14/10/2026
HELENSBURGH WATERFRONT COMMON GOOD LAND - THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THE ANSWER.
I’ve written to the members of Argyll and Bute Council’s Policy and Resources Committee this morning ahead of tomorrow’s meeting.
I don’t sit on this committee, so I won’t have a vote, but I won’t sit quietly while another Argyll and Bute community faces the prospect of having its clearly expressed views disregarded.
94.8% opposed the proposed disposal of Helensburgh’s Common Good land.
And yet here we are, with the sale still on the table.
There are also some very serious questions about how the Council has handled this land, including its omission from the statutory Common Good register. These are matters that should concern every councillor, not just those representing Helensburgh.
This administration needs to stop riding roughshod over our communities.
I am increasingly concerned about the disconnect between the decisions being taken in the Council chamber and the people those decisions affect.
Consultation is supposed to mean something. Community engagement is supposed to mean something. Common Good is supposed to mean something.
I oppose the sale, but I also oppose any attempt to avoid making a decision by referring it elsewhere or prolonging this process yet again.
The Council cannot keep asking communities for their views and then treating the answers as an inconvenience.
I’ve shared my letter in full below, as I think it’s important that people across Argyll and Bute understand what’s at stake here, because the questions this raises about Common Good land and political accountability extend far beyond the council chamber.
⬇️📧
Helensburgh Waterfront - Common Good Land: Proposed Disposal
Dear Colleagues,
Ahead of tomorrow’s Policy and Resources Committee, I am writing to express my unequivocal opposition to the proposed disposal of Common Good land at Helensburgh Waterfront and to raise serious concerns about the report being presented to members.
The statutory consultation attracted 3,430 responses, with 94.8% opposing the disposal. Of the 21 responding community bodies, 20 opposed the proposal and none supported it. These figures are extraordinary. The community has spoken with overwhelming clarity, yet the committee is still being presented with the option of proceeding with the sale. What is the point of consulting our communities if we are prepared to disregard the outcome when it does not suit the Council’s preferred direction?
Consultation must be more than a statutory exercise undertaken to justify a decision that appears to have been made long before residents were asked for their views.
The Council now acknowledges that the land remains Common Good, despite its omission from the statutory Common Good register and an earlier legal position that it had ceased to be Common Good. Section 102 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 places a statutory duty on councils to establish and maintain Common Good property registers. Scottish Government statutory guidance requires these registers to be updated when Common Good property is identified.
Why therefore has this land not been recorded on the register? When was the omission identified? What steps have been taken to correct it?
The distinction between alienable and inalienable Common Good property does not remove the obligation to record land which remains Common Good. This matter goes to the heart of the Council’s responsibilities as custodian of community assets and should concern every elected member.
The 1838 Sasine contains restrictions concerning the historic waterfront land, while the 2011 Minute of Agreement with Luss Estates records a £250,000 settlement arrangement relating to title and reversionary interests. The report does not sufficiently explain how these historic documents relate to the land now proposed for disposal or provide members with the underlying legal analysis supporting the conclusion that the land is alienable.
I also believe that it is important to distinguish the earlier judicial review from the decision now before members. The court considered the preferred-developer process. It did not determine the legality of this proposed Common Good disposal.
The report also refers to a potential capital receipt of up to £1.3 million, subject to deductions for abnormal costs which have not been quantified. Members therefore do not know what the Council would actually receive from disposing of this community asset. The report also identifies the loss of that anticipated receipt as a financial consequence of rejecting the sale. Not selling Common Good land is not the same as losing £1.3 million of public money. It means retaining an asset which continues to belong to the Common Good estate. The longstanding expectation that proceeds might contribute towards the cost of the leisure centre cannot, in itself, justify disposal against the clearly expressed wishes of the community.
Then there is the much wider issue of accountability. Helensburgh Community Council and the local campaign group have publicly identified detailed concerns about the report, including its treatment of the consultation, fiduciary responsibilities, financial implications, and the historic waterfront masterplan. These appear to be valid objections which should be considered in detail.
The omission of this land from the statutory register also raises serious questions about how Common Good assets elsewhere in Argyll and Bute have been identified, recorded, protected, and managed by the Council.
There is also the question of political accountability. No policy lead is identified in the report, despite the significance of the proposed disposal. While officer reports are routinely presented in the name of senior officers, the administration must be clear about who holds political responsibility for this proposal.
This administration needs to stop riding roughshod over our communities. Too often, communities are encouraged to participate in consultations and engage with Council processes, only to be left questioning whether their views have made any meaningful difference. That is damaging to public confidence in local democracy and something we are all bearing witness to.
This Common Good land is not simply another asset on the Council’s balance sheet. It is held for the benefit of the inhabitants of the former Burgh of Helensburgh. The Council’s responsibilities to those inhabitants cannot be displaced by commercial ambitions, previous development decisions, or an anticipated capital receipt.
I hope this helps explain why my position is unequivocal. As I do not sit on the committee, I do not have the opportunity of a vote and have felt compelled to write to you all to express my opposition to the proposed disposal. I am equally opposed to any continuation, deferral or referral which simply kicks this issue further down the road.
The Council has consulted. The community has responded. The objections have been clearly articulated, and the legal, financial and governance questions are now firmly on the record.
There comes a point when elected members must take responsibility, rather than prolonging a process which has already consumed considerable time, energy, and public resources.
Referring this back to another committee or extending the process will not change the overwhelming response already received. The question before members is whether disposing of this land can genuinely be justified as being in the best interests of the inhabitants of the former Burgh of Helensburgh. I do not believe that case has been made.
The people of Helensburgh deserve a decision, not another delay.
I am circulating this correspondence to all members of the Policy and Resources Committee ahead of tomorrow’s meeting and ask that the concerns raised are given full consideration before a decision is taken.
Kind regards,
Cllr Julie McKenzie
Independent Councillor - Oban North and Lorn
