Your letters to the Helensburgh Advertiser: September 14, 2017

If you want to share your thoughts on any local issue, all you have to do is drop us an email with your views - send it to editorial@helensburghadvertiser.co.uk, with your name, address and a contact phone number, and we'll publish the best of the bunch next week. Happy writing!

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

In 1996 I qualified as a professional Scottish tourist guide and I hence also became a full member of the Scottish Tourist Guides Association. For the last 20 years I have been going to Greenock several times every summer to take cruise ship passengers on excursions.

On the basis of my experience I would urge caution about the idea of developing Helensburgh pier in the hope of encouraging visits from cruise ship passengers.

There are several reasons for this.

First, cruise ship operators do not like bringing their passengers ashore in tenders unless it is absolutely necessary. This is because there is an increased risk of accidents to passengers, and also because many passengers are not good on their feet.

Second, even if they could be persuaded to bring their passengers from Greenock to Helensburgh by tender, there would be a cost involved. Who would pay this? The passengers would do so only if they could be persuaded that it would be worth their while. Alternatively, would Helensburgh restaurant owners and retailers be willing to pay?

If the passengers are not going to come across in tenders, then perhaps a ferry of some sort could be used. But where is this ferry going to start its journey from? Greenock? It would almost certainly have to be somewhere outside the Ocean Terminal area of Greenock, and passengers for it would either have to walk or be transported to the ferry. Once again, a cost would be involved and, once again, who would meet this cost?

There also would have to be some form of ramp (presumably floating) at Helensburgh pier. It is unrealistic to expect cruise ship passengers to climb the steps.

Let me now suggest a less costly and possibly more profitable alternative – namely to persuade the shore-based excursion operators to include Helensburgh in their itineraries.

However, firstly it is important to remember that these are normal commercial companies which have to make a profit and, if the excursions which they are already providing are proving profitable, then it is not going to be easy to persuade them to change what they are doing.

For many years I have been trying hard to persuade the two principal shore-based excursion operators to include Helensburgh. Last year I finally managed to persuade managers from one company to come here. They were impressed, and so they are going to include Helensburgh in future itineraries.

However, we do have to remember that Helensburgh is in competition with a lot of other attractive places in the west of Scotland and sometimes also in the east. Depending on the route which the cruise ship is following, quite often passengers are being taken from Greenock to Edinburgh for a day.

There are also private excursions provided by some of my colleagues from the Scottish Tourist Guides Association, and I am planning to bring a number of them here early next year to show them just what Helensburgh has to offer.

In short, there may well be good reasons for doing up Helensburgh pier, but I would suggest that attracting cruise ship passengers is not one of them.

Stewart Noble, Helensburgh

* * * * * * * *

So Ruth Wishart (Advertiser Comment, September 7) thinks she has more right to use the road than anyone else, especially cyclists.

Ruth’s impatience shows in her statement about “the chap who hogged the road for some time in front of myself”. Possibly the reason ‘the chap’ hogged the road was to prevent an impatient driver like herself from trying to squeeze by.

I think before Ruth comments on the use of highways, and in particular passing cyclists, she should read a current copy of the Highway Code. At present she seems ignorant of the room she should give when passing a cyclist. I wonder if she would be so impatient were she driving behind a child on a bicycle – I certainly hope not. How many seconds was she delayed behind the cyclist? A painted cycle lane on a road offers no protection to a cyclist.

It may help her understanding of the vulnerability of cyclists if she were to try riding a bike on the road herself, or even to walk along the road where there is no pavement. She may see how selfish and inconsiderate many road users are.

I have witnessed Ruth Wishart’s impatience behind the wheel; some months ago I was behind her black VW Beetle on John Street, indicating to turn right onto West Clyde Street. The driver of the car in front of Ruth was being driven by a senior citizen who was being very careful before deciding it was safe to proceed. Ruth started blasting her car’s horn in impatience. Enough said, I think.

Respect other road users - roads are not just for cars, or you, Ruth.

I imagine Ruth is of an age where her competence to drive should be assessed. Perhaps some retraining/education is required.

Michael Cameron, Helensburgh

* * * * * * * *

I AM writing in response to your ‘Fears over rural neglect’ article dated August 31, 2017.

I am disappointed in Cllr Morton’s comments and find them both confusing and misleading. If Lomond North ward is a priority there has been no evidence or correspondence to date to confirm this position, certainly not from Cllr Morton or the Helensburgh and Lomond Area Committee (H&L).

What dialogue took place between councillors outwith our monthly Community Council meetings is also unknown.

At the inception of the Rural Regeneration Fund becoming available, our ward councillors at that time had conflicting information regarding sums available - and indeed if funds were available at all.

Councillor Morton’s final comment that no projects were identified is also unacceptable and wholly inaccurate. I wish to inform your readers but more importantly our Community Council (CC) area that On July 17, 2016 our secretary e-mailed Cllr Morton informing her that during discussions with then Cllrs Corry and MacIntyre, they advised that we submit an application.

This was attached with not one but three projects identified that would require financial support from the Rural Regeneration Fund - the A814/A83 junction viewpoint, a permanent solution to marine litter at the head of Loch Long, and a proposed pontoon at the old pier area with adjacent car park - all with general background information on tourism and possible benefits from tourism.

On July 19, 2016, the Arrochar Forum was initiated, chaired by Jackie Baillie, with only one ward councillor taking up the invitation to attend.

A further e-mail to Cllr Morton on August 20, 2016, again prompted by ward councillors at the community council’s monthly meeting, enquired whether the projects mentioned above were eligible for fund aid. If not the CC had another two projects at the war memorial and a new pontoon at Teighness, Arrochar.

All e-mails are available for viewing and discussion if required.

On September 7, 2016, Cllr MacIntyre arranged an on site visit to an identified project - the A814/A83 junction viewpoint - with Cllr Morton and our secretary and vice-convener all duly attending. Councillor Morton told the community council’s representatives to submit an application. It was pointed out that this had already been done.

There has been no response to date. Neither have we been directed to whom so ever is in charge of administering the Rural Regeneration Fund - our first knowledge being your recent article.

We of course feel there is still a great disparity between funding for towns and the poor rural relations. The sooner a fairer capital spend across Helensburgh and Lomond is administered the better. I cannot understand how Helensburgh and Lomond councillors en route to council meetings in Lochgilphead, passing through “rural neglect” perpetrated on their watch, can be happy with this situation.

Ronnie Ross (Convener, Arrochar, Tarbet and Ardlui Community Council)

* * * * * * * *

I am writing as chair of The Arts Society Lomond and Argyll (formerly LADFAS) to say that we are relieved to learn from your article in the Helensburgh Advertiser of August 31 that the Geilston Garden will open again at Easter 2018

However, as per Mike Thornley’s letter in your September 7 issue, it is a matter of continuing concern that the property is still at risk.

During Miss Hendry’s lifetime she generously made her home available to many charitable organisations - the Girl Guides and Scotland’s Garden Scheme to name but two - and to the community at large.

True to her altruism she bequeathed her home, its contents and her beautiful garden with a considerable capital sum to the National Trust for Scotland trusting it would continue her generosity.

Instead we are saddened to witness the deterioration of the house to a state where it is no longer habitable, her beautiful furniture long in store suffering from infestation and moth, for which the NTS has already paid storage costs of £116,000, and the future of the Garden at risk.

As a society concerned with the arts in its widest sense, including gardens, country houses, furniture etc, the future of Geilston is is of considerable interest to us, being of significant cultural and historic importance to this area.

It is therefore hoped that the substantial sum left by Miss Hendry, now valued at £2.7 million and bringing an income of over £75,000 per annum, will in future be used for the repair and future maintenance of the property for which it was intended - and that the National Trust for Scotland will meet its obligation to the donor.

Jeannette Scobie (Chair, The Arts Society Lomond and Argyll)