Council bid to control Oban Bay 'incomplete and wrong' say mariners

Argyll and Bute Council's Harbour Board had to adjourn a crunch meeting, to decide whether to submit its bid to control Oban Bay to Transport Scotland, so officers could check typos in the final draft.

 

Just before Christmas on Thursday December 22, six out of eight Harbour Board councillors faced a decision that could change the future of Oban Harbour, one of Scotland's busiest ports, for decades to come.

 

Before them on the table lay the latest, and possibly last, draft of a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) which, if they approved it, would be submitted to the Scottish Government.

 

If ministers eventually approve it, the council would become the harbour authority for the unmanaged section of Oban Bay. The clock is ticking to get it done before the 2023 summer season, to cut the risk of marine accidents.

 

It has been a long process, involving several drafts and a consultation, drawn up by council officers. The final draft, totalling 157 pages, was published a week before councillors had to decide, and stakeholders had to comment on it.

 

This was not enough time, said one group, the Oban Community Harbour Development Association (OCHDA). The plans 'are significantly altered since the earlier draft', they said, 'without any real opportunity to consult'.

 

What's more, OCHDA added, 'the proposals do not address basic concerns highlighted in the consultation', and the 'draft lacks vital information and contains errors'. If time was not taken now to correct them, they will 'very likely' need to be resubmitted.

 

OCHDA chairman, Ross Wilson, described the plans as 'incomplete and unsupportable'. Some advice was incorporated, he said, but 'much' was 'ignored', for example from Oban Community Council, Transport Scotland, and CMAL, the national owner of CalMac's ferries and ports.

 

An OCHDA spokesperson added: 'It’s essential this does not get submitted until errors are corrected and key missing sections (e.g. charts showing the precise area of the proposed new Harbour Authority) are included.

 

'There is no reference to the charges which Argyll & Bute Council intend to levy on harbour users, so we have no idea of the scale of the charges or who will be charged.

 

'Community engagement is being deliberately overlooked. Historically the harbour was the responsibility of the town (in fact this law is still in force), and the new proposals should be replacing that with an up-to-date governance structure which still reflects the needs and views of the community.

 

'Financial information is completely lacking, yet councillors are expected to commit. Additional equipment and staff will be required immediately. These expenses and the ongoing running costs will have to be met from the council’s budget – which is already in trouble – or by charging harbour users. No financial modelling appears to have been done.'

 

The council's head of roads and infrastructure Jim Smith said: 'We do expect there to be some to-ing and fro-ing. We have got a really sound HRO. There may be some very minor tweaks. There are a couple of drafting typos, which are immaterial, and do not prevent anything from progressing.'

 

The council's executive director Douglas Hendry said it was an 'informal' engagement with Transport Scotland.

 

But councillor John Armour raised concerns about repeated points in the paper: was this a duplication, or an omission? He asked: 'Would we be doing our job correctly if we didn't want to see and approve a revised order, when there are corrections?'

 

After a 20-minute adjournment to check, Mr Smith said: 'Apologies. It is a duplication. There is nothing missed out.' Councillors unanimously agreed to submit the HRO.