Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 1 December 2022
Back to Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee — 1 December 2022 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 24 November 2022 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, 1 DECEMBER 2022 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) 3. MINUTES (Pages 3 - 6) Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 1 September 2022 4. LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS – CYCLE 2 2022-28 (Pages 7 - 30) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure 5. CEMETERY ASSET UPDATE (Pages 31 - 44) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure 6. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STRATEGY UPDATE (Pages 45 - 92) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure 7. PLAY PARK FUNDING (Pages 93 - 100) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure 8. BIN AND SIGNAGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMMES (Pages 101 - 106) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure 9. LATEST UPDATE ON STAYCATION PROPOSALS (Pages 107 - 122) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
REPORTS FOR NOTING 10. CLEANING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE (Pages 123 - 126) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure 11. ARGYLL AIR SERVICES - PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION CONSULTATION (Pages 127 - 134) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 12. ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE WORKPLAN (Pages 135 - 136) EXEMPT REPORT FOR DECISION E1 13. WASTE PPP OPTIONS APPRAISAL (Pages 137 - 180) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is:- E1 Paragraph 8 The amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by the authority under any particular contract for the acquisition of property or the supply of goods or services. Paragraph 9 Any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or the supply of goods or services. Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Garret Corner Councillor Robin Currie (Chair) Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain (Vice-Chair) Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Jim Lynch Councillor Tommy MacPherson Councillor Ian MacQuire Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor William Sinclair Councillor Andrew Vennard Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel: 01546 604269
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS BY MICROSOFT TEAMS AND IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on THURSDAY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2022 Present: Councillor Robin Currie (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Garret Corner Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Jim Lynch Councillor Ian MacQuire Councillor Luna Martin Councillor Ross Moreland Councillor William Sinclair Councillor Andrew Vennard Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Stuart McLean, Committee Manager 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mark Irvine and Tommy MacPherson. 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 2 June 2022 were approved as a correct record. 4. SERVICE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS 2021/22: DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SERVICES & ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES The Committee gave consideration to a report presenting the Service Annual Performance Reviews and Scorecard 2021/22 for the Development and Economic Growth, and Roads and Infrastructure Services. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee approved the Service Annual Performance Reviews (Service APRs) and Scorecards 2021/22 as presented prior to publishing on the Council Website. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services dated 13 July 2022, submitted) Page 3 Agenda Item 3
Page 4
5. WINTER SERVICE POLICY 2022-23 The Committee gave consideration to a report presenting the Council’s Winter Service Policy for approval. The policy for 2022/23 remained similar to that of the policy for 2021/22. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee – 1. approved the 2022/23 Winter Maintenance Policy Document at Appendix 1 to the submitted report; 2. approved the Salt Use Reduction and Preservation of Stock Protocol at Appendix 2 to the submitted report; 3. noted the Advisory signing, routes unsuitable in severe conditions at Appendix 3 to the submitted report; 4. noted the Frontline Treatment Vehicle Fleet 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 2021/22 at Appendix 6 to the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure dated August 2022, submitted) 6. FOOTWAYS RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME 2022-23 The Committee gave consideration to a report providing a programme of Footway Reconstruction Schemes for 2022/23. The Council had awarded £500k at its Budget Meeting in February 2022 and the budget had been allocated by proportion of the footway inventory values in each geographical area, and was set out in each appendix to the report. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee – 1. endorsed the programme of capital works for 2022/23; and 2. agreed that details of each Area Committee programme would be forwarded on to the respective Ward Members. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure dated August 2022, submitted) Page 4
Page 5
7. STREET LIGHTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS/LED PROJECT AND REPLACEMENT COLUMNS PROGRAMME 2022-23 The Committee gave consideration to a report providing details of the proposed Street Lighting Reconstruction Programme for 2022/23. The programme was based on an allocation of £740,000, comprising of £440,000 of Capital allocation from this year and the previous financial year, and an additional £300,000, awarded through the budget process, to deal with defective columns and cabling. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee endorsed – 1. the Street Lighting Capital Improvements Programme for 2022/23; and 2. the LED and Replacement Column Programme for 2022/23. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure dated August 2022, submitted) 8. TRANSFORMATIONAL PROJECTS & REGENERATION TEAM - LARGE SCALE PROJECT UPDATE REPORT The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on the progress of the large scale, externally funded, project work of the Transformational Projects and Regeneration Team, highlighting key issues that could impact on the successful delivery of the projects. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the current progress contained within the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 31 July 2022, submitted) 9. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2015 - ALLOTMENTS WAITING LIST REGISTER A report providing an update on the ongoing actions that were being undertaken in response to duties placed on the Council under Part 9 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 was before the Committee for noting. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted the content of the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated May 2022, submitted) Page 5
Page 6
10. 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 2022, submitted) The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 11. WASTE STRATEGY UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report providing an update on the work relating to the Waste PPP contract and on the options appraisal work streams being taken forward. Decision The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee noted – 1. the report and the approach being taken to determine the most appropriate option for the Council regarding waste disposal; 2. the good progress being made in relation to the options appraisal; and 3. that a further report detailing the full appraisal and proposed next steps will come forward to the December EDI committee, providing information on the preferred option and outlining any capital and revenue cost implications. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure dated August 2022, submitted) Page 6
Page 7
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 1 DECEMBER 2022 LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS – CYCLE 2 2022-28 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act (2009) (The Act) sets out a process for delivering a plan-led, risk-based approach to flood risk management in Scotland. The legislation requires all ‘responsible authorities’, as defined by the Act and Scottish Ministers, to work collaboratively to assess and agree a plan of measures or actions to reduce the risk of flooding in the most vulnerable areas in their Local Plan District (LPD). 1.2 Scottish Environment Protective Agency (SEPA) are responsible for developing Flood Risk Management Plans which provides the basis from which Lead Local Authorities (LLA) develop Local Flood Risk Management Plans (the LFRMP) identifying detail on what actions entail, who will undertake them and when they will be done. Although the SEPA Plan and the Local Plans are separate reports, much of the background information in each is the same. 1.3 The SEPA Plans for Cycle 2 (2022-2028) were approved by Scottish Ministers and published in December 2021. Local flood Risk Management Plans are due to be published by 31 December 2022. 1.4 Argyll and Bute Council is part of two Local Flood Risk Management Plan Districts Highland and Argyll Clyde and Loch Lomond (CaLL) 1.5 Members are asked to agree the content of the draft Highland and Argyll Local Flood Risk Management Plan Cycle 2 (See Appendix 3) to be published by Highland Council and recognise that Highland Council as Lead Local Authority has the statutory duty to publish before 31 December 2022. 1.6 Members are asked to note that Argyll and Bute Council Flooding Policy Lead will be invited to attend the Clyde and Loch Lomond LPD Joint Committee meeting to approve the CaLL LFRMP. The date of the committee is yet to be confirmed by the Lead Local Authority, Glasgow City Council. 1.7 Acceptance and publication of the LFRMP will commit Argyll and Bute Council to Page 7 Agenda Item 4
Page 8
delivery of the LFRMP. The Council cannot knowingly change priorities or reduce funding of flood risk management activities which would prevent the delivery of the actions in the Local Plan. Flood Protection Studies and Schemes are the most significant commitment within the Local Plan both financially and in terms of resource and the timescales for delivering these must be met. 1.8 Proposed schemes were submitted to SEPA in December 2019 as part of a national Flood Protection Schemes (FPS) prioritisation process. The outcome of this process is still to be published by SEPA. As part of the process additional grant funding has been sought from Scottish Government for the delivery of Flood Protection Schemes. Historically this has covered 80% of all eligible scheme costs, however at the current time it is unclear what the funding provisions will be. There is a high likelihood due to tender price increases in the Cycle 1 programme that schemes that have been put forward to the Scottish Government will not receive funding in Cycle 2. Progression with schemes is subject to success in the grant funding application process. The summary of schemes and studies which form the basis of the Local Flood Risk Management Plans are listed in this report in Appendix 2. These are subject to appropriate funding being in place from the Scottish Government and the Council. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approves the content of the Highland and Argyll Local Flood Risk Management Plan allowing publication by the Lead Local Authorities (LLA) (The Highland Council) to take place by 31 December 2022. The Committee notes that the approval of the Clyde and Loch Lomond Local Flood Risk Management Plans (LFRMP) will be agreed at the Clyde and Loch Lomond Local Plan District (LPD) Joint Committee. The Committee notes progression of the schemes and studies are subject to appropriate funding being in place from the Scottish Government and the Council. Page 8
Page 9
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 1 DECEMBER 2022 LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS – CYCLE 2 2022-28 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on Cycle 2 of the Highland and Argyll Local Flood Risk Management Plan and to seek their endorsement of the summary of actions identified to be taken forward by the Council, noting the status of the funding arrangements. 2.2 The Act requires the LFRMP to be published by each Lead Local Authority (LLA) by 31 December 2022. 2.3 Acceptance and publication of the Local Plan will commit Argyll and Bute Council to delivery of the Local Plan. The Council cannot knowingly change priorities or reduce funding of flood risk management activities which would prevent the delivery of the actions in the Local Plan. Flood Protection Studies and Schemes are the most significant commitment within the Local Plan both financially and in terms of resource and the timescales for delivering these must be met. 2.4 Additional grant funding has been sought from Scottish Government for the delivery of Flood Protection Schemes actioned in both LFRMP’s. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approves the content of the Highland and Argyll Local Flood Risk Management Plan allowing publication by the Lead Local Authorities (LLA) (The Highland Council) to take place by 31 December 2022. The Committee notes that the approval of the Clyde and Loch Lomond Local Flood Risk Management Plans (LFRMP) will be agreed at the Clyde and Loch Lomond Local Plan District (LPD) Joint Committee. The Committee notes progression of the schemes and studies are subject to appropriate funding being in place from the Scottish Government and the Council. Page 9
Page 10
4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 placed duties on Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Water, the National Park Authorities, Scottish Forestry and Local Authorities as “Responsible Authorities” to work together to reduce flood risk across the country. 4.2 SEPA are responsible for developing Flood Risk Management Plans (the ‘SEPA Plans’, formerly known as Strategies), which involved carrying out a National Flood Risk Assessment. The National Flood Risk Assessment (2018) developed by SEPA, defined a total of 235 Potentially Vulnerable Areas (PVAs) across Scotland. These PVAs provide a focus for all responsible authorities to fully understand the risk from all sources of flooding and agree planned measures to reduce that risk 4.3 SEPA Plans provide the basis from which Lead Local Authorities (LLA) develop the Local Flood Risk Management Plans (LFRMP’s) for each LPD. This is done by identifying the Objectives and Actions identified in the SEPA plans and who undertakes the Actions, and when they will be progressed is identified in the SEPA plan and confirmed in the LFRMP. 4.4 Argyll and Bute Council are partially responsible for producing two LFRMPs:- Highland and Argyll LFRMP led by The Highland Council Clyde and Loch Lomond LFRMP led by Glasgow City Council 4.5 Although the SEPA Plan and the LFRMP’s are separate reports, much of the background information in each is the same and significant partnership working among the responsible authorities has been carried out. 4.6 Both SEPA Plans and LFRMP’s operate in 6 year cycles. In December 2021 SEPA published the SEPA Plans which have now been approved by Scottish Ministers. The first cycle of ABC’s LFRMP’s started in June 2016 after approval by the EDI Committee in April 2016. Cycle 2 was due to be published in June 2022, however delays due to the Covid pandemic have resulted in a deferred publishing date of 31 December 2022. The Act requires the LFRMP’s to be published by each Lead Local Authority (LLA) by 31 December 2022. 4.7 Flood Protection Schemes identified in Cycle 1 of the LFRMPs for inclusion in Cycle 2 are as follows: Highland and Argyll Clachan Flood Protection Scheme Tarbert Flood Protection Scheme Lochgilphead Property Flood Resilience Scheme Oban Flood Protection Scheme Clyde and Loch Lomond Helensburgh Property Flood Resilience Scheme Kilcreggan Surface Water Drainage Scheme Sandhaven Flood Protection Scheme Page 10
Page 11
Black Park, Dunoon Flood Protection Scheme See Appendix 2 for further details. 4.8 Proposed schemes were submitted to SEPA in December 2019 as part of a national FPS prioritisation process. The outcome of this process is still to be published by SEPA. As part of the process additional grant funding has been sought from Scottish Government for the delivery of Flood Protection Schemes. Historically this has covered 80% of all eligible scheme costs, however at the current time it is unclear what the funding provisions will be. There is a high likelihood due to tender price increases in the Cycle 1 programme that schemes that have been put forward to the Scottish Government will not receive funding in Cycle 2. Progression with schemes is subject to success in the grant funding application process. 4.9 Also identified in Cycle 2 are flood risk studies and shoreline management plans that are scheduled to be delivered within this cycle. These are expected to be completed using consultants, with Argyll and Bute Council’s Infrastructure Design Team managing these contracts and financed as detailed in Appendix 2. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – Argyll and Bute Council Flood Risk Management Policy. 5.2 Financial – Projects identified will need to have appropriate capital funding made available. 5.3 Legal – Acceptance by Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee and all responsible authorities within the LPD to the Local Plan satisfies paragraph 34 of the Act. Completion of the Local Plan is achieved when the above is satisfied and the SEPA Plan is approved by Scottish Ministers. 5.4 HR – None. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty 5.5.1 Equalities – Protected characteristics – None. 5.5.2 Socio Economic Duty – None. 5.5.3 Islands – None. 5.6 Climate Change – The actions set out within the Local Plan take account of the impact of climate change. The Plans are designed to enable communities to adapt and be prepared for the risk of flooding through the predicted increase in storm events and rising sea levels. Sustainable development is promoted and managed through the Planning system. 5.7 Risk – There is a statutory deadline of 31 December 2022 that the LLA (The Highland Council) has to report progress with the Local Plan to Scottish Ministers. It is important therefore that Members appreciate that approval of the plan (as modified or agreed by Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee) is required to Page 11
Page 12
achieve the reporting programme set out in the legislation. 5.8 Customer Service – The actions set out within the Local Plan are designed to protect communities and make them more resilient to the risk of flooding. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services, Kirsty Flanagan Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services, Jim Smith Policy Lead for Climate Change and Environment Services – Councillor Ross Moreland December 2022 For further information contact: Jim Smith Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Jim.Smith@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Links to SEPA Flood Risk Management Plans for Highland and Argyll, noting that Clyde and Loch Lomond can also be accessed from this link Appendix 2 – Table of LFRMP Actions and estimated costs (2022-2028) Appendix 3 - Highland and Argyll Local Flood Risk Management Plan (2022 – 2028) Page 12
Page 13
APPENDIX 1 - LINKS TO SEPA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR HIGHLAND AND ARGYLL Flood Risk Management Plan – Highland and Argyll Local Plan District Highland and Argyll Flood Risk Management Plan – 2021 Flood risk management plans 2021 (sepa.org.uk) Flood Risk Management Plan – Clyde and Loch Lomond Plan District – 2021 Flood risk management plans 2021 (sepa.org.uk) Page 13
Page 14
APPENDIX 2 – TABLE OF LFRMP ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS (2022-2028) Target Area ID SEPA Plan Local Plan District Target area name Action ID Action type SEPA Plan general description (called 'Action' in final target area datasheets) LFRMP description of Action to be carried out by Argyll and Bute Council Indicative Delivery LFRMP Funding source Estimated Cost £ k (2019 Prices) 26 Clyde and Loch Lomond Helens burgh 2601 Property flood resilience scheme The proposed scheme to provide resilience measures against flooding for individual buildings is to be taken forward to help prevent water entering the property and to minimise flood damage. As part of the Helensburgh Flood Protection Scheme property flood resilience and resistance measures will be implemented. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital plus any available external funding 1,438 26 Clyde and Loch Lomond Helens burgh 2602 Shoreline managem ent plan (coastal adaptive plan) An assessment of coastal flood and erosion risk is to be carried out. The plan should include assessment of climate change and develop adaptive approaches to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Progress the development of the shoreline management plan for the Argyll and Bute coastline. Estimated delivery 2023/24 Capital plus any available external funding 10 Page 14
Page 15
26 Clyde and Loch Lomond Helens burgh 2605 Surface water managem ent plan Areas at risk of heavy or prolonged rainfall causing flooding due to water ponding on man- made surfaces or overwhelming the drainage system are to be identified. These priority areas will provide a baseline for the identification of next steps in managing water ponding or over- whelmed drainage systems. This should guide adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Develop and implement a surface water management plan to reduce the risk of flooding from surface water and small watercourses in Helensburgh. The impacts of climate change on flood risk should be assessed. The results of the sewer flood risk assessment should be considered. Opportunities to disconnect surface water from the sewerage system should be identified. The surface water management plan should be reviewed and updated regularly. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/ Revenue plus any available external funding 40 67 Clyde and Loch Lomond Kilcreg gan 6701 Flood scheme or works implement ation The flood scheme/works is to be built following agreement of the design, costs and timescales. Progress the flood works based on the detailed design. The works involve refurbishment of an existing surface water channel and a new pipe network which discharges to a watercourse. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. Ongoing Capital/ Revenue plus any available external funding 425 67 Clyde and Loch Lomond Kilcreg gan 6702 Surface water managem ent plan Areas at risk of heavy or prolonged rainfall causing flooding due to water ponding on man- Implement the surface water management plan. The plan should be reviewed and updated regularly. Ongoing Capital/ Revenue plus any available 10 Page 15
Page 16
made surfaces or overwhelming the drainage system have been identified. Next steps in managing such water ponding or over- whelmed drainage systems have been identified and should be implemented. The plan is to be reviewed and updated as needed. external funding Target Area ID SEPA Plan Local Plan District Target area name Action ID Action type SEPA Plan general description (called 'Action' in final target area datasheets) LFRMP description of Action to be carried out by Argyll and Bute Council Indicative Delivery LFRMP Funding source Estimated Cost £ k (2019 Prices) 88 Clyde and Loch Lomond Rothes ay and Port Bannat yne 8801 Flood study An understanding of flood risk and associated issues in the area is to be developed, which may include surveys and modelling and should consider the impacts of climate change on flood risk. In areas where flood risk is confirmed, a range of possible options to manage flood risk are to be identified, including natural flood management actions where suitable, and a preferred approach is to be chosen. This should include adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, A flood study should be carried out to address coastal and surface water flood risk in Rothesay and Port Bannatyne. Using the best understanding of current coastal processes and anticipated changes due to climate change, flood modelling should be undertaken to review the standard of protection offered by the coastal defences. Surface water flood modelling should also be progressed and include the Lade area. The impacts of climate change on flood risk should be evaluated. The interactivity between coastal flooding and surface water flooding should be assessed. If flood risk is Ongoing Capital/ Revenue 70 Page 16
Page 17
understood and managed. confirmed, scoping of the next steps should be completed. 88 Clyde and Loch Lomond Rothes ay and Port Bannat yne 8802 Flood defence maintenan ce The existing flood defences are to be maintained by the asset owner to ensure they are in good condition. Maintenance to the Rothesay Flood Protection Scheme should continue and updates to the maintenance regime be made based on the findings of the flood study. Ongoing Capital/ Revenue plus any available external funding 250 100 Clyde and Loch Lomond Sandba nk 10001 Flood scheme or works desi gn The selected preferred approach for managing flood risk is to be designed following the completion of the flood study, including consideration of the long- term impacts of climate change. These can include small scale works or works to improve catchment management. This should guide adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, Further development of the preferred option may be required prior to commencing with the detailed design. Argyll and Bute Council to develop the detailed design of the flood protection works in Sandhaven, Sandbank based on the preferred option from the surface water management plan. The preferred option identified to mitigate surface water flooding is a small embankment with discharge to open channel. The responsible authority proposes this action as the To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/ Revenue plus any available external funding 20 Page 17
Page 18
understood and managed. best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. 100 Clyde and Loch Lomond Sandba nk 10002 Flood scheme or works implement ation The flood scheme/works is to be built following agreement of the design, costs and timescales. Progress the flood works based on the detailed design. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 108 Target Area ID SEPA Plan Local Plan District Target area name Action _ID Action type SEPA Plan general description (called 'Action' in final target area datasheets) LFRMP description of Action to be carried out by Argyll and Bute Council Indicative Delivery LFRMP Funding source Estimated Cost £ k (2019 Prices) Page 18
Page 19
105 Clyde and Loch Lomond Cardro ss 10501 Flood study An understanding of flood risk and associated issues in the area is to be developed, which may include surveys and modelling and should consider the impacts of climate change on flood risk. In areas where flood risk is confirmed, a range of possible options to manage flood risk are to be identified, including natural flood management actions where suitable, and a preferred approach is to be chosen. This should include adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. A flood study should be carried out to improve understanding of coastal, river and surface water flood risk in Cardross. The interactivity between sources of flooding should be assessed. The impacts of climate change on flood risk should be evaluated. If flood risk is confirmed, scoping of the next steps should be completed. Data collection may also be included. Argyll and Bute Council to consider installing rain and river monitors on Kilmahew Burn. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 90 105 Clyde and Loch Lomond Cardro ss 10502 Shoreline managem ent plan (coastal adaptive plan) An assessment of coastal flood and erosion risk is to be carried out. The plan should include assessment of climate change and develop adaptive approaches to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Progress the development of the shoreline management plan for the Argyll and Bute coastline. Ongoing Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 10 Page 19
Page 20
107 Clyde and Loch Lomond Dunoon 10701 Flood scheme or works desi gn The selected preferred approach for managing flood risk is to be designed following the completion of the flood study, including consideration of the long- term impacts of climate change. These can include small scale works or works to improve catchment management. This should guide adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Further development of the preferred option may be required prior to commencing with the detailed design. Argyll and Bute Council to develop the detailed design of the flood protection works in Black Park (Ash Park), Dunoon based on the preferred option from the surface water management plan. The preferred option identified to mitigate flooding is a filtration trench discharging to the combined sewer. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 35 107 Clyde and Loch Lomond Dunoon 10702 Flood scheme or works implement ation The flood scheme/works is to be built following agreement of the design, costs and timescales. Argyll and Bute Council to progress the flood works based on the detailed design. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 500 Target Area ID SEPA Plan Local Plan District Target area name Action _ID Action type SEPA Plan general description (called 'Action' in final target area datasheets) LFRMP description of Action to be carried out by Argyll and Bute Council Indicative Delivery LFRMP Funding source Estimated Cost £ k (2019 Prices) Page 20
Page 21
107 Clyde and Loch Lomond Dunoon 10705 Flood defence maintenan ce The existing flood defences are to be maintained by the asset owner to ensure they are in good condition. Continue to maintain the Milton Burn Flood Protection Scheme (2012), Kilbride Road, Dunoon Flood Prevention Scheme (2007) and other existing flood defences in Dunoon. Ongoing Revenue 3 107 Clyde and Loch Lomond Dunoon 10707 Surface water managem ent plan Areas at risk of heavy or prolonged rainfall causing flooding due to water ponding on man- made surfaces or overwhelming the drainage system have been identified. Next steps in managing such water ponding or over- whelmed drainage systems have been identified and should be implemented. The plan is to be reviewed and updated as needed. Argyll and Bute Council to implement the surface water management plan. The plan should be reviewed and updated regularly. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 20 111 Clyde and Loch Lomond Gareloc hhead 11101 Flood study An understanding of flood risk and associated issues in the area is to be developed, which may include surveys and modelling and should consider the impacts of climate change on flood risk. In areas where flood risk is confirmed, a range of possible options to manage flood risk are to be identified, including natural flood management actions where suitable, and a preferred approach is to A flood study should be carried out to improve understanding of coastal flood risk in Garelochhead. The interactivity between coastal and other sources of flooding should be assessed. The impacts of climate change on flood risk should be evaluated. If flood risk is confirmed, scoping of the next steps should be completed. Data collection may also be included. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 40 Page 21
Page 22
be chosen. This should include adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. 111 Clyde and Loch Lomond Gareloc hhead 11102 Shoreline managem ent plan (coastal adaptive plan) An assessment of coastal flood and erosion risk is to be carried out. The plan should include assessment of climate change and develop adaptive approaches to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Progress the development of the shoreline management plan for the Argyll and Bute coastline. Ongoing Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 5 Page 22
Page 23
Target Area ID Local Plan District Target area name Action ID Action type SEPA Plan general description (called 'Action' in final target area datasheets) LFRMP description of Action to be carried out by Argyll and Bute Council Indicative Delivery Funding source Estimated Cost £ ,000 (2019 Prices) 346 Highlan d and Argyll Campb eltown 34602 Surface water manage ment plan Areas at risk of heavy or prolonged rainfall causing flooding due to water ponding on man-made surfaces or overwhelming the drainage system have been identified. Next steps in managing such water ponding or over-whelmed drainage systems have been identified and should be implemented. The plan is to be reviewed and updated as needed. Implement the Campbeltown Surface Water Management Plan which will help to manage residual surface water and sewer flood risk. In the Meadows and Burnside Square areas road gullies will be disconnected from the combined sewer network with drainage held in above ground and below ground storage basins, for a controlled release back into the combined system. Additional properties are targeted for property level flood resilience. Ongoing Capital plus any available external funding Included in contract awarded for £12.7 Million 346 Highlan d and Argyll Campb eltown 34603 Shorelin e manage ment plan (coastal adaptive plan) An assessment of coastal flood and erosion risk is to be carried out. The plan should include assessment of climate change and develop adaptive approaches to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Progress the shoreline management plan. This should consider the impacts of sea level rise on future flood risk. The need for an adaptation plan should be assessed. Ongoing Capital plus any available external funding 10 346 Highlan d and Argyll Campb eltown 34604 Flood scheme or works impleme ntation The flood scheme/works is to be built following agreement of the design, costs and timescales. Progress the Campbeltown Flood Protection Scheme. As built drawings should be made available to SEPA, for consideration in the Scottish Flood Defence Asset Database, flood map Ongoing Capital plus any available external funding CONTRA CT AWARD £12.7 Million Page 23
Page 24
improvements and flood warning scheme updates. 353 Highlan d and Argyll Clacha n 35301 Flood scheme or works de sign The selected preferred approach for managing flood risk is to be designed following the completion of the flood study, including consideration of the long- term impacts of climate change. These can include small scale works or works to improve catchment management. This should guide adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Develop the detailed design of the flood protection works in Clachan based on the preferred option from the flood study. The preferred option includes removal of a weir structure from the Clachan Burn and property flood resilience. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital plus any available external funding 25 353 Highlan d and Argyll Clacha n 35302 Flood scheme or works impleme ntation The flood scheme/works is to be built following agreement of the design, costs and timescales. Progress the flood protection works in Clachan based on the detailed design. As built drawings should be made available to SEPA, for consideration in the Scottish Flood Defence Asset Database, flood map updates and flood warning scheme updates. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this To be confirmed - progression budget dependent Capital plus any available external funding 263 Page 24
Page 25
action is subject to capital funding being made available. Target Area ID SEPA Plan Local Plan District Target area name Action _ID Action type SEPA Plan general description (called 'Action' in final target area datasheets) LFRMP description of Action to be carried out by Argyll and Bute Council Indicative Delivery LFRMP Funding source Estimated Cost £ k (2019 Prices) 353 Highlan d and Argyll Clacha n 35305 Commun ity flood alert A community river level alerting system is to be installed to provide information on the potential for localised flooding. A river level alerting system is being installed with the help of the Scottish Flood Forum. Ongoing Revenue 1.5 361 Highlan d and Argyll Tarbert 36101 Flood scheme or works de sign The selected preferred approach for managing flood risk is to be designed following the completion of the flood study, including consideration of the long- term impacts of climate change. These can include small scale works or works to improve catchment management. This should guide adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Further development of the preferred option may be required prior to commencing with the detailed design. Develop the detailed design of the Tarbert Flood Protection Scheme based on the preferred option from the flood study. The preferred option consists of flood defence walls and demountable defences. Property flood resilience is to be provided outwith the scheme extent. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 428 Page 25
Page 26
361 Highlan d and Argyll Tarbert 36102 Flood scheme or works impleme ntation The flood scheme/works is to be built following agreement of the design, costs and timescales. Progress the Tarbert Flood Protection Scheme based on the detailed design. As built drawings should be made available to SEPA, for consideration in the Scottish Flood Defence Asset Database, flood map updates and flood warning scheme updates. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/Reve nue plus any available external funding 4,285 361 Highlan d and Argyll Tarbert 36105 Surface water manage ment plan Areas at risk of heavy or prolonged rainfall causing flooding due to water ponding on man-made surfaces or overwhelming the drainage system are to be identified. These priority areas will provide a baseline for the identification of next steps in managing water ponding or over-whelmed drainage systems. This should guide adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Develop and implement a surface water management plan. This should be reviewed and updated regularly. The impacts of climate change on flood risk should be assessed. The results of the sewer flood risk assessment should be considered. Opportunities to disconnect surface water from the sewerage system should be identified. The plan should be reviewed and updated regularly. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital plus any available external funding 45 Page 26
Page 27
Target Area ID SEPA Plan Local Plan District Target area name Action _ID Action type SEPA Plan general description (called 'Action' in final target area datasheets) LFRMP description of Action to be carried out by Argyll and Bute Council Indicative Delivery LFRMP Funding source Estimated Cost £ k (2019 Prices) 366 Highlan d and Argyll Oban 36601 Flood scheme or works de sign The selected preferred approach for managing flood risk is to be designed following the completion of the flood study, including consideration of the long- term impacts of climate change. These can include small scale works or works to improve catchment management. This should guide adaptive planning to allow for the impacts of climate change to be monitored, understood and managed. Develop the detailed design of the Oban Flood Protection Scheme based on the preferred option from the flood study. The preferred option consists of a combined flood storage and direct defence solution to protect against flooding from the Black Lynn and property flood resilience to protect against coastal flooding. Some more work is required on the surface water element. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. In accordance with the flood risk management plan, as part of the scheme or works, the responsible authority should aim to ensure the action will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Inner Hebrides and the Minches Special Area of Conservation. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/ Revenue plus any available external funding 760 Page 27
Page 28
366 Highlan d and Argyll Oban 36602 Flood scheme or works impleme ntation The flood scheme/works is to be built following agreement of the design, costs and timescales. Progress the Oban Flood Protection Scheme based on the detailed design. As built drawings should be made available to SEPA, for consideration in the Scottish Flood Defence Asset Database, flood map updates and flood warning scheme updates. The responsible authority proposes this action as the best viable option for managing flood risk in this community. The delivery of this action is subject to capital funding being made available. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget Capital/ Revenue plus any available external funding 7,600 366 Highlan d and Argyll Oban 36604 Surface water manage ment plan Areas at risk of heavy or prolonged rainfall causing flooding due to water ponding on man-made surfaces or overwhelming the drainage system have been identified. Next steps in managing such water ponding or over-whelmed drainage systems have been identified and should be implemented. The plan is to be reviewed and updated as needed. Implement the surface water management plan. The plan should be reviewed and updated regularly. To be confirmed - progression dependent upon budget 10 Page 28
Page 29
APPENDIX 3 - DRAFT HIGHLAND AND ARGYLL LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN CYCLE 2 Highland and Argyll Local Flood Risk Management Plan (2022-2028) Highland and Argyll Local Flood Risk Management Plan (2022-2028) Page 29
Page 30
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 31
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DECEMBER 2022 SERVICES CEMETERY ASSET REPORT 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides an update on the current Argyll and Bute cemetery provision and, highlighting interventions within the asset group since this was last reported to Committee in 2019 and providing a revised list of at risk assets based on current figures and a revised projection model. Overall the number of high risk assets has reduced since 2019 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to: 2.1 Endorse the works done to date to reduce the number of high risk cemetery assets; 2.2 Endorse and approve the temporary local arrangement to restrict the pre-sale of lairs to protect the cemetery capacity; 2.3 Consider the future capital investment required in this asset group; and 2.4 Note that a further report on cemetery assets will be brought forward to the March Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee meeting, which will present options for reviewing the current policy as well as management of cemetery assets in the context of current needs and future demands. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 In December 2019 the Committee gave consideration to a report that presented a summary of the Council’s cemetery assets. The report provided information on the condition of the cemeteries including available lair space. At that time 14 sites were identified as high risk e.g. breaching capacity within 5 years. This list showed two entries against different sections of Pennyfuir – on reflection it is better to consider that as a single site, which brings the high risk sites down to 13. 3.2 Since then a number of interventions have been made or are identified at various sites including agreed capital extension works and reclaiming lair space/maximising where possible the existing footprint of sites which has improved the position. Page 31 Agenda Item 5
Page 32
3.3 As well as physical works, Officers have revised the expectancy projections. Previously expectancy was calculated based on a five year average of lair sales. The new projections are based on last year’s lair sale figures only because it better reflects the current climate. The Burial Service and the provision of Lair Spaces in Cemeteries are linked but are two distinct and separate parts of the Bereavement Service provided by the Council as the Burial Authority. The selling of Lair Certificates at point of request, uses up land in burial grounds in advance of the requirement for the Burial team to open a lair for an interment. There are however differing rates of uptake of lairs at each location and hence a variation in the remaining time before all space is sold. This is separate from the number of interments, as lairs can be used multiple times. The timescales vary from 1 year to over 100 years within the portfolio of active cemeteries. 3.4 Officers are aware that in particular new cemetery development in Kintyre has been challenging, despite efforts over the past three years we have been unable to progress a suitable site. As such and to protect the capacity of the cemetery for local residents, officers have taken the decision to prevent the pre-sale of lairs unless there has been a death. Although this has not been a policy decision, along with the new counting mechanism introduced, it now means Kilkerran Cemetery has a predicted expectancy which was less than 4 years in 2019 to 10 years. This now allows officers more time to develop plans for a new site. 3.5 As a result of this works the number of high risk sites has reduced from 13 to 4. The 2019 ‘at risk’ asset list has been updated to reflect the above and is appended to this report at Appendix 1. A summary of the main highlights of that work, where sites which were previously high risk now have a future capacity of 10+ years is summarised in the table below: Site Intervention/change Outcome Appin Extension 90 additional lairs created; 38 years of expectancy. Lismore Reclaimed space within existing site 9 additional lairs created; 16 years of expectancy Kilmorlich No new lairs sold since 2019 13 years of expectancy Carrick Reclaimed space 70 additional lairs created; 72 years of expectancy Pennyfuir Developed space with further options within current landholding 230 lairs created; further areas to secure 40-50 years of expectancy Achnaba A further extension was available for use Expectancy now 49 years Kilchattan Only 1 lair sold in last 3 years Expectancy now 28 years Page 32
Page 33
Tobermory Contract let for extension Will create 190 lairs; expectancy 95 years Kilkerran A local arrangement was put in place to restrict pre- sale, which has slowed the rate of purchase. 10 years expectancy now based on current sales figures 3.6 At Appendix 2 there is a revised development programme based on the new projection model and taking account of the interventions since 2019. This shows 5 high risk sites, with 1 new site shown based on the up to date sales figures. 3.7 Capital funds will be required in order to either purchase adjacent land and extend current cemeteries, or to provide new cemeteries. There are currently no capital funds allocated to a future cemetery expansion programme. Based on current high level estimates the costs of extending or creating new cemeteries to address the high risk assets is £310,000. To secure the future of all sites on the identified programme at Appendix Two would likely cost £910,000 based on initial high level estimates. Members will note that some sites identified as at risk in the revised programme do not have obvious solutions in terms of new land. It is recommended that Members consider future capital investment required in this asset group as part of the 23/24 budget process. 3.8 The Policy and Resources Committee recently agreed to allocate £300,000 from possible future Crown Estate for improvements to cemeteries within their existing footprint e.g levelling sunken lairs, repairs to access tracks, pathway restorations etc. This possible future funding will be split evenly across the four administrative areas. As and when funding is confirmed Officers will bring forward a set of proposals. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 This report provides an update on the current Argyll and Bute cemetery provision. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – Potential policy issue re stopping pre-sale of lairs 5.2 Financial – Capital funding will be required for the ongoing provision of additional lair capacity 5.3 Legal – None known. 5.4 HR – None known. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – None known. Page 33
Page 34
5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – None known. 5.5.3 Islands – None known. 5.6. Climate Change – None known. 5.7 Risk – None known. 5.8 Customer Service – None known. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Climate Change and Environment Services: Councillor Ross Moreland November 2022 For further information contact: Hugh O’Neill, Network and Standards Manager Appendices: Appendix 1 – At Risk Asset List 2019 Updated Appendix 2 – Cemetery Development Programme Page 34
Page 35
APPENDIX 1 – 2019 AT RISK CEMETERY ASSETS UPDATED: Status key: <5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years >15 years Cemetery Lairs available 2019 Expectancy in 2019 based on avg. 5yr model Interventions Current lairs available Expectancy based on previous year figures Further possible interventions within budgets Revised status Comments Appin new extension 0 0 Land purchased and Extension constructed 21/22 value £45k providing 90 additional lairs 87 – As three were issued as part of the land purchase agreement to the land owner. 38 years n/a – No further extension practicable on this site 38 years of estimated burial space based on new calculation method – sale of lair space only Community Council purchased land at a cost of £20k and passed it to ABC to develop. Total Cost for 90 lairs was £65k. Lismore 0 0 Reclaimed space within existing site Additional 9 lairs created 8 16 Officers are engaging with Church of Scotland to establish a further cemetery 16 years of estimated burial space based on new Officers reviewed the area and increased lair space by moving a shed. Cost to Page 35
Page 36
area on adjacent land. calculation method – sale of lair space only the council was minimal and part of operations work. Kilmorlich 2 1 Exploring the possibility of an extension on new land in the vicinity 2 13 – No new lairs sold since 2019. Average of lair sales was therefore estimated. Exploring the possibility of an extension on new land in the vicinity Previous figures for 2019 were based on interments and therefore skewed. Pennyfuir Section Q 1 1 New sections (R&S) are being developed at present – please refer to below updates. FULL - See Pennyfuir update below FULL - See Pennyfuir update below FULL - See Pennyfuir update below FULL - See Pennyfuir update below Section Q is now Full, Sections R&S are now selling lair space 2019 onwards. This line should be discounted – rather than looking at Pennyfuir in sections the site should be considered as one. Page 36
Page 37
Kilmun 31 1 33 additional lairs developed by reducing roadway to footpath width in 2021. 64 – Pre sale of lairs has reduced this to 28. 2 No more land available at this site. – Cowal Cemetery Extension 5 miles away being done. 2 years providing no pre- sale of lairs Officers consider stopping the pre-sale of lairs to preserve remaining space at this site. Carrick 19 1 – based on 2019 calculation of 16 interments per year NOT lairs sold. 70 Additional lair spaces released due to re-design of current site. 72 72 years based on last year’s sale of only 1 lair Potential extension access road repositioned within current footprint. 72 Land purchase is required to allow alternative access road and lair space to preserve service at this site. Pennyfuir 101 1 Sections R&S being developed ahead of lair space requirement. 230 6 years There is sufficient land to allow further extensions. Possibility of a further 40- 50 years within current land ownership when this is prepared. Section R has been completed and section S is being prepared at present. Page 37
Page 38
Tobermory (New) Beadoun 12 2 New contractor appointed for works beginning 28 November 2022 – 2 (will be in excess of 190 after completion of work in June 2023) 1 Construction of extension allowing extra 190 lairs by June 2023 95 years £800,000 scheme agreed, contractor appointed – this will create 190 additional lairs Strachur 14 2 Reclaimed space by moving footpaths etc. 12 lairs created 6 2 Site for a new cemetery currently being assessed at Succoth Road Glenbranter New site will need to be purchased from 3rd party and needs a hydrological assessment to ascertain site suitability. Cowal High Road 123 2 Council owned Land on adjacent site transferred to RIS and now being prepared for an extension. 50 2 Tree root clearance and ground preparation within revenue programme Extensive works required to make the ground suitable for a cemetery extension. Achnaba Ex 1&2 3 3 Extension 3 was available for further use 148 49 Achnaba extensions 1&2 now FULL. 49 Lair sales restricted to parish Page 38
Page 39
and is now being utilised. Residents only. Kilkerran Extension 187 4 A local arrangement was put in place to restrict pre- sale, which has slowed the rate of purchase. 147 10 – based on the reduced rate of annual lair sale Additional space may be achievable by reconfiguring space within the current footprint No adjacent land suitable for extension 1st alternative site rejected – landowner not willing to deal with Council NEW Campbeltown cemetery - 4 sites west of town on A83/B842 being explored for suitability Calgary 5 5 Adjacent land fenced off and work in kind delivered in lieu of land purchase. 2 – No lairs sold in last years 2 Shared Access track and fencing upgraded, land ready for use. Planning application and transfer of ownership - 2023 Kilchattan 15 5 Revised assessment Only 1 lair sold in last 3 years 28 years Now outwith 20year priority list Review in 10- 15 years Pennygowan 36 6 None 30 8 Adjacent land in Council ownership Assess options for extension 2024> between Page 39
Page 40
cemetery and Roads yard. Achnabreac Section K 70 6 Additional 328 lairs developed in owned land Sept 2021 348 lairs available in total 45 years at current rate of sale Main M-A cemetery – review in 5- 10 years Kingarth extension 50 7 None 36 9 Option to extend behind or adjacent to existing extension. Land owner details to be confirmed – towards land purchase options Kilmodan 9 9 None 6 6 Limited scope for adjacent extension Review options for new site in vicinity - 2024 onwards. Clachan (New) 46 9 None 40 – only 2 lairs sold in last year 20 Revised assessment Consider extension 5- 10 years time Putechan 38 10 4 lairs sold in last year 33 lairs in remaining extension 8 Scope to extend in adjacent field Land purchase required – landowner contacts 2024 > Lochgoilhead 20 10 None 16 8 Limited scope to extend without major works Options for adjacent of nearby sites to be Page 40
Page 41
considered 2024 > Kilbrandon Old 40 11 Figure actually relate to NEW cemetery 1 lair sold in last year 33 remaining 9 Scope for further extension in adjacent field Land purchase required – landowner contacts 2024 > Page 41
Page 42
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 43
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL - CEMETERIES DEVELOPMENT REVUE - 2021-22 APPENDIX 2 - Cemetery Development Programme CEMETERIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME - in order of Priority ( Red, Amber, Yellow only) HIERARCHY OF NEED - by age - Area Data - as at OCT 22. - BASED ON SALE OF LAIRS TO NEW APPLICANTS ( uptake of remaining land) Key RED = 0-5Years remaining at current Lair Sale Rate = CURRENT DEVELOPEMNT PROGRAMME 2022-23 > 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. Cemeteries ACTIVE Expectancy - YEARS REMAINING CAPACITY - RE-EVALUATION OF PREVIOUS SITES - OCTOBER 2022 AREA / DISTRICT CEMETERY LAIRS SOLD SEPTEMBER 2021 TO SEPTEMBER 2022 NUMBER OF NEW LAIRS REMAINING FOR SALE OCT22 ESTIMATED REMAINING OPERATIONAL YEARS UPDATED COMMENTS - NOVEMBER 2022 - INCLUDING ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRUCTION POTENTIAL AND EXTIMATED COST ESTIMATED VALUE OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ANY LAND PURCHASE or Average 5yr Cowal Strachur 3 6 2.00 12 New spaces FOUND 2022 in existing area On prog 2022-23 NEW SITE - Succoth Road tbc - land enquiries and Planning applications 2023. £ 150,000.00 Sandbank 10miles Isle of MULL Calgary 1 2 2.00 Development of extension 2021-22 ( ~160 single depth lairs ) Works completed in Lieu of land sale - to prepare area for use / access - Planning application for change of use - early 2023 £ 20,000.00 Beadoun (Tobermory) 15miles Cowal Cowal High Road 24 50 2.08 On development programme 2022 (# NEW ADJACENT SITE SANDBANK #) Major development of main cemetery for Dunoon and South Cowal - land enquiries and Planning applications 2023 for development in stages £ 100,000.00 n/a Cowal Kilmun 12 28 2.33 33 ADDITIONAL LAIRS IN EXTENEDED AREA 2022 however 12 already sold - 28 Lairs remain available 2023 - NO PRESALE TO PRESERVE SPACE. None - No land Sandbank 5miles Isle of ISLAY Keills, Islay 3 15 5.00 ***NEW*** Potential for extension of existing to be considered , brought into programme due to increased sales - CONSIDER NO PRE-SALE TO PRESERVE SPACE £ 40,000.00 Bowmore 8miles Cowal Kilmodan 1 6 6.00 Limited scope for extension on adjacent ground consider alternatives by 2024 None - No land Strachur 8miiles Kintyre Skipness 2 12 6.00 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 3 years (2025) CONSIDER NO PRESALE TO PRESERVE SPACE £ 40,000.00 Carrick M-A 11miles Isle of MULL Pennygowan 4 30 7.50 Limited scope for extension on adjacent ground - consider alternatives site - enquiries on suitable locations within next 2-3 years. ( by 2025) £ 50,000.00 Beadoun (Tobermory) 12miles Cowal Lochgoilhead 2 16 8.00 Limited scope for extension on adjacent ground-consider alternatives by 2024 £ 30,000.00 Strachur 10miles Kintyre Patchen 4 33 8.25 Potential for extension of existing to be considered within 3-4 years by 2025 £ 15,000.00 C/Town new 11miles Isle of ISLAY Bowmore 7 59 8.43 Potential for extension of existing review 3-4 years - adjacent land by 2025 £ 15,000.00 n/a Isle of BUTE Kingarth extension 4 36 9.00 Explore potential for Ph3 extension option in adjacent field - ownership enquiry and planning application Feb 2022 > re-asses Jan 2023 > £ 20,000.00 Barone Rd 7miles Isle of BUTE N. Bute Cnoc-an-raer extension 2 16 156 9.75 updated Sept 21 - Sufficient capacity - reconsider in 5 years CONSIDER NO PRESALE TO PRESERVE REMAINING SPACE - scope for adjacent extension £ 30,000.00 Barone Rd 5miles Helensburgh and Lomond Barbour 3 31 10.33 Limited scope for extension - reconsider alternatives in 5 years (2027) no suitable ground Rosneath 6miles Kintyre Kilkerran Existing Extension ## 14 147 10.50 No scope to extend - 4 sites West of Campbeltown to be considered 2022 for development of new main cemetery for Campbeltown and South Kintyre Currently - NO PRESALE OF LAIRS TO PRESERVE SPACE - sale rate reduced . £ 150,000.00 Campbeltown (New site - tbc) ~3miles DISTANCE TO NEXT NEAREST OR "MAIN" DISTRICT CEMETERY . Name Miles Page 43
Page 44
Isle of IONA Iona 2 26 13.00 Special residents requirements necessary for Lair Sales- review 5yrs ( 2027) £ 30,000.00 Suidhe(Bunessan) 5miles Cowal Kilmorich 0.15 2 13.33 On development programme 2021 NEW ADJACENT SITE land enquiries and design pending , towards planning application 2022 . No new lair sale since 2019 £ 30,000.00 Strachur 5miles Lorn Kilninver 2 27 13.50 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 5 years (2027) £ 30,000.00 Pennyfuir 10miles Isle of LISMORE Lismore 0.5 8 16.00 Additional 9 Lairs Sept 21 - On Development programme 2021-22 > in discussion with community council on suitable sites at chuch or elsewhere - IMPORTED SOIL REQUIRED - INSUFFICIENT DEPTH AT PRESENT £ 70,000.00 Appin 10miles Isle of BUTE Barone Road section A & B 10 190 19.00 updated Sept 21 - Sufficient capacity - reconsider in 5 years CONSIDER FOOTPATH EXTENSION AS PART OF WORK - scope for adjacent extension £ 60,000.00 n/a Kintyre Clachan (New) 2 40 20.00 Potential for extension of existing to be considered within 10 years by 2032 £ 30,000.00 Carrick M-A 9miles Isle of GIGHA Keil 1 24 24.00 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - 5 yrs - Scope for adjacent extension Patchen-Kintyre 12miles Kintyre Killean 2 58 29.00 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 5 years (2027) Patchen-Kintyre 6miles Lorn Kilbrandon (Balvicar) 1 33 33.00 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider within 2-3 years (by 2025) Pennyfuir 15miles Lorn Achnaba Ext 3 3 148 49.33 Special residents requirements for Lair Sales (limited scope to further extend) Pennyfuir 8miles Isle of ISLAY Kilchoman 3 184 61.33 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future - reconsider in 5 years (2027) Bowmore 11miles Mid-Argyll Carrick Old and New 1 72 72.00 Additional 70 Lairs released Sept 21. New Extension to lairs to north and carpark & access road to east - Plan started 2020 -21 , progress in next 5 yrs Achnabreac 16miles Kintyre Brackley 2 215 107.50 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future C/Town new 16miles Cowal Cladhamhulin/Millhouse 2 273 136.50 Sufficient capacity for foreseeable future Strachur 22miles 5 year programme Budget 310,000.00£ 6 - 15 year programme Budget 600,000.00£ TOTAL 910,000.00£ Page 44
Page 45
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 01 DECEMBER 2022 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STRATEGY UPDATE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Argyll and Bute Council has an existing network of 28 public EVCs, which are now charged for. As EVC becomes increasingly popular, and as the ban on new internal combustion engine vehicles approaches, there is a clear need for a comprehensive EVC strategy which includes both options to sustainably manage and maintain the existing network as well as developing it at pace as and when funding arises. 1.2 This report provides an update under various headings: EVC expansion plans and public consultation Possible costs and future external funding options Maintenance of the current network Future procurement and installation Update on installation work over the past 12 months 1.3 Background information including previous committee reports and the EV strategy Part One; Cost Recovery Model is available on the Council website here. RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee is asked to: Agree the development and prioritisation methodology at Appendix 1 and the 55 site EV expansion list at Appendix 2, noting that the expansion plan was supported by three-quarters of respondents to the EVC public consultation. Note that Officers continue to engage with Transport Scotland on future funding options through the new Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Fund and that a specific Member Seminar will be arranged on EVC when there is clarity on how that fund will operate Page 45 Agenda Item 6
Page 46
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 01 DECEMBER 2022 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STRATEGY UPDATE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report provides an update on the work over the past year to continue the development of the Council’s EVC strategy, including public consultation, and developing future options for maintenance, funding and procurement. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee is asked to: 3.1 Agree the development and prioritisation methodology at Appendix 1 and the 55 site EV expansion list at Appendix 2, noting that the expansion plan was supported by three-quarters of respondents to the EVC public consultation. 3.2 Note that Officers continue to engage with Transport Scotland on future funding options through the new Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Fund and that a specific Member Seminar will be arranged on EVC when there is clarity on how that fund will operate Page 46
Page 47
4.0 DETAIL 4.1 EVC expansion plans and public consultation [EVC strategy Part Two] 4.1.1 A detailed methodology was presented to the June 2021 meeting of this committee, then discussed at a Member Seminar in September 2021 which led to changes to the original proposed methodology. The original draft had sites to be prioritised large towns to small, whereas feedback from the Seminar meant that we changed the prioritisation to focus on small villages/towns first on the basis that larger towns already have at least one charger. We had also originally proposed to cut off at settlements smaller than 1,000 population but following feedback we included villages with a smaller resident population than that but acknowledging that tourist traffic is significant. An updated draft list and methodology was then presented to the December 2021 meeting. Appended to this report at Appendix 1 is the development methodology and the draft long list is at Appendix 2. 4.1.2 The agreed draft development methodology and site list went out to public consultation to ensure that communities had the opportunity to be involved in the process of deciding where future public EVCs installations should be across the Council area, and how that network should be developed and prioritised. 4.1.3 The consultation was promoted in a variety of ways, from social media and website links and via the national EVC back office support provider Charge Place Scotland. People were informed that the consultation was taking place and a link to the online survey was provided on each of the platforms. We received 254 responses from across Argyll and Bute; and as well as giving views on specific questions, respondents also provided more than 500 comments. 4.1.4 The full consultation findings report is appended to this report at Appendix 3 and an overview of themes from the consultation is at Appendix 4. 4.1.5 On the basis that three-quarters of those responding to the consultation supported the proposed expansion plan and development methodology, these are therefore recommended to the committee for approval to be adopted as the Council’s EVC expansion policy. This will effectively complete the second part of the five part EVC strategy. 4.1.6 The list is entirely theoretical, and it is anticipated that as the list is worked through there could be infrastructure limitations or technical considerations which may prevent development at a specific site. Although the development methodology provides for different priority bands, until such time as there is clarity on the possible future funding options it is not possible to develop a method to determine how that funding should be allocated to sites within the priority bands e.g. how sites are prioritised within the priority bands against available funding. As and when there is clarity on external funding a further report will come forward for Members to agree funding allocations. Page 47
Page 48
4.2 POSSIBLE COSTS AND FUTURE FUNDING OPTIONS 4.2.1 It was previously reported to this committee that the third part of the strategy would give consideration to future funding requirements and options – mapping, application, management – to deliver on the outline programme developed through Part Two. 4.2.2 Since then the Scottish Government has set out its vision for electric charging infrastructure in Scotland. To briefly summarise, the vision expects that £60million of investment will be made in EVC, with that investment to be 50% publicly funded by SG, with the other 50% coming from private finance. 4.2.3 It is not clear at this stage how the private element would work, but what is clear is that the Scottish Government will provide £30million of public funding across Scotland’s 32 local authorities through an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Fund [EVIF]. This funding will be allocated through a competitive bidding process, the details of which are not yet available. 4.2.4 Based on historic costs, we are estimating an average EVC purchase and installation cost of £25,000. With the rise in inflation a contingency element has been built in to our estimates which gives an average cost for estimating purposes of £30,000 per site. This gives an estimated total of £1,650,000 to deliver our 55 site plan. 4.2.5 The Scottish Futures Trust has been tasked with supporting the Scottish Government in developing various delivery models for local authorities to consider, and they have outlined three possible delivery models, two of which indicate how private finance could potentially be levered in: (i) Leasing sites Local authorities consider land holdings that may be suitable for commercial charge point delivery and offer sites they own to a private partner via a long lease which affords the opportunity to install and operate charge points. The private partner retains financing, installation, and service delivery risk. It sets tariffs and retains all the revenue it generates from EV users (subject to the terms of the lease). A lease might include conditions regarding the private partner’s actions, but typically allows freedom and flexibility for the private partner. Sites could be offered to the partner in bundles with a mixture of high and low income sites, but this option is more suitable for more sites with higher utilisation that require little or no public subsidy. Land and all below ground assets could remain in local authority ownership. The local authority could offer a “prepared site” and use its grant funding to secure network upgrades as well as any associated civils works. The local authority may wish to charge rent and/or take a share of future revenues. (ii) Concession contracts The risk associated with installation, maintenance, and service delivery across multiple sites, including asset utilisation, is transferred to a private partner who Page 48
Page 49
finances the capital and replacement costs of new charger points after taking any grant funding into account. The private partner sets tariffs and retains the revenue it generates from EV users (subject to the terms of the concession agreement). The contract term would reflect the period required by the private partner to recoup and make a return on invested capital. At the end of the contract term the assets are expected to revert to the local authority. Land and all below ground assets could remain in local authority ownership (which could command a rent and/or share of future revenue) or the private partner could be expected to source land from other parties. The local authority could offer some “prepared sites” and use its grant funding to secure network upgrades as well as any associated civils works. The local authority may also decide to transfer the operation, maintenance and replacement risk of its existing charge point assets to the private partner for the duration of the contract and in turn, allow the private partner to generate income from these exiting sites. Unlike the leasing option, where the local authorities would not be involved in service delivery, the private partner’s performance in a concession contract would be monitored via a KPI Framework. This model is expected to be deployed where private sector investment on its own is unlikely to be viable. (iii) Local Authority Owner Operator Local authorities set the specification, procure the capital works, and retain responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the charging network. They procure a Charge Point Management System and a customer support provider, or a full turnkey Charge Point Operator to provide the interface with the EV users, collect data, monitor performance, manage costs, process payments, and facilitate fault resolution. Whilst capital costs are likely to be procured via a fixed price contract, and maintenance costs covered by warranties, all risk relating to capital, operation, and maintenance costs as well as charge point utilisation, income generation and customer relationship management are retained by the local authority. The local authority funds the capital costs, operation, maintenance, and repairs are funded from the tariff and income generated. 4.2.6 SFT have recognised that variations to each of these models to meet local circumstances may be required to reflect each local authority’s preferred long- term role in the delivery of public charging services. It may be the case that in some circumstances local authorities wish to consider the merits of establishing a joint venture with a private sector organisation. 4.2.7 At this stage Officers continue to engage with SFT and Transport Scotland through various forums to monitor and contribute to the development of the national vision and to ensure Argyll and Bute Council is well placed to bid for funding when the EVIF fund officially opens up. This is expected to be early 2023. Page 49
Page 50
4.3 MAINTENANCE OF THE NETWORK/FAULT ISSUES 4.3.1 The fourth part of the strategy focusses on maintenance. Fault reporting is simple for the EVC user; it can be done via the CPS phone number which is on all units or their online form. Once received it is assigned a ticket number and various back office troubleshooting is undertaken to try and bring the unit back into use remotely. If this communication fails an engineer is scheduled with a Service Level Agreement of 48hrs, unfortunately the SLA is rarely met due to a combination of manpower over commitments and our geography. This is not uncommon across all local authorities. If the fault can be fixed within the warranty agreement this is carried out and if not a quote for the work is provided by SWARCO directly to the Council for approval and authorisation. Once the fault is rectified the back office system is updated. 4.3.2 We have been proactive with fault and maintenance issues. We are monitoring faults and adding service disruptions to the Council’s website, liaising closely with SWARCO to stay up to date on faults that run longer than the SLA and have recently gone out to tender for new maintenance and warranty contracts. 4.3.3 We are currently running a tender process to replace and simplify the numerous maintenance and warranty contracts that currently exist as a result of contracts being extended over the years. This new single contract will see units being added to it as their existing contract ends making it easier to manage and monitor moving forward. The new contract has been done using the Scottish Governments new Scotland Excel procurement framework and we have progressed this with our Procurement colleagues. At the time of writing this report that procurement exercise has not concluded but it may conclude prior to the Committee meeting. Once that new contract is in place and we have a detailed maintenance plan that will effectively complete this part of the EVC strategy. 4.4 PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION STRATEGY 4.4.1 Part Five of the strategy considers future procurement and installation. Previously EVC installs were procured through open tender which was time consuming. As a result of engagement with and work by Scotland Excel there are now national framework contracts which are in place which should allow for much faster call offs as and when funding arises. Once we have funding clarity it is our intention to develop a detailed programme year by year subject to a further decision by Members on funding allocations, and to look to appoint large contracts on allotted basis with optional follow on lots – this should find the balance between pace of delivery and ensuring quality. 4.5 UPDATE ON ASSET MANAGEMENT AND EXPANSION 4.5.1 A summary of the work to deliver installations, relocate charger and explore new EVC opportunities is summarised in the table below: Page 50
Page 51
Item Funding Comments HITRANS FASTER project c. £372,000 This is a fund administered by HITRANS directly. This is a detailed piece of work which is covered fully at Appendix 5 of this report. Dunoon Grammar pilot The Power Networks Demonstration Centre [PNDC] at Strathclyde University were managing a project which aimed to gain data in order to improve the maintenance and repair of EVC. The academic and Industrial research and development scheme funded from the Infrastructure Solutions for Zero Emission Vehicle fund, provided by the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV). It was planned that Argyll and Bute would receive 4 fully funded EV charge points, including the costs of hardware, installation and operation (excluding metered energy costs). Unfortunately the opportunity was lost due to the project funding tight timescales and the additional layer of complexity to the sites due to them being managed by third parties. It is important to note this was not wasted exercise, a lot of learning was gained and that knowledge and future planning will now be applied to future installs like the one noted below at Oban High School. Relocation of Helensburgh Pier EVCs Helensburgh Waterfront Development This has been a highly resource intensive project to support, with calls on the project team’s time along with colleagues from Infrastructure Design to assist in relocating the Helensburgh EVC from their previous position near the old leisure centre to the new leisure facility car park. There has been 6+ months of intense modification work required to ensure the EVCs are reinstated to full working capacity and in line with Transport Scotland specification. Unfortunately at the time of writing there remain some snagging issues with the relocated chargers which are being picked up directly with the contractor. Council business chargers £130,000 from Switched on Fleets Successful installs at Jackson’s Quarry depot, Oban, and an additional unit at Helensburgh Civic Centre Working on a scheme to install a charger at Oban High School if a suitable agreement can be reached with ABC Schools who manage the school on behalf of the Council. Tarbert £47,000 from SSEN This would provide a charger in Tarbert [an identified site within the Expansion Page 51
Page 52
Plan] funded through SSEN at no cost to the Council. This is a community benefit from the power installation projects in the area. Funding has now been secured. Tighnabruaich £63,000 from Transport Scotland This is a legacy scheme from the previous Local Authority Install Programme Arrochar Any costs absorbed in EVC budget We are relocating the EVC that currently sits within Luss Estates carpark, Arrochar. The Council did lease this carpark but when that agreement ended in 2021 the EVC was effectively nested in a third party site which had different access arrangements from our other EVCs. There is an outline proposal for an improvement project at the Glen Loin 2 car park and we had been hoping to synchronise the proposed works there with the move of the EVC, but it now appears that that project won’t proceed in earnest for some time depending on other funding applications. With that in mind we are making arrangement to move the EVC now, so that it is publically available in the adjacent car park in advance of future works to that site. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 If Members adopt the long list of public sites and the delivery methodology, which were supported by three-quarters of those responding to the public consultation, this will become Council policy and will be the list of sites to be worked through as and when external funding arises. 5.2 A significant amount of work has gone into the development of the EVC strategy and the Council is now well placed to deliver on further EVCs and to have robust systems in place to manage the network. How the strategy develops from this point will largely depend on clarity on future funding. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – EVC strategy would be formally adopted as Policy and will guide development of EVC as and when future funding arises. 6.2 Financial – cost recovery model is covering electricity costs; capital costs currently 100% externally funded. Page 52
Page 53
6.3 Legal – none 6.4 HR – none 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty - none 6.5.3 Islands – gaps in the network are prioritised through the public programme. 6.6 Climate Change – implications for climate change through EVC strategy are very positive. Expanding our public network will encourage people to transition to electric vehicles, reducing CO2 emissions and moving towards a greener transport system. 6.7 Risk – in terms of future options, there may be risks associated to a commercial model. 6.8 Customer Service – Working to ensure a better maintenance and warranty contract which will increase network reliability and provide a better service for our customers. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Policy Lead for Roads and Transport, Councillor Andrew Kain October 2022 For further information contact: Mark Calder, Project Manager Mark.Calder@argyll-bute.gov.uk Victoria Weir, Project Officer Victoria.Weir@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 – EVC Infrastructure Development Methodology Appendix 2 – Proposed EVC Expansion List Appendix 3 – Consultation Responses Appendix 4 – EVC Consultation Headlines and Key Themes Appendix 5 – HITRANS FASTER Project Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
APPENDIX 1: EVC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY – (UPDATED 9.11.21) Aim: to inform Part Two of the EVC strategy, with a view to arriving at a consolidated long list of future EVC sites across various asset groups. Focus on network coverage [addressing any gaps in the existing network], with network expansion [expansion of existing provision on existing sites] to follow. Focus on equity. Infrastructure should be split into three distinct themes, with a default charger type/composition per theme: Theme 1 – charging on the move [rapid [50kw] – 90mins to 2 hours to fully charge] This theme should provide rapid chargers at/on/near the public road network [and as that relates to car ferry routes]. The assumption is that users will utilise these chargers while ‘on the move’ for a ‘top up’, therefore these should be in the fastest charging category. Theme 2 – destination charging [fast [22kw] – charge in 4 hours; slow [7kw] – charge in 7 hours] This theme should provide fast chargers at locations where users are likely to leave their cars for an extended period of time such as long stay off-street car parks, with the default charger in these locations being fast. Slow chargers may be considered for transport hubs/park and ride facilities where users are likely to leave their vehicles overnight. Theme 3 – residential charging [slow [7kw] – charge in 7 hours] This theme should provide overnight charging capability for residential housing which lacks on street parking, either retrospectively [likely responsibility of RSLs] or through planning gain. Theme 1 – charging on the move Addressing any gaps in the existing network to provide for one rapid charger every 25 – 35 mins [HiTRANS/Strathclyde University methodology for the FASTER project recommend the figure of 30mins to ensure driver confidence], as an aspiration, while acknowledging that this may not be appropriate for every setting: Sites should be at/on/near existing settlements with local amenities, with a view that the network development should bring consequential economic development gains e.g. EV users utilise local shops, cafes etc. while their car charges. Sites should be in Council ownership/control Consideration of grid capacity and associated cost barriers. Sites should have the potential for future expansion. Page 55
Page 56
Delivery prioritised in tranches according to the existing road and pier hierarchy Sites not in Council ownership can be considered if necessary to fill a network gap. Bringing these into Council ownership would be preferable. Therefore the strategic priorities for site identification and delivery should be as below: Gaps every 25-35 minutes Hierarchy Priority rating A roads Principal car ferry ports [mainland side] 1 B roads Principal car ferry ports [island side] Car ferry ports [mainland side] 2 C roads Car ferry ports [island side] 3 U roads 4 Note: this is a theoretical methodology at this point – it is unlikely that significant gaps will exist further down the priority rating/hierarchy. Theme 2 – destination charging This theme should provide for charging infrastructure where users are likely to leave their cars for an extended period of time. Sites should be in Council ownership as part of existing medium-long stay parking provision Sites not in Council ownership can be considered if necessary to fill a network gap. Locating chargers at site within Council ownership would be preferable. At least one fast charger Hierarchy Coverage Priority rating Towns 1,000 – 2,000 Principal ferry ports [mainland side] Rail park and rides Airport [mainland] One car park All All All 1 Page 56
Page 57
Towns 2,000 to 5,000 Principal ferry ports [island side] Ferry ports [mainland side] 25% of off-street car parks [largest to smallest or as appropriate for local needs] All All 2 Towns 5,000 to 10,000 Ferry ports [island side] 50% of off-street car parks [largest to smallest or as appropriate for local needs] All 3 Towns of greater than 10,000 Island airports All off-street car parks All 4 Theme 3 – residential charging This theme will need to be explored further to see if there are any residential areas with a lack of on-street parking which are within Council ownership. At present it is anticipated that the Council will have little if any involvement in providing residential charging infrastructure as the requirement for this is likely to be on RSL owned sites. Future planning policy should reflect the need for residential EV provision. Note for all themes: in developing the consolidated long lists consideration will need to be given to suitable delegated infrastructure cost barriers relative to the particular location and likely future usage. These barriers or cost ranges are likely to become clear once sites are selected and cost estimates can be prepared. Page 57
Page 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 59
AREA TOWN/VILLAGE EXISTING LOCATION COUNCIL OWNED PROPOSED THEME PRIORITY COMMENTS STRACHUR MEMORIAL HALL Y 1 x RAPID 1 1 This would provide for a network gap between Dunoon and Inveraray/Arrochar GUILDFORD SQUARE Y 1 x RAPID 1 1 Currently therE is no rapid charging provision on the island GUILDFORD SQUARE Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 2,000 to 5,000 - 25% off-street car parks 1 x SLOW GUILDFORD SQUARE Y CHAPELHILL ROAD CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 2,000 to 5,000 - 25% off-street car parks ROTHESAY HARBOUR Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 Principal fery port [island side]. Rapid charger to be provided for cars in the ferry queue as opposed to parked up. ROTHESAY HARBOUR Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 2 Second charger at this site to provide for those ferry passengers who wouldleave their car. TIGHNABRUAICH ROCKBANK Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 Previousy committed to via 2019/20 TS LAIP funding INNELLAN SANDY BEACH Y 1 x FAST 2 1 Population 1,000 to 2,000 - one car park. PORT BANNATYNE ON-STREET PARKING BAY [EXACT DETAILS TBC] Y 1 x FAST 2 1 On the basis that there is no off-street car park proposed on street to meet network gap 1 x FAST AND 1 x RAPID COAL PIER ALEXANDRA PARADE Y HANOVER STREET CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 3 Population 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off street car parks KIRK STREET CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 3 Population 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off street car parks ARGYLL STRET CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 3 Population 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off street car parks GLENMORAG CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 3 Population 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off street car parks JANE VILLA CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 3 Population 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off street car parks MOIR STREET CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 3 Population 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off street car parks SANDBANK TSC CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 1 Population 1,000 to 2,000 - one car park. It should be notedhere that there is another car park owned by a local community group which may provide for a better location [Ardnadam] LOCHGOILHEAD SHORE ROAD CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 1 Population fewer than 1,000 but known tourist hotspot CARDROSS MAIN STREET CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 2,000 to 5,000 - 25% off-street car parks [or at least one] ARROCHAR 1 x RAPID LOCH LONG CAR PARK N Currently engaged in discussions with Luss Estates as the Council's lease on this car park has now ended. agreed terms for one section (Clydebank Developments) which Legal are nearing completion on and the other section which is owned by Crown Estates is under discussion but seems likely that we will agree terms soon to purchase that as well KILCREGGAN SHORE ROAD CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 1 Population 1,000 to 2,000 - one car park. GARELOCHHEAD COMMUNITY CENTRE Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 2,000 to 5,000 - 25% off-street car parks [or at least one]. Divergence from the 'higher to lower' original criteria of car parks on the basis of local geography. FERRY ROAD CAR PARK Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 Filling a network gap c. 30min drive from Helensburgh FERRY ROAD CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 1 Population 1,000 to 2,000 - one car park. 2 x FAST AND 3 x RAPID WEST CLYDE STREET Y These are being moved within the site to accommodate the new Swimming Pool SINCLAIR STREET CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 4 Population greater than 10,000 - all off street car parks MAITLAND STREET CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 4 Population greater than 10,000 - all off street car parks KIDSTON PARK CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 4 Population greater than 10,000 - all off street car parks GRANT STREET PARK AND RIDE Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 1 Rail park and ride LUSS OLD TOLL HOUSE CAR PARK Y 1x FAST 2 1 Population less than 1,000 but known tourist hotspot BUTE & COWAL HELENSBURGH & LOMOND DUNOON ROTHESAY ROSNEATH HELENSBURGH Page 59
Page 60
PIER, FERRY ROAD Y 1 x RAPID 1 1 To address a rapid charging network gap between Campbeltown and Lochgilphead [on the public road network for drivers] TAYINLOAN FERRY FERMINAL Y 1 x RAPID 1 1 Rapid charger to be provided for cars in the ferry queue as opposed to parked up. TAYINLOAN FERRY FERMINAL Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 1 Second charger at this site to provide for those ferry passengers who wouldleave their car. FERRY TERMINAL Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 Rapid charger to be provided for cars in the ferry queue as opposed to parked up. FERRY TERMINAL Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Second charger at this site to provide for those ferry passengers who wouldleave their car. CARRADALE SHORE ROAD CAR PARK Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 To address a network gap in East Kintyre CAMPBELTOWN ROAD CAR PARK Y 1 x RAPID 1 1 To address an existing rapid charging network gap between Campbeltown and Lochgilphead 1 x FAST CAMPBELTOWN ROAD CAR PARK Y NEW QUAY CAR PARK y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 2,000 to 5,000 - 25% off-street car parks. Divergence from the 'higher to lower' original criteria of car parks on the basis of local geography. 1 x RAPID NEW QUAY CAR PARK y ARDRISHAIG CHALMERS ST No. 2 CAR PARK 1 x FAST 2 1 Population 1,000 to 2,000 - one car park. 2 x FAST AND 1 x RAPID LORNE ST No. 1 CAR PARK Y 2 x FAST MANSE BRAE CAR PARK Y INVERARAY 1 x FAST AND 1 x RAPID THE AVENUE Y COLONSAY COLONSAY AIRPORT Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 4 Island airport BOWMORE 1 x RAPID AND 1 x FAST SCHOOL STREET CAR PARK Y FERRY TERMINAL Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 Rapid charger to be provided for cars in the ferry queue as opposed to parked up. FERRY TERMINAL Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 2 Second charger at this site to provide for those ferry passengers who wouldleave their car. CRAIGHOUSE COUNCIL CAR PARK 1 x FAST 2 3 Proposed instead of Feoilin ferry terminal with a view to providig for the main service centre, also noting that the ferry crossiNG s relatively short and there is provision on the Islay side OBAN LOCHAVULLIN CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off-street car parks. Consideration will need to be given to known flooding at this site OBAN 1 x FAST AND 1 x RAPID TWEEDDALE STREET CAR PARK Y OBAN LONGSDALE ROAD CAR PARK Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off-street car parks. OBAN CORRAN HALLS 1 Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off-street car parks. OBAN NORTH PIER Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off-street car parks. OBAN GANAVAN SANDS Y 1 x FAST 2 2 Population of 5,000 to 10,000 - 50% off-street car parks. TIREE 1 x RAPID FERRY TERMINAL SCARANISH N COLL 1 x RAPID COMMUNITY CENTRE, ARINAGOUR N FIONNPHORT 1 x RAPID COLUMBA CENTRE CAR PARK Y CRAIGNURE 1 x RAPID AND 1 x FAST CRAIGNURE CAR PARK Y TOBERMORY 1 x RAPID LEDAIG CAR PARK Y PORT APPIN FERRY TERMINAL/SLIPWAY Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 Mainland-side ferry MID-ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS PORT ASKAIG TAYINLOAN GIGHA TARBERT CAMPBELTOWN LOCHGILPHEAD Page 60
Page 61
PORT APPIN FERRY TERMINAL/SLIPWAY Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 2 Mainland-side ferry SEIL [ELLENABEAICH] FERRY TERMINAL/SLIPWAY Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 Mainland-side ferry SEIL [ELLENABEAICH] FERRY TERMINAL/SLIPWAY Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 2 Mainland-side ferry CUAN FERRY [SEIL] FERRY TERMINAL/SLIPWAY Y 1 x RAPID 1 2 Mainland-side ferry CUAN FERRY [SEIL] FERRY TERMINAL/SLIPWAY Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 2 Mainland-side ferry CULLIPOOL FERRY TERMINAL/SLIPWAY Y 1 x RAPID 1 3 Island-side ferry CULLIPOOL FERRY TERMINAL/SLIPWAY Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 3 island-side ferry COLL AIRPORT Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 4 Island airport OBAN AIRPORT Y 1 x FAST or SLOW [TBC] 2 1 Mainland airport 28 54 OBAN LORN AND THE ISLES Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 63
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGER (EVC) Consultation The EVC Consultation was run from 23rd May until 30th June 2022. 254 responses were submitted. The consultation was as follows: Page 63
Page 64
Page 64
Page 65
Q.6 In response to Q.4 - Argyll and Bute Council intends to expand on its existing network of 28 public EVCs. Can you explain why you disagree with this approach: PLEASE SEE APPENDIX 1 FOR THEMED RESPONSES Q.7 In response to Q.5 There are different types of chargers for different types of use: Rapid, Fast and Slow chargers. We intend to install a mixture based on the following criteria: [Themes 1-3] If you answered NO to the question above, can you explain why you disagree with this approach? PLEASE SEE APPENDIX 2 FOR THEMED RESPONSES Q.8 Do you have any comments about the proposal? PLEASE SEE APPENDIX 3 FOR THEMED RESPONSES Page 65
Page 66
APPENDIX 1 Argyll and Bute Council intends to expand on its existing network of 28 public EVCs. If / when funding is available, we have proposed sites which will fill gaps in the existing network, rather than increasing the number of chargers at our existing sites. This is on the basis that we want a good spread of chargers across different communities along our road network, as well as at different sites within our larger towns. Can you explain why you Disagree with this Approach? COMMENT THEMES MANAGING EVC PROJECT Be more ambitious and lead the way. Pair up with companies that can deliver a car park size of chargers and uses solar panels or wind. As you can tell from my postcode, I live in Garelochhead, according to your plans you intend to fit one charging station for a population of 3,700. I fully understand that you are limited by the available funding (if any funding arrives), however I can not see how the addition of a single charging point will have any effect on a population of this size (other than to cause arguments about who gets access to it). The issue of charging points really does need to be addressed on a significantly larger scale if our goal is to move from fossil fuel to EVs then I would suggest that one action that may be within our council remit would be to refuse planning permission for new houses unless they include at least one off-road parking space per household with EV charging capability and, additionally, provide some plan for retrofitting old housing stock with EV charging capability. I understand that this issue is not of your making and that you are trying to help, however, I believe that any additional funding our council can get to address this problem would be better used by fighting for a more realistic approach to the EV charging problem, you need to convince central government that the only way people will accept EVs is if they can charge them up at home. hubs with multiple chargers (or different speeds) offer the best user experience for both residents and visitors The parking spaces do not work for all vehicles, plug in points at different positions on cars means the cables don't reach or are plugged in at angle and therefore the connection is void and unable to charge existing network is appalling and not well maintained Should be up to the private sector to provide chargers. It should not be for a council to provide assistance to the wealthier people in society i.e. those that can afford electric cars. NOT ENOUGH EVCS Oban & Lochgilphead underserved with no rapid chargers. Also none from Oban over to Rest and be Thankful via either Crianlarich or Inveraray. Not enough !!! There should be a minimum of 4 charge points in each named location in A&B ie Rhu Shanndon finart cove Rosneath etc etc Fails to provide anywhere near sufficient chargers for residential use Nowhere near enough. I live in Connel, and would like to see at least 2 charge points here. Similarly, every village in rural Argyll should have provision made, if you are serious about a commitment to electric vehicles. The existing infrastructure is inadequate in peak season - most sites have only 2-4 chargers wth very few fast chargers. If these are occupied it can mean a wait of several hours. The number of Page 66
Page 67
chargers needs to be increased at existing sites, as well as new sites being introduced, but in my view as an EV owner, expansion at existing sites is most important. NOT ENOUGH EVCS contd. If electric vehicle uptake is to be encouraged and the sale of petrol/diesel vehicles are to be discontinued in the near future then the odd charger or two in a few towns and public car parks isn’t going to encourage people to switch over. There should be charging point s located in public/private parking areas to support the move the electric vehicles. Loch Lomondside is being neglected Not enough chargers in our area. What about rapid charger in Strathlachlan - either at Strathlachlan church or Strathlachlan community centre We need more in rural areas e.g from lochgilphead to Inveraray is 24 miles, what happens if there are a few people waiting to charge and I have an appointment in Glasgow? We need FAR MORE chargers / charging stations if we ever want the majority of drivers to consider replacing their cars with electric ones Our village would all have to travel to Lochgilphead, with nothing in between. There's nothing in Inveraray, or at Crarae Gardens, and there are quite a few villages in the area where people still commute and live. There needs to be something near here, if not in Minard directly. I am disabled and considering an electric vehicle, but it's becoming a struggle to figure out where to charge it in such a remote location. People could be marooned at southend. Not enough propsed for kintye generally, especially east side Only one fast charger is proposed at the community centre (Gibson Hall) at Garelochhead. At this time the nearest chargers to Garelochhead are at Arrochar (10 miles away) and Helensburgh (8 Miles away). Garelochhead should have a minimum of two chargers with one being located in the large layby opposite the Post Office. The Head of Service has confirmed that there are now no parking restrictions in this layby. All overnight accommodation is in the centre of the village so the first priority should be a charger opposite the Post Office. Garelochhead should be upgraded to a Priority 1. The large number of people booking accommodation overnight will not park their cars at a charger at the Gibson Hall when their accommodation is in the centre of the village. Another charger in Ardnadam Pier car park owned by Sandbank Community Development Trust who would like to accommodate one or more. There are no charging facilities set out for Southend. There are also no funding requirements available for home charging units. More fast eV chargers are needed particularly in areas with high number of visitors plus finding to ensure existing chargers are maintained. The chargers that are currently in place are not adequate as it is. Most times a car is already plugged meaning no charging can be done when required. I love my car but the world is not ready for them. Too few rapid chargers to encourage visitors and travellers Need to have more chargers at existing sites as well as filling the gaps in the existing network. Not enough chargers in existing locations. You need to do both. Not enough More chargers needed on Kintyre NOT ENOUGH EVCS ON ISLANDS The council are not proposing to expand the number of charging points by nearly enough of what’s actually needed to get residents especially, to adopt EV usage. On the Isle of Mull, for example, there’s only one additional charging point proposed at Ulva Ferry. Whilst welcome this is not nearly enough, we need much more capacity at centres where there are larger populations as well as tourist traffic, eg at Craignure, Tobermory, Dervaig, Bunessan for example. Page 67
Page 68
NOT ENOUGH EVCS ON ISLANDS contd Need to put some in rural areas nit just in towns like Tobermory it’s like Difiberators why is it Turin get all the resources and money why nit put one at Dervaig or Calgary or Salen Mull On the Isle of Mull you need more charge points than just the one at Ulva Ferry. There needs to be a number in Salen, Dervaig and Calgary as well as points at/near the Ferry Terminal at Fishnish. Also, you need to stop overnight parking in the small car park at Craignure where commercial vehciale reglularly parki in the parking places for the charge points making it impossible to put your car on charge when travelling on the first ferry to Oban. Islay needs electric chargers at both ferry ports. EVC SITES IN THE WRONG PLACE I agree in principle, but leaving Tighnabruaich with the huge number of visitors it has as a priority 2? Does this mean it’s down the pecking order? And by Rockbank, precisely where would this be? Big hole in network right around Loch Awe when that area has most infrastructure (hydro & windfarms) so should benefit not only have downside In Rothesay Guildford Square already has 2 and parking spaces are required for shopping purposes. Better to install more than 1 at Chapelhill Car Park. Having chargers dispersed makes it more likely that when you arrive it is either in use or broken. Much better to have larger charging hubs in Oban, Lochgilphead, Campbell town etc. This approach is wrong. Rapids in areas where there is hardly any traffic. Look at the strategy of the likes of instavolt, they have a nice spread at equi distance on the main roads for rapids, we need more on the main trunk roads in and out of Argyll, having raids on the likes of gigha is ridiculous especially if there is one across the water. Please review this and expand the current rapid stations, with more added to Oban and Cowal. A glance at proposed sites for Oban and Lorn, appears to favour tourist areas, as opposed to actual communities. By not attempting to provide these charging points, you are ensuring electric vehicles remain an impractical option. That is simply not good enough. EV placement seems for tourists and visitors, not locals - on Islay having Port Ellen and Bowmore as big populations makes sense, having one at Port Askaig is purely for tourists. Try prioritising those who live here - why not Port Charlotte/Portnahaven/Bruichladdicb? I agree but blank spots in taynuilt, dalmally, bridge of orchy, between oban and Lochgilphead Still nothing in Dalmally as one of the main areas reached after a long journey to Argyll? I can only talk about Dunoon, since I live there. Almost every site proposed in Dunoon is within 1 mile of the town centre when in fact the big challenge for charging and EV ownership is to give people with no off road parking access to chargers. I therefore feel that a number of chargers should be earmarked for the housing estates where the majority of Dunoon's population live, many like myself with no feasible way to fit a charge point to our house. I feel a better approach would be to use grants available for lamp post chargers spread through areas of high urbanisation or fit them in school car parks which tend to be in densely populated areas. This may also encourage teachers to take up EV ownership. All of the charging points are situated to the north and centre of the town. There are none in the south of the town where there is a huge population. What about one or two near the college or OHS [Lochgilphead? Helensburgh?] I think the B840 needs a public electric charge point and Portsonachan Hall which has a large parking area by the B840 would seem to be a natural choice for a Theme 1 (rapid) charger for local and tourist use Ellanabeich main car park would benefit from a charger for visitors. Page 68
Page 69
EVC SITES IN THE WRONG PLACE contd There are obvious gaps at destinations such as Crinan and kilmartin In these relatively early stages the chargers should be grouped in small/medium numbers which makes these area essentially hubs - this will make installation costs lower and highlight to the community where these chargers are. Also greater incentives for installing home charge points. The approach is fine but the map shows the new point predominantly closer to the age of the Argyll rather then along the main roads across Argyll. With the size of population in Campbeltown and surrounding and given the distance one has to travel to get to a charging point outside of South Kintyre, there should be more charging points allocated to Campbeltown/South Kintyre/surrounding villages. I can appreciate that this initiative will have budgetary constraints but to see the number of units in Lochgilphead for example compared to Campbeltown this does not add up. EVC SPEED OF CHARGING Need super fast everywhere, unless you are inserting multiple points at each site. Parking is an issue across Kintyre. With the existing (old) chargers, if one fast DC outlet is in use (CCS or CHAdeMO) then the other cannot be used. There should be at least two chargers per location. I feel there should be charging points on the Sandbank Community Area next to the A815 the main road from Western Ferries into Cowal. It used to be called Ardnadam Car Park and was used by the US Navy. It is now owned by Sandbank Community Development Trust. It should be rapid chargers. Rapid chargers should be left to commercial enterprises on main arterial routes. Public charging should be focused on residential fast or slow charging for overnight charging near where people live. NEED MONEY SPENT ON OTHER THINGS Hardly ever a car in Guildford square but I have to drive via a unmarked pot holed road to get to car park - think you need to address the state if the roads for us to drive safely before you add to this scheme We need parking, not charging A total waste of rate payers money. Nobody subsidises my diesel. Wasting money better spent on healthy housing stock for all, not stuff for the privileged Waste of money, fix the potholes first Page 69
Page 70
APPENDIX 2 Q.7 Responses There are different types of chargers for different types of use: Rapid, Fast and Slow chargers. We intend to install a mixture based on the following criteria: [Themes 1-3] If you answered NO to the question above, can you explain why you disagree with this approach? COMMENT THEMES THEMES Theme 1 charging is most useful for all types of user. In tourist destinations, the concern would be that Theme 2 charging could be over-utilised by tourists overnight. To counter this, could there not be a Theme 1 charging station at sports centre car parks, which are mostly used by residents? I agree with theme 1 and 2 but not with 3. If you are expecting places to be carbon neutral and encourage people to buy electric vehicles as they are able to there needs to be better infrastructure for on street charging. I cannot see much if any demand in your theme 3. I agree with themes one and two but it sounds as if in theme three that the council is washing its hands of those of us who live in houses/flats unsuitable for charge points. Generally, because there is a lack of funding, the piecemeal approach to building this infrastructure has to be "themed" but Theme 1 ignores the ever increasing use of Ultra-rapid chargers which would allow a faster turnaroound on the machine -reducing waiting times in the busy summer periods. These machines will be most used by visitors on route to a destination. Theme 2 needs to be looked at. Most evs can’t pull 22kw on AC charger so end up reverting to between 7-11kw. You need to know more about what the current EVs are capable of. One option for the rapid chargers (Theme 1) is to top out at 80% which pod point fo to stop the rapids being clogged up on time consuming the last 20% which slows considerably. You need to have some theme one chargers for people who r on a journey and just need to top up so they can continue with their journey.Having so few at each venue means only one or two vehicles will be able to charge if the intention is for them to charge overnight Several proposed EVCs, even when they are in locations passed through by road users, are designated Theme 2 (Fast). Over and above that, utilising faster technology seems more sensible. One Rapid charger could charge at least two cars in the time it takes a Fast charger to do one. Fewer, but quicker, new chargers would be an alternative strategy worth considering. 4 hours may be too long for passing visitors to wait. Agree to theme 1 and 2. Concentrate on Theme 1. If possible install even faster chargers. The problem is range, What is needed is the facility to charge up quickly whilst travelling. EVC SITES If we as a society intend to move completely to EV’s. Then in locations that there are currently petrol stations, then there should be EV chargers. These chargers should be of the differing types but in LARGE numbers. Why only council ownership locations? Surely all residential parking areas should be planned - even if some funding comes from either residents or private bodies. Page 70
Page 71
LACK OF SPACES TO CHARGE In places like Port Bannatyne there are lots of privately owned flats witj no parking where only the council could provide residential charging Super fast charging here at Kilcreggan Pier. There are limited number of spaces here anyone. Slow chargers will encourage locals to leave their cars for a long time and they will take much needed spaces. Majority of charging needs to be catered for overnight charging. This requires sufficient on street chargers to enable vehicles to be charged at residential on street chargers within short distance of residences You must ensure you expand your areas for locating charge points. We visit my parents in Islay and there is very limited charging there and the majority of people do not have driveways Expecting social landlord sites to be responsible is ridiculous. London have brought in on street charging through their lampposts. I understand there are cost implications in this but should at least be looked at rather than saying the council will have no involvement. If you assume it will be down to social landlords [to provide EVC] then they will presumably only allow their tenants access to the chargers, leaving everyone in owned or privately rented homes unable to access convenient charge points. Another point is that it is the council that is responsible for road infrastructure and light fittings and this is where these slow chargers should be fitted. this is the reason the government has grants available for fitting lamp post points and charge points for residential areas. It is utterly irrelevant if the council owns the said properties. This is about building a network that is convenient and affordable to be used by the largest amount of people possible. residents without off street parking need to be catered for. Rapid charger hubs can also provide a residential solution as they can operate more like traditional filling stations. You should be providing more residential charging infrastructure where there are no opportunities for off street parking Council should at least be driving residential charging points in social housing areas even if not financially responsible. in residential areas where there overnight parking by residents, the use of street lighting poles should be actively pursued. NOT ENOUGH CHARGERS Not enough You can only do theme 2 and 3 if you have significantly more chargers as it ends up with people waiting next to cars waiting to use. Already happens with fast chargers at service stops off the motorway Still nothing in Dalmally as one of the main areas reached after a long journey to Argyll? NUISANCE FACTOR WITH PARKING & CHARGING If people are going to be charging their cars overnight these chargers will surely be located in a central location and not next to homes. SPEED / POWER OF EVCHARGING Why no super fast ones? On the move has to be under 45 minutes Suggest rapid chargers at all locations. Turnaround time would be quicker allowing more vehicles to access the facility. Why only fit 50kw rapids - these need upped to 150kw to facilitate the new EV cars, infrastructure in the electrical network will take this - future proof while you have the chance. On the move charging needs to be faster than 50kW - 150 would be a sensor baseline. Otherwise agreed. Page 71
Page 72
SPEED / POWER OF EVCHARGING contd Need more rapid chargers - bias should be towards installing them. Domestic chargers should be individual responsibility Should be more Rapid chargers to encourage tourist traffic. Need fast chargers Slow chargers would be ok in residential areas, but are generally fast chargers are needed when on the move e.g. long drive fur work or holiday. Good maintenance service required for chargers. Can you add a time limit to avoid drivers using them for too long e.g. a cost after 1.5 hours? They need to be freed up regularly think about the charging times..on many charge points only one vehicle can charge at a time. Imagine having to sait several hours to get petrol/diesel! It is simply not enough. plus too often charge points are not functioning. There is not enough facility now for existing users.. no good playing catch up for next 10 years, visitors will be frightened off. There needs to be more rapid chargers. More and more people are getting EV's and having medium- to slow chargers will cause delays in charging. Rapid chargers are the way to go as people can charge quickly. Also a lot of passing traffic therefore rapid would be preferred. Local businesses can also benefot from medium and fast chargers as will encourage trade when people are waiting for charge. Rapid charging (for on the go use) should now be 100kw or more. There are already 350kw chargers out there. There are only two types of charger, fast as possible or at home, slow, overnight. The main population served by these charging points are the working population, when working they need to be flexible and have their cars charged to maximum capacity in minimum time, when at home and not working they can afford to take time overnight charging their cars. All 'community' charging points should provide the fastest possible charging capability, home charging points should provide a default 'overnight' charging capability with options for upgrade. We need far more rapid chargers. Slow chargers at stations can be helpful but you’ll need lots and lots of them as one car takes out the charger for the whole day. All should be rapid to cope with increasing demand and to save people hanging around for hours in rural areas We need fast chargers everywhere Rapid are much offered when you’re out and about All chargers should be rapid at this stage to facilitate greater number of vehicles able to charge per day. Biggest problem for EV s is time required to charge. We need faster chargers All charging points should be rapid All chargers should be rapid charge to ensure maximum usage form owners and prompt charging. Put fast ones in then more cars can use one As far as possible with the available supply, almost all chargers should be "Rapid" but with a time limit of (say) two hours so that they are not clogged up all day and effectively prevent any visitors from using them. What is a point to have slow charger if even on a rapid one 2 hours is not enough to fully charge a car? To address the need created by flood of visitors a wider net of rapid chargers are much more valuable. Page 72
Page 73
GETTING AROUND We tend not to take our electric car [to Islay] due to the poor infrastructure. They are trying to be carbon neutral by 2030 as well as other islands. As well as many other measures needed this is going to be very difficult if there is no street charging infrastructure. The technology is simply not feasible in a rural area such as A&B. The charging times are orders of magnitude too long (it takes minutes to fill a car with diesel or petrol) and the ranges are inadequate. Rapid charging is still too slow to make it viable COST OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES / EVCs Realistically, in the socio-economic profiles most commonly associated with RSL's how many folk will be able to afford an electric vehicle in the short to medium term? Funding should be made available for home charging units NEED MONEY SPENT ON OTHER THINGS You should be spending money or what we need and not what we’d like! We need parking, not charging Electric vehicles will lead to much more ecological problems than hydrocarbons will ever do. Need decent housing stock for all, not toys for the privileged few Dont really see why the Council should be lead on this why should council tax payers subsidise the richer members of society? I.e. those with electric cars. Page 73
Page 74
APPENDIX 3 Do you have any comments about the proposal? COMMENTS THEMES MANAGEMENT & SPEED OF PROJECT Will you survey the local residents for feedback before going ahead with this or just do it without consultation? It is absolutely necessary to have the facility but feel it should be thought out carefully. Not ambitious enough The current infrastructure will not cope with everyone charging cars at their house and loads of people won’t be able to park at their house to charge. What is the bigger long term plan, this does not scale. It is extremely limited, and serves only a small section of the council area. Extremely disappointing. It appears to be lacking in any insight, and very clearly shows no commitment to actually supporting residents to reduce carbon emissions. Very poor (non existent ) planning. We pick up our EV next week, given price advantage over petrol diesel there should be rapid expansion of the network Not ambitious enough priority should be given to 'theme 1' , which allow multiple users and faster turnover, thanks Good that Council proposes more chargers but they bmneed to be seen to be getting on with it. Demand is building fast As a tourist centric economy, I would like the Council to explore more, the possibilities of working closely with those organisations with car parking, where people can stop off and spend their money in the local economy whilst charging their cars. Less of a necessity more an enjoyment too. i.e. don't just look at Council owned land. By all means increase what is available in town car parks, but alongside the main road networks where could the Council partner up with local business? e.g. 1. In Tarbert, rather than more EVC points in the car park, why not install one at "The Gather" - signing people there if the 2x car parking ones are in use? e.g.2. local caravan/mobile home parks to encourage those who have made the switch - who have the money - to holiday here? I don't know how funding for this works, but if there were a way for the local tourism sector land owner to get a grant, and work with the Council to install, the budget may go further as installation costs could be shared, thereby increasing the number provided from the Council budget. Just an idea for a slightly different - dare I say joined up - approach moving forward. help for people to put charging points into their homes (which I believe there was, but now isn't). The proposed extension to the EV charge network is a start but is by no means enough. With the increase in electric and plug in hybrid vehicles forecast the number of charge points will require to be increased massively to cope. More chargers the better. Would encourage others to go electric. Would be good to see Argyll and Bute become an leading example of the way forward Many councils still don't charge for ev charging but a&b do. I wonder if there could be an annual or monthly scheme? It's also very challenging as many points have an overstay charge which is quite limiting of working somewhere for the day Not thought through at all. Great idea The more the better! Go for it! If anything double the budget for this, too small an investment in the green transition. Slow chargers just wont be suitable for the future of EVs Just do it - soon! Please. Just too few chargers around at present. Seems to be on the right track; just need to hurry! Page 74
Page 75
MANAGEMENT & SPEED OF PROJECT contd Many more EVC's are needed immediately. Lack of charging infrastructure is holding back the switch from fossil fuels. SWARCO are currently in charge of ChargePlaceScotland. Nothing seems to be moving with regard to Government/Private investment in at least twice the present number of chargers. This initiative (by yourselves) appears not to add much to the situation. we are facing a climate crisis and the transition needs to happen quickly!! This is the survival of the human race we are gambling with here and we have the solutions it just needs visionary and competant leadership from governments and councils! Please please be that! I understand that your approach is trying to make the best of a bad situation and appreciate that you have noticed the problem and are at least doing something, however, I do believe that resolving this issue is beyond the capability of any local council and you may wish to consider creating some form of 'community of local councils' who could then speak to central government with a single voice and possibly help to resolve this really significant issue. Yes please! We need lots and lots more chargers! I believe that all proposed sites are under Council control and generally town/village based. As more people change to EV, the demand will be increase. ( It is already frustrating when EV users have already hooked up to chargers when you arrive to charge your car and you need to wait your turn, adding to the time of charging). It will be of the utmost importance to consider opening up other sites on Argyll and Bute's road network, using private landowners property, especially on the out of town routes, where people will be able to enjoy the outdoors while they wait for their car to charge. This would be highly beneficial to residents/visitors and businesses alike. The proposed chargers do not have enough options either in the type or the situations It's a good start but it does need action quickly. Hopeful of being able to commit to an EV at some point in the future so see this as a positive step Build build build. Unless you want tourism to bomb over the next few years, and Argyll to hold the UK back in hitting low carbon targets. Excellent to see more of these coming to Argyll and Bute Am I correct in assuming that private sector providers will also install chargers where profitable without necessarily discussing or referring to the council strategy? I hope it’s going to be done in a short time span. Not enough being done. Token gesture so you can say you are improving matters, however so behind most othe councils. We just need a lot more I think there is further opportunity for the Council to join with the private sector and co fund installations. This could be a win win once a suitable format is agreed. leave to private sector Fair usage practices need to be taken into account. For example, in a location with only one charger it would be unfair for someone to be able to leave their car connected all day or night. Other people should be able to use the charger after a full charge has been reached Sounds like positive progress to me. Fully supportive of more chargers in new locations - we need a better spread of infrastructure across the region GETTING AROUND Future proof the network - EV cars are flooding onto the roads and its an opportunity in A&B to use this to increase tourist numbers. Increase the current stations to multi chargers, these have a good spread on the trunk roads. This is what EV drivers want/need when it comes to stress free motoring. I hear that when driving to Glasgow from Islay, charging points along the way quite often are not working. This puts me off buying an EV. Charging points need to be reliable and accessible. Page 75
Page 76
GETTING AROUND contd The new machines are great however, many of your current chargers are not working. Before expanding these should be properly maintained. The situation on Islay at present is dreadful. Another consideration is the difficulty in accessing chargers at ports. Often these are blocked by ferry staff, are not able to be used by those waiting for the ferry due to check in procedures with the ferry operators. A way of being by able to check in and charge while waiting for the ferry would be very helpful. Don’t think electric cars will be a good thing in remote areas. If another car is charging the only point in a village and it takes 2 hours, how on Earth will that work?? Yesterday I did a very stressful journey to Glasgow hospital, having to charge at Loch Fyne Hotel Inveraray on route, then got the rapid chargers at Newton Street Car Park Glasgow 50kw charged from 12% to 100% in an hour and 40 minutes. Then stoping at the hotel again on the way home. Other chargers that I can connect to on route were occupied. Very stressful. Please site chargers where there are toilets, and cafe/restaurant facilities near by. Disabled passengers can’t walk far. Argyll is not compact and tourists that come to Argyll explore in their cars, hence to maintain a vibrant tourism sector charge points must be made available in out the way places too. Travel in A&B involves long rural journeys with limited diversion options. For example I have twice when travelling from Inverary to Helensburgh had to divert via Dalmally and Crianlarich because the head of Loch Fyne was closed because of an accident. A diversion of this length could deplete the battery and under your proposals there is no where to charge up on this route. I think Dalmally is essential as a charge point. Also a prolonged delay in winter due to road jams could again deplete batteries if heating is required (especially for young and old) so charge points on route are necessary eg. The rest and be thankful. There is certainly a shortage of chargers which will only get worse as more EVs go on the road. I would like to see many more at points along the main roads eg Oban to Edinburgh and Glasgow. There is a benefit in having a time limit on these, particularly when there are not that many. Also strong penalties for non-EVs parking in them, which I have heard has happened. My experience with EV travel in Argyll is that rapid chargers are the problem. You can eaily travel 100 miles one way and without a reliable charger en route you fear running out. before getting home. Chargers should ideally be near other facilities so you can go for a coffee or do some shopping whilst waiting for the batteries to charge. 100% EVs in few years is very ambitious and we seem to have hardly started putting the infrastructure in place. Massive Government investment needed rather than relying on small, disjointed and often private, initiatives. I think there needs to be more charging points as Argyll & Bute is a holiday destination for many people. If we want to attract visitors and be part of Green Tourism, we need to provide the facilities. maintenance, you need to make sure these things keep working, all the rapid chargers from lochgilphead to fortwilliam were brocken last week which really is a disgrace, EVC SITES Agree with expanding the number of locations, unless that is going to mean that all the chargers are often likely to be occupied at the initial locations Put in the fastest across the region because it will future proof it a little. Still nothing in Dalmally as one of the main areas reached after a long journey to Argyll? I think you need to think where are the charge points going to be needed when everyone has EV's. ie areas of low off street parking availability. 12 or 14 chargers all within a mile of each other in Dunoon town centre is not in my opinion a good use of obviously limited funds. A few dotted here and there will not be sufficient to meet deman - big sky thinking required. we need to think much bigger and faster. eg 7kw new points at Tesco..if you shop very slowly you might het a few .iles' worth!! I would prefer to see a charging point in Carradale as priority 1. It's a 30 mile round trip from Campbeltown to Carradale and people will not visit if they cannot charge a vehicle in the village. Page 76
Page 77
EVC SITES contd Being at the end of the Kintyre peninsula, it is critical to have effective charging points. I believe all transport links should be included, Campbeltown Airport car park would be a ideal location for slow charging. There should be a more and better spread of chargers in Campbeltown with Burnside Square, Aqualibrium and Bolgalm street car parks being ideal locations that are council owned. Rapid charging needed in Strachur as many tourists visit. I think Oban Airport is particularly important Chargers in rural locations or near need-based sites such as supermarkets where you could use fast chargers whilst doing your shopping I would like to see one installed in Furnace There appear to be obvious gaps in provision e.g. Taynuilt, Dalmally, and locations with relatively generous provision e.g. Seil Island. With the increase in vacationers in Ardentinny, I recommend a couple of chargers at the Church Car park, which is closest to the holiday homes and near to the village for residents. if required. Again, while we may not be Lochgilphead or Oban, there are still people here, and we require some options: and investment is needed. Plan to move from kintyre due to this issue, as living here no longer sustainable for long term Charging point at Kilmory HQ car park would also be useful. Not just for staff but this car park is well used by people going on forest walks. Sites should be accessible, near public toilet facilities if in tourist locations and also be at transport 'hub' interchanges. I would like to request that a charger is installed at Ardnadam car park, in Sandbank. Charging facilities to be available at Ardnadam The Sandbank Community Development Trust land at Ardnadam would be good site for consideration. Sandbank Ardnadam Community Park should be considered for Rapid charge points. Yes the charging point for Sandbank is in the totally wrong place and not good for any female on her own and literally nothing to do the charger should be places in the Ardnadam community car park. It’s open and on the main road from the ferry. As a female the proposal for the charging point in Sandbank is hidden and I would not feel safe. The most logical place is the community space at Ardnadam it’s open and great for tourists coming off the ferry I wish to recommend that an EV charging point is installed at the Ardnadam Community Park (adjacent to Ardnadam Pier). I agree with the proposal for Strachur and please also install an EV charging point at Ardnadam Community Park i.e. adjacent to the old Ardnadam Pier. Pleased to see charging point is proposed for Strachur. Would also suggest one required at Sandbank village Sandbank Trust has a large car park on the main road heading north from Western Ferries which would be an ideal place Ardrishaig currently has zero charging points As long as you distribute the different types of charger sensibly! Priority should be given to essential car users such as social work, home care, district nurse etc as unfortunately siting chargers at ferry terminals could lead to the main users being tourists. Please don’t just stick them at ferry terminals - but near to facility for cup of tea etc in villages Page 77
Page 78
EVC SITES contd I welcome the addition of public chargers at various places in Helensburgh. At present, the "all eggs in one basket" situation with the cluster of chargers in the pier car park and tendency for Helensburgh to be gridlocked (due to roadworks or an accident on the A82, for example) means actually getting to the chargers at the pier can be a challenge. Additional units at the Sinclair Street car park and Kidston would certainly spread the load. I find it curious that the chargers at the Civic Centre are marked as for use by staff only, as they are often unused or have ICE cars parked in the bays. Allowing the public to top up there would ease the burden. Should install them in a school car parks for staff to use and at any council buildings. Focus should be on remote areas where fuel costs are even higher than the mainland. Dalmally could do with a fast charger.Possibly near to market Obviously, the more chargers, the better. With no refuelling options at all in Lochgoilhead (the nearest fuel station is in Arrochar), the community, local businesses and even emergency services face additional costs when refuelling. Visitors have begun to avoid holidaying here as there are no charging facilities in the village, and even National Park employees have become stuck here without power, requiring residents to lead cables from their home to charge their stranded vehicles. The approach suggested is practical, given funding constraints, but I would encourage the Council to consider Lochgoilhead as a priority if possible. Argyll and Bute is falling behind other parts of Scotland with access to chargers. There needs to be more fast chargers in tourist hotspots and 7 or 22 kw ones in every town and village. There appear to be obvious gaps in provision e.g. Taynuilt, Dalmally, and locations with relatively generous provision e.g. Seil Island. To give confidence and encourage people to buy electric vehicles in the Cowal area and to help tourists there should be at least two or three rapid charge units at a site in Tighnabruaich. There should also be a Rapid charger at Portavadie. In addition a Rapid charge point at Colintraive would also be sensible as this is an important route into Bute. Residential areas and home charging units should be a priority, especially in remote areas. ISLAND CHARGING SITES Need charging points on the islands and more rural areas to be able to promote these areas as easy places to travel to with eco travel, go for it, delighted to see this survey The use of Rapid charges on Gigha seems pointless as all residents can use home charging and the island is only a few miles long so not required for visitors. The location of chargers on the mailand around the queuing ferry traffic is fraught with difficulties as they will get used by people travelling north-south on the mainland as well as queuing for the ferry Ultra-rapid chargers here would seem best suited not rapid. A charging point on the Isle of Gigha would be very beneficial I feel rapid chargers would benefit Rothesay/Isle of Bute. Day visitors need to be able to access a quick charge before heading home on the ferry. 50kW-150kw would be what’s needed. Charging points on Gigha would be great. On Bute there is a fair amount of on-street parking, some of which could be set aside for this, including in Port Bannatyne, and other less central areas. Villages like Salen, Bunessan and Dervaig require fast chargers to cater for visitors staying in the area. I thought you were asking for suggested locations?! Port Wemyss bus stop, the nearest public charger is 17 miles away, this would serve two villages . SPACE TO CHARGE Appears to lack any knowledge of how people will charge their vehicles without off street parking. No where near ambitious enough. You need to target residential parking areas, not just council car parks. I personally rely on public charge points as I rent in a flat therefore have no access to at home charging. Page 78
Page 79
SPACE TO CHARGE contd I think there should be charging points in new house builds. Installing them in housing estates would be a good idea too You should not charge parking for people who are charging their cars. They are already paying to charge. Also need to ensure repairs to charging points are undertaken timeously. Car parks should have at least 50% of their spaces available for EV charging. Can you install them in lamp posts. When the Council is considering planning applications, the default position should be that the developer should be required to install a minimum of one charging point within the development which will help to ease the demand on public charging points. Use street lights for on street charging On residential charging you only seem to be considering rented property. In Helensburgh over the last few years a number of residential developments have taken place for owner occupiers and I specially notice old properties converted to flats - I think it is necessary to insist as part of planning permission that charging facilities be provided on the premises, this would also encourage take up of electric vehicles. if the chargers are in a pay and display car park, do we need a parking ticket? Chargers at ferry ports require that people can charge up while not losing their place in the queue - especially standby queues. Could lamppost chargers or other public chargers for flats or tenements be looked into? I live in a flat and would love to purchase an electric car. ACCESS TO ENERGY The current infrastructure will not cope with everyone charging cars at their house and loads of people won’t be able to park at their house to charge. What is the bigger long term plan, this does not scale. On an island energy access overnight will be limited to those residents who can afford to install at home charging. Care must be taken to ensure fair access to community charging facilities no matter what the season. Islands that have no vehicular access will find it impossible to use their own power. I would be interested to know how we can all move to electric vehicles and be sure of being able to charge your vehicle. POWER / SPEED OF EVC Pleasing to see more sites but slow/fast chargers are already outdated. Need more fast chargers Many vehicles can only charge at 7kW from a 22kW charger and so overstay charges for these posts are unfair. If Electric vehicles are to be commonplace, many more chargers of all categories will be needed. Should we not be going for ultra fast chargers that can charge in say 30mins this would future proof to a degree. Why are Argyle and Bute funding this? Would it not be better to partner with industry suppliers and developers? Thereby reducing the council tax burden Its too limited in terms of numbers and rapid chargers Charging better than 50kw is needed to reduce time as more electric vehicles take to the road. Please install fast chsrgers 90 minutes is not a rapid charge when I can fill my car up in 5 minutes with Diesel Whatever you do the chargers need to be reliable! Would have thought plenty of instances where cars are left for less than four hours when owners are just doing weekly shopping so perhaps more rapid charging facilities could be offered with this in mind? ie for drivers going to larger towns such as Oban. The higher rate chargers of today become the standard chargers of tomorrow. These days are not far apart Page 79
Page 80
POWER / SPEED OF EVC contd The more fast chargers the better I don't know the cost of the various chargers but if the differences aren't huge, rapid chargers are likely to be better utilised and have a longer life as slow chargers have to become obsolete fairly quickly if EVs are to be a viable alternative to the combustion engine. 7kw will.not get used, they are a waste of time. 7 hours is optimistic charge time! Is 300kw out of the question? More fast chargers please. Charging points in Sandbank should be of the rapid type for transiting vehicles. A mixture is best, sometimes you need the fastest charger available, but if there were a lot of slow chargers then you could have regular top ups and wouldn't always need rapid chargers. Fast ones make more sense on tourist areas Majority of charging will be for day to day usage NOT while on the move. I currently spend 3 x 30 minutes each week charging at nearest 50kw rapid chargers which are between 3 and 8 miles from home. It would be hugely advantageous to have several slow chargers within the parking areas at home (no off street parking but 30 parking bays). At present, 3 EVs in the street all having to use public chargers. 4 or 5 7Kw chargers in parking areas would encourage more take up of EVs. EVC MAINTENANCE "Whatever is installed, please make sure that 1) it has a good connection so that it doesn’t drop out and stop chargers like the one at Oban Ferry Terminal does. 2) that the chargers are well maintained and in service as close to 100% of the time as possible. Finding none of the 4 chargers in Tyndrum on my way back from a hospital visit was beyond stressful. (This was after the Balloch and Crianlarich ones not working either!!!) PRICE OF CHARGING There should be clear signage of the price as with petrol stations. On the top of that there is a fee if one charges over 2 hours at councils parking. EVC COMPATABILITY Our Mazda car dose not connect to the old tethered existing chargers on your system. I have been informed by Charging Places Scotland that a lot of new EV will not connect to these old systems. Please if possible update these old chargers as well, as they are basically useless. SPEND MONEY ON OTHER THINGS Ensure your roads are fully safe with no homes and correct marketing before wasting our money Weak Stop! All of them and realise that you are, like the rest of the "green" sheep, heading in the completely wrong direction no build cycle paths. Rediculous waste of money when the price of electricity has skyrocketed, how about using the money to insulate, and improve mouldy housing stock. A waste of money based on a false premise and driven by the "green" religion. Improve your quangos housing stock, not create chargers for the rich and wealthy Waste of money - improve services already in place Page 80
Page 81
APPENDIX 4 EVC CONSULTATION HEADLINES AND KEY THEMES Page 81
Page 82
Page 82
Page 83
In terms of the specific comments, these can be split into key themes, which are shown in the table below with some commentary against them:- Theme General Feedback Response Managing / speed of project Good the Council are proposing more chargers, but should develop charging hubs. Help to install chargers at home. Whatever you do, do it quickly. Focus on network coverage [addressing any gaps in the existing network], with network expansion [expansion of existing provision on existing sites] to follow. Focus on equity. Sites should have the potential for future expansion. While we do not offer funding the Council does offer advice and signpost to organisations that do. Should funding become available we will progress as quickly as possible. An aspect of this is having call-off contracts in place for EV suppliers which we are picking up as part of our EV strategy. Not enough EVCs Not enough being proposed. What about rural areas? We have an agreed methodology in place which will address network gaps. We can monitor the use of EVC and will set up a system where people can text us to let us know I they’ve gone to use one and it is busy. That way we can build up an evidence base of where more are needed. We have prioritised smaller areas first in our delivery programme for destination charging and we have plans to ensure there is a rapid charger every 30mins or so along the main road network. Page 83
Page 84
EVCs in the wrong location Better to have hubs rather than dispersed. Tourist areas rather than residents/ locals have been favored. Residential areas should be the focus. The focus is to address gaps in the existing network. Sites should have the potential for future expansion. The council is developing a publically accessible network for all users, including residents, tourists and those passing through. The main bulk of EV charging is done at home and our network is more of a ‘top up’ one. We are exploring options for on-street residential charging. Need money spent on other things Parking and pot holes need to be priority. Waste of tax payers money, what about housing stock. Separately to the EV strategy we have parking review ongoing at the moment; and this year we’ve spent over £8million on improving our road network. A lot of the external funding we get comes with conditions/is ring fenced – if we get funding for EV it must be spent on EV; if we get funding for schools it must be spent on schools etc. The Council no longer has housing stock, this transferred to ACHA in 2006. We work with our RSL partners through our Strategic Housing Investment Programme [SHIP] to develop affordable housing across the area. Installations themes Can’t see a need for theme 3. Residential charging is important as not everyone has access to private driveways, while we may not have housing stock we do have a role in working in partnership with HOMEArgyll, particularly where there is a crossover with the public road network. Page 84
Page 85
Not all EVs can draw the maximum kW, chargers that charge 2 cars at the same time are needed. Charging times will vary depending on the vehicles on board convertor capability, capacity of the charger used, the size of a vehicle’s battery and the amount of charge your battery has upon arrival at the charging point. EVC Sites Petrol stations should be turned into charging stations. Why only council owned locations. We are aware that some private providers are installing EV at traditional fuel stations although this seems to be initially at motorway service stations. Sites not in Council ownership can be considered if necessary to fill a network gap. Locating chargers at sites within Council ownership would be preferable as this is more efficient in terms of consents and future management. Lack of space to charge There is a lack of parking spaces this will reduce that even more. Council has to think about people social housing that has no driveways / more residential charging needed. What about lamp post chargers. We are working towards SG targets, eventually all new cars will be electric and as this transition happens more parking bays will be allocated for that. We are conscious of finding a balance between EV charging and parking spaces. We will work with HOME Argyll partners and explore options for people who don’t have driveways. We are exploring the option of piloting a targeted lamp post scheme to investigate how popular these would be. Nuisance factor with parking and charging Surely chargers will be centrally located and not next to homes. Current focus is to install within Council owned car parks. Page 85
Page 86
Speed/power of EVC Ultra, rapid or faster chargers should only be installed. Slow only in residential areas. Different chargers required for different uses i.e. on the move, destination and residential. 7kW EVC are suitable for overnight, residential charging. Getting around Charging times are too long. Chargers should be near other facilities. Hubs are needed. Charging times will vary depending on the vehicles on board convertor capability, capacity of the charger used, the size of a vehicle’s battery and the amount of charge your battery has upon arrival at the charging point. Sites should be at/on/near existing settlements with local amenities, with a view that the network development should bring consequential economic development gains e.g. EV users utilise local shops, cafes etc. while their car charges. Focus on network coverage [addressing any gaps in the existing network], with network expansion [expansion of existing provision on existing sites] to follow. Focus on equity. Sites should have the potential for future expansion. Cost of electric vehicles How many can afford an electric car. Funding should be available for home chargers. The cost of electric cars is not something the Council can comment on/control. While we do not offer funding the Council does offer advice and signpost to organisation that do. EVC sites Put in the fastest chargers available. Different chargers required for different uses i.e. on the move, destination and residential. Page 86
Page 87
Hubs rather than isolated EVCs. School car parks should be used. Focus on network coverage [addressing any gaps in the existing network], with network expansion [expansion of existing provision on existing sites] to follow. Focus on equity. Sites should have the potential for future expansion. This is being explored. Island charging sites On street charging should be available. Rural areas of island need chargers not just towns. We are piloting a targeted lamp post scheme to investigate how popular these would be. There are broader considerations about road safety and parking turnover with on street chargers. We have prioritised smaller areas first in our delivery programme for destination charging and we have plans to ensure there is a rapid charger every 30mins or so along the main road network. Access to energy How will the energy network cope. This isn’t something the Council can control – what we do is apply to connect to the mains and the DNO advises what the infrastructure requirements and costs are. EVC maintenance Chargers need to be reliable. New maintenance and warranty contracts are being negotiated. Price of charging Pricing should be made clear. EVC users shouldn’t pay for parking. Tariff labels are on all EVCs and traffic wardens carry out regular inspections and replace any that are missing. No parking fees apply while using Council EVC. EVC compatibility Newer electric vehicles are not compatible with Councils EVC. Advances in technology will make this inevitable – the life cycle of an EV charger is estimated at 10 years and we will look to replace/upgrade our existing stock as it reaches the end of its life. Page 87
Page 88
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 89
APPENDIX 5 – HITRANS FASTER PROJECT As previously reported to the December 2021 EDI meeting, the FASTER Project is a joint proposal across Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland to support the overarching ambition to transition to low carbon transport systems. It is a project supported by the European Union’s INTERREG VA Programme, managed by the Special EU Programmes Body. HITRANS are directly managing the install of up to eight public charge points in Argyll and Bute. Once installed these will become Council assets, and be managed and maintained as part of our existing network. The initial procurement exercise brought the overall project in above budget and resulted in a non- award. The project have been granted an extension until Oct 23 and is back out to tender after HITRANS re-evaluated and re-prioritised sites. Some sites are now on a reserved list as an explicit back-up option for the tender. For those sites with an end of life replacement instead of an additional EVC being added we have agreed to incur the removal costs as funders would not cover this element. This is expected to be able to be absorbed within the existing EV budget which, as reported above, is developing a small surplus through the cost recovery model. It could be the case that older models being removed could be recycled within the Council estate at least in the short term [for the likes of depots]. HiTRANS, with input from Council Officers, have selected the following sites for the re tender; it does not differ significantly from the original selection. The table provides the new and updated locations and comments on the alignment with, or departure from, the Council’s strategy and draft site list. The HiTRANS scheme should be viewed as something complementary to the Council’s own plans. Site Comments Going ahead with amendments Rothesay Pier Two chargers. Site in ABC expansion plan for one RAPID charger – this scheme delivers ABC priority and provides welcome additional provision at a busy ferry port. Corran Halls Two chargers. This has been identified as a site for the destination charging theme for a FAST charger. The option of an additional RAPID charger here is nevertheless a Page 89
Page 90
welcome additional provision, and provides for a useful charging option at that end of the town with direct access to the trunk road. Tarbert Ferry Terminal One charger. Although a site not in Council ownership or responsibility, this would provide for a charging option for users of the Tarbert to Portavadie ferry. The site is owned by Tarbert Harbour Authority, who have consented in principle to the scheme on the basis that the Council adopt the charger. Given that this will provide further transport connectivity at no capital outlay or ongoing revenue cost for the Council, this seems reasonable. Removed Port Askaig Remains a Council priority but cost prohibitive for HiTRANS scheme. Could be picked up in addition to LUF proposed marshalling area works. New Craignure Two chargers. Supplement existing provision at Craignure. Although the Council’s immediate policy focus is on filling gaps, the EVC use and demand data from this site suggests that an additional RAPID would be well used, and would begin to create a charging ‘hub’. Reserve list Dunoon Pier Two RAPID to replace an end of life EVC. This provides an additional RAPID charger at an existing site. Although the Council’s immediate policy focus is on filling gaps, the EVC use and demand Page 90
Page 91
data from this site suggests that an additional RAPID would be well used, and would begin to create a charging ‘hub’. Lorne Street, Lochgilphead Replacement of one end of life EVC. New Quay, Campbeltown As above Ledaig, Tobermory As above This has been a highly resource intensive project to support, with calls on the project team’s time as well as a significant draw on resources from colleagues in legal [commercial and conveyancing]. While the project will eventually lead to installs of new EVCs, and while some useful professional contacts have been made and knowledge gained through the process, it is regrettable that we are a year on from reporting to this Committee on the project and no installs have yet taken place. This is a departure from the normal EVC delivery model where funding goes directly to local authorities – because of the nature of this rollover European fund it is managed cross-regionally. As we move ahead in the delivery of our EVC strategy it is likely that we will focus on funding options which are structured in the more traditional way as this has proven to be the most effective and efficient model – the Council has directly administered approaching £1million of funding in the past seven years and successfully installed a competent public and business network of 40 chargers in that time. Page 91
Page 92
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 93
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DECEMBER 2022 SERVICES PLAY PARK FUNDING 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 In 2021 the Scottish Government allocated £76k to Argyll and Bute Council for investment in play park equipment, with a further £79k being allocated for 2022. In August 2022, the Scottish Government confirmed further funding through to 2025. Argyll and Bute will receive a total of £938k for Play Park funding as detailed below. All Scottish Councils have received funding through the Capital Allocation for Renewal of Play Parks Fund for investment in play park equipment. The distribution was based on population 0-14 years with an element for rurality. In 2021/22 the rurality share was 5%, for all other years’ rurality increased to 7% in recognition that renewal of equipment costs are higher in rural areas. 1.2 The Scottish Government commitment was to ensure that all children have access to quality play in their own community and the budget was specific in that the funding was for renewing play parks. A definition/scope of investment was also issued as part of the grant offer and is as below:- The agreed definition of an eligible play park is one which is local authority owned, managed or maintained sites, designated for play, which are free to access and open to all. Play parks in private ownership, those that require an entry fee or those only available to specific groups / with conditions for entry would be outwith scope. We would expect that play parks with equipment (swings, slides etc) aimed at children aged 0- 14 would be included as would other facilities used by the same age group (e.g. pump tracks), but MUGAs (Multi Use Game Areas) or dedicated sports fields would be outwith scope. 1.3 The Scottish Government also required councils to carry out engagement with local youth groups to help to shape the type and style of equipment being installed. 1.4 Due to the low level funding in the first two years, officers looked at an equal split across the 4 geographical areas, with a view to re-evaluating this when the final funding was announced. As Scottish Government has now confirmed funding over the 5 years as £938k officers recommend that this is now looked at across the whole play park network and split according to the number of play parks Page 93 Agenda Item 7
Page 94
needing refurbished in each area for the last three years of funding. Table 1 below lists the area and number of play parks, allocation totals and the recommended budget splits, with a short narrative thereafter listing closed or newly built play parks. Table 1: AREA No of Playparks Adjustments TOTAL MAKI 13 Lochgilphead Front Green is newly built and the Mull of Kintyre Play park has been closed. Therefore suggested split for 11 play parks not 13. £368.5k OLI 2 OLI – Atlantis Leisure is a relatively new park and does not require refurbishment. Therefore suggested split is based on 1 play park not 2 £33.5k H&L 11 N/A £368.5k B&C 5 N/A £167.5k TOTAL (31) 31 28 £938k 1.5 In 2021/22 discussion took place with local youth forums together with a review of all play parks. These processes identified which play parks were most in need of refurbishment balanced against the youth forum feedback. This identified a prioritised hierarchy of play parks for year 1 which was then continued into year 2 for each area as per Appendix 1 attached. This was subsequently reported to the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee in June 2022. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members: Note the available funding for play park equipment as detailed in the report and agree the budget split for each of the 4 administration areas as outlined in table 1; and Note and consider the proposed further engagement with youth and that a report outlining process and timelines will be brought to the March 2023 Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee. Page 94
Page 95
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DECEMBER 2022 SERVICES PLAY PARK FUNDING 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report provides an update on the 5 year budget allocated to Argyll and Bute Council by the Scottish Government from 2021/22. The Scottish Government commitment was to ensure that all children have access to quality play in their own community and the budget was specific in that the funding was for renewing play parks. 2.2 The report further outlines what engagement officers have had locally through Youth Forums and proposes a further consultation approach via schools. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Members: Note the available funding for play park equipment as detailed in the report and agree the budget split for each of the 4 administration areas as outlined in table 1; and Note and consider the proposed further proposed further engagement with youth and that a report outlining process and timelines will be brought to the March 2023 Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The Council is responsible for delivering the Play Park facilities across all of Argyll and Bute’s 30 play parks. The council utilised the Framework Tender Scotland Excel to procure bids for the £76k in year 2021/22, unfortunately no tenders came forward. The year one funding was carried into year two and tenders were sought for the £155k. Again no bidders came forward. As part of the procurement process officers contacted potential bidders to identify the reasons for this. Timescales, as well as full order books, were stated as the reasons why suppliers did not return a tender. This is also being experienced in some other Local Authorities and is very likely due to the fact that all Scottish Local Authorities are carrying out similar work, consequently there is a shortage of organisations able to do this. The geography of Argyll and Bute may also make our area unattractive to bidders. Page 95
Page 96
4.2 Officers now believe that this project should be delivered through a mixed economy model of external procurement of equipment which is installed, where possible, in-house and supported by specialist external local businesses. This will help to ensure the programme of play park equipment is delivered. 4.3 The Scottish Government had stipulated that key to this will be the engagement of children and young people as part of the process of agreeing local priorities. Initially Officers carried out engagement with local Youth Forums, however it has been recognised by members that this engagement may well not have fully covered our whole area. As such officers propose to engage with our Education Colleagues to agree a programme of contact and engagement with pre-school and primary schools to better understand the refurbishment/replacement wishes of local play park users. This can be extended into early secondary school years too. 4.4 Officers are also considering the best way to engage locally with disability forums to gauge the needs of children with disabilities to see if there is anything we can do to assist making play parks more accessible for them. 4.5 Should the budget split be agreed by members, Officers will engage with Educational Colleagues and disability forums in early 2023 and propose to provide a short update report outlining the engagement process and timelines for the March 2023 EDI Committee. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 The Scottish Government has allocated a total of £938k for Play Park funding to Argyll and Bute Council for investment in play park equipment through to 2025 from the Capital Allocation for Renewal of Play Parks Fund. This report recommends that funding is allocated on the basis that the fund is split across the four areas according to the number of play parks within each administrative area as per table 1 above. 5.2 Area Officers from Roads and Infrastructure Services have previously engaged with our Youth Forums locally with some success however it has been suggested that this could be improved. It is now the intention to consult more widely through Educational Colleagues as well as disability forums to better understand the needs of local areas and groups. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – In line with Scottish Government policy intent. 6.2 Financial – funded from grant funding from Scottish Government. . 6.3 Legal – None known. 6.4 HR – None known. Page 96
Page 97
6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – none known. 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – None known. 6.5.3 Islands – None known. 6.6. Climate Change – None known. 6.7 Risk – None known. 6.8 Customer Service – None Known. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services, Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads and Transport Councillor, Andrew Kain November 2022 For further information contact: Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Jim.Smith@argyll-bute.gov.uk Hugh O’Neill, Network and Standards Manager Hugh.ONeill@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES: Appendix 1 – Play Park Hierarchy List for year 1 and 2 Page 97
Page 98
APPENDIX 1: PLAY PARK HIERARCHY LIST FOR YEAR 1 AND 2 Inspections and feedback from Youth Forum from 2021/22 AREA PLAY PARK PRIORITY RATING Helensburgh and Lomond Hermitage Low Kirkmichael Low Red Guantlet Low Arrichar High Bendarroch High Howie Low Kidston Low Kilcreggan/Cove Low Rhu Medium Tarbet Low Cardross Low Bute and Cowal Meadows Medium Port Bannatyne Low Sandbank High Glen Morag Medium Page 98
Page 99
Dunoon Skate Park Low Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands Lochgiphead Front Green N/A New Ardrishaig KGV High Bayview Low Tarbert High Kinloch Low Lochend Medium Hillside Low Meadows Low Stewarton Low Jock’s Boat Low Bengullion Road Skate Park Low Ramsay Hill Low Oban, Lorn and the Isles Atlantis N/A New Tobermory High Page 99
Page 100
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 101
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DECEMBER 2022 BIN AND SIGNAGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMMES 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 At the budget meeting on 24 February 2022, the Council allocated £100k for a litter bin replacement programme and infrastructure, providing new/better bins across the area where required due to condition/need and with a focus on town centres and prominent locations, to support cleaner communities. 1.2 An update on this scheme was provided as part of a wider update report on Council-funded projects being delivered by the Roads and Infrastructure Service at the June Environment, Development and Infrastructure (EDI) Committee meeting. That update provided background to the scheme:- The bin programme will focus on bin replacements and where possible combining multiple bins to improve the street scape, with a view to supporting and managing staycation/increased visitor numbers. Where possible the replacement bins will be 240L wheel bins contained in a ‘street cabinet’ similar to those installed in Oban town centre. These are better bins which increase capacity for some of the older bins and ease loading where wheeled bin can be contained within the street cabinets (which look more attractive and are not susceptible to blowing around in a storm unlike empty wheeled bins). Funding spilt evenly across the four administrative areas. At market prices available in February this had been assumed to provide 49 bins per area (196 across Argyll and Bute). Recently we have seen prices increases across a whole range of sectors – the current estimate is that the £100k budget will now provide a total of 156 bins in total. This is a reduction on the numbers estimated in February when the budget was allocated. RECOMMENDATIONS Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to note and consider this report. Page 101 Agenda Item 8
Page 102
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DECEMBER 2022 BIN AND SIGNAGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMMES 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report provides a short update on the bin and signage replacement programmes, following the allocation of £100K at the Council’s budget meeting on 24 February 2022. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to note and consider this report. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 BIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME 4.1.1 At the budget meeting on 24 February 2022, the Council allocated £100k for a litter bin replacement programme and infrastructure, providing new/better bins across the area where required due to condition/need and with a focus on town centres and prominent locations, to support cleaner communities. 4.1.2 An update on this scheme was provided as part of a wider update report on Council-funded projects being delivered by the Roads and Infrastructure Service at the June Environment, Development and Infrastructure (EDI) Committee meeting. That update provided background to the scheme:- The bin programme will focus on bin replacements and where possible combining multiple bins to improve the street scape, with a view to supporting and managing staycation/increased visitor numbers. Where possible the replacement bins will be 240L wheel bins contained in a ‘street cabinet’ similar to those installed in Oban town centre. These are better bins which increase Page 102
Page 103
capacity for some of the older bins and ease loading where wheeled bin can be contained within the street cabinets (which look more attractive and are not susceptible to blowing around in a storm unlike empty wheeled bins). Funding spilt evenly across the four administrative areas. At market prices available in February this had been assumed to provide 49 bins per area (196 across Argyll and Bute). Recently we have seen prices increases across a whole range of sectors – the current estimate is that the £100k budget will now provide a total of 156 bins in total. This is a reduction on the numbers estimated in February when the budget was allocated. 4.1.3 The tender was awarded for production and delivery of replacement bins in September with a delivery timeframe of circa six weeks provided. At the time of writing this report we are expecting the new bins to start arriving in our depots in the next fortnight, so by the time of the committee meeting the installation of the new bins should be underway. 4.1.4 The original assumed prices and number of possible bins was based on a single specification of 240ltr metal bin cabinets with additional coating to protect from a marine/coastal environment. Officers revisited the proposed programme and where possible altered the specification of bins to model a mixture of cabinets based on the specific needs of particular settings; this exercise provided for a mixture of coated metal, metal, fibreglass and plastic bin cabinets, and in some cases smaller capacity bins as appropriate. This combined with tender returns being at a lower rate than expected based on previous orders [an economy of scale realised by buying in bulk which shows the benefit of this type of significant capital investment] means the successful bidder is able to provide 286 bins in total. The tender ran through a mini-competition on the Scotland Excel Recycle and Refuse containers framework which contains ten suppliers, two of whom submitted bids which were reviewed on a 70/30 price/quality scoring. 4.2 SIGNAGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME 4.2.1 The Council previously allocated £200,000 to replace street litter bins and key road signage. This was intended to help reduce future budget pressures for replacements of bins and signs and would also help to enhance the streetscape and general appearance of the area by refreshing the street furniture. 4.2.2 At the June meeting of this Committee, in the same Council funded project update report mentioned above, the following information was provided: This funding has focused on replacing signage assets based on condition and road hierarchy, with a focus on directional and speed signage (and where required the posts supporting signs). We have been able to replace signs which were faded and rusted, work which we would not otherwise have been able to do through existing budgets. Costs vary according to the size of signs and what other infrastructure is required. The available funding has provided for a package of nearly 500 new signs across the Council area. The programme of installations is progressing will in the western areas (OLI and MAKI), and signs are on order for Page 103
Page 104
the eastern areas (BC and HL). Note that in line with Council policy and directional or place name signs will be bi-lingual with English and Gaelic. 4.2.3 We have successfully completed approximately 50% of sign replacements in the West (OLI and MAKI) with the remaining 50% of signs all ordered. In the East (BC & HL) signs are ordered and in stock with installation commencing at the time of writing this report, now that the majority of the roads reconstruction programme is complete. Appendix 1 of this reports shows some of the replacement signs which have been installed to date. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 This report provides a short update on the bin and signage replacement programmes. The bin programme will be more extensive than originally envisaged thanks to prudent alterations to the programme specification and a successful procurement exercise. The signage programme will be completed over the winter months – its delivery slowed during the summer months due to the need to focus resources on roads capital schemes. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – Signage being designed and erected in line with national requirements/regulation. 6.2 Financial – Funded through budgets allocated as detailed above. 6.3 Legal – none known. 6.4 HR – none known. 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – none known 6.5.3 Islands – none known 6.6 Climate Change – none known. 6.7 Risk – none known. 6.8 Customer Service – none known. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Policy Lead for Roads and Transport Councillor, Andrew Kain Page 104
Page 105
November 2022 For further information contact: Tom Murphy, Operations Manager Tom.Murphy@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Example of signs replaced Page 105
Page 106
APPENDIX 1 – EXAMPLE OF SIGNS REPLACED Page 106
Page 107
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 1 DECEMBER 2022 LATEST UPDATE ON STAYCATION PROPOSALS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The council has allocated two funding pots to support staycations in Argyll and Bute. £500,000 was allocated from the 2021/2022 budget and supplemented by a further £100,000 from the 2022/2023 budget to support the delivery of a range of facilities across Argyll and Bute necessary to support camping and motorhome staycations. 1.2 The majority of the staycation facilities approved at a previous Environment, Development and Infrastructure (EDI) Committee for 2022 have been set up and running. For instance, the Staycation Graduate Project Officer was employed in April 2022, until the end of March 2023, to help administer the council’s investment. Council wardens were appointed for the period April to October 2022 to raise awareness in respect of visiting responsibly. In addition to this, £20,000 has been set aside from the Staycation budget to support four community groups/trusts to employ temporary wardens. 1.3 There is an ongoing process of developing new waste disposal points and supporting local business/community groups in upgrading and developing existing and new campsites. 1.4 Officers have developed a new approach and are working in partnership with private organisations/communities to create Motorcaravan Overnight Parking sites throughout Argyll and Bute to support Motorcaravan management and road safety issues. RECOMMENDATIONS Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to:- Consider and approve Officer recommendations that Funding for Gateway and passing place signage is approved. Funds are set aside for Portaloos in hot spots for 2023 as with 2021 and 2022. The Staycation Officer contract is extended by 6 months (to end of September 2023) to allow for the development and completion of projects Page 107 Agenda Item 9
Page 108
Review of Public Toilet upgrades with VisitScotland funding. Completion of the Motorcaravan Overnight Parking Project with an additional £30,000 allocated from the staycation budget. Completion of the Glenmorag project. Page 108
Page 109
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 1 DECEMBER 2022 LATEST UPDATE ON STAYCATION PROPOSALS 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 The council has allocated two funding pots to support staycations in Argyll and Bute. £500,000 was allocated from the 2021/2022 budget and supplemented by a further £100,000 from the 2022/2023 budget to support the delivery of a range of facilities across Argyll and Bute necessary to support camping and motorhome staycations. 2.2 The majority of the staycation facilities approved via the Environment, Development and Infrastructure (EDI) Committee for 2022 have been set up and running. For instance, the Staycation Graduate Project Officer was employed in April 2022, until the end of March 2023, to help administer the council’s investment. Council wardens were appointed for the period April to October 2022 to raise awareness in respect of visiting responsibly. In addition to this, £20,000 has been set aside from the Staycation budget to support four community groups/trusts to employ temporary wardens. 2.3 There is an ongoing process of developing new waste disposal points and supporting local business/community groups in upgrading and developing existing and new campsites. 2.4 Officers have developed a new approach and are working in partnership with private organisations/communities to create Motorcaravan Overnight Parking sites throughout Argyll and Bute to support Motorcaravan management and road safety issues. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are asked to:- Consider and approve Officer recommendations that Funding for Gateway and passing place signage is approved. Funds are set aside for Portaloos in hot spots for 2023 as with 2021 and 2022. The Staycation Officer contract is extended by 6 months (to end of September 2023) to allow for the development and completion of projects Page 109
Page 110
Review of Public Toilet upgrades with VisitScotland funding. Completion of the Motorcaravan Overnight Parking Project with an additional £30,000 allocated from the staycation budget. Completion of the Glenmorag project. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 Council officers are continuing to work closely with a number of agencies, including the National Park, Police Scotland, Transport Scotland and Argyll and the Isles Tourism Cooperative (AITC) to name a few, to help mitigate against the surge in domestic visitor numbers. Officers continue to work with these agencies to build on the successes of interventions set up in 2021 and to develop and set up new initiatives in 2022/2023 and beyond. 4.2 It is worth pointing out that whilst there were 16,608 new motorhomes registered between July 2020 and June 2021, an 8.25% increase on the previous pre-COVID record of 15,342 (National Caravan Council, 2021). The vast majority of these were responsible and respectful to our environment and communities. This was likely a result of the extensive communication and physical interventions put in place in 2021 and the fact that the vast majority of tourist facilities are now fully operational albeit still hampered by staff shortages. It was therefore imperative that we revisited these interventions for 2022/23. 4.3 It has been noted that overall staycation pressures were fewer in 2022 as other tourism markets opened up. That said, the tourism infrastructure has not fully recovered from the impact of COVID-19 with a number of facilities still closed or operating with fewer staff and services for visitors. With international visitors still not back to pre-COVID-19 levels the overall visitor number are down 33.6% when compared to pre COVID-19. This figure is under further downward pressure by the cost of living crisis and the current economic climate. Staycation Interventions 4.4 The current Staycation Project officer was recruited and started on 4th April 2022 until the end of March 2023. The officer is managing a variety of projects, engaging with communities, public sector partners and businesses on littering, signage, provision of toilets, parking for motorhomes, and waste disposal development funding applications. 4.5 The Economic Growth team, working closely with Environmental Health, Planning and Roads and Infrastructure colleagues, delivered a number of new activities mitigating negative effects on our countryside and tourism sector. Appendix 1 gives an overview of the interventions/actions in 2022/23. 4.6 Waste disposal facilities for camping/campervans. Officers are continuing to engage with campsite providers across Argyll and Bute in an attempt to encourage better usage of existing waste disposal facilities by non-resident Page 110
Page 111
campervans and motorhomes. Officers continue to engage with local businesses through providing an expression of Interest form and regular communication. 4.7 Temporary Toilets. Through funding from the staycation budget, twelve temporary toilets have been deployed by a contractor at five locations (Westport, Bridge of Orchy, Glen Orchy, Kilchurn Castle and Victoria Bridge). This included maintenance checks on a weekly basis. The toilet units were removed on 14/10/2022 after discussion with site owners. Throughout the season officers received constant feedback from the temporary toilet provider. The feedback showed a high level of usage on all sites with some units needing to be maintained more frequently than others. With the feedback from the supplier, we added an extra unit at Bridge of Orchy which helped cope with the demand. Please see examples of the feedback below; “They are still being used well, all toilet rolls are empty and sanitiser is going down fast too. They’re definitely still being required from the public which is good news. I believe that the Westport ones are still the busiest” (Honeywagon) 09/09/2022 “There is no doubt that without your toilets we would have to consider closing the car park as the area was becoming a health hazard” (Kilchurn Castle) 20/09/2022 4.8 General Waste. To promote responsible behaviour about 200 bin stickers have been put up on council bins at some hot spots by wardens and due to their durability they will remain throughout 2022. Analysis of data collected by Roads & Amenity Services, during 2022 in the Cowal and Helensburgh area there were a total of 901 inspections where wardens allocated their time dealing with litter, fly tipping, leaflet distribution along with dealing with other staycation issues. 4.9 Additional Warden Posts Four warden posts were advertised to cover each administrative area. There were initial recruitment issues in certain areas, resulting in only two wardens remaining in post for the term of contract. 4.10 Community Wardens £20,000 of the Staycation budget was set aside to support four community wardens in 2022/23. Two lots of £5,000 of funding were granted to support community wardens on Bute and Appin. Throughout the season we have approached other community groups to offer funding and support for community wardens. Appendix 3 shows feedback provided by Appin Community Development Trust (ACDT). 4.11 Web pages and Social media posts. An information web page was developed in 2021 with an interactive map of locations of PC and caravan touring sites with information about waste disposal facilities available across Page 111
Page 112
Argyll and Bute - Touring sites and filling stations (argyll-bute.gov.uk). These pages are reviewed by the Communications team and Staycation Officer on a regular basis. Staycation leaflet (Staycation leaflet (argyll-bute.gov.uk) was updated in partnership with the Communications team and uploaded to the staycation webpage (Have a great time. Be a great visitor. (argyll-bute.gov.uk) as a downloadable PDF. The leaflets have been distributed throughout Argyll and Bute Staycation Project Officer and Staycation Wardens. 5.0 New initiatives for 2023 5.1 Motorcaravan Overnight Parking Council Officers have developed a new Motorcaravan Overnight Parking scheme and are working in partnership with private organisations/communities to create sites throughout Argyll and Bute. This scheme is funded with an initial £20,000 from the Staycation Budget and a possible additional £30,000 increase to bring the total to £50,000 dependent on approval by Committee and the uptake of the grant. It will provide management support for new businesses, through Business Gateway, and Roads and Infrastructure services for road safety issues. Council Officers have worked with the Council’s Website Team to create a Motorcaravan Overnight Parking web page (to be released shortly) for all relevant information including an information brochure(Motorcaravan overnight parking (Aires) guidance Sept 22 (argyll-bute.gov.uk) created by the Economic Growth Team with design support from the Communications team. Through the Economic Growth Team, the Council has also partnered with the Argyll and the Isles Tourism Co-operative Ltd to conduct marketing for this new scheme for up to 10 registered sites on a first come first served basis according to budget. 5.2 Glenmorag Car Park The Staycation Officer will work with Roads and Infrastructure on developing options for the potential upgrading of the Glenmorag car park and public toilets. £100,000 of funding has been agreed from Place Based Investment towards a Aires style Motorcaravan site. This site has the potential to include upgraded toilets, electric hook up points, potable water, and waste water disposal points as a pilot project for the area. 5.3 Potential Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund (RTIF) Strategic Tourism Infrastructure Grant (STID) As the majority of our Public Toilets are now open it gives an opportunity to improve services to the general public and staycationers by reviewing which Public Toilets are used more frequently and which require a considerable upgrade. This funding application will be in addition to the funding of public toilet charging infrastructure allocated from the Crown Estate funding. If the STID project is approved by Committee consultants could be engaged to do this with a view to “thinking out of the box”. This could include, but not be limited to, working towards Net Zero (this is one of the fund objectives), enhancing the design and making them fit for the future and perhaps installing waste disposal Page 112
Page 113
points for Motorcaravans and other infrastructure to make it a multipurpose intervention. If STID funding is obtained and the consultants make proposals, the Council is not obliged to carry any or all of the proposals out. A small list of our most high profile and high use toilets could then be considered as part of a next stage application for RTIF funding which could provide a significant amount of match funding for any project. If the Council is granted this next step RTIF funding then it would need to provide match funding which will depend on the amount sought from VisitScotland. 5.4 The staycation officer has been crucial in moving forward the staycation interventions and it is proposed that the contract is extended by 6 months (approximately £20,000) to the end of September 2023 to allow for successful completion of the Motorcaravan Overnight Parking scheme and to lead on the application for STID funding and to lead the project if funding is obtained. 5.5 Welcome to Argyll and Bute signage and signs with information on passing pace etiquette to be designed and installed as appropriate with an approximate cost of £20,000. 5.6 Reintroduction of portaloos at the same locations of 2022 with an approximate cost of £42,500. 6.0 FINANCE 6.1 The total for actual and committed spend to date is £496,649. If the additional spend of £92,500 is approved, this leaves a balance of £10,852 of remaining budget that can be used for other interventions as and when identified. Appendix 2 provides further information on the expenditure. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The staycation fund has been welcomed by local communities and has greatly helped in addressing a surge in staycationers due to the reopening of the visitor economy. Officers have received positive feedback from Appin community from a programme of interventions from communities, businesses and individuals and this is being collated and analysed by the Staycation Officer (Appendix 3). 7.2 It is recommended that the Motorcaravan Overnight Parking and Glenmorag projects are to be developed to their full potential it would be advantageous to extend the Staycation Officer contract by 6 months (end of September 2023). 7.3 Council Officers continue to hold staycation meetings to address current enquires with a wide range of partners some of whom have taken forward their own initiatives. Officers will continue to work with partners to respond to the challenges and opportunities that have arisen. Page 113
Page 114
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Policy – The Council supports a strong economy with tourism identified as a priority sector. 8.2 Financial – The council has an approved budget for staycation activities to be spent over a number of financial years. 8.3 Legal – All appropriate legal implications will be taken into consideration. 8.4 HR – The council has approved the temporary employment of four additional wardens and one staycation officer. 8.5 Fairer Scotland Duty – The Fairer Scotland Duty, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010, came into force in April 2018. The duty places a legal responsibility on particular public bodies in Scotland, such as Argyll and Bute Council, to pay due regard to (actively consider) how they can reduce inequalities of outcome, caused by socio-economic disadvantage, when making strategic decisions and how this has been implemented. 8.5.1 Socio-economic Duty – Council services focus on removing socio-economic disadvantage for vulnerable residents across Argyll and Bute. 8.5.2 Equalities – All activities will comply with all Equal Opportunities/Fairer Scotland Duty policies and obligations. 8.5.3 Islands - Staycation interventions are being delivered across the whole of Argyll and Bute, including the island communities. 8.6 Climate Change – All activities will comply with the Decarbonisation Plan with the intention to minimise litter, pollution and support the vitality of our town centres. 8.7 Risk – Littering and Health and Safety issues arising from informal toilet waste disposal. Any staycation activity has potential to impact our ability to meet Climate Change target obligations. 8.8 Customer Services – Information is being communicated in different formats to our customers. Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Economy and Rural Growth: Councillor Robin Currie For further information contact: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Fergus.Murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk Nathan Gallogley, Staycation Officer Nathan.Gallogley@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 114
Page 115
APPENDICES Appendix 1 – List of actions being taken forward Appendix 2 – Staycation Expenditure 2021/22 Appendix 3 - Appin Community Development Trust (ACDT) Report Page 115
Page 116
Action Point Date of Implementation and activity Responsible Officer Action to date – 4th April 2022 Action to date – 3rd November 2022 Web pages; social media posts and communication plan Content is continually reviewed and is now available Jane Jarvie Ongoing Updated literature for 2022 focused on making the material accessible. Identification of private waste water disposal sites Sites identified in Appin; Tarbet; Holy Loch Marina; Lochgilphead Caravan Site; Portavadie Fergus Murray All potential sites contacted with a mixed response– some facilities are on-site and but communication continues with others around possibilities. Once sites have been made aware to officers they contact the relevant source. Identification of Portaloos site (confirmed not needing planning consent). Sites already identified Duck Bay; Arrochar car park; Bridge of Orchy, Victoria Bridge, West Port, Kilchurn Castle Jim Smith/Fergus Murray On site from 14th April until mid- October The toilet units were removed on 14/10/2022 after discussion with site owners. Community Hotspots identified via community councils/individuals and members Continued contact Jim Paterson Action so far – portaloos in place, review of activities Please see section 4.0 Recruitment of wardens Underway and advertised hoping to get in post asap. Operational plans being pulled together to ensure supervision and support is in place for out of hours and weekends. In addition we will look to carry out joint patrols with Police Scotland and council wardens where it is considered necessary and police have available resource to commit to this. Jim Smith/Tom Murphy As of 14th April 2022 two wardens are now in place - Bute and Cowal and Helensburgh and Loch Lomond. There were initial recruitment issues in certain areas, resulting in only two wardens remaining in post for the term of contract. APPENDIX 1: 2022/2023 INTERVENTIONS/ACTIONS Page 116
Page 117
LGE 9 post to assist Economic Growth Tourism Officer Staycation project Officer is in post since 4th April 22 Jim Paterson No further update Staycation Officer continues to work on staycation interventions. Community Wardens 4 grants of £5,000 allocated for Community Wardens Jim Paterson Funding granted to the Mount Stuart Trust; grant to Appin Community Development Trust They are currently two remaining Community Warden grants available. There are a number of larger scale interventions planned at Tobermory, Arrochar Car Park; Duck Bay etc. Completed for 2023 Jim Paterson, Hugh O’Neill Completed for 2023 The Glen Loin car park is part of an RTIF design grant from VisitScotland. RTIF offer of funding for Tobermory has been withdrawn and the project will not go ahead. Motorcaravan Overnight Parking Working in partnership with private organisations/communities to create sites throughout Argyll and Bute Nathan Gallogley N/A Working in partnership with AITC to help develop sites. Officers have been In contact with multiple proposed sites and have provided funding for an initial site on Islay. Glenmorag car park and toilet development 2022/23 To develop a Motorcaravan Overnight Parking site and upgrade Public Toilets Nathan Gallogley N/A – new project Working in partnership with RIS to help develop the site. Road signage advising of no parking in passing places To reduce congestion RIS/Nathan Gallogley N/A – new project Working in partnership with RIS to help develop the site. Argyll and Bute welcome signs Entrance signs to Argyll and Bute RIS/Nathan Gallogley N/A – new project Working in partnership with RIS to help develop options. Potential Strategic Tourism Infrastructure Grant (STID) To develop options for upgrades to Public toilets RIS/Nathan Gallogley N/A – new project Working in partnership with RIS to help develop options. Page 117
Page 118
Headline Detail Spent or Committed Agreed Spend 2021/22/23 Further spend for approval Comments Staycation Officer 2021/22 Temporary post for 1 year to progress Staycation proposals. recruited Spent £14,741 Only part year Staycation Officer 2022/23 Temporary post for 1 year to progress Staycation proposals. recruited Committed To be decided £38,382 £20,000 If post is to be extended a further £20k will be required from the Staycation budget Additional Staycation Wardens 2021 Four additional Wardens for a period of 5/6 months to October Spent £41,386 Additional Staycation Wardens 2022 Four additional Wardens for a period of 5/6 months to October Spent £56,000 Ledger run August 22 is for £50,748.24 but £18,895.01 of this is for car parking which is not accounted for in the 22/23 budget therefore only £31,853.23 has been spent as per budget outline. Additional street sweeping/uplifts etc 2021 Extra street sweeping and uplifts, includes car park maintenance Spent £19,816 Grab Trust 2021 Anti-littering campaign staffing Spent £18,830 Grab Trust 2022 Anti-littering campaign staffing Spent £17,000 APPENDIX 2 – STAYCATION EXPENDITURE 2021/22 AND OPTIONS FOR 2023/24 Page 118
Page 119
Additional Police 2021 To provide additional Police Services to assist in promoting responsible camping – across Argyll and Bute, for a 12 week Period. Spent £23,040 Additional Police 2022 To provide additional Police Services to assist in promoting responsible camping – across Argyll and Bute, for a 12 week Period. Spent £3,492 £23,040 committed but £19,548 of these funds have not been spent by Police Scotland and have been reclaimed Waste Water disposal points Grants 2021 Holy Loch Marina, Bunessan, Lochabie, Kilbride Farm, Pucks Glen, Gigha, South Islay Development, Portavadie, South Kintyre Development Trust Spent £57,393 Waste Water disposal points Grants 2022 Secret Glen, Dunoon Sunny Tiree campsite Spent £15,438.50 Portaloos 2021 Installing 11 portable toilet facilities in places including Westport, Bridge of Orchy, Glen Orchy and Victoria Bridge plus support to Friends of Loch Lomond (£3,500) Spent £5,833 Actual is low as this was part funded by NatureScot Portaloos 2022 Installing 11 portable toilet facilities in places including Westport, Bridge Spent Page 119
Page 120
of Orchy, Glen Orchy, Kilchurn castle and Victoria Bridge plus support to Friends of Loch Lomond (£12,500) £42,500 Portaloos 2023 Installing 11 portable toilet facilities in places including Westport, Bridge of Orchy, Glen Orchy, Kilchurn castle and Victoria Bridge plus support to Friends of Loch Lomond (£12,500) To be decided £42,500 Temporary Campsite 2021 Colonsay - contribution to overall project costs Committed £4,778 Publicity 2021 Information - leaflets etc Spent £13,131 Publicity 2022 Information - leaflets etc Spent £578 Staycation car park improvements (17 locations) 2021 Lining and information Spent £24,310 This was paid out of the Staycation account in 2022 Community Staycation Wardens 2022 To support local communities and inform visitors Spent £10,000 Motorcaravan Overnight parking scheme 2022/23 To support local communities to develop new business opportunities Committed To be decided £20,000 £30,000 £30,000 subject to approval by Committee Page 120
Page 121
Glenmorag car park and toilet development 2022/23 To develop a Motorcaravan Overnight Parking site and upgrade Public Toilets Committed This has a separate budget of £100,000 South Islay Development To help set up Motorhome development Committed £20,000 RTIF Project Road signage advising of no parking in passing places To reduce congestion To be decided £20,000 Argyll and Bute welcome signs Entrance signs to Argyll and Bute To be decided £30,000 Possible support from the Gaelic budget Total £496,649 £92,500 Overall total £589,148 Budget £600,000 Remaining £10,852 Page 121
Page 122
APPENDIX 3 - APPIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRUST (ACDT) REPORT Introduction in Spring 2022 Appin Community Development Trust (ACDT) was awarded grants by Argyll & Bute Council (£5,000) and NatureScot (£8,163) to support implementation of the Appin community ranger initiative. A further £1,000 was committed by ACDT to provide a budget contingency. The grants enabled ACDT to appoint a part time Community Ranger for 21 hours a week over the period June to October 2021 and covered the cost of associated expenses such as travel costs, publicity materials and waste supplies. Due to our Ranger relocating at the end of September the 2022 project was drawn to an early close. Given the limited time remaining and the downturn in levels of visitor activity it was both impractical and inappropriate to seek a replacement ranger for the remainder of the season. Outcomes The key objective has been to manage and deliver a community-led initiative that helps sustain a clean and attractive outdoor environment across the Appin area over the summer months when visitor numbers are particularly high. Beneficiaries include both visitors and the local community. Ranger Role The role of the Community Ranger is to: make daily checks of agreed routes to identify where wild camping and off-site campervan parking is taking place overnight; welcome visitors to the area and explain their responsibilities in terms of complying with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC); distribution of information leaflet; provide information and guidance on accessing waste disposal facilities; and clean up and dispose of any litter left in camping places, recording and photographing significant problems for reference. Page 122
Page 123
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 1 DECEMBER 2022 CLEANING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. The report provides the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee with an update on the additional funding allocated from the 2020/21 budget process to mitigate the impacts of weather related damage and climate change with specific emphasis on gully cleaning and drainage improvements. 1.2 At the February 2022 Council budget meeting, £0.500m of funding was allocated for two new multi-purpose vehicles, which would be used for road side gully cleansing as well as for winter maintenance. Due to a number of external factors, the procurement of these vehicles have been delayed. 1.3 Members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee were provided with an update on 10th September 2020, which outlined the delay in progress, as a result of the Covid pandemic. This report confirms that the vehicles are currently being built and are expected to be delivered to the council at the turn of the year. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members note the update provided in this report Page 123 Agenda Item 10
Page 124
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 1 DECEMBER 2022 CLEANING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 At the Council’s budget meeting in February 2020, additional funding of £0.500m was agreed for the procurement of two multi-purpose vehicles to help mitigate the impacts of weather related damage and climate change. This report provides members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure with an update on the procurement of the vehicles. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Members note the update provided in this report 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 As part of the 2020/21 budget process additional funds were allocated to be spent across 20/21 and 21/22 to mitigate the impacts of weather related damage and climate change with specific emphasis on gully cleaning and drainage improvements. The additional funding was £0.500m and is planned to be used for a new gully machine, operative(s) and investment in an inventory enhancement /programme. The delivery of this project has slipped due to the Covid pandemic and the delay in procuring vehicles and the funding remains in the earmarked reserves. 4.2 Within the council’s existing vehicle fleet there are currently two chassis units with interchangeable gully and winter maintenance units. These machines are used across the whole of the council area for gully cleansing and provide additional back up for winter maintenance covering for breakdowns and/or heavy localised winter weather events. Utilising multi-body vehicles provides value for money enabling one chassis unit to be used for multiple purposes. 4.3 In line with the February 2020 budget decision, officers are progressing the procurement of two additional multi-purpose vehicles which will be similar to the existing gully/winter machines mentioned above. This will enable one unit to be Page 124
Page 125
based in each of the four area committee locations. In addition to the vehicles, two additional drivers/operators will be recruited on time limited contracts of up to two years to focus on gully cleansing and drainage work. The delivery of these vehicles was originally anticipated much earlier. 4.4 During lockdown the majority of vehicle suppliers had effectively closed and furloughed staff which meant progressing new and replacement vehicles was not always possible. This was the case for the gully/multi-body vehicles and due to back orders, availability etc, build was significantly delayed with delivery anticipated towards the end of this year/beginning of next. The two vehicles due to be added in to the fleet are quick change body units with Plough Conversions to enable a gritter body with a 6 cubic metre capacity spread. The gritter body being demountable can be added or removed as required to support the winter programme and to offer resilience to the current Fleet. Currently the two ECON chassis’ and gritter bodies are complete with the gully cleansing bodies currently being built. 4.5 Due to the Covid pandemic and delays detailed above, the delivery of this project has slipped and budget will be drawn down from earmarked reserves when required. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 The additional resource outlined in this report, in terms of both vehicles and drivers/operators, will help to mitigate the impacts of weather related damage and climate change with specific emphasis on gully cleansing and drainage improvements. Due to the Covid pandemic the procurement and progress of this particular project has slipped with budget rolled forward into 2022/23. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – in line with budget decision from February 2020. 6.2 Financial – budget agreed in February 2020 and currently in earmarked reserves for drawdown. 6.3 Legal – none known. 6.4 HR – none known. 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics – none known. 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – none known. 6.5.3 Islands – none known. 6.6. Risk – this additional resource will reduce the risk of flooding and blocked drains. 6.7 Climate Change - mitigate the impacts of weather related damage and climate change with specific emphasis on gully cleaning and drainage improvements. 6.8 Customer Service – none known. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Kirsty Flanagan Page 125
Page 126
Policy Lead for Roads and Transport, Councillor Andrew Kain For further information contact: Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Jim.Smith@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 126
Page 127
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 1 DECEMBER 2022 ARGYLL AIR SERVICES - PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION CONSULTATION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Argyll Air Services Public Service Obligation (PSO) contract is up for renewal. Similar to previous contract renewals Strategic Transportation undertook a public consultation to determine the key priorities of the communities using the air service. Potential bidders have been given access to the consultation's findings in order to assist them with their bid submissions. The consultation ran from 8th April 2022 until 1st May 2022. The consultation was advertised extensively across a range of platforms and each Community Council was directly contacted for response. Respondents had access to the consultation online using Survey Monkey, which was made up of 63 questions on the Air Service. 1.2 There were a total of 135 responses to the consultation and made up of 90% individuals; 5% community organisations; and 5% businesses. 1.3 The consultation revealed that the main uses of the air service is to access health facilities, access shops/leisure facilities, for tourism, and for business purposes. The most significant use was for access to health facilities which is particularly significant given that 56% or 26,000 referrals made in Argyll and Bute are for referral to hospitals within the central belt. 1.4 Nearly all respondents felt that the Argyll Air Service was vital to the community and that same day return was very important. 1.5 The recommendations to improve the service from the respondents included: access to the central belt; better advertisement; larger aircraft for greater number of passengers; higher fares for tourists; and flight times better aligned with other transport. 1.6 A majority of respondents also expressed optimism about the proposed UAV hub at Oban Airport which is currently subject to a ‘Levelling Up’ bid to the UK Government and the benefits that drones could bring to island communities, meaning there is a general consensus of the benefits this new technology could bring. Page 127 Agenda Item 11
Page 128
RECOMMENDATIONS We request members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee to note the content of the report, which is a summary of a recent online Argyll Air Services PSO consultation. Page 128
Page 129
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 1ST DECEMBER 2022 ARGYLL AIR SERVICES - PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION CONSULTATION 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Aviation forms a crucial, often lifeline, element of the transport network in many parts of the Argyll and Bute area. The airports in Oban, Coll and Colonsay are owned and operated by Argyll and Bute Council. These air services along with a service to Tiree provide lifeline connections to the mainland for island residents to access healthcare and education and are currently subsidised by Argyll and Bute Council, however Tiree Airport is operated by Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd (HIAL). There is no High School on Coll and Colonsay and the pupils from the islands use the air services to access education from the mainland Oban High School. 2.2 The input of the public through a consultation is crucial to ensure that the service is meeting the needs of the community. The consultation ran from 8th April 2022 until 1st May 2022. It was accessible through a link to the website, where Survey Monkey is located. Each Community Council was contacted individually, and the consultation was widely publicised on a variety of media. The consultation consisted of 63 questions designed to gather data regarding Argyll Air Service. 2.3 There were a total of 135 responses, 90% of which were individuals; 5% were community organisations; and 5% were businesses. 2.4 58% of respondents were above the age of 55, 33% of respondents were between the ages of 35 and 54, and 9% of respondents were under the age of 34, making up the respondents' age demographic. 2.5 30% of respondents live on the Isle of Coll, 30% live on the mainland, 25% live on the Isle of Colonsay, 11% live on the Isle of Tiree, 7% live on the Isle of Islay, and 3% responded "other." 2.6 According to the consultation, the primary uses of the air service are for access to medical facilities, to access to retail and leisure facilities, for travel, for business use, for employment, and for school/further education. Page 129
Page 130
2.7 The responses showed that the Argyll Air Service were deemed to be more important compared with Loganair Air Service where both services were available. 2.8 Twice or more each year was the most common frequency of travel, followed by once per month. The Argyll Air Service was deemed essential for the community by 93% of respondents, and the same number of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that it is crucial to be able to make a return trip on the same day. 2.9 From the consultation, the predominant recommendations for better practice were access to the central belt; better advertisement; larger aircraft for greater numbers of passengers; higher fares for tourists; a greater number of flights; and flight times better aligned with other transportation. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 We request members of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee to note the content of the report, which is a summary of a recent online Argyll Air Services PSO consultation. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The consultation identified the main applications of the air service. According to 63% of respondents, the service was mostly utilised to access medical services. Other common uses included access to stores and recreational facilities, tourism, business use, and employment. This shows how the community uses the service in a variety of ways and how important it is to the residents of the communities it serves. 4.2 The main use of the air service was for “access to health facilities” with 63% of respondents noting this as their use of the service. Meaning that the NHS are making significant use of the service to give patients access to medical facilities and healthcare. Despite this use, Argyll Air Service is not linked directly to the central belt which is particularly salient given that 56% or 26,000 of annual referrals in Argyll and Bute are to hospitals within the central belt. 4.3 The consultation also demonstrated other uses of the service. These include for “site visits”, for “veterinary services”, for “training” and for “consulting visits to the islands”. These responses represent the variety of both personal and business use of the service. 4.4 A significant point from the consultation was that the Argyll Air Service is the preferred airport option compared with Loganair Air Service with a higher proportion of individuals choosing Argyll Air Service as their preferred transport compared to Loganair Air Service. Page 130
Page 131
4.5 The reason that Argyll Air Service was chosen include that it is “Much faster. It allows you to go out and back in the same day” and “It is an essential service to these isolated islands which can be cut off by ferry cancellations”. 4.6 The overall preferred mode of transport was the CALMAC ferry service due to “ferry important obviously because of ability to get car to and from the island” and “cost – cheap for foot passenger”. 4.7 There were, however, criticisms about the lack of reliability of the ferry, the length of time it takes, irregularity of the service and lack of transport links when on the mainland. 4.8 Comments also indicated ways to improve the Argyll Air Service and make it more favourable and these included “a definite schedule link between Hebrides airways (Coll/Tiree) and Loganair therefore offering a link to Glasgow/London and beyond so promoting businesses commerce and other lifeline services”. 4.9 The most common frequency of travel was twice or more annually or monthly. The most common mode of transport was the CALMAC ferry service, followed by Argyll Air Service, Loganair Air Service and finally other non-CALMAC Ferry service. 4.10 CALMAC Ferry Service, followed by Argyll Air Service, with a difference of about 5%, is the most popular form of transportation for those who go twice or more annually. In contrast, people who travel on a regular basis were substantially more likely to use the CALMAC Ferry service, which was then followed by the Argyll Air Service, with a difference of almost 17%. 4.11 The consultation revealed that 93% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that Argyll Air Service was vital for the community. 4.12 Argyll Air Service allows residents to complete a return journey within the same day of travel, 93% of the respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that it is important to be able to complete a return journey in a single day. 4.13 There were a number of barriers to travelling using Argyll Air Service. The most prominent was due to timetabling followed by availability of seats, cost of tickets, integration with bus/train and reliability of service. A small proportion of respondents had issues booking a ticket. 16% of respondents felt they had no barriers to travel. 4.14 Some of the other barriers discussed are mostly related to timetabling and the lack of a direct link to Glasgow commenting “The service stopping in Oban. There has to be a through to Glasgow.” 4.15 The largest benefit to the community was seen to be enabling pupils to get to/from school. This is followed by the links to hospital/healthcare, then supporting businesses, tourism, visits from friends/family and then finally helping residents go on holiday. Page 131
Page 132
4.16 The consultation revealed the most prominent recommendations to improve the service, these include: Access to the central belt; better advertisement; larger aircraft for greater numbers; higher fares for tourists; a greater number of flights; and, flight times better aligned with other transportation. 4.17 There were further recommendations which includes suggesting greater funding commenting “Approach the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland and HIAL to seek out capital or operational funding. It is their National Transport strategy that seeks equitable access to services for the islands. It seems the other Island Councils are more equitable than A&B islands!” 4.18 In order to enhance the community benefits, the suggestions recommend extending the timetable during the summer months, a more regular service in general and better advertisement of the service with information on the flight times and fare cost. 4.19 Argyll and Bute Council is working in partnership with Skyports, to develop a West Coast Advanced Air Mobility Logistics Innovation Hub and Training centre. The new infrastructure at Oban Airport will support the operation of electrically powered UAVs including cargo drone deliveries, and other advanced air mobility (AAM) use cases. Royal Mail are also interested in UAVs as part of their service delivery and have undertaken trials with Skyports from Oban out to the island of Mull. 4.20 In the consultation, when asked if they believed the UAV hub would be ideal environment in Argyll and Bute and that it can provide real benefit, 74% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement showing a positive response to the UAV Hub. Further to this, 78% strongly agreed or agreed that the UAV Hub would benefit islands in the future. 4.21 The reason that people were optimistic about the UAV hub included that it would add resilience, it is quicker than the ferry, better for the environment, and it is vital to embrace new technologies. 4.22 However, there were other people who were hesitant of the new technology and believed that it would not be appropriate in the area due to the frequently inclement weather and that they were unsure of the new technology. Furthermore, some people were concerned about the noise of the drones, the reliability and were concerned it would replace existing services and not interested in deliveries using drones. 4.23 The Scottish Government conducted a public consultation on an Aviation Strategy for Scotland and encouraged response from all. The consultation asked the respondents there awareness of the Scottish Aviation Strategy. 30% of the respondents were aware that the Scottish Government are developing an aviation strategy. In addition, just 12% of respondents to this consultation submitted a response, which means that 88% of the respondents did not. Page 132
Page 133
5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 The public consultation for the Argyll Air Services revealed the perspective of the public on the Air Service and the priorities for the communities utilising the service. 5.2 The main takeaway from the consultation shows that the Air Service is used most often for access to health facilities, this is particularly salient given that 56% of annual referrals in Argyll and Bute are to hospitals in the central belt and the Air Service does not link directly to the central belt. 5.3 The other prominent uses of the air service include access to shops/leisure facilities, tourism, for business use and employment showing that the service supports the key businesses and sectors such as tourism. 5.4 A key part of the service is the ability to complete same-day return, one of the main attractions for use of the service by customers. 5.5 The consultation revealed clear recommendations for improvements to the service including access to the central belt, better advertisement, increased flights and better timetabling as well as better links with other transportation. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy - Argyll and Bute Council provide PSO air services to some of our fragile Island communities. 6.2 Financial - Argyll and Bute Council has a budget of £512,207 available per annum (2019-2022) for the provision of air services. This contract is coming up for renewal for the period 16th September 2023 – 15th September 2027 and is currently going through procurement. 6.3 Legal - Tenders for PSO air services must be compliant with Scottish Government regulations. 6.4 HR - None 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - Air services provide connections to rural island communities primarily for scholars but are also used by public and private sector services e.g. NHS, ABC, and Housing Associations. 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – The air service supports an equitable standard of living for island residents. 6.5.3 Islands - The air service supports vulnerable island populations and is a lifeline service. There is a chance that if this service isn't provided, people won't want to live or work there as much, which could affect the SOA's goal of population growth. Page 133
Page 134
6.6 Climate Change - Multiple passengers on a one-hour flight may have less of an environmental impact than those travelling by vehicle and ferry for six hour. 6.7 Risk - Risk of break in air services as a result of requirement to retender. 6.8 Customer Service – None. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director responsible for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead for Roads and Transport: Councillor Andrew Kain November 2022 For further information contact: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Fergus.Murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk Moya Ingram, Strategic Transportation and Infrastructure Manager Moya.Ingram@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 134
Page 135
Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan 2022/23 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 1 December 2022 Local Flood Risk Management Plans – Cycle 2 2022-28 Roads and Infrastructure Services 8 November 2023 Cemetery Asset Update Roads and Infrastructure Services Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy Roads and Infrastructure Services Play Park Funding Roads and Infrastructure Services Bin and Signage Replacement project Roads and Infrastructure Services Staycation update Development and Economic Growth Cleaning and Drainage Improvements in Response To Climate Change Roads and Infrastructure Services Argyll Air Services – Public Service Obligation Consultation Development and Economic Growth Waste PPP Options Appraisal Roads and Infrastructure Services 2 March 2023 Annual Status and Options Report (ASOR) Road Condition Index Annual Report Roads and Infrastructure Services 7 February 2023 Shared Prosperity Fund Development and Economic Growth Page 135 Agenda Item 12
Page 136
Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan 2022/23 Future Items TBC Page 136
Page 137
Document is Restricted Page 137 Agenda Item 13NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 8, 9 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 138
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 139
Document is Restricted Page 149 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 8, 9 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 140
This page is intentionally left blank