Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid
Customer Services Executive Director: Douglas Hendry
Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 7 January 2016
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on THURSDAY, 14 JANUARY 2016 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend.
Douglas Hendry Executive Director of Customer Services
BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY)
3. MINUTES (Pages 1 - 6) Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 12 November 2015
4. PRESENTATION BY FYNE FUTURES - ZERO WASTE BUTE Presentation by Reeni Kennedy-Boyle, General Manager
5. PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE (Pages 7 - 72) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
6. A82/A83 TRANSPORT SCOTLAND UPDATE (Pages 73 - 78) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
7. COMPELLING ARGYLL AND BUTE AND ITS ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS STUDY - PROGRESS UPDATE (Pages 79 - 86) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
8. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION: REVIEW OF NOMENCLATURE OF UNITS FOR TERRITORIAL STATISTICS (NUTS) BOUNDARIES (Pages 87 - 96) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services 9. FUNDING FOR ONSHORE WIND (Pages 97 - 126) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
10. FILM IN ARGYLL AND BUTE (Pages 127 - 134) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
11. INITIAL CONSULTATION ON REGULATING ORDER APPLICATION FOR THE FIRTH OF CLYDE (Pages 135 - 152) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
Colour copies of the maps appended to this report will be made available at the meeting.
12. UPDATE ON MANAGEMENT OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION (Pages 153 - 160) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
13. PROJECTS AND RENEWABLES - SOCIAL ENTERPRISE TEAM ANNUAL REPORT 2014-15 (Pages 161 - 172) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
14. ARGYLL AND THE ISLES AIR SERVICES (Pages 173 - 184) Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services
15. ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE WORK PLAN (Pages 185 - 188)
Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee
Councillor John Armour Councillor Anne Horn Councillor David Kinniburgh Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Robert Graham MacIntyre (Vice-Chair) Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Bruce Marshall Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor Aileen Morton Councillor Ellen Morton (Chair) Councillor Elaine Robertson Councillor Len Scoullar Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Dick Walsh
Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel: 01546 604269 MINUTES of MEETING of ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on THURSDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2015
Present: Councillor Ellen Morton (Chair)
Councillor John Armour Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor Anne Horn Councillor Aileen Morton Councillor David Kinniburgh Councillor Elaine Robertson Councillor Robert G MacIntyre Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Bruce Marshall Councillor Dick Walsh
Also Present: Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John McAlpine
Attending: Fergus Murray, Head of Economic Development and Strategic Transportation Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Amenity Services Ishabel Bremner, Economic Development Manager Mark Steward, Marine and Coastal Development Manager Patricia O’Neill, Central Governance Manager
The Central Governance Manager advised that a request had been received from Councillor Robin Currie to speak, but not to vote, on item 6 of the agenda (Proposed Management Measure For Marine Protected Areas And Special Areas Of Conservation - Update). This request was agreed by the Chair due to the provisions contained within Standing Order 22.1 which allow a Councillor who is not a Member of a Committee to attend and take part in discussion only without prior notice.
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alistair MacDougall, Duncan MacIntyre and Len Scoullar.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were none intimated.
3. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee held on 13 August 2015 were approved as a correct record.
4. DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES PERFORMANCE REPORT FQ1 AND FQ2 2015-16
The Committee considered a report presenting the Development and Infrastructure Services departmental performance reports with associated scorecard performance for financial quarters one and two 2015-16. Decision
The Committee noted the Development and Infrastructure Services departmental performance report with associated scorecard performance for financial quarters one and two 2015-16.
(Reference: Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services dated November 2015, submitted)
* 5. STREET LIGHTING INNOVATIVE ENERGY SAVING PROJECT - UPDATE REPORT
The Committee considered a report setting out the progress on developing the business case in regard to the street lighting project for upgrading the lighting assets within Argyll and Bute. The project was proposed to provide more energy efficient lamps and thus reduce the cost to the Council with regard to energy consumption.
Decision
The Committee agreed to recommend to the Policy and Resources Committee that the Council –
1. Progresses with an innovative lighting energy efficient scheme as detailed in this business case, the costs of which are summarised in 5.4 of this report, in order to reduce future cost pressure relating to street lighting electricity.
2. Agrees to a tender process being completed and that the energy efficient scheme is progressed utilising the most cost effective model as determined from the tender process.
3. Agrees that the remaining reduced electricity budget, as a result of the innovative lighting scheme, is inflated in line with energy costs on an annual basis.
4. Agrees that the balance of savings generated is used to fund a column replacement program with replacements being prioritised on condition.
(Reference: Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services dated October 2015, submitted)
6. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND SPECIFIC AREAS OF CONSERVATION - UPDATE
Following the detailed report which had been provided to them at their meeting on 13 August 2015, the Committee considered a report providing an update on the current position of the Scottish Government on management proposals for existing Marine Protected Areas and Special Areas of Conservation.
Prior to his presentation of the report the Marine and Coastal Development Manager advised that since the publication of the report the Cabinet Secretary had responded to the RACCE Committee. An amendment should be made to the Executive Summary of the report to recognise that he had not discounted the economic concerns raised by the Council and other parties. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 12.15 and re-convened at 12.30pm.
Decision
The Committee –
1. Reaffirmed its view that the implementation of these proposals will cause a disproportionate economic impact on Argyll and Bute and have the potential to cause further depopulation to already fragile communities and that the impact of displacement activity could also have adverse environmental impacts.
2. Recognised that Clyde fishermen have implemented safeguards to enhance the sustainability of fishing grounds in MPAs.
3. In the event that the MPAs are implemented, as proposed, agreed to call on the Scottish Government to provide urgent financial assistance to mitigate the economic impact on individual fishing businesses, the local supply chain and workers, their families and communities. The financial package should include measures to help affected businesses and employees to adapt to change, such as support to modify or change vessels and/or gear, diversification, decommissioning and training.
4. Noted that Angus McNeil MP has called for progress on the introduction of Marine Protected Areas to be halted pending the progress of the Scotland Bill and the devolution of powers to island areas, citing the potential economic impact of the proposed management plans.
5. Requested officers to engage with the MSPs for Argyll and Bute and for the Highlands and Islands, and the MP for Argyll and Bute, in supporting the case for appropriate financial support measures necessary to mitigate adverse economic impacts and protect the fragile fishing communities of Argyll and Bute.
(Reference: Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services dated November 2015, submitted)
7. EUROPEAN POLICY AND FUNDING UPDATE
A report providing the Committee with an update on the development of European Policy and funding issues under the current 2014-2020 European programming period was considered.
Decision
The Committee -
1. Noted the content of the report.
2. Congratulated the European Team on their success in securing significant European funding and noted in particular that for every £1 of Argyll and Bute Council Salary Costs (excluding on-costs) for core European Team staff, £87.29 of European funding (including LEADER) was levered into the local economy between 2007 and 2013. (Reference: Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services dated November 2015, submitted)
8. COLLABORATION BETWEEN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL AND SCOTTISH CANALS
The Committee considered a report which sought agreement from Members to a draft Minute of Understanding between Argyll and Bute Council and Scottish Canals which would represent a new collaborative approach of working between both parties. The purpose of the collaborative approach would be to drive forward the regeneration of Ardrishaig, Lochgilphead and settlements along the Crinan Canal corridor, to secure investment into the wider Mid Argyll area and to maximise local socio economic benefit offered to our area from the Crinan Canal.
Decision
The Committee –
1. Noted the content of the report.
2. Agreed to the attached Minute of Understanding and to its formal signing.
(Reference: Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services dated November 2015, submitted)
9. DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE
The Committee considered a report providing an update on various digital infrastructure projects including Next Generation Broadband, Mobile Communications and Public WiFi. The report also detailed consultation responses which had been submitted over the previous 2 months.
Decision
The Committee noted –
1. The content of the report.
2. The consultation responses as contained at appendices 2 – 4 of the submitted report.
(Reference: Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services dated November 2015, submitted)
10. ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE WORK PLAN - NOVEMBER 2015
The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan as at November 2015 was before Members for consideration. Decision
The Committee noted the up to date Work Plan for November 2015 onwards.
(Reference: Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan dated November 2015, submitted)
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE 14th January 2016 SERVICES
PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of this report is to update Members on planning performance matters (Development Management and Planning Policy) and also draw attention to recent feedback received from the Scottish Government in relation to performance.
1.2 Two notable annual reports were published by the Government in September / October 2015, the Planning Performance Framework Feedback, and the Annual Key Performance Indicators. Both of these clearly acknowledge and demonstrate that Argyll and Bute is a high performing Planning Authority in terms of its statistical returns, and also that it delivers good quality outcomes by being ‘open for business’, proportionate, and providing certainty to investors and community alike. The independent assessments of performance has highlighted that the planning service continues to improve year on year, deliver better than average results and is now a leading rural authority in planning terms. 1.3 Achieving positive planning performance and outputs is essential to the Council delivering the Single Outcome Agreement – particularly in relation to Outcomes No 1 & 2, namely that the economy is diverse and thriving and we have infrastructure that supports sustainable growth. Certain aspects of the service like the Core Path Plan Team and Planning Policy Team also directly shape Outcome 5, People live active, healthier and independent lives, through delivery of recreational and green networks. 1.4 Planning is often the first point of contact with the private sector, community and other key stakeholders so ensuring standards remain high is an important part of customer experience and expectation. Performance next year (2015/16) shall be scrutinised even further as the Government has introduced a ‘penalty clause’ whereby poorly performing Council’s shall face financial penalties – potentially up to £250,000 for an Authority like Argyll and Bute. 1.5 The recent statistics and positive feedback from the Government on quality aspects is warmly welcomed. 1.6 It is recommended that Members:-
Note the content of the report and positive feedback received from Scottish Government. ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE 14th January 2016 SERVICES
PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The purpose of this report is to update Members on planning performance matters (Development Management and Planning Policy) and also draw attention to recent feedback received from the Scottish Government in relation to performance.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 It is recommended that Members:-
Note the content of the report and positive feedback received from Scottish Government;
4.0 DETAIL
4.1 Good planning creates opportunities for people to contribute to a growing, adaptable and productive economy. By allocating sites, embracing collaborative development management and creating great places Planning Services plays a pivotal role in underpinning the economic success of Argyll and Bute.
4.2 Planning is also instrumental in supporting our Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) particularly Objectives 1 and 2 which are to create an ‘economy is diverse and thriving’ and that ‘we have infrastructure that supports sustainable growth’. Certain aspects of the service like the Core Path Plan Team and Planning Policy Team also directly shape Outcome 5, People live active, healthier and independent lives, through delivery of recreational and green networks.
4.3 The ‘performance’ of the planning service is measured by the Scottish Government in 2 main ways:-
1. Through quarterly statistical returns on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which are submitted to the Scottish Government for collation / benchmarking; and 2. The production of a Planning Performance Framework (PPF) – which showcases statistics and cases studies that are reflective of the work undertaken by the Council. The Government then reviews and scores all Council’s PPFs against a list of common criteria.
4.4 It is worth noting that performance is also measured and managed internally using pyramid, Microsoft Project and Civica internally.
4.5 The annual feedback from the Scottish Government on the PPF and annual KPIs has recently been published (September 2015) with Argyll and Bute performing well, demonstrating continuous improvement and being ahead of the Scottish Average and one of the top rural authorities (our COSLA Benchmarking cohort).
PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
4.6 The Planning Performance Framework (PPF) is the principal yardstick of planning performance for the Council. It is produced annually and is an opportunity to showcase statistical returns as well as projects, development on the ground, working structures, testimonials, economic support and processes (See Appendix 1). It is a holistic snapshot of performance for the financial year and follows a structure that is set by the Scottish Government. Every Planning Authority in Scotland produces a PPF annually and the Government reviews and scores each one using a Red, Amber, Green (RAG) system.
4.7 Argyll and Bute submitted our PPF in June 2015 and feedback has been received on the 5th October from Alex Neil MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners Rights (Appendix 2).
4.8 The feedback has been very positive and the best year on record. There is clear evidence of continuous improvement and our ‘open for business’ ethos is reflected in reduced decision making timescales and higher approval rates. Some of the projects and achievements which were showcased this year to highlight that Planning was positively contributing to economic delivery included:-
o Adoption of new Local Development Plan; o Adoption of Historic Environment Strategy; o The Island Bakery, Lephain, Isle of Mull; o Oban Airport Expansion o Biodiversity and Non-Native Species Check List o Bowmore, Dalmally & Inveraray Masterplans o High quality of development on the ground in Helensburgh CHORD / Clyde Street Offices
4.9 The feedback from the PPF, is hugely important and in future years may also be a determining factor in assessing whether the Government shall enact a ‘penalty clause’ for poor performance. Details and implementation of the clause are still to be finalised but Authorities who cannot demonstrate year on year decision making timescale improvements and are below national average could have 25% of fee income removed. This could be in the region of £250,000 for Argyll and Bute. Planning Services are keen to maintain and improve upon this year’s success.
4.10 The full feedback from the PPF is contained within Appendix 2 with a synopsis demonstrating year on year improvement re-produced below.
G G G A A G A A G G A G G G G G G G G G G G G G
A A A G G G G G G G G G A A A
R A G
A G
G G
G G
ANNUAL STATISTICS
4.11 In addition to the PPF, the Scottish Government also released the Annual Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Planning (FY 2014/15) in September. These statistics are collated and published quarterly and then annually by the Government and allow comparison and trends to be identified across all the Planning Authorities.
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Planning/Publications/planapps2015annual 4.12 Similar to the PPF, the KPI publication also provides a positive snapshot of performance for 2014/15. Some of the keynote achievements are listed below. Headlines from the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
o The Total Number of planning applications submitted and dealt with has increased for the 3rd year in a row. ABC determined 1,097 ‘Local Applications’1 last year and are the 9th busiest local authority in Scotland (out of 34) ahead of Dundee City, North Lanarkshire, Scottish Borders, Angus, Moray, East Dunbarton, West Lothian. o ABC determine applications quicker than the national average and other rural authorities. On average ABC determine ‘Local Applications’ in 9.5 weeks. This has improved from 11.6 weeks in 2012 and is 0.6 weeks better than the National Average. This is the headline indicator and the one which the ‘Penalty Clause’ is based upon. (Highland = 10.7, Scots Borders = 14.9, Aberdeenshire = 11.9) o ABC determine Major Applications much quicker than the National Average at 14.1 weeks compared to 36.6 weeks o ABC has a culture of ‘added value’ and approve 96.7% of applications in context of National Average 93.9% o ABC has a robust Planning Policy Framework and Governance / Decision Making arrangements that 92% of original decisions were upheld at Review compared to 64% of national average. A similar trend is noted at appeal where 64% of original decisions are upheld compared to 54% national average. o ABC determined 366 Housing applications in an average of 12.1 weeks – over 2 weeks quicker than national average
4.13 Maintaining and improving current levels of performance (ScottishGovernment requires year on year improvement to avoid Penalty Clause) may be challenging given current achievements and pending resource pressure. There are a number of opportunities for process review & sustainability of performance which are currently being pursued.
Quarterly Activity Update (FQ2 2015/16)
4.14 Some developments Officers are currently assisting to deliver on the ground include: o Discharge of conditions, monitoring & working positively with developers o New Co-OP at Inveraray, o Kilmory Industrial Estate, o Glenshelloch, o Clyde Street Helensburgh Offices, o Delivery of CHORD & TIF. o Technically complex applications approved at Oban High School & Gallanach, Coll which required significant DM input. o Machrihanish Airbase,
1 ‘Local Applications’ is the recognised description of the main staple of Planning Applications and includes Householder development (porches, conservatories, new housing (up to 50 units), minerals, Business & Industry, Waste Management, Electricity Generation and aquaculture. o Maritime Change, o CHORD, CARS + THI still ongoing o Setting up LDP KE Sites Action Programme o Initiating Task Forces to Deliver Above (Dunbeg etc engaging with Architecture Design Scotland) o Creating Online Guides to newly adopted Core Path Plan o Running a Bi-Annual Design Competition o Launching LDP Community Planning in partnership with communities and gaining Scottish Government charrette funding for Tiree and Crinnan/Ardrishaig. o Published and distributed adopted LDP.
4.15 Completed Internal Audit on Retrospective Applications and Enforcement. ‘Substantial Assurance’ was achieved with 3 Recommendations to be implemented.
4.16 Wind Energy sector continues to be buoyant. Significant Public Local Inquiry (PLI) coming up tail end of year Creggans & Blary Hill. Scottish Government Reporter upheld refusal at Ardchonnel.
4.17 Walking tour with Members of PPSL took place in Campbeltown. The tour’s focus was to reflect upon planning policy and planning decisions; and how those decisions have made a positive contribution to place-making and regeneration on the ground.
4.18 To ensure continued improvements in delivery of development on the ground, the Development Policy team; working with Economic Development, are developing a combined Key Sites Action Programme and Strategic Infrastructure Plan. Collectively these will identify in detail the most important development opportunities and infrastructure requirements within Argyll and Bute. The intention of producing the document is to include these in a brief and be a highly polished document, mirrored with an online presence. Collectively these will effectively showcase the key opportunities and put a spotlight on the main infrastructure requirements. At the same time the team is preparing to introduce a more detailed and systematic appraisal of all housing development sites on an annual basis in order to flag up any risks that sites will not deliver within a five year period. This will help us to identify if and when we might need to identify more land, and to engage with developers to facilitate site solutions. Currently housing completions are continuing to improve slowly, with 138 to date this year, representing a 13.5% increase on last year at this stage.
4.19 Following adoption and publication of the Local Development Plan, officers have been working to produce Supplementary Guidance to add further supporting detail. One such element of guidance is TRAN 4 covering New and Existing Public Roads and Private Access Regimes. This is a significant introduction of a more proportionate approach, providing developers with potential flexibility in delivering road layouts and designs which are appropriate to the scale and setting of their development. 4.20 Continuing to develop more Supplementary Guidance the Policy Team are currently working on a refreshed approach to Renewables. This will reflect the most current national policy guidelines, give up to date guidance on emerging technologies, and provide appropriate detailed guidance to an important and active sector of the economy whilst balancing the need to protect the environment and landscapes of the Area. At PSSL on 16th January, Members will be presented with a draft policy prior to consulting with the public.
4.21 Planning for the future, Officers are already making preparations for the replacement Local Development Plan 2 which will be due to be adopted in March 2020. This may seem a long way away, but it is essential to properly program manage a complex and lengthy process to ensure we meet this important target. To this end a draft Development Plan scheme has been prepared which sets out a timetable of the whole process. This includes a publicity and consultation strategy and sets out clearly when and how Members will be engaged in the process, and essentially maps out a 4 year work program for the Development Policy team. The intention is to present a detailed worked up Development Plan scheme to Members at the Full Council on 21st January.
4.22 The Marine and Coastal Development Unit continue to provide input to and report back on the proposed development and management of Marine Protected Areas and Special Areas of Conservation, and have reported to this Committee separately. At the same time they continue to engage with and influence the development of the Marine Planning Partnership for the Clyde Marine Spatial Plan, provide specialist advice on up to 20 aquaculture and coastal development planning applications per annum and engage in other coastal related matters such as the potential devolution of the Crown Estate.
4.23 Planning Services now has an established Twitter account and over 130 followers including local businesses, communities, members of the public and trade organisations. The news feed is ‘Great Places@ABC_Planning’ and we encourage all Councillors and staff to follow our tweets. We currently aim to tweet daily and post photos and news including site visits, outcomes of Planning Committee, new consultations, design awards, re-tweet interesting planning related material and generate interest in the built environment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 The Planning Service has achieved positive outcomes and feedback in 2014/15 and has confirmed its position as a leading rural authority. It is also encouraging to note that the total number of planning application has continuing to increase and performance has improved. This continues to translate into a modestly improving housing completions rate which is 13.5% above last year to date. The continued attainment of good performance levels and sustainable resourcing of the Planning Service continues to make an essential contribution to delivering upon the Council’s Single Outcome Agreement and avoiding the Governments Penalty clause. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy – N/A
6.2 Financial – N/A at this stage. Continued high levels of performance required to maintain planning fee income (avoid the penalty clause). Sustainable resourcing of Planning Service.
6.3 Legal – N/A
6.4 HR – N/A
6.5 Equalities – N/A
6.6 Risk - N/A at this stage. Continued high levels of performance required to maintain planning fee income (avoid the penalty clause). Sustainable resourcing of Planning Service.
6.7 Customer Service – Planning Performance Framework showcase included Customer Service Elements.
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Services Policy Lead Cclr David Kinniburgh 20th October 2015
For further information contact: Matt Mulderrig, Planning Policy Manager, Tel: 01436 658925, Ross McLaughlin, Development Manager, Tel: 01436 658914
APPENDICES
Appendix 1- Planning Performance Framework Report
Appendix 2 - Planning Performance Framework Feedback
Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
FEEDBACK FROM LAST YEAR’S PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Our Planning Performance Framework (PPF) is the principal performance measure for Planning Services (Development Management and Development Policy – within Planning and Regulatory Services) and is submitted to the Scottish Government annually for scrutiny and scoring. Our 2013/14 PPF was submitted in September 2014 and was independently reviewed by a Scottish Government appointed consultant. Some of the feedback is captured below:-
‘a very thorough, positive and well-written report, with very good use of case studies as an evidence base for the performance and service standards you have achieved. This has shown you to be working well with the performance and customer service culture whilst developing the experience of your elected members and staff alike’
‘Certainty for economic development is central to delivering a high quality planning service, this you have again demonstrated. Your up-to-date development plan and emerging LDP and supplementary planning guidance is of benefit and we were pleased to see this illustrated by a case study.’
‘Your Open for Business approach is clearly demonstrated, your commitment to working closely with others is commended particularly your Council’s link between the LDP, action plans and the single outcome agreement. ‘
‘We are pleased to see that you are committed to all of your customers and seek to publicise this with your Communication Team. Your commitment to Customer Service whereby you encourage customer feedback, hold user forums and staff training demonstrates your commitment’.
Alex Neil MSP – Cabinet Secretary for Secretary for Social Justice, Communities & Pensioners’ Rights
0 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Contents
FEEDBACK FROM LAST YEAR’S PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK ...... 0 FOREWORD ...... 1 PLANNING AT THE HEART OF OUR COUNCIL ...... 2 ABOUT ARGYLL AND BUTE ...... 3 PART 1 – NATIONAL HEADLINE INDICATORS ...... 4 CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE ...... 5 PART 2 – DEFINING & MEASURING A HIGH-QUALITY PLANNING SERVICE ...... 7 OPEN FOR BUSINESS ...... 7 HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT ON THE GROUND ...... 15 CERTAINTY ...... 20 COMMUNICATIONS, ENGAGEMENT AND CUSTOMER SERVICE ...... 26 EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE DECISION MAKING ...... 29 EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES ...... 31 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNANCE ...... 33 CULTURE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ...... 34 PART 3 – SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ...... 37 PART 4 – SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ...... 38 SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 2015/16 ...... 38 DELIVERY OF SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTED IN PREVIOUS YEAR ...... 39 PERFORMANCE MARKER EVIDENCE ...... 40 PART 5 – OFFICIAL STATISTICS ...... 42 DECISION MAKING TIMESCALES ...... 42 DECISION-MAKING: LOCAL REVIEWS AND APPEALS ...... 43 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY ...... 43 PART 6 – WORKFORCE AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION ...... 43 SENIOR PLANNING MANAGEMENT ...... 43 STAFF (POSTS) NUMBERS ...... 44 STAFF PROFILE ...... 44 COMMITTEES & LOCAL REVIEW BODY ...... 45 FINANCIAL INFORMATION ...... 45 APPENDIX A - STAFF STRUCTURE ...... 46
1 | P a g e
Argyll and Bute
FOREWORD ‘I am, again, delighted to introduce Argyll and This document captures the annual performance Bute Council’s Planning Performance Framework of the Argyll and Bute Planning Service for (PPF) Annual Report. financial year 2014/15. All Local Authorities are This 2014/15 Report is a showcase for all the required to produce a Planning Performance positive, innovative and quality outcomes that Framework (PPF) Annual Report which reports have been achieved in the past 12 months by the on performance against a broad range of areas Council, our communities and our development including speed of decision making, quality, industry partners. I am particularly glad to see the resources, successes, achievements and continued strengthening of our economy with engagement. This document shows that our increases in the volume and value of planning Planning Service is ‘open for business’ as we applications that have been submitted. This give priority to supporting sustainable economic growth is underpinned by our newly adopted growth whilst at the same time protecting the Local Development Plan which sets an ambitious qualities which make our Council area so special. strategy for growing the population of Argyll and Bute and delivering sustainable development – including growth for renewable energy and aquaculture sectors, support for crofting, greenbelt land releases to deliver housing and marine planning.
2014/15 was also a very busy year meeting and empowering our communities and customers. Engagement included a series of workshops to promote our Local Development Plan in our main settlements, public hearings in Village Halls to determine significant planning applications and Forums to discuss key customer issues in Planning. Community led initiatives such as the.
Planning for and delivering great places is imbedded in our culture and I have been enthusiastic about the quality of what we have achieved in Argyll and Bute in recent years including the national awards of the Grand Designs Home of the Year and Scottish Retail Cllr David Kinniburgh, Building of the Year. As Policy Lead for Planning and Regulatory Services and Chairman of the Chairman of Planning, Protective Services Planning, Protective Services and Licensing and Licensing Committee Committee, I consider 2014/15 to have been a successful year for the Service which is instrumental for the success of our area’.
Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Planning at the heart of our Council ‘2014/15 has again been a hugely successful and Sally Loudon, rewarding year for our Planning Service. The Key Performance Indicators demonstrate CEO Argyll and Bute continuous improvement and our strengthening economy is delivering fantastic development on the ground. You just need to walk through our towns, villages or fantastic countryside areas to experience the benefit from positive planning. Our newly adopted Local Development Plan is a catalyst for growth and prosperity and I am excited by its integration with our Community
Planning Partnership (CPP) and Community Plans.
Planning is also instrumental in supporting our Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) particularly
Objectives 1 and 2 which are to create an Sally Loudon, CEO of Argyll & Bute Council ‘economy is diverse and thriving’ and that ‘we have infrastructure that supports sustainable growth’. One of my personal highlights from 2014 was the positive and collaborative DID YOU KNOW? outcomes from the inaugural Argyll and Bute Our Council:- Economic Summit, which the Planning Service was a part of. Bringing the key players from the Approve 97% of all public, private and third sector together we are planning applications now planning action aligned to the Local Development Plan and have set up an Economic Forum to achieve sustainable growth. Has a brand new local development plan It is a pre-requisite for the Planning Service to adopted in 2015 engage, empower and understand our Communities and this is reflective in Community Determine applications Council Training that has taken place, large customer volume of traffic we get to our planning quicker than the national website, various workshops and public meetings average in 10 Weeks that have been held across Argyll and Bute to examine planning matters’ Consented 587 new houses in 2014/15 . The current established housing land supply is for 8770 homes.
2 | P a g e ABOUT ARGYLL AND BUTE
Our Geography and People
Argyll and Bute is the second largest local authority by area in Scotland and covers almost 9% of the total Scottish land area with a population of approximately 90,000 52% of Argyll and Bute’s population live in areas classified by the Scottish Government as ‘rural’ There are 23 inhabited islands including Bute; Coll, Colonsay, Easdale, Iona, Islay, Jura; Kerrera, Lismore, Mull and Tiree. 15% of jobs in Argyll and Bute are tourism-related. This compares to 9% of Scottish jobs and 8% of British jobs. 40% of employee jobs in Argyll and Bute are in ‘public administration, education and health’
Our Challenges
Reducing population – The projected decline in Argyll and Bute Council area total population is a real threat to the viability of the area with a potential to adversely impact on the economy/wealth creation, workforce availability and efficient service delivery. Changing population – With more extremes than most of Scotland we face increasing costs and challenges to deliver services to older people and we need to encourage younger people to move to the area so that our economy can grow. Our geography – A highly rural area with many small communities, often separated by water. Access to the area and to key services are perennial challenges. Employment – Developing education, skills and training to maximise opportunities for all and create a workforce to support economic growth. Infrastructure – Improving and making better use of Argyll and Bute infrastructure in order to promote the conditions for in Scotland economic growth including enhancing the built environment and our town centres. Sustainability – Ensuring a sustainable future by protecting the natural environment and mitigating climate change.
Our Planning Service
Planning Services act’s as an enabler, facilitator and regulator to all forms of development and sectors in Argyll and Bute dealing with a huge variety and range of projects from large scale windfarms, fish farms and housing developments to small scale croft diversification, self-build homes and alterations to listed buildings. Planning staff are dispersed throughout the main towns of Argyll and Bute allowing them to be close to and engage with the environment and communities that they plan and shape.
3 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
PART 1 – NATIONAL HEADLINE INDICATORS
Key outcomes 2014-2015 2013-2014
Development Planning:
age of local/strategic development plan(s) 0 years 4 years Requirement: less than 5 years
development plan scheme: on track? (Y/N) Y Y
Effective Land Supply and Delivery of Outputs
effective housing land: years supply 5 years 5 years
effective housing land supply 4,465 units 4,445 units housing approvals 587 units 632 units effective employment land supply 89.28 ha 90.6 ha employment land take-up 1.32 ha 0.2 ha
effective commercial floor space supply 2,998m2 2,998m2 commercial floor space delivered Unavailable Unavailable Project Planning
percentage of applications subject to pre-application advice 19.52% 19.40%
number of major applications subject to processing 1 5 agreement or other project plan
percentage planned timescales met 0.0% 100% Decision-making
application approval rate 96.7% 97.10% delegation rate 97.0% 93.30% Average number of weeks to decision: major developments 14.1 26.9
local developments (non-householder) 10.0 10.3
householder developments 6.9 7.2 Enforcement
time since enforcement charter published / reviewed 0 Years 2 Years (months) Requirement: review every 2 years
number of breaches identified / resolved 218/310 326/242
4 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE Overall we are encouraged by the strong performance in the context of the National Headline Indicators (NHI) and continue to strive for greater improvement and efficiency.
Summary of Development Planning in 2014/15 A momentous year in which we adopted our first Local Development Plan. The new LDP has been followed swiftly by an Action Programme which gives us an ambitious route map to promote and deliver sustainable development in the coming years. A replacement Development Plan scheme has mapped out the next twelve months during which we will concentrate on producing and adopting Supplementary Guidance to complement the LDP, and addressing how we can ensure delivery, particularly of the identified housing land supply.
We remain firmly focussed on seeing the LDP delivered timeously and to achieve this, work has begun on creating a Key Sites Action Programme which will focus attention on the most important strategic sites within Argyll and Bute, and to compliment this, a Key Sites Task Force to identify and direct the resources required to deliver these sites. To further assist delivery, we have already taken a more proportionate approach in relaxing implementation of affordable housing policy within the Cowal and Bute Area, and we have developed Supplementary Guidance which will similarly apply a proportionate approach to roads standards and guidelines. However, in the meantime, there continues to be an effective five year housing land supply identified and the availability and take up of employment and commercial floorspace remain broadly similar to 2013/14 reflecting a slowly recovering market.
Alongside the LDP the Core Path Plan has completed its examination and has been adopted, giving Argyll and Bute 1,167 miles of Core Paths, many of which already have route guides available online as is outlined in a later case study.
Argyll and Isles Coast and Countryside Trust launched last year has achieved early success. In partnership with local housing associations it has set up local project teams which will deliver environmental improvement work on the ground whilst at the same time offering key skills training.
Continuing to deliver the aspirations for Oban outlined in the National Planning Framework, cross sector engagement has started to explore delivery and masterplanning of the strategic development at Dunbeg and Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), both of which will be important indirect facilitators of the Lorn Arc Tax Incremental Financing. Other strategic masterplans which have either been completed or are underway include Inveraray expansion and Conservation Area Regeneration Schemes (CARS) scheme, Bowmore expansion, and
5 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Kilmory Business Park, all of which are important precursors to delivering jobs, housing and ultimately reversing population decline.
Reflecting the national changes in management and stewardship of our built heritage, a corporately produced Argyll and Bute Heritage Strategy has been produced and is currently out for public comment. This aims to create a much more strategically focused, proactive and holistic approach to the management, protection and promotion of our heritage assets, the Council ultimately hoping to lead by example through its implementation.
Preparatory work has been undertaken to prepare for the implications of regional Marine Planning and Marine Protected Areas so that the Council can adequately fulfil its new duties and support and protect the vital marine industry and environment in Argyll and Bute.
Summary of Development Management in 2014/15
The past 12 months has been a busy and successful period for New Council Offices @ Development Management. We continue to exceed Council targets for determining applications and are consistently ahead of the Scottish Helensburgh Average. Our year on year improvement on each of the Headline Indicators relating to speed of determination (Major, Local and Householder applications) is notable and we have also delivered a number of key development projects that have been important for the economy of Argyll and Bute.
At the heart of our Development Management Service is a culture and willingness to work in partnership with the development industry of Argyll and Bute. We seek to positively manage development and resolve issues through negotiation and adding value to unlock projects and as an output approve applications. This is reflected in our high approval rate of 97%.
We have continued to promote our free pre-application service ‘Planning for Firm Foundations’ and again have seen a significant rise in its use and growth in its use. In 2014/15 we processed 951 pre-application enquiries, which is 50 more than the previous year. We also monitor the time taken for our Officer’s to respond to pre-application enquires giving a service commitment to communicate back to the applicant within 20 working days – we currently achieve 85% within the timescale .
One of our most positive successes has been the significant improvement in time taken to determine Major Applications. We focussed on this closely in 2014 and had a small team re-structure to deliver improvements which have seen the average timescale reduce from 27 to 14 weeks. There have also reductions in the time we take to deal with Local and Householder applications dropping from 10.3 to 10 weeks and 7.2 to 6.9 weeks, respectively.
Whilst we continue to support and endorse the use of Processing Agreements (PA) their take up in practice has been relatively poor in 2014/15. Despite specifically promoting their use at our 4 User Forums and creating a new web page about them customers are still reluctant to sign up. Feedback from our customers suggests that our timescales for delivering important projects / applications is generally good and we specifically seek to ‘fast track’ economically important projects via our Major Applications Team. To this extent from a developers perspective, PA’s would add little value to their projects. 6 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Our Enforcement Officers have been proactively monitoring development to ensure compliance with drawings / conditions and have also been responding to complaints by the public. A new Enforcement Charter has also been adopted recently in March 2015. Significant resource from Development Management was also spent in 2014/15 successfully defending a Judicial Review of a planning decision and Protected Expenses Order in the Court of Session.
Key projects delivered by Development Management in the past 12 months include 2 new large scale bonded warehouses on Islay to support the Whisky industry, a Masterplan to deliver a mixed use town expansion of Bowmore, a new Nuclear Support Hub at Faslane, new supermarket at Inveraray, new hospital at Lochgilphead, a submarine museum at Helensburgh and masterplan for new commercial development at Kilmory, Machrihanish and Tobermory.
PART 2 – DEFINING & MEASURING A HIGH-QUALITY PLANNING SERVICE
Success cannot be measured simply by numerical statistics relating to the amount of land we allocate for development or the speed in which we issue decisions as planning performance extends far beyond these parameters. This chapter aims to summaries the main qualitative outcomes of 2014/15.
Open for Business Good planning creates opportunities for people to contribute to a growing, adaptable and productive economy. By allocating sites, embracing collaborative development management and creating great places Planning Services plays a pivotal role in underpinning the economic success of Argyll and Bute.
Stimulating and strengthening the economy of Argyll and Bute took centre stage in 2014/15 with Planning Services exhibiting at the inaugural Economic Summit which was held in Dunoon in October 20141. Local and National Politicians including Secretary of State for Scotland Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP, John Swinney MSP and Council Leader Dick Walsh joined private sector executives, local business leaders, senior Council Officers and other stakeholders to discuss and map actions to improve economic performance and conditions of the region. Flowing from this important Summit a new task force has been set up called the Argyll and Bute Economic Forum2 chaired by Nick Ferguson CBE, Chairman of Sky plc. The initial priorities and focus of the Economic Forum shall be on tourism, food production, and linking learning and local employment opportunities for young people.
Planning Officers have a key role to support the Economic Forum by being ‘open for business’ and working positively with all sectors and sectors to promote sustainable growth. For the second year running, Planning Services has adopted the strapline ‘Let’s do Business’ which is reflective of our positive approach to supporting the economy of Argyll and Bute. We seek to foster a culture of partnership working, mutual benefit and clear policy that promotes opportunities for investors, industry and customers. Reflective of this and for the second year in a row we have one of the highest approval rates in Scotland at 97%. This is reflective of our culture to resolve matters at a pre-application stage, add
1 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/economic-summit 2 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/news/2015/mar/argyll%E2%80%99s-economic-forum-agrees-priority-actions 7 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business value during the development cycle and to work in partnership with applicants to deliver development that is consistent with our development plan polices. This negotiated approach can sometimes mean the applications take longer to determine but the overall outcome is much improved.
Our newly adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) (adopted March 2015) also strongly aligns to the ‘lets do business’ ethos and priorities of the Argyll and Bute Economic Forum. In addition, the LDP dovetails and provides spatial / land use context for other vitally important business promotion documents such as the Economic Development Action Plan (EDAP) and Renewable Energy Action Plan. The LDP provides a clear policy framework for all development proposals to be assessed against and allocates an aspirational 90.6ha of land for business and industry and more than enough housing land to meet the ten year housing land requirement of 7450 units. Policies in the emerging Supplementary Guidance (June 2015) have been written flexibly to encourage appropriate development wherever possible and the first tranche of SG have been sent to Scottish Government for approval. The LDP along with the SG will be fundamental in supporting and facilitating the Councils and the local business community’s drive to promote and deliver economic activity and reverse population decline. Our ‘Open For Business’ approach is exemplified in our allocation and delivery of Potential Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are areas identified by the Council that can contribute to economic development and environmental improvement however opportunities were not fully scoped at the time of the adoption of the plan, which usually means that constraints (flooding, landscape design, infrastructure, layout, access) need to be overcome. It is a requirement of a PDA that a masterplan is approved by Committee prior to any development taking place on any part of the site. Masterplans help the Council assess at an early stage in the development process, the interrelationships of layout, design, access, existing transport infrastructure and sustainable modes of travel, landscape and ecology, open space provision and integration of a proposed development with existing communities. Masterplans also give commitment and certainty for both developers and communities in bringing forward strategically significant sites. A good example of the Council being positive towards development opportunities and delivering business and residential consents is contained at Case Study 1.
CASE STUDY 1: SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESS AND UNLOCKING POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
New Masterplan @ The Island Bakery, Isle of Mull
8 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Potential Development Area PDA 6/52 was identified in the Argyll and Bute Council Local Plan 2009 for mixed density mixed housing/business and industry, with 50% affordable housing. The PDA was allocated to support the existing landowner family business need for staff housing and an element of market housing at The Island Bakery and family farm at Lephain, Isle of Mull.
The developer engaged in the Development Management Pre-Application process prior to the submission of the final Masterplan for the development of the PDA. This proactive engagement resulted in the submission of a final comprehensive Masterplan which demonstrates a logical phased development over the entire PDA site and overcoming some of the potential site issues to provide mixed land uses and densities envisaged in the Local Plan.
The developers aim for the site is to create an area of light industrial use behind the Bakery with up to 12 houses including 50% affordable units primarily for employees of the nearby Sgiob-Ruadh Farm and the Island Bakery. This is consistent with the PDA Schedule whereby 50% of the housing units are required to be affordable (the higher percentage of affordable housing reflecting the original case for allocation of the land as a PDA).
The highly successful and recently constructed Isle of Mull Bakery sits at the northern end of the site. The PDA is accessed at the northern end from the main public road which runs to Tobermory to the north. The area within the PDA proposed for housing is largely low lying moorland set back from the public road. A landscaped buffer zone has been identified between the proposed houses and the land set aside for future extension to the bakery. Tree planting in this area would help to provide a suitable degree of separation between the business/industry activities and the proposed housing. Tree planting has been shown along the western boundary of the site.
The Masterplan is effective in describing and mapping the overall development concept for the site including resolving some of the potential challenges such as relationships between the commercial and residential land uses, landscaping and infrastructure capacity. The new masterplan also includes innovative housing design reflective of the Tobermory pastel couloued housing at the Harbour and simple vernacular. The recently approved scheme now gives certainty to the local business and is intended to provide a structured approach to creating a clear and consistent framework for development. The Masterplan has been endorsed by the Councils Planning and Protective Services Committee as a material consideration in the assessment of any future applications within the PDA.
Design of new Affordable Housing @ The Island Bakery, Isle of Mull
9 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Positive media coverage about Masterplan & Affordable homes
The Lorn Arc Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) programme was approved by the Scottish Government on the 7th of May 2014. TIF arrangements allow Argyll and Bute Council to retain and use additional Non Domestic Rates generated within an agreed boundary over a 25 year period.
The Lorn Arc programme contains proposals for the Council to invest up to £18.9million in a package of infrastructure improvements which in partnership with external funders will lead to a total investment of £41million in local infrastructure. It will improve access to the Scottish Association for Marine Science / European Marine Science Park, improve Port and Marine facilities at Obans North Pier and develop other business related infrastructure which will support the delivery of the Local Development Plan and assist population growth through the generation of new employment opportunities. It also involves the promotion and marketing of this part of Argyll and Bute as a place in which to live, visit and invest in. Planning Services are now working in partnership with other Council departments to allocate sites, deliver consents and move towards implementation as highlighted in Case Study 2.
10 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 2: INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION VIA TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING (TIF)
The Lorn Arc programme is an integral element of the Council’s investment in economic growth and is considered to be essential for attracting further inward investment to the Lorn area with consequential positive impacts for wider Argyll and Bute. Following on from the Single Outcome Agreement and the recent Population Summit, the Lorn Arc programme is considered by the Council to be even more relevant and important to the future of Argyll and Bute than it was at the time when the Full Business Case was developed. The Lorn Arc programme is also considered to be integral to the delivery of outcomes 1 and 2 of the Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) and to be fully in line with the decision made by the Policy and Resources Committee in December 2014 to support the delivery of the SOA by taking a structured approach to managing budgets and to invest for economic growth. Long term Argyll and Bute will benefit from increased economic activity, more jobs and an anticipated increase in population that the Lorn Arc programme aims to deliver.
The Lorn TIF is now moving forward to implementation stage with the first development project, Access Improvements and Business Park Enablement at Oban Airport, due to start on site in September 2015. The Council’s Economic Development team and Planning Services team have work closely to ensure that this project can be started timeously, prior to the end of September 2015 Scottish Government deadline.
Masterplan for Oban Airport Expansion. Recently Consented Road
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/lorn-arc
11 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Development Management continues to operating its ‘Planning for Firm Foundations’ pre-application service with a high degree of success since 2011, see Case Study 3.
CASE STUDY 3: OUR PRE-APPLICATION SERVICE
Our Pre-application Service ‘Planning for Firm Foundations’ has been up and running since 2011. All customers are encouraged to engage with the service so Officers can assist to add value to projects, identify issues, enhance certainty and negate abortive work.
The table below highlights the increasing importance of this service. .
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 No. of Pre Apps 752 929 951 Processed
Reflective of the importance of pre-applications to our customers we monitor Council performance in terms of the speed of response. The performance indicator ‘% of Pre-application Enquires responded to within 20 working days’ now appears on Planning and Regulatory Services Scorecard, Development and Infrastructure Scorecard and even at monthly Area Committee’s where elected Members scrutinise the attainment of the indicator. Development Management staff and their mangers use workload reports and weekly team meetings to allocate pre-applications to the most suitable officers and performance levels are monitored / managed to achieve compliance with our customer charter commitment for a timely response. In 2014/15 we responded to 80% of pre-application enquires within 20 working days above our set target of 75%. http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/pre-application-guidance http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planning_for_firm_foundations_customer_leaflet.pdf
CASE STUDY 4: PROPORTIONATE APPROACH TO ACCESS REQUIREMENTS – REVIEW OF POLICY TRAN4
In a rural authority, such as Argyll and Bute, the issues associated with delivering infrastructure to realise economic development potential and sustain and increase population levels in accord with the Single Outcome Agreement can be particularly challenging. Providing adoptable standard vehicular access to small - medium scale housing development in the countryside in the more remote and island communities can be costly. It also presents design issues in terms of reflecting the rural environment, being fit for purpose, having an economically sustainable maintenance regime and allowing access. The Council places a strong emphasis on place making as promoted by the Scottish Government in Creating Places and Designing Streets.
Argyll and Bute Council has attempted to address these issues in its Supplementary Guidance (SG) on Public and Private Access Regimes by developing a proportionate response to access requirements in the more remote and island areas where predominantly single track road systems are common. The revised policy SG LDP TRAN 4 sets the circumstances of when an adoptable standard road will be required and when it is suitable for a private access to serve developments that are either based on new or existing access regimes. The aim is to ensure that in general the road construction will be to an adoptable standard within most developments, giving a general right of access by the public. However, in some limited circumstances, particularly in the more rural areas of Argyll and Bute, it aims to limit public access by allowing the construction of a private access. In addition a more flexible approach is to be taken to adoptable road standards for 6 to 10 dwelling units off a predominant system of single track roads with passing places. This approach is a more proportionate
12 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business response to the issues involved in access. It should also bring benefits to the applicant by helping to reduce initial development costs and to the environment by allowing a less suburban design solution that in the first instance seeks to create place and does not require bituminous road surfaces, pavements and lighting.
This particular piece of SG provides additional detail to Local Development Plan policy “LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure” in respect of development involving new and existing public roads and private access regimes (SG LDP TRAN 4). This SG was originally consulted on in parallel with the Proposed Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. However, due to the emergence of additional guidance (National Roads Development Guide), subsequent need to revise the Council’s Roads Guide and issues raised during consultation the policy has been revised and was consulted on this year.
An important aspect of this SG is that it requires to be supported by revised local roads guidance, prepared by Roads and Amenity Services in consultation with Development Policy. There is an associated maintenance cost for the Council in varying the adoptable standard and safety is a paramount concern with any change of standard. Once finalised this will be uploaded into the Scottish Governments Designing Streets Toolbox. The National Road Guides in this toolbox contains a template for a Local Road Guide to vary the National guidance in respect of local circumstances. This provides an integrated and proportionate response to this issue from both Roads and Planning. http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/consultations/public-and-private-access-regime-consultation-sg-ldp-tran-4 www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/accessregimes
Our historic environment is also a key resource in our ability to make Argyll and Bute a sustainable, dynamic and attractive place to live, visit and do business in. It is capable of major economic benefit to our region and attracts considerable external public funding. This funding can facilitate home and business owners to undertake repairs which are often urgent and are often out with the financial reach of the owner or cost more than the monetary value of the property.
Conservation areas and key historic buildings are targeted; maintaining street and town scapes are a key objective. The negative impact neglected or derelict buildings can have on the economic potential of an area are a key motivation in determining areas of focus for heritage led regeneration.
Public funding is brought in through area regeneration and repair projects that are delivered directly by the Council. Argyll and Bute Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Historic Scotland and the Heritage Lottery Fund are four of the key investors, but many other organisations contribute to overall funding packages. Case Study 4 provides further detail.
13 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 5: HERITAGE LED REGENERATION
Argyll and Bute Council are currently responsible for delivering three key built environment regeneration schemes. They are in Rothesay, Campbeltown and Inveraray. Preparatory work will shortly to start for Dunoon.
These schemes fund:
. A repairs programme for priority projects. . A small grants scheme (such as to homeowners or retailers). . Community engagement through providing training opportunities in traditional skills and through education programmes. . Training opportunities for traditional craftsmen . Public realm conservation and restoration . Administration costs including the appointment THI Shopfront of a dedicated project officer Improvements, Campbeltown (Before) These schemes alone have delivered a collective investment of over £7millon pounds into the built fabric of 3 of our area’s main towns. Almost 200 individual grants to property owners will have been made by the end of the 3 current projects, over 80 businesses will have been grant aided, over 70 local contractors will have benefited from work, 13 new businesses have been created as well as 20 new jobs.
As well as having a direct impact on the built fabric of homes and properties and of those who live and work in them, these schemes have a wider benefit. The appearance of their local area is lifted; this encourages civic pride which in turn encourages a desire to maintain the improved appearance their home and town. Local contractors who have benefitted from traditional skills training as part of these projects, have a better understanding of repairing and maintaining historic buildings which reduces the impact of inappropriate works. Improved appearance of shop-fronts and buildings encourages tourism and business activity. projects by helping to design physical elements, obtaining statutory consents and THI Shopfront Improvements, capacity building. Campbeltown (After) http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/community-life-and-leisure/local-history-and-heritage http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/CampbeltownTHI http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/rothesay-townscape-heritage-initiative-thi
Aquaculture makes a significant contribution to the economy of Argyll and Bute and in particular to our more remote and economically fragile areas. The industry provides year round jobs which are important for coastal communities with downstream jobs supported in transport, processing and support services. It is a sector our Community Plan, Single Outcome Agreement and Corporate Plan all seek to support and develop. More information is contained within Case Study
14 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 6: Supporting the Aquaculture Industry
The Planning Service continues to invest significant time and effort into supporting the sustainable growth of marine finfish and shellfish aquaculture across Argyll and Bute. New Supplementary Guidance has been developed to support our Local Development Plan which provides greater spatial guidance than previous planning policy in order to assist industry in selecting the most appropriate locations for development, in line with Government targets for growth. To support this the Council provides a detailed pre-application service which provides greater certainty to developers, reduces the Loch Fyne , Mussel Farm submission of applications for proposals which are unlikely to be supported by the Council and generally improves the quality of applications. Pre- application advice and support has also been key to facilitating the development of proposals for significant future onshore infrastructure and development to support the salmon farming industry, including large scale processing and hatchery proposals and redevelopment of a large scale brownfield site in Bute and Cowal as an innovation park for aquaculture activity.
The Planning Service is committed to a proactive focus on continued improvement of the aquaculture planning process. Locally this includes annual liaison meetings with local aquaculture industry representatives to discuss progress and agree actions for improvement. Through representation on the Ministerial Group for Sustainable Aquaculture and associated working groups the planning service also works closely with other Highlands and Islands planning authorities to present consistent and shared input to specific actions including the development of a planning circular, review of Permitted Development Rights, standardisation of validation requirements and environmental monitoring requirements to mitigate Oyster Farm, Loch Fyne potential impacts relating to the interaction between farmed and wild salmonids. This liaison is developed O further through an annual two day meeting of planning authorities, focussed on sharing good practice and ensuring consistency in approach and delivery of the planning process. http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/aquaculture http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/fish-farm-applications http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/coast
High Quality Development on the Ground Our newly adopted Local Development Plan contains a suite of Sustainable Design Guides3, supplementary guidance and polices which seek to achieve high quality design in Argyll and Bute. As well as our bi-annual Argyll and Bute Planning Design Awards4 and Exemplar Design Website5 the
3 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/design-guides 4 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/sustainable-design-awards-2012-winners 15 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Council has also prepared guidance relating to the development of Masterplans6 to ensure larger sites are delivered in a co-ordinated manner making best use of the resource.
Our Development Management Officers also seek to ‘add value’ to every proposal that is submitted whether at a pre-application stage or application to achieve the best possible outcome.
The following Case Studies seek to highlight some of the high quality development that has been achieved over the past 12 months.
CASE STUDY 7: ARTISTS STUDIO, BANKS OF LOCH FYNE, STRACHUR
Shore Cottage is located on the shoreside of the A886 road in Strachur. An application was submitted which proposed the demolition of the existing boatshed/studio located within the southern part of the dwellinghouse’s curtilage and its replacement with an artist’s studio.
There was recognition when the design of the studio was being formulated that there was scope for a modern building in this location. It was considered that the artist’s studio was of a sufficient distance from the main dwellinghouse to avoid subsuming its form and massing. The difference in design and material to be used (timber cladding) was a clear statement that the new artist’s studio was of contemporary construction and it did not seek a pastiche of the more traditional dwellinghouse. The modern finishes and distinct design in this very prominent and exposed location work really well.
The summer of 2015 will see the opening of the Council’s new offices in Helensburgh. These energy efficient offices will accommodate approximately 140 Council employees who are currently dispersed in various buildings across the town and beyond. In addition to the offices function, the building will provide dedicated community space for community events, a gallery, a marriage suite and publicly accessible café within the central atrium of the former school. A high quality open space has also been included within the development which will be used by both the Council employees and the public.
5 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/examples-good-design-argyll-and-bute 6 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/helmasterplans 16 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 8: FORMER CLYDE STREET SCHOOL – NEW COUNCIL OFFICES, HELENSBURGH
The development which involved an extension to a category B Listed Building is located in an accessible location immediately adjacent to Helensburgh Town Centre. It was designed by Council’s in house architects and the Development Management team have been involved in the delivery of the project from the outset to completion. The former Clyde Street School which was originally designed by A. N. Paterson. It was in a derelict state and on the Listed Building at Risk register when it was proposed to provide the site for the new Council offices. In order to afford the required space necessary a large contemporary extension has been erected which is joined to the original building by means of a glazed link.
Clyde Street School (B Listed) , converted into new Council Office and Marriage Suite @ Helensburgh
It is considered that the benefits of this development will extend beyond the site itself as it will bring additional activity and footfall New Council Office @ Helensburgh back into the Town Centre and complement the recently completed Modern extension town centre regeneration works (CHORD project). The car parking provision to support the new facilities has been has been split into two sites ensuring the surrounding character of the build was not compromised giving opportunity for further enhanced landscaping around the buildings. These car parks will provide additional free parking to support the town centre at the weekends and evenings. Overall it will create an attractive and useable place on a site which had previously fallen in to disrepair and was unattractive. It will now have an important role in supporting the town centre regeneration.
Summary of benefits: Designed in-house; Planning Service has been involved from the outset; Saved a Listed Building at Risk; Wider regeneration benefits for Helensburgh Town Centre Additional free car parking for the Town Centre outwith office hours. Placemaking: creation of an accessible high quality open space with good areas of landscaping both at the frontage of the building and to the rear with view on to the Firth of Clyde.
17 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Enhanced community use including marriage suite, gallery, dedicated community space and café; Biodiversity – inclusion of bat boxes on the building; Public Art Sculpture mounted on front of building.
New Council Office @ Helensburgh
High quality public realm on banks of Clyde
CASE STUDY 9: ARGYLL AND BUTE PLACE- MAKING AGENDA
In February 2015 Argyll and Bute Council launched their Place Making Agenda as part of the Elected Member continuous improvement and training programme. This programme will complement the work already being done to improve quality of design by the Sustainable Design Awards, Exemplar Design Website and Design Guides already in place. Council Officers shall conduct guided tours around 3 of our Main Towns and outline the various Planning Decisions that have been made over recent years. There will also be opportunity to engage with residents who now live or work in these areas that have seen significant change. The aim is to learn from decisions we have made and in turn inform future assessments. Some of the key questions that will be asked:- what’s worked well? What hasn’t? What’s the place feel like? What’s it like to live or work here? The first organised visit is to Campbeltown at the end of the summer to view significant developments that have taken place through the Townscape Heritage Imitative (THI), Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS), new affordable housing and road realignments at Kinloch Road.
18 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 10: NEW USES FOR VACANT BUILDINGS - THE OLD SCHOOL HOUSE, CAMPBELTOWN
The Old School House was the first of two key buildings delivered via the joint Campbeltown Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) and Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS).
The building is owned by the Kintyre Amenity Trust (KAT) who operate the Campbeltown Heritage Centre. KAT were supported throughout by the Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust, Argyll and Bute Council (through THI/CARS) and Highland and Islands Enterprise.
The project involved;
. A category B listed building at risk, constructed 1851 that had lain vacant for over 20 years. . A six year partnership project between the public, private and third sectors. . A multi-skilled project team to drive the project forward – duties shared. . The requirement for a new access to the grounds almost derailed the project as negotiating access rights with land over was complex. After several months a legal agreement was secured and the new entrance was funded via Section 75 agreement relating to another development. . A complicated package of funders for each of the stages. . A modern rear extension to provide the extra space required to support long-term economic sustainability for the project. . Energy efficiency improvements suited to the age and construction type of the building. . 16 beds, fully fitted kitchen, washing/drying facilities, dining area and lounge area with wifi access.
Outcomes;
. 80 square metres of vacant historic floor space brought back into use. . Community bunkhouse providing low cost high quality visitor accommodation. . Income for a community group that assists in their sustainability into the future. Income also helps fund the repair, maintenance and operation of their adjoining heritage centre, also a listed structure. . Provides positive example of New design in a historic setting. . Provides positive example of energy efficiency improvements in historic buildings. . Traditional skills experience for local contractors . Employment for local contractors
19 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 11: BETTER DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENHANCED UNDERSTANDING OF BIODIVERSITY
The Biodiversity and Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) Check List was developed with the aim of providing developers with the basic tools of carrying out an audit of the biodiversity interest and any INNS present on any site identified for development. It is available through the current Local Development Plan
The Check list has been tested by the Local Biodiversity Officer to ensure that it is user friendly to enable the identification of biodiversity interest or INNS on any site. It is based on an efficient review technique in order to provide the developer with a strategic overview of what may be required in terms of further ecological assessment such as protected species, designated sites -not just the site itself but if it is adjacent to e.g. a SSSI and alerting the developer to address any INNS at the earliest opportunity. This approach will make a valuable contribution to pre- application discussions, Planning Permission in Principle or Full Planning Permission enabling early ecological survey work to be carried out and where INNS are discovered the development and implementation of an eradication programme.
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/biodiversity
Certainty 2014/15 has been a hugely important year for delivering consistency and certainty to our customers, public, communities and investors. Most notably our new Local Development Plan was adopted and is now central to our hierarchy of policies that steer and stimulate development. Our strong emphasis on being ‘plan led’ also provides reliability of decision making and in 2014/15 only 3 % of decisions were identified as a departure from Policy.
The strength and certainty of our policy and decision notices also translates into relatively low levels of decisions being overturned at appeal or local review. In 2014/15 92% of original decisions were upheld at the Local Review Board (up 25% from last year) and 64% were upheld by Scottish Ministers.
Our customers take comfort from knowing that we have a collaborative and positive approach to Development Management. The vast majority of applications are approved and we have one of the highest approval rates in Scotland at 97%. This is reflective of our culture to resolve matters at a pre- application stage, add value during the development cycle and to work in partnership with applicants to deliver development that is consistent with our development plan polices. This negotiated approach can sometimes mean the applications take longer to determine but the overall outcome is much improved.
Whilst the number of Processing Agreements fell to just 1 this year we have been specifically promoting their usage for Major and Locally Significant projects through a new webpage7 and also publicising them at our User Forums which took place in Helensburgh, Dunoon, Lochgilphead and Oban. Customer feedback about Processing Agreements has been apathetic with regular users commenting that they are generally pleased with processing times (ahead of the Scottish Average and continuous improvement), know who the contact points / officers are, agree timescales are informally agreed without having to create a processing agreement and economically important applications are ‘fast tracked’ via the Major
7 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/processing-agreements 20 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Applications team. To this extent, developers have not considered that a Processing Agreement would add value. We shall nonetheless continue to offer and promote them in 2015/16.
We have also increased certainty by clearly setting out how we deal with our customers, complaints and enquiries with the publication of:-
Our new Planning Enforcement & Monitoring Charter 20158; Planning & Regulatory Services Customer Charter9; and Customer Complaints Charter10.
The following case studies further emphasise our efforts to increase Certainty:-
CASE STUDY 12: PROPORTIONATE VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS AND VALIDATION PERFORMANCE
Getting the planning application process off to a solid start is hugely important to applicants and the assessment process. As well as signposting Scottish Government Guidance about what information is required to accompany applications, Argyll and Bute has developed a Validation Checklist which provides certainty to customers and Officers also benefit from knowing that when an application is passed to them it has sufficient and proportionate information to make an assessment in the majority of cases. Enhancements of this Checklist are currently being made and a pilot is being run with Heads of Planning Scotland (HoPS) to roll out a new Checklist across a variety of Councils in 2015/16.
Ensuring that applications are registered quickly is also critical and it is something that we performance manage and set targets for. The Validation Team consistently exceeded performance targets of registering and neighbour notifying 90% of valid applications within 5 working days. The team has leapt from only achieving 78.5% of its target in FQ 1 of 2014/15 to achieving 100% for the last two quarters of the year. http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planning-and-environment/notes_for_guidance_0.pdf
Argyll and Bute has a strong culture of using / developing masterplans to give added certainty to allocations, allow long term / aspirational forms of development to be considered and improves design quality. 2 good examples from 2014/15 are from Bowmore and Dalmally.
8 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s97055/New%20Enforcement%20Charter%202015%20FINAL%20RM%202-3-15.pdf 9 https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/planning-and-regulatory-services-customer-service-charter 10 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/do-it-online/comments-and-complaints 21 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 13: CERTAINTY THROUGH USE OF MASTERPLANS – BOWMORE, ISLAY
Bowmore is located on the shore of Loch Indaal and was established as a planned town in the late 1760s. The layout is based on a geometric grid system. The town is the commercial and administrative centre of Islay. It is arguably best known for the round church building and the distillery which has been producing whisky since 1779. Much of the original planned town remains largely intact, including the grid pattern of roads and many historic buildings. The older part of the town is protected by a Conservation Area designation which extends across half of the town, reflecting the limited expansion which has taken place since the town was conceived.
In the 20th century the village expanded significantly with substantial new house building. In the post- second world war period Argyll County Council built housing schemes to the east of Hawthorn Lane and Stanalane, breaking the historic grid pattern and introducing cul-de-sacs. More recently, both West Highland Housing Association and Trust Housing Association have built houses in the town at School Street and Flora Street. Much of the housing expansion has taken place to the east of the planned town. Primary and secondary schools have been constructed to the west, placing these key facilities on the edge of the town. The design and layout of the most modern additions to the town has taken a more suburban character form than the historic planned town, which is distinctively urban in character.
The Shoreline Masterplan Project seeks to establish a growth point for Bowmore and Islay, identifying land for up to 180 dwellings in the longer term in addition to land for employment and community uses, including allotments and playing field improvements. The Masterplan seeks to promote a contemporary, high quality development which within its design and layout reflects the traditional context of Bowmore as a planned settlement in order to integrate the new development within both its townscape and landscape settings. In addition to landscape/historic built environment issues, the masterplan proposals have also provide sufficient clarity to address the concerns of consultees in respect of the expected development impact upon an adjacent SSSI/SPA designation, the requirement for improvement of substandard approach roads, and mitigation for surface water flood risk within the locality. The phasing plan suggests that it will take some 10 to 20 years to realise the development potential of the masterplan as a whole. A Phase 1 development comprising 20 affordable housing units is however already nearing completion; a Phase 2 development comprising of a further 10 dwellings has also been granted detailed planning permission and is anticipated to be commenced within the current financial year.
22 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 14: CERTAINTY THROUGH USE OF MASTERPLANS - DALMALLY
An application for the erection of three dwelling houses was submitted in 2014 for a small portion of a much larger site identified as a Potential Development Area (PDA) in the adopted development plan. The PDA was identified to promote development in the key rural settlement of Dalmally in the interests of stemming rural population decline and increasing access to affordable housing. In order to establish certainty for future development in PDAs the Council requires the applicant to produce a masterplan to demonstrate a strategy for development and to ensure nothing is done at an early stage the would prejudice the long term ambition for the area. In this instance the applicant commissioned the preparation of a masterplan that illustrated a site layout plan for the full area of the PDA. This included: a phased low density housing layout with appropriate vehicular and pedestrian circulation; recreation and amenity areas, linkage to adjacent areas and local amenities; strategic landscaping and the inclusion of affordable housing in an inclusive central location. This masterplan allowed the separate application for the formation of a vehicular access and three dwelling houses to be approved with the confidence that it formed an integral part of the long term development strategy which very importantly, would not undermine longer term planning for the area. Masterplans for potential development areas such as Dalmally are an essential tool used by the Council to promote certainty and prevent sites being developed in an uncoordinated manner.
23 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
We have also sought to supplement LDP Policy and certainty for some of our key development areas with new guidance on cumulative impact of windturbine development, affordable housing and the historic environment.
CASE STUDY 15: CUMULATIVE IMPACT WINDFARM STUDIES
The Cumulative impact windfarm studies is a piece of work which was commissioned jointly with Highland Council from LUC (Land Use Consultants) using monies provided from the Scottish Government to assist local authorities with the task of preparing Spatial Frameworks for on shore wind farms.
This work builds upon the baseline provided by the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study which was commissioned jointly with SNH in 2012, which identified two landscape character types (craggy upland and upland forest moor mosaic) which are of lower sensitivity for large scale wind farm typologies. The Cumulative impact studies therefore cover two areas, Kintyre and Loch Awe, and have used GIS modelling techniques and survey work to determine those areas where cumulative issues may arise in relation with respect to potential new developments and the existing pattern of wind farms.
These cumulative impact studies will be used to help inform the mapping associated with the spatial framework for on shore windfarms, and will be one of the aspects which proposed new developments will be expected to take into account.
The studies build upon the cluster and gap strategy advocated by SNH in terms of accommodating potential cumulative impacts from wind farm developments.
CASE STUDY 16: NEW GUIDANCE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTIONS
Argyll and Bute has had an affordable housing policy since 2009. We had significant success in 2014/15 by delivering 164 new affordable homes.
The guidance on the delivery of affordable housing makes allowance for off-site and developer contributions in lieu of on-site provision. While on site provision in association with a Registered Social Landlord is often the most appropriate form of provision, this is not always possible for smaller developments and an option exists of making a commuted payment in lieu of on-site provision.
In order to help make clearer the costs of pursing this option the Council commissioned the district valuer in 2013 to provide a standard set of valuations for commuted payments. These have been calculated for each of the 9 housing market areas across Argyll and Bute for both a standard 3 bedroom semi-detached house and two bedroom flats. The publication of a standard set of valuations by the Council has helped to reduce uncertainty and allows developers to factor in these known costs when assessing development viability. It appears to have been useful, and more developers have expressed an interest in this approach at an earlier stage in the planning process.
While a number of developers have shown interest in this option, none of the developments where this might be an option have started on site yet and no commuted payments have been received as a result of this scheme yet.
24 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 17: NEW HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY
Our corporate objectives state that we will make the best use of our built and natural environment and ensure we contribute to a sustainable environment.
In order for Argyll and Bute to achieve our corporate objectives in relation to the historic environment, we have taken our lead from “Our place in time” the recent Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland.
This strategy aims to provide an overarching framework which will help the Council and communities positively manage and benefit from the historic environment. The strategy includes an action plan with real practical measures for delivery over the next five years.
The strategy will :
. Deliver a strategic and holistic approach which will help to steer future work priorities and improve delivery of Council services that effect heritage assets and the historic environment. . It will mainstream the historic environment so that it becomes integrated with general council policy . It will promote our historic environment and seek to raise awareness about the positive environmental, social and economic contribution it makes to Argyll & Bute as a place to live, work and visit. . It will introduce a political spokesperson to act as a champion for the historic environment
Through 8 key objectives and the action plan, the strategy will provide opportunities to:
. Make more strategic decisions . Prioritise projects and investment . Improve our understanding of the value and potential of heritage assets . Improve internal asset management . Improve our and our communities appreciation the wider value the historic environment makes to our economy, sense of place, social wellbeing and the natural environment . Improve traditional skills provision within the region . Promote and develop Argyll's heritage offer through tourism, culture and the arts . Develop partnership working with other key agencies, funders, local organisations, communities and groups . Increase internal dialogue between departments
https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/our-historic-environment
25 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Communications, engagement and customer service
During 2014/15 our LDP team took time to formulate an approach to preparing Community Local Development Plans. This has involved collaboration with our Community Planning Partners and it has now been agreed in partnership with them, to pursue a pilot of five Community Plans, varying in style as required by the local circumstances. The intention is that these are holistic plans looking at at the entirety of community issues not just land use planning. The pilots will take place in Tiree, Lochgilphead focussing on the Crinnan Cannal, Dunoon, Oban and Helensburgh.
Our Monitoring and Enforcement Charter and Planning11 & Regulators Service Customer Charter12 were both updated in 2014/15 and outline how we deal with customers, planning complaints and alleged breaches of planning control.
We actively encourage customer feedback and have facilities on our website for any customers to rate the service they received. We also specifically target applicants by sending out a customer feedback form alongside every decision notice. Customer feedback through these channels has been consistently strong and is monitored at a departmental level every quarter. This feedback demonstrated that 86% of respondents were either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the service they received by Planning Service in 2014/15.
Our Building Standards Service retained their Customer Service Excellence (CSE) Award in 2014 which is a significant recognition of their customer focussed approach. Planning Services share a number of the same underpinning processes and procedures as Building Standards and participated in a number of CSE Workshops. We expect to be assessed for CSE in 2016/17.
Comments Captured from our 2014/15 User Forum include:-
Presentations were ‘Excellent’ and I am ‘Highly Likely’ to attend future Forums
Stuart MacDonald, MacLeod Construction
We continue to seek new ways to engage with our customers and be proactive about the fantastic and varied work Planning Services deliver. We have recently launched our new Planning Twitter account called ‘Great Places @ABC_Planning’. We currently have 61 followers (week 1) and increasingly finding that Social Media is a great way to get messages out and receive feedback - particularly to groups who don’t usually engage in planning matters. This is part of an overall Communications Strategy / Plan that aims to educate and inform. This is over and above the numerous reactive press enquiries we receive. We have been communicating planning news, photos, updating progress of LDP, re-tweeting and publicising planning applications.
11 http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s97055/New%20Enforcement%20Charter%202015%20FINAL%20RM%202-3-15.pdf 12 https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/planning-and-regulatory-services-customer-service-charter
26 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
. CASE STUDY 18: PLANNING SERVICES WEBSITE In March this year we received 4 stars in the 2015 Socitm Better Connected report. Better connected is the annual survey of all UK local authority websites that assesses the quality of the online experience. Using a structured survey of 317 questions, reviewers explore how quickly and easily they can complete a series of top tasks. The top tasks are things that research shows most visitors to council websites want to do. This year the planning related top task was “Find out about permitted development” For the third (non-consecutive) year we were awarded the highest rating available (4 stars) and were counted among the top 20 best developed sites in the UK. Digital Service delivery and providing a high quality online experience continues to be a priority for Argyll and Bute Council Planning Services has the highest frequency of traffic through the website with over 100,000 hits in 2014/15. We have made significant enhancements to the website with new self service guidance, new local development plan website, heritage website and on-line forms. There is also ‘live’ updates put on the website immediately after Planning Committee updating public on outcome of applications
CASE STUDY 19: NEW PROTOCOL FOR ENGAGING WITH LOCAL ACCESS PANELS Planning and Building Standards have recently adopted a new protocol for engaging with Local Access Panels. Representatives from the Oban Access Panel also accompanied the Council at a User Forum in 2015 and stressed the importance to local architects and agents of considering those with impairments when designing buildings and the built environment.
The new Protocol aims to achieve a number of goals including:- . Encourage and indeed facilitate direct consultation between access panels and developers, both at the pre- and current application stage. Support the work of the Access Panels in Argyll and Bute. Consult Access Panels as part of any streetscape/environmental improvement project. Ensure that Planning Officers and Building Standards Surveyors in each area location are known to local Access Panels. https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/argyll-and-bute-local-access-forum
CASE STUDY 20: NEW PROTOCOL FOR ENGAGING WITH LOCAL ACCESS PANELS
Planning and Building Standards have recently adopted a new protocol for engaging with Local Access Panels. Representatives from the Oban Access Panel also accompanied the Council at a User Forum in 2015 and stressed the importance to local architects and agents of considering those with impairments when designing buildings and the built environment.
The new Protocol aims to achieve a number of goals including:- . Encourage and indeed facilitate direct consultation between access panels and developers, both at the pre- and current application stage. Support the work of the Access Panels in Argyll and Bute. Consult Access Panels as part of any streetscape/environmental improvement project. Ensure that Planning Officers and Building Standards Surveyors in each area location are known to local Access Panels. https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/argyll-and-bute-local-access-forum
27 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 21: BI-LINGUAL ACTIVE TRAVEL SIGNAGE IN LOCHGILPHEAD
Our Access Team which is part of Planning Services secured funding from Transport Scotland’s Smarter Choices Smarter Places scheme and embarked upon a project to install bilingual active travel signs around Lochgilphead. The signs are intended to promote walking and cycling as a viable option to key destinations around Lochgilphead. The signs adhere to the Councils Gaelic Language Plan and help deliver outcome 5 of the Single Outcome Agreement
CASE STUDY 22: USER FORUMS
Development Management and Building Standards held User Forums took place to engage with regular customers and users of the Service. Over 40 Architects, Agents, Builders, MSPs, Councillors and applicants attended the 4 sessions which were held in Helensburgh, Dunoon, Lochgilphead and Oban. At each Forum a presentation was given by the Council to reflect upon annual performance, implications of new local development plan, legislative changes and to flag up any future challenges. Thereafter, a structured discussion took place to obtain customer feedback. Customer Feedback forms were issued at the end of these meetings.
Presentation @ User Forum 2015
28 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 22: ONLINE CORE PATH PLANS As part of the preparation for the adoption of the Argyll & Bute Core Paths Plan the Access Team started to consider how best to promote the 1,167 mile long network of paths to walkers, cyclists, horse riders and canoeists, whether local residents looking for new places to explore or visitors from further afield. We decided that the Council’s existing Local View mapping software offered a great way to do this with the support of the GIS Team.
Since there is already lots of information available to the public on a range of websites the team decided that the best approach would be to create a “portal” that made information which is already available on the FCS, SNH, and community run websites accessible from one place.
We have created a number of layers including the Core Paths. Users can now select a path and a grey box opens with hyperlinks to external websites where they can find more information including leaflets.
It is also possible to view Aerial Photography which many people find easier to interpret than a map.
6 of Scotland’s Great Trails, 2 sections of the National Cycle Network and the Argyll Paddle Trail can also be selected with links to their websites.
The ability to access external websites and download leaflets makes finding information easier for the public who might otherwise need to visit a number of websites to find this information.
At present we have linked approximately one quarter of the paths to websites where there is more information.
The next stage in the project is to start recruiting volunteers to write path information sheets which will include a map, photographs and text about a Core Path. The primary aim is to ensure people enjoy using the paths by having the best information available.
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/LocalViewExt/Sites/Core_Path_Mapping/
Efficient and Effective Decision Making One of our most positive successes has been the significant improvement in time taken to determine Major Applications. We focussed on this closely in 2014/15 and had a small team re-structure to deliver improvements which have seen the average timescale reduce from 27 to 14 weeks. There have also reductions in the time we take to deal with Local and Householder applications dropping from 10.3 to 10 weeks and 7.2 to 6.9 weeks, respectively.
As with other Authorities, there is a continuous agenda to deliver cashable efficiencies and improve processes. In 2014/15 a 1% budget reduction was delivered but a more substantial Service Choices Process was also started where by Planning Service’s need to achieve up to 25% savings by end of 2015/16. 29 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
We aim to take decisions at the most appropriate level and use delegated powers to make the planning process as efficient as possible. In 2013/14, 97% (up 4% from last year) of decisions were made using delegated powers which focussed Committee attention on the more significant, major and controversial applications dealing with around 10 per month.
We work closely with our Heads of Planning Scotland (HoPS) benchmarking family to share practice and information to further enhance performance.
CASE STUDY 23: APPROACH TO LEGACY CASES
Development Management has intensely micromanaged legacy files over past 4 years and shall continue to do so in future. The service initially recorded all legacy files and set targets on how many should be brought to determination each quarter – something that affects the ‘Avg Timescale’ overall. A quarterly update of Legacy Files is provided to the Development Manager who will challenge and set targets for teams, in a similar way to the core Development Management performance, to purge legacy files. Outstanding Section 75s have been revisited; applications taken to Committee to be resolved and applications have been withdrawn through negotiation. Since our review of legacy files began we have now cleared out over 200 files with only 12 remaining from pre- 2014.
We have also worked closely with our legal team and now have a single point of contact within Governance and Law to deal with Section 75s, Section 69s and other planning law advice.
CASE STUDY 24: NEW PRIOR NOTIFICATION PROCESS – AGRICULTURAL & FOREST DEVELOPMENT
The Council has always had a close working relationship with Forestry Commission Scotland over many years through its consultations over Forest Design Plans and the need to ensure that applications for developments involving extensive forestry works, such as wind farms, are consented in a manner which ensures adherence with UK Forestry Standards and capable of satisfying the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. This has been strengthened by the adoption of Argyll & Bute Woodland and Forestry Strategy which was commissioned jointly by the Council and FCS to address joint interests. The strategy and associated action plan highlight shared priorities within Argyll & Bute and establish linkages with the Scottish Rural Development Programme.
The relationship between the organisations has been further extended by recent legislative change which has introduced the requirement for Prior Notification for forestry accesses and other hill tracks, which were previously exempt from planning control. Officers have engaged with FCS to ensure that there is mutual understanding of the interpretation of the legislative requirements, the extent to which access regimes in progress should be captured by a prior approval requirement for uncompleted works, and the information requirements necessary for making prior-notification requests. This has included a meeting between senior officers and the Area Conservator and the identification of a single contact point in the Council for the resolution of areas of doubt. Joint working has enabled the introduction of extended planning controls in a manner which does not frustrate sustainable timber production, or impose avoidable administrative burdens or delays upon the forestry sector, whilst ensuring that the environmental consequences of forestry operations are properly considered as part of the planning process.
30 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Efficient Management Structures Staff are dispersed across Argyll and Bute to work in the most efficient manner to suit their lifestyles as well as being close to the communities they plan for. All professional staff have laptops and all Planning Services systems can be accessed via a wifi connection either at home, office ‘hotdesk’ or other private network which provides flexibility (ferries and site visits). Teams make a heavy reliance upon the Councils Microsoft Lync system which allows for desktop based video conferencing and screen sharing. Team meetings and case conferences are increasingly being delivered online through our virtual office.
Development Policy Teams meet face to face on a fortnightly basis. Quarterly face to face meetings are also held for the Team Leaders within Development Management who discuss strategic and operational matters. Development Management Team Leaders hold weekly meetings and case conferences with their staff to manage workload, performance and operational issues. Officer workload is monitored through a variety of management reports generated from our Uniform system. Earliest Determination Reports and Applications on Hand Reports focus efforts on getting applications determined as quickly as possible. Certain projects such as our Business Process Review (BPR) and Validation Standards Project have used PRINCE 2 Project Management templates to deliver them.
The Planning Service forms part of Planning and Regulatory Services that also consists of building standards, trading standards and environmental health. We share Health and Safety, IT, HR and other similar policies and procedures. The service in its current form has been operational from 1st April 2010 and is part of the Development and Infrastructure Department. We also have close working relationships within the department and hold a quarterly performance meeting whereby the Director scrutinises performance from each service manager. The Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, who is a chartered Planner, convenes quarterly meetings with service managers and other key members to discuss management issues.
PLANNING SERVICES MEET REGUARLY OR HAVE PARTNERSHIPS WITH:-
ARGYLL BUILDING FEDERATION E-PLANNING AND UNIFORM USER GROUP HEADS OF PLANNING SCOTLAND TREVOR ROBERTS ASSOCIATES SEPA, SNH, TRANSPORT SCOTLAND, HISTORIC HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS BUYING SCOTLAND, CROFTING COMMISSION FRAMEWORK WEST OF SCOTLAND ARCHAEOLOGY ENERGY & RESOURCES COMMITTEE (HOPS) LARGE RURAL AUTHORITY BENCHMARKING CLUB STRATEGIC HOUSING FORUM (A&B) USER FORUM – LOCAL ARCHITECTS / AGENTS NORTH OF SCOTLAND DEVELOPMENT PLANS FORUM IMPROVEMENT SERVICE ARGYLL AND BUTE AGRICULTURAL FORUM SCOTTISH SALMON PRODUCERS ORGANISATION ARGYLL LAND AND ESTATES
31 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 25: PRIZE WINNING PARTNERSHIP WITH WOSAS
West of Scotland Archaeological Service (WoSAS) was established as a cost-effective local authority joint service to assist its member councils in the discharge of their responsibilities for the historic environment which primarily arise from their role as planning authorities. Argyll and Bute Council Planning Service is contributing board member.
WoSAS received a Commendation at the 2014 Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning. The Commendation was in recognition of the joint working and provision of cost-effective expert advice to the several planning services of member authorities and developers. In particular the new integrated and almost entirely digital systems were praised. This uses the e-planning resources of member authorities, as well as information from other bodies, such as Historic Scotland and the National Library of Scotland, to allow for the speedy identification of potential archaeological issues. The Judges were impressed by WoSAS's very deliberate commitment to deliver an improved level of service. They also considered that WoSAS had created a much more streamlined system which was sophisticated but still accessible.
WoSAS Joint Committee Convenor Cllr. Lawrence Fitzpatrick, Steering Group Chair Neil Feggans,
and Manager Hugh McBrien with RTPI Scotland Convenor, Stephen Tucker,
Image: Scottish Government.
32 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 26: WORKFORCE PLANNING & SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
In 2015 two student interns were appointed on fixed term contracts to deliver a series of planning projects. These include development of Social Media, Conservation Area Appraisal work, protocol of signage and data protection. Whist the positions are only temporary both interns both students are pursing qualifications relating to the built environment and it is hoped that the experience and skills gained shall develop their career and provide valued fresh outputs for the Council. “The planning summer internship within Argyll & Bute Council represents a fantastic opportunity for me to put into practice the skills I have developed during my Masters Course in City Planning and Regeneration. I have already become involved in a wide range of diverse and interesting projects which have provided me with an invaluable opportunity to gain first-hand experience of planning processes in action. I look forward to continuing to develop and grow as a planner within Argyll & Bute Council in the coming months and to making a positive contribution to the planning team.”
Ross Lee, Planning Intern
Financial Management and Local Governance 2014/15 was a positive year insofar as our revenue exceeded income budget by around £120,000. This was principally down to an upturn of planning application numbers and also the 20% increase in planning fees from April 2013. We are seeking that this excess budget is retained within Planning Services to account for budget savings that are currently being sought at a corporate level and as part of the Service Choices process. The retention of this excess revenue budget shall act to stabilise resources and maintain current level of service provision and performance.
Our financial performance is monitored on a monthly basis by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services who reviews income and spend budget lines. Cost pressures are flagged to the Departmental Management Team if it appears that budgets are at variance from expected outturn. Significant benchmarking and comparisons of financial information took place as part of the ‘Costing the Planning Service’ exercise which was hosted by the Improvement Service and CIPFA. Argyll and Bute participated and performed above average considering our rural characteristics in terms of some of the headline 33 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business measures. We are also sharing our financial information freely with our benchmarking club – the large rural local authority group.
In terms of Local Governance, our elected Members monitor performance of Planning Services explicitly by including Development Management indicators on their Area Based Scorecards. The ‘% of pre- applications responded to within 20 working days’ and the ‘% of applications determined within statutory timescale’ indicators are reported quarterly to the Area Committees and if targets are not met for that geographic area then Planning Officers are asked to attend Committee and explain why targets have not been attained. This makes Area Team Leaders very accountable for their team’s performance directly to their Members.
CASE STUDY 27: INTERNAL AUDIT OF S75 PROCESS
An internal audit was undertaken in 2014/15 to review the processes followed in regard to a s75 planning obligation entered into in respect of a large scale retail application consented in Helensburgh. The audit also scrutinised other more minor Section 75 obligations.
The Audit found that the retail application’s monitoring and governance arrangements require to be improved, particularly in relation to the delivery of financial contributions (planning gain). There was evidence of a monitoring and reporting framework, however, there were weaknesses in the reporting lifecycle to ensure that the projects are complete within the agreed timeframe mitigating the risk that unutilised funds require to be returned to the Landowner. There were a number of recommendations for improvement identified as part of the audit and a plan to deliver them has been drawn up. There are 3 high recommendations which are reported to the Audit Committee.
Culture of Continuous Improvement As well as the Service Improvements identified in this PPF we also have internal Service and Team Improvement Plans that are monitored at a departmental level. Every member of staff from Planning Services completed a Performance Review and Development (PRD) plan in 2014/15 which identifies an annual programme of training. The Council delivers training through a variety of ways including internal workshops, peer learning, online learning and through the use of external training partners. In 2014/15 we utilised the services of the Improvement Service and Trever Roberts Associates (TRA) to deliver training on a number of topics such as Planning Enforcement, Permitted Development Rights, EIA and Leadership. A number of staff also participated in the Scottish Government’s and Prince’s Foundation ‘Drawing Places’ event.
34 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 28: ELECTED MEMBER TRAINING PROGRAMME
The Council operates a regular series of Member Training Sessions aligned with monthly planning committee meetings, with a programmed devised by officers and agreed by Members at the beginning of the year. This comprises a mixture of bite-sized presentations on topical matters, half day workshops on subject areas requiring more in-depth attention, and site visits to examine the outcome of planning decisions on the ground.
The current programme builds on the success of previous training which has been well received by Members who are keen to develop their knowledge and expertise. Subject areas scheduled for this year include Agricultural and Forestry Permitted Development Rights – Hill Tracks, Local Review Bodies, the New Local Development Plan, Planning and Social Media, Placemaking Site Visit to Campbeltown, Supplementary Guidance for Public Roads and Private Access Regimes, Operational Need and Exceptional Business Cases for Development in the Countryside and the use of Area Capacity Evaluation as a tool to assist decision-making.
35 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
CASE STUDY 29: INTRODUCTION OF 3D MAPPING A 3D capability was added to the council’s geographic information system in late 2014 to assist in developing the Local Development Plan Supplementary Guidance on Windfarm Development and has already provided good value with the software and data being put to several other uses.
Viewshed analysis assists in meeting the requirement to identify areas of visibility within two kilometres of a settlement and the parameters (e.g. observer height and number of observer points) can be quickly redefined in the model to verify the results.
The software is also able to provide relief mapping and display hill shading which adds value to the mapping of Argyll and Bute’s unique topography and supporting the Development Policy and Development Management processes.
Further training will be delivered, particularly in Development Management, to identify other areas where 3D mapping can inform and enhance the planning process.
36 | P a g e PART 3 – SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Part 2 of this report was completed with full weblinks and footnotes as supporting evidence. Other key documents include. Council Community Plan and Single Outcome Agreement (2013-2023) - http://intranet.argyll- bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/soa_april_2014_v6.pdf Local Development Plan - www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/ldp Draft Action Programme http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/proposed-local- development-plan-documents The "Lorn Arc" project The Council operates a formalised pre-application system called Planning for Firm Foundations. You can find out more information in our leaflet, or use the Pre-Application Enquiry Form or Householder Pre-Application Enquiry Form to submit an enquiry. Examples of Good Design. Within Argyll and Bute we have a design strategy which aims to achieve high quality new development that respects the local environment and provides a sense of place. One of the main objectives of our sustainable design strategy is for the Council to lead by example and demonstrate sustainable design by providing case studies to illustrate the principles of the Council’s sustainable design guides. Argyll and Bute Council has agreed to an ambitious and forward-looking programme to assist regeneration and economic development in five of its waterfront towns - Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Oban, Rothesay and Dunoon. ‘CHORD’ Planning and Regulatory Services' Customer Service Charter is part of our annual improvement plan aimed at further improving customer service standards. Guidance and advice on making a planning application Argyll and Bute Council actively encourage online submission of planning applications via the Scottish Government ePlanning Portal. Our online planning information system holds records of all planning and building standards applications The Council has also entered into a Joint Procurement Framework with all Highland and Islands based Councils. Detailed information regarding the Council’s Planning Service can be found on our website. A copy of the Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire is sent out with every decision notice.
37 | P a g e PART 4 – SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
Service Improvements for 2015/16 SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS TIMESCALE
1 Production of 4 Community Plans March 2016
2 Development of Elected Member monitoring visits (including peer group August 2015 review) – site visits to completed building projects, place making learning outcomes and promotion of exemplar projects
3 Delivery and adoption of New Signage Strategy for Argyll and Bute March 2016
4 Deliver and adoption of New Rothersay Windows Policy September 2015
5 Publish and adopt technical guidance with regard to the cumulative December 2015 impacts of onshore wind farm development
6 The development of a protocol and process for involving Members in December 2015 providing early key advice for major development.
7 Improve planning application processing timescales at validation stage- March 2016 Business Process Review (BPR) work package
9 Delivery of Planning Services Communications Strategy February 2016
10 Production of hill tracks guidance. December 2015
Our Service Measures and Performance Targets which are reported Quarterly for 2014/15 are:-
All Local Planning Applications Determined:- Average Number of weeks 12 Week Target % of All Pre-Application Enquiries processed within 20 working days 80% Target % of Planning Applications Approved 95% Target % of Valid Applications Registered and Notified within 5 days 90% Target % of Population covered by adopted Local Plan 100% Target Approval of Draft Action Programme December 2014 Completion Formal Adoption of LDP FQ1 2015/16 Number of new housing units / houses per annum 300 Units
38 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Delivery of Service Improvements committed in Previous Year
SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STATUS
1 Publicise benefits of Processing Agreements / Encourage Complete – new Agents to use Processing Agreements website created (see Certainty http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/processing-agreements section)
2 Development of Elected Member monitoring visits (including Complete – (Case peer group review) – site visits to completed building projects, Study 9) place making learning outcomes and promotion of exemplar projects
3 Delivery and adoption of Historic Environment Strategy for Complete – (Case Argyll and Bute Study 17)
https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/our-historic-environment
4 Deliver solutions for key buildings at risk including Rockfield, Complete Oban and Royal Hotel, Rothesay
5 Publish and adopt technical guidance with regard to the Ongoing cumulative impacts of onshore wind farm development
6 The development of a protocol and process for involving Ongoing Members in providing early key advice for major development.
7 Improve planning application processing timescales at Ongoing validation stage-Business Process Review (BPR) work package
8 Improve planning input into the delivery of sustainable Ongoing economic growth – planning input / participation in new Argyll and Bute Economic Forum and Team Town concept ( holistic multi-disciplined teams delivering action plans for our main towns ).
9 Production of a Planning Services Charter. Complete
https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/planning-and-regulatory-services- customer-service-charter
10 Production of hill tracks guidance. Ongoing
39 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Performance Marker Evidence PERFORMANCE MARKER EVIDENCE
1 Decision-making: continuous reduction of average timescales for all National Headline development categories [Q1 - Q4] Indicators Page 4, Page 36 (Targets) Page 42, Case Study 12
2 Processing agreements: National Headline Indicators Page 4, Page 42, Case applications; and Study 22, Page 6, Page 20
3 Early collaboration with applicants and consultees National Headline Indicators Page 4, -application discussions for all Page 6, Page 7, prospective applications; and Case Study 1, Case Study 3,
Case Study 6
4 Legal agreements: conclude (or reconsider) applications after resolving National Headline to grant permission Indicators Page 4, Page 42, Case Study 23, Case resolution to grant (from last reporting period) Study 27
5 Enforcement charter updated / re-published within last 2 years National Headline Indicators Page 4, Page 7, Page 26
6 Continuous improvement: National Headline Indicators Page 4, Page 39, Page 42, and Case Study 24, Case Study 28, Case Study 29 identified through PPF report
7 Local development plan less than 5 years since adoption Achieved
8 Development plan scheme – next LDP: Achieved
40 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
9 Elected members engaged early (pre-MIR) in development plan N/A preparation – if plan has been at pre-MIR stage during reporting year
10 Cross sector stakeholders* engaged early (pre-MIR) in development N/A plan preparation – if plan has been at pre-MIR stage during reporting year
*including industry, agencies and Scottish Government
11 Regular and proportionate policy advice produced on: Page 7, Page 9, Case Study 4, 11, o support applications; and 12, 13, 15, 15, 16, 17
12 Corporate working across services to improve outputs and services Page 31, Case for customer benefit (for example: protocols; joined-up services; single Study 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, contact arrangements; joint pre-application advice) 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29
13 Sharing good practice, skills and knowledge between authorities Page 30, 31, Case Study 12, 24, 25,
14 Stalled sites / legacy cases: conclusion or withdrawal of old planning National Headline applications and reducing number of live applications more than one Indicators Page 4, year old Page 41, Case Study 23
15 Developer contributions: clear and proportionate expectations Page 41, Case Study 1,3, 6,16, 27
and
-application discussions
41 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
PART 5 – OFFICIAL STATISTICS
Decision making timescales
Total Average timescale (weeks) Category number of decisions 2014-2015 2014-2015 2012-2013
Major developments 3 14.1 59.1
Local developments (non-householder) 737 10.8 13.1 Local: less than 2 months 522 7.2 7.2 Local: more than 2 months 215 19.6 26.7
Householder developments 360 6.9 7.2 Local: less than 2 months 332 6.4 6.2 Local: more than 2 months 28 13.6 16.3
Housing developments Major 1 13.3 188.1 Local housing developments 366 12.1 12.3 Local: less than 2 months 246 7.4 6.2 Local: more than 2 months 112 21.6 23.5
Business and industry Major 0 12.1 Local business and industry 35 10.3 27.5 Local: less than 2 months 24 6.5 6.7 Local: more than 2 months 11 28.7 59.5
EIA developments 3 28.4 39.4
Other consents 213 10.1 7.4
Planning/legal agreements 13 28.6 36.7
Local reviews 12 30.4 16.3
* Single application for a housing development of 74 houses in Dunoon experienced significant delays. S75 Process took 2 years. The applicant challenged the policy on affordable housing then stalled the S75 process. Also protracted issue with Title Deeds.
42 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Decision-making: local reviews and appeals 2014-2015 2013-2014 Type
Total No. Original % Total No. Original % decisions decision decisions decision upheld upheld
12 11 91.7% 14 9 64.3% Local reviews
Appeals to Scottish 14 9 64.3% 12 8 66.7% Ministers
Enforcement activity
2014-15 2013-2014 2012-2013
Cases Taken Up 218 372 295 Notices served*** 40 32 45 Reports to Procurator Fiscal 1 0 0 Prosecutions 0 0 0 Number or Breaches Resolved 310 242 185
*** Enforcement notices; breach of condition notices; planning contravention notices; stop notices; temporary stop notices; fixed penalty notices, and Section 33 notices.
PART 6 – WORKFORCE AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Senior Planning Management
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Head of Planning Service X
Note: Tier 1= Chief Executive, Tier 2= Directors, Tier 3= Heads of Service, Tier 4= Managers
43 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
Staff (Posts) Numbers
DM DP Enforcement Other
Managers No. Posts 6 1
Vacant 1 0
Main grade posts No. Posts 11.5 10 4
Vacant 0
Technician No. Posts 9 2
Vacant
Office No. Posts Business support provided by separate department Support/Clerical Vacant
TOTAL 27.5 13 4
Note: Managers are those staff responsible for the operational management of a team/division. They are not necessarily line managers.
Staff Profile
Staff Age Profile Number
Under 30 1
30-39 13
40-49 18
50 and over 13
44 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Council - Failte - let’s do business
COMMITTEES & LOCAL REVIEW BODY
Committee & Site Visits* Number per year
Full council meetings 11
Planning committees 11 and 6 hearings
Area committees (where N/A relevant)
Committee site visits 6
LRB 13
LRB site visits 1
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Total Budget Costs Income
Direct Indirect
Development Management 730241 1128782 734634 -1133174
Development Planning 817997 535018 282979
Enforcement 137112 132700 4412
Other
TOTAL £1,685,351 £1,796,500 £1,022,025 £1,133,174
45 | P a g e Appendix A - Staff Structure
WORKFORCE AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Appendix II
Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
Development Policy Development Manager Management Manager
Senior Planning Senior Planning Principal Planning DM Team Leader Senior Technicial Officer Officer Officer (Major DM Team Leader DM Team Leader DM Team Leader OL&I Officer Apps) B&C H&L MAKI
E-Planning Planning Officer Senior Planning Technical Officer – Technical Officer Officer (Major Planning Officer Planning Officer Planning Officer Planning Officer Planning Apps) Validation
Planning Officer Technical Officer – Access Manager Senior Planning Planning Officer Planning Officer Planning Officer Planning Officer Planning
Officer (Major Validation Apps)
Built Heritage Planning/ Planning/ Planning/ Technical Officer – Conservation Enforcement Enforcement Enforcement Planning Officer Planning Access Officer Access Technician Senior Planning Officer Officer Officer Officer Validation Officer (Major
Apps) Planning Planning Planning Planning/ Technical Officer – Local Biodiversity Technician Technician Technician Enforcement Planning Marine & Coastal Officer Officer Validation Development Manager Planning System Technician Technician
Marine & Coastal Development Officer
46 | P a g e 47 | P a g e
Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights Alex Neil MSP
T: 0300 244 4000 E: [email protected]
Ms Sally Loudon Chief Executive Argyll and Bute Council
___
5th October 2015
Dear Ms Loudon
PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2014-15
Thank you for submitting your authority’s annual Planning Performance Framework (PPF) report covering the period April 2014 to March 2015.
Please find enclosed your authority’s feedback on the 15 performance markers. I intend to share the performance ratings with the High Level Group on Performance when we next meet at the end of October.
You will note that this year we have only provided feedback on the performance markers. I am encouraged to hear that supported by Heads of Planning Scotland, you will be providing wider feedback to other authorities through your benchmarking groups. I am grateful to HOPS for taking this proactive approach and I very much hope that it will help communication and better support the sharing of practice amongst authorities.
I am pleased to report that Scotland-wide performance is improving and the number of red markings has reduced considerably over the last 3 reporting periods. Overall, I am impressed with the commitment to improvement and the good position that many authorities are now in. There are however, a small number of authorities where progress in delivering the markers has been slower. I will be encouraging COSLA and Heads of Planning Scotland at the next High Level meeting to ensure that those authorities are supported.
I would also like to thank those of you who submitted information on your live applications which are over a year old. The study shows that there are over 1800 legacy cases, dating as far back as 1983. I accept that there are circumstances where applications will take an extended amount of time and that withdrawal or
refusal is not in the best interests of either the applicant or authority. However, it is critical that action is taken to reduce the number of legacy cases and I would again encourage you all to put strategies in place to prevent cases reaching legacy status. I will discuss legacy cases at the next High Level Group and the Chief Planner will also set up a meeting to discuss the situation with HOPS and the development industry.
You will be aware of my recent announcement to hold a review of the planning system. The review will depend on the co-operation, expertise and input of all those with an interest in the planning system. There will be opportunities to provide evidence to the panel and I strongly encourage planning authorities to actively participate. We will communicate further information through our website, e-alerts and twitter feeds as soon as the panel confirm the process and timetable.
ALEX NEIL CC: Angus Gilmour, Head of Planning
PERFORMANCE MARKERS REPORT 2014-15
Name of planning authority: Argyll and Bute Council
The High Level Group on Performance agreed a set of performance markers. We have assessed your report against those markers to give an indication of priority areas for improvement action. The high level group will monitor and evaluate how the key markers have been reported and the value which they have added.
The Red, Amber, Green ratings are based on the evidence provided within the PPF reports. Where no information or insufficient evidence has been provided, a ‘red’ marking has been allocated. No. Performance Marker RAG Comments rating
1 Decision-making: continuous Green Major Developments reduction of average timescales for all development categories [Q1 - You have substantially reduced your decision Q4] making timescales from 59.1 weeks last year to 14.1 weeks this year. This is significantly
better than the national average of 46.4 weeks.
RAG = Green
Local (Non-Householder) Developments
Average timescales have improved from 13.1 weeks in the previous year to 10.8 weeks this year. This remains better than the 12.9 week national average.
RAG = Green
Householder Developments
Average timescales have improved for this category with an average of 6.9 weeks this year from 7.2 weeks last year. This remains better than the national average of 7.5 weeks.
RAG = Green
TOTAL RAG = Green
2 Processing agreements: Green The report is clear that processing agreements are both publicised and offered to prospective offer to all prospective applicants. applicants for major development planning applications; and We note that you proactively ask for customer availability publicised on feedback on why applicants do not want to website enter into processing agreements and note that they are generally content with processing times.
3 Early collaboration with applicants Green The % of applications subject to pre- and consultees application advice has increased very slightly. availability and promotion The report is clear on the importance of pre- of pre-application application discussions, evidenced through the discussions for all prospective applications; ‘Planning for Firm Foundations’ service. and clear and proportionate The cases studies used provide a strong requests for supporting narrative of the Council’s policy on supporting information information with the guidance on aquaculture developments and Invasive non Native Species particularly strong.
4 Legal agreements: conclude (or Green You had no major applications with a legal reconsider) applications after agreement attached. For local applications resolving to grant permission you have reduced the timescales for dealing with these substantially from 44.8 weeks to reducing number of live 29.0 weeks. applications more than 6 months after resolution to grant (from last reporting In future your report should set out what period) steps/procedures have been put in place to deal with this issue.
5 Enforcement charter updated / re- Green Charter published in March 2015. published within last 2 years
6 Continuous improvement: Green Your LDP is up to date. progress/improvement in Decision making timescales have reduced. relation to PPF National Headline Indicators; and Up-to-date enforcement charter is in place. progress ambitious and relevant service improvement commitments You have made good progress on the delivery identified through PPF of some of your service improvements, with report half of those commitments carrying over to 2015/16. Your new commitments relate to issues within your report and are clearly measurable.
7 Local development plan less than Green You have a newly adopted development plan 5 years since adoption in place.
8 Development plan scheme – next Green Your LDP was recently adopted. LDP: Your next report should provide more detail on on course for adoption your new Development Plan Scheme and how within 5 years of current this will be project planned. plan(s) adoption; and project planned and expected to be delivered to planned timescale
9 Elected members engaged early N/A (pre-MIR) in development plan
preparation – if plan has been at pre-MIR stage during reporting year
10 Cross sector stakeholders* N/A engaged early (pre-MIR) in development plan preparation – if plan has been at pre-MIR stage during reporting year
*including industry, agencies and Scottish Government
11 Regular and proportionate policy Amber Report provides good evidence on advice produced on: proportionality of information requests with the cases studies on validation and biodiversity information required to particularly strong. support applications; and expected developer RAG = Green contributions
In terms of developer contributions, the affordable housing evidence is a good example but the report lacks any further evidence in respect to developer contributions.
RAG = Amber
12 Corporate working across Green The user forum provides strong evidence of services to improve outputs and working closely with stakeholders to ensure services for customer benefit (for better engagement. example: protocols; joined-up services; single contact Despite the dispersal of staff across the arrangements; joint pre-application Council area, strong links are maintained as advice) well as joint working with external stakeholders, for example the Forestry Commission and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.
13 Sharing good practice, skills and Green The joint service you undertake as part of knowledge between authorities WoSAS is a particularly strong example. Your continued work with HOPS on validation is
noted as is the benchmarking you undertake.
The report would benefit from a little more detail on how this is undertaken and the benefits the authority gain.
14 Stalled sites / legacy cases: Green You have not provided the required information conclusion or withdrawal of old on legacy cases within the NHI table. Please planning applications and reducing use the HOPS template in future reports. number of live applications more than one year old You have adopted a pragmatic approach to this task which has been very successful. You
have only 12 cases remaining over 1 year old and we look forward to seeing further reduction in next year’s report.
15 Developer contributions: clear Amber Your affordable housing policy is a good and proportionate expectations example of your approach to this issue. It set out in development plan allows the viability of a project to be calculated (and/or emerging plan); early in the process and clarity for the and developer in terms of expectations. It is not in pre-application clear from the report whether this is SPG. discussions Last year’s feedback sought more evidence on how other types of developer contributions are set out. The report could have provided more detail around other types of infrastructure or obligations the Council require for differing developments.
RAG = Amber
The report provides little evidence of how developer contributions are clearly set out at the pre-application stage.
RAG = Red
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Performance against Key Markers
Marker 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
1 Decision making timescales 2 Processing agreements 3 Early collaboration 4 Legal agreements 5 Enforcement charter 6 Continuous improvement 7 Local development plan 8 Development plan scheme 9 Elected members engaged early (pre-MIR) N/A N/A N/A 10 Stakeholders engaged early (pre-MIR) N/A N/A N/A 11 Regular and proportionate advice to support applications 12 Corporate working across services 13 Sharing good practice, skills and knowledge 14 Stalled sites/legacy cases 15 Developer contributions
Overall Markings (total numbers for red, amber and green)
2012-13 0 4 9 2013-14 0 5 8 2014-15 0 2 11
Decision Making Timescales (weeks) 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Scottish Average
Major Development 88.2 59.1 14.1 46.4
Local (Non- Householder) 14.0 13.1 10.8 12.9 Development Householder 8.9 7.2 6.9 7.5 Development
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14 JANUARY 2016
UPDATE ON A82 AND A83
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 This report provides an update on the preferred route option for the upgrading of the A82 between Tarbet and Invararnan and A83 Rest and Be Thankful.
1.2 Members will be aware that there has been a long standing issue regarding the stability of land adjacent to the A83 for many years. There have been numerous ‘landslips’ and material wash outs which have resulted in the A83 being unavailable whilst material is removed from the carriageway and the road corridor made safe for use by the travelling public.
1.3 The A83 is the responsibility of Transport Scotland and Argyll and Bute Council have been working closely with Transport Scotland over recent years to mitigate the impact of ‘landslip’ events for the travelling public and the economy of Argyll and Bute.
1.4 A Taskforce has been established which has resulted in a route study having been completed for the A83. From the route study, Transport Scotland have committed to various works including landslip netting, the improvement and upgrade of the Old Military Road and a number of other safety related improvements along the route.
1.5 The preferred route option for the upgrading of the A82 between Tarbet and Invararnan has been announced by Scottish Government. There is a further consultation process to be carried out by Transport Scotland. This is summarised in the report.
1.6 It is recommended that Members note the report.
1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES JANUARY 2016
UPDATE ON A82 AND A83
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 This report provides an update on the preferred route option for the upgrading of the A82 between Tarbet and Invararnan and A83 Rest and Be Thankful.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Members note the report.
4.0 DETAILS
A82 – Tarbet to Invararnan
4.1 Scottish Government has announced the preferred route option for the upgrading of the A82 between Tarbet and Invararnan. Based on the route options assessment process, Route Option 1 – online upgrade – is to be taken forward as the preferred route option (see Appendix 1). Transport Scotland have confirmed that further consideration will be given to the following as part of the design and development of the preferred option (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Stage 3 assessment process):
Inclusion of 2 short off line sections near Ardvorlich. The alignment will be developed to reduce impact on properties and landowners. The alignment will also be adjusted to assist construction and reduce impact on road users. A carriageway width of 6 metres and 7.3 metres (both with 1 meter hard strips) will be considered.
4.2 Transport Scotland has also confirmed that the next steps of the development and assessment of the development and assessment of the preferred route will be:
Consultation with stakeholders, affected landowners and general public.
2 Design development of the preferred route. Identification of the land required for the scheme and preparation of the draft orders which will define the line of the developed preferred route option. Environmental impact assessment of the developed preferred route options and preparation of environmental statement. Development of suitable mitigation measures to reduce impacts on the environment.
4.3 Whilst any physical works on the ground are some time away, it is considered important that Argyll and Bute continue to work closely with Transport Scotland regarding the proposals. Assuming that contractors will need to take possession (closure) of the carriageway, as per the recent works at Pulpit Rock, similar return to service plans will be required in the event of the A83 becoming unavailable during possessions on the A82. The return to service plan will ensure that access is retained into Argyll and Bute and beyond.
A83 – Rest and Be Thankful
5 December Event
4.4 A landslide estimated to weigh around 1000 tonnes (approximately 50 lorry loads) was caught on 5 December in specially designed debris protection measures installed to prevent material from the steep slopes of the Rest and Be Thankful reaching the A83 trunk road. 4.5 The A83 remained open to motorists at all times despite the extremely heavy rainfall brought in by Storm Desmond. 4.6 A small amount of slurry reached the edge of the road as a result of the sheer volume of water coming from the hillside, however a road sweeper was mobilised to help clear the mud. As a precaution, specialist geo-technical engineers were on- site to inspect the netting as well as the wider site. 4.7 The slip occurred early morning on Saturday 5 December and was identified by BEAR Scotland’s landslide patrols which were on high alert following the heavy rain warnings issued for the weekend. 4.8 Five debris protection barriers were found to have caught boulders and sediment as a result of material coming down from the steep slopes of the mountain. Assessments have been carried out by BEAR Scotland’s geotechnical team and contractors and arrangements have now been made to remove the debris. 4.9 Temporary traffic signals are currently in place and teams are mobilising on site this afternoon with a 15m long reach excavator with a plan to begin removal of the 1000 tonnes of debris on the Thursday following the slip. Teams tackled the ‘Phase 1’ fencing first where the majority of the landslip debris was caught. This is programmed to be complete by Christmas with the other fences with lesser volumes of material to be cleared after New Year. 4.10 The removal the material from the netting will see the team loosen the wires that hold the netting into place to enable them to excavate the debris which will then be
3 taken to a nearby waste site. The netting will then be assessed to ensure it remains fit for purpose and put back into place. 4.11 Temporary traffic signals will remain until the clean-up is complete, with traffic held for short periods to allow the tipper lorries to be loaded safely with material. 4.12 In October 2014 the nets were successful in catching over 1,200 tonnes of material during the biggest landslip event to affect the A83 in recent times, which included boulders the size of a car. The slip, estimated at over 2,000 tonnes in total, meant the local diversion route via the Old Military Road was implemented with the A83 closed for three days to enable teams to clean up and to ensure the route was safe to reopen. 4.13 The twelve sections of protection works, the first built in 2010, were designed to reduce the risk of landslip impact on the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful. Erected after extensive research by geotechnical teams, the barriers have been positioned at the bottom of waterway channels that flow down the slope which historically have shown the most likely course for debris when slides ensue.
4.14 BEAR Scotland work to ensure the safest and most efficient mitigations methods are in place along trunk roads in the North of Scotland. Teams work closely with Transport Scotland, Argyll and Bute Council, Police Scotland, Forestry Commission Scotland, local businesses, travel providers and residents to ensure everything possible is done to mitigate the risk to trunk road traffic along the Rest and Be Thankful.
30 December Event – Storm Frank
4.15 Flooding has affected the A83 one mile north of Ardgartan and the road currently remains closed for safety reasons. An excavator is on site and the clear-up operation is underway to remove debris from the road, clear culverts and flooding with a view to open this section of the A83 as soon as possible.
4.16 Approximately 200 to 300 tonnes of material has been washed down the hillside, with further debris continuing to flow. Two cars were caught in the wash-out and the vehicles are awaiting recovery from the carriageway. The slip occurred just south of the B828 junction in the same location as the 5th December slip and BEAR emergency teams and specialist contractors are currently on-site assessing the situation. A geotechnical inspection will be undertaken in the next hour or so to assess the safety of opening the Old Military Road local diversion and to commence the clear up operation on the A83.
4.17 The A83 was reopened. However, further investigation found a 150 tonne boulder which needed to be reduced by controlled explosion. At the time of updating this report (6 January) a controlled explosions had been carried out. The 150 tonne boulder was successfully broken apart using small explosives inserted into approximately 30 drilled holes in the rock.
4.18 Due to the size of some of the larger pieces of boulder debris, the biggest of which is approximately a third of the size of the original boulder, the Old Military Road will be closed
4 overnight as a precaution. Due to the limited day light teams have been unable to complete a full safety assessment of the slope or the remaining rock fragments.
4.19 Weather permitting, a full assessment of the slope will be carried out and further work will be done to remove the larger pieces of rock on 7 January. A verbal update will be provided to the meeting.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 This report provides an update on the A82 between Tarbet and Invararnan and A83 Rest ad Be Thankful.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy The Councils stated position regarding the A83, Rest and be Thankful to seek a permanent solution for the route.
6.2 Financial Lack of availability of the A83 has an impact on travel cost as well as a general impact on the economy of Argyll and Bute.
6.3 Legal None
6.4 HR None
6.5 Equalities None
6.6 Risk None
6.7 Customer Services None
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure December 2015
For further information contact: Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Amenity Services
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Preferred Route Plan
5 6 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14th JANUARY 2016
Compelling Argyll and Bute and its Administrative Areas Study – Progress Update
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide the Committee with an update on the progress of the proposed actions and activities to be delivered as a result of the evidence base and recommendations presented in the Compelling Argyll and Bute and its Administrative Areas research study.
1.2 The research has confirmed that the overarching challenge for Argyll and Bute as a whole is to reverse the overall decline in population while rebalancing from aging to young/working age residents by achieving positive net migration.
1.3 The research highlights a focused policy approach around strategic economic rebalancing of the economy in terms of population; jobs, businesses; education; skills and enterprise. It also recognises the requirement to increase collective ambition and provide an ‘identity’ for Argyll and Bute in order to market all the positive aspects and opportunities of the area as a place to live, work, study and visit.
1.4 The Strategic Overview report presents some potential areas for intervention across eight thematic areas where, together with partners, the council will be able to reverse the economic trends and support a more vibrant and successful economic future for the region.
1.5 To date a number of awareness raising events have been delivered to disseminate the findings of the study. In particular, at a Steering Group meeting on 2nd December 2015, it was agreed that in the first instance the suggested thematic interventions from the Compelling research should be fed directly into the review of all the six Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) Delivery Plans (in particular Outcomes 1 to 3) during December 2015, rather than create another suite of plans.
1.6 The following recommendations are for the EDI Committee to consider:
To note the content of this update report.
.
1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE (EDI) COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14th JANUARY 2016
Compelling Argyll and Bute and its Administrative Areas – Progress Update
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide the Committee with an update on the progress of the proposed actions and activities to be delivered as a result of the evidence base and recommendations presented in the Compelling Argyll and Bute and its Administrative Areas research study.
2.2 The commissioned research sought to better understand the full implications of the demographic challenge and develop solutions to addressing a key priority within the Argyll and Bute Community Planning Partnership (CPP) Single Outcome Agreement and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan, namely that ‘Argyll and Bute’s economic success is built on a growing population’.
2.3 The research was commissioned through and financially supported by, a Steering Group comprising, Argyll and Bute Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and Argyll College UHI. It was conducted using a mix of primary economic research and secondary inquiry, including undertaking an extensive interview programme which included businesses, inward investors, school and further education (FE) students and teachers, community groups, major infrastructure providers and key public sector stakeholders. In all over 500 individuals have been engaged through the research programme.
2.4 The research is now complete and a suite of detailed reports have been produced covering: Compelling Argyll and Bute and its Administrative Areas Strategic Overview Report; Economic Baseline Report; Sub-regional Socio Economic Baseline Report; Stakeholder Research Report and Addressing Rural Depopulation Good Practice Report. All these reports can be accessed on the council website on http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/compelling-argyll-and-bute
2.5 The study has also identified an approach to address the demographic challenges, built around a policy concept of strategic economic rebalancing and though delivering actions across eight suggested thematic interventions (see Appendix A).
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Members are asked to:
3.1 Note the content of this update report.
2 4.0 PROGRESS
4.1 Since the completion of the draft Compelling research in May/June 2015 and then the final reports in August 2015 specific focus has been given to sharing the research findings with key partners and on a wider basis with stakeholders.
Overview of Research Findings
4.2 The overarching challenge is to reverse the overall decline in population with a focus on increasing the young/economically active working age population to achieve sustainable economic growth (key alignment with the Argyll and Bute Community Planning Partnership Single Outcome Agreement 2013-2023).
4.3 The research found that generally there has been positive business performance across the area in terms of employment and sales levels with a relatively bullish view of future employment, but this is mainly for low/no skilled employees, with the exception of the larger companies.
4.4 A greater number of larger businesses predict increased future growth in employment (79% compared to 50% overall1). These businesses will require a greater number of staff at the higher end of the business i.e. managerial (33%) or professional/technical staff (48%). Businesses involved in aquaculture and fishing (86%), food and drink (81%) and construction sectors (65%) are the most likely to recruit staff over the next three years, albeit from a relatively small respondent base from these sectors.
4.5 The study identified an approach to address the demographic challenges, built around a policy concept of strategic economic rebalancing as follows:
increase the overall employment base by addressing the over-reliance on the public sector and by rebalancing the economy towards growing the private and third sectors; increase the number and ambition of the resident business base by rebalancing focus on companies of scale and with growth aspirations to move up the value chain; improve and enhance the skills profile of Argyll and Bute by rebalancing to a higher skilled workforce able to obtain higher value employment which in turn will attract higher earnings (i.e. create higher value employment in areas of competitive advantage, for example, food and drink); increase the quantity and quality of the local education offering by rebalancing resources from sources outside Argyll and Bute to those inside the region; and increase the enterprise and entrepreneurial skills and capacity of all parts of the community (public and private) to rebalance away from reliance on others to self-reliance.
In order to meet the above strategic economic rebalancing objectives the research outlined delivering actions across eight suggested thematic interventions (see Appendix A).
1 305 businesses responded to the question relating to future employment growth. 3 Awareness Raising Activities
4.6 Presentations on the overall study have been given to the following groups: Economic Forum Youth and Education sub-committee, 29th May 2015; Community Planning Management Committee, 17th June 2015; Full Community Planning Partnership in 25th August 2015; Opportunities for All, Sharing of Good Practice event, 10th September 2015; Argyll and Bute Employability Partnership, 1st October 2015; Elected members’ seminar, 5th October 2015 (with a focus on the skills development issues within the reports); Article on ‘Argyll and Bute a Compelling Offer’ published in Business Scotland magazine, autumn 2015 edition; and Business breakfasts and business lunches delivered across Argyll and Bute throughout November and December 2015. The detailed dates and location of these events are outlined in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Business Breakfast and Lunch Events, 2015 Event Location Venue Date Breakfast Campbeltown Ardsheil Hotel Friday, 6th November Breakfast Oban Corran Halls Tuesday, 17th November Lunch Inveraray Loch Fyne Hotel Tuesday, 24th November Lunch Helensburgh Braeholm Monday, 30th November Breakfast Lochgilphead Enterprise Centre Thursday, 10th December Lunch Bute Victoria Hotel Tuesday, 15th December Lunch Dunoon The Braes Wednesday, 16th December
4.7 The findings of the report provoked a great deal of discussion at the above meetings/events. At the business breakfast and lunch events there was broad agreement on the main themes emerging out of the Compelling study. However a number of specific issues were raised and these are being followed up with the individuals concerned. Some common issues across the Argyll and Bute area were as follows: infrastructure improvements required, including greater coverage of superfast broadband and mobile connectivity (although improving in some areas); alignment of empty properties with the size and type of housing stock required to attract inward investment; apprenticeships to be more accessible to individuals/businesses and the requirement for more appropriate apprenticeships around marine trades and general trades. This links to succession planning which is a key issue for many businesses; investment in social infrastructure i.e. leisure and entertainment aligned with employment/training opportunities, to help retain young people in the area; staff shortages, in particular professional staff, for example vets; and further promotion and use of the area’s tourism assets, such as the Crinan Canal, Mid Argyll and St Peters Seminary, Cardross.
SOA Delivery Plans
4.8 One of the main objectives of the research was to develop ‘compelling’ propositions/promotional action plans for Argyll and Bute and each of its four sub- areas. However, at a Steering Group meeting on 2nd December 2015, it was agreed that in the first instance the suggested thematic interventions from the Compelling 4 research should be fed directly into the review of all the six Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) Delivery Plans (in particular Outcomes 1 to 3) during December 2015, rather than create another suite of plans.
4.9 A fundamental requirement of the revised SOA Delivery Plans is that all actions and activities in the short-term to longer-term must be delivered in partnership, which aligns with the partnership working that will be required to implement the suggested thematic interventions in the Compelling study.
4.10 The next Compelling Steering Group has been arranged for 3rd February 2016 where the appropriate draft SOA Delivery Plans will be discussed to assess if these plans have captured the relevant actions and activities (short, medium and longer term) identified under the eight suggested thematic interventions (see Appendix A).
Next Steps
4.11 As noted above, specific actions on the back of comments made by businesses at the events will be taken forward. For instance the modern apprenticeship issue will be raised and progressed with Skills Development Scotland as a member of the study Steering Group. The findings of the meetings will businesses will reported back to attendees and follow-up events will be held with businesses in six months’ time.
4.12 The study Steering Group has agreed that communication of the findings of this study and current opportunities within the area is of critical importance. It is paramount that all council and partner agency staff are ‘on message’ and ‘talk up’ Argyll and Bute as a destination of choice to live, work, study and visit. The recent appointment of a Marketing and Promotions Officer within the Economic Development and Strategic Transportation service (who will start with Argyll and Bute Council on 18th January 2016) will provide a much needed resource to deliver discrete promotional actions and activities.
4.13 Elected members will be consulted on the content of the SOA Delivery Plans and comments will be sought on how the Compelling study issues have been captured in these plans.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The evidence base and suggested thematic interventions identified will be factored in accordingly to the revised SOA Delivery Plans. The inclusion of appropriate actions and activities in the Delivery Plans from the Compelling research will allow for partnership delivery over defined timescales in order to address the demographic challenges in Argyll and Bute with a focus on economic growth.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy The Compelling Argyll and Bute and its Administrative Areas research report aligns and adheres, as appropriate, to the issues outlined in the Council’s Economic Development Action Plan/area-based Economic Development Action Plans, the SOA Outcomes 1 to 3 Delivery Plans and Scotland’s Economic Strategy.
5 6.2 Financial Ongoing consideration will be given to the best alignment between resources and priorities in order to take the research actions and solutions forward.
6.3 Legal All legal implications with regard to proposed Argyll and Bute Council actions will be taken into consideration.
6.4 HR The actions to be taken forward will need to be resourced in terms of staff time in the context of the new SOA Delivery Plans, the council’s annual service planning process and through shared staff resource discussions with Community Planning Partners and the Argyll and Bute business community.
6.5 Equalities The delivery of the research actions and solutions will align with the Equalities Act 2010 and in turn the Argyll and Bute Council’s Equal Opportunities policies and practices.
6.6 Risk If the Compelling Argyll and Bute and its Administrative Areas research actions and solutions are not taken forward, then opportunities to use this evidence base to create high quality jobs realised by a higher skilled workforce will be missed by the council and key partner agencies.
6.7 Customer Services None.
Pippa Milne, Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure
Policy Lead Aileen Morton
For further information contact: Ishabel Bremner, Economic Development Manager, Tel: 01546 604375
6 Appendix A - Thematic Interventions:
Theme 1: Further and Higher Education - expand provision and make more relevant to meet future demand
Theme 2: Rural Enterprise and Entrepreneurship – increase the level of enterprise/entrepreneurship skills and activity in Argyll and Bute:
Theme 3: Argyll and Bute Key Sectors – increase the relative employment and economic value of identified sectors:
Theme 4: Businesses of Scale – increase the growth and levels of ambition across all Argyll and Bute:
Theme 5: Generic Skills Development – ensure effective and efficient working of local labour markets:
Theme 6: Public Sector Employment – support rebalancing while offering new higher level opportunities:
Theme 7: Compelling Argyll and Bute – agree approach to marketing and selling Argyll and Bute to wider markets:
Theme 8: The Hygiene Factors – ensure the basic infrastructure is in place to support the strategic rebalancing:
7
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14th January 2016
Scottish Government Consultation: Review of Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) Boundaries
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide the Environment, Development and Infrastructure (EDI) Committee with details of the current review of Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) Boundaries which is currently out for consultation. The consultation question asks of respondents: ‘do you have any comments on the Scottish Government proposals for creating a 5th NUTS 2 region’. This paper asks the EDI Committee to approve the response provided in this paper, which is to disagree with the proposal.
1.2 The paper provides members with details of a Scottish Government consultation on the creation of a new NUTS 2 region in Southern Scotland and the potential implications for Argyll and Bute, specifically Helensburgh and Lomond.
1.3 NUTS regions are geographic building blocks for a number of EU policies and funding streams. These are used almost exclusively by European policy makers and are particularly relevant for the allocation of Structural Funds the Regional Aid Guidelines.
1.4 The Committee is asked to :
Agree that the Executive Director, Development and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Policy Lead for Economic Development, submits a response to the Scottish Government consultation by the deadline of 15/01/2016.
Approve the draft response provided in this paper.
Approve, outwith the consultation requirements, that consideration is given to the inclusion of the Helensburgh and Lomond part of Argyll and Bute into the current Highlands and Islands European funding area to create one single Argyll and Bute region going forward with regard to European funding issues post 2020. This will require further analysis by officers on the potential impact on funding from such a change and a separate paper will be brought to a future meeting.
1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14th January 2016
Scottish Government Consultation: Review of Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) Boundaries
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide the Environment, Development and Infrastructure (EDI) Committee with details of the current review of Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) Boundaries which is currently out for consultation. The consultation question asks of respondents: ‘do you have any comments on the Scottish Government proposals for creating a 5th NUTS 2 region’. This paper asks the EDI Committee to respond to this question to enable officers to submit a formal council response.
2.2 Following the consultation, the Scottish Government will send the final proposal to the Office for National Statistics and then to Eurostat for consideration.
2.3 This report will cover: NUTS regions; proposed changes; the purpose of the review; and implications of the proposals on Argyll and Bute Council.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The Committee is asked to:
Agree that the Executive Director, Development and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Policy Lead for Economic Development, submits a response to the Scottish Government consultation by the deadline of 15/01/2016.
Approve the draft response provided in this paper.
Approve, outwith the consultation requirements, that consideration is given to the inclusion of the Helensburgh and Lomond part of Argyll and Bute into the current Highlands and Islands European funding area to create one single Argyll and Bute region going forward with regard to European funding issues post 2020. This will require further analysis by officers on the potential impact on funding from such a change and a separate paper will be brought to a future meeting.
2 4.0 DETAILS
NUTS Regions
4.1 NUTS regions are geographic building blocks for a number of EU policies and funding streams. These are used almost exclusively by European policy makers and are particularly relevant for the allocation of Structural Funds and Regional Aid Guidelines. There are three levels of NUTS region, and these are created around population thresholds (see Appendix 1 for an explanation of NUTS areas). Scotland is a NUTS 1 region, one of 12 in the UK. There are four NUTS 2 areas in Scotland which can be found in Table 1 below along with the corresponding Local Authority Units (LAU) areas NUTS 3 areas.
4.2 Argyll and Bute Council spans two NUTS 2 areas: the Highlands and Islands NUTS 2 area, which is unaffected by this proposal; and South Western Scotland which encompasses Helensburgh and Lomond – see Appendix 3 for maps of the current and proposed NUTS 2 areas
Table 1: Current NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 Areas in Scotland NUTS 2 NUTS 3 Eastern Scotland 1. Angus and Dundee City 2. Clackmannanshire and Fife 3. East Lothian and Midlothian 4. Scottish Borders 5. City of Edinburgh 6. Falkirk 7. Perth & Kinross, and Stirling 8. West Lothian
Highlands and 1. Caithness & Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty Islands 2. Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey 3. Lochaber, Skye & Lochalsh, Arran & Cumbrae and Argyll & Bute 4. Eilean Siar (Western Isles) 5. Orkney Islands 6. Shetland Islands
North Eastern 1. Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Scotland South Western 1. Dumfries & Galloway Scotland 2. East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond 3. East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland 4. Glasgow City 5. Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire 6. North Lanarkshire 7. South Ayrshire 8. South Lanarkshire
4.3 The Scottish Government in this consultation is proposing to create a fifth NUTS 2 area for the Southern Scotland. This would mean changes to both the Eastern and South Western Scotland NUTS 2 areas. The proposed changes are shown below in Table 2.
3 Table 2: Proposed Changes to NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 Areas in Scotland NUTS 2 NUTS 3 Eastern Scotland 1. Angus and Dundee City 2. Clackmannanshire and Fife 3. East Lothian and Midlothian 4. Edinburgh. City of 5. Falkirk 6. Perth & Kinross, and Stirling 7. West Lothian
(Scottish Border region removed to proposed new NUTS 2 area) Highlands and No change Islands North Eastern No change Scotland South Western 1. East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Scotland Helensburgh & Lomond 2. Glasgow City 3. Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire 4. North Lanarkshire
(East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire Mainland, Dumfries and Galloway, East Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire moved to proposed new NUTS 2 area)
Southern Scotland 1. Scottish Borders (proposed) 2. Dumfries & Galloway 3. South Lanarkshire and North Ayrshire mainland 4. East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire Mainland 5. South Ayrshire
Why is the review being carried out?
4.4 The consultation document does not give the reasons for the proposed Scottish Government changes and what benefits the changes will bring to Scotland or any of the affected areas. It would appear that the main driver for this proposal, according to a recent West of Scotland European Forum paper, is lobbying which has been carried out by the South of Scotland Alliance for some time. However, the consultation documents itself, states that changes to NUTS boundaries will not be accepted if this is done on the basis of increasing Structural Fund eligibility.
Implications of the proposals on Argyll and Bute Council
4.5 The proposed changes do not affect the Highlands and Islands part of Argyll and Bute Council
4.6 Helensburgh and Lomond would move from being a NUTS 2 area which includes the City of Glasgow and also the coastal/remote rural areas of South Western Scotland, to one in which many of the coastal/remote rural parts are removed, leaving a denser population base with more urban characteristics.
4 4.7 The allocation of European Structural Funds is based on GDP1 although the post 2020 Structural Fund allocations methodology is unknown. This new format will likely raise the GDP of the NUTS 2 area in which Helensburgh and Lomond is based – see Appendix 2 for a comparison of 2013 GVA2.
4.8 Consequentially, the GDP of the local authorities in the new NUTS 2 area will be likely lower and thereby increase their chances of gaining access to European funding. In material terms, this may make no significant different to Helensburgh and Lomond as Argyll and Bute Council is currently seeking ERDF and ESF funding for this area under a condition known as geographic flexibility, relating to its proximity and relationship to the Highlands and Islands. If we oppose the NUTS 2 proposal, we may deprive the Southern Scotland area of funding which may not otherwise be forthcoming if the status quo remains. However, it may reduce the eligibility of Helensburgh and Lomond in terms of accessing Structural Funds in the 2020-2026 programming period.
4.9 To date Orkney, the Highland Council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are not planning to respond to this consultation as it does not impact on them. Highlands and Islands European Partnership (HIEP) is also not planning to respond.
4.10 The COSLA Development, Economy and Sustainability (DES) Executive Group is planning to respond and have welcomed comments from member Councils to inform their response. Notes from the COSLA DES meeting which took place on 20th November 2015 state: ‘The discussion as DES was inevitably brief. Though we got indication that it would be useful to respond [….] positively to the proposed NUTS boundary changes…”. The DES Executive Group asked for comments by 20th December 2015.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 This paper provides the members of the EDI Committee the background and detail of the Scottish Government consultation on its review of the current NUTS 2 areas. The consultation question asks
“Do you have any comments on the Scottish Governments proposals for creating a fifth NUTS 2 region?”
Comments: Argyll and Bute Council feels that the consultation document proposing the creation of a fifth NUTS 2 area in South Scotland, lacks any justification for the proposal. No economic or social reasoning is provided in the document and no statistics to explain the proposed changes.
Argyll and Bute Council has reservations about the proposed changes. The creation of the new NUTS 2 area may effectivity increase the GDP of the remaining South Western Scotland NUTS 2 area. This could impact on the ability of the Helensburgh and Lomond part of Argyll and Bute Council to access Structural Funds post 2020, although we acknowledge that the allocation methodology is as yet unknown.
1 Gross domestic product (GDP) is a measure for the economic activity. It is defined as the value of all goods and services produced less the value of any goods or services used in their creation http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-datasets/-/TEC00114 2 GVA: wealth creation in terms of profits and wages. 5 Therefore, Argyll and Bute Council opposes the proposed changes and would strongly support staying with the status quo.
Outwith the consultation requirements, members may wish to consider the inclusion of the Helensburgh and Lomond part of Argyll and Bute into the current Highlands and Islands European funding area to create one single Argyll and Bute region going forward with regard to European funding issues post 2020. This will require further analysis by officers on the potential impact on funding from such a change and a separate paper will be brought to a future meeting.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy European funding and policy issues align with the overarching aim of the Argyll and Bute Community Planning Partnership Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) 2013-2023 and in particular the requirement to maximise European funding investment throughout Argyll and Bute which could impact on all six SOA outcomes and is a key objective within the Argyll and Bute Economic Development Action Plan (EDAP), 2013-2018 and the four area-based EDAPs.
6.2 Financial Argyll and Bute Council hopes to access ERDF and ESF funds in future. If the NUTS 2 area changes are accepted then it may reduce the opportunity for Helensburgh and Lomond to access these funds directly (although potentially they could be accessed due to Argyll and Bute’s proximity to the Highlands and Islands under a rule known as geographic flexibility). It may change the status of Helensburgh and Lomond in terms of its regional aid status although this is currently unknown.
6.3 Legal All legal implications with regard to proposed Argyll and Bute Council actions will be taken into consideration.
6.4 HR None.
6.5 Equalities None
6.6 Risk This proposal could reduce the eligibility of the Helensburgh and Lomond area of Argyll and Bute to access European funding post 2020. However, for the current 2014-2020 programme the Scottish Government has confirmed that the Argyll and Bute Council area as a whole is eligible to access funding under the geographic flexibility rule, which may also be applied post 2020.
6 6.7 Customer Services None.
Pippa Milne, Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure
Policy Lead, Councillor Aileen Morton
For further information contact: Ishabel Bremner, Economic Development Manager, tel: 01546 604375 Mary Louise Howat, Senior Development Officer, tel: tel: 01436 658917
7 Appendix 1: Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) Classifications
The Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) classification of areal units represents an attempt to present statistical information for standard sets of geographical areas across the whole of the European Union (EU).
The key purpose of the NUTS areas is to provide a framework for the collection and publication of standardised statistical information, which is used both for analysis and as the framework for European policy initiatives
The NUTS classification is primarily based on the adoption of areal units from political and administrative systems (such as local government areas) rather than analytically-derived units (for example, travel to work areas).
For Scottish NUTS areas, the NUTS 1 region covers the whole of Scotland, whereas NUTS 2 subdivides Scotland into 4 regions, and NUTS 3 to 23 regions. Above NUTS 1 is the 'national' level of the EU Member State - the United Kingdom. For Local Administrative Units (LAU) there are currently 41 units at LAU level 1 and 1,222 at level 2.
NUTS Classifications
NUTS 1 - Typically having a population ranging between 3 - 7 million inhabitants.
NUTS 2 – Typically having a population ranging between 800,000 – 3 million inhabitants.
NUTS 3 – Typically having a population ranging between 150,000 - 800,000 inhabitants.
The exact relationship between the NUTS areas at a given level and the local administrative structure varies between countries and may be complex. At the local level, two levels of Local Administrative Units (LAU) have been defined, which were previously referred to as NUTS levels 4 and 5. LAU 1 is defined as an individual unitary authority (such as Argyll and Bute Council) and LAU 2 is defined as a ward (such as Helensburgh and Lomond
8 Appendix 2: Maps of the current and proposed NUTS 2 areas
Current NUTS 2 Boundaries
Proposed NUTS 2 Boundaries
9 Appendix 3: Comparison of GVA Figures
Estimates of workplace based GVA (2013 figures; provisional) £mill £ per head Scotland 117,116 21,982
Eastern Scotland 45,203 22,133 Angus and Dundee City 4,901 18,535 Clackmannanshire and Fife 6,302 15,069 East Lothian and Midlothian 2,636 14,167 Scottish Borders 1,749 15,361 Edinburgh, City of 18,590 38,134 Falkirk 2,594 16,509 Perth & Kinross and Stirling 4,947 20,697 West Lothian 3,484 19,779
South Western Scotland 45,871 19,660
East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond 3,010 13,568 Dumfries & Galloway 2,329 15,497
East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland 3,106 12,257 Glasgow City 19,256 32,279 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire 5,499 15,905 North Lanarkshire 5,403 15,998 South Ayrshire 2,149 19,046 South Lanarkshire 5,120 16,261
North Eastern Scotland 17,573 36,242 Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire 17,573 36,242
Highlands and Islands 8,469 18,123
Caithness & Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty 1,319 13,882 Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey 4,049 20,316 Lochaber, Skye & Lochalsh, Arran & Cumbrae and Argyll & Bute 1,775 17,600 Eilean Siar (Western Isles) 418 15,240 Orkney Islands 385 17,853 Shetland Islands 524 22,578
Source: Extracted from ONS' Regional Gross Value Added (Income Approach) NUTS3 Tables
10 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee
Development and Infrastructure 14 January 2016
Funding for Onshore Wind
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Onshore wind is widely deployed across Argyll and Bute with circa 250 megawatts (MW) of operational wind turbines including 12 commercial windfarms and wholly community owned turbines on the islands of Gigha, Tiree and Islay. On the 18th June 2015, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change announced that the government would cease to operate the Renewable Obligation (RO) for onshore wind from 1st April 2016, a year earlier than originally planned. In making the statement to Parliament, the Secretary of State proposed a grace period for onshore wind which would continue to give access to support under the RO to those projects which, as of 18 June 2015, already had planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance, and evidence of land rights for the site on which their project will be built. Projects that qualify for the proposed early closure grace period will be able to accredit under the RO up to 31 March 2017.
1.2 The replacement for the RO is known as Contracts for Difference (CfD); CfD guarantees a fixed price for generators supplying energy. Where demand for Contracts exceeds available budget, competition will be used to select the best value projects. The Parliamentary statement does not confirm the details of any changes to the CfD mechanism for onshore wind.
1.3 Feed In Tariffs (FiT) provide support to micro (less than 50kW) and small (between 50kW-5MW) wind, solar photovoltaic, anaerobic digestion and hydro generating stations. From September 2015, pre-accreditation for FiT has been removed although it is likely to be reintroduced for some projects during 2016. DECC have also consulted on a review of FiTs. This consultation proposed changes to the generation tariffs, default reductions in the tariff levels on a quarterly basis (known as degression) in addition to a varying level of degression and a cap on new FiT expenditure. The consultation stated that if changes proposed were not able to control expenditure the FiT might be removed for new applicants however the DECC response to the consultation has now indicated that this will not be the case. It is expected that changes will be introduced in January 2016.
1.4 DECC estimate that around 7.1 GW of onshore wind capacity proposed across the UK will not be eligible for the RO grace period and may therefore be unlikely to go ahead as a result of the announcement of the 18 June 2015. That equates to around 250 projects totalling around 2500 turbines. 68% of the onshore wind pipeline relate to projects are in Scotland. It is not yet known what the impacts of the proposals will be within Argyll however it is not expected that existing operational onshore windfarms or those under construction will be impacted. For those that had planning permission, they may be able to apply for RO if they comply with the grace period conditions.
1.5 The changes to FiT is expected to impact on the community and domestic scale installations through lower rates of return. Shared ownership investment by communities may be impacted as a result of less schemes coming forward and potentially lower levels of profits.
1.6 Time will be required to understand the full implications of the changes to policy.
1.7 The report also highlights possible future consultation on the Renewable Heat Incentive, a continued commitment to offshore wind support (although this is unlikely to result in sites within Argyll coming forward at this stage) and the delivery of community benefit associated with existing windfarms within Argyll.
1.8 It is recommended that committee: Notes the content of this report; Notes the consultation responses attached as Appendix 3-5 to this report. ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee
Development and Infrastructure 14 January 2016
Funding for Onshore Wind
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The energy industry in Argyll is based on the use of renewable sources of power with hydro and onshore wind particularly widely deployed at scales ranging from small scale to commercial developments. We have circa 250 megawatts (MW) of operational wind turbines including 12 commercial windfarms and wholly community owned turbines on the islands of Gigha, Tiree and Islay. As well as the economic benefits derived from the construction and maintenance of these windfarms, community benefit and revenue in excess of £300,000 per annum is also generated.
2.2 Both the Single Outcome Agreement and the Economic Development Action Plan identify the positive contribution that renewables can make to the Argyll economy and seek to support development of the sector. However development of the renewables sector in Argyll is also heavily affected by activities and policies created at a Scotland and UK level.
2.3 On the 18th June 2015, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change announced that the government would cease to operate the Renewable Obligation for onshore wind from 1st April 2016, a year earlier than originally planned. This report provides an overview of the changes proposed for renewables (as at December 2015) as well as an indication of the potential impacts within Argyll.
2.4 It should be noted that full details of the proposals have not yet been revealed and that further statements on Contracts for Difference will also have an impact.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 It is recommended that committee: Notes the content of this report; Notes the consultation responses attached as Appendices 3-5 to this report. 4.0 DETAIL
4.1 In the Conservative Government’s 2015 manifesto they indicated that they would end new public subsidy for onshore windfarms. The announcement made on 18th June 2015 by the Secretary of State was the start of the process which will bring this into effect. A copy of the written statement provided to Parliament is contained at Appendix 1.
4.2 The reasoning behind the decision relates to an estimated overspend of £1.5 billion under the Levy Control Framework (LCF) which the Government argue must be tackled to prevent increased costs to consumers. LCF is the means by which the budget for low carbon subsidies is set and controlled. The UK Government has set a limit of £7.6 bn in 2020-2021 (in 2011/12 prices) and the current forecast is £9.1 bn (in 2011/12 prices). The overspend has been attributed to accelerated developments in technological efficiency, higher than expected uptake of demand-led schemes and changes in wholesale prices.
4.3 DECC also highlight the progress made to date on the targets to deliver at least 30% of the UK’s electricity demand from renewables by 2020. The Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan estimates that the UK requires between 11-13 GW of electricity to be provided by onshore wind by 2020 and currently those projects in the system are expected to meet this target. It is stated that curtailing investment in onshore wind will ensure support is available for emerging technologies.
4.4 The Scottish Government’s targets on renewables go much further than those adopted by the UK government in that they aim to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's gross annual electricity consumption and the equivalent of 11% of Scotland's heat demand met from renewable sources as well as including a target of 500 MW of community and locally-owned renewable energy, all by 2020. However, energy is predominantly a reserved matter which is dealt with by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
The Renewables Obligation 4.5 The Renewables Obligation (RO) is currently the main support mechanism for renewable electricity projects in the UK. Smaller scale generation (under 5 megawatts) is mainly supported through the Feed-In Tariff (FiT) scheme. A brief explanation of the different tariffs is contained at Appendix 2.
4.6 The RO came into effect in 2002 in Scotland. It places an obligation on UK electricity suppliers to source an increasing proportion of the electricity they supply from renewable sources.
4.7 Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are certificates issued to operators of accredited renewable generating stations for the eligible renewable electricity they generate. Accredited generators are issued ROCs based on the net renewable electricity generated each month. ROCs can then be sold directly or indirectly to suppliers who will redeem them to demonstrate that they have met their obligation. 4.8 The number of ROCs issued per megawatt hour (MWh) is determined by the technology/fuel used by the generating station, its size, its location and how long it has been accredited under the RO. Those technologies which are less established, e.g. wave and tidal, receive more ROCs per MWh than the more established forms of generation e.g. onshore wind and hydro.
4.9 The RO is scheduled to close to all new capacity on 31 March 2017. Support for capacity accredited under the RO at that date will be maintained and it will receive its full lifetime of support (usually 20 years), with grace periods offered to those who miss the closure date in certain circumstances. The announcement to Parliament indicated that support through RO for onshore wind would cease as from 1 April 2016. The early closure to largescale solar photovoltaic (PV) has already taken place.
4.10 In making the statement to Parliament, the Secretary of State proposed a grace period for onshore wind which would continue to give access to support under the RO to those projects which, as of 18 June 2015, already had planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance, and evidence of land rights for the site on which their project will be built. In October 2015, DECC indicated that in order to take advantage of the grace period the following conditions should be met:
Demonstrate that they have relevant planning consents dated no later than the date of the announcement (18 June 2015), that they have successfully appealed a planning refusal made on or before 18 June 2015; or that they have successfully appealed after not receiving a planning decision due by 18 June 2015; Demonstrate that they have a grid connection offer and acceptance of that offer, both dated no later than the date of the announcement; or confirmation that no grid connection is required; and Provide a Director’s Certificate confirming that, as at the date of announcement, the developer or proposed operator of the station owns the land on which the station is to be situated or has an option or agreement to lease the land or is party to an exclusivity agreement in relation to the land.
Projects that qualify for the proposed early closure grace period will be able to accredit under the RO up to 31 March 2017, the original RO closure date. Such projects will be able to accredit by 31 March 2018 under one of the existing grace periods for projects affected by a grid or aviation delay provided they also satisfy the eligibility criteria for at least one of those grace periods. This should give some certainty for some developers which have the relevant consents in place.
Contracts for Difference 4.11 The replacement for the RO is known as Contracts for Difference. A Contract for Difference (CfD) is a private law contract between a low carbon electricity generator and the Low Carbon Contracts Company, a government-owned company. The CfD guarantees a fixed price for generators supplying energy. 4.12 Through the CfD allocation process a strike price is agreed for each MWh generated from a particular development. The generators will then sell energy to suppliers and the cost at which they sell it at may be the same as the strike price, below it or above it. If the sales of energy by the generators are the same as the strike price, then there is no further action. If the price is below that price, it will trigger top up payments, While if the sales by the generators are at a higher price, it will result in generators paying back the difference.
4.13 The CfD mechanism reduces the risks faced by low-carbon generators by paying a variable top-up between the market price and the strike price and guaranteeing the generators a stable price per MWh over a 15 – 20 year timeframe. The CfD seeks to protects consumers by ensuring that generators pay back when the price of electricity goes above the strike price.
4.14 Where demand for Contracts exceeds available budget, competition will be used to select the best value projects. If an auction is necessary, qualifying applicants must submit a sealed bid indicating the proposed strike price for each MWh of electricity it generates. The bid can be no higher than the administratively set strike price for the technology and those that submit the lowest bids will be awarded the Contract.
4.15 The CfD also sets out milestone obligations which must be met if payment is to be made.
4.16 Whilst the Parliamentary statement does not confirm the details of any changes to the CfD mechanism, the amount of onshore wind supported through this mechanism can be controlled by adjusting the budget allocation. DECC has announced that there will be a further CfD allocation round by end 2016. Further details are expected to be published in the Spring however onshore wind is expected to be excluded from these further rounds. While this will clearly have a major impact on the onshore wind sector, the current industry view appears to be that projects planned in the best resource areas will still be able to proceed.
4.17 It is also worth noting that onshore wind costs have been reducing as deployment has increased and that indications from the industry were that they were hoping to remove the need for subsidy early in the 2020s. It is not yet known what impact the early removal of subsidies at this time would have on this.
4.18 At the time of writing the United Nations climate change conference in Paris was ongoing and it has now been announced that a deal has been agreed which attempts to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2°C. There is no confirmation as to how the UK will meet the requirements of this agreement or the impact this might have on UK energy policy.
Feed In Tariffs 4.19 In April 2010 the Feed-in Tariffs (FiT) scheme was introduced as the main means of providing support to micro (less than 50kW) and small (between 50kW-5MW) wind, solar photovoltaic, anaerobic digestion and hydro generating stations.
4.20 The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) have been considering financial support through the FiT and how this can remain affordable over the coming years.
4.21 In July 2015, DECC launched consultation regarding the removal of pre- accreditation for FiT. The level of FiT varies depending on the technology and size of the renewables scheme. FiT is subject to degression whereby the pence per kilowatt payment is reduced as take up of the technology increases (and therefore hopefully the costs associated with the technology also decrease). Pre-accreditation allowed solar PV and wind projects above 50kW as well as all hydro and anaerobic digestion projects with planning and grid consent to fix the level of FiT they would receive before commencing development of the renewables. Pre-accreditation gave those developing renewables certainty about the level of subsidy they would receive once the development was completed. This certainty was particularly useful for community projects which can find it more difficult to obtain funding for the project.
4.22 We submitted comments in relation to this consultation a copy of which is contained at Appendix 5. Following the consultation, DECC announced that pre- accreditation would be removed and as of 30 September 2015 it has not been possible to pre-accredit for FiT.
4.23 During August 2015, DECC launched a separate Consultation on a review of the Feed-in Tariffs scheme. This consultation proposed changes to the generation tariffs based on fresh evidence about costs, technology characteristics and assumptions on the rates of return new FIT participants might expect to get. Default degression (the reduction in tariffs) was identified in addition to a varying level of degression which will depend on the deployment rate of any technology. It also proposed a cap on new FiT expenditure of between £75-100m by 2018/19. The consultation stated that if changes proposed were not able to control expenditure the FiT might be removed for new applicants.
4.24 Again we responded to the consultation and our comments can be found at Appendix 3. DECC have recently issued their response to the consultation feedback which confirms that: • FiT will be retained but that some tariffs will drop considerably compared with 2015 rates. • Pre-accreditation will be re-introduced with an additional 6 months for implementation of community energy projects. • A quarterly deployment cap system will be introduced, with a queuing system for applicants who miss out. • A pause in new accreditations will apply between 15 January and 8 February 2016 following which the new tariff and deployment caps will come into effect. During this period only those projects with pre-accreditation granted before 1 October 2015 will be able to accredit.
Energy Bill 4.25 The statement to Parliament about removal of the RO for onshore wind indicated that the changes will be formalised through an Energy Bill. The Energy Bill was introduced to parliament in July 2015 and has passed through the House of Lords. It had its first reading in the House of Commons on 5 November 2015.
4.26 During scrutiny in the House of Lords the clause relating to the closure of RO for onshore wind in March 2016 was removed from the draft Bill. It is understood that this will be debated within the House of Commons.
Possible Impacts 4.27 DECC estimate that around 7.1 GW of onshore wind capacity proposed across the UK will not be eligible for the grace period and may therefore be unlikely to go ahead as a result of the announcement of the 18 June 2015. That equates to around 250 projects totalling around 2500 turbines.
4.28 It is reported that 68% of the onshore wind pipeline relate to projects are in Scotland whilst Scottish Renewables have announced that the proposals could put around two gigawatts of onshore wind projects in Scotland at risk.
4.29 It is not yet known what the impacts of the proposals will be within Argyll as these will depend upon future announcements regarding CfD however below is an indication of broad possible impacts.
It is expected that existing operational onshore windfarms will continue to operate without any change to the ROCs arrangements that they have in place; Commercial scale projects under construction – up to two projects with up to 68MW of capacity and 31 turbines – are not expected to be impacted by the decision as they should have planning, grid and land consents in place as work has already started onsite; Commercial scale onshore windfarms which had received approval prior 18 June 2015 and meet the requirements specified by DECC regarding the grace period – up to two projects with a capacity of up to 29MW, 14 turbines – may be able to apply for ROCs through the grace period; Commercial scale onshore windfarms which received approval after 18 June 2015 – two further schemes were consented after the 18 June but would not appear to be eligible to apply for RO through the grace period criteria, capacity up to 41 MW, 17 turbines; Projects not benefiting from planning consent would not appear to meet the grace period requirements for ROCs, at the time of writing there are 10 such projects (circa 140MW, 128 turbines). It is however likely that these projects would have been looking to CfD as a funding mechanism due to the lead in time for construction of larger scale windfarms. As we have not had an announcement on CfD it is difficult to indicate the possible impacts on these projects however developer and site specifics including development costs and wind resource will also play a part in final investment decisions. 4.30 Discussions with our planning colleagues indicate that most developers are progressing planning applications which had already been submitted when the DECC statement was made however they are reporting a significant decrease in the number of early proposals coming forward for scoping. These discussions also highlighted other constraints to projects coming forward including the available wind resource at a site and landscape sensitivities in some parts of Argyll which restricts wind turbine development, regardless of subsidy these factors will affect the number of sites suitable for onshore wind development across Argyll.
4.31 Discussions with an industry representative confirmed that some sites may remain viable but that there may be more demand from windfarm developers for larger turbines and those turbines with larger rotor diameters so as to maximise the energy generated.
4.32 The proposed changes to FiT will impact on the community and domestic scale installations through lower rates of return and more uncertainty as a result of quarterly caps.
4.33 FiT currently supports onshore wind projects which are less than 5MW. The DECC announcement indicated that community projects of one or two turbines would be appropriate however there are community projects which have additional turbines or are over 5MW generating capacity and these may be adversely affected.
4.34 One of the current elements of renewables policy is the desire to enable shared ownership of commercial scale projects with communities. If the removal of subsidies results in less schemes coming forward then there is likely to be less opportunity for community buy-in and potentially the share of the profits from the projects will also be reduced, this will need to be carefully considered by communities who are contemplating investment. Time will be required to see how the changes affect both shared community ownership and community benefit.
4.35 There are a number of Argyll based companies which operate within the supply chain for renewables both within Argyll and outwith. Lower levels of onshore wind development in the UK may impact these organisations.
Local Decision Making 4.36 The statement to Parliament also references changes to planning legislation to allow decisions on onshore windfarm planning applications to be made at the local level. All indications to date are that this change will only apply to England and Wales.
5.0 OTHER RENEWABLES ACTIVITY
Renewable Heat Incentive 5.1 The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is a UK Government scheme set up to encourage uptake of renewable heat technologies amongst householders, communities and businesses through financial incentives, similar to FiT. The domestic RHI provides financial support to the owner of renewable heating systems, biomass (wood and pellet fuelled) boilers, ground to water heat pumps, air to water heat pumps and solar thermal panels, for seven years. The non-domestic scheme covers additional technologies and lasts for 20 years.
5.2 Consultation on possible changes to the RHI are anticipated. The DECC statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review states “The government will increase funding for the Renewable Heat Incentive to £1.15 billion in 2021 to ensure that the UK continues to make progress towards its climate goals while reforming the scheme to improve value for money, delivering savings of almost £700 million by 2020-21.” Whilst this appears to indicate that RHI will continue, we will await further information regarding the changes which may be proposed.
Offshore wind 5.3 Whilst the Government have indicted withdrawal of financial support for onshore wind they have indicated that they will continue to support offshore wind subject to cost reductions being made. DECC have stated that “if, and only if, the Government’s conditions on cost reduction are met – we will make funding available for three [CfD] auctions in this Parliament. We intend to hold the first of these auctions by the end of 2016.” It is expected that 10GW of offshore wind will be installed by 2020.
5.4 The DECC renewable energy planning database indicates approx. 5GW of offshore wind is operational, a further 15GW has planning consent granted and 1.8GW is currently under consideration. Given this level of deployment and consent, we would not expect to see the development of Argyll based offshore wind being progressed in the immediate future.
Community Benefit 5.5 For many years onshore wind development has been accompanied with voluntary community benefit payments. Argyll and Bute Council was an early adopter of this and has had guidance in place for the last decade to seek a contribution from developers.
5.6 The earliest community benefit dates back to 1999 with total payments now exceeding £300,000 per annum and additional community benefit funds expected to start operating in 2016. The existing funds are supporting local communities in Kintyre, Lorn, Cowal and around Loch Fyne as well as enabling ALI Energy to fund an Education Officer working with schools across Argyll.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 DECC have announced that they will be closing the RO a year earlier than planned for onshore wind however a grace period will exist for some projects which had consents in place on 18 June 2015. DECC are still to make announcements regarding the CfD funding mechanism however it is not expected that there will be an allocation for onshore wind. Proposals have also been set out which will see FiTs reduced across a number of technologies, which will further impact the rollout of micro and small scale renewables. 6.2 It is difficult to understand the full implications of the announcements at this stage however it is not expected that operating windfarms or those with consents in place when the announcement was made will be directly impacted. Over the longer term, Argyll may see a reduction in renewables applications coming forward as developers concentrate on those sites with the best wind resource.
7.0 IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Policy The changes could affect the ability to achieve the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement, Economic Development Action Plan and Renewable Energy Action Plan in relation to renewables.
7.2 Financial Ceasing to offer support for onshore wind could impact upon the number of new developments coming forward which could in turn impact business rates received, community benefit etc.
7.3 Legal None
7.4 HR None
7.5 Equalities None
7.6 Risk There is a risk that this could impact economic development, the renewables supply chain and job opportunities within Argyll.
7.7 Customer Service None
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Policy Lead – Councillor A Morton 23 December 2015
For further information contact: Anna Watkiss ([email protected], 01546 604344)
APPENDICES Appendix 1 Statement to Parliament Appendix 2 Explanations of Tariffs Appendix 3 Response to Consultation on a Review of the Feed-In Tariffs Scheme Appendix 4 Controlling spending on solar PV projects of 5MW and below within the Renewables Obligation Appendix 5 Consultation on Changes to Feed-in Tariff Accreditation Appendix 1 – Statement to Parliament
Written statement to Parliament Ending new subsidies for onshore wind
From: Department of Energy & Climate Change and The Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP Delivered on: 18 June 2015 First published: 18 June 2015 Part of: Low carbon technologies
Statement by Secretary of State Amber Rudd on ending new subsidies for onshore wind.
The Government is committed to meeting objectives on cutting carbon emissions and the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets. Onshore wind has deployed successfully to-date and is an important part of our energy mix. We now have enough onshore wind in the pipeline, to be subsidised by bill payers through the Renewable Obligation or Contracts for Difference, for onshore wind to play a significant part in meeting our renewable energy commitments.
The Government was elected with a commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind and to change the law so that local people have the final say on onshore windfarm applications. We are now giving effect to these changes in full through the introduction of an Energy Bill this session. The Energy Bill will devolve powers out of Whitehall so that applications for onshore wind farms are considered by democratically elected councils.
My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is today making a statement on onshore wind development and local planning in England. This will set out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications.
I am now setting out proposals to end new subsidies for onshore wind, specifically in relation to the Renewables Obligation (RO). Onshore wind is currently subsidised through three schemes: Contracts for Difference (CfDs) introduced by the last Government, and the Renewables Obligation and Feed-in-Tariffs introduced previously.
With regard to CfDs, we have the tools available to implement our manifesto commitments on onshore wind and I will set out how I will do so when announcing plans in relation to further CfD allocations. I will also shortly be considering options for continued support for community onshore wind projects through the feed-in tariff (FiTs) as part of the review that my department is conducting this year.
The RO supports the overwhelming majority of current and future onshore wind capacity. Unlike CfDs, which introduce competition for subsidy and therefore drive costs down more quickly, the RO is demand-led and so poses more risk of pressure on consumer bills from increased demand for the subsidy. I am therefore announcing today that we will be introducing primary legislation to close the RO to new onshore wind from 1st April 2016 – a year earlier than planned.
My department’s analysis indicates that, after taking into account an early closure, onshore wind deployment under the RO will be in the region of 11.6GW. In addition to the 0.75GW of onshore wind that has secured a CfD, this puts us above the middle of the range set out in the EMR Delivery Plan, our best estimate of what we would need to meet our 2020 targets. It is therefore appropriate to curtail further deployment of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public.
To protect investor confidence in the wider renewables sector, I am proposing a grace period which would continue to give access to support under the RO to those projects which, as of today, already have planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance, and evidence of land rights for the site on which their project will be built. I believe this draws the line in the right place but I want to hear views from the industry and other stakeholders before framing the terms of the legislation.
I intend that any final proposals are applied across Great Britain and I am in the process of consulting with Scottish and Welsh Ministers on this matter. Since energy policy is devolved in Northern Ireland, I am currently in discussions with Ministers there to agree how our commitments on onshore wind will be implemented in Northern Ireland. Appendix 2 Explanations of Tariffs (As at 10 December 2015)
Renewables Obligation – information from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-low-carbon- technologies/2010-to-2015-government-policy-low-carbon-technologies#appendix-5-the- renewables-obligation-ro
DECC introduced the Renewables Obligation (RO) in 2002 to provide incentives for the deployment of large-scale renewable electricity in the UK. The RO requires licensed UK electricity suppliers to source a specified proportion of the electricity they provide to customers from eligible renewable sources. This proportion (known as the ‘obligation’) is set each year and has increased annually. In the UK there are 3 obligations for England & Wales, Scotland (managed by the Scottish Government) and Northern Ireland.
This is how the RO works: 1. The level of the annual obligation on electricity suppliers is published by 1 October in the year before it comes into effect, e.g. the obligation for the financial year starting 1 April 2015 was published on 1 October 2014. 2. Eligible renewable electricity generators report the amount of renewable electricity they generate on a monthly basis to the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). 3. Ofgem issues Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to electricity generators relating to the amount of eligible renewable electricity they generate. 4. Generators sell their ROCs to suppliers (or traders), which allows them to receive a premium in addition to the wholesale electricity price. 5. Suppliers present their ROCs to Ofgem to demonstrate their compliance with the RO. Suppliers who do not present enough ROCs to meet their obligation must pay a penalty (known as the ‘buy-out price’). 6. The money Ofgem collects in the buy-out and late payment funds is re-distributed on a pro-rata basis to suppliers who presented ROCs.
The RO will close to new generators on 31 March 2017. Electricity generation that is accredited under the RO will continue to receive its full lifetime of support (20 years) until the scheme closes in 2037.
ROCs are tradeable commodities that have no fixed price. The amount an electricity supplier pays for a ROC is a matter for negotiation between the supplier and generator. Suppliers can meet their obligation by: presenting ROCs making a buy-out payment to Ofgem to cover any shortfall in the number of ROCs requirement (set at £43.30 per ROC for 2014/15) a combination of both
Contracts for Difference –information from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-contracts-for-difference
The Contract for Difference (CFD) for renewable energy is a key mechanism of Electricity Market Reform. A Contract for Difference (CFD) is a private law contract between a low carbon electricity generator and the Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), a government-owned company. A generator party to a CFD is paid the difference between the ‘strike price’ – a price for electricity reflecting the cost of investing in a particular low carbon technology – and the ‘reference price’– a measure of the average market price for electricity in the GB market. It gives greater certainty and stability of revenues to electricity generators by reducing their exposure to volatile wholesale prices, whilst protecting consumers from paying for higher support costs when electricity prices are high.
At 7 am on the 26 February 2015, DECC published the first CFD auction results and statistics. This ensured that the results of the auction were fully transparent and allowed the market to act accordingly. Those who were successful in the auction had until 27 March to sign the CFD.
CFDs provide long-term price stabilisation to low carbon plant, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. CFDs require generators to sell energy into the market as usual but, to reduce exposure to fluctuating electricity prices and provide a variable top-up from the market price to a pre-agreed ‘strike price’. At times when the market price exceeds the strike price, the generator is required to pay back the difference, thus protecting consumers from over-payment.
Feed-in Tariff Scheme Domestic –information from http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/domestic/feed-tariff-scheme
If you install an electricity-generating technology from a renewable or low-carbon source, the UK Government's Feed-in Tariffs scheme (FITs) could mean that you get money from your energy supplier. You can be paid for the electricity you generate, even if you use it yourself, and for any surplus electricity you export to the grid.
Feed-in Tariffs were introduced on 1 April 2010 and replaced UK government grants as the main financial incentive to encourage uptake of renewable electricity-generating technologies. Most domestic technologies qualify for the scheme, including: solar electricity (PV) (roof mounted or stand alone) wind turbines (building mounted or free standing) hydroelectricity anaerobic digesters micro combined heat and power (CHP)
The UK Government's Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) makes the key decisions on FITs in terms of government policy. The energy regulator Ofgem administers the scheme.
For you to qualify for FITs, the installer and the products you use must both be certified under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), except hydro and anaerobic digestion which have to go through the ROO-FIT process. The tariffs you receive depend on both the eligibility date and, for solar PV, your property’s Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating. Once you are receiving FIT payments, the rate you get will increase in line with inflation in accordance with the Retail Price Index (RPI). The tables below summarise the latest tariffs available for each technology.
Feed in Tariff Non-Domestic –information from https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2015/01/fit_non_pv_tariff_table_for_1_april _2015_0.pdf
Tariffs are available for the same technologies as domestic but up to different installed capacities.
Renewable Heat Incentive Domestic – information from http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/renewable-heat-incentive The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is a UK Government scheme set up to encourage uptake of renewable heat technologies amongst householders, communities and businesses through financial incentives. It is the first of its kind in the world and the UK Government expects the RHI to contribute towards the 2020 ambition of 12% of heating coming from renewable sources.
The domestic RHI was launched on 9th April 2014 and provides financial support to the owner of the renewable heating system for seven years. The UK Government's Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) makes key policy decisions and energy regulator Ofgem E-Serve administers the scheme. The amount you receive will depend on a number of factors - including the technology you install, the latest tariffs available for each technology and - in some cases - metering. The following technologies are supported. Biomass (wood fuelled) boilers Biomass pellet stoves with integrated boilers providing space heating Ground to water heat pumps Air to water heat pumps Solar thermal panels (flat plate or evacuated tube only) providing hot water for your home
Non-domestic Renewable Heat Incentive – information from https://www.gov.uk/non- domestic-renewable-heat-incentive
The non-domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) helps businesses, public sector and non- profit organisations meet the cost of installing renewable heat technologies. You can claim for: biomass heat pumps (ground source, water source and air source) deep geothermal solar thermal collectors biomethane and biogas combined heat and power (CHP) systems Payments are made over 20 years and are based on the heat output of your system. APPENDIX 3 RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON A REVIEW OF THE FEED-IN TARIFFS SCHEME Response
1. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed generation tariff rates set out above? Please provide reasons to support your answer.
Disagree.
We have some serious concerns regarding the Feed In Tariff levels set out in Figure 2 of the consultation documents which appear insufficient to enable some renewable projects to proceed. The significantly low levels of FIT proposed, particularly when coupled with the removal of pre-accreditation, will not give sufficient returns for many potential renewable developers to take on the risk of progressing a renewables scheme.
As a Council we have been looking closely at both our carbon generation and the costs associated with running Council premises, which can be higher than average due to a reliance on oil and electric powered heating systems and very limited access to the gas network. We have been actively progressing opportunities for renewable developments. The majority of deployments to date have been in relation to solar PV panels.
We are committed to reducing our carbon footprint and costs but can only look to implement schemes where it represents an efficient and effective use of public money. Solar is one of the easier forms of renewables to implement with some of the most predictable returns and has been most widely installed to date. In order to make the investment worthwhile however we would be looking for a payback period of circa 12yrs (being the top end payback approved by Council to date). The significant reduction in FIT for solar projects is likely to impact some of the potential schemes and means that we will not be in a position to maximise carbon reductions.
As an area Argyll and Bute also has an excellent wind and hydro resource and the opportunity for small scale business or community based renewable developments is widespread. It is the case that we have a number of existing projects including The Dancing Ladies of Gigha (3 turbines with a capacity of 675 kW), Tilley (a 950 kw turbine on Tiree), Merk Hydro (a 1 MW run of river hydro scheme at Cairndow) and Garmony Hydro (a 400 kw hydroelectric scheme) on Mull. All of these projects, and a number of others across Argyll, have been developed by community groups to generate clean, local electricity and also provide a much needed long-term and sustainable income for these remote and fragile communities.
However despite being an area with a significant natural renewable resource our communities have often faced significant constraints in regard to developing renewable projects as a consequence of a lack of Grid capacity especially on our islands, of which we have 23 that are inhabited, and our more remote mainland locations. This has meant that our communities have not been allowed to benefit from the higher FIT’s rate as much as some other areas and communities across the UK as a consequence of this constraint. This has also had an impact on the ability of the Council to take forward their own renewable projects. In light of the fact that there has not been fair access to the FIT allocation for our communities it is felt that this provides even more justification as to why any new FIT rates should allow this position to be addressed and priority should be given to both community and Council renewable projects. We have concerns that at the rates set down in Figure 2, communities would be unable to proceed with renewables projects especially as these often have to be scaled back to take account of the Grid constraint making projects even more marginal in regard to their business case and payback. The level of risk associated with these high cost, high uncertainty projects would be just too much for a community organisation to take on. We would support a higher rate of feed in tariff for local community organisations as well as a reintroduction of pre-accreditation.
A number of local, rural businesses (such as farms) have also utilised renewables as a cost effective way to reduce overheads and small scale solar, wind and hydro exists across the area. The Council itself has also looked to develop renewables as a mechanism to reduce overheads and meet carbon targets. We have concerns that the proposed changes to the FIT would impact on the Council, communities and the number of business able to invest in this type of technology, which in turn could impact upon their viability in what is often already very challenging conditions. It is critical that there is long term with regard to the FIT rates to remove uncertainty enable planning and fundraising opportunity to be realized.
Community groups should be given better opportunity and this should include the public sector as we are a part of the community and work with the community; and the benefits effectively fall to the tax-payer.
2. Do you agree or disagree that the updated assumptions produced by Parsons Brinckerhoff are reflective of the current costs of deployment for UK projects in your sector? If you disagree, please set out how they differ and provide documented evidence, such as invoices and/or contractual agreements to support this evidence. Please also mark this evidence as commercially sensitive where appropriate.
We disagree with the cost assumptions.
Using wind as an example We are currently progressing a wind turbine proposal however the Capex bears no resemblance to the Parsons Brinckerhoff report which appear to be vastly underestimated. The turbine (rated at 60 kw and to be installed in a rural location) has Capex of £6,257/kw.
In addition the Opex figures also appear to be far too low; we are expecting Opex to be in the region of £129/kw/annum.
We note that 3.2.1.6 of the Parsons Brinckerhoff report states that “smaller projects (typically <50kW) can often be connected to localised distribution boards (such as in domestic/commercial properties) in place of being connected to a substation, which therefore incurs no grid connection cost”. However in the case of the wind turbine (which is to be limited to 50kw of embedded generation due to grid constraints) grid connections charges in the region of £11,000 have been applied and it is not therefore appropriate to assume that small projects will not have costs to bear in relation to grid.
For many communities in Argyll, the grid constraints are such that the grid connection costs are prohibitive or the time delays associated with grid improvements make a project unviable. 3. Do you consider the proposed default degression pathways fairly reflect future cost and bill savings assumptions in your sector? Please provide your reasoning, supported by appropriate evidence where possible.
-
4. Do you consider it appropriate to harmonise the triggers for contingent degression across all technologies, and do you consider the proposed triggers will ensure tariffs reflect falling deployment costs? Please provide your reasoning, supported by appropriate evidence where possible.
-
5. Which of the options for changing the export tariff outlined above would best incentivise renewable electricity deployment while controlling costs and enabling the development of the PPA market? How should we account for the additional and avoided costs to suppliers associated with exports in setting the export tariff? Please provide reasons to support your answer.
-
6. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the indexation link under the FITs scheme? Please provide reasons to support your answer.
-
7. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal not to include any additional technologies in the FITs scheme? Please provide reasons for your response.
At this stage, and given the existing pressure on the FIT budget we agree that it is appropriate to continue to concentrate resources on those technologies which already benefit from the FIT.
8. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce deployment caps under the FITs scheme? Please provide your reasoning.
Whilst we understand the need to control costs and the fact that caps will provide a mechanism to assist in doing this we have serious concerns about the uncertainty that this will introduce to projects, especially since the removal of the ability to pre-accredit generation. If quarterly caps are to be introduced, we would request that a form of pre- accreditation is offered again so that those starting a renewables project can seek some certainty that they will be able to obtain FIT once the scheme is up and running.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed design of the system of caps (i.e. quarterly deployment caps broken down by technology and degression band)? If you disagree, are there any alternative approaches? Please provide your reasoning, making clear if your answer is different for different technologies or sectors.
If degression caps are to be deployed then they should be set in such a way as they enable the relevant industries to move to a position where the renewable technology can operate profitably for the generator without subsidy. Separate deployment caps for the different technologies and bands would seem appropriate to ensure that all the technologies can be progressed however where there is less than the deployment cap in any quarter this surplus should be rolled forward to the next quarter to enable further deployment at the new FIT rate.
10. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to implementing caps? If you disagree, are there any alternative approaches that you’d suggest? Please provide your reasoning, making clear if your answer is different for different technologies or sectors and provide any views on what should happen to applications for FITs for installations which miss out on a cap.
Notwithstanding our concerns regarding the impacts of the caps, we would support a mechanism where at the point that the cap is reached all those who have applications in the system are rolled into the next quarter. Those schemes which do not make the current quarter will already be disadvantaged by the reduction in FIT rate (without benefiting from any reducing deployment costs) and should be guaranteed to get accreditation within the next period.
We would support the reintroduction of a form of pre-accreditation so that those developing renewables could fix their FIT rate based on an expected date for commencement of generation.
If caps are to be introduced a transparent monitoring system will be required so that potential renewable developers can understand how much of the cap remains in any quarter and historically how much of the cap has been used.
11. If it is not possible to sufficiently control costs of the scheme at a level that Government considers affordable and sustainable, what would be the impact of ending the provision of a generation tariff for new entrants to the scheme from January 2016, ahead of the 2018-19 timeframe or, alternatively, further reducing the size of the scheme’s remaining budget available for the cap? Please consider the immediate and broader economic impacts and provide your reasoning.
We would have serious concerns that early closure of the scheme would significantly impact on renewables deployment at a community and local level, this would appear contrary to the DECC Community Energy Strategy.
If our communities were unable to progress renewable energy schemes because of the removal of FIT, they would not benefit from the costs reductions and revenue generation associated with these which would have serious implications for moving towards more sustainable futures. In many locations across Argyll the communities are remote and in some cases very fragile. The electricity generated by some small-scale renewables helps to support facilities such as village halls whilst some of the larger community renewables provide valuable revenue which supports a range of community activities many of which would be unable to take place without such support.
There are many calls on local communities to deliver facilities and services but this can only be done if they are given the appropriate resources. Investing in renewables is a way in which communities can generate their own income and can secure a long-term revenue stream to support their ambitions and the Government should be doing all that they can to support them in this.
In addition we would have concerns that there are viable projects which were not able to pre-accredit and perhaps will not be ready to get accreditation before any removal of FIT but which have already progressed significantly through the development process (especially likely for wind, hydro and AD projects). These projects have been progressed in good faith and should be able to benefit from the FIT.
We would not support the removal of FIT.
12. What would be the impact of pausing applications to FITs for new generators for a short specified period to allow the full implementation of the cost control mechanisms? Please consider the immediate and broader economic impacts and provide your reasoning.
Pausing applications for a short period of time would add to the uncertainty surrounding the FIT regime and would act as a break to renewable energy deployment. We would not support a pause in FIT applications.
13. What would be the impact if FITs continued as an export-only tariff for new generators on reaching the cap of £75-100m additional expenditure? Please provide your reasoning.
FIT should seek to get to a position where the renewable schemes can progress without the need for subsidy. Assuming this could be achieved then continuation as an export only tariff would be acceptable. If the need for subsidy has not been removed within the budget cap then deployment of renewables, which would continue to drive down costs, would be inhibited and we would not support this situation.
14. Do you have any views on the use of competition to prioritise applications within a system of caps? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach? What forms of competition may be appropriate and is this different for different sorts of installations? Please provide your reasoning.
We would not support the use of competition to prioritise applications; those developing renewables should have as much certainty as possible regarding their ability to claim FIT.
15. Should FITs be focussed on either particular technologies or particular groups (e.g. householders)? Please provide your reasoning.
We would prefer a situation where FIT is available to all however should it be determined that availability should be restricted then we would support the focus being on communities, rural businesses and the public sector.
As we have stated elsewhere renewable development within communities can provide a valuable income and can help them to provide the services and facilities which they need.
Continued support for renewables within rural businesses can help to sustain businesses and to cover additional costs which might be associated with their location in rural locations e.g. a reliance on electric or oil heating systems. Development of renewables by the public sector can also help to reduce running costs of premises which can be important for continued service provision especially given reducing budgets in many areas. Savings and revenue generated from a renewables scheme can help to support public services for the benefit of all, especially those most vulnerable in society.
16. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove the ability of installations to extend their capacity under the FITs scheme? Please provide your reasoning
-
17. Given our intention to move to fully metered exports for all generators, do you agree with the proposal that new and existing generators should be obliged to accept the offer of a smart meter (or advanced meter) when it is made by their supplier? Please provide reasoning for your response.
We would have no objection to this proposal but would have concerns that the infrastructure may not currently be in place for large parts of Argyll to enable the installation of smart meters. The limitations of any infrastructure required for smart meters should not constrain the ability of those within Argyll applying to get the FIT.
18. Do you agree or disagree with the alternative proposal that new applicants must have a smart meter (or advanced meter) installed before applying to the FITs scheme, with existing generators being obliged to accept the offer of a smart meter (or advanced meter) when it is made by their supplier? Please provide reasoning for your response.
Disagree. As stated above we have concerns that the infrastructure may not currently be in place for large parts of Argyll to enable the installation of smart meters. The limitations of current infrastructure should not constrain the ability of those within Argyll applying to get the FIT.
19. Do you have any views on possible approaches to introducing remote reading for generation meters? Please provide reasoning for your response.
-
20. Do you agree or disagree that recipients of FITs should be required to notify the relevant DNO of new installations as a condition of the scheme?
We would have no objection to a requirement to notify the relevant DNO however this requirement should not introduce additional costs or restrictions over and above those already in existence. In most parts of Argyll generation is constrained to 50kw and we would not support changes which constrained this further. Where DNO’s are involved (grid connection applications, meter installations, witness testing etc) in the FIT process, it is important that they do not introduce bureaucracy and extend application etc timelines.
21. Do you agree or disagree the FITs scheme should be amended to include requirements that help mitigate and limit the impact on grids such as requiring generation to be co-located with demand or storage?
Disagree. There are already significant constraints associated with grid access in Argyll which limit the opportunity for installing renewable technology significantly adding to the costs and can causing considerable delays and uncertainty. We would not support any requirement which exacerbated this situation.
22. Do you agree or disagree that the FITs scheme or wider networks regime should be amended to ensure generators pick-up the costs they impose on the network?
Disagree. Generators are already required to pay significant costs associated with grid connections and we do not believe that these should be increased (especially given the additional uncertainties being introduced as a result of changes to the FIT regime). Small- scale generators should not be required to pay for existing issues associated with the wider grid system, there is a need for sufficient grid capacity to be provided and local distributed networks should be upgraded where there are capacity issues.
23. Do you agree or disagree that payments to newly accredited AD installations, at all scales, are conditional on meeting the proposed sustainability criteria? Please provide your reasoning.
-
24. Do you agree or disagree that the proposed criteria and GHG trajectories set out above would set the necessary bar to meet our objective to incentivise the multiple benefits from waste-fed AD? Can you suggest alternative criteria which would help to achieve this goal? Please provide reasoning and evidence for your answer.
-
25. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed reporting system to underpin sustainability criteria? Please provide your reasoning.
-
26. Do you agree or disagree that only imported renewable electricity produced by generators in other EU Member States that are under 5MW and commission on or after 1 April 2010 should be used to offset levelisation costs? Please provide your reasoning.
-
27. Do you agree or disagree that we should introduce a cap on the amount of overseas generated renewable electricity that can be exempt from the costs of the scheme? Do you agree that the cap for 2016/17 should be calculated based on the number of GoOs recognised in 2013/14, increased by 10% twice to match the cap under the CFD Supplier Obligation?
- 28. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the FITs legislation to refer to specific versions of relevant MCS standards? Please provide your reasoning?
-
29. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposal to use interest accrued on the FITs Levelisation Fund to part-fund administrative changes to the scheme which would otherwise be borne through public funding? Please provide your reasoning.
-
30. Do you agree or disagree with the revision being considered to increase the energy efficiency threshold to EPC band C for anyone with an installation to which the criteria apply? Please provide your reasoning.
Disagree.
The Council is actively looking at the ways that it can minimise its energy use and make its buildings more efficient however it has a wide range of buildings some of which are less energy efficient due to their construction, age etc. The ability to install renewable technologies, in addition to any appropriate energy saving measures, is an important part of reducing our carbon footprint and lowering the running costs of these buildings. We would have serious concerns about the proposed change and the impact that this would have on the Council’s rollout of renewable energy technology which would in effect be limited to only the most efficient buildings and schools.
We would also be concerned about impact that this would have on rural businesses, many of which look to install renewables to reduce running costs but which may also operate from premises which are less energy efficient.
The consultation document acknowledges that whilst 75% of homes fall within an EPC rating of A-D just 25-30% fall within A-C. To increase the EPC rating to band C would disadvantage those that currently have lower energy efficiency levels but are looking to reduce their carbon footprint. Furthermore, many homes across Argyll are reliant on electric and oil heating systems as gas networks are not widely available. The Energy Saving trust acknowledges that currently “mains gas is one of the cheapest forms of fuel” and therefore those using even highly efficient oil or electric heating systems will get a lower rating.
The 2014: Rural Scotland in Focus Report identifies that “Fuel poverty is in part a result of the higher prevalence of houses that are ‘off-gas’ and are therefore often heated via more expensive means such as fuel oil. Nationally, in 2012 approximately 10% of households are off-gas, with 54% of rural households being off-gas… Fuel poverty is also a function of older housing stock being less energy efficient … This is also related to the difficulties in increasing the energy efficiency of rural homes, which are often older with solid walls, limiting uptake of insulation schemes.”
Premises across Argyll should not be penalised because they are unable to access main gas or are of a construction where improving energy efficiency is difficult or costly to undertake, they should still be entitled to apply for FIT where installation of renewable energy can play a part in making their premises more energy efficient and reducing their running costs.
31. Do you agree or disagree with the revision being considered to remove FITs eligibility from anyone with an installation to which the criteria apply who does not have at least an EPC band C? Please provide your reasoning.
Disagree. This would exclude premises across Argyll which are keen to utilise renewable energy as a way of reducing their carbon emissions, reducing their running costs and providing an income. Those premises which are already at a disadvantage because of higher heating costs associated with oil and electric heating would be further disadvantaged.
32. Do you agree or disagree with the exceptions for community groups, schools and fuel poor households to the revision to the energy efficiency criteria being considered? Please provide your reasoning.
We would prefer no changes were made to the EPC requirements however if these are made we would agree that exemptions should be put in place but consider that these exemptions should be extended to include all public sector buildings, rural businesses and those premises which are unable to access the mains gas network.
The 2014: Rural Scotland in Focus Report states that “Housing conditions in rural Scotland lead to a greater likelihood of experiencing fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty compared with the rest of Scotland. Such poverty has been declining nationally, but less so in rural Scotland due to older housing stock and off-grid (54%) properties. Indeed, amongst those off-gas grid, fuel poverty has increased.” We would support an exemption which covered those areas where access to the gas grid is not possible. Appendix 4 Controlling spending on solar PV projects of 5MW and below within the Renewables Obligation Consultation 28/08/2015 – Submission by (02/09/2015) Q.1 - Do you agree with our projections for the amount of new solar PV capacity likely to deploy under the RO in 2015/16 and 2016/17? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your answer. No specific comments
Q.2 - Do you agree with the proposal to control the costs of the LCF by early closure of the RO to new solar PV projects of 5MW and below from 1 April 2016? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your answer. Argyll and Bute Council through its Renewable Energy Action Plan (REAP) seeks to place our communities at the heart of renewable energy development by taking full advantage of our unique and significant mix of indigenous renewable resources and to maximize local economic opportunities for the future. In addition the Council itself operates within the Argyll and Bute Renewable Sourcing Strategy Framework, the framework seeks to ensure that the Council is making best use of its assets and securing carbon reduction providing that the costs and revenue generation represents best value for the public investment being made. The sourcing strategy highlights scenarios where various renewable technologies would be appropriate, one of which is solar.
The removal of the RO contract would bring uncertainty into the process and to the development of projects themselves, as its withdrawal and the further review of the FIT legislation introduces greater economic uncertainty into developing and future renewable projects
Such Economic uncertainty has the potential to hinder if not withdraw solar uptake, with regards to not only Council but also community based projects where confidence can be particularly fragile .
Argyll and Bute Council voices concern over the proposed changes, as early closure of the RO would conflict with the projects being planned and for which costs may already have been incurred.
Q.3 - Do you agree that deployment costs for solar PV projects of 5MW and below have reduced significantly since the last banding review? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your answer. No evidence to provide at this point
Q.4 - Do you agree with the proposal to control the costs of the LCF by the removal of grandfathering for solar PV projects of 5MW and below that are not accredited as of the date of this consultation? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your answer. Legislation applies to England and Wales Q.5 - Do you agree with the proposed grace periods for early closure, including the date from which eligibility would apply and their duration of one year? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your answer. Due to the nature of the solar developments, they are predominantly quicker through the project development stages due to the specifics of the technology and the accompanying planning and legislative framework, thus making the proposed grace period of a year suitable for the smaller scale commercial instillations (predominant project size within Argyll and Bute).
Q.6 - Do you agree with the proposed exception from the removal of grandfathering, including the date from which eligibility would apply? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your answer. Legislation applies to England and Wales
Q.7 - Do you agree with the proposed forms of evidence to demonstrate eligibility for the grace periods? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your answer, specifying the form(s) of evidence to which each comment relates. With regards to the forms of economic eligibility, the council stresses the need for a well-structured and detailed framework. As there Is a wide variance with regards to project sizes and economics involved, highlighting the fact that every project has a different scenario and nature:
Economics: With the introduction of simplistic eligibility systems communities projects could be categorised within inaccurate economic boundaries, the proposal does not take into account the fact that economic input will be different from one project to the next, with regards to independent characteristics. The introduction of a detailed system or accompanying legislation will allow for the correct categorisation with regards to the project nature thus dictating grace period eligibility.
Grid Connection: Due to the geographic constraints of Argyll and Bute, grid connection is a primary concern. Due to the underlying constraints of the grid, it can be a difficult and timely process to obtain grid offer/acceptance due to the limited capacity and high demand for connection. This often means that projects face a difficult and prolonged process which potentially conflicts with the grace period eligibility due to time periods.
Q.8 - Do you agree with the proposed forms of evidence to demonstrate eligibility for the exception from the removal of grandfathering? Please give reasons and provide evidence to support your answer, specifying the form(s) of evidence to which each comment relates. Legislation applies to England and Wales Appendix 5 Consultation on Changes to Feed-in Tariff Accreditation
In response to your consultation document we would like to make the following comments.
1. Do you agree that, in the context of deployment and spend under the FIT scheme significantly exceeding expectations, it is appropriate to remove the ability to pre-accredit from the FIT scheme? We have significant concerns that the removal of the pre-accreditation process within the FIT scheme will have a significant detrimental impact on community renewable energy projects. These projects are often taken forward with a view of securing much needed revenue for often fragile or remote communities. The revenue generated from these projects can help to create a more sustainable community including supporting services and facilities which otherwise may not be available to residents and visitors despite being widely available elsewhere.
The proposals introduce uncertainty in the achievable FiT rate at the point where significant investment is required in a project for progressing development (e.g. ordering of equipment, securing grid capacity, etc.). In stark contrast to the assumption made in the consultation document this proposal has already led to those bodies that would be financing these projects (banks, third party investors and individuals) to re-consider their position, we have been made aware of a particular circumstance where one bank providing community groups with non-recourse finance will not lend to sites that are not able to pre-accredit. The proposed changes, if implemented, will therefore lead to projects which have made significant progress in development not being able to secure finance from third party lenders.
Development of community renewables projects is supported by the Community Energy Strategy which states that “Community-led action can often tackle challenges more effectively than government alone, developing solutions to meet local needs, and involving local people. Putting communities in control of the energy they use can help maintain energy security and tackle climate change; help people save money on their energy bills; and have wider social and economic benefits.”
Financing existing community projects is extremely challenging especially given that they often don’t have the existing financial backing or assets which established developers may benefit from. The pre-accreditation process enables organisations to set out a clear business case based on the payment levels locked in through the pre-accreditation process. The removal of the level of certainty which the pre-accreditation process brings and the inability to prepare a robust business case is likely to further exacerbate the issue of accessing finance and would be contrary to the desire to encourage community energy.
We are also concerned that if any change in the ability to pre-accredit was brought forward quickly and without a grace period it could negatively impact projects which are already progressing (based on an assumption that they would be able to pre-accredit) and where significant amounts of funding have been spent undertaking the feasibility and preparatory works required before pre-accreditation is possible.
In addition to community projects we would also be concerned about the impact of removing the ability to pre-accredit on public sector projects. The Council is actively investigating opportunities for renewable energy projects as a way of reducing carbon generation and facility running costs (which is particularly important as many of our buildings are reliant on oil or electric heating systems). Development of projects can only be progressed where there is a positive business case to do so, removal of the pre-accreditation process would increase the uncertainty associated with some of these projects and may impact our ability to deliver some projects.
We do not agree that it is appropriate to remove the pre-accreditation process from the FIT scheme, particularly in relation to the community energy sector.
2. Are the assumptions made above on the impact of removing pre-accreditation reasonable? Please provide robust evidence to support your response. We consider it is reasonable to assume that the impact of removing pre-accreditation will be that some projects may not come forward however we note that there is no specific consideration as to how this is likely to affect community developers although the additional difficulties associated with community development are acknowledged through the additional time limits associated with community development under the current FIT pre-accreditation scheme. We would be keen to see further detail regarding how the proposals are likely to impact on community schemes and what could be done to mitigate these issues given the support provided by government to community energy.
Developers who have made significant financial commitments to be ready to pre-accredit in the current period should not be unfairly penalised by the consultation, which would not have been possible to plan for. We are of the view that there should not be a closure of the pre-accreditation process until the end of the year (31st of December 2015). This was the timeframe that most projects that are currently in planning, or in the final stage prior to submitting planning, have been working towards. These projects have committed significant development costs (for example on planning costs, securing grid and property agreements
3. Are there additional measures which could achieve the objectives of encouraging deployment under the scheme while ensuring value for money under the LCF? No specific suggestions in regard to this.
4. Are there groups or sectors where it may be appropriate to reintroduce pre-accreditation in the future? It would be appropriate for community or third sector groups developing their own renewable projects to be able to pre-accredit. The projects developed by these groups are often the ones which are viewed as the higher risk and which are the most difficult to secure funding against. Without pre-accreditation this position will be further exacerbated.
Please note that these views are an officer response and have not been ratified by Council or Council committee. We would be grateful if you could please acknowledge receipt of these comments in due course.
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Environment Development and Infrastructure Committee
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14th January 2016
FILM IN ARGYLL AND BUTE
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of the work of the council in attracting inward investment into Argyll and Bute from the screen industries and the economic opportunities that this brings to the area including the opportunities to promote and market the area as well as the increased opportunity that this provides from a tourism perspective.
Development of Screen Industries fits with government targets for developing the economy and is identified as a growth sector. This is part fuelled by the UK’s 25% tax relief for film and high end TV production and the new Scottish £1.7 million Production Growth Fund. In addition, it is hoped that an announcement of a film studio for Scotland will be made soon.
The screen industries have the potential to not only bring production spend to the local economy but to be a catalyst for the growth of the tourism industry in Argyll based on film tourism or simply through advertising the area. For the year January 2015 to November 2015, Argyll and Bute received 106 enquiries and there have been 48 productions filmed during the year with one proposed. This has resulted in a production spend of £524,500, with 603 cast and crew involved and 118 filming days.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That members note the contents of this report and the accompanying presentation both of which provide an update on the service that we offer to the screen industries, the resulting enquiries that we receive, productions that are being filmed in Argyll and Bute, the economic benefit that results and the benefit that this brings in attracting tourism to the area
1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Environment Development and Infrastructure Committee
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14th January 2016
FILM IN ARGYLL AND BUTE
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 This report provides an overview of the work of the council in attracting inward investment into Argyll and Bute from the screen industries and the economic opportunities that this brings to the area including the opportunities to promote and market the area as well as the increased opportunity that this provides from a tourism perspective.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 That members note the contents of this report and the accompanying presentation both of which provide an update on the service that we offer to the screen industries, the resulting enquiries that we receive, productions that are being filmed in Argyll and Bute, the economic benefit that results and the benefit that this brings in attracting tourism to the area
4.0 DETAILS
4.1 Development of Screen Industries fits with government targets for developing the economy and is identified as a growth sector. In April 2014 Creative Scotland (CS) published its 10-year Strategic Plan, Unlocking Potential, Embracing Ambition. This presented a shared vision for the arts, screen and creative industries for the next ten years. At its heart is a set of ambitions and priorities that will focus and inform the work of CS as well as their funding guidelines and decisions over the period 2014–2017. Following on from this in October 2014 Creative Scotland published its Film Strategy 2014-17, http://www.creativescotland.com/resources/our-publications/plans-and-strategy- documents/film-strategy-2014-17 detailing priorities for the film sector over the next three years. The Film Strategy explains how CS will work with the sector and public partners within the context of the ambitions and the opportunities that the screen industry sector play in growing the economy of Scotland.
4.2 There are a number of tax incentives that are provided at a UK and Scottish Government level to attract the screen industries to the UK and Scotland. In April 2015 the UK Government announced a new £2million Tax Credit Advance facility 2 offering loans against the proceeds of the UK Film, High –End TV, and Animation Tax Credits. Following on from this, in September 2015, CS announced a new £1.7 million Production Growth Fund which gives film and television drama producers a new incentive to base their production in Scotland. CS has stated that a national film studio is fundamental to developing the screen sector, and they are hopeful that an announcement on this will be made in the near future. The location of a national film studio in the central belt close to Glasgow would have the potential to bring benefit to Argyll and Bute given the proximity of some of our area to the central belt “within an hour of Glasgow” . Anything within this travel distance has proven an important criterion for attracting filming into Argyll and our more popular locations include Luss, Glen Douglas, the Rest and Be Thankful and Cowal
4.3 Creative Scotland facilitates a Screen Locations Network made up of mostly local authority film offices, including Argyll and Bute, who work to an agreed protocol. This protocol is based on providing information on locations, crew etc and facilitating productions in the area as well as promotion of locations. CSL work closely with The British Film Commission (BFC) and British Film Industry to promote production in the UK. International enquiries are fed into CSL, who in turn pass this on to local film offices. CSL have a recce fund of £80,000pa for Scotland, with a ceiling of £3,000 per recce. This is available to productions considering Argyll and Bute as a location.
4.4 For the year Jan 2015 to December 2015, Argyll and Bute received 110 enquiries and there have been 48 productions filmed during the year with one proposed. This has resulted in a production spend of £524,500 with 603 cast and crew involved and 118 filming days. Within the year this included:
Filming on Islay and Jura for a Kode and Hologic commercial consisting of 46 cast and crew for four days. A feature film remake of Whisky Galore. This involved a cast and crew of approximately 80 at Geilston House and Gardens for five days and 48 for two days at Luss. • Florence and the Machine latest video featuring “Queen of Peace” and “Long & Lost” was filmed at Easdale Island and Ellenabeich and involved 2 days of filming, with 65 cast and crew members, six of which were locally cast. To date there has been over 3 million viewings of the YouTube video with many comments on the fantastic cinematic visuals of the location. Two BBC productions, each comprising of a cast and crew of 60. These were From Darkness, a new drama filmed around Tayvallich, Ardfern and Ellenabeich for nine days and recently shown on prime time Sunday evening, and still to be aired, Stag, a BBC comedy filmed around Glen Douglas, The Rest and Be Thankful, Glen Kinglas and Garelochhead Training Camp for 13 days.
4.5 Screen industries development meets with our Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) objective of ‘Our Economy is Diverse and Thriving’. In addition, the Strategic Action Plan for Culture, Heritage and Arts in Argyll and Bute, March 2014, aims to identify how the film sector can be an economic and tourism generator for the area.
4.6 As members will be aware the Council was part of Highlands and Islands Film Commission and the large majority of enquiries came through the Commission and 3 were then disseminated to the relevant partners, in 2014 we developed a standalone data enquiry system and branding for Argyll and Bute which is accessed via the Councils Filming web page (http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/business-and- trade/filming-argyll-and-bute).This allows us to promote our area more effectively and to be able to provide a more flexible and responsive service to the screen industries.
4.7 To ensure a quality screen industries service within Argyll and Bute and to maximise on the economic benefit from an increase in the number of productions taking place we have continued to improve the service that we offer. This includes continuing to develop the web pages and the service that we offer and working with Visit Scotland and Argyll and Isles Tourism Partnership to promote Argyll and Bute through film tourism.
4.8 Positive feedback is being received on a regular basis from location managers, production companies, producers and directors in regard to the area itself and the service we offer. An example of this was received from the Film Producer involved in Florence and the Machine
“We had an amazing experience filming in Argyll and Bute and everyone was incredibly helpful in us achieving such a great couple of days of filming”.
Additional resources within the Economic Development and Strategic Transportation Section will allow us to further build on the work undertaken to date and ensure that the service continues to be reflective of the needs and requirements of our customers across the screen industry.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 The value of screen industries within the UK and Argyll and Bute has increased due at least in part due to the UK Tax Relief. Argyll and Bute has welcomed major film productions to the area including the remake of Whiskey Galore. We are continually developing our website and services on offer to take advantage of this growth sector and the economic opportunities that it can bring to our area, and proactively market the area for film tourism.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy SOA1 The economy is diverse and thriving.
6.2 Financial None, from within existing departmental budget and through CSL and Visit Scotland contributions.
6.3 Legal None.
6.4 HR None.
6.5 Equalities None.
4 6.6 Risk If we do not continue to develop our film office we could lose productions to other areas in Scotland and beyond.
6.7 Customer Services Website allows greater interaction with customers.
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Policy Lead – Cllr Aileen Morton 9 December 2015
For further information contact: Arlene Cullum, Snr Development Officer (01436 658727) or Audrey Martin, Projects and Renewables Manager (01546 604180).
APPENDICES
1) Screen productions in Argyll and Bute
5 Screen productions in Argyll and Bute during 2015
Project Title Production Project Type Company Mark Watson ICON FILMS Other Lost Suppers STV Factual The One Show - BBC Outside Broadcast Campbeltown Picture House Grand Designs Boundless Documentary Productions Ten Pieces Take BBC - Scottish Reality Over Days Symphony Orchestra Florence and the Location Scotland Music Video Machine Hayman's Way STV Travel Expedition Ping Pong Travel Unknown Productions Ford Mustang Corporate Hobbs Clothing Co Location Scotland Stills Calum's Cabin ITV Documentary From Darkness BBC Manchester Drama Single Good Morning BBC News Scotland Grand Tours of the Timeline Films Travel Scottish Islands The Adventure Triple Echo Travel Show Productions Escape to the Boundless Factual Country Productions Stella Artois Commercial Stag BBC TV Berghoff Location Scotland Commercial Barones de la Nippur Media Documentary Cerveza Dog Food Greenroom Films Commercial Commercial White Stuff Stills Highlands: Mara Media Ltd Natural History Scotland's Wild Heart Sean Batty Coast STV Charity to Coast Cycle Challenge Expedia Tourism Media Pty Other Ltd Story of Scottish BBC Scotland Documentary 6 Art - William Factual McTaggart Open Skies Electron Libre Travel Wildlife Weekend Hello-Halo.tv Natural History Flux Utopia productions Student Hurst Magazine Fight Gravity Films Short Film National Cycle Sustrans Travel Route 78 One Show - BBC Bristol Documentary Basking Sharks National Lottery ITN Productions Outside Broadcast Countryfile - BBC - Bristol Outside Broadcast Jubilee Bridge The Flame Raindog Other Whisky Galore Whisky Galore Feature Movie Ltd Beechgrove BBC Factual Garden - Bute FilmG Competition Dunoon Grammer Student School James Martin BBC Bristol Documentary Cooking Series Oban Mod Caledonia TV Documentary Dé a-nis? BBC Scotland Children BBC Scotland BBC Scotland Factual Cookery Programme Kode and Hologic LS Productions Commercial Medical Company Take Me Out Thames TV TV Swiss TV on WHW Travel Livingitup.org.uk Maverick TV Outside Broadcast Nightlife Short Film Canon Tangerine Corporate Productions
7
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14 January 2016
Initial Consultation on Firth of Clyde Regulating Order Proposal
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT) have submitted a Regulating Order (RO) application for the Firth of Clyde to Scottish Government for their consideration. This proposal involves the formation of a not-for-profit Clyde Shellfish Management Organisation, covering management of nephrops (prawns) and scallops (king and queen), and including management measures such as spatial management, gear restrictions, and technical measures. Some detail on this proposal has been reported previously to Councillors through a circulated briefing note and as part of a Members Seminar in April 2015.
1.2 Marine Scotland are currently assessing this application before advising Ministers on the way forward and as a preliminary step are seeking comments on the application and associated economic assessment by 18 January 2016.
1.3 The overarching aim of the RO is to ‘increase the productivity and resilience of the commercial shellfish fishery’ with a key objective to ‘promote the recovery of finfish stocks to commercially exploitable levels. Over a 20 year period the RO intends to achieve a positive net economic value for the existing commercial shellfish fishery; reduce shellfish dependency; boost resilience in the commercial fishery; and provide wider economic benefits such as revising the recreational sea angling sector.
1.4 The Regulating Order proposal will have an economic impact on some parts of the fishing industry which may be offset over a 20 year period by future improvements to shellfish and finfish stocks and wider economic impacts on recreational sea angling.
1.5 At this preliminary stage, it is not considered appropriate to develop a clear view of support or not for the identified management proposals but initial views have been identified aimed at informing Marine Scotland’s initial assessment of the application and the Minister’s subsequent decision on whether to progress the application. Should the proposal move to a formal stage of consultation these comments identify areas where the Council considers further assessment and clarification are required.
1.6 It is recommended that the committee note the contents of the report and agree to the views identified in section 6 of the report forming an initial consultation response from the Council to Marine Scotland.
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14 January 2016
Initial Consultation on Firth of Clyde Regulating Order Proposal
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Marine Scotland received an application from The Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT) on 15 October 2015, for a Regulating Order to manage the fisheries for Nephrops (prawns), King Scallops and Queen Scallops in the Firth of Clyde.
2.2. Marine Scotland are currently assessing this application before advising Ministers on the way forward and as a preliminary step are seeking comments on the application and associated economic assessment by 18 January 2016.
2.3 This report attempts to summarise over 500 pages of documentation, providing details on the background, proposed scope, objectives and measures and initial views on the proposal which the Committee is being asked to approve as the Councils first stage response to Marine Scotland.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 That the Committee: (i) notes the contents of the report; and (ii) agrees to the comments made in section 6 of the report forming an initial Council response to Marine Scotland.
4.0 BACKGROUND
4.1 Summary of Regulating Order (RO) proposal
4.1.1 The Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT) have submitted to Scottish Government, a detailed application for a Regulating Order to manage shellfish fisheries in the Firth of Clyde.
4.1.2 SIFT are a Scottish charity founded in 2011 with the following aim: To promote the sustainable management of Scotland’s inshore waters so that marine ecosystems provide the maximum long term social and economic benefits to Scotland’s coastal communities.
4.1.3 SIFT feel the current management of inshore fisheries in the Firth of Clyde needs to be revised, in order to restore a sustainable mixed fishery and revitalise the Clyde’s marine economy. The RO proposal involves the formation of a not-for-profit Clyde Shellfish Management Organisation, covering management of nephrops (prawns) and scallops (king and queen) only, and including management measures such as spatial management, gear restrictions, and technical measures.
4.2 Purpose of initial consultation & scope of response 4.2.1 Marine Scotland has no opinion on the merits of the application at this stage but has published the application document and an associated Economic Report and is seeking initial comments by 18th January 2016. This feedback, alongside Marine Scotland’s assessment of the application will inform the Cabinet Secretary, Richard Lochhead in his decision as to whether to prepare a draft Order for publication and formal consultation, or to take no further action on the proposal.
4.2.2 Given that the first stage of formal consultation may only be four weeks in duration, it is therefore considered important to give this proposal early consideration and identify any issues or questions that need to be addressed should Scottish Government progress the proposal.
4.3 Application & Process for Consideration 4.3.1 Regulating Orders may be made by the Scottish Ministers under the terms of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. They are made for the establishment or improvement and for the maintenance and regulation of a shellfish fishery. A Regulating Order confers on its grantee the right to regulate fishing for named species of shellfish in a defined area, for a specified period of time. The grantee can issue licences, charge fees or royalties and enforce the observation of the terms of the Order and its associated Management Plan. Where the grantee applies a licensing system, only those licensed to fish the specified species in a regulated area may do so. Enforcement of a RO may be carried out by either the grantee, Marine Scotland Compliance, or both.
4.3.2 There are a number of stages to the process of Scottish Government considering an application for a RO. Following the initial consultation Ministers may decide whether or not to support the application at that point or to proceed with further consultation, including the publication of a draft Order, and may request an independent inquiry.
4.3.3 At any point in the process Ministers may decide not to support the application, otherwise the process may progress resulting in an Order being laid before Parliament. A period of 12-18 months may be necessary for a process resulting in a successful application.
5.0 DETAILS OF REGULATING ORDER APPLICATION
5.1 This section of the report summarises what is included in the RO application document and presents the view of the applicant.
5.2 Historical Fishery and Reasons for Decline 5.2.1 The RO application document states that the Clyde has been a historically important commercial and recreational fishery producing landings of numerous finfish and shellfish species. However, from the 1970s, stocks of commercially marketable finfish declined rapidly so that by the early 2000s the Clyde had effectively become a shellfish fishery. 5.2.2 The application document identifies a number of reasons for the decline in the Clyde finfish fishery including: Combination of the loss of spatial protection from removal of the 3 mile limit and excessive harvesting in the 1970s & 1980s resulted in the loss of commercial finfish stocks; Bycatch of finfish in nephrops trawling gear considered to have further reduced stocks; Use of heavy gear (trawls & dredges) in areas which have historically acted as nursery grounds for finfish appears to continue to underlie the failure of finfish recovery; Mobile gear fishing considered to have reduced habitat complexity in the Clyde – which may have in turn, reduced food availability for finfish.
5.2.3 The historic diversity and abundance of near-shore fish species made the Clyde a world-class recreational sea angling destination for both shore and boat fishing. The decline in finfish stocks resulted in a dramatic decline in investment and participation in sea angling with just three charter boats in operation, compared to over 100 in the 1970s.
5.3 Current Fishery and Fisheries Management 5.3.1 The current commercial fishery in the Clyde is reliant on shellfish species (99% of landings), of which 89% is made up of nephrops (prawns) and king scallops. Most nephrops are caught by trawling (96.3% tonnage; 90% value) with a smaller proportion (3.7% tonnage, 10% value) caught in creels. Scallops are largely harvested by dredging (95% tonnage; 93% value) with a smaller proportion (5% tonnage, 7% value) harvested by diving.
5.3.2 The application document questions the sustainability of these stocks identifying that: current nephrops fishing pressure is considered to meet targets by ICES, although advised landings in 2015 were 33% less than advice in 2014 at no more than 3,776 tonnes; and No formal stock assessments for scallops are made by Marine Scotland. Management of this fishery relies on analysis of trends in landings and occasional market based sampling. Analysis of size structure of king scallop catch indicates it is heavily exploited.
5.3.3 The current biomass of demersal fish in the Clyde is estimated to be twice that of the 1930s and 40s. 90% of these fish are however below the minimum landing size and are heavily weighted towards small whiting.
5.3.4 The Clyde Ecosystem Review (McIntyre et al., 2012) considered the Clyde to be an ecosystem with great potential for future sustainable use and saw positive trends for the future of the finfish fisheries where the number of fish species was starting to increase. Between (1995-2004) and (2005-2009) the number of species that made up 95% of total fish biomass increased from 4 to 8 with the percentage of whiting decreasing from 87 to 72%.
5.3.5 The RO application document concludes there is broad recognition that Clyde could, with correct management measures, return to a state where it would support a diverse commercial fishery and a revived recreational sea angling sector. 5.3.6 The application document identifies a wide range of existing fisheries management measures covering the current shellfish fisheries in the Clyde. These measures include statutory and voluntary spatial restrictions, effort and temporal restrictions and technical measures. Existing spatial measures and those proposed for Marine Protected areas are illustrated in Appendix 1.
5.3.7 The applicant states that current spatial management restrictions have been implemented on a case-by-case basis and consequently do not form a coherent fisheries-management network. Where spatial restrictions have been implemented for fisheries management purposes there is a lack of monitoring and research to determine effectiveness. It is therefore concluded by the applicant that the more substantial measures are needed to bring about a recovery in commercial finfish stocks.
5.4 Aims of Regulating Order 5.4.1 The overarching aim is to ‘Increase the productivity and resilience of the commercial shellfish fishery’ with a key benefit of the proposal to ‘promote the recovery of finfish stocks to commercially exploitable levels.
5.4.2 In doing so the RO intends to achieve the following outcomes over a 20 year period Achieve a positive Net Present Value for existing commercial shellfish fishery; Reduce shellfish dependency and boost resilience in the commercial fishery; and Provide wider economic benefits such as revising the recreational sea angling sector.
5.4.3 Important subsidiary benefits identified include: Greater local control; Greater flexibility for fisheries managers; Enhanced sustainability; Better use of science; and Complement other marine management measures.
5.4.4 The application document identifies the Clyde fishery as a public resource which is owned by the people of Scotland, and should be managed for the common good. The applicant (SIFT) initiated a ‘Revive the Clyde’ campaign in 2014 which attracted 7920 signatures supporting the following principals: Revive the marine environment Support a diverse fishery Promote management based on sound science SIFT believes that the RO proposal provides a balance of the views and interests of different stakeholders and therefore provides the best hope for recovery of the fishery and ecosystem.
5.5 Governance 5.5.1 A new organisation, the Clyde Shellfisheries Management Organisation (CMSO) will be formed to act as Grantee of the RO. The main functions of the CMSO are to: Regulate the shellfish fisheries as indicated by scientific advice; Set spatial and non-spatial management measures for each species; Issue licences and collect levies; Monitor and manage fishing effort; and Collaborate with Marine Scotland to enforce the RO.
5.5.2 A new organisation (Clyde Scientific Trust) will also be constituted to provide scientific information necessary to delivery fishery objectives. It is proposed to seek funding from the EU and private sources to cover costs of the CMSO and Clyde Scientific Trust.
5.6 Developing the Management Measures 5.6.1 The management measures proposed in the RO application apply only to nephrops and scallops and have been developed by SIFT with advice from stakeholders, fishery management experts and the Environmental Defence Fund. Management proposals have also taken account of MPA proposals and examples of successful fisheries management from within and outwith the UK.
5.7 Fisheries Management Plan 5.7.1 A Strategic Management Plan will define what management measures can be introduced so that RO remains focussed on the main aim of increasing productivity and resilience of commercial shellfish fisheries. This plan will be reviewed every five years.
5.7.2 An annual management plan will allow adjustments to be made to management that are based on recent scientific advice while conforming to the Strategic Management Plan. It is expected that the first Annual Management Plan will adopt the management measures set out in the Strategic Management Plan to avoid a period of hiatus before the CSMO becoming operational and risks to the fishery from either ‘business as usual’ or a temporary closure of the fishery.
5.8 Spatial Management 5.8.1 Spatial management measures form the core of the RO proposed fisheries management. The following four types of Spatial Management Zones (SMZ) have been defined to deliver the RO objectives:
5.8.2 The following Design Objectives have been used to identify the location and extent of each individual SMZ: Promoting Nephrops fishery sustainability; Promoting scallop fishery sustainability; Promoting finfish recovery; Minimising impacts on the fishing industry; Minimising user conflicts; and Conserving biodiversity and promoting ecosystem resilience.
5.8.3 The SMZs were also designed to form a coherent network using the following network Design Considerations: 1. The network must be geographically dispersed around the Clyde in order to promote connectivity; 2. Total area protected from mobile gear fishing must be between 20-30% if sea area in order to sufficiently represent complex substrates and habitats; 3. Complex and important substrates must be most protected; 4. Habitat types must be represented across the network in order to support the sustainable use and protection of marine biological diversity and ecosystems; 5. Length of perimeter of SMZs must be high in relation to sea area protected to increase potential for spill0over effects, to aid fishing industry; and 6. Individual SMZ shapes must be simplified where possible to ease compliance and enforcement.
5.8.4 10 of the 17 SMZs are located within Argyll and Bute coastal waters with a further two areas around Arran, close to Argyll and Bute fishing ports. The geographical extent of the proposed network of SMZs is shown in Appendix 2.
5.8.5 The RO application document estimates the current level of fishing activity within each SMZ and the rationale for each area based on relevant Design Objectives. It states that although the majority of SMZs are Restoration Areas which would be closed to nephrops and scallop fisheries, the majority of the Clyde area remains open to fishing, ensuring that: 75% of Clyde remains open to nephrops trawling; 72% of Clyde remains open to scallop dredging; 92% of Clyde remains open to static gear (creeling & diving).
5.9 Technical Measures 5.9.1 Technical measures have been identified to supplement the spatial management measures. No measures are proposed for the nephrops trawl fishery as this is managed under EU regulations. The only measure proposed for the nephrops creel fishery is to consider creel limits by vessel length.
5.9.2 For the scallop dredge and dive fisheries it is proposed to increase the minimum landing size and impose a night time curfew. Additional measures for the scallop dredge fishery include limiting bar length and dredge number and prohibition of the French Dredge.
5.10 Licensing Arrangements, Monitoring and Enforcement 5.10.1 The CMSO as grantee of the RO will issue fishing licences according to strict criteria, with the annual licence fee to be set at £250 per species. The CMSO will reserve the right to review licence fees annually and impose a levy per tonne of shellfish landed.
5.10.2 Enhanced monitoring of the fisheries and wider ecosystem, in terms of both stock assessments and biodiversity, is a key objective of the RO proposal. The proposed Clyde Scientific Trust would be responsible for overseeing the delivery of the monitoring programme which will necessitate close collaboration with Marine Scotland and other outside bodies who deliver existing monitoring programmes relevant to the Clyde.
5.10.3 The RO can be enforced by the RO grantee and Marine Scotland Compliance. A key feature of the enforcement strategy is vessel monitoring, which will be a licence condition for all vessel types.
5.11 Proposed benefits of the RO 5.11.1 The application document sets out the proposed fishery benefits of the RO which include the following statements: Scallop dredging sector would benefit from effective spatial management leading to increases in scallop populations. Loss in dredging grounds would be more than compensated for by increasing richness of remaining grounds. Scallop diving industry would benefit from increased stocks and reduced conflict with dredging sector. Short-term costs on the nephrops trawling sector expected, although economic analysis indicates proposed measures would have less of a negative impact than declines that already occur from one year to the next in allowable catch levels. Fishing activity analysis shows that the great majority of Spatial Management Zones (SMZ) are not intensively fished by nephrops trawlers. Nephrops creeling sector would benefit from having large new areas where it could operate without any interaction with trawl fishery. Expected that over a 20 year period that gain in nephrops fishery would exceed losses. Compensation for some vessels incurring short term losses may be appropriate, assessed on a case-by-case basis. SMZs have potential to provide significant spillover benefits to commercial king and queen scallop fisheries. Recovery of white fish stocks and diversification of target species.
5.11.2 In terms of wider socio-economic benefits the RO is predicted to: Enable the Clyde to regain its former status as a major sea angling destination through the restoration of a diverse stock of large finfish; and Provide conditions which would promote the growth of the wildlife tourism industry and recreational diving.
5.11.3 The RO proposal is predicted to provide ecosystem benefits including an increase in biodiversity resulting from a reduction in mobile gear fishing and increased ecosystem resilience in the face of ongoing threats to the Clyde’s marine ecosystem such as climate change.
5.12 Economic Impacts 5.12.1 The application document provides estimates of the economic impact of the RO management proposals, informed by a separate Economic report prepared by Bridge Economics, on behalf of SIFT.
5.12.2 A cost benefit analysis on the commercial fishing sector has been undertaken and the key findings are illustrated below. Fishery Economic Impact Detail sector (over 20 years) Nephrops Decrease of £940,000 No expected increase in nephrops catch - Trawl & (due to management over 20 years Creel costs of RO) Nephrops Gradual reduction in level of nephrops Trawl trawling (59 tonnes/year – 1.2% decrease on current level) Nephrops Gradual increase in level of nephrops Creel creeling (59 tonnes/year – 30% increase on current level) Scallops – Increase of £740,000 Reduction in scallop landings until year 6 Dredge & then 10% increase in landings predicted Dive each year Whitefish Increase of £2.7 million Additional 2500 tonnes of landings per year from year 11. Predictions based on four main fish species (Cod, Whiting, Haddock & Saithe) returning to 40-60% of average landings between 1975 & 1990
5.12.3 The total net economic impact on the Clyde fishery over a 20 year period is estimated to be £2.5 million. This overall positive impact relies on the recovery of whitefish stocks and a significant increase in scallop stocks. For the existing shellfish fisheries alone the predicted net economic impact over 20 years is a reduction in value of £200,000.
5.12.4 Beyond the Clyde fishery, the predicted recovery of white fish stocks is estimated to result in a mirrored increase in the revenue from recreational sea angling. This revenue is predicted to increase from year 4 and represent an estimated total increase of £7.5 million over a 20 year period.
6.0 INITIAL VIEWS
6.1 Historic & Current Fisheries Management 6.1.1 The RO application document states that while some spatial management restrictions have been implemented in the Clyde there is a lack of monitoring and research to determine their effectiveness. This is not disputed, but in this regard it is questioned as to how the RO applicant can be sure that the existing measures are not working. The stated failure of existing management is the underlying reason for putting forward the RO proposal.
6.1.2 A number of potential reasons for the decline of white fish in the Clyde are presented in the RO application. It is agreed that it is important to consider the potential reasons for this decline, with overfishing in the 70s and 80s likely to be the greatest contributing factor. What seems more important in terms of defining new fisheries management is to try and determine what factors have prevented a recovery of finfish stocks in the absence of a targeted fishery. It is possible that the existing shellfish fisheries are a factor affecting whitefish recovery but clearly other environmental factors such as climate change, changes in the Clyde’s food web, and seal predation may be significant factors. 6.1.3 The application document alludes to some signs of recovery in whitefish in the Clyde (increase in species diversity, reduction in proportion of whiting) and figures for 2010 to 2014 once available, may provide further evidence of recovery. It is therefore critical that we fully understand the trends in populations of shellfish and finfish populations and extent to which existing activity and management may be negatively affecting these populations before being able to conclude that new management is absolutely necessary and likely to achieve the agreed goals.
6.1.4 The RO application document questions the sustainability of existing nephrops and scallop stocks and identifies the need therefore for new management to improve sustainability. The application reports that ICES advice recommended a reduction of 33% in nephrops landings for 2015. Recently published ICES advice actually recommends a significant increase in maximum landings of 5554 tonnes, an increase in 47% on 2015 advice. This therefore appears contrary to the conclusion in the application document that the nephrops stock is at risk of decline and therefore weakens the argument that new management is required to improve sustainability of the nephrops trawl fishery.
6.2 Aims of Regulating Order 6.2.1 The overarching aim of the RO to increase the productivity and resilience of the commercial shellfish fishery and promote the recovery of finfish stocks is supported as a positive but challenging aspiration which if achieved could result in economic and environmental benefits. It is also considered appropriate that the Clyde fishery is managed in a way which recognises the marine environment and fishery it supports as a public resource. The three principles of the RO applicants ‘Revive the Clyde’ campaign are also supported and it is noted that the Clyde 2020 programme, initiated by the Scottish Government also supports these same principles.
6.2.2 From an initial assessment of the RO proposal it is not clear whether the RO proposal is the correct or indeed the only viable proposal which can achieve this aim.
6.3 Fisheries Management Plan 6.3.1 Should the RO be granted by Scottish Ministers, the applicant, who has designed the proposed measures, will not be the grantee and management organisation of the RO. This means that management proposals for at least the first year of operation will not have been developed or approved by the management organisation, which will require time to develop the management regime beyond year one. It is therefore important that if the RO is granted that proposed management for the first year of operation should have some level of support by those stakeholders who will make up the management organisation.
6.4 Spatial management 6.4.1 Spatial management has always been an important element of fisheries management with spatial measures already in existence in some parts of the Clyde and a number of further spatial measures proposed as management of Marine Protected Areas.
6.4.2 It is important that any spatial management taken forward has a high chance of meeting the objectives set and does not end up placing restrictions on parts of the fishing industry which do not result in anticipated benefits. In this respect the use of Design Objectives to define spatial management measures is a sensible approach but needs to provide an adequate balance across the different types of objectives identified in the application document (para 5.8.2 of this report).
6.4.3 To use these Design Objectives to effectively identify spatial management zones it is assumed that a good knowledge of what areas in the Clyde support the individual objectives would be needed. The application document presents spatial information on predicted seabed habitats and available data on fishing activity but it is unclear as to whether there is spatial information for other important aspects such as: the location of finfish nursery habitats; areas of seabed which would enhance scallop spat settlement; areas of gear conflict; and distribution of habitats associated with nephrops/scallop reproduction.
6.4.4 Network Design Considerations have influenced the design of the overall network of SMZs, with Objective 2 requiring the total area protected from mobile gear fishing to be between 20 and 30%. The proposed SMZs are estimated to equate to 25% but it is unclear whether this figure includes existing spatial restrictions such as the cod box and MOD restrictions. The sixth Network Design Consideration seeks a simplified boundary for SMZs to aid compliance. Given that the RO proposal will require all fishing vessels operating in the Clyde to have vessel monitoring equipment it is questioned as to the need for this Design Consideration as vessel monitoring of the accuracy suggested should allow enforcement of complex zoning arrangements.
6.4.5 The RO application document states that historic fishing activity has been considered in the identification of individual SMZs in order to minimise the socio-economic impacts of management restrictions. There are however a number of SMZs which overlap with areas of high value fishing activity. The ‘Creel and Dive’ only areas within Argyll and Bute all appear to be high value for nephrops trawling, with prawn creeling and scallop dredging of medium value within parts of the ‘Kyles of Bute’ area and across all other areas. The seven proposed Restoration Areas within Argyll and Bute are likely to align closely with MPA management measures and will therefore unlikely to result in a significant increase over and above expected fisheries restrictions. The exceptions to this appear to be the ‘Mull of Kintyre’ Restoration Area which overlaps with a very high value area for scallop dredging and the ‘Upper Loch Long’ area which is a high value area for nephrops trawling and creeling.
6.4.6 It is clear that the proposed spatial management will have the greatest impact on the smaller (less than 15m) prawn trawling and scallop dredging vessels. The ability for these vessels to maintain catch levels outwith the restricted zones therefore needs to be considered.
6.4.7 Care needs to be taken in interpreting existing fishing data as the VMS data for larger vessels only covered activity between 2010 and 2012 and distribution and intensity of fishing may have changed in recent years. For smaller vessels ScotMap only covered approximately 50% of fishermen working in the Clyde and will therefore underestimate activity and value. It is therefore considered important for Marine Scotland to further assess this value of fishing activity affected by the SMZs.
6.4.8 The RO document concludes that implementation of the proposed spatial management restrictions would still leave 75% of the Clyde open to nephrops trawling, 72% open to scallop dredging and 92% open to static gear fishing. While these figures are not disputed it is the proportion of the actual available fishing ground for the different fishing types rather than proportion of the entire Clyde marine area which will determine the actual change in fishing practices and economic impact. This should be reassessed by Marine Scotland or the RO applicant.
6.4.9 The detailed analysis of individual SMZs only show map outputs of fishing density for vessels over 15m but do not show data from ScotMap covering vessels less than 15m. These maps therefore do not fully present overall fishing effort, although it is recognised that the smaller vessels are reflected in the tables.
6.4.10 The rationale for each SMZ considers that when there are no ports in the immediate vicinity of an SMZ this will minimise impacts on the fishing industry. While many SMZs do not have fishing ports within their boundary there are a number of SMZs close to the key fishing ports of Tarbert, Carradale and Campbeltown and therefore impacts on the fishing industry are not considered to be minimised in this respect.
6.4.11 It is noted that the SMZs seek to fully replicate the proposed MPA management measures and add to these. Once final decisions on MPA management in the Clyde have been made this assessment should be updated to reflect any changes. It should also be noted that management measures have yet to be proposed for the Clyde Sea Sill MPA which are likely to be consulted on by Marine Scotland in 2016.
6.4.12 Based on the comments above, it is considered important for Marine Scotland to carefully consider the rationale for each SMZ as part of their initial assessment of the RO application.
6.5 Technical Measures 6.5.1 It is not clear whether the proposed technical measures will replace or are in addition to some of the current measures in place in the Clyde, such as the weekend closure for scallop dredging and nephrops trawling which appears to be viewed as a positive management proposal by most fishing sectors at present.
6.5.2 The proposal for a night time curfew for scallop diving and dredging may be an issue for any harbours to which access is limited by tides, meaning that it may not be possible to land catch during daylight hours on a frequent basis. This needs to be considered further.
6.6 Proposed benefits 6.6.1 The fishing activity analysis presented in the RO application document concludes that the great majority of SMZs are not intensively fished by trawlers. While many areas might be considered to be fished at lower than high intensity they have a higher economic value which needs to be considered.
6.6.2 It is considered that there is a significant degree of uncertainty as to whether the management measures proposed to promote finfish recovery will be effective as there are likely to be many factors influencing the recovery of whitefish stocks which might not be affected by management changes. Such complex factors might include changes in the Clyde marine food web and some fish species potentially having evolved to be reproductive at a smaller size. It is therefore considered important that Marine Scotland carefully consider the potential for proposed measures to achieve their stated goals and associated benefits in order to reduce the risk of predicted long term economic and environmental benefits not offsetting any economic and social impacts from changes in management. 6.6.3 In seeking recovery of white fish stocks there does not appear to be any consideration of how this will interact with the nephrops stock as some whitefish species predate nephrops which could lead to a reduction in available fishing opportunities for this species. In promoting a white fish fishery the application document does not appear to have considered how this new fishery will interact with or impact: other fishing activity; the seabed and biodiversity; and increased recreational sea angling. It is questioned as to whether the anticipated recovery of white fish stocks will support both a targeted white fish fishery and a significantly larger sea angling industry. These aspects need to be considered in the overall prediction of benefits.
6.6.4 In relation to the identified potential benefits from RO management on the recreational diving sector, it is questioned as to what evidence there is that existing wrecks are being damaged by fishing activity and that mobile gear fishing is impacting overall clarity of water in the vicinity of dive sites.
6.5 Economic Impacts 6.5.1 A detailed economic assessment of the potential positive and negative economic impacts of proposed management proposals is welcomed. This assessment estimates the economic impact of management measures based on the impact they will have on predicted changes in landings from the different fisheries over a 20 year period. The comments below identify questions and queries on this assessment which it is felt need to be considered further.
6.5.2 Table 51 of the Economic Report estimates the area of nephrops habitat that would be needed to support the proposed annual landings of 5150 tonnes at different harvest rates. The report identifies that there is around 1990km2 of nephrops habitat in the Clyde which could support an annual harvest of 5150. What is not clear is the amount of nephrops habitat which will no longer be available to trawling as a result of proposed spatial management and therefore whether there is likely to be a significant increase in harvest rate to compensate for this. If this is the case then an increase in intensity of fishing in areas remaining open might offset perceived environmental and stock enhancement benefits.
6.5.3 The overall net positive impact on the Clyde fishery over 20 years, resulting from all aspects of proposed management, relies on the economic benefits associated with the recovery of whitefish and a predicted significant increase in scallop stocks. There are considered to be a number of risks associated with these predicted benefits which include: An increase in overall scallop stock resulting in a direct increase in landings assumes that the areas where scallops are in larger amounts are actually open to scallop dredging and diving. The economic assessment predicts that scallop stocks will keep on growing by 10% each year. This cannot carry on indefinitely and at some point the environment (available habitat and food) will limit growth. It is therefore questioned as to whether it can be assumed that scallop stocks will continue to grow by 10% each year between year 5 and year 20. If white fish stocks increase this is likely to have a negative impact on nephrops stock through predation. The annual landings estimates predict a gradual decrease in landings each year but the spatial closures will all happen in year one. Can it therefore be assumed that this decrease is a result of an increasing white fish biomass which is predating nephrops?
6.5.4 The predicted wider socio-economic benefits are dependent on proposals delivering environmental benefits claimed. In this respect the following is questioned: What evidence is there that specific wildlife species important for wildlife tourism are currently under threat and will therefore benefit from RO proposals? What evidence is there that existing commercial sea fishing is impacting on wrecks? These will deteriorate naturally and so it is unclear as to whether there will be any significant benefit to recreational diving. If promoting an additional 35,000 of additional finfish landed from a new finfish fishery then this will increase amount of demersal trawling activity in the Clyde and will reduce the fish available to recreational sea angling. It is questioned as to whether the predicted economic benefits for a targeted white fish fishery and increased sea angling activity can occur together and whether the economic benefits are therefore being double counted.
6.5.5 The Economic Report provides information on the running costs of for the RO with estimates including operating costs for staff and overheads. These estimates do not seem to include other costs which may be associated with implementing the RO proposal: including licence fees; levies; gear changes; running costs of the Clyde Scientific Trust; and research and monitoring costs. It is estimated that the initial revenue from licensing will be around £20,000 per year which is very small compared to the likely overall running cost. More information on the full costs of implementing the RO over 20 years is needed to assess whether the overall benefits will outweigh the costs.
6.5.6 The RO Application document states that until there is a recovery of the fishery it will be necessary to support the cost of managing the fishery through philanthropic and public sector funding. This approach is going to require significant upfront funding and given difficulties in securing external funding this appears to be significant risk in implementing the RO in the short and long term.
6.6 Integration with other management initiatives and alternatives 6.6.1 There are a number of management groups and processes operating in the Clyde which are involved in or are relevant to fisheries management. These include the Scottish Government Clyde 2020 initiative, Regional Marine Planning, the South West Inshore Fisheries Group, Marine Protected Areas and River Basin Planning. As identified in the RO application document it is important that these groups and processes all work together and complement rather than duplicate each other.
6.6.2 The RO application document states that the management proposals have been designed so that they could form the basis of a wider fisheries action plan under the Clyde 2020 initiative, capable of delivering fishery management proposals for the Clyde. The role of the Clyde Scientific Trust appears to be similar to the Research Advisory Group set up as part of the Clyde 2020 programme. Further clarification on the relationship between these two would be welcomed.
6.6.3 Recognising the benefits of the Clyde being managed as a shared resource seeking benefit for all sectors, it is considered that improved fisheries management could be developed and implemented in a number of different ways, including: Consideration and approval of the RO management approach as part of the Clyde 2020 initiative; The Clyde 2020 initiative making recommendations for new fisheries management to be implemented separately; For the South West IFG to consider future fisheries management as part of the development of a Fisheries Management Plan for the Clyde area; and For new fishery management proposals relating to shellfish and finfish species to be implemented through a Demonstration and Research Marine Protected Area. These alternatives have various pros and cons but it will be necessary for Marine Scotland to consider whether there are other more appropriate alternatives to managing the Clyde fishery and wider ecosystem.
6.7 Summary of initial views of fishing industry 6.7.1 The following initial views have been provided by Clyde Fishermen’s Association who represent mainly mobile gear fishermen: Concerned that proposed fisheries restrictions will result in loss of jobs and further depopulation; Concern that some science from before 2000 may not reflect current situation in the Clyde; Concern over long-term funding and reliance on competitive EU funds, leading to likelihood of increase in licence fees and introduction of levies; and Economic figures for loss of income to fisheries are underestimate and angling benefits overplayed.
6.7.2 The following initial views have been provided by the Scottish Creeler’s and Diver’s Association who represent creeling and shellfish diving: Supportive of RO proposal as considered an opportunity to promote best method of catching nephrops and expanding a higher value creel caught market; Consider potential for increasing nephrops creel landings is higher than proposed in RO; and 98% of creel boats are based in local communities and therefore expansion of the creel sector would result in localised economic benefit.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The Regulating Order proposal will have an economic impact on some parts of the fishing industry which may by offset over a 20 year period by future improvements to shellfish and finfish stocks and wider economic benefits for recreational sea angling.
7.2 The comments detailed in section 6 of the report present initial views which are aimed at assisting Marine Scotland in their initial assessment of the application and the Minister’s subsequent decision on whether to progress the application. Should the proposal move to a formal stage of consultation these comments identify areas where the Council considers further assessment and clarification are required.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS
8.1 Policy Positively influencing the proposed management of a Scottish network of marine protected areas assists the Council deliver the SOA outcome for a diverse and thriving economy, and its commitments for the environment. 8.2 Financial None 8.3 Legal None 8.4 HR None 8.5 Equalities None 8.6 Risk Not applicable at this stage 8.7 Customer Services None
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure – Pippa Milne Policy Lead – David Kinniburgh 14th January 2016 For further information contact: Mark Steward; Marine & Coastal Development Manager; [email protected]; 01631 567972
Glossary
Clyde Ecosystem Review – A review of previously published information and knowledge concerning the Firth of Clyde ecosystem.
Clyde Shellfish Management Organisation (CSMO) - non-profit making company which would be grantee of RO.
Demersal fish – fish that live and feed on or near the bottom of the sea.
Demersal trawling - demersal trawling methods fish along or just above the seafloor catching bottom dwelling fish.
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) – Global organisation that develops science and advice to support sustainable use of the oceans, including fisheries advice.
Mobile gear fishing – Fishing activity which involves towed gear such as trawling or dredging.
Marine Protected Areas (MPA) – Scottish marine designated site to protect specific nature conservation features including habitats, species and geological features.
Nephrops – Norway lobster, Dublin Bay prawn, langoustine or scampi.
Regulating Order (RO) – Statutory Instrument which may be applied for under the powers of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, which gives a named person or body (“the grantee”) the right to manage a fishery and to regulate fishing therein for named shellfish species in a defined area of inshore or tidal waters, for a specified period of time.
ScotMap - Marine Scotland project which provides spatial information on the fishing activity of Scottish-registered commercial fishing vessels under 15 m in overall length.
Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT) - A Scottish charity aiming to promotes the management of Scotland's inshore waters so that they provide the maximum long term social and economic benefits to Scotland's coastal communities.
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) - A satellite-based monitoring system which at regular intervals provides data to the fisheries authorities on the location, course and speed of vessels. Appendix 1 – Illustration of existing spatial management of fisheries in the Clyde, including Marine Protected Area boundaries Appendix 2 – Proposed Spatial Management Measures ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14 January 2016
Update on management of Marine Protected Areas and Special Areas of Conservation
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Following a report on the management of Marine Protected Areas considered by the committee in November 2015, this report provides an update on the final decision of Scottish Government on management proposals for existing Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).
1.2 On 18 December 2015 the Cabinet Secretary made an announcement on MPA and SAC management which included the following: • Decision that management measures for all sites consulted on in 2014, and were not subject to further consultation in 2015 will remain unchanged; • Decision that the management proposals under a Marine Conservation Order for South Arran MPA, consulted on in 2015 will remain as proposed; and • Further changes have been made to management proposals for the Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura MPA, with further representations invited by 18 January 2016.
1.3 The announcement estimates the direct economic impact on the fishing industry across Scotland as very low, but does not reflect the potential higher levels of impact at a local scale. To help minimise any local impact the Cabinet Secretary has committed to a three point plan including which while welcomed is considered unlikely to fully mitigate potential local economic impact.
1.4 As directed by the EDI Committee in November 2015, Council officers wrote to MSPs for Argyll and Bute and for the Highlands and Islands, and the MP for Argyll and Bute, in supporting the case for appropriate financial support measures necessary to mitigate adverse economic impacts and protect the fragile fishing communities of Argyll and Bute.
1.5 The committee is asked to note the contents of the report and agree to issues raised in 4.4 of the report forming a short Council response to the new Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura Marine Conservation Order consultation. ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 14 January 2016
Update on management of Marine Protected Areas and Special Areas of Conservation
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Following a report on the management of Marine Protected Areas considered by the committee in November 2015, this report provides an update on the final decisions of Scottish Government on management proposals for existing Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 That the committee: (i) note the contents of the report; and (ii) agree to issues raised in 4.4 of the report forming a short Council response to the new Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura Marine Conservation Order consultation.
4.0 DETAILS
4.1 Background
4.1.1 In July 2014 Scottish Government designated thirty Nature Conservation MPAs across Scotland which alongside existing marine SAC and Special Protection Areas (SPA) created a Scottish Marine Protected Area network.
4.1.2 The Scottish Government subsequently consulted on different management approaches for a selection of MPAs and marine SACs between November 2014 and February 2015. This consultation covered two SACs and five MPAs either within Argyll and Bute or relevant to our coastal communities.
4.1.3 In June, Richard Lochhead announced the Scottish Government’s proposed management measures for the MPAs and SACs covered by the consultation. The announcement included the Government’s decision on proposed management measures for each MPA/SAC and initiated the publication of four draft Marine Conservation Orders (MCO) for consultation in July/August 2015.
4.1.4 Argyll and Bute Council submitted detailed responses to the Marine Conservation Order consultations for the Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura MPA and the South Arran MPA. These responses were approved by the EDI Committee in August 2015 and focused largely on the potential localised economic impact on the fishing industry and associated coastal communities.
4.1.5 As directed by the EDI Committee, additional representation on MPA/SAC management proposals was made to the Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead and the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee, in order to influence parliamentary scrutiny of proposals in Autumn 2015.
4.1.6 As a result of significant representation to Scottish Government the RACCE Committee requested a delay in the process of laying the various Scottish Statutory Instruments before Parliament and held a verbal evidence session on the 23rd September which involved representatives from the fishing industry across Scotland.
4.1.7 After seeking clarification from the Cabinet Secretary on a number of issues the RACCE Committee concluded that due to differences in views on the four MPAs subject to MCO consultations it ultimately fell to Scottish Government to make a final determination on how to proceed based on best available evidence. The Committee did however raise the following points: Welcomed Cabinet Secretary’s decision to continue to consider any unintended socio-economic issues; and Highlighted that final decisions should recognise the need to ensure responsible, environmentally sustainable fishing interests and jobs are protected and appropriate compensation considered.
4.2 What has happened since the November EDI Committee meeting
4.21 On 18 December 2015 the Cabinet Secretary made an announcement on MPA and SAC management which included the following: Decision that management measures for all sites consulted on in 2014, and were not subject to further consultation in 2015, will remain unchanged. Management measures will take effect from 8 February 2016; Decision that the management proposals under a Marine Conservation Order for South Arran MPA, consulted on in 2015 will remain as proposed and will take effect from 8 February 2016; and Further changes have been made to management proposals for the Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura MPA, with further representations invited by 18 January 2016.
4.2.2 The press release covering the announcement, titled ‘Conservation and communities key to MPA plan’ estimates that the direct economic impact on the fishing industry will be very low at around 0.25% of its combined earnings across Scotland. To help minimise any local impact the Cabinet Secretary has committed to a three point plan including: An environmental monitoring strategy, including opportunities for vessels to participate with funding of up to £500,000 over three years; Resources for diversification will be an early priority for the European Maritime Fisheries Fund; and A commitment to undertake a robust economic study in a year’s time to assess the impact on coastal communities.
4.2.3 As directed by the EDI Committee in November 2015, Council officers wrote to MSPs for Argyll and Bute and for the Highlands and Islands, and the MP for Argyll and Bute, in supporting the case for appropriate financial support measures necessary to mitigate adverse economic impacts and protect the fragile fishing communities of Argyll and Bute. This letter took account of the final decisions on MPA management and Government proposals to help minimise economic impact and identified the need for: • A more coherent and inclusive financial strategy and dedicated package of support measures which goes wider than EMFF support, to help mitigate local economic impact on individual fishing businesses the local supply chain and associated coastal communities; and • Short and long-term monitoring of the environmental and economic impact of management measures in MPAs and SACs to ensure management is effective and proportionate to its benefits, including the review recommended by the RACCE committee.
4.3 Views on Ministers announcement
4.3.1 The announcement from the Cabinet Secretary was scheduled to be made in the first week in December but was delayed by over two weeks. The late timing of the announcement and new consultation on the Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura MPA just before Christmas has given limited time to give full consideration to proposals and final decisions.
4.3.2 The decision to move forward with management proposals for MPAs consulted on only in 2014 was expected and the Council response to these proposals was largely supportive, although concerns were raised over cumulative economic impact.
4.3.3 The decision to move forward with management proposals unchanged for the South Arran MPA is disappointing, particularly as the Ministers announcement does not seem to acknowledge the potential for localised economic impact. Revised figures from Marine Scotland estimate that the final management measures will result in no scallop dredging grounds being available in the MPA and 48% of demersal trawl grounds available. This relates to 51% loss in total annual value from within the MPA (£470,000) and an estimated 2.5% reduction in the total revenue of 137 fishing vessels which will be affected to some degree. A ‘recovery’ conservation objective for some features of this MPA has led to stricter management measures being approved.
4.3.4 The announcement continues to focus on the overall impact on the income of all fishing vessels in Scotland being low and does not reflect the higher localised levels of economic impact within individual MPAs or potential cumulative impacts on coastal communities.
4.3.5 The three point plan identified to minimise local impact is welcomed but from initial details provided it is not clear whether it will be enough to mitigate localised economic impact and fully cover costs associated with diversification of affected fishing vessels. Opportunities for vessels to participate in environmental monitoring is likely to benefit few vessels and is a small amount of money over three years covering the whole of Scotland (equivalent to annual loss of fishing value from South Arran MPA). The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will go live on 18 January 2016 and may be able to support up to 50% of costs associated with changes to vessels or fishing gear to allow diversification or adapting to change in fishing practices. Given the short period of two weeks between the opening of EMFF and MPA management measures taking effect, EMFF funding opportunities need to be widely promoted to the fishing community by Marine Scotland and Inshore Fisheries Groups to ensure affected fishermen are able to timeously access these funds. Other funding mechanisms should also be explored.
4.3.6 The commitment to undertake a robust economic study to assess the impact on coastal communities is welcomed, however waiting a year to start this work will leave stakeholders uncertain of the likely economic issues prior to being consulted on the next round of management proposals for other MPAs and the forthcoming consultation on the designation of new protected areas. Should this detailed economic assessment conclude that MPA management has resulted in unacceptable economic impacts on coastal communities, it is unclear as to whether measures will be reconsidered by Scottish Government.
4.3.8 The Cabinet Secretary has identified the four Marine Conservation Order consultations undertaken earlier this year (which included South Arran MPA and Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura MPA) as an ‘independent and transparent test of decisions’. It is considered that, until such time as a report providing details of the responses received and reasons for decisions made, and individual responses to these public consultations are made publically available, these consultations cannot be considered to be a transparent process.
4.4 Views on new proposal for Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura MPA
4.4.1 The new MCO proposal subject to further public consultation has made some changes to the small areas where demersal trawling and scallop dredging (mobile gear fishing) are allowed, suggested in the Minister’s announcement as being made in response to representations from fishing interests. The changes appear to allow mobile gear fishing to occur in additional small areas, including a small increase in the Sound of Mull where the value of fishing is relatively high.
4.4.2 The supporting documentation for the new MCO proposal has provided a more detailed estimate of the spatial impact on fishing activity by estimating the amount of fishing ground for prawn trawling and scallop dredging within the MPA and then the amount of this fishing ground which is available if restrictions are implemented. These new figures estimate that 61% of scallop dredging and 77% of demersal trawl ground will still be available within the MPA. This relates to 11% loss in total annual value (£200,000) from within the MPA and an estimated 1% reduction in the total revenue of 95 fishing vessels which will be affected to some degree.
4.4.3 Views on this new proposal from local fishing interests are not yet available but will be summarised verbally at the meeting if made available in time.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 The Cabinet Secretary’s announcement on 18 December 2015 delivered the final decisions on MPA and SAC management for all but one of the MPAs in Argyll and Bute. The announcement estimates that the direct economic impact on the fishing industry across Scotland as very low, but does not acknowledge the potential higher levels of impact at a local scale. The identified three point plan to help minimise local impacts is not considered adequate to fully mitigate local economic impact and Scottish Government is therefore urged to consider the following: A more coherent and inclusive financial strategy and dedicated package of support measures which goes wider than EMFF support, to help mitigate local economic impact on individual fishing businesses the local supply chain and associated coastal communities; and Short and long-term monitoring of the environmental and economic impact of management measures in MPAs and SACs to ensure management is effective and proportionate to its benefits, including the review recommended by the RACCE committee.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy Positively influencing the proposed management of a Scottish network of marine protected areas assists the Council deliver the SOA outcome for a diverse and thriving economy, and commitments for the environment. 6.2 Financial None 6.3 Legal None 6.4 HR None 6.5 Equalities None 6.6 Risk Some proposed MPA management measures are likely to result in local economic impacts on coastal communities in Argyll and Bute. 6.7 Customer Services None
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure – Pippa Milne Policy Lead – David Kinniburgh 14 January 2016
For further information contact: Mark Steward; Marine & Coastal Development Manager; [email protected]; 01631 567972
Glossary of terms
European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF) - European Structural and Investment (ESI) Fund for the EU's maritime and fisheries policies for 2014-2020.
Mobile gear fishing – Fishing activity which involves towed gear, such as trawling or dredging.
Marine Conservation Order (MCO) - May be made by Scottish Ministers to further the conservation objectives of a Marine Protected Area by regulating activities.
Marine Protected Areas (MPA) – Scottish marine designated site to protect specific nature conservation features including habitats, species and geological features. Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) – European nature conservation designated site protecting habitats or species of conservation importance at European level.
Special Protection Area (SPA) - European nature conservation designated site protecting bird species of conservation importance at European level.
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND 14th January 2016 INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Projects and Renewables - Social Enterprise Team Annual Report 2014-15
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The Social Enterprise Team (SET) is part of Economic Development and Strategic Transportation section within the Council and its remit is to ‘harness the potential of the third sector and increase their capacity to deliver sustainable communities’.
1.2 In the past year the services provided by SET have assisted in accessing at least £373,200 for communities through Funding Alert alone, and in the previous year £901,800. In addition, direct project work, such as Hermitage Park, has brought funding into the area and will potentially bring in at least £3million in the next five years.
1.3 An annual report for 2014-15 has been produced to provide information on the work of SET, and this is attached to this report. This annual report demonstrates that SET is meeting its targets.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee note the content of this report.
1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND 14th January 2016 INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Projects and Renewables - Social Enterprise Team Annual Report 2014-15
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This report provides an overview of the achievements of the Social Enterprise Team (SET) over the period April 2014-March 2015.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee note the content of this report.
4.0 BACKGROUND
4.1 The Social Enterprise Team is part of the Projects and Renewables Team in Economic Development and Strategic Transportation Service. The remit of the team is to ‘harness the potential of the third sector and increase their capacity to deliver sustainable communities’. This fits with our outcome to ‘create opportunities for our partners and communities to fully engage in the way our services are delivered’ (CO8).
4.2 The work of the SET is focused on the following areas:
4.2.1 Improving the way the council does business with the third sector 4.2.2 Developing new ways of delivering services in partnership with the third sector 4.2.3 Assisting delivery of the Single Outcome Agreement and Economic Development Action Plans (Strategic and Local) 4.2.4 Support areas for action as described in the Local Development Plan
4.3 The SET provides a range of services built on customer feedback. This includes the monthly Funding Alert; topic sheets with contacts and funders on a range of popular enquiries such as heritage, events and festivals; a searchable database of funders; support with the third sector asset transfer process and bespoke project support. Seventy-one percent of our customers reported that they used Funding Alert to identify funders and from those that provided a financial figure, this amounted to £373,200 in 2014-15 and £901,800 in 2013-14. Three hundred and forty-six funding searches were undertaken in 2014-15, and 157 enquiries were 2 supported. SET also developed the community support webpages http://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/community-support which gives third sector organisations direct access to a range of toolkits, information and contacts within the council.
4.4 Third Sector Asset Transfer - Community Empowerment Bill.
SET supports the customer facing element of the Third Sector Asset Transfer Process for which we have had 36 requests since the first request in October 2012. We are assisting with the council’s internal working group on The Community Empowerment Bill Part 5 Asset Transfer Requests and, with our colleagues in other council departments, are considering what changes are required to our own processes and how these can be made to ensure we fully comply with the bill.
4.5 Over the past year SET has assisted in developing a range of projects in partnership with communities and agencies including;
4.4.1 Hermitage Park, Helensburgh – circa £3m heritage-led regeneration 4.4.2 Carradale Slipway – small boat access to the water for residents and visitors 4.4.3 Artmap Argyll – sustainable future for a collective of 59 artist-led businesses in mid-Argyll 4.4.4 Argyll Coastal Waters – creation of Argyll Sea Kayak Trail, paddle Argyll website http://www.paddleargyll.org.uk/ and 12 apprenticeships.
4.6 Details of these projects, the wider impacts of SET and the key targets for 2015-16 are in the attached annual report, or can be accessed via the link below. This demonstrates how SET is meeting its objectives and targets. http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/set_annual_report_2014-2015_1.pdf
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 The Social Enterprise Team (SET) works with colleagues across the Council and a range of partners to deliver outcome CO8 ‘to create opportunities for our partners and communities to fully engage in the way our services are delivered’. The attached annual report for 2014-15 demonstrates how SET is meeting its objectives and targets together with the identification of our key targets for 2015-16.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy None from this report.
6.2 Financial None from this report.
6.3 Legal None from this report.
6.4 HR None from this report.
6.5 Equalities None from this report. 3 6.6 Risk None from this report.
6.7 Customer Services None from this report.
7. APPENDICES
7.1 Appendix One Social Enterprise Team Annual Report 2014-15.
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure - Pippa Milne 14th January 2015
Policy Lead: Cllr Aileen Morton
For further information contact: Arlene Cullum Tel: +44(0)1436 658727 [email protected]
4 Beach at Ganavan Bay
Lock on the Crinan Canal
Talk at the Crinan Canal Wild camping at North Bute
Social Enterprise Team Annual Report 2014-15
View over Scalpsie Bay Our vision and priorities
Social enterprise is a term to describe an organisa on that We provide a range of services to the third sector: Topic has a social or environmental purpose that makes a profit sheets on a variety of popular subjects such as social to invest in this purpose or the wider community. In Argyll enterprise, renewables, heritage and events and fes vals, and Bute, Atlan s Leisure is one of our largest social they contain details of useful contacts, available support enterprises, charging customers and delivering services on and poten al funders; An online searchable database of behalf of the council and reinves ng any surplus back into funding opportuni es available to all; Support with the the business or to develop services targeted at people most third sector asset transfer process and bespoke support to a in need. In Argyll and Bute Social Enterprise Network’s range of third sector organisa ons that help fulfil our aim. most recent survey , they had 38 members with a turnover In the past year we have produced a Community Support of over £17.7m, employing 376 staff (179 Full me and 197 Webpage designed to assist community groups to access Part me). This combined with the social, environmental advice and informa on on various topics from funding to and community benefits delivered demonstrates the project support and development.” significant contribu on social enterprises make to our rural communi es. Most projects involve working with a range of partners including other council departments, external partners, Argyll and Bute Council’s social enterprise team is based Argyll and Bute Social Enterprise Network and the Third within projects and renewables as part of the economic Sector Partnership, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and development service. It was established following a service the NHS. Some of these projects are described in our review in 2010 and aims to ‘Harness the potenƟal of the report. third sector and increase their capacity to deliver sustainable communiƟes’.
We do this by;
The team are; Improving the way the council does business with the Third Sector Social Enterprise Team Leader – Developing new ways of delivering services in Arlene Cullum 01436 658727/07979 214501 partnership with the Third Sector Social Enterprise Officer – David Rennie 01700 501371/07768 101320 Assis ng delivery of the Economic Development Social Enterprise Worker – Ac on Plan – CHORD/Renewables/Food and Drink/Tourism/Culture, Heritage and Forestry Isabell Jones 01369 708547/07989 423368 Social Enterprise Worker – Support Areas for Ac on as described in Local Brenda Sutherland 01700 501370/07825 842080 Development Plans Paddling at Ardrishaig Argyll Coastal Waters
The Argyll Coastal Waters Project is a partnership project approximately 130km in length, covering some of the most between Argyll and Bute Council, Stramash, a social naturally beau ful and wildlife rich parts of Scotland. enterprise, and Sco sh Canals. The overall aim is to Stramash administers and supports the jobs of the develop coastal access sites to assist the economic growth marke ng, training and appren ceship and paddle‐sports of Argyll and Bute’s coastal communi es through improved development posts. infrastructure and access to the waterfront and subsequent The Social Enterprise Team have developed and development of water based recrea onal ac vi es for managed this project in partnership with a range of people who visit and live in Argyll. Improvements to external and internal stakeholders and succeeded in facili es and access for paddle‐sports such as kayaking will accessing £500,000 of funding from Coastal create a Kayak Trail, 2 full‐ me and one part‐ me jobs, 12 Communi es Fund and LEADER. The project con nues marine tourism appren ceships for local young people, and un l May 2015 and a further stage of development is a range of volunteering opportuni es. The Argyll Sea Kayak planned. Trail is a new tourism product for the area and is Carradale Slipway The Carradale Slipway project was completed, despite the repeated sabotage a empts of the Sco sh weather. Carradale Harbour Enterprises Ltd (CHEL) were unfailing in their commitment to the project which was funded by Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund 2007‐2013, Marine Harvest, East Kintyre Windfarm Trust and the Carradale Community.
The slipway will be u lised for launching small boats by visitors and locals, access to the water for other watersports and should be of great assistance to the Marine Harvest fish farm.
CHEL Quote: We are very grateful to our funders, Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund 2007‐2013 programme, and our supporters in Argyll and Bute Council. A real partnership Carradale Slipway project.
The Social Enterprise Team (SET) has supported CHEL by a ending site mee ngs with the main contractor, providing an interface with other council departments, facilita ng a cash flow loan from the council, providing . support with the FLAG claims, monitoring of cash flow and any other ad hoc support that has been required.
We are looking forward to con nuing to work with View from Carradale Slipway them on the next stage of the harbour development. Hermitage Park
The Heritage Lo ery Funded restora on and development of to submit a second stage funding bid to Heritage Lo ery Hermitage Park has focussed on the development of a Fund and other funders. masterplan for the design of the park, and an ac vity plan to ensure that more people use the park for learning and The Social Enterprise Team has worked with Friends of recrea on. Together with the Friends of Hermitage Park and Hermitage Park Associa on, council departments and our the Users Group we have organised three consulta on contractors Gillespies and Gareth Hoskins amongst events in Helensburgh, spoken to over a hundred groups, run others, to develop the project. We hope a stage two an online ques onnaire and kept people up to date on applica on will be successful and that the project will facebook, through our quarterly newsle er and in the local con nue un l 2021 with capital works comple ng in press. The masterplan is now finalised and we are on course 2018. Dunoon Community Sports Centre
The idea for Dunoon Community Sports Centre was born out of the aspira ons of Dunoon Amateur Boxing Club to build a new clubhouse. A piece of land within Dunoon Stadium was iden fied and a lease was obtained from Argyll & Bute Council. Planning permission and a Building Warrant followed. The group are awai ng a decision from Sportscotland on their second stage funding bid and they have also applied to Dunoon Stadium OSCR for charitable status.
The Social Enterprise Team (SET) became involved in Cowal Gathering suppor ng the club at an early stage. We provided guidance and support in strengthening the clubs commi ee. We arranged various mee ngs for the chair and secretary of the club with the estates surveyor, customer services officer, MP Alan Reid, and the Chief Inspector of Dunoon Police leading up to the lease and building warrant being granted. Informa on required by SportScotland in support of the clubs applica on was provided by SET. Blairmore Village Hall
Blairmore Village Hall is one of four village halls referred to in the Benmore and Community Ac on Plan 2013‐2017. The ac on plan was produced in community partnership with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Na onal Park. Village hall upgrade is a priority in the theme "Village Improvement and Community Facili es". The hall itself dates from the 1880's. It was originally built as the wai ng room for passengers using Blairmore Pier. The hall was gi ed in trust in 1971 for Blairmore Village Hall use by the village. The fabric of the building has not been updated since the 1970's. A formal partnership agreement with Blairmore Village Trust is in place and both trusts have The Social Enterprise Team met with the Blairmore agreed to work closely together. Blairmore Village Trust are Village Hall Commi ee in November 2014. We provided in the first year of a two year program agreed with the support and funding advice and over the next few Sco sh Land Fund who have recently given Blairmore months we met with commi ee members to put Village Trust a grant of £90,000 to purchase the village together an applica on to Inves ng in Communi es green which lies adjacent to the village hall. which was submi ed prior to the fund closing. ArtmapArgyll
The Social Enterprise Team has been suppor ng Artmap Argyll. Artmap exists as a network of 59 businesses contribu ng to Argyll’s crea ve industries sector through members’ studios and venues, pop up shops and community engagement events that happen throughout the year in Argyll. There is no single physical base, office, or workshop where visitors or members can congregate and par cipate. Artmap has undergone a period of growth and organisa onal development that firmly posi ons itself to grasp and drive forward its plans for growth. With the support of the Social Enterprise Team they have secured funding from the Big Lo ery to help develop these ideas that will grow and expand the company. We con nue to support the newly expanded Board to achieve its full poten al. Funding Alert
Along with the other resources we have developed we produce a monthly Funding Alert, a fully interac ve Free tools and resources document which alerts individuals, groups and organisa ons www.argyll‐bute.gov.uk/community‐support to current poten al funding streams. In our latest ques onnaire 71% of respondents reported that they had www.argyll‐bute.gov.uk/community‐life‐and‐ leisure/topic‐sheets iden fied streams of funding through Funding Alert. Funding to the total of £373,200 was iden fied by various www.argyll‐bute.gov.uk/grantnet organisa ons. At present Funding Alert has a distribu on list www.argyll‐bute.gov.uk/asset‐transfer‐process of 1,099 recipients consis ng of individuals, organisa ons and groups and a further 716 people along with mul ple www.argyll‐bute.gov.uk/community‐life‐and‐ leisure/funding‐and‐support groups receive Funding Alert from recipients on our list. Training
The team has responded posi vely to requests for Centre 81 bespoke training on a wide variety of subjects. Including : How to Iden fy the Best Funding Sources; What is the Best Structure to Set up Your Organisa ons Governance and How to Strengthen Your Board. Most of this work has been tailored for individual groups but the presenta on given to the Community Woodlands Associa on was to a collec on of representa ves from the sector. We con nue to work with other statutory partners and colleagues in the third sector to coordinate our ac vi es and pool our resources in order to get the best value from the limited training budgets that become available.
h p://www.argyll‐bute.gov.uk/training Events
Three Villages Hall
We have been involved with several events and seminars throughout the year. Back in September we supported the Community feedback Co‐produc on event held at the Three Villages Hall. In March we helped deliver two village halls events that offered informa on and support to small local groups who deliver vital services in our most rural areas. In June we were working with Founda on Scotland to showcase the support to organisa ons who manage community benefit funds from renewables. In October we helped document and disseminate the presenta ons from the Economic Summit held in Dunoon. We con nue to work with other statutory partners and colleagues in the third sector to coordinate our ac vi es and pool our resources in order to get the best value from the limited training budgets that become available.
h p://www.argyll‐bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/fes vals_and_events_topic_sheet_1.pdf Bandstand in Dunoon Village Halls Event—Centre 81
Key Targets for 2015/16
Con nue support to service priori sa on managers, develop social enterprise opportuni es and amenity services projects with the Third Sector.
Work with the Third Sector Interface to ensure that evolving social enterprises have access to the training and support they require.
Bespoke support to at least 10 developing social enterprises from within and outwith the council which meet with Argyll and Bute Council priori es (CHORD, EDAP) e.g. Support development and submission of the stage 2 Hermitage Park applica on, support Argyll and the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust to become sustainable, support Argyll Coastal Waters delivery and next phase.
Support the Third Sector to take ownership of council assets through the Third Sector Asset Transfer Process.
Con nue to work with key partners across the council and externally such as Community Development, Business Gateway, Procurement Team, ABSEN, HIE, OSCR, Development Trust Associa on Scotland, Social Enterprise Scotland and others.
Work with Community Planning Partners to ensure the benefits of the Argyll and Bute Local Service Ini a ve are realised into the medium to longer term.
Maximise external funding opportuni es for Third Sector organisa ons.
Contribute to the work of strategic partnerships including LEADER Local Ac on Group, Third Sector and Communi es Strategic Partnership and Sco sh External Funding Officers Group.
Con nue to prepare and disseminate the council’s Funding Alert, Topic Sheets, Online Toolkits and other resources e.g. Grantnet.
Consult annually through Funding Alert Ques onnaire. ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT& INFRASTRUCTURE 14 JANUARY 2016
ARGYLL AND THE ISLES AIR SERVICES
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Local air services are essential to the social and economic wellbeing of the islands they serve providing resilience in the event of ferry cancellations and helping to counter issues such as depopulation. In recognition of the importance of these services, subsidy is made available by Argyll and Bute Council to operate the Public Service Obligation air services to Coll, Colonsay and Tiree. The operator Hebridean Air Services also operate commercial flights to Islay.
This paper provides an update on the air services including details of the operating costs of airports and air services, timetable, fare structure, marketing of the services, passenger figures using the services and highlights results of recent public consultation with island communities on the air services.
The paper also includes some brief details of other types of air services operating at Oban airport and training offered by staff to generate additional income.
Members are asked to note the value provided from the operation of the air services and to endorse the continuing marketing strategy
1 ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT& INFRASTRUCTURE 14 JANUARY 2016
ARGYLL AND THE ISLES AIR SERVICES
2.0 INTRODUCTION Local air services are essential to the social and economic wellbeing of the islands they serve providing resilience in the event of ferry cancellations and helping to counter issues such as depopulation. In recognition of the importance of these services, subsidy is made available by Argyll and Bute Council to operate the Public Service Obligation air services to Coll, Colonsay and Tiree. The operator Hebridean Air Services also operate commercial flights to Islay.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Members are asked to note the value provided from the operation of the air services and to endorse the continuing marketing strategy.
4. DETAILS 4.1 Background There are only three airports in Scotland that are operated on a commercial basis - Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Highland and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) is a public corporation wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers. The company operates and manages 11 Airports at:-
Campbeltown, Islay, Tiree, Barra, Benbecula, Dundee, Inverness, Kirkwall, Stornoway, Sumburgh and Wick.
HIAL's airports, although vital to the social and economic welfare of the areas they serve, are all loss making and are supported by subsidies from the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Government in 2014-15 subsidised the 11 airports that HIAL operate at a cost of £36.4M http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/10/2706/16
4.2 Argyll and Bute Council Airports and Public Service Obligation Air Services Argyll and Bute Council operate three licensed aerodromes at Oban, Coll and Colonsay. These aerodromes are licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as required by law to allow scheduled passenger flight services (for use by paying members of the public) to land and take off. The license stipulates the required safety standards and fire cover required for each aircraft movement. Operations at the licensed aerodromes are audited on a regular basis by the CAA and require the appropriate level of resource.
The licensed aerodromes above support the Public Service Obligation (PSO) air services out to the islands of Coll, Colonsay and Tiree. Support to the fire fighting staff
2 and inspection of the aerodromes on Coll and Colonsay is provided by the Station Manager and two Crew Commanders from Oban airport.
4.4 Operating Costs of Oban and the Isles Air Services and Airports The operating costs of Argyll and Bute Council’s 3 airports and the air services in financial year 2014/15 are detailed in the table below:-
Operating Costs of Airports and Air Services
Operating Costs of Airports 2014/15 Coll Airport £119k Colonsay Airport £116k Oban Airport £570k Total Operating Cost £805k Less Scottish Government Grant -£800k Total Cost to Argyll & Bute Council £5k
Operating Costs of Air Services 2014/15 Air Services £666k Less Grant Aided Expenditure -£642k Total Cost to Argyll & Bute Council £24k
Source: Strategic Finance
The income received from Scottish Government through grant for the 3 airports and through GAE for the air services is shown above.
Argyll and Bute Council in 2014/15 operated 3 airports at a cost of £805k, (less £800k Scottish Government Grant which works out at a total cost to the Council of £5k).
4.5 Timetable The time table and fare structure for the air services is shown below. The standard fare for the commercial air service Colonsay-Islay is £25. On a Monday and Wednesday morning the air services fly Oban-Coll-Tiree-Oban and in the late afternoon Oban- Tiree-Coll-Oban. On a Tuesday and Thursday morning the air services fly Oban- Colonsay-Islay-Oban and in the late afternoon Oban-Islay-Colonsay-Oban.
On a Friday and Sunday there are scholar flights to the islands of Coll and Colonsay during school term. The PSO air services transport pupils from the islands of Coll and Colonsay to Oban High School allowing them valuable time with their families during the weekend and offering further resilience in the event of ferry service cancellations during the winter months.
3 Note: Excluding Highlands and Islands Terminal Departing Passenger Charge, where applicable
4 4.6 Marketing Strategy Argyll and Bute Council are keen to grow local air services and commissioned and implemented a marketing strategy aimed at consolidating and expanding operations at Oban airport in 2013. The Council has worked positively with all who have a stake in the success of Oban airport in taking the marketing strategy forward, and were successful in gaining a national profile for Oban and the PSO services to the isles, with positive national TV coverage on the BBC’s Landward programme and on Reporting Scotland.
Following stakeholder feedback a new website for Oban and the Isles Airports has been launched including a short promotional film www.obanandtheislesairports.com
The brand Oban and the Isles Airports was implemented to enforce the message that the air services support lifeline services to the island communities and also to attract pilots in the general aviation sector to visit Argyll and the airports Argyll and Bute Council operate.
Leaflets promoting Argyll and the Isles air services have been produced and 10,000 of these have been distributed to over 80 outlets across Argyll and Bute to hotels, tourist attractions etc. (Appendix A). A further 5,000 leaflets have been distributed to Visit Scotland Tourist Information centres at Oban, Fort William, Inverary and Tyndrum.
Posters have been developed to encourage general aviation to visit Argyll and the Isles airports and distributed to over 180 flying clubs across the UK. Familiarisation visits have also been arranged for stakeholders with an interest in Oban airport to provide a better understanding of its operation and services that are on offer.
5
The Communications Officer also recently arranged for Oban Airport and its sister airports on the islands of Coll and Colonsay to feature in a BBC Alba documentary series on air provision in the West of Scotland.
The programme is an observational feature and airport operations have been filmed and interviews carried out with the relevant staff on the ground as well as coverage of the actual flights. The documentary will be a ‘day in the life’ type programme. The programme is due to be screened weekly over 8 weeks at primetime (between 8pm and 10 pm) beginning early March 2016. This will further promote the services in the lead in to the summer season.
We are keen to explore new ways is which we can develop and attract business to Oban airport and which can also benefit local stake holders. The Historic Endurance Rallying Organisation (HERO) is a classic car endurance rallying club which runs the prestigious LeJog event every year. The event is considered one of the toughest events of its kind in Europe and sees drivers leave Land’s End and over a 4 day period drive to John O’Groats covering 1,400 miles.
The LeJog event has come as far west as Oban with more than 60 vintage cars making their way to Oban Airport for time trials on the runway. The event was highly successful and we are in discussions with HERO to come back to Oban in April 2016 as part of the Scottish Malts Classic Reliability Trial and Classic Car Tour http://www.heroevents.eu/Events/ScottishMalts/
This event is due to start in Loch Lomond with the detailed route still to be finalised but it is hoped that if we can secure a visit to the airport as part of the rally, there will be further benefits to local stakeholders with accommodation required for crews/marshals from the event.
4.7 Passenger Figures The table below details the passenger figures carried on the PSO air services since they commenced in June 2008.
The current operator is Hebridean Air Services who was awarded the current three year PSO contract in May 2015. As can be seen from the figures below patronage on the isles air services operated out of Oban airport continue to grow. This is despite difficult market conditions given the current economic climate.
6 For the annual period 2014 passengers carried on Oban and the Isles Air Services has now risen to just over 3500. In total 3,516 passengers were carried during 2014 compared to 3,334 during 2013. This equates to a 5.5% annual increase. The highest figure for passengers carried per month was recorded this year in November.
To give some context Highlands and Islands Airports Limited are responsible for the management and operation of Campbeltown, Tiree and Islay airports. HIAL published passenger figures for 2014 for Campbeltown airport 9,774 (-1.4% annual increase) and Tiree 9,880 (9.3% annual increase) and Islay 28,460 (5.5% annual increase).
Passenger Figures from Services Operated out of Oban airport (excluding scholar flights)
Month 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 January - 200 100 173 216 241 249 223 February - 168 145 249 215 258 287 335 March - 233 - 244 336 357 390 456 April - 181 86 131 195 256 296 330 May - 181 88 147 310 328 311 232 June 137 223 189 251 279 304 279 362 July 137 207 210 212 317 353 318 378 August 197 206 246 201 327 286 293 379 September 153 227 221 216 236 260 313 414 October 189 133 151 246 308 287 292 262 November 159 137 239 294 282 235 325 461 December 151 195 151 146 203 169 163 Total 1,123 2,291 1,826 2,510 3,224 3,334 3,516
Source: Hebridean Air Services
4.8 Local Business Use The air services operating out of Oban airport have also supported the local economy being regularly used by local businesses as detailed in Appendix B. The PSO air services have proved essential for service provision to the islands with the NHS, Argyll and Bute Council, Argyll Community Housing Association being key business users.
4.9 Public Consultation Last autumn 2014, a full public consultation was carried out with island residents on Coll, Tiree and Colonsay to allow the results to feed into the procurement process for the new PSO contract. Questionnaires were posted out to every address on Coll (129 addresses) with a questionnaire return rate of 48%. Of the responses received from Coll 90% agreed that air services enhanced the island community way of life.
Questionnaires were also posted out to every address on Colonsay (95 addresses) with a questionnaire return rate of 48%. Of the responses received 92% agreed that
7 air services enhanced the island community way of life.
And questionnaires were posted out to every address on Tiree (500 addressees) with a questionnaire return rate of 29%. Of the responses received 92% agreed that air services had enhanced the island community.
4.10 Oban Airport Landings The table below provides a summary breakdown of landings by category over the last 5 years.
Type of 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Flights Landings Landings Landings Landings Landings Charter 106 84 50 11 17 Emergency 110 48 65 86 104 Services Flight Training 169 42 46 54 0 Flying Clubs 397 375 379 274 418 General 1066 647 918 1106 1283 Aviation Military 63 37 52 36 37 PSO 543 499 521 492 448 Royal 2 5 2 1 2 Scenic Tours 207 167 Total 2,663 1904 2033 2060 2309
Source: Oban Airport navigator system
Oban airport plays an important role in supporting the Coastguard in Search and Rescue operations and the emergency Helimed service as incidents arise throughout the year. Oban airport also plays a supporting role to military aircraft during their operations. Landings from general aviation, the PSO and flying clubs represent the largest aircraft categories.
4.11 New Business Growth
There has also been business growth at Oban airport with Border Air Training Ltd operating at Oban airport offering pilot training programmes. In 2013 Fly Scenic Scotland also established an operation at Oban airport offering scenic flying tours over Oban and Lorn. In 2014 alone there were 207 scenic tours booked and undertaken.
4.12 Fire Extinguisher Training at the Airport The staff at Oban airport have also been innovatively pursuing income generation by offering Fire Extinguisher Training to pilots and local employers of staff. The course is offered at £15 per delegate. The workplace training is in accordance with the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006. On completion of the course, each delegate is presented with a certificate detailing the course content and confirming his or her participation.
ACHA approached the Council regarding this service and staff from Oban airport trained over 60 ACHA staff in fire extinguisher training. To date approximately 100 people have undertaken training provided by staff at Oban airport generating an income of approximately £1k. West Highland Housing Association and Northern
8 Lighthouse Board have also had their staff undertake fire safety training provided by Council staff at Oban airport.
5.0 CONCLUSION Local air services are essential to the social and economic wellbeing of the islands they serve providing resilience in the event of ferry cancellations and helping to counter issues such as depopulation. The services operating to and from Oban Airport provide island residents with access to essential services which cannot be provided locally and also support the development of tourism in Argyll. In recognition of the importance of these services, subsidy is made available by Argyll and Bute Council to operate the Public Service Obligation air services to Coll, Colonsay and Tiree.
Passenger figures on the isles air services operated out of Oban airport continue to grow. This is despite difficult market conditions given the current economic climate.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy In line with EDAP theme Connectivity and SOA objective that transport connectivity across the area is improved.
6.2 Financial Subsidy is made available by Argyll and Bute Council to operate the Public Service Obligation air services.
6.3 Legal PSO Air Services are covered by European Regulations No 10081/2008 on Common Rules for the Operation of Air Services in the Community the Council.
6.4 HR N/A
6.5 Equalities Airports are compliant for those with mobility difficulties and assistance given to those boarding aircraft services.
6.6 Risk N/A
6.7 Customer Services Public consultation exercise undertaken with island residents as part of procurement process and continued customer feedback monitored at airports.
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Pippa Milne
Policy Lead Councillor Alastair MacDougall
8 December 2015
For further information contact: [email protected] 01546 604 190
Appendix A – Display Site List EAE Ltd
9 Leaflets promoting Argyll and the Isles air services have been produced and 10,000 of these have been distributed to over 80 outlets (as listed below) across Argyll and Bute. A further 5,000 leaflets have been distributed to Visit Scotland Tourist Information centres at Oban, Fort William, Inverary and Tyndrum.
Number of Sites: 80
Name and Address Umbrella
Abbots Brae Hotel, West Bay, Dunoon Accommodation Ardtully Hotel, 297 Marine Parade Dunoon Accommodation Argyll Caravan & Camping Park, Inverary Accommodation Argyll Hotel, Argyll Street, Dunoon Accommodation Argyll Hotel, Front Street, Inverary Accommodation Ballachulish Hotel, Ballachulish Accommodation Barcaldine Caravan and Camping Site, Barcaldine Accommodation Bay House Hotel, West Bay Promenade Dunoon Accommodation Bridge of Orchy Hotel, Bridge of Orchy Accommodation Cairnbaan Hotel, Cairnbaan Cottages, Cairnbaan Accommodation Caledonian Hotel Oban, Queens Park Place, Oban Accommodation Clachaig Hotel, Glencoe Accommodation Clan Cottages, Kilmore, Oban Accommodation Columba Hotel Oban, Corran Esplanade, Oban Accommodation Coylet Inn, Loch Eck Accommodation Culfail Hotel, Kilmelford Accommodation Dungallan Hotel, Gallanach Road, Oban Accommodation Esplanade Hotel, Victoria Parade, Dunoon Accommodation Falls of Lora Hotel, Connel Accommodation Glen Orchy Hotel, Dalmally Accommodation Glencoe Youth Hostel, Glencoe Accommodation Glenmorag Hotel, Kilbride Road, Dunoon Accommodation Great Western Hotel, Corran Esplanade, Oban Accommodation Grey Gull Hotel, Glenburn Road Ardrishaig Accommodation Holly Tree Hotel, Appin Accommodation Invercoe Highland Holidays, Glencoe Accommodation Kilmartin Inn, Kilmartin Accommodation Kimberley Hotel, Dalriach Road, Oban Accommodation Kings House Hotel, Glencoe Accommodation Kings Knoll Hotel, Dunollie Road, Oban Accommodation Knipoch Hotel, Barndromin Farm, Knopoch Accommodation Loch Fyne Hotel, Inverary Accommodation Loch Melfort Hotel, Arduaine Accommodation Lochgair Hotel, Lochgair Accommodation Lochgilphead Caravan Park, Lochgilphead Accommodation Lochnell Arms Hotel, North Connel Accommodation Melfort Holiday Village, Kilmelford Accommodation Milton Tower Hotel, West Bay Promenade, Dunoon Accommodation North Ledaig Caravan Park, Ledaig Accommodation Oban Bay Hotel, Corran Esplanade, Oban Accommodation Oban Caravan and Camping Park, Gallanch Road, Oban Accommodation Oyster Inn, Connel Accommodation Park Hotel, 3 Glenmorag Avenue, Dunoon Accommodation Queens Hotel Oban, Corran Esplanade, Oban Accommodation
10 Red Squirrel Camp Site Glencoe Accommodation Rowantree Hotel, George Street, Oban Accommodation Royal Hotel, Argyll Square, Oban Accommodation Selbourne Hotel, Victoria Parade, Dunoon Accommodation Soroba House Hotel, Soroba Road, Oban Accommodation St Ives Hotel, 58 Victoria Parade, Dunoon Accommodation Stewart Arms Hotel, Duror Accommodation Stewart Hotel, Appin Accommodation Strathceck Caravan Park, Loch Eck Accommodation SYHA Oban, Corran Esplanade, Oban Accommodation Taynuilt Hotel, Taynuilt Accommodation Traleee Bay Holidays, Tralee Caravan Site, Ledaig Accommodation West End Hotel Dunoon, west Bay, Dunoon Accommodation Western Hotel, 141 Alexandra Parade, Dunoon Accommodation Woodside Hotel Oban, Tweeddale Street , Oban Accommodation Waterfront Restaurant, Railway Pier, Oban Food & Drink Atlantis Leisure Centre, Dalnach Road, Oban Leisure Glencoe Mountain Resort, Kings House, Glencoe Leisure Scottish Co-op, Argyll Street, Dunoon Retail Scottish Co-op, Soraba Road, Oban Retail Bonawe Iron Furnace, Taynuilt Tourism Castle Stalker, Appin Tourism Crarae Gardens, Crarae Tourism Cruachan Power Station, Lochawe Tourism Dunstaffnage Castle, Connel Tourism Frog Marina, Dunbeg Tourism Glencoe Visitor Centre, Glencoe Tourism Inverary Castle, Cherry Park, Inverary Tourism Inverary Jail, Church Square, Inverary Tourism Inverary Woollen Mill, Front Street, Inverary Tourism Inverawe Fisheries and Country Park, Inverawe Tourism McCaigs Warehouse, Railway Pier, Oban Tourism Oban Distillery, Stafford Street, Oban Tourism Oban Sealife Centre, Barcaldine Tourism Puffin Drive Centre Gallanach Road, Oban Tourism Stratheck Country Park, Loch Eck Tourism
11 APPENDIX B – Sum of Flights by Business User 2014
Source: Hebridean Air Services
January 2014 - December 2014
Company Total NHS 632 ABC 552 Argyll Community Housing Association 114 Project Trust 96 Kevan Brown Ltd 63 HIAL 49 Coop Travel 49 Corrie Construction 33 Highlands and Islands Enterprise 33 DM Hall 33 Scottish and Southern Energy PLC 25 Dualchas Architects 28 Portman Travel 21 Bell Ingram 18 Graham & Sibbald 18 Gleaner Oils 17 Coll Hotel 17 Santia Consulting 17 DCF Joinery Services Ltd 16 Saltire Society 16 RSPB 15 Renewables Now Ltd 14 OES 12 Walton Electrical 12 CRGP Robertson 11 FCM Travel 11 A and L Mechanical Installations 10 Children First 10 United Auctions 10 McPhee and Partners 10 Marine Harvest 10 PlanB Consulting 10
12 Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan 2016/17
JANUARY 2016: This is an outline plan to facilitate forward planning of reports to the EDI Committee.
14 January 2016 Fyne Futures – Zero Waste As advised by Exec Director Customer Bute Presentation Services and Provost. Planning Performance Angus Gilmour 11 December Noted at November 2015 pre-agenda Update 2015 A82/A83 Transport Roads & Amenity Quarterly 11 December This is an update on the A83 Taskforce Scotland Update 2015 Group and progress on improvements made to the Rest and Be Thankful
Compelling Argyll and Bute Ishabel Bremner 11 December Moved from 12 November Agenda – Update 2015 Scottish Government Ishabel Bremner 11 December Consultation: Review of 2015 Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) Boundaries Funding for Onshore Wind Audrey Martin 11 December Moved from 12 November Agenda 2015 Film in Argyll and Bute Audrey Martin 11 December 2015 Informal Consultation on Mark Steward 11 December Email from M Steward dated 25 November Regulating Order 2015 2015 advising. Application for the Firth of Clyde Update on Management of Mark Stewart 11 December Marine Protected Areas 2015 and Areas of Conservation Projects and Renewables – Arlene Cullum 11 December Social Enterprise Team 2015 Annual Report 2014/15 Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan 2016/17
Argyll and the Isles Air Moya Ingram 11 December Services 2015
7 April 2016 Development and Quarterly 15 March 2016 Infrastructure Services Performance Report FQ3 A82/A83 Transport Roads & Amenity Quarterly 15 March 2016 This is the minute of the quarterly meeting Scotland Update between Roads and Transport Scotland covering all trunk roads Policy on Cemetery Roads and Amenity 15 March 2016 Noted at meeting on 13 April 2015 that a Management Policy would be brought forward early 2016 in response to concerns over fallen headstones raised by the MAKI Area Cttee Roads Asset Management Roads and Amenity 15 March 2016 Road Speed Policy Roads & Amenity 15 March 2016 Moved from 14 January Agenda Services Waste Management Roads & Amenity 15 March 2016 Moved from 14 January Agenda Strategy Services Business Gateway Local Kate Fraser 15 March 2016 Growth Accelerator Future Items Renewable Energy Action Economic Development First quarter of 2016 REAP requires to be refreshed this year. Plan & Strategic Transportation CARS Update /C ’town and Agreed an update would come to a future Dunoon EDI Invasive Weeds Policy Roads & Amenity Services Litter Policy Roads & Amenity Services Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee Work Plan 2016/17
Update on Ferries Review Economic Development Requested at Development Day & Strategic Transportation