Trouble in't Kyles

[Nick]

.
Some of you will no doubt be familiar with this sign painted on the seawall adjacent to the A886 as you sail up the Kyles of Bute:

WELCOME COLINTRAIVE HOTEL
MOORINGS. SHOP. 01700 841207

Apparently Argyll and Bute's planning committee have branded it as graffitti and demanded that the hotel remove it - in spite of an earlier decision by planning officers to approve it.

According to the proprietor of the hotel this is a result of complaints by a few locals who 'don't support' her hotel and village shop businesses.

The sign has been in place for nine years.

[Arghiro]

If it was on a big sheet of poly canvas as a "temporary" banner would it still need planning permission? Or perhaps get planning permission for a couple of flagpoles & then fly it as 2 flags.

Surely the hotel name & contact number wouldn't be a problem, plus another name for the shop. The moorings themselves could be clearly marked Visitors & phone number. Maybe even a plastic notice attached to the pick-up bouy. Lots of ways a ban can be circumvented I would think.

Not exactly encouraging or promoting local businesses, employment & tourism that council are they? No surprises there then! Same applies to so many harbour authorities with high charges & inland councils banning high spending motorhome users from town centre car parks.

[sahona]

Oh dear. I wonder who owns the wall it's written on, because permission must have been granted at some time.
If it's only grafitti that's being objected to, then a nice big properly printed sign should suffice, (perhaps on a dodger as mentioned already) If not, what will the locals think if she has to resort to flying an advertising blimp from her own property?
Maybe the hotel owner could mention the businesses of the objectors so they could be avoided to redress the balance.
It's a bit of a shame there's not a good landing place for RIBs there - otherwise, we enjoy the place.

[Booby Trapper]

Oh dear. I wonder who owns the wall it's written on, because permission must have been granted at some time.
If it's only grafitti that's being objected to, then a nice big properly printed sign should suffice, (perhaps on a dodger as mentioned already) If not, what will the locals think if she has to resort to flying an advertising blimp from her own property?
Maybe the hotel owner could mention the businesses of the objectors so they could be avoided to redress the balance.
It's a bit of a shame there's not a good landing place for RIBs there - otherwise, we enjoy the place.

If you go just south of the ferry slip there is a perfect place for dinghy landing. Might be a bit of a row from the moorings but it's not too bad with an engine. I've always found the owner very pleasant and welcoming. Pity someone has it in for her. If she removed the graffiti and someone else was to put up some new similar graffiti she couldn't be held responsible.

[DaveS]

It's an interesting question. What distinguishes sign-age from graffiti? Driving from Glasgow on the Dumbarton by pass at the traffic lights one faces the painted sign on the wall pointing to Helensburgh and Loch Lomond respectively. It's been there for as long as I can remember and may well date from the 1930s. Is it graffiti?

Paint on stone lasts a long time. The "Free Scotland" graffiti painted on the Spey bridge at Newtonmore in the 1960s is still clearly legible (although the bridge is of course now by-passed by the new A9).

[Nick]

.
I have to say I'm more exercised by the eejits who objected to something that's beeen there for nine years, that is only visible to passing yachts and that brings business into the community.

Sounds to me like the motivation for objectors was good old fashioned spite, though I am open to being persuaded that it was otherwise.

[sahona]

What about the big arrow at Acarsaid Mhor and the painted cairns all over the place - Should Clyde Cruising Club be branded as a graffitist as well?
I associate the word graffiti with an 'unauthorised act of defacement' as seen predominantly on railway property in many countries.
Something giving useful information even if it is less than tastefully done, surely isn't graffiti.
I declare a mis-trial. (or impending mis-trial)

[Old Troll]

All has not been well between the Hotel and community in Colintraive for some time. We keep our boat at a mooring as members of the Colintraive mooring association to the west of the hotel moorings area. I am unsure exactly what the issues are, however within the last year or so plans were financed, published and drawn up to build a pontoon and access walkway, car park and footpaths to the west of the hotel with the finance being available. These plans were abandoned in the face of opposition from local objectors as not being money well spent. Perhaps this factor has caused ill feeling as the hotel was understandably in favour of the proposal.

[Nick]

.
Sounds very like the nonsense objections in Oban to the transit marina proposal.

Here's an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Colintraive and Glendaruel Development Trust (CGDT) held in Colintraive Village Hall on 13th April, 2011 at 7.00p.m. where the pontoon was discussed:

PONTOONS:
(Tom Mowat) Runs charter company with 12 yachts and supports the principle of yachting facilities in the Clyde. Concerns raised re insurance, management and maintenance costs and initial enquiries re insurance costs have prompted a number of questions from brokers.

(?) Installation at Otter Ferry highlighted as a cheaper alternative but tidal issues in Colintraive would not allow this type of pontoon.

(John Sutton) Questioned the ability of a small community being able to afford the capital and running costs as indicated in the report. The Chair outlined that the capital costs would be met by grant aid and a company set up to manage the pontoon with any losses met by the Development Trust. Alternatively, the project be delayed until the Trust is in a position to underwrite losses.

(Roy Perry) Highlighted the cost of dismantling should the project fail.

(Patricia Watt) Confirmed a pontoon facility would enhance her business. Since Portavadie opened, the hotel business had dropped 30% and enquiries had increased re facilities in Colintraive. Several people had indicated such a facility would encourage them to take up sailing, particularly if disabled access were to be provided.

(Eileen Sutton) Supportive of Improved access for boats but with simpler technology eg a jetty close to the steps and closer to the community. Felt that there is more development potential elsewhere in the village which would be likely to attract more visitors that a pontoon.

(John Sutton) Also supportive of jetty facility.

(Jill McLuckie) Enquired whether the existing infrastructure could support the cost of pontoons, e.g. heritage centre and community garden.

(?) With 40 existing moorings and only 4 berths at pontoon, it is unlikely to attract many people. Location also considered to be wrong.

(John Sutton) Workers are already imported to Colintraive for existing positions, therefore creation of employment not a key issue. Considered location too remote from village and not necessarily bringing business to Colintraive.

(Linda Grant) Has issues with yachtsmen and unsocial behaviour adjacent to property. Should be developed in centre of village nearer ferry slip. If parking is to be created, this needs to be functional and available for general use. Toilets are key facility in poor condition.

(Alan Peters) indicated that the Engineers had located the optimum position for shelter from north west winds.

(John Sutton) Appreciates the effort which has gone into study but does not believe the installation should be pursued.

(Jim McLuckie) Suitability for user should be of prime consideration.

(Adrienne McDonald) Felt the decision on whether to proceed with the pontoon was unrelated to the community and would be for the benefit of others. Considered an unsuitable development for the Colintraive shore.

(Tom Mowat) Reinforced concerns re costs

(Eileen Sutton) Re-introduction of use of steps from Faolinn and old jetty

(Roy Perry) consider this location likely to be a traffic hazard as traffic is fast moving

(Sandy Donald) Only local boat owner using a mooring in the bay and dues collected for all moorings, other than the 6 belonging to the hotel, by David Gilmour.

(Patricia Watt) Colintraive hotel supportive of pontoon as losing 30% of business to Portavadie. Regular enquiries for availability of pontoon in Colintraive but only moorings available. Hotel would b beneficiary if pontoon installed

(Roy Perry) Felt a Feasibility Study should not have been done without the community hearing about it first, then tax payers money would not have been wasted. NB Study was Technical Study not Feasibility.

(John Sutton) commented on lack of communication regarding pontoon.

The Chair thanked those present for their contributions and confirmed that the various points raised would be discussed at the next CGDT meeting but concluded that the meeting had clearly indicated this project was not a priority, if at all.

A bit of background:

The chair of the Colintraive and Glendaruel Development Trust is one of the leading lights behind the ForArgyll website, which has repeatedly 'bigged up' Portavadie in a series of articles couched in the most obsequiously glowing terms. The relevant comment from Patricia Watt in this context is: Since Portavadie opened, the hotel business had dropped 30% and enquiries had increased re facilities in Colintraive.

[Aja]

.
Sounds very like the nonsense objections in Oban to the transit marina proposal.

Here's an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Colintraive and Glendaruel Development Trust (CGDT) held in Colintraive Village Hall on 13th April, 2011 at 7.00p.m. where the pontoon was discussed:

The chair of the Colintraive and Glendaruel Development Trust is one of the leading lights behind the ForArgyll website, which has repeatedly 'bigged up' Portavadie in a series of articles couched in the most obsequiously glowing terms. The relevant comment from Patricia Watt in this context is: Since Portavadie opened, the hotel business had dropped 30% and enquiries had increased re facilities in Colintraive.

I have to agree that the centre of the village is not where the hotel visitor moorings are. Many forget that the village stretches a long way down the kyle. Putting a pontoon north of the ferry slip might make sense to us yachties - but would be seen as a benefit only for the hotel (maybe).

The sign can be seen by every passenger on the ferry. The spelling mistake was only corrected this year and is actually longer than the one quoted by Nick.

I do agree that Patricia has struggled since the opening of Portavadie which has sucked custom from the whole area.

Regards
Donald

[BlowingOldBoots]

"Jesus Saves"

[aquaplane]

"Jesus Saves"

But not with RBS

[BlowingOldBoots]

"Jesus Saves"

But not with RBS

But where are we advised of this claim (in the context of graffiti and the road to the isles)?

[Aja]

"Jesus Saves"

"Maybe, but Dalgliesh scores on the rebound"


Regards
Donald

Dear, dear that really shows my age....

[Clyde_Wanderer]

.
Some of you will no doubt be familiar with this sign painted on the seawall adjacent to the A886 as you sail up the Kyles of Bute:

WELCOME COLINTRAIVE HOTEL
MOORINGS. SHOP. 01700 841207

Apparently Argyll and Bute's planning committee have branded it as graffitti and demanded that the hotel remove it - in spite of an earlier decision by planning officers to approve it.

According to the proprietor of the hotel this is a result of complaints by a few locals who 'don't support' her hotel and village shop businesses.

The sign has been in place for nine years.

So does that make the Maids of Bute and Crocadile rock graffitti too?
Oh and the Indian rock and any other rock which is painted for transits or navigation aids?

Would one of those led or neon signs cost much to set up, assuming she would be granted permission for it?
C_W