Minutes:
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
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
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 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 Ƶapp 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 Ƶapp Council obtained an independent valuation of this
site? If so:
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 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.”
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 Ƶapp 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 Ƶapp
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?
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.
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 Ƶapp 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.
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 Ƶapp 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.
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
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 Ƶapp 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.
Question 2
In 2007 the Full
Council of Ƶapp, 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
Ƶapp 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.
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.