Stakeholder Workshop Stuart Green Argyll & Bute Council - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CAMPBELTOWN BERTHING FACILITY Stakeholder Workshop • Stuart Green – Argyll & Bute Council – Project Manager • James Prescott – Hyder Consulting – Project Manager • Matthew Linning – DTZ – Business Planning Consultant

SAIL WEST – CAMPBELTOWN BERTHING FACILITY This project is part- financed by the European Union‟s European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVA Cross border Programme managed by the Special EU Programmes Body

Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Project update 3. Project funding 4. Alternative berthing options 5. Operating models 6. Risk assessment 7. Summing up of key points

2. Project Update • Technical Feasibility Study 2010 • Technical Workshop November 2010 • Conclusion; • marina was technically feasible, • area north of the Old Quay is best location, but; • new marina would not be self-financing • Next steps • investigate lower capital costs/ alternative technical solutions • further explore funding sources • assess potential operating models • undertake a risk assessment to identify and reduce project risks • stakeholders central to solutions • Extensive engagement already undertaken with a number of stakeholders

3. Background to Capital Funding • Phase 1 study delivered marina options costing £2.3 – 2.6m • Due to constrained public sector funding environment, this level of capital expenditure was not fundable through public sector sources • CHORD funding reduced from £1.16m to £0.68m • In Phase 2 study the decision was taken to: – Examine lower capital cost solutions, building on the existing berthing facility – Explore alternative sources of capital funding to supplement CHORD contribution. 4

3. Capital Funding Sources Source Description Amount Assessment Argyll & Bute Grant funding allocated within £680k Funds are secured subject to Council CHORD Programme business case being approved by CHORD Project Board Highlands & HIE remit does not extend to £0 Possible top-up to close any Islands supporting marina development funding gap Enterprise However, best to assume no funding contribution at this stage. £0 – 500k The Crown Track record of investing in Finance will be available, Estate marina infrastructure in Scotland: subject to robust business case • pontoon infrastructure - so that lease payments to CE • commercial return (c. 7%) can be met. • CE owns assets Kintyre Any funding contribution would be £?? No specific plans to support Development Co. based on a strict commercial capital investment. Instead Ltd investment decision focus is on marketing support & services to visiting boats. Best to assume no funding contribution at this stage. 5

3. Other Funding Sources • Other sources require wider community and youth engagement: – The Big Lottery – “Investing in Communities” £10k – £1m – Sport scotland – “Sports Facilities Fund” • Eligibility criteria for this funding would require a reconfigured project: – Focus on land-based facilities – Integrating community functions, engagement and benefits • Example – integrated shower facilities /toilets with facilities for Sailing Club, Canoe Club, youth engagement /school usage and education facility (Tobermory example) • Issues – need; location; increased capital cost; more complex; does not help fund berthing facility – which is the primary objective of this project. 6

3. Capital Funding Scenarios Funding Scenario Assumptions Estimated Funding Pot Low funding – the • CHORD funding only. £680,000 „fallback‟ option • Business case insufficient for CE /private sector investment Medium funding – the • CHORD funding £680k £1,000,000 „target‟ option • CE investment finance £250k • HIE top-up funding £70k High funding – the • CHORD funding £680k £1,300,000 „optimistic‟ option • CE investment finance £500k • HIE top-up funding £120k 7

3. Implications of Funding Analysis Development of Reduced Cost Berthing Facility Options • Importance of designing capital cost solutions to cover the potential funding range of £0.7m to £1.3m • Recommendation that alternative technical solutions are developed to cover the three scenarios: low, medium and high 8

4. Previous Marina Proposal • £2.6million capital cost • 45 Berths with potential for future increase to 57+ berths • Finger pontoon berths • Shoreside shower, toilets, office facilities • Public realm improvements • New wavescreen • New deep water 9

4. Principal Capital Costs Item Cost Estimate Dredging Works (inc licenses, etc) £470,000 Pontoons (inc. pontoon services, nav aids, etc) £650,000 Wavescreen £1,060,000 Shoreside sailors‟ facilities £250,000 Public Realm works £230,000 Total £2,660,000 10

4. Alternative Layout Options Target requirements • Sheltered water for safe berthing • Pontoon facilities – finger berths, water, power, etc • Increased berthing capacity from c. 32 rafted berths on current facility • Quality shoreside facilities – toilets, showers, etc – close to berths • Minimum disruption to other harbour activities 11

4. Alternative Layout Options 12

4. Alternative Layout Options Capital cost variables Factors to be taken into account in seeking to reduce capital costs: • Breakwater/wavescreen – yes or no • Pontoon guide piles vs. chain & anchor • Finger pontoons vs. „alongside berthing‟ • Dredging vs. nil/limited dredging • Building on existing facility in current location vs. completely new configuration • Shoreside shower/toilet block facilities – new facility vs. Aqualibrium/alternative 13

4. Alternative Layout Options Indicative capital cost elements for new layout options Infrastructure Capital cost range (£’000s) Wavescreen 500 - 700 Pontoons (inc. pontoon services, nav aids, etc) 300 - 600 Dredging 0 - 450 Toilet/shower block 250 14

4. Alternative Option – A Pros • Utilise existing deep water • Utilise existing pontoon • Within budget Cons • Displaced fishing berths • RNLI berth moved • No shelter from Easterlies • Modest increase in berthing capacity 37 berths £550,000 approx capital cost Option – include wavescreen; increases total capex to c.£1m 15

4. Alternative Option - A

4. Alternative Option – A (modified)

4. Alternative Option – B Pros • Utilise existing deep water • Sheltered water • Some finger berths Cons • Displaced fishing berths • RNLI berth moved • No increase in berthing capacity • High capex. 31 berths £1,400,000 approx capital cost 18

4. Alternative Option – C Pros • Utilise existing deep water • Sheltered water • Some finger berths • RNLI berth remains • Flexible design for future expansion Cons • Some dredging required • Reduced access to fuel berth, RNLI berth and fishing berths 32 berths £1,100,000 approx capital cost • No increase in berthing capacity 19

4. Alternative Option – D Pros • Same as Option C • Plus additional berthing capacity Cons • Displaced fishing berths • More dredging required • Reduced access to fuel berth and RNLI berth 41 berths £1,400,000 approx capital cost 20

4. Alternative Option – E Pros • Sheltered water • Majority finger berths • Some rafting possible at busy times • Allows future expansion • Fish Quay and Fuel Berth unobstructed Cons • Displaced fishing berths • Dredging required • Capex unaffordable 40 berths £1,600,000 approx capital cost 21

4. Alternative Layout Options - Discussion Must Haves • ....................... • ....................... Nice to Haves • ....................... • ....................... Other ways to Reduce Costs • ....................... • ....................... 22

5. Delivery Mechanism Background • Phase 2 to review „operating models‟ – the identification of potential organisations to operate and manage the berthing facility Campbeltown Loch Berthing Company Ltd • The berthing facility has been developed and operated by the CLBC for the last 20 plus years • However, the majority of their Directors have declared a desire to exit from the management and operation of the berthing facility. This would be based on: – Transferring the current assets to a new operator – Subject to the operator being „sailor friendly‟ and having the interests of the boating community at its heart – CLBC Ltd would then be wound up. 23

5. Potential Operating Models CLBC ‘Next Generation’ • Attracting new Directors to „step up to the plate‟ and maintain the legacy established by the current Directors • CLBC Ltd would be retained, but led by new team (importance of retaining one or two „transitional directors‟ for first year or so) • Importance of securing the commitment of a Lead Director to oversee the management and operation of berthing facility • Ideal solution would be to continue operation of the current „social enterprise‟ model • Alternative of employing a paid manager would be significantly more expensive Argyll & Bute Council • Harbour Authority would take ownership and management responsibility for the enhanced berthing facilities Marina Operator • An experienced marina operator from elsewhere in Scotland/UK would take over the ownership and management responsibility Other Private Sector • Businesses with a commercial interest in the success of the marina 24