Minutes:
Question from Sarah
Davies, Helensburgh Community Council
Sarah
Davies enquired about the street lights on Upper Colquhoun Street at the Hill
House. She advised the Committee that they were in poor repair with 2 not
functioning.
Response from Committee
Councillor
Penfold advised that the Committee would seek a response from the appropriate
department.
Questions from Angela Anderson, Plastic Free
Helensburgh /Time for Change 51ԹApp and Bute
Angela
Anderson asked the Committee to ensure that anyone available attends the
Climate Literacy Training. She also asked for Clarification on the Council’s
waste stream management and advised the Committee that Time for Change, Plastic
Free Helensburgh and the GRAB Trust are collaborating to show The Oil Machine in
the Tower Cinema and asked that as many people come as possible, adding that
invitations would be sent to all Councillors.
Response from the Committee
Councillor
Penfold advised that the Carbon Literacy Training was great and added that some
Councillors have said they would be happy to do it, if course is offered again. She advised that a response would be sought
on behalf of Angela regarding the Waste Stream Management.
Questions from Peter
Brown, Helensburgh Community Council
Question 1
Section
3.4 of the Waterfront Development Update states that the 2012 approved
Masterplan "agreed that the former pool area within the waterfront site
would be developed primarily for commercial use". This is incorrect
and, as per the diagram from the 2012 Masterplan it can be seen that the
footprint of the former pool is in fact primarily to be used for
landscaping/playpark/skatepark. Does the
Committee agree that the subject of this paper is actually the "grey
area" of the Leisure Centre development plan, which is significantly more
than the site of the former pool?
Response from Head of Commercial
Services
The
Head of Commercial Services advised that he had slides as part of Item 14 that
also illustrated the retail/commercial area that he would talk to later in
Committee. He said it is correct that
the Masterplan shows retail area further over to the right of the section of
the area next which is not subject of any planning consent and overall does
form part of the demolished pool. Mr McLaughlin advised that they are now
progressing with a large scale regeneration site which is now largely complete
and what cannot be disputed is the fact that the majority of the remainder of
the site was part of the old pool and as per later item is the subject of the
proposed marketing exercise.
Question 2
Section
3.7 of the Waterfront Development Update states that "to dispel
speculation there is no 'done deal' or proposition to build at the site at this
stage". The author of this
report, the Executive Director with responsibility for Commercial Services, was
at a meeting with members of Helensburgh Community Council in August where a
2-storey building with retail frontage extending between Sinclair Street and
Colquhoun Street was pictured on the pierhead
site. We were shown a plan view of this building, along with
3-dimensional sketch views, and the plan was marked as created by Darton B3 in March 2022. This was clearly a
"proposition" for the site that the Council had procured, yet from
the Minutes of the Helensburgh & Lomond Area Committee meetings, the
Committee had not given direction that this was to be created. Can the
Committee answer why that plan was created, why it has not been made public,
and whether that is actually the proposition that Avison Young are to market?
Response from Committee/Head of
Commercial Services
Councillor
Penfold advised that as far as she knew the plan was created to show what could
be done in that area and was not a proposition. The Head of Commercial Services
confirmed that the plan which had been presented at the meeting with the
Community Council and Councillors was a desk based mock up to show what could
be possible on the site. Mr McLaughlin
advised that there is no done deal and that the report later on the agenda asks
for agreement to take forward the marketing of the site.
Question 3
Section 3.6 of the Waterfront Development Update states that the Full
Business Case for the Leisure Centre was "underpinned by forecast future
income / capital receipt from commercially developing the remaining plot
abutting West Clyde Street". The cost of the leisure centre, which
the Council approved is £23M. Within that figure, the Council has agreed
to fund £16.3M, with a further £5M coming from the LIBOR grant. The
Council has incrementally increased its contribution over the last 6 years,
when it had budgeted in 2014 to provide only £11.7M. If the Council has
been willing to increase its spend on this site by £4.6M as the project has
evolved to a total of £16.3M, it is disingenuous to say that the project is underpinned
by an expected £1M contribution from the sale of the area next to West Clyde
Street. Does the Committee agree that they could ask the full Council to
increase its spend by a further £1M and decouple the leisure centre cost from
this site?
Response from Committee
Councillor Penfold advised that she would seek further information and
provide a response to Dr Brown by e-mail.
Question 4
Section
3.10 of the Waterfront Development Update, almost as a footnote, says that
"Consultants have also been commissioned to update previous reports and
consider the wider impacts developing this site would have on the town
centre". The crucial report that needs to be updated is the Retail
Survey which was last done in 2011, and on which the Masterplan's retail
requirements were based. In particular, the 2011 report's proposed
additional grocery spend in the town has already been fulfilled by Waitrose/Morrisons and therefore any new store would mean that an
existing town centre store would close. Does the Committee agree that
marketing for retail purposes can only be considered once a new Retail Survey
has been put in front of the Committee?
Response by Head of Commercial
Services
The
Head of Commercial Services highlighted that the retail study which was
released in 2011 pre-dates the adopted 2012 masterplan, therefore the findings
on demand were known to officers drawing up the adopted masterplan and also
when it was approved by Committee the following year. Mr McLaughlin advised that Waitrose was an
out of town site and added that as far as he was aware there is no ceiling
demand for retail in the town centre. He advised that “Town Centre First”
principles apply and that retail development and a mixed use designation
applies to the site.The Head of Commercial Services advised
that he would provide fuller response to Dr Brown on the basis that he had not
had prior sight of the question and would take advice from others, but he
advised that it would be the intention to update the studies from 2011.
Question 5
The
Conclusion of the Waterfront Development Update states that the "site is
of strategic importance to the council and to Helensburgh". Yet for
such an important site to the community, the only time that community
consultation is mentioned is as part of a future planning application.
The last time the community was consulted on the "grey area" site by
the Council was January 2012, at which they rejected the proposed 2011
Masterplan because 55% did not want a large supermarket on the pierhead. In the 10 years since the community were
asked for their views, the local and national commercial landscape has shifted
seismically - Waitrose built their supermarket in 2013, there have been
hundreds of houses added to Helensburgh, online retail is now 36% of all
shopping, and we are at present in a cost of living crisis. The Committee
is being asked to agree to market the site without asking the community what
they want for this site, and so if Marks and Spencers,
or Lidl, or B&M are the highest bidders then they are the people who will
have a say in this prime site rather than the residents. Does the
Committee agree that this site, the centrepiece of Helensburgh, deserves better
than to be sold to the highest bidder, and that instead the community's views
should be sought before a marketing brief is prepared?
Response from Head of Commercial
Services/Committee
The
Head of Commercial Services advised that the grey area is a designated site
within the adopted local development plan which has had consultation. Mr
McLaughlin advised that the community would be consulted once the marketing
exercise has been completed and there is an idea in terms of what the
propositions for the site might be. This
would give a degree of realism and move things forward.
Councillor
Penfold agreed with Mr McLaughlin that they needed to wait and see what
interest in the site comes forward as a result of the marketing exercise.