Public Question Time
:
Minutes:
Having noted that there were
members of the public in attendance, the Chair invited them to submit any
questions they may have.
Kenneth Lockhart, Cardross Cycle Path
Action Group
Since the year 2000, 鶹Ѱ and Bute Council have been discussing and
have partially implemented a cyclepath between Helensburgh and Dumbarton. There
have been lengthy delays in delivering this route for a variety of
reasons. We note from the previous minutes, the delivery of this path is a
stated Council Priority. 24 years on, anticipated completion is
still some years away. On behalf of the community of Cardross, The
Cardross Cyclepath Action Group would like to ask:
What assurances can the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee give to
the community of Cardross that construction of the cyclepath, as a stated
Council Priority, will be given the highest priority in terms of both staff and
financial resources?
How can the community of Cardross and the Cardross Cyclepath Action
Group best support 鶹Ѱ and Bute Council in delivering this sustainable
travel route?
The
Committee members agreed that they all wished the cyclepath to be completed and
that they were aware of issues and assured Mr Lockhart that the cyclepath
remained a priority.
Councillor
Mulvaney highlighted his frustration regarding the lack of progress and
welcomed the support of the community to get this over the line. Councillor
Mulvaney suggested that if landowners got the message of this support for the
cyclepath it may be helpful to move the project forward. The Committee Manager
advised that with permission, he would share Mr Lockhart’s contact details with
the designated officer.
Norman McNally, Helensburgh Community
Council
I read
that both the Ryder Community Engagement exercise and the Collier Retail Study
have been instrumental in finalising the bid selection for the Waterfront site.
My
question concerns the Helensburgh Waterfront Community Engagement Reporting
carried out by Ryder Architecture, Glasgow.
This
stakeholder engagement was carried out over the course of a week between 17 and
23 June 2023.The architects had prepared five sets of themed image panels
“illustrating the range of options currently being put forward for the
Waterfront site in terms of broad function or type”.
Ten
scheduled events were held in which a total of 83 people participated. The
Report was published in September 2023. Attendees were invited to identify any
images they liked or disliked (green and red dot-sticking) and discuss the pros
and cons of each option.
The
Report uses a wide range of loose descriptions to indicate the frequency of
similarities in feedback gathered, and thus attempts to arrive at some
important Key Findings. Words such as:
Everyone, Most, Many, Some, Several, Others, Few, Small number and
further vague descriptors such as mixed feedback, positive feedback, very
popular, positively received, even ‘close to the hearts’
In
developing the feedback descriptions above, the author(s) will have had the
dot-tally from each option to hand; one trusts the above commentary is based
upon the numerical dot-sticking feedback gathered over those ten sessions. I am
concerned that this verifying data remains absent from public view,
particularly in the light of the Council’s declared reliance on this study.
My
question is this.
Can the
Council affirm that the selected development will meet the Key Findings
criteria laid out the Ryder Report?
Which of
the five alternative themes offered by Ryder Architecture received the greatest
positive, and which alternative theme received the greatest negative
Stakeholder Engagement returns?
Will the
Council publish the actual (positive and negative) dot-tally data that relate
to each of these five options?
The Estates & Property
Development Manager advised
that they had recently received information from the consultants and that the
engagement consultants gave advice on how they would like to take things
forward and where they would like to set it up. Mr Allan highlighted that the
idea of the consultation was to reach parties who had not previously engaged
with the Council, to get their views and find out why their views were what
they were. It was highlighted that from the engagement study there was no
strong consensus with many different views. Mr Allan advised that he would
provide a written response in detail to Mr McNally following the meeting.
The Head of Commercial 鶹Ѱ
advised that the engagement report was based on engagement workshops carried
out in September 2023, reinforcing that there was no consensus on any of the 5
options.
Mr
Allan advised that the engagement exercise was an additional step undertaken by
the Council to encourage people who were not engaging to give their views and
that there would still be statutory consultation on any application by way of
the planning process.
Cameron
Foy, Helensburgh Community Council
At the last Area Committee meeting
Councillor Mulvaney wrongly stated that supporters of Helensburgh skatepark
were “re-writing history” in relation to the location of a skatepark on the
waterfront development. A permanent skatepark on the waterfront in
Helensburgh town centre was promised by 鶹Ѱ & Bute Council in its
Masterplan adopted back in 2012 after lengthy public consultation.
Is the Council still
committed to delivering the key elements of its approved Masterplan, including limiting
commercial development to 2,600 sq m gross, and space for a skatepark as
intended?
The
Estates & Property Development Manager confirmed that this is built into
the Masterplan and none of the proposals would exceed that space. Mr Allan also
advised that as agreed at the September 2023 Area Committee, the skatepark
would be located on the Waterfront unless a more suitable location was
identified.
Peter
Brown, Helensburgh Community Council
Question
1 and 2
The agenda for the
H&L Area Committee meeting states that the Committee will be asked to pass
a resolution to exclude from the public Appendices B, C and D of the Pierhead
development item. These Appendices are referenced in the overview briefing
as:
: