Argyll & Bute Council Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay Area

ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE

OPERATIONAL SERVICES 7 SEPTEMBER 2005

PIERS, HARBOURS AND FERRIES REVIEW

1. SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the Area Committee of the various responses received on the Piers, Harbours and Ferries Review. A Report is presently being prepared for a future meeting of the Strategic Policy Committee.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Area Committee is asked to note the contents of the report.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 During the consultation stage of the Review and on the request of the Oban, Lorn and the Isles Area Committee reports were prepared for their meeting on 3rd August 2005, to allow them to review the responses and then prepare an Area response to the SPC. It is noted that all other Area Committees had previously considered the contents of the Consultation Document. This Report will ensure that the other three Area Committees have received comparable information.

4. DETAIL

4.1 The consultation period for the Piers, Harbours and Ferries Review concluded on 30th June 2005. During this time responses were invited from all relevant stakeholders including Councillors, Area Committees, MP's, MSP's, Community Councils, Ferry Operators, Scottish Executive, Emergency Services, other interested parties. The Consultation Document was also placed on the Council website which would allow any other interested parties not covered within the list of stakeholders an opportunity to respond.

4.2 Overall about 200 responses were received. These responses can be allocated to specific areas as follows :-

General Service Issues 17 Easdale Ferry Service 24 Lismore Ferry Service 9 Luing Ferry Service 20 Kerrera Ferry Service 18 Jura Ferry Service 107

1 It would not be possible to discuss all the issues raised by all the responders. However in order to ensure that this report remains a reasonable length there has been an attempt to avoid significant duplication of issues. It is also proposed that prior to submission of the final report to the Strategic Policy Committee in the Autumn, a copy of the responses will be made available to the general public to view.

The major issues raised include the following :-

General Service Issues

4.3 The collection of harbour and landing dues should be established through the Fishermen's Association (Clyde Fishermen's Association)

4.4 Several Area Committees, Community Councils and other bodies (including Waverley Excursion Ltd) were concerned on the impact that a significant reduction in the discount already offered to the Waverley could have on tourism in the Argyll area.

4.5 At a recent Community Planning Day meeting, there was a request that Council ferries should offer a discount for foot passengers holding Young Scot cards.

4.6 The Argyll Chartered Boats Association indicated that the construction of the second linkspan at Oban Railway pier would have a detrimental effect on available berthing. The ACBA contend that berthing within Oban Bay is inadequate ad harbour facilities should be provided suitable to accommodate all commercial interests.

The ACBA commented that if the ownership of some of the piers and slips were transferred then there should be provision that these piers/slips would be kept in good and safe working order and available for public use.

The ACBA response concluded by stating that the purpose of the review appeared to endeavour to increase revenue whilst reducing service provision.

4.7 Argyll & the Islands Enterprise noted that the maintenance budget is significantly under funded. The rationale for transferring facilities to trust authorities or previous owners should only be undertaken after the outstanding maintenance/repair work has been completed.

The AIE broadly agreed with the proposals for ferries, although the issue of a fixed link between Cuan and Luing was also mentioned.

4.8 The West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association requested that an appropriate harbour committee is considered for Oban; the views of the community are taken into account regarding a possible fixed link to Easdale; and they have no views on the remits of ferry versus fixed link to Luing.

4.9 Henderson Shellfish of Arinagour, Isle of Coll expressed concern that the Middle Pier could be transferred from Council to private ownership. They had concerns that there would be insufficient business to make the pier viable.

2 4.10 On Lismore the Community Council, plus several other respondees commented that the Achnacroish Pier should be retained by the Council, because if ownership were transferred then it would be unlikely that the new owner would have the resource requirements available.

Easdale Ferry Service

4.11 The Review Document contained the following text "...consider the construction of a fixed link, if the economies of so doing show justification...". This statement generated significant discussions and comment, even although the Council has recently agreed its Capital Programme for the next four years. Strategic Reviews are expected to be challenging and consider alternatives to existing service provision.

4.12 Twenty-four responses were received on this subject. All responses were received from full-time or part-time residents on the Island.

4.13 The vast majority of the responses were in favour of retaining the current ferry, stating the present timetable to be adequate and the fares reasonable.

Issues expressed on the fixed link included :-

• Loss of island status • Removal of safe passage for vessels • Detrimental to conservation area • Insufficient detail on economies of the proposal • Fixed link could aid emergency service on the island • Reduced security • Greater walking distances would result • Harbour may become blocked.

Issues expressed on the current ferry service included :-

• Retain ferry service in Council ownership • Fares are reasonable • No facility on ferry to carry white goods • Disabled and elderly people have difficulties using the low water slips • Evacuation of the sick needs to be addressed as current ferry/slip does not allow safe passage.

A petition was received from Mike Mackenzie signed by 41 residents stating that they are not in favour of a fixed link, privatisation of the ferry service, or any other form of reduced services. The residents requested a modest incremental improvement to the service.

Lismore Ferry Service

4.14 The proposal stated in the Review Document was that the ferry service should be retained until negotiations with Cal-Mac have been concluded. The options considered have been as follows :-

• Improve service on existing route • Vehicular service from Point to Port Appin with a subsidised bus service link to Oban • Swap ferry services (this option has been investigated, evaluated and considered unsustainable).

Based on this presumption, responses were received which can be summarised as follows :-

• The second option would improve economic sustainability on the island • Retain current timetable, at a fair cost • Council should retain at least "Client" role in ferry operation • The Council should continue to assist the community to secure both short and long term solution for fuel deliveries. • Appropriate out of hours call out service • Council should retain ownership of Achnacroish Pier.

Luing Ferry Service

4.15 There has been much previous discussion on whether there should be a fixed link to the Isle of Luing, and much of the correspondence related to this matter.

Issues expressed included :-

• An independent STAG appraisal should be carried out for all options (ferries, fixed links) • Extension to the ferry timetable should be considered • Luing requires a good reliable ferry service • The new slipways will be a waste of money • The ferry service provision should not be reduced • It is an enigma to residents of Luing that a fixed link is being considered for Easdale • Maintain the MV Belnahua, whilst pressing on to construct a fixed link.

Kerrera Ferry Service

4.16 The Council has no statutory duty to provide revenue support for the two ferries on Kerrera. Both operators contacted the Council prior to the review, and as such some narrative was considered appropriate on this matter. The Review considered that the current arrangements should continue (i.e. no revenue subsidy should be offered) but there should be work with the local community to progress a link between the north and south of the island.

Comments received included :-

• Consideration should be given to support a ferry service to Kerrera • Kerrera seems to have become the "forgotten island" • Kerrera should receive similar support to the other ferry services • The construction of a new road could adversely affect the operation of two ferry services

4 • The Council aims to support lifeline ferries to islands, but not to Kerrera • Build a road and support both operators • Don’t build a road unless Council pays for it • Consider pertnership working with South Kerrera ferry without full Council ownership.

Jura Ferry Service

4.17 Although not directly linked to Oban, Lorn and the Isles, it is considered important that the Area Committee are aware of the responses for this ferry service. The 107 responses, included 90 standard replies.

The standard letter stated objections to increase in fares, or a reduction in the out of hours service. The extra evening sailings are vital to the economy of the island, and the Initiative at the Edge status cannot be discounted.

The other responses discussed the following issues :-

• Maintain or improve the current ferry service • Income recovery could be improved by Community Involvement at Craighouse and Lagg • Should Jura residents receive discounts on the ferry? • No fare increases, do not reduce service • The Eilean Dhiura has insufficient capacity.

5. SUMMARY

Every reasonable attempt has been made to provide an analytical review of the Piers, Harbours and Ferries Review.

6. IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Policy – None 6.2 Financial – Amendments to marine operations could impose additional financial burden on the Council 6.3 Personnel – Amendments to the marine operations could have personnel implications. 6.4 Equal Opportunities – None. 6.5 Legal – There could be Legal implications if the marine operations are amended.

For further information, please contact Stewart Turner (Tel: 01546 604611).

Head of Roads & Amenity Services 1 September 2005