Argyll’s MSP, Jim Mather, has spent over a year trying and failing – to date – to get together all parties involved in the position and future of Argyll’s only outdoor education centre.
We are not privy to any insights into who the foot-draggers were but Mr Mather has met the managers and directors of Actual Reality – the company to whom Argyll and Bute Council contracted out the delivery of the activities of the Centre. Based on his conversations with them, he has sought to get people together. He has the negotiating skills and the will for consensus that this situation requires.
It is his firm intention to succeed in this. He is convinced that his is a call that must be answered because it is likely to
produce better results than would be the case if such a meeting did not take place. That certainty may, of course, be shared by others with less benevolent intentions. This may be why some have not been responsive to our MSP’s invitations to meet.
As we reported on 18th December, Argyll and Bute Council is currently making yet another attempt to divest itself of its responsibilities to this facility and to sell it off. We do not know whether the developer is still in the frame whom the Council had in mind as a purchaser at its last attempt to close and sell off the centre – but there will be others who are aware of this.
In the meantime, For Argyll has asked the Council for information on the specific terms of the original deed of gift which took this historic Clan Lamont Castle and grounds into the public sector as an outdoor education centre.
Argyll and Bute Council will have inherited the conditions of the gift along with the property itself at the time of the local government boundary reorganisation that saw the centre pass from Clyde to Argyll.
There can be no doubt that this unique centre must be saved for the benefit of Argyll’s young and active people.
In an area as rich as Argyll in outdoor sporting and leisure resources of all kinds, it would be irresponsible if there were not an outdoor education centre where our young folk could learn to be skillful, adventurous and safe in taking advantage of what is on their doorsteps.
To be able to do so in the unique environment of Castle Toward and its grounds is something special we can do for the inevitably under-resourced young people who are the future of Argyll.
Keep these wonderful articles coming, there a boon of information and wonderful to read! I always enjoy the way they read even if I don’t appreciate what they are about too much!
Chris
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was supposed to be accompanying 60 primary 6 pupils to Castle Toward from Wed to Fri of last week. This would have been my 4th visit as a teacher. I cannot describe how disappointed I am that the trip was not able to go ahead. Having visited other outdoor centres I know what a fabulous resource Castle Toward and its excellent staff provide. watching our pupils grow in confidence and self belief as they discover hidden talents and the joy of the outdoors isjust one part of the Castle Toward magic. With the current Scottish Governments push on outdoor education I think this should be a parliamentary matter. What can I (and others I can involve) do to help the cause? The loss of this fabulous facility (which I first discovered as a secondary school pupil many years ago) would be devestating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having had no success locally, I would urge Argyll’s MSP Jim Mather to raise this as a question in the Scottish Parliament, before someone else does!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As explained elsewhere, Castle Toward was built by the Glasgow businessman Kirkman Finlay in 1832 and extended by the Coats family of Paisley in 1920. The ruins of the original Lamont castle, usually referred to as Toward Castle, lie within the Castle Toward estate.
Castle Toward was requisitioned for military use as a base for the Combined Operations Executive (COE) during the Second World War and played a key role as HMS Brontosaurus in the planning and training for the D-day landings. The COE website has lots of anecdotes and photographs from those days.
After the war, the Castle lay derelict for a few years until the Estate was purchased for the princely sum of £26,000 (from the Coats family?) by the Corporation of the City of Glasgow for use as a residential school for children requiring respite care. The hugely popular art and music workshops ran during the summer holidays.
When Strathclyde Regional Council was established in the 1970s, custodianship of the Castle Toward Estate passed to the Regional Council. During this time the role of the Castle changed to that of an outdoor education centre mainly for primary school age children from the west of Scotland and a not for profit company headed by Peter Wilson was set up to run Toward and two other outdoor education centres at Ardentinny and Achnamara. All of the modernisation work, including the installation of fire doors and fire safety equipment was carried out by Strathclyde Regional Council.
On the abolition of the regional local government structure in 1998, management of Castle Toward and the Ardentinny and Achnamara centres, was taken over by a Joint Management Committee (JMC) membership of which was drawn from the successor councils Argyll and Bute, Glasgow City and East Renfrewshire. The JMC subsequently agreed to transfer custodianship of the Castle Toward Estate and the Ardentinny Centre to Argyll and Bute Council on the condition that the Actual Reality organisation would be given a long lease on the two estates.
Initially (circa 2000), Argyll and Bute Council appeared to comply with this undertaking and officers of the Council were instructed to negotiate the leasing arrangement with Peter Wilson and his colleagues. However, following a report (unpublished) submitted to the Council in 2002, the Council voted to sell the Castle Toward Estate. There have been repeated announcements by the Council since then of its intention to sell Castle Toward.
Significantly, the most recent announcement by the Council cites as its reason for wishing to sell the Castle its own unpublished report that the Castle does not meet modern safety requirements and that the cost of upgrading is unfeasibly high. As the Council has been the custodian of the Castle for the past ten years and therefore the body responsible for its maintenance, this is a fairly breathtaking admission and proof of its own negligence.
As detailed in an earlier comment on this subject, I have submitted a request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) legislation for copies of all documents and correspondence (including emails) held by Argyll and Bute Council referring to the Castle Toward Estate. My original request to Mr Stephen Doogan on the 18th of December, 2009, received an incomplete response: my follow up to this on the 23rd of December, 2009, has not been acknowledged.
I very much welcome the interest shown by ForArgyll in this matter and shall continue to keep ForArgyll informed of progress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I should of course point out that Mr Doogan has until Friday, 22nd of January, 2010, to respond in full to my FOI request, otherwise he and his employers, Argyll and Bute Council, will be in breach of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is the likely response you are likely to get!
Check out the Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=226621546321#/topic.php?uid=226621546321&topic=10246
I refer to your request below, and again, apologise both the for the delay in responding, and for the error I made regarding in your name in the email below. Please now find enclosed the information requested which I am able to supply..
I attach the minute the the Castle Toward Subcommittee of 18th June 2004, and the subsequent meeting of the SPC on 1st July 2004 at which the minute was approved.I also include a copy of the letter previously sent to the prospective marketing agents (the copy we have retained is undated)
I would highlight that the exemptions I cite below are those contained in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
As I think you may be aware, Baird Lumsden were successful in the process outlines in the letter. and were engaged to provide a marketing report and advice. The Marketing recommendations report produced in August 2004 outlined several substantially different options for the future of Castle Toward, and the marketing strategies and related tasks which would be applicable in each scenario. While this report is now several years old I am withholding it in its entirety on the basis that the strategies and options outlined within the report are still broadly those before the council, and consequently disclosure of the report at this time would be substantially prejudicial to the commercial interests of the council in that it would be likely to allow third parties to attempt to pre-empt various options highlighted within the report to the substantial detriment of the council. I would also note that given that the property is now being recommended for sale, it is likely that a substantial amount of the information currently being exempted will enter the public domain, either as part of the sale process e.g. as published particulars, or should there be a subsequent request. IT is important to ensure a fair and legitimate sale process, that at this time the ability of all interested parties to access information about this property be uniform. Early release would compromise this objective. In applying the Section 33 Exemption of commercial confidentiality, I am obliged apply a public interest test.
In this instance, the balance to be struck is between the legitimate public interest in providing details of what is likely to happen to a substantial council asset, and the ability of the council to fulfil its statutory obligation to obtain the best value for the public purse. (The legitimate interests of the current occupants of the property are being considered separately, and dealt with accordingly). On balance it is my view that the balance of public interest falls on the obligation to obtain the best value, this is particularly pertinent in this case since once the future of the site is settled, the section 33 exemption is likely to fall away and the exemption is unlikely to be maintained beyond the completion of any sale..
The Castle Toward Subcommittee met on 12Jan 2005, and their recommendations were accepted by the SPC on 20th January. I consider that given that these items follow from the exploration of options contained in the Blair Lumsden report, that they should be withheld on the same basis as the report itself and for the same reason.
The Castle Toward Subcommittee next met on the 27th April 2006 and considered a 4 page report from the director of corporate services this was an update from the January 2005 position and recommended that the Director of Community Services and the Head of Legal and Protective services continue to be given delegated authority to progress matters relating to Castle Toward. As with the previous two items, I consider that that these items follow on from the exploration of options contained in the 2004 Blair Lumsden report & that they should, at this time, be withheld on the same basis as the report itself and for the same reasons.
The next relevant meeting is the meeting of the Executive on 20th November 2008 at item 26 where a 2 page report from the Director of Community services was considered, this report updated the members and provided them with an options appraisal for the site. The appraisal document followed the outline of the 2004 report. As with the previous items, I am of the view that that that these follow on from the exploration of options contained in the 2004 Blair Lumsden report & that they should, at this time, be withheld on the same basis as the report itself and for the same reasons.
The final relevant meeting is that of the Executive on 17th December 2009 where a 5 page update of the current situation in relation to Castle Toward was considered alongside an initial draft schedule of works. This, the most up to date information I consider to be currently exempt from disclosure on the basis not only of the section 33 exemption applied to the previous data but also Section 34. in that much of the information which has resulted in the production of the report is information which was gathered by a Scottish public authority in the course of an investigation. I would note that the schedule has been supplied to the occupiers of Castle toward, but has not been further circulated.
I regret that on this occasion, I am unable to fulfil your request in its entirety, however, I would note that with Castle Toward being recommended for sale, it is unlikely that any exemptions would still apply after any sale was completed.
I hope that this information is of interest
Yours Sincerely
Stephen Doogan
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John, you are so eliquent and learned in this subject that I would appreciate it if you can continue in your pursuit of this matter, we the public sorely need a well put together response to this standard response from the Council, thought I’d give you the response earlier than the council so that you have a bit more prep time!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you Chris. As I pointed out in an earlier comment on this subject, it is disengenious of Mr Doogan and his superiors to respond to an FOI request for disclosure of the complete record relating to Castle Toward by starting in 2004, some 6 years after Argyll and Bute Council was awarded custodianship of the Estate. I put this point to Mr Doogan on the 23rd of January, 2009, when rejecting his initial response (almost identical to the one you print above). If I receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement I shall post a notice to this effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good work! You might want to raise this as a question through the South Cowal Community Council who are due to have a public meeting, on the 30th Jan 2010, 3pm at the Innellan Village Hall. You should also note that any questions to the floor in this meeting, must first be put in writing to allow the councillors, time to prepare.
I think considering what you have just said that your question might be one of the more important ones, so it would be great if you could e-mail South Cowal Community Council with a question regarding this and indeed attend to field this question!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
These questions were asked by Bute Cllr Allan Macaskill back in Feb 2004 (see http://www.dunoon-observer.co.uk/archive/arcfeb2004027.html) and still don’t appear to have been answered)
Exactly how and with what conditions did Argyll and Bute Council come to have title to Castle Toward?
Is it the case that the Property Commission gave Argyll and Bute title (to Castle Toward) on the basis that they put it into trust?
Why did the lease which Argyll and Bute instructed its legal department to conclude in December 2000 never materialise?
In stark contrast to these questions Cllr Macaskill commented on the Argyll & Bute website also Feb 2004 http://www.argyllbute.gov.uk/content/news/general/castletoward19feb (accessed 17.01.10)
Speaking after the meeting Council Leader Councillor Allan Macaskill, Chair of the Strategic Policy Committee said, “There is no question that the services provided for young people to learn and develop skills is extremely important, and we do not underestimate its potential value to young people in Scotland.
“ However, Castle Toward and its extensive grounds of approximately 150 acres require considerable investment. By exploring marketing options the opportunity we are opening a route to possible development which would benefit the whole community, including current users. “
My questions therefore are what happened to change Cllr Macaskill’s view? Did he get the answers? if he did why considering the amount of public opposition where these not shared with all?
Whilst I might be able to appreciate the need to exercise Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which excludes the public from this item of business on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 6 and 9 of Part I of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, where a sale of council property is necessary, I and many others don’t see the necessity, especially in light of the fact that anyone buying an estate of this magnitude is likely to survey and have a full building valuation, therefore steming the arguement that the only people to be kept in the dark over this are the general public.
I also understand that the council are voted in by the public to make decisions on their behalf.
However with all the public opposition pertaining to this issue, I cannot see why the council have failed to offer the public their reasoning behind this decision, one can only assume that it has something to do with DMH Baird Lumsden feasibility study, but as this has been excluded from the public domain, we can only assume the council have something to hide.
I also find it interesting that having changed his perspective, that the minutes of the meeting of Castle Toward Sub-Committee held in the members’ room, Kilmory, Lochgilphead
on Friday, 18 June 2004 , detail that Councillor Macaskill declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to the presentations from potential marketing agents dealt with at item 3 of this minute because a family member was currently employed by one of the firms invited to give presentation. He therefore took no part in the meeting and Councillor Walsh was unanimously appointed chairman for the remainder of the meeting.
Whilst for many more familiar with council workings than myself, these points may seem normal, I find them to be contemptible and underhand in light of the continued public interest in this matter and really feel that before the decision to sell off Castle Toward was made and information placed behind closed doors that the Council put into the public domain answers to Cllr Macaskills Questions and a more logistical answer as to why continuing to provide the type of service that has been provided for nearly seventy years for underprivileged children from Glasgow, Renfrewshire, Argyll & Bute at Castle Toward cannot continue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well done Jim! In actual fact someone did try to raise the question of Castle Toward in the Scottish Parliament, Labour did!. Now answer me this why should the good people of Argyll vote for MikeMckenzie in the Thursday’s election? When it seems to me that when it comes to the real issues of Argyll and Bute the SNP only talk a good game!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you support this cause do not vote SNP on May the 6th 2010, they will not support your views
Like or Dislike:
0 
0