Argyll and Bute Council has decided not to part-fund a yacht berthing facility in Oban Bay, proposed by Oban Bay Marine.
The Council Press Release
‘The decision was made following the conclusion of a second report into the proposed facility by AECOM, the independent consultancy appointed to assess the viability of the proposal.
‘The council will now investigate how the £900,000 allocated to Oban Bay and Harbour development should now be spent.
‘The proposal was part of Argyll and Bute’s £30 million CHORD programme which aims to assist regeneration and economic development in five towns – Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Oban, Rothesay and Dunoon.
‘The idea of a yacht facility was originally put forward by Oban Bay Marine (OBM), which had requested that CHORD funding be used to provide £900,000 towards the total cost.
‘Last September the council commissioned AECOM, a consultancy with significant experience of marina development, to assess the viability of such a facility in Oban Bay.
‘AECOM’s initial report, published in December 2009, recognised that the proposal had merit. However, it also highlighted that the proposal promoted by OBM contained a range of challenges and uncertainties from the technical, operational and financial perspectives.
‘OBM asked that it be given the opportunity to revise its proposal in the light of AECOM’s findings, to which the Council agreed. The revised plans were submitted in March, since when they have been being assessed by AECOM.
‘Whilst the Boards recognised OBM had made progress in terms of operational and technical aspects of the proposal, outstanding concerns over capital and revenue funding are such that grant support for the project cannot be supported.
‘One of the key areas of concern relates to the project’s capital cost. With the £900,000 of CHORD funding and a loan of £800,000 from the Crown Estate, the Council estimates that a funding gap exists of £898,000. In addition, the AECOM study identified that the income generated by the facility would not allow the venture to break even.
‘AECOM liaised closely with key stakeholders over the last few months in taking forward this assessment, including OBM. However, the size of the funding gap means that the project is not viable even when tested against a range of financial scenarios.
‘Council Leader and Chair of the CHORD Programme Management Board, Councillor Dick Walsh, said: “Our appointment of AECOM back in September was based on their expertise and ability to deliver a comprehensive and fully independent assessment of Oban Bay Marine’s plan.
‘ “Their report into the revised proposal makes it clear that, in their professional opinion, the capital funding gap and annual projected revenue losses are such that this project is not financially viable.
‘ “It is our responsibility to ensure that any decision taken regarding allocating public money will not involve any ongoing revenue burdens or expose the authority to future financial risk or uncertainty.
‘ “Our decision has been based on a realistic assessment by AECOM of the commercial and financial aspects of the project both in the short and longer term. In this period of public sector austerity, we must base the decision on sound business principles.
‘ “The Programme Management Board has therefore agreed, regrettably (sic), that we cannot support Oban Bay Marine’s revised proposal”.
‘Councillor Walsh said that the Programme Board will now ask officers to investigate how the £900,000 previously earmarked for the scheme might be spent in the Oban Bay area: “This is a significant amount of money which is now available for other schemes.
‘ “We are committed to working with the Oban community to bring about major and lasting improvements to Oban’s harbour area, and we look forward to taking this matter forward over the next few months in partnership with all our stakeholders”.’
Immediate issues and questions
Tone and procedure
The careful tone and procedure of this press release reads like advance placement of fortifications against a coming storm.
The effective shift of responsibility for the decision to the specifics of the AECOM report; the enunciation of the care taken to give Oban Bay Marine room to improve their proposal; the listing of the reasons for the decision; the expression of regret…
This is a far more cautiously forensic document than the norm.
It reads either like the announcement of a decision consciously open to challenge; or like the erecting of prior defences against an awkward customer.
The missing link
There is an odd gap in the content of this document. It makes no reference at all to whether it is accepted or rejected that Oban needs a marina.
In noting that the £900,000 set aside for possible part-funding of this project has come from the overall funding allocated to the Oban segment of the 5-towns regeneration programme, CHORD (Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Oban, Rothesay, Dunoon), one would expect that the perceived role of a marina in a regeneration plan for Oban would have been mentioned.
This is particularly so in the case of a document of this carefully measured nature.
The case for a marina in Oban – this proposal or another – would seem a very strong one.
- Oban’s position at a great junction of Argyll’s renowned sailing waters;
- the longstanding summer season yacht races organised by Oban Sailing Club – the Round Mull Race and West Highland Yachting Week, both firmly esconced in the annual diaries of yachting fraternities across the UK and Ireland
- the need for Argyll as a whole to establish a broad-spectrum USP in the activity tourism its magnificent natural resources will richly support.
The Oban Bay Marine proposal must have been conceptually appropriate to the Oban regeneration and economic development plan funded in the CHORD initiative. It is therefore odd that the official announcement of the decision not to proceed with this proposal does not include an analysis of the fundamental attraction and viabiity of a marina for Oban per se.
The basic issue is less to do with the specific Oban Bay Marine proposal than with the attitude to the role of a marina in the Oban regeneration plan.
The Council must have a view on this and it should be given here to contextualise this announcement.
The fiscal conundrum
There is an inherent contradiction in the almost casual profligacy of the closing note in this communication.
On the one hand, the announcement declares: “Our decision has been based on a realistic assessment by AECOM of the commercial and financial aspects of the project both in the short and longer term. In this period of public sector austerity, we must base the decision on sound business principles”.
Then, almost in an explosion of relief at having got over the difficult bit, comes: ‘…the Programme Board will now ask officers to investigate how the £900,000 previously earmarked for the scheme might be spent in the Oban Bay area: “This is a significant amount of money which is now available for other schemes”.’
This statement carries none of the procedural caution of the body of the announcement. It makes no mention of any criteria that have to be met by any replacement projects which would surely have to fulfill the same role in the Oban regeneration plan as the marina would have done.
The tenour of this part of the announcement is almost unbuttoned, with something of the sense of hurling banknotes in the air.
Strange.
Oban’s tourism industry has been seriously compromised by this short sighted decision. The marina’s on Kerrera and at Dunstaffnage, Dunbeg provide welcome facilities for yachts but they do not provide step ashore berthing in Oban Bay – and without that the future of the town as a premier sailing destination has been damaged beyond repair. Oban and Lorn Tourism Association has given its support to this project and whilst we fully appreciated that there were funding concerns we cannot understand why more money from the CHORD project was not allocated to ensure that the development was financially viable. This is what the CHORD money is there for. What a lost opportunity for Oban to reclaim its position at the centre of west coast marine tourism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Couldn’t agree more Linda – although the proposed development was not ideal it was a step in the right direction.
Hopefully your ‘damaged beyond repair’ analysis will prove excessively gloomy. Forward-thinking individuals and groups need to keep the idea alive, but why not aim for a full-blown marina with permanent breakwaters off the Esplanade rather than the now scrapped slightly makeshift solution?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not so sure that this council statement is all that strange. The council had to carefully explain why they rejected the plan because of the expected negative media and public reaction which has indeed occured. We would have been moaning if the council hadn’t provided a full explanation i.e. answers.
Just like the AECOM report, I think that the marina was a good idea for the town, but you have to understand the council’s concerns about the financial aspects of the project.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a kick in the teeth for the population of Oban, let alone those who have worked tirelessly and for no reward in the OBM committee !
Our council, particularly the individuals who have made this decision, should be utterly ashamed of itself.
No other project for the town has been so well put together and so well supported from the outset.
There were over 300 people in first meeting, the likes of which has hardly been seen in the town for any project.
Thousands of pounds were pledged by individuals and businesses throughout the town and surrounding area to get the project set up, researched, and put together.
The benefits of this scheme would have spread Far and Wide, to every part of our economy and our society.
A very very sad day indeed. Commiserations to all who were involved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I guess that this is another example of the Council’s failure to understand the function of infrastructure. Following on the same logic, we can expect to be shortly told that they will no longer be paying for roads or schools either.
Writing from Greece (and I know they have financial problems too, but no-one has suggested that this has anything to do with those) my boat is lying in a marina at no charge except for water and electricity, and the local population think this is quite as it should be because I can then spend my money in their businesses, whence the Dimos gets its cut.
It’s time the Council realised that it is in the risk business, like it or not. Future generations will thank them for foresight, not running away from opportunity
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I remember saying the council would scupper the scheme right at the beginning, just as they have scuppered others in the thirty odd years I’ve been in Argyll. Oban council has never liked yachts and turns it’s back on the area’s wealthiest tourists over and over again. Little wonder that the town appears more flea bitten every year.
How right linnhe is. The answer is in the hands of Oban’s people. At the next council elections, simply vote for any candidate other than those already sitting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I applaud the council for their descision. You cannot seriously look at marina requiring almost £1m when so many other services being withdrawn or cut back. There are many strongly held reasons why the marina should be refused (and i have not found it has been received as a strange desision at all by the local population) eg congestion, loss of the most beautiful view in the world, and marginalisation once more of the fishing fleet of whom even more would have to move off to patures new.
OBM would do will to seek public opinion and not attempt to formulate it – a bit aloof i would say. Well done ABC for not wavering in your important task and now let the whole community get behind more worthwhile and costed projects starting with some sort of body to control all matters relating to the town/pier/bay areas with reps from all interested parties. Very damaging for Linda to say ‘damaged beyond repair’!
The towns been here through many wars at home and abroad and to critiscise just because you didnt get your way reinforces im sure to many people the correctness of the descision.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please someone correct me but my understanding is this :-
The money for CHORD is ring fenced.
Anything not spent will go back to Edinburgh and will be lost to Oban.
There is no way to reclaim it or divert it to other causes.
There is very little time for any other project to be put through the CHORD process and to be implemented within the required timescale.
Investing it would have made more money for the Oban area.
So any claims that the money should be spent elsewhere on community services is irrelevant. This project was praised as being the best of ALL CHORD projects earlier on.
It has been treated by the CHORD council committee in a completely different way to all the other towns.
The project was very well conceived by those who understood the problems to be solved. I have no interest in yachties themselves, but it has been clear that the folks behind the project may not be the most popular but they have done a considerable service for the community that our elected members should have done, oh and they did their homework and did it well, despite the council trying to infer otherwise.
Once again our council has disenfranchised the North Argyll area from our future economic sustainability.
Rejecting this project, like certain councillors have chosen to do, is utterly irresponsible.
Sadly I suspect that most of those who voted against it do not intend to stand next time, but will go off to cushy lives living off the back of their time in the council as others have since the last election.
Unlike the rest of us, they have nothing to lose from this decision.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How on earth can you say these project folks (some whom you acknowledge as unpopular) have done a great service for the community when the elected members and the ‘chord’ group democratically listened to all the arguments, debates and views and i feel came to a fair decision aided by expert consultants. I mean is everybody wrong ?????
Oban is the self styled seafood capital of scotland and must have adequate landing facilities and not be further squeezed. The remaining fishing fleet in Oban are to be admired in their difficult plight with quotas etc to contend with without this proposed parking area fo 60 yachts if full. Thank god common sense has prevailed. i wish councillors would go by instinct more often.
Clearly the project would have sunk after a year or two and the limited company walking away scot-free leaving you and i in the shape of council tax increases/service cuts to bear the burden. Ganavan may have been a suitable location for a marina as there is no view there now to lose with the erection of the flats. Now that planning permission is what i call bad descision making.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“everyone” who understands the issues supported the project, including the 300 plus supporters from around the community in the inaugural meeting.
In harbours around the country – ferries, fishing and pleasure craft work together with success.
Oban could be the same, if we looked to the future, not the past.
just because you think our councillors have done a good job, does not make them right.
The experience of many others in many projects trying to do something positive for the area is very different.
Have you read all the projects business plan?
Were you present at the meetings to hear how democratic the decision making was?
Have you understood how the finances from the council work? – there was no burden to the council. the money was not the councils, it comes from the Scot Gov, for ABC to distribute, so it has NO effect on any local spending at all, now or later.
The marina is nothing to do with views, it was about supporting our local economy.
There are people out there who would come here to spend money here, lots of it — for lots of businesses, and support many other services beyond.
Our council has taken no cognisance of any of the needs of the community.
I respect your point of view, maybe what we need is more open comms about projects like this — maybe that is what might come out of the BIDS project with Mr Cameron as the town centre project leader.
For many it is seen as a real shame, and a real loss to our future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps £900.000 could be used to construct a 50 metre wide extension of the pedestrian area between the two piers. This could easily be constructed on piles or infill and with the addition of seating and gardens and a very neccessary public toilet would certainly be a picture postcard feature and remove the problem of the unsightly beach area at low tide.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For phill: point of information – the money for the CHORD projects – in Oban as well as in Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Rothesay and Dunoon – is special funding which did not come out of the budget for other services and which cannot be distribute to these, whatever happens.
So the choice is not between Oban marina and more places for tiny kids on the free school bus service for instance.
It’s a choice here between a project that plays to Oban’s inexplicably undeveloped strengths in what it could offer to the very many visiting yachts that currently head straight on to Tobermory or Dunstaffnage and bypass the bay – or nothing – or some trumped up plethora of last minute money wasters to save the council’s face in letting Oban down.
Our bet is on one of two outcomes:
that the money allocated to the marina project will be thrown at a few local meringues that will leave no lasting benefit but will make it look like something is being done;
or that, when the tsunami from this quite scandalous mess has quietened a little, another marina plan will emerge for Oban, put forward by another outfit, strangely far advanced, quickly producing detailed plans at impossible speed, achievable in the CHORD timescale (or perhaps, as cover, aiming for a modest but allowable time overrun) will cost signficantly more than the OBM proposal because, hey, the profit motive will be centre stage – and will get full council backing, with help to raise the extra cost from public sector funding sources.
If the latter should be the outcome, it will be very interesting indeed to do some serious investigative work to see who might be behind or connected to such a proposal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They may not get a marina, but at least the Oban folk have an airport
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its old news now, so lets hope all parties interested in the future of the town can work together amicably. FACT _The marina plan as presented did not enjoy the overwhelming support OBM would have us believe. If any member or officer of the Council has acted improperly, yes, that should be exposed to the electorate, though the descision was taken for the proper reasons by applying close scrutiny and sound logic. The response from OBM to date has been bitter and i feel a period of reflection required.
I am sure Campbell Cameron will pull it round some way!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yes maybe the money could be used to fill in between the two piers and it could be used to park the coaches on that take away all the passengers from visiting cruise liners to inverary
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said macaiggg, got the spelling right this time. Nothing worse than seeing all these cruise liners in the bay with the buses that travel from paisley, (thought we could use west coast motors), take the visitors to everywhere but Oban. Thought we had a tourist ambasador, former policeman, who was lauched with great gusto by Oban Forward who was supposed to entice the visitors from the cruise ships into the town? Oh forgot, beef was behind this and whilst throwing the dummy out the pram forgot to pay him! Honest!
When I moved here 4 years ago I stayed in the Caledonian Hotel for about 8 weeks. Was amazed that the tour parties who stayed 4-5 nights travelled to the following locations sometimes leaving at 7am and returning at 9pm. Fort William, Inverness, Dornoch, John ‘O’ Groats, Orkney etc etc! And Inverary! Why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0