All local residents should be consulted in writing on plans for the Kilcreggan Harbour project, a meeting heard this week.
And a community councillor said she had been told that if she didn’t keep the £9.3m proposals confidential she would have no part in the project reference group.
Meanwhile Argyll and Bute Council, which owns the village’s 125 year-old pier, has issued a statement which indicates a U-turn, describing work on it as ‘likely’.
The plans for a pontoon and breakwater were heavily criticised by Cove and Kilcreggan community councillors after being revealed here, while a Save Kilcreggan Pier Facebook group now has nearly 700 members.
A consultation which was due to end in February has been delayed while the four public bodies involved – Transport Scotland, CalMac, CMAL and Argyll & Bute Council – produce new designs which incorporate the pier.
Read more: Alternative designs for harbour revealed after ten-month fight
There are fears that the pier will not be maintained if it is only used by the Waverley once a new pontoon is built.
Convener Alistair Lamont told this week’s community council meeting that there had still been no formal notification of the plans, while the consultation would be after May’s Argyll and Bute Council election.
“Currently there is a lot of support for the Save Kilcreggan Pier Facebook campaign, but no information how many of the folk who have signed up to it are residents of the villages or are ferry users,” he said
“We need to have feedback from those groups to ascertain where support lies, and I wonder if we should be asking Argyll and Bute Council to mail the initial survey to all those on the voters’ roll in the village, rather than have them handed out at various locations.
“Also those people need to be fully briefed on the reasoning behind decisions, the guidelines that were created such as desire to achieve equality of access, the basis for having three boats to a similar design, the reason for the harbour to last at least 60 years, the need to keep the ferry running throughout the construction phase and the expected impact of global warming on the harbours.”
He added that a wave study was now nearing completion and this would give an indication as to whether a breakwater is required.
Residents at the meeting complained of secrecy and asked for all new information to shared, but Rev Christine Murdoch, who sits on the project reference group alongside Mr Lamont, said there had been confidentiality rather than secrecy.
“We were asked to keep it confidential for a short while,” she said.
“It was better to keep it confidential for six to eight weeks.
I was prepared to accept that confidentiality because we were told that if we didn’t we wouldn’t be part of the reference group.”
Kilcreggan resident Val Walker said that had been ‘totally wrong’, adding: “There is an awful lot of people in this village who know nothing about this.”
The plans were shared with the community council at an online meeting in January with journalists invited, and Mr Lamont said the decision to change tack and look at adapting the pier was taken because of pressure at that meeting.
And James McLean said: “We made it very clear that the consultation process was arse about face.”
He said there should be an interim solution based on using the pier and offered to produce a design based on a pontoon or caisson.
Mr Lamont said of the public bodies behind the project: “Their ambition is to give us a really first class service.
“We shouldn’t be vilifying them.”
And Rev Murdoch said that via the Inner Clyde ferry group she had been asked for a wishlist – this included later daily sailings and a Sunday service, but she added: “We just don’t need as large a ferry as Dunoon does.”
Two new 40-metre ferries are planned for the Dunoon to Gourock route, but CMAL says the size of the new Kilcreggan vessel has not yet been decided.
In January 2020 a Transport Scotland document stated: “The two new Gourock-Dunoon vessels and a third vessel for Kilcreggan will be delivered through a single procurement activity for sister ship design and cost efficiency.
“This will provide three identical vessels, which will be an over specification for Kilcreggan but will provide operational flexibility for CalMac for dry docking and outages.”
In a statement on its website this week, the council – which in February said the consultation had been going ‘fantastically’ – says it will now take place after the May election because of ‘national guidance from the Scottish Government’.
“This is due to pre-election guidelines that restrict any communications activity that have a significant public and political interest,” the statement adds
“Pre-engagement discussions with Historic Scotland will continue during this period to look at the likely works to the Victorian pier at Kilcreggan.
“Launching the consultation after the election allows continued elected member participation in the process. It also enables the Kilcreggan options to include more details of required works to the Victorian pier.
“We will provide an update after the election.”
As a retired engineer, i find it very hard indeed to comprehend that this is the plan of a professional organisation. However. In consideration of past CMAL projects i realise it falls into the same expectation of failure. The 9.3 million will rapidly approach 15 million. The rubble breakwater will have the same features as similar breakwaters in Gourock and Helensburgh – rat infestation. It will fail utterly to dampen wave motion sufficiently for a pontoon raft. Can the raft deal with salinity differences; In brackish water it will float lower, salt, higher? What are the expectations of reliability for a 67m steel hinged ramp? What is the projected vertical movement and especially lateral movement and associated stresses on the hinging/anchors. It has fail written all over it.
So now the Victorian pier. It’s already stood the test of time, storm, tide and frequent unexpected crumps and bumps. CMAL and CALMAC are trying to tell us it’s not suitable in high, spring tides due to the inclination of the ramp. Indeed there have been multiple cancellations lately due to this situation. Interestingly, high tide cancellations were never a feature for past operators therefore one can only assume these cancellations by the CALMAC/CMAL combo are merely being faked to promote their crazy project.
I appreciate larger vessels are being proposed that will impose significantly higher stresses on the pier whilst alongside. The addition of, say, 2 steel piles similar in design to those used at the new Gourock steps – driven into the seabed connected to the pier only by a steel walkway for piermaster access during berthing. This takes the lateral (boat mass) and vertical wave motion loads away from the pier structure itself. As far as the tidal range issue is concerned, CALMAC already utilise a range of bespoke ramps that are adjusted in height either electrically or manually.
Lastly. Regarding the breakwater/pontoon proposal. I’m wondering if anyone has asked Waverley Excursions if it’s possible for the paddler to use the Victorian pier with the breakwater in situ? Waverley needs a very shallow angle, straight line, underway approach circa 1km to successfully come alongside. I doubt very much she can do that under of the current proposal.