£9.3m plans for Kilcreggan Harbour have been labelled a ‘missed opportunity’, with calls for the village’s Victorian pier to be adapted, rather than a new pontoon being built.
The preferred option for the project was finally revealed last Friday by the four public agencies involved.
And last night Cove and Kilcreggan community councillors were given an online briefing by officials and consultants in the hope of being better equipped to deal with queries from residents.
One community councillor said ‘the shit would hit the fan’ when residents saw the plans, but officials said the project was still at an early stage, and promised there would be a face-to-face consultation.
The preferred option would see a 60-metre pontoon being built to the west of the 125 year-old pier – a breakwater is also shown, but engineers last night said they were still waiting for wave modelling data to show if this would be needed, or what form it would take.
The meeting heard that similar pontoons had been installed on the Thames and in Liverpool.
The cost – a dramatic increase on the figure of £1.1m given to councillors in December 2020 – was described as ‘comparative’ to show differences between the various options.
Argyll and Bute Council would own and fund the new structures, said Scott Reid, the authority’s marine operations manager
“The plans are not fully decided or developed and it certainly wouldn’t be prudent to apply for funds or anything else until we’ve actually got more concrete plans,” he said.
“There will be a closer look at the finance and how we bring forward the project at a later stage.
“There are a few funding avenues that we can explore, including Transport Scotland, but there’s the normal council way of funding projects as well – there’s a number of avenues yet to be explored.”
An online consultation is due next month, but Mr Reid said would also be ‘roadshow drop-in sessions’ so the public could see the plan and ask questions.
Community councillor James McLean said the authorities involved – CalMac, Transport Scotland, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd (CMAL) and the council – should have sought local opinion at the outset.
“I’m going to predict that once this gets into the community here the shit will hit the fan, because everybody will go – ‘what on earth are you doing?'” he added
“Although everybody is very keen to have a good ferry service, they are also very fond of their Victorian village, the listed pier etc.
“If you had come to the community council and said, can you find out what people think and feed it back, you would have got some pretty strong pointers to help you in looking at options.
“For me, I’m thinking has anyone looked at the condition of the existing pier properly?
“Has anybody looked at a scheme which provides a mooring buffer at the end of the pier with a transition zone for passenger transfer?
“My view is that this community would want an adaptation of the existing pier in some way.”
Several designs were rejected by the project team and never revealed in order to ‘stop hares running’, but the three designs shown below were all assessed along with the final preferred choice.
Matthew Ross, project director for consultants Mott McDonald, said they had to follow Transport Scotland guidance in public engagement.
“This is the right stage of the project, for the preferred option and that’s why we’re presenting that now,” he said
“We are still at the early stages, they are clearly not design drawings, they are concepts.”
New ferry expected to be catamaran
Of the pier, he said: “No detailed investigation has been considered necessary at this time.
“I know you might not like that response, but the pier has previously had structural repairs including deck and pile strengthening and we have to bear in mind that the proposed ferries are approximately twice the size of the current ferry.”
The pontoon is designed for the new Dunoon vessel, which Mr Ross said was expected to be a catamaran, and would be a back-up vessel for the Kilcreggan service.
He said it was not yet known whether the new Kilcreggan ferry would be smaller than this – although that seems to be contradicted by a tweet from CMAL on the last day of the consultation into the Dunoon boat.
This is your last day to have your say on the design process for a new passenger-only vessel to serve the routes between #Gourock, #Dunoon and #Kilcreggan. Click the link to learn more and share your views: https://t.co/KiXPVkOh0b pic.twitter.com/1uN4zAym7g
— CMAL (@CMAssets) January 10, 2022
Mr McLean said that Historic Environment Scotland and the council planning department should have been contacted before this stage, as they could have advised on ways that the existing B-listed pier could be incorporated.
“The heritage people are usually very keen on what I’d call appropriate adaptation to keep it in use, because what I fear is that you’ll provide a facility and then the existing pier will get forgotten and become the second cousin,” he said.
“The other thing is the influence these schemes have on the residents looking on the bay, and I think that’s very important to recognise as well.
“It’s the views from the water, and the views from the land to the water, which is really important on this peninsula, it’s an important heritage area.”
One of the rejected options feared pontoons at the head of the pier, although the meeting heard that this was predicted to bring too many cancelled sailings.
Village parking crisis
But Alan Pinder said: “James has really voiced the community’s concerns perfectly, there’s no doubt if you ask this community, we’re going to favour solutions that maintain and use the pier, even if they’re not the most elegant or perfect or cost-effective engineering choices.”
He added that the proposal would see two parking spaces lost: “The parking issue is really important right now.”
Read more: Heritage rotting away – Argyll and Bute Council’s historic buildings at risk
Mark Irvine agreed that there was ‘a parking crisis’ in the village and said there should have been an impact assessment now, rather than later as scheduled, as well as a more holistic approach overall.
“We want a bigger, more attractive solution that is more attractive for visitors and for the economy,” he said.
“What we are worried about is that we end up with the right option from an engineering and a maritime perspective, and I agree that what you’re presenting seems to be the right solution, but unfortunately it exacerbates and adds to additional pressure.
“It’s a missed opportunity to resolve and integrate a fully-rounded solution.
“We felt towards the end of last year that the engagement we were involved in wasn’t really allowing us to layer that in and it wasn’t necessarily being considered.”
John Auld said his family had been in the village for generations and used to drive sheep along the pier before taking them to Greenock for sale.
“I had been hopeful, but looking at the presentation I share a lot of what Mark says, and the option that you are presenting is perhaps the worst of the options for various different reasons,” he said.
‘It is going to be very divisive’
“The first point we need to know before this is taken any further with the public is what the life of the current pier is and what the future life expectancy of that is as well.
“Although you’re talking about breakwaters and wave heights in 60 years’ time, if there is damage to the pontoon what happens in that event? There are a lot other factors that can lead to disruption of the service.
“There does need to be an awful lot closer dialogue and understanding of the whole economic situation for the village.
“An awful lot of things need to be taken into account that haven’ t been looked at.
“Not being included in that is going to be very divisive in the community and I would like to see a way where we can engage further and get more answers and put forward as a community how we would like to progress this, because we do value your investment in the community, and it is needed, but there’s a lot of things that require a look-at.”
Earlier in the meeting Mr Ross had said of the consultation: “It is fundamental to the process that there is public engagement and an appropriate level of support for the preferred option.
“The reason for that is ultimately we do need to get consensus for implementing a preferred option and we want to be sure that there is support for it and it is something that is going to be viable to progress.”
Asked what would constitute an appropriate level of support and how it would be measured, Mr Reid said: “We will have to see what the concerns are.
“There are red flags and there are things we can address, and there will be certain aspects that we can compromise on, or we can come up with other aspects, and then there will be red lines in the sand that we can’t go beyond, so we’ll have to see what the consultation is.
“It wouldn’t be proper to try and anticipate what those issues may or may not be until we get the feedback from the stakeholders and the public.”
Community council chair Alistair Lamont asked: “What happens if the locals reject the plan?”
Mr Reid replied: “Rejecting the plan comes with a caveat of being in favour of something else, I would presume, since we’re all proactive and we all want to have something improving the situation.
“That gives us something to go back to reference groups and working groups and work with.
“The whole idea of getting this out as early as possible is to have these sometimes difficult questions asked and get as much feedback as we can before a lot of time is made on detailed planning and developing options that aren’t feasible.”
Asked about the Waverley, which last year called at Kilcreggan twice a week, Mr Reid said it was part of the project stakeholder group.
“There are no plans at all for seeing the back of the Waverley under any circumstances,” he added.
“There are no plans to do anything with the pier other than try to protect it and keep it for another 125 years if possible.
“There is a very real opportunity to have the pier at the heart of the community for a long time to come.”
Why can’t a new pier be built to the west side of the existing pier with access from the existing timber pier. This would ensure that the existing pier would have to be maintained. Money would be saved by not building a new access from the car park. From the shore road a new pier would be partially hidden by the car park