Highland Council Minute

Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Highland Council held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 3 March 2011 at 10.30 a.m.

Mr K MacLeod opened the meeting with prayer.

1. Calling of the Roll and Apologies for Absence

Present:

Mr G Farlow, Ms L Munro, Mr R Rowantree, Mr D Mackay, Mr J Rosie, Mr B Fernie, Mr G Smith, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr D Flear, Mr W MacKay, Mrs D Mackay, Mr J McGillivray, Mr I Ross, Mrs I Campbell, Mr R Greene, Dr A Sinclair, Mrs J Urquhart, Mr M Finlayson, Ms M Smith, Mrs C Wilson, Mr R Durham, Mr P Cairns, Mr D Chisholm, Mrs A MacLean, Mrs M Paterson, Dr D Alston, Mr C Fraser, Mrs I McCallum, Mr H Fraser, Mr J Laing, Mr D Millar, Mr I Renwick, Mr B Clark, Mr A Henderson, Mrs H Carmichael, Mrs M Davidson, Mr D Hendry, Mr H Wood, Mr A Graham, Mr A Christie, Mrs P Munro, Miss J Campbell, Mr P Corbett, Mr D Kerr, Mrs B McAllister, Mr J Finnie, Mr F Parr, Mr I Brown, Mr J Gray, Mr K MacLeod, Mr R Balfour, Mr J Ford, Mr B Wynd, Mr L Fraser, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr G Marsden, Mr A S Park, Mr J Crawford, Mr J Holden, Mr R Pedersen, Mr T Prag, Mr S Black, Ms J Douglas, Mr D Fallows, Mr G Rimell, Mr D Cameron, Dr M Foxley, Mr B Gormley

In Attendance:

Chief Executive
Depute Chief Executive
Director of Education, Culture and Sport
Director of Housing and Property
Assistant Chief Executive
Director of Planning and Development
Director of TEC Services
Director of Social Work

Mr A S Park in the Chair

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Lady M Thurso, Mrs K MacNab, Mr M Rattray, Mr A Rhind, Mr A Torrance, Mr B Barclay, Mr E Hunter, Mr N Donald, Mr D Henderson, Mrs G Sinclair and Mr B J Murphy.

Preliminaries

Prior to the commencement of the formal business, the Convener paid tribute to Mrs K MacNab who had intimated that she was to resign as a Member of the Council and thanked her for all the hard work and dedication she had brought to the role over previous years.

Provost J Gray also thanked all those who had expressed sympathy to him and his family in the recent sad loss of his brother.

2. Declarations of Interest

The Council NOTED the following declarations of interest –

Item 18 – Scottish Government Consultation: Securing the Benefits of Scotland’s Next Energy Revolution – Mr A Henderson and Mr R Rowantree (Financial)
Item 19 – Community Benefit Working Group – Recommendations – Mr A Henderson and Mr R Rowantree (Financial)
Items 27 and 29 – Caithness Heat and Power – Mr I Ross, Mrs J Urquhart and Mr J Gray (Non Financial)

2(a) By-Election – 7 April 2011

The Council was advised that Councillor Katrina MacNab had tendered her resignation as the Member for Ward 3 (Wick) with effect from Friday, 4 March 2011.

In this regard, the Returning Officer had put in place arrangements for the By-Election to be held on Thursday, 7 April 2011.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position as detailed.

3. Confirmation of Minutes

There had been submitted for confirmation as correct records the Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 16 December 2010 and of the Special Meeting held on 10 February 2011 as contained in the Volume which had been circulated separately – which were APPROVED - matters arising having been dealt with as follows:-

Highland Council, 10 February 2011

Page 704: Item 3: Revenue Budget and Council Tax 2011/12

AGREED to include reference within the Minute to confirmation which had been given at the meeting by the Chair of the Resources Committee that she was content with assurances which had been given to her that the implementation of the ICT contract was being handled competently and on schedule and that a further saving could be made through the removal of the contingency budget.

There had also been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Special Joint Meeting of the Highland Council and the Highland NHS Board held on 16 December 2010 – which were APPROVED.

4. Minutes of Meetings of Committees

There had been submitted for confirmation as correct records, for information as regards delegated business, and for approval as appropriate, the Minutes of Meetings of Committees contained in the Volume circulated separately as undernoted:-

|Link to Minutes Index|

Housing and Social Work Committee, 12 January
Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 13 January
Planning, Environment and Development Committee, 19 January
Transport, Environmental and Community Services Committee, 20 January
Joint Committee on Children and Young People, 21 January
Inverness City Committee, 14 February
Resources Committee, 16 February
Gaelic Committee, 17 February

The Minutes, having been moved and seconded, were, except as undernoted, APPROVED - matters arising having been dealt with as follows:-

Planning, Environment and Development Committee, 19 January

Page 751: Item 6: Business Gateway

AGREED that reference should be included within the Minute to the commitment which had been given at the meeting to bring forward a report on fuel supply and costs to the next meeting.

Resources Committee, 16 February

Page 794: Item 11: Treasury Management Mid Year Review Report for 2010/11

NOTED that it had been agreed at the previous meeting of the Resources Committee that consideration should be given to sending a letter to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury seeking a response to the Committee’s concerns regarding the increase to the cost of borrowing from the Public Works Loans Board and the negative impact this would have on delivering affordable homes. However, it had subsequently been discovered that this letter had not in fact been sent and this would now be rectified in line with the Committee decision.

5. Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group

There had been tabled Minutes of Meeting of the Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group held on 23 February 2011 - which were APPROVED.

6. Climate Change Working Group

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Climate Change Working Group held on 3 February 2011 - which were APPROVED – subject to the following –

It was NOTED that Councillor D Chisholm had been unable to attend due to the temporary unavailability of disabled access to the meeting but that this situation had now been resolved.

7. Community Benefit Working Group

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Community Benefit Working Group held on 26 January 2011 - which were APPROVED.

8. Northern Joint Police Board

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Northern Joint Police Board held on 26 November 2010 – which were NOTED.

9. Highland and Islands Fire Board

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Highland and Islands Fire Board held on 26 November – which were NOTED.

10. Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint Board

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint Board held on 24 November 2010 – which were NOTED.

10(a) Membership of Committees etc

The Council AGREED the following change as submitted by the Liberal Democrat Group –

Equalities Working Group – Ms L Munro to replace Mrs A MacLean

11. Question Time

The following Questions had been received by the Assistant Chief Executive in terms of Standing Order 42:-

(i) Mr Robert Coghill

To the Convener

“We cannot, as Councillors, comment on planning applications and then sit on the Planning Committee. What will you do to rectify this injustice?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Coghill queried as to whether it was possible for a report to be submitted to the next full Council meeting to allow the issue to be debated in public.

In response, the Convener confirmed that a report would be submitted to the Planning, Environment and Development Committee to allow full discussion.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position.

(ii) Mr Drew Hendry

To the Convener

“What date has the Administration set to roll out fully the webcasting for Strategic Committees that it promised to do?”

The response had been circulated.

There was no supplementary question.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position.

(iii) Mr John Finnie

To the Convener

“Will the Administration agree to bring back a report detailing ways in which the Council can take on more apprenticeships?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Finnie queried as to whether, in addition to the report which was to be brought back on apprenticeships, and given the links to training, reports could also be brought back to the appropriate Committees on the innovative ‘Skills Package’ for the Highlands which had just been announced and which included initiatives such as funding for Trade Union members for lifelong learning, information for Child and Early Years workers and funding for the Chamber of Commerce in Caithness in regard to the ‘Right Connections’ programme.

In response, the Convener confirmed that this would be arranged.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position.

12. Treasury Management Strategy Statement 2011/12

There had been circulated Report No. HC/79/10 dated 21 February 2011 by the Depute Chief Executive and Director of Finance which confirmed that the Council had adopted the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management in Local Authorities. A requirement of the Code was for an annual Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Statement for the forthcoming financial year to be approved by the Council.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Prudential and Treasury Indicators had been set out in Appendix 2 to the report and were relevant for the purposes of setting an integrated treasury management strategy. The indicators had been based on a Capital Programme affordability limit of £67m for 2011/12 as agreed by the Council on 10 February 2011 and assumed annual affordability limits of £64.5m thereafter to 2013/14. As a consequence, it was advised that the estimated borrowing requirements and associated Prudential Indicators might require to be further amended in due course as the Council reviewed its Capital Programme.

During discussion, Members requested that their thanks and appreciation should be formally recorded in recognition of the high standard of work undertaken by staff within the Finance Service.

Decision

The Council AGREED the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy for 2011/12.

The Council also NOTED that Prudential and Treasury indicators as set out in Appendix 2 to the report had been based on a Capital Programme affordability limit of £67m for 2011/12 as considered by the Council on 10 February 2011 and assumed annual affordability limits of £64.5m thereafter to 2013/14. As a consequence, it was confirmed that the estimated borrowing requirements and associated Prudential Indicators might require to be amended in due course as the Council reviewed its Capital Programme.

13. Statutory Performance Indicators – Comparison with other Councils 2009/10

There had been circulated Report No. HC-80-10 dated 16 February 2011 by the Depute Chief Executive and Director of Finance which provided comparisons of Highland Council Statutory Performance Indicators (SPIs) with other Scottish Councils for the financial year 2009/10.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Council’s management was committed to continuous improvement and the SPI’s provided a means to monitor performance against that of other Councils. In addition to performance being considered at Strategic Committees, the SPI’s were reviewed during the quarterly meetings on performance that each Service had with the Chief Executive with the focus predominantly on measures which might be required to ensure that all reasonable steps were being taken to address areas of poor or deteriorating performance.

In addition to the 25 headline SPI’s which had been defined by the Accounts Commission, each Council was also required to identify and publish other performance indicators, known as ‘local’ indicators, which they considered appropriate. In this regard, Highland Council’s ‘local’ indicators had been listed at Appendix 2 to the report.

During discussion, it was advised that the figures at Paragraph 5.3 in the report which related to Corporate Management - Equal Opportunities Policy - and specifically the percentage of the highest paid 5% of earners among Council employees who were women – were incorrect in that the management figures had been taken from the HC10 level of salary and when the figures had been extruded from the pay system everybody on the HC10 level had been included in the statistics instead of only the people above £38,500 of salary and this would therefore be corrected.

Decision

The Council NOTED:-

(i) Highland Council’s performance during 2009/10 against the Accounts
   Commission’s Statutory Performance Indicators (SPIs) including comparisons
   with other Scottish Councils; and
(ii) that the Accounts Commission had confirmed that the existing SPI
   arrangements, including Councils identifying and publishing their own local
   indicators, would continue for (at least) the reporting years 2010/11 and
   2011/12.

14. Public Sector Reform

There had been circulated Report No. HC-81-10 dated 22 February 2011 by the Chief Executive which confirmed that the Council had opportunities to respond to the Commission on Public Services. In this regard, a draft written response had been provided with the report for Members to consider along with information on discussion events.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Commission on Public Services, which had been created by the Scottish Government to develop recommendations for the future delivery of public services to inform developments for the next five to ten years, had asked for responses by 31 January or not later than 31 March 2011. In addition, the Commission had accepted the Council’s offer of hosting a discussion event in Inverness on 8 March 2011.

Evidence had been sought around three key questions set out in the remit, namely how best could public services achieve positive outcomes for and with the people of Scotland, how best could wider organisational arrangements (including functions, structures and processes) support and enable the delivery of effective services and what shared values and ethos should underpin Scotland’s public services and how best could they be embedded in the delivery of public services in the future. In addition, respondents had been asked to tell the Commission about their experiences of the operation of public services, examples of projects, services, innovations or improvement work (including evaluations or assessments which might be relevant to the work of the Commission), their views on the obstacles to and opportunities for improvement and on the options for the future.

The work completed and underway to develop sustainable Police and Fire Services for the future was also expected to be available for the Commission and in this regard it was confirmed that both Joint Boards (for Police and Fire) in the Highlands and Islands had considered these issues at their last meetings. Neither Board was in favour of a single service and as such had agreed to submit evidence in support of a regional model. In addition, the Joint Fire Board also intended to submit further evidence in support of an integrated Emergency Service with the Police for the region.

A draft response from the Council had been included as Appendix 3 to the report and Members were also asked to consider the draft responses on the future of Fire and Rescue Services and Policing as attached as Appendices 4 and 5 to the report.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

this was work in progress and evidence was to be given to the Christie Commission in the following week and over the following months;
in regard to children and adults with community care needs, a presentation was to follow on Planning for Integration of Health and Social Care in the Highlands and this was very much a lead agency model which was unique in Scotland;
in terms of economic development, the Scottish Parliamentary Committee had not supported any merger between Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise and this was welcomed;
also, in terms of economic development, there would be benefits to the Highlands both in terms of a reduction in staffing costs and governance in the transfer of responsibilities to Local Authorities with a Joint Regional Board;
in regard to community safety, a very strong view had been taken to support a regional model in order to retain quality services, quality staff and direct liaison;
it was considered that the Regional Transport Authorities should revert to being voluntary in terms of shared outcomes and reducing costs;
there was a need for a faster pace of change to reduce external scrutiny with consideration being given to the development of a single external scrutiny body for all public services;
there was a need to sustain service delivery and link it into best value and taking a realistic approach to introducing efficiencies;
there should be a positive approach to shared outcomes, consideration given to opportunities for sharing services and premises, general greater collaboration and an emphasis on effective delivery and performance and accountability of that performance at a local level;
there needed to be effective and appropriate community and public engagement in order to understand local needs, challenges and circumstances, particularly those relating to the Highlands and Islands;
there was a need to ensure that form and structure followed on from this and not lead the process; and
the SNP Group would be submitting their own response which would be seeking to enhance services and accountability in the Highlands and this would be published in due course.

Decision

The Council NOTED the timescale for the work of the Commission, the Commission’s discussion events being hosted by the Council in Inverness on 8 March 2011 and the opportunities for providing oral evidence.

The Council also AGREED:-

(i) the draft written evidence to the Commission as set out in Appendix 3 and
   summarised in Paragraph 2.2;
(ii) the draft submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation on Fire and
   Rescue Services as set out in Appendix 4; and
(iii)the draft submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation on Policing
   as set out in Appendix 5.

15. Planning for the Integration of Health and Social Care

There had been circulated Report No. HC-82-10 dated 21 February 2011 by the Chief Executive which was the first update report on the planning for the integration of health and social care in the Highlands.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Highland Council and NHS Highland had considered proposals for a new partnership model to deliver health and social care at a Special Joint Meeting on 16 December 2010. It had also been agreed that an implementation plan would be submitted to a further Joint Meeting on 12 May 2011.

The Joint Highland Council and NHS Highland Leadership and Performance Group had also set in place arrangements for a programme management approach to this work and as such the Programme Board had met monthly since that time. In this regard, the Board had agreed that it required to be focused on the high level tasks and that much of the work should be undertaken by smaller sub groups which would report to the Board.

In terms of support for the implementation plan, the Leadership Group had agreed that it was necessary to identify a small team of Officers, led by a Transitions Director, to provide dedicated support for the development of the plan and who would work alongside those Council and NHS Highland Officers who had responsibilities in various areas of activity.

In addition to the above, a series of Seminars with senior staff from North East Lincolnshire had taken place on 1 and 2 February 2011, involving Elected and Board Members, Managers and Key Practitioners, following which the officers from North East Lincolnshire had indicated that they wished to continue to develop this partnership.

In regard to current activities, it was confirmed that Chief Officers were currently working with the Transitions Director to scope out the key immediate priorities, which included confirmation of all support team arrangements, scoping of issues to be addressed in the implementation plan, engagement and consultation (with staff, professional groups, service users and carers), development of a staff issues log and publication of standards FAQs, compilation of evidence to support the case for change and the lead agency model, early consultation on models for back office functions, clarification of services and staff teams which were likely to be in and out of scope and confirmation and early implementation of a communications strategy. In addition, the Chief Executives had also agreed to share key developments which were envisaged in health and social care in each agency over the following year.

During a presentation, Ms Jan Baird, the Transitions Director, made reference to the Statement of Intent which had been previously agreed and which confirmed the commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes for the population and service users. In this regard, it was advised that services would be person centred and enabling, would anticipate and prevent need as well as reacting to it, would be evidence based and would acknowledge risk. In addition, there would be an improvement to the quality and a reduction in the cost of services through the creation of new simpler organisational arrangements which would be designed to maximise outcomes and, through the streamlining of service, ensure that they were faster, more efficient and more effective.

In terms of Planning for Integration, information was provided on previous developments within Children’s Services (Integrated Planning For Highland’s Children, the Joint Committee for Children and Young People and Getting It Right For Every Child) and Adult Care (Joint Community Care Plan, Leadership and Performance Group and Transformational Change) and it was confirmed that work was currently ongoing ahead of the next Joint Meeting in May 2011 in relating to the study of the evidence for change within these services. It was extremely important that there was evidence to support the way forward, both on a national and local level.

In relation to the financial context of the Lead Agency Model which was to be followed, the specific differences between aligned budgets and pooled budgets were highlighted and it was confirmed that the Lead Agency arrangements were a comprehensive form of pooled budgets in which the total resources for the care of a defined population were integrated in one organisation to either commission or provide the care for that population.

In regard to contracting arrangements, the general principle was that partner organisations would retain responsibility for their respective statutory duties but would achieve these by delegating responsibility and resources through contracting mechanisms. These agreements would be time limited contracts with a number of provisions, including delegations, a strategic agreement setting out the strategic direction of the partnership underpinned by a more detailed 3 year plan which would be reviewed annually, a performance framework which allowed delegating partners to performance manage the delivery of the delegated responsibilities, specifications for value for money reviews and the establishment of a pooled fund for revenue expenditure with respect to prescribed functions which would include protocols for the treatment of over or under spends.

Finally, and in relation to timescales, it was advised that a further report would be submitted to both the Council and the NHS Highland Board in May 2011.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

there was a willingness from staff members to examine this step change in community care and children’s services which would improve services for older people and children and this was welcomed;
there were issues around governance, local accountability and scrutiny which needed to be considered and understood at an early date;
it was extremely encouraging to note how much progress had been made in a relatively short time and within a very challenging timescale;
consultation with all groups needed to be as open and flexible as possible; and
local team working had to be emphasised and specifically consultation with all voluntary and mainstream groups within the Highlands who currently provided very important backing in terms of the provision of services.

Decision

The Council NOTED the terms of the presentation by the Transitions Director
and the developments with regard to the planning for the integration of health and social care as detailed in the report.

16. Review of Classroom Support Needs Across Primary Schools

There had been circulated Report No. HC-83-10 dated 23 February 2011 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport which set out the background to the agreed review of classroom support needs across primary schools and made recommendations for the remit of the Cross Party Working Group and practical arrangements for the progressing of the review.

In this regard, membership of the Cross Party Working Group had been tabled at the meeting for approval and it was noted that the SNP Group had declined to take up their places.

At this point, Mr J Finnie, seconded by Mr R Pedersen, MOVED the Suspension of Standing Orders to allow Members to discuss the wide ranging ramifications in regard to this item and to consider all options available.

As an AMENDMENT, Dr M E M Foxley, seconded by Dr D Alston, moved that the Council should proceed with the item as detailed in the agenda papers.

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 22 votes and the AMENDMENT received 41 votes and the AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes cast having been as follows:-

For the Motion:

Balfour, R, Bremner, D, Brown, I, Cairns, P, Cameron, D, Campbell, J, Clark, B, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Finnie, J, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Henderson, A, Hendry, D, Holden, J, MacDonald, L, Munro, P, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Smith, M, Urquhart, J, Wynd, B

For the Amendment:

Alston, D, Black, S, Campbell, I, Christie, A, Coghill, R, Corbett, P, Davidson, M, Douglas, J, Durham, R, Fernie, B, Finlayson, M, Flear, D, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, H, Fraser, L, Graham, A, Greene, R, Laing, J, Mackay, D, Mackay, D, MacKay, W, MacLean, A, MacLeod, K, Marsden, G, McCallum, I, McGillivray, J, Millar, D, Munro, L, Park, S, Parr, F, Paterson, M, Prag, T, Rimell, G, Rosie, J, Ross, I, Rowantree, R, Sinclair, A, Smith, G, Wilson, C, Wood, H

Thereafter, and during a summary of the report, it was confirmed that, as part of the proposed remit, tasks included the identification of the original purposes of classroom based pupil support, current pupil support needs, sustainable alternative options for future provision to secure optimum support for pupils’ learning needs and development within the available funding levels and to meet the savings targets agreed and the appropriate human and financial resource allocation models to support the future provision of classroom based pupil support. In this regard, it was proposed that a Task Group should be established to carry out detailed work on the review and to prepare reports for consideration by the Working Group. The proposed structure of the Task Group had been set out in the report and it was suggested at the meeting that the Youth Convener should also be included.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

the review represented an opportunity for Members to examine the support arrangements which had been in place for a number of years and to ensure that these arrangements were effective at a time of reducing resources;
there was a need to ensure that the very best service possible was provided for children in the Highlands;
there was also a requirement to consider the increasing number of children with additional support needs and how they could best fulfil their potential;
the representation on the Task Force needed to be geographically inclusive and financial assistance to attend meetings should be put in place if required;
it was suggested that this was a service review, or rather a pre-determined outcome, which had been driven exclusively by savings rather than by educational needs and the SNP Group would therefore not be participating;
it was important to listen to the views of Head Teachers, Classroom Assistants and Parent Council representatives and the remit of the Task Group would allow this to happen;
there was a need to identify the cost of the review and whether there would be any implications in relation to Job Evaluation;
it was recognised and acknowledged that pre-school and primary education was the foundation for children and communities within the Highlands but the Council had been required to set a balanced budget and this was the context within which the serious review of the support required in primary schools would be undertaken.

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

(i) the remit for the Cross Party Working Group as set out in Section 2 of the
   report; and
(ii) the establishment of a Task Group as set out in Paragraph 3.2 – subject to
   the inclusion of the Youth Convener - to carry out detailed work on the
   review and prepare reports for consideration by Members of the Cross
   Party Working Group.

The Council also AGREED the membership of the Cross Party Working Group which had been tabled at the meeting as follows:-

Independent Group – Ms J Douglas, Mr A Rhind and Dr A Sinclair
Liberal Democrat Group – Dr M E M Foxley, Mr A M Millar and Ms L Munro
Labour Group – Mrs B McAllister
Independent Members Group – Mr R Balfour
Independent Alliance Group – Mr E Hunter

17. Voluntary Severance/Early Retirement

As agreed at the Council meeting on 10 February 2011, there had been circulated Report No. HC-84-10 dated 22 February 2011 by the Chief Executive which outlined the range of options which were available to the Council in order to keep staff in employment and to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Council already had established policies and procedures in place to deal with situations such as redeployment, redundancy, early retirement, voluntary severance and flexible retirement and these were used regularly across the Council to try and ensure security of employment and to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible. There were a number of key considerations in the process, including consultation with the recognised trade unions to ensure that statutory obligations were complied with, individual consultation with all affected staff, consultation with trade unions on measure to protect existing employees, targeted use of voluntary severance or early retirement, internal advertisement of posts, use of the redeployment register and vacancy management.

Decision

The Council AGREED that the current policies and procedures should continue to be used in line with Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the report to manage reductions in the workforce and to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible.

The Council also AGREED that, if voluntary redundancy or early retirement was necessary to implement decisions of the Council, these should continue to be used on a targeted basis in conjunction with the relevant existing policies.

(The Council adjourned for lunch at this point and resumed at 1.45pm).

18. Community Benefit Working Group – Recommendations

Declarations of Interest

Mr A Henderson declared a financial interest in this item as the Chair of the Small Isles and Mull Inshore Fisheries Group but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest could not reasonably be taken to fall within the objective test and remained in the room.

Mr R Rowantree declared a financial interest in this item as a contractor for Wind Energy companies and left the room.

There had been circulated Report No HC-86-10 dated 22 February 2011 by the Corporate Manager (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) which contained recommendations from the Community Benefit Working Group in relation to community benefit.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Community Benefit Working Group had met on five separate occasions and were now in a position to make recommendations. Some of the recommendations which had been made had been dealt with through the Planning, Environment and Development Committee or by Officers but two recommendations in particular were the most far reaching and as such required the approval of the Council before implementation, namely (i) that the Council should adopt a three tier approach to community benefit deriving from onshore renewable energy and other appropriate developments as set out in the report and this to be on the basis of a floor level of £100,000 per annum whereby all benefit would accrue at a local level and thereafter any benefit above £100,000 would accrue on the basis of 55% local, 30% at a locality level and 15% at a pan-Highland level; and (ii) that the Council should adopt a two tier approach to the allocation of funds from offshore renewable energy developments generally on the basis of 80% accruing to a pan-Highland Fund and 20% accruing to coastal communities, all taking into account possible sharing of benefit with other authority areas.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

the three tier approach to community benefit deriving from onshore renewable energy and other appropriate developments as detailed in the report had been a favourable consensus from within the Community Benefit Working Group;
community benefit was usually measured at so much per installed megawatt of capacity and at present an average of just over £2000 was negotiated in Highland but there was a need to see that increased to £5000 per megawatt of installed capacity and if this was achieved it would significantly increase the sum to communities;
there was much greater benefit to be achieved by having a more uniform approach across Highland than was the case at present;
it was vital that Highland communities benefited from the use of Highland assets, whether on land or at sea, and that the impact on communities should be reflected in the level of community benefit which these communities received;
the securing of community benefit for offshore energy required agreement with the Crown Estate who owned the sea bed and/or Marine Scotland who issued the licences and it had been recommended that the Council should draw up an Action Plan with other Highlands and Islands Local Authorities to submit the Crown Estate;
there should be Workshops arranged with communities in order to keep them informed of the process;
there was a need to ensure that in future there would be a fair distribution of profits from wind, wave and tidal energy to the areas where it was generated;
there was a need to correct a typographical error in the report in that Ward 18 should be referred to as ‘Culloden and Ardersier’;
in view of the fact that there were proposals to build two converter hubs in Caithness and work was currently in progress to put power lines in place, consideration should be given to implementing charges in this regard, perhaps by wayleave or some other form of payment;
there should be some cognisance taken of the fact that there were fishermen in some of the affected areas and they would be displaced;
it should be recognised that community benefit was not just about the money but rather that it brought communities together and stimulated discussion about new initiatives;
there was a need to have a rolling set of priorities which could be reviewed from time to time;
it would be helpful to have Scotland wide legislation so that communities would know exactly how they were going to benefit;
there was a need to consider the fact that Community Councils were statutory consultees on planning issues but they could also have financial interests and this represented a potential conflict of interest; and
the recommendation for the appointment of a Planning Gain Negotiator was welcomed in that they would take on the negotiation of community benefit in accordance with the final policy and guidance approved by the Council.

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

(a) that any change in the approach to community benefit would not be
   retrospective and would apply only to those negotiations which began
   following on from the adoption by the Council of any new policy and
   guidance;
(b)that the Crown Estate should be invited to set out its position on offshore
   renewables, in particular those in the Pentland and Moray Firths;
(c)that developers and other appropriate bodies should be invited to make
   clear to the Council their position on renewable energy developments and
   their involvement in community benefit;
(d)that web based guidance and policy in relation to renewable energy and
   community benefit should be updated following on from the adoption of a
   new policy and guidance;
(e)that a series of workshops for communities and other interested parties in
   relation to community benefit should be hosted by the Council at early
   dates;
(f) that an annual report on community benefit and associated issues should
   be presented to the Council;
(g)that the Council would seek to encourage community benefit as
   appropriate from procurement exercises and other appropriate
   developments;
(h)to adopt a three tier approach to community benefit deriving from onshore
   renewable energy and other appropriate developments as set out in
   Section 3 of the report. This to be on the basis of a floor level of £100,000
   whereby all benefit would accrue at a local level. Thereafter any benefit
   above £100,000 would accrue on the basis of 55% local, 30% at a locality
   level and 15% at a Pan Highland level. This arrangement would not be
   cumulative i.e. it would apply on an individual development basis only;
(i) to adopt a two tier approach to the allocation of funds from offshore
   renewable energy developments generally on the basis of 80% accruing to
   Pan Highland Fund and 20% accruing to coastal communities, all taking into
   account possible sharing of benefit with other authority areas – subject to
   negotiation until fishing interests were consulted;
(j) that the post of Planning Gain Negotiator should also take on the
   negotiation of community benefit in accordance with the final policy and
   guidance approved by the Council;
(k)that the Community Benefit Working Group should continue in existence
   with a broadened remit to cover all matters related to community benefit
   and associated matters such as developments in renewable energy
   generally and the involvement of the Council and communities in taking
   forward renewable energy projects at their own hands – with the
   renewed remit to come back to the Council for approval;
(l) to instruct Officers to bring forward a report setting out options for the
   management of community benefit funds;
(m)that the arrangements for offshore community benefit as set out in
   Section 5 of the report should be implemented following formal approval of
   a new policy and guidance – subject to negotiation until fishing interests
   were consulted; and
(n)that Officers should draw up a formal policy and guidance for approval and
   adoption at a future meeting of the Council.

19. Scottish Government Consultation: Securing the Benefits of Scotland’s next Energy Revolution

Declarations of Interest

Mr R Rowantree declared a financial interest in this item as a contractor for Wind Energy companies and left the room.

There had been circulated Report No. HC-85-10 dated 22 February 2011 by the Director of Planning and Development which advised that the Scottish Government had issued a consultation seeking views on how Scotland could secure benefits (community and national) from the next energy revolution. A draft response had been attached as Appendix 1 to the report and an extension to the response deadline had been agreed with the Scottish Government to allow consideration at the meeting.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that, in order to secure the long term benefits to the Scottish economy, the Cabinet Secretary had identified the need to address some fundamental issues and the consultation had asked the following questions in an attempt to address these issues – in what ways could the legal framework within which the Crown Estate Commissioners operated be reformed to ensure greater accountability for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland to the people and government of Scotland, how could Scotland benefit fairly from the opportunities which would be created by the development of their renewable and low carbon energy sources and how could local communities be enabled to enjoy substantial, long term and tangible returns.

In addressing these questions, the Scottish Government had proposed a fundamental reform of the administration of the Crown Estate in Scotland so that it was more accountable to the views and wishes of the people and the Government of Scotland and so that the revenues which the Crown Estate Commissioner received from offshore low carbon energy projects benefited Scotland and in particular coastal communities. It was also proposed to set up a Future Generations Fund to give all of Scotland a real stake in the development of renewable energy, to create a publicly available register of community benefit which would ensure greater transparency for land based renewable development and to enhance community benefit within the planning system and maximise community benefit from renewables projects on property in Scotland owned by the public sector.

In finalising the draft response from the Council, which had been attached as Appendix 1 to the report, it was confirmed that the Community Benefits Working Group had considered and agreed minor changes to an original draft and these had now been incorporated in the final draft which was presented for approval.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

the Scottish’s Government’s interest and involvement in this matter was welcomed and it was important that they recognised the work which had been done over many years on this issue;
the Crown Estate was an organisation located outside the Highlands and as such there had been a lack of understanding at times in terms of Highland needs and circumstances;
in terms of offshore renewable developments, the Crown Estate involvement was critical as was the way in which the Council engaged with them;
there was a need to ensure that there was a clear and positive community benefit policy in place with the Crown Estate and it was vital that this was a necessary feature of any agreement which they formed with developers;
it would be desirable to see a full devolution of the Crown Estate powers, not just to Scotland but beyond that to Local Authorities;
the Forestry Commission approach in terms of engagement and in recognising the way in which things should be done had been very positive and there were lessons to be learned from this approach; and
there was a need to clarify the wording within the draft response in terms of the three tier community benefit system for onshore developments and specifically the second sentence which related to the floor level of £100,000 and above.

Decision

The Council AGREED the draft response as set out in Appendix 1 to the report for submission to the Scottish Government, subject to the following –

Page 121 – Second Paragraph – the wording within the draft response required to be clarified in terms of the three tier Community Benefit system for onshore developments and specifically the second sentence which related to the floor level of £100,000 and above.

20. Corporate Plan – Amendments to Performance Indicators 2010/11

There had been circulated Report No. HC-87-10 dated 23 February 2011 by the Chief Executive which highlighted amendments needed to refresh some performance indicators used for monitoring progress with the ‘Strengthening the Highlands’ programme for 2010/11.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that Indicators for new Programme commitments were Commitment 2.01 – Ensure sustainable, quality social care services for older people in the five communities involved in the Care Homes project, Commitment 2.04 – Work alongside NHS Highland to reduce the length of time that people are delayed in hospital and to shift the balance of care to community, Commitment 4.01b – Introduce a programme across the Highlands to reduce energy use in street lighting and Commitment 4.13b – Introduce a programme of alternate weekly collection of municipal refuse (non recyclable) by April 2012.

Other changes proposed were Commitment 1.06 – Continue to raise levels of attainment in literacy and numeracy for pupils in pre-school, primary and secondary provision and maintain high levels of achievement in the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework and achieve the outcomes in a Curriculum for Excellence and Commitment 3.08 – Work with the Scottish Government, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the private sector to support the provision and use of high speed broadband services for our businesses and communities.

During discussion, specific reference was made to Commitment 3.08 and it was requested that further consideration should be given at an early date to the piloting of 4G Mobile Broadband within the Highlands.

Decision

The Council AGREED the changes recommended to the performance measures in the Corporate Plan to ensure effective performance reporting on ‘Strengthening the Highlands’ for 2010/11.

It was also AGREED that, as part of the presentation on the BDUK issues which was to be undertaken at the next Planning, Environment and Development Committee meeting, further consideration should be given to the piloting of 4G Mobile Broadband within the Highlands.

The Council NOTED the requirement for a further review of performance indicators for 2011/12 to respond to any changes to the ‘Strengthening the Highlands’ Programme (following the 2011/12 budget) which would be reported in May 2011.

21. Community Council Review – Final Report

There had been circulated Report No. HC-88-10 dated 14 February 2011 by the Corporate Manager (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) which summarised the third consultation exercise which had invited further views on the draft Scheme documentation and on Community Council boundaries.

Copies of the proposed new Community Council Scheme had been circulated separately.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

choosing Option 1 within the report would mean that it would be much more likely that contested elections would take place and this would serve to strengthen Community Councils;
there was a need to consider how Community Council elections could be managed and resourced across the Highlands;
clarification was required as to when the new Scheme could be reviewed if necessary;
in terms of liaison with the Council, reference had been made to a ‘named Officer’ to act as a liaison with each Community Council and clarification was required as to who this Officer would be in each case;
Community Councils were increasingly being consulted and asked to comment on complex issues and further information was required on the arrangements which could be put in place for them to seek advice from Council Officers in terms of responding to such requests;
clarification was required in terms of the legislation being used to implement these new proposals and specifically whether the Council currently had the power to introduce a new constitution without further consultation with Community Councils (by way of a Special Meeting) and the general public; and
the proposals for training to be provided in local areas on the detail of the new Scheme, constitution, code of conduct, financial procedures and election processes were welcome and, in this regard, there was a need to ensure that there was flexibility within such training for all representatives from Community Councils.

In response, and in relation to the legislation which was being used, the Assistant Chief Executive confirmed that an Act had been introduced in 1994 which gave Local Authorities the power to revoke Community Council Schemes and put new Schemes in place. There had been extensive consultation with Community Councils over the preceding two year period and consultation had been undertaken with Scottish Government Officials to ensure that the correct procedures were being followed.

The Chief Executive also provided an assurance that if any issues arose in the future with any aspect of the proposals then these could be considered at that time.

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

(i) Option 1 in Appendix 1 as the agreed membership formula;
(ii) the change in quorum level to 4 (Option 3);
(iii) all final boundary amendments in Section 4 and approved these as
boundary changes to be included within the new Scheme;
(iv) the implementation arrangements as outlined in Section 5; and
(v) including the changes outlined above, the final Community Council Scheme
for Highland and its introduction from 1 April 2011.

22. Perth and Kinross Council – Request to Support City Status for Perth

There had been circulated Report No. HC-89-10 dated 21 February 2011 by the Corporate Manager (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) which summarised a request which had been received from Perth and Kinross Council to support it in an application to Her Majesty The Queen to grant city status to Perth.

At this point, reference was made to the inclusion of references in the Municipal Year Book for 1972 which listed the Scottish Cities as Edinburgh, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Elgin and it was suggested that the response to this request should be strengthened by seeking to have Perth ‘reconfirmed’ as a City as had been the case for many hundreds of years and in recognition of its place in the heritage and history of Scotland.

Decision

The Council AGREED to support Perth and Kinross Council in its bid to be reconfirmed as a City as part of the Diamond Jubilee Year 2012 and that the Convener should respond by sending a letter of support to the Provost of Perth and Kinross.

23. Inverness Benevolent Funds

There had been circulated Report No. HC-90-10 dated 9 February 2011 by the Depute Chief Executive and Director of Finance which invited approval for the sale of share based assets to provide sufficient funding to cover the Winter Payments for 2010/11.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

it had been stated in the report that the 1st Benevolent Fund had been used to fund Winter Payments but this had not been the case in 2009/10 when the 2nd Benevolent Fund had been used;
the cost of the previous year’s Winter Payments needed to be identified;
there had been reference to both ‘Benevolent Fund’ and ‘Benevolent Funds’ within the report and this needed to be clarified;
clarification was required also as to whether the extra costs related to an increase in Winter Payments or the provision which had been made in regard to Food Hampers;
the report stated that pressure on both budgets would increase as result of implementation and this needed to be explained;
it had been stated also that the benefits from the Common Good Fund related to ‘individuals and the wider community’ and this was not the case;
clarification was required as to whether consideration had been given to shifting funds into shares as had been previously discussed; and
it had been previously agreed that the Finance Service should give consideration to the pooling of smaller funds and it was not clear whether this had been undertaken.

Following further discussion, it was suggested that a report should be submitted to the Inverness City Committee in the first instance to allow the issues which had been raised at the meeting to be addressed following which the Council could give further consideration to the matter at the next meeting scheduled for 12 May 2011.

Decision

The Council AGREED TO DEFER consideration of this item (until the next Council meeting on 12 May) to allow a further report to be submitted to the Inverness City Committee to address the issues which had been raised at the meeting.

24. Joint Committee for Children and Young People – Standing Orders

The Council AGREED to suspend Standing Order 20 in order to consider this item.

It was confirmed that, at the Council meeting on 16 December 2010, approval had been given for the implementation of Standing Orders for the Joint Committee for Children and Young People.

One of the proposals within these Standing Orders had been that the Highland Council and NHS Highland would assume chairmanship of the Committee for periods of 24 and 12 months respectively. However, NHS Highland had now requested continuation of the previous arrangement of rotating the chairmanship on an annual basis between both organisations.

Also, in regard to the Terms of Reference, NHS Highland had requested that they be able to appoint 6 Non Executive Directors as opposed to the 6 post holders specified.

Decision

The Council AGREED the changes to the Standing Orders and Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee for Children and Young People as detailed.

The Council also AGREED the revised Council membership for the Joint Committee which had been tabled at the meeting as follows –

Independent Group – Mrs M Davidson, Mr B Fernie, Ms J Douglas and Mrs M Paterson
Liberal Democrat Group – Dr M E M Foxley, Mr A M Millar and Ms L Munro
SNP Group – Mr D Fallows and Mr B Gormley
Labour Group – Mrs B McAllister
Independent Members Group – Miss J Campbell
Independent Alliance Group – Mr E Hunter

25. Appointments to Companies – Averon Leisure Limited

Members were advised that the Council was entitled to appoint 3 Members to the Board of Averon Leisure Limited. In this regard, there was currently one vacancy and Mrs Carolyn Wilson had now been invited to join the Board.

Decision

The Council AGREED the appointment of Mrs Carolyn Wilson to the Board of Averon Leisure Limited as detailed.

26. Deeds Executed

Members NOTED that the list of deeds and other documents which had been executed on behalf of the Council since the meeting held on 16 December 2010 were available in the Members’ Library and on the Council’s Website.

27. Caithness Heat and Power – Public Interest Report

Declarations of Interest

Mr I Ross, Mrs J Urquhart and Mr J Gray declared non financial interests in this item on the grounds of being Directors of Caithness Heat and Power but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that their interests did not preclude their involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated Joint Report No. HC-91-10 dated 23 February 2011 by the Assistant Chief Executive and the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management which referred to the Controller of Audit’s latest statutory report of 9 February 2011 to the Accounts Commission in respect of the Caithness Heat and Power project and to the Accounts Commission’s response to that report.

In this regard, the Chief Executive confirmed at the meeting that the Accounts Commission had informed the Council of their findings on 25 February 2011 and had advised at that time that 7 clear days notice required to be given to the public prior to consideration by the Council. As a result of that timescale, it was therefore necessary to now arrange a Special Meeting of the Council to consider the findings.

Decision

The Council AGREED TO DEFER this item on the basis that a Special Meeting had now been arranged for Thursday, 10 March 2011 at 2.00pm (or following the Education, Culture and Sport Committee – whichever was the later) when the matter would be discussed.

28. Exclusion of the Public

The Council AGREED to resolve that, under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public should be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following items on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.

29. Caithness Heat and Power

Declarations of Interest

(i) Update Report on Procurement and Reinstatement Options

There had been circulated to Members only Joint Report No. HC/92/10 dated 24 February 2011 by the Chief Executive, Depute Chief Executive and Director of Finance and Director of Housing and Property which provided an update on the procurement and reinstatement options in regard to Caithness Heat and Power.

Decision

The Council AGREED the recommendation as detailed in the report.

(ii) Financial Issues Update

There had been circulated to Members only Report No. HC/93/10 by the Depute Chief Executive and Director of Finance which provided an update on financial issues in regard to Caithness Heat and Power.

Decision

The Council AGREED the recommendations as detailed in the report.

The meeting ended at 3.50pm.