Last Updated on July 18, 2024 by Phil Hamerton
The future of Oban Harbour: where have we got to?
Introduction
An unprecedented number of people have objected to the Council’s plans for Oban Harbour – many times more than has been recorded for any Harbour Order in Scotland. 130 submissions were made during the consultation period which spanned Christmas and New Year, closing on January 10th, and almost all of these are known to have been objections. Council responses have been generic, based on simple ‘copy and paste’ actions from one to another and have not addressed the general or the individual concerns in almost all cases.
Elected Members of the Council, including those who represent the Oban area and the islands served by the ferries from Oban, have been denied the opportunity to study the various concerns about the proposed Municipal Harbour. Even more worrying, the Members who sit on the Harbour Board, who effectively become the responsible Harbour Authority, have also been denied the opportunity and haven’t even been given a summary of the concerns raised or the Council’s responses. The general public have been told nothing other than what OCHDA and Oban Community Council have been able to piece together.
At the time of writing it is unclear what the next step, in what Transport Scotland describe as ‘negotiation’ between the ‘applicant’ (the Council) and objectors, is to be and there is no indication of when this will be made clear. As will be seen, there are indications in what the Council have said of revision required but it is unclear whether, or when, the Harbour Board might be asked for approval of a revised draft.
Oban draft Harbour Order 2023: consultation summary
During the consultation the issues that caused most concern were proposals relating to moorings, finance and harbour limits and there was much concern over the Council’s consultation mechanisms which are not detailed in the draft Order. This short paper summarises the concerns raised within the 77 objections that have been shared with us, under these headings, and the Council’s response to each. For each area of concern there is a brief introduction as background. Full details of the analysis of consultation, and the Council’s responses, is available on the Consultation page.
Moorings
Background
There are more than 250 licensed moorings and berths within Oban Bay, many of which have been in use for decades. The powers sought in the Harbour Order will cover every one of them.
All moorings require two licences, one issued by Crown Estate Scotland and the other issued by the Government via the Marine Directorate (previously Marine Scotland). At present renewal of these licences is for 25 years at a typical fee of £219.
What the Council plans:
If passed into the law the Harbour Order will allow the Council to lay down, maintain and remove moorings, buoys within the harbour area, to allow the Council to charge vessels for use of moorings and buoys and to take over licensing of moorings from Marine Scotland (the Marine Directorate).
The Council’s new ‘Moorings Policy’ states that, instead of the current Government licence system, the Council will issue mooring licences for a period and at a fee both currently unknown. NB This power includes all pontoon berths run by Kerrera Marina.
What objectors said:
The consultation responses
(Numbers in brackets indicate the number of submissions where each specific topic was mentioned.)
Justification for any change. The most frequent issue raised, overall, was that the current licensing of moorings satisfies all safety of navigation issues due to the process in use and should be left alone. (19) In addition, concern was expressed over removal / relocation powers (11) where there has not been evidence of a problem over a considerable period (i.e.“Granny rights” should apply).
Many concerns regarding the proposed new licensing were raised, including any new charging system may inflate the cost of mooring ownership or rent and may drive away visitors (4) and discourage new mooring owners (2). Concern over the lack of knowledge of the fee or how it would be decided (12) and the potential for short (1 year) licence periods (10) were deemed unacceptable.
Suggestions were put forward including exemption of the present mooring associations (7) as they police themselves with the present system, and have no interference with navigational approaches (3) and to establish a separate body to oversee all moorings, as suggested by Crown Estate Scotland.
How the Council responded to objectors (the generic response):
The Council’s response explains, at length, about the Crown Estate licence but says very little about the Council’s intention to take over the Government licences.
Regarding the period of the new licences, the Council states that they may be for longer than 1 year and regarding the fee for these licences they are silent. The Council is not proposing any alteration to the draft HRO in this regard.
Note, however, that in responses to objector concerns over the proposed Harbour Limits, the Council has written that “any moorings which are already in place will see no changes, charges or interference from the Council as Harbour Authority.”
Financial arrangements
Background
The Harbours Act (1964) specifies that separate annual accounts for each “harbour undertaking” must be published. The proposed Municipal Harbour at Oban would be one such ‘Harbour Undertaking’. At present Argyll and Bute does not publish separate accounts for any of its harbours but provides a composite single account covering all its harbours.
What the Council plans:
The HRO includes a requirement on the Council to prepare an annual statement of accounts, but does not make clear that these should relate specifically to Oban, and provides that the Council may maintain a reserve fund from surplus revenue generated in Oban and for that money to spent elsewhere on other piers, harbours etc.
What objectors said:
The consultation responses
Eleven different topics/issues were noted among the submissions, principally relating to the publishing of Oban-specific accounts and the use of any reserve funds accrued. 38 submissions made reference to the detailing of annual accounts, while 36 expressed concern that reserve funds should not be subsumed into an all harbours fund but must be ring fenced for Oban. Other concerns related to possible conflict of interest between the Council as operator of the N Pier and the landlord of the Kerrera Marina, to possible discounts for specific types of vessel and to free passage to vessels ‘passing through’ the HA area.
How the Council responded to objectors:
The Council have not proposed any alteration to the draft HRO. They repeated their intention to operate the Reserve Funds, as above, and have not addressed the issue of harbour-specific accounting.
Harbour Limits
Background
There is no existing Harbour Authority covering Oban Bay and the Sound of Kerrera. Small areas are controlled by the Council (around the North Pier) and by Caledonian Marine Assets Limited on behalf of the Government (around the Railway Pier). A voluntary Code of Practice is in place for other waters, notably the passage through the N Entrance and the waters East of a line between the Dog Stone and the Brandy Stone.
What the Council plans:
Argyll & Bute Council’s proposed Harbour Limits cover the whole of Oban Bay, between the shoreline round the bay and down the Sound (East) from the Dog Stone to a point just S of the Kerrera Ferry and, to the West, the shoreline of Kerrera from a point just S of the Kerrera Ferry to the N Entrance. In addition, the proposed limits extend into the open water outside the North Entrance, in an arc, covering the existing recognised anchorages.
There is no mention of the landward extent of the proposed Harbour Authority area despite there being references to car parking etc.
What objectors said:
The consultation responses
43 submissions identified specific areas of concern relating to land-based limits, in general, and to water-based limits. (Figures in bracket refer to numbers of respondents.)
A complete lack of any definition of the land area to be considered as part of the proposed HA was referred to in 16 cases. Public access had to be protected and open (6), and Port Beag area and slip with public access should not be lost (7).
Regarding the water areas, there were complaints arising from the proposed limits as a consequence of the lack of consultation with stakeholders, justification and effective power to interfere with current practice.
Of the proposed limits generally, a number of submissions said there had been a lack of consultation as to where they are applied (5) and 3 said there was no justification for any limit given.
A very high proportion (75%) of submissions expressed concern over possible conflict of business interest between the Council as operator of the N Pier and “landlord” to all other berths. 32 objections referred to the risk of one business interfering with another. There were concerns (7) that it would restrict or stop marina operations and employment on Kerrera and 11 submissions said there was no justification given for the inclusion of the area.
A significant number of submissions (15) recommended that Kerrera Marina or Ardentrive Bay should be excluded from the harbour area. Some submissions (3) suggested that all recognised moorings areas should be outwith the harbour area and control as they pose no risk to navigation.
A specific proposal that the southern limit in Kerrera Sound should be moved SW nominally to the entrance was made by some (5) for safety and (3) stated safety must improve in the context of limits applied.
How the Council responded to objectors (the generic response):
In response, the Council stated that the (water) Harbour Limits were supported by the data gathered in the Risk Assessment. No comment was made in response to suggestions to exclude either existing moorings entirely or to exclude Ardentrive Bay specifically.
The Council has accepted that the landward limits require to be defined in the HRO and these will be incorporated. However, these are not currently publicly defined.
Regarding other businesses and any conflict of interest, the Council responded that they “will continue to seek to maximise business success in Oban Harbour. Businesses in Oban bay with moorings, such as a Marina……. and any moorings which are already in place will see no changes, charges or interference from the Council as Harbour Authority.”
Governance
Background
Despite there being no specific reference to general consultation in the draft HRO 90% of submissions made reference to consultation and/or community (stakeholder) engagement.
What the Council plans:
Reference to consultation is made in Articles 5 & 22 of the draft HRO, referring to safety (in consultation with CMAL) and other ‘directions’ for the management of the harbour (in consultation with CMAL, CalMac, RYA, Northern Lighthouse Board and the MCA). Neither article refers either to harbour users, as a group, or other stakeholders in the community and the HRO makes no reference to consultation over future development.
What objectors said:
The consultation responses
Submissions referred both to past consultation, over the development of the draft HRO (including the formal consultation process), and the Council’s proposals for future consultation in respect of the management and development of the harbour (as approved by the Harbour Board August 31st 2023).
The extent of consultation with stakeholders, both in the earlier stages of consultation and in the formal consultation, was a very common concern (19) with non-attendance by Council Officers at the public meeting cited by many. Representatives of the fishing community, the Sailing Club and Mooring Associations stated that their members had not been effectively engaged. The choice of timing for the formal consultation was referred to as a strong negative factor by 26 respondents who referred to reduced opportunity to take part.
Many submissions expressed lack of confidence in the Council’s proposed ‘Consultative Forums’, though these are not referred to in the HRO, and the ability of the Harbour Board to scrutinise the operation of the proposed Harbour Authority effectively. Attention was drawn to the failure of the existing consultative group for Oban Harbour Users and the potential for overlapping roles between the two groups.
21 submissions specifically suggested that the HRO be revised to include a clear undertaking to consult with users and other stakeholders. 4 submissions suggested an arbitration or appeals process be added to the currently proposed arrangements.
10 submissions questioned whether the Harbour Board has the necessary level of knowledge and understanding of issues to make informed decisions and the extent to which Officers engage them effectively in decision-making.
How the Council responded to objectors (the generic response):
The Council responded to concerns by repeating the proposed consultative forums arrangement and emphasising the constitutional position of the Harbour Board in the Council.
The Council stated that they have “undertaken a great deal of engagement and consultation in regard to the matter of a Municipal Port and the content of the HRO” and that it “is also clear on the need to continue to consult and engage with all parties who use and have an interest in Oban Bay so that everyone who wishes to is able to have their say.”
No alteration to current proposals was suggested by the Council.