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

5

Source Description Amount Assessment

Argyll & Bute Council Grant funding allocated within CHORD Programme £680k Funds are secured subject to business case being approved by CHORD Project Board Highlands & Islands Enterprise HIE remit does not extend to supporting marina development £0 Possible top-up to close any funding gap However, best to assume no funding contribution at this stage. The Crown Estate Track record of investing in marina infrastructure in Scotland:

• pontoon infrastructure
• commercial return (c. 7%)
• CE owns assets

£0 – 500k Finance will be available, subject to robust business case

• so that lease payments to CE

can be met. Kintyre Development Co. Ltd Any funding contribution would be based on a strict commercial investment decision £?? No specific plans to support capital investment. Instead focus is on marketing support & services to visiting boats. Best to assume no funding contribution at this stage.

• 3. Other Funding Sources
• Other sources require wider community and youth engagement:

– The Big Lottery – “Investing in Communities” £10k – £1m – Sportscotland – “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 „fallback‟ option

• CHORD funding only.
• Business case

insufficient for CE /private sector investment £680,000 Medium funding – the „target‟ option

• CHORD funding £680k
• CE investment finance £250k
• HIE top-up funding £70k

£1,000,000 High funding – the „optimistic‟ option

• CHORD funding £680k
• CE investment finance £500k
• HIE top-up funding £120k

£1,300,000

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,
• ffice facilities
• Public realm

improvements

• New wavescreen
• New deep water

9

• 4. Principal Capital Costs

10

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

• 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

14

Infrastructure Capital cost range (£’000s) Wavescreen 500 - 700 Pontoons (inc. pontoon services, nav aids, etc) 300 - 600 Dredging 0 - 450 Toilet/shower block 250

• 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

15

37 berths £550,000 approx capital cost Option – include wavescreen; increases total capex to c.£1m

• 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.

18

31 berths £1,400,000 approx capital cost

• 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

• No increase in

berthing capacity

19

32 berths £1,100,000 approx capital cost

• 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

20

41 berths £1,400,000 approx capital cost

• 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

21

40 berths £1,600,000 approx capital cost

• 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
• rganisations 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
• wnership and management responsibility

Other Private Sector

• Businesses with a commercial interest in the success of the marina

24

• 5. Potential Operating Models

Model Pros Cons Assessment

• 1. CLBC –

„next generation‟

• Technical knowledge
• Yachting friendly
• Track record
• No declared interest to

date Proven sustainable solution

• 2. Harbour

Authority

• On site presence
• Scope for „shared costs‟
• Already „engaged‟
• Conflict with

commercial interests

• Cost control/efficiency

A credible solution which can be delivered

• 3. Marina
• perator
• Expertise / know-how
• Financial resources

/balance sheet

• Small scale operation
• Limited commercial

return Securing Interested

• perator likely to

be difficult

• 4. Other

private sector

• Commercial skills and

drive

• Financial resources/

balance sheet

• Lack of marina

expertise

• Facility operated for

self-interest

• Risks to the range

/quality of services Marketing upside, but significant sustainability risk

25

• 5. Delivery Mechanism – Next Steps
• Further investigation of models with potential operators
• If CLBC „next generation‟ is not feasible then optimal route is likely to be

Harbour Authority

• Operating „blueprint‟ to be agreed with Harbour Authority/alternative operator
• Costs to be built into financial model for appraising options
• Sign-off by CLBC regarding transfer of assets

26

• 6. Risk Assessment

Ref Risk Title Risk Cause Risk Impact Mitigations Likelih’d (H/M/L) Impact Cost Risk Value

01 Ground Conditions Unforeseen ground conditions Design change due to higher rock head levels Borehole investigations 02 Contaminated dredging disposal Contaminated seabed sediments not approved for disposal at sea by Marine Scotland Treatment of contaminants, land fill disposal

• r alternative use
• f dredgings

Sediment sampling and testing 03 Environmental Impact Assessment Screening opinion determines that an EIA is required for planning and marine consent approval Undertake surveys and preparation of an EIA Consultation with statutory consultees 04 Planning & marine consents Planning/licensing issues that restrict the scheme, that require significant changes to the proposed scheme 05 Local objection to the scheme 06 Design changes Unforeseen design issues that arise as designs are developed Changes in design increase scheme costs 07 Reduction in funding budgets Changes in funding budgets Reduced scheme funding Obtain commitment from funders

27

Ref Risk Title Risk Cause Risk Impact Mitigations Probab (H/M/L) Impact Cost Risk Value

01 Ground Conditions Unforeseen ground conditions Design change due to higher rock head levels Borehole investigations

M

02 Contaminated dredging disposal Contaminated seabed sediments not approved for disposal at sea by Marine Scotland Treatment of contaminants, land fill disposal or alternative use of dredgings Sediment sampling and testing

L

03 Environmental Impact Assessment Screening opinion determines that an EIA is required for planning and marine consent approval Undertake surveys and preparation of an EIA Early consultation with statutory consultees

M

04 Planning & marine consents Planning/licensing issues that restrict the scheme, that require significant changes to the proposed scheme Restrictions applied and/or changes to the proposed scheme Early consultation with statutory consultees

L

05 Local

• bjection to

the scheme Objection to the scheme by local communities

• Planning rejection
• Funding withdrawal

Consultation with communities and stakeholders

L

06 Design changes Unforeseen design issues that arise as designs are developed Changes in design increase scheme costs Regular design reviews

M

07 Reduction in funding budgets Changes in funding budgets Reduced scheme funding Obtain commitment from funders

M

• 7. Summary
• Project funding
• Alternative marina options
• Operating models
• Risk assessment

28

• 7. Next stages
• Refinement of alternative layout options and cost estimating
• Identification of preferred option driven by available funding
• Further investigation of models with potential operators
• Operating „blueprint‟ to be agreed with Harbour Authority/alternative operator
• Costs to be built into financial model for appraising options
• Sign-off by CLBC regarding transfer of assets

29