Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2004 were accepted as an accurate record.

Under Item 3(c) Lolita advised that she would be meeting with John Walls, Strathclyde Passenger Transport’s newly appointed Community Planning Officer in due course regarding their involvement in Argyll and Bute’s Community Planning Partnership.

The minutes of the meeting of the Community Planning Partnership held on 5 November 2004 were noted.

• Citizens’ Advice Bureau (Lolita Lavery)
• Involvement of the Argyll and Bute Advice Network (Brian Barker)

Lolita Lavery advised that she had met with Alison Taylor of the Argyll and Bute Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) who had expressed an interest in the CABT becoming a Community Planning Partner.  Lolita suggested that Alison be asked to give a presentation on the work of the CAB at the next meeting of the 3^rd Theme Group and invited partners to discuss how best to involve the CAB in the Community Planning Process.

Brian Barker spoke to a related report regarding the involvement of the Argyll and Bute Advice Network in the Partnership and mentioned that the CAB was also a member of the Advice Network.  Peter Minshall suggested, and the Management Committee agree, that as Argyll CVS was also a member of the Advice Network, he could act as the interface between the CPP and the Advice Network, and therefore indirectly between the CAB and the CPP.  It was agreed that a letter be drafted to the CAB in this regard.  It was furthermore agreed that Theme Groups 1 and 3 would discuss the involvement of the Advice Network at their next meetings in January 2005 and, if deemed necessary, would invite presentations on the work of the Advice Network/CAB at a future meeting.

Lolita briefly sketched the background to involving community representatives on all levels of the Partnership as well as some of the difficulties experienced in achieving the 50% target.  Various options for involving community representatives were outlined and the following proposals made:

1.                  That active community participation be sought at the Community Assembly (Review Day), Theme Group and Local (Bute & Cowal Pilot) levels of the revised CPP structure as a more “hands on” approach to community involvement is deemed more appropriate at these levels;

2.                  That a scrutiny role be sought at the full Partnership and Management Committee levels of the revised CPP structure as a “community watchdog” approach to community involvement is deemed more appropriate at these levels; and

3.                  That the number/percentage of community representatives on the various levels of the revised CPP structure be flexible to reflect the different approaches taken to involve communities.

Lolita also advised that she had received an e-mail from James Hilder of the Mull and Iona Community Trust who had expressed the need for community representatives to be properly reimbursed for travel expenses, child care expenses and loss of any wages.  It was noted that an amount had already been allocated in the CPP budget for this purpose.  Relevant training and capacity building needs were also discussed and it was agreed that this was crucial if community representatives were to engage fully in the community planning process.  It was mentioned that Communities Scotland had some money that could be accessed for capacity building initiatives.

After discussion, and noting David Dowie’s concerns that we should not draw away from the original vision of community representation, it was agreed that:

1.                  The proposed way forward as outlined above be adopted for obtaining community representation on the various levels of the revised CPP structure;

2.                  As a general principle, community representation be sought from sectors that reflect the main priorities that the Community Planning Partnership is trying to address;

3.                  Each level of the revised CPP structure decide how best to involve the community in terms of the specific roles outlined above, and report progress in identifying appropriate representatives at the next meeting; and

4.                  The Management Committee decide if additional community representative are needed to fulfil the “scrutiny” role on the Management Committee and full Partnership and if so, which sectors they should represent.

Lolita outlined the draft 2005/6 CPP budget as well as proposed contributions from Partners.  The Management Committee were invited to discuss the proposed budget and agree on one of the funding options detailed below:

Option 1:            No increase in Partner contributions

Option 2:            3% inflationary increase in Partner contributions

Option 3:            Increase in Partner contributions to reflect actual budget spend

After discussion, the majority of Partners present agreed to Option 2.  It was, however, noted that Careers Scotland may not be able to contribute which would mean a reduction in the budget of £3,183.  David Dowie also reported that as Communities Scotland were funding the Community Regeneration Fund, it was unlikely that they would be making a separate contribution towards the CPP budget of £7,622.

In light of David’s comments and the general discussion that followed, it was agreed that Lolita should meet with Communities Scotland to discuss this further and clarify the position.  It was also agreed to discuss the proposed budget at the next meeting and Lolita was asked to phase out the surplus carried forward from this year’s budget over the next 3 years.

Theme Group 1:  The Committee noted Gavin Brown’s report, which updated progress on the Promoting Health and Well Being Theme Group.  It was noted that Theme Group 1 will become structurally aligned with the Community Health Partnership and that the Chair of that group will take over from Gavin.

Theme Group 2:  Alan Milstead reported that the future of Theme Group 2 had been discussed at its recent meeting where it was agreed to dissolve the Theme Group and redirect existing priorities between Theme Group 3 and the Local Economic Forum (LEF).  It was noted that when the LEF next meet on 12 January 2006 it would be proposed that 3 or 4 representatives from Theme Group 2 to join the LEF and that small operational groups be formed as and when necessary and that an annual report be prepared by the LEF to the full Partnership as well as quarterly reports to the Management Committee.  Alan advised that Aileen Edwards from Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire was happy to mirror reporting arrangements for the Helensburgh and Lomond area.  It was noted that once formal agreement had been received from the AIE and SED Economic Forums all parties would be informed of the change and the date that the changes would be due to take effect.

Theme Group 3:  Donald MacVicar reported that apart from the priority on renewable energy and energy conservation issues, all of the Theme Group’s priorities were progressing well.  It was noted that progress on renewable energy and energy conservation issues had stalled due to staff changes at ALI Energy and the progress matters on this priority as well as to discuss ways of ensuring that more partners are represented on the Theme Group at senior level.

Jospehine Stojak asked whether or not Argyll and Bute Council’s draft Cultural Strategy could be widened into a cultural strategy for the whole of the Community Planning Partnership.  It was agreed that this was not necessary as the Council’s Cultural Strategy already encompassed areas of work of other Partners.  It was furthermore agreed that the Cultural Strategy would be submitted to the Partnership for endorsement.

Lolita presented a paper outlining arrangements for the Review Day on 10 June 2005.

After discussion the Scottish Executive was added to the list of invitees and it was noted that invitations would be issued in January 2005.  It was also noted that Colin Mair, Chief Executive of the Improvement Service, had agreed to be the keynote speaker.

It was noted that a small working group comprising, Lolita Lavery, Brian Barker, Josephine Stojak, Andrew Campbell and Peter Minshall would be formed to finalise the arrangements and it was agreed that this Group should decide on the format of the workshops (People based or Topic based) and report back to the Management Committee at its next meeting in February 2005 with a draft programme for the day.

James McLellan suggested, and it was agreed, that the Review Day be themed under the banner of “Leading Rural Area”

Dave Jones tabled a report by Eddy Graham of IBP Strategy and Research on progress with “refreshing” Citizens’ Panel.  It was agreed that the SIP People’s Panel would be incorporated as a separately identifiable component of the overall Citizens’ Panel database.  It was noted that the next questionnaire would centre on the theme “Taking Part in your Community” and Partners were asked to complete and return a template attached to the report detailing the type of information they wished to be included in the questionnaire to IBP by Monday 10 January 2005.

Lynda Syed presented a report proposing a series of actions, which would form the basis of a Communications Plan for the Partnership.

After discussion the Management Committee agreed to adopted all the recommendations outlined in the report as work in progress and Andrew thanked Lynda for all her working in preparing the outline.  It was agreed that a template would be sent to Partners regarding information required for the new CPP website which was scheduled to go “live” in the middle of January 2005.

Muriel Kupris presented a report detailing the process undertaken to produce the Regeneration Outcome Agreement (ROA) within the required timescale and that it was now ready to be submitted to Communities Scotland.

Muriel advised the Management Committee that a letter had been received from Communities Scotland dated 30 November 2004 extending the original deadline for submitting ROA’s from 20 December 2004 to 1 March 2005 and that an interim grant offer of £985,500 had been made for 2005/06.  It was noted that the formal grant offer would be received no later than 18 March 2005.

After discussion, Andrew thanked Muriel for all her hard work and it was agreed that as the ROA was essentially complete, it should still be submitted to Communities Scotland by the original deadline of 20 December 2004.  Muriel also agreed to forward a copy of the finalised ROA to Partners.

Andrew welcomed Inspector Stevie Boyle of Strathclyde Police who gave a very interesting presentation on “One Stop Shops”.  Discussion took place thereafter and it was agreed that the information Stevie had provided was worthy of consideration by the Partnership.  It was agreed that Brian Barker would draft a “Capital Development Plan” for the next meeting outlining how best the Partnership could share resources and capital projects.  It was also noted that Strathclyde Police had funding of between £30,000 and £50,000 available to assist with any projects the Partnership may wish to undertake in this respect.

Muriel Kupris briefly outlined a bid for SIP funding received from Communities Scotland which had to be completed within 5 days and endorsed by the Community Planning Partnership.  The Management Committee agreed in retrospect to the bid for funding that had been submitted to Communities Scotland on Friday 3 December 2004.  It  was noted that this funding would be used for, amongst others, tackling drugs misuse.  The unrealistic time frames set by Communities Scotland was noted as an issue to be taken up with the Scottish Executive.

• Wednesday 9 February
• Wednesday 20 April
• Wednesday 18 May (if needed for Review Day)
• Wednesday 15 June
• Wednesday 17 August
• Wednesday 12 October
• Wednesday 7 December

The following dates when the Management Committee would meeting during 2005 were agreed:

Wednesday 9 February 2005

Wednesday 20 April 2005

Wednesday 18 May 2005 (if needed for the Review Day)

Wednesday 15 June 2005

Wednesday 17 August 2005

Wednesday 12 October 2005

Wednesday 7 December 2005

Dave Jones gave a very interesting and enlightening presentation on the Profile of Argyll and Bute highlighting issues that may not be fully appreciated by those who do not live and work in the area.  Thereafter, a general discussion took place on implications for service delivery and barriers to partnership working.

Dr Andrew Goudie advised that he would be happy to pursue any issues with the Scottish Executive on behalf of the Partnership and suggested that the Management Committee look at drawing up a Demographic Strategy looking at ways of encouraging young people to move back and live and work in the area.