Whitesands to Become a Normal Place

Yesterday afternoon the flood defence scheme was approved during a full meeting of the Council in which 23 councillors voted for the project while 19 voted against it.

There are important lessons to be learned from this decade long saga, but first let’s review what the project will now deliver for the town.

What will the flood defences deliver?

A new riverside park with flood gates that can be raised to prevent water flowing through the various entrances will be built between the rowing club on the Greensands and Dock Park. Houses on the west bank of the river, by the suspension bridge will also be protected by barriers which can be raised to hold back the water. Flooding of the Greensands, Whitesands, Vennel, Brewery Street, Nith Place and Dockhead should now become a thing of the past and bring a level of certainty for residents and businesses to actually invest time and money into their buildings and businesses rather than endure increasing blight.

The whole project will now cost £68 million after a decade of delays and futzing around. That’s the kind of increase in costs you can expect by sitting on your hands. 80% of the costs will be footed by the Scottish Government and before you reach for your calculator, D&G’s slice of the of the bill will be £13.7 million.

The section of the meeting to vote on the flood defences was kicked off with a reminder that it isn’t just a flood defence scheme, it’s also a public realm improvement project of what is essentially one big long car park from Dock Head to the New Bazaar.

Now before you spit out your cup of morning petrol worrying about where you’ll park, fear not for there will actually be an increase in the number of parking spaces, because the council will purchase the 120+ space car park that sits empty at the bottom of the Vennel. It’s always empty because it’s currently a private car park that you’re supposed to pay to use. As we all know, it’s a cardinal sin for Doonhamers to pay for parking.

The meeting was deftly marshalled by Cllr Hagman (SNP) who chaired the session and Cllr Thompson (SNP) who brought the motion as leader of the Council.

Most of the early contributions to the meeting from Councillors were negative, pitiful objections and sad attempts to delay the scheme, knowing full well that this was the last attempt to be eligible for the funding and if it didn’t pass this time, the scheme wouldn’t survive.

Those agin

The wrecking amendment was brought by Cllr Blake (Con) in the form of a “Let’s go back and think about this,” amendement. A common theme in the objections was that some new technology had been invented that wasn’t being considered, the destruction of Devorgilla Bridge and the folk of D&G were all against it (I beg to differ, Sir).

Cllr Hyslop (Con) had sound, perfectly valid questions around the costs and fiscal elements. Former Council leader, Cllr MacGregor (Con) raised issues about being asked to vote on a document that contained a lot of redacted content. The unusual level of redaction was because it was being made public, but Councillors had not recevied a private briefing on the redacted elements. Cllr MacGregor’s concerns were hastily added to Cllr Blake’s amendment. Democracy in action, although I was surprised that they hadn’t discussed that in advance.

Cllr Bell (Con) threw a bone to the dogs with the usual “money could be spent of potholes” line. This wilful level of ignorance on how budgets work is unhelpful to the Doonhamers he represents as it perpetuates the idea that there’s a single pot of money and if we don’t spend money on A we can spend it on B.

Cllr Maureen Johnstone (Con) tried to bring down the scheme by saying the Fair would have to move and so would the new boulder of commemoration (Norwegian Connection).

Cllr Slater (Ind) read out some blah blah about photographing the bridge and how micro-hydro could save the day. I assume he means through a diversionay cut which is often used in hydro schemes, but that would have zero bearing on flooding. He did however - as is customary - wear a rather fetching scarf which brought an ounce of flair to the proceedings.

Those in favour

Cllr Stevenson (Lab) raised the point about the ongoing maintenance costs (£77K per annum) highlighting that fact that we already pay cleanup costs after floods.

Cllr Stitt (Lab) read out a letter of support from the owner of Knox Sports which basically amounted to “get on with it so we have clarity one way or the other”.

Cllr Little (SNP, Provost) raised a spirited defence of the improvements, knocking down unfounded objections that the new scheme would block the view of the river. She pointed out that not so long ago the riverfront had been lined with double-decker busses and nobody had raised objections to the obscuring of the view then. She also made the point that if the council rejected this, how would anyone invest in the town again.

The motion in favour of going ahead with the flood scheme passed and work will begin in spring.

What can we learn from this?

There’s a clear lesson to take away from this saga.

Those opposed to the project painted this as a clear cut thing, claiming that all of Dumfries & Galloway was against it. That is simply not true, I know many people in Dumfries that are for the flood defences and have had many visitors who cannot believe that we don’t have flood defences. No matter what the issue, it is so much easier to object than it is to be positive. We must stand up and be counted when we are in favour of things, just as much as when we are against things.

That can take many forms from simply letting someone know you hold a different view to writing to let people in authority know what you think.

Someone in the meeting said, “Consultation does not equal consent.” True, but neither does it equate to dissent. Officials running consultations should stay neutral. But if you dear Doonhamer go along to a consultation and like what you see then make sure you fill in the form saying you support it or tell one of your Councillors.

• You have to be registered to vote and then you have to use it. If you’re not, you’ve no right to moan.
• Protracted battles cost and in this instance has cost us dearly. Politicians don’t like to stick their neck out too much, they have to survive in the job. So stand behind them for the things you support and in front of them for the stuff you don’t. Be nice about it. All you’re doing is registering dis/satisfaction, not trying to overturn a system.
• We need to have a broader understanding of how funding works so that people don’t just see the Council as one pot of money to spend of their pet peeve.
• It’s easy to object, but few people stand up to support
• Society generally needs a coalition of the positive. I don’t care which party you vote for, if you see projects happening and you believe they a net benefit, stand beside them. Tell people out loud that you support it. Send a message to your councillor(s), MP or MSPs