monitoring for 2024-25, has a value of £721k against Environmental Projects , the bulk of which is expected to be used to fund the 3-5 year cemetery development programme. Page 34
Page 35
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ECONOMIC, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 19TH DECEMBER 2024 REVIEW OF ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES - UPDATE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Members of the Economic, Development and Infrastructure Committee with an update on progress and next steps in relation to the Roads and Infrastructure Service Review (RIS Review). 1.2 In providing this update reference is made to information contained in the previous report to this Committee in relation to the RIS Review dated 20th June 2024 and to the actions taken in the intervening period. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members of the Economy, Development and Infrastructure Committee: a) note the content of this report. b) agree to receive a further report on progress of the RIS Review in March 2025. Page 35 Agenda Item 6
Page 36
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ECONOMIC, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 19TH DECEMBER 2024 REVIEW OF ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES - UPDATE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report provides and update to Members of this Committee on progress of the Roads and Infrastructure Service Review (RIS Review). 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Members of the Economic, Development and Infrastructure Committee: a) note the content of this report. b) agree to receive a further report on progress of the RIS Review in March 2025. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 At the June 2024 meeting of this Committee Members received a report entitled “Review of Roads and Infrastructure Services”. That report set out the background to the RIS Review, provided the 10 key recommendations from Stage 1 of the review process and through an accompanying appendix provided a full schedule of all recommendations from Stage 1. The appendix also provided an initial RAG rating for each of the recommendations with the purpose of assessing the deliverability of the Stage 1 recommendations in the context of Argyll and Bute Council. 4.2 The consultants, “PeopleToo”, appointed to lead the initial part of the RIS Review adopted a 4-stage approach with Stage 1 having been focussed on data gathering to understand the existing performance level of the services and to Page 36
Page 37
challenge the ‘As Is’ service delivery arrangements to develop new thinking and opportunities in the form of a series of recommendations. 4.3 Stage 1 of this process sought to draw upon available benchmarking data through the Local Government Benchmarking Family Group (LGBF) (Scotland) and on other benchmarking information from relevant Council areas across the wider U.K. In any use of benchmarking information it is important to also consider any unique local context and to apply this to the overall conclusions reached. Stage 2 of the review process is intended to provide this local contextual assessment and in so doing to finalise a set of key improvement objectives and actions to be taken forward. In providing a RAG rating for each of the Stage-1 recommendations in June of this year Officers started the Stage-2 assessment process. 4.4 The report of June 2024 to this Committee noted that in order to balance the need to progress the next stages of the RIS Review with continuing to deliver a high volume of services on a day-to-day basis additional external support would be required. A recommendation to make available up to £150,000 as a Spend- to-Save investment to fund the costs of external support to progress the future stages of the RIS Review was approved. With the required funding being provided through the Strathclyde Pension Fund Gain Earmarking set aside for Spend-to-Save or Transformation. 4.5 Approval of the requested funding has enabled the procurement of the external support needed to progress the subsequent stages of the RIS Review with an experienced consultant having commenced at the beginning of November. The appointed consultant brings with him significant local government experience as both a senior officer and as a consultant and has recently completed a similar role at a Council in the same LGBF Family Group as Argyll and Bute (Family Group 1 for Environmental, Culture & Leisure, Economic Development, Corporate, Property and Tackling Climate Change). 4.6 The activities required to progress with the future stages of the RIS Review are progressing and are being overseen by the RIS Review Project Board Chaired by Executive Director Kirsty Flanagan with Vice Chair Executive Director Douglas Hendry. The RIS Review Project Board meets on a fortnightly basis to monitor progress and provide executive leadership to the review and change process. An outline review of the Stage-1 recommendations has been completed and in the coming weeks Stage-2 of the review process will be concluded and a set of priority improvement actions developed for implementation. The intention is to deliver change in a phased and prioritised manner with changes offering strategic benefit and the greatest opportunity for improvement / increased efficiency being progressed as the highest priority. 4.7 A further report will come to the March 2025 meeting of this Committee providing a further update on progress. In the meanwhile further opportunities for engagement with Members on this important service review will be developed. Page 37
Page 38
5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 This report provides an update on the implementation of Stage 2 of the RIS Review process. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – Policy implications exist within a number of the Stage 1 recommendations. These are currently being reviewed as part of the Stage 2 due diligence and if required will be subject to a further report to this Committee. 6.2 Financial – There are a number of recommendations from Stage 1 that could result in savings for the Council or equally require financial input and these are being further tested during Stage 2. 6.3 Legal – Legal aspects are being reviewed as part of the current Stage 2 due diligence. 6.4 HR - HR implications are currently being further reviewed as part of the Stage 2 due diligence. 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities – Are being considered as part of the Stage 2 due diligence. 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – Are being considered as part of the Stage 2 due diligence. 6.5.3 Islands – Are being considered as part of the Stage 2 due diligence. 6.6 Climate Change – Is being considered as part of the Stage 2 due diligence. 6.7 Risk – There will be risks with some of the recommendations, these are being reviewed as part of the Stage 2 due diligence. 6.8 Customer Service – There are a number of recommendations from the Stage 1 finding findings that will improve customer service in respect of the delivery of the Roads and infrastructure Service, these are currently being reviewed for progress as part of the Stage 2 due diligence. 6.9 Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – None arising directly from this report. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Councillor John Armour, Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services December 2024 Page 38
Page 39
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 19 DECEMBER 2024 SECOND DOMESTIC BIN REVIEW 2024 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 At the Environmental, Development and Infrastructure Committee in June 2024, a report was considered which focused on the possibility of reducing the number of second green bins households have. Green bins are used to collect general waste which is currently landfilled or in the PPP contract area processed to achieve landfill diversion with a reduced volume of residual material being landfilled – this will soon change when the Biodegradable Municipal Waste ban is introduced when all domestic general waste (green bin) material will have to be processed as Energy for Waste (EfW) feedstock or another non-landfill alternative treatment 1.2 In 2016, through an efficiency savings process the Council introduced 3 weekly general waste collections. In order to support this policy decision, a procedure was agreed at Council in June 2016 which included a number of operational policy positions related to refuse collection. 1.3 This procedure sets out the criteria for consideration of a second general waste bin which are: • There are five or more people in your household • Someone in your household has a medical condition which means more waste is generated 1.4 Following this document being agreed, the medical waste criteria has evolved to include children in nappies. This has become custom and practice across the Council area for some years now with the customer contact centre and area operational teams widely accepting second bin requests for families with children in nappies. 1.5 The June 2024 Second Domestic Bin Review report was based on the agreed 2016 procedure when in fact that position had changed. This report seeks approval from Members for officers to carry out an online consultation exercise regarding second bins and the criteria that should be considered for these. Paper copies of the consultation will be available in the Council’s Customer Service Points for any person who is not able to complete the consultation online. The report also provides an update on the review of second bins. Page 39 Agenda Item 7
Page 40
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee:- 2.1.1 Agree that officers carry out an online consultation exercise regarding second bins, over a 4 week period in the new year. The criteria that should be considered for these, with the detail of the consultation, being delegated to the Executive Director with overall responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services, in consultation with the Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services; 2.1.2 Agree that the second domestic bin review be paused to allow consultation to be undertaken on future eligibility of second bins; and 2.1.3 Note that a report on the outcome of the consultation will be brough back to a future Committee. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 In June 2016, the Council considered a report proposing an operational service procedure and which provided operational detail to support the Policy that the Council agreed at its meeting on 11 February 2016 as part of Service Choices. The full report can be viewed here: ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL (argyll-bute.gov.uk). 3.2 Disposal of general waste has both environmental and cost implications. Whilst the existing PPP contract for part of Argyll and Bute processes material via a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant (which takes out of the waste stream some materials which can be recycled or composted), this process is expensive and is not an approved treatment type beyond the BMW Ban. Reducing the amount of general waste, principally by increasing recycling, reduces both environmental impacts and financial costs. As such we don’t encourage the use of second green bins, instead focusing on recycling with second recycling bins being provided for free. However, we understand that, for some households a second general waste bin may be needed. Generally speaking we will consider a second green bin if: • There are five or more people in your household • Someone in the household has a medical condition which means more waste is generated 3.3 Following this document being agreed in 2016, the medical waste criteria has evolved to include children in nappies. This has since been custom and practice across the Council area. 3.4 A sample of requests for second domestic bins between 2021 to current date confirms there have been 1457 requests for a second bin approved in total, 604 of these for families with children in nappies. A breakdown of the figures Page 40
Page 41
for second bins for households with children in nappies by area within Argyll and Bute is shown below: • Oban, Lorn and the Isles: 163 • Mid Argyll Kintyre and the Islands: 150 • Bute and Cowal: 113 • Helensburgh and Lomond: 178 The above figures demonstrate there is a demand for additional bins for households with children in nappies. 3.5 As part of the ongoing second domestic bin review, we have begun the process of contacting households who are known to have a second bin. However, this was based on the approved policy position (the two criteria in the original procedure). This has highlighted that in practise, the additional criteria of children in nappies has been applied and it is recommended that the second bin procedure, informed by an online survey which will be carried out over a 4 week period in the new year, be reported back to a future Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee for consideration by Members. 3.6 Whilst some households have indicated they no longer need a second green bin, it is proposed that the second domestic bin review is paused to allow the consultation and procedure review. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 This report seeks agreement to pause the review of second domestic bins to allow for an online consultation over a 4 week period to be carried out in the new year regarding eligibility criteria, with a report on the outcome of that being brought back to a future meeting of this Committee. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – As per the Policy agreed in June 2016 at the introduction of 3 weekly waste collections. 5.2 Financial – It is expected that there will be future waste collection and disposal savings as a result of this exercise. 5.3 Legal – None known. 5.4 HR – None known. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: None known. 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – None known. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty: None known. 5.5.3 Islands – None known. Page 41
Page 42
5.6 Climate Change – Reducing waste currently processed for landfill and increasing recycling. There should also be a slight reduction in fuel used for vehicles used in the waste collection and disposal process. 5.7 Risk – Representation from individuals who may lose a second bin service. 5.8 Customer Service – Residents may have become dependent on their second general waste bin. Detailed communications will need to be carried out to keep citizens involved with this proposal and the reasons it is being progressed. 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – refuse collection and recycling can have environmental benefits and contribute to the positive future of young people. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services, Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads, Amenity and Transport, Councillor John Armour November 2024 For further information contact: Tom Murphy, Operations Manager Tom.Murphy@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 42
Page 43
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 19 DECEMBER 2024 WASTE LANDFILL BAN UPDATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report is to provide members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee with an update on the progress towards landfill ban compliance. It also provides an update on financial implications in respect of the landfill ban and other waste issues. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee consider the content of this report. 3.0 DETAIL BMW Landfill Ban 3.1 The previous report to the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee in September 2024 provided an update on the funding awarded to Argyll and Bute Council by the Scottish Government to support landfill ban compliance. Furthermore, information was provided in relation to the Circular Economy Bill and a recent Waste Composition Analysis which was supported by Zero Waste Scotland. 3.2 Officers have progressed a number of matters to ensure that Council operated Waste sites are moving towards being able to support landfill ban compliance. Moreover, the sites which are operated by Biffa (formerly Renewi) which are ready to be landfill ban compliant and sites requiring changes to comply with the landfill are noted in section 3.4. 3.3 Argyll and Bute Council operate a number of Waste sites which include Civic Amenity sites with landfill sites and others locations with closed landfill sites. The details of all sites and their locations are noted below along with sites managed through the Waste PPP contract with Biffa. The detail highlights the sites which are compliant with the landfill ban and the sites which are not compliant, this is not withstanding the works which are required to make these locations landfill ban compliant. In addition, the Council has a separate parallel process relating to the PPP contract handback. This process will be Page 43 Agenda Item 8
Page 44
reported separately from the landfill ban. 3.4 The following table summarises the current position across the council area in terms of readiness for the BMW ban. Area Current position Outstanding Actions to become BMW compliant Island sites Currently we have live landfill sites in both Islay and Mull. These sites already have infrastructure in place to facilitate waste transfer activity for general waste. Post BMW ban, general waste will be stored in the waste transfer facilities and bulked to then be transported off the islands. Waste material from the islands is pre-treated and processed by the contractors. Vary existing haulage contracts to include general waste. The varying of the contract is relatively straightforward, the main challenge will be securing ferry space to transfer the additional waste. Helensburgh and Lomond area (H&L) Existing contract is BMW compliant/ The contract also has provision to take general waste from other parts of Argyll and Bute. Both Waste streams (residual waste and civic amenity waste) from Tiree and Coll are bulked, transported and processed through the same providers as H&L. The contract for H&L, inclusive of Tiree and Coll subsists until December 2025 and can be extended a further year until December 2026. The contract is also flexible enough to accept Waste streams from Islay and Mull which can be bulked, transported and processed through the contract. The Waste material is pre-treated and processed by the contractors. No issues are noted for these contracts or extensions. No direct actions in terms of complying with the BMW ban. A waste transfer station is being explored which should provide operational efficiency, resilience and also provide the Council with opportunities in terms of market options. An Options Appraisal is currently in progress to determine if the waste transfer station is the best option going forward. PPP Contract Area Currently operating Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plants at three locations (Oban, Lochgilphead and Dunoon), waste transfer stations at Campbeltown and Rothesay and a number of civic amenity and bring sites together with a contractual requirement to run a front loader commercial waste offering. Any requirement for pre-treatment of Waste through the PPP contract will Conversion of MBT plants to waste transfer stations which is to be progressed by Biffa subject to finalising Heads of Terms. Page 44
Page 45
be arranged by Biffa. 3.5 The table above summarises the position in terms of preparation for the 2026 BMW ban. It is noteworthy that in addition to these actions there are a number of other activities underway including the removal of Compost Like Output (CLO). CLO is Waste material which has been treated and separated to then develop a CLO which can be used for the capping and restoration of landfill cells. Officers have agreed with Biffa that they are responsible for all CLO prior to March 2022 and the disposal of the same, the Council has assumed responsibility for all CLO developed post April 2022 with the proviso that sufficient CLO material is retained for the capping and restoration of landfill sites up to the date of the landfill ban. Officers will finalise the discussions on the indexation calculations with Biffa, the indexation calculations are payments which were wrongly calculated by Biffa and the Council during the term of the contract. The difference in costs is circa £587k, the Council are required to make this payment to Biffa to conclude the matter, these actions will be progressed by Officers. It should be noted that this amount is not budgeted for and creates a cost pressure. 3.6 Following the regulations relating to the landfill ban on municipal waste, it was unclear if third party commercial waste (e.g. commercial waste uplifted by other private waste contractors or brought directly to sites by commercials), could still be landfilled after the implementation of the ban. It was always clear to the Council and Biffa (formerly Renewi) that Council municipal waste would be covered under the ban i.e. Council collected domestic and commercial waste. Recent guidance from SEPA suggests that the volume of the third party commercial waste which will be acceptable for landfill in Argyll and Bute will be insignificant, therefore making commercial waste landfill sites uneconomical for the tonnages which are forecast. The guidance from SEPA has two implications for the authority: 1. All commercial waste material, whether municipal or third party, will require to be bulked and transported from the sites and treated through an EfW process along with general residual waste. 2. Existing landfill sites, of which Argyll and Bute have 4, 1 on Islay and 1 on Mull (which are operated and maintained currently by the Council) and separate to these are Lingerton Landfill (by Lochgilphead) and Dalinlongart Landfill (by Dunoon) (which are currently maintained and operated through the PPP contract), the expectation from SEPA is that the sites are restored, capped and closed down. Currently we do not have a timescale for this and Officers will continue to liaise with SEPA in this regard. 3.7 The bullet points below provide a summary of each landfill site in Argyll and Bute. At the end of the PPP contract in September 2026, the PPP landfill sites will revert back to the Council who will have direct responsibility for maintaining, managing and monitoring these sites in line with any SEPA licensing requirements. Works have been undertaken at Council sites to enable landfill ban compliance. There is no requirement for any changes to Page 45
Page 46
Council operated sites pre-landfill ban or post landfill ban. Council Waste sites • Cliad Recycling Centre, Isle of Coll – Cliad has a closed landfill site, and now operates as a Civic Amenity site. Waste materials from this location are transferred to Tiree and then transported for re-processing on the mainland. The Cliad site is ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Gott Bay site Tiree – Gott Bay has a closed landfill site and operates as a Waste Transfer Station and Recycling Centre (Civic Amenity site). Material is transferred from the site for re-processing on the mainland. The Council have made the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) aware of the changes to the site, i.e. landfill closure, and shared the Councils plans for restoration and aftercare of the site. The Council awaits a decision from SEPA on landfill cell closure and the aftercare plan. The Gott Bay site is ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Glengorm, Isle of Mull – Glengorm is a Landfill Site, a Waste Transfer Station and a Recycling Centre (Civic Amenity site). The conversion of the original baling shed to a Waste Transfer Station has already taken place. The operational landfill site will remain open until the landfill ban date, from 1 Jan 2026. The operational landfill site may close after this date and it is likely that landfill restoration works would have to be completed to comply with SEPA requirements by the end of 2027. The Glengorm site is ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Bonaveh, Isle of Colonsay – Bonaveh is a Recycling Centre (Civic Amenity site). Waste material from Bonaveh is transferred to Islay during the summer and transferred to Oban during the winter months. Bonaveh has a closed landfill site. The Bonaveh site is ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Gartbreck, Isle of Islay – Gartbreck has a landfill cell, a Waste Transfer Station which was converted from the original baling shed and a Civic Amenity site (Recycling Centre). The Operational landfill site will remain open until the start of the landfill ban on the 1 Jan 2026. The Operational landfill may close after this date and it is likely that landfill restoration works would have to be completed to comply with SEPA requirements by the end of 2027. The Gartbreck site is ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Blackhill Civic Amenity Site Helensburgh – The Blackhill site in Helensburgh is a Civic Amenity site (Recycling Centre) and all Waste material is transported from the site for re-processing. • Blackhill Roads depot, Waste Transfer Station The Council has set funding aside to build a Waste Transfer Station in Page 46
Page 47
Helensburgh. This was prior to Barr Environmental ceasing business and the Council entering into a new contract that provides a compliant solution for Helensburgh waste albeit at a distance in Paisley. An Options Appraisal is currently being progressed to assess the financial and operational benefits of continuing to progress with a Waste Transfer Station or other solution. It is expected that the Options Appraisal should be completed by the end of December 2024. Biffa managed Waste sites (formerly Renewi) • Moleigh, Oban – Moleigh manages co-mingled waste and has a closed landfill with Civic Amenity site (Recycling Centre). Moleigh has a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant which will require conversion to a Waste Transfer Station for all Waste material. Biffa will coordinate and manage the conversion of the MBT plant. Once the works are complete, Moleigh will be ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Lingerton, Lochgilphead – Lingerton currently has an operational landfill site, it is a Civic Amenity site and a co-mingled transfer station. To comply with the landfill ban the current Mechanical Biological Treatment plant requires to be converted to a Waste Transfer Station to facilitate the tipping on of all Waste material for re-processing. The Operational landfill site will remain open until the start of the landfill ban on the 1 Jan 2026. The Operational landfill may close after this date and it is likely that landfill restoration works would have to be completed to comply with SEPA requirements by the end of 2027. • The Roading, Campbeltown - The Roading is a Civic Amenity site and has a Waste Transfer Station. The site will be ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Westlands, Rothesay - Westlands is a closed landfill, with a Waste Transfer Station for Waste and recycling material and a Civic amenity site. Westlands will be ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Bogleha, Dunoon - Bogleha has a Civic Amenity site and will be ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. • Dalinlongart, Dunoon – Dalinlongart is a recycling and waste disposal site for Dunoon and Cowal. The site has an operational landfill site, a co-mingled Waste transfer station and a Mechanical Biological Treatment plant which will require conversion to a Waste Transfer Station to be compliant with the landfill ban. Biffa will coordinate and manage the changes to the site. The Operational landfill site will remain open until the start of the landfill ban on the 1 Jan 2026. The Operational landfill may close after this date and it is likely that landfill restoration works would have to be completed to comply with SEPA requirements by the end of 2027. Page 47
Page 48
3.8 Biffa have allocated a Project Manager to lead on the conversion of the MBT plants to Waste Transfer Stations at Dalinlongart, Lingerton and Moleigh once the Head of Terms have been agreed by the Council. 3.9 Officers have provided a summary of all outstanding actions and timescales to Members within Appendix 1 of this report. Landfill Ban/Other Waste Issues Financials 3.10 This section outlines financial implications in respect of the landfill ban and other waste issues. 3.11 In the latest budget outlook report that was reported to the Policy and Resources Committee on 5 December, a cost pressure of £462k in 2025-26 rising to £925k from 2026-27 onwards. Members were advised that we had recently received an updated financial appraisal from the consultants who prepared the options appraisal presented to Committee in December and officers were working through the update figures, taking into consideration inflationary pressures built into the outlook also. It has become apparent that the costs in relation to haulage and new Energy from Waste contracts were not included in previous estimates post PPP contract and figures have also been updated in line with cost increases since December 2022. It is understood that additional cost pressures of circa £96k in 2025-26, £2.112m in 2026-27 and £2.684m from 2027-28 will require to be built into future years estimates and clarification is being sought from the consultants that our interpretation of the updated financials is correct. Once clarification is received this will be fed into the budget process for 2025-26. 3.12 The Council has set aside £3m towards the creation of a Waste Transfer Station (WTS) in Helensburgh. As the Helensburgh area now has a compliant disposal solution it is considered necessary to carry out an options appraisal as to whether the Helensburgh WTS is still required. A WTS will offer benefits in terms of resilience of waste disposal by enabling the Council to bulk waste and therefore being at less risk if it has to take waste further than at present for disposal. Construction of the WTS may also enable revised and lower cost shift patterns to be adopted by the waste collection teams. The options appraisal will consider whether these efficiency and resilience gains are sufficient to justify the level of capital investment required. A further update will be provided to a future EDI Committee. 3.13 One of the actions within the RIS review was to secure arrangements for waste disposal beyond the current PPP contract expiring in September 2026. We are progressing to procure specialist consultants with detailed sector knowledge to produce an options appraisal for consideration by the Council in order to determine the preferred set of new arrangements with the available options being: In-source, re-procure or establishment of a local authority owned company or variations on these three main options. As part of the commission the specialist consultants should be tasked to advise on the further resources needed by the Council for it to develop and implement the chosen model. At present the Council pay Biffa (formerly Renewi) to deliver Page 48
Page 49
the waste arrangements within PPP area, however, there is an unknown as to whether the current budget will be sufficient to pay for the new arrangement post PPP contract. 3.14 Paragraph 3.6 outlines that recent guidance from SEPA suggests that the volume of the third party commercial waste which will be acceptable for landfill in Argyll and Bute will be insignificant, therefore making commercial waste landfill sites uneconomical for the tonnages which are forecast. It is therefore likely SEPA will advise that the current sites are restored, capped and closed down and this will come at a significant one-off cost. We do not have a timescale for this nor an accurate costing and it is likely that this issue will be picked up in the options appraisal referred to above. 3.15 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach that holds producers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, including the post-consumer phase. This means that producers are required to manage the disposal, recycling, or reuse of products after consumers are done with them. EPR aims to reduce waste, encourage recycling, and minimize the environmental impact of products, particularly packaging and electronics. In practice, EPR typically requires producers to either directly take back their products or pay into a collective system to fund recycling and waste management. This policy shifts the financial and logistical burden of waste management from governments and consumers to producers. Regulations are planned to come in from January 2025 and we have recently received notice of our estimated payment for 2025-26 and this amounts to £3.847m. It should be noted that this is an estimated payment and at this time it is unclear whether submission of detailed information to comply with the regulations will create a resource pressure that will require to be funded from the payment. This amount is in addition to the Scottish Government financial settlement for 2025-26 on the proviso that it must be spent on waste related activities. Whilst there should be ongoing payments in respect of EPR, it is unclear whether the Scottish Government will amend the settlement in future years. It is recommended that the payment could go towards 2025- 26 cost pressures in relation to waste but due to the uncertainty over the total amount of income, it is recommended that the remainder is earmarked whilst further clarity if sought and to also help with future years pressures in respect of waste, as noted in the preceding paragraphs. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 In concluding this report, an update on the journey towards landfill ban compliance has been shared with Members. Furthermore, site compliance information relating to the landfill ban and essential work streams and relevant completion dates are noted, along with other Waste related activities in Appendix 1. Council operated Waste sites are ready to support delivery of a compliant solution. The Waste PPP managed sites are ready to support landfill ban compliance apart from Dalinlongart, Lingerton and Moleigh. Dalinlongart, Lingerton and Moleigh require the current Mechanical Biological Treatments plants to be converted to Waste Transfer Stations to fulfill the requirement for landfill ban compliance. The conversion of the relevant sites Page 49
Page 50
will take place in time for compliance with the landfill ban. 4.2 The report also updates Members on a number of waste related issues that have financial implications, some of which are unknown at this stage. Further updates will be provided to Members as and when available. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – The Council’s Waste Strategy will evolve in line with the changes in legislation relating to the landfill ban and circular economy bill. There will be a requirement for the current Biffa contract to be varied to enable works to be undertaken to comply with the landfill ban. The Councils Waste strategy will be updated to reflect any changes. 5.2 Financial – Compliance with the Landfill ban by the end of 2025 will require financial resource from the Council. The Council have set aside £3m in capital funds to build the Helensburgh Waste Transfer Station and £0.5m as a contribution towards the conversion of the MBT plants at three Biffa sites, to Waste Transfer Stations. In addition, the Scottish Government has committed capital funding of £1.5m to support the authority with compliance of the landfill ban. 5.3 Legal – The existing PPP contract was not designed or written to accommodate the changes at the end of the landfill ban. The contract allows variations to be made although the process is quite cumbersome. There will be legal implications, which will need to be resolved, relating to a contract variation regarding the changes in Biffa’s contract. 5.4 HR – HR issues will be addressed prior to and during the process of contract handback. Having sufficient resource will factor into the project demands of waste management. TUPE will be relevant at the handback and during the process of progressing to handback should the Council operate the sites themselves. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: None. 5.5.1 Equalities – None. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – None. 5.5.3 Islands – There may be potential ferry capacity issues for bulking and transporting waste material from islands, this has been raised with Transport Scotland. 5.6 Climate Change – Transitioning from Landfill to Energy from Waste (EfW) would result in a reduction in the annual quantity of Greenhouse Gas generated in Argyll and Bute. Additional road miles incurred taking waste to EfW markets will partly offset the carbon reductions achieved through not landfilling. Page 50
Page 51
5.7 Risk – A refresh of all Waste PPP costs have been undertaken. The costs reflect the previous financial analysis with the only increase being inflationary costs. 5.8 Customer Service – None. 5.9 Rights of the Child – None arising from this report. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services: Councillor John Armour December 2024 For further information contact: John Blake, Fleet, Waste and Transport Manager john.blake@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Summary of Waste sites – Working towards Landfill ban compliance Page 51
Page 52
APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY OF WASTE SITES – WORKING TOWARDS LANDFILL BAN COMPLIANCE Location Status Actions Timescale for completion Island sites Mull and Islay: waste transfer stations complete and can accommodate general waste and co-mingled waste. All waste material can accommodated through existing contracts when the landfill ban is implemented, i.e. 1 January 2026 No actions required Complete Coll, Tiree and Colonsay: general waste materials can be accommodated through existing contracts when the landfill ban is implemented, i.e. 1 January 2026 No actions required Complete Plans for the closure of landfill sites at Gartbreck, Islay and Glengorm, Mull post 2026 Appoint a consultant to plan for the closure of the operational landfill sites at Gartbreck and Glengorm. Capping and restoration of sites will be required March 2025 Helensburgh and Lomond Complaint solution currently in place with options to extend the contract No actions required for disposal Complete PPP contract – Renewi/Biffa Sites operating MBT technology introduced to divert material from landfill • Instruct Biffa to remove MBT plant and equipment and convert sheds to waste transfer facilities • Instruct Biffa to dispose of the excess of CLO, off site, as per the proposals drafted by Renewi • Scope out the opportunity for a 01 December 2024 31 December 2025 completion of works for three sites 1 December 2024 – excess CLO removed by 31 December 2025 Page 52
Page 53
contract extension to the PPP contract, this would be varied to operate waste transfer stations at Dalinlongart, Lingerton and Moleigh and also restoration of landfill sites. This is based on being able to achieve realistic and competitive rates/prices and also being compliant with procurement legislation. • Close down and agree indexation discussions based on advice received from legal services regarding contract obligations. • Close down and agree contractual requirements relating to Void Space. • Determine what provision would be required and how this would be delivered in relation to the commercial waste collection requirements contained within the original contract. • Continue to progress handback discussions with Biffa • Further detailed options appraisal to be undertaken based on the best operating model for the PPP sites post contract – note earlier recommendation for a contract April 2025 30 November 2024 31 December 2025 Ongoing until September 2026 Ongoing until September 2026 30 April 2025 Page 53
Page 54
extension based on efficiency following SEPA confirmation of commercial landfill permitted materials Page 54
Page 55
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 19 DECEMBER 2024 MARINE OPERATIONS: MAINLAND FERRY SERVICE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report introduces to Members, the “Argyll & Bute Council Mainland Ferries Study – Comparative Analysis of Options for Council-run ferries” carried out by Caledonian Economics (Mainland Ferries Study) at appendix 1. 1.2 The anticipated Islands Connectivity Plan and Community Needs Assessments, being produced by Transport Scotland, excludes local authority run ferries from proposals. The study seeks to address the gap left by this exclusion and looks at options for the future planning for lifeline services to Easdale and Luing. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to:- 2.1 Thank the Easdale and Luing community council representatives and residents for the high level of engagement and return regarding the study. 2.2 Discuss the contents and implications of the Mainland Ferries Study (appendix 1). 2.3 Approve the continuation of the feasibility study to progress a business case for the provision of infrastructure options to Easdale, including fixed links. 2.4 Approve the inclusion of options to Luing in the feasibility study to continue to take advantage of economy of scale. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 On 13 October 2022 Policy and Resources Committee agreed to allocate £100k of Crown Estates Funds to a feasibility study and specification work for pier infrastructure at Ellenabeich and Easdale which would support the ongoing provision of the council ferry service. Page 55 Agenda Item 9
Page 56
3.2 A sensible starting position for the feasibility study was a baseline study into the current services being provided. Economies of scale enabled the inclusion of the Luing service at the same time, particularly as the Luing Community Council had separately commenced a ‘participation Request’ to investigate improvements to the Cuan service. 3.3 Caledonian Economics were engaged to carry out this work at a cost of £10k leaving £90k for the remaining detailed study. 3.4 The study at appendix 1 therefore concentrates on the current provision of lifeline services covering the islands of Luing and Easdale. Both services use aging vessels and infrastructure, which do not reach modern standards and expectations, to support a variety of users within the communities. 3.5 The study seeks to provide some detail around options for long-term future solutions in both locations. 3.6 The study was prepared by an independent consultant firm, Caledonian Economics, and ran alongside the ‘Participation Request’ works being carried out by officers for the Luing Community, which also involved ferry provision. The Consultant considered previous reports carried out on both island crossings from the early 2000’s and looked to build a picture of the current service level to ascertain what changes, improvements and future requirements in each location might be. 3.7 As part of the study the Consultant ensured that the residents and users of both services were consulted to gather evidence on the current services and what potential improvements should be considered. A questionnaire was developed and issued via representatives of both local community councils. 3.8 This information, along with current operational and financial information was used to develop a range of options for the future of each crossing. High-level costings were developed for each option, based on a mixture of publicly available information, current market rates and recent council construction costs with a 40% optimism bias applied. 3.9 It describes: • Previous studies carried out along with other relevant local information, • Current situation including details of vessels, infrastructure and finance, • Multiple future options and public responses received, • Financial estimates of future options and a comparison of costs over the various life expectancies of each option, and • Recommendations for preferred options for each location. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The study provides an overview of past and current service levels and makes recommendations for the future infrastructure needs in both locations. It Page 56
Page 57
balances financial estimates with public opinion to suggest options that are available and viable for council purposes. 4.2 This report recommends that officers should now further investigate the recommended options including potential fixed links to replace both ferry crossings by preparing a business case for each location. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – None. 5.2 Financial – None. 5.3 Legal – None. 5.4 HR – None. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics - Vessel and Infrastructure accessibility (Equalities Act). 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty - Lifeline ferries with no other current means to travel to / from islands. 5.5.3 Islands - Education, transport, health, business. 5.6 Climate Change – Effect of increasing water levels and extreme weather events on the infrastructure and provision of service. 5.7 Risk - Vessel age and current infrastructure conditions. 5.8 Customer Service - Complaints about current service levels will increase as vessels age. 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - Education and social access to mainland facilities and services. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Councillor John Armour, Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services November 2024 For further information contact: Scott Reid, Marine Operations Manager scott.reid@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 57
Page 58
APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Mainland Ferries Survey Page 58
Page 59
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Argyll & Bute Council Mainland Ferries Study Page 59
Page 60
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Argyll & Bute Council Mainland Ferries Study Comparative Analysis of Options for Council-run ferries April 2024 Page 60
Page 61
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Introduction Argyll & Bute Council is responsible for four ferry services to Jura, Luing, Easdale and Lismore. Three of the four routes are operated using ageing vessels and none have any vessel redundancy. The services currently operate at a significant deficit with a Scottish Government settlement required to help bridge the funding gap. The forthcoming Islands Connectivity Plan (ICP) being produced by Transport Scotland seeks to address the future of ferry and alternative transport for Scottish Islands but excludes those ferry services operated by Local Authorities. This report seeks to address the mainland ferry services operated by Argyll and Bute Council. The Jura – Islay route is not considered in this report. This is due to separate legislation that covers this specific route which is set in a unique location and is subject to wider workstreams already in motion. The current Lismore service was initially considered within this report. The route is currently serviced by the newest vessel in the fleet, with a life expectancy of at least 15 years. There are issues with timetable provision which encroach on the operational performance, these will be dealt with through a proposed ferry user forum to be established. This report concentrates on the lifeline services provided between Luing – Seil and Easdale - Seil. Both services are supported by aging vessels and insufficient infrastructure which does not comply with current Equalities Act Legislation. This report seeks to provide further information on current services and offers potential future solutions in both locations along with information gathered via public consultation with local users. Page 61
Page 62
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Isle of Luing and Easdale Island Ferry Crossings Past, Present and Future 1. Background: Population trends and subsidies 2. Isle of Luing/Cuan Crossing: • Past and present • Options, analysis and conclusions 3. Isle of Easdale: • Past and present • Options, analysis and conclusions 4. Other Impacts on Public Services 5. Final Comments 6. Appendices 4 Page 62
Page 63
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Population Trends Argyll and Bute Population Forecasts (Source: National Records of Scotland) 5 79,500 80,000 80,500 81,000 81,500 82,000 82,500 83,000 83,500 84,000 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Argyll and Bute Population Forecast (2018 based, Source NRS) Population 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 to 15 16 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over Age cohort forecasts (2018-2028 Source: NRS) 2018 2028 The population of Argyll and Bute is forecast to fall and age Page 63
Page 64
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics 6 • School roll forecasts for Easdale and Luing were presented during the statutory consultation on the future of Luing Primary School. These indicate a similar picture of population decline • The population of Oban Lorne and the Isles is forecast to fall and age, following a similar pattern to Argyll and Bute presented on the previous page Population Trends Oban, Lorne and the Isles (Source: NHS Scotland) Page 64
Page 65
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) Study, Cuan 2007 STAG Options Appraisal for Cuan Sound Crossing – key points • Appraisal Conducted: Evaluation by STAG of the transport possibilities for the Cuan Sound crossing. • Options Considered: A range of solutions including high/low level bridges, a causeway, a tunnel, and enhancements to the ferry service schedule. • Identified Issues with current provision: Disruptions in the ferry service, insufficient capacity during peak times, limitations for large vehicle transport, constrained Sunday/evening services, financial challenges, high perceived costs, and limited access to Seil and the mainland. • Community Perspective: Debate on whether to retain and improve the current ferry service or construct a fixed link. • Excluded Options: low-level bridge, causeway, and tunnel options were rejected from initial list due to navigation, environmental, geological, and financial concerns. • Appraisal Conclusion: A detailed appraisal indicated that a bridge provides the most significant improvement in accessibility, benefiting social inclusion, economic gains, and local business growth. • Overall Recommendation: Advised building a high-level bridge for optimal economic and social advantages. Framework for Luing’s Future 2022 Isle of Luing Community Housing and Business Needs Survey Report 2023 Consultation overview: • Studies were carried out on behalf of the community • Involved residents (past and present), stakeholders and authorities Key Findings • Strong community interest in enhancing connectivity • Poor transport links are cited as a reason for people leaving the island • Request for more reliable and frequent transport links to support local economy and accessibility. • Plans to develop housing and expand the economy • Concerns about the current infrastructure’s capacity to meet future demands. 7 Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Past Studies Page 65
Page 66
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics • MV Belnahua provides all sailings. The Grey Dog and/or alternative vessel is hired in when MV Belnahua is away for her refits. • The service runs at an annual loss of around £366,000 (based on the 2023 Service Review), expected to rise to £470,000 as the vessel ages. • MV Belnahua was built in 1972 and is at the end of her reasonable and already extended life. Parts can no longer be sourced for her engines and work is required to bring her up to standard with current marine requirements. She is also operating around 25% above capacity to support demand, especially in summer. She is scheduled to have a life extending refit early in 2024 that will fit new engines and other compliant equipment such as fixed firefighting equipment and bilge alarms. This should extend her life for around 5 years but she needs to be retired. • Current plan is that a new vessel will be built for the Jura-Islay route which would free up MV Eilean Dhiura to replace the MV Belnahua. • This is currently unfunded so there is not a timescale for this. The condition of the MV Belnahua would dictate a maximum of 5 years to prepare the Cuan crossing in readiness for the MV Eilean Dhiura to use it, if it is freed up by then. • The gradient on the pier on Luing does not meet Equalities Act guidelines and there needs to be facilities for an overnight berth for the vessel. • Previous proposals suggested a new slip would be constructed to suit MV Eilean Dhiura. This would need be complicated by the need to operate the current slip until a new slip was completed. 8 Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Current Situation Page 66
Page 67
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Passenger/Vehicle Numbers (on basis of tickets sold) 2022/23 Actual HITRANS 2003 SPT Concessionary Travel 1044 Foot Passengers and drivers (single and return) 9,805 Foot Passengers and driver on 5-Return Journey tickets 5 x 2 x 2,453 = 24,530 Total Passengers 35,379 20,170 Private motor cars 3,276 Private motor cars on 5-Return tickets 5 x 2 x 1,406 = 14,060 Car Blue Badge 633 Motorcycles 52 Total cars and MCs 18,021 14,337 Commercial vehicles/coaches – 5-8m 484 Not availableCommercial vehicles/coaches – 8-12m 138 Commercial vehicles/coaches – 12-18m 5 9 • Passenger numbers increased by around 75% and private vehicles up 25% from 2003 to 2023 Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Ferry Services Data Page 67
Page 68
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Adult return Car return Commercial return Per STAG (Published March 2007 so data assumed to be from 2006) £1.45 £5.90 £13.20 (>3.5t) Current 2023 £2.50 £9.70 £17.10 (5-8m) % increase 72% 64% 30% 10 • A range of other tickets are offered in addition to those shown, including multi-journey booklets, concessions and children. • Price inflation for the period 2006 to 2023 was around 65% so the price of the basic passenger and car tickets appear to have kept pace with inflation. • The price of tickets for commercial vehicles seems to have lagged inflation although the basis of classifying commercials has changed from weight to length. • SPT concessionary travel is too small value to be claimed back Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Ticket Prices Page 68
Page 69
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics 11 • Option 1 – Operate MV Belnahua for five years, then open low bridge • Option 2 - Operate MV Belnahua for five years, then use MV Eilean Dhiura* for five years to the same timetable, then open low bridge • Option 3 - Operate MV Belnahua for five years, then use MV Eilean Dhiura* for five years with an enhanced timetable, then open low bridge • Option 4 – Operate MV Belnahua for five years, then open high bridge • Option 5 - Operate MV Belnahua for five years, then use a new vessel (hybrid-powered) for the remainder of the period of the analysis (with mid-term replacement) 1. Assumed no scrap/resale value for ferries 2. ‘Low bridge’ would be an opening bridge to allow vessels to pass through 3. ‘High bridge’ would have clearance for vessels to pass under * MV Eilean Dhiura currently operating on the Jura to Islay route and this option is subject to Argyll and Bute Council gaining funding for a replacement vessel for this route. Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Future Options Assumptions Page 69
Page 70
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics 12 • Net present value (NPV) using the Treasury Green Book discount rates is the correct metric to use for investment appraisal of this type. • Total cash is also shown for comparison. • Capital cost cashflows are assumed to happen in the first year of operations for the asset concerned. 30.0 34.3 35.4 49.5 84.8 22.9 22.7 23.5 38.8 50.6 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 Belnahua then low bridge Belnahua then E.D. same TT then low bridge Belnahua then E.D +TT then low bridge Belnahua then high bridge Belnahua then Hybrid Cuan 60 year cash and NPV, £M 60yy Cash 60yy NPV Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Options Net present value Page 70
Page 71
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics 13 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960 Cuan DCF £M Belnahua then low bridge Cumulative DCF/NPV Belnahua then E.D. same TT then low bridge Cumulative DCF/NPV Belnahua then E.D +TT then low bridge Cumulative DCF/NPV Belnahua then Hybrid Cumulative DCF/NPV Belnahua then high bridge Cumulative DCF/NPV Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Options Discounted cash flow • See Appendix 2.1 to 2.5 for details of how costing estimates were prepared Page 71
Page 72
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Support for a Fixed Link (Bridge or Tunnel): • Over a quarter of respondents expressed explicit support for a fixed link, either a bridge or tunnel • those expressing support saw benefits in terms of connectivity and ease of access for work, leisure and essential services. • There were few specific objections to a fixed link - more people would simply prefer an improved ferry service Support for Ferry Service: • Over half respondents expressed a preference for retention of the ferry service, • However, many are dissatisfied with the vessel, the reliability, and the level of service. • Commonly expressed views include a better vessel, an extension of the timetable, better links with other public transport, and reduced fares. Common Concerns and Suggestions: • Cost: A common theme is the concern over the cost of the ferry service and its impact on the island's residents, with suggestions for reduced fares. • Accessibility: Several comments mention the need for better accessibility, especially for wheelchairs and prams. • Timetable: Many residents express a desire for a ferry timetable that accommodates residents’ needs, including later services and better synchronization with buses. • Sustainability: Some responses highlight the need for sustainability, mentioning electric ferries and a service that doesn't rely on the ferry. • Employment: The ferry service is noted as providing local employment, which is valued. 14 Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Options Residents Survey Findings (2024) Page 72
Page 73
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Financial Analysis1: • a fixed link (low level) as soon as possible is the lowest cost in cash terms. • Using the MV Eilean Dhuira before building a fixed link (low level) adds around £4M to the total in cash terms, no material difference in NPV • Extending the timetable adds slightly over £1M in cash and NPV terms • Compared to a low level bridge, a high level bridge adds around £20M (cash) or £8M (NPV). A high level bridge would be preferable from a navigability and resilience perspective. • A permanent ferry solution is almost three times to cost of a low level bridge in cash terms, or around 1.7 times the cost of a high level bridge in NPV terms Community views: • There is notable dissatisfaction with the current arrangement • This is a general preference for improving the ferry service, although a significant number of respondents see real benefits in a fixed link • Few specific objections to a fixed link were raised. Next steps/way forward: • This is a preliminary analysis that could be expanded on in future studies. It is not intended to be a full options appraisal in line with the STAG and HMT Green Book methodologies, but it follows their principles and can be considered a starting point for full studies in the future. • There is no plan for the route beyond the life of the existing aged vessels (MV Belnahua and MV Eilean Dhiura). • Thus, a solution needs to be in place in five years (without Eilean Dhiura) or in ten years (if Eilean Dhiura becomes available) • The long-term options are either a new vessel or a fixed link. • The long-term costs of a fixed link are significantly less than a replacement ferry. • The community has expressed dissatisfaction with the existing arrangement. Some in the community would prefer to see this addressed by an improved ferry service, others would prefer a fixed link. • The community has plans to attract new families to the island and to develop the local economy, including reopening a quarry. Good transport connectivity will help these important initiatives succeed. • Either solution will require significant capital investment. A fixed link would provide a permanent solution at a lower cost, address many aspects of the community’s dissatisfaction with the current arrangements, and facilitate improvements in public service delivery. • Considering long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness, this study concludes that the preferred option from a technical and financial would be a fixed link. • It is recommended that these options be explored more fully including detailed technical appraisals, updated STAG study and relevant community engagement in line with legislation. 15 1 60-year comparisons Isle of Luing Cuan Sound Crossing Options Conclusions Page 73
Page 74
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Intentionally blank 16 Page 74
Page 75
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) study, Easdale 2009 Transport Options Appraisal for Easdale Island – key points (2009) • Appraisal Conducted: Evaluation by STAG to determine suitable transport options for Easdale Island. • Options Explored: Considered either an upgrade to the existing ferry service or the construction of a causeway with a fixed bridge. • Ferry Service Option: Found to be more cost-effective, aligned with transport objectives but would require additional infrastructure and presented financial risks for the Council. • Responsibility Transfer: Suggested that giving Islanders control could lead to better financial management and tailored services (although it was unclear if there was appetite or capacity for this in the community) • Causeway Construction Option: Better reliability and safety at higher cost. Would require an Environmental Impact Assessment. Community acceptance uncertain (presumably meaning that the community could block the development at the planning stage ) • Community Consideration: The causeway's benefits would depend on how much it is utilised by the island's residents (although presumably this would be at least the same as the ferry use) • Overall Recommendation: the study was inconclusive. 17 Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Past Studies Page 75
Page 76
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics • Per the Easdale STAG, the route is covered by MV Fladda and ML Easdale (relief vessel). • The service runs at an annual loss of around £290,000 (based on the 2023 Service Review), expected to rise to over £600,000. • No plans for changes/improvements until the results of this appraisal are available. • The harbour is owned by ‘Eilean Eisdeal’, the Easdale Island Community Development Group • Slipway is owned by Argyll and Bute Council • Easdale Island is privately owned. Owner was contacted for comment as part of this study but has not responded. • Ongoing dredging of the harbour at Easdale is undertaken by the Council if deemed necessary along with any routine repairs to both slips as required. 18 Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Current Situation Page 76
Page 77
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Passenger Numbers Easdale 2022/23 Actual1 HITRANS 20032 SPT Concessionary Travel 346 n/a Out of Hours (before and after midnight). Foot Passengers (individual single journeys). 10,690 Foot Passengers – travelling on 5-return journey books sold) 12,422 Freight Customers n/a Other (please specify) n/a Total Usage (individual journeys) 23,458 18,1723 19 1 ABC - Marine Operations Data Requirements v3 (17 July 23) 2 Strategic Sea Crossings in the Highlands and Islands: Development Opportunities 2005-2025, Nov 2005, Fisher Associates on behalf of HITRANS 3 a figure of 13,000 was given in the text of the STAG report • Use has increased by around 29% 2003-2023 Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Ferry Services Data Page 77
Page 78
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Adult return Car return Commercial return Per STAG (Published March 2009 so data assumed to be from 2008) £1.55 Passenger-only serviceCurrent 2023 £2.50 % increase 61% 20 • A range of other tickets are offered in addition to those shown, including multi- journey booklets, concessions and children. • Price inflation for the period 2008 to 2023 was around 65% so the price of the basic passenger ticket appears to have kept pace with inflation Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Ticket Prices Page 78
Page 79
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics 21 • Option 1 - Do minimum, continue to provide current service and replace vessels like for like - minor improvements to waiting room/staff accommodation • Option 2 - Replace the vessel with a Landing Craft-type vessel & minor waiting room improvements (with mid-life replacement) • Option 3 - Replace the vessel as above and build four breakwaters, relocate slipways, and provide new waiting facilities • Option 4 - Install fixed link (footway to take vehicles no larger than quad bike size) • Option 5 - Install fixed link as above with additional services Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Future Options Assumptions Page 79
Page 80
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics 22 39.4 44.2 83.7 7.3 11.6 25.3 28.5 67.6 6.9 9.6 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 Option 1 Do minimum Option 2 - Landing Craft Option 3- vessel + breakwaters Option 4 - Fixed link Option 5 - fixed link + Easdale Crossing -60 year cash and NPV cumulative(£M) Total Cash NPV @ 60 years Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Net Present Value • See Appendix 1.1 to 1.5 for details of how costing estimates were prepared Page 80
Page 81
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics 23 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 Easdale -Cumulative Discounted Cashflow (£M) Option 1 - Do Nothing Option 2 - Replace with Landing Craft-type vessel and minor waiting room improvements. Option 3 - Replace vessel as above and build 4No Breakwaters, relocate slipways, provide new waiting facilities Option 4 - Fixed link Option 5 - Fixed Link Plus Extra Support Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Discounted Cash Flow • See Appendix 1.1 to 1.5 for details of how costing estimates were prepared Page 81
Page 82
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Support for Improving the Ferry Service: • Residents prioritise compliance with legislation and addressing access issues due to climate change. Many called for a solution to the infilling of the harbour. • There is a desire for a ferry better equipped to handle a range of items, reduce manual handling issues, and improve accessibility • Several residents emphasised the need to retain the ferry service to preserve the island's character and prevent negative ecological impacts. Suggestions include better parking, improved ferry facilities, and enhanced welfare facilities for staff • There are calls for multiple breakwaters to be constructed to reduce weather interruptions, ensure safety and stop the problem of slate filling the harbour. Support for a Fixed Link: • A very small number express a preference for a fixed link to modernise access to the island, with one respondent specifically suggesting a bridge for its modern convenience and potential to enhance trade. Concerns and Additional Suggestions: • The concerns about infrastructure extend to the preservation of the island's ecology and the well-being of its wildlife, with some respondents worried about the introduction of invasive species if a fixed link were built (Responses #5, #57). • Residents express a deep appreciation for the ferry staff and the community spirit they embody, highlighting the social aspect of the ferry service. • There is an acknowledgment of the island's unique character and its appeal to tourists, which many feel would be compromised by infrastructure changes. • Financial sustainability of the ferry service was also mentioned, with suggestions for integrating ferry ticket costs into council tax for residents and increasing prices for visitors. 24 Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Residents Survey Findings (2024) Page 82
Page 83
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Financial Analysis: • In cash terms, a fixed link is a fifth of the cost of maintaining the current arrangement, around one quarter in NPV terms. • Continuation of the existing arrangement is around £5M cash (£3M NPV) less than replacement with a Landing Craft-type vessel with replacement at year 30. • In NPV terms the cost of creating breakwaters (with replacement vessels and slip upgrades to meet regulations) is ten times the cost of creating a fixed link Community views: • There is resistance to a fixed link • Concerns about a fixed link include ecological issues and fear of problems brought by visitors. • Residents express a deep appreciation for the ferry staff and the community spirit they embody, highlighting the social aspect of the ferry service. • The community values the island's unique character and its appeal to tourists. Many feel this would be compromised by a fixed link. Next steps/way forward: • This is a preliminary analysis that could be expanded on in future studies. It is not intended to be a full options appraisal in line with the STAG and HMT Green Book methodologies, but it follows their principles and can be considered a starting point for full studies. • The cost of maintaining the existing arrangement is unviable. • The costs of breakwaters are prohibitive. • The long-term costs of a fixed link are far less than maintaining the existing arrangement. • Considering long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness, this study concludes that the preferred option from a technical and financial perspective would be a fixed link. • It is recommended that these options be explored more fully including detailed technical appraisals, updated STAG study and relevant community engagement in line with legislation. • The communities on Jura and Ulva operate ferry services themselves, funded directly by central government. This is an additional option to consider for Easdale if the community were to present a sustainable and deliverable long-term business model. 25 Easdale Island Easdale Sound Crossing Conclusions Page 83
Page 84
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics 26 Intentionally blank Page 84
Page 85
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Waste Collection - Luing: • Currently a ‘narrow width’ refuse vehicle is used to provide waste pick up from Luing. The weight of the the vehicle and refuse is restricted by the ferry weight limit. The Council has a limited number of such vehicles which increases the risk of service interruption due to breakdowns. • A fixed link would permit the use of a standard-width refuse vehicle on this route. This would improve the volume capacity and would reduce the risk of service interruption due to breakdowns. Waste Collection - Easdale: • A fixed link would allow for easier transportation of the bins to Ellenabeich. This would support a more regular pickup, reducing the demand for storage space and reducing the pressure on public bins in Ellenabeich. • A fixed link along with some improvements to the footpath network may also support transport and recycling of heavier items such as white goods and building materials. School transport: • Luing – under the present arrangement, some pupils have to wait for the next scheduled sailing. A fixed link would remove this constraint. • Easdale – pupils sometimes must wait for space on the ferry, particularly during busier summer months when school is still in session. A fixed link would remove this constraint • In both locations – inclement weather can prevent the ferries from sailing, resulting in pupils being removed from school early to ensure they return home safely. A fixed link would reduce the frequency of these occurrences. • In both locations - families incur additional ferry fares to attend parents’ evenings after after-school events, and in some cases timetable restrictions may preclude attendance. A fixed link would remove these costs/constraints. 27 Impacts/Implications Council Services Page 85
Page 86
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Social and health: • Under the current arrangements, social and healthcare professionals are limited in their ability to provide care on both islands outside the ferry operating hours. • A fixed link would provide unhindered access to and from both islands allowing the same standard of at-home care as in Seil and the mainland. Blue light services: • At Easdale, an air ambulance is used for every medical emergency. The provision of a fixed link would enable the Scottish Ambulance Service to triage and send local ambulances to attend when it is more appropriate to do so. • At Luing, ferry staff are kept on standby to operate the ferry should emergency access be required. A fixed link would allow emergency vehicles to attend emergencies more quickly, especially during bad weather. 28 Impacts/Implications Social, Health and Emergency Services Page 86
Page 87
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Other potential impacts: • EV charging and utilities management – A fixed link would enable easier access for upgrading and maintaining essential utilities. This could include an upgrade to the electricity network which may be required to expand EV charging provision. • Plans for Quarry on Luing – Luing Community Trust plans to develop the quarry at Cullipool, reviving small-scale slate production, protecting the island heritage and ensuring traditional methods are passed on. A fixed link would support this by making it easier and less costly to transport explosives, plant and equipment, and slate exports to and from the island. • Housing – with a fixed link in place, the costs of transporting materials to Luing will be less and should result in lower construction costs. Similarly, a fixed link may also attract new people to the island, currently put off by the restrictions of a ferry connection. • In Easdale, the transport of goods would be unrestricted, making it easier to receive deliveries of cooking gas and fuel for power tools and similar needs. It may also reduce the costs of trade services such as electricians, plumbers, and other aspects of small-scale building projects. • Tourism – A fixed link to both islands may enhance tourism opportunities by improving connectivity, extending the tourist season, and providing opportunities for more unique attractions, which would further enhance the visitor experience. 29 Impacts/Implications Other Services Page 87
Page 88
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Luing Conclusions: • A fixed link (low-level bridge) is identified as the most cost-effective solution in the long term. A high-level bridge would provide navigability and resilience advantages. • The community shows dissatisfaction with the current ferry service arrangement, although there's a preference for improving the ferry service. • A significant proportion of respondents see benefits in a fixed link. Few specific objections to a fixed link were raised. • Considering long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness, the study concludes that a fixed link is the preferred option from both technical and financial perspectives. • It is recommended that these options be explored further, including detailed technical appraisals, an updated STAG study, and relevant community engagement. Easdale Conclusions: • The financial analysis reveals that a fixed link is substantially less costly over the long term than maintaining or upgrading the current ferry arrangement. • There is resistance within the community to a fixed link due to ecological concerns and the potential impact on the island's character. • A fixed link would resolve many issues related to service accessibility and reliability. • The community values the ferry service for its employment opportunities and the community spirit it fosters. • Despite the financial advantages, the community's preference is for improving the ferry service rather than establishing a fixed link. Impacts on Public Services in the Islands: • a fixed link could improve waste collection, school transport, and emergency services by providing unrestricted access and addressing the limitations of ferry services. • a fixed link could extend the tourist season and offer opportunities for unique attractions and new jobs. In summary, from a financial and technical standpoint, a fixed link presents a more sustainable and cost-effective long-term solution for both Luing and Easdale. However, community sentiment, particularly in Easdale, leans towards improving the existing ferry services due to concerns over the cultural and ecological impact of a fixed link 30 Final Comments Page 88
Page 89
Classification: OFFICIAL Caledonian Economics Appendices estimates/assumptions used in financial calculations (provided by Argyll & Bute Council) 31 Page 89
Page 90
Classification: OFFICIAL 32 Do minimum, continue to provide current service and maintain existing vessels– minor improvements to waiting room/staff accommodation Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Life span Staff costs £400,000.00 0 Annual vessel and infrastructure maintenance £240,553.00 0 Annual - cost varies Reset gabion baskets with imported fill * £100,000.00 0 10 years Dredging of Easdale Harbour £40,000.00 0 2 years Additional refuse collection costs £30,000.00 Annual Income from ticket sales £45,870.00 Annual Waiting room improvements ** £50,000.00 0 25 years Totals £690,553.00 £150,000.00 £45,870.00 Appendix 1.1 Easdale Options 1 Do Minimum – Cost Estimates • Staff costs include, 4 x skipper and crew, Technical Officer Ferries 25%, Admin Officer 15%, Marine Ops Manager 5% (includes pay, holiday pay, pension, training and Contracted staff costs) • Vessel and infrastructure costs based on average of costs incurred between FY's 2013 - 2023 includes for vessel maintenance, infrastructure maintenance, ticketing software, VHF licensing, crew PPE, safety checks, audits and inspections, CCTV, fuel etc • Income based on financial year 22/23 ticket sales • Annual dredging based on actual costs for work carried out in 2022 and 2024 averaged • * Gabions - based on estimate of 4,000 tonnes of granite material at £20 per tonne delivered and baskets refilled and rebuilt. Estimate 3-4 weeks work, 2 persons and excavator • ** Small sum for waiting/staff room improvements - details not determined Page 90
Page 91
Classification: OFFICIAL 33 Replace current vessels with Carvoria type vessel, minor waiting room improvements Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Life span New vessel costs *** £270,000.00 0 30 years Replacement vessel in year 30 £2,000,000.00 0 Amendments to existing pier to suit new vessel and Equality Act requirements **** £1,500,000.00 0 40 years Staff costs £400,000.00 0 Annual vessel and infrastructure maintenance £240,553.00 0 Reset gabion baskets with imported fill * £100,000.00 0 10 years Dredging of Easdale Harbour £40,000.00 0 2 years Income from ticket sales -£45,870.00 Waiting room improvements ** £50,000.00 0 Totals £680,553.00 £3,920,000.00 -£45,870.00 Appendix 1.2 Easdale Options 2 Landing Craft – Cost Estimates • Staff costs, annual vessel and maintenance costs, dredging costs, gabions, waiting room improvements and income as previous pages - does not allow for increased number of crew to provide more sailings than current timetable allows. • refuse collection costs removed - anticipated to be included in staff costs/time if this option implemented. • ***New vessel costs - assumption based on CMAL Carvoria vessel. Cost £200k in 2017 increased by inflation at 5% per year. New vessel anticipated life is 30 years. Alternative vessels may cost more • ****Existing slip improvement costs based on Iona slipway repairs at £650,000 for one slipway - doubled for two plus round up to include for additional costs to get plant/materials to Easdale Page 91
Page 92
Classification: OFFICIAL 34 Replace vessel as above and build 4No Breakwaters, relocate slipways, provide new waiting facilities Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Life span New vessel costs £270,000.00 30 years Replacement vessel in year 30 £2,000,000.00 Construction of new breakwaters £30,777,000.00 100 years Construct new slipways and additional infrastructure (waiting room/fuel store/path network on Easdale) £15,000,000.00 100 years Staff costs £400,000.00 Annual vessel and infrastructure maintenance £240,553.00 Income from ticket sales -£45,870.00 Totals £640,553.00 £48,047,000.00 -£45,870.00 Appendix 1.3 Easdale Options 3 Breakwater – Cost Estimates • Staff costs, vessel and replacement vessel costs and annual income as described in previous pages. • Breakwater volumes based on cross section area of 35m wide by 11m high with 5m wide flat top = 181m2. Length of breakwaters estimates as follows West (Seil) - 190m, West (Easdale) - 225m, East (Seil) - 160m, East (Easdale) - 105m - total volume 123,080m3 • Breakwater cost based on average of latest Iona Breakwater estimate at £225/m3 plus Dunoon breakwater in 2020 at £209/m3 - average cost used of £217/m3 • Anticipate constructing new slips to reduce commitment to dredge harbour (not A&BC owned) Seil slipway approx 80m long by 6m wide (480m2) Easdale slip 95m long x 6m wide (570m2) • New waiting room costs - £300,000 (based on Iona toilet block costs at £215,000) includes for additional pipe network or septic tank, upgrade of path network and new exclusive use fuel store at Ellenabeich. Page 92
Page 93
Classification: OFFICIAL 35 Install fixed link Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Life span Design and construction costs £4,760,000.00 0 Land purchase £2,240,000.00 0 Annual inspection and maintenance £5,000.00 0 125 years Totals £5,000.00 £7,000,000.00 £0.00 Appendix 1.4 Easdale Options 4 Fixed Link – Cost Estimates • Suggested design of short length of causeway to reduce span. Max span estimated at 70m to maintain access via sea for smaller vessels - suggest steel truss or composite beams. Bridge to be designed to suit crowd loading by pedestrians, cyclist and quad access. Max 4m wide with a parapet height of 1.5m, min design life of 125 years. Not suitable for vehicular access larger than a quad bike or similar. • Consider additional gate (perhaps coded?) on Easdale side for residents to manage night- time access. • On completion, structure will be added to existing bridge inspection and maintenance regime. (Assumption max £5k per annum, likely less in first 10 years of operation) • A&BC in-house design team may have availability to carry out design which may offer a reduced cost. Page 93
Page 94
Classification: OFFICIAL 36 Possible additional costs that could supplement a fixed link provision Annual costs Capital costs Annual income Life span Local Ranger Service (continues employment in area) £70,000 0 0 As required Provision of coin operated trolleys and trolley store for transporting heavy goods/luggage £6,000 0 15 year Provision of quad bike and training for operatives to move refuse bins £500/ year £8,000 0 20 years Improvements to bin storage area £10,000 0 20 years Appendix 1.5 Easdale Options 5 Fixed Link – Additional support - Cost Estimates • Local ranger service, providing local employment. Based on 2 x full time employees, with duties to include managing visitor behaviour, littering, car parking etc where feasible Could extended to wider community duties on Easdale, Seil and Luing. • Trolleys based on SBS Trailers marina troller. 10 @ £400 plus sum to create two trolley stores, one located near car park and one centrally on Easdale (Hall?) • Quad bike costs based on a £5,000 for Honda quad bike and trailer plus £1,000 for storage shed and £2,000 for sundry items such as training, PPE, etc. Annual £500 towards servicing, fuel etc • Sum for improvements, e.g. hardstanding, fencing, for bin storage area on Easdale Page 94
Page 95
Classification: OFFICIAL 37 Current service Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Life span Staff costs £450,000.00 Annual vessel and infrastructure maintenance £205,000.00 5 years remaining Annual costs towards bathymetric surveys and dredging £10,000.00 Income from ticket sales -£190,336.00 Totals £665,000.00 £0.00 -£190,336.00 • Staff costs include, 4 x skipper and crew, Technical Officer Ferries 25%, Admin Officer 15%, Marine Ops Manager 5% (includes pay, holiday pay, pension, training and Contracted staff costs) • Vessel and infrastructure costs based on average of costs incurred between FY's 2013 - 2023 includes for vessel maintenance, infrastructure maintenance, ticketing software, VHF licensing, crew PPE, safety checks, audits and inspections, CCTV, fuel etc. • Income based on financial year 22/23 ticket sales. • Annual dredging and survey costs based on percentage share of wider council framework contract. Appendix 2.1 Cuan Options Current service assumptions Page 95
Page 96
Classification: OFFICIAL 38 Replace vessel with Eilean Dhuira, same timetable Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Life span Staff costs £450,000.00 5 - 10 years Annual vessel and infrastructure maintenance £280,000.00 Annual costs towards bathymetric surveys and dredging £10,000.00 Income from ticket sales -£190,336.00 Minor amendments to existing pier to suit new vessel and Equality Act requirements **** £1,500,000.00 25 years Totals £740,000.00 £1,500,000.00 £190,336.00 Appendix 2.2 Cuan Options Assumptions Eilean Dhuira on current timetable • Staff costs, dredging costs and income as previous page. • Annual vessel and maintenance costs based on Eilean Dhuira costs in current location. • Slip improvements required for Eilean Dhiura based on Iona slipway repairs at £650,000 for one slipway - doubled for two plus round up to include for additional costs to get plant/materials to Luing. • Eilean Dhuira has 40 tonne capacity compared to Belnahua at 15 tonnes. Will allow larger vehicles access to the island to support community projects. • Eilean Dhuira replacement not anticipated in next 5 years, Eilean Dhuira will have limited life span at point of relocation. Page 96
Page 97
Classification: OFFICIAL 39 Eilean Dhuira with extended timetable – 2 additional crew members Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Life span Current staff costs £450,000.00 5 - 10 years Staff costs * 2 £175,000.00 Annual vessel and infrastructure maintenance £280,000.00 Annual costs towards bathymetric surveys and dredging £10,000.00 Income from ticket sales -£190,336.00 Minor amendments to existing pier to suit new vessel and Equality Act requirements **** £1,500,000.00 Totals £915,000.00 £1,500,000.00 £190,336.00 • Staff, maintenance, vessel and infrastructure costs as Appendix 2.1. • Assumed a minimum of 2 additional staff required to provide an extended timetable beyond current provision • Slip improvements required for Eilean Dhiura based on Iona slipway repairs at £650,000 for one slipway - doubled for two plus round up to include for additional costs to get plant/materials to Luing. • Income based on financial year 22/23 ticket sales. Potential additional income not predicted. Appendix 2.3 Cuan Options Assumptions Eilean Dhuira with extended timetable Page 97
Page 98
Classification: OFFICIAL 40 Replace with hybrid vessel, new slipways, extended timetable (more staff) Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Current staff costs £450,000.00 Staff costs * 2 £175,000.00 New vessel £17,220,000.00 New slipways and waiting room/crew room facilities at both sides £23,000,000.00 Annual vessel and infrastructure maintenance £10,000.00 Annual costs towards bathymetric surveys and dredging £10,000.00 Income from ticket sales £190,336.00 Totals £645,000.00 £40,220,000.00 £190,336.00 • Vessel costs based on MV Catriona, constructed in 2015. Unlikely this specific class is suitable for the route but provides a reasonable cost comparison for the construction of a hybrid vessel. • At least a minimum of 2 additional crew members required to operate a new vessel. • This option would require construction of new slipways, overnight berth and new waiting facilities. This is likely to require additional land purchase to complete. • This would present an opportunity to review fares and increase to reflect expenditure and increase capacity on the route. Income left at current rates for this report. Appendix 2.4 Cuan Options Assumptions New Hybrid Vessel Page 98
Page 99
Classification: OFFICIAL 41 Design and Build Fixed Link (High/Low level costs) Annual costs Capital costs Annual Income Life span Design and construction costs - low level £23,500,000.00 125 years Design and construction costs - high level £43,000,000.00 125 years Annual inspection and maintenance £5,000.00 2 x staff costs - options are possible ranger service for area if high level options selected or operators for low level swing bridge £70,000 as required Low Level Total £75,000 £23,500,000 125 years High Level Total £5,000 £43,000,000 125 years Appendix 2.5 Cuan Options Assumptions Fixed Link • High level bridge is anticipated to require meterage of new road on both approaches. New road would be twin track to provide optimum forward sight distance on approaches. • Low level bridge is anticipated to require a section of the bridge that will open to sea traffic. This will require a minimum of 2No staff members plus relief. • Any bridge would be designed to current DMRB standard for all classification of vehicles and be added to the Council’s bridge inspection list. • It should be noted that the existing roads in this area are reasonably weak and any solution that would likely increase the volume or load capacity of vehicles on the Islands of Luing and Seil may result in a need to invest further fund into the local road network to support usage. • This includes for both a fixed link or any replacement vessel with a great tonnage or capacity to carry more vehicles than at present. Page 99
Page 100
Classification: OFFICIAL 42 Option 1 2 3 4 5 Belnahua then low bridge Belnahua then E.D. same TT then low bridge Belnahua then E.D +TT then low bridge Belnahua then high bridge Belnahua then Hybrid Belnahua final service year 5 5 5 5 5 Eilean Dhuira first service year 0 6 6 0 0 Eilean Dhuira final service year 0 11 11 0 0 Hybrid Vessel Life Expectancy 0 0 0 0 30 Hybrid first service year 0 0 0 0 6 Hybrid final service year 0 0 0 0 36 Replacement Hybrid first service year 0 0 0 0 37 Replacement Hybrid final service year 0 0 0 0 67 Fixed link open (year 0 = never) 6 12 12 6 0 Select High Level (1) or Low Level (0) 0 0 0 1 1 Select Eilean Dhuira Timetable Current (1) or Extended (0) 1 1 0 1 1 Appendix 2.6 Cuan Options Assumptions Possible timings of option * Indicates year i.e. Year1, Year 6 etc. Year 0 = never Page 100
Page 101
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 19 DECEMBER 2024 20MPH SPEED LIMITS REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Earlier this year, Transport Scotland provided an update on the support they are able to offer to progress the 20mph speed limit project. This is a national aspiration but is being managed through local powers to amend speed limits rather than changing the national legislation. This approach, which is different from that taken in the Welsh project, is expected to allow delivery of speed limits appropriate to local context. Transport Scotland have confirmed the implementation date remains by late-2025, however, this is not expected to be the permanent Speed Orders but could be the “trial” period using Temporary Orders under s14 of the RTRA84. 1.2 This report provides detail on the support offered by Transport Scotland and identifies the additional resource required by the Network and Standards Team within Roads and Infrastructure Service to deliver the project. It further provides a link to the Scottish Borders Trial (Appendix 1) which gives further details and examples of the work entailed. 1.3 Network and Standards have secured funding (£78,000) for an officer for 12 months, from Transport Scotland, to deliver the project Recommendation It is recommended that Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee consider the detail contained within the report. Page 101 Agenda Item 10
Page 102
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 19 DECEMBER 2024 20MPH SPEED LIMITS REPORT 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Earlier this year, Transport Scotland provided an update on the support they are able to offer to progress the 20mph speed limit project. This is a national aspiration but is being managed through local powers to amend speed limits rather than changing the national legislation. This approach, which is different from that taken in the Welsh project, is expected to allow delivery of speed limits appropriate to local context. Transport Scotland have confirmed the implementation date remains by late-2025, however, this is not expected to be the permanent Speed Orders but could be the “trial” period using Temporary Orders under s14 of the RTRA84. 2.2 This report provides detail on the support offered by Transport Scotland and identifies the additional resource required by the Network and Standards Team within Roads and Infrastructure Service to deliver the project. It further provides a link to the Scottish Borders Trial (Appendix 1) which gives further details and examples of the work entailed. 2.3 Network & Standards have secured funding (£78,000) for an officer for 12 months, from Transport Scotland, to deliver the project. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee consider the detail contained within the report. Page 102
Page 103
4.0 DETAIL 4.1. The Scottish Government has committed to creating a healthier, greener and safer Scotland and, the introduction of 20 miles per hour (mph) restrictions can help to contribute to these objectives. By reducing speed on Scotland’s roads it is anticipated that street space can be shared more equally between different road users and create a safer environment, encouraging people to make active travel choices. 4.2. Currently, the speed limit for restricted roads in Scotland defaults to 30mph (unless otherwise amended by a Speed Order). This is set out within Section 81 of the Roads Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/81). A “restricted road” is defined within Section 82 of the Act; in Scotland this is where: “..there is provided on it a system of carriageway lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 185 metres apart and the road is of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers”. 4.3. In other words, the default speed limit applies, generally, where there is a system of street lighting present. 4.4. In order to deliver a National approach to the reduction of default speed limits to 20mph, the Scottish Government carried out a number of public consultations, including with local roads authorities. This has led to two options being developed for consideration, as: • Option 1 – amend Section 81 of the RTRA 1984 to make the default speed limit on a restricted road 20mph (this power has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament); • Option 2 – amend speed limits locally via speed orders (traffic regulation orders). This would be carried out by individual local roads authorities. 4.5. Both approaches have merit but also have some disadvantages. Table 1 below sets out the pros and cons of the Options. Table 1 Option Pros Cons Amend Section 81 of the RTRA 1984 to make the default speed limit on a restricted road 20mph Would deliver a national, simple approach with minimal burden on local authority staff resource and cost. Limits the ability of local communities to voice their views. Limited physical traffic management required, largely only requiring the Would still require local roads authorities to consider amending Page 103
Page 104
change of the posted speed limit signs. speed limits from 20mph to 30 or 40mph limits, as appropriate. The initial desktop assessment carried out by the external consultant, identified traffic calming measures to the value of £1.47 million. As the Scottish Government have not chosen this approach but instead opted to change the speed limits via local Order, Officers are of the view that this could lead to increased costs to ensure the outcomes are delivered. This cost does not take into account additional work promoting TROs in advertising as well as officer time in terms of measuring road lengths for schedules. Amend speed limits locally via speed orders Allows statutory consultees (for example, public transport, emergency services etc.) and the public to object to proposals. Has the potential to lead to an inconsistent coverage nationally, with each roads authority choosing to deliver what may be an unnecessarily wide range of approaches. Local roads authorities can design the proposals to best meet local needs and around local knowledge. Police Scotland could object to any part of any proposed Order. Although, in theory, Elected Members could overrule such objections; Page 104
Page 105
as the enforcing agency for moving traffic violations, Police Scotland may refuse to enforce restrictions. May demand a higher level of physical traffic management to achieve reduced speeds such as speed cushions, gateways, chicanes etc. This could lead to substantial cost increase over the initial estimate, the assessment of which was based in part on a change in the legislation from “default 30mph” to “default 20mph”. It is unclear if supplementary funding would be provided to the Council to support the desired speed reduction should additional traffic management measures be required. In addition to changing posted speed limit signs, repeater signs would also be required. This could potentially generate significant costs. This will require a significant specialist staff resource (much greater than current establishment) to manage the Order process. 4.6. In December 2023, the Scottish Government, via Transport Scotland, advised that they are pursuing the 20mph speed limit project via Option 2. The Scottish Page 105
Page 106
Government timeline for the implementation of 20mph limits is to complete the roll-out by 2025. This is an ambitious target. 4.7. The Council has previously completed and submitted the initial assessment of existing and proposed speed limits on its local roads. An external consultant (in consultation with local Traffic & Development Officers) carried out a desktop assessment on over 4,000 local streets across Argyll and Bute and the completed spreadsheet was submitted to the Scottish Government in summer 2023. The consultant post was funded by the Scottish Government (circa £35k) and the appraisal was carried out in accordance with the Place Criteria (Appendix 4 provides this detail) set out by the Scottish Government. Appendix 2 gives typical examples of four urban areas within Argyll and Bute where changes to speed limits are identified by colour coding. Similar assessments have been completed for all the 30mph limits across the council area. The final speed limits will be informed by consultation processed identified in this report under paragraph 4.12. 4.8. The initial desktop assessment carried out by the external consultant, identified traffic calming measures to the value of £1.47 million. This was based partly on the assumption that the default speed limit would be amended nationally. As the Scottish Government have not chosen this approach but instead opted to change the speed limits via local Order, Officers are of the view that this could lead to increased costs to ensure the outcomes are delivered. 4.9. In April 2024, Transport Scotland provided an update on the support they are able to offer and requested information on the Councils plan to progress 20mph speed limits within Argyll and Bute. Transport Scotland confirmed the implementation date remains by late-2025, however, this is not expected to be the permanent Speed Orders but could be the “trial” period using Temporary Orders under s14 of the RTRA84. The s14 Order should include all roads in a built-up area, as captured during the initial assessment exercise (examples as per Appendix 2). All bids were to be intimated to Transport Scotland by 11 October 2024. 4.10. The funding period is tied to the financial year April to March. Transport Scotland have previously intimated that the funding may be available for the following items (not exhaustive): • Funding for additional resource(s) to deliver the project. The officer will be limited to work on this project only. • Funding for communications (e.g. publications) can be bid for. • Funding available for the pre and post implementation surveys (traffic volume and speed collection). This is a large piece of work spanning the whole council road network but will be based on an ~10% sampling of streets to collect a representative benchmark. This is in accord with the national draft guidance and recognises the impracticability of surveying every street within any LA. • Funding may be available for software licences (for example, sign design, or traffic regulation order software). This would enhance our own software Page 106
Page 107
systems working in tandem but also provide software for future use at no cost to the Council (for example, TRO software or sign design software). 4.11. The current Network and Standards Traffic and Development team consists of two central officers, four area-based officers, a shared admin officers and the team manager. The remit for the team generates a significant workload and leaves little scope for an increase in demand, which this project would impose. It was, therefore, proposed to secure an external resource for this project and a bid was submitted to Transport Scotland for consideration. 4.12. Transport Scotland confirmed on 14 October 2024 that they were offering funding for a project officer up to £78,000 for a period of 12 months with an option for a 6-month extension (the award letter is appended under Appendix 3). The award is made based on the following outcomes: • Review the proposed speed limit plans across the network. This will include a review of and initial costings of signs, road markings and physical traffic management measures considered necessary to achieve the desired reduction in mean speeds (in accordance with the national criteria). This will identify any additional streets which should be included in the project but will also identify any other amendments (for example, 30 or 40 mph buffer zones). • Procure pre-implementation traffic and speed surveys. This will include a 10% sample of the identified streets (10% is the sample rate recommended by Transport Scotland). The same sites will be used for post- implementation surveys. • Produce schedules for the Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTROs) to implement the 20mph trial period. These temporary 20mph limits will be promoted under s14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. • Engagement: o Liaise with Community Councils and Elected Members. o Report the proposals to committee and, where appropriate, amend based on local information. • Amend the GIS mapping (completed through the previous desktop exercise) to reflect the agreed 20mph trial. • Assist the Traffic team in implementing the TTROs within 6 months of project commencing. This will include procurement of signs etc. • Analysis during the trial period, including feedback from communities, Members, business, and other relevant stakeholders. Where sufficient reductions in speed are not achieved, assessment of whether additional traffic management may be needed to highlight where speed limits should revert back to 30mph. • At the end of the 12 month trial period, produce the revised schedules for the permanent Traffic Regulation Order(s). Options for each road will be: o temporary 20mph speed limit is made permanent with existing signing and lining only Page 107
Page 108
o temporary 20mph limit will require additional speed management features in order to become permanent as existing mean average speeds are too high o temporary 20mph limit reverts back to a 30mph limit as road is not appropriate for a permanent 20mph limit. 4.13. In addition to this, within the original assessment submission to Transport Scotland, the Council estimated that ~£1.5 million would be required to fund the proposed physical traffic management measures. Transport Scotland have indicated that this is expected to be provided to the Council. Beyond this, however, if there is a need identified for further traffic management measures to achieve the desired reduction, a further bid would need to be submitted. In the case where no further funding was possible, the speed limits may need to revert to the previous 30mph restrictions. This is a key observation and needs to be highlighted throughout any future reports to ensure expectations are managed appropriately. 4.14. Overall, the project is expected to take approximately twenty-two to twenty four months from commencement. The first four months will include the review, engagement, pre-start surveys and finalising of 20mph schedules. The following twelve months (once the TTRO is implemented) will be the trial period where analysis will be carried out and proposals for the permanent TRO developed. During this phase, it is intended that any local issues will be ironed out, minimising the likelihood of objections arising during the permanent TRO public consultation period. The final 6 months will progress the permanent TROs; there are a few caveats to the timing: • If objections are submitted this may extend the six-month period. If this happens, we may need to apply to the Scottish Government for a six- month extension to the TTRO, or alternatively, revert to the 30mph speed limits. • If there are any objections submitted and not withdrawn (i.e. remain extant), then the TROs will be presented to the appropriate Area Committee for review and consideration as normal. 4.15. It may be of interest to note that in 2022, the majority of serious road casualties occurred on 30mph and 60mph roads. In built-up areas (“urban”), 51% of fatalities and 54.4% of serious casualties were pedestrians or pedal cyclists. Road Safety Scotland reports that hitting someone at 30mph rather than at 20mph increases the risk of fatality by seven times. Reducing speeds will protect some of the most vulnerable road users. 4.16. The proposed move to 20mph limits within urban areas is expected to deliver several benefits. Firstly, it may contribute to a reduction in incidents and their casualty severity. It may also create an environment which feels safer to those walking and wheeling and, subsequently, have a positive impact on Active Travel and the associated health benefits. 4.17. In regard to casualty severity, Members may wish to note that a pedestrian strike at 30mph is seven times more likely to result in a fatality that a strike at Page 108
Page 109
20mph. In addition to this, on urban main roads and residential roads, every 1mph reduction in average speed results in an accident reduction of ~6%. 4.18. Further consideration should also be given to the costs of incidents to the economy. The Department for Transport estimate the values assigned to the cost of road casualties and collisions in Great Britain, for use in cost-benefit analysis of the prevention of road casualties and collisions in road schemes. The DfT has also developed average costs for Fatal, Serious and Slight casualties for both urban and rural settings. These calculations consider all levels of casualty severity and includes both the human cost and the direct economic cost. This includes: • Human costs o Pain, grief and suffering to the casualty, relatives and friends o For fatal casualties, the loss of enjoyment of life. • Direct economic costs o Consumption of goods and services o Loss of production due to injuries etc. o Medical costs • Other costs o damage to vehicles and property o police and insurance Page 109
Page 110
4.19. The graph below shows the number of casualties by severity and speed limit for the period 2019 – 2023. The highest number of casualties are for speed limits of 30mph and 60mph (National Speed Limit). There is a higher rate of Serious and Fatal casualties where incidents occur within 60mph limits, understandably, however, the number of casualties within the 30mph limits is also significant. Based on the DfT figures (adjusted for Scotland), for an urban setting, the average costs for Fatal, Serious and Slight casualties are £2,441,020, £286,708 and £28,203 respectively. As the graph below shows, there are very few incidents within 20mph limits (albeit there are less 20mph limits currently in place) and the severity is also reduced. It is possible that the introduction of 20mph limits within current 30mph speed restrictions, could lead to a reduced cost to the local economy, alongside the reduction in the human costs. 4.20. Notwithstanding the above, RIS does not have the available budget to fund widespread physical measures (signs, chicanes, humps etc.) to support speed limit reductions. In the event that proposed 20mph limits do not achieve appropriate reductions and the Scottish Government is unable to fund traffic management, the speed limits may revert to 30mph (or other existing limits). The flowchart in Appendix 5 provides an example of this assessment may work. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1. It is recommended that Members consider the detail contained within this report. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – national aspiration but supports desired outputs of the Roads Safety Plan. 6.2 Financial – Funding is being provided by Transport Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government. No expectation of any impact on the Service Budgets. Page 110
Page 111
6.3 Legal – Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and associated regulations. 6.4 HR – none 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – no impact identified 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – successful project may lead to safer streets. 6.5.3 Islands – no impact identified 6.6 Climate Change – There is insufficient data to support a definitive statement but 20mph speed limits may reduce idling as traffic flows better but may also reduce particulates from braking as this is expected to reduce as result of slower speeds. 6.7 Risk – Not taking the project forward could lead to reputational damage to the Council as other LAs progress the changes. 6.8 Customer Service – Communications across the public domain will be an essential part of the project. 6.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – The reduction in speeds should make Roadspace safer for children, in regard to physical wellbeing (playing etc.) with lower speeds meaning they should be able to cross the carriageway more safely. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with overall responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Councillor John Armour, Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services 16 November 2024 For further information contact: Stuart Watson, Assistant Network & Standards Manager, 01546 604 889 Appendix 1 – Scottish Borders Trial Appendix 2 – Initial speed assessment outputs - examples Appendix 3 – Award letter Appendix 4 – Place Criteria from the Scottish Governments 20mph speed limit Road Assessments v4 Appendix 5 – Example assessment flowchart Page 111
Page 112
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 113
Appendix 1 - Scottish Borders Trial Links to Scottish Borders 20mph trial: • https://www.scotborders.gov.uk/news/article/4382/permanent_20mph_sp eed_limits_to_come_into_effect_from_16_january_2023#:~:text=Perman ent%2020mph%20speed%20limits%20to%20come%20into%20effect%2 0from%2016%20January%202023,- Published%3A%20Thursday%2C%2012th&text=The%20clear%20and% 20obvious%20safety,as%20of%2016%20January%202023 • https://scottishborders.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s60637/20mphtrialK eyResultsFinalpresentation.pdf Page 113
Page 114
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 115
Appendix 2 – Initial speed assessment outputs - examples Key Blue Remain 20mph (where “20s Plenty” these will become mandatory 20mph speed limits) Green Proposed 20mph Amber Remain 30mph Red Proposed 30mph Oban town centre Page 115
Page 116
Lochgilphead town centre Page 116
Page 117
Dunoon town centre Helensburgh town centre Page 117
Page 118
Page 118
Page 119
1 DG Net Zero / Transport Scotland Roads Directorate / Road Safety Policy E: Michelle.Little@transport.gov.scot October 2024 Argyll and Bute Council Ref: 20mph Speed Limit Implementation Offer of Grant for the implementation of 20 mph Speed limits. The Scottish Ministers in exercise of their powers under Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 hereby offer to fund Argyll and Bute Council (“the Grantee”) a grant of up to £78,000 Sterling, payable over the financial year 2024-25 in connection with the implementation of 20mph speed limits which is more particularly described in Part 1 of SCHEDULE 1 (“the Project/Programme”) and subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 In these Conditions, the words and expressions set out in schedule 4 shall have the meanings ascribed to them in that Schedule. 1.2 In these Conditions unless the context otherwise requires, words denoting the singular shall include the plural and vice versa and words denoting any gender shall include all genders. 1.3 The headings in these Conditions are for convenience only and shall not be read as forming part of the Conditions or taken into account in their interpretation. 1.4 Except as otherwise provided in these Conditions, any reference to a clause, paragraph, sub- paragraph or schedule shall be a reference to a clause, paragraph, subparagraph or schedule of these Conditions. The schedules are intended to be contractual in nature. They form part of the Agreement and should be construed accordingly. 1.5 This Agreement shall not be varied except by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. 2. Purposes of the Grant 2.1 The Grant is made to enable the Grantee to carry out the 20mph speed limit Project/Programme. 2.2 The Grant shall only be used for the purposes of the 20mph speed limit Project/Programme and for no other purpose whatsoever. Page 119
Page 120
2 2.3 No part of the Grant shall be used to fund any activity or material which is party political in intention, use, or presentation or appears to be designed to affect support for a political party. 2.4 The main objectives/expected outcomes of the Grant are: Project Officer for the assessment and implementation of 20mph speed limits for the Argyll and Bute Council local road network. Proposal is for the officer to be in post for 12 months with clause for extensions for an additional 6 months. The officer will deliver the following outcomes: • Review the proposed speed limit plans across the network. This will include a review of and initial costings of signs, road markings and physical traffic management measures considered necessary to achieve the desired reduction in mean speeds (in accordance with the national criteria). This will identify any additional streets which should be included in the project but will also identify any other amendments (for example, 30 or 40 mph buffer zones). • Procure pre-implementation traffic and speed surveys. This will include a 10% sample of the identified streets (10% is the sample rate recommended by Transport Scotland). The same sites will be used for post-implementation surveys. • Produce schedules for the Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTROs) to implement the 20mph trial period. These temporary 20mph limits will be promoted under s14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. • Engagement: a. Liaise with Community Councils and Elected Members. b. Report the proposals to committee and, where appropriate, amend based on local information. • Amend the GIS mapping (completed through the previous desktop exercise) to reflect the agreed 20mph trial. • Assist the Traffic team in implementing the TTROs within 6 months of project commencing. This will include procurement of signs etc. • Analysis during the trial period, including feedback from communities, Members, business, and other relevant stakeholders. Where sufficient reductions in speed are not achieved, assessment of whether additional traffic management may be needed to highlight where speed limits should revert back to 30mph. 2.5 The targets/milestones against which progress in achieving objectives/expected outcomes shall be monitored are: At the end of the 12 month trial period, produce the revised schedules for the permanent Traffic Regulation Order(s). Options for each road will be: A. temporary 20mph speed limit is made permanent with existing signing and lining only b. temporary 20mph limit will require additional speed management features in order to become permanent as existing mean average speeds are too high c. temporary 20mph limit reverts back to a 30mph limit as road is not appropriate for a permanent 20mph limit. 2.6 The eligible costs for which the Grant can be claimed are: Page 120
Page 121
3 • costs incurred for the delivery of the grant purpose • assets purchased for the sole purpose of delivery of the grant purpose 2.7 The eligible costs exclude: • any Value Added Tax (VAT) reclaimable by the Grantee • any employment costs arising from the Grantee’s legal obligations to its employees, for example parental leave, sick leave, redundancy. 3. Payment of Grant 3.1 The Grant shall be paid by the Scottish Ministers to the Grantee in accordance with the terms of SCHEDULE 1 attached. 3.2 The Grantee shall within 4 weeks following the end of 2024-25 fiscal year in respect of which the Grant has been paid and/or of receiving the final instalment of the Grant submit to the Scottish Ministers a statement of compliance with the Conditions of the Grant using the form of words provided in SCHEDULE 3. The statement shall be signed by the Grantee. 3.3 In the event that the amount of the Grant paid by the Scottish Ministers to the Grantee at any point in time is found to exceed the amount of the expenses reasonably and properly incurred by the Grantee in connection with the Project/Programme, the Grantee shall repay to the Scottish Ministers the amount of such excess within 14 days of receiving a written demand for it from or on behalf of the Scottish Ministers. In the event that the Grantee fails to pay such amount within the 14-day period, the Scottish Ministers shall be entitled to interest on the sum at the rate of 2 per cent per annum above the Bank of England base lending rate prevailing at the time of the written demand from the date of the written demand until payment in full of both the sum and the interest. 3.4 The Scottish Ministers shall not be bound to pay to the Grantee, and the Grantee shall have no claim against the Scottish Ministers in respect of, any instalment of the Grant which has not been claimed by the Grantee by 31 March of the applicable financial year as set out in SCHEDULE 1, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Scottish Ministers. 3.5 There shall be no employment relationship between the Scottish Government and any grant-funded staff. 4. Inspection and Information 4.1 The Grantee shall keep the Scottish Ministers fully informed of the progress of the Project/Programme in the form of quarterly reports along with any grant claim form . Details shall include actual expenditure to date compared with profiled expenditure and any change to estimated expenditure for the financial year and/or the Project as a whole, the reasons for any such changes and progress in achieving objectives/outcomes. 4.2 Revisions to targets/milestones against which progress in achieving objectives/outcomes are monitored shall be subject to the written agreement of the Scottish Ministers. Page 121
Page 122
4 4.3 The Grantee shall, on completion of the Project, submit a report to the Scottish Ministers summarising the outcomes and performance of the Project. Such a report shall include such statistical and other information relating to the impact of the Project as shall be required by the Scottish Ministers. 4.4 The Grantee shall also provide any other information that the Scottish Ministers may reasonably require to satisfy themselves that the Project/Programme is consistent with the Agreement. The Grantee shall provide the Scottish Ministers with prompt access to any information they reasonably require to ensure compliance with these Conditions. 4.5 The Grantee shall keep and maintain for a period of 6 year after the expenditure occurs, adequate and proper records and books of account recording all receipts and expenditure of monies paid to it by the Scottish Ministers by way of the Grant. The Grantee shall afford the Scottish Ministers, their representatives, the Auditor General for Scotland, their representatives and such other persons as the Scottish Ministers may reasonably specify from time to time, such access to those records and books of account as may be required by them at any reasonable time in response to a written request for such access from the person seeking it. The Grantee shall provide such reasonable assistance and explanation as the person carrying out the inspection may from time to time require. 4.6 In the event of the Grantee becoming aware of or suspecting any irregular or fraudulent activity that may have any impact on the Project/Programme or on the use of the Grant, or any part of it, the Grantee shall immediately notify the Scottish Ministers of such activity and provide such other information as the Scottish Ministers may reasonably require in relation to the impact on the Project and the use of the Grant. 4.7 The grantee shall immediately inform the Scottish Ministers of any change in its constitution for example, but not limited to, a change in status from one type of body corporate to another. 5. Fair Work First conditionality 5.1 The Grantee shall pay at least the real Living Wage to all staff aged 16 and over (including apprentices) who are directly employed by the Grantee and work in Scotland. Furthermore, the Grantee shall ensure that any UK-based workers aged 16 and over (including apprentices) who are directly engaged in delivering the grant-funded activity are also paid at least the real Living Wage, including, where applicable, sub- contractors and agency staff. 5.2 The Grantee shall demonstrate that all workers employed within their organisation have access to effective workers’ voice channel(s), including agency workers. 5.3 The Grantee shall provide any and all information reasonably required by the Scottish Ministers to satisfy themselves that the Fair Work First obligations herein, namely, to pay at least the real Living Wage and providing access to effective workers’ voice channels, are being complied with. Guidance is available to support the Grantee in meeting and evidencing these conditions. 6. Confidentiality and Data Protection Page 122
Page 123
5 6.1 The Grantee will respect the confidentiality of any commercially sensitive information that they have access to as a result of the Project/Programme. 6.2 Notwithstanding the above, the Grantee may disclose any information as required by law or judicial order. All information submitted to the Scottish Ministers may need to be disclosed and/or published by the Scottish Ministers. Without prejudice to the foregoing generality, the Scottish Ministers may disclose information in compliance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, any other law, or, as a consequence of judicial order, or order by any court or tribunal with the authority to order disclosure. Further, the Scottish Ministers may also disclose all information submitted to them to the Scottish or United Kingdom Parliament or any other department, office or agency of His Majesty’s Government in Scotland, in right of the Scottish Administration or the United Kingdom, and their servants or agents. When disclosing such information to either the Scottish Parliament or the United Kingdom Parliament it is recognised and agreed by both parties that the Scottish Ministers shall if they see fit disclose such information but are unable to impose any restriction upon the information that it provides to Members of the Scottish Parliament, or Members of the United Kingdom Parliament; such disclosure shall not be treated as a breach of this agreement. 6.3 The Grantee shall ensure that all requirements of the Data Protection Laws are fulfilled in relation to the Project/Programme. 6.4 To comply with section 31(3) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, the Scottish Ministers publish an annual statement of all payments over £25,000. In addition, in line with openness and transparency, the Scottish Government publishes a monthly report of all payments over £25,000. The Grantee should note that where a payment is made in excess of £25,000 there will be disclosure (in the form of the name of the payee, the date of the payment, the subject matter and the amount of grant) in both the monthly report and the annual Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 statement. 7. Disposal of Assets 7.1 The Grantee shall not, without prior written consent of the Scottish Ministers, dispose of any asset funded, in part or in whole, with Grant funds within 6 years. During that period the Scottish Ministers shall be entitled to the proceeds of the disposal – or the relevant proportion of the proceeds based on the percentage of grant funding used in connection with the acquisition or improvement of the asset against the whole proceeds. The Scottish Ministers shall also be entitled to the relevant proportion of any proceeds resulting from any provision included as a condition of sale. 8. Publicity The Grantee shall where reasonably practicable acknowledge in all publicity material relating to the Project/Programme the contribution of the Scottish Ministers to its costs. The Scottish Ministers may require to approve the form of such acknowledgement prior to its first publication. 9. Intellectual Property Rights 9.1 All Intellectual Property Rights are hereby assigned to and shall vest in the Crown or its assignees. Page 123
Page 124
6 9.2 The Grantee shall ensure that nothing contained in any materials produced or submitted to the Scottish Ministers by the Grantee or anyone acting on its behalf nor the reproduction of such materials, shall constitute an infringement of any third-party copyright or intellectual property right and shall indemnify the Scottish Ministers against all actions, proceedings, claims and demands made by reason of any such infringement. 10. Default and Recovery etc. of Grant 10.1 The Scottish Ministers may re-assess, vary, make a deduction from, withhold, or require immediate repayment of the Grant or any part of it in the event that: 10.1.1 the Grantee commits a Default; 10.1.2 the Scottish Ministers consider that any change or departure from the purposes for which the Grant was awarded warrants an alteration in the amount of the Grant; 10.1.3 the Grantee fails to carry out the Project/Programme; 10.1.4 in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion, the progress on the Project/Programme is not satisfactory; 10.1.5 in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion, the future of the Project/Programme is in jeopardy; or 10.1.6 in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion, the Grant is likely to bring the reputation of the Scottish Ministers into disrepute. 10.2 If the Grant (or any part or condition thereof) does not comply with applicable Subsidy Control obligations, Scottish Ministers may require immediate repayment of the Grant or any part of it together with interest at such rate and on such basis as may be determined from time to time in accordance with law. 10.3 The Scottish Ministers may withhold the payment of the Grant if at any time within the duration of the Agreement: 10.3.1 The Grantee passes a resolution that it be wound up, or a court makes an order that the Grantee be wound up, in either case otherwise than for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation, or circumstances arise which would enable a court to make such an order or the Grantee is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986. 10.3.2 Where the Grantee is an individual, if a petition is presented for the Grantee’s bankruptcy or the sequestration of their estate or a criminal bankruptcy order is made against the Grantee; or the Grantee makes any composition or arrangement with or for the benefit of creditors, or makes any conveyance or assignation for the benefit of creditors, or if an administrator or trustee is appointed to manage their affairs; or 10.3.3 A receiver, manager, administrator, or administrative receiver is appointed to the Grantee, or over all or any part of the Grantee’s property, or circumstances arise which Page 124
Page 125
7 would entitle a court or a creditor to appoint such a receiver, manager, administrator or administrative receiver. 10.4 In the event that the Grantee becomes bound to pay any sum to the Scottish Ministers in terms of clause 10.1, the Grantee shall pay the Scottish Ministers the appropriate sum within 14 days of a written demand for it being given by or on behalf of the Scottish Ministers to the Grantee. In the event that the Grantee fails to pay the sum within the 14-day period, the Scottish Ministers shall be entitled to interest on the sum at the rate of 2 per cent per annum above the Bank of England base lending rate prevailing at the time of the written demand, from the date of the written demand until payment in full of both the sum and interest. 10.5 Notwithstanding the provisions of this clause 10, in the event that the Grantee is in breach of any of the Conditions, the Scottish Ministers may, provided that the breach is capable of a remedy, postpone the exercise of their rights to recover any sum from the Grantee in terms of clause 10 for such period as they see fit, and may give written notice to the Grantee requiring it to remedy the breach within such period as may be specified in the notice. In the event of the Grantee failing to remedy the breach within the period specified, the Grantee shall be bound to pay the sum to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the foregoing provisions. 10.6 Any failure, omission or delay by the Scottish Ministers in exercising any right or remedy to which they are entitled by virtue of clauses 10.1 to 10.3 shall not be construed as a waiver of such right or remedy. 11. Assignation The Grantee shall not be entitled to assign, sub-contract or otherwise transfer its rights or obligations under the Agreement without the prior written consent of the Scottish Ministers. 12. Termination The Agreement may be terminated by the Scottish Ministers giving not less than 3 months’ notice in writing from the date of the notice being sent. 13. Corrupt Gifts and Payments of Commission The Grantee shall ensure that its employees shall not breach the terms of the Bribery Act 2010 in relation to this or any other grant. The Grantee shall ensure that adequate controls are in place to prevent bribery. 14. Continuation of Conditions 14.1 These Conditions, except for Condition 7, shall continue to apply for a period of 5 years after the end of the financial year in which the final instalment of the Grant was paid. 14.2 Condition 7 shall continue to apply until the end of the period referred to in that Condition. 15. Compliance with the Law Page 125
Page 126
8 The Grantee shall ensure that in relation to the Project/Programme, they and anyone acting on their behalf shall comply with the relevant law, for the time being in force in Scotland. 16. Governing Law This contract is governed by the Law of Scotland and the parties hereby prorogate to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts. If you wish to accept the offer of this Grant on the whole terms and conditions as set out in the letter and annexed Schedules, you should sign and date the Grant Acceptance below and return the offer of Grant and Schedules to me at Michelle.Little@transport.gov.scot You should retain the second copy of the offer of Grant and Schedules for your own records. Yours sincerely Michelle Little Road Safety Framework Policy and Delivery Manager Page 126
Page 127
9 GRANT ACCEPTANCE On behalf of Argyll and Bute Council I accept the foregoing offer of Grant by the Scottish Ministers dated October 2024 on the whole terms and conditions as set out in the letter and annexed Schedules. I confirm that I hold the relevant signing authority. Signed: «Director/Company Secretary/Authorised Signatory» Print Name: Position in Organisation of Person Signing: Date: Click here to enter a date. Place of Signing: Signed: «Witness» Witness Name: Address: Date: Click here to enter a date. Place of Signing: Page 127
Page 128
www.transport.gov .scot Classification: OFFICIAL SCHEDULE 1 PART 1: THE PROJECT/PROGRAMME Insert a detailed description of the project/programme including potential dates that funding will be requested and any particular obligations and milestones. PART 2: PAYMENT OF GRANT 1. The total Grant of up to £78,000 pound sterling shall be payable by the Scottish Ministers to the Grantee in arrears on receipt of a completed claim for Grant in the form set out in SCHEDULE 2 together with the associated monitoring information set out in paragraph 4.1 of the Offer of Grant. 2. The total Grant shall be payable over the financial year/s 2024 to 2025. The Scottish Ministers shall not be bound to pay any instalment of the Grant which has not been claimed by the Grantee by 31 March 2025, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Scottish Ministers. 3. The Grantee shall provide a monthly profile of expenditure of the Grant before the start of the financial year. Any change to the profile or to the overall costs of the Project/Programme shall be notified to the Scottish Ministers at the earliest opportunity via the claims for Grant and monitoring reports. 4. Each claim shall be for an amount equal to the actual reasonable and proper costs and expenses incurred by the Grantee in connection with the Project/Programme. 5. Each claim shall be submitted together with such explanatory or supplementary material as the Scottish Ministers may from time to time require whether before or after submission of the claim. 6. On receipt of each claim (and any required documentation and information), the Scottish Ministers shall determine the amount of expenditure which they consider the Grantee in connection with the Project/Programme having regard to that claim. The determination shall be based on the information provided by the Grantee in accordance with this Schedule. The Scottish Ministers shall use their best endeavours (but shall be under no obligation or duty) to pay the amount determined to the Grantee within 5 weeks of receiving a claim and any required documentation and information relevant to the claim. 7. In order to facilitate the accrual of expenditure of the Grant for the financial year the Grantee shall, where appropriate, advise the Scottish Ministers in writing by 15 April the amount of the Grant actually expended up to and including 31 March. Page 128
Page 129
www.transport.gov .scot Classification: OFFICIAL SCHEDULE 2 GRANT CLAIM FORM Organisation: Argyll and Bute Council Bank details: «Name and address, sort code, account number» Project: Implementation of 20mph Speed Limits Total agreed grant for: £78,000 Latest forecast of expenditure of grant for: 2024-25 - £78,000 Grant claimed to date: «Amount» Claim for Grant for the period from Click here to enter a date. to Click here to enter a date. or to Click here to enter a date.: «Amount» We hereby claim grant of «£ » in respect of the above period in accordance with the terms and conditions of the offer of Grant dated 14/10/2024 and the Schedules attached thereto. Completed by: Position: Contact Details: Date: Items of Expenditure Please list in the table below all discrete items of expenditure relevant to the above period and the type of documentary evidence that «X has been submitted» or «X will be made available on request» to substantiate each amount. A B C D Item Amount (£) Paid Invoice [Y/N] Other (please specify, e.g., certificate of payment in kind) TOTAL* * Note the total should add up to the total expenditure claimed for the period. Page 129
Page 130
www.transport.gov .scot Classification: OFFICIAL SCHEDULE 3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF GRANT Implementation of 20mph Speed Limits This is to confirm that the grant claimed by Argyll and Bute Council in relation to the above Project/Programme during the financial year ended 31 March 2025 was properly due and was used for its intended purpose(s) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Grant. This statement is supported by the records of Argyll and Bute Council. Signed: Name in block capitals: Position: Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 130
Page 131
www.transport.gov .scot Classification: OFFICIAL SCHEDULE 4 DEFINITIONS “Agreement” means the agreement constituted by the Scottish Ministers’ invitation to apply for a grant, the Grantee’s Application, these Conditions and the Grantee’s acceptance of these Conditions. “Conditions” means these grant conditions. “Data Protection Laws” means any law, statute, subordinate legislation, regulation, order, mandatory guidance or code of practice, judgment of a relevant court of law, or directives or requirements of any regulatory body which relates to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of Personal Data to which a Party is subject including the Data Protection Act 2018 and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the UK GDPR. “Default” means (in all cases by either party, its employees, agents or representatives): a) any breach of the obligations of either party under this Agreement (including, but not limited to, any breach of any undertaking or warranty given under or in terms of this Agreement) b) any failure to perform or the negligent performance of any obligation under this Agreement c) any breach of any legislation d) any negligence or negligent or fraudulent miss-statement or misappropriation of Grant, or any other default "Effective voice” means the dimension of Fair Work as defined by the Fair Work Convention in their Fair Work Framework and includes ensuring that workers are able to be listened to at both an individual and collective level, air their views and influence workplace outcomes. “Financial Year” means a period from 1 April in one year until 31 March in the next. “Grant” means the grant offered by the Scottish Ministers to the Grantee as specified in the Award Letter, as varied from time to time in accordance with these Conditions. “Grantee” means the person, organisation or body to which the Grant will be payable as specified in these Conditions. Where two or more persons, organisations or bodies are the Grantee, references to the “Grantee” are to those persons, organisations or bodies collectively and their obligations under the Agreement are undertaken jointly and severally. “Intellectual Property Rights” means all copyright, patent, trademark, design right, database right and any other right in the nature of intellectual property whether or not registered, in any materials or works in whatever form (including but not limited to any materials stored in or made available by means of an information technology system and the computer software relating thereto) which are created, produced or generated as part of the Project by or on behalf of the Grantee. “Project/Programme” means the purpose for which the Grant has been awarded as described in the Offer of Grant. “Payment” means each of the payments specified in Schedule 1 hereto. “real Living Wage” means the hourly rate known as the ‘real Living Wage’ as calculated by the Resolution Foundation and overseen by the Living Wage Commission, adjusted annually to reflect the cost of living. “Subsidy Control” means the United Kingdom’s subsidy control regime, as set out in, without limitation, the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and any other applicable law, statutory guidance, code of practice, judgment of a relevant court of law and international commitments on subsidy control arising from, amongst others, World Page 131
Page 132
www.transport.gov .scot Classification: OFFICIAL Trade Organisation Membership and international treaties and agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party, as amended or modified from time to time. “UK GDPR” means the retained EU law version of the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679) as it forms part of the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and as amended by Schedule 1 to the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/419). Page 132
Page 133
Appendix 4 – Place Criteria from the Scottish Governments 20mph speed limit Road Assessments v4 Identifying any of the following place criteria will help to indicate the 30mph roads which are considered appropriate for potential alteration to 20mph. The roads which remain at 30mph will typically be on A and B Class roads with little frontage activity and where people walking, wheeling and cycling do not need to share space with motor traffic. A minimum road length for the speed limit is suggested between 400-600m. The length adopted will depend on the conditions at or beyond the end points. a) Is the road within 100m walk of any educational setting (e.g. primary, secondary, further & higher education) b) Does the number of residential and/or retail premises fronting the road (on one or both sides) exceed 20 over a continuous road length of between 400 - 600m. Other key buildings should also be considered such as a church, shop or school. c) Is the road within 100m walk of any community centre, church, place of worship, sports facility, any hospital, GP or health centre. d) Does the composition of road users imply a lower speed of 20 mph which will improve the conditions and facilities for vulnerable road users and other mode shift. (reflect on future plans such as active and sustainable travel, places for people, consider existing and potential levels of vulnerable road users) e) Will the road environment, surrounding environment, community and quality of life impact (e.g. severance, noise, or air quality) be improved by implementing 20mph speed limits. Page 133
Page 134
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 135
Appendix 5 – Example assessment flowchart Existing 30mph where agreement has been reached to trial 20mph speed limit Carry out a pre- implementation traffic volume & speed survey Introduce 20mph trial speed limit After agreed “bedding in” period, carry out post implementation traffic volume & speed survey Using the speed limit +10% +2mph method, if the mean speeds are less than 24 mph, the 20mph speed limit can be made permanent. If the mean speeds are greater than 24mph but further funding is provided by Scottish Government to introduce physical traffic management measures which would achieve speeds less than 24mph, the change can be made permanent. If the mean speeds are greater than 24mph and no further funding is provided by Scottish Government, subject to agreement with the relevant Area Committee, the speed limit should revert to existing 30mph limit. Page 135
Page 136
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 137
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROAD & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 19 DECEMBER 2024 TRANSPORT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2019, PART 6 PARKING PROHIBITIONS UPDATE REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides Members with an update on the introduction of enforcement of the parking prohibitions contained in Part 6 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and seeks agreement to revise the timescales from December 2024 to 3 March 2025. RECOMMENDATIONS The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to agree the revised timescale from December 2024 to 3 March 2025 noting the amended process as outlined in paragraph 4.8 of the report. Page 137 Agenda Item 11
Page 138
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROAD & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 19 DECEMBER 2024 TRANSPORT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2019, PART 6 PARKING PROHIBITIONS UPDATE REPORT 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report provides Members with an update on the introduction of enforcement of the parking prohibitions contained in Part 6 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and seeks agreement to revise the timescales from December 2024 to 3 March 2025. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to agree the revised timescale from December 2024 to 3 March 2025 noting the amended process as outlined in paragraph 4.8 of the report. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 At its meeting held on Thursday 20 June 2024, the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee considered a report on the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019; regarding Part 6 of the Act, parking, double and dropped kerb parking prohibitions. 4.2 At the aforementioned meeting, the Committee agreed to:- i. the introduction of enforcement of the prohibitions set out in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, in relation to pavement parking, parking at dropped kerbs and double parking, to commence once the associated back-office system was upgraded, before the end of 2024; and Page 138
Page 139
ii. the creation of two new warden posts; one based in Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands, and one based in Helensburgh and Lomond, to support both the enforcement of the new prohibitions but also to enhance the capacity to enforce restrictions under the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime. 4.3 This report sets out the current progress towards the introduction of the enforcement regime and proposed intermediate steps. 4.4 Following the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) on the amendments to the back- office system (provided by Imperial Civil enforcement Solutions Ltd, hereafter “Imperial”), a number of required changes were identified and passed to Imperial for resolution. It is expected the amendments will be finalised within the system by week ending 22 November 2024. 4.5 Once the UAT has been closed, the Service will carry out a testing of the front- end modules (handheld devices etc.). This will include testing of Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) raised on the handhelds and printing of same to ensure the precise contravention code can be used and references to the legislation are correct (i.e. the PCNs reference the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and not the Road Traffic Act 1991 as is used for other parking breaches under Decriminalised Parking Enforcement). 4.6 The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 permits wardens to issue tickets for “drive aways” (where the driver moves off before the PCN can be placed on the vehicle or handed to the driver). Drive-aways will be posted to the keeper via the back-office admin staff instead of via the wardens. The issue of drive-away PCNs is not currently permitted under the Road Traffic Act 1991 and Imperial are currently reviewing their system to ensure that the system can progress these correctly. Once Imperial confirm this workflow is functioning, the Service will trial the full process. 4.7 Alongside the above testing, the Service is also progressing the recruitment of two new wardens posts. At the time of writing this report, the posts are currently advertised, with an application closure date of 22 November 2024. 4.8 System testing is still underway and not expected to be completed by the end of November 2024. In addition, the recruitment process is unlikely to be completed prior to the Christmas closure period. For these reasons, it is proposed the timescale is amended from end of December 2024 to 3 March 2025. The amended process will include:- i. Completion of front and back office system testing; ii. Provision of an FAQs page on the Council website; iii. Communications exercise, utilising the Councils website, social media and print media as appropriate (this will run for 2-4 weeks in January 2025) iv. Training, as required, for back-office staff and the warden staff on the use and requirements of the new prohibitions; Page 139
Page 140
v. During the communications period, the warden team will leave pro- forma letters on the windscreens of vehicles breaching the new prohibitions; providing information on the incoming enforcement; vi. On completion of the above, commence enforcement of the prohibition from 3 March 2025. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 This report provides Members with an update on the introduction of enforcement of the parking prohibitions contained in Part 6 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and seeks agreement to revise the timescales from December 2024 to 3 March 2025. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – May require process documents to be drafted but the Enforcement Chapters provide a good baseline for doing so, including several process flows. 6.2 Financial – There is a cost associated with two new wardens, however this is calculated to break even and will also support Parking issues elsewhere across the Argyll and Bute Area. 6.3 Legal – Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 provides local authorities the Power to enforce the prohibition but does not impose a Duty. 6.4 HR – none. 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – May provide better protection for those with mobility issues. 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – Successful implementation may lead to safer streets. 6.5.3 Islands – No impact identified. 6.6 Climate Change – N/a. 6.7 Risk – Not implementing the prohibition within Argyll and Bute may cause reputational damage to the Council. 6.8 Customer Service – Communications across the public domain will be an essential part of the project. The prohibitions may drive requests for service. 6.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – May provide increased safety for children. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Councillor John Armour, Policy Lead for Roads, Amenity and Transport Page 140
Page 141
11 November 2024 For further information contact: Stuart Watson, Assistant Network & Standards Manager Stuart.Watson@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 141
Page 142
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 143
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 19 DECEMBER 2024 ROADS RECONSTRUCTION BUDGET 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report provides an update to the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee on future forecast capital funding for roads reconstruction and improvements. 1.2 With the reduction in available capital funding it is expected that the roads reconstruction funding will be significantly reduced in the coming financial year. This will have an impact on road condition. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee consider and note the contents of this report including the allocation of the provisional budget set out in the table at paragraph 3.6. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 Argyll and Bute’s road network has improved over the last decade likely as a result from prudent investment of capital funding. Figure 1 below details the Road Condition Index (RCI) which is measured by a survey method used by all 32 Scottish Councils. The RCI value represents the percentage of roads requiring treatment, the lower the number the better condition the road network is in. Without the capital investment over the last decade or so the condition of our roads would have deteriorated significantly. Figure 1 – Road Condition Index (RCI) Page 143 Agenda Item 12
Page 144
55.6 54.4 55.3 55.5 54.4 54.2 54.2 49.8 49.79 49.79 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 RCI 3.2 The Scottish Collaboration of Transportation Specialists (SCOTS) Headline Maintenance Backlog figure is calculated every two years using road condition data collected via the Scottish Road Maintenance Condition Survey (SRMCS). The calculation uses surveyed condition data with a surfacing treatment matrix and national average unit rates to determine the extent of surfacing maintenance required to bring whole network surface to an ‘A1’ condition with no defects. The value of backlog maintenance for Argyll and Bute’s Road Network is £122.5M. Whilst the backlog figure is useful to help understand current road condition and the magnitude of making significant improvements there needs to be a realistic appreciation that fully funding and therefore having a network in A1 condition is not affordable or achievable. 3.3 The recent investment has been an average of £7.2M per year which includes welcomed capital investment from council funds and some external funding. The broad strategy followed to achieve the modest but steady improved Road Condition Index (RCI) comes from the council agreed Road Maintenance and Management Strategy. This strategy being based on well-maintained Highways which is a nationally recognised document focusing on sustainable road maintenance. Table 1 – Capital Investment to date Fin.Year Annual "Budget" Capital Invest. STTS Other Comment 2011-12 £5,147,793 £4,295,000 £852,793 2012-13 £8,706,321 £8,137,000 £569,321 2013-14 £8,012,160 £6,165,640 £599,909 £1,246,611 add Cap 2014-15 £6,922,089 £6,822,000 £100,089 2015-16 £4,440,987 £4,367,487 £73,500 2016-17 £4,693,612 £4,616,612 £77,000 2017-18 £3,616,443 £3,000,000 £616,443 2018-19 £9,747,042 £8,382,000 £1,365,042 2019-20 £7,867,469 £6,243,388 £1,624,081 2020-21 £6,918,222 £4,828,509 £1,255,568 £834,145 add Cap - Covid Deferred 2021-22 £10,809,462 £6,900,000 £1,299,462 £2,610,000 add Cap - Incl. Covid c/o 2022-23 £9,354,571 £8,096,126 £958,445 £300,000 Coastal Communities. 2023-24 £7,401,608 £7,014,264 £387,344 TOTAL £93,637,779 £78,868,025 £9,778,997 £4,990,756 2011 -2024 £7,202,906 Average annual investment - Roads reconstruction and re-surfacing ROAD RE-CONSTRUCTION AND RE-SURFACING BUDGETS 2011-2024 Page 144
Page 145
3.4 The level of Capital funding available for 2025/26 previously agreed as part of the 3 year capital plan is £3.628M for all the activities carried out by Roads and Infrastructure, other than externally grant funded activity and piers and harbours investment. The latter of which is generally funded through prudential borrowing with loans charges being serviced from revenue generated from marine fees and charges. It should be noted that there are restrictions under Harbour legislation which limits the use of harbour generated income. 3.5 The £3.628M mentioned above covers capital investment for roads reconstruction, vehicle replacement, coastal protection, grounds and cemeteries, flooding, bridge replacement, lighting and other investment streams. It is estimated that, based on the £3.628M block allocation, that only around £2M would be available for roads reconstruction works, with other funding being used to cover other capital demands across the RIS portfolio. 3.6 It is proposed that the breakdown of the £3.628M capital block is distributed across the Roads and Infrastructure Services as set out in the table below. Activity Budget Allocation Coastal Protection £0.426M Flood Protection/Climate Change £0.426M Vehicles and Plant £0.426M Cemeteries, Playing Fields and Open Spaces £0.1M Bridges, Structures and Culverts £0.25M Roads Reconstruction £2M Total £3.628M 3.7 Officers have worked up different investment scenarios for roads reconstruction based on £2M, £3.5M, £5M and £8M investment. From the budget allocation and forecasts it is anticipated that the actual available funding will be at the lower end of the scale of the scenarios. Lower levels of investment will inevitably mean that there is less work carried out and that type of work is likely to differ based on ensuring that best value can be achieved from the available funding. This will generally result in thin surface treatments such as surface dressing, right first time patching and only limited opportunity for inlay and overlay resurfacing (traditional full road width resurfacing with hot material). The lower level of funding will not support many traditional overlays and inlay. Table 2 below provides an illustration of what each of the investment levels is likely to deliver. This is very much indicative to illustrate that the likely treatments deliverable at the different levels of funding, funding levels, winter deterioration, RCI etc. would determine an actual programme. Table 2 - different funding scenarios and what this could deliver Value of Investment Typical works affordable Impact on road condition – see also graph of an illustration of deterioration Page 145
Page 146
£2M • Localised surface dressing to seal and bind the road surface • Jet patcher repairs • Right first time structural patching • Limited overlay and inlay works Significant Deterioration £3.5M As above with the addition of: • Larger surface dressing schemes • Small increase in overlay and inlay works Deterioration £5M As above with the addition of: • Larger surface dressing schemes • Greater increase in overlay and inlay works Deterioration £8M As above with the addition of: • Larger surface dressing schemes • Significantly more overlay and inlay works Slight deterioration 3.8 The modelling for future years RCI based on different investment scenarios is illustrated in Figure 2 below. It should be noted that these figures are based on a model and may change based on vehicular volumes, weather conditions, climate change etc. From the model projections we can see that: • £8M investment will see a slight deterioration, this investment level previously having been sufficient to achieve a marginal improvement/steady state. Inflationary increases mean that we now get less for our pound and the £8M investment is insufficient to hold a steady state condition. • Deterioration is increasing as the funding for each scenario reduces. The model forecasts up to over a 12% RCI reduction based on £2M per year investment over a 7 year period. Figure 2 projected RCI condition based on investment levels Page 146
Page 147
40.00% 45.00% 50.00% 55.00% 60.00% 65.00% 2023/25 2024/26 2025/27 2026/28 2027/29 2028/30 2029/31 2030/32 All Roads RCI Projection Current £2M £3.5M £5M £8M 3.9 It also worthy of note that as capital reduces and road condition deteriorates there will be a corresponding increase in revenue expenditure due to an increase in responses to deteriorating road condition through pot holes and larger sections of surface failure. 3.10 Capital and Revenue programmes will continue to be delivered side by side allowing a holistic view of roads maintenance to be applied whilst ensuring that capital monies are invested within the permitted parameters expected by Audit Scotland. As capital funds reduce it will be increasingly important that this holistic approach is taken with some activities potentially being stopped to enable an investment strategy which focuses on minimising network deterioration – this may differ from location to location e.g. peat founded roads may have a different approach to other locations, rock face and slope stability may be a focus in other areas etc. 3.11 A significantly reduced capital budget will result in smaller areas of carriageway being treated with planned structural patching, surface sealing etc. being the primary treatments carried out. The exact locations and the treatment types likely to be largely determined by a combination of winter deterioration and RCI scoring. 3.12 The works delivered by national suppliers and SMEs will reduce with the majority of works being delivered in house. There is a core workforce of 82 road workers supplemented with staff from the wider operations team in refuse, grounds and cemeteries required in order to deliver winter maintenance. These numbers, particularly for HGV drivers is already below the optimum with third party suppliers being used to ensure resilience and service delivery. Figure 3 below details the model used by RIS to deliver many activities. As funding levels reduce so will the amount of work delivered by both SMEs and national contractors with a greater proportion of works being delivered in house. The staff that carry out resurfacing works and road works through the summer months are essentially the same staff who carry out winter maintenance (pre-treatment, snow and ice clearance) with additional staff being deployed from Grounds and Refuse Collection. With a reduction is capital funding, the amount of road works carried out will reduce with a Page 147
Page 148
corresponding reduction in staffing numbers. Delivering the bulk of a reduced capital roads service in house will help to preserve staffing levels required for the winter function, this being subject to achieving good value. Figure 3 Mixed economy model 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 Contained within this report is a summary of the reduced amount of roads reconstruction work as a result of significantly reducing capital funds. The reduced funding will result in a deterioration to our road condition which in turn will increase the demand on reactive repairs to pot holes and other surface defects. Signage is anticipated warning of uneven road surfaces and in extreme circumstances roads may need to be temporarily closed if deemed unsafe to use. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – As per the Roads Management and Maintenance Strategy 2012 and the Roads Asset Management Plan 5.2 Financial – agreed and projected future capital budgets are a significant reduction on recent years’ investment. Reduced investment is expected to increase reactive revenue spend in order to keep the road network safe. 5.3 Legal – the Council has duty under Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to maintain the road network in a safe condition. 5.4 HR – None known. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: None known. 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – None known. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty: None known. 5.5.3 Islands – None known. 5.6 Climate Change – we have seen over recent years an increase in damage to the road network, much of which can be attributed to climate change 5.7 Risk – reduced capital investment will result in a deterioration of the road network likely to result in an increase in safety related defects occurring. Page 148
Page 149
5.8 Customer Service – deteriorating road network is likely to increase complaints and third party insurance claims 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – None known Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure, Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads, Amenity and Transport, Councillor John Armour November 2024 For further information contact: Hugh O’Neill, Network and Standards Manager hugh.oneill@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 149
Page 150
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 151
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 19 DECEMBER 2024 DRAFT ACTIVE TRAVEL STRATEGY FOR CONSULTATION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. This report requests member approval for progressing to consultation on the draft of the Council’s Active Travel Strategy. The draft Active Travel Strategy has been developed by Officers as instructed by this Committee on 01 June 2023. Consultation is a key step in the process set out by Transport Scotland for development of an Active Travel Strategy. 1.2. The Active Travel Strategy sets out the Council’s vision and strategy to increase opportunities for residents and visitors to choose to make journeys by physically active means, for example walking or cycling. This will establish the context for the future development of plans for infrastructure to enable and encourage active travel, as well as behaviour change programmes to encourage uptake. 1.3. The subsidiary Active Travel Development Plan will set out a prioritised set of actions for both infrastructure and behaviour change projects. The prioritisation will apply the strategic context set in the Active Travel Strategy to a specific set of deliverable projects to ensure the principles established in the Active Travel Strategy are delivered on the ground. It is planned to present the Active Travel Development Plan to area committees for member input at the appropriate point in development. 1.4. The Scottish Government has committed to national funding for active travel to expedite delivery of new active travel infrastructure and behaviour change projects. However, opportunities to secure a share of this funding now require Local Authorities to demonstrate a relevant and up to date Active Travel Strategy and Delivery Plan as one of the key criteria, a requirement which we understand from Transport Scotland is planned to continue. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: i. Consider and approve the draft Active Travel Strategy (Appendix 1) for a period of consultation. ii. Instruct Officers to provide a further report to EDI on completion of the consultation for members to consider and approve. Page 151 Agenda Item 13
Page 152
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 19 DECEMBER 2024 DRAFT ACTIVE TRAVEL STRATEGY FOR CONSULTATION 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1. The Active Travel Strategy sets out the Council’s vision and strategy to increase opportunities for residents and visitors to choose to make journeys by physically active means, for example walking or cycling. This will establish the context for the future development of plans for infrastructure to enable and encourage active travel, as well as behaviour change programmes to encourage uptake. 2.2. A key stage in the process set out by Transport Scotland for development of an Active Travel Strategy is to undertake a consultation on the proposed strategy with key stakeholders including Regional Transport Partnerships, neighboring authorities, and statutory consultees; the wider communities and businesses in the area, and other interested parties. 2.3. Following approval of a final Active Travel Strategy a subsidiary Active Travel Development Plan will be developed to set out a prioritised set of actions for both infrastructure and behaviour change projects. The prioritisation will apply the strategic context set in the Active Travel Strategy to a specific set of deliverable projects to ensure the principles established in the Active Travel Strategy are delivered on the ground. It is planned to present the Active Travel Development Plan to area committees for member input at the appropriate point in development. 2.4. The Scottish Government has committed to national funding for active travel to expedite delivery of new active travel infrastructure and behaviour change projects. However, opportunities to secure a share of this funding now require Local Authorities to demonstrate a relevant and up to date Active Travel Strategy and Delivery Plan as one of the key criteria, a requirement which we understand from Transport Scotland is planned to continue. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1. It is recommended that Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: i. Consider and approve the draft Active Travel Strategy (Appendix 1) for a period of consultation. Page 152
Page 153
ii. Instruct Officers to provide a further report to EDI on completion of the consultation for members to consider and approve. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1. The Strategic Transportation Team has successfully secured £9.4M external funding over the past 5 years to develop active travel across Argyll and Bute. Additionally, the staff costs of the 1.7 FTE staff in the team working on active travel are funded via successfully securing highly competitive external challenge funds. 4.2. The Scottish Government has committed to national funding for active travel to expedite delivery of high quality active travel infrastructure. However, opportunities to secure a share of this funding require Local Authorities to demonstrate a relevant and up to date Active Travel Strategy (ATS) as one of the key criteria, a requirement which we understand from Transport Scotland is expected to continue. 4.3. An increasing number of other active travel funding sources are requiring evidence of a robust, relevant and up to date ATS as part of the application process to these highly competitive challenge funds. Transport Scotland, where most active travel funding conduits originally derive from, has stated they require all their funds criteria to require an up-to-date, adopted ATS and Delivery Plan prior to approving future funding applications. To continue to secure external active travel funding, Argyll and Bute Council is now required to develop and adopt an ATS and subsidiary Active Travel Delivery Plan (ATDP). External funding secured for active travel works cannot be used for any other purpose. 4.4. The ATS sets out the Council’s vision and strategy to increase opportunities for residents and visitors to choose to make journeys by physically active means, for example walking or cycling, and set out clear objectives for success. This will establish the context for the subsequent development of an ATDP which will establish a prioritised programme of infrastructure and behaviour change programmes to enable and encourage uptake of active travel. 4.5. Community consultation and engagement is a key element of development of a robust ATS and ATDP. This will provide our communities, residents and businesses with the opportunity to input to the development of the Strategy and guide the forms of active travel interventions which their communities require in future. 4.6. The guidance on development of an ATS also stipulates that key stakeholders should also be consulted including Regional Transport Partnerships, neighboring authorities, statutory consultees and other interested groups. 4.7. Should members approve progression to consultation on the draft plan, Officers will work with the Communications Team, Communities Team and external partners to promote the consultation to as wide an audience as possible. On completion of the consultation, any necessary amendments will be made to the draft ATS prior to returning to members of final approval. Page 153
Page 154
4.8. Funding to support staff time to develop an ATS and ATDP is planned to be secured from external sources. Most external active travel funding sources operate on an annual basis and it is expected separate funding will require to be identified for each financial year, albeit potentially from the same source. 4.9. Active travel supports delivery of a range of outcomes. The main of these are identified below:- • Argyll and Bute Outcomes Improvement Plan (ABOIP) - Transport Infrastructure improvements priority • ABOIP - Community Wellbeing priority • Climate Emergency Declaration 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1. The development and adoption of a robust ATS and subsidiary ATDP will provide a basis for development of active travel projects to support our residents and visitors to choose actively, supporting improved health, access to services and economic development. 5.2. As an increasingly requested requirement for access to external funds for active travel, the adoption of an ATS and ATDP will enable continued successful securing of funding to improve our communities. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1. Policy - Development of an Active Travel Strategy will support the Council’s ABOIP: Transport Infrastructure and Community Wellbeing priorities; 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 of an Active Travel Strategy will not require any financial support from Argyll and Bute Council. Costs will be funded from external funding sources that can only be used for active travel investment. 6.3. Legal – None. 6.4. HR – None. 6.5. Fairer Scotland Duty 6.5.1. Equalities – The final Active Travel Strategy will be accompanied by a socio and economic impact assessment. 6.5.2. Socio-economic Duty – Creation of an Active Travel Strategy will support development of projects to enable our residents and visitors to travel more sustainably and actively which will help reduce transport and fuel poverty and improve access to essential services. Evidence indicates individuals who choose to travel actively have a higher annual spend in local businesses. Page 154
Page 155
6.5.3. Islands – The Active Travel Strategy will include all islands within Argyll and Bute on an equal basis as the mainland. 6.6. Climate Change – Active Travel is the least carbon intensive mode of travel. The Active Travel Strategy will provide the context for development of new opportunities for residents and visitors to consider an alternative to having to use a private car to travel which will help lower Argyll and Bute’s carbon footprint. 6.7. Risk – There is a reputational risk to the Council if continued improvements to opportunities to choose to travel actively are not delivered. 6.8. Customer Service – None arising from this report. 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 stronger support for the delivery walking and cycling infrastructure from younger members of the community than the average level of community support. Wider 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, Transport and Amenity Services: Councillor John Armour 12 November 2024 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: draft Active Travel Strategy for consultation Page 155
Page 156
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 157
1 Argyll and Bute Council Active Travel Strategy Draft for Comment Page 157
Page 158
2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction…………………………………………………… Page 3 2. Vision……………………………………………………………. Page 3 3. Aim………………………………………………………………..Page 4 4. Objectives……………………………………………………… Page 4 5. Argyll and Bute………………………………………………… Page 7 6. Relevant Guidance/Documents………………………….. Page 9 7. What Is Active Travel…………………………………………. Page 11 8. Why Promote active travel…………………………………. Page 11 9. Why do we need an Active Travel Strategy…………….. Page 12 10. Infrastructure…………………………………………………… Page12 11. Design Standards……………………………………………… Page 15 12. Behaviour Change…………………………………………….. Page 16 13. Prioritising Options……………………………………………. Page 17 Page 158
Page 159
3 1. Introduction Argyll and Bute will provide genuine commitment and leadership to invest in and maintain an accessible, convenient, safe, inclusive, well-designed and resilient high quality active travel network. Embedded in our towns, villages and rural settlements, the network will be shaped around people to deliver opportunities to all our residents, businesses, communities and visitors to choose to travel actively as their first and natural choice. Active travel will improve access to essential services, employment and education to support the local economy to thrive, and enable more prosperous, accessible, healthier, fairer and sustainable communities which offer a high quality of life. Integration of active travel into the public transport network will help connect all communities, ensuring social inclusion and reducing transport poverty. Residents and communities will feel empowered to help plan and deliver solutions to put people before the private car, while ensuring access is retained for all. Promotion of active travel opportunities and benefits will support modal shift to help achieve the Council’s climate change objectives and improve access to the natural environment, whilst education of users will encourage mutual respect between everyone to improve safety, particularly where the network interacts with motor vehicles. This Strategy establishes a long-term, high level direction of travel to provide the context and reasons for the development and promotion of active travel opportunities across Argyll and Bute. The timescale for this Strategy is deliberately set in the longer term to provide the policy stability that is required to deliver a long-term, infrastructure led change in behaviour and travel options. This 30-year Strategy, from 2024 to 2054, will be reviewed at least every 10 years to ensure if remains relevant and appropriate. The strategy will be delivered by the Active Travel Delivery Plan (ATDP), a subsidiary 10-year prioritised plan, which will develop the direction set in the Strategy into deliverable projects. It should be noted that this document will be key in securing external funding to deliver active travel improvements across Argyll and Bute otherwise the funding could be diverted to other councils. The funding cannot be used for any other purpose. 2. Vision Make active travel the most attractive, accessible and useable mode of travel for everyday local journeys to work, education, essential services, retail and leisure. Argyll and Bute will work with partners to provide and promote active and sustainable travel choices that connect everyone to jobs, education, services and leisure and support the area’s economy, environment and the health and wellbeing of our residents. Page 159
Page 160
4 Argyll and Bute will be a region designed to enable people to follow active lives with accessible, reliable, and safe routes that connect communities internally and externally. The active travel strategy will embrace a culture that promotes active and sustainable travel for our Main Towns and Key Villages together with our rural areas containing numerous smaller settlements. Walking, wheeling and cycling will be the first and natural choice for everyday journeys, for people of all ages and ability, to travel locally to schools, to shops, to work. In essence Argyll and Bute Council will strive to provide a network of high quality routes suitable for safe cycling/walking within each regional settlement which link people to main centres of employment/education, local shopping areas and town centres, leisure/recreation centres, hospitals and other main trip generators. 3. Aim Argyll and Bute will provide genuine commitment and leadership to invest in and maintain an accessible, convenient, safe, inclusive, well-designed and resilient high quality active travel network. Embedded in our towns (Main Towns), villages (Key Settlements) and smaller rural settlements, the network will be shaped around people to deliver opportunities to all our residents, businesses, communities and visitors to choose to travel actively as their first and natural choice. Active travel will improve access and transport choice to essential services, employment and education to support the local economy to thrive, and enable more prosperous, accessible, healthier, fairer and sustainable communities which offer a high quality of life. Integration of active travel into the public transport network will help connect our communities, ensuring social inclusion and reducing transport poverty. Residents and communities will feel empowered to help plan and deliver solutions to put people before the private car, whilst at the same time ensuring access is retained for all. Promotion of active travel opportunities and benefits will support modal shift to help achieve the Council’s climate change objectives and improve access to the natural environment, whilst education of users will encourage mutual respect between everyone to improve safety, particularly where the network interacts with motor vehicles. 4. Objectives Argyll and Bute’s Active Travel Strategy is designed to promote walking, cycling, and other forms of non-motorised transport to encourage healthier, more sustainable, and environmentally-friendly travel options. Key objectives are:- A. Increase Walking and Cycling Participation • Objective: Increase the number of people walking and cycling for daily trips, such as commuting, shopping, and leisure, by a specific percentage over a Page 160
Page 161
5 defined period. • Actions: o Launch awareness campaigns. o Promote benefits of walking and cycling. o Develop safe routes for walking and cycling. B. Improve Infrastructure for Active Travel • Objective: Enhance the infrastructure to make walking and cycling safer, more accessible, and convenient for all users, including people with disabilities. • Actions: o Develop a comprehensive network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. o Improve pedestrian crossings, cycle paths/lanes, and bike parking facilities. o Ensure streets are well-lit and safe, especially during evenings and nights. C. Promote Active Travel for Health Benefits • Objective: Encourage greater physical activity to improve public health by reducing sedentary lifestyles and promoting the mental and physical health benefits of active travel. • Actions: o Highlight and promote the health benefits of walking and cycling. o Incorporate active travel into public health strategies and educational campaigns. o Promote walking and cycling as alternatives to short car trips, which have high environmental and health costs. D. Reduce Carbon Emissions and Improve Air Quality • Objective: Decrease reliance on cars and reduce overall traffic emissions, contributing to better air quality and meeting climate goals. • Actions: o Support policies that discourage short car trips and promote walking and cycling as viable alternatives. o Promote electric bicycles (e-bikes) and other low-carbon modes of transport. E. Enhance Safety and Accessibility • Objective: Ensure that walking and cycling are safe, inclusive, and accessible for all members of the community, including children, adults, and people with disabilities. • Actions: o Implement traffic calming measures to slow down cars in residential areas. Page 161
Page 162
6 o Design bike lanes that are physically separated from motor vehicles. o Ensure accessibility features such as ramps, safe crossings, and appropriate signage. F. Integrate Active Travel with Public Transport • Objective: Promote the integration of active travel with public transport systems to encourage multi-modal travel. • Actions: o Ensure easy access to cycling facilities at public transport hubs (e.g. bike racks at bus stops and train stations, ferry terminals). o Provide seamless connections between cycling routes and transit networks. o Encourage public transport operators to support cycling (e.g. allowing bikes on buses, trains, ferries). G. Foster Community Engagement and Support • Objective: Engage with local communities to understand their needs and encourage active travel behaviours. • Actions: o Conduct surveys and public consultations to understand barriers to active travel. o Partner with local organisations to support walking and cycling initiatives. o Involve schools, workplaces, and other local groups in promoting active travel. H. Support Equity and Social Inclusion • Objective: Ensure that active travel options are accessible to people of all socio- economic backgrounds. • Actions: o Ensure that active travel infrastructure is designed to meet the needs of diverse populations, including elderly and disabled individuals. o Prioritise safe walking and cycling routes in underserved areas. I. Encourage Local Economic Development • Objective: Leverage active travel to support local economies by promoting footfall and cycling traffic in urban and rural scenic areas. • Actions: o Promote cycling tourism and bike-sharing programs. o Encourage businesses to adopt active travel-friendly policies, such as bike racks or showers for employees. J. Monitor, Evaluate, and Improve the Strategy • Objective: Continuously assess and adapt the active travel strategy to ensure that it meets its goals and evolves with changing needs. Page 162
Page 163
7 • Actions: o Set up regular monitoring systems to track progress, such as surveys, traffic counts, and health outcomes. o Use data to adjust policies and improve infrastructure. By setting clear, actionable objectives in these key areas, Argyll and Bute’s Active Travel Strategy can significantly improve public health, reduce environmental impact, improve air quality, making our towns more viable as places to live and visit, and to reduce the dependency of using cars for short trips. 5. Argyll and Bute The 2022 Census enumerated the population of Argyll and Bute at 86,000. The National Records of Scotland (NRS) more recent mid-year estimates calculated Argyll and Bute’s population to be 87,810 (NRS Mid Year Estimate 2023). • Argyll and Bute covers a land area of 690,946 hectares and is the second largest local authority by area in Scotland, after Highland (Census 2022). • Argyll and Bute covers almost 9% of the total Scottish land area (Census 2022). • Argyll and Bute has the fifth sparsest population of the 32 Scottish local authorities, with an average population density of 13 persons per hectare. This compares to a Scottish average of 70 persons per hectare (NRS 2023 -based Mid Year Estimates). • The largest settlement in Argyll and Bute is Helensburgh, with a population of 15,610 (NRS's 2020-based Settlement Estimates). • Argyll and Bute has 42,610 number of households. (NRS Estimates of household and dwellings in Scotland, 2023). • 47.2% of Argyll and Bute’s population live in areas classified by the Scottish Government as ‘rural’ (Scottish Government 6-fold Urban-Rural Classification 2020). • 43% of Argyll and Bute’s population live in areas classified as ‘remote rural’; 4.2% live in areas classified as ‘accessible rural’. • Almost 80% of Argyll and Bute’s population live within 1 km of the coast. Approximately 97% of Argyll and Bute’s population live between 0 and 10km of the coast (Scottish Coastal Forum 2002). • According to the 2022 Census, approximately 17.5% of Argyll and Bute’s population live on islands (15,055 people). Page 163
Page 164
8 Argyll and Bute is included within two statutory Regional Partnerships:- • Hitrans covers all of Argyll and Bute with the exception of Helensburgh and Lomond • Strathclyde Partnership for Transport covers the Helensburgh and Lomond area • Part of Argyll and Bute is in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, who act as the Planning Authority for this area. Key locations in Argyll and Bute that are within the Park area include Tarbet, Arrochar, Lochgoilhead, Carrick Castle, Ardentinny, Blairmore, Strone and Kilmun. 5.1. Settlements As shown on the map Argyll and Bute has 20 settlements spread across the boundary with a population of 500 or more and these are detailed in the table below. Page 164
Page 165
9 Table 1: Population Settlement Population Ardrishaig 1,220 Bowmore 710 Campbeltown 4,500 Cardross 2,070 Dunbeg 7,20 Dunoon, Settlement of 8,980 Garelochhead 3,650 Helensburgh, Settlement of 15,610 Innellan 1,140 Inveraray 570 Kilcreggan 1,280 Lochgilphead 2,280 Oban 8,140 Port Bannatyne 1,090 Port Ellen 810 Rosneath 1,260 Rothesay 4,310 Tarbert 1,120 Tighnabruaich 550 Tobermory 1,000 (Source: NRS Mid 2020 Population Estimates for Settlements) 6.Relevant Guidance / Documents Active travel is a key element in a number of national, regional and local strategies and the development of our ATS has been informed by them. This ATS supports the ambitions within Transport Scotland’s Active Travel Framework to improve the uptake of walking and cycling across Scotland for travel. The main related policies and strategies are outlined below: 6.1. Relevant local guidance: • Road Asset Management Plan • Local Development Plan 2 • Economic Strategy and Action Plan • Argyll and Bute Outcomes Improvement Plan (ABOIP) Page 165
Page 166
10 6.2. Relevant regional guidance: • SPT Regional Transport Strategy • SPT Regional Active Travel Plan • HITRANS Regional Transport Strategy • HITRANS Regional Active Travel Plan • NHS Argyll Activity Plan 6.3. Relevant national guidance: • National Transport Strategy 2 • Cycling Framework and Delivery Plan for Active Travel in Scotland 2022-2030 • Let’s get Scotland Walking – The National Walking Strategy • Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030 • Update to the Climate Change Plan 2018 – 2032 • Climate Ready Scotland: climate change adaptation programme 2019 – 2024 • Climate Change Plan: third report on proposals and policies 2018-2032 • National Planning Framework 4 • Public Health Priorities for Scotland • Cleaner Air for Scotland 2 • A Connected Scotland: our strategy for tackling social isolation and loneliness and building stronger social connections • Decarbonising the Scottish transport sector • A More Active Scotland: Scotland’s Physical Activity Delivery Plan • Cycle by Design • Active Travel Framework • Fairer Scotland Duty • Scotland’s Economic Strategy • Strategic Transportation Projects Review 2 (STPR 2) • Public Health Scotland Strategic Plan 2022 – 2025 Page 166
Page 167
11 7. What is Active Travel? Active Travel is making journeys by non-motorised, physically active means. This includes walking, cycling, scooting or wheeling for everyday journeys you make to get from place to place such as work, school, access to green spaces, shopping and visiting friends and family. Active travel can offer a convenient, affordable and enjoyable way to travel. “Active travel” means moving around using your own effort to get from place to place, usually by walking, wheeling or cycling, and is for everyday journeys such as going to school, to the shops or to work, as well as for exercise and recreation. In this document, Active Travel is defined as walking, cycling and scooting, for all ages and abilities, including the use of adaptive bikes such as tricycle and handcycles and other mobility aids. The focus of the ATS is on walking and cycling as modes of transport primarily for day to day functional trips (to school, work, the shops, visit family, etc.). Wheeling is any non-motorised wheeled transport such as a wheelchair or other mobility aid, but also includes tricycles, adapted bikes, other non-standard cycles, and children’s push scooters. Cycling is any person powered mechanically wheeled transport such as a bicycle, but also includes tricycles, adapted bikes and other non-standard cycles. Argyll and Bute Council is committed to the Scottish Government’s sustainable travel hierarchy and to enabling our residents and visitors to have a choice of travel modes, which includes cars as mobility aids. Walking and cycling as leisure and tourism activities are also important for people’s wellbeing, physical health and the economy, and where there are overlaps, links are made with other strategy documents including the Local Transport strategy, the Local Housing Strategy and Argyll and Bute Economic Strategy. 8. Why promote active travel? Active travel is good for individual health and wellbeing, reducing traffic congestion and carbon emissions, and tackling climate change. Broadening the appeal of walking and cycling as modes of transport and leisure activities has well documented societal benefits, for the economy, public health and the environment. Argyll and Bute’s Active Travel Strategy (the ATS) sets out our vision, objectives, and the actions we will take o to increase walking and cycling journeys in Page 167
Page 168
12 Argyll and Bute. It is part of Argyll and Butes wider response to key challenges we face in terms of climate change, population health, socio-economic inequalities, and continued prosperity. This new strategy and delivery plan will promote and drive change to make essential daily destinations accessible by active and sustainable modes and engage people with healthy lifestyles. 9. Why do we need an Active Travel Strategy? Active Travel Strategy (ATS) aims to make active travel an attractive and realistic choice for journeys to enable and encourage people to walk and cycle as part of their daily lives. The Active Travel Strategy sets out overarching aims, objectives and actions as to how Argyll and Bute Council will seek to deliver high quality walking and cycling networks. It seeks to increase publicity and awareness of these routes, in order to encourage more trips by Walking and Cycling. Having an up to date and relevant strategy will enable us to effectively continue to increase opportunities for safe, attractive and enjoyable active travel. As part of the strategy, ten objectives (see A to J section 4 of this strategy) have been agreed, in consultation with key stakeholders, community groups and individuals with an interest in Active Travel. From these objectives an action plan has been developed with detailed steps that need to be carried out to achieve the objectives. Changes in travel choices will go hand in hand with the work of the two Regional Transport Strategies and other various Council strategies, plans and further policies aligned with environmental quality, climate change, and the opportunities for our region and local economies to thrive in a sustainable way. All this in connection with the benefits of active travel. 10. Infrastructure Creating a supportive and effective Active Travel Strategy requires investment in a variety of infrastructure types that encourage and facilitate walking, cycling, and other forms of active transportation. Below is an overview of the key types of infrastructure that can be incorporated into such a strategy: 1. Dedicated Walking and Cycling Paths • Cycle Lanes: Separated, marked lanes that ensure cyclists have a safe, designated space on roads. These lanes can be on-road (using paint or barriers to separate them from traffic) or off-road (dedicated bike trails or paths). • Pedestrian Paths/Pavements: Well-maintained, wide, and safe pedestrian paths that offer pedestrians a clear, obstacle-free route. These should be continuous, properly lit, and free from obstructions. Page 168
Page 169
13 • Shared-Use Paths: Multi-use paths where both cyclists and pedestrians share the same space, often seen in parks or along esplanades. These should have clear signage to manage conflicts between different users. • Greenways: Scenic, car-free routes, often through woodland parks, or along canals for example, that prioritise pedestrians and cyclists. These routes can provide a more pleasant and environmentally-friendly option for active travel. 2. Cycle Parking and Storage • Cycle Racks: Simple, sturdy bike racks in high-traffic areas (e.g., near shopping centres, transport stations, or workplaces) to allow cyclists to securely lock their bikes. • Cycle Shelters/Enclosures: Covered storage areas for bikes to protect them from weather conditions, particularly important in areas with frequent rain. • Cyce Lockers: Secure, individual lockers where cyclists can store their bikes out of sight, offering higher security for expensive bikes. • Cycle Stations: Larger bike hubs/bothy that may offer repair stations, charging facilities (for electric bikes), and bike rentals in key locations like transport interchanges. 3. Crossings and Junctions • Pedestrian Crossings: Safe, clearly marked crossings with traffic signals, pedestrian islands, or overpasses/underpasses to protect pedestrians at busy intersections or roads. • Cycle Crossings: Dedicated cycle crossings at intersections, often with cycle- specific signals or advanced stop lines, to ensure cyclists’ safety. • Cyclist-Friendly Traffic Lights: Traffic lights that prioritise cyclists, either by giving them green lights earlier or by installing sensors that detect cyclists waiting at intersections. • Pedestrian Islands & Refuge Areas: These are safe places in the middle of busy streets where pedestrians can stop and wait to cross in stages, reducing their exposure to traffic. 4. Traffic Calming Measures • Speed Humps/Bumps: Raised sections of the road that slow down vehicle traffic, making streets safer for cyclists and pedestrians. • Narrowing Lanes or Streets: Design measures that reduce the width of road lanes or the number of lanes, forcing cars to slow down and creating more space for pedestrians and cyclists. • Chicanes: Curved road sections that force vehicles to reduce speed, often used in residential or urban areas to calm traffic. • Pedestrian-Only Zones: Car-free zones or low-traffic streets, typically in main town centres where pedestrians and cyclists can travel freely without the risk of vehicle conflict. Page 169
Page 170
14 5. Cycle Share Programs and Infrastructure • Cycle Share Stations: Locations where users can rent or return cycles for short-term use, typically integrated with public transport hubs • Docking Stations: Points where shared cycles can be picked up and dropped off, often equipped with docking infrastructure that ensures the bikes are securely stored when not in use. • E-bike Share Systems: Electric bike programs that offer bikes with pedal- assist features, making longer or more challenging trips more feasible for a wider range of users. 6. Public Transport Integration • Cycle Racks at Bus/Trains and at Ferry terminals: Secure cycle racks installed to allow cyclists to easily combine biking with public transportation for longer commutes. • Park-and-Ride Facilities with Bike Parking: Bike parking integrated with park-and-ride locations, allowing users to cycle to a transport hub and continue their journey by public transport. • Cyclist-Friendly Stations: Public transport stations designed with cyclists in mind, offering bike-friendly amenities such as secure parking. 7. Signage • Cycle Route Signs: Clear, visible signs marking dedicated cycling routes, including distances and directions, to guide cyclists to their destinations. • Pedestrian Signage: Directional signs for pedestrians, including safe routes to nearby attractions, transport hubs, or local amenities. • Interactive Maps and Apps: Digital tools and wayfinding systems that help pedestrians and cyclists navigate urban town areas or rural scenic routes, 8. Lighting and Surveillance • Street Lighting: Well-lit pavements and cycle paths that provide visibility for users, enhancing safety during evening or night-time travel. • Smart Lighting: Motion-sensing lights or lights that adjust according to pedestrian or cyclist presence to save energy while maintaining safety. • Surveillance Cameras: In areas with high foot and bike traffic, surveillance can help deter crime and make users feel safer. 9. Urban Green Infrastructure • Street Trees and Green Buffers: Planting trees along pavements or cycle lanes can not only provide shade but also act as a buffer to protect pedestrians and cyclists from traffic, improving air quality and making active travel more pleasant. • Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS): These systems help manage stormwater runoff in a way that supports cycling and walking infrastructure, Page 170
Page 171
15 preventing flooding on paths and streets. 10. Supporting Infrastructure for Active Commuters • Showers and Changing Rooms: Facilities at workplaces, transport hubs, or public buildings where cyclists can clean up and change clothes before heading to work or meetings. • Repair Stations and Tool Kits: Publicly available bike repair stations with basic tools for cyclists to fix minor issues such as flat tires, ensuring bikes remain in good working condition. 11. Public Engagement Infrastructure • Interactive Platforms: Websites or apps that allow the public to track improvements in active travel infrastructure, suggest new routes, report issues (e.g., potholes, obstructions). By investing in a combination of these infrastructure types, Argyll and Bute can create a comprehensive, safe, and convenient network for active travellers. This infrastructure not only supports the growth of walking and cycling as viable modes of transport but also encourages a cultural shift toward healthier, more sustainable ways of moving around urban spaces. 11. Design Standards Include adoption of Cycle by Design (2021) and updates as Argyll and Bute Council design policy. Page 171
Page 172
16 12. Behaviour Change Behaviour change is the use of information, marketing, promotion to shift attitudes and social ‘norms’ towards more utilisation of active travel. It can be implemented as part of an infrastructure project to maximise use of new active travel infrastructure or stand- alone to increase use of active travel in other locations. Evidence indicates that the ‘good intentions’ created by behaviour change campaign usually wear off within a few years and that an approach which repeats the messages at regular intervals to ‘nudge’ or remind those who have chosen to change their behaviour are more effective at sustaining longer term change in travel habits. Behaviour change interventions which have been found to work elsewhere include: • School Behaviour – Research suggests the most effective known strategy is walking or cycling school buses. (A walking/cycling school bus is when an adult leads a walk/cycle to school, picking up children along the way). Usually focussed on children who are too young to walk/cycle independently • Trigger Points – The optimum point to achieve modal shift is during significant moments in people’s lives; such as moving home, starting a new job or having a child. • Workplace Nudge: Education and Parking – The evidence suggests that education on the advantages of cycling was insufficient to change workplace commutes. However, lack of parking appeared to be enough to shift commutes to public transport or active travel. • Financial Incentives – Evidence here echoes previous evidence suggesting that cycling facilities are a necessary but not sufficient condition for modal shift. However, financial incentives such as £2 per day were found to be sufficiently attractive to encourage modal shift. • Cycling Cities and Towns Evidence – Evidence from a large cycling scheme in England noted that cycling events and adult cycle training did encourage some new cyclists, while children’s cycle training did not overcome some parent’s fears of children cycling on their own. Additionally maps detailing off-track cycle ways were difficult to read due to the scale and had low awareness. • Department for Health Evidence Review – An evidence review for the DfH noted that personalised travel plans as well as walking incentivised by the health sector were seen as successful in achieving more active travel. Additionally workplace competitions and travel plans were seen to achieve some modal shift, with the inter workplace competitions seeing significant increases in cycling amongst participants. Page 172
Page 173
17 13. Prioritising Options The delivery of active travel routes will need to be done in a phased way due to the level of funding available. The Active Travel Strategy for Argyll and Bute sets the key criteria below that helps prioritise active travel investments working with communities and elected Members. Prioritising active travel projects involves balancing a variety of factors to ensure that the most impactful, feasible, and cost-effective initiatives are pursued first. To help with this decision-making, Argyll and Bute will develop a systematic approach to evaluate and rank potential projects based on their benefits, costs of delivery, and alignment with strategic goals. The key criteria is set out below to help prioritise the delivery of active travel projects within Argyll and Bute: 1. Safety Improvements • Key Consideration: Safety is a top priority for active travel infrastructure. Projects that address high-risk areas or areas with a history of accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists should be prioritised. • Projects to Prioritise: o Junction upgrades (e.g., bike-friendly signals, safer pedestrian crossings). o Traffic calming measures in high-pedestrian or cyclist areas. o Protected bike lanes where roads are currently dangerous or lack infrastructure. • Factors to Assess: o Accident data (e.g. for cyclists or pedestrians). o Risk assessment for vulnerable users (e.g., elderly, children). 2. Demand and Usage Potential • Key Consideration: Focus on areas where there is a high demand or latent demand for walking and cycling, which may not yet be fully realised due to insufficient infrastructure. • Projects to Prioritise: o Connecting high-density areas (e.g., residential areas, employment centers, shopping centres) with key transport hubs. o Missing links in the active travel network that prevent continuous and safe routes. o High-potential corridors identified through surveys or data showing frequent short trips that could easily be converted to walking or cycling. • Factors to Assess: o Existing traffic volume and pedestrian/cyclist counts. o Proximity to schools, employment centers, or transit stations. o Public demand or community surveys supporting the need for the project. Page 173
Page 174
18 3. Equity and Accessibility • Key Consideration: Prioritise projects that improve access to active travel for underserved communities or vulnerable populations, such as low-income areas, communities with limited access to transport, or communities with high health disparities. • Projects to Prioritise: o Improving infrastructure in underserved areas that lack safe or direct walking/cycling routes. o Addressing barriers such as bridges, trunk roads, or rivers that prevent safe travel. o Improving accessibility for adults, people with disabilities, and families • Factors to Assess: o Demographic and socioeconomic data o Accessibility gaps or obstacles (e.g., lack of cycle lanes or safe crossings). 4. Health and Environmental Benefits • Key Consideration: Projects that can significantly reduce air pollution, increase physical activity, and contribute to climate goals should be prioritised. • Projects to Prioritise: o Car-free zones or low-traffic streets in areas with high air pollution. o Greenways that provide safe routes through forrest parks, encouraging cycling and walking. o Projects near schools, parks, or other community spaces that promote active recreation. • Factors to Assess: o Local environmental goals (e.g., reducing carbon emissions, improving air quality). o Potential impact on public health, including reductions in physical inactivity. 5. Feasibility and Cost-Effectiveness • Key Consideration: Ensure the projects are realistic and cost-effective within the available budget and timeframe. Some projects may have a high impact but also come with high costs or long timelines. • Projects to Prioritise: o Low-cost improvements (e.g., repainting bike lanes, installing bike infrastructure) that can deliver quick results. o Pilot projects that test new infrastructure or policies, allowing for evaluation before larger investments are made. o Projects with existing or planned funding (e.g., leveraging funding from external sources). Page 174
Page 175
19 • Factors to Assess: o Total cost (construction, maintenance, etc.) versus potential benefits. o Availability of funding (local, regional, or national grants). o Permitting and approval process (are the required approvals easily attainable?). 6. Integration with Existing Networks • Key Consideration: Prioritise projects that create seamless connections with existing active travel infrastructure, including public transport networks, existing bike lanes, and pedestrian routes. • Projects to Prioritise: o Completing gaps in the active travel network, such as missing connections between communities, transit stations, or recreational areas. o Improving connections to transit hubs for easier multi-modal transport. o Integrating active travel into new developments to ensure that infrastructure for walking and cycling is built from the outset. • Factors to Assess: o Current connectivity of the active travel network. o Opportunities to integrate with other infrastructure projects (e.g., roadworks, public transport improvements). o Availability of land or space for new connections. 7. Community Support and Engagement • Key Consideration: Projects with strong community backing are more likely to succeed and have a lasting impact. Prioritise initiatives that have broad public support. • Projects to Prioritise: o Community-led initiatives that have received public input or feedback. o Projects aligned with local needs, such as those identified through public consultations, surveys, or local stakeholders. o Public events that help promote active travel and generate interest in new infrastructure. • Factors to Assess: o Results from public consultations, community surveys, or petitions. o Feedback from local businesses, schools, and community organizations. o Local champions or advocacy groups supporting the project. 8. Long-Term Impact and Sustainability • Key Consideration: Prioritise projects that have the potential for long-term sustainability, considering future growth, changing demographics, and evolving transport trends. Page 175
Page 176
20 • Projects to Prioritise: o Large-scale infrastructure (e.g., dedicated bike corridors or walking routes that can grow with future demand). o Sustainable transport hubs (e.g., bike-sharing stations, electric bike charging stations). o Resilient infrastructure designed to withstand climate change impacts (e.g. flood-resistant bike lanes, green infrastructure). • Factors to Assess: o Future population growth or demographic changes in the area. o Future technological trends (e.g., rise of e-bikes or shared mobility). o Long-term environmental or social sustainability goals. 9. Quick Wins vs. Long-Term Projects • Key Consideration: While long-term, large-scale projects are important, short- term "quick win" projects can build momentum and public support while waiting for larger projects to be completed. • Projects to Prioritise: o Low-cost infrastructure changes to improve movement for cycling/walking o Small-scale improvements (e.g., adding bike racks, improving crossings). • Factors to Assess: o How quickly the project can be implemented. o The immediate benefits or visibility of the project. o Opportunities for public engagement and feedback. Prioritisation Matrix Approach To help rank and prioritise the options, a prioritisation matrix will be used, where each project is scored based on the above criteria and others identified, as the matrix is progressed. Projects will then be ranked on a scale for each of the criteria, and the overall score determines the order of implementation. Page 176
Page 177
Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan 2024/25 This is an outline plan to facilitate forward planning of reports to the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee. Date Title Service/Officer Date Due Comments 19 December 2024 Route Optimisation Update Roads and Infrastructure Services 26 November 2024 Cemetery Asset – Annual Report Roads and Infrastructure Services Roads and Infrastructure Review Roads and Infrastructure Services Second Domestic Bin Review 2024 Roads and Infrastructure Services Waste Update Roads and Infrastructure Services Marine Operations: Mainland Ferry Service Roads and Infrastructure Services 20mph Report Roads and Infrastructure Services Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, Part 6 Parking Prohibitions Update Report Roads and Infrastructure Services Roads Reconstruction Budget Roads and Infrastructure Services Active Travel Strategy Development and Economic Growth 20 March 2025 Roads Capital Reconstruction Programme 2025/26 Road and Infrastructure Services 25 February 2025 Transformational Projects Regeneration Team Large Scale Projects Update Development and Economic Growth Page 177 Agenda Item 14
Page 178
Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan 2024/25 Tourism Strategy Development and Economic Growth Annual Status and Options Report (ASOR) Roads and Infrastructure Services Review of Roads and Infrastructure Services Roads and Infrastructure Services Route Optimisation Roads and Infrastructure Services 19 June 2025 Campbeltown Flood Plan Roads and Infrastructure Services 27 May 2025 September 2025 Winter Service Policy Roads and Infrastructure Services Transformational Projects Regeneration Team Large Scale Projects Update Development and Economic Growth Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 - Allotments Waiting List Register Legal and Regulatory Support Future Items Shared Prosperity Fund Development and Economic Growth Roads Development Framework Roads and Infrastructure Services EVC Tariffs Roads and Infrastructure Services Agreed 21.03.24 Second Domestic Bin Review Roads and Infrastructure Services Updates to be provided on progress Footway reconstruction Programme Roads and Infrastructure Services Page 178
Page 179
Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan 2024/25 Cemetery Asset Update Roads and Infrastructure Services Active Travel Strategy Development and Economic Growth Page 179
Page 180
This page is intentionally left blank