BLUEMOMENT

In a typically obtuse manner, Argyll & Bute Council have arranged for the public consultation on the latest Harbour Revision Order to run over Christmas. They really are committed to public participation and welcome scrutiny of their plans.

OCHDA (Oban Community Harbour Development Association) and Oban Community Council will hold a Public Meeting about the HRO on 14 December at 18.30 in Rockfield Centre, Oban, PA34 5DQ.

More details.

Is there any issue with the council running the harbour? The charter looks okay, unless you want light up a fag, waterski or surf?

I sense that some people don’t want the council involved.

There are many issues with the council running the harbour
1. it is not in line with the Scottish Govt recommendation (which is a Harbour Trust as per Tobermory, Stornorway, Ullapool and many others)
2. A&BC have not consulted with relevant stakeholders (e.g. Crown estates) despite claiming in writing as having done so
3. A&BC have not provided information (existing financial info) to allow a Harbour Trust to be formed and are not allowing a harbour trust to be considered because the harbour trust doesn't have detailed financial projections (catch 22/chicken and egg)
4. The consultation proposal form A&BC is 2 tier: 1. A&BC, CALMAC and Northern Light Board have a consultation process and then 2. there is a secondary consultation process with all others. This raises concern that A&BC, CALMAC and NLB will make decisions to suit themselves using "commercial confidentiality" to avoid scrutiny (which also avoids FoI requests) and potentially make decisions that are not in the interests of all other Oban harbour users
5. By extending the boundary, their control covers all of the bay from an area to the north of the north entrance, all the way to the southern end of the Kerrera Sound. They can restrict or charge for all activities in this area (including dinghy training, racing, yacht races, paddle boarding, kayaking etc) and have no accountability for doing so. They can also revoke all mooring licences and the rights of Kerrera Marina to exist
6. They have not followed the public consultation processes correctly
7. They have not published any financial forecasts to show whether what their management and staffing will be, how the HRO will be funded and whether the council intends to run the harbour for a profit (to go into council coffers) or at break even

Lots of questions not answered, consistent dodging of questions by the council leaders and documents published with known errors.

Join the OCHDA and get the detailed updates from them.

statement from Oban Community Harbour Development Association (OCHDA)

"OBAN HARBOUR CONSULTATION

Dear Councillor Kain and Harbour Board Members,

We were disappointed to discover that Ms Flanagan had announced that the 42 day formal public consultation on A&BC’s proposals for Oban Harbour is to be held over the Christmas and New Year holiday period (30 November 2023 – 11 January 2024) without apparent prior approval of the Harbour Board (HB). Please note that the Convenor of Oban Community Council (OCC) had previously written to A&BC on behalf of the community and received what was understood to be an assurance that the consultation would not include the holiday period, but the reply turned out to be disingenuous. This approach will reduce the level of public engagement as well as making it more difficult for Council Officers to address and resolve any issues which arise timeously. The consequence of this could be a public inquiry since the Government’s policies of community participation and transparency are clearly being ignored. It should also be of concern that it will further demonstrate A&BC’s inability to consult effectively with the community they serve with the associated reputational damage.

We therefore write to request that the HB shows leadership and brings some professionalism and sensitivity to this project by directing that this consultation is postponed to start after the holiday period, eg 8 January 2024, at the earliest. Note that it is for the applicant, ie A&BC, to set the start date and not Transport Scotland. We believe this is a decision for our elected representatives to make in committee, not unelected officials, with their views formally recorded. In addition, we are unable to find evidence to show that the HB has formally approved a recent version of the Statement of Support (the version publicly available contains inaccuracies and omissions), an essential document to accompany the draft Harbour Revision Order. Both these actions, and others, could be dealt with at the HB meeting planned for 18 December 2023, properly preparing the ground for a well-managed consultation process.

This is a significant proposal that, if accepted, will impact on how Oban Bay and Approaches are be managed in the short and possibly longer term. Unfortunately, the project has not been conducted in a collaborative and constructive manner with many unsatisfactory loose ends remaining. This could influence the public’s perception of the proposal and the advisability of proceeding down this route. You are reminded that the Oban Bay Management Group (OBMG) only supported the principle of a Municipal Harbour, the preferred option for the majority being a Trust Port. A&BC’s proposals for user and stakeholder engagement in regard to matters of management, safety, maintenance and development of the proposed municipal harbour are not considered fit for purpose by community representatives and are only supported by the public service members. Details of the financial case have yet to be presented, eg: how much the new operations will cost to set up and manage, proposed fees and charges to be levied, and whether the intent is to make money for the Council or for the tax payer to subsidise. Given the Council’s apparent funding shortfall, it is both incredible and irresponsible that this information is apparently not available.

You are invited to join us at a public meeting jointly hosted by OCC and Oban Community Harbour Development Association (OCHDA) on Thursday 14 December 2023 in The Rockfield Centre Oban starting at 1830 hrs. We aim to help explain what A&BC’s proposals mean in practice. Online access may be available. Furthermore, you would be welcome to present the HB’s proposals to the meeting; please let me know if you wish to accept this invitation.

In conclusion, we are asking you to do the right thing by postponing the 42 day consultation period to start after the Christmas/New Year holiday period (8 January 2024).


Yours sincerely,

Ross Wilson
Chair OCHDA on behalf of OBSG, OCC and OCHDA"

How do you spell “commercial stitch up “?

Would a proposed harbour trust not have the same level of controls as a council run harbour? Are both options not supportive of all users? Why is a trust better than a council run facility?

A consultation period has been announced, work within the period. Nothing that I have read suggests the period is a problem beyond it being over Christmas? Why should that be an issue?

Why is the trust model better than the council model? Neither party is likely to work to the detriment of other users. Why would a council run harbour ban dinghy sailing in the harbour area, or other tourist, leisure activities?

So far, the arguments against the council is based on “what ifs”. Honestly, ban all moorings, close Kerrera Marina, do you think that is realistic? What would the council gain by doing that?

A bit of background might help to understand how we come to be here:
For some time it has been generally agreed that Oban Bay, especially the North Channel, needs more detailed regulation than just ColRegs and the voluntary Code of Practice. CMAL (ferries owner and ports operator) indicated that they were minded to establish a harbour authority in their control. This proposal was not well received by everyone concerned, apart from Calmac.
In late 2019, a public meeting was held, attended by CMAL, NLB (Northern Lighthouse Board, who have their own pier in Oban), ABC (Argyll & Bute Council), fishermen, yotties and probably others to discuss the issue. The idea of a municipal port was immediately eliminated by the council officers who said they had neither the skill nor the inclination to run it. The idea of a commercial operator was not popular with anyone but a trust port remained as a desirable option.
Consequently OCHDA (Oban Community Harbour Development Association) was formed to investigate the viability of a trust port and began the process to establish one, aiming to have it established by 2023 at the latest. OCHDA was severely hindered by the council refusing to supply financial and other information, in particular about the North Pier and pontoons.
Out of the blue in either 2021 or 2022, ABC announced that they were going to set up a municipal port after all. Offers of help from OCHDA and access to OCDA's groundwork were declined. Since then, ABC have been, shall we say, uncooperative with both OCHDA and Oban Community Council over the municipal port development. They have also been very slow in progressing the Harbour Revision Order that would establish the port authority. There is no prospect of it getting going in 2024 so the risks in Oban Bay continue as traffic increases with little regulation.
Surely only a conspiracy theorist would infer that ABC is doing what CMAL wants - establishing a harbour authority for the benefit of CMAL without considering other interests.

BlowingOldBoots wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 1:55 pm Would a proposed harbour trust not have the same level of controls as a council run harbour? Are both options not supportive of all users? Why is a trust better than a council run facility?

The problem with this proposal is the 2 levels of consultation. Top level is CMAL and NLB; all other users must go through them with any observations/complaints/suggestions. It doesn't have to be thus; a municipal or a trust port could give all users some representation.

BlowingOldBoots wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 1:55 pm A consultation period has been announced, work within the period. Nothing that I have read suggests the period is a problem beyond it being over Christmas? Why should that be an issue?

Scottish Government Consultation Good Practice Guidance (para 2.1 (G) - The Gunning Principles "When the consultation spans all or part of a holiday period, consider how this may affect consultation and take appropriate mitigating action, such as prior discussion with key interested parties or extension of the consultation deadline beyond the holiday period."

BlowingOldBoots wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 1:55 pm Why is the trust model better than the council model? Neither party is likely to work to the detriment of other users. Why would a council run harbour ban dinghy sailing in the harbour area, or other tourist, leisure activities?

Fundamentally there's nothing wrong with the idea of a municipal port. The problem is ABC's implementation of a municipal port. The strong suspicion (see the short history) is that the CMAL/Calmac tail is wagging the council dog.

BlowingOldBoots wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 1:55 pm So far, the arguments against the council is based on “what ifs”. Honestly, ban all moorings, close Kerrera Marina, do you think that is realistic? What would the council gain by doing that?

The council would gain nothing but the ferry operator might find it convenient.

None of the points raised so far are convincing on why a trust is better than ABC management which has a structure that can be adopted to address the gaps in managing Oban Bay. In fact, I think a new trust has significant threats associated with credibility and authority, compared to maintaining a sort of status quo. So far, ABC as owners of the North Pier have managed maintenance of the North Pier, developed a transit marina, modernised the buildings and carparks. The North Pier was rapidly becoming a derelict some decades ago and now represents a useful asset for the community and wider stakeholders.

https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/roads-an ... al-harbour

The navigation fears is a red herring. Oban is safely navigated, there is not a navigation issue. I can see a potential threat to safe navigation if the north entrance was controlled with port entry lights or even banned such that yachts could only use the south entrance, but the latter is not likely. The former, maybe one day. The proposed act actually protects seeking safety and refuge.

From what I can tell the significant users of the bay have more to fear from a trust than ABC taking over the running of the harbour, a vastly superior position than CMAL running the whole shebang. The trust is an unknown and has no infrastructure or management process to run such an important facility that serves a wide community and stakeholders, more so than any of the examples given by Gardenshed. I think that ABC were wrong to initially say that they were not interested, but realised that they were better placed to manage the community requirements rather than a trust or CMAL.

Wully thinks it is a stitch up, but maybe it is a stitch up that preserves the status quo that best serves the community rather than allowing an unknown to manage the facility or a monopoly to dominate the facility.

The draft act if enabled, preserves the rights of Crown Estates, CMAL, NLHB, RNLI and is preparing the way by ABC to develop the North Pier for cruise lines and other larger vessels. The is the nub of the matter. ABC has an asset that is underutilised and probably has significant revenue potential from cruise liner and other larger commercial vessels. ABC wants that revenue. The transit marina's primary purpose was for cruise liners. The cruise liner market is forecast to continue to increase particularly in the small to medium sized vessel market. Oban Bay has failed to capitalise the opportunities in this space and have seen potential revenue go elsewhere in the area.

All the studies that I have read suggest that a single authority is best, and ABC appear to be best placed to be the single authority preserving existing large users rights and improving revenue opportunities for ABC. I think ABC woke up to the fact that preventing CMAL from being an authority was beneficial to ABC.

I am struggling to understand what OCHDA wants for Oban bay beyond a need to consult the stakeholders and local community, and critique any proposal that doesn't support a trust running the harbour. The names of the OCHDA board and committee members are available but beyond that who are they, what experience do they bring, nor is it possible to understand if there is a conflict of interest?

Assuming that the plans quoted below come to fruition (which i grant are more commercial orientated than cruise liner or leisure use), it would be important for leisure users expectations to be addressed and the proposed act recognises that by stating whom should be consulted.

https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/roads-an ... al-harbour

Q6. Are there any plans for upgrading the port facilities?

There are plans at an early stage which look at an extension of the North Pier. The scope of the proposal would include extending and strengthening the North Pier by up to an additional 50m and dredging to a usable uniform depth of 5m to facilitate and future proof the berthing face for commercial customers. The works would help to ensure a safe and efficient through traffic management of commercial and private vehicles using the pier.

This is a valuable strategic asset to Argyll and Bute and is in high demand from commercial vessels. An increased berthing capability would provide a greater number of options, and would continue to support key sectors like aquaculture, while at the same time providing increased landing capability for salt deliveries which are used to maintain our winter salt stocks and ensure that Argyll and Bute remains open for business.

To be clear, I am a big supporter of small government, aspects of decentralisation and more local decision based processes. Do OCHDA reject the expansion of the North Pier? As I see it, why would ABC give up control of an asset that they already have control of. It is a busted flush for the trust port idea, in my humble opinion.

Having zero faith in the cooncil doing anything constructive-( 30+ years to get some pontoons in?) I’m not surprised at the glacial progress being made on this issue.

I’m certain they’d be happy to have CMAL run the whole thing to everyone else’s detriment as long as there was an incentive for the cooncil…

I know there is only one line so no need to read between it, is there?

The consultation proposal of A&BC is the clear give-away. it is a 2 stage consultation
1. CMAL, NLB and the council consult.
separately
2. all others are then invited to consult

There is no way for the others (fishermen, fish farm operators, OSC, the marina or any other businesses that use the harbour ) to challenge or discuss proposals directly with CMAL and NLB. At the very best, it is an inefficient use of the time and resources of all parties. At worst, the voices and concerns of other users will be ignored and the reasoning for decisions made by the stage 1 consulates, hidden from any scrutiny as commercial confidentiality will be claimed.

OCHDA would like an open and transparent process for the decision making of harbour operations. The Scottish Government recommendation for this is a Trust Harbour organisation, not for the local council to run the harbour. Their membership includes master mariners and people who have experience running maritime assets. A Trust Port organisation won't be creating a well compensated board and (as per the many trust ports in Scotland) will have a clear focus to run the assets for the benefit of all stakeholders.

A&BC have been evasive & obstructive throughout the process and have consistently published reports that are factually incorrect. They have not released financial information to allow a Trust Port to be established and have not declared whether how they themselves will find and develop the facility.

The implication is that CMAL & CALMAC are using A&BC to set up a system where they have complete authority over the harbour.

who wants that?

I think the implication is not what you suggest at all. Why would ABC who did not want to run the harbour initially, decide that it now does? You really believe it is to kowtow to CalMac? If that was the case why apply to run the harbour? Have you actually read the act?

If the trust was serious, they would have published plans, perhaps created their own draft act, suggest a board structure and developed a financial proposal. None of that is available which tells me that they are amateurs in the context of running a significant port. Do you think they agree with the North Pier expansion, roughly doubling its length? What evidence is there that the activities in your first post on this thread will be threatened?

The issue is the disparate way the various users of the harbour are organised because of the current situation. The only player in the room that has made a serious attempt to develop an overarching plan is ABC.

Clutching at the consultation proposals as a giveaway to a conspiracy theory does not stand up to scrutiny based on the proposed act’s text and the councils proposals.

Convince me why the trust is better, where are their proposals? How come there is a cost proposal on ABCs site that shows the trust as the most expensive set up?

Yes I’ve read the act. I’ve also read minutes of the public meetings and the background details from OCDHA and more.
The HRO is not the whole story and the background to it coming out is quite a Machiavellian tale.

Even more of a reason for a trust to have developed a detailed proposal. Yet there is none. For folks to be excited about a trust and back it, influence people to persuade their case to be taken up, there has to be more than the criticism of CMAL or ABC?

This is the point I keep making, convince me why a trust would be better than the current plan? If the proposers of the trust can’t do that, then why should anyone take it seriously.

In my line of work, if I made a case to the Tender Board, or Decision Review Board solely based on complaining how bad the competition was and could not present an economic proposal, and a business plan which demonstrated benefits, risks, uncertainties and assumptions, I would be rightly thrown out.

So far all I am hearing is project fear. Is there actually any evidence that a single authority under ABC will not run the harbour for the benefit of all?

A&BC have blocked any proposals of a Trust Harbour by refusing to release any financial information relating to the running of the existing harbour assets. As a result, no one can prepare a business case.
They are also not publishing their own business case for running the harbour.
Neither party would be acceptable to your “Tender Board”