Lots of Sewage and No Access in Scotland

[swagstaff]

It would appear that the boats in marinas can dump their sewage direct into the sea and yet these big money developments are more valid than the (little hassle) access required by sea kayakers.
At the moment there is a new planning application for the centre of Oban just off the beach between the North Pier and the Ferry Pier.
This will involve dredging the present beach area at low tide and in its place a 50 plus berth marina. The edge of the dredged area will be rock armouring which could be just a jumble of boulders or a laid very rough cobble effect. Either way it will soon be slimey and at 35 degrees be very difficult to cross and will extend all the way across the beach. Also there are no plans for toilets or showers on the pontoons and yet in the UK yachts dont have to have sewage holding tanks and most on the west coast of Scotland dont. So it would appear that possibly the sewage from 250 people will just slosh around this harbour area with very little flow.
Two of the sea kayak businesses in Oban can show that they (together) presently bring more money into the Oban area than the marina will (that's according to the marina's own optimistic projections.)
So why is the marina considered such an important option that it feels it can ignor anyone elses needs. (why they want to isnt clear at all) This would appear to be like a ferrari having greater priority on the roads than a Ford Ka .
Why should you care? Well this is a new development producing a lot of pollution where its pretty common to see seals and dolphins. The sea kayaker will lose another point of access in the town. Before you say there are lots elsewhere in the area, talk to people who live there and you may find that they are either disappearing or they are becoming so congested such as Port Appin or Cuan Ferry or they are private land such as the Bridge over the Atlantic & The Pier in Taynuilt. Also the access from Oban beach enables people to take the train to Oban and then rent a kayak and set off into the wide blue yonder.
Yes I do have a vested interest( but who knows for how long ) but for the public in general once the access is gone its gone for good, once the pollution is there its probably going to be disgusting for a long time. NB I am not against the marina but I am against the loss of access and the pollution.
If you would either like to object to or even commend the planning application
you have until the 12th Jan to make a comment.
Here is the link http://publicaccess.argyll-bute.gov.uk/ ... pplication
The application 11/02443/PP
The Access Officer for the SCA was paid for by Scottish Natural Heritage and the funding has now finished so there is no longer an SCA access officer.

[PhilAyr]

Sorry to hear that Stuart. Having launched from there with Douglas last February, I can understand where you are coming from. There can't be many places in the uk where you can hire or buy / try out a kayak or gear from a well stocked and friendly shop, walk a few yards, cross a road and launch slap bang in a town centre! If it does go ahead, the smell and sight of sewage in a popular holiday hot spot has got be a problem, and what will the tourists think ! Is there not a possible safety problem with Cal-Mac ferry traffic in Oban Bay ?

Another point....If it does go ahead, the around Kerrara race will need to look for another start point.

Comparing the Oban proposal with that of Tobermory Marina is no contest. The facilities in Tobermory marina are excellent. It is just outside the town centre and has showers toilets etc.

I for one will object when I can work out how ! ;-)

Phil

[Chris Bolton]

I agree this is an important access point and would not like it to be lost. The proximity to the station and sea kayak shop is particularly important. The map of the proposal (on separate tab from the other documents) isn't very informative - I can't tell whether there is any beach left of not; there's a big green outline on the beach but no label saying what it is. Looking at the consultation documents, the Planning and Environmental Statement (doc number 20567432) includes the following:

Page 19/20 - "The pontoons will be accessible by the whole community..." "...providing direct access to Oban for... local and visiting sea kayak schools.." I haven't managed to find out whether this would require payment, or whether hours of access are limited.

Page 32 - "All users ... will be made fully aware of the prohibition on dumping sewage ... either at sea or within the pontoon area" This is likely to be the response to any objection on sewage grounds - but I don't see how it will be enforced.

If I remember right, there was an attempt maybe 5 years ago to import sand to this area of beach to make it more attractive; this seems to negate that.

There a reference in the documents to "the existing permission" - which suggests that there is already some kind of planning permission for a similar development?

I can see there will be a lot of support from businesses who see to potential for additional trade from visiting yachts.

My experience of objecting to planning applications is that to make it worthwhile, you need to do quite a lot of research and quote the relevant planning policies which would be breached. Just objecting on the grounds that the proposal has adverse effects only works if you can show that those adverse effects are against an established policy. I have learned the hard way that planning decisions are made on the basis of planning law not common sense.

Chris

[DaveSt]

Hi Stuart, sorry to hear about this.

If the fairly new Inverness Marina is anything to go by, there's hardly anyone about, and most of the boats appear to be moored there for their owners' weekend, and holiday use.




According to their website, Inverness Marina does have some toilet and shower facilities. It's not just yachts there:




What proportion of the berths are to be for visitors? - At Inverness it looks like only 10 of the 150 are for visitors.

[swagstaff]

Thanks for your comments.
Dave this is a transit marina with a max stay of 3 nights which is how they are justifying it as they expect people to stay on the yachts and spend money at the restuarants in the town. This also means there will be full use of the toilets on the boats.

Chris the main planning points we seem to be able to object on are the access issues (even the planners admit that its much less clear than a standard on land planning application). You are correct this is the 2nd application and since the first was approved we can pretty much only object to the changes. The changes are ;that they have now specified the rock armouring ;they have now added the use of the inside of the pontoons by RIBS etc (this one mixes powerboats and kayaks which doesnt seem a good idea and also greatly reduces the area available for beginners kayaking) ; they have moved the marina access from close to Oban station around to the main street (this seems a bit bizarre as its a much more congested area) ; they have moved the whole thing further north towards the north pier reducing the open water in this area . However the sewage issue is very important so they should be asking SEPA to say that its Ok. I honestly dont see how they can do this. They do also have to get a licanse from Marine Scotland and they could look at the sewage issue as well if petitioned to do so.

Chris the mention of kayaks in their plan is new and is purely done to imply they are catering for kayakers while at the same time their is absolutely no space on the pontoons for kayaks and for many kayakers the pontoons will be too high above the water to easily climb out on to. It would require a lower access pontoon attached to the main pontoon and a large kayak rack or designated area for kayaks.
I dont see how the community can use it easily as there will be a locked gate at the top of the linkspan with a card lock and I think it will be prohibitively expensive. To enter this with a kayak you would have to put you kayak down across the main street pavement then unlock the gate and then try and hold the gate open while you pick up your kayak etc etc. Yes there would be a fee. I just dont see why you would use it instead of using the beach. At times there are well over 20 kayaks using the beach during the peak yachting period.

To object you can simply email the planning department quoting the planning application number.
planning.olandi@argyll-bute.gov.uk 11/02443/PP

[Chris Bolton]

Stuart, thanks for the clarifications. I'll think about the best way to word my objection. Since this is a development on the seabed, I think it needs permission from the Crown Estates - do you know if it has that?

Chris

[MikeB]

S
I for one will object when I can work out how ! ;-)

Phil

To object you can simply email the planning department quoting the planning application number.
planning.olandi@argyll-bute.gov.uk 11/02443/PP

Stuart - just for clarity, does posting a "public comment" on the A&B Council page you linked to earlier count as an "objection"? - there certainly seem to be three options when posting comment (object / support / neutral).

I see Peter Baker has posted - this in his "Access" capacity - I met him at Largs today and he was telling me about that involvement. It's also being picked up with the Fife club and various other places. Eddie Palmer of the SCA is also aware of this and is currently the "back stop" for SCA Access type contacts given Mike Dales' post is no longer in existance and there's no funding for a replacement.

Is there any way of seeing the public comments? All I seem to be able to get (having registered) is the list of names.

SCA Touring may, in time, be able to take more involvement with Sea type access issues but right now we're focussing on getting the new Touring Calendar in place, with the new processes etc working smoothly.

Regs, Mike.

[swagstaff]

Yes Chris the crown estates not only have to give permission but receive a fee.
I have emailed them at length and their view seems to be that if the marina receives all the other necessary permissions then they will go with it.
They have leased the foreshore to Argyll & Bute council so as well as the marina getting planning permission from the council they also have to get an agreement to dredge the foreshore. This agreement would (and this seems a bit unclear at the moment) be down to the Estates department but in reality if its contentious then I am sure it would be down to a vote by the Councillors. So yes I am also petitioning some of the councillors. I have also contacted the community council who have the right to comment on planning applications and as mentioned before I think Marine Scotland who have to issue a license.

Its worth noting that the Crown Estates may be part funding the marina (the council have refused to do so, which implies councillors arent altogether in favour) and so the crown estates can still be influenced by strong feeling against the proposal. At the moment they obviously think its a good idea.

Looks like tomorrow may be a good day to be outside and enjoy good access and cleanish water.

[parafinn]

Hi Stuart,

you mentioned this potential development to us when we met you in April.
Croah Haven Marina is ugly enough - thinking of it transported into the centre of Oban is beyond belief.
I will place an objection.
BTW my understanding of current Planning Legislation is that Crown Land does not require planning permission for development. However thankfully it is still seen as good practice to go through the planning process.
good luck & thanks for bringing this issue to our attention.

kind regards

Davie

[Ian_Montrose]

Stuart

Have you considered speaking to SEPA regarding your concerns over the potential for raw sewage? I've no idea how interested they would be but the more potential strings to your bow the better.

[swagstaff]

Mike I wrote the previous post at the same time as you.
You will eventually be able to see all the comments but I assume they are viewed before posting.
Davie as Chris outlines above its probably only worth objecting on the change in their proposals from the first application. Please see above. I am not sure which way is best but it definitely works to email the planners and ask for it to be submitted against the application.
Planning.olandi@argyll-bute.gov.uk
Ian I talked to a fairly disinterested person at SEPA but have emailed the planning team who will have to at least respond in writing. The planning team for Argyll is in Aberdeen. It might well be worth them hearing from as many as possible. planningaberdeen@sepa.org.uk
Strangely marinas werent really mentioned specifically in any of the sepa docs I read , though it states that SEPA's role is to be consulted on marine developments. for more reading see http://www.sepa.org.uk/planning/marine_environment.aspx

[parafinn]

Stuart,

lodged by objection via A & B council's planning link:

"Only material ojections will be considered" - wassat mean?

any for what it is worth:

I understand there is a proposal to develeop a marina in the main bay at Oban.
As a regular visitor and one time resident of Oban - I feel the need to object to this proposal on the following grounds:
1. A marina in the centre of Oban Town would detract from the views out of the esplanade.
2. This type of development would be a visual and audible intrusion to the bay and the surrounding town.
3. Access for other users to the bay would be compromised.
4. The development may impact on the exisiting wildlife and plant life within the bay.
5. Similar facilities are already available within minutes drive of Oban.

In summary I would be very disappointed if such a development gained approval and as a consequence I would consider not returning to Oban as a vistor.

many thanks for your consideration

Good luck

Davie

[Chris Bolton]

"Only material ojections will be considered" - wassat mean?

Hi Davie,

That is planning-speak! It means they will only consider objections that point out clashes with planning policy.

So for example, if the Council has a policy that developments will not be permitted if they affect the view from the esplanade, your first objection will be valid, ie, it will be a material objection. If they don't have a written policy about views from the esplanade, they will reject it.

Chris

[MikeB]

In the limited time I have to research this and compose an objection, here's mine.

(Starts)

I am extremely concerned to note the proposal regarding a marina development within Oban Harbour.

Access: At present, members of the public have free, easy access to the beach area and the beach attracts a large number of visitors who clearly enjoy sitting on the gravel which forms the shoreline. Children play in the water, and people swim in the area.

Additionally, the ease of access and egress provides an important facility for a large and growing number of people engaged in the sport / activity of sea kayaking. Visit Scotland regard the West Coast areas of Scotland as providing some of the finest sea kayaking in the world.

As an Organiser and Member of the SCA Touring Committee, I frequently run kayaking trips in the area, generally either landing on the beach so as to allow participants to visit the town, or at least paddling into the immediate area to view the ferries and other marine traffic.

The proposals, as they stand at present, will severely curtail both access to the beach for members of the public, and will also make access and egress considerably more difficult (if not impossible) for the sea kayaking community as well as the several established kayaking and water sports businesses located in Oban.

The financial implications of this must be taken into account.

Environmental Impact: Other than the mention of on-shore toilet facilities, the question of human waste disposal does not appear to have been adequately covered.

The proposals make no mention of any facility to allow visiting craft to do anything other than discharge human sewage directly to the water. As many of the berths are designated as transit berths, this inevitably will mean that such craft will use their on-board facilites, resulting in a high pollution risk. Few small craft are equipped with holding tanks.

If nothing else, this cannot conform to the Bathing Waters (Scotland) Regulations 2008.

(Ends)

[Jim]

What is the harbour master's view?
The arrangement does not look ideal for interaction with shipping in the 'confined channel' especially since it will cause small craft to pass very close to the manouevring area to get to the entrance.

There are already a lot of permanent SC moorings relatively close, plus SC tie up at the north pier or anchor just off the beach so it is not a major change in that respect but will cause a concentration of SC in a possibly unsuitable location.

I can understand the desire to bring the visiting boats into town for a bit of tourist trade, but would it not be easier to make provision for them in the Kerrera Marina and lay on a direct ferry service?

The sewage issue is interesting, it is normally the rule that you don't use sea toilets in port, but if none are provided many boats will have no choice. There are public toilets on the pier but it is a bit of a hike from the pontoons, costs 20p to get in and is probably closed overnight. We are of course assuming that people will be staying on board and not taking the opportunity to use the local hotels and B&Bs to get a few days ashore if they have been cruising for a while, as lovely as Oban is I would probably want to stay on board for security (if I had a boat) so it's probably a reasonable assumption.

It would be useful to see an artists impression of what the finished development would look like. Stuart is sure that it will block access for kayaks, but there are some lines on the map which don't make sense for berths and may indicate 2 slipways? Also the existing slipway has not been deleted from the map and it looks like there will be a clear channel between the marina breakwater and the pier (also served by a new slip if that's what it is) - access would not be stopped, but it may be smaller, also if the sewage outlook is realistic this will be a good place for jobbies to recirculate, if they make it out of the Marina....

The biggest problem of course is the softie yachties who don't know how to pick up a mooring and row ashore, or even less how to anchor and row ashore. I'm told there are more and more of these on the west coast although the vast majority of west coast yachtsmen do keep their boats on moorings and I've seen plenty of boats in anchorages. One ex-colleague didn't just keep a boat on marina berth, but moored it stern to for lazy boarding - you get all sorts!

[MikeB]

Hmm - getting anyone to take ownership and/or provide direction on the regs relating to discharging human waste into a harbour is proving interesting!

So far, I've spent most of my lunch break trying to find relevant legislation. SEPA tell me that it's not in their remit as harbours fall under Marine Scotland who hummed and hawed a bit and suggested talking to the Ports & Harbours authority - where I've left a voice mail asking for a call back!

Is there anyone with specialist knowledge on this?

Mike.

[jamie stoddart]

I have a friend who works in Marine Scotland and will ask if he can provide the information about human waste.

Jamie

[tg]

It would appear that the boats in marinas can dump their sewage direct into the sea ........... So it would appear that possibly the sewage from 250 people will just slosh around this harbour area with very little flow.

Could someone explain these point to me. Surely such wanton pollution is against the law; maybe not. There are quite a few marinas in my area and I can honestly say that I haven't encountered those problems as described by the OP. In fact I've had quite a few pleasant lunches with various sailors from Holland, France etc. One of my regular paddles is into a local marina to pick up bits and bobs for the kayak, it's more fun than driving to the chandlers. I make the assumption that people basically have the same sensibilities regarding the sea environment as myself, until proved otherwise of course. (Notwithstanding that there are no doubt lessons that I can glean from others). Many paddlers in my area are sailors too, both larger and smaller sail boats, as well as powered fishing boats. I can understand objections based on access and other environmental considerations; building and dredgeing for example. However, I can't see how this argument will win your debate.

Tim

[StewartR]

Hopefully this link will clear up any misconceptions about what are material planning considerations:

http://www.planningaidscotland.org.uk/pdf/material.pdf

Access rights under the Land Reform Act are also included. However, byelaws may remove an area from access rights.

The administrative area of planning authorities extends to MLWS. For so called offshore windfarms, it is Crown Estates or Marine Scotland which ultimately approves development (subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment). The differences in the respective roles of both organisations is not clear to me. In such circumstance, nearby planning authorities are statutory consultees. I'm pretty sure that where development is proposed above MLWS then a planning application would be necessary, even if it is on Crown Estate land (I haven't however checked the apprpriate orders or circulars in this regard). This is consistent with the submission of an application in this case.

Regards

Stewart

[ratrun]

Hi Stewart, I work for SEPA in Aberdeen, but not in the planning department, so can't offer much advice on that at the moment. I could have an informal chat with them though if you don't have speedy response by email from them. What I can say is that SEPA carries out bathing water monitoring at designated bathing water beaches throughout the summer months. These water samples are analysed for common pathogens such as E.coli etc. found in human and animal waste, from these results bathing water quality indicators are provided to the public http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/bathing_waters.aspx

But from the link it looks like Ganavan is the designated bathing water area for Oban, but not the area along the front of Oban towards Ganavan. I'm afraid that I'm not a specialist in the bathing water designation area either, so I don't know what they base their decision on, but they will only take samples from Ganavan. It seems strange are there are obviously people using the beach along Oban sea front.

It's a crazy world when it comes to things like this; we have a combined sewage outfall (CSO) outside the SEPA office in Aberdeen which discharges into the harbour/river Dee during storm events (there are more than one going into the harbour). There is a small beach at the front of the office that is used by the public (dog walkers, local children), but because it is not a designated beach there is no sampling going on there or warnings. Samples are taken from the main Aberdeen beach around the corner from the harbour entrance. The CSO is the responsibility of Scottish Water, but SEPA gives the consent for the discharge, you may be aware of the CSO debate which has been running for decades now, check out Surfers Against Sewage website. I've been trying in my own time outside of work to put pressure on Scottish Water to do something about the CSO, but they say it's just doing its job.

I've been advised that if you have concerns about human health impacts of sewage discharge you should contact your local environmental health officer and local councillors who might be sympathetic to your concerns.

[swagstaff]

Stewart The planning I understand is required in this instant because the marina is attached to the shore by the linkspan . Also the dredging involves removal of some of the beach so the area above MLWS.

Re the sewage issue I have a copy of SEPA's response to the application. It looks a fairly standard one and really doesnt address the specific pollution concerns in this instance where it is expected that people will all stay on their boats for the whole time they are using it.It should be put on the website with other planning docs.
I will see what "Surfers against Sewage " have to say about this.

Dear Sir / Madam

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts
Planning Application: 11/02443/PP
Formation of multi use/short stay transit marina, plus diesel berth, managers office, provision for small day boats/ribs and limited use for over wintering (amended scheme relative to 08/01049//DET
Oban Bay Marine Ltd, Railway Pier, Oban, Argyll And Bute


Thank you for your consultation email of 9 December 2001 relating to the above development.

We have no objection to this planning application, however please note the advice provided below.

1. Pollution Prevention

1.1 To safeguard pollution prevention and marine ecology interests it is vital that good working practices are adopted and appropriate steps taken to prevent water pollution and minimise disturbance to sensitive receptors. Particular attention should be paid to PPG5. Works and Maintenance in or near water http://publications.environment-agency. ... df?lang=_e

1.2 With regard to the diesel berth the applicant should refer to the Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) http://www.sepa.org.uk/about_us/publica ... /ppgs.aspx , in particular PPG7-Refueling Facilities.

1.3 Oil Storage Regulations do not apply but we would expect that Harbour Authorities will have similar requirements. We would recommend Oil Storage precautionary measures for this development in the event that this aspect is not covered by the Harbour Authority.

1.4 We note that the installation works will involve piling, and trust that SNH have been consulted with regard to potential noise disturbance?
2. Waste Management

2.1 Scottish Planning Policy Paragraph 215 states that “residential, commercial and industrial properties should be designed to provide for waste separation and collection.” In accordance with this policy, and PAN 63 Waste Management Planning, space should be designated within the planning application site layout to allow for the separation and collection of waste, consistent with the type of development proposed. This includes provision to separate and store different types of waste, collection and centralised facilities for the public to deposit waste for recycling or recovery ("bring systems"). Please consult the council’s waste management team to determine what space requirements are required within the application site layout for a development of this nature.

2.2 As part of the construction works for this development, it is possible that some dredging will be undertaken. It should be noted that any re-use of waste materials below high water mark may require Waste Management permits. Further information on waste regulation is available from http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste_regulation.aspx Any wastes produced may go to sea (under FEPA consent) but if brought to land this would need to go to landfill or an exemption applied for. Early consultation with the local SEPA office is advised on this aspect.
Regulatory advice

3. Regulatory requirements
3.1 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on our website at http://www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in your local SEPA office at:
2 Smithy Lane, Lochgilphead PA31 8TA Tel:01546 602876

If you have any queries relating to this letter, please contact me by telephone on 01224 266636 or by e-mail to planning.aberdeen@sepa.org.uk .

Yours faithfully

Jonathan FS Young
Planner
Planning Service

[Jim]

For sewage discharge have a poke about on the MCA website, for larger vessels it is the MCA that police their sewage discharges (which I think have to be 12 miles offshore) along with other pollution. Small craft fall outside of many of the maritime laws but there may be something on there. In a marina the relevant official would pretty much have to see the discharge happening to know which vessel it came from, but it's not rocket science to have someone from the harbourmasters office patrolling first thing in the morning when people are waking up and getting ready to go to sea (the head is the worst place to be when the boat is rolling and pitching).

To be honest for the marina to be successful they will need to provide a toilet and shower block so visiting yachties can clean up before heading out on the town.... Dunstaffnage is only half an hour further and has a toilet/shower block and a restaurant, I'm pretty sure there are buses to town too.

[MikeB]

By way of quick update, I've just spoken to a very helpful person in Ports & Harbours - who was actually involved in the initial submission as it happens. The word is that it seems not to be in their remit and they suggest RYA and/or MCA may be able to give guidance / info - perhaps worthy of follow up Stewart?

Regs, Mike

[swagstaff]

Thanks for the suggestion Mike and Jim.
I have contacted a lot of different organisations and they all suggest someone else. It would seem the planners observation that planning legislation hasnt really got to grips with marinas yet as they are farther down the food chain than fishfarms is definitely the case. I will give the RYA & MCA a try.
Apparently its not too late to object and you can continue to do so until they have actually considered the application.

[MandyP]

I have read through the various comments above and am sad to see that a sector of the kayaking community is set against the sailing community. We live in Oban. We are sea and river kayakers. We own a shared yacht and have sailed extensively on the west coast. We are very involved in the dinghy sailing in the Oban area. We are members of both the Oban Canoe Club and the Oban Sailing Club.

There is room for all marine leisure activities in our area and occasionally compromise needs to be made to accommodate the various interests. I support both the Marina and the kayaking in the area and believe there is scope in the bay for both to be accommodated if the two parties (Oban Kayak School and the Board of Oban Bay Marine) engage in non confrontational communicated. 'No Access in Scotland' is an overstatement. Even 'No Access in Oban' would be an overstatement. If you own, borrow or hire a kayak (from anywhere other than the Oban Kayak Centre) it is unlikely that you would ever consider launching in Oban Bay. The parking is not easy and costs, and the beach is not the most pristine as you might imagine within a harbour area. The majority of independent kayakers launch at Dungallan Park (1 km south) or a Ganavan Beach (4 km or so north). These launching places have better free parking and are ideal locations. So my point here is that a marina in the bay is an issue primarily for Oban Kayak Centre and not the wider kayaking community.

However having said that, I do feel that the access by the Kayaking Center in Oban Bay is important and that kayakers launching elsewhere should be able to land on the beach and go to a cafe or whatever. A marina in the bay does not have to be the end of access for kayakers. The final details of the plan for the bay are still in the development stage and there is still scope for input into the final design so that all businesses using the bay can continue to flourish. Access to the beach will continue to exist - both slipways from road level to the beach are not being removed - the beach area at low tide will be reduced by the dredging but at mid-tide the beach will appear much the same as it is now. The construction of the slope between the dredged area and the beach is not finalised but whatever it is there is no reason why a slipway cannot be incorporated allowing easy launching for all small crafts. The water area off the beach will of course be reduced by the marina but along the beachside edge and at both sides there is access allowing small craft to navigate - beyond the marina are miles of beautiful water!

With regard to sewage this is very much an operational issue. Nobody wants to see the bay swilling in sewage - not the kayakers, not the yachters, not the board of Oban Bay Marine, not the visitors or the people of Oban. Of course there has got be be provision - it may not be fully in place yet but options exist and the operators will have to have this in place before the marina goes online.

All of the issues being put forward in the various objections above are not insurmountable. You are drawing battlelines (often based on speculation rather than fact) which don't need to be drawn - get talking to the people involved in the marina project so that all the marine leisure interests can be accommodated and all the businesses in Oban can flourish. In Scandinavia every town and village on the coast has boats at its heart. Oban is a seafaring town which should open its heart to the sea and everyone that uses it. Please get talking (and listening) to each other.

[swagstaff]

Hi Mandy
Thanks for posting. Interestingly we can only judge the marina development by what they have applied for planning permission for.
The application doesnt include toilets on the pontoons or for that matter anywhere else.
Their application does include a rock armoured slope almost all the way across the beach. This is a pile of large boulders that are very difficult to cross (which is even worse than we first thought but is what we have viewed when visiting marinas elsewhere in Scotland) and will make the water almost impossible to access with a sea kayak in hand for much of the day especially on neap tides.
Further each year "the Sea kayak centre" rents kayaks to many people who arrive on the train or park their car elsewhere and take off from the beach so this isnt just about Sea Kayak Oban or the National Kayak School. Its about people wanting to exercise their right of access.
Th marina developers have chosen to submit a planning application that doesnt take sea kayakers who want to use the beach or the bay into account. They were approached several times over the last two years in attempts to persuade them to enter a Sea Kayaker friendly application and they completely ignored all suggestions.

You suggest sea kayakers would be better off getting in elsewhere but of course that argument equally applies to the yachts which have moorings available at Dungallen and a marina across on Kerrera with free ferry to the North Pier. It is also against the purpose of the marina which is stated as trying to bring business into the town centre.
Many of the objectors have stated they are not against the marina as have I but just against certain aspects of the application. Perhaps you are in a position to persuade the developers to come up with an application that will also work for sea kayakers and will not pollute the bay at all.

[swagstaff]

The Marina Developers have put in a new planning application which only differs from the previous one in that it covers a minutely different area. The net result is that all the comments on the previous application are now invalid. To say this is somewhat farcical is an understatement.
If those of you who commented last time would like to do a paste and copy job I am sure the planners would be most interested to hear from you. We are continuing in our efforts to keep Oban Bay as sewage free as possible.
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/forms/planning-comment-form is where to make comments on Ref. No: 12/00678/PP
Nb some people may give you the impression that the time for making comments has elapsed but we are assured that you can continue adding comments up to the time the application is considered.