Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 10 September 2024
Back to Helensburgh & Lomond Area Committee — 10 September 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE HELENSBURGH & LOMOND AREA COMMITTEE HELD ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE MARRIAGE SUITE IN THE HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND CIVIC CENTRE AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS ON TUESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Fiona Howard (Vice Chair) Councillor Math Campbell-Sturgess Councillor Maurice Corry Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Ian MacQuire Councillor Gary Mulvaney Councillor Gemma Penfold Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager John Blake, Fleet, Waste and Transport Manager Colin Young, Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer Sergeant Sophie Marshall, Police Scotland Seymour Adams, Vice Chair, CHARTS 1. APOLOGIES The Vice Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Mark Irvine (Chair) and Iain Paterson. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest intimated. 3. MINUTE OF THE MEETING OF THE HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND AREA COMMITTEE, HELD ON 11 JUNE 2024 The Minute of the meeting of the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee, held on 11 June 2024 was approved as a correct record. 4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Before the introduction of Public Questions and in response to several questions that had been submitted in advance the Vice Chair made a statement regarding Helensburgh Waterfront. This Committee and Council over the past 10 years has successfully invested over £20m in Helensburgh Waterfront with important community infrastructure including the new leisure centre, new car park, sea defences and resurfaced pier to name a few. This Administration, and indeed the previous Administration, appreciates there remains a great deal of public interest in the final piece of the jigsaw and things have moved on considerably in last few weeks following the decision by Policy and Recourses Committee in August to select a sole preferred developer in Forrest Developments. All of the submitted points from today’s Public Questions will be answered in the coming days. We will also be updating the information and frequently asked questions page on
Page 2
the Councils Website about the Waterfront so the correct narrative is shared as widely as possible. I do however want to reiterate 3 points. Firstly, our town centre is important to us all and we want to get this important site right with a viable and economically sustainable development. There has been an open process where we received several offers from retailers, fast food giants, hotels and the community. We have assessed these bids through an agreed process and have a proposal that is considered to be most adventitious in terms of deliverability, risk, financial outcomes and community feedback. Secondly, we are aware that views both for and against this development have been expressed in the wake of the recent announcement and in this context, it is important to note that the council’s focus is on ensuring that the Waterfront regeneration ultimately delivers benefits for Helensburgh as a whole. Community feedback has played an important part in reaching the stage we are now at. There have been opportunities for community involvement at various points. In response to previous community feedback the Masterplan was altered to reduce the retail area and building line was pulled away from Clyde Street to protect views. We are listening, but the preferred bidder’s proposal is not developed to a stage that matters can be taken forward to a planning application yet. Officers are working with the developer on that and more detail will be shared when it is available and again community feedback will be welcomed as part of the planning process. Finally, the Committee acknowledge that the skatepark is interlinked to the waterfront and I wanted to reiterate what this Committee confirmed in December 2023. That there will be a skatepark at the waterfront as a backstop. This has been confirmed with Forrest Developments. However, and in supporting ambition of growth or expansion this Committee asked that 2 alternative locations were to be explored at both Kidston Park and Hermitage Park. Officers are currently looking at that and will report back to a future Area Committee once in a position to do so. So for clarity and in conclusion, the Area Committee recognise the public interest and welcome the questions which will be answered by officers in the coming days. Wider information will continue to be shared via the website as it becomes available. When updates and more detail is available that of course will be shared widely. All questions raised today around the waterfront will be welcomed and minuted, however it would be my intention that these are referred to Officers for a fuller, more detailed response. Stella Kinloch The Committee Manager read out questions submitted by Stella Kinloch in advance of the meeting as follows: Question 1
Page 3
I have concerns that the Committee in approving the sale of land on the waterfront were not provided with full and honest representation from the consultation and that there are continuous attempts to overrule and quash the voice of residents. The sale of the land was supposed to include space for the skatepark. It’s now clear officers have been manipulating the process to find the ‘best’ site, whilst the community and its young people are repeatedly advising what they believe is the best site, the waterfront, yet this continues to be ignored. Why did the elected members accept evidence from an outdated retail spending from 2017 to be submitted as part of the report? And why did they not question the poor consultation numbers and lack of transparency from the consultants used to produce this report? Why has there been no full community consultation on the best site for the skate park? Councillor Campbell-Sturgess highlighted that there had been no decision made on where the Skatepark would be located. The Committee advised that they would seek guidance from the relevant department and provide Ms Kinloch with a response to this question following the meeting. Question 2 I’d like to know why did over 1300 pupils at Hermitage Academy start their year by being issued with 8 pages of printed paper giving GDPR notices for video and photo permissions and 2 for data confirmation. The authorities currently pays for licenses and use Google forms; also pay for Xpressions as the agreed communication method. These 2 digital solutions are available and are not being used. Printed paper is a waste and where pupils don’t return it, they receive a second set printed out to take home. We’re seeing committees discussing budgets, spending cuts, whilst this obvious waste of budget, not to mention the actual paper is astonishing when the digital solutions are there. I can only speak to what was issued at Hermitage but I would assume it’s authority wide. Counting up all these little areas of waste are what is eating into overstretched budgets. I’m looking for a commitment that the authority will stop the needless printing of forms to parents. This is only required where there is an exception agreed. Hopefully with all services removing such waste we’ll see small savings add up! The Committee Manager highlighted that on receipt of the question he had passed it to the Head of Education – Learning and Teaching who advised that: Annual Data Checks are a vital aspect of Data Protection compliance and are issued on paper as they are pre-populated with information that parents have previously supplied to use. This is to facilitate the process rather than them having to completely write everything out again. Unfortunately, Messenger 5, our main tool for communicating with parents is
Page 4
unable to handle that level of data. The service are looking at a parent app that could resolve this issue and are in discussion with IT to plan an implementation programme. Gill Simpson Has the Area Committee noted that a short-term working group of the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Community Planning Group has been set up to explore Community Wealth Building? The Vice Chair advised that the Committee were aware that a short-term working group had been established and noted the question. Peter Brown Question 1 Can the Chair clarify who Argyll and Bute Council are intending to sell the pierhead site to - is it Forrest Developments Ltd (as in the A&BC press release of 18th August) or Forrest Group (as in the Council's Q&A on their website)? Question 2 Can the Chair advise whether Argyll and Bute Council obtained an independent valuation of this site? If so: a. Which company provided the valuation? b. What was the valuation? c. When were the Area Committee Councillors informed of this valuation? Question 3 Can the Chair advise when the Area Committee Councillors agreed the budget for the disposal of the pierhead site, and how much was that budget? This refers to the combined cost of external consultants, including Avison Young as marketing company, Darnton B3 architects in providing an illustrative design, Colliers for the retail survey update and Ryder Architects for the community engagement process. Question 4 Each bid was scored against five criteria, of which Criterion 4 was "Community Feedback: Based on Community Engagement Process (June 2023)", as signed-off by the Area Committee Councillors in September last year. The Ryder Architecture report on the Community Engagement process, which only 83 people participated in, concluded that there was "no consensus" on what was wanted on the site. Can the chair advise how this report was used to score this criterion? Did they simply award 5 out of 5 to all bids, as they did for the Community Council's bid, and what was the score assigned to the winning bid? Question 5 Is the Chair aware that this site is still at risk of flooding? The seawall that was built for the leisure centre was not built as a formal flood defence, therefore the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) will consider each new building on this site on its own merits
Page 5
and, as SEPA said at the pre-planning meeting for the leisure centre, the increased footfall from any retail on this site would cause them to regard it as a "more vulnerable" use. Councillor MacQuire advised that when the swimming pool was built, part of ground was raised by 2 metres to stop flooding. Question 6 After the Area Committee approved 2 bidders at their private meeting in March this year, did the Council give any commitment to those bidders? If the Council had not selected one of those two bidders would there have been a penalty to the Council, and were Councillors aware of this? Question 7 Can the Chair confirm that the Council has followed the Scottish Government's 2010 regulations on Disposal of Land by Local Authorities? Specifically paragraph 12 which says their duty includes "Being open and transparent in transactions", and "Demonstrating responsiveness to the needs of communities, citizens, customers and other stakeholders". Question 8 I raised a number of points to the Area Committee in March about the Colliers Retail Study update, in particular their figures for floorspace in the town centre. In underestimating the existing floorspace, Colliers concluded that there is scope to increase the amount of retail space in the town. The Council officer has kindly pursued Colliers as to how they originated their data - Colliers said: "the floorspace used in the 2023 Retail Study Update was based on the a 2023 GOAD Category Report specifically generated for Helensburgh. The GOAD report provided an overall floorspace figure of 404,700 sqft Gross Floor Area for Helensburgh Town Centre. This was broken down into Financial & Business Services, Leisure Services, Comparison, Convenience and Retail Services. This floorspace figure was updated and ratified, in terms of retailer representation via an on ground site visit, it was also cross referenced with the defined town centre boundary, as provided by the Local Development Plan and other related planning applications that were reviewed." I have seen the 2023 Experia GOAD Category Report for Helensburgh, and what it shows is the number of each category of shop - chemist, charity shop, supermarket, etc - and the total floorspace of each category. There's nothing that says which chemists, or the floor area of each Boots, or where each Boots is. So it is completely impossible to "ratify" the floorspace figure on the ground, or even to "cross reference" it with the town centre boundary. Further, the GOAD report itself says: "The floor space figures shown on the report are derived from the relevant GOAD Plan, but only show the footprint floorspace, and the site area without the building lines. They should not therefore be read as a definitive report of floor space, but do provide a useful means of comparison between centres, as all outlets are measured in a consistent manner.”
Page 6
Does the Chair agree that the Colliers Retail Study update does not provide an accurate representation of Helensburgh's retail position, leaving Helensburgh's local businesses vulnerable to retail development on the waterfront? Question 9 On 12th September last year, this Committee was briefed by officers about "items that are considered to be major risk factors to the Council regarding Hermitage Park", which included the following: "Skate park is located in a suitable spot in Helensburgh. If located in Hermitage Park a full suite of documents are required by NLHF including; a heritage impact assessment undertaken by a specialist consultant in historic parks, H&S risk assessment, statement from planning department, survey of park users and stakeholders, the local community and Friends group to gauge public opinion, an updated and fully funded management and maintenance plan explaining how skate park will be maintained over 20 years, an updated Pavilion business plan, statement of impact on Green Flag award. This requirement is legally binding in order to draw down funds and not be liable for clawback." The Council's Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee meets this Thursday, and the officers' report for that committee says: "The risks regarding the potential location of a skatepark in Hermitage Park have been deemed acceptable and subsequently a letter has been drafted for consideration by National Lottery Heritage Fund (NLHF)." Can the Chair explain how the risks have been mitigated, and particularly the risk regarding public opinion? The Vice Chair thanked Mr Brown for the questions raised and assured him that his questions would be referred to the relevant department who would provide responses to his questions in the coming days. Ed Watling The Committee Manager read out questions submitted by Ed Watling in advance of the meeting as follows: Question 1 In relation to the supermarket development, why does Argyll and Bute Council feel that a retail survey carried out in 2007 is still relevant to the current & future needs of the area given: a) this was before the Improvements of the CHORD project, b) before the building of Waitrose (now Morrisons) and c) the effects of the pandemic on retail shopping habits? Question 2 Has Argyll and Bute Council carried out a traffic study in relation to increased shopping traffic at the East Clyde/ Sinclair Street junction? Are there any plans to change entry/exit to the Leisure Centre/Supermarket car park? Have Police Scotland been asked for their views in relation to the significant increase in vehicle movements in Clyde Street/Sinclair Street, potential bottlenecks and Road safety issues?
Page 7
Question 3 With the fact that the new supermarket development is earmarked for use by the Co-op, can Argyll and Bute Council confirm their plans for the current Co-op site, especially how such plans will impact parking in the town both for shoppers and rail users? Have ScotRail been consulted in relation to the impact on station access and passengers numbers both during any redevelopment and subsequently? The Vice Chair thanked Mr Watling for the questions raised and assured him that his questions would be referred to the relevant department who would provide responses to his questions in the coming days. Sarah Davies The Committee Manager read out questions submitted by Sarah Davies in advance of the meeting as follows: Question 1 Why is the proposed development of a retail site on the Waterfront not on today’s agenda? There have been a number of very important decisions taken since the last meeting, yet I see no written update or report. These decisions which were taken in private, and are of great interest to the residents of Helensburgh and Lomond but yet again there is no report or update. I note also that three months later the community council has received no reply from any of the councillors on this committee to our letter raising concerns about the process for selling off the site for redevelopment. Our only reply came from a council officer who is not accountable to the community as elected councillors are. In the absence of any replies we wrote to the Council leader seeking a meeting before any decisions were taken. Sadly his reply was that he did not have time to come to Helensburgh. You are I am sure aware that the announcement of the preferred bidder (following a closed meeting not available to press or public) has not been universally well received in Helensburgh. The Community Council has received many questions and representations on this issue. Many of these we are unable to answer due to lack of publicly available information. There were more than 120 residents at our August meeting eager for information. We thank our MSP Jackie Baillie, Councillor Howard and Councillor Kennedy for attending that meeting, however they too had little information they could share. The lack of transparency is concerning. We are told there will be benefits to the community but not what they will be. The apparent secrecy is for many the most concerning issue. Since that meeting a digital petition to Stop the Supermarket has gained more than 2,700 signatures in less than 10 days - a paper petition is also in circulation. For many of those signatories their main concern is lack of consultation and transparency.
Page 8
I note from the Scottish Government website the key roles of an elected councillor are Representing their ward Representing and meeting with residents and community groups within their ward and dealing with the issues they raise. Question 2 My question therefore is when will you our elected councillors be meeting with Helensburgh residents to answer questions on this issue? Will this be through well publicised surgeries, a public meeting or will there be drop in sessions? There are many current local issues raised with us as the Helensburgh Community Council. These include, along with the Waterfront, the Regeneration of the Pier (more than 500 residents turned out to support this cause on a. Sunday morning), the survival of the Tower Arts Centre and Cinema (more than 600 residents turned up to an engagement event just last weekend) the closure of the Cafe in Hermitage Park with no notice overnight and the long term future of the Waterfront Skatepark. None of these appear on today’s agenda, will they be on the next one? As well as answering these for those at today’s meeting I would request a written reply explaining clearly how you will be meeting with and representing residents concerns, questions and views. Also how you as our elected representatives will be taking those views to Argyll and Bute Council. I look forward to seeing the Waterfront and some of the other important issues I have touched upon being raised in future not just at public question time but on the official agenda hopefully at the next meeting in three months time. The Vice Chair thanked Ms Davies for the submitted questions and assured her that the questions would be referred to the relevant department who would provide responses to the questions in the coming days. Cameron Foy As reported in the Helensburgh Advertiser the future of the waterfront development is potentially tied to the existing Co-op supermarket and carpark on Sinclair Street/East King Street which the Council also owns and currently leases. Question 1 Can the Chair say whether, under the terms of the lease, the current leaseholder can end the lease early, or whether the Council has any control over who the lease could be transferred to, and therefore any influence over whether its future would be retail or residential? Question 2 What is the Council's own long term plan for the Sinclair Street/East King Street site and will it make public the timescale for its re-development? I am hearing that this new Council administration aims to be open and transparent and I am hoping to see evidence of that today.
Page 9
Councillor Mulvaney advised that no definitive decision has been made on the future of the site and that the decision made at Policy and Resources Committee was to award preferred bidder status only. The Vice Chair thanked Mr Foy for the questions and assured him that the questions would be referred to the relevant department who would provide responses to the questions in the coming days. Kathryn Smith The Committee Manager read out the following question submitted by Kathryn Smith in advance of the meeting: Why is the skatepark being limited to 350sqm when the revised & adopted masterplan includes a large skatepark in the waterfront? This would see no safe approach & run off spaces. The Vice Chair thanked Ms Smith for the question and confirmed the question would be referred to the relevant department who would provide a response to the question in the coming days. Jackie Hood, Helensburgh Skatepark Project The Committee Manager read out the following question submitted by Jackie Hood in advance of the meeting: Why, when the Skatepark Project has repeatedly stated that the waterfront is their preferred location and they would rather a smaller park there than a larger one out of town, are the council continuing to pursue alternative locations? Could the Council also clarify why Hermitage Park is now being considered as an alternative location when it was deemed unviable 2 years ago? The Vice Chair thanked Ms Hood for the question and confirmed that the question would be referred to the relevant department who would provide a response in the coming days. Fiona Baker In light of the recent announcement by Argyll and Bute Council, unanimously supported by this Area Committee, of the selection of a preferred bidder for the sale of Helensburgh waterfront for development of supermarket please could the Committee answer the following, and also provide a written response subsequent to this meeting. Question 1 Why have the Council decided to sell the waterfront rather than lease it? Councillor Mulvaney advised that in terms of the options, when he was Policy Lead, there was no definitive view as to whether a lease or sale and capital receipt would be the best option and that there is no pre-disposition to one or the other. He highlighted that it was his understanding that Council Officers would continue to engage to ensure an advantageous outcome for the area.
Page 10
Question 2 Has an external commercial market valuation of the waterfront site been carried out and if so what is the valuation? If no market valuation has been undertaken, why not? Councillor Mulvaney advised that he would be shocked if a number of valuations had not been undertaken on the site as the Council is committed to ensuring the maximum value of the site. Question 3 Has an external commercial valuation been carried out for the land at 54 Sinclair Street / East King Street owned by the Council and leased for the specific use of a supermarket and car parking for 200 cars which is currently leased to the Co-op supermarket until 2083? The lease value in March 2000, when the Co-op took over the lease, is recorded at the Registers of Scotland in Title Deed DMB16528 as £11,200,948. If a recent valuation for the land and / or the lease has been carried out what are the current market values? Question 4 The rateable value for the existing Co-op site is £312k per annum, can the Council advise on the anticipated rateable value for the proposed supermarket on the waterfront site? The Vice Chair thanked Ms Baker for the questions and confirmed that they would be referred to the relevant department who would provide a response to them in the coming days. Calum Douglas Question 1 Councillor Campbell-Sturgess said earlier “we have got to do the right thing by everyone”, can I ask you to clarify specifically who everyone is? Councillor Campbell-Sturgess highlighted that in terms of being an elected member his job is to represent the people who elected him and act in the best interest of his constituents and the Council, specifying that when he says Council it is the 36 councillors and entire Council. The Councillor advised that elected members have to do the best they can in terms of the decisions that are in front of them. Question 2 Mr Douglas highlighted that a petition has been started which holds at least 2700 signatures from people saying they do not want a supermarket. Mr Douglas asked that when Councillor Campbell-Sturgess says he has to do the right thing by everyone did that include the 2700? Councillor Campbell-Sturgess advised that when the Committee has a decision to make, as elected members, they have to determine what has the potential to deliver the best outcome for their constituents. Fraser King
Page 11
I worry that the meeting today will be remembered for its confrontational nature, how as elected officials did you get to the stage where almost 3000 people are losing confidence in you, because there is a real feeling of a lack of clarity and transparency? Liz Descato Question 1 Why was the bid process conducted in such a secretive manner? Even at the shortlisting stage, the names of those being considered was not disclosed, and more concerning the announcement of the preferred bidder provided no information on who was awarded the contract, that fact came later as did the plans for the site. I have to say what goes on behind closed doors and why is not for the benefit of the people of Helensburgh. Question 2 Councillors talked about the Argyll and Bute area, we are talking about Helensburgh and Lomond. Oban has a population of around 8500 and they have a massive sports centre; Lochgilphead has a population of around 2300 and they have the Mid Argyll Sports Centre which has 4 badminton courts, we cannot even play badminton in our hall as the ceiling is not high enough. Has anyone been to Hermitage Academy and spoken to children aged 11-16 who seem to cause trouble and asked them what they would like in Helensburgh?. I have spoken to people and none of them would ever dream of putting a supermarket on the seafront, as it should be used for leisure. The Committee Manager advised that the Area Committee can take decisions in private if the details contained within the associated report meet the requirements of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Councillor Mulvaney advised that there had been many papers on the Waterfront Development that had been considered by the Area Committee within the last 3-4 years and that the vast majority were considered in public. The Councillor advised that the scoring criteria was agreed by the Area Committee, and was used by officers accordingly. Councillor Mulvaney advised that the 2012 Masterplan for the site was predicated as a mixed use (commercial and leisure) site, with this also being reflected within the Local Development Plan. Councillor Mulvaney highlighted that the decision has not been made in secret and that there has been a very transparent and open process on how the preferred bidder was selected and what designation was on the land. Vivien Dance Question 1 Would all 10 members of the Area Committee sign a letter of support to go to the Tower Cinema Group so they can submit it with their bids? The Vice Chair confirmed that she would encourage all members of the Committee to sign the letter of support.
Page 12
Question 2 In 2007 the Full Council of Argyll and Bute, agreed to fund a new leisure centre for Helensburgh and around the same time established the CHORD project, which consisted of £35 million. Bute and Cowal agreed to use £2 million to fund rejuvenation of the Rothesay Pavilion, in the intervening 17 years the Council has failed to allocate sufficient funding to the Helensburgh leisure centre to fund the capital costs. In the meantime Rothesay Pavilion has returned many times to the Council for additional funding, with the most recent being at a meeting of the Full Council on 27 June 2024. If Members and Officers can bail out Rothesay Pavilion why has this Area Committee not presented a similar case for the Leisure Centre to the Full Council? Question 3 Earlier on today I heard the skatepark on the seafront being described as a backstop, what is a backstop? The Council’s interest in the Co-op site should have been declared before going to procurement and consultation, as the declaration of interest due to owning the site at Sinclair Street. Question 4 In relation to the Capital receipt from selling the seafront development, is there a Council policy that declares that capital receipts needs to be split between the areas? Question 5 When the petition is presented to the Council what will you do with it and what is the process for the Full Council to consider this petition? Councillor Mulvaney advised that the Leisure Centre project was not over budget and that the entirety of the site was always identified as a mixed use development, mixed for both leisure and commercial development. Councillor Mulvaney added that as an elected member he is accountable and always wants to take the community with him in the decisions he makes and that he is happy to defend his decision as the one that will benefit the town the most. Lindsey Young, Cyclepath Action Group MSP Jackie Baillie, Councillor Kennedy and Councillor Campbell-Sturgess attended a public meeting with the Council’s Head of Development and Economic Growth on 28 August in Cardross where over 125 members of the public were in attendance to show their support for the Cyclepath, with two highlights being the public support for the project and those landowners present confirming that they are happy to engage with the project. Jackie Baillie encouraged everyone present to urge elected members to prioritise the Cyclepath within the appropriate budget that the new monies be allocated to support its completion. The Cyclepath Action Group would like to ask that money be identified for the ecological studies before next summer. This element of the projects has held up the completion of the technical design for some years and we ask that planning is done over winter to communicate with landowners so that they are aware of what access is needed and that work goes ahead on the land when access is freely given.
Page 13
The Vice Chair highlighted that the Committee are in support for finding the quickest solution and would raise this matter with the Strategic Transportation Delivery Officer. Nick Relby Question 1 As I was parking in quite a full leisure centre car park, I did wonder has there been a recent car park survey done by any of the bidders as I am not sure where people going to the supermarket would park? The sense of when you walk through the site is that it is the face of Helensburgh and there is a duty of care on the Council to make sure it is the best going forward and I do sense that part of that is to respect the residents and I am staggered that for questions submitted in advance that there was no answers to them. Question 2 For mixed use in retail and supermarket there is a climbing footfall particularly in supermarkets and pre-covid data is not accurate, has any post-covid analysis on footfall been covered? The Vice Chair thanked Mr Relby for the questions and confirmed that they would be referred to the relevant department who would provide a response to them in the coming days. Sally Watson I am concerned at what seems to be lack of joined up thinking in terms of the existing Co- op site which the Council own and the site at the waterfront. Why is this decision being made in isolation? I think it is disingenuous to claim that the two are not linked. The Vice Chair highlighted that no decision had been taken on what kind of supermarket it would be. Councillor Mulvaney advised that any site that the Council has an interest in needs to be part of and compatible with all area related plans. Lynn Henderson You say that the two sites are not linked but have you taken parking into consideration? Parking in Helensburgh is difficult and it is suggested this will be removed. The Vice Chair advised that parking would be considered as part of the planning process. The Vice Chair adjourned the meeting at 11.25am for 15 minutes and re-convened at 11.40am. 5. POLICE SCOTLAND UPDATE Consideration was given to an update which provided information on the ongoing work of the Service and information on serious and organised crime; acquisitive crime; road safety and road crime; violent crime; public protection; fraud prevention and awareness;
Page 14
community policing; Operation Ballaton which has now concluded and the ongoing work with the Councils Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator to improve CCTV within Helensburgh. Decision The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee considered and noted the information provided in the report. (Reference: Report by Inspector Bart Simonis, Police Scotland, submitted) 6. CHARTS (ARGYLL AND THE ISLES) The Committee gave consideration to a presentation by the Vice-Chair of the Cultural Heritage and Arts Assembly (CHARTS) for Argyll and the Isles. The presentation included information on the impact of partnership working on both regional and local areas and provided highlights of key projects throughout the Helensburgh and Lomond Area. Mr Adams also provided information in relation to funding streams and the benefits of the continued support received from Argyll and Bute Council. Decision The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee considered and noted the information provided in the presentation. (Reference: Presentation by Vice-Chair, Cultural Heritage and Arts Assembly, submitted) 7. AREA PERFORMANCE REPORT - FQ1 2024/25 The Committee gave consideration to the Area Performance Report for financial quarter 1 of 2024/25 (April to June 2024) which illustrated the agreed performance measures for this period. Decision The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee noted and considered the performance and supporting commentary as presented. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Customer Support Services, dated 6 August 2024, submitted) 8. ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES UPDATE The Committee gave consideration to a report which provided links to the recent activities of Roads and Infrastructure Services. Decision The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee considered and noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services, dated August 2024, submitted) 9. RECYCLING AND RECOVERY PERFORMANCE
Page 15
Consideration was given to a report providing details on the council’s recycling and landfill diversion performance along with national policy, targets and regulations which are likely to impact on future performance. Decision The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee noted and gave consideration to the details as outlined in the report and the national policy drivers that would likely impact over the coming years. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services, dated August 2024, submitted) 10. HELENSBURGH, CARDROSS AND DUMBARTON CYCLEPATH UPDATE Consideration was given to a report updating Members on the progress made since the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee on 11 June 2024 in relation to the delivery of a dedicated, high quality walking and cycle route linking Helensburgh, Cardross and Dumbarton. Decision The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee: 1. agreed that an update report would be submitted bi-annually and that out with this time, elected members would be briefed on any significant developments; 2. instructed Officers, subject to securing external funding, to appoint a new design team to complete development of Phase 1 and Phase 2 designs through Developed Design and Technical Design stages; 3. instructed Legal Services to utilise the Council’s statutory powers as necessary to ensure access to private land for surveys required as part of the design process where landowner permission is not forthcoming; and 4. supported progression of the project to full Technical Design, as required by the external funder. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, dated 6 August 2024, submitted) 11. DRAFT HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND AREA COMMITTEE WORKPLAN The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee workplan was before members for information. Decision The Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee noted the contents of the workplan. (Reference: Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee workplan, dated 10 September 2024)