Issue - meetings

Iain Jackson advised that the intention of this item was to note the progress made in identifying groups and that similar papers had been put to the other 3 LACPGs.  The intention was to seek the Group’s approval that the groups listed were relevant and that the linkages were correct.

Douglas Hendry suggested that this should be a standing item on the agenda over the next 1 or 2 meetings in order to get to the stage of whether there was comfort or not that these were the right groups.  He invited the group to look at these today and commence the feedback procedure.

Participants expressed their concerns that the lists appeared to be out of date and that the same questions were being asked today as had been asked 2 years ago.  Councillor Horn stated that the LACPG, in her opinion, was not working.  Douglas Hendry agreed that the MAKI LACPG was less developed than the other LACPGs but stated that was for those around the table to seek the right answers and move onwards.  He commented that the Group had to crack this issue to establish who were the right people to be involved in community planning at a MAKI level.

The view of the Group was that community planning was best developed in MAKI through the Mid Argyll Partnership and the Kintyre Initiative Working Group, that these groups, together with a group on the Islands represented the basis for community planning in MAKI and that they did not wish to pursue the discussion of proposals framed on a MAKI wide basis at this time.  Douglas Hendry advised that this was not a matter for this Group to determine and that ultimately it would be for the CPP to decide on the structure.  He confirmed that the CPP would be considering all the issues raised by the ongoing self evaluation exercise and that the structural issue would require to be addressed further in due course.