What follows adds up to a picture – so unprofessional, so bizarre and so illogical, so utterly and determinedly devoid of partnership working that it can only be interpreted as arising from a corporate decision on the part of Argyll and Bute Council to block the coming to fruition of the Oban marina project – literally at all costs.
Those costs include the calling into serious question of its own credibility; its procedural integrity; its ability to fullfil its core purpose of developing Argyll; the crushing of what has arguably been the greatest collective expression of public will Oban has known; and the betrayal of the most important town on Scotland’s highland west coast.
Each of the five Argyll towns embraced by the CHORD programme of waterfront regeneration projects – and who lend it their initials: Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Oban, Rothesay, Dunoon – have two major projects (Dunoon has three) in their individual schemes.
Oban’s two projects were a ring road – known as the relief road and the Oban marina project.
The CHORD programme has a five year timeline, two of which are almost gone (November 2010). The ring road project is already going nowhere. There is not even committee work scheduled on this until the end of 2011.
The loss – the demonstrably willful loss – of the marina project will leave Oban as the one town with no serious project capable of achieving regeneration in the time remaining – whatever may well be cobbled together as a face saver (and a waste of money).
Oban Bay Marine Board, the project proposal team, has described its reaction to these events as ‘unhappy’ and ‘beyond disappointing’.
The fact of community support
The public meeting held to launch the project was the best attended Oban has seen. 300 people came out on what was, by all accounts, an awful January night, to learn about and then to express massive support for the initiative.
Then – and without precedent, Oban businesses came forward and committed themselves to contributing £100 a month each to a fund to take the project forward.
It was this money, given from the heart of the town and amounting to £70,000, that paid for the Project Manager, Morag Brown, a post which Oban alone in the CHORD programme was left to fund itself; paid for the marine engineering and design expertise from west cost specialists Wallace Stone; and paid for the feasibility study to underpin the planning application.
It is rare for a town to come together so powerfully and so unequivocally in support of anything. That Oban did so in support of this particular project is evidence of how far it has been accepted by the general wisdom that this is the right regenerative development for this place.
The questions we challenge the Council to answer
Below, first, we list a series of questions in the public interest which we challenge the Council to defend publicly.
Why was there no attempt at partnership working?
The Council not only refused throughout to meet with Oban Bay Marine and the other stakeholders concerned – the Crown Estates and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It maintained this refusal in the face of efforts by Argyll and Bute’s MSP to get them to do so. Jim Mather, who is also Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism attempted to get a round table meeting which he offered to Chair – to no effect.
Mr Mather has confirmed this to us today: ‘I did offer, however, it was clear that the council had its own process underway. I continue to hope that we can keep everyone talking such that resources, energy, aspirations and ideas remain in play and progress is made’. Quite what process of its own the Council managed to convince Mr Mather it had underway is a bit of a mystery but his hope that the matter can be kept open is one the majority will support.
The Oban Bay Marine proposal clearly had – and has – the energetic support of the town and its business community. It also had support from the Crown Estates who were always keen to help and from Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE).
At a meeting on 31st August 2010, when the proposal team was accused of failing to provide evidence that they could attract additional funding, the Council’s senior officer responsible for the CHORD Programme was challenged directly by John MacGregor. The Chair of Oban Bay Marine asked whether the officer had received an email the previous day from Highlands and Islands Enterprise – which he admitted he had. He was then required to read aloud the email whose existence he had kept to himself.
It was from Douglas Cowan of HIE, supporting the project and saying that, if certain conditions were met, HIE would be prepared to contribute up to £200,000 to it. Inexplicably, this offer does not seem to have been progressed.
There is no shred of evidence that the Council has made any attempt to work in partnership with this project to enable a positive outcome for Oban. And, in this context, it has to be remembered that the marina project consistently scored highest of all in a series of consultants reports on the CHORD initiatives.
This was always a worthwhile project.
The Oban Bay Marine team, continually bemused by the lack of reason in the obstructions they were meeting, made it regularly clear that if this was because of some clash of personalities, every one of them was and remained ready to stand down and see the Council take over the project.
They are an entirely voluntary Board. They are committed to the economic and regenerative value of a marina for Oban. They are interested only in seeing Oban become a sustainable community into the future, attracting visitors in volume for activities the town and its natural resources can support – and serving the interests of those visitors in an exemplary fashion.
They were persistent in asking for meetings, through the CHORD Programme’s senior responsible officer, the Head of Economic Development and Strategic Transportation. Those requests were never met. Why on earth not?
Why did AECOM change its mind about the financial sustainability of the project?
AECOM’s first – and failed – report (see below) recommended the rejection of the marina proposal on the grounds that it failed to answer concerns in three areas: technical, operational and financial.
At a meeting on 5th January 2010 where this report was discussed with the Project Board, Oban Bay Marine and AECOM, the AECOM representative was asked directly by John McGregor, that, if the team could answer the technical and operational concerns, was the project financially sustainable? He said ‘Yes’.
Yet, in the press release issued by the Council yesterday, it is the financial sustainability of the project that is the hook on which the project has been hung. It must be noted that after the assurance openly given by AECOM at the January meeting, nothing in that financial element of the proposal had been changed in its final presentation.
Why were no minutes kept of two significant meetings – on 5th January 2010 and 9th June 2010?
The meeting on 5th January 2010 was convened to present to Oban Bay Marine AECOM’s first recommendation to reject the marina project.
Councillor Duncan MacIntyre, Chair of the Oban CHORD Project Board, chaired this meeting between the Board, AECOM and the proposers, Oban Bay Marine. The Council’s Head of Economic Development and Strategic Transportation and Council employee, Jane Gillies were also present.
Councillor MacIntyre announced that Jane Gillies was present to take minutes.
Following the meeting, Oban Bay Marine asked for the minutes and were given to understand that no minutes had been kept – yet Ms Gillies was present to take minutes and will therefore have taken notes of the proceedings. Why was it decided not to issue minutes?
The unminuted meeting on 9th June 2010 was the Oban Bay Marine presentation of the final submission to the Oban CHORD Project Board and AECOM at the Corran Halls. This included a project overview presented by Mike Robertson, Secretary of Oban Bay Marine and a point by point elucidation of the engineering and design recommendations from John Porteous of Wallace Stone. The team felt that this had been understood and well received – but no minutes appear to have been kept.
The practice of not minuting convened meetings is professionally improper and democratically deficient.
Why did the failed first report from AECOM lead to the Council commissioning them to produce a second?
At the consultation stage, AECOM queried the Oban Bay Marine team’s decision to go for an anchor and chain breakwater. They recommended a piled breakwater – which would have doubled the cost.
Oban Bay Marine raised this with their own engineering consultants, the Scottish West Coast specialists, Wallace Stone, whose recommendation it had been.
Convinced of the rightness of their recommendation, Wallace Stone then spent serious time challenging their own engineering conclusions. This exercise proved beyond doubt that the piled breakwater recommended by AECOM was the wrong type of breakwater for Oban Bay, given the wave and tide conditions.
Wallace Stone consulted CalMac extensively at this stage and CalMac agreed that a piled breakwater would not work in Oban Bay. Oban Bay Marine therefore retained the proposal for an anchor and chain breakwater in their plans.
AECOM’s report – recommending rejection of the project – rubbished the engineering proposals in the project submission and lodged its alternative proposal – for a piled breakwater.
This was challenged robustly by Oban Bay Marine and Wallace Stone – whose analysis was indisputable. That AECOM report, which was shown to have been made on the basis of flawed engineering understanding of local and west coast conditions, has not been referred to since. They were paid £66,000 for this work.
The Council however, immediately commissioned AECOM to produce a second report – an action that is hard to interpret any other way than that they were sent away to make a second – and better – attempt to down the project.
Why are there no minutes of meetings of the Oban CHORD Project Board since 17th December 2009?
This simple fact has to be set against the number of minuted meetings held by the other four CHORD projects in the same time period:
- Campbeltown – 3 meetings
- Helensburgh – 3 meetings
- Rothesay – 3 meetings
- Dunoon – 5 meetings
- (Oban – 0 meetings)
Why was the Oban marina project given no paid-for Project Manager?
Projects attached to the other four towns plans were given paid-for project managers. The Oban marina project was not. Oban had to fund its own.
The project management procedure adopted - Prince II, the corporate and public sector standard – requires this post, stating that every project must have a project manager. This is specifically adopted in the CHORD Programme’s own Framework which commits to one project manager per project.
Oban Bay Marine expected the appointment of a project manager and expected that appointment to become the link between themselves and the Oban CHORD Project Board. That never came.
The very capable project manager the proposers appointed themselves, funded by the town’s businesses, was not, as an independent appointment, in a position to act as such a formal link.
Why was Paul Finch from AECOM appointed as project manager – and for ‘The Oban Bay / Harbour project’?
The job of the consultants, AECOM, under their representative, Paul Finch – even as he and AECOM saw it themselves – was to assess the Oban Bay Marine proposal.
Yet Paul Finch was personally appointed as project manager of something described, not as the Oban Marina project but as the ‘Oban Bay / Harbour project’.
Mr Finch also seemed to be unaware of his role as project manager, expressing surprise that he should be asked to meet with Oban Bay Marine. He saw his job as assessing their proposal – which, of course, to those who had appointed him, it was.
These allied facts raise a series of supplementary questions.
- Is a project manager not appointed to take a project forwards, rather than to see it kicked into touch, as has been the case here?
- Does the Oban CHORD project plan formally embrace a wider project for Oban Bay and Harbour?
- If it does not, where is the authority – under the CHORD Programme – for the appointment of a project manager with such a brief?
- Since Paul Finch of AECOM is officially the Project Manager for ‘The Oban Bay / Harbour project’, what exactly are his proposals? With his recommendation not to proceed with the marina project now accepted by the Council, what has he proposed should take its place?
- As he was – bizarrely – appointed project manager, were his and AECOM’s fees paid for out of the Oban CHORD account? What was the total paid to AECOM from this source? What was the total paid to AECOM by the Council from all budgetary sources?
John MacGregor, Chair of Oban Bay Marine, points out forcefully: ‘We should have had a project manager, not a paid-for third party auditor’.
What is the agenda around the appearance of ‘The Oban Bay or Harbour Project’?
There are three curious minutes – the third an intriguing follow-up to the second – that require explanation.
- One is from a meeting of the Oban CHORD Project Board on 29th April 2009. It records Bruce West, the Council’s Finance Director, advising that: ‘…the PID (Ed: Project Initiation Document – then being written) should articulate why the Project Board is progressing with the marina (in the context of the Council decision of 27th November 2008 re “0.9 million in respect of development within Oban Bay or Harbour”.) (The two italics are ours – to underline the oddities in this minute.)
- The second is a minute from an Oban CHORD Project Board meeting on 22nd May 2009, attended by Council employee, Kevin Williams, who was developing the Project Initiation Document (PID) for the Project Board – described as ‘The Oban Bay and Harbour Project Initiation Document’. The minute says: ‘ It was noted that further detailed discussion would require to be held with Oban Bay Marine. Kevin Williams was asked to arrange an informal meeting with Oban Bay Marine on 15th June 2009 in the McCaig Suite of the Corran Halls’. (The italics are ours – to underline the oddities in this minute.)
- The third is a minute from the CHORD Programme Management Board of 8th July 2009. ‘Decision 3′ asked the Director of Corporate Services to write to the Oban CHORD Project Board, expressing the Programme Board’s ‘view that the Project Board should not meet with Oban Bay Marine’. Why it was the Programme Board’s view that the Project Board – the Project Board – should not meet with the team developing the project is not explained and is beyond normal straightforward understanding.
Why were AECOM allowed to challenge the marina proposal on illegitimate grounds?
In November 2008 the marina project received planning approval from the Area Committee, chaired by Councillor Duncan MacIntyre who became Chair of the Oban CHORD Project Board.
At the meeting where the proposal was enthusiastically welcomed, Councillor MacIntyre also announced that the project was being given £900,000 as the Council’s contribution to its overall costs.
The planning permission granted carried 12 conditions – elements of the proposal to be worked up in the final stage.
Yet AECOM’s first and failed report, recommending rejection and published in December 2009, focused its criticisms on these very aspects – the absence of proposals on waste management, sound abatement, traffic management etc – all of which were listed as planning conditions and which the team was well aware of the need to address at the next stage.
All of these matters were indeed addressed in the final submission and the team has the necessary licences in place – including dredging and marine navigation and safety consents. They have done extensive modelling of anchor patterns and understand that CalMac was satisfied that its concerns had been met. The Council’s press release of yesterday made no reference to any inadequacy in this department.
Oban Bay Marine were never asked to provide detailed design proposals. Moreover, it is standard procedure to finalise the fine detail of technical requirements at the point of going to tender – which the project has been prevented from doing.
Why were AECOM’s criticisms on this front allowed to carry credence a few weeks after the conditional planning consent had been given? This is very akin to corporate bullying and the fact is that Oban Bay Marine had to fight very hard for the opportunity to revise.
This was the unminuted meeting where Oban Bay Marine were criticised for providing no evidence that they could attract additional funding. This criticism resulted in the Head of Economic Development and Strategic Transportation being forced to reveal the email described above from HIE making a conditional offer of support for the project of up to £200,000.
The strangeness of this episode would demonstrate a disposition to undermine – even by dissimulation – the work of the project proposers.
Why is AECOM’s latest report withheld from Oban Bay Marine and from the public?
Oban Bay Marine understandably, have asked to see the second report from AECOM which has been used as the basis for the rejection of the Oban Marina project.
They have been told that it is a ‘restricted’ document and cannot be shared with them.
Oban Bay Marine have assured us that – should this be advanced as a reason for withholding – they have no wish to be sheltered from any criticism, however damning and have no objection whatsoever to the report being made public.
For Argyll has lodged a request with the Council, under Freedom of Information legislation, to see all of the communications, formal and informal between AECOM, the Council, the Oban CHORD Project Board and the CHORD Programme relating to the Oban Marina project and to the Oban Bay / Harbour project.
Questions for individuals to answer
- Why did Councillor Duncan MacIntyre, Chair of the Oban Chord Project Board, change his mind about the marina project? He was initially wholly positive about it, excited even. Then, for no obvious reason, he became equally negative. What led to his change of his mind. His electors will want to know.
- Why did no single member of the Oban CHORD Project Board second Councillor Donald MacDonald’s proposal that the project go to tender? Assuming that the Chair, Council officers and representatives of other bodies like CalMac and Transerv Scotland would not generally do so, this is a question for Councillors McCuish and McIntosh; and for David Finlayson of the former town traders’ association.
- On what grounds did the Head of Economic Development and Strategic Transportation, at the unminuted meeting of 5th January 2010, say, when challenged by John Macgregor of Oban Bay Marine to state his personal position, that he was ‘against the proposal in its present form’? He gave no substantiation for this position. It will have been influential. Its reasoning needs to be known.
Evidence from Alan Reid
Argyll and Bute’s MP has been in touch with the Council on the marina project over the last few months. He says of the decision announced yesterday: ‘What has disappointed me is that the Council has terminated the project without making any effort to try to obtain further funding.
‘I had suggested to the Council that they could set aside money from the Oban Development Road project in case unexpected problems arose during the Oban Bay engineering works. Since the Development Road is not due to start for several years, I suggested that the Council could switch some funds, currently allocated to the Development Road, to the Oban Bay Marine project. If the contingency monies were not required, then they could be switched back to the road. If some or all of the contingency funds end up being used on the Oban Bay project, then the Development Road would be delayed. But surely it’s worth risking a delay in starting the road to get this important project moving.
‘However, I received the attached reply. (Council Reply Oban Bay Marine)
‘There is something far wrong with the way this project has been dealt with. Ages ago an estimate was produced that £900,000 of Council money plus the Crown Estate loan would be sufficient for the project to proceed. Why did nobody in the Council say at that point that a contingency fund for the unexpected would also be required? After Port Askaig, Bruichladdich and Rothesay Pier, they surely didn’t need to pay consultants to tell them that.
‘Before the Council had received the AECOM report, a Council officer was telling Oban Bay Marine and myself that the project wouldn’t go ahead because nothing had been set aside for what he called “optimism bias” – ie a contingency fund to cover the unexpected. Why then did the Council pay money to AECOM to tell them what they knew already?
‘What is disturbing about the whole CHORD project is that hundreds of thousands of pounds of Council money has been spent on consultants’ reports, yet we are seeing very little actually happening on the ground.
‘Remember, this all started as a competition to decide which of the five towns’ bids would be successful. Consultants were paid to score all the different projects with a few to deciding which town’s bid would be successful. Oban’s bid was the Oban Bay Marine project plus the Development Road.
‘This was political unreality. It was obvious that a majority of Councillors could never be persuaded to spend all the money on one town. The Councillors in the four losing towns would have been pilloried in their own communities if they had voted to spend all the money on the one winning town.
‘There were then efforts made to put together alliances of Councillors to produce a majority for a motion that would give the money to three towns’ projects. Eventually they decided that all five towns were winners. However, we’ve seen in the Oban Bay Marine case that all the money spent on consultants will be money down the drain unless the project can be rescued’.
‘Rather than giving up on this project, the Council should be trying to identify extra money, both within its own resources and trying to get other partners involved. HIE is an obvious one’.
Mr Reid’s argument here is a cogent one and his challenge above is one that remains to be answered. Oban Bay Marine had, as we have noted above, attracted the support of HIE for the project – a matter which a senior Council officer appeared to attempt to disguise.
Assuming that this support remains in place on the original conditions stated, it is as negligent of the Council not to pursue it now as it was when they failed to pursue it when it was made.
Where now?
For Oban – undeservedly, ‘where now?’ is backwards. The CHORD project cannot now deliver anything of enduring value and economic regeneration to the town.
For Councillors involved, who so surreally betrayed their town and the expressed will of its residents and businesses, it is hard to imagine that there will not be severe electoral consequences. This is the blackest of marks on their records which will be remembered when the Council elections come around.
Councillor Donald MacDonald should be excepted from this – his support for the project was steady and he was the only one to attempt to resist the Council’s rejection of it. We understand that Councillor McCuish was also supportive – but his support stopped short – even to the point of not making the gesture of seconding Councillor MacDonald’s proposal that the project should go to tender.
For Oban Bay Marine, the proposers of the project – they have been told that, because of standing orders, the decision not to proceed with the project cannot be reviewed for six months – unless their should be ‘a material change’.
The Council’s Bruce West has told Oban Bay Marine that ‘a material change’ would be construed only as something related to the financial sustainability element of the proposal.
Even at the stage of its first attempted report, AECOM said at the meeting on 5th January that the project was financially sustainable, provided that the technical and operational concerns could be met.
The council’s press release makes no reference to any outstanding concerns in these areas. This leaves inexplicable the financial concerns which are said to have driven the rejection of the project.
An illegitimate defence
In any contribution the Council may, in any forum, make to the debate on this highly questionable procedure, we do not want to hear the suggestion that their decision arose from the perception that the Oban Bay Marine proposal was less than fully professional in any way.
This is a voluntary Board of people with relevant experience in marine facility provision and in business, who, in the interests of the economic growth of their community, committed themselves to taking this project forwards.
This does not mean that they would imagine that, without assistance, they could produce a full, detailed, utterly watertight ready-to-go blueprint on their own. Who does?
That assistance was never made available to them at any level. The Prince II requirement for the appointment of a project manager was not met. The support of collaborative partnership working, which underpins any successful enterprise, was not only withheld but was stoutly resisted against allcomers, up to Ministerial level.
In this entirely inexplicable episode, Argyll has seen its own elected Council willfully withhold the support of partnership working from the most highly rated of all of its CHORD projects, prejudicing the chances of economic regeneration of one of its most important towns.
The questions raised above highlight the improprieties, the apparent prejudices and the obstructions which characterise Argyll and Bute Council’s behaviour in the matter.
The Oban and the wider Argyll electorate must hear answers to these questions.
An experience like this could be coming next to somewhere near you.
It is regrettable that so many pertinent and incisive questions remain unanswered in relation to the abandonment of a proposal which could clearly bring much needed revenue to the Oban area.
At a time when planning permission is granted for restaurant after restaurant and Oban remains heavily reliant on tourism and leisure, that such an enterprise as an Oban Marina should be considered unworthy of further consideration is astonishing. The West Coast has traditionally provided some of the finest sailing waters in Europe, backdropped by stunning scenery; any yachtsman would welcome the improvement or introduction of suitable facilities to one of the West Coast’s most notable harbours. Beyond the interests of yachtspersons lie the interests of other commercial enterprises reliant on tourism and leisure in the area; shops, restaurants, bars, tourist attractions; if not benefitting immediately from the Marina then surely benefitting from future return business as more people become aware of the natural beauty of the area itself.
Perhaps some independent enquiry, one which supercedes political aspirations or internecine agendas could deliver the answers that Oban Bay Marine deserves.
I would go so far as to suggest that, given the amount of money spent to date on the consultative process, that the matter is set before the general public of Oban and Lorn in a form of referendum and that immediate efforts be made to secure publicly recorded promises of match funding to ensure that the consultative process continues to its logical, and much needed conclusion – ongoing development of Oban’s sustainable commercial infrastructure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some pertinent financial facts on the matter:
The Oban Bay Marine proposal was costed at £1.7 million and based on fixed price contracts, covering much of the usual contingency base.
Oban Bay Marine was to provide £800,000, to be borrowed, we understand, from the Crown Estate; run the company on a not-for-profit basis; and return any surpluses to the Oban community.
The contribution of the Council from the special CHORD fund, of £900,000 has been shown this morning to amount to no more than £450,000 to the actual marina.
In an email we have had sight of from John MacGregor, Chair of Oban Bay Marine, to Councillor Duncan MacIntyre, Chair of Oban CHORD Project Board, the other calls on that contribution have been spelled out.
900,000
Less 270,000 30% optimism bias
Less 85,000 for Project Manage
Less 100,000 for planning etc fees
Total: 455,000
Residue for marina: 445,000
Mr MacGregor finished with a pertinent observation to Councillor MacIntyre: ‘There are not many Marine Developments that you can acquire for £445k’.
The figures and percentages in Mr MacGregor’s calculations were the formula already applied by the Council to the marina proposal budget.
In the context of these figures, it is strange that the conditional offer of £200,000 towards the project, already made by Highlands and Islands Enterprise out of confidence in the Oban Bay Marine proposal was revealed only under duress and was not pursued.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This post, from Brian Swinbanks, Chair of Tobermory Harbour Association, is reproduced verbatim from OceanBlueSailing: http://oceanbluesailing.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=5863
Dear Duncan
OBAN BAY PONTOONS REJECTED BY ARGYLL AND BUTE
As Chair of the Tobermory Harbour Association I was both saddened and perplexed by the reason given on the radio this morning – ‘That the pontoons were rejected by the lack of future profit’
Tobermory only has only 40 berths and we make a Profit. Profits which we will be reinvesting in Phase 6 of our programme to ‘Provide Facilities for All’
For forty years I have watched the council, in Oban, reject (pontoons on both sides of the North pier) or fail to influence (the angle of the CalMac pier, a greatly missed opportunity to provide shelter and berthing for small ships).
The THA saw the Oban Bay project as part of our plan to provide ‘steeping stones to far more fragile Islands and peninsulas up and down the West coast’. Yes, any investment must make a profit and possibly the profits would be smaller in Oban than Tobermory, due to competition from adjacent Marinas at Kerrera and Dunstaffnage or by the return expected by the investors but the spend radiating out to the wider community would be considerable. The THA has calculated that the spend in the wider community of Tobermory and beyond is in excess of £1,000,000. The Oban marina would have broadened Oban’s customer base and encouraged new businesses in the boat service and maintenance sector.
The floating breakwater would have provided alongside berthing not just for yachts but for fishing boats, for charter boat businesses and potentially for new fast passenger ferries to Mull and even on to Coll and Tiree. I can assure you that there are two groups of ‘business men’ waiting for these docking facilities to be in place, at which time they would hope to invest in fast passenger boats with accommodation for 100 plus passengers to run up the Sound of Mull Tobermory and in the summer possibly on to Coll and Tiree. The marina would have positioned Oban ready to benefit from the new huge wind farm south of Tiree with millions of pounds of potential local benefit throughout the maintenance and servicing sector.
Personally I find it difficult to find any reason to reject this development and even if there are other plans to develop north of the North pier then these modular pontoons could be moved in a very short time frame.
Please let me know the real reason as I am genuinely perplexed – is this another opportunity missed for Oban or ………do the Council have other plans?
Regards
Brian
Brian Swinbanks
Chair
Tobermory Harbour Association
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yawn;no doubt the 900k will find its way to the north side of the north pier wich is where it should have been in the first place.one of the better decisions iv seen the cooncil in oban make.although i suspect there might be slightly more than two groups of businessmen waiting to run fast ferries:) ciao maha
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Thank goodness the council did not waste public money in this venture! Well done! If this investment is to be so successful, why do Oban Bay Marina need council money? I am sure the banks will be lining up to invest? Given that the chairman, one John MacGregor has ruined Ganavan Sands should we really trust him to build a marina in the heart of Oban? Yes the idea is nice, but I fail to see how this small facility will bring in the cash that they claim. Where will the cash go, to restaurants, Tesco and really not much else. We could however spend £900K on improving Oban for our tourists, visitors and local residents.
The council could of course give the dosh to Oban Marina Kerrera to expand. Build a breakwater and better facilities. How about we re-route the traffic so it comes along the front of the town and not past the run down shops at the top of George St. Oban needs to get up off it’s A**e and become a destination for visitors. Not a town where they say why did I come here? The majority of business’s in Oban are waiting for something to happen rather than go out and grab the opportunity. Few business give anything back to the town or invest in the towns infrastructure. Un-fortunately our visitors are becoming more discerning and read up on places to visit. Try looking at Trip Advisor for some of the devastating comments on hotels and also one of our top award wining local restaurants!
~I have had my say, so how about everyone else gets on the bandwagon and adds comment to this.
Most sensible comment, above that McGaigg has ever made!
A Concerned-Resident
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
well said concerned and macaaigg
Looks as if the councillors have finally listened to public opinion and acted sensibly. I was down at Ganavan the other night and its an absolute disgrace your right. Oban has to do something to attract visitors just what I dont know but ripping out the heart of the town for this marina is not the way to go, and with new berths going in at Kerrera its unlikely that the new proposed marina would ever be filled. I have to say even though I scoffed at the scheme, the shipping in of sand to the bay a few years ago proved to be a great sucess and there were famillys down there when ever the weather was good and it wasnt just for the tourists, we the locals were able to use it too. Or how about improving facilities for the fishing boats that we have left, dare I say it but lets even try to get some of the fishing vessels that have departed oban to come back. These guys spend money in the town all year round not just for a few months
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Scottish Enterprise says that boating now makes a greater contribution to the Scottish economy than does golf.
The tourism sector covering sailing and motor boat crusing is worth around £101 million to the economy and supports 2,700 jobs. Sailing alone is responsible for £53 million of that.
It’s a shame that Oban Council is too short-sighted to grab its share of this market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Adding to Webcraft’s information: sailing tourism on Scotland’s west coast is worth £39.1m – out of the overall national total of £53 million. This is 74% of the national revenue generated by this growing and appropriate activity. It growth is constrained only by lack of facilities. That is economically negligent.
The minority of Obanites who remain unconvinced by the marina proposal, preferring to look at the landside refurbishment which is also necessary, fail to realise the reality.
People are drawn to Oban because of its uniquely beautiful relationship with the water.That is what they come to look at. Landside visitors may not themselves either sail or take to the water while they are there – although thanks to the Sea Kayaking Centre added to the wildlife boat trips, they now have attractive choices.
They do, though, find sailing boats mesmeric. We all do. Even lying at pontoons they promise movement, adventure, mystery, freedom. And when they do move, who doesn’t watch the skills of manoevre until the sail vanishes?
For as long as Oban refuses to develop this core and neglected resource it can be no more than a town firing on three cylinders, even if it were to have a glorious landside waterfront.
The Oban Bay Marine proposal was of a scale appropriate to the town and to the nature of visiting yachts – not a massive marine industry like Inverkip, which always seems more like a watery siding for redundant yachts waiting for buyers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CHORD funding was given to develop the facilities in Oban.
2 schemes were put forward
The council has binned the marina
There is little if any progress on the ring road
It is clear what the council is not doing: They are not progressing the constructive proposal for the marina ….. and they haven’t proposed any alternative.
This is not about yachts and yachties, class differences/perceptions on who will use the marina, its about rejuvenating the disgraceful seafront areas which currently are turning Oban into a destination to be used only under duress: have to go there for a ferry, get the hell out of it as it is such a dump.
The elected officials appear to have little or no view of what can/should be achieved, but a talent for delay and burning up public money on consultant reports that may (or may not) have been following a brief with a pre determined outcome.
Will anything happen in our lifetime?
Yes, Campbeltown, Helensburgh, Rothesay & Dunnoon will develop, Tobermory will develop and Oban will continue to decay.
We now know what the council doesn’t want to do. What DO they want to do instead?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dont see where your ‘newsroom’ gets the idea that its the minority in oban who were not for marina plans as laid out as 90% of folks ive spoke to are in full agreement with the descision – you ‘FORARGYLL’ (for whatever reason you have an obvious axe to grind) you just cant batter folk into believing your unfounded weakly researched analysis. The unspoilt splenduor of the bay is well worthy of keeping unsullied and the view maintained as is for the countless thousands of regular visitors who are boatless. Its called democracy!
Totally agree with ‘concerned resident’ and ‘Frank’ that ganavan is an absolute disgrace, and how on earth permission was granted remains a mystery. Macgregor, styled as a driving force behind this OBM is getting lots of publicity,(Oban fm, for Argyll,p and j, and the poor old news OT) We must keep sight of the issues, not constantly foccussing on this wounded ‘individual’ who has become dangerously bigger than the body which he seemingly speaks for which may unfold as the undoing of Oban Bay Marines failed plans having such a maverick in the chair. moving on lets use the money wisely for the good of all local and our visitors by setting up a trust including I suggest sensible locals like of Duncan macintyre, Mike robertson, John macallister and Linda Battiston perhaps of the OLTA to thrash out what is best bearing in mind that it has to be handled firmly but delicately and an acceptance that you will never please all of the people all of the time. It could also involve Campbell cameron as town center manager but must be foccused and lessons learned by all for the common good.
nb; i note your comment about sailing bringing in more than golf — the talk in the street is of macgregor taking over the ailing Glencruitten golf club – watch this space .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For pulpithill: We have been concerned at the apparent lack of procedural probity with which this project has been handled at Cpuncil level and by the Oban CHORD Project Board and, far from being ‘weakly researched’ we have put a very strong case which has yet to be answered.
Our interest in this is purely objective. We believe – on evidence – that Argyll and Bute Council has a long way to go in presenting to its electorate sufficient evidence of objective fairness and the due observation of stable procedures to engender the trust that local government must gain.
Beyond that and again on the evidence of economic trends and locally available resources of a kind appropriate to Oban, we are committed to the view that a marina of the modest scale envisaged is an important initiative for this important town.
It is disappointing to see that a number of those opposed to the project seem to be fuelled by personal antipathies and unable to see the bigger picture.
We were assured, with patent truth, that every one of the people involved in the Oban Bay Marine proposal made it known that they were prepared to stand aside should they personally be perceived as an obstruction to the approval of an initiative in which they unequivocally believe.
In doing do, they occupy a moral high ground from which those citing personalities as the reason for opposition to this proposal disqualify themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We live and work in this beautiful part of the world in which a proposal was put forward and subsequently rejected for well documented reasons which as i say have been seen as the correct descision for dozens of decent sane folk whom i have spoken to.
If you feel a factor in the descision was any individual/individuals involvement then it is plain to me that they should have stood aside long before now, and they with hindsight may now appreciate that courtesy and humility are advantageous qualities to possess, particularly when requesting a grant of nearly £1m for a project which has been deemed to be financialy dubious by reknowned experts in the field of marinas.
i trust you accept that the many local objectors who may have lobbied councillors did so with the best of intentions thus excercising their rights. Its fantasy to suggest that the descision was taken on any grounds other than those previously well explained by ABC’s Dick Walsh in the press release of last week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For pulpithill: Of course anyone has as much of a right to oppose as to reject anything. The major difficulty is that the evidence suggests that the council may have had a predisposition not to offer the support to this project that it should have had until it was in a position to demonstrate whether or not it could succeed beyond doubt.
It is hard to account for the fact that alone of the ongoing CHORD projects, Oban was not given a paid-for Project Manager. No one has offered any explanation for that discrepancy.
Similarly, it is hard to understand why the Council would not engage in partnership working with the project which had scored highest in all independent consultants’ surveys. Again, no one has yet attempted to explain that.
And it is hard to understand why HIE’s conditional offer of providing up to £200,000 for the initiative was concealed until its revelation was extracted.
All of this is most logically explained by an intention on the part of the Council to assist this project to fail.
We accept that the most logical explanation is not always the true explanation but, in the absence of alternative explanations, there is nothing else to think.
In this case there is, as yet, no explanation of any kind for any of these matters – which are sufficiently discriminatory for serious questions to be put – as we have done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well done Pulpithill for your ongoing debacle today with the out of touch Newsroom! Unfortunately due to work commitments I have just logged on. Anyway, we must move on and the debate must now concentrate on a regrouping of how we use the CHORD money and quickly. As I stated previously if Mr Mac wants to build the Marina I am sure he must be able to finance it from the fortune he has made from the sale of his houses at Ganavan and not forgetting his block of flats!
I am in full agreement that Duncan MacIntyre, other interested councillors, OLTA and our new town centre manager should be involved in driving chord forward. Please keep beef on the sidelines as it is probably his rude and obnoxious attitude that sunk the marina in the first place! Lets get talking and embrace chord and the long term benefits it could bring to the town, its citizens and visitors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Totally agree with ‘concerned resident’ re block of flats at ganavan. Bad planning and out of order and certainly out of place. It makes the much slated Cumbernauld town centre look like a tasty development! Thats why its so important to get it right from the start. So lets get any plans for Oban bay correct from the outset, which the OBM project clearly was not.
Money saved could go to an integrated transport set up which would greatly enhance the town for everyone and incorporate badly needed public toilets.
Dont always agree with everything from the ‘newsroom’ but they have given a forum for discussing this issue and maybe we all need a kick up the backside to take more interest in descisions which affect the beautiful area and environment we live in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cheers Pulpithill! Might give Duncan McIntyre etc a nudge along with OLTA to get the ball rolling. As far as integrated transport, what a great idea for Oban. We need a combined hub for buses, taxi’s, trains and ferries and if we integrate tourist information in the same area we can have all these services in one area. There has been great sucess with the Edinburgh Sunday train which the town can build upon. What about parking? This is a major issue in the town. There seems no control or policing of town centre parking. There is no regard to parking on yellow lines and a blind eye seems to be turned. This causes congestion and maybe if this problem were solved we would not need a relief road, which may take visitors away from the town.
Maybe my comments about news room were out of turn as you are correct it gives us the only forum available to express views.
McCaigg if you are the same McCaigg as is so locally well known, maybe you could facilitate a way forward? The time for digs, personalities and political views are over. We need action now. The clock is ticking or in this instance the egg timer has just been turned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For a Concerned Resident: Don’t forget you have an airport as part of your combined transport hub. This is a fabulous, underdeveloped and utterly unmarketed resource – with, in the right hands, stacks of potential for Oban and for Argyll.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whoops! You mentioned the airport but you appear to have got away with it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
a lot of good positive comments here. no concerned resident im no that macaigg. thanks ciao maha
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
AIRPORT! Just don’t get me started! The first place to close come the big council cuts. We’ll not go there yet? As for McCaigg, right enough your views were too sensible and inline with local opinion for you to be the genuine article! Appreciate your balanced view on this matter. Really looking forward to Oban Times this week to see what McCaig has to say. So disapointed that so few people air views on this site. Just shows the Argyll apathy. God only knows how you go about drumming up any form of enthusiasm in this place. If you want to visit a place that has turned itself on it’s head and reinvented itself go to Aviemore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
macaiggg. Sorry for the mis-spelling of your name!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From Patrick Maclean:
Having been in charge of the pontoons which were situated at the South Pier from 1981 to 1989 until displaced by the then Oban Waterfront Development, which, incidentally, promised yacht pontoons, I was shocked to read of the council’s rejection of the present proposals. Few are aware of the huge spend generated by that modest facility which was run by an unpaid committee for no profit other than the benefit to Oban. At the time, the main supermarket, William Low, employed a person to collect trolleys from the South Pier, not blaming the yachtsmen for not returning them, but stating that they would be happy to retrieve them, such was the spend generated. We are all aware that much of supermarket spend does not remain in Oban but this is a potent indicator of potential.
In my current position as a Sea Safety Advisor for the RNLI I have, for the last ten years, travelled around yacht havens and marinas throughout Scotland and Northern and Southern Ireland and I am left in now doubt as to the value of such facilities. Highland region has, for many years now, installed excellent facilities for yachtsmen, in all the places commonly visited, large and small, and were, only a few days ago, trumpeting improved pontoons and mooring facilities at Mallaig. They seem to know on which side their bread is buttered! Furthermore, the benefits enjoyed by Tobermory as a result of their excellent facilities are well known.
When the weather is poor, as it can be, yachts with families aboard gravitate to places were they can go ashore, entertain their families, and, in doing so spend money. Twenty five years ago Oban’s modest facility was doing just that with these people frequenting the town, the hotels for meals, drinks and showers, the cinema, the swimming pool, the shops, the Sealife centre and any other facility they could find to pass the time. This was going on when more mobile visitors were heading East for better weather. The problem is that cruising yachting families look much like anyone else and are not, generally, recognised as such.
Oban Marina, located at Kerrera, have, to their credit, supported this development recognising that it is no threat to their business. They are in the business of providing long term mooring facilities whereas the proposed Oban development was solely for the short term visitors, i.e. the spenders. The two facilities complement each other beautifully, each providing business for the other.
A further loss to the town is the much improved berthing for cruise ship tenders that this facility was going to offer.
Forargyll is to be complimented for the forensic detail in their article my only criticism being that I deplore the publication of posts under pseudonyms or “name and address supplied” The implications for democracy are considerable as it is possible for a person or persons with huge vested interests and, perhaps, by using multiple posts, to attempt to sway public opinion. Those who are not prepared to identify themselves should be treated with suspicion and disregarded.
Nothing of significance has been done in Oban in a long time and, given the loss of this hugely important project, to which many in Oban, recognising its importance, have committed financially, I suspect that, come the next council elections, people will not forget and that the coats of the councillors concerned, could be, as they say, on a shoogly peg! That is real democracy.
J Patrick Maclean
Aros Ard
Croft Road
Oban PA34 5JN
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I dont know if Pat listens to Oban radio station but there was a great debate about this very issue on Wednesday – please try to get a copy and it would assist you to understand the reasons for the ultimate failure of this project to be watertight; ie;the figures simply did not add up, a fact recognised and acknowleged by consultants, both the Aecom ones and another one independant of the Council.
Councillors Duncan Macintyre and Roddy McCuish were truthful, informative, and above all passionate in their conviction that they had acted in the best interest of their own constituents in Oban, and the financial interest of Argyll and Bute as a whole. Campbell Cameron and Coll MacDougall as interviwers blew it big style starting like greyhounds out the trap, and so one sided actually undermined their own points. They appeared as nothing more than puppets for Oban Bay Marine’s board (quite why I fail to understand). Even those 2 with their biased views were quietly silenced by the facts and made to look frankly pathetic.
Councillor McCuish was more than a match for the feeble questioners, and Councillor MacIntyre so honest, articulate though emotional about the future of his home town. In doing so they have both gone up in my estimation and rightly have earned the respect of most right thinking people.
It was explained clearly and factually that the Chord money remains in Oban and there are 2 exciting ventures afoot that will benefit the community locally and our visitors many of whom would be horrified about the now ‘dead and buried’ OBM proposals.
OBM, Campbell Cameron, and Coll MacDougall had over a period of time tried to ram it down our throats how popular the OBM proposals were, and how it was almost treasonable to follow wise counsel in arriving at the only descision open to them. I hope that Campbell in his Town manager role can move on and function positively – no more cheap talk, and more action and work from you is required. I wish Coll all the best in his continued ‘media’ role but hope he comes to realise that the world (although his world might) does not revolve around John MacGregor, Jolomo, M and K MacLeod, Alan Reid MP, Jamie MacGrigor MSP, and the other cronies whose names and businesses he rolls out with monotonous regularity. Broaden your horizons lad!
I would estimate that at least 75% of people (the silent majority) are right behind the descision and far from councillors ‘jacket being on a shoogly peg’, the 2 members who were on the radio in paticular, enhanced their reputations and integrity no end.
THIS IS THE REAL WORLD.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Well said Pulpithill
I think it would be an idea for Oban fm to put the recording of the show up on their website for all those who missed it, as you say the councillors involved went up in my estimations greatly and rang rings round the presenters who were taking the line that all the media seems to be taking of sensationalist anti council rhetoric.
Well done Duncan and Roddy
and as for the McCaig column today that was just outrageous pandering to OBM. For a columnist on local matters he needs to get out and talk to the locals before spouting his drivel in the paper and the Oban Times editorial staff should be thinking long and hard about the continuing column and perhaps getting someone who actually knows what is going on in the town
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From Jamie McGrigor, MSP – who is an ordinary member of Oban Bay Marine, a supporter of this project from its inception.
‘This news is more than disappointing for many people in Oban and for many involved in the yachting fraternity.
‘For many decades the idea of a new marina to benefit Oban has been discussed and here at last there seemed a proposal that was backed by many of the businesses in the town who invested considerable sums of money in the initial stages.
‘I believe it is the only one of the CHORD projects which was financially supported by volunteers so it is even more sad that it should run out of steam- the O seems to be gone from CHORD.
‘Now Oban seems to have been given until November to come up with another project for the £900, 000 capital fund and if this decision is not to be altered then it is vital that a new plan is created that sees this money used for the benefit of the people of Oban.
‘I will also be seeking to raise this matter in the Scottish Parliament at an early opportunity’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a supporter and member of OBM its hardly surprising that hes disapointed, who wouldnt be ? but the project was basically flawed
and did not have the “huge support” that was claimed amongst the
locals and this has been proved by the decision of the counilors at the meeting. Its time to move on to fresh pastures and come up with a plan that will benifit the people who matter….the locals
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
100% correct Frank. The huge support was a figment of the developers imagination, or fabrication/manipulation of what they wanted opinion to be Much is made about the 300 who turned up for the original meeting, though not a lot said about the readjustment of their constitution, as at a following meeting they were finding it difficult to get a quorrum!
When it came to the crunch local people focussed their attention on the facts, and were well satisfied with the outcome and the reasons. Re the money- £70,000- invested by the prospective developers, that is a matter for them, though I cant quite see where they expected this money could have been sourced from for their idea, other than from themselves.
In an ongoing sideshow it appears their arguments were not conveyed in the best manner, and sometimes they, Oban Bay Marine, tried to be far too smart and allienated many people who foccused their attention on the issues and facts surrounding this issue, which is now, thank goodness, clear for all to see.
As a good tory, I would assume, that now that the facts have been established, that Jamie MacGrigor would be happy for council tax payers in Argyll have not proceeded with this scheme which could have lumbered us all financialy for many years. By the same token I expect he will be delighted to support wholeheartedly the other projects which will be financially sustainable, having met the strict financial criteria that unfortunately OBM did not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jamie McGrigor, MSP, today tabled a parliamentary motion at Holyrood on this matter. http://forargyll.com/2010/09/mcgrigor-tables-parliamentary-motion-on-oban-marina/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Letter sent from Mike Balmforth of the British Marine Federation to Jim Mather, MSP:
Dear Jim Mather
I am writing to you partly because you are my own MSP, but also as you are the Minister responsible for Tourism and Economic Development.
This matter was discussed at length at the Recreational Boating and Marine Tourism Cross Party Group at Holyrood last night, and I was asked to write to you, as follows:
You will not be surprised to learn that the whole leisure marine industry is disappointed, to put it mildly, at Argyll & Bute Council’s failure to back the proposed Oban Bay Berthing Scheme.
I was at the inaugural meeting you chaired in Oban, and subsequently met you to brief you on leisure marine matters, so I know you are interested in this sector.
I suspect you are unable to influence matters in the short term, but these facts may help you as and when you might have an opportunity:
1] Argyll & Bute is in the forefront of leisure marine business, with one of the bigger industry turnovers per constituency in the UK.
2] The Sailing Tourism business is growing, and current west coast (Kintyre to Gairloch) visiting boat expenditure is �39.2m and visiting boat nights are 95,970. This is according to the Scottish Enterprise report on Sailing Tourism published earlier this year.
3] The national Sailing Tourism benefit is �101.3m
4] The total Scottish recreational boating and marine tourism benefit is in the region of �300m, a figure we are currently updating.
I attach a diagram showing the whole Scottish picture, which I hope you will find informative.
Should you need any more statistical information, I will be happy to provide it.
What we find inextricable is the apparent negative attitude of the Council. The need for these facilities has been identified for decades, has the tangible support of Oban’s businesses, and the main funding was in place. A&BC will not make public the consultants report that was the basis for their decision, which surely cannot be right. Finally, one would have thought that the duty of the Council was to make needed projects come to fruition, not scupper them!
There are many other detailed aspects of this matter that are somewhat curious, as you will know, and no doubt they will be revealed as time goes by.
In the meantime please be advised that Scotland’s leisure marine industry regards this as a serious missed opportunity. Oban is the natural focal point of our west coast, which is a world renowned sailing destination, but which the town continues to be unable to take advantage of.
I look forward to hearing what, if anything, you can do.
Regards
Mike Balmforth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Mike Balmforth
Your figures in points 1 to 4 may well be spot on, but then that is not what the Council had to confirm or dispute. They had no option other than to rejest the proposal due the financial
unsustainability angle. They even gave them extra time to sort out their side of things. As far as the vast majority of locals (they do exist) the conclusion has overwhelming support for the additional reasons of congestion, safety, noise, impact on the hard hit fishing fleet, and loss of a beautiful view which is so important for ALL.
I dont know if you have been in Oban, but there is more to the town than Oban Bay Marine. I like many others are not anti sailing and do hope that in the future a competent costed package at a suitable location will have a satisfactory outcome. Ganavan Sands may be suitable for pontoons now that the ‘top quality housing’ building site is thankfully coming to an end.
Frankly to draw this matter out in parliament (Jim Mather, Jamie McGrigor) is pathetic and flies in the face of local democracy.
You will always find a warm and friendly welcome in our beautiful town, where you will see positive in-roads being made in many ‘relevant’ sustaintainable projects to assist in maintaining Oban as the ‘Gateway to the Isles’.
Happy sailing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From Patrick Maclean:
Whatever ones opinion of the Oban Marina Project, which is probably now dead and buried for decades, I hope that all will be dismayed by the means by which certain members of the council managed to sink the project. There is something extremely unsavoury about the handling of the affair with unexpected changes of position, un-minuted meetings and much more Jamie MacGrigor has attempted to institute some form of enquiry which, sadly is, probably likely to fail. Given that the council is hardly likely to initiate an enquiry into their own actions, might not the many other blameless councillors, who are tainted by association, rise and call the ringleaders to account. There has been a distinct lack of democracy in this matter which should be addressed and we all, whether for or against, should be pressing for more transparency. I am aware that requests have been made under the freedom of information act for access to documents but, such has been the degree of obfuscation, I am not confident that this will yield much. We deserve better!
Furthermore, I wish, again, to deplore the practice of publishing letters and posts by those who hide behind pseudonyms or “name and address supplied”. This is extremely un-democratic as it gives voice, and possibly credence, to those impartiality is unknown.
Patrick Maclean
Aros Ard
Croft Road
Oban
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The answer is there in my mind to alot of questions!! No marina! Oban cant even get a decent set of public toilets! Never mind, no marina, means one less place for the local taxi drivers to urinate from at night! Poor beef cant have it all!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can only think of one thing the council did that was wrong, that was to give O.B.M.
planning permission.
The reason being, that there is not enough infrastructure ie. no toilet facilities,
If what they say is true , ie. 60 yachts a night with lets say an average of 4 crew,
, for lets say 120 days, now I am not a mathematician but that adds up to a lot of !!!!!!
If any other business was to try this they would be forced to have in place these facilities for their customers, at their cost.
Who in their right mind would
A Build a marina without these facilities in place
B Like to take a walk along looking at the lovely boats floating in a sea Full of !!!!!
C They claim that at 50% occupancy that the income to the wider local economy is
£3.5 million, mmmm I calculate that to be around £1000 per boat per night
D From the few members of OBM that I have spoken to , they do not care about any
additional costs, it must go in at all costs
As for the councillors that spoke on Oban F.M. Well done comman sense prevails
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good points meanister, some of which largely overlooked previously. The council did perhaps place a heavy burden on themselves by giving planning permission for this project, giving this difficult legacy to deal with, nevertheless commonsense has prevailed at the end of the day with all thats left is some self fulfilling point scoring by both sides, thus hindering/delaying well thought out viable and practical alternatives. Like you i feel the councillors succesfully won their live radio argument.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
now the debate rages on another cooncil meeting coming up.its like obm were led up the garden path for a few years.aye of course yous can your pontoons yes we know its for the good of oban bloody best wind up iv ever seen who says roddy and duncan dont have a sense of humor.wonder what frank thinks about this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
£3.5 million, ha ha ha, they cant even spend a penny !!
as for macaiggg this is no wind up this is serious !!!!!!!!!
6o *120 is a lot of!!!!!!! every day for 3 to 4 months
Oban could become the new !!!!!!!! bay for Europe
I dont think this is frivolous
I am suprised however SEPA dont have more to say in this , as nobody can build a house with out somwhere efficiant to deposit there effluent
ciao mahaa
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Im just amazed at all these meetings that are coming up, although given all the people that came out on that cold winter night to give support to OBM at their first meeting and all the new support weve heard about,how come theyve moved to a smaller venue ? I thought they would have the corran halls booked and huge screens in the car park for the over spill for all the supporters of the plan that couldnt fit into the corran halls
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good point Frank. Much is made of the 200/300 staunch supporters, not so much of the problems getting a quorum at subsequent meetings. See that the great one (John MacGregor has gone). Maybe the men in grey suits should have spoke to him sooner, as his attitude all along has not been akin to good partnership working, but thats history. Too self important and speaks for nobody and likely courting somebody for a knighthood for services to whatever!
What is certain is the fact the ‘dischord’ suggested by ‘forargyll’ relating to the decision has not been there, in fact quite the opposite. Some folk wont accept that. We know that OBM and its dwindling band of diehards will claim some sort of victory all the way to the grave. The public meeting/s will back up their whinges, only in their minds. They cant accept theyve lost, fair and square, after being given ‘extra time’ to tidy up their projections, by the very councillors they now try to assasinate! Well done to ‘chord’ group for arranging meeting to let all speak, though other than the above mentioned proffesional debaters, i cant see much appetite for post mortems, with most canny Obanites preferring to move on and support ‘real’ projects in the harbour area which will be of benefit to all who use our town. Personaly an integrated transport structure appeals and one good thing to come out of all this is that people appear to be taking far more interest in what happens to our town, our money etc than at any time i can previously remember.
Let ‘forargyll’, OLTA, OBM, and the tired old ‘Oban Times’ ace reporter Macaig, and Coll Macdougall of Oban fm have their ‘technicallities’ ironed out but no dubious motive sway the majority of locals who stuck together and supported our councillors, in a brave and wise decision. Let them know your opinions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
in years to come youll be able to find the paperwork for this fiasco in the library probally in the comedy section.now i see someone mentioned psuedonyms and iwas wondering frank are you frank drummond that comes from dunbeg and youve only got one arm and and youve only got one leg??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ive always had my doubts as to the true support this scheme has had, a glance through the corporate members and a look at the private members shows that a lot of people have both, if you do the sums the true support is a lot less than the overwhelming support weve all heard about again and again. As for the “great one” departing the scene, hes still listed on the updated web site as chairman and presumably still pulling strings
Its now time to move on and do something that will benefit the many rather than the few and give support to our councillors who made the decision for us not to have a millstone round the towns neck for years to come
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well said frank now i think its time to move on this is as councillor macuish said ;dead in the water;what now??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No Macaiggg Im the other one
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
frank
Are you the one with the other arm and leg then
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For The Meanister, frank drummond and macaiggg: This is getting wonderfully surreal. Just don’t ask if we’re the ones with no heads. We’ve seen this coming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I dont always agree with your newsroom replies but what i will say is that you have an excellent forum here, and i have been looking at other parts of your site, and you are doing commendable work.
I am not sure if the timing is right but i am sure with a good business plan you would be able to edit and produce an excellent newspaper, as the OT and P and J have become predictable and tired. Your website is thought provoking, and makes folk sit up and take notice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For pulpithill: Thank you. Your remarks are good for morale.
When we began For Argyll it was a policy decision to make it an online service only and to lead this development from the front.
The web is the only investable place to be these days. The migration of audiences to online services has been progressively massive for years, leaving some major national newspapers and newspaper groups with fast falling audiences and high cost overheads.
We were the first to do what we are doing. There is still nothing like us in Scotland.
We were two years ahead of the first Scottish national news website, The Caledonian Mercury (http://caledonianmercury.com/) – which we feel is still stuck in the mould of a newspaper translated to the web, instead of using the web and the way the new media work to develop something very different.
The fantastic power of web based services is that you can change and develop relatively quickly. We’re still developing, continually introduce new services and have a lot of exciting ideas in the pipeline. We use a lot of photographs and we archive everything.
But as you say, what is rich, endlessly interesting and fun is the contribution made by site visitors in the forums that grow out of stories. We really value that.
We feel that where national newspapers across the UK are generally in trouble (but The Herald’s been doing well), local newspapers will be the last to die because they have embedded audience affinities – and Argyll is well served by its local press.
But these are very challenging times for the newspaper industry and it is certainly not the place for new initiatives to begin – hence The Caledonian Mercury.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It appears that a recent report shows all major Scottish west coast towns have had an increase in boating/tourist revenue; except that is,- OBAN.
You may well ask why? This is purely down to lack of facilities, and safe shore side access.
I’m a boat owner, disabled, and live close to Oban yet if I wish to have a “boating, meal out” with my family; I must travel to Tobermory, as Oban facilities are difficult at best.
Oban Bay Marine has been a source of inspiration; thank you, and good luck in your much needed proposals for safe berthing in Oban.
I wish you well at the public meeting on Monday, and you have my full support; unfortunately the Skippinish venue does not have a lift, and cannot cater for wheelchair users, therefore, I can’t support in person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hope that in the fulness of time, Mark, that a fully costed viable project similar to the OBM one comes to fruition. It is unfortunate that your inspiration (from Oban Bay Marine’s plans) was short lived and did not yeild your desired conclusion, but it would have been a permanent loss maker, and who pays for that? Good decision from the ‘Chord’ group in Oban, taken for patently competent monetery reasons. I am certain that a pontoon project in the more expansive, less congested part of the bay (north), which neither interferes with cal mac or the oft forgotten fishing fleet, will be funded with mainly private money, and receive assistanance from ABC provided it can subsequently stand on its own two feet thereafter.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Mark Carter wrote:
“I’m a boat owner, disabled, and live close to Oban yet if I wish to have a “boating, meal out” with my family; I must travel to Tobermory, as Oban facilities are difficult at best.”
Oh dear Mark, Im sorry you have to travel so far for a “boating meal out”
on your way to Tobermory you pass the Loch Nell Hotel which has a handy slip, the Wide Mouthed Frog at Dunstaffnage which has ppontoon access, and the excellent and reasonably priced seafood restaurant at Oban Bay Marina again with pontoon access. Youll be able to eat out more often now with all the fuel your saving not having to go to Balamory (LOL). Hope this is of some use
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thats the beauty of this forum, so up to the minute. Im sure that info from Frank, re slipways and pontoons just a stones throw away will be of use to Mark, in his pursuit of step ashore facilities for a bite. It wpuld appear we are well covered in this area and well done to Dunstaffnage, and Oban Bay Marina at Kerrera, for their succesful innovations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As you say Pulpit, “up to the minute” as a rule, but strangely quiet since last nights public meeting where the council explained why they chose not to fund the project. Considering one of the first questions put to the council was from a ForArgyll reporter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are ‘forargyll’ any clearer now on the decision, as the truth inevitably comes out? They certainly seemed to have an anti-council agenda, but in doing so had the virtue of opening up the debate. The scheme is dead in the water and the public meeting answered the questions remaining’ allthough some quarters will never accept the facts, which in itself could be a hinderance to progress to future viable projects.
OBM’s Monday meeting will not have the same appeal as it is being run by OBM with public invited, which is miles away from having a public meeting. Incidently Cambell Cameron (pro OBM) was asked on Oban FM by Councillor McCuish to chair fridays meeting but declined. At least he was given the opportunity, and I hope he will not now turn round and complain about the way the meeting was led. Time for our town centre manager to start working for real, as catchy soundbites, pressing flesh, and jaunts to stirling will not be conjucive to OBANS future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For pulpithill: We are in the process of writing a major plece on Friday evening’s meeting. The matter is, of course, complex and much emerged form the meeting that needs to be interrogated and descried. We hope it will be published some time tomorrow.
We had planned to wait and write a single piece on the two meetings – but matters emerged on Friday evening that need to be in the food chain before Monday night’s meeting – so midnight oil is being burned..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OBMs meeting should certainly be interesting although how they are going to fit all of the “huge support” into the venue has me a bit perplexed. I wonder if they will have a public question time ?
I didnt know Campbell Cameron had been asked to chair Fridays meeting, Im surprised that he didnt take the chance to introduce himself to the public, seems to me it would have been an ideal opportunity for him unless of course he would have felt compromised.
I wonder what going to happen at the OT given their ace columnists views in the paper about the project a few weeks ago. For a man who upposedly has his finger on the pulse of the townhe seems to have totally misjudged the situation, maybe he should do the honourable thing and fall on his sword.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I had an interesting time at the council meeting regarding OBM not only did the council look good they made obm look silly by not defending them selves
i have to say that councilers skye and macdonald , they let the council down by not being in a ready aquescence with their decision, but it was clear to all that where there, It was not a viable project. If however obm think that it is, then they should go ahead and spend their own money, that the chairman has purpoted to have and is willing to give to the project willingly.
I was however very dissapointed not to here from any committee member of obm, as this was their golden oppertunity to defend their project, not a word from their chaiman, secetery, treasure, mmm why where they there, taking notes !!!!! for what!!!! As for their chairman I am really confused as he told me personaly that he had resigned this was late august his name no longer is associated with Obm and he has written letters to this effect. the OT with ref to OBM now refers to a spokesman HA HA Ha and this week their was a letter from their secetery, whats going on at OBM. not fit for purpose Im thinking. no confidence in their chairman. not before time . move on
I was also dissapointed that the spokeperson from for argyll had to be asked more than once what their name and organisation wher
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I too am amazed that OBM did not have representation at the friday meeting, asking questions in front of a capacity audience, prefering perhaps the safety and comfort of their own chinwag on Monday. Beggars belief really, as I thought that under the respected Mike Robertson they would be a more credible force if not winning the argument at least tactically more astute. Perhaps Macgregor still holding the balance of power? Not all singing from the same hymn sheet in Oban Bay Marine. You can bet they will on Monday!
Disappointed that from time to time ‘forargyll’ falling into the trap of nailing their colours to the mast, too often, without enough research. If OBM had been subject to the obsessive scrutiny that the Chord/councillors have been then one could accept it, but unfortunately an unhelpful agenda keeps raising ite head from time to time. I hope that you (forargyll) will be taken seriously and do not become predicable in editorials. Forargyll as far as i can see generally leaning a bit towards giving the nationalists too much publicity, but thats another story.
Two local hacks, Coll MacDougall of Oban FM, and the similarly orientated OT’s McCaig have by their unstinting and unquestioned support of OBM in fact been detrimental to the very body they appear to be backing. Bit of a ‘kiss of death really’.
The council have for once come through this with flying colours, and should be appreciated by ratepayers for not buckling as lesser fellows would have done. To do otherwise would be plain daft in signing up to a proven loss making scheme.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For pulpithill: as noted in the analysis of Friday night’s (24th September 2010) meeting we have just publlshed, Oban Bay Marine asked permission to make a short statement at the meeting. This was refused and we understand that they therefore decided – rightly, given the way the meeting was conducted – that it would be more dignified not to seek any airing of their position, even through questions, which would be just as likely to be ruled out. They were however, to our first hand knowledge, present at the meeting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So is it official ? has MacGregor stood down as Chairman ? I keep hearing that hes stood down but every update on the OBM website still lists him as chairman.
On the resignation front do we think “McCaig” of the Oban Times is going
to resign or will he continue on, although it will be mighty hard for him to continue writing whilst trying not to drown in all the egg on his face. For someone with his finger on the pulse he seems to have made a complete twit of himself over this fiasco.
And what of our “Town Manager” hes been very silent of late I would have expected a statement from him given that hes meant to be revitalising the town surely the council not signing up to a mill stone around our necks for the next 20 years can only be a good thing but all we hear is silence much like the silence we are hearing from ForArgyll. Wheres all the anti council rehtoric after Fridays meeting ? you were there but yet still no story ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: DisCHORDant Public Meeting on Oban Bay Marine proposal :Argyll,Oban CHORD project,public meeting, | For Argyll
To ‘forargyll’ – what a one sided distorted rant, What meeting were you at. regarding bullying, why did Campbell Cameron not take the chair as he was offered. Im sure he wouldnt have taken any bullying (real or imagined’ by forargyll). No doubt you will give a positive report on OBM s Monday meeting. sad you have lost the plot and dont appear objective. Axe to grind? Does Town centre manager have any influence in your company?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For pulpithill: Don’t hold Campbell Cameron or anyone else responsible in any way for anything you are at odds with us about.
We are the ultimate outsiders because we have to be. We don’t want to know ‘who someone is’. We want to take then as they are when we have reason to come into contact with them. We don’t ‘network’ because, efficient as it may be, it can be compromising.
Some time ago we asked Campbell Cameron to act as our Motorsport Editor and he writes on this for us when he can – and on music. How this came about is a story that demonstrates what we’re saying here.
We are outsiders to the extent that when a report on the Scottish Rally came to us, ‘Campbell Cameron’ was no more than a name at its foot. We loved the writing. It breathed energy and knowledge of the sport and it read to us like it had been written by someone under 20 years of age. Youthful passion for the sport was in every word written. You could almost smell the carbon emissions.
So we emailed back, thinking we were talking to an articulate young petrolhead with a gift for communicating and asked if our correspondent would be interested in being our Motorsport Editor. The answer came back: ‘Ooooh. Motorsport Editor. My mum WILL be pleased.’ Knowing nothing and no one, as a matter of policy, we knew we were being gently sent up but interpreted this as coming from a mischievous young independent spirit.
We picked up from some of his pieces he wrote that he presented Drivetime on Oban FM, so we checked out its presenters on its website and laughed when we had to reinterpret the “Ooooh. Motorsport Editor. My mum WILL be pleased.’
Campbell Cameron knows nothing of this (except the bit where he sent us up). He would never have guessed how far out of the loop we stay and why we invited him to do what he does for us, God alone knows where he thought we were coming from.
The interesting thing is that, not knowing that we were working only on the picture of a persona we had got from a piece of writing, his ‘send up’ response – ‘My mum WILL be pleased’ was tuned in to the person we thought we were writing to.
And at least it proves we’re know talent when we see it.
When you think of it, everything we picked up about ‘Campbell Cameron’ from that initial writing and the send-up response – the youthful energy, the mischief the independent spirit, the gift for communicating, the passionate articulateness- is all totally accurate. The fact that it is not housed in a 20 year old body but in a family man of wide and significant experience is actually irrelevant.
And we still know little of him other than what he writes and what he does. So he cannot be held responsible in any way for offence we cause anyone in our own remote independence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Goodness Ive just waded my way through your somewhat fanciful report of the meeting and if it hadnt been for the fact that I saw your reporter there
I would have been inclined to think that you werent there at all.
I think you will find if you had been listening rather than chatting to OBM members that the chairman said he would only accept questions from the floor not statements when your “frail old lady” started off her question with alengthy pro OBM statement she had to be reminded of what the chairman said several times. Hardly bullying, what was more interesting was the fact that OBM had to rely on several husband and wife teams to ask questions, infact nearly all the questions raised were from OBM members, I wonder how many members of the public will be allowed to ask questions at OBMs meeting, after all if you remember the first meeting way back in the corran halls members of the public were told to sit down as their questions were not constructive. I am at a loss as to why ForArgyll are so anti council its almost as if they are trying to score points, perhaps theres a story there maybe in the council website.
A very disapointing article that bears not resemblance to the meeting I attended, and yes I was one of the few who lasted all the tirades of Jill Bowis and stayed to the end.
As Pulpit says what happened to Campbell Cameron ? why the silence
its not like him at all, whats going on there ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for Frank Drummond: a point of fact – the woman referred to as starting to empty the hall through being given endless airtime to rabbit off the point was not Jill Bowis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For the Meanister: After asking the question on why meetings had not been minuted, our representative at the meeting was asked, ‘for the minutes’ (an irony?) to identify herself and her organisation – which of course she did at once.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for the newsroom
Oh I see your not referring to Jill because she was an OBM member and went on at length about marinas in Peterhead and the Shetlands and the local farmers market and how benderloch would benefit from OBMs project, you mean the other very knowledgable lady who works as a maritime consultant and several times put forward constructive thoughts as to alternative developments on the north pier. Yes perhaps she started the exodus but Jill certainly finished it off
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For frank drummond: We can assure you that we live in no one’s camp; and there is no one and no organisation whom we would not praise and not criticise – as deserved, on a case by case basis.
We have often been very supportive of the Council – as in the case of the Jura Passenger Ferry where it was being wrongly blamed when its support had clearly been strong, consistent and forgiving.
But many of the Council’s actions – and its mindset – have perpetuated the sense that Argyll is a place where it’s all about personalities, where deals are done and where there is little sense of objective right behaviour.
You either accept this and live with the consequences or you stand against it. We choose the latter course.
For the record, we have met some members of Oban Bay Marine in researching this matter, so we are acquainted with them slightly through this work and at that level only.
The contact came at our own initiative and followed our curiosity at the very strange press release we had received from the Council announcing its decision on the OBM proposal. We published on that immediately ( http://forargyll.com/2010/08/strange-council-announcement-of-rejection-of-oban-marina-plan/ ) and then set about finding out what this was actually about – with questions to the Council (most still unanswered) and to OBM.
Our concern with the matter is less with the nature of the decision than with the process behind it.
We are obviously concerned about Oban – as any west coaster should be – but we are fundamentally concerned with procedures which are improper, which appear to discriminate, which seem fuelled by pettiness rather than by prioritising the common good and which kill initiative rather than embrace it.
And if you are happy with the way Oban is, you are in a significant minority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a pathetic piece from ‘forargyll, and you have now lost my respect. I am very disappointed as i felt you had carved a niche for yourselves in the media, but most folk will not now take you seriously in the light of your public meeting report. You have had a consistent agenda all along, have lost credibility , as you have shown yourself to be biased, and lost all thread of objectivity. The extent of your prejudice knows no bounds. a spectacular own goal.
I have enjoyed following the debate over the last few weeks here, and your tongue in cheek response about Campbell Cameron. I am very happy with my Oban, and have the utmost trust in the conjoint experiece of all our Councillors, to pull us through difficult times, typified by the decision not to throw taxpayers money at a black hole. There is much I dont agree with in the Council but I always respect those who may harbour a differing view from that of myself, and get on with it.
It is right that questions were asked, and answers given, at the public meeting. To continue with your standard bearing nonsense for OBM in the name of principle, is sad. Dry your eyes, move on, and use your undoubted talent and zeal, in a more beneficial manner for the sake of your future business.
Finally the Councillors made a popular decision, no matter how often you try to ram it down our throats to the contrary. People are perfectly capable of making up there own minds, and i would suggest that 80% of constituents are happy with their elected members. Its called democracy!
Good night and God bless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With reference to your review of Fridays meeting. Why do you call this site For Argyll? This article demonstrates a huge bias against Argyll and Bute Council and our elected members of that body. To set this article out in it’s format in terms of a football game beggars belief! To describe Mr. David Finlayson, “is a local businessman and a place holder with no obvious skills for the game” I find offensive and rude. He is an honest upstanding member of the local business community who has a genuine interest in this town. Yes Roddy is right, how can he possibly justify a £900K spend to his constituents? As for describing Duncan McIntyre as having “brutish rudeness” what a load of nonsense! I don’t think he would know how to be a brute! He is a great ambasador for Argyll & Bute.
I cannot wait to see you article on Mondays meeting! Bet it will be talking up Beef, The MacLeods, Paul Sloan etc etc etc etc.. !!!! Do you get free meals in their establishments and is beef getting you a nice retirement flat in Stevenson Street? Absolutely flabbergasted by the tone and content of your article regarding this meeting. This is likely to be my last contribution to this site as it is so biased and does NOT represent local opinion or reality. What a dam disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Having read the comments made by the usual suspects it is clear that you are out of touch with local feeling for this project. It is also sad that Oban apathy is alive and kicking given the lack of input into this forum. I was not at fridays meeting but trust the judgment of Frank in his analysis of the events. Maybe he could be your new reporter? At least there would be some honesty in reporting of events. And before anyone asks, I need to be Concerned-Resident as my employer would fire me for having a public opinion. I just love this town and love living here! I only want it to be better and if we use the £900K we can acheive this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For A Concerned Resident: Where is the evidence for the ‘local feeling’ for this project you say we are out of touch with – assuming you mean negative local feeling?
The Council – whose decision to bin the OBM project you and all negative local feeling will welcome – held their public meeting on Friday. There were fewer supportive comments than the fingers on one hand – in an audience of 70-90. That was the meeting where all the local feeling in supporting the Councjl decision wold have been on display. Or was it not actually that much local feeling or that strong? You certainly have little to point to in support of your assertions.
Tonight’s meeting, hosted by Oban Bay Marine, finished with a motion put to a significantly larger audience asking whether the company’s members wished the Board of Oban Bay Marine to carry on or to pack up. Something more than 90% put their hands up for continuation. None voted to stop.
Only members of OBM could vote as such a decision was only theirs to make. But if we were to assume that all of those who did not put their hands up for continuation were in fact non-members with negative local feeling about the project but unable to show it, they amounted to no more than 10%. In our experience, people are more strongly moved to action by opposition than support.
Neither of these two meetings produced any significant evidence for much negative local feeling.
On the contrary, both produced significant evidence of positive local feeling – which supports the hardest of all evidence from another action: that local businesses contributed £100 a month, raising a total of £70,000 to develop the Oban Bay Marine proposal.
So, – sorry, but, on the evidence, your case doesn’t stand up.
And by the way, there is no need to apologise for using the shelter of anonymity. It exists to afford such shelter because for a variety of reasons there are individuals who prefer or need it. We are aware that it can be and is abused – but the principle of offering that shelter is centrally important and we’ll live with any misuse of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where is Campbell Cameron? He was appointed by the now defunct Oban Forward Group, sorry parachuted in by Beef MacGregor! As a prominent member of this towns business community I still await his visit to tell me what he is going to do for the town? I am also eager to find out what my significant payment to BIDS will do to improve the town. If he is taking a salary which I am lead to believe he is, it is time to get the finger out and get BIDS on the go. You nailed you colours to the wrong mast! Now time for action Campbell?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Concerned Resident, you cant go before we get the next instalment about tonights meeting at Skippinish I hear they are going to erect huge video screens and a PA system in George street because all of the “huge support” in the town wont fit in the venue, and if you believe what you read here the only folk in Oban that arent going are we few on this forum who see the plan for what it is.
I dont think the staff here will be getting one of Beefys flats in Stevenson St after all, are they not supposed to be the affordable housing that he is to be building as part of his planning consent for the monstrous concrete building he has put up at Ganavan ?
Hats off to him though, I first met him when he was a teller at the bank goodness how times fly and things change.
As for the attitude here to the council well, there Is obviously a grievance at the root of it, which Im sure if someone searches hard enough will come to the surface sooner or later
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For the Newsroom
I think your missing the point here,you cant compare the two meetings, the first meeting was for the council to explain why they did not back the marina, and the fact most of the people at the meeting were not surprisingly OBM supporters, shows that the population of Oban were happy with the councils desicion not to fund the project with public money.
Its not that people dont want a Marina they just dont want the council to use public money for such a project.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks to Frank for the ideas, in fact, as an ex Kerrera person, I’ve been meaning to check out the Kerrera site for some time. The Frog was one of our locals, but it was not open at Easter this year, and the slope is becoming more and more difficult. I don’t however feel that any slip near the Falls of Lora without secure attaching points would be viable.
If it’s all about choice, and I think that it is, it would be nice to visit a few different places, and I wonder just how many other boaters think the same, at present Oban cannot be due to the difficulties of getting alongside, safely and without damage. Both the marinas at Kerrera and Dunstaffnage do a sterling job, but what if you want more?
From my time living on Kerrera; I recall several incidents of people getting hurt, trying to get ashore from boats at the North Pier; one breaking an arm, another falling between several boats into the water and at least one other stepping on a covered boat hatch and falling straight through. Boat damage, mainly from other boat users, was a regular occurrence.
Not ideal, for visiting boat owners who at the end of the day have a choice and all too often, it’s not Oban!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Mark
glad to be of service, sorry to hear the slope up from the pontoons at Dunstaffnage is getting more difficult. A look at the artists impressions of the Oban plan the walkway looks as if its going to be pretty difficult for you as its very long I dont think much thought has been given to disabled access at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like ‘concerned resident’ I feel that this particular forum has come to an end. Good while it lasted, but spoilt by the increasing failure of ‘forargyll’ to remain impartial.
Like Frank Drummond I agree that those, like myself who are happy that the Council were right to ‘bin’ OBM’s unviable proposal, saw absolutely no need to attend either meeting. The vast majority of locals are happy. You ‘forargyll’ just can not get that, and never will.
The obsessive tactics that this website has employed to attempt to ridicule’ and discredit public spirited Councillors and business folk, who do not concur with its own twisted rhetoric has failed miserably. I hope you learn basic manners for the future.The ‘Forargyll’ banner is misleading as you speak not for me, or the 80% who back the Council.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For pulpithill: It would be more honest to admit that the two public meetings produced no evidence of the wealth of local hostility to the OBM proposal which has been touted.
Concerned centrally with what has clearly been a flawed procedure on the part of the Council – and at times arguably an improper one – we had an open mind on the issue of the relative weight of public support and hostility to the marina project.
We waited for the evidence of the two public meetings to indicate those weights of opinion, knowing that people are more motivated to come out to be agin than they can be bothered to come out to support.
For this reason we had expected to see evidence of real hostility to the OBM proposal at one or both of the meetings.
We heard perhaps three negative comments in the entire long evening at the CHORD Project Board meeting on Friday 24th September 2010.
At the OBM meeting last night (27th September 2010), apart from a very modest degree of hostile questioning from the two Councillors at the heart of the nay-saying and whose points were shown to be groundless – no hostility to the project was in evidence.
We would have discounted this as being down to a home match, had it not been that we had already seen the away match for OBM – with no greatly dissimilar response.
You say 80% back the Council – presumably you mean on the OBM decision. The evidence of these two meetings is that it is debateable if 8% back it.
You may not like what we say but you are wrong to pretend it is purely rhetorical. What we say is analytic, evidence based – and with that evidence and the resulting argument given.
We don’t do smoke and mirrors – and we have to say that the level of procedural stability, logic, evidence and objective analysis underpinning the Council’s decision taking and its defence of that decision taking, has been disturbingly low rent – at all levels.
And that is before one even begins to consider matters like good faith and the prioritising of the common interest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The evidence I have as to the local opposition is the overwhelming silent majority of Obanites who though their absence at Fridays meeting and whose lack of any vocal outcry is testament to their support of their elected council.
I was so pleased to read that Monday evening’s meeting was such a success! It is also good to see that OBM still want to go ahead with the marina project. Given the overwhelming enthusiasm they have they should easily be able to cover the £900K shortfall in the project by good sound local investment, maybe they could start a cooperative? I wish them every success. Thanks Frank for highlighting the fact that people are not against the marina but are against the council investing a substantial amount of money and possibly ending up with a millstone round its neck. I notice that For Argyll did not file as comprehensive a report on Monday’s meeting? Why, given the acres of words you invested in the CHORD meeting berating our councillors and a local business man?
The pontoons cannot expect public finance; the risk is too big so let’s spend the dosh on sustainable projects or investments that will have a long lasting effect on Oban, its visitors and townsfolk.
ANYWAY………..what about the CHORD money? How about we all channel our energy into making sure it is wisely spent? Why doesn’t For Argyll start the ball rolling with a forum that facilitates local ideas to be discussed? Come on go for it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL
you really havent grasped this thing at all.
The first meeting was to explain the councils decision……. so obviously OBM would be represented as they werent happy with it.
The second meeting was for OBM and was unlikely to attract many non OBM audience given that at the first meeting anyone who had a “negative” question was told to sit down if they didnt have anything constructive to say
Why havent we had a report of the second meeting yet ?
I thought with your “impartial” reporting style it would have been up on the web page first thing this morning.
You “for argyll” are losing all credibility with your readers, you have tried to start a witch hunt and failed and quite honestly this is turning into a tuppeny halfpenny farce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have been following these threads with great interest and can honestly say its been very entertaining. How ever I feel I must point out that by not printing a report on the OBM meeting you have quite plainly nailed your colours to the mast. I had thought that your reporting stance was somewhat biased but I see now that I was wrong, you’re on an out and out crusade to besmirch the council and the councillors at every chance you get. As several contributors have stated you quite clearly have an axe to grind with the council.
I have followed the local news in “For Argyll” since you started but Im afraid I cannot stomach this one sided poisonous style of reporting any longer
farewell
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For KGV and frank drummond: We have recently published an account of the Oban Bay Marine meeting on 27th September – and within a period of a few hours less than that in which we published the report on the Council’s meeting on 24th September.
Each item we publish is dated and timed below the headline.
These are serious matters and they required to be thoroughly covered – this takes time, whether or not you find the reporting style and/or stance to your liking.
As a small team, of course we are compelled to neglect other issues more than we are comfortable with, while we prepare major articles like these – but we are still working to do what we can to keep the rest of the news flow online.
It’s a juggling exercise. We wish we could be quicker but, in truth, there is anyway a limit to how fast one can deal with serious issues with complex evidence and much raw material to order so we take what time each such work needs..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are so out of touch. Why on earth did you expect a ‘crowd’ of good local folk at public meetings when they are entirely happy with the ‘chord’/Council decision. Its that basic.They have no questions. Happy, contented and positive about the future.
What started off as good debate here, has quickly descended into a farce.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was talking to Cllr McCuish regarding the OBM project and enquired as to just who had been consulted with regard to the developement. Heres the list
Project Board
Phil Preston – Calmac
Diane Waddell – HIE
David Finlayson – Oban Town Centre Traders
Pauline McNally – Transport Scotland
Ranald Robertson – HITRANS
Craig Millory – Networl Rail
Councillor Donald McInosh
Councillor Roddy McCuish
Councillor Duncan McIntyre
Individual Consultations
Cllr Donald McIntosh
Cllr Gordon Chalmers
Cllr Neil MacKay
Cllr Donald MacDonald
Cllr Roderick McCuish
Cllr Duncan MacIntyre
Cllr Mary Jean Devine
Cllr Elaine Robertson
Ranald Robertson – HITRANS
George Harper – Director of Development Services
Murdo MacLeod – M & K MacLeod Ltd
David Finlayson – Oban Town Centre Traders
The Board – Oban Bay Marine
Kenneth MacIntyre – Oban & Kerrera CC
Phil Preston – Calmac
Ken Jones – SAMS (Scottish Marine Science)
Nick Wesley – Atlantis Leisure
John MacAlister – Mallaig & NW Fishermen
Peter Tosh – Oban Port Users Ltd
Alexander Dobbie – Saulmore Farm Development
Patrick Dawson – Saulmore Farm Development
Mike Robertson – RNLI Oban/Dunoille Estate
Sue Price – Oban Marina
Morag Brown – Project Manager, Oban Bay Marine
Joey Gough – Oban Sailing Club
Donald Kelly – Argyll & Bute Council
Andrew Robertson – Argyll & Bute Council
Kevin O’Hare – Scottish Water
Alasdair Rankin – The Crown Estate
West Highland Housing Association
Derry McRae – Culverwell
Peter Ward – Argyll & Bute Council
Blair Fletcher – Argyll & Bute Council
Farm development
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For frank drummond: This is very useful and extremely illuminating information, Frank. Thank you. We will refer to it in our coming analysis when we have finished working on the documents obtained under FoI.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Indeed Frank its very interesting as several of the people stood up at the Corran Halls meeting and said that they had never been consulted.
More intrigue
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your not wrong there, Im pretty sure that the Sailing club, the Community Council and the Lifeboat all said they hadnt been consulted, why on earth would they do that. Seems to me theres more to this than meets the eye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@frank drummond — definitely. Its going to be one of three scenarios: those who stood up 1. were lying and had been consulted, 2. had forgotten and they had been consulted or 3. just hadn’t been consulted.
If these three bodies — the Sailing Club, the Community Council and the Lifeboat — stood up and said they hadn’t been consulted then you’d have to say that in all probability, they hadn’t been consulted. Interesting indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
having seen the list I think you can rule out “3. just hadn’t been consulted”
why would the company say they consulted them when they didnt, that makes no sense. I think its more likely that they were and didnt pass the info on
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@frank drummond. Do you think? You’d trust consultants who have a vested interest in inflating their consultee list rather than fellow Obanites? Says a great deal really.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nonchuk, it was you that put forward the theory that they “had forgotten and they had been consulted ” I was merely agreeing with it. I see from other posts youve made that you are in the anti council camp and need to blame someone in authority.
I personally agree with the majority of Obanites who arent questioning the Councils response to this project, I refer to the meeting in the Corran Halls
where unsurprisingly so many OBM members turned out to question the Councillors involved, but where were all the “Obanites” who feel so strongly that the council made the wrong decision ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What planet is Linda Battison on. A huge cross section of the community were consulted. everybody knew the proposals and timescale for decisions. Are you not online? Concentrate on what your supposed to be doing and dont go off in a tirade of self publicity, apparently speaking for all OLTA members. Somehow feel Bill Mathews would have handled it better.
Clutching at straws now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Linda Battison is another one of these OBM members that has personal and corporate interests in this project. Presumably she spends just as much time promoting other Tourism matters in Oban & Argyll ?
And yes your right why does she insist on banging on about the huge support for this project amongst the locals ? when its just not there.
Again evidenced by the poor turnout at the Corran Halls meeting
Infact OBM reduced the number of members needed for a quorum from 20% to 10% of the membership in light of the lack of support from within its own ranks what does that tell you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Absolutely, Frank. some of these guys think they should get special treatment. Your spot on with the info re OBM reducing quorum requimrent. The alleged support was never there, as many who went to inaugral meeting were curious locals, many of whom are content with the justified conclusion.
And another thing, in the ‘aecom’ report there were issues other than financial which could have reared their head in this scheme, with questions of location, technical, and operational difficulties emerging.
The marina if it goes ahead 9and good luck to them) will not be in the small bay between the piers, but on the north side of the North pier, where the water is deep enough without dredging required. I dont know if ‘Macleod of Eusk’ would allow it though, as he seems to think he owns the pier as well as the 2 cafes. See the ‘eusk’ jeep parked on a traffic island at the back of piaza. Some like to be more equal than others.
We, the silent majority need to be more hands on and active in our towns affairs, as Councillors can do nothing if they are not told opinions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its about time someone pointed out “Macleod of Eusk” that he’s a tennant of the council and that he doesnt own the north pier and all the posturing, ranting, and painting of yellow lines will not change anything. He doesnt like boats using the north pier, he doesnt like vehicles on the north pier and he ceratainly doesnt like the liners coming to Oban and their passengers getting on the buses on the north pier outside his posh chippie
Like or Dislike:
1 
0